Sitting of 31 January 1973

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  DEE AND CLWYD RIVER AUTHORITY BILL

    GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL
    LANGSTONE MARINA BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    To be read a Second time upon Tuesday next.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  SCOTLAND

    Unemployment
    Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has for reducing youth unemployment in the next two years.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Education, Scottish Office (Mr. Hector Monro): The Government will continue to pursue policies aimed at reducing unemployment for both adults and young people in Scotland, through regional incentives and measures to stimulate growth in the United Kingdom economy.
    Mr. Hamilton: What kind of gobbledegook is that? Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that this is probably the most squalid part of the increased unemployment problem in Scotland since the present Government came to power and that they have done precisely nothing about it? What new steps do the Government intend to take in the next 18 months? I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not tell us that the figures have improved since last year. We know that,
    1332
    because they were a damned sight worse last year than they were three years ago.
    Mr. Monro: If the hon. Gentleman reads HANSARD tomorrow he will see that my answer was clear and straightforward. The hon. Gentleman will know, but he tries to escape the fact, that the trend is downwards. I am not trying to dodge the issue that unemployment among young people is serious. We have brought forward regional policies to help this very matter. In the short term we have brought forward the award scheme with which we have encouraged training boards to proceed, and we have also brought forward the Government's Vocational Training Scheme which has been extended to include young people in limited skill courses. We have grant-aided the experimental scheme by the National Association of Youth Clubs—more commonly known as the Community Industry Scheme—which is helping and working quite well.
    Mr. Hugh D. Brown: As regards the Community Industry Scheme, while recognising that this is not a cure for unemployment may I ask whether the hon. Gentleman is consulted by his right hon. Friend on the need to develop this idea in Scotland where there are only two centres? Will he use his influence to extend what is an excellent scheme, bearing in mind that many of us recognise that there are problems in what one does with these young people at the end of the training period? We want to be reasonable about this.
    Mr. Monro: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that. We in the Scottish Office are in close touch with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment who will shortly be making an announcement.
    Mr. Ross: I hope that the Minister will not seek to give an answer which reeks of complacency. He will appreciate that in January of this year, taking the whole educational session, there will be a reduction in the number of children leaving school of more than 40,000. As they did not come on to the labour market in January it should have been very much easier for those who were already unemployed to get a job. It must be very disappointing for the Secretary of

    1333
    State that we have the highest proportion of school leavers unemployed for any area in the country and that overall the unemployment figure is the second highest in the post-war period, amounting to nearly 130,000.
    Mr. Monro: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that I said this was a serious situation. I shall not try to dodge the issue, but I ask the right hon. Gentleman to take the point that unemployment is 22 per cent. down on what it was a year ago and that the trend is encouraging.
    Mr. Ross: The figure is bound to be lower as children are not leaving school and going on to the labour market.
    Mr. Hamilton: Answer that.

    Edinburgh Opera House
    Mr. Dalyellasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on his latest discussions with Edinburgh Corporation on the financial arrangements for the new Opera House.
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Gordon Campbell): I have written to Edinburgh Corporation outlining the circumstances in which I would be prepared to make a formal offer of grant towards the capital cost of a project on the lines of that described in the revised summary brief which it sent me.
    Mr. Dalyell: How is it proposed to set about choosing a design team for the new Opera House?
    Mr. Campbell: That is a matter for Edinburgh Corporation. As regards the letter that I have written to the corporation outlining the Government's latest position, because the reports in the Press today were necessarily abbreviated and could be misleading on some of the points I am arranging for the full text of the Department's letter to be made available in the Library.
    Mr. Ronald King Murray: I welcome this move, but what time scale has the right hon. Gentleman in mind? Is there a limit or any period during which the grant must be or may be payable?
    Mr. Campbell: My main concern is that the work should start as soon as possible, consistent with good design.

    North Sea Oil
    Mr. MacArthurasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what latest assessment he has made of the effect on the Scottish economy of the discovery of oil in the North Sea; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Gordon Campbell: North Sea oil activities have already given rise to some 3,000 jobs in Scotland, and projects announced so far have potential for a further 7,000 jobs over the next three to four years. Scotland will also benefit substantially from the supporting infrastructure investment being provided. The measures announced on 16th January, including the establishment of a Scottish Petroleum Office, will provide an effective base for stimulating industrial development in Scotland related to the new discoveries of oil.
    Mr. MacArthur: That is encouraging progress, but does my right hon. Friend agree that current estimates and comment are based too much on prospects until 1980 and too little on what may be large untapped reserves still to be explored to the north and west of these islands?
    Mr. Campbell: Yes, Sir. The Government have made no attempt to estimate beyond 1980, seven years ahead, because beyond that there are too many unpredictable factors. But there could be a great deal more oil flowing in the years beyond 1980, because there are large areas still to be explored around the north and west as well as in the North Sea.
    Mr. Grimond: Has the right hon. Gentleman made any geographical estimates, for instance, of how many jobs there might be in Shetland? As it is the Government's policy to get offices out of London and to increase employment in Scotland, why is not the whole of the new office concerned with petroleum in Scotland?
    Mr. Campbell: If the oil companies move their headquarters out of London to Scotland—and I would do anything to encourage them—the headquarters of the new petroleum body could be moved north, but to meet the present situation we have set up a Scottish Petroleum Office in Glasgow. We should not under-

    1335
    estimate the effectiveness of that office in the future.
    As regards the right hon. Gentleman's first point, it is impossible to estimate accurately the number of jobs in Shetland and areas where exploration is now taking place, but it is clear that there will be a lot of activity there.
    Mr. Doig: Is the Secretary of State aware that by 1980 275 supply vessels will be needed for the North Sea oil companies? Will he treat that need in the same way as the Government treat advance factories and authorise the building of advance supply ships for the area, keeping in mind that in my area and other areas on the East Coast there are likely to be large-scale redundancies within the next week or two?
    Mr. Campbell: I am very much aware of the growing market in the oil rig servicing sector, including new vessels. It was for that reason that we acted so quickly last summer to enable the harbour of refuge at Peterhead to become a servicing harbour for the purpose. I am doing everything I can to encourage Scottish shipbuilders as well as other industry to tender for that kind of work where appropriate. The hon. Gentleman's point is one for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, and I shall make sure that note is taken of it.
    Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: Has my right hon. Friend studied the IMEG report, particularly its proposal for licensing agreements and partnership arrangements between British firms, and, in particular, American companies to gain experience of the new technologies required in the North Sea? Will he tell us more about that?
    Mr. Campbell: I and my right hon. Friends who are responsible are considering the recommendations in the IMEG report. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has already made an initial announcement about our reactions to it.
    On technology, I have said before that there is no reason why we in Scotland should not before long ourselves become the experts in the technology needed in North Sea conditions and then be able to export it overseas as new areas come into exploration.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: Why did the Government dodge the main recommendation of the IMEG report about the establishment of the petroleum service industries? Why did not the right hon. Gentleman go further and set up a State holding company to deal with services and provisions for the industry?
    Mr. Campbell: The hon. Gentleman has already had the matter explained to him in a statement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. But one more reason is that it would have required legislation, which would have competed with other legislation passing through the House.
    Dr. Dickson Mabon: We will give the Government time.
    Mr. Campbell: We were told that the small Bill concerning Peterhead would go through quickly but we had considerable difficulty in this House. I can assure the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Robert Hughes) that there are many different views, even on the Opposition benches, about what kind of agency there should be, the kind of powers it should have, and what kind of money it should have to spend. Any idea that that kind of Bill could be found an early place in the legislative programme, or go through quickly, surprises me. We have acted quickly, without the need for new legislation.
    Mr. Ross: The whole House, certainly those Scots who are interested, will agree with the point of view expressed by the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) that the potential of North Sea oil is tremendous. It is essential that our policies at this stage should be right, otherwise we may find ourselves compromised later. Will the right hon. Gentleman think again about setting up an agency of the kind my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Robert Hughes) mentioned? The Secretary of State will have little or no trouble over legislation which is beneficial to the people of Scotland.
    Mr. Campbell: I must ask the right hon. Gentleman to read again what my right hon. Friend has said about the matter. He has already explained how the Government immediately translated the recommendations into the setting up

    1337
    of a body and a Scottish Petroleum Office. Many suggestions have come to us for boards and agencies covering the oil industry, and possibly covering many other industries as well, and what sort of powers they should have. Naturally these are still for consideration. We wanted to be able to act quickly and set up a new system as soon as possible, and we have done it.

    Thalidomide Children
    Sir J. Gilmourasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many children suffering from the effects of the drug thalidomide are now living in Scotland; what is their average age; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Monro: The most recent survey undertaken by the Lady Hoare Trust indicates that there are upwards of 88 children affected and living in Scotland. Their average age is 11.
    Special attention is given to these children by the various services concerned, namely the National Health Service, social security and local authority services, including social work and education. I am pleased to acknowledge the assistance also given by voluntary organisations. If my hon. Friend has any particular point in mind I shall be glad to write to him if he will let me have details.
    Sir J. Gilmour: Is any extra expenditure involved in providing education facilities for the children? If so, do the Government help?
    Mr. Monro: The vast majority of the children, I am glad to say, go to normal schools. The directors of education and the headmasters and headmistresses concerned watch these children very closely, and we are in touch with the education authorities about all disabled children.
    Mr. Carmichael: Has the hon. Gentleman any idea how many of the 88 children are not likely to be eligible for compensation because they have not been officially medically certified as being deformed because of thalidomide? There are a number.
    Mr. Monro: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point but I cannot give him figures. While negotiations between the Distillers Company and those involved
    1338
    are continuing, it would be unwise for me to say anything about the matter.

    Health Centre (Peebles)
    Mr. David Steelasked the Secretary of State for Scotland by what date he proposes to have constructed a health centre at Peebles.
    Mr. Monro: I cannot make a forecast at this stage.
    Mr. Steel: Is the Minister aware that the matter has been discussed for many years and that his answer will come as a great disappointment? Is he aware that both the War Memorial Hospital and the County Hospital in the town are severely out-of-date buildings?
    Mr. Monro: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, and I think he will appreciate that we want to replace the two old hospitals he mentioned by a new one, but that is not yet in the building programme. Next month my officials will be meeting the regional hospital board to consider the situation. If the hospital is still to be a long way away, perhaps we could consider a method of advancing the health centre by itself.

    Housing Finance
    Mr. Edward Taylorasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the progress made in implementing the Housing Finance Act 1972.
    Mr. Gordon Campbell: The Act is now being implemented almost everywhere in Scotland. I expect to receive local inquiry reports in the next few days in relation to six small burghs. In addition there is the large burgh of Clydebank. In that case the Court of Session yesterday made an order requiring the town council within seven days to instruct its officials to prepare a rebate scheme and proposals for rent increases in accordance with the Act.
    Mr. Taylor: Can my right hon. Friend assure me that those tenants who are entitled to rent rebates or allowances and have not received them because of delay in operating the Act will have those rebates and allowances backdated by the authorities concerned?
    Mr. Campbell: I cannot make a forecast for the future, but I can tell my hon. Friend that the lower-paid and the unemployed in Clydebank will benefit from the new scheme, which will make them better off and have to pay less rent than under the present scheme being operated by Clydebank town council.
    Mr. McElhane: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that one part of the Act has caused a great deal of misery among old-age pensioners, namely, the provision which has the consequence that the social security office stops paying rent allowances? The Government did not bother to inform old-age pensioners, so that rent allowances have now stopped yet rent demands are coming from, for example, the SSHA, which was not geared for the change. Will the right hon. Gentleman recognise that much unnecessary hardship and misery was caused to old-age pensioners through lack of information from the Government?
    Mr. Campbell: There was no lack of information provided by the Government, but there was a certain amount of misinformation put round by others. I shall look into the point, but I believe that in Glasgow it may have been connected with the late implementation of the Act in respect of Glasgow. Again, however, I must point out as regards Clydebank, which is the one large burgh which has not yet started implementing the Act, that those on small household incomes will do better under the new rent and rebate scheme than under the present scheme being operated by Clydebank.
    Mr. MacArthur: Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that, if and when it becomes necessary, he will use to the full his statutory powers in order to demonstrate to local authorities and everyone else that no one in Britain can flout the law with impunity?
    Mr. Campbell: I have already carried out the procedures under the 1947 Act, which apply when local authorities fail to implement Acts passed by the House, as fast as those procedures allow, and firmly. I intend to continue carrying out properly the legislation—in particular the 1947 Act—which governs the situation.
    Dr. Dickson Mabon: What qualifications, if any, will be applied to the operation of the Act by the Prime Minister's
    1340
    statement at Lancaster House earlier this month and the proposals made to try to alleviate the difficulties arising from inflation?
    Mr. Campbell: The proposal is to raise the needs allowance by £3·50. This is an adjustment of the rent rebates scheme. The making of such adjustments from time to time, as required, was envisaged; this one is to be made in the near future.
    Mr. Buchan: How does the Secretary of State square in his conscience what he is now doing with two other facts—the promise to grant freedom to local authorities, and his encouragement in the past to the city of Edinburgh to flout the law in relation to fee-paying schools?
    Mr. Campbell: I have repudiated that second point several times in the House, and I challenge the hon. Gentleman to find any occasion when I have done as he suggests. As regards the first point, the whole question of the Act was debated fully by the House of Commons before it was passed, and the granting of freedom to local authorities has never extended to allowing them to defy Acts of Parliament.
    Mr. Robert Hughesasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT the sums of money shown in the housing accounts attributable to capital repayments for the year 1971–72 for (a) large burghs, (b) small burghs, (c) counties, and (d) the cities of Aberdeen, Dundee, Glasgow and Edinburgh, respectively.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Development, Scottish Office (Mr. George Younger): This information is not yet available for 1971–72, except for the four cities. I am publishing the figures for the cities in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Hughes: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that informative reply. Will he confirm that the amount paid out in capital repayments is only one-fifth of the amount paid out in interest payments? In view of this disgraceful imposition on the people who pay rent and rates to the local authorities, will the hon. Gentleman introduce a scheme of free loans for local authority house building?
    Mr. Younger: I think that the figure of one-fifth is not far out, though I cannot be exact about it without checking.

    1341
    To deal with the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's question, the subject of interest payments is one which affects anyone who makes capital expenditure of any kind, including capital expenditure on housing. The new arrangements in the Housing (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1972 for the first time produce a subsidy arrangement which is responsive to changes in interest rates. Where interest rates change, it is immediately responsive to them.
    Following is the information:

    Housing Revenue Accounts—Amounts of debt redemption and sinking fund provision

    £

    Aberdeen

    …

    …

    …

    606,000

    Dundee

    …

    …

    …

    792,000

    Edinburgh

    …

    …

    …

    525,000

    Glasgow

    …

    …

    …

    2,791,000

    Steel Industry
    Mr. Strangasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the implications for long-term industrial development in Scotland of the Government's decisions on the future of the steel industry.
    Mr. Dempseyasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the consequences for long-term industrial development in Scotland of the Government's decision concerning the steel industry.
    Mr. Gordon Campbell: The plans for the steel industry in Scotland represent an expansion of 25 per cent. in 10 years of steel-making capacity. This expansion will provide a range of finished steel products for steel-using industries and thus assist industrial development in Scotland.
    Mr. Strang: Is the Secretary of State aware that the current steel plan could sabotage prospects for industrial expansion in Scotland? Does he recognise that an expanding and diversified steel industry is fundamental to the development of the engineering industry in general and the offshore industry of Scotland in particular, especially in view of the basing point pricing system of the Common Market? What will the right hon. Gentleman do in face of the fact that the current steel plans are unacceptable to the Scottish TUC, the Scottish Council
    1342
    (Development and Industry) and the people of Scotland as a whole?
    Mr. Campbell: I do not agree with what the hon. Gentleman says. By advancing the steel-making capacity by 1 million tons—that is, 25 per cent.—the programme for the next 10 years meets the requirements of the steel-using industries as well as of the Scottish steel industry itself. Some of us hoped that there might be the possibility of something quite new and different in Scotland, but I must point out that this expansion compares extremely favourably with the increase of only 200,000 tons in steel-making capacity during the nearly six years of the Labour Government.
    Mr. Edward Taylor: Have the new investment plans been approved by the ECSC? Second, when may we have an indication of the effect of the new Common Market pricing system on steel prices throughout Scotland? For example, shall we find that steel in Dundee and Aberdeen and places far away from steel-producing areas will cost considerably more than it does at present?
    Mr. Campbell: On the first point, I do not think that approval was required for this programme. Second, the basing point system, which has been arranged so that there are a number of basing points in Scotland, should cover the matters about which my hon. Friend is worried.
    Mr. James Hamilton: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us where the money will be spent in Scotland out of the £400 million programme which the British Steel Corporation has submitted to the Government? Second, recalling that the Government have told us that they will bring other jobs to replace those which are being lost in the steel industry, will the right hon. Gentleman say where those jobs are to come from, since we have redundancies now which the Minister does not yet know about and, what is more, the jobs we are getting are not even offsetting the redundancies?
    Mr. Campbell: The way in which the investment of £400 million will go over Scotland in the next 10 years would call for a catalogue which I could not produce now, but I shall ask the British

    1343
    Steel Corporation to provide the hon. Gentleman with the details as it has worked them out. We have been concerned with the main projects, the expansion of Ravenscraig, the iron ore terminal and other major investments, and the details of all the investments in little bits of the plan would require a catalogue. I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman can have those details, and I shall pass his request on.
    The redundancies have been stated by the corporation as being about 7,000 over the next five or six years, which is about the same as the number which have taken place over the past five or six years in Scotland. They are job losses rather than redundancies. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Some of them will be dealt with by retirement and so on. The main point here is that in an industry in which there is to be a 25 per cent. expansion and which is being modernised—I am sure that all hon. Members agree that the open hearth furnaces are obsolescent—modernisation means a reduction in jobs.
    Mr. Lawson: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that the plan of which he speaks is at present in large measure a statement of intention. Will he ensure that the intention is realised in fact, and will he bear in mind that we require a substantial steel foundry to remain in Scotland, at the very least, and a substantial section of the special steels industry? Will he see to it that Scotland is not deprived of those sections of this important industry?
    Mr. Campbell: This is a statement of an investment programme agreed with the British Steel Corporation by the Government, and there was considerable pressure from all sides, I think, for such a statement to be made as soon as possible. I take note of the other points which the hon. Gentleman makes. I have made clear that my concern is to have a steel industry in Scotland which can provide the wide range of products which the steel-using industries need. Apart from the problem of redundancies and loss of jobs in the steel industry itself, there is the effect on many other industries in which jobs can positively be created or lost, and I am very much aware of the matters which the hon. Gentleman has raised.
    Mr. Dempsey: Is the Minister aware that the allocation to Scotland in the BSC investment programme is totally insufficient to guarantee an expanding economy for Scotland, and is he further aware that the basing point policy for rod steel will mean throwing hundreds of jobs to the wolves in Scotland? Have we not now arrived at the point where we should be thinking in terms of a Scottish steel corporation of our own in orler to protect the industry in Scotland?
    Mr. Campbell: If an expansion of 25 per cent. over 10 years is to have such dire effects, I can only conclude that the expansion under the Labour Government of 200,000 tons must have been disastrous. During that time the Labour Government nationalised the steel industry and they had every opportunity then to produce a Scottish steel corporation had they wanted to do so.

    Fish Farming
    Mr. Brewisasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will seek powers to extend the grants under the Farm Improvement Scheme to fish farmers.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Home Affairs and Agriculture, Scottish Office (Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith): I do not consider that agricultural grants schemes are appropriate for this purpose, but I shall keep under review the needs of fish farming.
    Mr. Brewis: In view of the disappointing reply, will my hon. Friend say whether discretionary payments for such a purpose can be made under any other legislation, such as the Industry Act?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Yes. I can reassure my hon. Friend on that point because fish farming can be considered for selective assistance under Part II of the Industry Act.
    Mr. Strang: Is the Minister aware that there is a great deal of concern in Scotland about the suggestion that head-age payments will be replaced by grants related to the improvement of marginal or hill farms? Will he confirm that such plans do not exist?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am not aware of fish farming being eligible at the moment for headage payments.

    Hunterston
    Mr. Lambieasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will pay an official visit to Hunterston.
    Mr. Gordon Campbell: I have at present no plans to do so. I have examined the peninsula from the air and my hon. Friends the Under-Secretary of State for Development, Scottish Office, and the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry are visiting the power station on 9th February 1973.
    Mr. Lambie: May I thank the Secretary of State for that reply? I hope that he will take the opportunity of accomping his hon. Friends when they visit the power station. Will he confirm that his attitude to the Chevron Oil Company's application has changed following its announcement this week that it is still interested in oil and petro-chemical developments in the Hunterston area?
    Mr. Campbell: I was at the opening of the Hunterston A power station and I have always taken an interest in it. But I believe that in his supplementary the hon. Member was referring to the rest of the peninsula and possible development there, and that is something which is best examined closely from the air, which I have done. At present the main industry there is farming and the area consists mostly of fields. As planning Minister for Scotland I cannot, of course, comment upon the merit of any particular project. I can confirm, however, that I have just been informed that the Chevron Company wishes consideration to be given to a modified application, although I have no details of it yet.
    Sir F. Maclean: On his next visit to Hunterston, where he is always most welcome, will my right hon. Friend land his helicopter, or whatever he comes in, and make a point of listening carefully to the views of the local inhabitants?
    Mr. Campbell: I can assure my hon. Friend that in so far as my responsibilities as planning Minister allow me under the Acts, I take into account the views of all those concerned.
    Mr. Douglas: Is the Secretary of State aware that, while we might welcome an oil refinery development at Hunterston,
    1346
    we are extremely perturbed about the attitude of BP at Grangemouth where the anticipated expansion of an additional 9 million tons capacity is being consistently held up? Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to have an urgent meeting with BP officials to ensure that the expansion is in train before the development of the Forties field in 1975?
    Mr. Campbell: I am aware that when BP revealed its pipeline proposals for the Forties field it said that it was considering expansion of its Grangemouth refinery. No doubt the company is also bearing in mind the possibility of refineries by other companies in Scotland.
    Sir F. Macleanasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will now publish the report of the Hunterston Development Corporation.
    Mr. Gordon Campbell: The question of publication is essentially for the company itself and its consultants.
    Sir F. Maclean: Surely this report was paid for out of public funds. Is not my right hon. Friend aware that both the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Lambie) and I are most disappointed at the delay in publication, because we both feel that we are proved to have been right all along?
    Mr. Campbell: My hon. Friend appears to be anticipating the report. The Government for their part have assumed that the report will be published when it has been completed.
    Dr. Dickson Mabon: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the report has been delayed because of the recent announcement by the BSC, which is a big factor in the matter of the positioning of future industry which the report was commissioned to evaluate? Can he say how many planning applications are before him in relation to the area covered by the Hunterston Development Corporation remit?
    Mr. Campbell: I cannot give reasons why the report is not yet completed, but what the hon. Gentleman has said could well be one of them. On the second point, two applications are before me, one for the ore terminal and one for a refinery and associated industry.

    Edinburgh Airport
    Mr. Eadieasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will now make a statement regarding his decision on future developments at Edinburgh Airport linked with the report of the public inquiry that was submitted to him.
    Mr. Gordon Campbell: My decision to grant outline planning permission to the British Airports Authority for its proposed new runway and terminal complex was announced in a letter of 26th January to the authority. I have placed in the Library copies of the letter and of the inquiry report.
    Mr. Eadie: May I congratulate the Secretary of State on reaching what was, contrary to what many people thought, not an easy decision? Nevertheless he has reached the right decision because it means so much for employment prospects in Midlothian, Edinburgh and South-East Scotland generally. Will the right hon. Gentleman now tell us the time scale for the expedition of the development of the runway and terminal buildings?
    Mr. Campbell: I am grateful to the hon. Member for his comments. It was an exceedingly difficult decision to take and those who were critical about the time factor will recognise when they see the reporter's report that it was a matter which had to be dealt with carefully and fully. The reporter found objection to both the alignment proposals, including the Cramond Association's proposals, and his alternative suggestions had to be looked into fully and urgently. There is now a right of appeal to the Court of Session against my decision on certain limited grounds and the time limit there is six weeks.
    Mr. Ross: Bearing in mind all the factors involved, I believe that the Secretary of State is due our congratulations for a courageous decision and one which will be to the benefit of the entire city of Edinburgh.
    Mr. Campbell: I am extremely grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, particularly because when the subject was raised in the House before Christmas I was unable to say anything about what was in the report.

    Local Government Reorganisation (Fife)
    Mr. Adam Hunterasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what further representations he has had regarding Fife County becoming a region of local government.
    Mr. Younger: My right hon. Friend is continuing to receive representations about local government reform in Fife, mainly from individuals in the county. No fresh evidence on the matter has been brought to light.
    Mr. Hunter: Has the Minister taken note of the recently conducted poll in Kirkcaldy where 97·3 per cent. of those who voted rejected the splitting of Fife? Regardless of whether it was right or wrong to conduct the poll, 2,723 people out of 2,798 wanted Fife as a region. Does that not impress him? Will he not agree that the people of Scotland have not had a proper opportunity of exercising their democratic rights regarding the far-reaching decisions on local government reform?
    Mr. Younger: On the first point, I shall of course pay the closest attention to all representations made on the subject. It is hotly controversial for various interests in Scotland generally, and in Fife. I cannot agree with the hon. Member on the second point when he says that there has been an inadequate opportunity for the people of Scotland to express their views on the subject. We have been discussing it for about 10 years and I think that everyone feels that it is now time to get on with the job.
    Sir J. Gilmour: What proportion of the letters which have been received by the Secretary of State were in favour of the splitting of Fife?
    Mr. Younger: I cannot give my hon. Friend the figures for that but we have had representations from both sides on the subject.
    Mr. Gourlay: Would not the Minister condemn the action of the Fife County Council in holding this referendum in the town of Kirkcaldy, thereby interfering

    1349
    with the rights of the elected representatives of the area? Will he bear in mind that out of 5,000 postcards delivered, only 2,800 were returned, with the expected answer to the loaded question on the postcard?
    Mr. Younger: I note very carefully what the hon. Gentleman said. It is not for me to condemn or otherwise to comment upon the activities of particular individuals, but I am glad that everyone concerned on both sides in this issue has the opportunity to express a view fully and freely.

    Children in Care
    Mr. Douglasasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give details of the number of children who have been placed by Scottish local authorities in local authority children's homes in England and Wales.
    Mr. Monro: Detailed information about such placements is not collected, but the percentage is estimated to be very small.
    Mr. Douglas: Does not the Under-Secretary agree that it is unfortunate that we do not have this information, because if children from Scottish homes have to be sent to local authority places in England and Wales considerable inconvenience may be caused? Will the hon. Gentleman ascertain the reasons for these children having been placed south of the border.
    Mr. Monro: There must be a special reason, because at the moment rather less than 1 per cent. of these children go to England and Wales and this is normally only done when it is to the advantage of the children to be near relatives.

    Housing
    Dr. Dickson Mabonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many new houses were constructed in Scotland in 1972.
    Mr. Younger: The figure is 31,990.
    Dr. Mabon: Does that reply mean a fall of over 12,000 as against the last full year of the Labour Government and the calendar year 1970, which included some months of Labour Government, and represents a fall of 9,000 as against 1971?
    1350
    Since the alibi of time has now been removed from Ministers, does the Under-Secretary agree that all our warnings of a collapse in the housing programme have, alas, proved to be terribly true and that the whole volume of the programme has gone down by over one-fifth without very much sign of its going up? Will the hon. Gentleman tell us what the figure is likely to be this year?
    Mr. Younger: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman's interpretation of the figures. Completions for this year are a direct reflection of approvals given in the last years of his own Government, and he might like to explain himself why the Labour Government allowed the approval figures to go down from 27,000 in 1968 to 26,000 in 1969 and only 17,000 in 1970. He might also bear in mind that one of the strange things about houses in Scotland is that they have to be started before they can be finished.
    Mr. Edward Taylor: We can fully understand the points made by my hon. Friend, and he is quite right to avoid specific targets. Does he think that we will have more houses or fewer houses built in 1973 than in 1972?
    Mr. Younger: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I do not believe that it is a significant and important factor in the housing programme to set future targets which cannot be carried out, just as they were not carried out by the party opposite. But my hon. Friend will be glad to hear that the number of approvals we are now putting through represents a very considerable improvement. As a result of the encouragement we have given to local authorities, 28,567 public sector houses were approved in 1972, which is 5,000 more than in 1971 and over 7,500 more than in 1970.
    Mr. Baxter: As many local authorities are now getting to the fulfilment of their housing programmes and it is now more important than ever that the design and general appearance of houses should be brought into keeping with good taste, will the Under-Secretary see that more care is exercised by his Department to ensure that such things as the design and amenity of houses are given serious consideration?
    Mr. Younger: I very much agree with the hon. Gentleman. There are two main

    1351
    priorities which are increasing in importance: first, what he describes as the importance of providing better homes for everyone in Scotland and, secondly, any increase in improvement activity. I am sure that he will be as glad as I am that in 1972 we had the improvement, with the aid of grant, of nearly 49,000 houses, compared with 15,000 in 1969.
    Mr. McEIhone: Does not the Minister agree that one reason for the poor figures he has announced is the abolition of the Land Commission and that another is the high price of land as a result of the inflationary policies of the Government?
    Mr. Younger: I am afraid that, not for the first time, I could not disagree more with the hon. Member. The very last thing that would help the building of houses in Scotland would be any resurrection of that unlamented body the Land Commission. In the second place, there does not appear to be any significant increase in the land factor in relation to the price of houses in Scotland.
    Mr. Ross: We have a serious drop from the 1970 figure of 44,000 to 31,000 bearing in mind housing conditions in Scotland. How many houses does the Minister hope to complete in the current year?
    Mr. Younger: I do not think it is of advantage to set targets, as the previous Government found with the targets they set without the slightest hope of achieving them. The right hon. Gentleman will also acknowledge that the initiation of local authority programmes is in the hands of local authorities, and we have given local authorities every possible encouragement, to build as many as they can. The right hon. Gentleman will also no doubt notice that the building under our control through the Scottish Special Housing Association and the new town corporations has been showing an encouraging trend, and private house completions are at a record level.
    Mr. Ross: The Minister has no alibi for these figures, and certainly no alibi for this year. Why does he not tell us, on the basis of houses under construction, when they were started and how many will be completed this year? That should not be a guess.
    Mr. Younger: The right hon. Gentleman is correct in saying that there is a
    1352
    relationship between the number of houses under construction and the number likely to be completed, but I am content to leave it that from the high level of houses under construction at the moment I expect to see a very significant improvement this year in the number of completions, and local authorities will get every encouragement from me. We hope to see record levels in private house completions as well.
    Dr. Mabon: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment. "These guilty men."

    Bellshill Town Map
    Mr. James Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he received the Bellshill town map; what proposals he has made; and what financial assistance will be given to implement it.
    Mr. Younger: The town map for Bells-hill was submitted by Lanark County Council in May 1969. A public inquiry into objections was held in April 1971; my right hon. Friend received the report on it in January 1972; and in April he issued his decision generally approving the land uses proposed. An application for planning grants has just been received and is being examined.
    Mr. Hamilton: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that reply, but as he has stated to us that the plan has been there since 1969 it means in essence four years lost in implementing it. Is he aware that not only in Bellshill but in other parts of my constituency and beyond it the local authority is very much concerned that this town map should be implemented as soon as possible? Will he tell the local authorities that he is prepared to give them every possible assistance in expediting implementation?
    Mr. Younger: I am grateful to the hon. Member for what he says. I know that he has a very close interest in the subject. He will know, I think, that when the Bellshill town map was submitted, several town maps were submitted to the Lanarkshire County Council which was, naturally, not able to service more than one major inquiry at a time. This meant

    1353
    that inquiries had to take place in sequence. There was a further delay at Bellshill due to a misunderstanding by objectors about the date of the inquiry. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we will give every possible attention as soon as possible to the applications we now receive.

    Scottish Council on Crime
    Mr. John Smithasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the work of the Scottish Council on Crime.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: In consultation with my right hon. Friend and my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate the council has carried out an initial review, mainly of measures for the prevention of crime. This review has identified subjects for more detailed study.
    Mr. Smith: Is not the hon. Gentleman telling us that so far there have been no practical results from the setting up of the Scottish Council on Crime? Is he aware that the only way in which he will dispel the widespread scepticism that this was a piece of Tory Party window-dressing is for people to see practical results in the near future which can be said to emanate from the council?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: First, the hon. Gentleman misunderstands the purpose of the council. Second, he is very unjust to those eminent people who are members of it. The purpose of the council is to carry out this review. It has identified certain subjects which it will go into in depth. I believe that it is going about its job in the right way and that it will achieve success.
    Mr. Edward Taylor: When did the council first meet, and how many meetings has it had?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: It first met in April last year, only nine months ago. It has had five meetings since then.
    Mr. William Hannan: Is one of the aspects being considered by the council the admitted relationship of the excess consumption of alcohol with the commission of crimes of violence?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman's interest in this subject. It is one of those being studied in a number of research projects in Scotland. It is not a specific topic which has been identified by the council for further study. But one of the topics being studied is the prevention of acts of violence.
    Mr. Russell Johnston: How shall we be able to measure the achievement of the council? Will it ever produce a report? If so, when? The Minister used the phrase "only nine months", suggesting that that was a short time. In my view it is a rather long time. When shall we know whether the council has achieved anything?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: One of the main purposes of the council is to co-ordinate the efforts and work of people in the different services in Scotland involved in the prevention of and the fight against crime. The present stage of reviewing the whole subject is not one which is appropriate for a report. However, the second stage, on the studies undertaken by the council, is a matter which the council might consider as the subject for a report.
    Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: What are the subjects which have been identified as being worthy of further study?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I have referred already to the prevention of acts of violence. Then there is the reduction of the opportunity for acquisitive crime. The third relates to the enforcement of fines.
    Mr. Lawson: Will the hon. Gentleman look at the current edition of the Government's publication "Social Trends" which throws grave doubts on the validity of many of the figures relating to crime, especially as regards their meaningfulness and the possibility of comparing like with like? Is not the hon. Gentleman greatly dissatisfied with the crime statistics that we have at the moment?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The council has been looking at the statistics. In general they are not unsatisfactory. But if the hon. Gentleman cares to draw my attention to a specific aspect of them, I shall be pleased to hear from him.

    Divorce Law
    Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what complaints he has received in the last three months concerning the need to reform the divorce law in order to bring it more into harmony with that of England; and what was the nature of his reply.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Since 1st November 1972 my right hon. Friend has received one letter from a Member of Parliament and four letters from members of the public on this subject. The writers have been told that divorce law reform raises moral and social issues on which opinion is still sharply divided and which, in the Government's view, are more appropriate to a Private Member's Bill than to Government-sponsored legislation.
    Mr. Hamilton: Does the hon. Gentleman realise how very unsatisfactory that answer is? Is not it the case that the Scottish Law Commission, the Church of Scotland, the Law Society, vast numbers of people and hon. Members on both sides of the House, as well as the Scottish Office itself, want to bring the law in Scotland into line with that in England? It is deplorable that the Scottish Office should offer me help to draft a Private Member's Bill at the same time as another member of the same Cabinet refuses to guarantee time for a Bill to be debated on a free vote of the House. It is absurd.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I accept what the hon. Gentleman says about the feelings which are strongly held in certain quarters. But he ignores the very strong feelings held by certain individual Members of this House, as previous attempts to introduce legislation of this kind have shown. As for the attitude of the Government, there is nothing unusual in what we are doing. It compares with what the Labour Government did in relation to legislation of this nature.
    Mr. Grimond: I agree that there are precedents for the Government's action, but are there not also precedents for the Government making time available for a measure of this kind? I can remember other Bills which aroused tremendous passions on both sides and which involved great questions of moral decision, but the Government found time to debate them.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: With respect to the right hon. Gentleman, questions of time are matters for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. What the Government have done so far is in no way inconsistent with what has been done before.
    Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: Is this the kind of subject which the Scottish Council on Crime might be asked to consider?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I must confess that I fail to see the direct connection. Perhaps my hon. Friend will explain it to me after Questions.
    Mr. John Smith: How long will the Government go on evading their responsibility in this matter? Are we to understand that as long as the present Government remain in office they will ignore the opinion of the Law Commission, the Law Society, the Church of Scotland and other bodies? If views are strongly held by some hon. Members, why not make it subject to a free vote in this House?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The vehicle of Private Member's legislation is the correct way. The hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) has received the leave of the House to introduce a Bill.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: How long will the Government evade their responsibilities to thousands of families and children in Scotland who are suffering personal misery because the law is so different? Will not the hon. Gentleman recognise that it is wrong for him to try to escape this responsibility by blaming the procedures of this House for the delay?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: There are difficulties, and the Scottish Law Commission has drawn attention to them. However, the hon. Gentleman is grossly exaggerating the problems arising from this matter. I ask him for more evidence on the way in which this difference in law causes difficulties. I appeal to him to respect the deeply held views of certain individual Members of this House as shown by previous debates on this matter.

    Planning Officers
    Sir J. Gilmourasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many emergency planning officers are now employed by local authorities in Scotland.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Eleven Scottish civil defence authorities have indicated that they are employing or have engaged an emergencies planning officer: 15 authorities at present employ civil defence planning officers on a part-time basis and the remaining seven authorities have vacancies.
    Sir J. Gilmour: Can my hon. Friend confirm that after the reorganisation of local government the provisions for the use of these officers will continue?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Yes. Indeed, the authorities which will form the parts of that new region for home defence purposes are being encouraged to consult together and, where appropriate, to make joint appointments of emergency planning officers. We attach considerable importance to them.

    Oil Refineries
    Mr. Lambieasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the applications he is considering for planning permission to construct oil refineries in Scotland.
    Mr. Gordon Campbell: Two.
    Mr. Lambie: What information has the Secretary of State about whether BP is to proceed with the proposed extension of its oil refinery at Grangemouth? Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm or deny that BP has made secret representations to the Department of Trade and Industry to stop ORSI and the Chevron oil companies from building oil refineries at Hunterston in Ayrshire?
    Mr. Campbell: There is no question of stopping companies from building refineries. These matters come forward as applications for planning permission but, as the hon. Gentleman knows—as the House has been informed previously—the question of sites is also being looked into, to see which sort of sites in Scotland might be appropriate for oil refineries.
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: In considering such applications, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the ratio between taxpayer subsidisation for building oil refineries and the number of jobs created is really highly unfavourable?
    Mr. Campbell: I know that this is a point which my hon. Friend has raised
    1358
    previously, but none the less, oil refineries in certain circumstances can provide a spin-off of jobs in associated industry, and this is the kind of point which also has to be borne in mind for industrial redevelopment in Scotland.
    Mr. Ronald King Murray: As there are only two applications, will the Secretary of State say to which sites they relate?
    Mr. Campbell: One is at Hunterston and, of course, there has also been the application at Invergordon, where planning permission was granted.
    Sir F. Maclean: Does my right hon. Friend agree that a British oil refinery or the extension of a British oil refinery at Grangemouth is a far more attractive proposition for Scotland than a foreign oil refinery at Hunterston?
    Mr. Campbell: As my hon. Friend knows, I cannot comment on the merits of cases because they come before me as planning Minister for Scotland.
    Dr. Dickson Mabon: Has not the Secretary of State called in these applications, and is it not also the case that in view of the information from the Chevron Oil Company yesterday he may be obliged to call it in in that case too? What procedure does the right hon. Gentleman intend to follow in view of the very lengthy inquiry, the longest ever in Scotland, involving that same company and the whole peninsula? What does he intend to do now that he has received the applications? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we shall deeply resent a situation arising in any part of Scotland whereby we export crude oil from Scotland instead of refining it at home?
    Mr. Campbell: The hon. Gentleman knows that as planning Minister I cannot comment on the merits of applications which are before me. But I also hope that Hunterston will be used for the best possible advantage of Scottish industry. Therefore, I encourage as many applications for suitable industry as possible to be put forward. But as planning Minister I have to consider under the proper procedures whether the application can be approved. On the last point on calling in, under my planning decision of two years ago at Hunterston every

    1359
    individual application will have to go to the Secretary of State—that is, to myself or my successor.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS
Mr. Lipton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As the Under-Secretary of State
1360
for the Environment has come to the House especially in order to answer Question No. 38, would you, Mr. Speaker, allow him to do so, because we all want to know what the diver is doing in New Palace Yard?
Mr. Speaker: I have heard no such request.

LIFE PEERS BILL
3.34 p.m.
Mr. Dick Leonard: I beg to move,
"That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide that life peers should cease to be entitled to the rank and style of barons."
I would not pretend to the House that I think that this is the most important Bill that will come before us during the present Session. Indeed, I withdrew the Bill on the date on which I originally intended to introduce it, on 19th December, in order to enable my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle), whom I am delighted to see present in the Chamber, to protect the rights of old-age pensioners to receive their £10 Christmas bonus. I willingly made way for her then in the belief that pensioners should come before peers. I am delighted that as a direct result of her initiative the Government introduced a Bill to ensure that pensioners would not be deprived of their bonus by the operation of the earnings rule.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is straying a little.
Mr. Leonard: I propose to proceed to my Bill. Though the Bill is not of major importance, nor is it a trivial matter. Its passage would have two significant effects. Firstly, it would represent a small, but overdue, blow against social snobbery. Second, it would add to the effectiveness of the work of Parliament.
Before putting the case for the Bill, I want to make clear what the effect of its passage would be. The Bill does not seek to alter the powers or the membership of the other place. It does not seek to abolish the peerage or hereditary titles. It does not seek to abolish the honours list. There may be a strong case for all of those objectives. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, Hear."] Together with many of my hon. Friends, I believe that there is such a case, but those objectives are not the concern of the Bill. I rely, perhaps, upon my hon. Friends to propose amendments in Committee to produce an appropriate schedule in that respect.
The sole effect of the Bill as at present drafted would be that life peers and their
1362
spouses, both those who have already been created and those who will be appointed in the future, would be known henceforth as "Mr. and Mrs." rather than "Lord and Lady". It is not necessary for me to make a case for ordinary mortals to be named "Mr. and Mrs.". Rather, the onus is on those such as the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro)—I regret that he is not in the Chamber today; he has been good enough to describe the Bill as an "impudent proposition"—to make a case for calling people anything else.
Mr. John Smith: Particularly him.
Mr. Leonard: What is the purpose of creating life peers? It is not to elevate certain individuals above their fellows. That might have been the objective of the mediaeval kings who created the first earls and barons. But the Life Peerage Act 1958 had a more modest and practical object. It was to recruit men and women who would be serious legislators, who would serve Parliament in another place, in a similar fashion, though with a more restricted rôle, to the way in which hon. Members of this House seek to serve those we represent.
If this was what was meant—and the debates on the Life Peerage Act make plain that this was the intention of Parliament—it has been a hindrance and not a help that life peers have to encumber themselves with ludicrous appendages to their names. It is my contention that the compulsory use of titles has reduced the contribution which life peers can make to the work of Parliament.
It cannot be denied that many peers have found titles discomforting. Herbert Morrison wrote in his autobiography of his
"lifelong personal dislike of the idea of Herbert Morrison becoming a Lord".
The adoption of hyphens by Lord Ritchie-Calder, the late Lord Francis-Williams and Lord George-Brown, indicate the reluctance with which these men have shed their personas as commoners. Some others who would have had excellent contributions to make as members of the Upper House have declined to serve because they could not face the prospect of being addressed as "My Lord." The Press mentioned one

1363
or two examples during the period of the previous Government. It is not only members of the Labour Party who find the business of titles distasteful. One wonders why, for example, Mr. Harold Macmillan has not chosen to serve in another place where he would undoubtedly have had an outstanding contribution to make.
It has been argued, on the other hand, that the prospect of a title is a positive inducement to some people to serve in the Upper House, and that if life peers were called "Mr." people would no longer wish to serve there. I would readily grant that there are some people, perhaps many people, who would like a title and who would find this an attraction if they were appointed to the other House, but I question whether that type of person would have a worthwhile contribution to make to Parliament if he were to become a member of another place.
Some of my colleagues have been disappointed that I have not included in the Bill hereditary titles. I, personally, would be happy to see the end of all titles, but I thought it better, as a beginning, to concentrate on life peers as they represent more of a practical problem. No hereditary peers have been created since 1964, and it seems extremely unlikely that any more will be created in future. It would certainly be undesirable if they were. But the pool of life peers is regularly replenished, and in so far as titles are a disincentive it is future life peers who will be affected. In any case, hereditary peers already have the right under the Peerage Act to renounce their titles. I hope that this custom will become increasingly a common feature in future.
If life peers wish to identify their rôle it will be open to them to put the letters LP after their names. No doubt some will prove to be longer players than others.
It is my belief that the continued creation of titles in 1973 is increasingly seen to be an anachronism both in Britain and throughout the democratic world. The new Australian Government are doing away with honours, and even in India, where society is markedly more deferential than in countries in the West, titles were
1364
abolished in 1971. Earlier this month we entered the European Economic Community. I believe that no barons have been created in any other of the EEC countries since before 1918—except in the musical comedies of Franz Lehar. I feel that in modern times the proper place for lords and ladies is in comic opera, in Gilbert and Sullivan as well as Franz Lehar, rather than in the second chambers of modern parliaments.
I hope that hon. Members will agree with me and that the House will consent to the introduction of the Bill.
3.44 p.m.
Sir Harmar Nicholls: Under the rules of the House one can speak on a Motion for leave to introduce a Bill under the Ten Minute Rule only if one opposes the Bill. Therefore, formally, I put on record that I am opposing the Bill, although I do not think that it needs any opposition in words, for I have no doubt that it will founder. I doubt whether it will get much further than being allowed to be introduced, even if that.
The reason I want to speak on the motion is that the hon. Gentleman quoted Mr. Herbert Morrison in support of his case, and I feel that it would be helpful in the circumstances for hon. Members to know that all the indications were that Mr. Herbert Morrison was attracted to titles because they were traditional and added strength to our traditions. I should like to put on record an incident which, I believe, can be confirmed by letters on the files of what was the Ministry of Works.
The Minister of Works previously had been known as His Majesty's First Commissioner of Works, a very attractive title. Mr. Herbert Morrison, who was a leader and a great authority in the Labour Party, did not like that title being changed to Minister of Works, and he wrote about it to the then Minister of Works, Mr. Charles Key, whom many hon. Members will remember as a Member of this House—the late Mr. Charles Key. Mr. Herbert Morrison suggested to the then Minister of Works that it might be a good thing to revert to the ancient title, having in mind, obviously, the title, First Commissioner of Works. The letter was not unsympathetically received by Mr. Key, and he had the records looked up. But it so happened that Mr. Charles Key

1365
rather enjoyed being called "Minister" and was not so attracted by the other title, which did not seem to indicate anything specific. He wrote back to Mr. Herbert Morrison that he had not a great deal of sympathy with the suggestion of reverting to the original title. He pointed out that the original title of the holder of that office was His Majesty's First Serjeant of the Plumbers. That title did not attract Mr. Herbert Morrison, because he had in mind the title, First Commissioner of Works.
I wanted to intervene only to say that, having that incident in mind, I do not think the hon. Member was right in naming Mr. Herbert Morrison as one who would have gone into the Lobby in support of his motion. Nor would anybody else who appreciates the traditions of this country and of this House. Does the hon. Member suggest that a judge sitting on the bench should not be addressed as "My Lord"? Why does he, as a Member of Parliament, allow himself to be called the "honourable Member" instead of "Mr."?
It is important to recognise that all these traditions have helped to make this country and this Parliament significant and worth while. They are all part of the fabric of our society and our life. Whether or not the hon. Member gets the leave he
1366
seeks, I have no doubt that that is as far as his Bill will go. It should be stopped. I know that if one were to seek to stop it one would have the support of hon. Members on both sides of the House—on the hon. Member's side as well as this, because there are lovers of tradition on those benches, too.
I rather think that the hon. Member's proposal was a little flippant, although he put it in a dignified way. My suggestion is that we should not allow it to go any further because, if we did, we should be undermining a tradition which, although in a somewhat indefinable way, is of value to this House and country.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Leonard, Mr. J. D. Dormand, Mr. John Grant, Mr. J. Grimond, Mr. William Hamilton, Mr. John Mackie, Mr. David Marquand, Mr. John Parker and Mr. Phillip Whitehead.

LIFE PEERS (CHANGE OF STYLE AND RANK)
Bill to provide that life peers shall cease to be entitled to the rank and style of Barons, presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 2nd March and to be printed. [Bill 58.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 2) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

  OVERSEAS AID
  3.47 p.m.
  Mr. George Cunningham: The proceedings which have just terminated are not as irrelevant to to the business on the Consolidated Fund as might at first appear. In the first place, the House has in the last 15 minutes given more attention to a very worthy proposition for a Bill than it is likely to give to any particular bit of the estimates which, on the Consolidated Fund Bill, we are to consider now for the rest of the day and probably a large part of the night.
  In his remarks just now the hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls)—it was significant—spoke of the traditions of this place, saying that they made it different from other parliaments, and I think he implied that they made it superior in its effectiveness to other parliaments in the world. It is that attitude that this place has greater efficiency and competence in the normal function of a parliament, which ensures that in many respects we are not exactly different, and that cannot be better illustrated than by the way we supervise or fail to supervise public expenditure.
  The question now before the House is that the Government should be allowed to spend £591 million, which is not chicken feed for any Government, and the question is that the Government not only should be allowed to spend that total of money but should be allowed to expend it on a number of items the details of which are all in the Estimates. I have said before, and I shall continue to say, from these benches that the manner in which this House in the Chamber and its Committees attempts to supervise the expenditure of public funds is downright scandalous. We vote enormous sums of money without paying a blind bit of attention to what happens
  1368
  to it. The failure is not that we do not have packed benches to listen to the details on any particular subject but that we do not organise ourselves in Committee to do jobs which can only be done in Committee on the details of the Estimates. There is probably no other legislature in a developed country with parliamentary traditions that gives less attention than we do to the approval of public expenditure. It is high time that the House gave more attention to changes in its procedure designed to do that.
  If this were the Bundestag and the Minister were coming here to get £4 million for overseas aid, the Bundestag would never dream of considering the matter in the Chamber but would refer it to two committees. The members of the overseas aid committee would each take bits of what the Minister wants, look at the bits in detail and go to the overseas development administration in Bonn and pore over them to see whether they could find a flaw in what the Minister wanted, to see whether they could fault him on policy or execution. The result is that in the Bundestag it occasionally happens that the Minister says "I want £X and he does not get £X. He may get a bit more or a bit less or he may get the money for a slightly different purpose, but he does not automatically get what he wants. In this Mother of Parliaments the Minister always gets what he wants. We know that he will get what he wants, and yet we go through the empty charade of discussing whether he is to get what he wants.
  The solution is clear. When the Estimates are presented by the Government to the House as a request for funds, that request should be referred to the Expenditure Committee of the House, which in turn should refer it to the subject sub-committees to look at or ignore as they wish and to take upon themselves greater responsibility for it than any other hon. Member. It is a good managerial principle that a few people should have a greater responsibility than 630 people. No one would dream of operating a commercial concern on any other principle. The House of Commons, however, totally ignores that managerial principle.
  There is a move afoot for the House again to set up a Select Committee on

  1369
  Overseas Aid. The motion calling for that has been signed by about 200 hon. Members. I understand that it is likely that the Government will look sympathetically at that proposal, at least in principle. If we do set up another Select Committee on Overseas Aid I should like us to take the opportunity to make an experiment in having a subject committee. I use "subject committee" as a term of art to mean a committee which deals with, and is invited by the House to deal with, all matters pertaining to the subject allocated to it.
  What normally happens with, for example, a Select Committee on Overseas Aid is that it spends days and days hearing evidence from witnesses and comes up with a report which is generally ignored and has no practical effect. What we should do is to have a permanent committee on a subject like overseas aid so that whenever the Estimates are brought before the House those relating to aid are referred to the committee to pore over them and, if it so wishes, to bring out a report approving, disapproving or commenting upon them. If legislation were coming before the House relevant to that committee's subject, it would be right for that legislation to be looked at by the committee.
  That is common sense, although it may be revolutionary for the House of Commons, and it would never be accepted if it were proposed for the whole of policy, but I am suggesting that if the Government are sympathetic to the idea of a Select Committee on Overseas Aid we should experiment with that idea on that subject. The subject is not in the forefront of political controversy and there would be no effect on the other working of the House. The committee would be taking over the functions of the Defence and Foreign Affairs Sub-Committee of the Expenditure Committee in so far as they relate to future projections of overseas aid figures, the public expenditure White Paper and surveillance over the Estimates. The manner in which we do these things at the moment is a public scandal of the first order, and we must do something about it quickly before we are forced to reform by outside people who take an interest in our doings.
  I turn to the Estimates which the Minister is presenting to us, and I am con-
  1370
  cerned only with those which are accounted as part of the aid programme. I think I am right in saying that those amount to just under £4 million. I say "I think I am right" because the first difficulty is to find out whether one is right. The Estimates are presented in a manner which does not make it easy to compare them with the public expenditure White Paper. I have constantly argued that this is madness and that it should be possible to identify which estimates belong to which public expenditure programme, but that cannot be done. One has to wade through 130 pages to find all the aid items.
  When I wanted to do that last June I had to ask the Minister for Overseas Development—I am sorry he is not able to be here today and I quite understand why—to list for me all the items within those Estimates that fell within the aid programme. As an offshoot of that it was discovered that one item amounting to £500,00 had been booked to the aid programme which should not have been booked to it. Whether that discovery was made because I raised the matter I do not know, but that is the sort of thing that is likely to occur if there is a committee which is taking an interest. In reply to my question whether he could not find an easier way of doing it in future, the Minister said:
  "I am considering how best to provide similar information in future."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th June 1972; Vol. 838, c. 393.]
  That was on 14th June 1972, and I have not heard another word about it. What is happening? Why cannot there be a table in the Estimates which allows me to find out which estimates are booked to the aid programme and which are not? It should not be for me to wander through all the pages to find the items.
  In the Estimates before us today there is one Vote which is entirely booked to the aid programme. There is another Vote in which only one item is booked to the aid programme. One has to know one's way about the Estimates—as by accident I do—to find the other one, nearly £4 million, which is also booked to the aid programme. One does not have to be an administrative genius to overcome this difficulty, and if the Minister does not find a way of getting that information into the Estimates by the next time the aid Estimates come before

  1371
  the House I promise to table 50 Questions a day from then on until he finds a way of doing it. He knows that I can find enough Questions to suit his answers. There is no reason why this should not be done, and I resent having to ask twice for it to be done.
  The House is given insufficient background information on the aid Estimates presented to it. For example, we have no background information on the Estimates presented today. The Minister for Overseas Development maintains that he wants to supply the House with as much information as possible about our aid programme. He then chooses to put out information in a manner which could not be better designed to ensure that hon. Members do not know about it. Each year the Overseas Development Administration produces a printed version of its annual report to the Development Assistance Committee. If that were produced as a Command Paper, we should all know about its existence, but since the Department chooses to produce it as a departmental paper, it involves a great deal of research to discover its whereabouts. The Library staff often do not know of its existence, nor does the Department. Will the Minister ensure that documents which form the background to the Estimates are circulated publicly so that they may come to the attention of hon. Members.
  On this Vote discussion is limited and I shall not seek to deal with the entire aid programme. I would draw attention to the very large item on pensions which is set out on page 126 of the Estimates where it is stated that the figure exists because of
  "… unavoidable delays in completing Exchange of Notes with overseas Governments".
  What are those unavoidable delays, and may we be given the background?
  There has been a small increase in the amount of British grant-in-aid to the British Solomon Island Protectorate. I do not object to this in principle, but I feel that we need to be told something about the trend of Britain's grant-in-aid to the Protectorate in relation to its revenue. The trend up to last year was that the British grant-in-aid represented an ever-increasing proportion of the total
  1372
  revenue of the territory. The function of the Development Assistance Committee should be to ensure that a territory becomes free from budgetary assistance as soon as possible. It often happens that such assistance rises markedly, but we should be told whether the British aid programme in the Protectorate is of such a character that it is hoped that the development of the territory will create less need for future British grants-in-aid. This should be the principle on which the ODA plans its development assistance.
  There are several items in the Estimates relating to Ugandan Asians. We have increased our contribution to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees by £250,000. There is also an item of £41,000 to the Inter-Governmental Committee on European Migration. Lastly, we see a token vote for payments to certain Governments for assistance in placing United Kingdom passport holders from Uganda.
  Since these three items hang together may we be told why they are classified as aid? I sympathise with the policy of reducing aid to Uganda in the light of the policies which are being pursued by Uganda, but surely this can be done without diminishing the total amount of normal aid. Indeed, I see no justification for treating money expended on placing British Ugandan Asians as aid, nor for treating any part of our contribution to the United Nations High Commisioner for Refugees as aid.
  There are two items in respect of smaller payments which require explanation. I refer to items D19 and E6 in the Estimates. The first relates to payments incurred by certain overseas Governments, and only token provision is made. May we be told which Governments ate included in this item and how many refugees are involved? Has the item of £41,000 for the Inter-Governmental Committee on European Migration anything to do with the Ugandan Asians? It looks to me as though it has nothing at all to do with them. It appears to relate to the placement of British Ugandan Asians in Latin America, but the countries concerned are not identified. Which countries are concerned, how many refugees are involved and what kind of body is it that is being paid £41,000 of public funds?

  1373
  The Government should explain their current policy on Uganda. In the middle of the crisis we were told that the Government proposed to review their total policy towards Uganda following the removal of the Asians so as not to prejudice their safety. We have heard nothing about that review, nor have we heard anything about suspension of Commonwealth preference or the use of other sanctions which could be exercised against Uganda. I hope the Government do not envisage a British representative sitting down at the table with Amin or with an Amin representative at this year's Commonwealth Prime Minister's Conference. I hope the Government will say that they intend to take the initiative in respect of the Ugandan Government whose actions have given rise to the payments which we are now considering. I hope that they will propose to the other Commonwealth Governments that Uganda should be suspended—I repeat "suspended"—rather than expelled from membership of the Commonwealth as long as it continues to pursue its present policies and to continue under the kind of thuggish Government that is now in power.
  I have raised a number of detailed matters which are not matters to be considered on the Floor of the House. These matters should be dealt with in a committee. There is no machinery for dealing with these details, and yet they are most important. It is high time that the procedures were improved for the scrutiny of expenditure proposals which are put to the House by the Government.
  4.10 p.m.
  Mr. John Tilney: The hon. Member for Islington, South-West (Mr. George Cunningham) and I served on the same Committee last year which considered the need to ensure the continuation of private investment overseas and forms of aid.
  I support what the hon. Gentleman said about the setting up of a Select Committee on overseas aid. I also welcome fthe fact that it was a decision by the Labour Government, under the aegis of the right hon. Member for Lanark (Mrs. Hart), who was then the Minister for Overseas Development, which topped up, or rather took over, the pensions of overseas civil servants. This decision has made an enor-
  1374
  mous difference to many people who have served the Crown for many years in great loyalty overseas. But for that decision they would be wondering where the money on which they have to live would be coming from. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have urged successive Governments for quite a long time on this matter. It is making a great deal of difference to many people that they can now feel assured that their pensions will be paid.
  The hon. Member for Islington, South-West takes a slightly different line from me over the importance of public aid versus private aid. Many people say that more ought to be given by way of public aid, especially for infrastructure. I think that more people will be employed if more private enterprise can be undertaken in partnership with local people.
  The hon. Gentleman asked whether we could experiment. We have started an experiment under the new Overseas Investment and Export Guarantees Act. Although the method of insurance is undertaken by the ECGD, under the Department of Trade and Industry, the liaison between it and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office must be considerable. Possibly when my hon. Friend winds up the debate he will tell us how this is going on. I believe that the more private aid that can come, possibly the less need for public expenditure.
  I should like to know how many pre-investment studies have been undertaken, how many applications have been made for insurance, and how many agreements have been signed. It is now on a 1 per cent. basis. I suppose that sooner or later we shall have variable premiums in countries such as that mentioned by the hon. Member for Islington, South-West. However, I believe that this matter needs very careful liaison between my hon. Friend's Office and the DTI. As the hon. Gentleman said, the object of aid is to get territories off aid.
  4.12 p.m.
  Mr. Philip Goodhart: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Tilney) that the hon. Member for Islington, South-West (Mr. George Cunningham) has done a great service by raising the

  1375
  question of parliamentary control over our overseas aid programme.
  The hon. Gentleman cited the example of how the German Parliament controls its overseas aid programme. I have in mind the way that the American Congress controls its programme; the annual aid debate is one of the great set pieces of the congressional year. We may not perhaps look forward to that happening in this House, but I hope that we may at some time move a great deal further in the direction of the American practice. It is true that in recent years Congress has used the occasion of the annual aid debate to make substantial cuts in the programme put forward by the American Administration. However, I do not think that would necessarily happen in this House if we were to have more debates on that subject.
  I can think of two items on which I should be pressing the Government to increase expenditure. One is the relief of famine in Nepal. The situation there is becoming critical. Some of the inhabitants of Nepal are being reduced to eating grass. This famine is striking sharply in those areas where recruiting for the Gurkha regiments has been most strong. I am sure that if we could have a proper debate on this subject there would be pressure on the Government from both sides of the House to increase our assistance to Nepal. Perhaps that will happen soon.
  The second item concerns aid to Vietnam in view of the cease-fire that is coming into effect there. In the past I have made critical remarks about the size of our aid programme to Vietnam. Now that peace is finally coming to that country we have an opportunity to play a substantial rôle in reconstruction there. I am glad to see reports in the Press that we are thinking of increasing our assistance from about £300,000 a year now to £2 million to £5 million a year. If we could have a debate on this subject I am sure that there would be pressure from both sides of the House for increased generosity to try to alleviate the suffering in Vietnam.
  It would be churlish not to thank the Government for some of the increases shown in the Supplementary Estimates. I have in mind particularly E.9, the increase in the North Atlantic Assembly
  1376
  Vote. I grant that it is an increase of only £1,560, but I am glad that the Government have increased the sum that we allot to the North Atlantic Assembly budget.
  When the value of the pound fell as a result of our policy of floating it, so our contribution to the North Atlantic Assembly and, indeed, to other parliamentary assemblies in Europe was cut in value. As these assemblies work on tight budgets, this was a substantial burden to them.
  I can understand the Government's reluctance immediately to say "We will step in and make up the difference." No doubt they had one eye on Mr. Mintoff in Malta. If it was felt right to step up the budget of the North Atlantic Assembly, no doubt Mr. Mintoff would have noted that.
  In Opposition, many of my hon. Friends repeatedly pressed the point that we ought to be less niggardly in our approach to the budgets of the Council of Europe and the North Atlantic Assembly. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State raised his voice on this point, as I recall. Therefore, I am glad that there are some increases in the Estimates to take care of the decrease in the value of the pound following the floating of the rate.
  I turn now to the grant to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and the extra £250,000 to assist in the work of resettling stateless Asians from Uganda. The United Nations Specialised Agencies are of variable quality. I do not think that many observers would put the organisation that assists the High Commissioner for Refugees at the top or the bottom of the list, but in recent months it has not been capable of dealing with a major emergency. Can we expect the United Nations High Commissioner to offer much assistance if other African countries start to expel stateless Asians or Asians with British passports? I do not think that we could expect much assistance from the High Commissioner if he were to give him not just an extra £250,000, but an extra £2,500,000 or even an extra £25 million.
  I welcome the fact that the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has made a statement saying that there will be no more mass emigration

  1377
  to this country even if other States begin to expel their minorities. Despite the fact that my right hon. Friend has made that statement, it seems that we still have some responsibility for Asian passport holders. As I see it, we are not required to admit them to this country, to Beckenham, Mitcham or Stroud. However, we have to find some haven for them. Fortuitously, the Supplementary Estimates make provision for extra expenses incurred in the Seychelles and Solomon Islands. I hove that in both the Seychelles and the Solomon Islands we shall press ahead with plans to build reception camps in case British passport holders should be expelled in the future from Kenya, Tanzania, Malawi or even Zambia. If they are thrown out of the communities in which they reside we shall have to find somewhere for them to go, and somewhere in territories that we control. The Solomon Islands, in particular, seems to be a place where we could build a camp to provide a temporary haven until such time as their turn came up in the quota to come to this country or until India decided to admit——
  Mr. Dan Jones: The hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) is raising an important point but I am not sure whether he has examined it as fully as he might. The Asians in question, particularly those from Kenya, a country of which I have personal experience, are well versed in administration and commercial work. Before the hon. Gentleman's idea is advanced too strongly before the Government, steps should be taken to find out the possibilities in the Solomon and Seychelle Islands for occupations of that kind. Otherwise, with the best intentions in the world, I am sure that the idea would not get off the ground.
  Mr. Goodhart: I am not suggesting that one should use British aid money to resettle Asian refugees in the Solomon or the Seychelle Islands. All I am suggesting is that we should use some of the substantial sum of £126,000 that we are finding for the administration of the Solomon Islands in the setting up of transit camps.
  I am not suggesting that the Asians should live permanently in the Solomon
  1378
  or the Seychelle Islands. First, there is not the physical space, and, secondly, there would not be anything there for them to do. I am suggesting, however, that there is space available to provide transit camps, on Butlin camp style, where they could reside for months or years until the United Nations High Commissioner, perhaps along with us, could find some permanent place for them to go.
  Finally, is any provision made in the Supplementary Estimates for extra payments to the British aid personnel who have had to cut short their careers in Uganda because of General Amin's action? I am sure that the whole House would be united in thinking that we should be no less generous to personnel who have had to cut short their careers than we have been in providing assistance to other British passport holders who have been forced to leave that unhappy country.
  4.25 p.m.
  Mr. Dan Jones: The matters raised by the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) are of great interest. However, I would rather the Government consider them in perhaps a different way. First, the hon. Gentleman agreed with me that it is not possible to exploit these people in a commercial or administrative way in the Solomon Islands. If we add to that the fact that there is considerable unease in Kenya, which I know from personal experience, we might be faced with a situation which has been properly outlined by the hon. Gentleman.
  I suggest—I offer my suggestion tentatively and certainly in no dogmatic manner—that it would profit the Government if they looked first to India, the Asians' home country, of which I have some experience. People with administrative experience would be of substantial value to India. Instead of paying out our money in a fashion that very often results in its uneconomic use, I suggest that the Government should examine with India the extent to which the experience of these people can be used to advantage in a different direction and in a different way than has been the case previously. It seems that that is one way of dealing with the problem that might easily descend upon us in the near future.
  4.27 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Anthony Kershaw): I first express my thanks and, I am sure, the thanks of the House, to the hon. Member for Islington, South-West (Mr. George Cunningham) for raising this important subject. I am aware that we sometimes do not seem to have an opportunity to discuss aid in the way in which some of us would like. However, the comparatively few right hon. and hon. Members present seems to prove that we have not a great market for aid debates.
  I know how difficult it is to look through these Estimates, but we are talking not about £4 million but about just under £3 million. There is £2 million for the pensioners and the rest of the items total approximately £400,000.
  Mr. Cunningham: I reached my figure of £4 million by taking the items marked as falling within the overseas aid programme total on page 127. The hon. Gentleman will see that the figure given there is £3½ million. I then added to that the much smaller figures mentioned earlier in the book. I realise that the figure involves a two-way flow.
  Mr. Kershaw: Perhaps the matter is not of great importance. It does not detract from—in fact, it reinforces—the hon. Gentleman's point about how difficult it is to thread one's way through the Votes. What we are discussing is Vote 2 of Class 11 on page 15, amounting to £250,000, Vote 5 of Class II on page 18, amounting to £165,000 and the pensions items amounting to £2,290,000, making a total of £2,705,000.
  The hon. Gentleman will recall that Professor Parkinson said that the British accounts and estimates were made in this way to conceal the fact that Charles II was spending the Navy Estimates on his mistresses—and even for that purpose it was not specially effective. But, further to the assurance which the hon. Gentleman was given last June, we are still studying how we can effectively present the Votes for aid in one Vote. We should like to do that because it would be much easier to follow. However, the hon. Gentleman will understand that a number of Departments would have to be consuited
  1380
  and other considerations taken into account.
  Mr. Cunningham: There are two points involved. I have stressed on another occasion the desirability of presenting all the aid Votes as one Vote. But that was not the point I am making today. What I am asking for now relates to another point which I have hammered before, namely, that whatever votes they appear in I want an extract of all those booked to the overseas aid programme so that I do not have to work through a publication of 130 pages. It does not take six months to work out a way of doing that.
  Mr. Kershaw: The hon. Gentleman's point has again been noted and we shall get in touch with him about it.
  The hon. Member mentioned the Account of the British Air Programme we give to the Development Assistance Committee of the OECD, which does not have a Command Paper number. I see no reason why we should not give it a Command Paper number so that hon. Members have it drawn to their attention when it is published each year.
  I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not deal with the question whether we should deal with this matter by a system of Committees or on the Floor of the House. That is a general question which the House will wish to consider. But I share the hon. Gentleman's feeling that we do not discuss aid questions often enough. We have a very good story to tell and it is desirable that we should have more oportunities to tell it. Nevertheless, there are some opportunities. It is open to the Opposition to give a Supply Day for discussing the question of aid. That has never been done by either party.
  Mrs. Judith Hart: The last major debate which we had on a subject related to developing countries—the subject of UNCTAD III—took place last April on an Opposition Supply Day.
  Mr. Kershaw: I stand corrected.
  Mr. William Hamilton: Wrong as usual.
  Mr. Kershaw: But it was a good try. I could not be sure that the right hon. Lady the Member for Lanark (Mrs. Hart) would be here. I accept what she said.

