Sitting of 2 July 1973

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

    Housing Tenders
    Mr. McBrideasked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the procedure for tendering for local authority house building contracts in Wales.
    The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Mr. David Gibson-Watt): The tendering procedures are laid down in Welsh Office Circular 69/67; I will send the hon. Member a copy. They are designed broadly to ensure that value for money is obtained.
    Mr. McBride: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, from 1st July, all Welsh local authorities will be required to advertise contracts worth £415,000 or more in the Journal of the EEC? Will he support
    2
    Swansea City Council in its opposition to this unwanted law? Will he understand that Welsh local authorities wish Welsh craftsmen to build Welsh houses for Welsh people without any inhibiting influences? Where does he stand on that?
    Mr. Gibson-Watt: I understand the hon. Member's concern about this, but the reasons in the circular to which I have referred have been well understood. With regard to the EEC point, my right hon. and learned Friend and I are very much aware of that.
    Mr. George Thomas: The Ministers may be aware of it, but what are they going to do about it? Will the hon. Gentleman tell me that Welsh firms will have priority, in view of the state of our industry in Wales? Is he aware that there is considerable indignation that we have to advertise in the Common Market for people who may be undercutting our own firms?
    Mr. Gibson-Watt: I am sure the right hon. Gentleman knows as well as we all do that the situation in the building industry in Wales at the moment is very overheated. He will not be suggesting that all building in Wales should be done by Welshmen. Many firms come from England and Scotland and certain firms may come from overseas. Naturally, on most occasions they will employ Welsh people to do these jobs.
    Mr. Nicholas Edwards: Is my hon. Friend aware that, while we would like to give Welsh firms the work, what we

    3
    would desperately like in Pembrokeshire is to see any contracting firms able and willing to take on the desperately needed work that we have to give them? Therefore, we would welcome any firm, from wherever it might come, to do the work that we urgently need.
    Mr. Gibson-Watt: My hon. Friend is right. The situation in his constituency is as difficult as in any constituency in Wales with regard to overheating. It is a great problem to find the necessary builders to do the jobs at the moment in this time of boom.

    Llantrisant New Town
    Mr. Rowlandsasked the Secretary of State for Wales on what date he received his inspector's report of the public inquiry into the proposed Llantrisant New Town.
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Peter Thomas): It was received in the Welsh Office on 7th June. I am studying the report, which is very long, and I will publish it and announce my decision as soon as possible.
    Mr. Rowlands: Is it the fact that the finding of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's inspector is not in favour of the new town? Will the Secretary of State now make the report available, whatever considerations and deliberations he might wish to have, so that local authorities whose future planning greatly depends on this report can then make it public? There is no reason why what the inspector has said should be an official secret.
    Mr. Thomas: The hon. Gentleman will not expect me to comment on the contents of the inspector's report before a decision is taken. An inspector's report by itself has no standing until I come to a conclusion on it. That is the reason why I refused to publish the report on the Cardiff hook road. Certainly, I hope to come to a conclusion on this very long report as soon as possible.
    Mr. Fred Evans: My hon. Friend's point is valid. Surely the Secretary of State must realise what an inhibiting factor this is on areas like those of my hon. Friend and myself, which are urgently in need of industrial development. Firms are reluctant to take decisions in view of what may be found in the Llantrisant inquiry report.
    Mr. Thomas: I appreciate that it is important that a decision be taken as soon as possible, and, as I said, I intend to do so. But it is a long report, which took the inspector almost a year to prepare. I intend to consider it carefully and, I hope, come to the right decision.
    Mr. John: Has the Secretary of State also received the interlinked reports on the sewage works and the line of the M4 from Llantrisant? If so, will he consider giving priority to these considerations, because in particular the sewage works is desperately needed to support the increase in population that will go to Llantrisant naturally?
    Mr. Thomas: I expect to receive the associated reports on the M4 and the sewage disposal works shortly. It is probable that the three reports will be considered concurrently, but it is not possible at this stage to say when decisions will be made or in what order.

    Ports
    Mr. Roy Hughesasked the Secretary of State for Wales what recent discussions he has had with the British Transport Docks Board about Welsh port prospects.
    Mr. Peter Thomas: My office continues to keep in close touch with the port director and his staff, and I am fully informed of all developments.
    Mr. Hughes: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman appreciate that the Newport docks are probably facing the greatest challenge in their history due to the shortsightedness of BSC in taking away the iron ore trade, and that they also expect a challenge from Bristol? Does he appreciate nevertheless that, due to efficient management and an excellent labour force, we are not pessimistic about the outcome, but will he take whatever steps are possible to help ensure the survival of the port?
    Mr. Thomas: I certainly fully appreciate the importance of Newport part. The hon. Gentleman will know that the dock access road to the port is in the firm programme. I am happy to say that the port made a substantial profit last year.
    Mr. Ellis: When does the Secretary of State expect to receive the report of the

    5
    conference held recently at St. Malo, attended by representatives of the peripheral areas of the Community, dealing amongst other things with the problems of maritime communication? If so, will he have the report published?
    Mr. Thomas: I have not as yet received the report but I look forward to receiving it. I note what the hon. Member says.

    Shotton Steelworks
    Sir A. Meyerasked the Secretary of State for Wales when he expects to announce the decisions taken on the advice tendered by the task force set up to consider the consequences for Flint-shire of the rundown of steelmaking at Shotton.
    Mr. Barry Jonesasked the Secretary of State for Wales when he proposes to make public his recommendations regarding the report of his Shotton Steelworks task force.
    Mr. Peter Thomas: The task force has not yet completed its wide-ranging consultations. I expect to receive its final report before the end of the month. The Government's decisions will be announced as soon as possible thereafter.
    Sir A. Myer: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the process of demoralisation which set in with the announcement of the proposed rundown of steelmaking at Shotton is now accelerating dangerously? Does he not consider that there is now great urgency to announce at least four things: first, that there will be a massive injection of investment into the coking side at Shotton; second, that every incentive will be offered to new steel-using industry to come into the area; third, that we shall have a very early announcement of a decision on the Dee estuary scheme; and fourth, that there will be a massive road programme for North Wales?
    Mr. Thomas: All those matters which have been referred to by my hon. Friend are matters which have been urged on the task force. The task force has had very wide-ranging consultations and is preparing its final report. As I say, I hope to receive that report shortly. I can assure my hon. Friend that the Government will pay particular attention not only to the recommendations of the task force
    6
    but to the submissions which have been made by all interested parties.
    Mr. Jones: Will the Secretary of State please recommend special development area status for Deeside? Is not the problem of persuading new industries to come to Deeside not only an expensive but a world-wide problem, and would not that merit special Government financial aid? Finally, has the task force fully comprehended the attitude of the Shotton steel men towards the closure, namely, that they are unimpressed by the brochure produced by BSC which, they believe is lamentably inadequate as a case for ending steelmaking at Shotton?
    Mr. Thomas: The task force has certainly received representations on Government assistance from a wide variety of interests, and it will he reporting on this issue in full in its final report to me.

    Maendy and Brofiscun Quarries (Chemical Waste)
    Mr. Johnasked the Secretary of State for Wales what instructions he has given regarding the investigation of the contents of the drums of chemicals at Maendy and Brofiscun quarries.
    Mr. Peter Thomas: I have already re-received from Monsanto Limited a detailed list of material tipped. I have also asked the waste disposal firm concerned to provide any additional information it has of the materials deposited, to supplement that already available in the Welsh Office. I am maintaining close liaison with the local authorities which have the initial responsibility under the Public Health Act to investigate.
    Mr. John: Does not the Secretary of State realise that in the New Scientist of 21st June a Welsh Office official is reported as saying that Welsh Office officials have not investigated the drums of chemicals on the site because it was not their job to do so? In view of the right hon. and learned Gentlemen's environmental responsibility, which is a responsibility of his Department and not of local authorities, does he not agree that it is a wise precaution that any drums which are apparent on the site should be opened and examined to see that their contents are as described, when any necessary action can be taken?
    Mr. Thomas: I certainly understand that people are concerned that everything possible should be done, but there are certain limits to my statutory powers. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that under Part III of the Public Health Act local public health authorities have the responsibility to investigate accumulations or deposits which may be considered to be prejudicial to health or a nuisance and to take action if they think that is necessary. I am sure that they fully understand their responsibilities.
    Mr. Alec Jones: In view of the wide circulation of stories and rumours concerning these two quarries, can the Secretary of State give an indication of the number of similiar sites in various parts of Wales and can he say whether he is taking any steps to check those as well?
    Mr. Thomas: Yes. Investigations are being made throughout the whole of Wales to ascertain what tipping has taken place over the years. Local authorities were asked by me a long time ago to send in a report. Wide investigation is being made by Government Departments of the whole of the tipping problem which may exist throughout the United Kingdom.

    Heads of the Valleys (Development)
    Mr. Probertasked the Secretary of State for Wales when he expects to report on proposals put to him by the Heads of the Valleys authorities for the industrial development of the Heads of the Valleys area.
    Mr. Peter Thomas: The views of the standing conference of the Heads of the Valleys authorities are being taken into account by the Ebbw Vale task force which will be reporting to me shortly, and also in connection with the Heads of the Valleys study.
    Mr. Probert: In view of the apparent indifference of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's Department about doing anything positive over the years for this area, and in view of the euphoria we heard last week by his right hon. Friend about what the EEC can do and will do for central and peripheral areas, will he consider seeking the aid of the EEC to treat the area as a special area, as is now being considered by the Clyde Port Authority for the Hunterston area?
    Mr. Thomas: The question of EEC aid or regional aid is in process of being negotiated at the moment. I certainly disagree with the hon. Gentleman when he talks about Government indifference to this area. He knows that I initiated this Heads of the Valleys study. A report was put in by my office a year ago, and it was not until April that we received the recommendations and suggestions of the local authorities. At the moment, I think it will be agreed that it is right that the task force for Ebbw Vale should continue its investigations and make the necessary representations.
    Mr. Rowlands: More specifically, will the Secretary of State appreciate that for the industrial land reclamation in this area, as proposed by the task force and as shown in the Heads of the Valleys study, £3 million a year is needed to clear the thousands of acres of derelict land required for the development? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman endorse this specific proposal so that we can get on with the job?
    Mr. Thomas: It will be agreed, I think, that the advance in the clearance of derelict land in this area over the last two or three years has been quite remarkable. It is my wish that this should continue, because I agree that this is extremely important.