  1381
  Clearly the UNCTAD III conference was an extremely important conference and the House would have wished to debate it. However, the ordinary machinery for discussing the question of overseas aid has not been used in that form except on that occasion.
  The White Paper on Public Expenditure, Cmnd. 5178, will, I suppose, be debated soon by the House. Furthermore, as hon. Members have pointed out, we are to have a Select Committee on the question of overseas development. My right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council has agreed that such a Committee should be set up. How it will work and what the system will be is a matter for the House and, I suppose, for the Select Committee. No doubt we shall be able to discuss it.
  These matters of overseas aid can also be raised in the form of parliamentary Questions, but I am the first to admit that the House has not been very fortunate in this respect recently. In November, only one Question, which was taken with another, was reached. Questions on this subject were not reached at all the day before yesterday. When we come in at No. 30 on a day when the Prime Minister is not answering Questions at 3.15 p.m. and our questions are not reached, both sides of the House should perhaps look at their respective performances. I dare say we are all to blame.
  The Supplementary Estimates do not provide extra money to be devoted to aid during the year. They provide money which could not be precisely quantified in the main Estimates because perhaps the last disbursement was not known or because an unforeseen contingency had occurred.
  Turning to the various items in the Vote, the first one which the hon. Member for Islington, South-West mentioned was pensions. The reason why it appears and keeps on appearing in these Votes is the great delays which we have experienced in trying to finalise the arrangements with the various countries. They have their own procedures and it has proved very difficult for them to come to a conclusion and to pass the necessary legislation. Nigeria is a case in point. That is one reason why the expenditure on pensions appears, sporadically in these Votes. However, the pensions are now
  1382
  being paid in the proper way by the British Government. As my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Tilney) said, this is a very satisfactory state of affairs.
  The small amount of £133 appearing in Vote 5, Class II is a technical accounting matter about which the House will not, I think, wish to be delayed.
  It is the case that the grant in aid for the British Solomon Islands Protectorate has been rising recently. That is partly because of inflation, partly because of currency revaluation as the currency is now linked to the Australian dollar, and partly because of setbacks for the islands due to climate and prices. During last year the islands suffered from two bad hurricanes which did a great deal of damage and harmed the revenue. Copra prices have been low for some time—they have hardly given a return to the grower—although I am happy to say that they are rising slightly now. That aspect of the matter looks more hopeful. In the last year, because of world conditions, timber output, which had been rising very rapidly, did not increase. Therefore, that area was also depressed.
  But there are bright aspects in the British Solomon Islands. The palm oil experiment, which has been going for eight years, is coming on well and oil is beginning to come into production. The experiments with fishing are going well and the catches are increasing sharply. I had the pleasure of visiting the islands and I can vouch for the fact that there is an air of activity and hope in the place. I have no doubt that before very long they will be able to move out of the grant in aid position and will have a sound economic as well as political future.
  I was asked what the £10 payment was to other countries for United Kingdom passport holders. These are payments made to other countries for looking after the passport holders for the time being until they wish to come here. In fact, the only country concerned is India where the amount involved is £3,000.
  The Inter-Governmental Committee on European Migration undertook to take, and has taken, a number of United Kingdom passport holders to Latin America and, on a reimbursement basis, we have paid them £41,000. That is our share of their expenditure.

  1383
  The hon. Member raised the general problem of whether payments of this type should be a charge on aid at all. This is a substantial question. One can argue that the payments have been made for the benefit of people from the less developed countries. One can also say that no developing country has lost aid by what we have done in this regard. The House will notice that £20 million—£10 million last year and another £10 million this year—has been added to the aid programme for the benefit of Bangladesh. Therefore, the developing countries do not suffer. We take into consideration the benefit which these payments give to their citizens in the circumstances which surround them. No doubt this is an interesting subject which the Select Committee will discuss.
  Mrs. Hart: I should not have raised the subject had the hon. Gentleman not touched on it. Given that £20 million has been added to the aid programme on account of help to Bangladesh, can the hon. Gentleman fit that in with what I can only call the minus signs for future years which one finds in the White Paper on public expenditure, which seem to indicate that the total level of the aid programme will have to be less than it otherwise would have been in the years ahead because of extra expenditure of this kind?
  Mr. Kershaw: The right hon. Lady is referring to the predicted expenditure. The payment of £20 million and certain other switchings have been authorised from later years to this year, and these have made the rise in the percentage expenditure seem lower. If we spend more now, we change the relationship between this year and the next. On average, the rise in our expenditure will be just under 8 per cent., although the actual figures given in the votes in this volume show a rise of only 4·2 per cent. This is because of the accelerated payments and switchings that have taken place in this year, so that to some extent it falsifies the average expressed as a percentage.
  The hon. Member for Islington, South-West referred also to our general policy on Uganda and the Commonwealth Conference to be held in the summer and asked whether I could say something
  1384
  about that. I hope the hon. Gentleman will agree that it would not be appropriate for me to embark on a general debate on this matter. All I say is that we regret that it has become progressively more difficult to operate our aid programme in Uganda.
  Mr. Cunningham: I accept that this is not the occasion for the hon. Gentleman to embark upon a long policy speech on Uganda, but surely he is prepared to tell us where things stand on the review of policy towards Uganda that was promised by the Foreign Secretary about two months ago as something that would proceed apace and come to fruition some time after the Asians had all been expelled and therefore no one could suffer. We ought to be given some indication of where things stand.
  Mr. Kershaw: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that we announced that we were not able to extend to Uganda the £10 million loan that we intended to provide. Expatriates—experts, teachers, doctors, and so on—who decide to come back and have to break their contracts are being looked after financially. That is a payment which, under the circumstances, has to be made from the aid programme. Those who are there are being paid or are having their salaries topped up, and such development work as was undertaken has not been cut off. It is being continued and will, we hope, be brought to completion.
  Mr. Cunningham: Is that the great review of policy?
  Mr. Kershaw: I should have thought the hon. Gentleman would agree that it is remarkable to withdraw a £10 million undertaking. It has never been done before, and I hope very much that the situation will not arise in which it has to be done again. I think that what I have said deals with the aid programme towards Uganda, and that is what my right lion. Friend said would be done. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman did not notice it at the time.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree asked about the private sector and what kind of liaison there was with the public sector and whether this had been working properly. The organisational side is growing, as is the

  1385
  liaison between the two sectors. I understand that there have been about 20 applications for co-operation between the private and public sectors. Three have been agreed, and I understand that the ECGD has received a number of applications in this matter, though nothing has yet been signed.
  Mr. Tilney: Has there been any advertising of this service? It is important that private enterprise should be aware of the possibilities of insurance in this way.
  Mr. Kershaw: I shall look into that and write to my hon. Friend about it. It seems fairly well known.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) referred to Nepal. We realise the great difficulties in Nepal, and from answers to Questions on Monday my hon. Friend will have noted that we are making donations. I am happy to say that recently we have been able to increase quite sharply our donations to Nepal, and a further sum of nearly £400,000 will be sent.
  Mr. Goodhart: Has authorisation been received for the use of Royal Air Force aircraft to distribute food? As I understand it, there is a major distribution problem.
  Mr. Kershaw: I shall look into that and let my hon. Friend know.
  On the question of Vietnam, from answers which my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary gave on Monday to the hon. Member for Brentford and Chiswick (Mr. Barnes) my hon. Friend will have seen that we are in touch with the International Red Cross to find out which it most wants. We have sent medical supplies, and we are helping the Save the Children Fund with medical supplies and facilities generally in Indo-China. We are also in contact with the United Nations Oganisation about this, and we stand ready to do more when we know exactly what is wanted.
  I noted and was glad to hear what my hon. Friend said about the North Atlantic Assembly. It does not come within the matter of aid for which I have responsibility, but I hope my hon. Friend will agree that it is a pleasant and useful assembly. We are glad to do what we can for it.
  1386
  On the question of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, we shall in the very near future have an opportunity to discuss with Prince Sadruddin Aga Khan how his organisation is coping with these constant crises. He is coming to London, and I have noted what my hon. Friend said. My hon. Friend will no doubt bear in mind that recently, largely due to pressure from Her Majesty's Government, disaster machinery has been set up within the United Nations. It has started well and should be of great help in this sort of event in the future.
  My hon. Friend talked about camps for those who might be displaced later in the Seychelles and Solomon Islands. I approach that matter with a certain amount of misgiving. I should not wish to give the impression that we expect our nationals to be expelled. We have good and friendly relations and workable schemes with the countries concerned, and we have no doubt that they, like us, wish to adhere to what we have undertaken.
  Furthermore, my hon. Friend will bear in mind that although the Seychelles and the BSIP are not yet independent, they have a large measure of internal self-government, and that includes control of immigration. I doubt whether they would be anxious to receive large numbers of people coming to them for unknown periods. The Solomon Islands did indeed offer to give space for one United Kingdom passport holder. They needed a lawyer, and I have no doubt that whichever lawyer goes there he will find himself in an extremely happy position. It is a pleasnt place, and I am told that the salary of the Solicitor-General is adequate to live on.
  We are also making extra payments to the people who have lost their contracts and for the time being have lost their possessions in Uganda and have had to come home. We are helping them with a special operation. The money is not mentioned in these Estimates because there was not time to put it in. If necessary it will be in the Spring Estimates.
  The hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Dan Jones), who has had to leave us, asked that we examine with India what could be done about United Kingdom passport holders and others of Indian origin. I assure the hon. Gentleman and

  1387
  the House that we are in the closest touch with the Indian Government about this. We have had great help from them, and our relations on this matter are very intimate and cordial.
  That is all I have to say about this very complicated matter of aid. I hope that the new Committee will be able to make a fundamental examination of the principles and practice. I look forward to its being of the greatest help to us in the House in our study of these matters.

  DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SECURITY (STAFF)
  4.50 p.m.
  Mr. William Hamilton: Before I say what I have to say about the specific Supplementary Estimates on which I wish to comment, I should like to tell my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South-West (Mr. George Cunningham), who initiated the first debate, how much I agree with what he said about the general principle of debates on the Estimates. I do not know what the public will think when they see or hear that half a dozen of us are deciding to give the Government an extra £590 million to play around with over and above what they have already asked the House for—£184 million extra on defence and £406 million on various civil Departments.
  For example, about £20 million extra is being sought for the Royal Marines. I wonder how many mental hospitals we could build for that money. That is a matter that could well be raised in the debate next Monday on public expenditure. I leave the general point at that, because we are today discussing not priorities but precisely what is in the Supplementary Estimates. We are limited to that, and I see that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, approve wholly of that principle.
  But one of the fundamental principles of our constitution is that before we give the cash we have a bit of a bellyache about it, the redress of grievance before the granting of supply. If that were the test, it would seem that the House is completely satisfied, that it has very few grievances, that there are fewer than a dozen hon. Members who have grievances at all. I do not think that
  1388
  that reflects the view of people outside. They have enough grievances, and I shall come to those directly related to the Supplementary Estimates to which I want to call attention—Class VII, Vote 1, Subhead A, and Class VII, Vote 2, Subhead A, "National Health Service Hospitals", and so on. There is an additional sum of £41 million in the latter and an additional £10,700,000 on the social security side.
  I was for many years on the Estimates Committee before it was changed to the Public Expenditure Committee. Many years ago we had in the Estimates detail which has since been removed. The volume of information on the Estimates has been reduced by at least half, on the basis that the House was not interested in that kind of detail, and that anyway the House as a whole was not equipped to investigate in detail the information there provided. I admit at once that I was a member of the Estimates Committee when we agreed that the sheer volume of the information provided should be drastically reduced. I am not sure that we took the right decision. I think that one of the reasons why the public are increasingly cynical about the House and government generally is that neither we nor they receive adequate information, and we do not have the resources to dig it out.
  All Governments—I make no party political point—have a vested interest in keeping back-bench Members like myself and the general public in the dark as much as they can. It is only by stern endeavour and stern discipline on our part that we obtain such information as we can from Governments.
  Here I should like to give some specific examples. I hope that I am not offending against the etiquette of the House when I say that only yesterday I was approached by the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security, the hon. Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Alison), who asked me what I would talk about. It is very proper and right that he should know, and I said that I would talk about the expenditure under Subhead A, Class VII, Vote 1, on salaries of Ministers, the Supplementary Benefits Commission and staff. He said "That is my responsibility." But I added "I am also going to talk about the National Health Service hospitals' provision at the

  1389
  bottom of page 71 in the Supplementary Estimates, dealing with regional hospital boards and boards of governors and something called Increased rates of pay and National Insurance.'" Therefore, both Ministers are responsible, but I guess that the hon. Member for Barkston Ash, who is present now, will reply on behalf of both. I make no complaint about that, but I hope that he is well briefed and will not say that he will write to me. I do not like correspondence courses. Let us have the direct answers to the questions.
  I have first a fairly simple question. At the foot of page 68 there is an item on Ministers' salaries. The present provision is £31,500 and the revised provision is £33,500. So far as I know there has been no increase in Ministers' salaries since the presentation of these Supplementary Estimates on 18th December last. What is that £2,000 about? Where has it gone? Who has it gone to?
  Secondly, I have a similar question on the Supplementary Benefits Commission. The original salaries figure was £11,250 and the revised provision is £14,700. It is not a big sum—a matter of £3,450—but I should like to know where it has gone. It is a trifle, peanuts, compared with the overall Government expenditure, but it is not peanuts to the taxpayer footing the bill. It is not peanuts to a pensioner. The sum of £3,000 is a fortune to old people, and they are entitled to know what that is provided for.
  But the bigger item under the heading of "Salaries, &c." is the third. It concerns staff salaries, where the present provision is £115,757,250, and the revised provision is £126,451,800. That is a difference of roughly £10 million. The explanation provided is that the increases are:
  "Mainly pay awards, increased provision for additional staff, overtime and higher rates of National Insurance contributions."
  It goes on:
  "The provision made at this stage represents approximately 90 per cent. of the increase likely to be required."
  No detail is given. On page 69 there is a reference to general administrative expenses, payments for agency services, and the rest, but nothing is spelled out. We do not have even the sort of detail
  1390
  which we find in the Defence Supplementary Estimates. On page 8, for example, the Defence Supplementary Estimates give all the detail of pay of the Gurkha troops, the pay of the Ulster Defence Regiment and cadet forces, the pay and allowances of army officers, warrant officers, NCO's, men, women and so on, but the Estimate from the Department of Health and Social Security gives no breakdown of its figure.
  Nor is there any indication of how many additional staff have been provided. The Minister will recall that a few weeks ago local officials in social security offices had a go-slow or a strike. They said that they were grossly overworked because of the comprehensive means-tested welfare State which we now have, because of the increased numbers who were applying for supplementary benefit, and so on. These people, for the first time that I can recall, were threatening strike action and marching in the streets in protest.
  Civil servants are not recognised for their militancy. On the contrary, they have been highly responsible people, and they do not willingly take to the streets. But I remember seeing on the televsion screen the other day the picture of a fellow in a bowler hat, with his umbrella, carrying a placard. Ten years ago, one would never have dreamed that that could happen. Only a Conservative Government could bring about that kind of bowler-hatted revolution. This is what they have been driven to as a result of the Government's policies.
  Let no one misunderstand the situation. When one talks about civil servants, the picture immediately conjured up in the general public's mind is much like what we saw on the television screen—a chap in a bowler hat, with a rolled umbrella, wearing black pin-stripe trousers, and earning a high salary. In fact, however, hundreds of thousands of these people are taking home less than £20 a week——
  Mr. James Hamilton: A good many of them less than that.
  Mr. William Hamilton: —and some of them with less than £15 a week take-home pay. These people have been driven to frenzied fury by the outrageous treatment meted out to them over the past several months by the present Government. Never in my wildest dreams should

  1391
  I have expected them to show the kind of militancy that they have shown recently. They are not led by Hugh Scanlon, by Jack Jones or by any of the so-called Left-wing ogres whom the Government try to present to the public as responsible for the mess they are now in.
  The Minister knows who is responsible. The Government have blatantly ratted on their undertakings to their own servants. The Priestley recommendations of 1956 on Civil Service pay procedure were implemented, and the principle was that the pay of civil servants should be based on wages paid to workers in comparable employment outside. That was the principle of so-called fair comparison. It had many defects. Civil servants were always behind in the rat race, they were a sure loser, especially in a period of rapid inflation such as we have had in the last two years from a Government who promised to resolve the problem without recourse to a statutory prices and incomes policy. The Government would not do that, they said. Prices could be cut at a stroke, unemployment could be cut at a stroke, and we should all be sitting in the garden lovely so long as the Tories were elected to office.
  The Priestley recommendation that awards to the Civil Service——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): Order. The Civil Service as such is not in the Vote under discussion, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will quickly return to the Vote under discussion.
  Mr. Hamilton: With respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, civil servants do come in the Vote under discussion. I take it that the staff in the Department of Health and Social Security are civil servants.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order I have been prepared to allow a certain latitude, but I think that I have allowed rather too much.
  Mr. Hamilton: With respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the staff of the Department of Health and Social Security, the very people who are covered by the Priestley recommendations, are civil servants, and under this subhead the main provision is the additional £10 million for staff. Staff are civil servants. I am
  1392
  talking about civil servants, and Priestley referred precisely to civil servants. I think that I am, therefore, entitled to say what I am saying about the Priestley recommendations and how they have been breached by the Government.
  Mr. John Grant: The Supplementary Estimate would be considerbly affected, would it not, if the Government honoured their commitment to Priestley, so I suggest that my hon. Friend is right.
  Mr. Hamilton: I am coming to that point. The Supplementary Estimates were published before the Government announced their prices and incomes policy, so the £10 million might well be altered subsequently as a result of phase 2 and the later phase 3 of that policy. Therefore, I can hardly think of anything more relevant than a discussion of the position of the civil servants in the local offices of the Department of Health and Social Security in the context of the Supplementary Estimate.
  Priestley recommended that awards should be retrospective. Is there any provision in the Supplementary Estimate, or will there be future provision, for retrospective payments to these people, who have been denied their rights up to now, as from 1st January?
  In 1962 the then Government, while preaching the desirability of arbitration to industrial unions, breached the Civil Service arbitration procedure which had existed since, I think, 1926, but subsequently accepted arbitration. The Labour Government of the 1960s limited the retrospective element of awards, and in 1968 that same Government accepted that agreed increases were due to civil servants but would be paid only in stages. It was agreed that a review of wages in the clerical and executive grades should be implemented from 1st January of this year, and the previous increase which had been awarded on 1st January last year was only 7 per cent.
  The Civil Service unions have pointed out to me, and, no doubt, to other hon. Members—we have all had representations on this matter—that in that period the wage index had risen by 22½ per cent., three times the rate of the increase for these lower-paid civil servants, and the price index had risen by 16 per cent. or

  1393
  18 per cent. Therefore, in terms of their standard of living and comparability with other workers, the civil servants had lost all round. Their standard of living had been reduced, and they had been reduced in terms of comparison with other workers.
  It is painfully obvious to them that the Government are using the lower-paid workers in their employment as political whipping boys. These are the people who are made the example of the Government's determination to inflict their policy on the country as a whole.
  It is not clear from the Supplementary Estimate whether the persons covered are workers in the social security offices at local level, or what they are. It just says "staff". I do not know what it covers. Perhaps the Minister will tell us. What part is due to salary increases and what part is due to the increased numbers that have had to be provided because of the protest by the workers on grounds of overwork? Whether they protest because of bad wages or because of overwork, they have a dual grievance in the sense that they have fallen behind other workers in their standard of living.
  As the Minister knows, I took up these matters following reports from local officers of his Department in Fife. I took up the matter first with the Chancellor, and the letter was transferred to the Civil Service Department. I received a reply on 23rd January which took refuge in the fact that the Government had made it clear to the National Staff Side in 1971 that their endorsement of the Priestley principles and the existing agreements was:
  "subject to any requirements of an overriding national policy of general application."
  It went on to say that the 1973 pay reviews:
  "will have to conform to the Government's counter-inflationary measures."
  It concluded with the usual nonsense about non-discrimination against Government employees. But this is a case of blatant discrimination against these people, and the figures refer to the injustices perpetrated before the present prices and incomes policy was formulated, when the Government were still saying they would have nothing to do
  1394
  with a statutory prices and incomes policy. The Prime Minister called the policy fair, and some of the newspapers said it was fair, too. Nobody in their right senses, nobody capable of exercising objectivity, could possibly say that the lower-paid civil servants and the ancillary staffs in the hospitals had been treated other than grossly unfairly.
  I quote now correspondence I have had on this matter from someone in Bath, and I am glad to see the hon. Member for Bath (Sir E. Brown) present. I gave him notice that I intended to refer to the matter, and I thought that it was only fair to warn him about what I was going to say. I have had a letter from constituents of his complaining about the meetings that the Civil Service Union had in Bath, and I have newspaper cuttings, including one from the Western Daily Press. They refer to the hon. Member being shown one of these civil servants' pay slips showing that the man was taking home £14·50 a week. According to the newspaper the hon. Member said "If that is the case, get your cards. You will be better off on supplementary benefit." The hon. Member subsequently denied that he said that. I do not know whether it is true or not. The Western Daily Press subsequently quoted him as saying
  "I never made such a statement suggesting he should give up work. That is pure fabrication."
  To that the Civil Service Union secretary, Mr. Christensen, replied:
  "I didn't make anything up."
  He went on:
  "Those were his exact words, and although he may deny it there were five other members of my union who were there at the time."
  Sir Edward Brown: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) for giving way, but I should first like your clearance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The matter which has now been discussed has gone outside the terms of reference of the debate. We are now talking about defence employees, none of whom is involved in hospitals. The statement I shall make, therefore, will be in relation to the Ministry of Defence.
  Mr. Hamilton: I accept completely what the hon. Member says, but the principle is the same.
  Sir E. Brown: May I finish the explanation? It is true that I received a deputation from the Civil Service Union consisting of Mr. Christensen and four of his colleagues, not five. The pay slips were submitted to me, and one was as low as £14·50. The man who received that amount of pay made the point that he had an incapacitated wife at home. It was suggested to me that where a man had a totally invalided wife there were cases on social security which were receiving more money. I said that if this was the only income in the family, clearly the man would be better off on social security. I said no more and no less than that. The newspapers said that I had applied that comment to all the members of the Civil Service Union.
  The Minister will be aware that I immediately wrote to his Department about the three cases in question, and I received an answer from him outlining the Government's policy as wanting to do something for this sector of employees. I have taken up the matter concerning my own constituents because I feel profound sympathy for them in the situation in which they find themselves, and I have made strong representations about both the executive grades and the lower-paid grades.
  Mr. Hamilton: I am grateful for that speech. The hon. Member may talk about sympathy as much as he likes but he voted for the Government's pay freeze. In effect, he said that those men who are taking home £15 a week and less to keep a family have to make do with an extra £1 plus 4 per cent. He voted for that, and it is no good his getting up and squealing and saying that he has written to the Minister, offering his sympathy and telling these men to hang on with an extra £1 when the Prime Minister and his Cabinet colleagues are being paid an extra £350 a year each.
  But I am now straying away from the Supplementary Estimate. There are civil servants under this Supplementary Estimate who are taking home less than £15 a week. It is indefensible for the Government to say that the policy is fair. It is a policy of deception and cruelty, and the Prime Minister has reached the stage where no one believes him. He deceived the country in the General Electiton campaign when he pretended
  1396
  that we would be one nation and that he would look after the poor. We are now talking about the poor.
  I have one point to make about the ancillary staff who are mentioned on page 71. There it says:
  "Increased rates of pay and National Insurance."
  I should like to know exactly what increases in pay there have been to nurses, for instance. I get very worked up about the nursing profession whenever I talk about it in the House, for very personal reasons. There is not a profession which deserves more of this nation and there is not a profession which gets less from it. Because the Government know that the nurses will not strike, because they know that the nurses are defenceless, they take it out on them year after year. Fine words do not make any noise in the frying pan. No doubt we shall hear many of diem this afternoon from the Minister when he talks about the devotion and loyalty of these people. But that does not put cash in their pay packet, and that is what counts.
  What applies to the nurses applies to the ancillary staff, the people who clean floors and wash pans and so on. The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) talks about coloured immigrants, but it was he who brought them in when he was Minister of Health, and if it were not for those people our health services would break down. In any hospital in the country and particularly in London, one sees how the hospitals depend not on the surgeons—of course they depend upon them, too, but the surgeons are all right financially—but on the coloured people in the kitchens who do the dirty grubby work, and on the nurses, too. These people are to be frozen—literally frozen—under the present magnificent munificent Government and their great policy of phase I and phase 2 and the tougher phase 3 which we are promised some time later this year.
  That is what we are talking about, and these Supplementary Estimates are but a peg on which to hang the arguments. I wish that more hon. Members were present to kick up a bigger row than is possible with the limited numbers at our disposal. I want the Minister to spell out for me—he is doing his homework now—exactly what the nurses are to get in

  1397
  the next six months, what a staff nurse is to get, what a third-year student is to get, and what is to be deducted from that for subsistence when she is living in. I want the figures.
  I want to be told how the standard of living of nurses is going up as a result of Tory beneficence, and I want to be told how these coloured lasses and lads are to be paid against the rent increases under the Government's rent legislation. The staff nurse is the key figure, and I should like to be told what a staff nurse in an ordinary hospital is to get in cash terms in the next six months and how much is to be deducted from that if she lives in. It is a simple question and the officials should have the answer and the Minister had better get it. I want it now, not in writing later.
  I have made the case as kindly as I can and moderately—I am naturally a moderate man. I have put the story as simply, as plainly, and as bluntly as I could; I hope to have a similar response from the Minister.
  5.23 p.m.
  Mr. Laurie Pavitt: The whole House will be grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) for raising his voice on a subject in which many of us are interested. In every debate about the hospital services and nursing that I have known since I entered the House in 1959 my hon. Friend has been in the forefront of the battle. I remember our joint efforts on an all-night sitting in 1961 during one of the freezes when the nurses were the first to be caught.
  I want to refer to Class VII, Vote 1, subhead A and follow what my hon. Friend said when he spoke about bowler-hatted demonstrations which only the present Government seem able to manufacture.
  My local department of health and social security has one of the hardest tasks of all because of the nature of the social problems in my constituency—housing, employment changes and redevelopment and, incidentally I have twice as many immigrants as the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell). Some of these DHSS employees came to lobby me in large numbers last week. I do not want to
  1398
  repeat the arguments which my hon. Friend has just stated, with which I agree. I am certain that when I send them HANSARD, they will be more than grateful for his work on their behalf this afternoon. I look forward to the Minister's reply.
  On the subject of Vote 2, subhead A; I start more or less where my hon. Friend finished. I have worked out that we in this Chamber are each worth about £4 million on the basis of the £41 million involved here, for there are only about 10 hon. Members present. What changes are being made as a result of extra pay allocations for regional hospitals boards? I challenge the Minister to discuss the subject of danger money for nurses, for instance. It is ridiculous that a nurse still gets danger money for nursing a venereal disease patient, although she is in no danger unless she is a participating member of the permissive society, and then the danger does not come from nursing; but if she nurses renal dialysis on a day-in day-out basis, she is exposed to the possibility of serum heptatitis and may die and yet gets no danger money.
  The Minister will recall the tragedy in Scotland. The numbers have never been given to the public, and I do not blame the Scottish Ministry for that, but a number of doctors and nurses died as a result of doing their duty in a renal dialysis unit. If the Minister is to consider this section of the Estimates, he should consider some of these changes within the basis pay structure for nurses, which, quite apart from the Briggs Report and the Salmon Report, need immediate attention.
  It is a disgrace to the country that we pay nurses and ancillary staff in hospital service so little at a time when as a nation we are spending twice as much on alcohol, cigarettes and gambling as on the whole of the National Health Service. We are still paying poor money to these essential people. Anyone going along Victoria Street from this House can see agency advertisements for temporary shorthand typists offering a five-day week at five hours a day with a pay twice that of a State registered nurse who does night duty, day duty, on-call duty and so on. There is something wrong with our society when we cannot put our values right in that regard.

  1399
  I ask the Minister not to say that these are matters for the Whitley Councils. If it is good enough for the doctors to have direct representation, why is it not good enough for the nurses? Why not a comparable review body for nurses? I pay credit to the Secretary of State for being prepared to act on his own initiative in the scandals in the long-stay hospitals for the mentally handicapped and geriatric patients. On his initiative, more money was provided. We are here considering the pay of people who give devoted service to the community, and this, too, is an area in which he should take the initiative.
  The Estimates include the figure of more than £2 million spent by regional boards and management committees on advertising for nurses. Considerably more is being spent on agency nurses because we do not pay enough to our own nurses in the hospital services. The agency nurses are paid considerably more and have better conditions than nurses who choose to remain in the National Health Service. Surely it is possible to devise a system in which it is not necessary for millions of pounds a year to be spent by hospital after hospital seeking nurses. The money spent on such advertising would be better devoted to improving the pay and conditions of nurses.
  How miserably mean is the extra overtime pay now agreed for complete Sunday working! It is worked out at fractions of a pound. A nurse might have done 50 or 60 hours in a week and yet, because of some special responsibility, be called in to work on a Sunday. After allowing for fares and so on, if she is lucky she may have 50p for the extra hours and the loss of her weekend. These matters affect not just basic pay but the additions which ought to go with the pay. I hope that the Under-Secretary will address his mind to them.
  Another sector which has been neglected year after year is covered by those employed in the professions associated with medicine. I do not intend to deal with all of them, but I wish to draw attention to the position of radiographers and the nonsense which occurs because we do not pay them enough. We spend more than £500,000 on training grants. A radiographer has a period of training lasting two years. At the end of that period in my area his
  1400
  basic pay is £23·76 a week. But there is a shortage, so what happens is that after his two years' training he can go to an agency. In my constituency we pay £35 a week to agencies for radiographers whom we have trained in our hospitals to come back and work in the same hospital where they trained. If ever there was an economic nonsense from a Government who believe in management efficiency it is this. Surely something could be done about it.
  I know that negotiations are proceeding. The Society of Radiographers has been engaged in negotiations for three years. Next week, through their Whitley machinery, the radiographers will be trying to agree a new grading structure. In the economic crisis into which the Government have forced us, does that mean that any increase to them will be frozen in stage 2 and that, despite their negotiations lasting for three years without any sign of daylight, when, if they are lucky next week, they reach an agreement with the management side, they are to be told that the three years must be extended to the end of phase 2, the end of phase 3 or the end of some other phase?
  I referred just now to the problem of danger money for nurses. In the pay given by regional hospital boards to doctors in certain specialties there is also the problem of danger money. The Central Committee for the Hospital Medical Services of the BMA has been having discussions for two years about what amounts to employer's liability to doctors engaged in the National Health Service who by reason of their duties find themselves seriously ill or involved in an accident. A doctor may attend an accident on the MI and find as a result that he is himself involved in an accident. At the moment there is no danger money for danger to doctors. As so often happens, the situation has now reached an impasse, and, as usually happens in Government circles, negotiations are taking place between two departments, with the result that those affected are in danger of falling between two stools. Is it the Department of Employment or the Department of Health and Social Security which should solve the difficulty? I hope that the Under-Secretary will deal with that point.

  1401
  The last matter that I wish to raise was touched upon by my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West, and it concerns the lowest of the low-paid workers. I refer to those in our community who serve as ancillary staff in hospitals. It has been pointed out already that only 10 hon. Members are involved in approving this Estimate of £41,000,000. However, at least 10 members of the Opposition were interested enough in the subject to march from St. Thomas's Hospital to the Department of Health and Social Security to show our support for the claim being made by the ancillary staff.
  What is the position? For a male member of the ancillary staff in the hospital service the present basic rate is £17·48 rising to £21·48. The Government must have realised the measure of the injustice to these workers. They have moved quickly with regard to the freeze and said that their negotiations might continue. The result? They have been offered a meagre £1·84. But one has only to look at what is happening in other sectors which are just coming out of the freeze—gas workers, electricity workers and miners—to see that once again the lowest paid of the lot are made the lowest offer.
  The Government talk about their policy being to help the lowest paid get a square deal. How do they justify that when they make such an offer to ancillary staff in National Health Service hospitals? How do they justify the fact that the earnings gap between ancillary staff in hospitals and other manual workers in outside industry is now £8 a week and yet the best offer being made at present is only £1·84?
  The Under-Secretary will recall that the late lamented and too speedily wound-up National Board for Prices and Incomes said in December 1970 in its report No. 166 that around a quarter of the whole work force in hospitals had earnings in the lowest tenth of earnings for all men in manual work in Great Britain. If there is some social justice in the Government's wages policy, this Estimate for £41 million is totally inadequate. The Government must do something more for the lowest paid.
  1402
  When one examines the take-home pay position, once again hospital workers find themselves at the bottom of the heap. Taking into consideration their shift work and the number of hours worked, the rates paid for overtime mean that, compared with any other section of the working class community, hospital workers come out much worse than anyone else.
  When the Under-Secretary replies to the debate on this part of Vote 7, I hope that we shall have no more bromides from him. Like him, I have been campaigning against barbiturates, because the nation is taking too many of them. But also we do not want any soothing syrup today. These are basic, fundamental and key questions about the kind of nation that we are and the kind of health service that we run. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not tell us that the Government leave the negotiations with the Whitley Council, that they have every sympathy with the Florence Nightingales' devoted service but that when it comes to a comparison between their earnings and those of their one-time schoolmates the nation cannot afford more.
  I have just had the personal experience of coming out of hospital. It was my first hospitalisation for many years. Like every other hon. Member who has had a spell in a public ward in an NHS hospital, I came out feeling eternally grateful. The newspapers never report the successes of the National Health Service. One reads about the service only when something has gone wrong.
  I end on what might seem a slightly facetious note. Having spent some time in a public ward, I have come to the conclusion that the Estimate ought to be increased in order to provide nurses with roller skates. I have never seen so much running about and hard work put in for members of the public who are in hospital as done by nurses from seven o'clock in the morning until they go off duty.
  I know the problems. I know that in preparing the Estimates the Government are responsible across the board for a totally comprehensive service. But surely the highest priority is not in bricks and mortar or machinery. It is to improve the livelihood and increase the numbers of hospital personnel who give such devoted service to us all.
  5.39 p.m.
  Mr. John Grant: I want to underline a few of the things that were said by my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton), in his customary robust style, particularly about Class VII of the Supplementary Estimates relating to the Department of Health and Social Security staff and, indeed, the Civil Service as a whole.
  The revised provision in this Estimate for the DHSS clearly will not help one bit the crucial situation in the Civil Service and that Department particularly. I have previously spoken in the House on the general subject of the Civil Service pay grievance. My hon. Friend has mentioned it, and I shall not go over that ground again. However, I remind the House and the Under-Secretary that the Chancellor failed completely to respond to the request of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition in winding up the debate on the White Paper last week, when he was asked to tell the House that the Government would not rat on the principle. Perhaps the Under-Secretary could put right the Chancellor's omission. That is, perhaps, a little unlikely, but he might consider it.
  An article appeared in The Times yesterday on the whole question, written by Mr. Eric Wigham, who was formerly the labour correspondent of that newspaper and a member of the Donavan Commission on Industrial Relations. The article said:
  "One of the most important things to ensure is that the Government gives a fair deal to its own employees, who have always had the thick end of the stick under incomes policies. Civil servants and others whose pay by specific agreement follows that of other comparable employees, so that they can never set a pattern, should be allowed a catching up stage in any period of freeze or restraint Careful consideration should also be given to those who follow others in a less formal way, as for instance health service manual workers follow those employed by local authorities."
  Here is the nub of the argument. They ought to be allowed to catch up, whatever happens subsequently. It is for that reason that we assert that the Prime Minister and the Government are practising discrimination against their employees.
  It was not long ago that the DHSS staff took a form of industrial action. They banned overtime. They did it not for money but because they were absurdly
  1404
  overworked. Countless hours of overtime were being worked, and they were grossly understaffed. The Secretary of State refused to budge. He refused to increase the establishment. None of this whole question of establishment has been spelt out in the Estimates, and it should be. I suspect that the Secretary of State was desperately defending the ridiculous election promise made by the Conservative Party prior to June 1970, that it would reduce the size of the Civil Service. That promise should never have been made, because it was never capable of being kept.
  The staff banned overtime so that their lives would be made more tolerable and so that the public would get the service not only which they deserved but to which they were entitled. It was only the pigheadedness of the Minister which caused that industrial action. Eventually we got the agreement, and there is to be an increase in the establishment. It is a pity that that is not spelt out in the Estimates, because it would be helpful to know the exact position.
  No doubt the Under-Secretary will know by now that there is a particularly hostile feeling in the Department about the freeze. I have had this reflected to me in representations in my constituency. I shall not be surprised if there is some form of industrial action there in the future. Indeed, from what I hear, I shall be more surprised if there is no industrial action.
  In relation to what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West, in his exchange with the hon. Member for Bath (Sir E. Brown), I remind the Minister that there is great resentment not only about overtime working but about the fact that many departmental staff, counter clerks in particular, are paying over the counter to claimants for benefit more than they take home in their pay packets, and some of them are themselves eligible for benefit. That is a sad commentary on the Government as an employer.
  There are rumblings—I know not whether they have reached the UnderSecretary—in the governmental undergrowth about possible disciplinary measures if civil servants are involved in any form of industrial action. I beseech the Government not to head up that road because their first step in that direction

  1405
  will escalate any dispute into a most grave confrontation. There is at present tremendous volatility in the Department. The Government should allow the civil servants to catch up on pay before any counter-inflationary policy is applied to them. That would not be discriminating in their favour. It would be fair. That is a word which the Prime Minister uses constantly, but he rarely practises fairness.
  5.45 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Michael Alison): Perhaps I could begin by saying how very sorry I was to hear that the hon. Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt) had been in hospital, but also how delighted I am that the National Health Service looked after him well and that he returns to us in his typical sprightly form.
  With the permission of the House and the particular indulgence of the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton), I shall start with a short and specific point, as I can dispose of it fairly quickly. The hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. John Grant) raised the matter of the Priestley commitment, so-called. I cannot help the House further than saying that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, in a debate as recently as 24th January, spelt out in terms an assurance, which I shall quote because it is exactly the point the hon. Member raised. He said that
  "the Government endorses the principles for determining the pay of the non-industrial Civil Service set out in the Priestley Report and accepted by the Official and Staff sides following its publication. Subject to any requirements of an overriding national policy of general application, the Government intends to continue to reach and implement settlements on the basis of surveys by the Civil Service Pay Research Unit in accordance with these principles and with the existing procedural agreements between the Official and Staff sides."
  Having quoted that, the Prime Minister went on to say:
  "The proviso is subject to any requirements of an overriding national policy of general application. The policy put forward in the White Paper"—
  that is, the second White Paper—
  "and which is being put forward in the legislation before the House, is obviously a policy of an overriding nature and of general
  1406
  application. That cannot be denied. That is the position as far as the Civil Service is concerned."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th January, 1973; Vol. 849, c. 482.]
  Mr. John Grant: They have had it.
  Mr. Alison: There was a proviso in the assurance relating to the overriding needs of the national situation at the time.
  Perhaps I could next take in order the points made by the hon. Member for Fife, West and conclude with a reference to those raised by the hon. Member for Willesden, West.
  The hon. Member for Fife, West focused our attention, first, on Class VII, Vote 1, subhead A. I refer to pages 68 and 69 in relation to the figures we are discussing, and particularly page 68. The hon. Member quoted the overall figure of £10·7 million, referred to on page 68. Perhaps I can spell out how this is made up. Of the £10·7 million, £7·11 million is for the cost of the 1972 Civil Service pay increase, effective from 1st January 1972. £1·66 million is for the increase in complement of 4,000 posts in the DHSS—I shall spell this out in further detail shortly—authorised by the Civil Service Department during the current year. A further £1 million is for additional costs of overtime: £0·75 million is for higher rates of graduated and national insurance contributions for staff; and £0·18 million is for agency typing services, which is an accounting adjustment between subheads.
  I dare say that the hon. Member for Fife, West is particularly interested in the figure of £1·66 million for the increase in staff numbers during the current year, together with the £1 million for additional overtime costs. The £1·6 million relating to staff increases occurred in the following conditions. In the early months of last year the pressure of supplementary benefit workload in local offices rose substantially for a number of reasons, and while my Department was carrying out an urgent review of staffing needs the growing pressure on staff at local offices gave rise to considerable dissatisfaction which, as I think the House knows, culminated in a ban on voluntary overtime.
  In consultation with the staff associations and the Civil Service Department an agreement was reached for the provision of an additional 4,000 permanent

  1407
  posts made up as follows. There were 1 million—I beg the House's pardon; the Supplementary Benefits Commission would have rejoiced to have got 1 million extra office workers; there were 1,500 for supplementary benefit work and 2,500 to reduce the Department's dependence on casually employed staff and overtime. The agreement, of which this forms part, also includes a review of the Department's staffing procedures, improvements in training programmes and in the physical conditions in local offices, and a study aimed at simplifying and improving work methods. All these matters are now in progress.
  Recruitment of additional permanent staff is proceeding as quickly as possible, and by the end of 1972 the staff in post in local offices had increased by 1,000. The present level of casual staff, which is currently between 4,000 and 5,000, will necessarily continue till the full complement of posts is filled and the new staff are trained.
  The financial provisions in respect of the additional costs of overtime arise, first, from the higher rates of overtime pay arising from the 1972 Civil Service pay award, secondly, from the more rapid consumption of overtime forecast in the early part of the year because of growing work pressures, and, thirdly, from the complications to supplementary benefit work of the application of the fair rent scheme.
  I have done my best to spell out the details of the subhead for which the hon. Member asked in order not to have to write to him.
  Mr. William Hamilton: I am grateful for what the Minister has said, but can he tell us whether, in his view, the standard of living of the civil servants has decreased in the last two years?
  Mr. Alison: The standard of living of which civil servants?
  Mr. William Hamilton: Of those people I referred to who had a 7 per cent. increase in wages as compared with a wages index figure of 22½ per cent. and a prices index increase of 16 per cent. to 18 per cent.
  Mr. Alison: I cannot comment on that also—because I have only generalised figures for very large global totals of pay.
  1408
  The figures go right across the board. But taking only the global figures, the average earnings, published, as the hon. Member knows, for the employed population as a whole, have risen substantially in excess of the rise in the retail prices index.
  Mr. William Hamilton: They have not had an increase.
  Mr. Alison: The hon. Member also referred to the typical staff nurse pay figure, and asked what it was likely to be in the next six months. That point is not strictly in the purview of the Supplementary Estimate because a claim has been submitted for a further increase of salaries of the nurses, and, clearly, this is subject to negotiation. However, looking at the position as of now—I cannot guarantee what it will be like in six months' time—the typical figure, subject to a very wide range of variations, for a staff nurse would be between £1,089 to £1,299 per annum, going up to £1,383 after three years' service. One has to deduct, say, £185 for lodging charge for resident staff. This, again, is a rather generalised figure; it is subject to wide variations. The hon. Member, with his own family connections with nursing, may be able to produce cases better or worse than that. This is a round figure. I cannot guarantee that it will be like this is six months' time, but I hope the hon. Member will accept that as at least a partial answer to him by word of mouth rather than in writing.
  Mr. Ronald Brown: The Minister will realise that these figures are meaningless, because, for instance, the real problem in London is that we cannot get staff nurses to pay them that percentage. We have to go to agencies for agency nurses, and they are being paid in excess of that.
  Mr. Alison: The question of agency nurses, which the hon. Member for Willesden, West touched on, is a very difficult and tricky one in the National Health Service. It is essentially a London problem. A whole range of peculiarities arises in London, not least from the wide range of employment opportunities available in London and the competition which there is in the Metropolis for female labour. In this debate I cannot elaborate on the rather specialised

  1409
  subject of agency nurses and what we are doing to minimise their employment, but I can assure hon. Members that this issue is very much in the fore front of our thought and planning in the Department. We do not like to employ more agency nurses than is absolutely necessary. I am glad that this problem is essentially confined to London.
  The hon. Member for Willesden, West went on to raise a number of other points, particularly in relation to the extremely low pay of ancillary workers. I must say that I was a little—what shall I say—cynical—I am afraid I must use that very strong word—about his diatribe against the lowness of pay amongst ancillary workers in the National Health Service. He must know that this question resulted from the days of his own Government. Indeed, the point was made in the Report, No. 29, of March, 1967, by the National Board for Prices and Incomes. There the whole gloomy story was spelt out, and no other solution than on the lines of more effective use of labour, or the introduction of a properly constructed and controlled scheme of payment relating earnings to performance, was looked into. This is nothing new. The hon. Member's own Government, to do them credit, turned the spotlight of the Prices and Incomes Board upon it, and, the veil being drawn aside, it depicted, not a less gloomy but indeed a far gloomier picture than there is now.
  Mr. Pavitt: Will the hon. Gentleman cease to ride off on his eulogism? We made mistakes, it is true, but it is no answer to them for this Government to continue them. The wage increase given last year, 1971, was 7½, per cent. My hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) spoke about the figures. The Minister cannot say that that was our fault. It was his.
  Dr. Shirley Summerskill: The hon. Gentleman will recall that in the second stage of the freeze the low-paid hospital workers will be very slightly better off—only very slightly—than they were before, and yet the Government profess to be going out of their way to help the low paid. Would the hon. Gentleman not agree that the new freeze arrangements hardly alter the take-home pay of hospital workers?
  Mr. Alison: The hon. Lady has come on to the category of worker upon whom I want to spend most of my time in addressing the House on this subject. I shall try, without dissimulation, to cover the point she has raised, because it was the category of hospital worker which the hon. Member for Fife, West specifically picked out. It is particularly relevant to our debate because it is one group whose pay is at present subject to negotiation and is fully caught up, as it were, in the complexities of stage 1 and stage 2. It is, therefore, worth looking in some detail at ancillary workers. I will not fail to come to the specific points on the slightly wider issue made by the hon. Member for Willesden, West when the time comes.
  Mr. John Grant: I do not understand why the hon. Gentleman says that this group is exceptional in having entered into negotiations. Many groups of workers have negotiations in the pipeline.
  Mr. Alison: The value of looking at the position of hospital ancillary staff is that they are the one group for whom a pay claim has been submitted on which negotiations are in train and which has been precisely caught up in the complexities of the freeze and stage 2.
  I ask the House to consider hospital ancillary workers in some detail, because they provide an extremely wide range of vital hospital services. They are the ward orderlies, hairdressers, porters, operating theatre attendants, and others perhaps less in the public eye but nevertheless playing an important rôle—kitchen staff, laundry staff, boiler house staff, gardeners and so on. The results of their work may not be apparent to the public but are quickly apparent to patients, in a decline in the quality of food, laundry and heating if those services break down. The hospital ancillary worker has a crucial rôle to play in the complex range of services performed by a hospital in securing the patient's full restoration to health. It is none the less vital for being less spectacular and glamorous than the rôle of the nurse or doctor.
  We are discussing an extremely large group of workers. There are 230,000 ancillary workers employed in hospitals in Great Britain, about two-thirds of whom are women. About 90,000 work part-time, nearly all of whom are

  1411
  women. In full-time equivalent terms the total is about 203,000, of whom two-thirds are women. The annual wage bill for this group is £238 million.
  The rates of pay and conditions of service for the group are negotiated by the Ancillary Staffs Council, which is one of the Whitley Councils set up in 1948 for the National Health Service. The Whitley Council which covers ancillary workers throughout Great Britain is composed of two sides, a trade union side with four unions represented—the National Union of Public Employees, the Confederation of Health Service Employees, the General and Municipal Workers' Union and the Transport and General Workers' Union—and a management side composed of representatives of hospital management, namely, members or officers of hospital authorities and members of the health departments. The Whitley Councils are autonomous bodies, not appointed by Ministers but the implementation of their agreements requires ministerial approval under the relevant National Health Service regulations.
  The procedure is for the trade union side to present claims for improvement in rates of pay and conditions of service and for these to result in negotiated settlements following discussion in the council. In practice, for many years these settlements have been very much in line with settlements reached for manual workers in local government service. That is understandable, because there are considerable similarities—in the type of work done, the common trade unions and in the similar machinery which has descended from pre-National Health Service days. This link with local government work, although traditional, has never been either automatic or formalised. Each negotiating body—the Ancillary Staffs Council and the National Joint Council for Local Authorities—has retained complete freedom to negotiate separately for its staff.
  It might be helpful to mention the current rates of pay of ancillary staff. The basic male grade B rate is £18 a week outside London, although there is an agreement that staff requesting it can increase earnings on a virtually guaranteed basis to £19 a week. For women the basic grade A rate is £15·28, again outside
  1412
  London. These rates are increased by an extra £2·40 a week for London weighting. Above grade A the rates rise to a maximum of £26·36 per week for men and £24·28 per week for women.
  The average weekly earnings are somewhat higher than the basic rates. For men the average weekly earnings are £27·13 a week and for women £20·60 a week. Although 8 per cent. of the men in this category earn under £20 a week, 28 per cent. earn more than £35 a week. The level is not high by national average standards, and this I readily concede—indeed, the NBPI report made this clear as long ago as 1967—but at least the earnings levels are substantially above the basic rates.
  Dr. Summerskill: What plans are being made to implement the Equal Pay Act? The Minister has said that the male and female rates are rising by an extra £2·40. Surely the rate for the female should rise slightly higher than that if the Act is to be implemented by 1975?
  Mr. Alison: The £2·40 is the London weighting figure, the extra allowance paid to men and women working in London. It was conceded irrespective of the stage that had been reached in the implementation of equal pay. It was decided that men and women should receive an equal increase and that is to the advantage of women. There is no differential against them in London weighting. Equal pay is being implemented by the steady one-third increase and I shall have a word to say about that in the context of the current negotiations.
  Against that background of the basic rates of pay and earnings I should like to say something about the negotiations now going on for the ancillaries. In the summer of last year the trade unions submitted a claim for a £4 increase in basic rates, for a 35-hour instead of a 40-hour week, for four weeks' paid holiday instead of three weeks, and for two additional Bank holidays. The claim would have cost about £100 million and increased the wage bill by about 40 per cent. The operative date of the claim was to be 13th December 1972–12 months after the preceding agreement. Negotiations had just begun when stage 1 of the Government's counter-inflation measures was announced on 6th November.

  1413
  Negotiations on the parallel claim for local government manual workers had also opened, the operative date being at the beginning of November, again, the anniversary of the preceding agreement 12 months ago. The local authority negotiations were brought to a rapid conclusion on the eve of 6th November, the cut-off date for stage 1. In consequence the local government manual workers received an increase of £2·40 for men and women, plus two extra days holiday, from the beginning of November last year. Since the settlement with the ancillary workers was not reached by 6th November, the standstill applied to them, whereas it did not apply to local government manual workers. Therefore, the operative date had to be deferred until the end of the 90-day deferment. Furthermore, the amount payable had to be subject to the terms which were to be settled in stage 2 of the Government's counter-inflation policy.
  The management side of the Whitley Council considered the first White Paper which introduced the freeze, and at the November meeting of the Whitley Council informed the trade union side that it thought it necessary to defer making an offer until the terms of stage 2 were available. They wanted to conduct meaningful negotiations and an offer made during stage 1, when both the operative date and the amount of any future settlement were still unknown, would not have been meaningful.
  Both sides of the Whitley Council made strong representations to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services about the pay of ancillary staff and at the end of November my right hon. Friend, accompanied by Ministers from the Scottish and Welsh Offices, received a deputation.
  My right hon. Friend acknowledged the unfortunate—to put it mildly—timing of the standstill so far as it affected ancillary staff, and said that he would consider whether to exempt them from it. There was no escape from the conclusion that exemption for one group of workers would inevitably lead to claims from other groups, and would undermine the efficacy of the standstill and the subsequent stage 2 period. My right hon. Friend had to say with great regret that he could not arrange any exemption for the ancillary staff, nor could he give them
  1414
  any assurance about their prospects under stage 2, which was then being formulated. However, he promised to represent to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and to his other ministerial colleagues the strong views expressed by the Whitley Council on behalf of the ancillary workers, and I can assure the House that he did not fail to do this.
  Stage 2 of the Government's policy has now been published and under it the operative date for a settlement for ancillary staffs becomes 14th March—a deferment of 90 days. A settlement is subject to the limit prescribed in the White Paper of £1 per head plus 4 per cent. of the total earnings of the group during the preceding year, excluding overtime. Negotiations have been resumed on the basis of the White Paper proposals, and I understand that the management side has put forward to the trade union side its assessment of the sum available for a settlement. This amounts to about £20 million which, if shared equally among men and women, would give an increase of £1·84 per week. This would represent an increase in the overall wage bill of about 10 per cent. and would give increases of 10 to 12 per cent. for men and women in the lowest grade rising to about 7 per cent. for those in the top grades.
  I understand that the trade union side put forward counter-proposals and that the Whitley Council is to meet again shortly to continue negotiations. It would be improper, and indeed impossible, for me to speculate about what form of agreement may finally emerge from the negotiations. We all wish the greatest possible success to both sides in achieving an agreed settlement on the basis of what was offered. As a result of the deliberate policy of the Government in leaving scope for negotiation, there is considerable opportunity for a cut of the cake which will give considerable satisfaction and improvement to the various grades. The White Paper allows a certain flexibility in terms of the movement towards the elimination of the men-women differentials. These are matters which are being looked at in some detail in the current negotiation. I would prefer not to be too specific about what scope there might be, but it is conceivable that a satisfactory agreement may result. It is perhaps as well that I say as little as possible about that situation.

  1415
  It is appreciated that the absence of some special provision for ancillary workers in stage 2 greatly dismayed and disappointed ancillary staff, and we understand the significance of the traditional link which has existed between their rates of pay and rates paid to local government manual workers. We are well aware that the Government action against inflation has interrupted that traditional, if not formalised, link. We would like to have restored it in stage 2, but we have had to conclude that there was no way in which ancillary workers could have been treated as a special case without including a great many others.
  Stage 2 will operate until the autumn and it will include the setting up of a pay board. The Government intend to consult the pay board on how to deal with anomalies, particularly the broken link with the manual local government workers. We are hopeful that this aspect of the pay of ancillary staff can be dealt with, in consultation with the board, in stage 3.
  The hon. Member for Willesden, West asked about restructuring agreements. I can do no better than to ask him to refresh his memory by referring to paragraph 27 of the White Paper, under the heading of "Productivity and Pay Restructuring Schemes".
  The hon. Gentleman also asked about possible dangers to nurses working in hazardous situations, particularly in renal dialysis units. Discussions have been held with representatives of staff about improving benefits in the event of death or injury occurring to staff while on duty, and substantial improvements in existing benefits have been agreed in principle. A separate rate claim in respect of improvements for junior hospital doctors is still under consideration. Therefore, there are prospects for improvements.
  I hope that I have dealt adequately with the matters of detail which have been raised, and I hope that I shall not have any letters to write to the hon. Member for Fife, West. I trust that I have given the House a fair reply on some complicated and detailed points which have been raised. I have given the House specific information about the important negotiations which are taking
  1416
  place on the position of ancillary workers, and we can only hope that they will have a happy and fruitful outcome.

  DERELICT LAND
  6.18 p.m.
  Mr. Caerwyn E. Roderick: I should like for a few moments to discuss grants for reclamation and derelict land in development and intermediate areas under an additional programme within the provisions of the Local Employment Act 1972. This item relates to Class VI, Vote 4, Subhead F4(4), and involves provision for additional expenditure amounting to £800,000.
  I wish to concentrate on two matters. The Minister will know from correspondence which we have exchanged that a water board in my constituency is anxious to undertake schemes which would improve the appearance of areas of their land. The board would like to have financial assistance in the form of grants under the heading which we are now discussing, but it has been told that grants are given only to county, county borough or district councils—that is to say, only to local authorities. My plea is that these grants should be extended to public bodies, such as water boards, the National Coal Board, the railways, and other public bodies. This would enable those public bodies to involve themselves in the clearance of derelict land.
  The board which drew my attention to this matter has abandoned some sources of water supply and taken on new sources. It would like to restore those abandoned areas either to their original state or certainly to improve their appearance.
  It is a pity that we do not do all in our power to help boards which are anxious to do this work. The board has been told that it ought to try to persuade local authorities in that area to get on with the job and that they would be eligible for grant.
  On 23rd May last my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John) asked the Secretary of State for the Environment
  "whether he will take steps to grant annual sums to the nationalised industries to be devoted towards the restoration of land made derelict by their operations on the cessation of their operations"

  1417
  The answer was:
  "Generous grants are available to local authorites towards the cost of acquisition of derelict land, and then reclamation whoever the original owner may be. There is no reason why the acquisition procedure should not be applied to land belonging to nationalised industries in respect of which no requirements for restoration had been imposed under the Town and Country Planning Acts."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd May 1972; Vol. 837, c. 353–4.]
  I quote that deliberately to anticipate an answer that the Minister will possibly give to my argument. I appreciate that answer has already been given, but I bring up this subject anew because there is great force in the argument.
  If the water board assisted the local authority financially the grant would be payable only on the reduced figure. There fore, the local authority would always have to find a sum of money, and the water board could not make up the difference.
  I am anxious that the help should not be given to the water board because its main income is often derived far away from the point at which the water is stored. If a board is prepared to spend money which it has collected in one area on another area we should encourage it to do so at all costs. The area where the water is stored is virtually always rural and is usually a poor area. Therefore, priority is not given to work of this kind as the authorities cannot afford it. We should do all in our power to ensure that water boards involve themselves in the work.
  I am also concerned for the future under the new structure of local government and the new water boards with which we are likely to be faced. They will be much larger bodies. Will they be as concerned over small local projects to clear derelict land as existing bodies? It would be an advantage to have two spearheads attacking this problem—not only the councils but other bodies, like water authorities.
  I have confined my remarks in the main to water authorities, but what I have said would equally apply to British Rail and the National Coal Board in other spheres. Having more than one agency operating in this work would be of tremendous advantage.
  British Rail has many abandoned railway stations which have been allowed to
  1418
  become derelict eyesores for far too long. An example in my constituency is Torpantau. The Minister will know that this is a very beautiful area but there is this eyesore of an abandoned railway station. Again, the station at Builth Road is now only half-used. The other half is a mess and needs clearing up. We ought to encourage British Rail to do something about the problem.
  There are schemes that the Coal Board could undertake. The dereliction that we suffer in so many areas—Glamorgan and Monmouthshire in particular—has not been of the local authorities' making. Yet they are to be responsible for clearing it up. The Coal Board should do something about this problem. I accept that at times assistance is provided by the Coal Board, but it should be its job entirely with Government assistance in the form of grants such as local authorities now receive.
  I do not expect the Minister to give an undertaking today that the Government will take up this matter. Obviously he will not have power to do that. However, I hope that we can extract from him a promise to impress upon the Government the need to amend legislation so that what we are seeking can take place.
  My second point concerns the global sum available for improvements and clearance of derelict land. Although the sums allocated are increasing each year, there is a danger that we will make insufficient progress. It appears that, as with most projects, the simpler and thus the cheaper projects will have been tackled first. That means that the schemes now coming on will be more costly. Furthermore, schemes will automatically be more costly because of inflation. So, with these factors in mind, I think it would be dangerous to think that, because the Estimates allow for about twice the figure of three years ago, that much more is being done.
  The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Mr. David Gibson-Watt): Will the hon. Gentleman make clear to me and to the House whether he is now referring to derelict land clearance or to the "Operation Eyesore" programme?
  Mr. Roderick: I am thinking particularly of derelict land reclamation. I recognise that greater sums are to be spent in this area. However, increasing

  1419
  costs and the increasing complexity of clearance schemes make them so much more costly. Therefore, the amount to be spent on this work does not necessarily mean that more land is being cleared. It may be marginally extra.
  In this day and age, with our experience over the last few years, we ought to be racing ahead with schemes, not just increasing them marginally. I recognise that we are spending more, but more should be done. The whole concept of the clearance of derelict land having grown up and so much having been learned, we ought to be racing ahead. The extra expenditure is partly forced upon us to create jobs. So, all in all, we are not increasing expenditure through enlightenment of this problem. If we are serious about this matter I contend that greater sums needs to be spent in forthcoming years.
  6.28 p.m.
  Mr. Raymond Gower: I should like to make a few comments on what has been said by the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Roderick). I apologise for the fact that I was delayed for a short time when the hon. Member began his speech.
  I accept a good deal of what the hon. Gentleman said about the need for greater expenditure on the clearance of derelict land, but I think he will agree that the figures represent not only an increase in monetary terms, but, even allowing for the changed value of money, a substantial increase in absolute and real terms.
  Mr. Roderick: I should point out to the hon. Gentleman that this was almost an aside in my speech. The main purport of my argument was on another issue entirely.
  Mr. Gower: The hon. Gentleman, towards the end of his speech, commented on this point. I support the main import of what he said. I put it to the Minister that whereas these sums may seem real, substantial and increasing, the need for derelict land clearance in Wales is aggravated more than in most parts of the United Kingdom.
  I accept that there is dereliction in other parts of the United Kingdom—for example, parts of the Black Country and the North-East of England. The hon.
  1420
  Gentleman, like myself, has seen dereliction in parts of Durham, Northumberland and Scotland. I do not deny that. But the overpowering effect of dereliction in parts of South Wales, in particular, is such that there is a major need, if we wish to make the Principality beautiful, for reclamation to take place. It is a fact that some of the worst disfigurement has occurred in areas which were originally of great natural beauty. My hon. Friend will be aware of the beauty that existed perhaps 200 years ago in the valleys which led up from the South Wales coast towards Brecon and Radnorshire. They must have been extraordinarily beautiful. It is possible that we can look forward to a time when a lot of that beauty will be recreated.
  An effort is now being made by agencies in Wales to promote the growth of tourism, which is of such great value to the Welsh economy. Disfigurement is a disadvantage when seeking to promote tourism, and to that extent I support what has been said by the hon. Gentleman. I have developed a part of his argument which, as he said, was not his main theme. However, I feel that the matter I have raised is of tremendous importance. I am sure that my hon. Friend has the matter in mind. I hope that he will not mind my underlining it.
  6.32 p.m.
  Mr. William Edwards: I wish to return to the main and valid point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Roderick). I shall refer to two particular aspects so far as they affect development areas in North Wales and the water boards.
  First, there is a difference between the old-established water boards which were established by small authorities and the kind of water authorities that we may have in a county like mine where large tracts of land were acquired by outside authorities. In those cases I should not like to encourage water boards to extend or develop their own domains and to do work which should be done by local authorities. I should like to see the water boards encouraged to hand back the land which is surplus to their requirements to the local authority in whose area they operate. I shall not make specific references as I do not want to prolong the

  1421
  debate. However, I think that that is a way in which the water boards should be guided by the Welsh Office. The land which they do not need for their essential operation should be handed back to the local authorities.
  There is a major contribution to be made by British Rail. I hope that the Minister will not take that as an indication that I want the whole of the Cambrian coast to be declared derelict land. However, there are large areas, not only within my constituency but elsewhere, which require attention. It is sad to see that concurrent with the improvement of the operation of British Rail there remains the dereliction which has taken place and which has been allowed to remain at our stations. It has happened because British Rail's property department is never equal to the efficiency of its passenger operation department.
  I do not think that any encouragement to deal with derelict land should be given to British Rail. British Rail's costing system is out of this world. For example, it said that it would cost £3,000 to improve a bridge in my constituency for one season only. In fact, the whole of the work was done by my local authority for £800. I should not like to encourage British Rail to undertake the task of land clearance.
  We should encourage British Rail to dispose of its surplus land. It should hand it back to the local authorities on condition that should it need it again for the modernisation or improvement of its railway system it could have it back. Some of the stations in Wales are a disgrace. There is derelict land alongside the stations which British Rail do not use and never will use in the foreseeable future. I should like the Minister to ask the boards to make a contribution towards the valuable and important programme that was started by the last Labour Government.
  6.35 p.m.
  Mr. G. Elfed Davies: I wish to refer to a problem with which the Minister is familiar. For six years the Rhondda Borough Council, the Welsh Office and the Coal Board have been negotiating for the removal of an ugly tip which is known in my part of the world as the Banana Tip of Ferndale. In
  1422
  fact, the matter was settled and an imaginative scheme was agreed upon. But, because the Coal Board suddenly found it did not need the coal which would be reclaimed, the cost has become exorbitant. Consequently, a worthwhile scheme is being lost.
  Something appears to be radically wrong. Are we to reach a situation where the Coal Board can sterilise a nasty, ugly and vicious tip because at the moment it does not want the coal? That approach could apply to many other similar tips throughout South Wales. My hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Roderick) urged that some consideration should be given to the abhorrences that receive grants. If the scheme to which I have referred was adopted without the Coal Board's help it would cost one half of the total amount of money which is coming to Wales for this sort of work. If a worthwhile scheme is not to be lost, is not it about time that the amount of available money was increased? I hope that the Minister will have another serious look at the problem which I have mentioned because the people of Rhondda are very concerned about the matter.
  6.38 p.m.
  The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Mr. David Gibson-Watt): I am glad to rise to answer this short but valuable debate. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Roderick) for initiating it. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) for underlining the importance of tourism. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. William Edwards) who spoke of the importance of the possible disposal of land which is surplus to British Rail's requirements. The hon. Gentleman said that some of the land is becoming an eyesore in Wales. Obviously I cannot comment further than to say that I have taken his message on board. I feel certain that what he has said will be read by those responsible.
  The hon. Member for Rhondda, East (Mr. G. Elfed Davies), as he rightly said, has had a number of meetings with his constituents and myself about the important and difficult question of the Banana Tip. It has been an extraordinarily baffling and difficult problem to answer. Nobody would have been happier than I to have sent him away with a helpful

  1423
  answer in view of all that he has done for his constituents and the councillors concerned, who are day to day faced with the complaints and protests of their constituents.
  The hon. Gentleman referred to the Coal Board's attitude. All that I shall say in defence of the Coal Board is that markets of various sorts change from day to day and the sort of coal which would have been coming from the Banana Tip is unfortunately in over-supply today. It is not merely a question of production; it is also a question of consumption of this type of fuel by the Central Electricity Generating Board. We shall continue to look at the matter and try to help, but it is very difficult.
  The Special Environmental Assistance Scheme, popularly called "Operation Eyesore", was launched by the Government in 1972. Its basic aim was to create more employment by carrying out minor schemes of environmental improvement. The invitation was extended to local authorities to submit schemes which, when approved, would attract central Government grant at the rate of 85 per cent. in the Welsh Development Area and 75 per cent. elsewhere in the Principality. This assistance was available in respect of work carried out before 30th June 1973. Basically it was intended to improve the appearance of neglected and unsightly land and to bring it into beneficial use.
  The scheme has been a resounding success. The reduction in the level of unemployment against the normal seasonal trends must in part be due to the success of the scheme. The expenditure and injection of £4 million by the Government and local government must have had its effect, not only in employment opportunities created by contractors or by men employed by local authorities on the various sites, but, to a minor extent, in the ancillary services producing such things as concrete pipes used in culverting streams and the maintenance of plant and machinery. It is clear therefore that some employment opportunities have been created.
  But equally important is the effect which the scheme is having on improving the environment. I want to give credit to the speed with which local authorities'
  1424
  members and officers have grasped this opportunity. I have served in local government myself, and I remember that we were pretty quick to move at a focal authority level if we considered that the Government were offering us money for a worthwhile object. Whether the schemes have been prepared by engineers, surveyors or planners of the various authorities, or whether by using the services of private consultants, it is remarkable that the derelict land unit of the Welsh Office has considered over 1,400 schemes in the last year.
  Undoubtedly the level of grant aid from the Government has made the scheme attractive to local authorities and it is seen as a joint partnership. The short term effect is considerable, but it is the long term benefits to our people in Wales and to their quality of life and living about which the Government are concerned. For too long parts of Wales have been despoiled and even where improvements have been made there is of course the problem of vandalism. Vandalism is not confined to the young. Adults who dump cars, mattresses, bedsteads and builders' rubble are vandals as well. This is a problem which can be overcome over the years only by a process of education in its widest sense.
  If people live in the shadows of colliery spoil tips or slate quarry wasters they deserve even more to have their local environment improved. By clearing the industrial dereliction, by the scheme of environmental improvement about which I am speaking, by the creation of general improvement areas and slum clearance areas under the housing Acts, together with the grants available for house improvements, then and only then will people become fully conscious that there is something to be safeguarded and nurtured.
  I have mentioned that over 1,400 schemes have already been approved and every part of the Principality has benefited. It is true to say that every constituency represented by Welsh Members has had a share. While the environment requires considerable uplift in the industrial areas, nevertheless rural centres have also been included within the scheme. When the scheme was introduced, it was clear that it would be impossible to produce a comprehensive list of work which would be eligible. We said that each

  1425
  case would be considered on its merits; but we gave certain examples of the kind of work that the scheme was intended to cover—clearing up untidy plots or bomb sites; cleaning and painting buildings where their existing condition was unsightly; clearing up disused allotments; the removal of debris from the beds of rivers or canals and the improvement of banks and towpaths; and, finally, the planting of trees to improve the appearance of drab and unsightly areas.
  While local authorities would probably have chosen to concentrate on properties in their own ownership, nevertheless, where land was privately owned or was part of a nationalised concern, providing the agreement of the owner was forthcoming the scheme could go forward. Where appropriate, a contribution from such private owners was sought where there was likely to be some significant benefit to them.
  The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor referred to the proposals for the North Breconshire and Radnorshire Water Board. As he said, I wrote to him about this matter on 19th January, and perhaps the House will bear with me if I quote what I said:
  "Grant aid for both the reclamation of derelict land and for Special Environmental Assistance Schemes is given only to local authorities, although that need not prevent statutory undertakings from benefiting from the schemes. If there are any instances where the Radnorshire and North Breconshire Water Board wish to take advantage of the assistance given under the schemes they can approach the District or County Council concerned, asking them to submit the proposals to the Welsh Office on the Board's behalf. It would, of course, he up to the Board to convince the local authority of the worth of the scheme because the local authority would have to bear 15 per cent. of the cost.
  Should the Board wish to discuss any specific proposals, I suggest that they contact my officials of the Derelict Land Unit who will be pleased to advise them."
  That advice still stands, and I am glad to be able to refer to it publicly in the House today.
  While all the examples I have given have been considered, many unusual projects were considered and accepted, such as the clearance of the scars resulting from war-time structures and the clearance and treatment of disused burial grounds and churchyards. I congratulate the various church authorities of all denominations which co-operated with
  1426
  the local authorities in these imaginative schemes. Let me pick out a few examples that may interest hon. Gentlemen.
  Towards the end of the year—and I see that the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. Probert) is in his place—a service of thanksgiving was held in St. John's Church, Aberdare, an area which is a focal point for the town. The original churchyard was cluttered with headstones and overgrown. But for a cost of some £5,000 the area has been transformed by the removal of the headstones to the boundary wall, which enabled the area to be landcaped, and seats for the general public were provided by the local authority. I believe that the inhabitants of Aberdare are overjoyed by this improvement.
  Another scheme which will show benefits over the years is the dredging and clearance of weeds in the Crumlin arm of the Monmouthshire Canal, which traverses the areas of Risca, Magor and St. Mellons and Newport Borough. About £70,000 will be spent on this.
  A highly imaginative scheme, drawn up by consultant landscape architects, briefed by Wrexham Rural District Council, to improve the situation in the parish of Cefn Mawr has cost £100,000 and consists of 90 minor schemes. The local residents were consulted in the type of improvement they required.
  At Haverfordwest, the river bank and surrounding areas of the Cleddau will benefit from a joint scheme submitted by the Pembrokeshire County Council and Haverfordwest Borough Council. Glamorgan County Council has been responsible, in an agency capacity on some schemes, for a large number of schemes throughout the county area and, as befits our major international airport, some worthwhile improvement has been made at Rhoose Airport.
  In Mid Wales, there have been improvements to the river walks in Brecon and Llanidloes and in Newton a scheme devised by the Newtown Development Corporation adjoining the River Severn improvement scheme will produce great benefits.
  Many Members and local authorities, stimulated by the Civic Trust, have written asking for an extension of the scheme, and this is presently being considered. I can say no more about this

  1427
  today. But at least this pressure underlies the success of the scheme and the impact it has already made upon the environment in such a short time. I repeat that I am grateful to the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor for raising this most important subject this afternoon.
  6.50 p.m.
  Mr. Elystan Morgan: I apologise to the Minister of State for speaking after him. It is in no way my intention to be censorious of anything he has said. I merely wish to mention two matters which I would have raised before he spoke had I myself not been tardy in rising.
  We are all indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Roderick) for introducing a subject which is of very considerable importance to Wales—one of the most beautiful places upon earth but a place which still bears thousands of scars inflicted on it by the exploitation of industry. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides accept that the work done from 1967 onwards in relation to dereliction is one of the most inspiring and satisfying records of successive Governments over the last six years.
  My first point relates to derelict stations, of which in Wales we have many hundreds, on railway lines which still provide passenger services. In some cases there are many of us who would say that there was no good case for such closure. On some lines one can discern a pattern of deliberate running down of the services over the years preceding the coup de grace when the Railways Board demonstrates to the transport users consultative committee that the station concerned is making a monumental loss. In some other cases many of us would have sympathy with the decision of the board to close stations many years ago. In so doing it was able very greatly to reduce the journey time and, indeed, to make that stretch of line more attractive.
  When these stations were closed the communities they served were very small and the contribution to railway finances was minimal. Now, perhaps 10 or 20 years after those closures, many of the communities have completely changed their character. There has been considerable
  1428
  development in the area. The fact that a small station—or even a large station—was closed years ago should not mean that it is a decision taken for all time.
  I ask the Minister to use his good offices to draw the attention of toe Board to many such cases—I have two or three in mind in the Aberystwyth-Shrewsbury area, where there are lines which at the moment very much wish to increase their passenger turnover. Let the board know that there is a splendid opportunity to do this by reopening certain stations where there has been considerable growth in those communities and where there is now great potential of good will to he exploited if they were to become active again.
  My second point is a purely constituency matter. One does not think of Cardiganshire as being an area that bears many of the scars of dereliction that have been mentioned in the debate, but I refer now particularly to the dereliction we suffer as a result of lead mining up to about 30 or 40 years ago. The Minister of State will know that on many occasions I have raised the subject of the poisoning of two very important rivers, the Ystwyth and the Rheidol. There have been many splendid pioneering developments over the last 20 or 30 years to make these living rivers once again and to combat the pollution from lead and zinc poisoning which have bedevilled them over the years. Some of that poisoning still flows into the rivers from the flooding of the mine adits.
  I should be very grateful if the Welsh Office would use its good offices, with other Government Departments to give advice to the appropriate bodies, and see whether there is any assistance which local authorities in the area can give to help combat what is admittedly a small in scale but nevertheless a very pertinent consideration of pollution in relation to a county which at the moment happily does not face the problems which so many hon. Members have mentioned.
  Mr. Gibson-Watt: The hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Elystan Morgan) has raised two very important points. I must point out that to some extent this debate is limited to Class VI, Vote 4, F 4(4), though this in no way diminishes the

  1429
  importance of what lie has said. On the railway point, I can only refer to what I said to his hon. Friend the Member for Merioneth (Mr. William Edwards). On the hon. Gentleman's second point, I can only say that if there is any specific and serious matter in relation to this very difficult question of lead poisoning of rivers, I shall be happy to pursue it if he takes it up in correspondence.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE (ATTENDANCE ALLOWANCE)
  6.55 p.m.
  Mr. Greville Janner: I am happy to have this opportunity to raise the subject of the procedure and practice of the Attendance Allowance Board in the light of a decision of the Chief Commissioner of National Insurance concerning Jimmy Martin, a young lad in my constituency born with no legs and with only one arm, whose case is in its own way a test case potentially involving 30,000 or more families In many cases the youngsters concerned are considerably worse off than Jimmy. In many cases they are mongols, youngsters who are mentally disabled, and sometimes the physical disablement is worse.
  We have here a case that has gone on a most erratic and strange course in the past year, and the parents concerned are still being prevented from obtaining any allowance whatever in respect of the considerable disablement of their son I am concerned not merely for those parents, nor, indeed, only for the 30,000 or so families who have suffered in the same way by not getting an allowance at present; I am also concerned for all those who have to appear in due course before the commissioner but who are prevented from appearing before the board.
  I am concerned with the system of justice which allows a secret consideration of a matter which can affect the entire future of a child and his family. I am concerned with a secret hearing where there is no right of appeal on or any decision on fact which is arrived at at that secret hearing. I consider, and I shall suggest, that the procedure is not only intolerable, and always has been,
  1430
  but is disgraceful in view of the decision of the Chief Commissioner of National Insurance who questioned whether the entire procedure was not contrary to natural justice.
  I should not have raised the matter here had I not received a letter from the board in which it has completely ignored the reference in the Chief Commissioner's decision to the rules of natural justice; and a letter from the Minister himself who likewise has seen fit totally to ignore this devastating criticism by the Chief Commissioner of the procedures of this tribunal.
  I also raise the matter because the whole question of these procedures and the moneys to be spent on them is vital at the present time. We can draw a very clear and important comparison with other procedures. There is, for example, the procedure of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board which recently, in a private hearing, saw fit to award the parents of a child who was killed the sum of £60, there being no right of appeal of any sort.
  By way, perhaps, of contrast there is the hearing in a certain bankruptcy matter which has been of grave concern in the House and in the country where there is no right of appearance on behalf of people whose good names are defamed in a place where privilege applies. I shall in due course suggest that not only should the procedures of the Attendance Allowance Board be totally overhauled but that the procedures of tribunals such as bankruptcy tribunals dealing with public hearings in general should follow in the same train.
  I am concerned, first, with a curious Vote. In 1971–72 the sum of £570,000 was voted for this board. It seems a strange arrangement that in 1972–73 this figure dropped to £100,000. Why? In the present Estimates it has gone up again from £100,000 to £550,000. I should have thought that that increase would have allowed for the appointment of sufficient members to the board for oral hearings to take place at the request of applicants. It would be a rare request, but it would enable precedents to be established and arguments to be heard.
  It was a strange fact, referred to by the Chief Commissioner of National

  1431
  Insurance in open court, that my appearance before him was the first occasion on which counsel had argued an appeal on behalf of an applicant regarding the extremely complicated legal interpretation of the statute. He took a day over the hearing. He reserved his decision for about seven weeks, and the decision, if I may say so with the greatest respect, is a model. It is disgraceful that the criticisms that he levelled against the lack of natural justice in the procedures of the board should be ignored, both by the board in its letter—and, presumably, in its future actions—and by the Minister in his reply.
  I should like to preface what I have to say with two matters. The first is that this debate is not intended in any way to be an attack on the members of the board personally. So far as I can see, the few members who sit on it have imposed upon them grave difficulties both in doing justice and in enabling justice manifestly to be seen to be done. It is a basic principle of our courts, and it should be a principle of our tribunals, that justice should not only be done but that people should feel that they are getting justice.
  It is plain from the Minister's letter that the members of the board can scarcely cope with the work that they have to do. I am glad that we are voting more money. I hope that there will be more people to do this work and that they will at least be able to listen to arguments, which apparently they are not prepared to do now.
  I first questioned the procedures of the board in October last year. I thought that it was a proper matter for the Government to deal with. I received from the Minister a letter dated 11th October, in which he said:
  "I have noted your concern that there is no provision for representation before the Attendance Allowance Board in connection with the review of cases. As I have already explained this is, in the first instance, a matter for the Board and I am advised that, in the light of the tasks placed upon the Board by Parliament, both in the 1970 Act and in the 1972 Act, they believe their present procedures are the right ones."
  Is that belief still held? I ask the Minister whether in the light of the criticisms of the Chief Commissioner, that belief
  1432
  is still held by the board and, secondly, whether it is held by him.
  The Minister said in his letter:
  "they believe their present procedures are the right ones. Although, as you say, there is no appeal on points of fact, you are, of course, aware that on review copies of all the documents to be placed before the Board are sent to the claimant or his representative for any comment they wish to make."
  I spent a whole day arguing before the commissioner. One cannot put that kind of argument into a document. It is impossible for a person who is doing the job on a professional basis to do it in that way, and it is doubly impossible for a Member of Parliament who is appearing on behalf of a constituent in that capacity. It cannot be done. Arguments cannot be made in a document. One cannot, in a document, answer all the questions that arise.
  My second preface is that I appreciate that the Minister himself is deeply concerned with the needs of disabled people. I hope that he will not regard my criticism of the procedures of the board as personal criticism of him. I am sure that had he the means at his disposal, and were he solely responsible for what was done, the position would be different. But, having seen fit to assume the cloak of responsibility he must accept that responsibility. If he is going to don the wig of justice in this matter, it is for him to see that justice is done and that the procedures of the board which he controls are fair and in accordance with natural justice, which quite clearly at present they are not.
  I now turn to the decision with which we are primarily concerned. It is the decision of the Chief Commissioner of National Insurance, No. 10/72 and given after an oral hearing. It is signed "R. G. Micklethwait, Chief Commissioner". I make no apology for taking substantial quotes from this decision, because the debate is about the decision and about the lack of action by the Government or by the Attendance Allowance Board arising from this—a lack of action which, I repeat, affects many thousands of families in this country.
  He said:
  "My decision is that the claimant's application for leave to appeal against the Attendance Allowance Board's decision dated 31st May 1972 ("the Board's decision") is granted, and

  1433
  that the Board's decision is erroneous in point of law and is set aside.
  In December 1963 the claimant gave birth to a son, to whom I will refer simply as James, who unfortunately was and is seriously deformed in three of his four limbs. Paragraph 5 of the Board's decision (paragraph 10 below) contains their findings of fact as to his condition. His left arm is normal. He is mentally normal. He can read, and he can write with his left hand. He goes to an ordinary school and not a special one."
  I pay tribute to the parents for having brought about the situation that this boy, with this kind of disablement, can lead that kind of normal life. It is a tremendous achievement on their part and on the part of Jimmy.
  The decision continues:
  "Down to a point this case took the course with which we have become familiar in many other cases. The claimant made a claim for an attendance allowance on form DS 2C after reading leaflet NI 182 as directed by that form. A report dated 29th October 1971"—
  which is many moons ago—
  "on form DS 4C was obtained from the family doctor. On 2nd November 1971 a delegate of the Board decided that neither of the medical conditions in section 4(2) of the 1970 Act (below) was satisfied. The claimant wrote two letters objecting to the decision. A further medical report on form DS 4C(R) dated 12th December 1971 was obtained from another medical practitioner a member of the medical boarding panel. On 28th December 1971 the controller of the Attendance Allowance Unit at Blackpool wrote telling the claimant that the decision made by the Attendance Allowance Board was to be put before the Board with certain documents and inviting observations. The claimant submitted her observations in a letter dated 30th December 1971. On 3rd January 1972 another delegate decided that the decision of 2nd November 1971 was not to be revised. Down to this point the procedure was the same as in many other cases.
  The claimant was and is a constituent of"—
  and he refers to me—
  "who was good enough to take an interest in her case, and arranged for the claimant, her husband, James and Mr. Janner himself to call upon the Secretary of State for Social Services in London. The visit took place on 14th March 1972. On 17th March 1972 the Secretary of State personally wrote to the chairman of the Board requesing the Board to review the decisions of 2nd November 1971 and 3rd January 1972 under section 6(3)(a) and 6(3)(b) of the 1970 Act respectively. On 11th April a letter was written on behalf of the Board informing the claimant that the papers had been considered by the Board on 22nd March, that they noted that there had been two previous medical reports, and that they did not as matters stood themselves wish to obtain a further report. If, however, the claimant had any
  1434
  additional information she was invited to submit it. A copy of the letter was sent to Mr. Janner, who replied on 17th April 1972.
  On 31st May 1972 the Board of nine members presided over by the chairman decided that the determinations of 3rd January 1972 and 2nd November 1971 were not to be revised. The result of course was that all that the claimant got was the same decision but with differently expressed reasons. The claimant applied for leave to appeal to the Commissioner on two grounds: that the Board's decision was erroneous in point of law in that they had failed to hold that on the proper interpretation of section 4(2) as modified by regulation 7(4) (below) James required (a) prolonged or repeated attention during the night or (b) continual supervision from another person in order to avoid substantial danger to himself.
  At the hearing before me Mr. Janner, who represented the claimant in his capicity as an MP, was without objection granted leave to add a third ground, namely that the review decision did not contain reasons sufficient to comply with regulation 14(2) (below).
  The application clearly raises arguable points of law and I therefore grant it."
  It is extraordinary that nine members of the board, headed by the chairman, could come to a decision on those complicated points of law without having had the opportunity of having the law argued before them. Argument on points of law is not arranged for the benefit of the people involved in the proceedings. It is to assist the court, the tribunal or the board to come to a fair and just decision. A board that shuts itself off from hearing legal argument on behalf of a claimant does one of two things; either it hears no legal argument—and we do not know whether the board heard any—or it hears legal argument on behalf of the Department only and not on behalf of the claimant, which is manifestly grossly unjust. Did the board of nine members, headed by the chairman, decide against the family with or without hearing legal submissions? If they heard legal submissions, on whose behalf were those submissions made? They were not made on behalf of the parents of Jimmy Martin. Does not the Minister consider that to be contrary to natural justice?
  The Chief Commissioner, having granted the application, proceeded to deal with it as an appeal. He then set out details of the relevant regulations and portions of the statute, which I shall not detain the House by reading. He said:
  "Briefly the effect of these provisions is as follows. Although an attendance allowance is an additional benefit under the National

  1435
  Insurance Act 1965, any question whether a person satisfies either of the two conditions, to which I will refer as 'the medical conditions', under section 4(2)(a) and 4(2)(b) respectively, is for decision not by the insurance officer or the local tribunal with an appeal on fact as well as law to a National Insurance Commissioner ('the statutory authorities') under sections 67 to 70 of the 1965 Act, but by the Board, who have power to delegate any of their functions in respect of a case to one or more medical practitioners (section 5(6) of the 1970 Act) referred to as delegates (section 6(5)). The Board or a delegate have power to review their decisions (section 6(3)). The claimant and the Secretary of State must be notified in writing of a review decision and the reasons for it (regulation 14(2)). The only right of appeal to a Commissioner is, with leave, against a review decision and only on any question of law arising on such a decision."
  My second question to the Minister is this: does he consider that it is just for the family of a disabled child to have a decision made by a secret, private discussion at which not only are the family prevented from being present but at which no representation is permitted? [Interruption.] The Minister said something. I will gladly give way.
  Let us take the points in turn. It is a secret discussion by which I mean one at which the public, the Press and the people concerned are not entitled to be present. It is a private one, at which the person concerned cannot be present, nor can his representatives. It can affect the entire future of a family, deciding whether they can look after their child at home in many cases or whether he must be put into an institution, probably at a cost to the country four or five times that of looking after him at home.
  In addition, there is no right of appeal. Can the Minister conceivably say that it is in accordance with natural justice to have that sort of decision made in that way without a right of appeal? The time has come for justice to be moved out from these private boards and into the light of day.
  The Chief Commissioner continued:
  "Where the disabled person in respect of whom a claim is made is a child under 16 each of the two medical conditions in section 4(2)(a) and 4(2)(b) has additional words added to it by the regulations."
  He then set out what those are.
  I move forward now to paragraph 13 of the decision:
  "In considering this"—
  1436
  the review—
  "it is important to remember that the Commissioner's functions are limited. An attendance allowance being a benefit under the National Insurance Act 1965, the actual award or refusal to award the allowance is made by the statutory authorities; there is a right of appeal against such a decision on any ground to a Commissioner. But the question whether either of the medical conditions is satisfied is for decision by the Board or their delegate, whose decision is binding on the statutory authorities."
  The commissioner has no right to interfere. In a case such as the one we are considering, in which there is a conflict of evidence betwen two doctors and no right to cross-examine, that is a travesty of justice.
  He continued:
  "And an appeal against a decision of the Board or its delegate on the medical conditions lies only against a determination on review on any question of law; there is no appeal on the facts. Parliament has entrusted the decision of the medical questions to a single central medical authority, whose delegates for the purposes of determination under section 5(6) must be medical practitioners and must act in accordance with any directions of the Board. Obviously one of the purposes is to secure so far as possible uniformity and fairness of treatment as between the extremely numerous claimants throughout Great Britain. Against this background it would be most unfortunate if the Commissioner, in the guise of deciding questions of law, were in truth substituting his own layman's opinion on the facts or the medical inferences to be drawn from them."
  He cannot hear evidence of fact, he cannot hear the doctors, he cannot hear cross-examination of the doctors. The board can, but it does not. It most certainly should.
  The Chief Commissioner continued:
  "This makes it particularly important to recognise both the limits beyond which the Commissioner has no power to act and the tests to be applied in deciding whether a decision of a question is erroneous in point of law."
  He then set out the tests, which include the test that the decision was contrary to natural justice.
  He next dealt in detail with the evidence as it appeared from the various documents before him, in its utterly unsatisfactory form, and then said, in paragraph 21:
  "I express no opinion on the question whether the Board or their delegates, who have not clinically examined the disabled person, are entitled to record a finding of primary

  1437
  fact which is contrary to all the evidence and supported by none."
  What is the Minister's comment on that?
  In paragraph 25 he said that
  "Both doctors, however, reported that he could unaided get into and out of bed. One reported that he could get into and out of the bath and the other that he could not. There was therefore a conflict of evidence: on those points they disagreed with each other or with the claimant.
  The importance of the claimant's own evidence is apparent if one asks oneself what would have happened if after dark James had been left unsupervised with nobody in the house. If he woke up or half woke up and wanted to use the toilet and got no answer when he shouted, he might well try to get there himself and get stranded out of bed in the dark unable to turn on a light, unable to open the door and unable to get back safely into bed. It is no answer to say that there is no evidence that that had ever happened. If it had not, was not the reason that the supervision had always been provided?"
  The child had never been left alone since his birth.
  In paragraph 30 the Chief Commissioner said:
  "Having fully considered the matter my conclusion is that the reasons given by the Board are seriously inadequate and do not comply with regulation 14(2). The claimant and Mr. Janner cannot tell from them whether the Board accepted or rejected her evidence in whole or in part nor indeed whether they accepted all the opinions of either and if so which of the two doctors".
  What an indictment of a nine-man board presided over by the chairman!
  "She cannot tell what further evidence she needs to obtain if she wishes to seek a further review. On this ground the decision must he held to be erroneous in point of law and set aside"
  We now continue with the portion which has so far been ignored but which, after this debate, will be ignored no longer:
  "If I had taken a different view on this I should have thought it right to raise the question whether this decision and the precedure leading to it comply with the rules of natural justice. In paragraph 9 of Decision CA 8/72 (not reported) I drew attention to the immense difficulty facing the Board in deciding a case of this type without a hearing of any sort on the facts; to which one might add also without any form of oral legal argument."
  The Commissioner decided that to submit a person to this sort of tribunal without any form of hearing on the facts and without any oral argument on the law was, in his view, questionable from the standpoint of complying with the rules of natural justice.
  1438
  What is the Minister's view? Does he consider that it does comply with the rules of natural justice? If he does not, what does he propose to do about it? The only answer we have had so far from either the board or the Minister is that any changes which they propose will be in the forms which people are given.
  The Chief Commissioner then criticises the way in which the forms were set out, and this, I understand, has been changed. In paragraph 33 he says:
  "In the special circumstances of this case I express no opinion on the question by whom and in what manner the claimant's case should be considered afresh, by or on behalf of the Board, who under Section 5(6) have power to delegate their functions to one or more medical practitioners. The claimant and Mr. Janner should, however, be given every opportunity of submitting further evidence."
  I have asked for, and been refused, the opportunity to submit oral evidence. In view of this decision, how can the Minister possibly support that? The Chief Commissioner has ruled that my constituent and I should be given every opportunity of submitting further evidence—not the opportunity to submit written evidence, if we see fit and at the claimant's expense for that is what it would be. There is no provision made for the claimant in this respect. We have been refused even a medical examination at public expense. But we are told that we may submit written evidence, if we wish, at the claimant's expense.
  Is that "every opportunity"? This matter goes beyond consideration of an individual case. The board will come back to it, and I shall fight the case, however many years it may take before we win it. But what matters here is not this case but every case. The Chief Commissioner has said that this is an example in which the procedure is contrary to natural justice, but the Minister and the board say, "We shall just change the forms". I remind the hon. Gentleman again that the Chief Commissioner said that every opportunity should be given to submit further evidence, but he and the board are refusing to allow it.
  There is here not only a manifest refusal to make the changes which should be made, but there is an utterly intolerable situation, and it is in the hands of either the board or the Minister to correct it. According to the Minister's letter which I have already quoted, the initial decision

  1439
  is for the board. But that applies only to the initial decision. The responsibility lies with the Minister.
  I come now to the letters. I have raised many of these questions by correspondence because one hopes to deal with the matter in that way, and one can never count on the good fortune of an opportunity to raise such issues on the Consolidated Fund. I received a reply dated 19th January from the secretary to Attendance Allowance Board:
  "Dear Sir, I have, as promised, placed your letter of 18th December to me before the Board. They have directed me to reply to your points in the following terms:
  "The Board regret that they are unable to accept your application for an oral hearing when the further review comes before them. In this connection they have failed to find in the Chief Commissioner's decision any adverse criticism of their failure to hold an oral hearing in this case".
  Good gracious! I refer once again—I cannot put it to the board because I am not allowed to do so, so I do it here—to the statement of the Chief Commissioner that I should be given every opportunity of submitting further evidence—which is refused—and to his further statement questioning whether the procedure, without any sort of hearing on the facts and without any form of oral legal argument, complied with the rules of natural justice.
  Is that not a most serious criticism? Yet the letter from the secretary tells me that he has been instructed by the board to say that
  "they have failed to find…any adverse criticism of their failure to hold an oral hearing".
  I do not suppose that the board had read the Chief Commissioner's report, which in itself is a great pity. If the members of the board are so overburdened that they cannot read even a report of this kind, their number should be increased forthwith, and they should be asked at least to read it. Surely, the Minister must accept that that statement in the letter, that the board could find no adverse criticism, was quite unreasonable. The letter continues:
  "They wish me to point out that they would regard it as quite unfair to the generality of claimants if they were to grant an oral
  1440
  hearing exceptionally in one case when they are unable to provide such hearings for all applicants for review who so desired."
  Has there been any other such case? Has anyone ever asked for it? If others have applied, how many? I should be surprised if, by the pure freak of fate that this family happens to have a Member of Parliament who happens to be a lawyer and who is interested in these matters, there has been no other occasion when the Chief Commissioner has had a lawyer appear before him on behalf of a claimant, when an appeal has been allowed, and it has been referred back. However, to the best of my knowledge, there has been no such case, and I want to know.
  Mr. William Wilson: I assure my hon. Friend that there is another Member of Parliament, also a lawyer, who is at this moment in the pipeline hoping to secure an oral hearing.
  Mr. Janner: I thank my hon. Friend, and I assure him that the support of another hon. Member tonight gives me great confidence. Up to now, I seem to have faced a totally blank wall, and I trust that, when it is known that this matter is of deep concern to many of us, we shall succeed in getting somewhere. Incidentally, I should add that I know that the issue is not regarded in this House as in any sense one of party politics. There are many hon. Members on both sides, deeply concerned, who feel seriously frustrated in their efforts to help constituents and who regard the treatment of their constituents by the Attendance Allowance Board as quite shocking. There are others in the pipeline who have been good enough to approach me on the matter, and I know of several cases which are coming up.
  This will certainly not be the last that the Minister hears of it. There will not be just the Jimmy Martin case. The pipeline is long, and it will not end when some claimants receive two-thirds of the allowance. That is a welcome step, but it is only a step. At present, these people get nothing. We hope that they will get two-thirds, but there is no assurance yet even of that.
  The letter continues:
  "It seems to them that in making statutory provision for the Board and their system of adjudication a choice had first been made. One possibility would have been to set up

  1441
  medical boards throughout the country to make initial decisions with a right of appeal to various medical appeal tribunals, much as is done in the Industrial Injuries Scheme, with an express right to appear before the boards or tribunals and to make oral representations. If the choice had fallen on this system it would seem that, in view of the limited medical manpower available, it would have been necessary to proceed very much more slowly with the introduction of the allowance, taking on much smaller categories over a much longer period."
  I pause there to say that, in my view, where there is so much involved for so many families, we should put more resources into it. I am glad that we have a Supplementary Estimate. There should have been a great deal more.
  The secretary refers in his letter to the fact that
  "the Board and their delegates have dealt with over 170,000 applications for the allowance and 26,000 applications for review since claims were first invited some 18 months ago."
  I repeat that the members of the board have my sympathy in this matter. They should have the Minister's help.
  The letter goes on:
  "It is, of course, open to Mrs. Martin or to you yourself to submit, in writing, medical or other evidence."
  Very kind! He goes on:
  "The Board are advised that they have no power to pay for medical evidence produced by a claimant".
  The effect of that is. "If you want a consultant on your side, the Martins must pay". Mr. Martin is a lorry driver, of modest means—a tremendously good and kind man but in no position to pay for that, any more than he would have been in a position to pay for his own legal representation had that arisen, which, happily, it did not. The letter continues:
  "In the particular circumstances of this case, however, they propose to obtain a medical report from a consultant."
  So there is to be one for the board, whose procedure and decision has already been severely criticised, but I shall not have the right to cross-examine that consultant or to call another in opposition to his evidence.
  Does the Minister regard that as in accordance with natural justice? Or, if the board decides against, are we to go back again to the Chief Commissioner and say yet again that there is a lack of natural justice and that there has been
  1442
  a refusal to grant elementary rights which his decision said should exist? The secretary continues
  "I shall, however, be writing to you again about this including particulars of the arrangements to be made for Jimmy to be examined by the consultant."
  That is a matter of courtesy, as one would expect. It goes on
  "The Board are not aware of any undue delay either on their part or on the part of the Department of Health and Social Security."
  After all, this has only been going on for 16 months. The boy will be grown up before his case is finished.
  "Revised versions of the Board's medical report forms came into use in August 1972 and the Board keep the forms under review in the light of comment and experience."
  The secretary then says that a copy of the letter has been sent to the Department of Health and Social Security. In other words we have nothing—no early hearing, no right to submit oral evidence, no right to obtain evidence at public expense.
  Finally, in a letter to me dated 22nd January the Minister says that he has seen a copy of the letter sent to me by the Secretary of the Attendance Allowance Board in reply to my letter of 18th December. If there are additional parts of the letter which the Minister would wish me to read out I should be glad to do so. I shall read only those parts which I consider to be relevant. He says:
  "We have, we believe managed to recruit just about enough people to deal with the extension using the sort of system that has been operating over the last 18 months but I feel sure that, if we were obliged to change over to the sort of system of oral hearings used under the Industrial Injuries Scheme, we should simply not be able to find enough suitable people to enable us to proceed with the extension at anything like the rate at which we are aiming—and which we all feel is desirable."
  In other words, there will not be enough staff. But if the Government find the money—and I have no doubt that hon. Members on both sides would be pleased to vote money for this purpose in much larger quantities—they will find the people to staff a tribunal or board of this sort. There must be many who would be willing to staff it on a voluntary basis. The Minister says:
  "I do want to emphasise that even with valiant efforts the Board have had difficulty in getting through the work with the existing system."

  1443
  I fully accept that. I demand that the system be changed. It is manifestly unjust. He continues:
  "the Chief Commissioner has, of course, decided that the Board's decision did not comply with the requirement to give reasons, contained in Regulation 14(2) of the Attendance Allowance Regulations, with the result that they are required to give a further decision on review. Subject to this, however, it does not appear to me that it follows from the Chief Commissioner's decision that in this case the Board erred in law in any other respect. If the Board were to decide to maintain the original decision and the Martins were then still dissatisfied it would again be open to them to appeal on a question of law to the National Insurance Commissioner."
  I say "Thank you for nothing." That is not the way matters concerning the future of a family and the welfare, not of one disabled child but of 30,000, should be dealt with when they have to go back and forward like a yo-yo every time. That is the evidence. The question now is: what is the Minister proposing to do about it? What answer will he give, if there is one, to the criticisms made by the Chief Commissioner? Is he proposing to change the procedure? If not, why not?
  Does he not consider that this is symptomatic of a much wider malaise affecting other tribunals and the court decision? Does he not see in the flood of decisions which have come not only from the board but from others a demand for open, non-secret justice? Does he not see that what applies here applies to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board with its lack of right of appeal? Does he not see that justice should be open and that the people should have the right to appear and to argue their case whether it is before the Attendance Allowance Board or whether it is someone who is involved willy-nilly, by statements made by witnesses or by lawyers in a bankruptcy hearing?
  Does the Minister not feel that the entire system needs review? Is he not prepared to give some hope that this is being done? Does he not feel that there has been a mistake which would not have been made had there been proper legal arguments before the people concerned? There has been no representation provided by legal aid on behalf of the people most intimately concerned. There has been at last, after months of battling, a decision overruling the repeated
  1444
  refusals of the Attendance Allowance Board to grant an allowance to this embattled family and there have been criticisms by the commissioner which have not been answered. The Commissioner has required that every facility and every right should be given to Mrs. Martin and to me on her behalf to present further evidence. None of these requirements has been complied with. What possible answer can the Minister give to that?
  7.35 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Paul Dean): I am grateful for this opportunity to speak about the Attendance Allowance Board and the procedures it adopts. I profoundly regret the extravagant language that the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Greville Janner) has felt it appropriate to use, the unfairness of his language about the Attendance Allowance Board and the way in which he has picked out certain parts of the Chief Commissioner's judgment and distorted them.
  Mr. Greville Janner: That is a most unfortunate accusation——
  Mr. Dean: I do not wish to give way. The hon. and learned Member has spoken. Perhaps he will now allow me to deal with the points he has raised.
  The new allowance started just over a year ago, and three things stand out clearly from experience. The first is the value of the allowance in helping disabled people who need a lot of attention and care day and night, and who need this attention and care from their own families, to provide it. Second is the need to extend the allowance as quickly as possible to cover those whose need for attention is great although not as great as to meet the stringent test deliberately set to get the allowance to those in most urgent need. Third is the enthusiasm and dedication of the board and its staff, both medical and lay, who have got this new allowance to so many people so quickly.
  The allowance is now at the rate of £5·40 tax free and non-means tested, and is being paid to more than 82,000 people. The amount being paid out is at the rate of £23 million a year. By the end of 1974 the figure will have increased to £70 million a year. The attendance allowance is different from the other social service

  1445
  benefits, and its procedures and adjudication are designed to fit the requirements and to be able very quickly to set the standards to be applied. It was, therefore, decided that responsibility should lie with a new central body.
  The Attendance Allowance Board consists in the main of experienced medical practitioners. That body clearly could not cope with all the claims expected. The maximum membership is 10, and nine have been appointed, including the chairman. It has been empowered to delegate its functions to medical practitioners in individual cases. The board having been set up, it was not possible to think in terms of a higher medical appeal body, and in place of the more usual right of appeal there has been right from the start a system of reviews. This review system is not uncommon in the rest of national insurance, as the hon. and learned Gentleman will know, but it is much wider here than the usual right of review. The usual right of review is limited to ignorance of a material act, a mistake as to a material fact, or a relevant change of circumstances.
  People who are dissatisfied with a decision about the attendance allowance may have a review on any ground within a period of three months. As the hon. and learned Gentleman knows from his own experience in this and in other cases on which we have corresponded, this review introduces an element of flexibility—the possibility of going over the case again—such as does not exist in the normal adjudication procedure which applies to the national insurance scheme, family allowance arrangements, and the like. The hon. and learned Gentleman has given nothing like enough credit to the flexibility provided in the review procedure.
  If there were to be reasonably even standards of adjudication in what, after all, is a new allowance, a pioneering allowance, it seemed clear that responsibility for making decisions should be limited to a relatively small number of doctors. For information about a disabled person they need to seek reports from other doctors. In fact, the co-operation of all 23,000 general practitioners in Britain was sought in order to get the scheme launched. It is the family doctor
  1446
  who is first asked to visit and to complete the report form. The delegate of the board or the board itself decides on the basis of the information in his report and any other information given by the claimant. In order to complete an adequate form, the doctor has to see the disabled person and ask questions about his needs, and it is often necessary for these questions to be put to whomsoever is providing the care; certainly that is true in the instance of children.
  If the claimant is dissatisfied with the first decision, he may ask for a review. A different doctor is asked to visit and complete a report. From the start, these reports have included a statement made by the claimant to the doctor and signed by him. These statements are now also included in initial reports.
  Equally, in order to complete the report the doctor needs to question the disabled person and those looking after him. Thus, following a review, the disabled person—or his attendants—has had the opportunity to express his needs and to discuss them with at least two doctors, in most cases in his own home. There is nothing remotely impersonal about this, and to describe this careful procedure as being contrary to natural justice and secret is a distortion of the way in which the procedure in fact works.
  Furthermore if people are dissatisfied with the initial decision they are told that they may present evidence from other people if they are thinking of applying for a review. If the board or delegated medical practitioner dealing with the review is unable to decide in the claimant's favour, copies of all the documents are sent to him to enable him to comment. This is the way in which the system has worked effectively and fairly over the initial stages.
  In the first 18 months of the scheme some 160,000 claims have been dealt with and some 25,000 applications have been reviewed. In defending the procedures of the board and the work it has been able to do in a comparatively short time I am not for a moment suggesting that the system cannot be improved or that we cannot all learn from experience. Indeed, we certainly can, and we are doing so. Improvements have already been made in the light of experience, including comments received. Notices of

  1447
  rejection have been altered; leaflets have been re-drafted; and medical report forms redesigned and expanded. Procedures are being kept under review all the time, and particular attention is now being paid to the implications of the Chief Commissioner's comments that when documents are sent out claimants should be given an idea of the way in which the decision, as currently conceived, is going. In other words, there is an intention, being implemented in practice, to learn from experience and to improve procedures in the light of that experience.
  The hon. and learned Gentleman spent a good deal of time referring to what he regarded as the need for oral hearings. I hope that what I have already said has clearly conveyed that within this procedure there are many opportunities at all stages for the views of all who are interested and all who are knowledgeable to be fully heard, to be fully recorded and to be studied even in the homes of the claimants by at least two qualified doctors in those instances where there is a review. That is a valuable safeguard in the interests of natural justice for those concerned.
  With his legal training and, no doubt, his familiarity with the procedures of the courts, the hon. and learned Gentleman is concerned about oral hearings. The board is in no position to grant oral hearings. The original concept of quickly getting reasonably even standards of decision-making by a relatively small cadre of doctors working under the direction of the board would be lost. This is immensely important. One of the criticisms of the scheme to begin with was that there were uneven standards over the country. If we are to avoid having uneven standards and injustice in that way, it is important, particularly in early days, to have at least some decisions concentrated so that we may iron out the difficulties that would otherwise arise.
  Equally, the extra medical manpower that would be needed is not available. The hon. and learned Gentleman said that he was sure that Parliament would provide more money so that his suggested new procedures could be put into operation. Surely he realises that the chief bottlenecks in speeding up procedures and in getting the allowance to those entitled to it under the extension is the
  1448
  shortage of medical manpower which is required not only for the attendance allowance board but for all other medical tasks.
  It is no answer for the hon. and learned Gentleman to say that all we have to do is to provide more money and we shall suddenly have vast numbers of doctors, who are now unemployed, or tucked away somewhere, longing to come forward to do this job. It is nothing like as easy as he has made out. We have scoured the country to find more doctors. We have been successful in recruiting some, but there are distinct limits to the numbers who may be made available. When they have been made available, they have had to become familiar with the processes involved in order that the right decisions may be made.
  Claims for the new lower rate of allowance of £3·60 are now being taken. This will place an even greater strain on the manpower resources available, particularly the medical manpower. It is expected that anything up to 500,000 claims may be received and that another 250,000 people will be receiving an allowance at the end of the day. The board has had difficulty enough getting through its work over the last 18 months and the task will be even greater in the next two years. To move away from the present system of adjudication to a system of oral hearings would be unfortunate for thousands of disabled people. It would mean that they would have to wait longer for an allowance than under the present system. While we have probably 250,000 people waiting for the allowance, the first priority must be the maximum speed consistent with fair and efficient administration.
  Mr. Greville Janner: Fair.
  Mr. Dean: Consistent with fair and efficient administration.
  Against that general background, I turn to some of the detailed points which the hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned with regard to the Chief Commissioner's decision. I have explained already that this is an important decision which is being considered carefully by the Attendance Allowance Board, which has primary responsibility in these matters for

  1449
  its procedures, and it is also being considered by the Government. I have mentioned the changes which have been made already as a result of the suggestions which there were there, but, in view of the sum of the comments of the hon. and learned Gentleman, it is important to spend a few moments dealing with what that decision actually said.
  Before doing so, let me deal with two specific points put to me by the hon. and learned Gentleman. First, in the case in which he is interested the board decided on the evidence before it, copies of which were sent to the hon. and learned Gentleman and to Mrs. Martin, and on nothing else. I am assured that there was no legal submission or argument, secret or otherwise. The board decided solely on the evidence.
  The sole ground on which the Chief Commissioner set aside the decision of the board was that the reason given for its decision was seriously inadequate and did not comply with Regulation 14(2) of the National Insurance (Attendance Allowance) Regulations 1971.
  In paragraph 22 of his decision, the Chief Commissioner said that he was not prepared to hold the board's decision to be erroneous in point of law on the ground that there was no evidence to support it.
  In paragraph 21 the Chief Commissioner referred to the board or its delegates drawing on their expert experience being entitled not merely to supplement but even to contradict any evidence of opinions before them.
  The hon. and learned Gentleman quoted paragraph 31, and went on to say that the Chief Commissioner said that the procedure was contrary to natural justice——
  Mr. Greville Janner: With respect, in view of the fact that the hon. Gentleman has referred quite unfairly to distortion because I did not read the report from beginning to end, it is fair to say that I made it plain many times that what the Chief Commissioner said was that in any event he would have questioned whether this was not contrary to the rules of natural justice. This is what he said.
  Mr. Dean: It was the hon. and learned Gentleman himself who said that it was
  1450
  contrary to natural justice. As he has said, the Chief Commissioner did not. In paragraph 31 he said that if he had taken a different view on the adequacy of the reasons he would have thought it right to raise the question whether the decision and the procedure leading to it complied with the rules of natural justice.
  Folic-wing a reference to oral hearings, the Chief Commissioner referred to leaflet NI.I 82, which contains the paragraph:
  "Once the claim has been made there is nothing more to do. The claim will be acknowledged, and the Department will arrange for any necessary medical examination to be carried out."
  The Chief Commissioner referred to this helpful approach as placing a heavy responsibility on the Department or on the board. The leaflets relating to adults have been reprinted and reference to there being nothing more to do has been taken out. The paragraph now reads:
  "Once the claim has been made the Department will acknowledge it and will arrange for a medical examination to be carried out, usually by the disabled person's own doctor."
  There was also a reference to the need to obtain information in medical reports relevant to the need for continual supervision to avoid substantial danger. The medical report forms were, in fact, revised by the Attendance Allowance Board, and new forms came into use in August 1972. There are supplementary report forms to be completed in cases of mental abnormality where supervision to avoid the danger is especially relevant.
  The Chief Commissioner went on to say that in sending documents out for comment there was a good deal to be said for the contention that such a letter accompanying documents ought to tell the claimant the view which the board had provisionally formed. Careful consideration was being given to the possibility of applicants for review generally being told of the provisional view formed by the board or a delegated medical practitioner when documents were sent out to the applicant for comment. So I think that it is clear not only that is this judgment being considered seriously both by the Government and by the Attendance Allowance Board, as it should be, but that action has been taken already on some of the proposals contained in it.
  The hon. and learned Gentleman then came back to the case of Jimmy Martin.

  1451
  I assure the hon. and learned Gentleman again, as the board has already done, that it will be very glad to consider any medical or other evidence submitted to it in writing. As the hon. and learned Gentleman knows, the board itself proposes to seek a medical report from a consultant, and he will be informed of further details of the procedures which are involved——
  Mr. Greville Janner: May I have the hon. Gentleman's assurance that I shall be supplied with a copy of the consultant's report so as to put in evidence in reply, if required?
  Mr. Dean: I think that I can assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that in the event of the review procedures going into operation once more he will again receive all the evidence and all the appropriate documents made available in cases of this kind. Certainly Mrs. Martin will. I wish to check that because I do not want to mislead the hon. and learned Gentleman, but I am almost certain that this will be an appropriate document for inclusion. However, to be absolutely right perhaps I might correspond with the right hon. and learned Gentleman and clear up that point.
  In view of the work which the hon. and learned Gentleman has done on this case and on others I hone that as a result of this debate I have been able to assure the House that the Attendance Allowance Board—a new board starting with a new allowance—has been able to get into operation a very large number of badly needed allowances to hard-pressed homes in a comparatively short period of time, that there is within its procedures ample opportunity for review, that there is ample opportunity for personal contact and, therefore, for oral hearings in the home, which is the natural place where they can take place most freely and most readily, and that these are all achieved under the existing arrangements.
  I hope that I have also been able to assure the House that we realise fully that the procedures are not perfect. They are being improved all the time, and we shall give careful consideration to the points raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman.
  1452
  I conclude by confirming that the hon. and learned Gentleman will receive the evidence seen by the board, including the consultant's report.
  Mr. Janner: Is that an assurance that I shall receive the evidence so that in accordance with the Commissioner's decision I may present further evidence in the light of it? It is no good providing it afterwards.
  Mr. Dean: I think that I can assure the hon. and learned Member that that will be so. But, again, we are on a fairly detailed point and I want to be satisfied that I am giving him the correct information. If what I have just said is incorrect I shall see that it is amended.
  Mr. Janner: I shall raise it again.

  RATE SUPPORT GRANT
  7.59 p.m.
  Mr. Kenneth Marks: I wish to refer to the supplementary provision for rate support grant to local revenues, Class VI, Vote 18, in the Supplementary Estimates.
  These grants involve vast amounts of money. I accept immediately that the Government have made a considerable increase in their grants to local authorities. My theme is that they are not enough to enable local authorities to do all the jobs required of them and placed upon them by the Government and this House and to keep to the target of rate increases that the Government would like.
  The order referred to was made on 30th November and was one of two orders, the Rate Support Grant Order, for 1973–74, and the Rate Support Grant (Increase) Order, for 1972–73. They were debated for only three hours, which was a quite inadequate time. I do not apologise for having taken the opportunity since then to raise the matter on a number of occasions.
  In the debate on the orders we were concerned more about the 1973–74 proposals, and no mention was made of any of the other matters in the orders. One of the difficulties in the debate on 20th December was lack of information. There was not enough information in the orders or in the Secretary of State's report on

  1453
  either of them. A number of matters have arisen since then. We did not know what would be the effect of the revaluation of rateable values. We were guessing. Lists were to be published two days later. The analysis of those lists arrived in town halls on 26th January. Rate rebate orders were discussed in the House only last night. I hope that whatever system is adopted when local government finance is reorganised, the importance of parliamentary discussion each year on any grants from Government to local authorities will be considered. I hope also that within the Bill on local government finance we shall take that into consideration and see how much information the House can be given. Hon. Members often do not take part in these discussions because the relevant statistics seem to be presented in such a way as to frighten them away.
  One of the problems next year is that councils will have to find the money for this year's inflation, which has probably been the greatest ever in peacetime. They must do that before even starting to consider the extra costs they must bear next year. The Government have recognised this to some extent by increasing the grant for 1972–73 by about 9 per cent. I want to deal later with the 9 per cent. itself. However, what should be realised is that a proportional share of the increase received from the Government has to be borne by local authorities. So out of next year's rates—if the Government's figures are right—they will have to pay 9 per cent. more than what they estimated for this year, and then they will have to consider next year's spending.
  The City Council of Liverpool estimates that the cost of inflation during this year is £7 million. That means approximately a 28p rate increase. That is before the city even starts to consider what it should do next year. I imagine that about half of that amount will be met for Liverpool by grant increases. Even so, it leaves that city with a 15p increase to pay this year's debts out of next year's rates.
  I do not think that this was realised by the Prime Minister and his advisers when he replied to the five cities after they had asked to meet him. He probably thought that they were talking about next year rather than this year. He has now realised this, and that is one
  1454
  of the reasons why he has decided to meet representatives of the five cities on 9th February. I trust that that meeting will mean that some additional help is forthcoming from the Government. I do not suggest for one moment that these five cities are the only local authorities with worries. My hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. David Clark), who represents a constituency with a very large rural area, will also have something to say about this if he catches Mr Speaker's eye.
  Another factor in inflating the costs for the current year is the additional tasks given to local authorities during the year, such as contributions to clearance of derelict areas and to improvements generally. Their efforts during the year under consideration to reduce unemployment have cost them money, and again the Government have helped; but the councils have had to find a share.
  Is 9 per cent. enough? The period that was considered was from November 1971 to November 1972. In appendix 1 to his report, the Secretary of State showed us that the changes in prices cost about that much, and he gives a detailed list of those increases taken into consideration. Our difficulty is that the House was not given the original figures of what teachers' pay would cost, and so on, so we cannot make an assessment of what the percentage increase is. Perhaps the Minister will tell us something of the various percentage increases required by appendix 1 of the Secretary of State's report.
  On 18th January the Association of Municipal Corporations issued a statement referring to wage rates and earnings and the Government's statement about them. I should like to quote from the association's statement about them. It said:
  "The problem which has been facing those in local government responsible for preparing their rate estimates for the forthcoming year, 1973–74, is that the operation is carried out in the background of an inflation which the Government describes in paragraph 24 of the White Paper in relation to wage rates and earnings as running at 15 per cent.-16 per cent."
  We have repeatedly heard the argument from the Government that prices have been rising at about 8 per cent. and that wages have been rising by about 15 per cent. or 16 per cent. But at least half of local authority spending is on pay, and

  1455
  that ought to be considered. Local authorities spend their money partly on goods, partly on interest—about 25 per cent. on the whole—and about 50 per cent. on wages. This means that there is a considerable increase above the price increases that must be met. Local authorities have also had to meet increased, national insurance contributions and, because of this, a great deal of money has gone to the Government. With all these pay increases, about one-third goes to the Government in income tax, whereas it is paid out by local authorities. In its statement the association goes on to say that
  "local authorities are faced with the cost of inflation up to November 1972 in that year alone at the rate of £410 million of which local authorities would have to find 42 per cent., namely, £172 million. Thus even though assisted by the Government's raising of their proportion of the rate support grant to 60 per cent. instead of 58 per cent., there remains a heavy burden for local authorities".
  This is a particularly heavy burden with some local authorities, because these figures are averages and some authorities do not do as well in grants proportionately, as do others. The association also mentions the cost of land purchases, which has increased greatly in the last year, and it says:
  "It is to he recognised that some local authorities will have estimated for a degree of inflation when they made their rates early in 1972 but there is no reason to think that those who did so will have allowed for more than 5 per cent. (or a figure of that order) and it is clear that the balances in the hands of the urban authorities, faced with very heavy costs in recent years, are extremely limited."
  I have mentioned the question of balances. On the whole, the large cities do not keep great rate balances. They are usually too hard pressed to do so, and their rate increases are usually so phenomenal that they dare not start saving as well. I think it is true that counties and county districts—and urban districts particularly—tend to overestimate their needs a little and finish with some reserves. I think it is true that district treasurers and finance chairmen come to an understanding about the estimate of the 1p rate product, and that is usually below the final figure. They also tend to keep large working balances. In many cases they have to, because a disaster hitting a small council can present heavy costs suddenly and they have to look out for that. Changes in political
  1456
  control, too, often mean that balances are spent before an election. That has happened, I think, on a number of occasions. On the whole, big cities do not allow for inflation. They do not put up rates because their rate increases are pretty high in any case.
  Another factor is costs, and interest costs for buildings. Housing does not affect the support grant, but an example of costs of building during the past year is evidenced by one of the urban districts in my constituency. Denton Urban District Council, which was building a small estate of houses to rehouse people moved for a motorway, found the yardstick cost was £226,000 at the end of the 1971. The lowest tender the council got was £291,000 in 1972, an increase of 29 per cent. The Government, through their regional offices, approved that increase. Increases like that are not of 9 per cent. A great deal of building for housing is done by local authorities. In the case I have mentioned the land was not included in the cost, for the council already owned the land. Yesterday Manchester and Salford received a rate precept from the police force and there was an increase of 19 per cent.
  My view is that the Government grant—both the revised figure for 1972–73 and the new figure for 1973–74—will not permit local authorities to keep to the average of 5 per cent. for which the Government are asking. The averages hide huge problems for the big cities and for many of the industrial towns. If cuts take place as a result of monitoring by the Department of the Environment, where will they come? Are the Government going to tell these areas what cuts they should make? Usually, when there are sudden cuts they come too late to do anything about pay, and it is usually books, repairs, school equipment, and so on which bear them. If the cuts have to be substantial these means are not enough, and redundancies will have to be faced.
  The Government are beginning to recognise this problem. We had the first Press release on the rate support grant in a blaze of glory. I think the Government are realising that the situation for local authorities is not all that rosy. The Prime Minister is meeting representatives of the cities next week and I have no doubt that he will meet representatives of other

  1457
  authorities as well. There are others besides the cities which have great difficulty because of the increases this year. This is not a political matter. Newcastle-upon-Tyne, which has a Conservative majority, faces the same problem and is talking in terms of 20 per cent. I hope that the Prime Minister will listen and that all the Departments will act.
  Before meeting them the Prime Minister has gone to meet the President of the United States. There have been a number of similarities in the approaches which the Prime Minister and the President have made to local authorities in recent months. I trust that in his discussions with the cities and in the action which the Government take in the Budget that similarity will end.
  The Guardian today, referring to the United States budget, said that
  "Among the programmes to be phased out are important unemployment, housing, urban renewal, and education projects. The future looks bleak for the poor people the Great Society programmes were designed to help. The President's message can only increase the despair that already permeates the decaying inner cities of America. … There are to be tax deductions for parents sending children to private schools and there is to be more money for the SST, the supersonic plane which was scrapped by Congress. Senator Mansfield summed it up well when he said, 'The people will get the idea that they are forgotten.'"
  The people of our inner cities must not be forgotten. The Government can help and they must help.
  8.15 p.m.
  Mr. Michael Cocks: I am grateful for another opportunity to discuss particular aspects of the rating problem facing local authorities today.
  We are grateful to my hon Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Marks) for the opportunity recently of an Adjournment debate on the problems of the cities, and tonight we are dealing, as he says, with the rate support grant. Only yesterday we were talking about the rate rebate order before the House. There has been talk in this debate about the effect of revaluation. I hope that the Minister who is to reply tonight will take the little more time which is at his disposal than when he dealt with the affairs of the big cities and that he will give us a full exposition of the Government's position.
  1458
  I personally welcome the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths), to the Government Front Bench tonight because his hands are clean on the assassination of Bristol, an assassination which has taken place under local government reorganisation. I am grateful to him for that.
  The rather narrow terms of reference of this rate support grant will, nevertheless, give us an opportunity to deal with a particular aspect of the matter and the effect of inflation. In the Supplementary Estimate, Class VI, Vote 18, on page 65 of the Supply Estimates, there is reference to changes in the level of prices, costs and remunerations. This, of course, is basically talking about inflation.
  In discussion with officials of the House about the rules of order in discussing the increased provision and the level of the increases and whether it was an increase in order of magnitude or not, it was pointed out that £196 million on the present provision of £2,333,000,000 is an 8½ per cent. increase, but in reality it is larger than that because the bulk of the amount referred to on page 65 is taken up by the needs element. The second item deals with the resources element. This is the money supplied per head for authorities with below-average resources. This is subject to change, because next year, for the first time, so the Department has informed Bristol, we shall get grant under this heading. Then there is the domestic element to offset the cost of reductions by a prescribed amount. Hon. Members will see that there is no change there.
  So, although we talk about an increase in this expenditure, the sum of £465,662,000 does not change. The element which has changed is increased by £196 million, on the lesser figure of £1,869,705,000. There is an increase of 10½ per cent. So the increase here is larger than it looks at first sight, if we remove the two items which are not changing. The bulk is taken up with the needs element, which, according to the original Estimates, is arrived at on the basis of population and other objective factors. In Bristol the units for population and education account for approximately 85 per cent. of what we receive. As these are declining factors, much more detail should have been given in this

  1459
  section on page 65. The heading includes the words "additional detail" but there is precious little.
  There is no indication that the needs element is subject to change. Some areas with a declining population and a reducing number of education units are considerably worse off. There is no flexibility. The theoretical concept behind the formula takes no account of change. Will the Minister tell us broadly to which type of authority the bulk of the 10½ per cent. increase will go and which services are claiming the lion's share of the increase. The 10½ per cent., taken as a national average of the increase in costs, takes no account of the wide variations which exist. A tremendous range of variations must be concealed in this figure, and it would be helpful if the Minister would tell us more about the variations.
  In considering prices and remuneration we are really talking about inflation. Inflation hits local authorities particularly hard because municipal services are labour-intensive. One-third of Bristol's increase is accounted for by pay awards. How does Bristol's figure compare with that of other authorities? Charges on the city's loan debt, the cost of services, repairs, maintenance and so on have to be taken into account.
  In talking about costs, do we mean general cost increases, or is there a concealed element which reflects the impact of the new services provided by local authorities as a result of legislation? Legislation on the school leaving age and the Housing Finance Act have imposed a greater burden on local authorities. What proportion of the increase can be allocated to the new services that are being provided. This information would be useful to local authorities throughout the country in tackling the substantial estimates that face them.
  Page 137 of the original Estimates contains a list of items such as "Education", "School milk and meals" and "Libraries, museums and art galleries". Over the years that list has hardly changed. I know that the Minister is extremely concerned with environmental and traffic problems, and he knows that in large urban areas like Manchester and Bristol the environmental problems are becoming extremely grave. What extra provision is made within this £196 million to enable
  1460
  local authorities to cope with the sudden increase in interest in and determination to tackle this problem? The system by which the rate support grants are calculated does not give sufficient prominence to environmental problems. Population and education unit factors have become outdated.
  Will the Minister say what is Bristol's share in the increase? Bristol's share of the national grant has fallen from 0·819 per cent. in 1967 to 0·713 per cent. in 1973. Will the supplementary figure now before the House have any effect upon this decline in Bristol's share of national resources?
  Will the Minister explain how the Supplementary Estimates will affect the amount of local authority expenditure met from the rate support grant? My hon. Friend the Member for Gorton said that the national average had gone up from 54 per cent. in 1967 to 60 per cent. in 1973. Again, that is an average figure, just as the 10½ per cent. increase is an average figure, and it conceals wide variations. It would be helpful if the Minister would make available a breakdown of the individual areas and different types of authority. The average amount of rate support grant which Bristol has received over the years has remained approximately constant at 43 per cent. It is so substantially below the national average that I am sure the Minister will realise the serious position——
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Eldon Griffiths): I take it that the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that everybody should be above the national average? I hope he accepts that some cities will have to be below the average if there is to be an average.
  Mr. Cocks: I am most grateful to the Minister for making my point more clearly than I should have done. I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point. I have in the past writhed in agony on seeing an advertisement showing a class of school-children in a dental laboratory and a meter swinging across their teeth checking them for resistance to dental decay. A shocked voice is saying that the group of children had been tested and it was found that their teeth had only average resistance to decay.I have always

  1461
  thought it complete nonsense to gull the public with that sort of point because by taking a normal group one will get an average result. However, I take the Minister's point that the average is made up of different components.
  The situation which faces local authorities has changed in the last year or so in order of magnitude. They now face a different and new situation. The presentation of a Supplementary Estimate in the House in this form is not helpful to those who are increasingly concerned with these problems. Averages are made up of diverse matters, and it is impossible to generalise about particular areas from average figures. The Minister should make available more detailed Estimates so that we are in a better position to see the extent of the problem. I hope that the Prime Minister will appreciate the problem facing large urban areas. If more detail is not made available, and if there is not more discussion of these topics, the local authorities will face the appalling decision of choosing between large increases in rates and the slashing of services.
  All the Government talk about monitoring rate increases will be against the background of local authorities having to choose between maintaining existing services and running down services to elderly people, the handicapped, provision for education and all the rest. This is an appalling dilemma. However good the Estimates have been in the past, they are quite inadequate in the present situation.
  8.30 p.m.
  Mr. Charles R. Morris: I welcome this opportunity of being able to support the case which has been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Marks) and also by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Michael Cocks) in regard to the rate support grant, the details of which are to be found on page 65 of the Civil Estimates for 1972–73. The provisions in that paragraph are inadequate to meet the needs of local authorities. There is a real and growing anxiety in provincial cities and among ratepayers generally at the increasing financial burdens which they are now being obliged to shoulder.
  1462
  The year 1973 will be an onerous one for local authorities. We need only to catalogue some of the financial problems which local authorities will have to face in the year ahead. They will face increases in the salaries and wages of local authority staff. They will be burdened with value added tax. They will face an increasing financial burden arising from increasing precepts from public transport authorities, police authorities and many others. I am mindful that it was recently announced that the cost of policing in the Manchester and Salford area rose by 18·9 per cent., to £10 million. Turning to page 65 of the Estimates, simple arithmetic tells us that they provide for less than a 9 per cent. increase in rate support.
  A further burden will fall upon local authorities in the coming year flowing from local government reorganisation. For example, in 1974 Failsworth Urban District Council, in my constituency, will merge with Oldham Borough Council. Failsworth, which is greatly concerned with the interest of the community, like so many other authorities, is going ahead with projects which it hopes to complete before it merges with the larger metropolitan authority. I instance Failsworth because I have experience of that authority. However, what is happening there is reflected equally in many other parts of the country.
  I have heard it suggested that the Government are to monitor rate increases. Rumour has it that the Government have in mind that if the rate increases proposed to be levied by local authorities exceed a certain percentage the authorities will be obliged to inform the Government of their proposals in that regard and must wait 10 days for the Government to comment on the size of the increase envisaged. Perhaps the Minister will give us his thinking on that rumour which is circulating among local authorities.
  When we had the opportunity of debating this issue on the Rate Support Grant Order 1972, I noted that the Minister for Local Government and Development said:
  "The personal social services are growing fast and need to continue to grow."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th December 1972; Vol. 848, c. 1438.]
  I support that view. However, it is very little use Ministers making that kind of

  1463
  comment in this Chamber if they do not use their influence to make available the increased rate support grant to enable local authorities to enlarge the personal social services which we all wish to see grow.
  There is an increasing amount of legislation which obliges local authorities to carry the financial burden of providing services for the communities that they serve. My hon. Friends and I were delighted that the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act reached the Statute Book. That legislation is by no means mandatory on local authorities. It is permissive legislation. But it is not good enough for the Government to encourage local authorities to provide and implement the services set out in that Act and similar Acts while at the same time keeping the rate support grant to the level envisaged in the Estimates. This is a major problem, which is giving rise to real concern in the population at large.
  I hope that in considering the level of the rate support grant the Government will bear in mind the regressive features of rates levied by local authorities. Apart from the rate rebate scheme, it should be remembered that many people are burdened with living in homes which attract high rateable values. The Minister will be aware that the regressive nature of rates makes no provision for or takes no account of the ability of the owner of a house to pay the rates levied upon it.
  I hope that the Minister recognises the importance of and the need for prompt Government action on this growing problem.
  8.40 p.m.
  Mr. A. E. P. Duffy: I refer to Supplementary Estimate 1972–73, Class VI, 18 dealing with the rate support grant to local authorities in mentioning briefly the additional relevant expenditure now required by the Sheffield City Council arising from changes in the level of prices, costs, wages and salaries since the 1972 order was made.
  Sheffield's additional needs arise primarily from two sources. First is the ever-mounting cost of inflation, about which my hon. Friends have spoken so convincingly, which is adding to the financial means of Sheffield as well as Manchester. Is the Minister aware that
  1464
  Sheffield faces an increase in costs of the region of 20 per cent.?
  It is easy to understand why the great industrial cities of Manchester, Bristol and now Sheffield——
  Mr. Julius Silverman: And Birmingham.
  Mr. Duffy: Yes, Birmingham, and Newcastle. They face a great financial crisis such as they have never faced before. I did not mention Liverpool because Liverpool took the initiative some weeks ago. It is anxious to meet again in the presence of the Prime Minister. The problems of the great cities do not arise merely from inflation. As from 1st April rates will be demanded on a new basis laid down by the Government in the revaluation of individual properties. Generally speaking, and contrary to belief in some quarters, that will have a marked effect on the country as a whole.
  However, in the great cities that I have just mentioned the circumstances are quite different. It is expected, for example, in Liverpool that nearly all domestic ratepayers could pay a substantially increased rate charge next year. Whereas domestic rate bills will mainly go up, industry—and much of my constituency is occupied and dominated by industry—will pay on average 25 per cent. less because industrial rateable values have risen less than average. Thus it seems inevitable that domestic ratepayers will subsidise industry unless the Government takes action.
  In the event there is to be in Sheffield a rate freeze. That has been made possible for three reasons: first, because of a pruning of the budget for 1973–74 of approximately £3 million; secondly, because of an increase in the Government rate support grant in the region of £3½ million, and I shall look to the Minister to confirm that; thirdly, because of an unexpected windfall, which the Sheffield City Council did not seek but which my hon. Friends want me to mention, which arises from the Prime Minister's wage freeze. It has meant that £300,000 could be taken out of a fund set aside for anticipated wage increases, thus leaving £1 million to meet the £1 plus 4 per cent. formula. Therefore, the present crisis in Sheffield is being relieved to some extent by wage earners—manual employees. Of course, much greater relief will come from budget cuts.

  1465
  That raises the obvious question of how cuts in the region of, for example, 5 per cent. in response to the Government's request can be inflicted on the affairs of a city like Sheffield and yet not do grave harm to the quality of life. How can such cuts be undertaken without affecting the city's desire to maintain the momentum of expansion in recent years?
  The Minister may say that some expansion will take place. But will he bear in mind my concern that cuts should not be absolute in at least three quarters because, though I expect that the Government will have regard for all the major spending heads to which my hon. Friend referred, there may be some that are so obvious as to be deemed to be not so important. However, they may almost approach urgency.
  The first is the need to ensure that the transitional period covering local government reorganisation is not adversely affected by lack of funds. The second may not have received much attention in most parts of the country but it is of growing importance in the great industrial cities, especially in areas like mine. I have already ventilated this matter in the House. I raised it in a Question which I put to the Under-Secretary's Department last year, and received a sympathetic response. I refer to the community industry project which is already being practised in South Yorkshire. I urged the Secretary of State last year that it be given wider application in the Yorkshire and Humberside region, especially in my constituency. For the benefit of hon. Members who may not be familiar with the project's purpose, I wish briefly to explain that it gives employment to jobless youngsters by sending teams to clear up waste areas, to decorate and restore older property, and to help old-age pensioners.
  The Minister, who knows South Yorkshire, realises the need for such projects. Moreover, I know that he is acquainted with my constituency and that he is sympathetic to its needs; he is well aware of its acute environmental problems. If there are greater problems in other areas, I should not care to visit those areas. But the Minister does visit them, and he is, therefore, well aware of the prime environmental needs.
  1466
  I am afraid that any cuts made in the budget of the Sheffield City Council will be visited mainly on the east end. I do not suppose that I shall get any thanks in Sheffield this weekend for having said that. But the east ends of cities usually suffer, and I am concerned that it should not happen in Sheffield.
  I am very modest in my request to the Minister. I ask him to bear my concern in mind. I have specified only three matters, but there are other elements in the matter of environmental improvement, notably pollution, of which the Minister is aware as a result of his visit to my area and South Yorkshire generally.
  I wish to ask the Minister whether he was in attendance with the Prime Minister when the right hon. Gentleman addressed the Association of Municipal Corporations on 13th December last year. If he was, he may recall that the Prime Minister, in a very fine speech, expressed confidence that in future the community will look to local authorities to provide an even more extensive range of services. Will the Minister bear in mind that it is precisely this kind of expansion which all the great city authorities that are now anxious to meet him and look forward to meeting him on 9th February, especially the Sheffield City Council, fear they will be obliged to slash in the coming year?
  8.50 p.m.
  Mr. J. R. Kinsey: It is very strange that when the Government's rate support grant is this year the highest we have had we should be getting this attack on the Supplementary Estimates.
  Mr. Charles R. Morris: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member at such an early stage, but would he not also accept that inflation has equally been at a higher level than ever before, involving local authorities in an extra £410 million?
  Mr. Kinsey: That has been taken into account throughout the whole consideration of the support grant which we now have before us in the Supplementary Estimates. I am certain that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary is surprised that the attack should be coming in this direction, but if he looks around him he will see that it comes from representatives of the cities.