    Planning Appeals
    Mr. John Morrisasked the Secretary of State for Wales what delays are being experienced in the setting of dates for appeals on planning matters.
    Mr. Gibson-Watt: At present the average time between lodging a planning appeal and inquiry is about 40 weeks.
    Mr. Morris: Is the Minister aware that appellants are able to persuade his office that the dates fixed for hearing are unsuitable and that while this practice is repeated they are able to get extra time to carry out the activities which are objected to? Without expecting the Minister to comment on a particular case, may I ask him whether he is aware that in one case in the Port Talbot area there are allegations of serious traffic implications where the enforcement notice was authorised and served on 19th January 1972, the first date of hearing was 2nd January 1973, this was put off until 3rd

    9
    April 1973 and there is still no date? Does not this make nonsense of effective planning machinery? Do we have to wait for a serious accident before this matter is determined?
    Mr. Gibson-Watt: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for bringing this particular case to my attention. If he will let me have details, I shall look into it immediately.
    Mr. Elysian Morgan: What is the average period of time between the hearing of an oral appeal and the publication of the Minister's decision? Is not the continuous delay in these matters directly attributable to the fact that there is in the Welsh Office no third Minister to whom it was formerly traditional to delegate such day-to-day matters?
    Mr. Gibson-Watt: No. We find it possible to do more work in the Welsh Office with two Ministers than the Labour Party did with three.
    The answer to the hon. Gentleman's first question is 14 weeks. I think that the reason for the delay is well known. It is that the number of appeals has grown from 651 in 1971 to 891 in 1972, and in 1973 appeals are coming in at the rate of 1,000 a year.
    Mr. Morgan: That proves my case.
    Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: Does not the Minister of State agree that 14 weeks is an unconscionably long time? Would not the situation be eased by the appointment of additional inspectors? Does not the Minister's right hon. and learned Friend agree that that is the step we should now be taking?
    Mr. Gibson-Watt: Yes, I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. The time lag is about the same in England. We are trying to increase the number of inspectors, and we are doing so. This is the bottleneck and not the one to which the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Elystan Morgan) referred.

    Gelligaer Hospital (Closure)
    Mr. Fred Evansasked the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has for the future use of the site and buildings presently occupied by the hospital at Gelligaer which was originally
    10
    paid for by the ratepayers of the urban area and which is being closed by his decision.
    Mr. Gibson-Watt: The property is no longer required for hospital purposes and arrangements are in hand to dispose of it.
    Mr. Evans: Will the Minister accept, however, that an important matter of equity is involved? When Governments sequestrate assets paid for by ratepayers of local authorities in pursuit of Government policy and a subsequent Government find that these assets are surplus to requirements, should not the assets be returned unconditionally to the ratepayers who originally paid for them, to be disposed or by the local authority as it sees fit? If the Minister has no powers to do this, will he press his Government to legislate in order that equity may be achieved?
    Mr. Gibson-Watt: It has always been the policy when disposing of surplus hospital land to sell at the best price reasonably obtainable. I understand that the local authorities concerned are not wishful to put either of these buildings to any particular use.

    Government Offices (Dispersal)
    Mr. Cledwyn Hughesasked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will ask the Welsh Council to study the Hardman Report as it affects Wales and advise him as to its conclusions on it.
    Mr. Peter Thomas: I would welcome the views of all interested parties on this report.
    Mr. Hughes: That does not answer my Question. Is the Minister proposing to refer this matter to the Welsh Council? Will he say whether he is satisfied with the recommendations of the Hardman Report? Is he aware that the report was received with great disappointment in Wales, particularly in North Wales, bearing in mind that the Labour Government were able to disperse 11,000 jobs to Wales in a comparatively short period? Is the Minister aware that a few hundred jobs in North Wales, where unemployment is extraordinarily high, would be a great easement in that area? Will he impress that point upon his right hon. Friends in the Government?
    Mr. Peter Thomas: I was certainly attempting to answer the right hon. Gentleman's Question. What I was saying was that the Government welcome the comments of all interested bodies, including the Welsh Council, if they wish to make observations on the report. Final decisions on the recommendations will not be made until there has been an opportunity for all the comments to be considered.
    As to North Wales, I am fully aware of the claims of North Wales to a share in dispersal. The reasons for Sir Henry coming to his recommendations are fully set out in his report. North Wales will now have a further opportunity to express its views on the matter.
    Sir A. Meyer: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that in my constituency, so far from receiving anything from the Hardman Report, despite our obvious attractions as an area of dispersion, we are, on the contrary, threatened with a loss of Civil Service jobs if the proposal to close Kimmel Camp goes ahead?
    Mr. Peter Thomas: Yes, I am aware of the matter which my hon. Friend raises. I am also aware of the reports made by Flintshire on that matter.
    Mr. George Thomas: We realise that the Secretary of State is aware of all these things, but once again we must ask whether he will make it clear to his colleagues in the Government that this report is just not good enough to meet the problems of Wales. The fact that 11,000 jobs, as recommended in the report, would go to the overcrowded South-East while only 4,000 jobs would come to Wales is a disgrace. Cardiff itself could gobble up those 4,000 jobs and still be in need of more jobs.
    Mr. Peter Thomas: The recommendation of the Hardman Report is that 5,500 jobs should be allocated to Wales and to the Cardiff-Newport area.
    I do not wish to comment on the details of the report until everyone has had the opportunity of expressing his views and the Government have considered the matter. I welcome the report as a valuable contribution to public debate on dispersal. I am firmly convinced that in the future Wales will do well as a location for dispersal staff.

    South Wales Docks (Road Access)
    Mr. Gowerasked the Secretary of State for Wales what recent discussions he has had with the British Transport Docks Board and with Welsh highway authorities about the need for improving trunk roads serving and leading to the South Wales docks.
    Mr. Peter Thomas: None, Sir, but my officials will shortly be meeting representatives of the docks board and the local highway authorities to discuss road access to Barry docks.
    Mr. Gower: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for that last sentence. Is he aware that in Barry the local borough council, the docks manager and many organisations have tried hard, not without some success, to get new industry and docks trade but have been sadly hampered by the very poor road communications which serve the port?
    Mr. Thomas: Yes. I know that there is local concern about the adequacy of road access to Barry docks. I am pleased that my office has been invited to participate in a discussion with the docks board and the local authority.
    Mr. Roy Hughes: Does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that his optimistic statements about the future of South Wales ports are invariably followed by support for measures which can only undermine them—for example, the port of Bristol expansion scheme? Does he not agree that, if the South Wales ports are to have any long-term future, a massive rescue operation is necessary?
    Mr. Thomas: Any statement that I make about South Wales ports which can be construed as optimistic is made because I am echoing the views of the British Transport Docks Board.

    Welsh Water Authority
    Mr. Roderickasked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will establish the headquarters of the Welsh National Water Authority in one of the towns of Mid-Wales.
    Mr. Peter Thomas: I refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to the hon. And learned Member for

    13
    Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) on 21st February 1972. I hope to make an announcement shortly.—[Vol. 831, c. 192].
    Mr. Roderick: Does not the Secretary of State agree that, as this area supplies so much of the water needed by the country, it would be only fair to establish the headquarters there? Does he not agree that that would be a contribution towards the growth towns policy—something that is long overdue from his Department in the past three years?
    Mr. Thomas: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I have been considering all the relevant factors and that the claims of Mid-Wales will be taken fully into account.
    Mr. Elystan Morgan: Whether or not they are taken into account, the net result is that there have been no dispersal jobs from central Government to Mid-Wales during the last three years and that there is no dispersal planned in the foreseeable future. Is the Secretary of State willing to fight manfully in the Cabinet to put right this wrong?
    Mr. Thomas: Any decision made will be one which I shall make alone. I shall not require the consent of my Cabinet colleagues.

    Housing and Construction Industry
    Mr. Nicholas Edwardsasked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will ask the Welsh Council to investigate and report on the housing and construction industry in Wales.
    Mr. Gibson-Watt: I am not aware of any report which could appropriately be submitted to the Welsh Council for its investigation. The Council does not, I understand, have any plans at present to carry out any study of this industry in Wales.
    Mr. Edwards: Neither am I aware of reports. I am asking for the Welsh Council to report. Because of the acute shortage of building labour, which has already been referred to, local authorities and Government Departments are having great difficulty in getting firms to tender for desperately needed housing schemes and other construction works. Celtic Sea exploration will soon increase these
    14
    pressures and there is a great need to seek ways of overcoming these difficulties, whether by further training schemes, EEC participation or other methods.
    Mr. Gibson-Watt: I agree with my hon. Friend, as I said earlier in answer to another question, that there is a big problem. If he wishes to bring representatives of the councils which are under pressure to see me about the matter, I shall be happy to talk to them about it.
    Mr. McBride: Is the Minister of State aware—perhaps he is not—that all matters of civil procurement of £1 million and above have to be advertised in the Journal of the EEC? What guidance has he given to those setting out tenders for contract? If he is not giving guidance to local authorities and other bodies will he tell the House and Wales why that is so? Lastly, does the hon. Gentleman agree that, figuratively speaking, the Welsh Office has been caught flat-footed in its ignorance in its approach to these matters?
    Mr. Gibson-Watt: The hon. Gentleman makes a lot of claims. All I can say to him is that up to now we have not issued any specific instructions or advice to local authorities. No doubt there will be such instruction in the foreseeable future.
    Mr. Gower: Will my hon. Friend, in co-operation with the Department of Employment, discuss with the employers' and employees' representatives the feasibility of expanding the training of skilled personnel in the building industry? Does he recognise that that is the main requirement in the whole of Wales at present?
    Mr. Gibson-Watt: I accept what my hon. Friend says.
    Mr. George Thomas: Is the Minister of State sure that he read the right answer'? Is he aware that it is only a fortnight since my hon. Friend the Member for Cardigan (Mr. Elystan Morgan) was advised by him that the Welsh Council was undertaking a study on housing and that it had been studying the position for months? Has he asked the Welsh Council to look into the reasons why this year we shall have the lowest figures for public housing in the Principality since 1946?
    Mr. Gibson-Watt: The right hon. Gentleman poses a number of questions. With regard to his last question, he knows very well that it is not only the public sector which is important but also the private sector, which is doing extraordinarily well. My answer to his hon. Friend the Member for Cardigan (Mr. Elystan Morgan) about the Welsh Council was correct.

    Ebbw Vale Task Force
    Mr. Jeffrey Thomasasked the Secretary of State for Wales when he proposes to publish his views on the recommendation of the Ebbw Vale task force; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Peter Thomas: I expect to receive the final report from the Ebbw Vale task force later this month. The Government's decisions will be announced as soon as possible thereafter.
    Mr. Jeffrey Thomas: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that that is a most disquieting answer which portrays a complete lack of urgency on his part and on the part of the task force which was set up seven months ago? Does he not realise that decisions are required immediately? Further, is he aware that the situation in North Monmouthshire is deteriorating and is now becoming desperate? Does he agree that he should not be side-tracked by the problem of Llantrisant when he considers the recommendations of the task force?
    Mr. Peter Thomas: I do not know why the hon. Gentleman says that my answer is disquieting. I think it has been generally accepted that the task force has been tackling the problem with a real sense of urgency. In view of the extent of the consultations, and of the need to study a wide range of infrastructural projects suggested by the local authorities, I do not think that the time which the task force has taken is unreasonable.
    The hon. Gentleman referred to the situation in Monmouthshire as being desperate. He will appreciate that the task force will be recommending specific actions to give an economic boost to that area. Present trends are already encouraging. Unemployment in the area, which includes the hon. Gentleman's constituency of Abertillery, is currently 3·5 per
    16
    cent. compared with 5·2 per cent. a year ago and 3·9 per cent. in June 1970.
    Mr. Foot: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell us whether his answer means that a statement will be made to the House on his views about the findings of the task force before Parliament rises for the recess? Further, as those in Ebbw Vale have to conduct the most difficult operation of trying to co-ordinate the arrangements or proposals of the British Steel Corporation, the Welsh Office and the other bodies concerned, will he give us the earliest possible indication of what the task force suggests so that we shall have his support in altering the proposed dates, among other things, which have been put forward by the British Steel Corporation?
    Mr. Peter Thomas: I appreciate all the matters referred to by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot), which are matters of concern in the Ebbw Vale area. He will know that the task force has been extremely anxious to finish its report with a sense of urgency. I cannot say that decisions will be taken on the final report before Parliament rises for the recess. I do not expect to receive the report until the end of this month. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government will be considering the recommendations of the task force with the greatest care and with a sense of urgency.
    Mr. Foot: I thought that the right hon. and learned Gentleman said in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Abertillery (Mr. Jeffrey Thomas) that the report would be considered on 17th July.
    Mr. Peter Thomasindicated dissent.
    Mr. Foot: That is not quite the same as the end of the month. I thought that the right hon. and learned Gentleman said 17th July. If I have that wrong I am sorry, but that was what I understood him to say. In that event, he should be able to make a statement to the House before Parliament rises. He must understand—and I think he does understand—that for three months afterwards there could be a serious and deteriorating situation if we were left in doubt about the position. I urge the right hon. and learned Gentleman to give us, if possible, an affirmative reply. I urge him to say that he will make a statement to the

    17
    House on this matter, which is of paramount importance, before Parliament rises.
    Mr. Peter Thomas: I do not think I gave a date. I thought I said "later this month". I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I am anxious to reach firm conclusions on recommendations of the task force. However, it would be wrong for me to give the hon. Gentleman any definite assurance that decisions will be taken before Parliament rises. I cannot give such an assurance today.

  TRADE AND INDUSTRY

    Small Firms (Data Collection)
    Mr. David Mitchellasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps he is taking to implement the Bolton recommendation to minimise form filling and returns to Government Departments in view of the concern felt by small businessmen.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Anthony Grant): After widespread consultation the Government have tabled a new clause for this year's Finance Bill which would exempt very many small firms from future statistical inquiries by allowing the Business Statistics Office to use data collected in the administration of value added tax. This is an important result of our continuous review of the form filling burdens on small businesses.
    Mr. Mitchell: Is my hon. Friend aware that those of us who have been campaigning about the problems which face small businesses will welcome very much what he has said? Will he say how many firms will benefit from what he has just announced? Further, will he continue his efforts to protect small businesses from unnecessary returns and form filling to other Government Departments?
    Mr. Grant: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his first observation. I know the particular interest which he takes in these matters. I can give him the assurance that I shall continue with the work to which he referred. Many thousands of firms will benefit. If this information had been available to the BSO before the issue of the questionnaire for the 1971 census of distribution, about 100,000 small re-
    18
    tailers would have been exempted from the census.
    Mr. Alan Williams: Is it not a fact that the so-called saving is no saving at all? Is not any saving from not having to complete the statistical returns more than offset by the overwhelming burden of having to complete value added tax returns?
    Mr. Grant: I do not accept that for one moment. This is one particular advantage which the Business Statistics Office can adopt by virtue of the VAT arrangements without introducing any new statistical inquiries to small firms which would otherwise be necessary. Such inquiries would have put a much greater burden on small firms. Happily that will not be the case now.
    Mr. Jay: How many firms would benefit and have less work to do if VAT were abolished altogether?
    Mr. Grant: That is a question which the right hon. Gentleman should address to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The point I am making is that a large number of firms, including small firms, will be relieved of the burden of form filling, an aim which I should have thought the House supported, as a result of the proposals which I have announced today.
    Mr. Douglas: Will the hon. Gentleman give us some information regarding the setting up of small business advisory units—particularly in Scotland—in line with the Bolton recommendations?
    Mr. Grant: I hope that the small business centres will be open by the late summer or autumn and that they will be in action certainly by the autumn. A number of the appointments have been made and those appointed are carrying out some of their work in advance of the offices being set up.

    Regional Employment Premium
    Mr. Horamasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he is yet able to report on his discussions with the CBI and the TUC about regional employment premium.
    Mr. Radiceasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what further discussions he has had with the CBI and

    19
    the TUC about the regional employment premium.
    Mr. Anthony Grant: Discussions with the CBI and TUC have been held by officials of the Departments concerned. The next step will be to consider the position reached in those discussions.
    Mr. Horam: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the worst time to phase out a major regional aid like REP is in the middle of an economic boom, when we are getting labour shortages in the South-East and the Midlands? Should we not reinforce regional aid by restoring REP and restoring its value in real terms as in 1967? Is this on the agenda?
    Mr. Grant: It has been possible to express all views on this subject in the discussions, and all views will be taken into consideration. I would only remind the hon. Gentleman that we are doing what his right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) advocated, that REP should be phased out after seven years.
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Now that the European Commission appears in essence to have washed its hands of the scatter of British regional policies for at least the next 18 months, does this not enhance the case for thinking carefully before we add further to the capital intensive bias of our existing industrial incentives?
    Mr. Grant: That is certainly a factor which will be taken into consideration by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, among the other points which have been put up for discussion.
    Mr. Radice: Does the hon. Gentleman understand that the reason why my hon. Friends and others keep asking about the regional employment premium is that it is now recognised at all levels within industry, in academic circles and, above all, in the regions themselves, that the REP is an essential part of our regional policy? Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House that he will now reconsider his decision?
    Mr. Grant: It is not surprising that those who are in receipt of £100 million worth of taxpayers' money should be concerned at its disappearance. The question is the method by which it is phased out.
    Mr. John Smith: The hon. Gentleman is aware that the CBI, the TUC and the regions want to continue REP. The only people with any doubts are the Government. Why did they start this silly exercise in the first place, and when will it be stopped?
    Mr. Grant: As one hon. Member has said, there are also those who pay this money who have to be taken into consideration. In addition, there are the views which were held by the party opposite when they were in government.
    Mr. Waddington: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that, although he has been told by about four people that the regions want a continuation of this premium, I can assure him that those parts of the North West which are intermediate areas do not want a continuation of the premium?
    Mr. Grant: My hon. and learned Friend has indicated that there is more than one view on this subject.
    Mr. Varley: Can the hon. Gentleman confirm the weekend reports that the European Commission will not subject Britain's regional policy to the transparency test and that, therefore, there is no European blockage to a continuation of REP?
    Mr. Grant: I am not responsible for what appeared in the weekend Press, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that there is nothing in the treaty which stops something like REP. Indeed, there is something like REP in Italy.

    European Patents Office
    Mr. Martenasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will make a statement on the siting of a European Patents Office.
    The Minister for Trade and Consumer Affairs (Sir Geoffrey Howe): As announced in the House on 29th June last year, the negotiating countries decided by a large majority to establish the seat of the office at Munich and a patent searching branch at The Hague. I do not expect any change in the views of the other countries when the decision comes up for confirmation at the diplomatic conference in September.—[Vol. 839, c. 406.]
    Mr. Marten: As English is the most widely-spoken language and the British

    21
    Patents Office has the best expertise in the whole world, when the matter comes up for confirmation will my right hon. and learned Friend bid very hard to have the office in Britain on grounds of efficiency?
    Sir G. Howe: I appreciate the importance of the factors mentioned by my hon. Friend. The fact is that this is a convention, which has not yet been completely negotiated, between 21 European countries which have had to take account of other matters including the existence of one institution at The Hague. The matter has to be considered in that forum. I would not wish to hold out any hopes that there is likely to be a change in the basic decision on the siting at Munich.
    Sir G. de Freitas: Surely most of the patents are registered in this country. There should be no doubt about this, in view of the linguistic and other points which have been made.
    Sir G. Howe: I appreciate the importance of the point made by the right hon. Gentleman. The linguistic factor is only one of the factors to be taken into account. The matter was fully considered before the decision was arrived at last year. This is a matter which is being taken in the context of negotiations by 21 countries extending far beyond the European Economic Community, the result of which will be to confer something of considerable value on British industry and inventors, namely, a patent available not only in the EEC but in other European countries. One must have regard to that advantage as well as to the fact mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Skeet: If we are to lose the European Patents Office to Munich, will the Trade Mark Office come to the United Kingdom and be sited in London?
    Sir G. Howe: My hon. Friend is right to remind the House that the Patents Office is not the only European institution likely to be set up. We expect to get a reasonable share of such institutions in this country. I note my hon. Friend's reference to the prospects of the European Trade Mark Office.