  1467
  The cities are affected in one or two ways. In most instances these days they have Socialist councils. If a Socialist Government had given this amount and local councils had been Conservative controlled the attacks from the other side would have been on the councils and not so much on the Government. A statement in the Birmingham Post says that the rate support grant is enabling Staffordshire to do just what the Government intended should be done, which is to keep the rate at level pegging in the county. If, with all the inflationary elements that hon. Gentlemen have spoken about, Staffordshire can do it, why cannot the cities do so as well? That is where the crux of the whole argument with the Government lies, and not so much with the support grant.
  The whole point is that the Socialists are getting away with it in the local councils because of the distortion caused by putting off revaluation for 10 years. In those years that postponement has been taking away the ratepayers' feelings against those Socialist councils. In Birmingham the amount of the 30 per cent. increase directly attributable to the city council is 16 per cent. If we had the support grant going in that direction it would be very useful indeed because it would bring that 16 per cent. down considerably but, at the same time, we would then have the local authorities looking at that 16 per cent., as they will have to do in any case, in order to make economies to reduce that percentage still further.
  The point we cannot get over is the distortion caused by revaluation. In effect, the Minister is shielding Socialist local councils from the wrath of the ratepayers, and we should look at it from that point of view and take these matters into consideration. I ask my hon. Friend to direct his attention to this side of the matter.
  We in Birmingham would feel much better if the Minister could protect us from the distortion caused by revaluation and the actions of Socialist local councils in bringing in extra services such as free contraception and going back to direct labour. [Hon. Members: "Oh."] Yes, it is all this that is causing the 16 per cent. distortion in Birmingham. We seek the Minister's help on the inflationary
  1468
  side. The really important thing that we face in Birmingham is revaluation, not the support grant.
  8.55 p.m.
  Mr. Julius Silverman: I regret the political tone of the speech of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Kinsey). The major factor in the rate increase in Birmingham is revaluation. The hon. Gentleman says that the Socialists are getting away with it, but the fact is that the revaluation was embarked upon by his Government. They need not have proceeded with it, but they did so without having regard to the effect that it would have in large cities such as Birmingham.
  We have been faced with inflation for years. There is nothing new about it, except perhaps the scale on which we have experienced it during the last two years. The ratepayer is accustomed to his rate bill going up by a steady amount each year. There is nothing new about that. At the hustings for local elections one side attacks the other over the level of rates, but when one examines the rate demand and the commitment to expenditure by the council concerned one finds that the amount of money that could he saved is peanuts.
  The hon. Gentleman talked about the provision of free contraceptives. Trivial savings can be made on matters such as that. It is not possible to save money on the main items of council expenditure. It is not possible to save on education, except perhaps on the trimmings. Does anyone suggest that we should save on the police force, or on the collection of salvage, or on the disposal of sewage? It is not possible to save on those services, and to suggest that major savings can be made by one party or the other is nonsense. Irrespective of which party is in power, savings can be made only on the trimmings. Unless a council neglects its duty it is not possible to save a significant amount on its services.
  As a result of revalution a 30 per cent. increase is expected in the rates. I shall be delighted if the Government tell us how, with the present rating system, Birmingham can limit its rate increase to 5 per cent. without neglecting its duty to provide the necessary services. It must

  1469
  be emphasised that the major factor in the rent increases in our large cities is revaluation, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy) rightly said. Business companies and industrial concerns may benefit to the extent of 25 per cent. but the amount that the domestic ratepayer will pay will increase substantially.
  If the low wage earner—the man who works for the council, for instance—is told that his wage is to be allowed to go up by only 4 per cent. plus £1 as a maximum, and at the same time is told that his rate bill is to go up by 30 per cent., he will not understand what it is all about and he will conclude that it is simply a method of taking him for a ride, which to a large extent it is.
  I appeal to the Government—and the appeal comes not just from one party but also from the local Conservative Party through the Birmingham Mail—to do something about the present situation. This matter is outside party politics. The Government should consider freeing the revaluations. There is no reason why the present valuations should not continue for another year. If he feels that he cannot do that there will have to be substantial further financial assistance to those cities hardest hit by the revaluation.
  Therefore, I entirely support the claim for an addition to the rate support grant. It may be the largest we have had so far, but the increased costs are also much the largest we have had so far, and the revaluation has not taken place before. I do not care how the Government do it, but assistance must somehow be given not merely to the hard-pressed local authorities but, particularly, to the hard-pressed domestic ratepayers. They are the people I am concerned about.
  9.0 p.m.
  Mrs. Jill Knight: I support what the hon. Member for Birmingham, Aston (Mr. Julius Silverman) has just said about the importance of giving specific and direct help to cities, such as our city of Birmingham.
  There are many reasons why our domestic ratepayers will be under stress after the present revaluation. One is that in the past mistaken decisions were made stopping industry in Birmingham from
  1470
  advancing as it might have done. I do not want to dwell on that, but I strongly support the plea for help, which, as the hon. Gentleman said, comes from all sides.
  I was attracted earlier to the suggestion that postponing the revaluation might be a way out of our difficulty. We all know how important it is at present to look very carefully at any increased expenditure and increased demands thrown on local ratepayers. Therefore, it seemed as though postponement might be reasonable. But I make the point that at this stage, when the plans for revaluation have gone very far, that would throw great difficulties on many local authorities. If that is so, and it is not possible to postpone it, there is no doubt that cities such as Birmingham should be given specific and direct help to alleviate the burden. Our local paper has estimated it to be possibly no less than an extra 30 per cent. That cannot be allowed by the Government at this time.
  9.2 p.m.
  Mr. David Clark: Every other speaker in the debate has spoken for the large cities, explaining the terrible difficulties that they face. My hon. Friends have said that the extra £196 million is not enough at this time of such high inflation.
  I come from an area which does not comprise a big city but is sandwiched between the conurbations of Manchester, Sheffield and Leeds. We, too, have great difficulties. Unless we receive extra rate support grant we shall have great increases in the rates, particularly for domestic ratepayers.
  It has been said that the £196 million increase represents an extra 8 per cent. or 10 per cent., but it must be borne in mind that the recent revaluation alone, with its shift of emphasis from industry to the domestic ratepayers, will probably add 3 per cent. to the average domestic ratepayer's rates this year. Therefore, almost immediately we find some of the increase being devoured.
  Hon. Members have spoken of difficulties in their own cities to show why the increase is not sufficient. I should like to show that the problem exists even outside the cities, and to take two very different areas of my constituency. One, on the east side, is an ex-mining area,

  1471
  where there is no Conservative councillor. On the other side—the Saddle-worth area on the Manchester side—there are only two Labour councillors. They are very different areas, with different political complexions, yet both are suffering greatly from the present inflation and the revaluation.
  The difficulties are acute now because local people are rightly demanding ever better and more efficient local government services. But unless there can be a massive increase in the rate support grant there will be injustice for many ratepayers outside the cities. Either they will face rate increases of up to 30 per cent. in places or they will see their services cut to a minimum.
  In Denby Dale, for example, the domestic ratepayer faces an average increase in valuation of 3·4 times, and in Saddleworth the figure is roughly the same. The Saddleworth case underlines the point that I am making. The multiplier there is 3·125. The result is that for Saddleworth urban district this year—a year in which we face inflation, and in which requests to try to keep down rate increases are made—the rate support grant is cut from 45 per cent. to 32 per cent., a reduction of £52,000 according to the treasurer, which means that rates will have to be increased by 10p in the £ to cover the loss in rate support grant itself. Those are figures produced by the treasurer of the Saddleworth Urban District Council and reported in the local paper. They show the difficulties which confront the local council and its officials.
  The matter has to be taken a stage further. As an urban district, Saddle-worth has a precept upon it by the county council. Because the domestic rate has risen much higher than the average, the precept demand from the county council on Saddleworth rates will be increased by one-fifth more than the average for the rest of the West Riding.
  In the same area, half the population face a water rate increase of 45 per cent. while the rest get off lightly with an increase of 23 per cent. Also, increased provision will have to be made for SELNEC, and the compounding will be lost because of the increase in the rateable valuation.
  1472
  Those facts show the extent of the problem faced by a council such as Saddleworth. I cannot predict what its rate increase will be, but, obviously, it could be in the region of 20 per cent to 30 per cent. on last year, even if it can peg its expenditure at last year's level.
  I am sure that the Minister recognises that this is not a satisfactory state of affairs. If we are to try to explain to people in urban districts such as Saddleworth that there is some social justice, and are to try to explain why their wages are frozen while their rates increase by up to 30 per cent., more cash must come from the Government.
  It is even more ironic in some senses because one way by which local authorities might try to reduce the increase would be by pawning the future. As my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Marks) said, some urban districts have reserves. These urban districts are to go into metropolitan districts under the local government reorganisation—one centred round Oldham and one round Huddersfield. I need not emphasise that these will not be rich metropolitan districts; they are on the small side, with low rateable values. It will be disastrous for the reform of local government if the constituent local authorities which make up the larger units enter those units without any reserves, and I hate to think what the consequences will be in 1974 if we fail to get action from the Government to increase the rate support grant.
  It is ironic also that these are intermediate areas with the problem of having only one industry. They are areas which the various Governments have tried to help by producing a reasonable road communication system. We look to that as a way of solving the problem, yet we find that one reason why the revaluation is so high is that
  "The demand to reside in rural areas, made possible by an improved road system, has caused residential values to increase relatively faster than urban areas."
  So, having built the roads to try to help the expansion of the areas, we now find that either the rates have to be increased at an exorbitant pace or services, especially those services to do with environmental matters, have to be cut back. I fear that the efforts which are made to

  1473
  clean up an area, which are also necessary to attract new industry, will suffer.
  While I appreciate the terrifying and terrible problems of the cities, I know, too, of the problems of the urban districts and the rural districts. Therefore, while the increase is large it is not generous enough and it must be increased if there is to be social justice.
  9.13 p.m.
  Mr. Geoffrey Rhodes: I should like to draw attention, under the heading of the Rate Support Supplementary Estimates and grant aid to local authorities, to certain points of principle and to apply them to one city I know well.
  On the first point of principle I wonder how far the Government have considered the peculiar problems of cities which are undergoing massive and costly redevelopment largely but not entirely financed by local ratepayers at a time when the population of its rateable area may be in rapid decline. I have in mind, of course, the city of Newcastle. About 20 years ago—the point is relevant—four parliamentary constituencies of approximately 60,000 adult population were created in the city. Now one of those has fallen to less than 30,000, one to 46,000, and one to 40,000, and those figures include the 18-year-olds. The only one to have held its population has done so largely because of rehousing outside the city boundary.
  The development of the city is highly costly, and its services are provided not just for the residents of the city but for people living throughout Tyneside and areas beyond with relatively low rateable values, who use the services of the city the burden of which falls upon a relatively ageing population. It may surprise the Minister to know that in my constituency of approximately 47,000 people there are nearly 15.000 over the age of 60, many of whom do not qualify for the various subsidies. An intolerable and utterly oppressive burden of taxation will, therefore, shortly be placed upon the shoulders of many thousands of householders in the city.
  The current talk is of an increase in the rate levy of 25 per cent. That is expected in a city which is already one of the most highly rated in terms of its
  1474
  levies in the United Kingdom. In practical terms, apart from the increasing burden being related not to the ability to pay but to the property occupied, it means that the city council is faced with a prospect of cuts to save money and so reduce the burden. Leaving aside the moral issues, large-scale elections are about to take place and nobody pretends at this time of the year that the issue of the rates does not count.
  There is one issue that I know to be dear to the Under-Secretary's heart and about which, as he knows, I have the deepest respect for him—smoke control. I heard the Under-Secretary sincerely appeal for the clearing of the filthy air in the area which is mainly located in the east end of the city, the west end having been largely made a smoke-control area. I gaze out in the morning from my bedroom window over the smoke-filled atmosphere. I know that I have the Minister's support in this: I think that he may be unaware that, although many promises have been made to him that the authorities will act quickly in this matter, currently the city is discussing a cutback in the appointment of the staff necessary to free the east end of the city of the filth and the smoke and to create a smokeless zone as an economic measure, for that cutback would help to reduce the massive increase in the rate burden that would otherwise fall on the shoulders of the city.
  Incidentally, this is a city with one of the highest incidences of lung cancer in the United Kingdom and of asbestosis among shipbuilding workers and pneumoconiosis among mining workers and one of the highest rates of bronchitis in the United Kingdom—again, especially in the east end of the city, which is the filthiest area. In order to achieve an economy of £7,000 or £8,000 or £10,000, the city treasurer is giving himself considerable worry thinking how to reduce the burden on the ratepayers of the city.
  Another human issue is transport. Not long ago there was a massive increase in the cost of travelling on Newcastle's former corporation buses, now run by the Tyneside Passenger Transport Authority. A half-fare system for pensioners and the disabled when the cost of transport was rapidly increasing meant a crippling burden. I could quote instances of elderly people's choral societies that

  1475
  used to travel round the city entertaining one another or elderly people's bowling clubs and similar activities having to be abandoned because of the cost of travel arising from the increase in the PTA's fares.
  In the east end of the city where we have many old people we collected the signatures of 10,000 elderly persons in one constituency and sent them to the corporation, which in turn sent them to the PTA requesting a minimum fare of 1p or 1½p. The Labour-controlled PTA went one better: it agreed to free transport for the elderly, and the mass of the elderly people of the city welcomed that. The authority explained that it would have to go back to the local authority for a substantial sum to finance the operation.
  It is difficult to calculate how much it would cost, because when buses are running anyway it does not necessarily increase the cost of running them to fill them up with elderly people. But because of that situation, the Conservative members of the Newcastle City Council—I know that I am being party political and I know that their motivation is well intentioned—opposed the introduction of free transport for the elderly and the disabled on the ground that it would place an undue burden on the ratepayers at a time when costs generally were rising. A bitter battle is now being fought in the council by the rearguard rump of Conservative councillors—they are in a minority, but the aldermen keep them in power—to abandon a scheme to help not just a few hundred thousand people in the city and its immediate environs but all the elderly people in the passenger transport area.
  This problem would not have arisen had it not been for the increasing costs of local government. The city would have been able to afford it. It is because of these real, human situations that I appeal to the Minister to consider ways and means of financing centrally a much bigger proportion of the rate burden which falls upon the city, for the reasons that I have stated. There is a need for national help for several reasons.
  The city council has made its representations, of course. It even asked to see the Prime Minister. He said that it
  1476
  was not a big enough authority to justify his time but that he was seeing some of the larger authorities. I appreciate the point. I am sure that the Prime Minister is a very busy man. However, I suggest that in some respects the burdens falling upon Newcastle are even worse than those in other parts of the country.
  I have said many times—I said it even when I was PPS to the Minister of Housing and Local Government—I do not like the rating system. It is regressive and unfair. It bears very little relation to the capacity and capability of the person to pay. We are not discussing that this evening. However, a relevant point to this debate is that revaluation of property is about to commence. In that revaluation there is already prima facie evidence that, although it is said in theory that an X per cent. rise in rateable values means an X per cent. fall in the rate in the £ levied, it all depends upon the proportion of the new rateable value of the city which falls upon the industrial, the commercial or the domestic ratepayer. According to my calculations, the burden which will fall upon the domestic ratepayer in the city of Newcastle is a higher proportion than it was in the past.
  About three months ago when this was first announced I made a statement that was quoted in the Newcastle Evening Chronicle in the course of which I said that a massive intolerable burden that would shake the people of Newcastle rigid would fall upon their shoulders before many months had passed. As usual my political opponents said "Ah, Rhodes is scaremongering again." Today Conservative councillors are saying the same and appealing to the Government to help, The forecast which was made then was correct. It is useless for the Government to talk to shipbuilding workers, engineers and others—and council tenants pay their rates, too—about freezing their wages when they know that rents will go up because the rates will go up.
  I will continue to fight in my constituency for higher pensions and for an end to the wage freeze in order to maintain the living standards of the people. I will not co-operate with the Government's policy of a freeze on incomes unless they are prepared to ease the burdens which fall upon the shoulders of my constituents. The burden which will fall upon

  1477
  Newcastle citizens will shake them rigid in a few months' time. I think that they will pay their rates in anger because they will feel there should have been more Government help for schemes of development which were not for the benefit of the elderly, many of whom will be dead before their real value is felt, but which will be more to the benefit of people moving in and out of the city each day who do not pay rates in the city.
  Council tenants will fight bitterly against increases in their rents which will inevitably arise from the rate increases, leaving aside any effect of the fair rents policy.
  If the Government will not act fairly in this matter, I say in all seriousness that this will be the biggest rate increase ever to have fallen upon the citizens of any city in the country, and we shall fight every Conservative candidate in my constituency unless he presses the Government successfully on this issue
  When I first became a Member of Parliament for Newcastle it was dominated by Tory councillors. I warn the Minister that unless the Government respond to the pressures coming from councillors on both sides, we shall clear every member of his party out of my constituency on polling day.
  9.25 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Eldon Griffiths): I think that the House will very much regret the steep decline in the standard of debate from its beginning, where the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Marks), followed by his colleague the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Michael Cocks) spoke with moderation, good sense and some knowledge of the complexities of the rating situation in the country. I am only sad that the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Rhodes), for whom I have some regard, as he knows, should have concluded the debate from the Opposition side of the House with something that was no more than a piece of local electioneering in very doubtful taste. In reply I shall address myself mainly to the serious points that have been made by hon. Members earlier.
  Mr. Rhodes: Is it wrong, as a member of a political party, to indulge in a political party argument on an issue which affects one's constituents? As for knowledge, I happened to teach the subject of local government finance for 10 years. I know the complexities. I am saying that this is basically a political issue for which the hon. Gentleman's Government must take responsibility. If the hon. Gentleman says that that is in bad taste, then all our debates in this House are in bad taste.
  Mr. Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman demonstrates by his sensitivity that he has something, perhaps, for which to apologise; but I leave him to accept responsibility for reducing the level of the debate to the local electioneering in which he engaged.
  What we have been discussing, not for the first time, are really two separate problems, one of them being the impact of revaluation on local authorities and the other the special difficulties of some local authorities, notably in the great cities, which are faced with the need for above-average expenditure on their many social problems but which in some cases are receiving a decreasing share of the rate support grant. I think that that defines the parameters of our debate this evening.
  A number of hon. Members spoke of revaluation as if it were some terrible infliction upon the suffering population. One hon. Member spoke of his constituents "suffering" from revaluation. From the speeches we have heard, one would have supposed that some Opposition Members assume that the present relationship between rating assessments is right and fair and should be retained all over the country, that any change that is made in these rating assessments must be wrong, and that it is for the Government, who have allowed this change to take place, to defend making it. But this is not the situation at all.
  As we all know, rates are a tax on property. We may not like it, but that is what they are. The amount of the tax is based very simply on the value of the occupancy of that property. Those values of occupancy of property, in the real world, always have and always will change with time and circumstances. Some areas get richer and some get poorer. They change, but they do not

  1479
  change uniformly. Obviously, if they changed uniformly between one part of the country and another we could manage perfectly well without revaluations. But in the real world that is not so. Some values increase more than others, and some fall. Therefore, revaluation is not a plague or an infliction. It is absolutely fundamental and essential to any rating system. If it is not undertaken, people who pay rates in respect of property which has not risen in value as much as the average end up paying far more than their fair share of the rate-borne expenditure, and those whose values have increased by more than the average end up paying less than their fair share.
  I therefore ask the House to recognise that revaluation itself is not an injustice; it is bringing fairness as between one ratepayer and another, and I am sure that the hon. Member for Gorton. who understands the subject very well, will understand that from time to time revaluations are indispensable.
  Mr. Marks: I think the criticism is of revaluation at this time, in the middle of a freeze, and that by it the Government are causing an upheaval in the amounts which people have to pay—people on average earnings who do not qualify for rebates, and so on, and are probably in houses where they will suffer most. They are organised workers, too. All I am saying is that the Government should consider this in the light of their counter-inflation policy.
  Mr. Julius Silverman: The Minister may deal with this point at the same time. Surely the circumstances are different, because the rise in the rating valuation of domestic property is due to the extraordinary inflation which has taken place in house prices. This is surely the exceptional circumstance which justifies delay or reconsideration of the whole question of revaluation at present.
  Mr. Griffiths: I will come to inflation. I just wanted to get clear, at the very beginning, what revaluation is. I hope that there is no disagreement on either side about that.
  In the Government's view it is those who postpone revaluation and therefore prolong inequities as between one citizen and another who ought to be on the defensive at this time. It will be within the memory
  1480
  of everyone in this House that the last Administration, when they postponed revaluation, which should have taken place in 1968, did not argue that postponement was a good thing; on the contrary, they clearly recognised that it was a bad thing. The fact of the matter was—and the House may be interested to learn this—that they needed valuers for a new creature, the Land Commission. That was the reason why they did not carry out the revaluation at that time. It is because of the postponement in 1968 that we are now having rather bigger changes than one would normally expect in correcting the present inequities in the distribution of rate liabilities.
  In this context the fact that values have gone up is not important; what matters is the rate call on the individual citizen. The assessments themselves are quite objective; what counts is the levy which the local authority will make. Therefore, I cannot emphasise too strongly, in contrast to so many hon. Members who have threatened increases of enormous sizes within their constituencies, that no individual ratepayer will know how he will fare under the combined effect of revaluation, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, the decisions of his local authority on expenditure, till he has ascertained his new rateable value and has multiplied it by the rate in the pound fixed by his local authority. Till that sum is done, all the oratory which has been heard in this House tonight does not inform the citizen what his exact burden will be.
  I will reply now specifically to some of the points which have been raised.
  The hon. Member for Gorton, who spoke with great moderation and good sense, challenged the figures in an increase order—for the first time ever, I am advised, in the memory of the House. He is perfectly entitled to challenge them, but they were based on information provided by the local authority associations, including the Association of Municipal Corporations, and they have been agreed by the local authority associations as being correct.
  The figures represent the actual increases in costs between November 1971 and November 1972 as they affect local authority expenditure for the current year. The effect depends on the timing of particular increases. I hope

  1481
  the hon. Gentleman will accept that the calculations are made on the information provided and agreed by the local authorities.
  The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the Liverpool inflation. I am advised that Liverpool claims to have made no provision in its budget in April 1972 for any inflation in 1972–73. I am not criticising Liverpool for failing to do that, but most other local authorities have made provision for it, and we shall be looking into this in the monitoring procedure.
  The hon. Member for Bristol, South made a good contribution—all ship-shape and Bristol-fashion. He asked me for more details. I will read his speech carefully tomorrow and send him such breakdown as I can. He will understand that the central Government do not necessarily have a detailed breakdown on particular local auhorities, but I will go as far as possible to meet him on that point.
  The hon. Gentleman seemed to fall into the confusion that the increase order is concerned to update the price basis of the grants that were fixed in 1970 and does not affect in any way the percentage of expenditure to be met by grant. On the contrary, its purpose is to ensure that despite inflation the rate of grant is kept the same. It was 58 per cent. in the preceding year and it will become 60 per cent. this year. The increase order does not affect the distribution of grants. Bristol will receive the same share of the extra sum as it received of the original grant settlement.
  It is a fundamental principle of the rate support grant to make a distinction between increased expenditure due to improvement of services and increased expenditure due to inflation. The improvement of services is dealt with in the main order which provided, last November, for all the factors mentioned by hon. Members—more schools, better social services and so on. Inflation is dealt with by the increase orders, and the Act which governs all our proceedings specifically forbids the Government to take account in increase orders of anything except inflation.
  The hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East spoke about smoke control, and I will look into that. He also spoke of elderly people with low incomes in
  1482
  Newcastle. As it stands, the rebate scheme relieves those who qualify of two-thirds of any increase in rates. Under the order made in accordance with my right hon. Friend's statement, the income limits for a single person from 1st April next are increased from £12 per week to £13·50 and for a married couple from £14·75 to £16·50, and the addition for children is raised from £2·50 to £2·75. The net effect is that from next April those people who qualify for rebate will have to meet only one-third of any increase in their rate bill. I hope the House will acquit the Government of the hon. Gentleman's charge that elderly people over the age of 60 on small fixed incomes in the Newcastle area would be confronted with some terrifying increases.
  In terms of expenditure revaluation has its effect on the situation, as does the level of Government rate support. This matter will be looked into by my Department and no doubt will be considered in the conversations which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will be having with the large authorities when the whole question of levels of rate support grant can be examined.
  At the end of the day the rates paid by the citizen will reflect more than anything the decisions on expenditure made by local councils. It must he emphasised that the cheque written by the local council in deciding on expenditure is drawn on the ratepayers' bank account. The ultimate responsibility must rest with the local authority.
  Mr. Marks: The hon. Gentleman said that in considering its 1972–73 rate position Liverpool should have made allowance for inflation. What advice has he to give local authorities on what rate of inflation they should allow for in 1973–74?
  Mr. Griffiths: I am quite sure that under the provisions of the Government's legislation, and following the valiant actions of my right hon. Friends, the rate of inflation will certainly come down. I am equally sure that local authorities will assist in achieving what is right in the national interest.
  I wish to illustrate some of the consequences in Manchester flowing from the decisions of the local authorities. The hon. Member for Gorton knows that there has been a change in the political control

  1483
  of the council, and he will draw his own conclusions about that aspect. I shall not attempt to deal with that matter, but will simply give the hon. Gentleman some facts. In education the increase from 1971 to 1972 in rate demand notes in the County Borough of Manchester was 17 per cent. In respect of libraries and art galleries the figure was 23 per cent.; on social services, 37 per cent.; on housing, 26 per cent.; on administration 19 per cent.; and on other services 26 per cent. The total rate call was increased by 30 per cent.
  I make no comment on the decisions of that local authority which no doubt judged what was right in its own ratepayers' interests, but the burden on the ratepayer arises in large degree from the decision of that authority to increase expenditure across the board.
  Mr. Charles R. Morris: Will the Minister accept that it is misleading for him merely to give a list of percentages? What element of those percentages refers to increases in salaries and wages of staffs of local authority departments?
  Mr. Griffiths: I have no doubt that wages and salaries represent a significant proportion of the increased expenditure.
  Mr. Morris: Therefore, the element of choice did not arise.
  Mr. Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman must recognise that if in any local authority area a group of citizens is able to earn higher wages and incomes it cannot be shielded from the inflationary consequences that that has on the cost of the services provided by the authority. Is he suggesting that if there is this increase in cost, because people in his area have higher incomes, somehow central Government should immediately save that local authority from the consequences of its own decisions? The hon. Gentleman has not thought this matter through.
  I turn now to the levels of rate support grant which have an impact on local authorities.
  Mr. David Clark: The Minister has not mentioned the urban districts. He has laid great emphasis on the responsibility of elected councillors for the rate levy, and we might accept that. Will he explain to my constituents in Saddleworth why their rates will have to go up by
  1484
  a minimum of 10p in the pound as a result of a decision by an appointed valuer?
  Mr. Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman will excuse me if I do not give him the answer to Saddleworth's rate increase. I will, if he wishes, look at that matter and write to him about it. I hope that he will not go in for unnecessary scares which may turn out to be rather less worrying than he has suggested.
  Mr. Clark rose——
  Mr. Griffiths: I must get on. I owe it to the subsequent debates, which have been held up by this rather lengthy debate, to get on with my speech.
  Mr. Clark: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the Minister to accuse me of alarming people and making a scare?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu): Yes, it is quite in order.
  Mr. Griffiths: I am sure that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, intended no endorsement; only that I was within my rights within the House to say what I liked on that subject.
  We have settled with the local authorities that, for the first time, the Government will provide 60 per cent. of their expenditure. That is a substantial increase from 58 per cent. previously—in fact, the largest increase ever. In arriving at this figure in negotiations with the local authorities we took into account the increased expenditure that they would have to meet, including that arising from inflation. Some hon. Gentlemen have suggested that inflation comes on top. This was taken into account in the negotiations which took place with the local authorities. We also took into account other factors affecting rates—the effects of revaluation and of the Housing Finance Act on the contribution that authorities will have to make to or receive from their housing revenue accounts.
  What is the effect of the 60 per cent. grant settlement? The normal growth of rateable value from year to year is about 2 per cent. from new property coming into the valuation lists. Add to this the fact that local government's share of its own expenditure is reduced from 42 per cent. in 1972–73 to 40 per cent.

  1485
  in the subsequent year, and we have a situation in which—this is the most important point I can make tonight—the first 7 per cent. of growth of local authority expenditure is absorbed before the ratepayer is asked to dig any deeper into his pocket. It is not a question of local authorities having to cut. It is simply that the first 7 per cent. of any increase that they bring about is taken care of by the extra grant from the Government. It is only on increases above 7 per cent. where they will have to bear their share. If, at a time when we are seeking to moderate inflation, a local authority can count on increasing its expenditure by 7 per cent. and that is met by an additional grant from the Government, it can hardly claim to have been ungenerously treated.
  I will now summarise the various points that I have made. The Government have increased the grants to the local authorities for 1972–73 by more than £400 million. We have increased the grants to local authorities by the equivalent of £8 per head of the population of all local authorities in the country. Nothing like that has been done before. The domestic element—that is to say, the direct subsidy to the domestic ratepayer—is increased from 10½p in the pound to the equivalent of 15½p in the pound. That again is an unprecedented increase of 50 per cent. The hon. Member for Manchester, Openshaw (Mr. Charles R. Morris), who cares deeply about the personal services and the disabled in particular, will be glad
  1486
  to hear that the total grant allows a 10 per cent. increase over and above the inflation element for growth in the expenditure of personal social services. Moreover, it allows for an increase of 50 per cent. over two years in the services for the handicapped. I doubt if the hon. Gentleman knew that, but I hope that he will recognise that it is not an ungenerous arrangement.
  As a Government defending the national interest, we expect local authorities to assist in the general policy of containing inflation. I believe that we are entitled to ask that of them. All the local authority associations, to their great credit, have agreed to counsel their members to assist us. I only wish that the same counsel had come from some hon. Members opposite.
  Rates are a serious problem, and so is inflation. The Government have made a generous settlement to the local authorities. However, I am bound to accept that the increasing problems of our great cities—pollution, transport, housing and social problems, and the rest—confront us all, on both sides of the House. The growing problems of where the finance is to come from to deal with these growing problems is one of the subjects which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will undoubtedly be discussing with the great cities. I welcome very much some of the constructive contributions that a number of hon. Members opposite, as well as my hon. Friends, have made to the debate.

  ARMY (PAY)
  9.53 p.m.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: I wish to speak on Defence Estimates, Class XII, Vote 2 C, concerning pay allowances, etc., of Army Reserves, the Ulster Defence Regiment and Cadet Forces. As a representative of Northern Ireland it is most appropriate that I should draw attention to certain matters which arise on the Supplementary Estimates. I remind the House that Subhead C refers to the
  "Mainly higher level of duty of the Ulster Defence Regiment …."
  The Ulster Defence Regiment came into existence because of the disbandment of one of the best forces that Ulster ever had for its defence—the Ulster Special Constabulary.
  This House is learning, in the bitterness of bloodshed and murder, of the folly of its decision to pressurise the Stormont Parliament to get rid of that fine body of men. As a result of the action of a previous Government and the action of the Stormont Parliament we find ourselves discussing the Ulster Defence Regiment. The same slanders that have been used across the world to malign the brave men of the B Specials are now being used by the same propaganda machine to malign the Ulster Defence Regiment and members of the British Army. I speak as a friend and a supporter of the Ulster Defence Regiment. I have always been a supporter of that regiment. I call on the men of Northern Ireland to enlist in the ranks of this regiment and help us to defeat the IRA conspiracy.
  I pay tribute to these men, who not only take their lives in their hands when they are on duty but are easy prey to the assassin's bullet when they are not. I received a Written Answer today from the Defence Ministry concerning the attempt to murder one of these men on 28th January. An off-duty member of the UDR parked his car, and four men in a private car parked behind him. I am told by the Minister that they surrounded his car and ordered him to alight. He did so. He was just able to reach his pistol, and shots were exchanged. He was wounded, but fortunately he was able to drive off his assailants.
  1488
  That is an illustration of the fact that members of the UDR are prey to the terrorists not only when they are on duty but when they are carrying out their ordinary private engagements. What is more—and this is what stirs the emotions—these men who stand for law and order are prey to assassins in front of their own families in their own homes——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I understand entirely the hon. Gentleman's emotion, but may I ask him to confine himself to the question of the increase in expenditure on the UDR?
  Rev. Ian Paisley: If you give me time, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall relate the fact that we are asked to vote £1,300,000 mainly for the
  "higher level of duty of the Ulster Defence Regiment"
  to what I am saying by way of preface. But I should be failing in my duty if I did not point out the difficulties under which these men carry out their work even when they are not engaged in the duties of the UDR. I pay them a warm tribute and I commiserate with those who mourn the passing of brothers, fathers and husbands who will return no more. As a loyal Ulsterman, I salute their memory and the fact that they were prepared to give their lives in defence of their country.
  I come to the matter which you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, think I should emphasise, and which I shall emphasise. I want to ask the Minister some questions which arise from the fact that he has asked for a Supplementary Estimate mainly because of the
  "higher level of duty of the Ulster Defence Regiment …".
  Many people in Ulster are disturbed and there are some questions which I intend to put to the Minister about the Supplementary Estimate. Was it because his Ministry was not aware of the reality of the situation in Northern Ireland that when he asked for the original amount of money he did not ask for enough? That is a legitimate question to ask.
  Is the Minister not aware of the serious complexity of the situation which in the opinion of many in Northern Ireland will continue up towards 8th March,

  1489
  when there could be a real escalation of violence and when we have been told by certain elements that they will do everything they can to hinder the carrying out of an exercise in democracy on that date? We are entitled to ask whether there was a miscalculation by the Ministry. Was it that those in the Ministry did not fully realise what the whole Ulster situation is really about? Did they not realise that there could be an intensification of the campaign of violence directed against the members of this regiment?
  The Minister has confirmed in parliamentary answers that Roman Catholic members of the regiment have been gradually leaving it. There is a reason for their so doing. It is that these men. who are prepared to give their time and, if need be, their lives in the service of the regiment, find that they come under intense intimidation; that they are not only facing the enemy but are the victims of an insidious campaign of very wide proportions which affects not only themselves—and these gallant men can no doubt defend themselves—but their wives and even the smallest children in their families.
  Has the Minister now realised the tragedy of the situation that is developing in Northern Ireland? Is he now aware of the forces that seem to be combining in an effort completely to destroy law and order there? Can we be assured that he is asking for enough money this evening, or will he have to come back again and say that this high level of duty means a further stepping up of the amount needed? Is he asking for this present sum because he has not calculated the Northern Ireland situation aright?
  Is this additional sum of money needed because a decrease in recruitment means that the present members are now called out more often, have to serve more hours, and hence must be paid more overtime? On 24th January I was told in a parliamentary reply that there had been a decrease of 287 members of the regiment between 29th November and v17th January. Strange to relate, there was an increase of seven in the number of officers. There seems to be an anomaly there.
  1490
  Again, is it that the rate of dismissals means that a higher level of duty is required by the remainder of the regiment? On 25th January I asked in a Parliamentary Question how many men had been dismissed from the regiment in November, December and January.
  The figures show that eight men were dismissed in November, 33 in December, and 88 up to 25th January. One can see the upward spiral of dismissals. Why has there been such a jump in dismissals, from eight in November to 88 in January? Is the Minister taking that into account? Does he feel that there will be further dismissals, and that if the present rate continues hundreds of men will be dismissed in the coming months?
  What are the reasons for the dismissals from the Ulster Defence Regiment? Perhaps I may remind the House of the prominent non-commissioned officer in the town of Lisburn who was dismissed. I have had some correspondence with the Ministry about this man. On one occasion he was congratulated by his commanding officer on the way that he trained his men and on the good work that he had done with the regiment. Quite summarily, and without any reason being given—the Minister will no doubt say that no reason has to be given—he was told that his services were no longer required.
  In answer to Questions that have been asked in the House about these matters by my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills), by myself and others, there seems to be great reticence on the part of the Ministry to tell us whether these dismissals are related to membership of certain organisations, and I refer first to the Ulster Defence Assocation, and next to the Roman Catholic ex-Servicemens' Association. Is it a fact that certain men are being dismissed because they were, or still are, members of those organisations?
  The money is required because of the higher level of duties to be performed. One cannot forecast how many men will be dismissed in the next three months. I should like the Minister to give us some concrete information about this. A long time ago the non-commissioned officer to whom I referred was a member of the UDA. He resigned from that organisation shortly after joining the UDR. Before being dismissed from the regiment he was

  1491
  questioned about his association with the UDA, and I think I could draw the conclusion that he was dismissed because of that association. I should like the Minister to be frank and tell us what the position is.
  Is this extra money necessary because these men who are subject to attack in their own homes are being permitted to purchase their own weapons for their personal defence and they are to be paid the cost of such weapons? There is a great clamour in Northern Ireland among certain elements who favour the Republican conspiracy for all licensed guns to be withdrawn. Some of the people responsible for this clamour are themselves carrying licensed weapons, so there seems to be an anomaly here.
  Is it because these men are subject to attacks in their own homes that they are entitled to claim money for the purchase of weapons for their own defence? The Minister said in reply to a question that the UDA member in question had a pistol. Was it an Army issue pistol, or was it a pistol that he purchased himself and for which he obtained a licence? I am informed by members of the UDR that they are not supplied with service weapons, but if they require them and their commanding officer decides that they should have them they can purchase them. I can supply the Minister with details of individuals having purchased their own weapons. I am very interested in that, because it would be a crying shame if that is the universal practice in the UDR.
  Is it because there is a proposal in some districts to disarm the UDR? Some hon. Members think that it is ridiculous, but it is a fact that in certain areas it is proposed that the rifles of UDR men should be stacked in an army camp and that when the men are called out on duty they should make their way to the camp, secure their weapons and then make their way back to the place where they are to go on duty. I refer to my own constituency, which borders on the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) and to the platoon in Randalstown. Representations have been made to my hon. Friend and myself that when the men of the platoon in Randalstown are called out on duty they will in future have to go to the army camp in
  1492
  Antrim, secure their weapons there, and then return to Randalstown and go on duty. Some will have to travel 10 miles before going on duty.
  I ask the Minister to look into the matter carefully. I have already communicated with his Department. I hope that tonight he can give me and the people of Northern Ireland a firm assurance that there will be no capitulation to the propaganda of the Republican movement, but that the UDR men will be entitled to have their weapons in their own homes for their own defence and so that they can go on duty readily and be made available to do the service required.
  Mr. James Molyneaux: Does my hon. Friend agree that we would all support any expenditure which might make for greater efficiency or for the greater safety of the UDR members involved, but that the additional expenditure incurred in the 10-mile journey to Antrim and back would seem to be going in the opposite direction, to make them less effective and to endanger them?
  Rev. Ian Paisley: I fully agree with my hon. Friend. Anyone who knows the area knows that the men have to cross a narrow bridge which leads past a disused railway enbankment. That would be an ideal place for an ambush. It is a terrible situation that the proposal should even be made to the platoon. The men are willingly serving their country, putting themselves at extreme risk in so doing. The House and the Department have the right to give them as much protection as they can in a very difficult situation.
  I am sorry that I must keep myself within this Estimate. I come back to the higher level of duty. I hope that it will not be inferred from what I say that I am against money being spent for the UDR. I support its spending, but is more use to be made of the UDR in the coming days? Is that what the Minister has in mind—that there will be a higher level of duty?
  The best places for the men to operate in are their own districts, because they know the people there, the people who travel about the districts. When they set up a road block, they know the cars

  1493
  that do not need to be stopped, the cars of people usually resident in the district, and they can stop strange cars.
  In the old days, when the Ulster Special Constabulary was in operation, we never had long queues of cars at road blocks. These queues of cars, in my view, defeat the purpose of the road block because, if a terrorist intends to plant a bomb and he sees a long line of cars stretching, perhaps, for a quarter of a mile, he at once turns his car round and goes by another route. This is what is happening. If, on the other hand, there is a steady flow through the barrier of cars driven by local people known to the members of the regiment, people in the neighbourhood and going about their usual business at that time, such cars may be allowed to pass, and the only cars called in are those strange to the district.
  I am sure that that sort of arrangement would better satisfy the general public. There is no doubt that, although the loyalist people of Northern Ireland are prepared to put up with any inconvenience, they feel that some of the inconveniences are not altogether worth while and do not greatly help to defeat the terrorist campaign.
  Has the Minister in mind a fuller use of the men of the Ulster Defence Regiment at a higher level of duty for each one of them so that they may be used locally? I know of many instances in which they are being used locally, and that I welcome. I hope that these men will be enabled, as the days go by, to carry out the job with which they have been entrusted by the House, and I wish them every success and the protection of Almighty God in the duties which they have to perform.
  10.16 p.m.
  Mr. Stanley R. McMaster: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) on his success in the ballot and on the way in which he has presented the case for wider use of the Ulster Defence Regiment. I support all he said, in particular his concluding remarks. All hon. Members—I am glad to see so many of my hon. Friends from Northern Ireland here at this late hour to attend the debate—know that in former times, before they were disbanded, the B Specials coped with
  1494
  successive campaigns of violence with a degree of capability and flexibility which we have not seen in Northern Ireland over the last three years.
  On the front to which my hon. Friend referred last—that is, in the stopping and searching of cars—the B Specials were able to spread their efforts more evenly throughout the Province, especially near border areas, searching in a more flexible manner so that, when Republicans were moving in convoy, as they frequently do, they were able to stop and search those cars which, when the drivers saw a barricade ahead, turned round and backtracked or made off down side roads.
  The B Specials were able to do this because a body of locally recruited men have a much better knowledge of the roads in an area than can possibly be possessed by Army personnel stationed in Northern Ireland for three or four months or by the police service or the UDR in the rôle in which it is being used at present.
  I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will explain in detail what is meant in the Estimate by the phrase, "higher level of duty". What is to be the wider scope of the Ulster Defence Regiment? It is becoming increasingly clear to all hon. Members that the Army alone cannot provide adequate protection against the activities of Republican terrorists—both their bombing campaigns, not only in the centre of large towns but in smaller towns, and the hit-and-run attacks from across the border to which we have become accustomed. These cannot be adequately blocked even though we have 20,000 soldiers stationed in Northern Ireland, supported by our local police and reserve forces. Unless the rôle of the UDR is widened so that it operates more like the B Specials there is no hope of containing the murderous campaign from which we have suffered—a campaign which has caused the deaths of about 700 people in three years and has maimed and injured thousands.
  What weapons will the UDR be equipped with? Will they be sufficient to deal with the type of attack we have been experiencing in Northern Ireland, not only from the most modern Russian automatic weapons but also from Russian rockets which are capable of penetrating the light armour of the troop carriers and the buildings in which the men are

  1495
  housed? In country areas the UDR weapons are kept in central armouries. The men serve in their spare time and it is a great deterrent for them to have to waste an hour collecting their weapons and taking them back after duty when they could be providing the type of service expected of them.
  Will the Minister reconsider whether it is possible for these men to keep their weapons at home? That would enable the men to deal with attacks from four or five assassins, which has been the type of attack mounted in the past against UDR men living in isolated houses and near the border, and against the Roman Catholic members of the regiment who have been singled out by the IRA for vicious attack in their own homes. Has thought been given to providing a proper alarm system by radio communication to these men's houses, particularly in the outlying areas?
  The situation facing the men of the UDR, the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the reserve police has been aggravated by the Government's action. The political initiative taken about nine months ago did nothing but encourage the terrorists and the Republicans, and it struck dismay into the loyal members of the population.
  I hope that in the difficult days ahead, following publication of the White Paper and when the plebiscite is taken, adequate preparation will be ensured to meet the type of emergencies which most of my hon. Friends and myself foresee in the Province. There will have to be early action to strengthen the UDR, to give the men better equipment and to review the rôle of the force, because unless that is done there is no hope of meeting the present terrorist challenge or of containing and defeating the type of attacks which are likely to be mounted.
  10.25 p.m.
  Mr. James Kilfedder: I entirely support the vote of money for the increase in the UDR duties. I rise to speak under the shadow of five young men mindlessly murdered in the past 48 hours. I am sure, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you will allow me briefly to condemn—and I know that the House joins with me in condemning—the dreadful recurrence of assassinations in Northern Ireland. I condemn murders, whether by
  1496
  extremist Roman Catholics killing Protestants, or extremist Protestants killing Roman Catholics, or even by just ordinary criminals, as may well be the case in many instances, making use of the complete breakdown of law and order and the anarchy that prevails in many parts of our Province. It makes no difference who does the shooting—young lives are lost, families are bereaved and the community slides even deeper into the morass of emnity and indifference.
  A beleaguered community, which is what Northern Ireland now is, sees little difference between the slaughter of 700 civilians by IRA bombs and explosives and more than 200 police and soldiers, including members of the UDR, to which we are referring this evening, and the individual murder of young men and boys which have recently taken place in Northern Ireland. It is utterly deplorable that the Ulster community should have been deprived of the security that every country is entitled to expect for its citizens.
  The number of people who have died in Northern Ireland over what some might regard as a relatively short time of a few years is the equivalent of 40,000 people dead in Great Britain, and that is a staggering number. If a single policeman is shot elsewhere in the United Kingdom, the whole power of the State is set in motion. Things have reached such a pass in Northern Ireland that the murders pass almost unnoticed.
  Having said that, I turn to the Supplementary Estimate for the Ulster Defence Regiment. The UDR is playing its part with the Army and the police. With the Army and the police, it is one of the principal but less publicised instruments that the Government are using to combat terrorism. But the community at large is not convinced that it is being used to its full effectiveness. I have advocated for a long time the setting up of local units of platoon strength of the UDR. Men—and women, too, when they return home from the factory who could don their uniforms and go into the streets and countryside that they know and defend and protect their brothers and sisters no matter what their policies or creed.
  It is difficult for our courageous soldiers, who go to Northern Ireland as strangers, to know who is a stranger in

  1497
  a town or village or townland. Local people know local people. If the Government have the courage to establish local platoons, local units and a full-time battalion, we should go some way towards bringing terrorism in Northern Ireland to an end. For the great majority of the people of Ulster this is a task untinged by any thought of religious differences.
  I hope, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you allow me to make a personal remark. The County Down Battalion, based at Ballykinlar, which is partly in my constituency, had as its second in command a highly respected Roman Catholic—a Major Beaumont—who unfortunately died some months ago of a heart attack. He was a keen and able officer, and was second in command to Colonel Dion Beard, a distinguished officer who is shortly leaving Northern Ireland. Major Beaumont was respected by the men who served under him. He was not the kind of man to be put off or frightened by IRA threats. He was determined to serve the community, and he put his loyalty and duty to it above all else.
  Both my hon. Friends the Members for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) and Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster) have referred to IRA intimidation. Unfortunately, it has reduced the number of Roman Catholics serving in the Ulster Defence Regiment to 4 per cent. I know that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary regrets this, as I do and as others do in Northern Ireland. I do not know what the highest total strength of the UDR has been, but my impression is that it has now fallen to around 9,000. This is to be deplored at a time when they are needed more than ever.
  Is enough being done to publicise the regiment? It may be said that there is no need to publicise it. We are living in the midst of an emergency when every man, woman and child in Northern Ireland knows that we need people to come forward to defend our homes, our factories and our whole institution of government. But I feel that there has been a falling off in the placing of advertisements in local and provincial newspapers and on television. In addition, local recruitment would be encouraged if the Government formed local platoons. I wonder whether the Government are
  1498
  prepared to take this crucial step—because it is essential to the future of Northern Ireland.
  In my own village of Millise in County Down, men in the Ulster Defence Regiment have to travel up to 30 miles, which is a considerable distance after a hard day's work in a local factory, or in one of our world famous factories in Belfast, or on the farm, to do their stint of duty. It is really too much to expect of human beings, and it is surprising in the circumstances that the regiment has attracted and kept so many good men. Long may it continue.
  The need for some form of personal defence for these men is an urgent question. Men serving in the UDR who have considerable distances to travel—or, for that matter, no great distance to travel—should be provided with the means of protecting themselves when they are going from their headquarters back to their homes. IRA men are constantly on the look-out for members of the security forces. They note the registration numbers of their cars, and they wait for them outside their homes. We know to our regret that some UDR members have been shot down in the presence of their wives and children.
  There is not a single member of the Opposition present. But it is even more regrettable that the political leaders of the minority in Northern Ireland—I am positive that they do not represent all the minority—have actually discouraged young men from serving in the Ulster Defence Regiment. I think it was Mr. Austin Currie who met Roman Catholic members of the UDR and passed on the message that that was not the place in which they ought to be. The terrorists in Northern Ireland will not be defeated until the community as a whole sets its whole mind against them and shows by its action that these thugs can find no sympathy anywhere in the province.
  Ulster's political future, shortly to be outlined in the White Paper, depends fundamentally on the restoration of order as rapidly as possible. So we must do our best for them. I wonder whether the UDR is properly equipped. Has it enough armoured cars? Can it not be provided with helicopters and all the sophisticated weapons with which the Regular Army is provided?

  1499
  Such equipment will entice other men to come forward and serve in the regiment. I regret that only 9,000 citizens in Northern Ireland have come forward to serve in the regiment. I would be out of order to talk about why so many people decline to serve in the regiment at present.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: Would not my hon. Friend agree with me that it is regretted that when many ex-Servicemen who have had distinguished careers in the Army, many members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary who are now retired and many members of the Ulster Special Constabulary applied for membership of the Ulster Defence Regiment they were refused? Is that not something to be greatly deplored and regretted?
  Mr. Kilfedder: It must be a case of great minds thinking alike, because my hon. Friend has anticipated what I was just about to say—I think that this is within the terms of the debate—that it was a political decision and a wrong decision by the Government to exclude many members of the B Specials who had for so long, honourably and for a mere pittance, served the Province in holding back the terrorists. But even at this late hour, perhaps the Government will say, "Tell these men to come forward. We welcome them because of their experience and local knowledge, and we certainly respect their integrity and the service which they have provided to Northern Ireland."
  I wonder whether enough men are being trained as officers in the UDR. The limited number of officers plays its own part in limiting the effect of the regiment and putting a brake on recruitment. I want to see more than 9,000 men. I want to see the Regular Army helped to an even greater extent by a greater number of people in the UDR. But I want the Government to use the regiment effectively. If the Government are seen by the people of Northern Ireland to be using the UDR effectively and properly a great many more people will come forward to serve the community.
  The UDR has a vital rôle to play in the return to sanity. We ought to be unstinting in our praise of the magnificent work which members of the UDR are doing in difficult and dangerous circumstances. We cannot forget that many have
  1500
  been killed, Protestant and Roman Catholic, as I had said earlier, in front of members of their families. These men will be remembered as the men who, night after night, came to the aid of the community when Ulster needed them.
  I ask the Minister to bear in mind what has been said in this brief debate. I ask him especially to remember my final point about former members of the B Specials and to see whether he can, even now, bring them into the ranks of the Ulster Defence Regiment.
  10.40 p.m.
  Mr. Stratton Mills: There is one point I want briefly to make. As has been mentioned, there are occasions when members of the Ulster Defence Regiment live with their families in areas close to areas of danger and where they have anxiety about their safety because of the location of their dwellinghouses. In those circumstances it seems to me that they ought to be able to have some form of priority in rehousing.
  I was recently in touch with the Housing Executive on this matter, and it seems that priority is not given to such members of the Ulster Defence Regiment who, I must remind the House, are members of Her Majesty's Forces. Members of the Army serving in Northern Ireland are living in barracks or special conditions where they and their families have more effective security than members of the Ulster Defence Regiment. My request to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State is brief, and I am sure he will be sympathetic to the point. It is this. Where a member of the Ulster Defence Regiment is living close to an area where there is reason to think there is potential danger, then, in those circumstances, and in conjunction with the Housing Executive, some form of priority, in recognition of his services, should be given to that man for rehousing, if that is his wish.
  10.41 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army (Mr. Peter Blaker): The House will be grateful to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) for raising this subject, which he rightly described as opportune. He put to me, as he admitted, a good many questions. He was not the only one of the hon. Members who have

  1501
  spoken to do that. I shall do my best to answer his questions, and those put to me by my hon. Friends.
  I welcome very much the feeling, which has been shown so clearly by all the hon. Members who have spoken, of support for the Ulster Defence Regiment. The hon. Member for Antrim, North expressed his support in forthright terms for the regiment and I hope that his remarks will evoke a similar response of support for the regiment from all men of good will in Northern Ireland, of whatever opinion.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster) had some relevant questions and I shall come to them in a moment. My hon. Friend the Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) deplored the dreadful recurrence of sectarian murders in recent days after a preiod of what appeared to be improvement, and I should like to join very sincerely with him in the sentiments of regret and horror he expressed. He advocates that platoons should be set up in local areas, and he mentioned the possibility of a full-time battalion. I shall return to this matter in a moment. I welcome very much his concluding words, in which he said—I think I got his words exactly—that the UDR has a vital rôle to play in a return to sanity.
  As for the request of my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills), he has already taken up this matter with me. As he understands, it is not within the power of my Department to deal with it, but I can give him this assurance, that I have not lost sight of the very important point he makes and that I shall press it.
  The debate has been entirely about the Ulster Defence Regiment. The Vote that we are discussing covers rather wider ground and, before dealing with the UDR, I will explain how the £1,300,000 is made up. It represents about 90 per cent. of the £1;½ million that may be required. I understand that to be the custom when Supplementary Estimates are presented at this stage. The £1½ million is made up as follows: about £500,000 is for expenditure on the TA&VR, nearly £900,000 is for the Ulster Defence Regiment and about £75,000 is for the cadet forces.
  1502
  Recent publicity may have left the impression in some people's minds that the Ulster Defence Regiment is a regiment with problems. Ever since its inception the regiment has suffered in the public eye. Some people in the Province resented its creation and looked hopefully for its failure. The people who took that view have been disappointed. They have seen thousands of their fellow-citizens joining up to form a force of 11 trained and disciplined battalions which give sterling service in support of the Regular Army. I take this opportunity of adding my tribute to those which have been paid to the members of the Ulster Defence Regiment.
  I should like to put right what may be a misapprehension on the part of some of my hon. Friends. The reason for the Supplementary Estimates for the UDR is a story not of problems but of success. The Supplementary Estimates are largely accounted for by a higher frequency of turn-out than was assumed when the Estimates were prepared. That answers one of the questions put by the hon. Member for Antrim, North and my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East. I am speaking here of voluntary turn-out. Another factor is that the regiment was called out on a full-time basis at the time of Operation Motorman, and did a useful and effective job in support of the Regular Army. That added to the expenditure of the regiment.
  Last week the strength of the regiment was 353 officers and 8,483 other ranks, a total of 8,836 men. Morale is high, and hon. Members can be assured about the regiment's operational capability. An average of nearly 500 men are turning out for daytime duties, and about 1,300 are turning out every night of the week. Those are impressive figures.
  The range of duties of the regiment remains within the terms of reference in the White Paper of 1969. As I say, the number of men turning out and the frequency with which they do so are higher than was estimated and a credit to all concerned. The high turn-out does not arise from difficulties in recruitment and more frequent turn-outs by a smaller number of men. I hope that will allay the anxiety of the hon. Member for Antrim, North. The decrease in numbers in recent weeks to which the hon.

  1503
  Member referred is due principally to the loss of men who were not playing their full part in turning out for duty for reasons which vary from one person to another. That is the principal factor in the reduction of numbers in the regiment. Recruitment having gone well for much of last year, it dipped from November until Christmas. I am glad to say that it is now picking up.
  The regiment concentrates on routine tasks in the countryside to allow the Regular Army to make the maximum effort where it is most useful. The operations carried out by the regiment are indispensable and, in a quiet way, they contribute to the more spectacular successes achieved by the regular army.
  The UDR has had noteworthy successes. For example, this month near Armagh one UDR patrol routed an ambush, seized two men and found four firearms in their attackers' car. Therefore, they do not only carry out routine duties. During Operation Motorman the regiment turned out on a full-time basis and its response was magnificent. From 29th July to 13th August the number of men on duty was 4,780 with a peak on 2nd August of 5,357 men.
  Although manning levels vary from battalion to battalion, by any fair standard of comparison, the current strength of the regiment is well up—some 8,800 out of an establishment of 10,000, or 88 per cent., which is higher than that in the TAVR in the country as a whole. Therefore, we need not become too depressed about the number of its members.
  Last year saw a spectacular increase in the strength of the regiment, and it is not surprising there has been a certain amount of additional wastage. Some of the newer members of the regiment may have found their ability to fulfil their obligations was less than they had expected, and naturally they would tend to leave. Again, some members have left the regiment in the normal course of completion of their contractual term of engagement. But we have also taken steps in recent months to ensure that as far as possible only those members are retained who are able to give regular and satisfactory attendance. I hope that this process will be completed before very long.
  1504
  My hon. Friend the Member for Down, North mentioned the percentage of Roman Catholics in the regiment. I am anxious to see more applications from Roman Catholics to join the UDR. It would not be useful to go into the reasons why their number has declined. It has already been said that their numbers have gone down to about 4 per cent. of the total. However, I assure the House that the balance of the force is a matter of the greatest importance. We shall continue to do our utmost to see that it is as representative as possible of the people of Northern Ireland as a whole.
  I take this opportunity of reminding those who may seek to question whether Roman Catholics or any other section of the community can continue to have confidence in the UDR as an effective non-sectarian force that the regiment has given good account of itself since it was formed three years ago. Many of its officers, including its present commander, are Roman Catholics, and the membership of its advisory council comprises Protestants and Roman Catholics in equal proportions.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: I appreciate the anxiety to see that Roman Catholics are encouraged to join the UDR, but I hope that this will not debar Protestants from being taken on in the regiment. A common anxiety among Protestants is that in their efforts to get Roman Catholics to join the regiment the Government might refuse membership to Protestants who apply.
  Mr. Blaker: One reason for the drop in the percentage of Roman Catholics is that in the last year there have been many new entrants to the regiment, and they have been predominantly Protestants. However, that does not alter the fact that we would like more Catholics.
  I remind the House that the policy and procedures for vetting applications to join the regiment were discussed in the debate on the Ulster Defence Regiment Bill in 1969. There has been no change in those arrangements, the purpose of which was to establish on an individual basis that the applicant was of good character, was not an active supporter of any organisation at one or other extreme of the political spectrum, and was likely to act in the bests interests of the people of Northern Ireland as a whole.

  1505
  The House will recall that the responsibility for deciding on individual applications has been placed on the GOC Northern Ireland. I believe that is right, because the suitability of an applicant to join the regiment or to continue to serve in it is essentially a matter for the Army's professional judgment. I believe that on the whole the arrangements for the vetting of applications to join the regiment have worked well during the past three years.
  Mr. Kilfedder: I mentioned the B Specials. Will my hon. Friend assure the House that former membership of the B Specials is not a bar to membership of the UDR? A number of men in my constituency who have been turned down—they are of eminently respectable character—are bewildered and annoyed, and of course there is no appeal against that refusal.
  Mr. Blaker: I assure my hon. Friend that former membership of the Ulster Special Constabulary is not a bar to membership of the UDR. Indeed, the figures show that many former members of that body did join the UDR. The procedures for admission are based on an individual criterion, not on former membership of a body such as that. It might be a different matter if such a body were illegal. However, we are not discussing anything of that kind here.
  Hon. Members have asked about joint membership of the UDR and organisations such as the UDA and the Catholic Ex-Servicemen's Association. Last Thursday, in a Written Answer to a Question by the hon. Member for Antrim, North, I indicated that membership of outside organisations which were not illegal was primarily a matter for the individual and that our interest was solely in the individual's acceptability for continued service in the regiment.
  The question, in short, is: where does his primary loyalty lie? We must have confidence that it lies with the regiment. As hon. Members probably know, all members of the regiment have been reminded that it is a non-sectarian force. They have been reminded that they will be discharged if their former sympathy or affection for the UDA or the CESA is strong enough to affect the performance of their military duties to or to call in
  1506
  question their future loyalty or impartiality. That represents an increased emphasis on what has always been our policy.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North, expressed alarm at the rate of discharge. He quoted the figures I had given him about the number of discharges in the last three months. He expressed alarm that the rate might continue. I hope that I have said enough to make it clear that this will not occur. As a result of a delay in the reporting of discharges to the headquarters there has been a time lag. It is partly as a result of a deliberate policy of inviting the resignations of people who have not been showing satisfactory record of attendance.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Down, North asked about the creation of local platoons. I think he meant local platoons on a full-time basis, or possibly a full-time battalion. There is no doubt that a case can be made out for that type of unit. However, as hon. Members will be aware, such arrangements would not only require legislation; they would involve a change in the character of the regiment, which is basically a part-time force for duty at nights and weekends. It is right to point out that the part-time force of about 8,000 men is already supported by a number of permanent staff. These are full-time UDR personnel who are referred to as "Conrates" because of the way they are paid to undertake the duties connected with the basic organisation and running of the 11 battalions and 55 companies, including the security of the UDR armouries and other buildings.
  We have the formation of this section of the regiment under frequent review. There are at present vacancies in the regiment for people who wish to join as members of the permanent staff.
  Mr. Kilfedder: Will the Government consider introducing part-time platoons operating locally in order to attract the local people?
  Mr. Blaker: There may be a misunderstanding. The essence of the UDR is that it is recruited on a local basis as it is a part-time organisation. If the hon. Gentleman has some different type of organisation in mind, perhaps he could let me know.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: The concern in the minds of hon. Members is that local people recruited and local platoons should be used in their own district. There are men in my district who are shifted 30 miles to set up road blocks and other men from another district are brought into my district. We feel that local platoons should be used locally.
  Mr. Blaker: I understand the points which hon. Members have been making and I shall look into them. I was talking about those members of the regiment who are already on a full-time basis. I remind the House that there is authority in the UDR Act to call in part-time members for full-time service. That was done during Operation Motorman, and on other occasions. In addition, there are about 100 part-time members called out for full-time service at the moment so as to be available for duty during the day as well as at nights and weekends. Therefore, at present there is within the ambit of the regiment a certain amount of flexibility. At present we are continuing to rely on the arrangements and powers that exist in the Act as it stands.
  A number of hon. Members asked about the important matter of arms. I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North that the extra money in the Estimates is not connected with paying UDR members so that they can buy arms because their own arms are inadequate. The normal weapon with which the UDR is equipped is the self-loading rifle, which is the same as that used by the Regular Army, and there are some sub-machine guns.
  Most of the duties of the regiment do not call for equipment other than such personal weapons, radios and vehicles as they possess. It is the Government's view that the scales of equipment issued are sufficient for the regiment's operations, but in addition to the items that I have mentioned, as specialised equipment the UDR has a number of Shorland armoured cars.
  Mr. McMaster: Is not my hon. Friend aware that we are concerned about attacks on individual members of the UDR? If a man is in a car and is attacked by a group of people a self-loading rifle is of little use. He must have either an automatic pistol or a Sten
  1508
  gun, or something that would be much more useful than a rifle, particularly if he is attacked by three or four people acting in concert.
  Mr. Blaker: I was about to come to that. I agree that it is an important matter. The basic principle from which we start is that men undertaking duty with the regiment are equipped with the regiment's weapons for the purpose of their duties. Some of them may be kept at home where the man's ability to do his duty is improved by allowing that—and particular local factors would be taken into account by the commander of the UDR in making his decision—but most of the weapons are held in local armouries.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North raised the question of the Randalstown platoon, about which he has been in touch with me. I do not have the answer for him tonight, but I assure him that I am treating the matter as urgent and will let him know the result.
  Weapons for personal security are in a different category from weapons for duty, and I recognise the concern expressed by hon. Members. The position on such weapons is that if a member of the regiment considers that he needs a weapon for his personal protection he may apply for a service pistol through his unit commanding officer to the commander of the UDR. The weapon would be a Government pistol. Alternatively, he may prefer to acquire a privately-owned weapon, in which event he may apply for a shotgun or other firearm certificate to the RUC through his commanding officer.
  I think that the striking example which my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North quoted when I mentioned to him an answer, I think today, of the member of the UDR who must have displayed considerable courage and managed to escape from the situation in which he was in a car surrounded by four assailants demonstrates that the personal weapons available to the UDR can be very effective when used with courage.
  On the question of personal arms, I assure the House that the UDR authorities examine applications sympathetically and accept the great majority of those for a service pistol, or they support

  1509
  the member's application to the RUC for a civilian firearm as appropriate.
  I think that I have answered most of the questions that I was asked. If I have not, no doubt somebody will remind me, otherwise it will be too late. If I am correct in believing that I have answered all the questions, I conclude with one further comment. None of us in this country under-rates the achievements and efforts of the Regular Army in Northern Ireland, but while it is easy for people over here to take for granted what the Regular Army does in Northern Ireland it is even easier for them to take for granted what is done by the UDR. This is partly because most of the regiment's duties are unspectacular—guarding the perimeters of key points night after night, conducting checks at vehicle check points, patrolling dark and often dangerous lanes in the countryside, in the knowledge that some of their colleagues have been killed in the course of just such duties.
  I believe that in the days to come the value of the UDR's contribution to the security of the Province will continue undiminished. The House will agree that the steadiness of members of the regiment, their disregard of intimidation and danger, and the reputation the regiment has consistently enjoyed as a disciplined, non-sectarian force, reflects the greatest credit on all its soldiers, its officers, and all who have trained and guided it since the early days of 1970.