    Exports and Imports
    Mr. Ewingasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will
    22
    make a statement on the export/import trade figures for May 1973.
    Sir G. Howe: Imports in May were at a high level, but included large increases in the basic materials and industrial supplies necessary for our continued expansion. It is now also clear that the volume of exports this year has expanded faster than the volume of imports, and that we have achieved major increases in sales to our most important trading partners: the Community, the United States of America and Japan.
    Mr. Ewing: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that his statement that imports in May were at a high level could be classed as the understatement of the year? If these figures are so good and paint such a rosy picture for the future, can he explain why his right hon. Friend tells the Welsh Conservatives not to worry and stomps the country telling everyone that all is bright and rosy for the future? When can we expect a change in the pattern of exports, when the value of exports will exceed the value of imports and when the trade figures will again show a surplus?
    Sir G. Howe: The hon. Member appears to cast a gloomy view over the whole scene. I would remind him and the House, in answer to his last point, that the volume of exports in the first four months of this year has increased by 12 per cent. over the last half of last year, which is exactly twice as much as the increase in volume of imports during the same period. The Government remain committed to this pattern of expansion of exports and I cannot see why the hon. Gentleman should take such a gloomy view of our determination to continue that development.
    Mr. Ridley: Is it not extraordinary that the hon. Gentleman has not realised that one month's trade figures are of no significance when the pound is floating and it is impossible to have a balance of payments shortage as a result? Will my right hon. and learned Friend make sure, however, that the pound continues to float so that the hon. Gentleman can continue to be wrong?
    Sir G. Howe: My hon. Friend is entirely right to draw attention to the fact that one must look at the long run

    23
    of figures. The underlying important factor which the country should take seriously is the extent to which our prospects for a continued expansion, not only in volume of exports but in the advantage in trade, depend on our being able to maintain a steady pattern of growth and a reasonable containment of inflation in this country. That is the policy to which the Government are committed. We are on course for an expansion in prosperity, which hon. Members on both sides of the House so much want.
    Mr. Mason: If we are looking at the long run of figures, is not the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the visible trade deficit rose from £233 million to £363 million between the last quarter of 1972 and the first three months of this year? Invisibles are running at an annual deficit of £800 million. These figures, allied to the present raw material shortage, look like registering the biggest visible trade deficit since the war. Does not this show that this "phoney" boom is based on Britain living in debt? It is a boom on tick. What does the right hon. and learned Gentleman visualise the Government doing to try to bring the visibles back into the black?
    Sir G. Howe: I invite the House to note that, in assessing our balance of payments, one must take into account also the extent to which our invisible earnings are running, namely, at nearly £60 million a month. I invite the right hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) to answer this question. [HON. MEMBERS: "The Minister should answer."] The country is entitled to know the Opposition's attitude on these things. Do they wish us to contain and restrain the prospect of expansion and growth? Do they wish us to cut back and restrain the growth now taking place? This is the question they must answer. The Government are committed, as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said, to a policy of steady and sustained growth, with a view to raising living standards and maintaining full employment. If the Opposition wish us to change from that and stop the boom, let them tell the country.
    Mr. Mason: In the same period as the Minister has taken, invisibles fell back from £197 million surplus to £174 million. Thus, the trend is the same in invisibles
    24
    as has already happened in visibles. So when do we expect the cut-back?
    Sir G. Howe: The right hon. Gentleman still does not come back to the central point. Our invisible earnings are continuing high and substantial. Our balance of visible trade is being produced by an expanding volume in that trade. The right hon. Gentleman is possibly the last hon. Member entitled to ask, as he did a moment ago, when we shall get the nation out of debt. We have got it out of debt—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—out of the debt into which his Government put it. We are determined to maintain a pattern of steady and sustained growth.

  PERJURY
  Mr. Clinton Davisasked the Attorney-General what proposals he has to introduce legislation to amend the laws relating to perjury and to establish a tort of perjury which could enable a victim of perjured evidence to bring an action for damages.
  The Attorney-General (Sir Peter Rawlinson): My noble Friend has at present no proposals to establish a tort of perjury. But offences against the administration of justice, which include perjury, are included in the Law Commission's work on codification of the criminal law. It would be premature to consider legislation in advance of its report.
  Mr. Davis: Is not the Attorney-General being thoroughly complacent about this? Is he aware of the very clear report which has been published by Justice, after three years' consideration, which suggested categorically that a convicted person who has suffered severe prejudice as a result of perjured evidence should not only have an automatic right of appeal, with legal aid, but should have a right to clear his name and to obtain damages for the wrong which he sustained?
  The Attorney-General: As I have said, the Law Commission is working on the law relating to perjury. On the question of perjury as a tort, the hon. Gentleman should consider the difficulty, in proving damage, of, for example, proving that the false evidence given was that on which

  25
  the criminal court came to a conclusion. It might even mean calling members of the jury or the judge to give evidence. Second, there is the link between a civil remedy for perjury and the question of absolute privilege. The hon. Gentleman should recognise that the problem is not nearly as great as he suggests. In fact, at the most there are not more than about 50 cases each year in which a civil action for perjury could in any event be instituted.
  Sir Elwyn Jones: Can the Attorney-General give an indication of when the Law Commission is expected to report on this matter? In the meantime, will he ensure that the Law Commission receives a copy of the report of Justice, which, if I may say so with great respect to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, he slightly caricatured in his observations?
  The Attorney-General: I have not caricatured the report of the Justice committee, but I have explained that there are considerable difficulties, as that committee itself recognised. I shall see that the Law Commission receives the report. The commission's working paper was produced in 1970. I cannot tell the House at this time when its final report will be given.

  CONCORDE TRADING, AMSTERDAM
  Mr. Rostasked the Attorney-General if he will refer to the Director of Public Prosecutions the business activities in the United Kingdom of Concorde Trading, Amsterdam, Holland, with a view to prosecution under the Obscene Publications Act.
  The Attorney-General: The Director of Public Prosecutions has been aware of the activities of this concern since April of this year. Police inquiries have not so far established that the concern has any agents, or place of business, in the United Kingdom. In these circumstances, it has not been possible to institute any criminal proceedings.
  Mr. Rost: I accept that answer, but is not this a direct way to get round the legislation—by using an address in Holland and claiming to be the largest importer of pornographic literature in the
  26
  world, in order to send material to people in this country on the mail order system, thus enabling these products to be imported? Either pornography is illegal or it is legal. We cannot have this sort of thing going on. Will my right hon. and learned Friend look at the matter again?
  The Attorney-General: My hon. Friend has correctly described what happens. This particular firm, with an address outside the jurisdiction, somehow obtains mail order lists and mails this material to people, completely unsolicited. I agree that it is wholly undesirable, but it is difficult to intercept such letters. If they could be intercepted, there might be offences under the Post Office Acts, and I assure my hon. Friend that, if this came to light, prosecutions would follow.

  COURT OF PROTECTION
  Mr. Walter Johnsonasked the Attorney-General if he will now hold an inquiry into the activities of the Court of Protection.
  The Attorney-General: No, Sir.
  Mr. Johnson: Is the Attorney-General aware that there are many people who have had their life savings entrusted to this so-called Court of Protection and found to their dismay that those savings have been put into War Loan stock at 3½ per cent., which has had the effect of reducing their capital by two-thirds? Surely this calls for some sort of inquiry, does it not?
  The Attorney-General: I know that there have been some cases—I think that the hon. Gentleman has one in mind—but I do not believe that it is correct to say that it has happened in very many cases.
  Mr. Johnson: It has.
  The Attorney-General: If the hon. Gentleman will give me further information about other cases, I shall certainly bring it to my noble Friend's attention.
  Mr. Joel Barnett: Does that mean that the Government are not recommending 3½. per cent. War Loan?
  The Attorney-General: It means that there will not at present be an inquiry into the Court of Protection.

  JURY SELECTION (WALES)
  Mr. Ellisasked the Attorney-General if he is satisfied that the present practice of the random selection of jurors in Welsh courts enables justice to be both seen and heard to be done.
  The Attorney-General: Yes, Sir.
  Mr. Ellis: Is the Attorney-General aware that in Wales, and for that matter in England, there are British citizens qualified to act as jurors who are not comfortably at home in the English language?
  Mr. Greville Janner: There are some in this House.
  Mr. Ellis: Is it the Government's view that the principle of random selection of jurors is, as claimed by Lord Justice Edmund Davies in his report to the Lord Chancellor, a supremely important principle? If so, how are British citizens whose command of English is not adequate to follow complicated legal testimony, and who fortuitously find themselves on juries, to play their part in making sure that justice is both seen and heard to be done?
  The Attorney-General: On the general point, excluding the question of the Principality, sometimes there are persons eligible to sit on juries who do not have sufficient command of the English language, and in the interests of justice they have to be excluded. As regards the Principality, it is important to bear in mind what Lord Justice Edmund Davies said about the constitutional impropriety and undesirability of excluding perhaps 75 per cent. of the population from any particular case in the circumstances proposed. Not only would it be constitutionally improper, in my view, but it would, I should have thought, be quite impossible to achieve.
  Mr. George Thomas: Will the Attorney-General take it that there will be general approval in Wales for what he has just said about the undesirability of dividing our people, and will he note that what Lord Justice Edmund Davies proposed regarding simultaneous translation has received general approval throughout the Principality?
  The Attorney-General: I wholly agree with the right hon. Gentleman. As he said, simultaneous translation facilities are the answer to this problem, and I can tell the House that at Mold, Carmarthen and Cardiff arrangements are being made to equip the Crown courts with simultaneous translation facilities.

MOTORING LAW
Mr. Hugh Jenkins54. Mr. Hugh Jenkins asked the Attorney-General if he is aware of the reluctance of some magistrates to convict in the case of motoring offences; and what action he is taking to bring about a more uniform application of the law.
The Attorney-General: I am not aware of reluctance on the part of magistrates to convict in cases involving motoring offences. My noble Friend is prepared to investigate any case of alleged bias or refusal to apply the law.
Mr. Jenkins: May I draw the Attorney-General's attention to a letter which appeared in The Times recently from Sir Bernard Waley-Cohen, a justice of the peace in the City, supported by other magistrates, to the effect that the enforcement of the speed limit on motorists was a matter which, apparently, they did not regard as of importance? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman look into this?
The Attorney-General: I shall certainly look into the point made by the hon. Member. Of course, my noble Friend cannot and will not direct magistrates on the circumstances in which they should convict.
Sir Elwyn Jones: Has there not been an increasing use of conferences of magistrates to try to move towards uniformity? Is that not a development which is proving somewhat helpful, at any rate in this domain?
The Attorney-General: That is so, and the more these conferences are held the greater will be the advantage to many magistrates. However, I am not aware of a general attitude of a refusal to convict.