  MUSEUMS (PURCHASE GRANTS)
  11.10 p.m.
  Mr. Ernle Money: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the topics under Class IX, Vote 3, and Class IX, Vote 6, and for the presence of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science to answer to these matters.
  First, with regard to the question of purchase grants for local museums, under Class IX, Vote 3, since your selection of this topic two days ago, Mr. Speaker, the House has the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science to my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke) about the decision that,
  1510
  subject to parliamentary approval, the acquisition grant administered by the Victoria and Albert Museum to assist purchases by local collections will be increased to £400,000, and that the similar grant administered by the Royal Scottish Museum will be increased to £25,000. That will no doubt be most warmly welcomed by all those concerned with local museums.
  The 19th Report of the Reviewing Committee on the Export of Works of Art, which was published recently, recommended on page 6:
  "An increase to the fund of, say, twice the present annual rate would be insignificant in Exchequer terms but would make a substantial contribution to the enrichment of public collections in the provinces."
  I am happy to say that the Government have done better than that. They have raised a grant which over the past few years has been £150,000, subject to Parliamentary approval, to £400,000. There has been a difficult situation for local museums in that both in 1970–71 and 1971–72 the full grant was exhausted within five months, and in the financial year 1972–73 it was exhausted, save for a reserve sum of £6,500 by early August—a third of the way through the year. There will be general pleasure and relief that the acquisition work of provincial museums will now be able to go on far more effectively than in the past.
  I turn from that to the perhaps more serious position of the grants involved under Vote 6 for the National Gallery, against the background of the special circumstances of the grant for the great Titian picture of Diana and Actæon. Here I quote from page 2 of the report of the Reviewing Committee:
  "This pre-eminent work of art was saved from export by what must be regarded as a most exceptional tour de force; but the problem of any satisfactory mechanism for the control of pictures of the highest importance and of such astronomical value remains unresolved. There are other works of no less importance in the hands of private owners in this country which those owners may at any time wish to sell. The demands made by the Titian on the resources of the National Gallery and major artistic trust funds have so depleted those resources that they could hardly make a similar contribution to the purchase of even one more outstanding painting for some little time."
  It is apparent form page 103 of the Supplementary Estimates that the purchase price of the Titian was achieved

  1511
  by the original grant of £480,000 as in the original Estimate, a special grant towards the purchase of the painting of £381,500 from the Government, and the advance of £150,000 out of the annual grant for each of the three years beginning in 1973–74, making a total of £450,000. The consequence is that this major national collection will have little or no money available during this period for the purchase of really major works of art.
  I realise that several hon. Members wish to raise subjects in this debate on the Supplementary Estimates, so I shall confine myself to putting four points to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State.
  Our national collections are not protected in any way for the purchase of a really important picture, in present-day terms, for our national heritage. The Velasquez "Juan de Pareja" slipped through our hands, and the Titian was saved only by mortgaging three years' advance.
  Second, there is no distinction between the need of the National Gallery to face a crisis of that sort and its need to meet the, so to speak, more ordinary problem of what happens to English pictures which come on to the market. In this connection, I ask my hon. Friend to deal with the Question which is down on the Order Paper for answer tomorrow, asking what progress has been made with the listing of exceptional art masterpieces which was announced by his predecessor on 22nd July—Vol. 821 of the OFFICIAL REPORT, at col. 1842.
  Third, I ask my hon. Friend to deal in broad terms with the following problem. In the present state of inflation and the circumstances affecting so many educational and charitable foundations as well as many private people, we can never know what is likely to come on to the market over which no effective control can be administered by the Department as matters now stand. The sale of the Domenichino from Dulwich, which, in fact, had to be approved by the Department, is one example of the risks involved.
  My hon. Friend will be aware, particularly against the background of the crisis which arose some years ago over the sale of the Leonardo cartoon by the Royal Academy, that that organisation
  1512
  alone is sitting on a number of major masterpieces. The Press has been continually concerned, for instance, with regard to the Michelangelo tondo which, on any valuation, must be worth over £3 million at current prices. This is a major work of art which has been in this country for many years. A crisis could develop if it were suddenly to come on the market, and I understand that Her Majesty's Government could have no control to stop it coming on to the market. The national collections as they stand would then be in no position to ask for a further supplementary grant.
  Will my hon. Friend deal also, therefore, with the Question which is down for answer, tomorrow, to ask whether his Department will consider appointing a standing committee to review the control of sales of works of art falling within the terms of the Waverley criteria by such semi-public bodies as universities, colleges, schools and other foundations.
  The time is coming when we cannot expect the National Arts Collection Fund and the Pilgrim Trust, who were partners to the Government in the acquisition of the Titian and to whom I pay the highest possible tribute, always to bail out the acquisition policies of the major galleries. The amount of money available from these entirely voluntary bodies is necessarily limited. My fourth point relates to the need to establish either an effective sum so that the Reviewing Committee on the export of works of art can have financial teeth, and not merely a legislative basis for recommendation, or as to whether the major collections can have sufficient money in order to have at least an effective acquisitions policy. The risks involved in the absence of such a policy are shown only too clearly in today's edition of the Guardian by the account of the difficulties into which the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York has got itself in recent months. This is described under the unhappy description of "de-accessing". Large numbers of works have had to be put on the market apparently to pay for the acquisition of the Velasquez "Juan de Pareja". The story reads:
  "One of the biggest art controversies in years has exploded in New York. The College Art Association, the leading professional body for art historians and museum curators, has called for a public inquiry into the Metropolitan Museum. Such an inquiry would be without precedent. The current issue of the

  1513
  influential journal Art in America calls for the resignation of the museum's director Thomas Hoving. Angry New Yorkers are writing to the Times. The art world in one of the great art cities of the world, always a glorious jungle of intrigue and gossip, is ashriek with rumour and recrimination."
  I pay tribute not only to the work which has been done by individuals but to the brave decision of the trustees of the National Gallery to save the Titian at all costs; to the generosity which the Government showed on that occasion. I pay tribute to the important steps which the Government have taken to help by extending the unlimited exemption from estate duty on bequests to national authority and university collections; by the corresponding extension to estate duty bequests up to a limit of £50,000 to the National Arts Collections Fund and, at last, on an unlimited basis; by the extension of the scope of exemption of works of art from estate duty under the Finance Act 1930; and by the acceptance of works of art by the Treasury in lieu of estate duty. All these are major achievements but a situation remains whereby unless our heritage is to be permanently at risk and unless we run the risk of losing works of art like the tondo something must be done on a permanent basis.
  I finally refer my hon. Friend to the Question on today's Order Paper asking my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State
  "whether, in the light of the recommendations of the Nineteenth Report of the Reviewing Committee on the Export of Works of Art, Command Paper No. 5194, she will recommend that, in view of the risk that outstanding works of art may be lost to the UK, particularly at a time when the resources of the National Gallery and the major artistic trust funds have been depleted in saving Titian's 'Death of Actæon' for the nation, that consideration should be given to further financial support for the export control."
  11.25 p.m.
  Mr. Robert Cooke: I am delighted to be able to support my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Money), who has taken such a great interest in this subject. Although there are one or two matters on which I might disagree with him on detail, he will appreciate that in the world of art controversy is bound to enter into almost every subject. That is really part of the thrill of entering this field—that there are violent clashes of opinion and disagreement.
  1514
  I think that what my hon. Friend has said should be looked at against the background of the announcement in Hansard on 30th January, reported at column 358, in which the Secretary of State said that, subject to parliamentary approval, £17·388 million would be available to the Arts Council next year, compared with £13·67 million in the current year. Despite all the difficulties which the nation faces, the Government have set this priority for this activity about which many members of the public care deeply. The special provision for the British Film Institute, asked for by many, of £1·36 million opposed to £1·094 million, is, I am sure, welcome. I must pay tribute to my noble Friend the Minister for the Arts, who has done more than any other to foster this aspect of our work and has succeeded, with the help of a massive private benefaction, to do a fine job for the crafts individually, particularly through reconciling certain differences of opinion among those who are keen to further this aspect.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich referred to the increased grants to the Victoria and Albert Museum, especially for local collections, and I am sure we all welcome that. Even Scotland is to be included, and the Science Museum, which my hon. Friend did not mention, is to be given £150,000 for a special fund. How important that is with the renewed public interest is echoed by official interest.
  Mr. Money: Perhaps my hon. Friend will forgive my saying that I am not overlooking the total effect of the answer given by my hon. Friend the Minister. I was merely concerned with Mr. Speaker's Ruling with reference to Class IX, Votes 3C and 6C.
  Mr. Cooke: Perhaps I should have asked for your indulgence, Mr. Speaker. My hon. Friend who is to answer this debate will agree that this is a magnificent achievement within the confines of the need for public economy, which we all recognise as very necessary at present.
  Mr. Money: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Cooke: I hope that there are other newspapers apart from the Financial Times, which paid a gracious tribute to my noble Friend. Somehow I did not see it in a number of popular

  1515
  papers. Perhaps they will take it up after this. They hate being accused of lack of impartiality. They should certainly give the arts their fair share, even at this time; it is not very late—only just after dinner.
  It is very surprising that there is not one member of the Opposition present in this debate, not even the bewhiskered gentleman who delights to stand at the Dispatch Box and attack my noble Friend on personal grounds without a policy to back his views. I hope that those who are listening to this debate will note that there is a total lack of any gracious admission by the Opposition parties of the Government's success, or, indeed, any constructive suggestion from them about how we might proceed in future.
  To get back to the subject of the debate, there are one or two things I should like to add to what my hon. Friend has said and to give the Government perhaps another line of thought which may be of assistance. I do not deny that my hon. Friend was absolutely right in saying that there are certain things—if I may use such an unattractive word—certain works of art, not just pictures but other things, which certainly ought not to be allowed to leave these shores. On the other hand, there are works of art which have left these shores which we would very much like to have back.
  I think that if my hon. Friend ponders for a moment he will agree with me that a freer interchange of works of art internationally would perhaps be no bad thing and that perhaps, in some circumstances, even the possession by a particular nation of a certain work of art is not quite the barrier to worldwide enjoyment that it once was with people now moving across the world with ever-increasing speed and ease.
  Tonight, despite the mild setback of one of the American airlines refusing to purchase Concorde, at any rate for the time being, there are others who will be able to fly at twice the speed of sound——
  Mr. Speaker: Order. That really cannot be in order.
  Mr. Cooke: I thought it was not, Mr. Speaker, so I immediately move on to say that it is possible to enjoy the works
  1516
  of art which we might want to have here even if they are in another place, however one goes about it.
  Mr. Money: I hope that whatever he recommends, my hon. Friend is not recommending that major works of art should be moved about, as came up as one of the suggestions at one stage with regard to the sharing of certain works of art between American galleries and our own, which could lead only to total disaster for their condition.
  Mr. Cooke: No, that is not my suggestion. Some things can be moved about but others, I agree, could not and should not be moved about. I was about to say that there should be a freer movement of people across the world as the years went on. Although this is in its infancy, eventually it will be much easier for people to see things even if they are not in this country.
  In making his very laudable case for further public assistance to purchase works of art as they come on to the market, my hon. Friend might have addressed himself—I know that he has thought about this privately—to the question why these works of art appear on the market. I think he and I would agree that it is regrettable that circumstances have forced the owners to put them on the market. Certainly the institutions he mentioned—the charitable institutions existing for the public good, showing pictures but not having the wherewithal to run their galleries—might not have found themselves in their present difficult position but for certain political and economic forces. I say "political" advisedly because politicians and Parliament have a strange attitude to the possession of works of art of great significance, because the owners are beset by many forces—taxation amongst them—which result in these things appearing on the market. I think that if the public, through Parliament, thought carefully, they would alter their attitudes about the possession of these valuable things.
  I maintain that provided a valuable work of art of national importance is readily available to the public, it is probably far better that it should remain in the place for which it was purchased or commissioned, in a great country house or similar place, than that it should be

  1517
  removed forcibly by the nation and purchased, with difficulty, and placed in the somewhat clinical conditions even of one of our great national collections, which are at present bursting at the seams.
  I do not suppose that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary can go very far on this tonight, but I feel that we should think carefully about where we are going because certainly there is absolutely no limit to the insatiable appetite and demands of our national collections if there is to be a great flood of works of art of national significance coming from private and semi-private hands because of political and economic forces. My hon. Friend might like to address himself to that. We had the panic about the Titian and there may be various views about that.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich mentioned Lord Radnor's Velasquez. If Lord Radnor had not been punished by what I regard as absolutely iniquitous taxation, his Velasquez might still be on view to the public at Longford Castle, where it could be seen in far more enjoyable surroundings than in any gallery, even on the other side of the Atlantic. My hon. Friend may care to comment on that.
  When we talk about grants for the arts—that is what the debate is about—we do not just mean the acquisition of celebrated pictures for the nation. These are the things that come up from time to time. Very little attention was given at the time to the export of the Oscott Lectern. I do not suppose that anybody in the House has heard about it——
  The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas): Oh, yes; I have.
  Mr. Cooke: Then I exclude hon. Members on this side of the House. I do not suppose that any hon. Member opposite has heard about it. But it is important in the whole history of medieval Gothic art, and in terms of the significance it has for this Palace of Westminster in which we are speaking this evening. It inspired Pugin to revive the true Gothic style, as opposed to all the nonsense that Horace Walpole started, and the efforts of Mr. Burgess and others later. The true scholar of Gothic revival
  1518
  —Pugin—owed much to this object; and we lost it, although we should not have.
  There are other things of that kind, not just pictures. Let us try, in this House, to sink all the differences we might have with the private owner, so long as he is prepared to enter into a working partnership and with the public, which so many owners of historic buildings do. We cannot sell historic buildings abroad, true, but we can let them fall down, and we do not, because the Government give us back a little of the money they have taken off us in taxation and help us to repair them, and we allow the public in, and they see the works of art as well. They do not see a barn of a place, stripped of works of art which have been put into some national collection, because of the agitation on the part of some hon. Members. We should leave them where they are, if possible, in happier surroundings, to which public access can be secured.
  My hon. Friend and I are together in wishing to see the best kept in this country. He would now add to what he has said that he hopes that a lot of the things that we have lost abroad will come back.
  Mr. Money: Certainly.
  Mr. Cooke: My hon. Friend says, "Certainly". That may mean that we must let some things go from this country that we would like to keep but that we are prepared to exchange. We cannot keep everything. I am not trying to trap my hon. Friend or the Government. Provided everybody is happy to exchange, there cannot be anything wrong in that.
  We should look at this question against the background of immensely increased finance for historic buildings, and for the arts, for which we all care.
  My last point concerns the immensely increased public interest and Government interest in the whole field. My hon. Friend would not——
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I have been very tolerant with the hon. Member. He is going very wide indeed. The debate is limited to an increase of £9,250 in respect of certain provisions for the Victoria and Albert Museum and an increase of £480,000 for purchases by

  1519
  the National Gallery—some of it for the Titian. The hon. Member is going much too wide.
  Mr. Cooke: Then I conclude by saying that I know that my hon. Friend would not have been able to say anything about ministerial responsibility for the whole field, which we regard as more than simply the acquisition of pictures. At school I remember a Latin tag which sums up all that I wish to say Ars longa, vita brevis which I translate to mean, "The arts are all-embracing but if one values ones life one had better not speak too long about them in the House of Commons."
  11.40 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas): Who am I to dissent from such an admirable sentiment, expressed in such beautiful language? I must express my gratitude to my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Money) for raising this subject tonight because it gives me the opportunity to explain to the House how the system of control of works of art in this country operates. These two special grants at the centre of our discussion this evening are a part of the whole.
  I am afraid that I cannot follow my hon. Friend's siren counsel to anticipate the answers that will be given tomorrow to Questions tabled on the Order Paper. It would be quite improper for me to do so. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke) that we must consider the whole question of these grants in the context of the record sums which, subject to Parliamentary approval, are to be devoted to the arts. The record sum of £17,388,000 is involved, which goes to prove my point that we have become the party of the beautiful people, even if one or two of us are not exactly oil paintings.
  In passing, may I say to my hon. Friend that it was rash of him to say, with me sitting on the Front Bench, that there was no one here who knew anything about the Oscott Lectern? It is an object in which I have taken a great interest. Perhaps it will reassure my hon. Friend if I tell him that although it is sad that the Lectern has gone overseas——
  Mr. Robert Cooke: It is still in Catholic hands?
  Mr. St. John-Stevas: In these ecumenical days we do not worry whether it is in Catholic or Protestant hands, or even Jewish hands for that matter, so long as it is in good hands. A lot of the proceeds from the sale of the Lectern have been devoted to beautifying the Chapel at Oscott. My hon. Friend will be able to visit it and see that it is restored to the original condition in which Pugin designed it.
  I cannot agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich that it is necessary to have a further increase in export control to protect our works of art. The burden of my remarks tonight is that our system of protecting——
  Mr. Money Mr. Money rose——
  Mr. St. John-Stevas: Perhaps I may be allowed to develop the point. I am only at the beginning of my remarks. Our system, although a complex one, is effective and is one which offers adequate protection at a number of points.
  Mr. Money: I had hoped to save time by saying that my hon. Friend and I would be at one, and certainly his predecessor and I were at one, in agreeing that the Waverley system works admirably. What I want to ask his Department, through him, is whether more money could be made available to let that system work.
  Mr. St. John-Stevas: If my hon. Friend will be patient and allow me to answer his points in a logical order I will eventually come to that. We must begin at the beginning of our system of protection, which begins with fiscal incentives for owners of important works of art, either to retain them in their families or, if they need to sell them for personal reasons, to sell them direct to public collections. Successive Finance Acts contain provisions which relieve owners or their executors of estate duty if certain requirements on the quality of the works of art are met.
  The second line of defence is the purchase grants of the national or local collections. That is the important point to which my hon. Friend has just referred. Purchase grants of the national institutions now amount to £2 million a year

  1521
  and, subject to parliamentary authority, the assistance provided for local institutions will be increased next year to £400,000 for England and Wales and £25,000 in Scotland. Additional funds of £150,000 and £25,000 are being established for scientific and technological material, thus relieving the previous funds of these commitments.
  Finally, the Government are always prepared in certain cases to make additional special grants where the merits justify it, and the two cases to which the Estimates refer, one of which my hon. Friend discussed, provide important examples of this. There has been hardly a mention of the "Bureau-plat" which is being purchased with the aid of the Treasury. But there has been a discussion of the Titian, which is a classic case.
  Following the export of the Velasquez "Juan de Pareja", the feeling was growing in some circles that the export control had failed to cope with the current very high prices for major works of art. But the success of the Trustees of the National Gallery in raising their share of the funds required to purchase the painting coupled with the matching grant of the Government went a long way to reassure public opinion that where a painting of importance which met the Waverley criteria was at risk, the Government were prepared to step in and help save the work for the nation. But in advance of any case, we cannot give specific commitments about that.
  This assistance to protect what is widely, but rather loosely, called the national heritage is undoubtedly effective. I have a great deal of sympathy with what my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West said about private collections. We should note that what is called the national heritage is in large part in private hands, and I am glad that that is so. But it is private property and, of necessity, the powers of the Government over the control of the property of private citizens is limited. But it shows how effective the system is that only one great painting, the Velasquez "Juan de Pareja" has been exported in recent years which the Government's expert advisers thought, and the Reviewing Committee on the Export of Works of Art agreed, ought to be retained.
  Mr. Robert Cooke: That only became for sale because of penal estate duty. Although my hon. Friend is in no position to guarantee to put that right, that was the reason why it came on to the market.
  Mr. St. John-Stevas: Obviously I cannot go into estate duty this evening. But, like my hon. Friend, I regard it as at best perhaps a necessary evil. My hon. Friend might not go so far.
  Those who raise the alarm on the subject are doing the country not a service but a disservice in a number of ways. They are wrong about the facts, they create unnecessary concern, and they add to the pressures upon owners who might be led to feel that now is the time to sell before the Government have to take more extensive action.
  The essential point is that the present system of control serves effectively the purpose of giving the national collections and increasingly the local collections a fair chance to consider whether to try to raise from both public and private sources the money for purchases. It is not the purpose of the Government to stop works of art coming on the market. If a work of art of any importance comes on the market, the Government want to create a situation where those who have a legitimate national interest in acquiring it will have an opportunity to do so.
  No discussion of this matter is complete without acknowledgement of the important work performed by the voluntary organisations which exist to help in this task, notably the National Art Collections Fund, but also a number of other charitable and private bodies and persons. I pay tribute to them.
  There is also increasing assistance for local collections, and my noble Friend announced on 30th January that, subject to parliamentary approval, the grants-in-aid administered by the Victoria and Albert and the Royal Scottish Museums to assist local purchases would be increased in the next financial year.
  Moreover, the Government announced last autumn that the criteria for the acceptance of works of art in lieu of death duty would be widened to include works of outstanding importance in relation to local as well as to national collections. This has already resulted in an increasing flow of works so offered.

  1523
  To sum up, the arrangements for protecting the so-called national heritage in this country are many and practical. They have the great merit that they work. Many well intentioned people who take a theoretical view of this question might make the problem worse if some of their suggestions were adopted besides committing us to an enormously onerous system of control. To those who criticise the system I say, "Go and see the Titian in the National Gallery. Go and see the Stubbs, "A Couple of Foxhounds" in the Tate, the Hilliard and Eworth portraits in the National Portrait Gallery, and the Domenichino in the National Galleries of Scotland." I could continue the list. If one considers those practical acquisitions, one can see whether the criticism is justified.
  My last point concerns the possibility of control by reference to a national list of treasures of outstanding merit. That has been under examination for some time, but there are known to be serious difficulties both in the compilation of a list and in its use, and serious questions of interference with the rights of private owners which we must always consider would arise. In any case, it is fair to point out that such a list could never be totally comprehensive because it could not deal with works of art which are rediscovered, as so happens from time to time.
  The subject of the arts is one that interests me very much. I know that it interests my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich and my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West. Their presence at this latish hour of the night indicates more graphically than any words the sincerity of their interest in this question.
  I should be tempted, Mr. Speaker, were you not in the Chair, to go on and widen the scope of the debate. But midnight approaches, and we all know what happened to Cinderella when she went on too long. I shall therefore follow her example and draw the evening to a close, at least as far as the Department of Education and Science is concerned, by thanking once again my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich for his zeal in raising this most important subject.

  POLICE (DRUGS AND ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION)
  11.53 p.m.
  Mr. Norman Fowler: I rise in this post-Cinderella period to say that debates in the House on policy on crime are very rare, and when they occur they are usually initiated by a back bencher. There is nothing like the annual review given to defence policy and expenditure. That is a pity, because policy in this area should be put under a much greater scrutiny than it is. That is why I welcome the opportunity of this small debate. It is a narrow debate but it allows us to consider two important units which have been set up in the Home Office to combat two important areas in crime—illegal drugs and illegal immigration.
  I believe that this is also the first opportunity that my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State has had of explaining the work of these two units, the Central Drugs Intelligence Unit and the Central Immigration Intelligence Unit, certainly to the House. The decision to establish these units was announced in a very brief three-paragraph Press release in October, which was not, if the Home Office Press Office will allow me—I am a great supporter of it—one of its most informative efforts. One understands that at that stage it probably was in no position to give more information on illegal drugs and illegal immigration, which are matters of very real public concern, and I hope that the Minister will be able to say rather more this evening.
  Perhaps I may deal in turn with these units and the problems which they face. No one who has even superficially followed developments can fail to be alarmed by the problem of illegal drugs in this country. It is a problem which affects many young people in Britain and which poses a very real danger to them. It is a trade in which criminal profits can be very high. Let us be clear about the extent of the problem and the kind of problem which the units and all of us face in this respect in this country. Comparisons are made with the United States, but we in this country have nothing like the size of problems

  1525
  which they have. Neither in total nor in proportion is the problem of the same measure here and in the United States. This is due to the success of the drugs dependence clinics which have been set up. There is, however, a very real British drugs problem.
  I would mention one or two facts about it. Between 1971 and 1972 there was a 28 per cent. increase in drugs offences. Between 1971 and 1972 there were 22 per cent. more drug seizures by Customs and Excise. We have reached a position which, according to the reports given at the Interpol conference at the end of last year, means that our problem in this country is the worst in Europe. The position is certainly that in European terms we have a very major problem in this country. It is a problem which covers the whole range of drugs, and it is not my purpose to go into each one of those this evening, but there are the amphetamines and LSD.
  There are in particular two trends, two particular drugs of abuse, of which we should take note, and they are Chinese heroin and cannabis. Reading cases over the last 12 months, I do not think anyone can fail to be impressed by the number of them in which these two drugs occurred, over and over again. Therefore, it is primarily in dealing, certainly initially, with the threat posed by those two drugs that the success of the unit which is being set up will be judged.
  First there is the problem of Chinese heroin. All our information is that Chinese heroin originates in Hong Kong, that it is processed there, and imported into the United Kingdom by various means. It is not pure heroin. It is heavily adulterated with other substances, often caffeine. Presumably that is a reason for its appeal to the user, who believes that it is less dangerous than the real thing. In fact it is a very dangerous drug indeed, and the users, in particular, should take note of its very real dangers.
  Secondly, there is the question of cannabis, and the trade here is very much greater. Whereas the British heroin trade is dominated by the Chinese in this country the cannabis trade is much more pervasive and it is a much more difficult problem for this reason. It is made much more difficult by the very considerable propaganda campaign which has
  1526
  been used in an effort to try to make cannabis taking in this country respectable. The campaign of the various groups that have tried to encourage its use are wrong-headed and positively dangerous. I am glad that the Government have set their face against it. The campaigns make the job of the police more difficult.
  Against that background, I want to ask several questions about the Central Drugs Intelligence Unit. I understand that the purpose of the unit is to receive and send out information on the misuse of drugs and on known and suspected offenders. The national unit will contribute information to the individual forces and the individual forces will contribute information to the national unit. That sounds fine on paper, but standards of policing vary considerably. Many police forces have drug squads, but the strength and quality of those squads vary considerably. The ability of police forces to devote resources to drug squads varies with the strength of the forces.
  The plan, which I support, is for a national drive against illegal drugs. I do not advocate a national drug squad to be the executive arm. Regional drug squads would be much more effective. A national squad would suffer from the same disadvantages as a national police force. It would suffer from remoteness, and it might not earn the kind of cooperation which has been earned by the regional crime squads set up by the previous Conservative Administration, which have gained the confidence of the police forces. The regional crime squads were set up to concentrate on serious crime, and they have proved their worth The misuse of drugs is a serious crime, and the knowledge, skill and experience of the police is all-important. Specialised regional drugs squads drawing staffs from forces within the region would be the natural accompaniment to the Central Drugs Intelligence Unit. Furthermore, regional squads would ensure a much more even flow of information to the unit than is likely to occur under the present arrangements.
  Will the unit have an executive arm of its own? Will it be able to carry out its own investigations into serious drug offences, or will it be confined to a purely advisory rôle? The trend in the police service is to employ some of the most experienced and senior officers in

  1527
  advisory rôles. I would not like to think that the unit, which will have some very senior officers in it, will have an entirely advisory function.
  The public would like to know how large the unit will be and what co-operation will take place with Interpol, and particularly with European police forces, The problem with which we are dealing is not so much akin to the situation in the United States, but is a European drug problem. It is essential to have co-operation and links not only with Interpol, but with all European Police forces, particularly now that we are in the Common Market.
  What relationship will this unit have with other bodies, especially with educational bodies, in combating the problem of drug abuse by education and publicity? It is surely in that area that some of our greatest efforts are now to be made. We can search for the smugglers or pushers of drugs, but the battle will be won only with the potential users. Therefore, we must give every aid to the various educational campaigns to underline the dangers of drug-taking. This unit fits in well with this kind of idea. It will point to the national pattern and will see any new dangers as they arise.
  I hope that such a unit will be quite open about new dangers, for this is not a subject to be cloaked in official or police secrecy. I hope the unit will give information freely and willingly to bodies which have a legitimate interest in fighting and preventing drug abuse.
  I turn to the Central Immigration Intelligence Unit which is covered by these items of increased expenditure. There is no question that illegal immigration gives grave cause for concern to many people. There is a worry that the immigration control system in Britain is so obviously under challenge. Illegal immigration is also resented by many of the immigrant community who live in this country, some of whom have relatives queueing to come to Britain. The very fact that such immigration takes place creates suspicion within the community. Illegal immigration also adds to the crime problem, because it leads to blackmail by those who know that a person is an illegal immigrant.
  Nobody can give a realistic estimate of the size of the problem, but from time
  1528
  to time there are assessments of the position by those who know because they are close to the scene. I should like to draw my hon. and learned's Friend's attention to a report by the Select Committee on Race Relations and Immigration, of which I was a member, published last year. The Chief Constable of Lancashire, in a memorandum presented in evidence, said:
  "There is fairly widespread traffic of illegal immigrants who enter the country surreptitiously in many devious ways, mainly Pakistanis."
  Superintendent Taylor of the Lancashire Constabulary, which is the second largest force in the country, asked about the position of illegal immigration in the Lancashire Constabulary area, said:
  "My inquiries led me to believe that illegal immigration is widespread, and it can cover many aspects such as the man coming into Heathrow Airport, or any airport for that matter, on two months' holiday and then disappearing amongst the large immigrant communities that we have got in this country. It does cause unrest inasmuch as he probably, in some instances, goes to live next door to a person who is making an application for one of his brothers or sisters to enter this country".
  When asked by one of the members of the Select Committe whether this was an expensive form of illegal immigration, Superintendent Taylor said:
  "It is not expensive if they are going to stay here. You see, I say they come for a holiday and then they disappear, so in fact they are not coming for a holiday, they are coming here to take up permanent residence, and it is quite simple to enter by the method that I have lust mentioned."
  This is not a survey carried out by a sensational newspaper; this is evidence, presented by senior officers of the second largest police force in this country, which I suggest this House should take very seriously indeed. It indicates that the police, particularly in some areas, regard this problem of illegal immigration as extremely serious.
  This is a serious matter because it poses problems not only of crime but of race and community relations in this country.
  There seem to be three main methods by which illegal immigration is effected into this country. This new unit that is being set up will be judged on how it deals with those three methods.

  1529
  First, there are those who try to get into this country by using false papers, documents and passports or try to bluff their way past the immigration officers at the port of entry. Secondly, there are those who come for a holiday and then just disappear, as the evidence from the Lancashire police suggests. They may come as visitors or students. I suggest that in size these are probably the most serious. Thirdly, there are those who enter illegally by boat or private plane. Although it may be thought that they are not the most numerous, they certainly get the most publicity.
  It is against this background that we should judge the worth of the Illegal Immigration Unit. I believe that in dealing with the first category—those who attempt to gain entry by the use of false passports and documents—the unit will be of great help. I think that it will develop an expertise in detecting false documents and knowing what to look for. It will be quite invaluable in detecting illegal immigration of that kind.
  However, I am concerned whether the Illegal Immigration Unit will be as successful in dealing with the second and third categories that I have mentioned. I suggest that its usefulness may be limited in those areas because there must be a common feature that encourages illegal immigration to this country. Clearly the illegal immigrant must believe that if he manages to enter the country then all is well. He must believe that there will be no overwhelming difficulty in getting a job and settling down. The fact that so many try suggests that they are right. We have very few internal checks. Perhaps our only check is the issue of the National Insurance card. That is the nearest equivalent that we have to the identity card which is issued in many countries, including many European countries. The Department of Health and Social Security does not make anything like the same kind of security checks that are made in the issue of an identity card or even in this country in the issue of a passport. If the man has a job he can get a card.
  The Department of Health and Social Security does not regard it as part of its job to carry out security checks of that
  1530
  kind. I do not blame the Department of Health and Social Security. The issue is much wider than that. It has direct relevance to the success of the new unit. Traditionally Britain's control system has put its emphasis on control at the port of entry, at the seaport or the airport. We have never followed the European system of internal controls. But times have changed. We have joined the Common Market; we have joined Europe, and the borders are coming down. Free movement is to be encouraged. That is one of the reasons for the Common Market. A citizen of a Common Market country has the right to settle here in any event.
  But there are others in Europe. There is an enormous army of foreign workers now in Europe. The extent of the problem was recently discussed fully, and I thought very well, in two articles in the Sunday Telegraph. The foreign workers in Europe make our immigration population look small. There are almost 6 million foreign labourers working in France and Germany. They come from Yugoslavia, Turkey and the Arab countries. They come to Western Europe to seek work and the prosperity of a Western European industrialised society. It may well be that none of these people will ever want to come to this country, but it does not make a great deal of sense to rely on the fact that that will be the position.
  I mention that matter because it seems that we now have a rather curious control system. We have a situation which involves no internal checks. We place our reliance on port checks which are likely to have less relevance as the years go on. Not everybody is satisfied that the present situation, and certainly the way in which it has been applied over the last few years, leads to adequate control. Our new position in Europe indicates that the position might worsen. I ask my hon. and learned Friend, in the light of our new position, to examine the situation and to see whether the present controls that have served us well in the past are relevant as we go through the 1970s into the 1980s, whether they will be relevant as the Common Market expands and the interchange of its citizens continues.
  These two units represent valuable advances. It should be recognised that

  1531
  the Government have done a great deal to deal with crime. We have seen notable increases in police recruiting. We have seen increases in the probation service, and we have seen the Criminal Justice Act come into being. These two units will make their contribution in the fight against crime which the Government are pursuing. The emphasis that the Government have placed on fighting crime is altogether right because I believe—and I know that my hon. and learned Friend agrees with this—that the crime area is one of real public concern.
  12.21 a.m.
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr Mark Carlisle): My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Fowler) has drawn attention this evening, through the advantage of a debate on the Consolidated Fund, to the two new central intelligence units that have been set up by the police to deal with the problems of drugs and illegal immigration. As my hon. Friend said at the beginning of his speech, this is the first time that this matter has been raised on the Floor of the House and I am therefore grateful to him for giving me the opportunity of saying something about what I agree with my hon. Friend are important new ventures.
  The House will be aware, and my hon. Friend reminded us just now, of the serious problems that we face on both these matters, particularly that of drugs. I do not want at this hour to give the House a great many statistics, but I think that one or two figures clearly indicate the nature of the drug problem.
  If we consider first the hard, addictive drugs and look at the numbers of those drug addicts coming to the notice of the Home Office during any year, we find that in 1960 that figure was 437; in 1967 it had grown to 1,729; and by 1969 it had grown to 2,881—a substantial, indeed one might say massive, increase over the decade of the 'sixties. Happily, the 1970 and 1971 figures have shown no increase on the 1969 figure.
  As my hon. Friend said, it is particularly a youth problem. The increase is accounted for very largely by the increase in addicts under 34 years of age. In 1969, those under 20 accounted for just over one-quarter of the total addicts, while those between 20 and 34 made up
  1532
  more than half, and the overwhelming majority are addicted to heroin or methadone. The only encouraging figure that I can give my hon. Friend on addiction is that in 1970 and 1971 the number of addicts coming to the knowledge of the Home Office slightly dropped. We have the encouraging situation also that whereas in 1969 those under the age of 20 accounted for a quarter of all the addicts coming to the notice of the Home Office in this country, by 1971 those under 20 represented only one-eighth of a similar total.
  But, as my hon. Friend said, it is not only a question of addiction to heroin and drugs of that nature. The percentage increase in the number of convictions for offences involving the use and possession of cannabis is more dramatic still. In 1967 there were 2,393 such cases. By 1971 the figure had grown to 9,219. We should do nothing to undermine awareness that we face a serious drug problem.
  Mr. Fowler: The figure for cannabis, the increase to over 9,000, is rather alarming. Did the rate of increase continue to accelerate in 1972, or is the number levelling out?
  Mr. Carlisle: The 1971 figures are the most recent figures for a complete year that we could yet have. I shall write to my hon. Friend and give him any statistics that I can about 1972, although it will be some months before we are in a position to give the picture for the whole year.
  I turn to the question of illegal immigration. The number of offences is nowhere near as massive, but the fact remains that between the passage of the Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1968 and 31st December last year 74 cases were brought before the courts, involving 307 illegal immigrants. Those figures are not necessarily reliable as showing the size of the problem. It is of the very nature of illegal immigration that its size can never be adequately predicted, because those who are successful in illegally entering the country do not come within the figure.
  We have strengthened the penalities by creating a new offence under the 1971 Immigration Act of assisting illegal immigration, which is punishable on conviction on indictment by up to seven

  1533
  years' imprisonment. We have empowered the courts in certain circumstances to order the confiscation of vehicles, ships or aircraft used for illegal immigration.
  It is, therefore, against that background of the numbers involved in drug offences and the serious nature of offences of assisting illegal immigration that one must look at the proposal to set up these two new central intelligence units. While we have done what we can by legislation, it is vital that we do all we can also to see that the law is effectively enforced.
  It is of the nature of these problems that they know no simple geographical boundaries. Drug trafficking spans the boundaries of different police areas and, as my hon. Friend reminded us, it spans national boundaries. Moreover, it involves more than one enforcement agency. In combating the drug problem, we look not only to the police but to the Customs and Excise and the inspectors of the Home Office drugs branch. In dealing with illegal immigration, one has the involvement of the immigration service and of the police.
  With a number of enforcement agencies at work, it is vital to co-ordinate and direct their efforts to ensure that time and energy are not wasted by duplication and faulty communication, which can operate only to the advantage of the drug trafficker or the organiser of illegal immigration.
  All this points to the need for much closer co-operation between the agencies involved and for effective pooling of information. That is the purpose of these new units. Adequate intelligence has always been the life-blood of successful police work. But however good and comprehensive the information gleaned may be, it is of little value unless it can be sent out quickly to those who need it. As I have said, drug trafficking and illegal immigration offences often involve movements over considerable distances, spanning various areas and even national frontiers. Therefore, the need is for a central point the purpose to which is to collect, to collate and to disseminate the information about known or suspected offenders.
  It was the decision of the chief officers of police that, to meet these various needs, central intelligence units should be set up.
  1534
  It was agreed that the units should be based in London, in the area of the Metropolitan Police Force, but with half the officers in the units drawn from forces outside the Metropolitan force. This will have the advantage of bringing in officers who have first-hand experience of problems in other parts of the country. They will have an appreciation of the special features of enforcement work in different areas, including Scotland.
  Her Majesty's Customs and Excise will have an officer working in the drugs unit, and the Home Office drugs and immigration branches will be closely associated in the work of the units.
  My hon. Friend asked me to say something about the size of these units. The drugs unit will be under the command of a detective chief superintendent of the Metropolitan Police. His second-in-command will be a detective superindent from another force, The remaining police staff will consist in the first place of a detective chief inspector and two detective inspectors from the Metropolitan Police and four detective inspectors from other forces. It is clear from that, I think, that it will not have an executive arm as such. Its aim is to collate and disseminate information on the movement of people suspected in these matters.
  I listened with great interest to what my hon. Friend said about the case for a regional drug squad. As he probably knows, most of the police forces already have their own drug squads and it is to them that the information collected by the central intelligence unit can be fed. The regional crime squads were set up to combat serious crime. I was glad to hear my hon. Friend say that he believed that they had been successful. Undoubtedly serious drug trafficking would come within the ambit of serious crime and therefore within the ambit of the regional crime squads. But I shall certainly consider whether there is room for the idea he put forward for a drug unit within the regional crime squads.
  My hon. Friend then asked what would be the relationship with Interpol. The units are still in their early days. Their formation was announced only last October but I can confirm that the international aspects of drug trafficking and the organisation of illegal immigration will not be overlooked. It is clear that

  1535
  people involved in those criminal activities are operating on an increasingly large scale across national frontiers, and the units will be responsible for fostering the necessary links through Interpol with enforcement agencies in other countries.
  My hon. Friend asked what part the units would play in the education, particularly of young people, in the dangers of drugs. I have no doubt that the information collected by the central unit will be of value. But my immediate reaction is to say that the actual lecturing on the dangers should be done by the drugs squads of the forces in their respective geographical areas.
  I listened with interest to what my hon. Friend said about the need for the Home Office to examine carefully its traditional practice of control of illegal immigration at the points of entry to see whether it is adequate in the present international situation. We shall look at that. But in both these areas the units will be an essential element in the fight against trafficking, whether in drugs or in human beings. The Government are determined that the police and the other enforcement agencies involved shall have the help they so badly need. The cost will not be negligible, but the cost in terms of human suffering if the problems are tackled inadequately will be incomparably greater. The announcement of the new units was made on 26th October. They are now being set up. They have a skeleton staff in post from the Metropolitan Police.
  Applications have now been invited from provincial police forces for posts in these units and I am glad that there has been a most encouraging response. The choice of people from provincial forces to take up posts in the units will be made in the course of the next month and the units will be brought progressively up to full strength. What I said about the strength of the units concerns only the original strength as envisaged, but their future development will be kept under close review both to make sure that they are making an effective contribution and also to ensure that the level of staffing is adequate. We regard these units as a most promising development in enforcement work, and the Home Secretary and I share the hope expressed by chief officers of police that the units will make
  1536
  a really significant contribution in these difficult problems.
  I am obliged to my hon. Friend for giving me the opportunity to refer to these units by raising this matter tonight. I have given him all the information I can give at the moment and, as they develop further, I am sure that there will be more information coming forward that I can give him.

  YORKSHIRE AND HUMBERSIDE
  12.41 a.m.
  Mr. Roy Mason: The object in raising this subject is to extract from the Minister a progress report on the environmental and employment improvements in Yorkshire and Humberside. I hope that the hon. Gentleman who is to reply to the debate will try to deal with it from a Yorkshire regional viewpoint. I shall try not to digress, but that may be necessary for the purposes of analogy or to emphasise a point.
  The House will see that there is a collection of Supplementary Estimates—Class VI, Vote 5, Subheads C, D and E; Vote 12, Subheads B and E; and Vote 16. Subhead A.6—all of which are in the province of the Department of the Environment dealing with rents of unforeseen hirings, which according to the Vote necessitate an increase of £1,350,000; increased costs and additional requirements of building and engineering services, showing another increase of £2 million; payments to river authorities for water abstraction, an increase of £180,000—the total is now over £16 million; infrastructure grants, which have increased by over £4 million and now total £25 million; and transportation studies, the cost of which has nearly doubled and is now £476,899, an increase of £203,899. With such a large percentage increase, the policy may have changed and, therefore, this item of the Supplementary Estimates might be more widely debated.
  Within these sums of money I am particularly concerned with the Yorkshire and Humberside share. I should like to know from the Minister what is in it for Yorkshire. First, unforeseen hirings: where are they to be and for whom? The sum of £1,350,000 for unforeseen

  1537
  hirings is almost like a blind request—cash in hand just in case. Looming large in my mind is the Hardman Report and the possibility of its proposals being carried out, involving the dispersal from London and Whitehall of 60,000 civil servants to the regions. I am particularly concerned that if that is accepted Yorkshire and Humberside should not be overlooked. The increase in hirings might be explained by the fact that many more civil servants might have to be catered for in hirings outside London in the year ahead. There is an urgent need for more Whitehall Departments to be dispersed into the regions and Yorkshire makes its claim to be recognised. I hope that in explaining the reasons for this increase in the estimate the Minister can indicate the extent to which Yorkshire will benefit. The region is already starved of service employment and any switch from Whitehall to Yorkshire of Civil Service Departments could provide a fillip to employment and a regeneration of activity in our region.
  I raise a similar query with regard to the increased costs and additional requirements of building and engineering services. Some £32,800,000 is being asked for, an increase of £2 million. I ask, therefore, for what buildings, and where, is the £2 million increase in the Estimates to be spent on additional requirements?
  I hope that this might be allied with the estimate of unforeseen hirings, movements of Civil Service Departments out of London into the regions and provision being made for new buildings to accommodate them. If this is so, I ask that Yorkshire must be recognised as this Whitehall shake-out begins. The Estimates to which I have referred may bear no relevance to the point I have made, but the Minister at least has been given notice that Yorkshire and Humberside intends to fight for its share of movable service industry once it begins to accelerate northwards.
  I turn to Class VI, Vote 5, Subhead E, and particularly to the payments to river authorities for water abstraction, now totalling more than £16 million. I should like to know to what extent within Yorkshire and Humberside industries, whether nationalised or private, or
  1538
  other bodies or Government Departments are abstracting water from the rivers for industrial use and which rivers are involved.
  More particularly, I should like to know what requirements or understandings are sought from those users of the Yorkshire rivers and waterways that, having taken the water from what was initially a clean, pollution-free river, their final discharge after industrial use is not contributing to increased pollution and to our dirty rivers with poisonous chemicals and so on. These rivers and waterways are becoming more precious with the increasing sport of angling, the developing stretches of cruiseways and the greater realisation of their potential for commercial traffic and trade.
  It would be helpful, therefore, to know which industries or Government Departments and rivers in Yorkshire and Humberside are involved in this estimate of about £16½ million. It would also provide us with a guide so that we can periodically check whether any of these industries or Government Departments are Yorkshire's river poisoners.
  An interesting estimate is Vote 12, Subhead B. A figure of £25 million is being sought for infrastructure grants, an increase of over £4 million, and the Vote says that this is due to the increased cost of several major schemes. The Minister ought to tell us what are those schemes, but, above all, whether any of them are in Yorkshire.
  I am concerned about the rundown in our textile towns, our old coal-mining villages and our outdated and closed steel plants, leaving behind an appalling legacy of the old industrial infrastructures which necessitates much finance and rapid redevelopment to stop them from becoming shocking permanent monuments of grime and industrial dereliction.
  I hope that within these Estimates the Under-Secretary can give me an example of how the infrastructure grants are helping to obliterate those industrial scars. Particularly he might say whether any studies are taking place to help Yorkshire in its desire to clean up its industrial sectors.
  In the Vote on transportation studies it is stated that new studies are being

  1539
  commissioned more rapidly than was foreseen. The cost is £476,899—an increase of £203,899. Such a large percentage increase might indicate a change of policy. That should be explained.
  What transportation studies are being or have been commissioned in Yorkshire and Humberside? I ask the Minister, first, whether one of the studies covers the problem that might flow from the building of the Humber Bridge, which is going ahead and is due to open in 1976. I question whether any studies are being made relating to the growing road networks opening up the Humberside area as a result of the building of the new bridge. What estimates are being made of the likely impact on the region of the increase in communications, in terms of its effect on trade and jobs? Is one of the transportation studies to be commissioned concerned with the possible growth in trade and employment prospects as a result of the British Waterways proposals now before the Minister to widen and deepen the Sheffield-South Yorkshire waterway. The Minister must be aware of the fact that if this were one it could cause many industries along the waterway to flourish right through the heartland of Yorkshire and Humberside, but particularly it opens up a vast sector of the county with a direct waterway link to the Continent and the Common Market.
  Thirdly, I have been perturbed and concerned for some time about the movement of people from the county because of the lack of good road communications. Within the transportation studies, what study is taking place of good road communications, linking the old mining villages with a view to speeding up travel in the defined travel-to-work areas? The Yorkshire coalfield is not really one employment area; it is 50 miles across from east to west and 50 miles from north to south. The east-west connections are not so good and are slow. The area portrays a picture of a series of intermittently connected mining villages. If the people in this area have to travel, travel becomes a burden. They then consider moving, but instead of moving within their own area, having taken the decision to uproot themselves they decide to emigrate from the county altogether, usually to the south. This is the single most important factor in our emigration
  1540
  problem, and it is increasing. I hope that we shall have a transportation study of this problem.
  Finally, I question Vote 16, Subhead A6, which deal with grants for reclamation of derelict land—a total of £14,862,000, which represents a requested increase of £10,800,000. First, I concede to the Government that Operation Eyesore—land reclamation schemes and the clearance of dereliction—is succeeding, with pleasing environmental results, but I ask where all the money is being spent. How much is being spent in Yorkshire and Humberside? What schemes of note have been tackled? To what extent are local authorities and national industries co-operating? How are we really comparing with the other regions in the drive for a cleaner and healthier Britain, and what sort of impact is this environmental drive having on employment prospects in our region?
  I ask whether, within this Estimate, any money is being earmarked to hold the West Riding County Council Land Reclamation Unit together and use it as a team, with its expertise, to plan the clean-up of the county. It consists of 15 specialists with support staffs, who did magnificent work in Yorkshire even before the increased grants were available.
  I ask what the Minister is doing to shatter the complacency of British Railways. They are not playing their part, with disused stations left derelict and abandoned—eyesores pitting the countryside. Local authorities have great difficulties getting decisions from them on planning and land clearance. British Railways headquarters is not responding fast enough, in keeping with the urgency of the problem. I hope that the Minister in his drive to clean up the county and the nation is urging British Railways in particular—and other nationalised industries—to co-operate more readily with the local authorities.
  The National Coal Board is better, but only a little. A substantial number of spoil heaps—muck stacks we call them in Yorkshire—are not subject to planning controls. The board is deemed to have planning control over them. This is slowing down muck stack clearance. The board even holds to ransom those who wish to erase these eyesores by asking

  1541
  ridiculous prices for the muck stack content. I am also perturbed that in some areas the board is tending to hog land around the perimeter of these spoil heaps, thus hindering the local authorities in spreading the stack properly and making it blend more amenably into the landscape. The grants for reclamation of derelict land can be jeopardised if this sort of action continues.
  Turning to derelict land grants, in my own town of Barnsley the derelict land reclamation programme looks good. The projects are listed up to 1975. Nearly all involve major expenditure on muck stacks, naturally enough in a coal-mining area. The aim is that 224 acres should be cleared by 1980. Under Operation Eyesore in Barnsley and district 100 projects are in the pipeline, many of them small items such as cleaning buildings. A sum of £193,000 has been earmarked, so that the town is indeed having a facelift.
  I hope that the Minister can reveal how the Yorkshire industrial towns are taking advantage of the £14,800,000 in Government grants. Yorkshire and Humberside is keen to solve its environmental and unemployment problems. Within this catalogue of Votes dealing with infrastructure grants, transportation studies and moneys earmarked for reclamation of derelict land, some scope is being provided to deal with both. I only hope that the Minister can tell us that Yorkshire and Humberside are taking advantage of these offers, that they are forging ahead to enliven and brighten the country and that the prospects for a clean, healthy and full-employment environment are now a distinct possibility.
  12.58 a.m.
  Mr. Joseph Harper: My right hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) has covered the problems of the Yorkshire and Humberside region on a broad canvas in a comprehensive fashion. In contrast, I want to base my speech on constituency problems, under the subheads of the respective Votes in the Supplementary Estimates.
  The first is subhead D of Class VI, Vote 5, in which there is an addition of £2 million to the sum of £32,880,000 for building and engineering services and increased costs and additional requirements.
  1542
  It has passed through my mind that the Government might give some thought to transferring the offices of the National Coal Board from Hobart House in the south-west of London to Doncaster and the heart of the coalfield. I asked about this in the Yorkshire debate on 19th June last year. If this were done it would contribute to the efficiency of the administration of the board and would give the people working in the industry the feeling that the board was part of them. I make this plea again and wonder whether it has crossed the Minister's mind.
  My right hon. Friend has drawn attention to subhead E dealing with gas, electricity and certain telecommunications and the abstraction of water We know that water is taken from the rivers and that, after use, it is put back. In the case of power stations, I am advised that the water is cleaner when it is put back into the rivers than it is when it is taken out. Rigid rules of procedure must be followed. Unfortunately, the same rules are not imposed on manufacturing industries.
  My constituency point in this regard is one which the Minister personally has dealt with on previous occasions in debate and in answer to Parliamentary Questions. It concerns the detergents which are poured into the river upstream of my constituency. They cause a great deal of foaming on the river with which the borough of Castleford has to try to deal. This matter has become a pretty hardy annual.
  Before we approve this Supplementary Estimate of £180,000, part of which might go to helping to deal with the problem, I hope that the Minister will answer two questions, since this subhead deals with payments to river authorities for water abstraction.
  First, has the Minister considered whether the £180,000, in addition to the original Supply Estimate, is enough to enable the river authority to deal comprehensively with this problem? Alternatively, within this Estimate is the appropriate river authority able to give financial assistance to the Castleford borough council so that it can deal with the problem? The burden falls upon local people, and it is not of Castleford's making. Someone else has created it, but Castleford has to bear most of the financial

  1543
  responsibility for clearing the foam. The borough council has never been able to understand why local ratepayers should have to shoulder the cost indefinitely, despite numerous meetings with those responsible and with Ministry officials. I hope that the Minister will have something new to say in reply, and I trust that a positive approach is to be made to solving the problem.
  Subhead B of Vote 12 deals with infrastructure. The Supplementary Estimate in this case is £4,050,000, making a total of £25,050,000. What is Yorkshire likely to get out of it? What major schemes are planned? What are the employment prospects, which depend to a large extent on infrastructure? What will be the effect on travel in the area, bearing in mind that many men and women have to travel inordinate distances to get to work and earn a living?
  What of transport studies, where a Supplementary Estimate of £203,899 brings the total to £476,849? The question is a difficult one, and perhaps it is not fair to ask the Minister, but I must ask it because it is a constituency point. Does he know whether the West Riding County Council has made a recent study of the transport situation as it affects my constituency of Pontefract and Castleford?
  What effect will the M62 have when it is opened, which is expected to be in 12 months, on the Wakefield-Snaith Road? For example, will the proposed road on the Featherstone urban district council's town map be needed? In this day and age when hon. Members on both sides of the House ask Ministers for more and more roads, it is unusual for anyone to ask for a road to be taken out. It may be that such a proposal would receive loud cheers if the debate were better attended than it is. However, we cannot get the Featherstone council or the West Riding County Council to move on this one. We want the road taken out because when the M62 ploughs through to Ferrybridge and eventually right through to Hull there will be no need for the proposed new road. The proposal is sterilising valuable industrial land and preventing industry from coming to Featherstone. It also prevents us from cleaning up properly and thereby giving a much-needed boost for the environment of that town.
  1544
  Several industries have made inquiries about going there, and have learned that a road is to go through. This has earned the nickname of "the ghost road". The Press was full of it some years ago, saying that it was a ghost road about which no one knew anything. Were I a betting man, I would bet that the road will never be built. However, in order to get on with cleaning up and attracting industry to this spot, we want the road removed from the town map or at least built.
  My final point is about dereliction, under Vote 16, Subhead A6. Here there has also been a vast increase of nearly £11 million. The figure has risen from £4 million to about £14 million. Along with the North-West, in Lancashire, on the wrong side of the Pennines, this has affected our counties more than anywhere else.
  Reference has been made to dirt tips. As the Under-Secretary knows, we call them muck stacks. One of the best ways of treating this kind of dereliction and reclamation is to put the stuff in the motorways and the other suitable places we can find. There are 450 tips in the Yorkshire coalfield. Some are as high as the Andes. Of those tips, 185 are closed tips, so nothing would prevent us from dealing with them immediately, and another 90 tips are being dealt with. The other 200 tips are live tips on to which dirt is still being tipped. They present a more difficult problem.
  The Minister can do something to help in the disposal of these muck stacks by stopping borrow pit working. A borrow pit is a little pit near a road, be it the M1, M62 or A1, from which material is transported out of a field 200 or 300 yards to the road being built. This results in double dereliction. It poses the question why we create dereliction and try at the same time to solve it. It is like spitting in the wind; one gets it back. It is like treading a moving staircase in the opposite direction.
  One of the reasons why these muck stacks are not being moved fast enough is these borrow pits. The Minister may ask how it is that the muck stacks are not being moved at the required rate, and why they cannot compete. The short answer is that they cannot compete because it is unfair competition. The borrow pits are dug out of little fields at the side of the road being built.

  1545
  There is also the advantage of using unlicensed vehicles. They are not taxed or rated. That used to be the case with the muck stacks until someone had the bright idea that these tips should be rated in order to provide some revenue for the local authorities. The matter went as far as the House of Lords, and the decision in the other place was that rates had to be paid on tips. This made some tips uncompetitive. But if we stopped borrow pit working, the dirt from the muck stacks would be used in a much better fashion.
  The National Coal Board is doing research into lightweight aggregates. There is a great shortage of these in Yorkshire, because the tips cannot provide every sort of filling, although there has been quite a lot of research into this. Dereliction and the general untidiness of some of the areas of the county discourage industry from coming to the place. It is only when we pay more attention and give more help to the infrastructure, dereliction, transportation and other subjects covered by these Supplementary Estimates that the full potential of the region will at last be realised.
  1.10 a.m.
  Mr. James Johnson: No civilised back bencher at this hour of the morning makes a long speech. On the other hand, one seizes one's chances as a constituency Member unashamedly to represent one's constituency's interests, and I am sure the Minister will listen carefully.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) is a Yorkshire-man, and he spoke of Yorkshire often, but also of Humberside. I would plead with the Minister to bear Humberside in mind and to remember that it also is a part of Yorkshire. As a visitor there he will well know exactly where are the docks that I shall mention, and the other matters involved in the transportation studies mentioned in Class VI of the Votes.
  Before I come to that context I want to echo what has been said already and commend to the Minister what he knows well, that in East Yorkshire we should have some of the 60,000 civil servants going north. On the west side of the country, Bootle has been nicknamed the
  1546
  Whitehall of the North, and I do not see why we should not have two White-halls in the north, one in Lancashire, as there is, and another in Yorkshire.
  So Hull makes a plea for having civil servants from more Departments living on Humberside. It has a delightful climate. East Yorkshire bears comparison with East Anglia. The Minister, as a farmer, will know that East Yorkshire bears comparison with any part of East Anglia, and has the same type of climate and the same type of farming. So we have a claim to having some Departments there. We can attract people out of London to the East Yorkshire coast. It is important because emigration from our part of the world is a serious matter; we are losing our young people.
  Mention has also been made of coordination between British Rail and the local authorities. The Minister knows that we have been scared time and time again by statements by colleagues of his about certain contingency planning and about our rail network being cut down—as we have been told, to some 8,000 or 9,000 miles. I hope the Minister will pay attention to this and heed the feelings of people in East Yorkshire and on Humberside and the need to safeguard our railways, particularly from Hull to Scarborough.
  I come now specifically to Class VI, Vote 12, and transportation studies, about which we are told that
  "New studies are being commissioned more rapidly than was foreseen."
  The notes speak of
  "Advances in respect of contributions towards the cost of transportation studies undertaken by local authorities …".
  In Hull we have done a number of these studies, and I am wondering whether any of them have been conidered for inclusion under that heading.
  I have here the annual report for 1972 of the deputy chief executive officer for community planning in Kingston upon Hull, who states what we all know, that the Government have shown some imagination in matters like the Humber Bridge and the M18 and M62, without which we would be, as it were, almost eyeless in Gaza, because no port can for long exist, let alone wax larger, without adequate communications. I hope that our entry into the EEC will in no way

  1547
  delay the signing of the contracts. The Minister knows that entry means widening our scope in the United Kingdom and on the Continent, so I hope there will he no delay in building the bridge.
  Road proposals within the city are of vital importance to us. The commercial docks are on the east side of the city, and goods have to be carried to the A1 and the M1 on the west side. On the west side there are the fish docks, and on the east side there are the cargo docks. We vitally need a docks road parallel to the fish docks running to the big cargo docks in the east. The city engineer has done studies on such a road. Will the Minister convey to his colleagues the need for a decision on this matter?
  Until a decision is made many firms with well-known names—Birdseye and Findus—and small family firms like Glenton cannot plan ahead for extension. They need to know if and when certain buildings will be demolished and exactly the line of the new docks road. I ask the Minister to pay special attention to this. It is vital to be able to move goods from East Hull to West Hull without going through the centre of the city. Goods that are unloaded in the cargo docks on the east side have to go through the centre of the city to get to the freight terminal on the west side.
  Whether the transportation studies are undertaken by the city or by the Department of the Environment, they must be speedily implemented for the sake of Hull, the third port of the United Kingdom.
  A point of less importance concerns the working party study on commercial vehicle parking. We know the findings, but we do not know how they affect Hull. Each night about 600 commercial vehicles are parked in Hull. We need a secure parking place and adequate overnight accommodation for the drivers. We should like to know what is happening about commercial vehicle parking in Hull and whether there will be a network of secure parks throughout the United Kingdom.
  I ask the Minister to pay particular attention to the vital importance of the docks road on which the city has made a study. Proposals have been made to
  1548
  him, and I hope that he will get on with them and let us know what is happening.
  1.20 a.m.
  Mr. Stanley Cohen: I support what has been said so far in this debate, and I wish to emphasise the points which have been made about dereliction. The emphasis has been on the Yorkshire Ridings and the rural mining areas. I appreciate the problems in those areas, but we should also recognise the serious difficulties in conurbation areas, such as Leeds, particularly in my constituency, where dereliction can take several forms. One of the major problems facing local authorities is in clearing old commercial and business properties which are now empty, or in trying to make them safe. Many of these old properties attract vandals, itinerants and vermin, and life can be made impossible for those who reside in such areas. Many of these problems are rife in my constituency, and the local authorities are doing their utmost to give assistance and encouragement in clearance matters, and they in turn would welcome Government help.
  I regret that my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) singled out British Rail for criticism. Although some of his criticisms were justified, the difficulties which he outlined should not all be laid at the door of British Rail. I know from my experience in working in the estates department of British Rail that many difficulties and delays arose because local authorities were hesitant in completing sale transactions largely because of their inability to provide finance at the right time. But British Rail were only acting under instructions from this House that in the sale of British Rail property and land first options should be given to local authorities. Therefore, the railways were compelled to negotiate with local authorities and often ran into difficulties.
  Mr. James Johnson: We have difficulty in building new houses in West Hull because we have so little land. British Rail often has land available formerly used for sidings, and so on, but local authorities sometimes take a great deal of time to deal with these matters. They may meet one day and then not meet again for another six months.
  Mr. Cohen: I agree with my hon. Friend that in seeking to dispose of derelict land British Rail is often handicapped by delays in trying to obtain planning permission from the local authority. However, we must keep the matter in perspective since a number of factors are involved.
  I am delighted that attempts are being made to commission transport studies more rapidly. At certain places in my constituency inner ring roads pass within yards of people's homes. Those same people have now been informed that the next phase will bring other roads close to their homes from the other side of the development. This is giving some cause for concern. The more rapidly we can deal with this situation and carefully analyse the problems which arise from the new developments that are required the better.
  I hope that in the course of these transportation studies careful thought will be given to the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. James Johnson) about British Rail. One of the greatest difficulties confronting Yorkshire—I do not mean Leeds particularly, but the West Riding—is the tremendous increase in the volume of traffic now passing through that area. Arising from this is the question whether there should be a Pudsey/Dishforth motorway link. I am sure that the Minister will be reasonably, if not fully, aware of this situation. This problem occurs in many areas because of the closure of the British Rail system. The stations and lines have completely disappeared. I am pleased to advise my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley that there is no dereliction. In fact, it is difficult to appreciate that stations existed in some places. We are now feeling the long-term effects of the removal of the railway system. I am sure that in the years ahead, with the tremendous increase in the volume of motorised traffic, we shall regret even more that many stations have been closed. In the transportation studies we should try to plan ahead. We should anticipate the developments which will occur with a view not to reducing but to increasing the railways system.
  1550
  In view of the points which have been made in the speeches by my right hon. and hon. Friends and the lateness of the hour I shall not keep the House any longer. I hope that the Minister will take serious note of what has been said. I am sure that he will.
  1.27 a.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Eldon Griffiths): With the leave of the House I will attempt to reply to this very wide-ranging debate. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) and his hon. Friends on having been able to insinuate, under the rather narrow headings before us, an extremely wide-ranging and interesting debate about the environment, in the widest sense of the word, in South Yorkshire. As the right hon. Gentleman said, it has been a debate about Yorkshire mainly by Yorkshire men. He suggested that it would allow me in reply to give a progress report on developments in the environmental and economic sphere which are broadly touched upon, as I must agree, in the Votes to which he referred.
  My Department, having a measure of responsibility for regional policy, has been pleased to see the progress that has begun and is accelerating since the whole region was declared an intermediate area. Before 1972 only the Yorkshire coalfield, including the right hon. Gentleman's constituency, had intermediate area status. But from March 1972 the whole region has had this status, from which many additional benefits have flowed: training courses, grants under the Industry Act, loans, interest relief grants, tax allowances on machinery, plant and industrial buildings, advance factories, removal grants, free fares for key workers, and specifically on the environmental front intermediate area status has brought substantial improvement under the derelict land clearance programme of Operation Eyesore.
  On the employment front, the programme recently announced by my right hon. Friend includes eight advance factories for the Yorkshire and Humberside region with a total of 100,000 sq. ft. Of the five advance factories which had previously been authorised for the Yorkshire coalfield area, four have already

  1551
  been built, two of which have been let, and the fifth is in an advanced stage of construction.
  I think that more needs to be done. There is a large legacy from the past of industrial obsolescence. Nevertheless, it is instructive that the unemployment figures are now coming down quite quickly, and I sense when I go to that area that the economic momentum is accelerating.
  There is an intimate connection, as the right hon. Gentleman implied, between improved environment and the attraction to industry to go there. It used to be that industry destroyed the environment. Now we have reached a stage when only if there is an improving environment for people to live in can one attract industry to establish itself in an area such as South Yorkshire.
  The right hon. Gentleman referred to the proposed increase of £1·35 million for rents for Government accommodation. I must tell him that that represents less than an additional 3 per cent. to the original provision. It covers a number of unforeseen additional requirements of a perfectly normal kind during the remainder of the financial year. It covers about a dozen fairly small hirings for various clients of central Government—the higher courts and the Professional and Executive Registry at the Department of Employment. The House will be interested to learn that this rent provision includes slightly more money for the rent assessment panel. That is the area which is covered by this particular increase. It is, I think, perfectly normal.
  The right hon. Gentleman rather ingeniously related the dispersal of civil servants and additional hirings with the fact that Sir Henry Hardman had completed his report and that Yorkshire might get a lot more Government offices. The report by Sir Henry Hardman will, I understand, shortly be received, and decisions will be announced about it in the early summer. I cannot give any assurance at this stage. That is a matter for the Civil Service Department. I cannot give any assurance about how many civil servants will be dispersed or precisely where they will go. However, the claims of Yorkshire and Humberside, which have been put forward eloquently tonight, will he considered along with the other regions' claims.
  1552
  Several hon. Members have indicated that the nationalised industries might also remove some of their staff from the London and South-Eastern area to the North. It was suggested that Hobart Place was not necessarily the most natural environment for the National Coal Board. Of course, that is a matter for the coal board. The Government cannot, and would not wish to, instruct the chairman of the coal board to do anything other than he felt was right within his managerial competence. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will expect all the nationalised industries to have regard to the wish of the Government and of the House that there should be a dispersal of both civil servants and at least any clerical employees of the nationalised industries to the regions.
  I am aware, as no doubt is the right hon. Gentleman, of the letter recently sent to my right hon. Friend by the Chairman of the Yorkshire and Humberside Economic Planning Council, in which he eloquently argued the point in respect of the nationalised industries. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will take note of what has been said by both the chairman and hon. Members here tonight.
  On Class VI, 5, the right hon. Gentleman and a number of his hon. Friends managed to get in the question of river pollution under the listing of additional expenditure for fuel and other items for Government premises. This subhead has nothing to do with abstractions for industrial purposes. The purpose of this estimate, which increases by only 1 per cent. the current estimate, is to cover the normal fuel requirements of Government premises; that is to say, gas, oil, solid fuel and electricity. It makes provision for any payment that may be made for water which river authorities may draw from a river for the domestic purposes of those premises.
  I understand that the amount of water that is used for domestic purposes in these Government offices is insignificant. Indeed, I suppose it to be used only for making tea or for the staff to wash their hands. I must, therefore, ask the House to excuse me if under this heading I do not deal with the whole issue of cleaning the Yorkshire rivers.

  1553
  The right hon. Gentleman was concerned about whether any polluting discharges might be going into the Yorkshire rivers from Government offices. My right hon. Friend and I would be most disturbed if that were to be the case. The right hon. Gentleman may wish to know that the Government have said that they expect all those who administer Crown property to observe the conditions required by river and sewerage authorities of similar premises occupied by local authorities or industry. If there is any evidence that Crown property is not observing these conditions the Secretary of State will take action to see that the requirements are met. If the right hon. Gentleman has any evidence of Yorkshire rivers being poisoned by Government Departments, I wish that he would provide it. I do not believe that there is any evidence of that.
  The hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Harper) and I have on a number of occasions debated the problem of foam in Castleford. I can only say that I cannot deal with that problem under this subhead which provides the ability to pay for water used to wash people's hands in a few Government offices in the rest of the country.
  On Class VI, 12, transport studies, again these are primarily studies of the problem of urban transportation, a problem which I believe needs increasing attention. They do not include studies for the Humber Bridge and the associated road network. That is covered elsewhere, but the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. James Johnson) is right when he says that access to the port of Hull needs to be improved, if only to benefit the increasing trade with Europe.
  I understand that priority is being given to the improvement of access roads, and some of the programmes which have been accelerated—and which I believe will help the hon. Gentleman—include access to Hull via the M62-A63 from Merseyside and the M18 from the Midlands. Work is proceeding on the new M180 to connect with the Humber Bridge, and when all this work is completed—and I hope that it will be on schedule—Yorkshire and Humberside will have one of the finest road networks in any region.
  1554
  I take the point made by the hon. Member for Pontefract about what he regards as the surplus road proposal in the Featherstone area which, he said, was sterilising industrial land. I do not believe that this is for my Department. In the first instance it is for the county council. It does not come under this subhead, but I am sure that the new metropolitan county, when it comes to consider all its road schemes, will, if it is wise, have regard to what the hon. Gentleman has said tonight.
  Mr. James Johnson: I thank the Minister for his helpful and cogent words about the future network to the west of the city of Hull. But is he saying that I might well have been gainfully employed in discussing under the subhead pedestrian precincts in the centre of the city?
  Mr. Griffiths: No. The urban studies touched upon here mainly concern, in the Yorkshire area, the Sheffield-Rotherham transportation study, to which I have paid a great deal of attention since I have become involved in the urban studies that we are pursuing. This is a large-scale study of the whole Sheffield-Rotherham transportation pattern. The estimated cost is £515,000 over three years, of which my Department is meeting half.
  The reason for the substantial increase that the right hon. Gentleman noticed is that we are now completing the structure plans of many of the regions, and this of itself has given a much greater impetus to transportation studies generally. It has meant that we have been able to start additional studies, which generate in turn the need for the additional expenditure under the subhead.
  I should say something about derelict land. I was delighted to hear the right hon. Gentleman's generous tribute to his local authorities, in that they are now in the Yorkshire area making rapid and very pleasing progress in the reclamation of derelict land. At the end of 1971 the region had just under 14,000 acres of derelict land, of which 10,500 were considered to justify reclamation. In 1970 850 acres were reclaimed, which was four times as much as in the previous year. There was a slight fall in the number of completed schemes in 1971, but a great

  1555
  deal of new work is now in the pipeline, and I am advised that in 1972—the figures are not yet all to hand—the authorities expect that more than a thousand acres will have been reclaimed by all the agencies. The figures show that there is gathering momentum.
  There is no better way of improving the living environment for people than to get rid of some of the unsightly areas of derelict land. I and Labour Members know, from having grown up among it, that it not only depresses those who must live in it but deters industry from going to a region.
  On Operation Eyesore there is a success story to tell. It was announced in February 1972 as a supplementary short-term boost to the assisted areas, aimed at the more local pieces of dereliction not covered by the main derelict land clearance programme. It was also designed to give a short, sharp boost to help alleviate unemployment in the assisted areas. The scheme has been immensely popular. It has been widely welcomed and taken up by the local authorities. Up to the end of last December more than 10,000 Eyesore projects had been approved for grant in England, at a total cost of more than £23 million. In Yorkshire and Humberside no fewer than 2,800 separate Eyesore projects have been approved at a cost of over £6 million. I am very glad that the right hon. Gentleman has seen all this progress in Barnsley. Sometimes the schemes are quite small, but they add to the environment.
  I have seen what has been done in the Rotherham area. It certainly helps to produce a cleaner, brighter Yorkshire to have the cleaning of buildings, landscaping, planting of trees and the general tidying up of sites and buildings.
  I take note of the points made about the nationalised industries and their part in both derelict land and Eyesore programmes. The right hon. Gentleman will not expect me to comment on his rather vivid phrase about British Rail showing on occasion a degree of shattering complacency. I noticed that his hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South-East (Mr. Cohen) rose to the defence of British Rail. But I hope that the Railways Board will take note of what the right hon. Gentleman has said.
  1556
  The same goes for the National Coal Board. I derived much benefit from the description given by the hon. Member for Pontefract of the muck heaps, the 150 or more tips which could be more rapidly improved, and I noted also his observation that, very often, some of the land adjoining the tips at the bottom is not dealt with as rapidly as it might be. I shall bring to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport Industries what the hon. Gentleman said about the use of borrow pits for material for road construction. I think that this is a matter on which the technical experts might well be able to answer better than I can.
  We have had a wide-ranging debate within the limited ambit of the Supplementary Estimates. I hope that the House will accept that the provisions of this additional money is sensible in the circumstances.