MR. SPEAKER'S ABSENCE
Mr. Speaker: Order. As this is one of the afternoons when I have to take the chair at the Speaker's Conference on Electoral Law I intend to take the business in the following order. First, I shall call the Private Notice Question, then Members desirous to take their seats, and after that the statement.

ORFORDNESS RADAR STATION
Mr. Mikardo(by Private Notice) asked the Minister of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the closure of Orfordness radar station which was announced last Friday.
The Minister of State for Defence (Mr. Ian Gilmour): Under an agreement made in 1967, RAF Orfordness, Suffolk, has been the location for a joint programme of long-range radio propagation research by the United States Air Force in cooperation with United Kingdom authorities.
Since this programme started, new technical and scientific studies conducted in the United States have been more effective. In the light of this, it was decided that a further programme at RAF Orfordness could not be justified and, consequently, that the U.S. Air Force would not renew the contract with RCA Limited for the technical maintenance of the equipment as from 30th June 1973.
The British civilian employees of RCA Limited have been given one month's notice, until the end of July 1973. Urgent consideration is being given to the future of the site and the future employment of the British civilians employed by the Ministry of Defence and the Department of the Environment. Work on running down the installation is likely to last a further three or four months, and some of the personnel will be needed for that period.
The United Kingdom capital contribution over the whole of the programme has amounted to £1·4 million. In addition, Her Majesty's Government have shared in the running costs, and our annual contribution has risen to a maximum of some £250,000 over the last 12 months.
Mr. Mikardo: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that many of his hon. and right hon. Friends who are concerned with such matters have said that people should not be declared redundant without consultation and without the longest possible notice? In view of that, how does he justify an announcement at 2 o'clock on Friday afternoon that some hundreds of people, including 100 or so high-level scientists and technicians, are to be out of work from midnight a day and a half later?
After the rundown, will this £34 million worth of sophisticated equipment be left untended to rust? Not least important, why did the Minister think it right to make this announcement by way of a Press statement at 2 o'clock on Friday instead of treating the House to the courtesy of a statement in the House, where he could have been questioned on the matter?
Mr. Gilmour: Of course, it is always a matter for regret when employees do not receive as much notice as they would like or expect. Perhaps I may explain why these events have taken place. The United States Government were anxious for contractual reasons to announce their decision before 30th June, and as they were by far the larger of the two parties their view naturally prevailed. We learnt of their intentions on 18th June, and we had to make a number of decisions, including, for instance, whether we should continue with the installation on our own. Also, we had hoped in our announcement to clarify such important matters as the future of the site, which obviously will affect some of the employees, perhaps a great many of them, but that was not possible.
We could not make our announcement before the Americans, who have paid by far the greater part of the cost, had made theirs. We thought that this was primarily a matter between the United States Government and the company, and I do not consider that anyone could claim that we have tried to conceal these things from the country. The hon. Member referred to a figure of £34 million, but I can assure him that is wildly inflated. The future maintenance of the equipment is a matter for the United States Government because they paid for all of it.
Mr. Wilkinson: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the unilateral decision by the Americans not to renew the contract will not have any degrading effect on the air defence or other operational capabilities of the United Kingdom Armed Services?
Mr. Gilmour: I can confirm that.
Mr. John Morris: If this was a contractual matter, were we not partners in the establishment, and should we not therefore, have taken part in the ultimate decision? Was any Minister in the Ministry of Defence aware that this announcement was being made on a Friday afternoon? If so, would not a matter of this significance on British soil concerning British technicians and some British money invested in it have merited the courtesy of a statement in the House, even by a written answer?
Has not a totally different procedure been adopted here compared with when a British research station is vacated, and have not the staff been shoddily treated? As partners in the project, do the Government approve of what has happened? Since our paramount concern must be for British defence, what is the effect of this decision on our defence, and will the right hon. Gentleman remove any grounds for fear that British security has been weakened?
Mr. Gilmour: I have already answered the last two of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's questions. There are no grounds for thinking that British security has been worsened. This was a contract entered into by the Labour Government. I have explained why we made the announcement as we did. Perhaps that procedure would not be invariably right but it seemed right in the circumstances, and we never tried to conceal it from the country. This was a contractual matter, and the skilled employees were employed by RCA Limited on behalf of the United States Government.
Sir G. Nabarro: Is not the greatest concentration of scientific equipment and manpower in Britain located at the Royal Radar Establishment at Malvern, and will my right hon. Friend say whether any of the surplus equipment can be absorbed at Malvern and, having regard to the rationalisation of the Royal Radar Establishment as announced in the Defence
32
White Paper, whether any redundant staff could not easily be absorbed into other radar establishments in the United Kingdom
Mr. Gilmour: Of course, there is a great concentration of scientific equipment and expertise at Malvern. I doubt whether any of the equipment will be absorbed there because the establishment is already well equipped and the equipment at Orfordness belongs to the United States Government. It is for them to decide where it goes.
As for redundancies, it may be that some employees can be absorbed in Malvern and elsewhere, but because of the short notice we are not able to make a definitive statement about where they will go.
Mr. Pardoe: What the right lion. Gentleman said is disgraceful. It is not simply a question of the notice that people would like; it is a question of entitlement. Does the Minister not think the Government should set a decent example over notice? Will he clear up the point about the larger of the two partners? Surely the most important and significant partner is the partner on whose soil the investment stands. If the Minister is to state a new Government doctrine that because the Americans have large investments in something here they can dictate the terms, it is a sorry outlook for North Sea oil and for all the other American investments in this country.
Mr. Gilmour: This matter does not merit that sort of tone. If the hon. Member is referring to entitlement, what I have said has gone beyond strict entitlement. These employees have been given what they are entitled to. However, I agree that the Government should set an example when possible. The House will agree that the Ministry of Defence is a good employer and has been so under both Governments, and that it has a record of which we are proud. I have told the hon. Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) why this announcement took place in the way that it did.
Mr. John Morris: Since the British Government were a partner in the agreement, does the right hon. Gentleman approve of this method of treating employees? Had they not a right to be

33
consulted, as employees are when British defence stations are affected?
Mr. Gilmour: There is something in that, but, if the right hon. Gentleman thought that, the Labour Government should have altered the terms of the contractual arrangement.
Mr. Dan Jones: The right hon. Gentleman says that this establishment will not be missed. In that case, what on earth was its value in the first place?
Mr. Gilmour: That again is a matter for the technical judgment of the last Government, with which, I would add, I do not quarrel.

NEW MEMBER
The following Member took and subscribed the Oath: Frank Hatton, Esq., for Manchester Exchange.

EEC MINISTERIAL MEETINGS
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. John Davies): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I will make a statement about the main matters considered in the Council of the European Communities since I last reported to the House on 23rd May.
There have been in all five meetings of the Council—two of Foreign Ministers, two of Agricultural Ministers, and one of Finance Ministers. A meeting of Transport Ministers planned for 25th-26th June was cancelled.
The Council has made further progress in the work arising from the decisions of the European Summit Conference of October 1972.
At the meeting of Foreign Ministers on 25th-26th June, agreement was reached on a document setting out an overall Community approach to forthcoming multilateral trade negotiations under the GATT. The Foreign Ministers also made substantial progress towards agreement on the Community's approach to negotiations with Spain, Israel and the Mahgreb in the context of the Community's policy towards the countries of the Mediterranean following decisions taken by the Agricultural Ministers on 18th-19th June on the possible agricultural content of such a policy.
34
The Council has discussed further the Community's future relations with the developing countries of the Commonwealth and countries already associated with the Community under the Arusha and Yaounde Conventions. These developing countries have been invited to an opening conference on 25th-26th July at which the Community will give a broad outline of its proposals on the form of a new association agreement. The proposals will be subject to further discussion in the Council in July on the basis of ideas put forward by the Commission.
The Council has continued its consideration of a Community policy on development co-operation on a world-wide scale.
The Council has agreed that the provisional location of the European Monetary Co-operation Fund shall be in Luxembourg subject to certain conditions, including a review by 30th June 1975.
The Community Finance Ministers, meeting on 28th June, discussed the current economic situation and the continuing need for action on a Community scale against inflation. They agreed that this was the most serious economic problem facing the Community and adopted a resolution setting out the determination of all member countries to pursue policies aimed at slowing down the rate of increase of prices.
The Finance Ministers also discussed a report by the Commission on the second stage of economic and monetary union, which is due to come into effect on 1st January 1974. The Council reaffirmed the Community's commitment to this move and agreed that there should be further detailed technical study of the Commission's proposals for the second stage preparatory to the subject being considered again in the Council later in the year. The Commission also gave a brief oral account of its reports on reserve pooling and short-term monetary management; these will be discussed at the next meeting.
I now turn to Article 154 of the Treaty of Accession.
As the House knows, under the terms of this Article, the Commission was required to supplement by 1st July its communication of 23rd June 1971, dealing with central and peripheral areas, in