  SCOTLAND (OIL INDUSTRY)
  1.46 a.m.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: It there were any temptation to complain about starting a debate at a quarter to two in the morning on the subject of the North Sea, we should remember that whereas we are in relatively comfortable circumstances here in the House, those who are out on the rigs may be in a force 9 gale. At the outset of what I have to say, I pay a tribute to the men and managements who work on the rigs out in the rigours of the North Sea. Until one has been on a rig, even in fairly moderate conditions, one does not, I think, realise how tough the work is.
  I have had an interest in this subject ever since I served on the Standing Committee on the Continental Shelf Bill in 1963. Perhaps one would have made rather different speeches then if it had been possible to foresee what we now see with hindsight. But hindsight is an advantage in life! My first comment is that the ministerial arrangement is a little odd. I am glad to see the Minister here, and I know that within his Fisheries Department there resides a tremendous amount of expertise. On the other hand, it is a bit odd that the oil industry, the major industrial event since the Industrial

  1557
  Revolution for Scotland, should be the responsibility of one who has also to worry about pig prices, about the police and about a host of other matters.
  The time has come to take a long hard look at the ministerial arrangements and to consider whether it is desirable to have some kind of commission to give an overall coherent strategy in these matters, and not least in the matter of harbour development, the subject of the debate tonight. What has prompted me to initiate this debate is a feeling that so many of the things we do are "itsybitsy". I want to know about the Government's strategy.
  We had long, fairly detailed, and, on the whole, rather satisfactory discussions with BP about its terminal at Queens-ferry and Dalmeny. I shall not go into detail about that now. But the extraordinary feature which emerged after our talks with provosts, councillors and trade union officials, with the farmers who are to be dispossessed, and with Lady Rosebery, who is the land owner, was that we all felt the same—that the case which was put forward in a narrow context was probably very good, but the same kind of argument was going on along the Fife coast, possibly at Dundee, possibly in the Minister's own constituency at Montrose where developments are taking place, and all up the coast through Wick to Scapa and the Shetlands.
  Are the Government happy that there is a coherent strategy? Are they happy that the international oil companies, which are to be the customers of the harbours, are not losing the Scottish Environment too much by competition among themselves, and should they not be required to fit into a coherent strategy? What is the strategy and who is in charge? Specifically, what is the brief given to the Scottish Development Advisory Group under Professor Nicol? What is its rôle exactly and what advice is being asked of the Economist Intelligence Unit? The Scottish Office Ministers responsible in this sphere have their share of problems. Shetland has asked for a provisional order and now we gather that in the last 24 hours Orkney has followed suit. For Caithness and Sutherland plans are being prepared separately. There is also the Cromarty
  1558
  Firth Authority. I should have thought that any Minister in the Scottish Office must be a little worried about all the different authorities going off at tangents. I cannot believe that a series of uncoordinated provisional orders is the way to tackle the challenge of oil in the 1970s and 1980s.
  Personally, I identify myself very much with what the Shetlanders are doing. Perhaps they have hit upon a Socialist way of solving their problems, and I say that without being too party political. Of course, a Parliamentary Commission to investigate any of the Shetland channels, such as Sullum Voe will cause delay. Indeed, some delay might be a good thing. I am not persuaded that we must do everything "as urgently and as quickly as possible," as the Secretary of State is fond of telling us. Specifically, I should like harbour dues to be used for the good of the whole population and not paid only to the harbour authority, for purely harbour development. There is a problem for the communities concerned in oil exploration and it may have hit Shetland first. Shetland is almost about to be over-run unless it does something. Unlike Orkney, time is not on its side. I should be interested to hear anything about the discussions with the Ministry of Defence about the Lyness Jetty at Scapa and to hear about the contractual relationship which the Government would like to have between the Ministry of Defence and the various private interests along the east coast of Scotland. What is the pattern to be?
  The entire north shore of the Cromarty Firth will be established as an expanding service and manufacturing area. Easter Ross is expected to house 6,000 workers in the next 18 months. The director of education is on record as talking about the need for at least £4 million for school building in a short time. But is a Cromtary Firth Port Authority necessary and is it wise to have turned down the suggestion by the International Machine and Engineering Group for a petroleum services industry board? I understand that it was turned down basically on grounds of urgency, in that a PSIB might cause delay. Such a decision is open to severe criticism because some of us do not think that either the development or the research is likely to be done as it

  1559
  should be within the framework of the Department of Trade and Industry.
  Incidentally, I am not one of those who is prepared to criticise the Department's civil servants for being soft about oil. Any criticism that is made should be directed at politicians of both parties rather than to the civil servants because there is no evidence that the civil servants have been soft with the oil companies, as has often been said in the Press. I am aware that my hon. Friend the Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Douglas) is to raise the question of the IMEG Report in detail on Monday, so perhaps on Monday we will have an answer on this problem consequent to the rejection of certain IMEG proposals. The question of key industrial land bears directly on harbours. One thinks of the potential concentration around Sullum Voe in Shetland, and the question of servicing and processing facilities. Is the Scottish Office to grant free exercise of such powers to local authorities? The whole relationship to Onshore Investments Ltd. is, I think, a Scottish problem and not a local problem. Indeed the relationship between the Government, and any form of organisation which offers a complete land-finance package, of wharfage facilities, fabrication, and oil processing installations, is a matter of consequence. In passing, I must say how impressed I am by what is being done at Methil by Redpath Dorman Long and at Leith. Having asked about these installations, I must express the fear which is at the back of the minds of us all that the country we care about might look in 10 years' time like the coast of Louisiana. This is a real danger. It was in America that the first oil industrial revolution took place. One hopes that we may learn from the experience of Americans and do much better, avoiding their mistakes, but if we are to do better something must be done early and that means a coherent strategy now. Incidentally, I am aware that the discount flow rate is sensitive to the capital figure. I mention that because I do not want to be accused of ignoring a whole range of important factors in this argument.
  I ask about the relationships between the Government and the P & O, my former employers and their subsidiaries in their project at Lerwick. I think that £1,800,000 is involved. Without being
  1560
  impertinent and encroaching on questions relating to the Minister's constituency, I should be interested to hear of the kind of relationship he thinks should exist between the Government and Oil Services in Montrose. Will the whole pattern be that which obtains with the Dundee Harbour Trust?
  I think this a proper point at which to ask again a question of which I have given notice about negotiations going on for the establishment of a median line in the North Sea/Atlantic which may have a bearing on the siting of major installations at Lerwick or elsewhere.
  As one who took part in parliamentary discussions on Peterhead, I understand that the 1,500 foot quay, the 22 acres of reclaimed land and the general service berth on the south side of the harbour or refuge is going quite well, but there is a 15-year lease for oil industries. Perhaps this interesting debate provides an opportunity to comment on how this partnership experiment between public and private agencies is working out. I should have thought an interim report worth while for all of us who are concerned in these matters. From Peterhead to Boddam in another context I think that this is a regrettable project and I would have wished that it had been nuclear.
  Specifically, however, I should like to know whether there has been a complaint from Site Preparations of Barrhead that it is being squeezed out by the public initiative of the Scottish Office. This seems to me to be the kind of argument on which we should have some comment because it may recur time and again.
  I turn now to the Scottish position as a whole, including the West Coast and the concessions recently allocated in the Atlantic approaches to Orkney. I understand that in total at least 10,000 ft. of new quay space for service vessels will be required in the near future. I only ask whether public and private agencies are proving themselves capable of matching the tremendous pace being set at sea with adequate shore facilities. One thinks naturally of future developments at Stornoway, because part of the difficulty has been that this has come on us so suddenly that all of us can perhaps be accused of lack of foresight. I

  1561
  do not pick out who have been interested for a long time and certainly as a member of the 1963 Standing Committee I feel as guilty as anyone and am not accusing others. Nevertheless, the fact is that from now on we have no excuse for not showing the kind of foresight that I should like to see, for instance, in relation to Stornoway in connection with the Western Approaches.
  This is not the place to go into the detail about the merits, of the underwater evaluation Ministry of Defence centre at Raasay. Since, however, many countries use their forces for what one might call socio-economic purposes one would have thought that there could have been far more co-operation between the Ministry of Defence, which I am sure would welcome it, and the oil exploitation companies, particularly concerning deep water and the use of submersibles. I therefore ask the Ministers who have responsibility for oil development precisely what discussions have taken place with the Ministry of Defence in any of their projects.
  I have undertaken to be brief. In shorthand, therefore, I come to a criticism. The Wolfson Foundation has generously given a large sum of money to the Heriot-Watt University. Why has not the Scottish Office seen fit to give a matching amount? It seems disappointing that considerably more Government funds have not been put into the whole question of submarine research and underwater research. I simply say in passing that the French are spending not less than £50 million a year on this, and I am not just talking of the dramatic, well-publicised work of Cousteau and others. They have a whole programme. It seems strange that they should have a programme and that we, who are at least for the moment better endowed, are being so parsimonious in this respect.
  Again, we should like to have some comment on the whole tie-up over the next 10 years between port authorities and some major corporations with new ideas. I think particularly of Lockheed and their one-atmosphere sub-sea completion systems. On another matter, some of us have met representatives of Lockheed within the last fortnight. As can be imagined, with the ending of the Vietnam
  1562
  war they are only too anxious to get into the European market in one way or another. When firms like that come and offer whole systems, I hope that again there will be some clear thought by the Government about what the relationship should be between the incoming firms and the harbour developments. Co-ordination in this respect is extremely important, as the advisers to the Minister will have told him.
  I gather that about 275 ships are required by 1980. There is a promising market for the builders of service vessels and standby ships needed to supply the increasing fleet of rigs which will be drilling at distances of more than 100 miles from the coast. These ships are relatively small—standby vessels and chaperoning vessels with facilities for helicopter takeoffs and landings. They are of trawler size and their construction does not demand particularly large or sophisticated yards. I should like to know what the Government will do, pressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Doig) and others in encouraging the building of these fairly simple and rather small vessels, which will have a vital part to play in the exploitation of the North Sea.
  I cast some doubt on the question whether the emphasis that we had at Question Time today and on other occasions about the need to act urgently and quickly is necessarily right.
  I end with the hope that some coherent policy can be announced fairly soon or, failing that, that administrative arrangements will be made to deal with the problem, or that some commission will be set up with powers to produce a coherent strategy, which is lacking at present.
  2.6 a.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Home Affairs and Agriculture, Scottish Office (Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith): I start by thanking the hon. Member for West West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) for the constructive and helpful way in which he introduced the debate.
  This subject is of the most vital importance not only for Scotland—opening up the most exciting prospects; it is important for the whole of the United Kingdom.

  1563
  The hon. Member asked me many questions and I am sure that he will forgive me if, in the short time that I have, and at this hour, I do not delay too much. I apologise if I cannot deal with every one of the points that the hon. Member raised, because some involve a certain amount of detail. I want to deal with some of the more general points and also to pick up some of the particular ones.
  I start with what the hon. Member said when he finished. He questioned whether the strategy of the Government was right in acting so quickly in relation to this development. He referred to this matter being raised at Question Time this afternoon. I believe that our strategy in this matter has been correct. It has been the strategy not only of my Government but of his Government as well.
  It is worth reflecting that if we had not acted as resolutely and with such urgency as we did and as the previous Government did in initiating this project, some of the developments which have now taken place in the northern part of the North Sea might not have taken place at all at this time. It is fair to question whether we might not still simply be drilling for gas somewhere—perhaps off the Yorkshire coast—instead of having, in 1973, the most exciting prospects opened up for the North-East and North Coasts of Scotland. Therefore, I make no apology for the urgency and speed with which the Government have acted in exploiting this wonderful resource on our doorstep.
  The second general point concerns the question of ministerial responsibility for this subject. The hon. Member must appreciate that I am answering this debate because the heading of this Supplementary Estimate—under which he has rightly sought to raise this matter—concerns harbour development of those harbours which are the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Scotland and are basically and initially fishery harbours. That is why, naturally and properly, they fall within my responsibility. The handling of matters relating to oil does not rest simply with my Department. It is also covered by various other Government Departments and in the Scottish Office my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Development is
  1564
  particularly involved, personally and through the Department, in co-ordinating and liaising on strategy and tactics for the development of this resource.
  The way in which the Government have handled this is more of a strength than a weakness, because we have mobilised the total resources of the Scottish Office. Where there was expertise and knowledge which could be used to develop this resource it was used. To say that a number of Departments with different responsibilities and expertise have been brought into this does not mean that there has been a lack of liaison or strategy. We have mobilised many Government resources to ensure that we make the best use of the opportunities presented to us.
  Those concerned with oil development are by no means dissatisfied with the service given by the Government. I was privileged to be present in Montrose when P and O announced its proposals and I was interested in the tribute which officials of the company paid to the Scottish Office, the Department of Trade and Industry, the Department of the Environment and the National Ports Council, for the assistance that had been given. It is a sign of the success of the Government's activities that so many Departments are involved. The liaison and co-ordination between them has been effective. I accept that it is something we will have to watch. It would be tragic if for any reason the speed of development, and its effectiveness, should founder for administrative reasons.
  The hon. Member asked me about liaison between Government Departments and harbour authorities, which is an extension of the question of liaison between Government Departments. Officials of the National Ports Council and the Ports Division of the Department of the Environment and the Scottish Office work in close co-operation on port matters in Scotland. They also keep in close touch with the various port and harbour authorities concerned. It has recently been decided to strengthen the existing link between the Scottish Office and the Department of the Environment's Port Directorate by establishing a branch of the Directorate in Edinburgh. This is under the Ports Branch, which from February this year will be located in an office adjacent to

  1565
  St. Andrew's House and which will be working even more closely with the various ports and the Scottish Office on the related infrastructure projects.
  These new arrangements will be of particular value for North Sea oil development. A group of officials, including those from the National Ports Council, will be set up as a committee of the Scottish Economic Planning Board to keep port developments in Scotland under continuous review. I hope that this demonstrates that organisationally we are paying particular attention to the way in which we maintain proper liaison between Government Departments and port authorities.
  The hon. Member asked about the Cromarty Firth. There are problems in the expansion of that area, and the rate of expansion represents a special problem, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Gray) knows probably better than anyone. Pending the setting up of the new local government structure in the area, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Development has appointed a co-ordinating committee of the existing local authorities which will deal with the planning and infrastructure problems throughout the area. I believe that this is the proper way to deal with it.
  Returning to the general questions of liaison and strategy, it is obvious from what the hon. Gentleman has said that these arrangements inevitably require the co-ordination of a large number of departments and agencies. This is the very nature of the problem. I can sum it up best by saying that the main coordination is being achieved through the Scottish Economic Planning Board, which reports direct to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.
  In terms of the strategy of the development and the liaison between the different departments, I hope that I have demonstrated that we are alive to the problems and are resolving them. If we are to make the best use of the different types of expertise in the different departments, it is important that they are involved rather than necessarily centralised in some single organisation.
  I turn now to some of the more detailed points raised by the hon. Member
  1566
  for West Lothian. I mention first Peterhead Harbour. I agree that this is an appropriate moment at which to give a progress report on developments there.
  As soon as the discoveries of oil in the North Sea revealed the potential of Peterhead Bay as a base for servicing oil rigs the Government lost no time in bringing before Parliament the Harbours Development (Scotland) Bill which was rushed through all its stages last July. This enabled plans to be drawn up and offers to be taken from companies interested in leasing the £2 million quay development that was planned in the southern part of the bay.
  An agreement was signed in November with the Aberdeen Service Company (North Sea) Limited to use 22½ acres of quay space with a frontage of 1,500 feet. The company plans to develop an integrated base for servicing oil rigs, and construction of the quay is under way. Upwards of 200,000 ton of sand have been brought into the bay for reclamation work, and construction of the quay wall should begin in March. Contractors will have access to the reclaimed area as it is created with a view to the base being partially operational by mid-summer.
  It is a tribute not only to the procedures of this House initially in getting the project off the ground but also to the speed with which construction activities have started that, within a year of the Bill being enacted, there is a prospect of this service facility at Peterhead being partially operational.
  My Department is going ahead with discussions about other possible developments in the southern part of the bay, but it is too early yet to make any announcements.
  On the north side of the bay, we have made considerable progress in negotiations with Arunta about its plans to construct warehouse facilities and a jetty for servicing oil rigs. This company is also planning to be in operation this summer. This is another demonstration of the way in which servicing companies and others connected with North Sea oil, in co-operation with the Government, are getting their plans into operation in a remarkably short time scale.

  1567
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is taking steps to set up the necessary organisation for managing the developed harbour. As the hon. Member probably knows, we have appointed a small advisory committee under the chairmanship of Mr. J. C. Williamson of Aberdeen to advise on all aspects of the development, and arrangements are well in hand for appointing a full-time harbour manager. With the good offices of the trustees of Peterhead Fishery Harbour the services of their harbourmaster and other staff will also be available for managing the harbour.
  One point I would mention, which the hon. Member also touched on, is the importance in relation to the environment and the importance to involve those people who are locally affected by the various developments. Regarding Peterhead, we have made considerable efforts to keep people informed of the proposals for development of the harbour of refuge. At a very early stage we held a public meeting at which our proposals were explained. I am glad to say that they received a general welcome. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has also stated on several occasions that the amenity of the bay must, as far as practicable, be preserved. I believe that if adequate care is exercised by all those concerned, the amenity of the lido, about which people were rightly concerned, should not be adversely affected by the developments.
  The hon. Member asked about Site Preparations, a company interested in developments at Peterhead. This company, along with others, had an opportunity of offering developments on the south side of the bay, but it did not choose to offer on terms acceptable to the Government. That is the position concerning that company.
  Regarding the wider aspects of the environment, this has been made very clear to the oil companies and other industries involved. For example, the standing conference which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State established a year ago was reminded when it met recently at Inverness by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Development about the importance which must be attached to environmental factors. The conference brings together representatives
  1568
  over a very wide field and there is a very useful dissemination of information about arrangements in this respect.
  Regarding liaison and the overall coordination of these developments, the hon. Gentleman should remember that virtually all of the oil development projects are in areas which are not zoned for development as approved in development plans. This means that the final decision has to be made by the Secretary of State. Therefore, so far as co-ordination and sensible planning throughout are concerned, around the long Scottish coastline, there is co-ordination through the planning machinery to make sure that a coherent and sensible strategy results from it.
  I have dealt with most of the general points. I shall now very quickly deal with two or three particular detailed point, of which the hon. Gentleman very kindly and courteously gave me notice.
  The hon. Gentleman asked about Lyness in Orkney and Scapa Flow. The present position is that a consortium of oil and drilling companies is negotiating with the Ministry of Defence for the lease of part of the existing facilities. Firm proposals have been put to the consortium, and a reply is currently awaited. I could not say more about that at this stage. It is very much in the hands of the consortium at present to respond to the proposals put to it.
  The hon. Member also asked about various developments at Raasay. I take note of what he has said about coordination with the Ministry of Defence. I shall look further into that matter. The interesting thing about Raasay is perhaps not so much in relation to the Ministry of Defence but to the particular physical facilities which the entrance to Loch Carron and the Sound of Raasay offer. Interest has been shown in the area by a number of firms, at least one of which has shown serious interest, as an area in which it would be possible to build offshore oil production platforms in concrete. This is perhaps the most dramatic development which has been mooted so far as the Sound of Raasay is concerned, but I take note of the hon. Gentleman's point about co-ordination with the Royal Navy and about other developments in deep water technology.

  1569
  The hon. Gentleman also asked me about the negotiations on the median line north of Zetland. No formal negotiations are in progress at the moment in respect of the waters north of the designated areas, but both Britain and Norway are looking at the possibility of extending the median line and designating blocks in more northerly waters.
  I hope I have dealt with at any rate most of the points the hon. Gentleman raised. I do not know whether there is any particular point I have not answered.
  Mr. Dalyell: I do not, I suppose, accuse the Minister of being complacent, for he has given me a very full answer, but if all this co-ordination is as good as he says it is why is it that we have Shetland going off for a provisional order, Orkney going off for a provisional order, Caithness setting up a study for good planning, Sutherland following suit, and Cromarty Firth wanting something else? They all have very genuine worries. Further south, there is concern about Queensferry and the Dalmeny terminal. How does all this fit in, coherently with the general planning? I am still rather uncomfortable about all this.
  Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman should still feel uncomfortable about it, but he must realise two things. First of all, as to the developments in different areas, obviously, in planning, there are procedures which in some places it may be necessary to go through, as, for example, in Shetland in relation to a provisional order; in other areas, the procedures will be the simple planning procedures. One has to look for a solution which is appropriate to the particular problems of the area concerned. Therefore, it is inevitable to some extent that the answers will not be uniform, and that orders which are put forward will not be all put forward at exactly the same time.
  Secondly, and more important, many of these proposals are arising on different time scales. In just the same way as the development of exploration started in the southern part of the North Sea and there is a natural progression northwards, as technology develops the boundaries of exploration can be pushed farther out. It is for such reasons
  1570
  that one is bound to get a varied rather than a uniform pattern in these developments. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that through the Development Department of the Scottish Office we are keeping a very strict co-ordinating line throughout all this development.
  In conclusion, as I said earlier, it is Government policy to promote this exploration and the resources of the North Sea as rapidly as possible because, of course, those resources are so important to our balance of payments, so important to our economy as a whole. We simply must proceed as quickly as we can. I am not being complacent about it but I believe we have already achieved a considerable measure of success. We have already attracted to work in Scotland a very substantial proportion of the international expertise in this very difficult work of offshore drilling, and in only a few years we have established the existence of four commercial fields with six more fields under investigation.
  It is as a result of this impressive record that we are seeing in Scotland the growth of important new industries and sources of employment. Already we can see firm prospects of over 7,000 jobs, with more to come. At the same time, we require, as I said a few moments ago—and it is very important—to keep a proper balance between these desirable industrial developments and the proper protection of the environment. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made clear his determination to do this. For example, in the Moray Firth projects we have demonstrated how coordination can be achieved through the instrument of the Town and Country Planning Acts, and how the Acts can be used flexibly and sensibly. We have done this without too much frustration and without undue delay, which could be fatal if Scotland is to benefit from the enormous potential off our shores. I remind the House that we are investing all this money before a penny flows from the oil revenues and before any oil comes ashore. We have shown in our preparations that we are alive to the challenge and are taking advantage of it for the good of Scotland.
  I thank the hon. Gentleman for the way he introduced the debate. I apologise for dealing speedily and perhaps slightly superficially with some of his comments.

  1571
  I shall read with great care the report of his speech in HANSARD. I take to heart what he said about the need for coordination and a proper approach. These are the very aims which we in the Scottish Office are determined to carry out.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.
  Committee this day.

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

  RAILWAY POLICY
  2.31 a.m.
  Mr. Leslie Huckfield: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise this subject, although I am not particularly grateful for having to do so at this hour. I feel rather sorry for the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, because he is a constituency neighbour of mine, and also because, with the greatest respect to him, he is the wrong Minister. The points I shall raise are essentially Home Office points, and I am afraid that I shall get a "transport" answer. I am not saying that it will not be relevant, but I hope that the Minister will do me the courtesy of communicating some of my remarks to his hon. and right hon. Friends in the Home Office.
  When I first tried to raise the matter of the leak of confidential information from the Department of the Environment, the publication of an article in the Sunday Times of 8th October and the raid on the Railway Gazette on 29th November, I had incredible difficulty in getting any information at all from the Government Front Bench.
  By 11th December, almost two full weeks after the raid, although I had tabled four Private Notice Questions and a Written Question to the Attorney-General, and written a lengthy letter to the Prime Minister asking what was his Government's policy on the Official Secrets Act and whether he intended to use against the Railway Gazette either
  1572
  the Theft Act or the Copyright Act, and despite correspondence between the Leader of the House and the Leader of the Opposition, no real information had been given a fortnight after the raid took place.
  All we have been told—and I suppose that this is what the hon. Gentleman will tell the House tonight—is that the Department of the Environment passed the matter to the Director of Public Prosecutions, who then, properly, passed it to the Metropolitan Police Commissioner.
  On 12th December the Prime Minister made his first statement. He said that if the Department of the Environment had not done that it could possibly have been accused of being negligent. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition tried to be helpful on that occasion, but even by 20th December, two days before the House adjourned for the Christmas Recess, no information had been forthcoming.
  By that time I had tabled further parliamentary Questions to the Secretary of State for the Home Department, the Attorney-General and the Leader of the House. I had received no information, even in reply to a letter which I wrote to the Home Secretary on 18th December asking him about my suspicions on telephone tapping and blackmail in connection with police inquiries.
  By the time the House was due to adjourn for Christmas, three weeks after the raid took place, the House was none the wiser because the Government kept very tight-lipped. This happened amidst growing newspaper speculation about telephone tapping and the whole philosophy of the present Government towards the Press.
  Thus it was that on 22nd December, the day the House adjourned for Christmas, a Written Reply was given by the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary to the hon. and learned Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke)—a Member who, up until that time, had taken not the slightest interest in the matter. I can only conclude that he did not table that Written Question of his own accord.
  When the Home Secretary said that no threats had been used by the police and that telephone tapping was in accordance with the recommendations of the

  1573
  Birkett Committee in 1957, I must emphasise that that was the first information this House had received in detail about these investigations. In other words, we had a situation where, getting on for four weeks after the raid took place, this House had still not been told why the raid had taken place and what method was used.
  I also wish to point out that precisely the same Question as asked by the hon. and learned Member for Darwen just before Christmas was debarred to me several times by the Table Office. I was told that such a question was not a matter for the Home Secretary. I should like to know—and I shall be pursuing this matter later—why the hon. and learned Member, who had not up to that point taken the slightest interest in the case, was allowed to ask that Question and to be given a reply.
  On the same day Scotland Yard announced that a complaint had been made about police conduct. We still do not know who made that complaint. I can only conclude that the Government saw the light and thought that they could not hope to win a case on those grounds. Therefore, an investigation was undertaken into the conduct of the Metropolitan Police. That inquiry is still taking place because the solicitors representing Richard Hope, the editor of the Railway Gazette, have advised him, now that the charges have been dropped, to go ahead if he wants to co-operate.
  On 30th December, a full month after the raid took place, the Prime Minister, in reply to a letter which I had written to him three weeks earlier, was still denying responsibility and simply passing the buck to the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Metropolitan Police. I can only conclude that this incredible secrecy and withholding of information from this House was simply because the Railway Gazette and the Sunday Times had stumbled on the truth. I hope the hon. Gentleman will take note of the fact that it was in May 1970 that Chapman Pincher in the Daily Express was saying almost the same thing as the Sunday Times said on 8th October last—and indeed the Chairman of the British Railways Board was saying more or less the same thing in August last year.
  1574
  Could it be that, instead of having unearthed one of a number of alternatives in the Department of the Environment, the Railway Gazette and the Sunday Times had unearthed and brought to light the mainstream of departmental thought about British Railways' future? I hope the hon. Gentleman will say something about that aspect of the matter when he replies to the debate.
  We have still had no specific denial from the Government that the telephone conversation which I had with the editor of the Railway Gazette on the morning of 1st December was tapped. I hope that when Detective Chief Inspector Edwards completes his investigation into police conduct we shall receive a specific denial that that telephone conversation was tapped. I also hope that we shall get a denial that the telephones of Richard Hope, Christopher Bushell and Ian Yearsley were tapped. Despite the assurance by the Home Office, the House has still heard of no authorisation for this. It has not been discussed; it has not been put forward. We still have not been told that these telephones were definitely not tapped. I hope that when the police report is available this will be so.
  We see from paragraph 141 of the Birkett Committee's Report in 1957 that telephone tapping might be necessary for the security service to assist in
  "protection from espionage, from sabotage, and indeed from every kind of action that threatens the security of the State."
  Paragraphs 142 and 143 of the Birkett Committee's Report talk about telephone tapping perhaps being necessary in the context of serious crime
  "organised and carried out by professional criminals who want to make a great deal of money and would not think of making it in any other way than by crime, at the expense of their fellow citizens."
  Whatever happened in connection with that leak, whatever happened in connection with the Sunday Times and the Railway Gazette, I do not think that anybody who was possibly involved in that could be accused of falling within the context of paragraphs 141, 142 or 143 of the Birkett Committee's Report. I can only conclude that if telephone tapping was used—I hope that we shall have a specific denial—it will be brought to light, because to my mind this whole incident

  1575
  falls very much outside the Birkett Committee's recommendations.
  I will not mention tonight, because of time, the techniques of the police in questioning Christopher Bushell. They said to him, when they called at his house on 4th December, that it would be a pity if some of his friends to whom he had spoken recently were to be implicated. That may be part of normal police questioning techniques—I am not arguing about that at this moment, although I might question it later—but it certainly seems to me an indication of the pressure put on the officers to reach a speedy conclusion. So, even if the hon. Gentleman cannot answer my points on the conduct of the inquiry, I hope he will pass them on to the Home Secretary.
  Above all, I want to raise the possibility, which has still not been denied, of the Government trying to use either the Theft Act or the Copyright Act in place of the Official Secrets Act. The Official Secrets Act is a blunderbuss weapon; it is a sledge-hammer weapon. It causes long court cases and lots of embarrassment.
  Were the Government tempted to use the Theft Act or the Copyright Act? Were they taking note of the obiter dicta in the case of Norah Beloff v. Private Eye where the late Mr. Justice UngoedThomas said that publication of leaked documents was not "fair dealing" and no defence against a copyright action? Did the Government take notice of the fact that he said that the public interest had a narrow meaning in being restricted to
  "misdeeds of a serious nature relating to the country and clearly recognisable as such"?
  If the Government had taken note of the obiter dicta in that case they may have come to the conclusion that using the Copyright Act instead of the Official Secrets Act against the Railway Gazette or possibly the Sunday Times was a more convenient and subtle weapon because they could have sued for civil damages and, apart from that, applied criminal penalties. If the Government were considering using the Theft Act or the Copyright Act in this way, that would involve some notion that knowledge about the Government is Government property. That is a very dangerous notion indeed. It certainly threatens the mechanics of journalism and the way that journalists work. I hope that the hon. Gentleman,
  1576
  even if he cannot say anything about this matter tonight, will pass it on to the Home Secretary, because to my mind we had a serious threat to the freedom of the Press and the way that the Press works in this country. I am still not satisfied with the answers or the information that I have received.
  In many instances this has been called "Britain's mini-'Pentagon papers' scandal. It has even been called "Britain's Der Spiegel scandal". We are not talking about the location of "Regional Seats of Government", about Britain's pre-emptive nuclear strike capacity or about Britain's critically secret defence plans; we are talking about the future railway network, and that involves the livelihood, the careers and the travelling patterns of millions of people throughout the country.
  If we are going to have any decisions taken about the future of the railway network, they should not be taken by the railway hawks in the hon. Gentleman's Department, which I suspect had pretty well made up its mind before the leak took place. Such decisions should not be taken because of the commercial exigencies of the board of British Rail. Above all, these decisions should be taken by the people of this country.
  Instead of clobbering people like Richard Hope, who was writing about the future fates of the railway long before the leak took place in his articles in the Railway Gazette, and who for many years has done sterling service in bringing to light the difficult financial circumstances of the railway, and instead of clobbering Harold Evans, the editor of the Sunday Times, this House and, indeed, the country, should give all praise where it is due. Without publication in the Sunday Times the country would not have known the truth. There could easily have been a situation where the country would have had foisted upon it a castrated railway map. Because of the leak interest has once against been stimulated in the future of the railway system. The interest of the people has been stimulated. After all, it is their railway system, and only they should have the right to decide its future.
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Keith Speed): The hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie

  1577
  Huckfield), who has raised this important matter, is a constituency neighbour of mine, and, apart from our political differences, a personal friend. Nevertheless, I am bound to tell him that although he has raised some fundamental and important matters, the essence of which I will communicate to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, he strayed a long way, during the latter part of his speech about the railways, from his usual standards of common sense.
  The first issue, and the main part of the hon. Gentleman's speech, is the conduct of the investigation into the loss of the document and the subsequent publicity about which the hon. Gentleman has expressed such concern.
  It is, of course, a common feature of Government practice that certain documents are given a security classification in order to safeguard their contents from premature disclosure which could be harmful to the interests of the State. The document which was the subject of the Sunday Times article on 8th October last year was classified in this way, and as a first step an internal inquiry was very properly instituted into how it had been taken from the Department's offices. This showed that one particular copy was missing, and, as a criminal offence might therefore have been committed, the results of the Department's own inquiry were submitted to the Director of Public Prosecutions, who then instructed the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis to make inquiries.
  Neither I and my ministerial colleagues nor members of my Department took any part in, or in any way interfered with, these inquiries; indeed, it would have been most improper for us to have done so. The inquiries were entirely a matter for the Commissioner of Police to conduct as he thought fit. There was no question of passing the buck. The hon. Gentleman will now doubtless be aware that the Director of Public Prosecutions has advised that there is insufficient evidence to prefer charges, although there is some evidence of theft.
  I take up the story of the Official Secrets Act. No prosecution is being undertaken under that Act in respect of any incident arising from the loss of the document and the subsequent publicity,
  1578
  and that particular matter can now be regarded as closed. As regards the future, I cannot say more than that, as already announced, the Government are considering the recommendations of the Franks Committee.
  The hon. Gentleman mentioned telephone tapping, and this is, as he indicated, properly a matter for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. The hon. Gentleman knows from the reply that was given to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) on 22nd December, and I am assured by my right hon. Friend, that there is no tapping of the telephones of Members of Parliament.
  I now turn, because it is germane to what we are debating, to the underlying question of the work which the Department and the Railways Board have been doing about the finances of the railways, their prospects for the future and the very real problems which make it so difficult for the railways to compete with other forms of transport in all industrialised countries today.
  There is a long history to the problem of the railways. It is not just financial. There are the underlying difficulties of competition for the road users, bearing in mind that there are more than 200,000 miles of road in this country compared with about 11,500 route miles of railways. This gives the road user a much better chance of completing his journey in one stage.
  The first major attempt to treat the problem of the railways on a national scale was in 1962. Legislation gave them complete commercial freedom, wrote off £487 million of their debts and suspended their liability to pay interest on a further £1,262 million. In addition, powers were taken to pay revenue deficit grants, which eventually came to over £800 million. A further attempt was made in the 1968 Transport Act of the previous administration which distinguished the social services provided by the railways. The Government were enabled to pay grants for unremunerative passenger services, capital grants for infrastructure in urban areas, research and grants for costs associated with work on track and signalling. These grants have now reached about £88 million a year. The Government also wrote off £1,262 million more debt.

  1579
  Unfortunately, even this considerable support was not enough, and, as my right hon. Friend informed the House on 27th July last year, there was a further deterioration in the railways' finances which led the Railways Board to forecast a deficit of about £40 million in 1972, even after taking into its accounts the substantial assistance that I have just mentioned.
  I have given this brief rundown of the very serious policy and financial problems of the railways in order that the House should fully appreciate the need for studies and investigations to be made of existing policies to see whether there is any hope of improvement through changes in organisation, business plans or retrenchment. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport Industries asked the board for its part to review its long-term problems and prospects and to report to him, while the Department made parallel studies aimed at identifying the areas where the Government could take action which might assist in the establishment of a stable, long-term railway network.
  The report which was leaked to the Sunday Times was, in fact, one of these interim internal studies prepared by officials as a contribution towards the development of policy. It was no more and no less than that. It was certainly not a study by Ministers or by their senior advisers, but a study by middle management of one of a series of options. I should point out that its contents were grossly distorted in the course of selecting parts of it for publicity. It did not, in fact, make specific proposals for reduction of the railway network, and the map which the Sunday Times published was pure speculative artistry. The hon. Gentleman spoke about policy being determined by hawks in my Department. I think that I shall be able to say a few things that will reassure him on that.
  This Government's record as regards railway closures, looked at from the point of view of those who wish to continue to support a large railway system, is extremely good. As recently as 23rd January, only a few days ago——
  Mr. Huckfield: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves the issue of the Sunday Times, will he confirm that there was a remarkable degree of similarity between the kind of report that Chapman Pincher
  1580
  produced about the future of the railway system in May 1970 in the Daily Express, which again emanated perhaps from certain reports in the Department, and the kind of forecast that was made by the Chairman of the British Railways Board last August?
  Mr. Speed: No. I have explained to the hon. Gentleman that that was one of a whole series of papers covering an extremely wide range of options. It would be wrong of me to comment on papers that may or may not have come from the Department under a previous administration. We do not even see them. I can only tell the hon. Gentleman the situation as I see it now. With my right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport Industries, I am jointly responsible to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for rail policy.
  As my right hon. Friend told the House, he renewed all the grant undertakings for loss-making passenger services which fell due for renewal at the end of 1972. These amounted in all to 122 specific services as well as the London commuter network as a whole. There are currently only five services proposed for the closure machinery, none of them intensively used.
  In all, during the 2½ years this Government have been in office we have consented to the closure of well under 300 miles of railway line, a total which compares very favourably with the 2,680 miles closed by the last Government.
  In the circumstances, I think the House will agree that it is a matter for great regret that the publication of a confidential working document, completely out of context, should have given rise to so much widespread and unnecessary anxiety. Having received many letters from hon. Members and members of the public and railwaymen, I know that it has caused great and unnecessary distress.
  I now turn to the issue of whether the work which the Railways Board and the Department are undertaking should be conducted in public, coupled with the point of whether the Department was right to classify the leaked document as confidential. Of course, there must be full public discussion of the kind of railway system we want for the future, of how this is to be achieved and what it

  1581
  will cost. I know that my right hon. Friend is anxious that the options should be put before Parliament as soon as the work has progressed sufficiently to enable him to do so in a sensible way. But it is in no one's interest that public discussion should take place before the very complex analysis and forecasts which are needed are carried out and the consequences—social, economic and environmental, as well as financial—of the various possible courses of action of future railway policy are properly assessed.
  There is the not unimportant point that the railways are a business which need to protect their commercial interests against their competitors. There is therefore a limit on the extent to which they can reveal their business calculations if their financial prospects are not to be unnecessarily jeopardised.
  As for whether the Department was right to classify the leaked document as confidential, the widespread anxiety which its publication has caused to the travelling public, to the industry and railway staff themselves, leads me to believe that it was.
  In our constituency files we all have information that certainly for a period we regard as confidential. I have, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has, information and letters which at a certain point in time we would not wish to reveal to the Press, because it might he completely out of context.
  It is too early to say when the great deal of work that is progressing will be completed and the results put before Parliament. I can certainly repeat the assurance my right hon. Friend has already given that a full statement will be made to Parliament as soon as possible and that there will be ample opportunity for public discussion before any new legislation which may be desirable in the Government's view is enacted.
  Finally, I remind the House of the positive support the Government have given to public transport projects in specific fields. The broad measure of the grants to British Rail, amounting to about £100 million, together with the extra money to meet the cash shortfall, mean that last year a total of £140 million was given to British Rail. In addition,
  1582
  we are allowing British Rail to invest at the rate of £100 million a year in the replacement and development of its system. In any comparison with the much larger total of investment on the road system it needs to be borne in mind that the highway network is some 20 times larger than the rail network, as I have described. In the light of that £140 million plus £100 million, I do not think that we can be accused of starving the railways.
  We believe that the railways have a continuing rôle for the future, especially through their ability to carry people rapidly over long distances and to move large numbers of people in urban areas. We recently agreed to the provision of a rapid transit system on Tyneside, costing in all some £65 million, of which the Government would provide £50 million.
  The railways will continue to constitute an important element in any new transport policy which may be adopted. I hope that I have brought out the various factors which need to be kept in perspective. There is no simple answer to this problem. All the various factors in relation to the future of our railways system must be properly considered and analysed. Superficial solutions, however apparently attractive, are not the answer. We are determined to get the right solution, and to put our proposals to Parliament and the public to solve a problem which has not been solved by any Government since the war.
  I give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that no firm decisions are yet taken. We shall come to Parliament and the public when we have finished our consideration and reached conclusions. We cannot be rushed in this matter. I regard this whole episode as extremely unfortunate, certainly not in the interests of the railways, and not in the interests of all those who, like myself, and, I am sure, the hon. Gentleman, wish to reach the right solution.
  The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock on Wednesday evening and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at one minute past Three o'clock a.m.

SCOTLAND
  Housing
  Housing
  Geriatric Unit (Huntlyburn)
  Geriatric Unit (Huntlyburn)
  Local Government Reorganisation
  Local Government Reorganisation
  Power Stations
  Power Stations
  Oil Pollution (Orkney and Shetland)
  Oil Pollution (Orkney and Shetland)
  National Health Service (Common Services Agency)
  National Health Service (Common Services Agency)
  Scottish Development Association (Grants)
  Scottish Development Association (Grants)
  Health Services (Appointments)
  Health Services (Appointments)
  Expectant Mothers (Examinations)
  Expectant Mothers (Examinations)
  Fire Service Inspectorate
  Fire Service Inspectorate
  Teachers (Local Authority Service)
  Teachers (Local Authority Service)
  Drugs (Cost)
  Drugs (Cost)
  Local Authorities (Housing Revenue Accounts)
  Local Authorities (Housing Revenue Accounts)
  Steel Industry
  Steel Industry
  Civil Servants
  Civil Servants
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Visitors and Lobbies (Facilities)
  Visitors and Lobbies (Facilities)
  POPULATION (ROSS REPORT)
  POPULATION (ROSS REPORT)
POSTS AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS
  Alarm Systems (Old People's Housing)
  Alarm Systems (Old People's Housing)
  BBC (Chairman)
  BBC (Chairman)
  Postal Code Scheme
  Postal Code Scheme
  Television Licences (Old-Age Pensioners)
  Television Licences (Old-Age Pensioners)
ENVIRONMENT
  Improvement Grants
  Improvement Grants
  Farm Shops
  Farm Shops
  Railways (Advanced Trains)
  Railways (Advanced Trains)
  New Palace Yard (Excavations)
  New Palace Yard (Excavations)
  Government Building
  Government Building
  Road Vehicles (Statistics)
  Road Vehicles (Statistics)
  M27 (Portsmouth-Cadnam)
  M27 (Portsmouth-Cadnam)
  M3 (Completion)
  M3 (Completion)
  Caravan Site Designation
  Caravan Site Designation
  North Circular Road
  North Circular Road
  Ringway 3
  Ringway 3
  Motorways
  Motorways
  Rainham Marshes
  Rainham Marshes
  Rating Revaluation
  Rating Revaluation
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  A66
  A66
  Non-Scheme Ports (Inquiry)
  Non-Scheme Ports (Inquiry)
  Government Building
  Government Building
  M1-M6 Link (Sound Barrier)
  M1-M6 Link (Sound Barrier)
  Rating Revaluation
  Rating Revaluation
  Central Heating (Rateable Values)
  Central Heating (Rateable Values)
  Trees (Preservation)
  Trees (Preservation)
  Heavy Lorries (Road Expenditure)
  Heavy Lorries (Road Expenditure)
  Councillors (Allowances)
  Councillors (Allowances)
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Hunterston
  Hunterston
  North Sea Oil
  North Sea Oil
  Development Areas
  Development Areas
  Industry Act (Grants)
  Industry Act (Grants)
  Concorde
  Concorde
  Works of Art (Export Licences)
  Works of Art (Export Licences)
  Cattle Exports
  Cattle Exports
  North Thames Gas Consumer Council
  North Thames Gas Consumer Council
  Post-Apollo Programme
  Post-Apollo Programme
  Rolls-Royce (1971) Ltd.
  Rolls-Royce (1971) Ltd.
  Garage Quality Council
  Garage Quality Council
CIVIL SERVICE
  Regional Designation
  Regional Designation
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Road Traffic (Dangerous Loads)
  Road Traffic (Dangerous Loads)
  Road Accidents (Access to Witnesses)
  Road Accidents (Access to Witnesses)
  Sex Discrimination
  Sex Discrimination
  Ugandan Immigrants
  Ugandan Immigrants
  Drug Addicts (Scotland)
  Drug Addicts (Scotland)
  MEMBERS (CORRESPONDENCE)
  MEMBERS (CORRESPONDENCE)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Bacon
  Bacon
  Horses (Export)
  Horses (Export)
DEFENCE
  Northern Ireland
  Northern Ireland
  RAF Station, Syerston
  RAF Station, Syerston
  Sherwood Forest (Training Facilities)
  Sherwood Forest (Training Facilities)
  Military Medal
  Military Medal
  HMS "Ark Royal"
  HMS "Ark Royal"
  Tamar Brewery (Site Acquisition)
  Tamar Brewery (Site Acquisition)
EMPLOYMENT
  Training
  Training
  Unemployed Persons
  Unemployed Persons
  South Western Region
  South Western Region
  Redundancy Payments
  Redundancy Payments
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Youth and Community Workers
  Youth and Community Workers
  Adult Education (Russell Report)
  Adult Education (Russell Report)
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  European Economic Communities
  European Economic Communities
  Kenya (United Kingdom Passport Holders)
  Kenya (United Kingdom Passport Holders)
  Vietnam
  Vietnam
  Northern India (Famine)
  Northern India (Famine)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Weekly Incomes
  Weekly Incomes
  Public Expenditure
  Public Expenditure
  Road Fund Licence Duty
  Road Fund Licence Duty
  Value Added Tax
  Value Added Tax
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Royal Ulster Constabulary
  Royal Ulster Constabulary
  Security
  Security
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Medicines Act (Data Sheets)
  Medicines Act (Data Sheets)
  National Health Service (Private Sector)
  National Health Service (Private Sector)
  Pensions
  Pensions
  Family Allowances
  Family Allowances
  Skelmersdale (New Hospital)
  Skelmersdale (New Hospital)
  Drugs
  Drugs
  Hospital Services (Bournemouth and Poole)
  Hospital Services (Bournemouth and Poole)
  Supplementary Benefit
  Supplementary Benefit
WALES
  Rent Scrutiny Boards
  Rent Scrutiny Boards
  Rent Allowances and Rebates
  Rent Allowances and Rebates
  Hospital Patients (Family Visits)
  Hospital Patients (Family Visits)
  Aberystwyth (Development Plan)
  Aberystwyth (Development Plan)
  Primary School (Llandygwydd)
  Primary School (Llandygwydd)
  Domestic Properties (Rating Revaluation)
  Domestic Properties (Rating Revaluation)
  Transport Study
  Transport Study
  Council Houses (Sale)
  Council Houses (Sale)

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Portsmouth):
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

JURIES: PERSONAL QUESTIONS BY JUDGES
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: 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 how far it is the practice for the judge to ask the jury personal questions before the case begins.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD HAILSHAM OF SAINT MARYLEBONE): The established practice is set out in a Practice Direction given by the Lord Chief Justice on January 12 last, and which I may perhaps be allowed to quote to the House. The Practice Direction is as follows:
"A jury consists of 12 individuals chosen at random from the appropriate panel. A juror should be excused if he is personally concerned in the facts of the particular case, or closely connected with a party to the proceedings or with a prospective witness. He may also be excused at the discretion of the judge on grounds of personal hardship or conscientious objection to jury service.
It is contrary to established practice for jurors to be excused on more general grounds such as race, religion or political beliefs or occupation."
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, while thanking the noble and learned Lord for that reply, may I ask for some clarification? Does it mean that in future it will not be the practice for a judge to dismiss a juror on grounds of race, religion or political beliefs, or general likes or dislikes?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I believe that I can say "Yes" unequivocally to that question. My noble
584
friend talked about "general likes or dislikes", but it could be that a juror might feel that he was unable to discharge his functions as a juror because of some personal prejudice and he would be justified in asking for excusal on such grounds. But normally one assumes in this country, in contradistinction to what is done in some other countries, that a juror is not prevented from trying a case impartially simply because he happens to belong to one religion rather than another, or to no religion rather than one. The same is true of political beliefs and of general opinions. If you are not going to choose jurors at random, it seems to me that you are undermining the whole jury system. That is not the philosophy of some other countries, but it is our philosophy and that is what the Lord Chief Justice was endeavouring to say in much more appropriate language than I have used.
LORD FOOT: My Lords, may I ask the noble and learned Lord what remedy is available if a judge departs from the Practice Direction of the Lord Chief Justice?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, that is a rather wider question, but I am perfectly sure that no judge will depart from the Practice Direction of the Lord Chief Justice. If so, I will have to scratch my head, which is a very effective remedy.
LORD HALE: My Lords, would the noble and learned Lord say whether the statement made by the Lord Chief Justice was made after the case which I think the noble Viscount has in mind, when a rather remarkable series of questions were asked? If so, in view of that statement and in view of the excellent statement which the Lord Chancellor has now made, that seems to deal with our problems. But the practice in the past has been sometimes to ask the wrong questions. It used to be the practice to excuse a man if he said that he objected to capital punishment in a murder case, while no one asked whether a jury was passionately in favour of capital punishment, which would surely equally disqualify them.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the mere fact that one is in favour of capital punishment in general does not mean that one is in favour of hanging

585
everybody. But in response to the first question which the noble Lord asked, the Practice Direction was given on January 12; and if he is referring to the so-called "Angry Brigade" case, the questions in that case were put last summer. It was, of course, partly as a result of that and two other cases—it was not an isolated example—that the Lord Chief Justice felt it proper to make a Practice Direction about the subject. If he had not done so, I rather suspect that we should be slipping into the American position where they spend a considerable time selecting jurors, the general purpose of which seems to be to ensure a partial and not an impartial jury.
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, may I ask the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack whether, in view of a Press report quite recently about a juror who had to be discharged half-way through a case because he was not able to hear properly, it might not be desirable for the judge or somebody else to inquire into matters of that kind?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, in my experience it is possible to tell whether or not a juror can hear by the way he takes the Oath. I always exercised my right of challenge when I was defending and a juror was manifestly deaf, and I imagine that the prosecution would stand by for the Crown or, if they did not, that the judge would intervene. The Oath, as the House knows, is read to the juror and that is the moment at which one usually detects defects of sight or hearing.

R.A.F. PILOTS AND AIRLINES' RECRUITMENT POLICY
2.36 p.m.
LORD AYLESTONE: 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 percentage of the highly skilled pilots of the Royal Air Force obtain employment with British airlines on leaving the Royal Air Force.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD DRUMALBYN): My Lords, I regret that we do not have the information necessary to show what proportion
586
of trained pilots join British airlines on leaving the Royal Air Force. I understand that at present the British Airways Group airlines are recruiting all their pilots from their own training courses, mainly at Hamble, but that other British airlines do recruit pilots direct from the R.A.F. Provided that the statutory requirements as to competence are met, the recruiting policies of airlines are a matter for their internal management.
LORD AYLESTONE: My Lords, while thanking the Minister for his reply, may I ask him whether he is aware that American airlines recruit rather more than 90 per cent. of their pilots from the American Air Force? Is it not regrettable that the figure for recruitment in this country is so low (the Minister has not been able to give the actual figure, but I can assure him that it is very low) when some 200 ex-R.A.F. pilots are out of work? Is it not regrettable that the major airlines in this country are carrying on with their own training scheme when this large body of highly skilled, expensively trained men are available to them?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord. On the point of the American practice, there they have, of course, a vastly greater Air Force to recruit from and they have also, I am told, something like three-quarters of a million licensed air pilots in the country. As to our own practice, it is precisely because the British Airways Group have to plan for the manning of their aircraft in the future and cannot count on a regular supply of ex-R.A.F. pilots that the College of Air Training was founded in 1960, at a time when the future availability of R.A.F. pilots was obviously going to be very much less than it had been before that date.

PEERS' QUESTIONS AND DELAYS IN REPLIES
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: 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 interval of time they consider reasonable between a debate in which a Minister is unable to reply to all the

587
questions which have been raised and the subsequent provision of the relevant information.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (EARL JELLICOE): My Lords, I think that it is difficult if not impossible to generalise. The period within which information is produced will depend on the precise circumstances and the nature of the information required. I can assure your Lordships, however, that Ministers are fully aware of the need to provide such information quickly.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, in thanking my noble friend for that reply, may I ask him whether he is aware that more than one noble Lord has recently had reason to complain of delays, and one wrote to me the other day and said that he found that the average delay was six weeks or two months. Marvellous to relate, a long overdue letter from the Scottish Office arrived on my desk just two days ago, in seeming anticipation of my noble friend's reply to this Question.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I am sure that any connection between the Scottish Office's letter and my noble friend's Question must have been purely coincidental. But, more seriously, Departments are aware of the need to reply quickly, and that is a matter which all Governments have under review. May I venture a personal comment and say that the Department sometimes holds up a reply (especially covering as wide an area as the letter which my noble friend received from the Scottish Office) for the sake of completeness, when it might be much better to send an interim reply and say that they were going to deal with the other matters later.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, would the noble Earl take note of this: that this letter bears such marks of hasty composition as to include a paragraph that is repeated?
EARL JELLICOF: My Lords, strangely enough my copy of it does not.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, would the Minister accept that a letter which I have received could have been written just as easily six days after the debate rather than six weeks and six days; and would he accept my statement that I should have
588
been happy to wait even longer if the letter had contained less verbiage but more information?
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, may I ask whether that letter could be printed in the OFFICIAL REPORT?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, it is not for me to point fingers at any particular Department, but I can assure noble Lords on both sides of the House that this is a matter to which we attach importance. If one particular Department has incurred some delays in replying, I think the noble Lord opposite will agree that January 1 is a holiday which is celebrated at certain length in a certain part of the United Kingdom.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I do agree with that; but even in Scotland we do not celebrate for six weeks and six days.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, may I first of all welcome the noble Earl back and express the hope that he has recovered. The noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, has anticipated my request that the letter should be tabled so that the House could judge better, may I ask the noble Earl whether he would ask his right honourable friend the Prime Minister, who, I hope, follows the practice of previous Prime Ministers in instructing Departments to be prompt in their replies, whether he would do another review, on the grounds that this matter has to be stirred up once every year or two in order to get people to operate rather more quickly?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, the Leader of the Opposition, for the remarks with which he prefaced his supplementary question. I am rather regretful that I happen to have come back on rather a sticky wicket at this moment. Strangely enough, again purely coincidentally and without revealing any undue State secrets, there has been a stirring of the pot only very recently.
THE EARL or LAUDERDALE: My Lords, will the noble Earl accept that the Scottish Office is not the only villain in this matter, although when the noble Lord, Lord Muirshiel, was in charge he got the turn-round down to 17 days. Is my noble friend aware that I raised a

589
matter with the Home Office just after the pornography debate; that it was not acknowledged for ten days, and that the answer came six weeks later and missed the point? Would he bear in mind and have Departments bear in mind that the quality of an answer is not to be judged by its length?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I would accept most of what the noble Earl has said, and, like him, I was not wishing to point my finger at any particular Department, let alone my old Department.
LORD RAGLAN: My Lords, would the noble Earl confirm that in fact Departments often delay giving answers which they know perfectly well, in order to make it appear that they have considered the reply very deeply?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, no, I did not say anything of the sort. I must correct the noble Lord, Lord Raglan. What I said was that Departments, I think very naturally, sometimes, when there are a lot of questions to be answered, delay replying until they have all the answers. I was suggesting that it is a better practice to send a quick reply on points to which one can reply quickly, and then give the answers to the other matters later.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, would the noble Earl not agree that the best answer of all is a real answer?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I should like to terminate this particular dialogue by giving also a quick reply.

ROYAL ANTHROPOLOGICAL INSTITUTE LIBRARY
2.45 p.m.
LORD SNOW: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are aware that the Library of the Royal Anthropological Institute requires financial support to preserve it undispersed and in this country: and whether they will take steps to procure this support.
THE PAYMASTER GENERAL (VISCOUNT ECCLES): My Lords, the Institute has approached me for financial help for its Library. I share the concern that the Library should not be sold or dispersed for lack of funds, but at present there are no funds from which the Government could contribute towards its expenses. Section 1(3)(b) of the British Library Act 1972, however, empowers the British Library Board to do so and I have advised the Institute to make its case to the Board as soon as the latter is established.
LORD SNOW: My Lords, may I thank the noble Viscount for that Answer, which gives a sort of qualified hope to those of us who are concerned with this matter? May I take it that the Government are aware that this is a priceless treasure, which we owe largely to our 19th century ancestors, and if it is lost it is lost for ever? May we have some assurance that that is really understood?
VISCOUNT ECCLES: My Lords, I think I can satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Snow. This particular section was put into the British Library Act expressly to deal with cases of this kind. On the other hand, it is, of course, for the Board to make up their own minds. I have no doubt at all that the continuance of several very important specialist libraries on their own, with some help is much better than trying to take them inside the British Library.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, would the Government look favourably on any application for a special grant, as they do in the case of paintings of national interest?
VISCOUNT ECCLES: No, my Lords. We have taken this special power as the most sensible way to deal with this matter, because the British Library will have the knowledge with which to assess each case. I hope the Board will be constituted and in operation in only a few weeks from now.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, may I ask the noble Viscount whether he is aware that this particular Institute is having to engage in a major fund raising activity of a kind which cannot be easy for a learned body to undertake? It is an exceptionally serious situation, and any way in which he could give a fair

591
wind to it would be welcomed by a wide group of people who are deeply concerned about one of our most important scientific institutes. At the same time, may I ask the noble Viscount whether he would bear in mind reviewing the position of other learned bodies who may have similar problems? In putting that question forward, I do not wish in any way to minimise the seriousness of the position of the Royal Anthropological Institute. The noble Viscount probably knows what I have in mind about other bodies.
VISCOUNT ECCLES: My Lords, certainly I know of the difficulties under which the Royal Anthropological Institute Library is housed in the British museum. I am also aware of several other specialist libraries whose collections are now costing more than they can easily meet, including the one in which the noble Lord himself is very interested.

GENTLEMAN USHER OF THE BLACK ROD
2.48 p.m.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. The purpose of this Motion is to carry out decisions taken by your Lordships when you approved on December 13 last the recommendations of the First Report of the Offices Committee in regard to the powers of Black Rod. I beg to move.
Moved: (1) That the following amendments be made to Public Business Standing Orders:—

(i) Leave out Standing Orders 11 and 13.

(ii) Insert the following new Standing Order:—

Duties and Powers of Black Rod
11.—(1) The admission of strangers to the Chamber and the precincts of the House, whether or not the House is sitting, shall be subject to such orders and rules as the House may make. The Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod shall give effect to such orders and rules and shall have such powers (including the power to take into custody) as are necessary for that purpose.
(2) Respect is to be had to the Chamber, whether or not the House is sitting.
(3) The Gentleman Usher of the Black
592
Rod shall take into his custody any person whom the House may order to be detained.
(4) In the absence of the Gentleman Usher, the Yeoman Usher may act in his place.
(2) That the Draft Rules set out in the Appendix to the First Report from the Select Committee on the House of Lords' Offices be approved—(Earl Jellicoe.)
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, since not all noble Lords may recollect this Report, may I ask the noble Earl whether he would confirm that what is now proposed is essentially to regularise a situation which had not been properly clarified, where there were powers which were implicit but where there was some uncertainty; and that there is no great extension of disciplinary power that some might fear?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I think in essence I can confirm what the noble Lord, the Leader of the Opposition, has said. There is no sort of Star Chamber procedure envisaged here. The purpose of the Amendments to the Standing Orders is to place responsibility for security within this Chamber on Black Rod, rather than on the Lord Great Chamberlain, whose powers were in any case very fuzzy and limited. The Offices Committee, as those of your Lordships who are members of it will know, considered this subject very deeply, and I hope that this proposal, which commended itself to your Lordships on December 13, and these Amendments will be acceptable to you.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

THE QUALITY OF LIFE AND URBAN PLANNING
2.50 p.m.
LORD NUGENT or GUILDFORD LORD NUGENT or GUILDFORD rose to call attention to the need to plan for quality of life in the urban environment; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, there are many factors which contribute to the quality of life in the community—the Church, the arts, drama, recreation and so on—and I am not going to attempt to refer to those in the few minutes that I intend to speak. I want to concentrate on the statutory planning process, which is basic to the shape and character

593
of the life of the community. If that is right, then all these secondary factors which enrich our lives will follow, and if it is wrong they will be frustrated. In this field the great landmark is the Town and Country Planning Act 1947. Here may I pay my tribute to the late Lord Silkin, who played such a distinguished part in putting that Act on the Statute Book. More than a quarter of a century has passed since that Act came into being and into effect. Very broadly, it required that the whole of the country should be covered by the county authorities with development plans, and that these would determine what was to be developed and how, and what was to be conserved. During that twenty-five years our population has increased by over six million, and we have now the major feature of the universal motor car with which we have to live. Both of these factors have placed enormous new strains on the problems of planning.
I should like to begin by paying my tribute to the planners, both in central government and in local government, for the very big successes that they have had during this period. We naturally tend to concentrate on the failures—and rightly—and to criticise them; but very broadly, if you consider the improvements in the past twenty-five years compared with the inter-war twenty-one years, you will see what a tremendous amount has been achieved. In those inter-war years the common features of development were ribbon developments sprawling along our roads, sprawling suburbs outside of big cities and big towns, and sporadic development happening all over the place in the countryside and in small villages. None of these features has been repeated in the last twenty-five years, and so very much has been conserved that might have been lost. I would think that it is also true to say that, if we compare our achievements with those in other countries, our record of planning in these post-war years really bears very favourable comparison.
We know, after having patted ourselves on the back, that there are lessons to be learned. I suggest that one of them—and I think that this is a lesson that we are taking to mind now—is that perhaps in some cases we have concentrated rather too much on physical planning than on social planning. The message for
594
the future in planning that is now going on, both in urban redevelopment and in the mass of new urban development, is that we should pay greater attention to the social aspects of planning rather than the physical aspects. The kind of graphic illustration that noble Lords will be familiar with of where we have made some mistakes in the past in urban redevelopment is where an urban corporation has acquired a large area for redevelopment by gradually purchasing houses, shops, offices, and the like until the whole of that large area has been acquired. This of course takes a long time, and while it is going on gradually one building after another is boarded up as it becomes empty and the occupants move out. Eventually the day comes when the bulldozers move in, the whole area is cleared, and the new buildings start to rise, but generally neither to the new blocks of flats which normally go up nor to the new shops do the old occupants return. On the one hand the shop rents are usually too high for the old shopkeepers, and on the other hand the flats almost invariably are uniformly public corporation owned; so there is a one class community and the occupants are all new. The total result of schemes of that kind is a splendid improvement in physical conditions but undoubtedly a significant loss in the quality of life.
There have been many examples showing the reverse effect, and my noble friend has arranged the attractive exhibition in the Royal Gallery which shows us some of these urban redevelopments which have been singularly successful—Norwich, Leeds, and others—where old areas have been rejuvenated by imaginative treatment, usually by shutting the traffic out of old, narrow streets and changing the character of the area to make it meet the present day needs. In London there have been some notable successes, and I should like to congratulate the Greater London Council, with my noble friend, on their success in their experiment in Oxford Street. On the other hand, there are outstanding failures, like the Elephant and Castle, which is quite one of the dreariest redevelopments at enormous expense and exactly illustrates the point that I am making.
On this I would say to my noble friend that where these imaginative redevelopments of old buildings are set about by

595
urban corporations, there are generally very expensive traffic redesigns to be done—new intersections, widening of old roads, and so on—in order to divert the traffic out of existing streets. I think more attention needs to be given to assisting the urban authority in that kind of scheme, which I think at present falls mainly, if not entirely, on the local ratepayers.
I now wish to turn in a little more detail to new developments. The same principle applies to new developments, but the scope for application is just that much greater. In these new urban developments we all want to see public parks, playing fields, play areas, piazzas in the shopping centres, trees left in the residential and shopping areas, space for churches, theatres, community centres, and the like, but all these things cost a lot of money. A very big population increase is still going on, despite the revised downward figures which in some ways relieve anxieties, and the forecast for the end of the century is still an extra six million, with an extra two or three million of those in the South-East region of the country. Very large scale developments will be needed to accommodate these vast numbers. There are few new town corporations in this broad picture, and in the main these developments are to be carried out by local authorities using their existing powers. The general policy throughout the country is for local authorities—that is, county authorities—to identify the areas which are to be conserved, and complementary to that matter to identify the areas which are to be developed.
If I might take an example of the South-East region, with which I am especially familiar, the local authorities have identified the areas of high amenity value, such as the South Downs and the North Downs, the Chilterns, South Essex, and other areas which are exceptionally beautiful and which will contribute greatly to the life of the community. But that means of course, at the same time, that they have identified the areas where the major development is to take place; and these extra two million or three million are to live in such areas as the South Hampshire city region, as it will be, the triangle between Guildford, Reading and Basingstoke, South Essex and the Crawley—Burgess Hill—Horsham area.
These are all to be areas of major urban development where there will be populations growing up over the next ten or twenty years of a quarter of a million, half a million or even a million people on balanced development—residential and employment, commercial employment, industrial employment and, of course, shopping areas.
This future vision focuses our minds on what is needed if we are to plan these vast new urban developments as attractive human environments. The local authorities estimate that, to make an attractive environment in an urban area, something like a quarter of the total is needed for the public services—for roads, schools, sewerage, in so far as that takes up space, and all the other major services, plus parks, play areas, recreational areas, sports grounds and all the rest of it, which go to make an attractive place with a little extra space in the residential areas, leaving a few trees here and there. Incidentally, I ask your Lordships to bear in mind that to leave one fully mature tree in a residential area in the South-East, where development land costs £50,000 an acre, would take up a whole site, and on that basis would cost £5,000. That gives a perspective to what we are talking about when we say that we want to make these areas attractive.
Here I come immediately to the major problem. The major obstacle to the local authorities is inadequate finance. The present position is that local authorities are entirely responsible for the cost of these developments, and they have to purchase all the land for social purposes at the full market price. As I said, in the South-East the fully developed land value is probably something of the order of £40,000 or £50,000 an acre, and the full cost of the provision of social service areas will fall on the ratepayers. Therefore, it is inevitable, as matters now stand, that local authorities are pressed to economise wherever they can in these areas. They are pressed to locate schools in an area where it is perhaps cheaper but nothing like so good, to cut down on the open spaces, to cut out the parks and so on, all of which will prejudice the future quality of life in the neighbourhood. Let me give credit to my noble friend, while I am heaping coals on his head, for the £80 million loan which he has made available to local authorities

597
throughout the country for buying areas for development in those places where they have major developments. That is a help; but a loan is a loan and must be repaid. It is therefore only a temporary help and, at the end of the day, the ratepayer has to meet the bill.
Local authorities have not been inert in the face of this massive challenge, and in the South-East they have been enterprising enough to develop the thought, with which noble Lords may be familiar, of forming a partnership between the local authority and the landowners in order to save the full cost of development land. This idea was pioneered by Buckinghamshire and it has been followed by some other counties. It works on the basis that the local authority goes into partnership with the owners of the land which is wanted for a major development, and the owners of the land, if willing, accept a price for their land which is something between existing use value and the full development value. The partnership having been formed on this basis and the land having been acquired, the partnership then proceeds to develop the land, providing all the basic services and social services that are required and all the land that is needed to make the place attractive. Having reached that state of development, the partnership then sells the land in blocks to private enterprise developers for building houses, offices, shops and so on, as required for the development of the area. So that at that point the partnership cashes in, so to speak, and reaps a sufficient return from the difference between the fully developed price of the land and the price that was paid to the landowners to cover the cost of the development, which would otherwise have fallen directly on to the shoulders of the local authority. That is enough to show that it is a jolly good scheme, and it has been blessed by my noble friend in the Department of the Environment.
But that kind of scheme will apply only in exceptional cases. First of all, it is necessary to have owners of land who are willing to co-operate in that way; and, secondly, it is necessary to have land in an area which has not already reached fully ripe development values, because if you had to pay the full price there would be no scope for doing
598
this. There is also this other point which I would make to my noble friend, that although the end of this particular ingenious scheme is good and pro bono publico, the means are slightly suspect, because there is an implication that the local authority is using its statutory power of planning consent as a bargaining counter with the landowners, in order to get their land at a cheaper price. Although it all works out very well in the end if they all agree, this could be embarrassing either to Ministers or to local authorities. As I said, it is good in some cases, but it will not begin to cover the field. So that something more is needed for general application, and my suggestion to my noble friend is that this concept should be made statutory.
The underlying concept is that owners of undeveloped land, which is planned and scheduled for development, should contribute pro rata their share of the cost of the development of the public services involved. We estimate that in the South-East this would not be unduly onerous and might be something of the order of £5,000 an acre. But that concept is fair in principle, because it is the process of development by the local authority which gives the land its enhanced value. It is therefore only reasonable that the owner who will get a higher price should make his contribution, and it is expedient in practice because it will provide a local authority with the essential finance to make its future development attractive in human terms, without putting a crippling burden on the ratepayers in the area. So I hope that my noble friend will look at this idea carefully. In the White Paper, Ministers have stated their intention in connection with their admirable campaign of counter-inflation, to take action to limit excessive profits on land developments. I commend this thought to my noble friend as the right way to achieve this object. The conventional alternative, which may spring to some people's minds, of simply increasing the 30 per cent. capital gains tax may look to be politically attractive, but it suffers from the double defect, first, that it will probably add to the sale price of the land—all past experience shows that when these levies are put on the cost is added to the price which the purchaser has to pay—and, secondly, that it does nothing to help a local authority to

599
finance the kind of development that we require, because the tax just disappears into the Treasury maw.
In passing, I think I should make the point that these very high prices for land for development are not primarily the result of machinations of speculators. They are the direct result of our national planning policy of totally restricting land for development in order to conserve the open spaces as areas of great amenity and recreational value, which we all want. This is indeed the price of conservation, and we must keep that perspective firmly in our mind. So I ask my noble friend whether he will give careful thought to this idea; and may I inform him that in the Standing Conference the planners in the South-East are ever at his service, to consult with his officials, to discuss how this might be made to work in practice. There are, I believe, respectable precedents in other countries. I think it is not unusual to find it in a number of States in the United States, and it seems to me basically fair; it makes sense.
There is a second alternative in this field which is not so good; that is, that the new town corporation powers should be extended to local authorities. At present, they are reserved exclusively for new town corporations, but where those operate the advantage to the developing authority is really dramatic. If I may take the new town which is being developed in the South-East region, Milton Keynes, a boundary was drawn on a map, enclosing some 22,000 acres, several years ago, when the new town was designated, and the land was valued at that time at £700 an acre, its existing use value. The authority have not bought it all, of course, but they are now still buying land there, within this area, which will become part of the developed Milton Keynes, at £700 an acre. I have only to say that for noble Lords to see what an enormous advantage this is to the developing authority. Instead of paying £50,000 an acre they are paying £700; and this is what happens, of course, where a new town is defined. I would have thought that it was not impossible for Ministers to designate large areas of new development of the kind I have indicated, which local authorities are undertaking, in a similar way, and for these new town
600
powers to be operated. Although it would not be possible, probably, to buy the land at such a low price now, the figure would be something very much less than the full development value.
VISCOUNT AMORY: My Lords, would my noble friend allow me to interrupt him? He is outlining an extremely interesting scheme, I think. In the case of his first alternative, where the owner of the land would make a contribution towards development, would that apply to sales by an owner to a local authority, or to compulsory purchases by the local authority from him?
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords. I would suggest to both; that this should become, as it were, the basis of the statutory purchase by compulsory purchase, so that that power would therefore be available. It would also be so in the case of voluntary purchase.
VISCOUNT AMORY: My Lords, I apologise for interrupting my noble friend again. Would the vendor receive the full market price for the land?
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, the full market price less this levy for development, which would have to be assessed in some way which was generally understandable and acceptable to all concerned. The concept in the voluntary partnership scheme, of course, is that a price is agreed between the local authority and the landowners who join in the partnership; the development is then done; the sale is then made to the developers at the fully right price; and if there is a balance over, a further chance goes to the landowners. I hope I have dealt adequately with my noble friend's question. I do not want to pursue this point for too long, or to take up too much of noble Lords' time. I hope my noble friend has got the point.
My second point concerns the other shortage—of a commodity which is always in short supply, and that is time. Money is one of the things we are always short of for good development; time is the other one. Very briefly, the present statutory process for development planning is taking so long—I have told my noble friend this before—that plans will be out of date before they are finally settled. The development plan, which decides what is going to happen over the

601
next ten or fifteen years, is basic to everything. This is what everyone wants to know; they want to have a say in it; they want, so far as they can, to decide on the best option. So it is vital that that should be out in time for everyone to know what it is. Sincere efforts have been made, as noble Lords will know, both by noble Lords opposite when they were in Government, through the 1968 Act, under the distinguished leadership in that Department of the noble Lord, Lord Greenwood, and again through the 1972 Act, to try to devise ways of shortening this process of development planning. But in fact I do not believe they have done it. I think that, if anything, what has gone with it, which is the increased provision for public participation, has made the whole process even longer.
So the present position with regard to development planning is that practically all the development plans in the country, which, under the 1947 Act, were drawn up in the early 'fifties, have pretty well all run out. They ran out mainly in 1970–71; so that, broadly speaking, there is now no statutory position at all. The new structure plans, which are to come along under the 1968 Act—and they are of course, very broadly, development plans, too—have not yet arrived. Here we are, over four years after the 1968 Act, and no structure plan has yet emerged. A number of county councils have applied to my noble friend—I think about half a dozen or a dozen of them. They have, so to speak, reached stage one; that is to say, a project report has been completed by the local authority, who then apply to the Secretary of State for the Environment for a statutory commencement order. They are just coming up to that, after four or five years. What follows after are these steps: first, there is public participation, which will take about 18 months, I should think; eventually, after consideration of the results of the public participation, there is a public inquiry; then there is the report, and then there is the Ministerial decision. Each of these stages will take another year or two.
Then follow the preparation and examination of, and public discussion on, the local plans. We have no experience of them yet, but they are, so to speak,
602
the translation into detailed picture of planning on the ground, in the localities, of the broad sweep of the structure plan for the county. One cannot tell precisely, but we in the South-East estimate that these local plans will take another one to four years or something of that order; perhaps two or three years, but several more years. If you add all those matters together, it is quite obvious that these development plans, which are really vital to show people what is coming—how their neighbourhood is going to develop over the coming years; or, indeed, how it is not going to develop, because that is equally important—will not be out under ten years, and by that time, with the speed of change that we live in to-day, they are out of date and you have got to start all over again. So the fact is that in striving for perfection, and rightly so, in drawing up the best possible plans for the future and bringing everybody in as much as possible, so that they can all have a say, we really have defeated our own ends.
I believe we really must re-think this development plan process, and that we must aim to get development plans completed within four or five years; because if they take longer they will be useless to us. So I again suggest to my noble friend what I have suggested to him once before: that it really would be worth considering making the development plan—or the structure plan; call it what you will—non-statutory. Several years would be saved if we did that; and I can quote the example of the regional plan for the South-East, known as the Strategic Plan for the South-East which is itself non-statutory. It was composed by a joint team of planners from local government and central Government; it was blessed by both local government and central Government, and although it is non-statutory it has been published, and everybody has seen it and discussed it. It is having an extremely valuable effect as a broad brush indication as to how the whole region is going to develop over the next 10 or 20 years. If you had a non-statutory county development plan, you could break that down into statutory local plans in regard to which you would apply all the correct statutory tests, with the Minister's confirmation at the end. I believe that it is essential we should once again begin to think over

603
this matter and find out how we can get it into a timescale short enough to serve the purpose we want it to serve. I would suggest to my noble friend a joint study of D. of E. officials and local government officials—local government planners are essential here; they know the practical problems on the ground—to see what is the best way of dealing with this major problem.
My Lords, I have made the two points that I wish to make: that we are short of time and money in developing the kind of future for these urban areas, both redevelopment and new development in developing areas, which will give the quality of life that we want. I have suggested to my noble friend and to noble Lords generally methods by which we might be able to improve the situation. I hope that these will be of some help in taking us the way we all wish to go to lay the basic structure of these new urban developments in a way which will contribute to the quality of life. I beg to move for Papers.
3.21 p.m.
LORD GREENWOOD OF ROSSENDALE: My Lords, there are times when I feel it is almost a formality to thank a noble Lord for having raised a subject in this House, but that is certainly not the case to-day. When I express thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, it is because of the constructive character of his speech and the fact that he was one of the first politicians to show practical concern about the environment. The noble Lord, as Chairman of the Thames Conservancy and as Chairman of the Standing Conference on London Regional Planning, has placed us all in his debt, and certainly over the years there have been few occasions when I found it necessary to disagree with him.
It is fitting, too, that we should express to the Government our appreciation of a number of forward-looking decisions that they have taken. We shall have many opportunities over the next few months of discussing their initiative in the field of water reorganisation, so I should like at this stage simply to thank them for their consideration in publishing the document A Background to Water Reorganisation in England and Wales.
604
By the same token, I will restrict myself merely to expressing my appreciation of the stimulating Report on the Pollution of Estuaries and Coastal Waters which the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution has presented to us. This, too, is a subject worthy of debate in this House. I also welcome the Government's proposals for compensating the victims of injurious affection. This is a project for which, as a Minister, I failed to win support; but it is of immense importance to those who are suffering at the hands of public authorities damage for which they could claim compensation if those responsible for it were private interests. It is a reform which is long overdue and, without reservation, I express appreciation of the Government's policy.
There is one further welcome that I should extend. I am delighted by the Government's Six Towns Studies. I endorse their choice of areas and of the consultants who will be working with the Government and the local councils in this very important experiment. Your Lordships will recall that the purpose of these studies is to ascertain how a total approach to urban problems can be achieved. That is far from being an easy assignment. Urban problems derive from an obsolete social infrastructure, a shortage of new investment, the decline of traditional industries, a selective approach by those responsible for welfare and, not least important, the personal inadequacy of many who fall victim to urban malaise. These problems are compounded by the drift of population away from the big towns and the steadily rising burden of expenditure which has to be borne by a reduced population. And the situation is bound to be exacerbated by the falling off in the housing programme which was announced to-day.
I hope that the Government's inquiries—and I wish that the time span could be shortened—will result in an urban audit for local authorities which will lead the authorities to examine their own needs and priorities—the question of traffic management to which the noble Lord referred is an example—and to evolve a strategy based on those needs. In this, they will need to be assured of substantial Exchequer help, on a more selective basis probably than at present and applied in a way that will not frustrate local

605
initiative. Social planning should be given high priority in our consideration of the urban environment.
Remembering the essential role of democratically-elected local authorities in creating an acceptable urban environment, we must appreciate the difficulties under which they are now operating and make allowances for any shortcomings we may think we detect. I am certain that they will be better equipped to repair those defects when reorganisation has been completed. The new councils will in general be stronger, have greater resources, and be better equipped to deal with problems than those which exist to-day. I am therefore reasonably optimistic about the future. To-day, however, I am concerned about the consequences of revaluation and the, so far at least, imprecise but disturbing consequences of the Government's economic policy, a policy which no local government man could reasonably be expected to have foreseen at the time of the last General Election—unless of course he happened to be standing on his head at the time in a laudable attempt to anticipate the future.
My Lords, may I turn to the present structure plan system to which the noble Lord referred? I agree to a very large extent with the criticisms he made. In the 1968 Act I set out to simplify and to speed up the plan-making process. I simplified it and in some measure expedited it, but neither my own Act nor the present Government's Act have been really effective in that respect. We must in some way repair whatever deficiencies there are. That became increasingly clear as the Greater London Development Plan inquiry ground on and as the Secretary of State embarked on what looks like being a long period of digestion—prolonged, no doubt by the highly fluid nature of the Greater London Council's proposals. I think your Lordships will agree with me that we need a procedure which enables dynamic local government to forge ahead, while at the same time protecting individual rights and enabling the public interest to make itself effectively felt It may well be that we should take this problem out of politics and have the machinery overhauled by an entirely new body nominated by the Secretary of State for the Environment. There can
606
be little doubt that new and radical thinking is needed, and needed very urgently.
I also have great sympathy with what the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, said about the high price of land—a matter upon which Mr. Wilson, Mr. Jenkins and Mr. Peter Walker have all spoken in recent months. We are told in to-day's papers that last year the average cost of building land was £25,000 an acre. It was of course very substantially higher in many urban areas. In answer to a question at the Royal Society of Arts last week I ventured the opinion that local authorities could probably overcome the problem of the high cost of land only if they possessed powers very similar to the New Towns' Section 6 powers. To some extent, therefore, the views of the noble Lord and myself coincide. I should like to consider at greater leisure the other interesting possibilities that he opened up.
I hope that we shall receive from the Under-Secretary of State an assurance that the Government are reconciled to yet another change of policy and will warmly embrace the extension of public ownership in this way. If they do so, councils will have available to them at more reasonable prices than those at present obtaining the land needed by themselves, by housing associations and, subject to reasonable control, by private developers. I am sure that at the same time the Government should be considering the future New Towns programme, about which I will speak in a moment; and considering also whether, especially but not solely in historic towns, there is not room for urban development corporations through which the Government and local councils could bring greatly increased influence to bear and achieve the improvements for which the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, asks. I hope that before long we shall have a chance to debate the Motion on historic towns tabled by my noble friend Lord Raglan.
My Lords, closely linked with land prices is the need to reduce the pressure on the city centres, which at present is an important factor in pushing up the cost of land. That raises a number of issues. Not least important is the question of office control, which at the moment is dramatically ineffective. On the one hand, by restricting office development we are helping to create scarcity and so to put up the cost of

607
accommodation to a level far beyond anything experienced in the other big cities in the world. On the other hand, we are tolerating scandals like Centre Point and a number of other comparable outrages which are striking examples either of commercial misjudgment or inordinate greed. Whatever the cause, such scandals as these cannot be allowed in a society like ours, whose very political stability they could put into jeopardy. My own solution, which I propounded in September, 1969, and which I was working to incorporate into a Bill when the General Election was announced, is to double the rates every six months. If the consciences of certain developers cannot be activated, then their purses must be depleted. I hope that the strong comments of Her Majesty's Ministers will soon be translated into positive action.
There are two other ways in which I should like to release the pressure on the centres of our towns. I am painfully aware that the centres of many of our towns are dying. Shops are closing and residents are moving out, so that the streets in the daytime are dead and dreary and the area goes to sleep when the lights in the offices are switched off. Here again it is largely the high price of land which is at work. We have to bring residential accommodation back into the city centres, as the City of London is courageously seeking to do. But none of us wants rich men's ghettoes: we want socially balanced communities, just as the City of London is trying to get them. That means public subsidies, and perhaps higher density development of the kind which we in this country, because of the skilful research done in the last few years, are so well equipped to provide. Mr. Rippon's demolition of the G.L.C.'s appalling Covent Garden Plan gives me hope that we may be moving in the right direction; but I shall await his reaction to the Cambridge Circus proposal before I make up my mind. I am sure, however, that the Secretary of State will agree that we cannot go on dehumanising our innercity areas.
At the same time, I am convinced that the pattern of shopping is going to change. More than half our households now have cars, and the car is going to be used more and more for shopping in bulk, which is more convenient, less tiring and more
608
economical. As a planner, I started out with a strong prejudice against large out-of-town shopping centres; but having seen the hypermarket at Caerphilly and the admirable Cresset Shopping Centre sponsored by the Peterborough New Town Corporation, complete with district heating and with Sainsbury's and Boot's as the main component, I believe that, provided the right planning precautions are taken, the future of shopping lies largely in developments of this kind. Otherwise, the car will choke the city centres even more seriously than it does to-day. But—and this is important—I am sure that Mr. John Sainsbury is right in saying that in-town shopping provision still has an important part to play.
There is no doubt that we must push ahead with our New Towns programme. I confess that I am an enthusiast for New Towns, and I had the privilege of designating six New Towns—the last of them, though, nearly three years ago. I very much hope that the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, will be able to tell us what further New Town proposals are in the pipeline. I watched a programme on television the other night which stressed that if we are to keep pace with our increasing population we need a new Milton Keynes every year. What plans have the Government got? And do they propose to continue what I believe to be the right policy; namely, the policy of grafting New Towns on to existing communities like Northampton, Peterborough and Preston, so that new development and urban renewal can go together?
My Lords I have believed, too, for some time that there is scope for nevi villages, and I was greatly encouraged in this view by an article by Mr. Ian Nairn in the Sunday Times on November 9. There are many parts of the country where, because of the effects of the Black Death, the Enclosure Movement, or other rural upheavals, churches stand isolated, or almost isolated, or with just a manor house or a farmhouse and a few cottages around them. I should like to see them made the focus of a new village or township, with the green beside the church, with the provision of a small amount of industry, and perhaps 1,000 or 2,000 houses. Such development could, I believe, enhance many areas and make a modest contribution to housing our people.

609
I should like to say a word or two about improvement policy. When the 1969 Housing Act was introduced I made certain optimistic prophecies, and I am delighted that the take-up of improvement grants has substantially exceeded the estimate I made at that time. Grants have in fact more than doubled, and totalled over 226,000 in the first nine months of last year—partly, no doubt, because of the special treatment given to the development areas by noble Lords opposite. I am worried, however, about two aspects of the situation. The first is that General Improvement Areas, to which I attach the very greatest social importance, have not been developed as widely as I could have wished. This, in my view, is a sphere in which really enterprising private enterprise could secure an adequate return on investment, and produce at the same time a very high return for the community as a whole.
I am also disturbed at the extent to which grants are finding their way into the pockets of developers and landlords—over 64 per cent. in the case of my own Borough of Camden, where were are producing a social imbalance which is detrimental to civilised living. The 1969 Act has increased the number of grants given and the number of houses improved; it has increased the number of smaller dwellings in areas where they are needed and it has produced a number of General Improvement Areas which otherwise would not have been initiated. But I am also acutely aware that it has yielded rich rewards for a section of our population which is not pre-eminently productive in its operations, and that many people have been bribed out, or priced out, of areas where they really belong. As chairman of the Housing Centre Trust, I should perhaps say that the Centre will shortly be submitting its views on this question to Mr. Channon, who is, I know, keenly interested in it.
There is another aspect of the environmental problem which I make no apology for mentioning. It is the curse of the juggernaut; indeed, it is the curse of lorries in general. They park with appalling discourtesy and gross lack of consideration in front of people's houses—particularly in working-class streets. They racket through our historic towns,
610
leaving scarred walls and broken paving stones behind them. They shatter the peace of our countryside as they roar along our roads. In its January number, the Municipal Review set out the problem in words I would not try to better. It said:
"Ceilings crack, fronts of brick houses sink, paving stones split and crumble; bollards buckle, gardens shrink and about 50,000 acres of land disappear each year under concrete roads; 6 million tons of carbon monoxide are emitted into the English atmosphere annually; fuel oil contaminates British beaches at the rate of 50,000 tons a year. Each year 7,000 people die on roads used by over 15 million vehicles, roads that cost £230 million in 1971 to construct and maintain. Meanwhile railway lines vanish and the freight liners shrink. Britain is the only European country in which rail freight has been declining since 1950."
I would ask your Lordships to note particularly that last sentence.
The same article tells us that last year 85,000 T.I.R. lorries passed through Dover, and one in five of them was overweight. I have nothing but praise for the G.L.C. in the positive, bloody-minded action it has taken against lorries. I hope the Government will follow that example and will stick to their guns and say that these giant lorries will not be allowed in this country.
I hope your Lordships have studied the Report of the Expenditure Committee on Urban Transport Planning, together with the evidence which accompanied it. I will not weary your Lordships' House by attempting to summarise the Committee's recommendations. I will simply say that the Report is, in my view, one of the most significant that I have read. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, will be able to tell us why it is possible for the Municipal Review to say, as I have just quoted, that Britain is the only European country in which rail freight has been declining since 1950, and I hope that the noble Lord will he able to tell us what positive action his Department is taking to restore to the railways and canals the freight they badly need and which, when it is carried by road, gravely damages the quality of our life.
Finally, may I say this. We in Britain are the pioneers of social advance. The names of Chadwick, Shaftesbury, Cadbury, Sir Frederick Osborne and my

611
old friend Lord Silkin, are revered throughout the world. Our New Towns have probably been our greatest contribution in the social field since the war. We have acquired great experience in planning and urban growth, and over the last ten years we have stepped up our research. We have above all, I believe, the political sophistication to put the fruits of our research to good use in the years to come. Our knowledge and our sophistication put us ahead of all other nations in matters of this kind, and I hope that no one will think because in this House we show ourselves to be aware of our country's shortcomings, that we are not proud of our country's achievements. We are, my Lords—very proud indeed.
3.45 p.m.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Greenwood of Rossendale, told us that when the office lights go out the City goes to sleep. I am not very fond of statistics but I have one statistic which bears out what the noble Lord has said. In the middle of the week the population of the City of London at midnight is 4,000; at midday it is 400,000. One does not have to go very far in the City to find two people lunching together who had breakfast 50 miles apart. Commuter travel is not exactly fun, and there must be something which causes these people to make their 800,000 commuter journeys every day. One might suppose that this commuter traffic, multiplied all over the country in and out of all our cities, was the one thing that saved British Railways from complete insolvency. But when you make inquiries you find out, sadly, that the commuter services are the ones that do not pay.
On the subject of commuter travel, I should like to mention one thing in connection with road transport, going to the opposite end of the subject from the noble Lord, Lord Greenwood, who dealt with juggernauts—that is to say, the commuter's car. What has happened to the commuter's electric car, which we are always hearing is just around the corner and just about to be launched on the market; a nice, clean, quiet, speedy little car which will bring great joy not only to the commuter himself but to the electricity generating boards who will be able
612
to use their spare capacity in the night-time, recharging the batteries of all the commuters' electric cars? What is happening about this? I can just remember the electric cars in London in the 1920s. They were not very successful and they did not last very long; but if we could do it at all in 1923 surely we can do it successfully in 1973.
If one were to give the statistics of our commuter traffic to a man newly arrived from Mars, I suppose the inevitable conclusion would be that, "The life in your cities nowadays must be immeasurably worse than at any period of time in the past." My Lords, is this so? Have we made no advances over the years? Surely we have. We have largely conquered the infectious diseases, and thus we have largely conquered the epidemics which were the absolute bane of the town dwellers among our ancestors. With our smoke-control policies we have eliminated the "pea soup" fog to such an extent that I verily believe there will be some of your Lordships who have not experienced a "pea soup" fog in which you could not see between one lamp post and the next and were lost in absolute total darkness. Furthermore, it has become worth while to clean our public buildings, because at least there is a real prospect that, having been cleaned at vast expense, they will not again be covered with grime. So we have made some advance there. Our fire damage figures are alarming, but the fact is that in peace time we are not threatened with anything like the disaster which overcame London in 1666.
Next, crimes of violence—mugging. "Mugging" is a new term, and there is some danger in supposing that a new term denotes a new phenomenon. But in case we are in danger of thinking that let me quote a short extract from a superbly illustrated book by Hugh Phillips, The Thames About 1750, about the crime quarter of London of those days; it was called "Alsatia", and lay just to the East of the Temple. Ironically, the Temple then, as now, was one of the most law-abiding areas of London. Cheek by jowl with it to the East was the crime quarter called "Alsatia". It came into being because originally it had been a sanctuary within the sacred precincts of a medieval religious settlement where fugitives from justice could enjoy immunity from arrest.

613
Mr. Phillips describes conditions in 1750 as follows:
"In 1750, an epoch of unlit streets and an ineffective police-system, robbery was an industry. The daily papers of the time mention three to five 'hold-up' street robberies per day from the outskirts to the centre of London. On an average of once a fortnight, a stage coach or a gentleman's carriage was robbed by a masked and mounted highwayman on the very borders of London, particularly at Turnham Green, Putney and Islington.
"Footpads and street robbers worked in gangs, clubbing solitary pedestrians in the main streets, holding pistols loaded with double ball to their waistcoats, or threatening to knife them, and finally robbing them of everything, including their handkerchiefs, wigs, hats, purses and watches. Intimidation by extremely harsh punishment had little effect. Every month a convoy containing from five to fifteen condemned men with coffins in their carts would pass through Oxford Street to Tyburn—often condemned for no more than stealing ribbons from a draper's shop—but it made no difference. Pickpockets were busy among the crowd while the executions proceeded."
So, my Lords, our ancestors could tell us one of two things about mugging.
Perhaps that is enough historical matter for the moment, and it behoves me now to be practical. I should like finally to mention what the R.I.B.A. calls the "throw-away house of to-day". I am quoting from a paper called The Human Habitat, prepared for the R.I.B.A., which says:
"Instead of building for a limited life, and moving towards a throw-away building … we will have to plan long-lasting buildings, designed for economy in use…that can be adapted to future needs without rebuilding. The assumptions on which architects and their clients have relied will have to be reappraised. For example, the tendency towards progressively shorter life buildings has gone hand in hand with … the concept of building to accommodate the exact needs of the moment. This must now be reviewed in the light of the realisation that a tailormade, glove-tight fit is incompatible with longer life buildings … The Georgian terrace has survived not so much because of its aesthetic merits but because it is almost infinitely flexible—can one say the same of most present day building? Setting aside the small proportion of really specialised needs (for example, the concert hall, the operating theatre and so on) the fundamental requirements of a vast range of activities … do not differ greatly."
I suppose it is not much good saying to the average prospective housebuilder of to-day, who finds it hard enough, even with the help of a building society, to raise the money to build the flimsiest
614
house, that he ought to build something which will last for 250 years. Some solution to this problem must be found— possibly a loan from public funds which can be repayable in fairly easy stages throughout the life of the building. If that is not the right solution, there must be some other solution; otherwise we shall be in the sad position of finding, just at the moment when we pride ourselves on having really got on top of our slum clearance problem, that with a great many of the houses we are building to-day we are simply creating a slum clearance problem for our grandchildren.
3.54 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT (LORD SANDFORD): My Lords, we are all very grateful to my noble friend Lord Nugent for giving us an opportunity to discuss this subject in all its width. I am sure we all welcome back to the front line on the environment the noble Lord, Lord Greenwood, after quite a long absence from these debates. I should like to start by dealing with matters about which my noble friend Lord Nugent and the noble Lord, Lord Greenwood, expressed concern—land availability and structure planning. The Government share the general concern over the need to make adequate land available for new housing and new housing estates at this time. We have already taken action to ensure that more planning permissions are granted, and we have promised support for local authorities in acquiring land for resale to builders. As promised in the recent White Paper on the second stage of the programme for controlling inflation, we intend to bring forward further proposals to increase the supply of building land. A statement will be made about that before the second stage comes into effect.
My noble friend Lord Nugent also referred to the subject of land assembly. The Government recognise that in both the short and the long term advance land assembly by local authorities can play a useful part in promoting development schemes. I am not, however, in a position to say at this stage whether the special £80 million loan allocation for land acquisition—which my noble friend Lord Nugent acknowledged had proved

615
helpful—will be continued on a longer-term basis. It is up to local authorities to take full advantage of what is now available. We have, however, already agreed in principle to deferments of loan charges designed to relieve the burden which would undoubtedly otherwise fall upon the ratepayers straight away, pending returns on the land which has been resold. To that extent I would say that it is not the whole burden that falls upon the ratepayers immediately.
The issues raised by my noble friend on compensation for public acquisition of land are ones which we are considering, as he knows, in the context of the report of the Working Party on local authority/private enterprise partnership schemes. I am not ready to make a statement on that subject, but one will be made when the consultations have been completed. However, I am bound to say—and this is in answer to my noble friend Lord Nugent and the noble Lord, Lord Greenwood—that we see difficulty in any attempt to apply more widely in general areas of growth the special compensation rules applying to the New Towns. Our present view is that it is not feasible to value land in growth areas generally on assumptions which deny the expectation of that growth in the way that valuation in a New Town ignores enhancement created by the New Town project itself. But at the same time we recognise the reasonableness of designating particular parts of growth areas as comprehensive development areas or new-style Action Areas, with the result that compensation for land acquired in them is not enhanced by the prospects of development attributable to that designation and the public works associated with it.
To turn to structure plans, I think I can say that we are not so far behind, and there is not quite so long to go as my noble friend might fear. The position in the South-East is that South Hampshire are pioneering the "joint structure plan", for which we have made provision since the 1968 Act. Plans are well ahead for Buckinghamshire, for the Brighton and Crawley areas, and for the Ipswich area and the adjoining region. Some authorities in the South-East have found difficulties in getting ahead as quickly as authorities elsewhere, despite
616
having available the most fully-fledged regional strategy that has yet appeared. My Department will seek further discussions with them to settle their doubts. I think the noble Lord, Lord Greenwood, will recognise that we have made further moves since the 1968 Act, of which he was the author. We have abolished the need for London borough structure plans; we have authorised joint structure planning; we have provided for the less extensive examinations in public, as opposed to the examination of every single objection which would be the case if we were carrying on with the ordinary public local inquiry.
The examination in public is designed to deal with the major issues and the problems which are significant at the structure planning stage, and it does not oblige local authorities to go into every matter in meticulous detail at that point. Our forecast is that the first structure plans will be submitted this spring. Twenty-five per cent. of the structure plans should have been submitted by April, 1974. On a number of these the Secretary of State will by then have held the examination in public or be arranging for one. We reckon that a further 25 per cent. will be submitted by the end of 1975. By that date many other plans will be in an advanced stage of preparation. The booklet on the examination in public, which we shall shortly be circulating, will make quite clear the importance that the Government attach to issuing decisions on submitted structure plans with all reasonable speed—certainly far more quickly than many previous plans were dealt with. Thus I would say that from April 1, 1974, onwards structure plans will be in increasing numbers actually coming into operation.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, may I interrupt my noble friend for one minute? As I understand it, at this stage the application is being made for a statutory order by a certain number of local authorities. That order received, they will then publish their provisional plan for public participation. That will take about a year. They have then to apply for their public inquiry. My experience is that it usually takes six months to 12 months after application for a public inquiry before the Minister appoints an inspector—usually nearer 12

617
months than six for an important inquiry like that. The public inquiry will then take another six months. It will take the inspector or the panel at least six months to write their report; and it takes the Minister another 12 months before he takes his decision on it. This adds up to over three years.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I think my noble friend is reading into this process too much of the experience of the previous process which was much more detailed. We are going to make very special efforts to speed up this process. My noble friend will know from our discussions on the Town and Country Planning (Amendment) Bill of last year the extent to which we have already modified the public examination of the structure plan as compared to the public local inquiry. The programme which I have just outlined takes into account the factors which my noble friend has just mentioned.
The noble Lord, Lord Greenwood, asked about New Towns. I will not, if he will excuse me, go into that matter in great detail, except to say that we have of course since coming to power designated the Central Lancashire New Town on which he serves—
LORD GREENWOOD OF ROSSENDALE: My Lords, if the noble Lord will forgive me for interrupting, I would say that that was in fact designated in March, 1970, before the present Government were elected.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I apologise. We have decided to carry on with that designation, which is as far as it had gone. But I have no plans or intentions about further designations on which I can make a statement at the moment, except to say that we are certainly continuing with all the New Towns that were already under way.
If I may turn to my general remarks on this topic, I think that if we had been having this debate about ten years ago we should have been concentrating on urban renewal and reconstruction. We should have been thinking about the physical problems of towns, of the continuing need for major slum clearance programmes, of the extent of substandard housing, the need for dealing with traffic congestion, and so on. These
618
are all subjects which will recur to-day. Some would have urged the extension of pedestrianisation schemes such as are shown in the exhibition in the Royal Gallery. Others would have quoted local improvement schemes such as that shown at Rochdale or Skelmersdale; would have referred to land reclamation, as shown at Bradford; provision of open space, as shown at Liverpool, and so on. Two or three years ago we should have concentrated on a number of organisational questions; the planning system itself which the noble Lord, Lord Greenwood, did so much to improve; local government reorganisation, on which we spent so much time last summer, and changing relationships between town and country and between different tiers of authorities which will flow from that; the scope for the reorganisation which has led to the creation of my own Department. Those organisational problems, like many of the others, are now to some extent behind us. It is therefore fitting that my noble friend should have changed the theme to one of the quality of life.
When we speak like that in relation to the planning of our towns I believe we come to four main themes: first of all (and the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, has introduced this one), there is dissatisfaction with the quality of a good deal that has been built and the quality of many of the services which we have provided. People feel that the centres of our towns are all coming to look and feel the same, to lose their special local colour and their own particular character. Some of our housing schemes have not been sufficiently human in scale or sufficiently sensitive in style; and we could all quote examples of developments which we regret. But as my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford said, we should not overlook the achievements that have been made and the benefits which have come from our house-building programme.
The second theme is this deplorable disruption of people's ordinary lives that has occurred as a result of the blight of redevelopment and the wholesale transfers of population from old neighbourhoods into new housing estates. No one now doubts the great importance which people attach to familiar surroundings, to being near friends and relations, and to all those things which save them from

619
feelings of isolation and anonymity. This is why I was so glad that the noble Lord, Lord Greenwood, mentioned, with approval, the extent to which we have built on the legislation that he had made available for the improvement of our housing stock and the idea of general improvement areas. We have gone out of our way to accelerate this programme and I think the House will agree that we have succeeded. I would agree with the noble Lord that the objective now is to concentrate on making more of the "general improvement area" concept, which relatively has lagged behind.
Thirdly—and this is a theme which the noble Lord, Lord Greenwood, introduced and I am sure other noble Lords will pursue—it is now widely recognized that the lot of people living in our inner city areas is not in general improving but in many cases is deteriorating. In recent years we have had the growth of voluntary movements such as Shelter, the City Poverty Committee and numerous local bodies, all dedicated to dealing with this problem. The Government are playing their part through the urban aid programme and community development projects, and noble Lords will know, as the noble Lord, Lord Greenwood, has mentioned, that we have recently put in hand a further series of six studies of situations of this sort and three of them in particular—in Liverpool, Birmingham, and Lambeth—are designed to examine the scope for improving the physical quality of people's lives and surroundings in the central city areas.
The fourth theme is that in more and more cities more and more major proposals for change are coming under public attack. Schemes which have been devised and brought forward in the public interest are condemned by the public they are supposed to serve. The criticism that we hear calls not for less planning but rather is it a call for a better style of planning. In short, therefore, we have the need to aim for a higher quality of achievement; secondly, to realise this at less social cost than before; thirdly, to get to grips still more closely with the problems of deprived communities in the worst urban areas and, fourthly, wherever we act to seek to accomplish change in a way more acceptable to the public than it has been in the past.
620
Of those four problems the third—the evils of multiple deprivation in the inner city areas—is certainly the most acute, and I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Greenwood, stressed and welcomed the six towns studies. After those studies I shall be in a better position to deal with those matters than I am now, and therefore I propose this afternoon to continue on the other three themes and to set out some thoughts on the approaches which I think we need to develop. I have in mind particularly the contradiction which I have just pointed out: the criticism of the developments which are needed and which are brought forward and the way in which they are presented and executed. If we are to plan for the quality of life we have to try to bridge the gap between expectation and achievement.
One simple fact which accounts for both the dissatisfaction and the hostility is that people's needs differ. It is a simple point, but it is really at the root of the problem. We used to believe—and perhaps we had grounds for believing after the war—that we could reach some consensus about what our towns should be like and express this in a straightforward plan, but public reactions have now brought us to see that this is much more difficult than it was once thought. Different people and different groups of people want our towns to provide different things for them. Different people have different expectations. Their desires conflict, and they will continue to conflict. The things that different people want cannot all be provided for in some general consensus. The most familiar example is in the use of cars. That is not going to be resolved, if I may say so, by electrifying them, because there is still the question of fitting them into our cities, and not everybody who would like to drive his car can do so. Different groups compete for housing; they differ about the kind of shopping facilities that they want. Some prefer to have the employment which a factory provides while others prefer to avoid the disturbance and the great risk of pollution that it creates. On all such matters, and many others, there are conflicts of interest between groups of people, and the advantages and disadvantages do not fall equally.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, the Minister has referred to the risks of

621
pollution, and that is where the electric car comes in.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I mentioned pollution as one of the factors governing whether you have your employment in a factory close at hand to a residential site. Decisions have to be taken but they cannot reconcile all the interests. So what follows from this is that we can expect not less, but more conflict; not less, but more appeals; not less but more difficult decisions. I believe this is inherent in any genuinely vital democratic process. I do not think anybody now can hope to satisfy all the rising expectations and aspirations of everybody all the time. Moreover, the future needs and desires of people and the extent to which they will be able to satisfy them become more and more uncertain, as well as in conflict. Great and various social changes are under way. We can no longer fix our eyes on some simple, single agreed goal.
So the planning process has to achieve two main things at the same time. First, it has to be firm about what has to be decided now and to choose between the conflicting aspirations of different groups of people. Secondly, while doing that, it must be flexible about future decisions and adaptable to future changes in pressure, demand and public taste. This is a difficult task. Nevertheless, I believe to achieve it we need to develop a comprehensive approach and a method, but this should not necessarily imply comprehensive development and implementation. So far as possible we should avoid sudden, drastic and sweeping changes in our towns, and concentrate more on a series of smaller improvements over fairly long periods within a comprehensive future structure plan.
There are, of course, some big things which we must continue to do. We must continue to clear the slums. We shall need to get on with some major road schemes. If we do not, the juggernauts will continue to be where they are now, going along our residential roads which were never designed for them. All we can do is to endeavour to do all of these things better. I was glad that the noble Lord, Lord Greenwood, acknowledged and welcomed the compensation legislation which is now going to another place and is one way of improving upon our
622
performance when it is necessary to conduct big public developments that affect private interests. But so far as we can, we must limit the major changes, and we hope to be able to do so. I think there is now a strong current of opinion that total redevelopment should proceed only where it is fully justified and that so far as we can we should proceed by more limited and piecemeal change in a way which allows us to preserve our familiar surroundings, conserve our architectural heritage and build upon the historic character of places and on living communities, rather than sweep them all away.
Four things follow from all this. First, we must see, as the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, and the noble Lord, Lord Greenwood, both said, that consideration of social aspects is built into the planning process, and I can confirm that we are moving along this line. The regulations governing the new structure plans require authorities to include such indications as they think appropriate of the regard they have had to social policies. The development plan manual produced by the Department summarised one of the main purposes of development plans as being to satisfy local aspirations. Provision for non-physical needs in the future must, of course, take the planning of cultural and recreational facilities fully into account, and we shall expect both structure and local plans to deal, with appropriate thoroughness, with these factors.
Secondly, the implication of what I was saying is that we need full and firm conservation policies. Past and present conservation work has concentrated upon areas of exceptionally important landscape and historic townscape. Steps are taken to conserve buildings of high architectural merit or historic importance. But the new approach must be broader than this. It can be realised within the present plan-making procedures. It should take account of the growth of public opinion in favour of conserving the familiar and cherished local scene. It should also have care for the conservation of existing communities and the social fabric, wherever public opinion points clearly towards it. Conservation of the character of cities ought more strongly to influence planners at all stages of their work; conservation of the character of cities should be the starting point for thought about the extent

623
of redevelopment needs; and conservation of the character of cities should be the framework for planning both the scale and the pace of urban change.
Thirdly, we should recognise also the advantages of devolving decisions about particular places as close to the grass roots as we can reasonably get them. In many ways the quality of life in our towns is affected by decisions of the Government. There have to be certain national priorities and national programmes. There must be national decisions about the distribution of resources. Only the Government can advance a trunk road programme or bring together all the measures needed to mitigate the nuisance of aircraft noise. But nevertheless for the most part the quality of life in any particular place results from many different decisions that can be taken only in the light of the particular circumstances of each particular place, involving all aspects of the local management of the local environment—the provision of open space and the management of parks and playing fields (which the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, has already mentioned and which I understand my noble friend Lord Gainford is going to refer to), street cleaning, refuse collection, litter—and here I should like to make a passing acknowledgment to the work of the Keep Britain Tidy group which has done a great deal in this important sphere. This is an area in which the studies, to which the noble Lord, Lord Greenwood of Rossendale, has referred and welcomed, will give us advice which we shall be able to pass on to local authorities advocating something nearer to a total approach to all these local matters.
The fourth point that follows from what I have been saying—and perhaps it is the most important of all; it is certainly one which is very much in the public eye at the moment—is that we must maintain and improve the arrangements for public participation in the process leading to planning decisions, while at the same time giving full weight to the necessity, stressed by my noble friend, to get the plans into operation with all due despatch. But the fact is that decisions at whatever level cannot be informed by an understanding of different people's differing needs, wants and
624
desires, unless these have first been discovered, drawn out and made explicit in the plan. There are differing and conflicting views about what this public participation should mean. To some it means just a splendid opportunity to fight for their own particular interests. With that in mind, we need to be sure that we give due weight to the views of those who are less vociferous—the non-participators, the silent majority. Others regard public participation as merely a kind of therapeutic device, as though whatever the final decision people will accept it more readily if they feel that they have been involved. Others will go so far as to say that the only right decision is the one that has been generated by the particular community effecting the proposal without any regard to wider regional or national considerations. So as we develop public participation, we have to be aware that it is regarded in a great many different ways and we have to allow for that.
That being so, we shall find increasingly that these processes are both difficult and time-consuming. One of the most valuable test bids of all this on a small scale are the general improvement areas where everything that I have been saying applies but on a small scale, and lessons can be learned from these which can then be applied to larger and more complex problems. At any rate my Department is mounting research into a number of aspects of these problems, and we hope to publish shortly proposals for involving the public at an earlier stage before future trunk road planning.
I hope that ways will be found of bringing together the efforts of the voluntary bodies to contribute more fruitfully to a constructive planning process. My right honourable friend is giving a variety of grants on an experimental basis to promote that. I look forward very much to hearing from the right reverend Prelate, the Bishop of Portsmouth, his views on the role of the Churches which I know will be based on direct experience of the Churches in his diocese with the work on the South Hants joint structure plan. Voluntary bodies can help directly in physical improvement and contribute thus to the quality of life. We are giving grants to the Yorkshire Council for the Environment, and the Civic Trusts for the North-West and the

625
North-East and we would greatly welcome the setting up of regional civic trusts in other parts of the country.
My Lords, I want to end—and not before time—by emphasising the role of the local councillor in all this. The Baines Report on the management and structure of the new local authorities had a very valuable discussion on this. It discussed the various roles which councillors may wish to play, and the importance of each one of them. These processes of public participation muse reinforce, and not replace, the democratic process at the centre of which the councillor stands. The participation process—a two-way and constructive process—faces great problems of communication. Better planning depends increasingly on specialised and elaborate techniques which lay people find it difficult both to understand and to trust. It is a matter of great skill to surmount that barrier. It is a field that itself needs more experiment and research. We cannot expect the councillor to be a kind of interpreter between professional expertise and public understanding, but we can call on him to insist on every effort by the professionals to make clear and understandable to the public what it is that they are trying to say through their plans and policies.
I believe that comprehension is not the only barrier There is also the need to get the message across that major policy and structural decisions will, in the end, affect what happens to individuals. It is very difficult for these implications to be brought out and made clear early enough. It is the local knowledge of the place where he lives and of the people he serves that enables the councillor to play a great part. If we can surmount these hurdles we shall be on the way to disposing of the "them" and "us" problem with which we are all so familiar. And the solution of this can make such a contribution to the quality of life. In addition, the councillor has a special responsibility for bringing in the local publicity and news media much more effectively than has been done hitherto, to work with the council, as well as to be critical of them where occasion demands, in this whole process.
LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURY: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, is he not going to comment on the
626
point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Greenwood of Rossendale, about the loss of freight on the railways at a time when it is increasing in other parts of the world?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I was not going to comment on that point because I was counting on my noble friend Lord Gowrie to deal with that, and with a number of other points raised by noble Lords which I have not been able to cover in a speech that has already gone on too long. But I can assure my noble friend that it will be covered.
My noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford has invited us to discuss the quality of life. To raise it is an aim on which we can all very easily agree; but what in practice each one of us means by it, and just how we raise it, is a great deal more obscure and a great deal more difficult. However, we are grateful to the noble Lord for lighting our path and leading us some way along it in his speech this afternoon.
4.30 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF PORTSMOUTH: My Lords, I would begin by expressing gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, for introducing this debate on a subject which quite obviously is of very deep and significant importance to the life of the society in which we live. The noble Lord, Lord Sandford, said that if this debate had taken place ten years ago it would have taken place on a very different level; and it may be that in the whole field of planning we have needed sufficient time to enable us to see the mistakes that have been made and what we are planning for. This is in no way to detract from or to criticise all that the planners have done. Indeed, I dread to think—and I am sure that all noble Lords will share my feeling—what might have happened in this country if it had not been for the planning authorities over the last 25 years. But this is a planning debate; and as such it has immediate implications about people since, ultimately, it is people who lie at the back of all the planning and all the thought that goes into it.
I sometimes think that perhaps one of the weaknesses of the past has been that plans have been produced into which people have been expected or made to fit;

627
and people do not react in that kind of way. It may be that in future planning the search for the way in which people themselves can decide the kind of society, the kind of community, the kind of setting, in which their lives are to be spent, will be the point of the utmost importance. So this debate has implications for people, not merely through the reference in the Motion to the quality of life but also, I believe, as a result of the recognition, expressed first in the Skeffington Committee's Report on Participation in Planning Procedure, that planning is not adequate if it is something done for people; as it were, at people, instead of by people: it must be a process into which every possible representative of a community is drawn, by means which will develop their concern and educate them in the kind of society in which they are going to live.
It is obviously true that all down the centuries man has been deeply affected, sometimes slowly, sometimes with considerable speed, by the environment in which his life is set. He reacts fairly definitely to the setting in which his life is. This still goes on to-day, and one sees it not only in the new developments within the big cities but also in the new housing areas. But the total environment of human beings is not solely the result of physical circumstances. Those circumstances will be powerful, but man's total environment consists also of his social relationships and of the framework of the society in which he lives. In other words, the community or communities in which he is involved are important elements in the totality.
Various problems have been mentioned and various failures in experience can be pointed to. One of the failures, I am sure, has been the failure to bring the local communities sufficiently into discussion and into participation. A scheme has been implanted on an area, and they have had no say in it. One of the by-products of this, as I see it happening in my own locality, is that such areas are now producing what are called community councils; and their creation has had a somewhat disastrous effect in making authorities suspicious that they are a revolutionary group, so producing yet another of those "We/they situations which bedevil so much
628
of our common life in this country to-day. But it seems that in the planning for the future there is at last going to be participation.
May I be excused if I recount to your Lordships the experience which we have had in South Hampshire? Ten years ago two development structure plans were produced, neither of them acceptable, and both of them from the old point of view of imposing an idea on an area or on a community. In 1968 the three authorities of Portsmouth, Southampton and the Hampshire County decided to set up their own planning authority in Winchester. The first thing that body did was to call together a meeting of as wide a representation of bodies as it could possibly have done, covering the whole of the area. At that meeting we had spelled out to us the possibility of every group participating in the plans which were going to be drawn up. As a result, on the Churches' side we set up a Churches secretariat, which represented all the Christian Churches of the area and not just the Church of England. This secretariat set up working parties in the Solent area, which eventually reported on such things as rural settlements, education, social services, urban forms, housing, employment, social change. In 1970 a symposium was held in Portsmouth, as a result of which the planners more or less said to the Churches, in answer to the profound question that was being asked." What is man; what is he for; what is it that we are seeking to provide for him?": "Will you set up a working party, because we think you are the most disinterested body to do this, and seek to answer this question, 'What is community and what is it that makes a community tick?'"
This working party was set up under the chairmanship of Miss Mollie Batten and produced its report last year, in perhaps a rather glossy form, entitled Your Choice, Your Community. It was very enthusiastically accepted by the planners, and as a result I think a considerable impression has been made on the kind of structure plan to which they are working. We in South Hampshire now have our draft structure plan. The local authorities are now being asked to go into the more particular details; and at that level, too, there is an assurance of complete participation by those who are

629
concerned. While this sense that the community as a whole is now able to share in and take part in the kind of future which is being built may not answer all the problems, I believe that it will at least make people feel they have been consulted, and that if their differences still remain they have little cause for complaint. The vital questions are: what is it that really makes a community? Where does man, being the kind of person he is, fit into it? And how best can he be helped to adjust himself into it? I rejoice that that participation is now very much a reality.
Of course we are all aware of the kind of problems which are being produced in the cities. I hope that it is true to say that there has come about a changing pattern in development. In the early 1960s the main characteristic seemed to be a desire to wipe out whole neighbourhoods, leaving in the middle of it all perhaps a church and a public house as the only survivors. That situation is now giving way, as I see it, to a greater reliance on mixed and selective development, of which the proposals for the Covent Garden area seem to me to be a good example. The Minister has indicated that development should begin by a study of the stock of buildings, the community networks, and the people actually living and working in the area, rather than attempting a clean sweep and the retention of individual outstanding buildings.
Concern for "quality of life" may become hollow if it does not start with a recognition of the claims to attention of those living and working in the area. In the past, whole little communities within a city have been disastrously wiped out and transplanted to different areas. The main continuing need all the time is for a sufficient stock of cheap housing for those working people who must live near their work. In other areas the swing away from comprehensive redevelopment of housing has been hastened—and for this I personally thank God—by the discovery of the high cost of high-rise buildings, and also the discovery of the social deprivation which comes to so many of those who have to live in these high-rise buildings. Children, housebound mothers, and of course the elderly, have forced on them problems of deep personal reality, and there does not seem to be an answer to them in the setting of the high-rise
630
buildings. A combination of all these factors, and the desire to retain the visual variety of many still sturdy Victorian houses has, I am thankful to say, led to "mixed" developments, where medium height blocks of flats, new terrace houses and maisonettes, are combined with rehabilitated existing housing in ways which achieve high density housing and yet enable the majority of the residents to live at ground level.
We have learned from past mistakes. Possibly we shall go on making mistakes—we should not be human if we did not—but through public participation and the sharing of the needs of the local community, we have the power to build not just houses on a piece of land, but real societies in which men and women are not just depersonalised factors but are living and sharing in a balanced community.
4.45 p.m.
LORD ARDWICK: My Lords, I am speaking under some physical difficulties, and I hope that my speech will not be brought to an end when I am seized with a bronchitic spasm. The subject we are debating this afternoon would justify a very long book and a whole series of Reith lectures, so all one can do in a short debate of this kind is to pick out one or two items which are basic to the problem. Last night I told a Chinese diplomat that we were debating to-day the quality of life. He asked me, quite rightly, what that meant. I answered—and I thought that it was rather a good answer on the spur of the moment—that when we speak of the quality of urban life we mean the amenities that a city provides to live a life that is both pleasant and rich, rich in satisfactions. Of course the first insistence always has to be on the elimination of poverty, a stage which we have not yet reached. The Chinese then asked, "Does it include the problems of social morality?" and I assured them that it did, and that they would probably be raised in this Chamber this afternoon.
The noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, is a scholar, and he will tell me if I am right in thinking that the phrase "the quality of life" originated with Matthew Arnold, and I think it was introduced into political debate here some years ago by my right honourable friend Mr.

631
Anthony Crosland, who is at once the most practical and clear-headed political philosopher of the Left. It is now right in the forefront of politics, and it was the basis of a speech made by my right honourable friend the Leader of the Labour Party at Edinburgh ten days ago. This speech was the first in a series which I presume is leading up to a programme for the General Election. Therefore, the subject that we are discussing here this afternoon is not just a philosophic one in which we can vent our concern about our urban environment and our Utopian dreams of the city beautiful; it is the very stuff of the current political struggle.
Poverty apart, I should say that the very basic needs of a life to be judged by its quality are, first, that the air that we breathe shall not be too impure; that we are all adequately housed; that there is an adequate and comprehensive public transport system to convey us to and from our work and our pleasures; that the public services that we all require are sufficient; and that we can feel that we can walk at night in safety. Perhaps the most surprising progress that we have made is towards cleaner air. Nothing that I know of is more dramatic than the improvement in Central Manchester. Even 25 years ago Central Manchester was not only the frequent victim of dense sulphurous fog—I am a permanent victim of that particular environment—but we sometimes had darkness at noon. The most remarkable phenomenon was that the fog would hover 50 feet above the houses, turning day into night. That kind of thing does not happen any more in Manchester.
Since then, we have had in all our cities the increasing problem of invisible pollution by car, bus, and lorry. Of course solutions are in sight, even if they will not be very rapidly achieved. There was some talk this afternoon from the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, about the electric car; but why the transport authorities dispensed with the trolley-bus is something I have not been able to understand. It had the cleanliness of the tramcar without its noise, and something of the flexibility of the bus. If it was removed simply because it was marginally less economical than the diesel engined bus, then I think that to-day the marginal
632
excess is one that a civilised city would gladly pay.
I believe that, at last, we are ready for more radical solutions of our urban transport problems. As happens so often in politics, it is only when chaos is seen to be right ahead that public consent can be secured for radical schemes. The point of traffic chaos is getting very close in the centres of our cities to-day. Consequently, the public transport systems are getting worse and not better; and the worse they grow, the more expensive and infrequent the services become, the greater the temptation to use the private car as a commuting vehicle, all adding to the chaos. I believe that to-day we are getting ready to impose severe restrictions in urban centres on the minority of people using the private car. I believe that we are also ready to envisage free or very low-cost, fiat-rate public transport. I should like to know, though the question may be beyond the competence of the Government because I think the matter falls within the ambit of the Greater London Council, whether London Transport has worked out the gains in efficiency that it could have, with its existing stock of buses and with its existing drivers and conductors, assuming free or flat-rate fares and also assuming various reductions in the density of private vehicles, and of commercial vehicles, too. I think we need some basic facts like that, in order to see what kind of public transport system we can have. Perhaps the starting point is the banning not merely of heavy but of very long vehicles from the centre of London.
I now come to housing, which is always a minority problem. The larger the number of satisfied householders, the smaller the political will to cope with a diminishing problem. The housing record of this Government, if I may say so in the meiotic fashion to which we are accustomed in this Chamber, is not one of which they can be very proud. Only 123,000 council houses were completed last year, according to the figures published this morning, which was the lowest total for 11 years; and even the combined total of privately and publicly-built homes amounted to less than 320,000, the lowest total for nine years. Yet, in the face of those facts, we hear

633
of moves by certain Members of Parliament to ask the Government to cut public expenditure as a counter-inflationary measure. The Government have learned a good deal from President Nixon's prices and incomes policy. I hope that President Nixon's influence will stop there, and that when the right honourable gentleman the Prime Minister meets President Nixon to-night or to-morrow, he will not be inspired by the presidential decision to cut the poverty programme and other social provisions. I feel that the majority of the public, and not just Labour supporters and Labour voters, are in a mood to desire a radical solution of the remaining housing problem which would involve the public ownership of development land, especially in our cities.
Up to 1939, we saw enormous extensions on the peripheries of our cities. The emphasis was on quantity rather than on quality, with square miles of semidetached boxes, dull in design if they were built by the municipalities, and decadent if they were built by private enterprise. Here and there, there were super cinemas, most of which are closed to-day; here and there an enormous, unfriendly pub which was an incitement to temperance, rather than an incentive to conviviality; and, as a rule, there were very few other social buildings. The charm of the older suburbs, such as Wimbledon, was completely missed and yet the English suburb was our greatest contribution to all the cities of the world. In the new towns we have avoided the more egregious errors of the between-wars developments, and we are now developing the decayed and often slum-infested inner rings of our cities.
I have recently been visiting Hulme in Manchester, where something like a new town is built on the old slum site. I must be very careful, because the noble Lord, Lord Hewlett, knows much more about that than I do, and indeed, although I do not think he was responsible for the new plan, he was probably responsible during the years he served on the Manchester City Council for preparing to knock down the old houses. It is wonderful in Hulme to-day to see green grass growing around a new school—a quarter where previously there was not a blade of grass; but some of the housing provision is still in flats, and they do not have to be high flats in order to be
634
a recipe for despair and delinquency. One can only think that they are provided to increase the density of buildings on land which is scandalously expensive, or to gratify the whims of English architects who are not much good at small house design, anyway. In the place called Ardwick, where I spent much of my boyhood, there are now vast tracts of rubble. I hope that when Ardwick is rebuilt they will make a better job of it than they are doing at Hulme. There is a place called Fortress Ardwick—thank God!it has no connection with me—which is an abomination of habitation. It may be very comfortable inside, but from the outside it looks a very grim place. I think that even low-built flats are tragically wrong for families, and they are wrong for most other people, too. Most people, and certainly most Manchester people, would much rather have a house. I think they have a right to choose, and it is up to the Government to get over the financial problems of giving them a right of choice.
There is one prospect which affects many people like myself who are now comfortably housed. They are faced with the prospect that, within five, ten or fifteen years, there will be some development or a road will he built either through their house or unpleasantly close to it. The plans for the London motorways are sufficiently vague, contradictory and remote not to have affected values of properties in the district where I live, but the family house in Manchester has been under a threat for some years. Many of the neighbours have left and the council, quite sensibly, put large families into unoccupied houses. But it may well be ten years before the road is built—ten years in which the property is blighted and in which the owner feels that he can make no desirable improvements, such as rewiring or installing central heating: and nobody seems to know what is the basis of compensation if they get out now, or what will be the basis in ten years' time. The problem becomes more acute and more frightening for people in this position, as similar but unblighted properties in the district fetch unexpectedly high prices. Surely compensation must be based on the current price of similar accommodation in the same district, and I should like to know what the Government intend to do about

635
compensation in the circumstances of a still rising property market.
I now come to the services, by which I mean all kinds of services from the repair of a transistor radio to those services supplied by the nationalised boards. The services of the latter are just not adequate to meet to-day's conditions. The nationalised boards seem to imagine that in every house there is a little woman with nothing better to do than wait until the meter reader or the gas man calls. To-day there are about 5 million married women going out to work and they—and many other women, too—have the nightmare of trying to arrange to be in when a service man is calling or when something is being delivered, perhaps even from a private firm. That nightmare results from to-day's broken promises by people making commitments which they cannot fulfil, or from making an appointment for a day and not for a specified hour. This is one thing which detracts greatly from one minor aspect of the quality of life.
My Lords, I should like to say just a word about civil peace. The noble Lord, Lord Airedale, spoke about "mugging" and its prevalence in the 18th and 19th centuries. I think we all know that, but that is no consolation for the violence which people fear to-day. One of the reasons why, in those days, the violence disappeared from the streets of London, or was very much reduced, was the creation of the "Peelers", of the police force. I should like to ask: is it true that the Metropolitan Police Force is below strength to-day? Is the establishment, even if at full strength, really adequate for to-day's conditions? I should like to know whether the deficiency, if there is one, as has been reported, is due to the fact that the differential in pay between the Metropolitan and the provincial police forces is inadequate—so inadequate, indeed, that there have been losses from the Metropolitan Police to the provincial forces, where people find that they are better off on the rates of pay. I should like to ask: what is the difficulty about moving the London rate upwards if it requires to be moved upwards?
Finally, I am a little disappointed at the number of noble Lords taking part in to-day's debate. I imagined that it would be one of those debates which
636
would go on until midnight, and in which we would have had sturdy provincial voices from Newcastle, Leeds and Liverpool. But we are not hearing them; I do not know why. Of course, a number of noble Lords are countrymen at heart; they are not very much concerned about the city. They might even have been unhappy in 5th century Athens and upset by the unnecessary high-density building on the Acropolis. But as I go round England I am a little worried that leading citizens do not seem to take the same kind of pride in their city as you find in, for example, a city like Liège. I blame this largely on our previous system of local government, which drew boundaries around cities too narrowly, so that by 19–15 a very large proportion of the middle-classes lived beyond the city boundaries in pastures green, and were content to leave the city where they earned their living as a neglected and dirty workshop. Indeed, they had no right of public participation in civic affairs because they were not ratepayers. Perhaps, with our new concern about the environment and the larger units of local government, we may restore the kind of pride in our cities which is essential if we are to improve the quality of life in them.
5.4 p.m.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, I must apologise to the House for arriving late for this most interesting debate, but I was attending a lunch for road transport engineers on the other side of London, and the lunch lasted for over two hours. The quality of life in the urban environment largely depends on traffic density, and in my remarks I am going to deal, in the main, with traffic density and noise. Far too much is made of the dangers of lead in petrol polluting the atmosphere. According to some of my friends in the engineering world, there is a greater danger of lead poisoning from water brought down lead drinking-water pipes than from the pollution of the atmosphere by lead from exhaust emission. There is only one practical way in which the traffic crush in central London and our other big cities can be eased, and that is by constructing ring roads around the cities similar to the ring roads around Paris, so that all main roads leading into a city from all points of the compass give the opportunity for through

637
traffic to skirt the outside of that city. That is most effective in Paris and other European Community cities.
Urban transport planning should not penalise the private motorist, who has to pay heavily for the privilege of using his motor car on the highway and who, in my opinion and in the opinion of, I think, most motorists, is entitled to bring his motor car into London. Personally, controlling my temper and using every opportunity, I myself have never had much difficulty in wending my way through traffic. The real problem arises when there is an accident or a major breakdown; or when a heavy vehicle going through London meets with some mechanical trouble; or even when there is some demonstration march during the rush hour. With careful planning, all that sort of thing can be avoided. It might well be worth while to study the planning of the urban environment for the new city of Milton Keynes, in North Buckinghamshire. In this planning, the Milton Keynes Development Corporation, with the co-operation of the Buckinghamshire County Council, are doing a really fine job in separating pedestrians from road traffic; although it is obviously easier—and I think it is very true to say this—to build a new town from scratch and to provide ample car-parking facilities and public transport routes, a pedestrian network, et cetera, than to alter, and possibly disfigure, an old city like London in order to make the traffic fit into it.
There are rumours of even harsher penalties for motorists who bring their motor cars into London. This hardly seems fair to the most heavily-taxed section of the community, which I referred to earlier in my remarks. It has been repeatedly stated that the greater use of public transport should be achieved by persuasion, not by compulsion, which is always objectionable; and nobody can really be forced to use public transport unless it is made cheaper and more comfortable. In any case, compulsion or restriction would be almost impossible to enforce, as are speed limits and seat belts to-day. A step towards an efficient public transport system is the ban on juggernaut lorries using central London as a throughway. Surveys have shown an astonishing number of such lorries without any real reason for their being
638
in central London; and even in a limited area this ban on juggernaut lorries is sensible.
To reduce both noise and congestion, more public car-parking facilities must be provided. During the passage of the Transport Bill through your Lordships' House, which took a very long time, I moved an Amendment to enable the surplus money from parking meters to be used to provide more parking facilities. This Amendment, with the help of my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford, was accepted, but nothing has come of it so far. I am afraid that with so many things these days we are finding out that cures for urban and traffic problems are started far too late and without sufficient capital. I am not singling out any political Party; I think that all political Parties have been responsible for progress of that sort. But I am an optimist, and in my opinion it is not yet impossible to provide the roads and the parking facilities in an urban environment without further penalising the private motorist.
5.9 p.m.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth called attention to the great importance of considering the individual, the people, in this problem of urban planning, and it seems to me that we must pay most attention to this. Naturally, we are concerned with the beauty of our cities; naturally, we are concerned with architecture; of course we are concerned with all the buildings that are put up; but we are really concerned with the people who live in the cities. Unfortunately, in recent times the tendency has been to pay most attention to the buildings and least attention to the people. This has been carried to extremes in other countries. For instance, in America it has been carried to such extremes that the centres of almost all the major cities there are now areas of desert, and also of architectural ruin. If one goes to the capital of New York State, to Albany, one finds that the whole of the centre of Albany has been deprived of all residential accommodation, of hotels—even of shops; and that it consists almost entirely of an enormous mall which has been set up in order to perpetuate the memory of the present Governor of the State of New York

639
I remember going to Albany about two years ago: I went by bus from New York City. When I arrived in Albany I was warned that the one hotel still remaining in the centre of Albany should not be approached on foot even though the distance from the bus station was only 200 yards, because it was dangerous at night time to walk that short distance, and that one should take a taxi. Take the case of New York City. My elder daughter lives on the fringe of Harlem. There one can see only to clearly what has happened to a great city. This great city has been ruined in its centre because of this decay of an urban community, because of the moving away of people who could afford to move away. The result is that property has been allowed to decay and is occupied almost entirely by people who cannot pay any heavy rents. They take the worst properties and cram them full of people. In New York they have no money to undertake public building on any big scale and the private developer cannot possibly put up habitations for poor people because the private developer would put up only habitations for people who could afford high rents. So one has the complete decay of cities.
Only yesterday we noticed that there was an attack on a Senator in Washington when he was going to his car just by the Capitol. One is warned in Washington to-day that one should not, if anywhere near the centre of the city, walk on the streets at night. This sort of thing has happened all over America, and it has happened because of the policy that has been adopted. It is important that we should realise that the only purpose of our cities is to live in them. The purpose is not to have fine banks, it is not to have magnificent emporia; it is to live in them. All these other things are there because people want them, because they live there. If we do not treat our cities in this way, they are inevitably going to decay. We shall find that in the centres of cities we are left merely with vast, expensive buildings used purely for business purposes or for purposes such as higher education or something of the sort.
It seems to me that because we have forgotten, or have paid too little attention to, what a city is about we have landed ourselves in this position. Let me go
640
back to a man who, I believe, was really responsible for the whole concept of planning, Sir Partick Geddes. He was, incidentally, a biologist, a professor of botany in Dundee, but only part-time—he had to lecture there, I am told, for only one term in the year and consequently spent the rest of his time looking at the problems of living in cities. Sir Patrick Geddes paid special attention to the problem of people living in cities. He treated cities as biological communities and not merely as bricks and mortar. This became the all-important point in the whole of the teaching of Patrick Geddes. Many of your Lordships will have read the book by Lewis Mumford on the culture of cities. In that book Lewis Mumford acknowledges his great indebtedness to the influence of Patrick Geddes. If only we look back to the sort of thing thought of then, we see that the buildings were subsidiary to the people, whereas to-day one gets the impression that the buildings—and, even worse, the roads—are predominant.
One finds to-day that the first thing required is to put roads through cities, and almost everywhere we go we see a minor highway driven clean through a city. What does it do? In the old days, all one did was to widen the roads. This proved to be inadequate. Naturally, the architects pointed to the disadvantage from the point of view of the buildings. Now we put the roads on stilts, and we find enormous highways running through cities and isolating one part of a city from another. I have been living until recently ill Newcastle-upon-Tyne. I have been there frequently in the last few months on certain matters of business. I find that just opposite the house in which I used to live, which was about 50 yards off the Great North Road, there is now being built an enormous, three-level intercepting highway system. Whereas when I lived there I could walk in every morning to the University and have a pleasant conversation on the way with my colleagues, or with anyone else I met, it will now he impossible to walk across directly to the University because this highway system has divided the city. This sort of thing is going on everywhere. If we do this, if we deliberately set out to make the roadway the all-important thing, we must not be surprised at the violence in our cities; we

641
must not be surprised at hooliganism, or at the lack of quality in in the urban environment, because—not deliberately; but we have planned it—we have produced it as a result of the nature of the planning that we have carried out.
There is an interesting book which was written by Jane Jacobs a few years ago called the Death and Life of Great American Cities. This book is fascinating to read. I do not say that one will necessarily agree with everything that she says; but she has certain points to make which I think rather important. I quote one sentence from a passage in which she is talking about diversity. She says:
"We need all kinds of diversity intricately mingled in mutual support."
That, I submit, is what used to be tried in towns and cities, until there grew up a theory—which I hope is disappearing—that the proper thing to do was to make one area called an educational area, another called an administrative area, another an area that was used for warehouses and another as a so-called shopping precinct. For the ordinary person when living in his house who wants to slip out to buy something at a shop which is only a few yards away, it is not a great advantage to be told that there is a fine pedestrian precinct in the centre of the city where all the shops are; and to be told that you must take a bus—if it happens to run—to reach to this particular precinct. Incidentally, when you get there, you find that the bus stops a hundred yards away from the shop that you want. It is no advantage, if you are an invalid, or a young woman with a child, and have to go this distance of a few hundred yards in order to get to this magnificent shop, when all you want is to buy a pound of butter. That pound of butter could be bought more conveniently at a local shop, yet the local shop tends to disappear in all the planning that goes on.
One looks to-day at the centres of cities. I think of my own city of Newcastle, where I lived, with lovely old shops in the centre. It is absolutely certain that after redevelopment none of those people will be able to go back to the new shops, because they will not be able to afford it. They will be Marks and Spencer, Woolworths, British Home Stores or someone like that, but not the little shop; the little shop will have
642
gone. From the point of view of the quality of life I believe that this is a tragedy.
We do things with the very best motives. I personally am very much in favour of the development of fine, big comprehensive schools. We have to be careful about what the consequences of building these schools will be. I have had a small flat in Dolphin Square for the last two years, and the large Pimlico School (which I think all the busmen know as "The Glasshouse") is undoubtedly a fine school. But all that this school provides in the way of recreation for something like 2,000 pupils is two asphalt playgrounds. There is no space to put more there. I imagine that for their recreation the children have to be taken out to the Inner London Education Authority's playing fields, which are somewhere near Epsom. This is serious. It means that instead of having the community there, all we have done is to create what is no doubt a superb educational institution but without those rational, sensible amenities which the children need.
So, my Lords, if we are considering the quality of life, we have to think all the time not just of the buildings, but of how people live. I put it in this way not because I do not like architect are, because I do. I think some, of the modern architecture is excellent; some of it I do not like so much, but one does not like everything. But the architect can only be the servant of the community. It is our job, as the community, to see that the needs of the community are put first, and that we build and plan our cities not for the motor car or the property developers, but for individuals.
5.23 p.m.
LORD HEWLETT: My Lords, the need to plan for "quality of life" in the urban environment is surely undeniable. But if the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, will forgive me, I would submit that one word is missing from his Motion, namely, the word "successfully", and that we should plan successfully. The need is to plan successfully, and although good work has been done in many parts of the country, alas! all too often is the planning ill-conceived and, if I take Lord Wynne-Jones's comment, too often with the thought of the thing

643
and not of the person; too little thought for the occupant and too much for the slab of concrete. This results in ill-considered and ill-conceived plans often producing results grotesquely different from those which would have been expected, and far away from what is economically desirable, socially acceptable or even aesthetically tolerable—and sometimes all three together.
I should like to give your Lordships one recent example in respect of Manchester, and I am very mindful of what the two previous speakers, the noble Lords, Lord Ardwick and Lord Wynne-Jones, have said. Like the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, I expected many more Peers to speak for other cities, but with the sole exception of Newcastle-on-Tyne I am afraid that it has been pretty well a Mancunian debate in terms of detail. The Manchester City Council have new plans to erect a housing development (I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, but when he hears what I have to say, I think he may support the idea of this claim) in a zone long since approved and reserved for heavy industry development. Allegedly it is planned to buy up the former English Steel site of 30 acres in Openshaw, Manchester, opposite Ciba Geigy Limited, and alongside our company and others in the chemical and heavy industries which have sites on the boundary of English Steel, now the British Steel Corporation. The theory is, apparently, to bring people closer to their place of work. But, as the noble Lords, Lord Wynne-Jones and Lord Ardwick, have said, the slum clearance has been so well effected all around that the industrial zone now has no amenity whatever except the industry—shops, pubs, places of entertainment have practically all been flattened, and what are not already away in the matter of history are to be removed because of road widening to permit a greater flow of traffic into Manchester along both the Ashton Old Road and the Ashton New Road. So these poor people who are going to be condemned to live in this proposed development will be facing one of the largest chemical complexes in the North of England, with almost no amenity whatsoever.
Please do not tell me, my Lords, that we shall create amenities for the com-
644
paratively few people involved when the authorities have done all the linear parts of development that they expect to do along the Ashton Canal, because I cannot see it being a paying proposition to bring in such a form of development. I suggest that those people who live there will be faced with problems of noise, excessive light at night, and probably vibration. All the companies operating in the district are constantly improving conditions. No one in their right mind, I submit, sets out to build a housing development slap bang up against a great multi-million pound chemical complex which has a huge percentage of precious export business in dyestuffs and other chemical products. I talked to my noble friend Lord Harvey of Prestbury, the immediate past chairman of Ciba Geigy, and he told me that so far advanced are the improvements of that company on gaseous effluent elimination that in four years or so they expect to be able to demolish their chimney. But, as I observe, it will still be a factory of huge proportions, not the ideal or even an acceptable prospect for those forced to live in the proposed new development.
Have we learned nothing from the areas of the 'twenties and 'thirties? Surely, as the right reverend Prelate said, we have. But we must not allow the repetition of silly mistakes similar to those that we saw made in the past. Where we have industrial zones near big centres of population—and those plans have been approved and established for 25 years or so—it is a nonsense suddenly to designate a small and integral part of that heavy industry zone as a residential area. One courts trouble and disappointment, not least for lack of amenity. I am all in favour, as I am sure we all are in this House, of constantly improving standards of cleanliness, and indeed of quietness in the environment. But do let us be sensible and not take action which will result in the promotion of misunderstanding and vast unnecessary extra expenditure. We must, I submit, be practical and not prodigal with our plans.
My noble friend Lord Ardwick has made reference to Hulme. Believe me, my Lords, you should see that development, or even worse, alas! see the municipal housing development along both Ashton Old and Ashton New Roads—indeed, in my noble friend's Ardwick,

645
from which he takes his name, and moving into Openshaw quite near the industrial zone to which I have made reference. I do not want to be rude, but, frankly, they are huge, dirty, granite-coloured, elongated blocks, utterly monolithic structures, totally uninviting and forbidding—indeed, soul-destroying: they ire so ugly as to look very little better now, when they are new, than the old slums which they were designed to replace. I would ask the Minister to go and see them for himself. Frankly, like W. S. Gilbert, I would condemn the architects and planners to live in those blocks until they repent. Never have I seen such horrible "accommodation units"—and I have travelled the world over; not even in Moscow, where they have a great facility for ugliness. Never have I seen anything so formidable perpetrated.
Quite frankly, we must do better than this. It is public money that is being spent, to the great damage of the private individuals who are forced to live in these monstrosities. When the Wythenshawe area of Manchester was first purchased and later developed in the 1930s, 1940s and 1950s, it was—and I think still is: I agree entirely with what the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, said—one of the most wonderful, though huge, housing schemes. Alas! the War's intervention first slowed and then stopped all the important new projects that were planned until the late 'forties. The planners dreamed dreams and created nightmares—and with almost no amenities. There were clinical public houses and that was it! It took decades even to obtain reasonable facilities, and then they were as oases in deserts of housing.
In future, my Lords, we must insist upon far better-balanced communities—balanced from every aspect: socially as well as from the concept of the quality of life, the type of work, the form of enjoyment, and so forth. Please let us have the quality of life and not the quality of existence. People's lives are wasting away in this country in conditions which are a disgrace to us all—and I am not speaking Party-politically. In Manchester I fought on the city council to make that City redevelop acre upon acre of spoilt land which was part of the price we paid for pioneering the Industrial Revolution in the North of England. But what did the
646
council try to do in the late 'forties and early 'fifties? First the Moberley Scheme and then the Lymm Scheme threatened to take some of the finest agricultural land from Cheshire for the City's housing requirements, while we would have had, had these schemes gone forward, Goldsmith's deserted village in North, East and North-West Lancashire. Cheshire cheese and Cheshire milk: quality products par excellence for hundreds of years.
What did the great cartographer, John Speed, proclaim of Cheshire 362 years ago? He said:
"The soile is fat, fruitful and rich, yielding abundantly great profit and pleasures for man. The champion grounds make glad the hearts of their tillers. The meadows are imbrodered with divers sweet smelling flowers and pastures makes the kine's udders strout to the paile from whom and wherein the best cheese in all Europe is made."
That is what we can do in Cheshire. We cannot, I submit, have marvellous milk yields from herds of slums or slag heaps, and we cannot make cheese on industrial sites. I say to Manchester, as I would say to any other city that I knew at all well: what we must have is redevelopment and revitalisation of our cities and unspoilt countryside as close as possible for genuine recreation—and I mean recreation—and pastimes for those who live in the urban areas.
I now turn to what I hope will be generally acceptable; that is, that we should think of those things we try to preserve as part of our great national heritage, whether it be in London or anywhere else in this country. I do not want to be unkind, but frankly I would not like to have on my conscience the obscuring of Wren's great masterpiece from the gaze of Londoners and visitors alike. Who, I ask—and I am sorry that the Bishops' Bench is empty—allowed the Church Commissioners (yes, the Church Commissioners!) to erect a building to hide at least part of our great St. Paul's Cathedral from Ludgate Hill? The planners—is that what you call them, my Lords? Have you not seen how New Zealand House, like some veritable sore thumb, sticks up to ruin the symmetry of the magnificent classical buildings of The Mall?
Frankly, I do not know what we are doing in the name of planning in those marvellous areas of London. Let there