35
a manner which took account of the enlargement of the Community and placed all the member States in the same position over the arrangements for coordination of regional aids in the Community.
At its meeting on 27th June the Commission reached an agreement for this purpose. The effect is that the central areas of the United Kingdom have been defined as our non-assisted areas and our intermediate areas. The precise classification of the remaining areas of the United Kingdom has been held in abeyance pending a major Community-wide review to be carried out by the Commission. Its aim is to determine by 31st December 1974 a more complete and detailed system than that communicated in 1971. This would take account of the variety of different regional problems of the enlarged Community.
Such an intention is wholly welcome to us as contributing in a more sophisticated way to the restraint of excessive bidding and counter-bidding between member States and even regions for mobile investment projects. As is known, Her Majesty's Government's view in this matter is shared by both the TUC and the CBI.
Meanwhile, those areas of the United Kingdom not classified as central will continue to be treated as at present. We shall wish, of course, to keep the Commission informed of the aid we give in respect of major projects. For our central areas, the standard aid will be well within the 20 per cent. authorised.
The Commission has also told us that the present arrangements already allow of higher levels of support being acceptable if cases of special difficulty arise, and in particular it has given us assurances as to measures we might consider necessary to relieve the consequences of major steel redundancies in the intermediate areas.
The outcome of these discussions is wholly satisfactory.
Mr. Shore: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his statement. I think he is rather more easily satisfied, judging by his last remarks, than are the Opposition by the results of these wide-ranging negotiations.
36
First, is it not the case that, in the Article 154 negotiations, the intermediate areas of Britain are now to be classified as central areas and subject, therefore, to the limitations in the extent and quality of aid which goes with the definition, but that the British development areas and special development areas have deliberately not been classified as Community peripheral areas—in other words, as the statement says, the matter has been put into abeyance and is to be decided in the next 18 months? In short, I suggest that on this matter we have won, as it were, at best a reprieve.
Since the matter was strongly debated inside the Commission itself and there is no doubt that political pressures from the House of Commons and Her Majesty's Government played a part in the results, will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that long before a decision is finally taken the situation is fully reported and debated again in this House?
The right hon. Gentleman referred to economic and monetary union. Is he really asking us to believe that the second stage of such a union is still scheduled for 1st January 1974? His statement immediately follows a further and unilateral float of the German mark, although it has been re-pegged 5½ per cent. higher up, with the resulting confusion that that will have on the common agricultural policy, and, indeed, with the other obstacles it presents to economic and monetary union. Does the right hon. Gentleman really wish to go ahead with economic and monetary union when, as I understand it, the first aim of Her Majesty's Government is to retain sufficient freedom to continue to float the £and to do their utmost to sustain growth policies in this country?
Turning to the GATT negotiations, are we to believe that the right hon. Gentleman is really satisfied with the negotiating position finally adopted by the Community towards GATT? Is it not the case that the draft finally agreed at this meeting is significantly different from the one presented as recently as April to the Council of Ministers, and that this new draft makes it absolutely plain that no major feature of the CAP is up for negotiation at all and that it is not the aim of the Community to get rid of the common external tariff? In this context of future trade, is it really sensible to press so far

37
ahead with what looks like a new Mediterranean free trade area in advance of these multilateral GATT talks which are shortly to take place?
Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm and make quite clear that in the context of the Commonwealth negotiations these are between the "associables" and the "associated" and are quite separate from and will in no way interfere with the separate negotiations for renewal of the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement which must begin shortly?
Finally, given the wide range of this report, will the right hon. Gentleman please ensure that adequate time is given to debate these important and disparate subjects before the recess?
Mr. Davies: I think that the right hon. Gentleman has got the Article 154 question wrong. The truth is that from this country's point of view there is every interest in having an arrangement which makes a proper distinction between the individual regions and the individual regional problems of the Community as a whole. The 1971 communication dealt in a fairly rough-hewn way with this problem, dividing between central and peripheral areas and based on very different criteria from those which subsist in this country. Is the right hon. Gentleman genuinely trying to persuade me, which he would not succeed in doing, that we would have been better advised to have settled for some arrangement which maintained that division? I can assure him that all the evidence leads me to a quite contrary conclusion. When he pours cold water, as he likes to do, on these matters, the fact is that he is pouring cold water on issues which are of primary importance to us. The interests of our country lie squarely along the line I have indicated.
The right hon. Gentleman posed a fairly doubtful, cynical and sardonic question about the second stage of EMU. Does he realise that this second stage comprises not just an approach to monetary unity but things which are of categoric importance to the country? The whole approach to an effective Community regional and social policy is desirable from our point of view and absolutely necessary to pursue. Again, in seeking to try to lead people's minds into thinking that we are dealing with some-
38
thing which is damaging he is doing no service to the country as a whole.
Turning to GATT, I can only say that I do riot dissent at all from the right hon. Gentleman's statement that the paper which ultimately emerged from the discussions was substantially different from the original draft. I do not think it was substantially worse. It was a perfectly satisfactory basis for the opening of these talks. I draw to the right hon. Gentleman's attention the fact that practically all proposals from the Commission are subject to substantial transformation as a result of discussion in the Council. It is proper that they should be. The right hon. Gentleman is constantly pressing for this House to be heard. I was glad to hear him say that the pressure of the House had been recognised as a force. He is constantly complaining that the House exercises no pressure. I find it difficult to understand the contradictions in what he has to say, but the fact is that the House does exert pressure on Ministers and on the Council and the result is not unsatisfactory.
It is desirable that there should be broad arrangements with the Mediterranean free trade area. The right hon. Gentleman does this country less than justice in failing to realise that we have the greatest interest in trade with those countries. We have every interest in pursuing this.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me a positive question about sugar in connection with the "associable" and "associated" countries. I gather that the question of sugar will be specifically dealt with and is comprised within the broad framework of the arrangements under which an invitation has been put out to "associables" and "associated" countries for a meeting at the end of this month.
Mr. Norman Lamont: Can my right hon. Friend say whether any assurances were given as to when the United Kingdom might join the joint float? Can he also say what is the point of maintaining a European "snake" experiment if frequent changes are to be made within that snake? Since this is the sixth revaluation of the deutschemark since 1969, is it not now apparent that any attempt to integrate exchange rates without first harmonising basic economic policies will be self-defeating?
Mr. Davies: The object of the revaluation of the deutschemark was that Germany should remain within the joint float. It is, therefore, perfectly evident that the Community countries consider it to be a valuable and useful monetary proposition. Although the deutschemark has been successively revalued as time has gone on, it is undoubtedly the case that the whole evolution of economic monetary union, as I was saying in reply to the hon. Member for Stepney (Mr. Shore), is a long process, which involves much more than simple monetary union. I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the fact that it is the purpose of the Community—this has been constantly stressed—that the whole of the development in this area should be a parallel development to economic and monetary activity and not solely devoted to monetary union.
Mr. Pardoe: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is a question of "so far so good" about the decision on the regional areas? Does he appreciate that there will be a profound sense of relief, if only temporary, in the South-West development area? To get the record straight, can he say what would be lost if the worst were to happen? What is the percentage value comparable with the 20 per cent. in the highest rated development area in the United Kingdom? Can he also say whether the British Government are pressing for more areas in the new regional policy for Europe than simply central and peripheral areas in view of our own need to have four?
Mr. Davies: I will not give a specific reply to the question about the exact worth of the special development areas because it is clear that intermediate areas are much more easy to calculate. With the special development area, where the element of selective assistance is liable to be much more substantial, the element of the calculation is much more complex. I doubt whether it would be valid to give a figure. It would certainly be very unsatisfactory from our country's point of view if any of our development areas or special development areas were classified as central in current terms. This is what the Government have sought to ensure did not happen, and they have been successful. I agree with the hon.
40
Gentleman that it is necessary to have more than two classifiable areas. I described it as a rather rough-hewn agreement to reach anything like a reasonable spread. Recognising the disparity in Europe, it will be necessary to have more than two.
Mr. Biffen: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the agnosticism about European monetary union expressed on the radio last night by my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) is widely echoed both within this Chamber and outside? In these circumstances could he say more about that to which we have been committed in these talks concerning the second stage of monetary union? To what extent are we committed to tax harmonisation, and do the Government and the House still possess the right of zero rates of VAT, and indeed to extend the range of commodities to which zero rates of VAT may be levied, if the House so wishes?
Mr. Davies: The quick answer that I can give to my hon. Friend is that no commitment has been made with regard to the second phase at all. The second phase is at this stage in the form of a series of broad proposals made by the Commission to the Council of Ministers, to be considered by the Council of Ministers and then remitted again to the Commission for much greater precision to be inserted into the proposals. Therefore, at this stage there is no commitment whatever. The only broad commitment that exists is that at the time of the Summit last October, which committed us and our partners in Europe to the prospect of economic and monetary union by 1980.
Mr. Jay: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that what he calls "the paper" setting out the EEC negotiating position for the GATT talks is not even yet available to hon. Members in the Library of this House? Does he not regard this situation as unsatisfactory?
Mr. Davies: I am glad to be able to tell the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) that he will now find a copy of a provisional English text of this paper available in the Library of the House.
Mr. Waddington: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that there is bound to be some concern in intermediate areas at the fact that they will have central area status? Will he go out of his way to stress that there is no reason whatever for the result of that decision to mean that the level of aid available in the intermediate areas should be reduced?
Mr. Davies: Yes, I can give my hon. Friend the firm assurance that as a result of the arrangements now put forward by the Commission there is no cause for such concern. I have stressed the other assurances that we have been given by the Commission in relation to special problems of the kind I specifically mentioned in my statement.
Mr. David Owen: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the regional fund is due to operate from January next year? Will those development areas which have been held in abeyance still be eligible for money from the regional fund? Have the Government entered into a commitment over proposals for the regions about which there is considerable doubt—for example, the South-Western development area? What sum of money does he think adequate for the regional fund? There has been much comment about a sum of 500 million dollars a year. Will he give a figure for which he thinks the House should be fighting in the Council of Ministers?
Mr. Davies: On the first question, the arrangement which has been entered into under Article 154, in agreement with the Commission, has no relevance whatever to access to the regional fund as from 1st January 1974. They are dealt with as entirely separate issues and there is no inter-relationship at all between them. As for the size of the fund, I would prefer not to venture a figure because this is obviously a matter on which there will be much negotiation. All I can say is that it is essential that the fund should be a very substantial one to start with and should have the capacity to evolve into a much greater amount as time goes by, in line with developing knowledge of regional problems and the need to deal with these matters on a Community level.
Mr. Marten: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there have been five meetings
42
of the Council of Ministers in 5½ weeks and that today is the first time we have had a statement in this House about those five meetings? There is far too much packed into this one statement. Is this not an unsatisfactory way of dealing with these matters? Will my right hon. Friend answer the question put to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) about widening the area of zero rating. Are we, or are we not, allowed to do this within the Community? My right hon. Friend said that the Government's views on regional policy are shared by the TUC and the CBI. What about Parliament?
Mr. Davies: On the last question, I cannot believe that Parliament, with all its wisdom and knowledge of these matters, would think this arrangement anything but a highly satisfactory one. I must ask my hon. Friend to try to get away from the idea that this is an unsatisfactory result, since it is quite the reverse. It is in that respect that the TUC and CBI have given unqualified approval to the kind of arrangement that has been entered into. I do not accept the kind of criticism put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten).
On the second issue, I very much regret that there is so much material in the statement, but a great deal has been going on. I come to the House as reasonably often as I can, and I am always willing to submit myself to question. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about zero rating?") Zero rating is a matter for further tax harmonisation, which at this stage has reached no state of commitment.
Mr. Varley: Will the right hon. Gentleman say something more about the arrangements which allow for higher levels of support for areas where steel redundancies are likely to take place—for example, in Shotton, Irlam and Cardiff? For example, if the task forces—which we are told will report fairly soon—recommend that full development area status be given to Cardiff and Shotton so that they can deal with redundancies, may we have an absolute assurance that there will be no European block whatever on this matter?
Mr. Davies: I think I can give a positive assurance to the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Varley) in this

43
respect. In the existing provisions made under the communication of 1971 there was a provision under which special arrangements could be made for identifiable reasons among the provisions in the classification. There would be the facilities to do so. To that has been added the specific undertaking on steel redundancy areas, which is a matter we raised. I cannot say in so many words that whatever might be decided automatically will be applied as such, but there is every reason to suppose that nothing the task force may recommend will in any way be blocked by the Commission.
Sir A. Meyer: Will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity to emphasise that in intermediate areas, such as North Wales, which are threatened with redundancies, any steel closure areas will not lose anything on account of reclassification as central areas, since the level of Government aid can continue as high as it is at present, and will benefit from the special measures proposed to be taken in the case of steel redundancies?
Mr. Davies: Yes, that is my firm belief, and I can reassure my hon. Friend on that subject.
Mr. Barry Jones: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, my constituency is scheduled to suffer 7,200 steel redundancies by 1980. Is he aware that East Flintshire and Deeside is an intermediate area, and will he commit the Government to scheduling us on Deeside as a special development area? Does he not think that if the redundancies take place the situation will merit such treatment?
Mr. Davies: I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Industrial Development is considering the matter to which the hon. Member for Flint, East (Mr. Barry Jones) referred, as indeed he is considering all such matters as they develop in the United Kingdom. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman need have no fear that the area about which I know he has great concern will go by default. However, it is for my right hon. Friend to make his conclusions on this matter.
Mr. Body: I should like to ask my right hon. Friend about regional policy. He will be aware of the growing concern
44
that now exists about the net outflow of capital from this country to the Continent. Does he appreciate that some £800 million of capital is flowing away from this country compared with an inflow of capital from the Continent of only £350 million? Will he accept that this is a danger—perhaps a long-term danger—for some of the intermediate areas, and that. if this trend continues, it will imperil jobs and, indeed, the standard of living of many thousands of people? Will he give an assurance that no regional policy will be completed until we firmly understand the consequences of that net outflow of capital from this country?
Mr. Davies: I understand my hon. Friend's concern about this matter. But it is noticeable at present that, whereas there is considerable investment from Britain going into the Community countries, there is also a very marked upturn in investment in Britain. In fact, the evidence does not support any concern at present that investments placed in the Community are so placed at the expense of investments at home. But I shall keep very much in mind the points that my hon. Friend has raised.
Mr. Michael Foot: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm or deny the figures given by his hon Friend the Member for Holland with Boston (Mr. Body)?
Mr. Davies: I should require notice to confirm those figures.
Mr. Dan Jones: Consequent upon the matter raised by the hon. and learned Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Waddington) about the intermediate areas, if the sentence on these people is to be postponed why is it that the Commission is reviewing the position of these areas?
Mr. Davies: As I have sought to explain, the Commission is reviewing the matter in order to ensure that inducements to investment are not offered in areas which less justify such inducements than in those—for example, our intermediate areas—which have a higher right to inducements in order to attract investment. This, after all, is what the Commission is all about. Incidentally, it is not a sentence. It is a guarantee.
Mr. Edward Taylor: While my right hon. Friend has undoubtedly done a very

45
good job for the development districts in these complex negotiations, may I ask him whether he is in a position to say why the procedure was adopted of not classifying the development districts as "peripheral" subject to review on 31st December 1974, instead of leaving them in abeyance? Was the same procedure adopted for other new member States? Was my right hon. Friend able to establish at these meetings whether in the event of Her Majesty's Government deciding to continue regional employment premium after 1974 the Common Market would allow us to do so?
Mr. Davies: Our areas were not called "peripheral" because it was recognised that our own regional problems were of a kind which did not lend themselves to such very broad forms of definition but required a much more sophisticated analysis. This is what they are getting.
The regional employment premium is a matter about which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has already made his position well known. There is no suggestion at present that REP should not be continued on its present terms. But we must leave this matter for further discussion. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Ex-
46
chequer is planning discussions about this matter with the TUC and the CBI before further action is taken.
Mr. English: Since the right hon. Gentleman was rather vague about the revision of the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement, may I remind him that if beet sugar replaces cane sugar there could he many thousands of redundancies as a result, primarily in the development areas?
Mr. Davies: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to amplify the point. I am conscious of the problems raised for us in two major respects. The first is that to which the hon. Gentleman has referred, that of unemployment in the development areas. The other is in respect of our commitments to the Commonwealth sugar producers. Both are very much in the Government's mind. Very categorical assurances on the subject have been given to the Commonwealth sugar producers and steps have been taken to deal with the continuance of refining cane sugar in this country. The matter is very much in the Government's mind, and every assurance has been given to Commonwealth sugar producers which they on their side have found very satisfactory.

SUPPLY
[24TH ALLOTTED DAY]—considered.

FRENCH NUCLEAR TESTS
4.15 p.m.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: I beg to move,
That this House deplores the failure of Her Majesty's Government to make adequate protests to the Government of France for ignoring the decision of the International Court at The Hague on nuclear testing, and supports the two Commonwealth Governments of Australia and New Zealand in their opposition to the impending tests in the Pacific.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): I should inform the House that Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister and his right hon. and hon. Friends, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
"shares the widespread concern at the continued testing of nuclear weapons in the atmosphere by any state and urges that all Governments that have not yet done so should accede to the partial test ban treaty".
Mr. Dalyell: Over the past six months or more whenever the Prime Minister or the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary has found himself confronted by some awkward or inconvenient point on French nuclear tests in the course of Parliamentary Questions, invariably he has taken refuge in the same bolt hole, saying that the attitude of the present Government is, after all, no different from that of the Labour Government in 1966 and 1967. Ministers at the Dispatch Box have often got away with it, since in the very nature of our Question Time the House wants to pass on to the next subject. However, many hon. Members right round the political spectrum know that counter-attacking the Opposition for what happened seven years ago is just too easy by half.
There have been fundamental changes in circumstances. In 1966 it was believed that there was a definite threshold below which radiation was not harmful. In 1973 we know that any level of radiation can be harmful.
48
In 1966 the Governments of Australia and New Zealand acquiesced in testing. In 1973 the Governments of Australia and New Zealand have made formal requests to us to use such influence as we have with the French to stop the impending tests.
In 1966 the people of Australia and New Zealand really could not have cared much less about testing in the Marquesas Archipelago. In 1973 people of all political persuasions in Australia and New Zealand are concerned about the prospective pollution of the Pacific.
In 1966 knowledge about Chinese nuclear testing was a little sparse. In 1973 it is known that Chinese nuclear testing can produce atmospheric pollution dangerous in its consequences throughout certain latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere.
In 1966 we had no position with the Government of France as a Common Market partner. In 1973 the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary comes to the House and waxes eloquent on the subject of the European Community of the Nine. Matters clearly are rather different.
I hope that I shall be forgiven if I spend a little time on the scientific detail. On Thursday night my right hon. Friend the Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Goronwy Roberts) extracted this assertion from the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs:
"The evidence available to the Foreign Office is that there is no danger whatever to health as a result of the French or Chinese tests in the atmosphere."
Does the right hon. Gentleman deny the presence of strontium 90, and does he further deny the connection between strontium 90 and bone cancer and lukaemia? Does the right hon. Gentleman deny the presence of caesium 137, which has a longish half-life of 30 years, anal does he further deny the connection between caesium 137 and many forms of cancer, a connection which has been proved by work which has been done by scientists in Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Does he deny the presence of iodine 131 and its attendant dangers to the thyroid gland?
Over the years we have come to know the right hon. Gentleman as a man of many remarkable parts. But until now it had not occurred to us to think of him

49
as a man whose qualities of mind and scholarship enabled him single-handed to take on the entire informed medical and biochemical establishment of the country in its own specialities. Here we have the most versatile European since Leonardo da Vinci. Not only did he father the Concorde by himself he has invented new laws of biochemistry. The Minister is a man of unsuspected genius.
Then the Minister takes refuge in the Australian Government's National Radiation Advisory Committee. That is rather dangerous, because, although it reported after the previous series of tests that
"The fall-out from the French series of tests does not constitute a hazard to the health of the Australian population",
that is not a scientific statement. It is not on my authority that I say that but on the authority of the most distinguished British Nobel Prize winner in the field, Maurice Wilkins. The report did not take into account the work of Tamplin, Goffman and Sternglass on strontium 90 and caesium 137. It is difficult to see how the committee could have arrived at that conclusion with certainty, as radiation hazards are now known to be cumulative, and additionally so in the sense that bone and tissues act as isotope collectors.
The story is that the Americans at first disputed the arguments of Sternglass that there was danger in any level of radiation. The American Atomic Energy Commission appointed two of its own people to go into the Sternglass allegations. At the end of the day those people, who were supposed to be critical, confirmed that in many important material respects Sternglass was right.
Therefore, I must ask where the Foreign Office is obtaining its scientific advice. The House deserves to be told who is giving it. We suspect that the people giving the advice are not more distinguished in matters of genetics than Linus Pauling, Patricia Lindop and Maurice Wilkins, who have led scientific protests against the tests. In particular, may we be told about the terms of reference, the functions and the reports of the two men who have been seconded to the Pitcairn Islands?
Before I depart from the scientific aspects of the matter, another explanation is required, in answer to questions which have been put, not least by my right
50
hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Gwynoro Jones) last Thursday. If the tests are so safe, why did the countries of North Africa and West Africa kick up such a fuss when the French were testing in the Sahara? If the British Government are so content about the safety of the tests, why did not they persuade the French to carry them out in the Massif Central or in the Bay of Biscay?
Mr. Charles Loughlin: What about the English Channel?
Mr. Dalyell: That is another candidate. Why do it in someone else's back yard and not one's own?
If scientific knowledge has advanced since 1966, so have the political circumstances. Australia and New Zealand, which were acquiescent and agnostic for two decades of testing, have now become so alarmed that they have gone successfully to the International Court at The Hague on this important issue. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Ham, South (Sir Elwyn Jones), a former Attorney-General, can obviously speak on that matter with more authority that than I can ever hope to have, so I leave the Hague decision to him.
We should not be deluded into thinking that the change in attitude of the Australian and New Zealand Governments is simply a result of a change of their political complexion. Australia and New Zealand are at The Hague because the people of Australia and New Zealand have been alerted, and the fact that they now have Labour Governments is only part of the story.
In 1969, in Cairns and Townsville, Queensland, I sensed the beginning of anger at testing. Now it is felt by all sorts of people right across Australia. One reaction which I found, and which I gather is now growing, is that "It may be bad enough for us Queenslanders, but what about the Polynesians, whose resistance is much weaker than ours?"
As a result of certain publicity to do with the test issue, I was invited to go on the Greenpeace March part of the way from London to the French border. Anyone who walked with the young Australians and New Zealanders on that march could establish that they were not cranks. In fact, they were among