647
be tall buildings, by all means, if we wish it—tall buildings in the centres of office type development; the great commercial rather than manufacturing centres, of course— but what on earth are we doing allowing monstrosities like this to be put up in the great straight ways that we are so privileged to have in our capital city? They do not fit into the community at all. I do not honestly believe that they are necessary; and, with all respect, I would add to my "horrors list" the Knightsbridge Barracks. I really do not know why we have to endure this nonsense. Let places like The Mall, Hyde Park Corner, and Park Lane be spared further ravages. Aesthetically to permit such things is the mere progress of Gadarene swine.
It is not only in appearance but in function that this happens. Take Euston Station. It takes some beating: a marvellous rail service, absolutely first-class, quicker than ever—so that you may do what?—stand beneath-ground and be asphixiated while waiting for a taxi to arrive and being granted that privilege along with several dozen others. It is difficult to emerge from this place, because the planners have carefully created two huge "yield" signs and a set of traffic lights as well before you get outside the station on a snake's course and at a snail's pace. And what about the wide-open spaces in front of the station? They are quite superb—but I do not know what they were made for except to be rained on. It is pitiful, my Lords. I do not know why planners should be allowed to get away with it, wasting public money in such a manner, to the detriment and inconvenience of the public. It is the public, of course, whom we are representing in these Houses of Parliament. These stupid developments would be laughable if they were not so perfectly stupid and expensive and excessively infuriating to those who have to use them.
May I now turn to another aspect of the quality of life? I apologise in advance if this is probably a little more contentious. I should like to deal with the fashionable detractors and the denigrators in many parts of England. Where do we find these creatures? Mainly, and not surprisingly, in the communications media, not so much in the Press but rather
648
concerned with radio and television. The atmosphere of the alleged environment —what nonsense is created in the "kitchen sink" serials on television or the inane trivia of so-called regional radio news! And this is meant to represent truthfully how people live, typically live, in the North-West of England. Why do these fellows try to sell us short? We do not need selling short either nationally or locally. The fact is that it is a form of masochism; it is another aspect of the Engish malaise that does not do us the slightest bit of good.
I submit that "Coronation Street" is not typical of Manchester or Liverpool. It may be good entertainment, but in view of what is presented is it small wonder that some people think a person is a hero to live there? In fact, cities like Salford and Manchester have been marvellously redeveloped. For instance, the University campus of Manchester is going to finish up as one of the greatest centres of learning—and in appearance, too—of Western Europe. There are also such great civic endeavours as "Theatre 69", which hopes to be able to use the Old Royal Exchange in Manchester and convert it into a very high quality, almost experimental, theatre. Manchester has a tremendous centre of art and gives opportunities for the pursuit of many studies. In Lancashire generally we have a great character and great skills. They abound. And, frankly, even if when we come South we sometimes "act daft" because it pays us to do so, you must not think that we are all that simple. So I challenge that image of "Coronation Street". It is far from being a truthful representation of real life in Lancashire or in the conurbations of Manchester or Liverpool. But I proclaim that the redevelopment of this area of England is truly thrilling, save for those isolated examples I have illustrated—and Lord Ardwick has done the same—of Hulme, Ardwick and Openshaw, at the present time.
If there persists the foolish fantasy that London and the South-East are the only places worth living in, all I would say is that very soon they certainly will not be. As has already been said in this debate, in London and the South-East of England there are appalling problems of overcrowding and of transport. Already they are far worse than in any cities of

649
the Provinces. What I should dearly like to see (and I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Greenwood of Rossendale, will support this from his past experience in the other place) is a really serious redevelopment of the grey areas, particularly the North-West—and the North-East, too—so that we may have an arresting of the population drift southwards. That drift should be halted, not by order but by genuine persuasion, because standards have been improved to the extent that it is desirable that people of their own choice should stay in the Provinces. More jobs and better housing, a better environment to make these places more attractive in which to live and work, are essential. This is already being achieved, but at not a sufficiently fast pace. I am sure that this applies to many other of the regions of this country.
I have always been mystified, if not dismayed, that this country, at one time the wealthiest in the world, was never able to conquer its housing problem. I know that it is all too easy to judge anachronistically, quoting to-day's standards as though they existed in earlier decades or centuries—a common error of political historians. But, notwithstanding that, I proclaim that vast improvements could and should be made to give that real quality of life to thousands who, happily, will live longer and, I believe, benefit to a much greater extent than their forbears could from more leisure time. The prayer in our city council in Manchester before the first business is begun includes the phrase: "A city fair as she might be". We might well pray that all our provincial cities should be "fair as they might be". It is not beyond our wit, or ability, or resources to achieve this. Let the locations in which the citizens live be so much improved that life takes on a new and vivid aspect. Away with the dirt and the drear; and finish with, "Where there's muck there's brass". Let it indeed be "England's green and pleasant land". But, my Lords—and it is a very big "but"—this new land of promise has to earn and produce in industry as well as in agriculture.
Let me illustrate that with a short story of changing standards and resultant incompatibilities which I would commend the Minister to look into with his colleagues of the Welsh Office. Once more
650
I declare an interest and special knowledge resulting therefrom. Some 25 years or so ago Amalgamated Anthracite Limited were not only invited but officially welcomed to Port Tennant, Swansea, as manufacturers of carbon black. This is a vital ingredient to impart abrasion resistance to rubber. Your car tyres, my Lords, consist to some considerable degree of this highly technically controlled form of fine particle carbon dust. Enormous improvements in manufacturing techniques have progressively been introduced since then. When bag filters first became available in 1957 they were installed, and every possible practical improvement has followed.
In 1971 the plant, employing 120 persons, with dependants therefore presumably approaching 400 in number, was illegally blockaded by irate housewives from nearby homes who believed that this and no other plant was responsible for dirtying their laundry. Quite frankly, they knew that the plant was going to enormous expense to improve conditions constantly; and even as recently as a month ago the same people thought that they would create another barricade because they feared that the plant was to be expanded in size and operation. Let me assure the Members of this House that the plant did and does comply with all the requirements of the Alkali Inspectorate and the law. The company has spent, and continues to spend, a small fortune upon dust elimination, and even better standards of control to prevent pollution. But, my Lords, you must face the fact that they make carbon black, and someone has to make carbon black somewhere. Some dust, wherever it is made, is unavoidable, and this is inescapable. I am sorry to say that the protestors only a week or two ago refused to support a public inquiry, an independent inquiry, to find out the true facts of possible pollution within the area.
Perhaps the re-siting of this plant is the answer. At a recent meeting with the Member of the other place for Swansea, East, Mr. McBride, he promised to press for this and for Government financial assistance to bring it about. In the case of this one comparatively small plant it would cost about £3½ million; but it can he sheer economic nonsense to haul the plant away from accessible raw material supply, obviously based upon

651
oil and gas, to a place where those are not easily accessible. To put it far away from its customers, the rubber industry, is a very difficult economic decision to take. The material is bulky and difficult to handle. It looks to me as though there is a real conflict of interest based upon changing standards from the aspect of pollution as well as chemical technology. What worries me is that there are far bigger plants in that area, I suspect doing far more damage in terms of pollution, but the number of people that they employ, and the size that they are, entitles them not to be considered for this form of treatment. It would be too damaging to the economy to lose these giants of industry, and certainly beyond the public purse to contemplate moving them.
Let me emphasise to you that the country need tyres, the end product of carbon black, and excellent quality ones if the carnage of motor car accidents is to be restricted and, I pray, reduced. So here we have a classic conflict between hard industrial economics and road safety on the one hand, and the quality of life in a comparatively small district on the other hand. Of course if you know Port Tennant, Swansea, you will realise that what I am describing is one of the most difficult areas of the British Isles, and you will know that what I have said about the large companies that operate—some of them nationalised—in that district can be the cause for deep concern. All I would ask the Ministry to do is consider the matter very seriously before they take an isolated case and try to persuade the company, or encourage the company, to move, when it may make extraordinarily little, if any, difference to the major effects of pollution by other industries in that immediate environment.
Steel, power—though not in this immediate locality—mining, quarrying, and many other heavy industries, create these problems. They occur in the United States, Germany and Japan, and many other countries. Let me quote very briefly from a report, appropriately enough in the Guardian, on the Japanese situation affecting Tokyo:
"About 2,000 factories that pollute Tokyo's air and water are to be evicted from the city. Most are being re-sited on reclaimed land around the already highly polluted Tokyo Bay. The removals are part of a 10-year plan costing
652
about £2,135 million, to protect the capital's almost 12 million residents."
That is the size of the problem in Tokyo. The size of the problem in South Wales and other heavily industrialised areas of the British Isles is in proportion to that.
May I suggest that we must have a practical attitude in this House, and not run away with the idea that processes can be ordered to be amended, or plants threatened with closure, for it is nowhere near as simple as that. It is surely a subject for genuine international cooperation and a setting of standards and of controls based on practical measures that can be devised and brought to successful fruition. I would suggest to your Lordships that it is no use making comments of a very general nature that this or that or the other can be done. These are highly technical matters—and we have had only a quarter of a century so far in dealing with them in the chemical and the carbon black industries. There is no easy outcome of such problems, and it ill behoves those who have very little knowledge to make profound pronouncements upon them which are almost meaningless. I suggest that these general claims, that "industry will be forced to do this, or else …" ignore the total fact that research and development are the only things that will answer these problems and be able to amend the processes successfully, and viably financially, or indeed put a substitute product in place of the end product the manufacture of which is causing the difficulty. These findings and discoveries, my Lords, do not come on demand. They may depend upon thousands, or hundreds of thousands, of pounds-worth of expenditure. So we must find short-term, temporary, practical solutions to these major problems.
If I may say so, I feel that my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford has done a great service in raising at once this highly complex yet fundamental issue within this House. I hope that your Lordships will press for much more to be done to improve standards in practical ways without trying to pillory industry unfairly. I suggest that more enrichment of the lives of our citizens in urban areas can take place in our great country, and we must see that it does take place. I

653
submit to your Lordships that to achieve a really noticeable improvement in the next five years is most desirable, and an almost total elimination of poor environment by the end of the next decade should be our target. This is work for industry and Government together, my Lords: neither one can do it alone. There is a fund of good will on both sides. Each must bear its fair share in the true interest of the common weal.
5.52 p.m.
LORD RAGLAN: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hewlett, has highlighted the difficulty of applying some of the smoke control regulations, but it is a fact that, as well as having the most comprehensive planning legislation in the world, Britain has also the best smoke control legislation in the world. People come from all over the world to find out how we do it, and I myself have the greatest confidence in the alkali inspectorate in their application of the regulations. It is a gradual process, but it is worth repeating fairly often that still the most smoke pollution comes from the domestic chimney and not from industry.
I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, on his speech. I found it stimulating and agreeable. The noble Lord is not only a very well respected Member of this House; he is also, may I say, a shrewd and benign elder statesman of the Party opposite. Therefore, when he first put down this Motion for debate I wondered why it was couched in terms quite so wide and, to be frank, rather vague. I think—at least I hope—that the Motion may in fact have a greater significance than at first appears, for I hope it may signify that the conventional philosophy of the Party opposite, as distinct from that embraced so far only by its Ministers, is at last moving to accept what pioneering town planners and the Labour Party have been saying for many years: that you have to plan the urban environment; you cannot leave development to chance and speculation, otherwise the hasty and the improvident actions of commerce will leave you with the type of surroundings of which we have so many deplorable examples. For only rarely, and then mainly in wealthy districts, has private enterprise been prepared to bear the social costs of pleasant urban development.
654
I agree with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth and with my noble friend Lord Wynne-Jones (I agree with my noble friend, by the way, very much about the effect of roads on people) that it often seems that the planners want to fit people to their ideas, instead of the other way round. I would say in mitigation that the best planners try to have ideas which they think people will like and then invite people to try them. Awful though some modern developments have been, the vast majority of them provide far better conditions than the awful squalor to which the majority of our population were condemned until fairly recently. So I want to talk about the better modern developments, and like my noble friend Lord Greenwood I want to say something shortly about New Towns.
I start by saying that of course town planning is not new. The Greeks did it; the Romans did it; I believe that the Spanish Conquistadors did it. Edward I was an enthusiastic town planner and Caernarvon, and I think Conway, are both examples of his new towns. But the first post-Industrial Revolution town planning—a New Town designed to got away from the old industrial townscape—was chiefly the work of Ebenezer Howard, who founded Letchworth Garden City in 1898. This was just the kind of social planning about which the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, spoke.
I mention the date of the foundation of Letchworth because it is not always realised how long ago the Garden City concept began. After much preparation and discussion, the concept was taken up as Government policy by the postwar Labour Government, the enthusiastic Minister being my late noble friend Lord Silkin. He had a right to be proud of what he and his team did. He claimed, I believe justly, that British New Towns are something unique in world history, for not only was the making of a number of New Towns adopted as Government policy, but they were designed not as mere dormitory areas but to be self-contained in respect of employment offered to housing provided. They were balanced communities living in a landscaped surrounding. Now, almost thirty years later, in spite of the opposition of some and the derision of many, they have proved their worth in displaying

655
living conditions which other places have tried to copy; and, as I have just mentioned for smoke control legislation, people come from all over the world to see how we plan our New Towns.
New Towns are Government enterprise, because only Government can take the necessary planning powers and only Government can put up such large sums for such slow return. But I am sure that it will be of general interest if I mention that Harlow New Town returned 24 per cent. last year on its capital investment, and there are others which are not far behind. So it should be well known that our New Towns are a financial as well as an environmental success, and that we should be proud of them. As well as planning capability and long-term finance, the New Towns owe their success to their management structure; and it is no coincidence that the Baynes Committee, which recommended a new structure for the new local authorities, drew very largely on the New Town management structure in their recommendations. Some towns, no doubt, are managed better than others, but among the over thirty New Towns there is a very high standard of expertise, which is attached to a considerable idealism.
Although the New Towns Act of 1946 was one of the most inspired pieces of planning legislation that there has ever been, the very success for which it has been responsible has led to attempts to use it for the regeneration of older urban areas, a purpose for which it was not originally intended, and it remains to be seen whether this will work. It certainly has thrown up some problems in the hybrid New Towns where the New Town corporation and the local authority are having to share officers.
However, I must also stress the importance of the New Towns Act as a ready-made instrument to be used—and it can so be used and is being used—to put taxpayers' capital into the regions in a particularly rewarding fashion. On the whole, industrialists like New Towns, not only because their needs are met in a businesslike way but because on the whole their key workers are also attracted to living in them. So also, in spite of much propaganda to the contrary, very many other people also enjoy living in them. In fact I have discovered that
656
no fewer than one in 32 of our population now live in New Towns—just over 3·2 per cent. That is a very large percentage for a venture which only so recently began in earnest. I think it has been demonstrated quite clearly that the old, haphazard unsightly development in our industrial towns is simply neither good enough nor necessary. Development must be planned—not regimented, but planned carefully by sensitive people who know pretty well what they are doing, so that we can create an urban environment which is as good as it can possibly be within the inevitable restriction on costs. I urge the Government to continue to use the designation of New Towns, not around London but within the regions, as a sound social and economic investment.
The noble Lord, Lord Nugent, mentioned development plans, and although I firmly believe in planning I do not myself believe in detailed 5, 10 or 20 year plans. I do not believe one can work out a master plan for that many years ahead and stick to it, for time will make a monkey of it. You must have some general outline of what you want to do, but the filling in of detail is liable to be a waste of time, and master plans which are inches thick can be near to being out of date before they are even printed. Ideas change, fashions and habits change, circumstances, facts and data all alter, and planning only ever really ceases with the completion of a layout or the erection of a building; and even then, sometimes years later, one may find oneself wishing it was not quite where it is. So I hope that the Government will look askance at the piles of print and plans which are sometimes produced, and not take them as evidence that they will produce in the long run anything better, if as good, as plans which are more modest but more flexible, and therefore more practical.
But if Ebenezer Howard showed us how we could build new industrial towns, I do not know who is going to show us how to rebuild parts of the centres of our great cities, especially in London. I have in mind commercial development. I cannot believe that imagination and beauty have left the minds of all our architects, but I can believe that the developers tend not to care what is erected so long as it is the cheapest thing they

657
can get away with. So I offer the following set of facts as a contribution to improving our townscape.
Around the Provinces, in towns 100 miles or more from London, you can find a quantity of recently built offices being offered at an economic rent—and I can assure your Lordships that it is an economic rent—of about £1 per square foot or less. That includes heat and may also include a commissionaire. The going rate in London for newly built offices is about £10 per square foot and sometimes very much more. Taking the building costs in London as being only slightly more than in the Provinces, it clearly shows that one can double the cost of a building in London and still add only about 10 per cent. to the rent. The rest of the rent is accounted for by the cost of the land. I am not complaining about the cost of the land if that is what it is worth, but I am saying that when land costs are high, and especially when they are as high as they are in London, developers can quite easily afford buildings which cost double or treble that of the cheapest. If that is the way that more imaginative buildings which will add to and not detract from the appearance of our cities can be built, then planning committees and the Department of the Environment should not be put off by pleas of poverty on the part of developers. Developers and property companies are very rich and would not groan under the burden of a per cent. or two less on their takings. In my view, developers have a duty to provide buildings which are as handsome as possible, and it is the duty of planning officers and others in charge of development to see that the public get them.
I have only one more important but short point, and that concerns land prices. It has already been mentioned this afternoon but I might as well say straight out that building land is rationed and that is why it is so costly, and because it is rationed some methods of control are necessary and justified. The noble Lord, Lord Nugent, put forward some suggestions about that this afternoon and I hope the Government will earnestly look into those and others.
6.8 p.m.
LORD REDESDALE: My Lords, some noble Lords have gone back as far as the Romans in their speeches but I will not be as ambitious as that; I will go back only as far as 1964. In that year Colin Buchanan brought out his book Traffic in Towns. In it he put forward the idea of environmental areas and coined the phrase "the rooms of a city ". Of the schemes that have resulted from this, some have been particularly successful while others have not been so successful. What I should like to do is to analyse the reasons for their success or failure and see what can be learned for the future in terms of making future environmental areas more successful.
Camden was one of the first areas to put forward a scheme when, in April 1967, the G.L.C. asked boroughs to put forward environmental schemes. By October, 1967, Camden had moved very quickly and had produced a really excellent scheme for the Primrose Hill area. It was imaginative and what should really be described as an environmental area. It tried to integrate the park area and the people. However, it did one thing which I am afraid in this day and age appears to be a cardinal sin: it cut off the motor car. The scheme was put forward for consultation. We have heard a fair bit about participation and the problems of consultation. Consultation takes a long time and I should like to dwell on it in more detail later. However, the scheme was put up, and unfortunately with an environmental area there is always a down side to it: that is, the people living on the periphery.
Somebody has to suffer if the car is to be excluded from an area. In this case it was an area running alongside the railway line, Gloucester Avenue. This immediately caused a furore. Originally, and talking about the consultation, the local branch of the St. Pancras Civic Society had been set up so that the local residents could air their views. As soon as it was realised that somebody was going to suffer, inevitably the whole area broke down into the groups that were affected. That is something we can learn from for the future. The particular group which was to have a lot of the traffic put their way were extremely articulate and highly militant. One point

659
that comes out of that is that militancy in this type of scheme works, because—without boring your Lordships with the full record of events which goes on for some time—the net result was that the plan had to be modified. I must confess that the other people who came in on their side, were, as it happened, one of the 19 bodies which had to be consulted, namely, the police, because in their task of keeping the traffic flowing they foresaw considerable problems.
May I continue about this scheme and about what happened? In March, 1968, a revised scheme was started. After that there was a lot of to-ing and fro-ing and then the inevitable passing of the parcel around, like a children's game, between the borough, the G.L.C. and the Ministry. It was not until February, 1971, that a very modified scheme was put into effect. Interestingly enough, the scheme that was put into effect was the old scheme turned inside out. The people who had been the most militant ended up by being on the inside of the environmental area, and the people on the outside—and here I have to declare an interest because I am on the periphery—got the main flow of traffic. The interesting point is that it took almost three years as there are 19 bodies who had to be consulted. I am not advocating that there should be no consultation; all I am advocating is that systems should be set up whereby that consultation can be a little more simplified and made more effective. Obviously the police and the emergency services—fire, ambulances and so on—have to be consulted. They have a worry when it comes to environmental areas. They are worried about access, the fact that Panda cars cannot patrol and that environmental areas produce cul-de-sacs which tend to encourage crime. There are all these factors which have to be taken into account.
But the "up" side of the situation is that those living inside the area have a vastly improved quality of life in the urban environment: so much so, as I was told by a local planning officer, that an old lady who had read that Camden had produced the schemes was so impressed by them that she wondered whether she could possibly live in the area of one of them. Sadly he had to reply that because the schemes had been so effective they had pushed up the value of houses and
660
land, and consequently it was not an area in which somebody living on a pension could afford to live. That is only because the number of areas at the moment is limited, but it raises an interesting point: if the restricting of traffic so improves an area that the value of houses goes up and on the "down" side the quality of life of those people living on the periphery diminishes because of the extreme increase in traffic, we ought to consider how compensation can he effected. Surely one way may be by the rates. Those people living inside the environment area should have to pay a slightly higher rate, and those people affected by the blight of traffic should have a slightly lower rate. I am sure that there are many problems involved and nothing is easy. It is a moral question as to whether the people living on the outside of an environmental area should have to suffer for the sake of those who are living inside the area. It is rather like the question of noise round an aerodrome. In the channelling of flights over one particular area, somebody has to suffer for somebody else to have an advantage. Is that right?
On this quesion it has been argued very cogently by, for instance, Mr. Mayer Hillman, who is a distinguished architect planner, that environmental areas in London at the moment are wrong because it means putting a greater burden on the people who live on (and here we have this wonderful jargonistic phrase) the main distributors "; and in passing, may I say that the jargon of planning seems to get more and more complicated all the time. The problem when there are main distributors running through an area—and obviously they have to go around the main heart, or round an environmental area if it is beside a park, if we have traffic, as it appears we must have traffic—is that these main roads tend to go between the parks and environmental areas. This is a nonsense because these areas should be integrated. The results of the traffic on those people living in the peripheral areas are all too well known. It has been stated that 70 decibels of noise should not consciously be exceeded, but in these types of areas it is consistently being exceeded, not only during rush hours but also during the rest of the day.
Vibration is another point which people tend to forget. It does not matter so

661
much in the case of new housing, but with +old housing, especially in late higher buildings, the vibration increases the higher one goes. Then there is the question of the pedestrian threshold. In the particular area about which I am talking and which now carries the traffic there are quite a number of amenities—a school, an old people's home, a church, and various other places—and the people there now find it extremely difficult to cross the road. The question of crossings I should like to raise later because it is something that is now controlled by the G.L.C.
When I was talking about the question of through-traffic the noble Lord, Lord Greenwood of Rossendale, mentioned that the question of lorries is getting far worse in London. It is interesting to note that a great many of these lorries are now avoiding sonic of the main routes to go through a more pleasant route and one that takes less time. They avoid Marylebone Road, because of its heavy congestion, and go the long way round, up past Regent's Park, to go West. It is the lorries that cause most of the problem of noise and vibration. We can tolerate a far heavier level of cars than of single lorries. Among the particular schemes I mentioned, that in the Primrose Hill area has improved the quality of life for those living in a now relatively small area. It did not need a tremendous improvement, because it was an area through which cars did not tend to go too much, but it has held it and maintained the quality of that area. Another scheme was the Camden Square scheme, and that has been very much more successful. Interestingly enough, that scheme was put up originally by the residents and not put up by the Council. It is unfair to say that, for that reason, one worked and one did not work. The Camden Square scheme was in a more natural area for success. Traffic tended to channel around it.
One of the problems on the forming of environmental areas is that it takes such a long time to implement schemes. I should be grateful if the Government would consider ways in which experimental plans to create environmental areas could be made simpler. At the moment, a closure order can be obtained in two ways. The first is under Section
662
92 of the Town and Country Planning Act, when a scheme goes through the Department of the Environment. They then have to advertise, and if objections are raised these have to be taken up. The slightly quicker method is under Section 9 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1967. It is not necessary to advertise under this particular procedure, and only the highway authority and the police have to be consulted. Theoretically, it should take only six weeks to get a closure order through; in fact, it takes about nine months, at the very least, and quite often two years. It would be very helpful if boroughs could have the authority to close roads. That means legislation will have to be amended, or new legislation brought in, under which simple, very short-term closure orders—about nine months—could be introduced by a borough and need not be introduced by the G.L.C. Obviously, these plans would have to be monitored, and if they were successful then the plan would have to be ratified by the G.L.C. before the final closure.
I hope your Lordships will forgive me if I am taking too long on this point. At the moment, when an environmental area is put down, you have to be right first time, because you cannot move the barrier once it is down; you have to go through this long rigmarole to shift it again. If it could be done by the borough, they could move it. For instance, it was found in one of these areas that the barrier was put up about 50 feet the wrong way, and that made a big difference. But it could not be shifted. Also on this question of consultation, people would be very much more prepared to accept an environmental area if they realised that it was an experimental plan and they could see how it worked out in practice. This question of consultation is obviously getting more and more important, and it is interesting to see that Islington has just appointed a full-time public consultation officer. I think this is vitally important, because the more people know what the plan is and how it will affect them, the more ready they are to participate.
The other point I should like to raise about traffic is that in areas which have very heavy traffic flow it is the G.L.C. who decide where a pedestrian crossing

663
shall go. This used to be the responsibility of the Department of the Environment, but it has now been transferred to the G.L.C. They are still working on the old Department of the Environment criteria, but in fact they cannot have as much discretion as the Department had. I feel that this should be taken out of the hands of the G.L.C. and put into the hands of boroughs. Probably it would be said that the boroughs would put in too many pedestrian crossings; but if these could be made subject to ratification by the G.L.C. I feel that it could be an acceptable plan.
My Lords, the question of environmental areas can be effective only if the plan for the amount of traffic to be allowed into London is finalised. The noble Lord, Lord Raglan, talked about the benefits of planning. I wholeheartedly agree with him here, because nobody has yet produced a totally integrated transport plan. If it could be seen how much traffic could be allowed into London and what other alternative methods of transporting people were available, then the environmental quality of the towns could be greatly improved. With regard to this question of the amount of traffic which comes in, Camden have produced an excellent booklet called, Traffic and the Environment, which represents Camden's views on the subject. Some of the points that came out of this—and they are things we should all remember—are that the number of job opportunities in London is decreasing, the number of households in London is decreasing, the number of private cars is increasing, and, most important of all, the cost of public transport per mile is going up and the cost of the private car mileage is going down; hence people use cars. We have a completely ambivalent attitude to cars. I drove here in a car to-night, but I do not want other people to drive through my area. I appreciate that this is a problem that we have to live with. It has taken from 1964 to now to achieve something in terms of environmental areas. I very much hope that it will not take as long to formulate a plan which will be effective.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I wonder whether I may intervene on one
664
point the noble Lord made, leaving my noble friend Lord Gowrie to deal with the other points made by noble Lords since I spoke. It happens that some months ago I spent a day or two with the Camden Borough looking into this very problem of environmental areas, including the noble Lord's own area. It is perfectly true that there is a difficulty here through a division of responsibility between the boroughs and the G.L.C., and I would assure him that the mechanics of introducing these areas and these policies is something we are looking into both with the boroughs and the G.L.C.
6.27 p.m.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, the subject which the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, has chosen for this debate is, quite obviously, from the debate we have had already, of very great interest and importance. It is also, as one can tell from the different speeches to which we have listened, a very wide-ranging subject. I will not attempt to go into any of the details of planning, much as I should like to. I would particularly, I must confess, like to follow up the point first raised by the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, concerning the bringing together of the need for more democratic consultation in planning and the need for speedier decision in planning. Suggestions have been put forward on how that can be achieved. They must all be of a technical nature. I believe that it is of paramount importance, if our planning is to be of any value and carry any conviction with it, that we must evolve methods by which the people who are affected by those plans are brought into the decision-making, and whereby the decisions are made speedily while the matter is still hot, rather than some ten years later when these problems have disappeared or become magnified or changed in character.
On the more general side, I would suggest some of the main factors which go to make up the quality of life. They of course change from generation to generation. The things which we to-day want in order to have a good life are not identical by any means with those that our parents would have wished for, and undoubtedly are different from those that our children will wish for. But I would

665
suggest that prominent among them are good houses; good places to live; good places for children to be educated in and for the sick to be cared for in; schools and hospitals; a wide choice of jobs to suit all types of capabilities and tastes; an absence of pollution of the air; an absence of traffic congestion and the frustration which goes with it; the ability to get quickly to one's job; to shop in comfort, and send one's children to school without danger and without anxiety. At the very least, an absence of ugliness, if possible; the positive presence of beauty; open spaces, green trees, grass, and right of access to the quietness of the countryside. It is a long list, but I believe that we shall never achieve anything approaching a good quality of life for people, whether they live in urban districts, conurbations or in the countryside, unless all those things are made available.
The one main reason why so many of these essential qualities are absent to-day in our cities is purely the fact of the size of those cities. If the cities were half the size, or a quarter of the size, many of these disabilities, or factors, that go to make a bad life, would disappear. I suggest to your Lordships that while we can deal with the symptoms by various ad hoc measures in the large number of overlarge cities that we have—pedestrian precincts, traffic free zones, smoke free zones, open spaces, parks, and so on—we shall never solve the problem by concentrating solely on these. We can solve the problem—and we are looking to-day not just to what is to happen in the 1970s but to the end of the century or beyond—only if we take positive steps to prevent our cities from becoming any larger, and, if at all possible, take steps to see that the largest of them become smaller. This has already been done in the case of London and certain other cities, and it is a wise and a good move.
When discussing this, we have to think of the reasons which led to these great cities being formed. They were obvious and well known economic reasons. Our industries, in the clays of the Industrial Revolution, needed to be close to their raw materials of coal and steel; they needed to be in certain areas because of the climate (the textile industries in Lancashire, and so on); and people had to live close to the factories because
666
they had only their feet to get them to work, and because communications were poor in the days before the telephone and telex. The other ancillary industries grew up close to them—the banks and exchanges, and all the rest—and they formed these vast agglomerations. But there is no need for any of those things to-day. There are still certain industries which are better sited in certain areas, and there are a few which have to be in certain areas, but very few indeed. An increasing number can be sited anywhere throughout the country with no great loss of efficiency, and sometimes with some increase in efficiency. What is more, through modern methods of communication people can be in touch with their brokers, bankers, or suppliers of materials, just as quickly, whether they happen to be in Ipswich, in Liverpool or in the same street in the City of London.
There are no economic reasons why our industries have to be centred in a few small areas, and there is every social reason, and some economic reasons, why they should be dispersed. The New Towns to which my noble friend Lord Raglan so rightly drew our attention are one answer to this problem, and I think an admirable answer. We are leading the world in our New Towns. Mistakes have been made in some of them which are being very rapidly rectified, and we are creating in our New Towns places where people can live and work, with plenty of opportunities not only for choice of jobs but for recreation and living in mixed communities which are alive and varied, and which give plenty of scope to all types of people who live there.
However, New Towns alone are not the answer. I believe that our rural districts and rural areas have a large part to play in solving this problem. As I have said, there is no economic reason why industries should not move from the industrial Midlands to, for instance, my own area of East Anglia, and come into the small towns and even into the larger villages. Some of them have done so, bringing with them a new vitality, a new source of wealth and new opportunities for the people who formerly worked on the land but now have no jobs there and no prspects for future advancement, and who are forced to emigrate into the larger towns or to London or

667
elsewhere, leaving behind them the deserted villages of which we have already heard to-day.
I agree that no one single small town in East Anglia, or anywhere else, can make a very big contribution to this problem. But it is worth remembering—and again I refer solely to East Anglia—that if you take that region and enlarge every small town and village by merely 25 per cent. (which is not a big increase in population, if you think of any town or village in which your Lordships live or which you know well, and it will not in any way alter the character of that village), you will be bringing into those areas over 300,000 people, or the population of two quite reasonably sized towns. That is just one area of this country—and probably the smallest one—the region of East Anglia. What is more, there will be a further advantage in doing this. The right reverend Prelate spoke about the human aspects. Other noble Lords have also mentioned them, and they are of vital importance. One of the great qualities of life in the countryside, as opposed to large cities, is that you have all sorts of people mixing together—rich and poor, clever and stupid, manual workers and brain workers, old and young—because it is a small community, whereas in cities people are naturally segregated according to their incomes and their occupations. If they go to live in the rural areas, they will have a far better quality of life simply by reason of this mixing one with the other.
There are problems in doing this, but in the East Anglian region we have recently completed a study of the problems of the small towns, and what is needed in order to make it possible for them to attract more industry and enlarge themselves by a given amount, what the costs of it are, what services are needed and so on. Much valuable information is already there, and this will enable us to make this kind of plan a reality, if it is felt that it is a good one. Another study is going on at the present time with regard to the city of Cambridge, and how the character of the university and the market town can be preserved. This is essential, because we cannot allow an influx of new people and industry to ruin our traditionally beautiful cities, towns and countryside. The problem is
668
how they can be preserved, at the same time making more industry available for the people living in and around the area.
I believe that the problem that faces us to-day is how we can achieve the object of having the rural areas, the countryside, and the small towns, play their part in building up and improving the quality of life for their own people and for the people who are longing to leave the great cities—and indeed are leaving them, and will leave faster if they get good opportunities both for work and for living—without destroying the beauties, amenities and quality of life of those already in the countryside. That is the main problem we are faced with to-day, and we must try to discover how that can be solved. I am certain that it can be done, and when we have decided how it can be done it is first up to the local authorities to make their own plans for their own expansion, and, secondly, for the Government to see what form of pump-priming help, if any, is needed—and I do not think much will be—in order to enable this movement away from the big cities into the more sparsely populated areas to take place with greater speed than is happening at the present time. We are not trying, and are not suggesting that we should try, to force people out of the towns where they want to live and into the country where they do not want to go; or to force people already in the country to receive people from the towns when they do not want them. But when we can marry the two natural desires together to the maximum benefit of everybody, we shall have got to the root of the problem of the lack of good environment and the poor quality of life in our cities to-day.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I ask him whether he agrees that the policy of the new and expanding towns, of always having a shopping precinct which has no life in it after six o'clock, is hardl conducive to community life?
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, I would certainly agree that you do not want such a vast shopping precinct that it becomes a big dead area in the middle of the town. But a relatively small shopping precinct, of the sort that certainly exists in the expanding towns, is a perfectly satisfactory state of affairs.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I ask him whether transport and travel problems will not be accentuated if a great number of factories are moved out of the industrial areas and scattered around the countryside in places such as East Anglia? Factories need raw materials which must be brought from their source in the industrial areas into the country areas.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, I am very glad that the noble Viscount has mentioned transport, which I should have done, because in order to promote this movement it is essential for central Government to improve communications of all kinds for the raw materials—which do not necessarily come from industrial centres and may come from the ports—and for the finished goods which have to be taken away. Also, of course, workers who may be living in villages 10 or 15 miles away will need sufficiently good roads for their own cars and public transport to enable them to get to work. The ideal situation is that nobody should have to spend more than half-an-hour getting to his place of work.
6.43 p.m.
LORD GAINFORD: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford certainly deserves to be congratulated. From all that we have heard to-day, it seems certain that he has a very strong case in pleading for a plan for the quality of life in the urban environment. The word "environment" almost appears to be a new word, although in fact it is an old word which seems to have taken on a new meaning. Almost everybody has a different picture in his mind about it, and we have to-day heard some very interesting interpretations of it. I myself regard it as meaning the way we put everything together. I shall probably touch on a number of subjects which have already been mentioned, but I wish to talk chiefly about the use we make of spaces in our towns.
During the last fifty years there has, as the noble Lord, Lord Walston, said, been a very noticeable retreat from life and work on the land, which has resulted in a massive expansion of all our urban areas. Each decade has produced an increase in this rate of expansion, and to compensate for any loss of country
670
life the authorities have attempted to place a series of blobs on urban surroundings which they have called public parks. Those parks are important, because open spaces in town planning are vital. Now that we have discovered means of building upwards, the planning of our cities has to take into account the use of the space between buildings. We all need open air for recreation, whether for sport or merely for sitting down and enjoying some quiet minutes. It is not enough to have some well-designed spaces with a few trees planted here and there.
Trees were mentioned early in to-day's debate. They are beautiful and can improve the appearance of any locality, but they produce their own problems. The finance connected with them has been mentioned, and there is also the fact that some spread their roots widely and get tangled up with underground cables and drains. Some trees grow too tall, and there are complaints that they block the view from dwellings. Some grow to such a height that they even interfere with lamp posts, telegraph cables and other overhead cables. Then there is the problem of falling leaves in the autumn, when a tree with a lot of leaves can clog up open drains, while rotting leaves get into the fissures of the tarmac. It seems that the space planner could find himself at loggerheads with the engineer to such an extent that a horticulturist must come forward and recommend—and could there be anything more ghastly?—a uniform type of tree which does not spread its roots too much, which does not grow too tall and which does not drop a large amount of leaves to litter the pavements, roadways and drains.
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, may I interrupt for a moment? I would say that the solution is an artificial tree.
LORD GAINFORD: My Lords, I think I shall express the sentiments of your Lordships when I say, "Heaven preserve us!". In city spaces, there are still problems with age groups. Play areas are provided for children, but unless the park or space is large veteran citizens have difficulty in getting away from the noise, and children are apt to be tarred with the old-fashioned maxim that "Children should be seen and not heard". The most aggravating noise is the cry of the frustrated child. Children

671
who must live in towns are likely to miss the opportunities of playing adventurously. The desire to take risks is the source of that stupid game of dashing across streets. Mercifully, that is very much on the decline, but it is a factor to be considered.
The noble Lord, Lord Walston, drew attention to East Anglia, and I have pleasure in mentioning the little town of Thetford in Norfolk, which is a fine example to us. In Thetford, there is a special adventure playground close to the river and among its amenities is a large fort. It is of good solid construction, and although built recently has the look of an old castle which might have been built centuries ago. Inside the fort are all forms of pleasurable junk and rubbish, plus some machinery associated with traditional municipal children's playgrounds. The towers of the fort contain toilets and washrooms. There is even a drawbridge over the moat, which was approved by the River Ouse Board, but the regulation states that the drawbridge must remain down all the time. This play fort has had success in more ways than one: the children are kept amused, their noise is confined to one area, the more rowdy have less desire to go round the houses and work off frustration by breaking windows or by doing damage of some other nature, and there is also peace of mind for the parents, who do not have to worry about whether their offspring is making too much noise or is being dangerously quiet, because they know where he is; and that is so important.
Thetford has also produced another beautiful idea; that is, an area for cycling which the children can use both day and night. To be able to cycle at night is a thrill for a boy or girl, but it is difficult to find anywhere that is safe enough. A special area for children to cycle in after dark, such as exists at Thetford, must be a great boon to the parents; and I can certainly appreciate their feelings. I have a sporty young daughter who is very proud of her bicycle. She takes great care of it, and has had it fitted with many gadgets, including lamps, but when and where she can use these lamps to their best advantage is a problem. The parks are closed after dark, and after dark the children are discouraged from using the
672
public garden between the houses in the street where my home is and the houses in the neighbouring street. This leads to my plea for the use of parks after dark. May I ask whether there is any possibility of research by the Government and local authorities into the matter of lighting and availability of park officials, so that parks could be places of recreation and sport, both organised and disorganised (by which I mean cycling or casual games) after dark? Athletes in training could use them to advantage. In the winter we see athletes and footballers training by running along highways. In the summer they can take advantage of the long evenings, but in the winter the park gates clang shut early when the light fails.
My Lords, I have mentioned Thetford, but most of my concern about the environment is naturally based on the way I see London, as a man who lives and works here. There are many who associate the environment problem with that of rearranging the road transport, and there has been a good deal of talk about the banning of private motor cars from parts of the city. In conjunction, there is the alternative suggestion of having a free public transport system. An estimation has been made that if such a scheme were implemented it could cost the ratepayers an extra £40 each a year. If this is a truly correct calculation, then for myself I should be perfectly agreeable to paying such an extra amount on the rates. As I say, I live and work in London: I have no car; I mostly use the railways of London Transport. On the annual cost of my season tickets alone I should stand to make quite a fair profit; but there are many who would not view such schemes with favour. The theory of a free public transport system in the London area is pleasant, but one wonders how long it would take to put it into practice, and how reliable it would be. Just a few days ago a colleague said to me, "I would gladly give up my car tomorrow, but I cannot rely on the bus service."
The noble Lord, Lord Greenwood of Rossendale, mentioned a problem which has certainly come to my notice a number of times in my years of work with the Greater London Council, the problem of the juggernauts on the roads. I have an idea that might help all those concerned

673
in that—and I will try not to get off the point. Your Lordships may remember that about ten months ago there was an interesting debate in your Lordships' House on aerospace, and my noble friend Lord Alexander of Tunis put forward an interesting theory about the possible re-use of the airship. Here I must declare a little interest, because I am a small shareholder in a shipping company which has a subsidiary that is trying to design airships to carry cargoes of freight at high speeds—it could almost be from door to door. If such an idea for air transport, adapted from an early aeronautical design, could be put into practice, it might not bring back much transport to the canals and the railways but it would bring about a considerable reduction in the need for the use of these hideously large lorries that we see on our roads to-day.
London, again, has its own particular environment problem which it has had to deal with throughout the centuries. I have heard some remarks, and I have seen something in the booklet to which my noble friend Lord Redesdale referred, about the traffic and the environment, to the effect that there is a decline in the population. I am not going to contradict that, but if anybody had asked me what I thought of London's population I would have said that throughout the centuries looking at its size throughout the years, the population of London has always been the maximum. The only time it was not at its maximum was at the times of the Great Plague and the Great Fire, which the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, mentioned. But when each of these dangers was over people swarmed into London because they wanted to take advantage of every possible vacancy that was available, for living or for trading. Add to this the geographical position of London. London lies close to the Great Circle route between the European Continent and North America; hence the increase in transit population with the increase of air travel. But London still has a very great attraction to the tourist. We who live here may feel bored by it, but it is a tonic to meet travellers from abroad and to find out how they see it. As a suggestion, I would recommend any of your Lordships who has not done so to try to find a guide book or a translation of one written for overseas visitors. If you do,
674
you will get a delightful new look at London.
In connection with this attraction to tourists, I have heard concern expressed by past, present and future visitors to London about the pcssibilities of the complete redesign of Piccadilly, which has been looked upon as a great centre of London that people want to see; and dismay has been expressed that it may not be there much longer for them to see. Then there is the cultural attraction. We may say that we are going into Europe; but, of course, for a long time Europe has been coming to us. Artistic people from the Continent love to come here and to be able to say that they have studied art in London, whether it be pictures, painting or music. In fact, it seems that London has now taken what was the position of Paris.
No city must be allowed to lose its character. This sameness of modern architecture is threatening to make all towns look alike. The last time I was in Reading, which I used to know quite well some years ago, I was trying to find my way to the railway station, whose landmarks used to be quite easy to spot. But the sameness of the modern buildings made it very difficult for me to find my way; and from looking at those buildings I could not tell at one glance whether I was in Reading or back in London. With my plea for open spaces, may I request future planners not to allow very tall buildings to be close to parks or other places, like river banks. Even with spacing that is insisted upon by law, there is the possibility of some lovely views being lost. If the ground near an open area is relatively flat, can we not have the smaller buildings put near the border of the area and the larger ones at the back, so that the dwellers in these buildings can have a view, with the lower floors, which may be blocked by the ones in front, reserved for trade or offices?
My Lords, in my opening remarks I said that my view of the environment was the way in which we put everything together. When we build with bricks, we need mortar. Mortar binds yet it keeps the bricks apart. That is how our spaces should be used: to bind our buildings and to build cities. If we allow our buildings to become the same size and shape, and allow the spaces between them

675
to be of the same shape and lay-out, then urban life is likely to become dreary in the extreme; and I should not like to make any prophecy of what the reaction of the population will be. We have already heard something of that from the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones. There might be some unpleasant violence if people were confined to such conditions.
7.1 p.m.
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: My Lords, I believe that this debate provides outstanding evidence of a central truth about cities: their problems are complex because they are complexes. The House has ably demonstrated that so many aspects of the quality of life in our towns are interrelated. We cannot improve the traffic environment, as my noble friend Lord Redesdale pointed out, of one street without making worse the traffic environment of the next, unless we have other measures which limit traffic overall. This is a relatively simple example and can stand for many more complex ones. One point that we should recognise is the way our towns differ from one another. We tend here, naturally, to see the problems in terms of London. This is the capital city and it is much bigger and has much greater regional influence than any other conurbation. It has a quite different structure of employment; it has a different scale of traffic problem; the housing pressures are quite exceptional. But it is not merely a question of London on the one hand and the rest on the other. There are great regional and local differences among the rest; and I am glad that my noble friend Lord Hewlett so vigorously reminded us of that fact.
Another difficulty we face in trying to tackle a subject of such wide scope is that of achieving any comprehensive statement—and I am all too aware of that in winding up this debate to-night. This is not simply because the various aspects are diverse; it is because matters will be at different stages in different fields. To take one example, again in the field of transport, we all look forward to reading the Report of the Layfield Inquiry into the Greater London Development Plan and to see what the panel have to say on the difficult problems of roads, traffic and transport which have occupied so much of the Inquiry's
676
time. Concurrently, we have from the Select Committee in another place a Report, which the Government are now considering, on the problems of urban transport. This Report puts great emphasis on public transport and traffic restraint, and this has received wide and, on the whole, favourable comment from the Press. I am glad that the comment has been favourable.
But the first general theme which I should like to draw out is that of the relative roles of central and local government. I am glad to take my cue from the noble Lord, Lord Greenwood, on the Opposition Benches. We naturally tend to concentrate here on what the Government and Parliament can do: getting the statutory organisation right, allocating the resources between difficult fields of activity, identifying points of importance for the national interest. All these are, as my noble friend Lord Sandford demonstrated, necessarily central functions. But in almost all the matters we have touched on the execution lies with the local authorities. They act within the framework of national policy but have considerable freedom to do more or less, to put the emphasis in one direction or another. In the planning system, the preparation of regional plans is a matter of co-operation between central and local government. The preparation of structure plans in counties is a matter for the local authorities. The decision on plans is a matter for Government. I think the noble Lord, Lord Walston, will be aware of that. Within the framework of the structure plans, the preparation and decisions on local plans is a matter for the local authorities who are themselves responsible for development control.
Even at these lower levels central Government can intervene. Thus the Government have said that proposals for out-of-town shopping developments, which the noble Lord raised, of more than 50,000 square feet floor space are to be notified to the Secretary of State, so that he can decide whether or not to call them in for his decision. Again, on the subject of Covent Garden, which has been much in the news recently, the Secretary of State has said that in view of the special importance of the area and its key position in a district of major change in the centre of the capital city, he wishes to be kept in touch with the Greater London

677
Council's preparation of the plan and consulted personally about the scale and nature of redevelopment.
Government intervention at local level is, however, exceptional. As a general rule it is the local authority, and only they, who can consider the totality of the local situation and identify particular needs. This is by no means easy. The actions of local authorities affect in many ways both the planning and the day-to-day management of the local environment. They provide services for, or in other ways touch, the lives of the inhabitants of their area in a number of ways. Some authorities seek to develop systems of corporate management which will better enable them to take an overall view of the needs of an area and of the actions best directed to the needs and desires of the inhabitants. The Government have instituted a number of studies jointly with individual local authorities. The Six Towns Study, referred to by my noble friend, seeks to develop in practical terms indications and advice which would help all local authorities to move towards a total approach. I shall return later to this matter of co-ordination.
We are faced in the plurality of this subject which takes in so much of human life with ail the complexities and contradictions of life itself. We all know of and share concern for the housing problem. But the new and improved housing does not necessarily solve the human problem. Too often, new housing estates on the edges of our towns and cities are featureless, shopping facilities may be few and more expensive than the cheaper markets of the city centres which are now no longer easily accessible. Recreational and leisure facilities may be limited, and this becomes more evident as children grow up. I do not think that we should forget the old use of the word "environment" before the ecological connotation became fashionable, the use in the sense of a delinquent child growing up in a bad environment. Journeys to work in this context become lengthier and more expensive. Job opportunities for housewives to supplement family income may be lacking. The transfer of families to new estates can break existing ties. All these factors need careful consideration in the planning of housing policies and call for the utmost co-operation among all departments of the local authority and
678
with other agencies. In reality, problems of bad housing are closely connected with all low-income group problems, poor schools, limited job opportunities and the like.
A good deal has been said about public participation, and this the Government welcome. In the field of housing it is vital. For this purpose people cannot be categorised. The fact is that different people have different needs and they must be given the opportunity of making their needs known. It is no longer good enough for those in authority merely to prescribe what they think is needed. Many people have to look to the local authorities for housing accommodation. There is a good deal which could be done to make it more acceptable to the residents. I believe there are indications that council tenants prefer smaller estates and would prefer them not to look like housing estates; they want to get away from institutional-type building. Many speakers have mentioned this point. It is essential that people's views on aspects such as this must be ascertained if they are to be housed or rehoused in a satisfactory manner. I welcome the contribution of the right reverent Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth this afternoon and his good news of the Church's essential participation in these issues.
Noble Lords will know that new housing is only one part of the housing programme. The emphasis to-day is very much on the improvement of existing housing. This has been an outstanding success. In 1971, a record total of nearly 200,000 improvement grants were approved in England and Wales. The 1972 total is not yet known but it is likely to be well over the 300,000 mark. As well as improving the older houses worth saving, we are also making good progress in clearing the slums. A national sample survey of house conditions carried out by the Department last year revealed that the number of unfit houses had dropped to about 1·2 million from the 1·8 million shown by a similar survey carried out in 1967. It is not enough, but the new slum clearance subsidy which has been given by the Housing (Finance) Act will no doubt help to encourage further progress.
The unparalleled progress that we have made in improving individual houses has not, unfortunately, been

679
matched by similar dramatic achievements in the field of area improvement, although some reasonable progress has been made. Everyone recognises the social and economic benefits of the systematic and comprehensive improvement of older houses as compared with what has been called the "pepper-pot" improvement of individual houses over the whole of a city or town. When an area is improved its character can be retained and its community spirit preserved. And the resources put into house improvements are clearly better applied if a whole area can be given a guaranteed lease of life, with the houses modernised and their surroundings uplifted at one and the same time. The external appearance—The image—of a whole area is almost as important in generating confidence in its future as the internal housing conditions; and this, in turn, could encourage routine repairs and maintenance which were necessary to secure the longer-term benefits of rehabilitation.
My Lords, what are the doubts and difficulties that have slowed down area improvement? These have come particularly to the fore in inner-city areas where fears have been expressed that the declaration of a general improvement area has accelerated what in the new jargon is called the "gentrification" of the area caused by pricing out the original residents—and my noble friend Lord Redesdale referred to this aspect. There have also been reports from tenants of landlords wishing to cash in quickly on enhanced property values in rejuvenated areas. One difficulty in this type of area is perhaps that local authorities are being pulled in two directions at once. Having committed themselves to the improvement of an area, the local authority naturally want to encourage house improvement. Their inclination is therefore to give grants freely to improve the living conditions in the area. But it is still essential for the local authority to look closely at the merits of each grant application. If they think that the effects of a particular scheme of improvement would be to intensify housing stress and stimulate undue speculation, they could and should refuse to support the scheme or to make a grant to the owner of the property. They may also need from time
680
to time to invoke their considerable powers to prevent harassment of tenants in properties undergoing conversion or improvement.
There is also the major difficulty that in most areas of acute housing stress many of the residents are poor and socially deprived. They may lack the initiative and the resources to better their living conditions, and they may be in need of help from the welfare, education and health departments, as well as the housing department, of the local authority. We all know of the difficulties when people fail to take up the grants, and so on, allowed to them. Large families, in particular, may suffer from the tendency of the grants scheme to encourage the conversion of large houses into flats. The local authorities themselves have found that area improvement presents administrative problems and takes up a lot of staff time. If the local authority are to act effectively, they need to set up a widely based team of officers which stretches across many of the local authority departments. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Greenwood of Rossendale, welcomed reconstruction, at any rate in that regard. Some authorities take the view that the voluntary principle, which is the mainspring of area improvement, is very wasteful in terms of staff resources, and they would therefore like to be given stronger powers of compulsion. There is also the problem of repairs to houses, as distinct from improvements. A few houses in poor repair can drag down a whole neighbourhood; but, of course, elderly owner-occupiers often just cannot afford to pay for even running repairs.
My Lords, the plight of elderly tenants in privately rented accommodation also needs to be borne in mind. The over-sixty age group is likely to increase substantially in number during the 1970s and is likely to continue to be one of the least well-off sections of our society. In the past they have looked to the inner-city areas for accommodation because of the attractiveness of low rents. The low incomes and immobility of this age group means that they will continue to live in areas familiar to them, but available accommodation will become scarcer as demand increases.
We are aware that some of these difficulties are formidable—and I have not

681
hesitated to outline them—but we are confident that they can be overcome if central Government, the local authorities and the housing associations all work together. Earlier this year the local authorities were invited to join the Government in a concerted and decisive drive on the problems of slums and older houses which would have as its objective that within a decade no one should be required to live in an unfit or sub-standard house. I am also glad to say that my honourable friend the Minister for Housing and Construction has recently announced that he is undertaking a major and comprehensive review of policy affecting older housing. This review will seek to find ways of concentrating efforts and resources increasingly on those parts of the country where areas of sub-standard housing still remain. Its main theme will be to ensure that help towards the improvement and repair of older houses is directed to those groups of people and to those areas with the greatest problems.
My Lords, it now behoves me to move from the topic of housing, which I have tried to treat as my own contribution to the debate to-day, and to deal with some other themes which many noble Lords have brought up. Principal among these, of course, was the whole question of traffic congestion. It is a major problem in urban areas. The Metropolitan Police and the G.L.C. are working closely together to make the best use of the existing roads. I am glad to say to noble Lords, and to the noble Lord, Lord Greenwood of Rossendale, particularly, who showed great concern about this, that in the longer term the G.L.C., London Transport and British Railways have plans for improving the whole transport system in London, public and private, road and rail—and I will come in a minute to the ways in which the Government might be able to help. Studies are also being made of ways of limiting the use of overcrowded roads, which would. I think, be a most valuable contribution.
I come to heavy lorries. In replying to a debate initiated by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester on traffic last summer, I was forced to say, putting myself in the unpopular position of the juggernaut's defender, that while people loathe heavy lorries, they also loathe high prices and the increased
682
cost that different delivery systems may bring. But I also welcome, with the noble Lord, Lord Greenwood of Rossendale, and others, the G.L.C. proposal to ban lorries over 40 feet long from parts of Central London, including, I may say, Parliament Square and Whitehall. This is a start to keeping lorries out of areas where they do not belong, and the experience gained may lead to other measures over a wider area of London.
The noble Lord, Lord Greenwood of Rossendale, raised the question of lorry parking. Parking of lorries in residential streets overnight is another difficult problem. The G.L.C. have banned the on-street overnight parking of lorries in Tower Hamlets, and this is to be extended to 60 square miles of Inner London during the next two years. Such proposals require the provision of off-street lorry parks, and the G.L.C. and the boroughs are planning parks for local lorries, as well as a number of strategic lorry parks in London, to fit in with the national network for long-distance lorries.
The question of lorry routes was raised. We recognise that one of the first priorities is that of creating a road system which will enable through traffic to get to and from its destination without intruding into areas where it does not need to go. In the meantime, an advisory lorry route system has been introduced which is specifically designed to get traffic to and from the ports straight on to the primary route network. I hope that this will give some satisfaction to my noble friend Lord Howe. Local authorities already have the power to ban lorries from unsuitable roads except for access. This of course is an important qualification, because the overwhelming majority of all freight movement of vehicles over three tons either starts or finishes within an urban area. Blanket restrictions without regard to the consequences for local industry and commerce would therefore be highly damaging.
The whole subject is an area in which local rather than central Government must take the lead—that is why we welcome the G.L.C.'s lead—but the Department have set in hand a programme of research to learn more about the implications of various possible alternative approaches to the problem of movement of goods in town and the location and

683
planning of traffic generators, such as warehouses, shopping centres, haulage yards and the like. In spite of lorries being the villains of the piece—they are fairly large, and they can accept our slings and arrows with equanimity—nevertheless, we are concerned about urban car ownership and registration of goods vehicles growing so fast and, with them, the demand for urban road space. If the trends of the last two years continue, in 1980 car ownership will he 40 per cent. more than in 1970. In this country as a whole there may well be 22 million vehicles of all types, compared with the present 15 million.
The growth of urban planning has been commensurate except in urban London, where it has been slower. The urban road programme cannot hope to satisfy the demand. Whatever the rate of road building, the need is bound to increase over the next decade. The total social and economic costs of congestion are of course considerable. Apart from the cost of greatly increased journey times, increased petrol consumption and so on associated with the congested city centre, there are all the environmental disbenefits of noise, danger and visual intrusion. The need for the restraint of traffic in towns is based on the premise that the total economic cost and the environmental disbenefits of congestion are greater than the value of the individual journey.
The Government accept that, as a result of rising car ownership and greater congestion, an increased level of traffic restraint has become inevitable. The objectives are constructive policies of restraint, irrespective of the methods adopted. These are: to reduce the volume of traffic while allowing the more essential journeys to continue; to improve the operational efficiency of the system, especially of bus transport—and I recollect our exhibition next door in this regard—by selectively deterring the traffic that confers the least economic benefit and the general aim of lessening the impact of traffic on the environment. In spite of this, we recognise that the prime responsibility for local urban transport must rest with local authorities because each town has to look at its own policies concerning investment on roads and public transport, traffic management and so forth, and the
684
measures taken to improve the effectiveness of public transport within a related whole, and to frame these policies in relation to broader tactics, which depend on the prosperity of an individual town and the effect of traffic on the general environment. The Government, of course, have a general responsibility to make advice on traffic restraint available to local authorities, to conduct research (as they do), to provide financial support (as they do) and to promote legislation. To this end the Department of the Environment is inquiring in depth into the possible methods of restraint, including the more sophisticated types, such as supplementary licensing and road pricing.
I come now to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, on motorways. The noble Lord expressed concern about the ways in which urban motorways can cut across existing access routes in or near city centres. He also drew attention to the intrusiveness of large roads on stilts. The Urban Motorway Committee, which reported to the Government last autumn, strongly recommended that steps be taken to minimise the severance of communities and also emphasised the need for designs which would reduce adverse visual effects so far as possible. These, and many other recommendations by the Committee relating to the provision of major urban roads with reference to their immediate surroundings, were accepted by the Government. We have commended this new approach to local authorities and have undertaken to help them finance it for large schemes and have taken steps to apply it to our own trunk roads. We have already introduced in another place legislation which would improve the basis of compensating those most closely affected (and this has been welcomed this afternoon) as well as for the wider acquisition of land in the interests of better design.
I should perhaps say a few words more to the noble Lord, Lord Greenwood, about the new out-of-town shopping centres and the related consideration of cars and transport. These shopping centres usually consist of a large central store surrounded by a number of smaller units, normally sited well out of the town. With good road access, they are designed for the car-borne shopper. In February, 1972, the Department of the

685
Environment issued for the benefit of retailers, developers and planning authorities Development Control Policy No. 13. This statement summed up the situation and said that, while the out-of-town shopping centres may by efficient retailing help to keep prices down, to increase the convenience of shopping by car and reduce congestion in towns, nevertheless they may tend to disfigure the countryside, detract custom from, and cause deterioration of, existing city centres, and produce traffic problems on inter-urban and country roads. So I must say to the noble Lord that we must go cannily on that. I would also say that there are now over 20 cases at different stages before my right honourable friend for decision. Decisions on many of these can be expected during the year.
LORD RAGLAN: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether these are decisions on out-of-town shopping centres of over 50,000 square feet?—because that is a whole acre of shopping space: it is very large.
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: My Lords, the Secretary of State, as I understand it, has the right to call in shopping developments in excess of that figure. Though he is not necessarily required to do so, he would do so if in his view they would be likely to contribute to a deterioration in the environment. I agree that they are large but I must commend to the noble Lord what the noble Lord, Lord Greenwood, said: that shopping centres have many other advantages in relieving congestion from the centres of cities. It is a question of something which has been a constant dream—attempting to achieve a balance.
We need not feel quite so balanced perhaps on the question of mugging, which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones. I would say to the noble Lord that I also have had experience of life in American cities, and the advice I got when I was last in New York was to walk down the middle of the road against the traffic, singing loudly but soberly, as a way of attracting least interest. Chief officers of police are very much alive to the problem of mugging, and special measures appropriate to local circumstances have been taken in the urban areas. They have included increasing the numbers of uniformed and dog
686
patrols in vulnerable areas at times of greatest risk, and also the formation of special squads to deal with mugging, and the use of the news media to warn the public about danger. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, has so splendidly shown in his lurid historical description, there have been a few improvements since 1750.
Another variety of pollution is air pollution and, contrary to what one tends often to read in many newspapers and magazines, the story of clean air in this country is an unqualified success story. The code of legislation for tackling air pollution is an excellent one which gives our local authority inspectors a fine bag of clubs with which to hit the ball—and they have hit it to some purpose. The principal target of course has been, and remains, the domestic chimney; but despite various setbacks, such as financial restrictions and the solid smokeless fuel shortage some years ago, there have been Sheffield, remarkable achievements. Sheffield once one of the dirtiest cities of Europe, is now one of the cleanest; and London is 90 per cent. covered by smoke control orders. It now has 70 per cent. more sunshine in December, with visibility on a average winter day up from one and a half miles to four miles—a visibility that we might have shared had we not been so busy here this afternoon.
As a result of the efforts of Her Majesty's Alkali and Clean Air Inspectorate and the Public Health Inspectorate, with the active co-operation of industry, industrial smoke emissions in 1970 were less than one-eighth of what they were in 1950, and I think that is something of a success story as well. In the campaign for cleaner air, Manchester played a very formative role and led the way.
That leads me to the point made in a very vigorous speech by my noble friend Lord Hewlett. He referred to a specific proposal which had come to his notice to build houses on land adjoining a chemical works at Clayton, in Manchester, and expressed concern about the risk of pollution which this would involve. My information is that the site in question—and I understand that it is the site of the old English Steel Works—has apparently been allocated for industrial use and that no decision to change that allocation has been taken. This matter falls

687
entirely within the competence of the Manchester Corporation. I am sure they would try to answer any queries put to them by my noble friend about the future of the site, if he were to get in touch with them direct. He also mentioned a case in Swansea. This again is a specific case on which I cannot comment in detail but I understand that the company concerned and the Alkali Inspectorate—which is where the Government come in—will be examining possibilities of technical improvements in monitoring emissions of carbon black and possibly advising on an advanced system. But I cannot give encouraging news about the situation, which I understand has deteriorated quite rapidly in the last two months. My noble friend also made mention of the clearance of derelict land, and we welcome all that local authorities are doing in this important arena. I believe an increase is postulated of about 5,000 acres of clearance for next year.
I must say to the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, that I regret I could not be present during his speech, but I expect he is glad that my noble friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, who is concerned with these matters directly, was present and was busily taking notes all the while. The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, mentioned a number of points. I have touched on his concern with old people, with people not being able to afford to live in areas after improvement, and we recognise the reality of these problems. I cannot comment on the specific case in Primrose Hill, an area I know quite well, in London. While there is often an administrative or statutory reason for defining a boundary for environmental areas, conservation areas or housing improvements, one must at the same time maintain a total look on the environmental and social needs not only of the historical special areas but of the borough or central areas as a whole, including the more deprived sectors. As I said to the noble Lord at the outset of my speech, one man's environmental meat is often another's environmental poison.
I will study carefully what the noble Lord, Lord Walston, said. In the meantime, I assure him that the South-Eastern Regional Study is not the only pebble on the beach; subsequent studies and struc-
688
ture plans will be pointing to growth areas throughout the country. This is a perfect instance of the kind of balance we need. Coming finally to my noble friend Lord Gainford, I hope he was not suggesting that we have plastic trees with built-in lights in our parks, though I appreciate the problems of parks after dark. I am glad that he drew our attention to the City as a centre of the arts and a great catalytic place for artistic activity. He went far in saying that we were overtaking Paris in this regard. I would say that perhaps the greatest or most famous artist connected with the subject of urban alienation is Francis Bacon, and he is alive and well, and working in London.
The noble Lord mentioned parks. He will know that the Greater London Council are responsible for administering an open space—which is going to be called St. George's Park—as a regional park, and hope that acquisition and development will be substantially completed by 1980. The park, which includes part of the disused Surrey Canal, will provide recreational facilities, including a 14-acre lake. I hope that a park named after a patron saint is an encouraging note on which to end these specific points. At home in my flat, which I am glad to say is in Covent Garden, and is still in Covent Garden, I have a gramophone record of Haydn's London Symphony. On the sleeve of the record is a fine reproduction of a view of the City of London against its river. It was painted, I would say, by Canaletto on the Embankment at Somerset House. The City is a dense little copse of churches, St. Paul's drawing them all up towards its shell-like dome. The work, like the symphony, is gay, serene and formidable —a testament to civic activity and civic grace, the kind of urban Eden from which our industrial curiosity drove us away.
But I also have an engraving by Hogarth, the other side of that bright coin. In this century, by fair means and foul, we have got rid of a lot of the colour, but a lot of the squalor, too, of Gin Lane. We have paid heavily, and we are still paying, for eradicating infant mortality, shortened life spans, relative material and physical ease, mobility, a knowledge of the possibilities of men. I

689
cannot believe that we were really wrong to pay the price. What we must now do, and earn the means to do, is to put back into our cities the fun and vigour and at least a little of the beauty that we have lost, not least by holding hard to the pockets that remain. I thank my noble friend Lord Nugent, and all noble Lords who have spoken, for giving me the chance to do so too. In return, I impress upon your Lordships that the Government will look hard at everything you have had to say.
7.35 p.m.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, may I thank noble Lords on all sides of the House for joining in in this debate and making it such an interesting one. There is no doubt about your Lordships' interest in the quality of life from every point of view. I feel that from everything that has been said by noble Lords on all sides my noble friends on the Front Bench will be left with a number of substantial points to think about. I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Greenwood, for supporting me on the two major points I wished to make. Because I went on in my speech longer than I meant to, I did not refer to traffic problems, so I am particularly grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Greenwood, Lord Airedale, Lord Wynne-Jones, Lord Redesdale and Lord Gainford, who have all referred to the necessity to bring urban traffic under control. My noble friend Lord Howe wanted the private motorist to be given all the facilities that he wanted; but my own view is that there will have to be increasing restraints on the use of the private car in big cities. There will have to be an increasing improvement in the quality of public transport; this is our only course, and we must go along positively with it. I was very glad to hear my noble friend Lord Gowrie addressing himself to this subject in his reply.
In that context the Guardian was kind enough to mention me—or half of me—in one of their columns to-day. They referred to me as one who is unfamiliar with London buses. But I use buses every day, and I rather like them. If I have time for a longer journey there is nothing that I like better than to sit on top of a bus in the front seat, where one gets the best view of London that
690
anyone could wish for. Let me support my noble friends in any action that they wish to take to restrain the use of the private car. That will have my support, because I know it is going to be essential. On the theme of "mugging", referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, in his reference to the 17th century, it occurred to me that in those days—and we are reminded of the significance of this by the red lines on the floor of your Lordships' House—noble Lords and honourable Members in another place wore swords to protect themselves. That firmly throws the challenge to my noble friends on the Front Bench that they must see that the police forces are strong enough to give adequate protection to the citizens of this country; otherwise we shall find ourselves going back to the 17th century habits of arming ourselves, and then we shall have the worst of everything.
The noble Lord, Lord Raglan, kindly paid me a compliment—it was a slightly inverted compliment because he was expressing surprise that I had what might be called an objective approach to planning problems. May I say this to him: he is a little old-fashioned in his outlook. Noble Lords on this side, and my right honourable and honourable friends in another place, have for a long time now recognised that this is an immensely complex subject and that the only possible hope of solving the problems is to approach them completely objectively. As chairman of the Standing. Conference I have dealt with several different Governments now—a Tory Government, a Labour Government, another Labour Government and a Tory Government—and from my own experience I can assure the noble Lord that it does not make the slightest difference. The main thing that stays the same is the officials in the Department. The problem here—and I was glad my noble friend Lord Gowrie referred to it—is the absolute necessity for central Government and local government to work together in partnership; for there to be a continuous dialogue between them. Central Government determine the policies but local government carries them out, and unless there is a very close partnership, with both sides talking to each other, explaining to each other their problems, we shall not get the solutions we want.

691
My Lords, there is much more that could be said in answer to such an interesting debate. I would conclude by saying only this to my noble friend Lord Sandford. I greatly appreciated his comprehensive and interesting speech, and indeed that made by my noble friend Lord Gowrie. I feel that they showed their grasp of, and their sensitivity to, the problems of that quality of life for which we are all striving. On the specific points that I put to him, I apprehend that he gave me an undertaking that he would look again at the suggestions I made about relieving the financial squeeze on local government bodies' undertaking development—both the possibility of using the powers under the New Town Acts in designating specific areas, and the other suggestion I made of a levy to cover development costs.
On his forecast of how quickly structure plans could come forward, I can only say that I hope he is right, but I very much doubt it. I would ask him again to request his officials to sit down with the local government officials and take a fresh look at this question. It really is essential. Unless structure plans, development plans—call them what you like—are settled within four or five years, they are not going to be any good to anybody. My Lords, I again thank noble Lords on both sides of the House for the valuable support they have given and for the valuable ideas they have put forward; and I now beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

  STIRLING UNIVERSITY STUDENTS' DEMONSTRATION
  STIRLING UNIVERSITY STUDENTS' DEMONSTRATION
  POSTGRADUATE STUDENTSHIPS AND BURSARIES
  POSTGRADUATE STUDENTSHIPS AND BURSARIES
  GIBRALTAR: SPANISH FRONTIER RESTRICTIONS
  GIBRALTAR: SPANISH FRONTIER RESTRICTIONS