51
the very best young people in their country, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Robert Hughes) will confirm. Anyone who met Mrs. Nelson and Mrs. Cahill, representing about 27 Australian women's organisations, as my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham (Mr. Russell Kerr) and I did, knows that they represent the women of Australia and are not cranks.
Unprompted by their Governments, the Australian and New Zealand trade union movements have taken spontaneous action. They have the solidarity of the British trade union movement, and action is being taken by the Transport and General Workers' Union, the Post Office workers, and the Association of Cinematograph, Television and Allied Technicians. Now, most important of all, the action has been endorsed by the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions.
An Australian in Britain this summer voiced the feelings of thousands of his fellow countrymen when he told me "My father came to help you people at Gallipoli and suffered. I served with the 8th Army in North Africa and my brother served with the 14th Army in Burma. We quite understand why many British people thought it right to join the European Common Market. But". he added pointedly, "does that mean that you have altogether forgotten the old relationship, the more so when your connection with your new friends, the French, should give you the power to help us in this matter of testing?" In one form or another that feeling is echoed many times, and it cuts pretty deep.
There is something else which cuts rather deep. On 28th October 1971 I was one of those who voted in favour of joining the European Community. Among other things, we imagined, not without a good deal of reason if ministerial speeches were to be believed, that entry would give us a substantial say in the foreign and defence policy of our partners. When one considers the story of British handling of the matter of tests with France, one is forced to the embarrassing and disconcerting conclusion that right hon. and hon. Friends like my right hon. Friends the Members for Stepney (Mr. Shore) and Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) and others may have been wiser
52
in their perceptions than some of us were.
If a British Government cannot influence President Pompidou on this matter—if they tried, which we strongly doubt—a matter on which the overwhelming majority of the United Nations is at one with us, by 104 votes to 4, what on earth can we influence the French on? Being ignored to the point of being snubbed by M. Pompidou and M. Messmer was not the kind of relationship between Britain and France for which some voted on 28th October 1971.
In connection with what are very deep issues of the kind of relationship we are to have with the French, I must refer to an unpleasant and nasty speech made by M. Messmer in New Caledonia on 26th May last year, when he said:
"We must not forget that New Zealand is on the asking side. At the time of Britain's entry into the Common Market, New Zealand came on her knees to beseech us to allow her to go on exporting to Britain. We have condescended"—
that is the word used in the official translation—
"to grant New Zealand guaranteed exports for a period of five years, but this limit could be reconsidered and reduced, and we could look at the application with disfavour."
We find that attitude odious. Can we count on Her Majesty's Government to protect New Zealand's right to five years' exports to the Community, whatever frigates she decides to send to Mururoa Atoll?
There is one reason, perhaps the most important of all, why President Pompidou should be persuaded to change his mind. France is not alone in her testing. China is also at it, and at it in a big way. I make it plain on behalf of the Opposition that we deplore the Chinese testing not an iota less than the French testing, without reservation and without qualification.
As one of the Members who have valued friendly relations with the Chinese, perhaps I am in a position to say that. However, I add that when I was lucky enough to be in Peking with a trade delegation I raised this matter in courteous terms, and Chen-wen-Chin, head of the Western European and American Department of the Chinese Foreign Office, when confronted with the question had a simple and courteous answer. He asked "Are not your friends the French doing

53
the same thing?" That is the Chinese answer, and that is an important reason why we should be influencing the French. It is possible—I put it no higher—that if the French were to stop nuclear testing the Chinese would not care to be the only nation in the world to continue with atmospheric tests.
Two questions are called for in this debate. Why did not Britain protest to the Chinese, along with the Japanese and Australians, who have far more to lose by giving offence in Peking? Secondly, will the Prime Minister express his views forcefully to Chou En-lai when he goes to Peking later this year? As the Foreign Secretary knows, the Chinese respect candour.
The late Colonel Sir Malcolm Stoddart-Scott, whose passing many of us greatly lament, used to say that, on principle, at least once a year one should vote against the Whips. I suggest to hon. Gentlemen opposite that this is just such an occasion. By their vote, or abstention if that is easier, they would be telling their Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister to be less reticent with the French and to speak for Britain. Government back benchers sometimes have a duty to alter affairs in politics, and I believe that this is one of the occasions on which they should do so.
What do the Opposition hope for? First, we want an official and speedy protest to the Chinese about their testing. Secondly, we want serious answers to the questions that have been put this afternoon and by some of my hon. Friends during the foreign affairs debate. On past form, I accept that we could get a sort of yah-boo answer—"You did the same." That is the kind of record that we have heard too often. To use the more eloquent language of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Ham, South, the tu quoque argument, as the lawyers have it, would not be acceptable because it would be too glib by half. My right hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Michael Stewart), when he was Foreign Secretary, protested in the extreme terms allowed by diplomatic language to President De Gaulle. Thirdly, we want the Prime Minister to go to France and to confront President Pompidou before any damage is done. After all, Lord Attlee did that in more
54
difficult circumstances with President Truman.
It is the Prime Minister's reluctance to do that that is the prime cause of censure, and perhaps I may explain why our criticism is directed peculiarly and personally at the right hon. Gentleman. Bluntly—my colleagues may disagree—I think that there are a number of Conservatives who, in private, are as angry with the French as we are, and that may be the reason why they have put down such a mellow amendment. I suspect, too, from the Foreign Secretary's reaction on Thursday that he is saddened and angry with the French. Since we are all products of our past achievements, it would be strange if one of the creators of the test ban treaty were not pretty sick at heart, and I am not being kind to the right hon. Gentleman merely because it is his 70th birthday.
I thought it was strange that on Wednesday afternoon, when asked about the failure to influence the French Government, the right hon. Gentleman replied gently "That is a question"—he said resignedly—"that must be addressed to many other people", and he added rather sorrowfully "The French are capable of making their decisions for themselves". That was a strange attitude, I thought a mellow attitude, and one that leads to the belief that there may be some differences of opinion, which will not be ventilated in public, between many people and the Prime Minister, because the Prime Minister's attitude is altogether different.
I do not say that the Prime Minister likes atmospheric testing. That is not the argument. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman does not like it very much at all, but the whole business to the Prime Minister, as it has seemed over all these months, is, to use one of his own favourite words, not terribly "relevant". His attitude has been "Why have a row about testing? When you are quarrelling over the common agricultural policy, when you are having a great argument about the size of lorries, and when you have a stalemate over regional incentives, why bother about nuclear testing?"
In my view, the Prime Minister's discomfiture is not about nuclear testing at all but about M. Pompidou and M. Messmer thinking that the British are

55
not very good Europeans after all. If one can put thoughts into the right hon. Gentleman's mind, he thinks, "For pity's sake do not add nuclear testing to my problems". In my opinion, that is not an unfair summary of the Prime Minister's attitude.
It is sad, since it is well known that the Prime Minister has a deeply close personal relationship with the French President. It is inconceivable that policy on these matters is made anywhere in France other than at the Elysee, and the objective conclusion must be that the Prime Minister had the position to do something about it and, at best, he did not try very hard, even in terms of language accepted in diplomacy, or possibly he has tried not at all. It is the personal responsibility of the Prime Minister that Britain has been feckless on a issue on which we ought to have been determined, and reticent when we ought to have been outspoken. In 1973, testing by France is not a subject about which Britain can shrug her shoulders and pass by on the other side of the road.
The Prime Minister's attitude has been to allow the meekest decencies, of going through the motions of protesting, without dreaming of having any kind of scene with President Pompidou. In terms of world environment, in terms of public opinion in this country, in terms of healthy future relations between Britain and France and, indeed, in terms of long-term British national and European interest, the right hon. Gentleman has got his priorities tragically wrong. This is a subject on which to have a row, and that is why I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to support the motion in the Lobby tonight.
4.38 p.m.
The Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Julian Amery): I beg to move to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
"shares the widespread concern at the continued testing of nuclear weapons in the atmosphere by any State and urges that all Governments that have not yet done so should accede to the partial test ban treaty".
I hope that I might be allowed at the outset to offer my congratulations to the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) on what I believe is his first
56
Front Bench speech. The homework that he has done on this subject and the contribution that he made today fully justify his appearance at that Front Bench, and I hope that we shall often hear him from that position.
I welcome the debate because I think it is clear that not only in Australia and New Zealand but in this country, too, there is a good deal of interest in the subject that has been raised. It is appropriate that it should be discussed here in Parliament, and, therefore, I rather regret the decision of the Union of Post Office Workers to try to suspend the transmission of French letters, or perhaps I should call them mail from France, as the other subject is likely to be debated after 10 o'clock tonight.
The motion before the House asks us to make a protest against the French Government's refusal to accept the Interim Measures Order of the International Court of Justice. In deciding what our position should be, we have to take account of the obligations which rest upon ourselves and upon the French, of the risks to health and the environment, of our obligation to Commonwealth countries, and of our general attitude to international law.
The hon. Gentleman rightly rehearsed the historical and scientific arguments bearing on the matter. Before saying a few words on the international legal aspect of the subject—my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General will deal with them in much greater detail—I should like to follow his course and deal a little with the background.
Nuclear weapons were first developed by Britain and the United States, in cooperation, during the Second World War. After the war the United States continued with a purely national programme and was followed in this by the Soviet Union.
After some interruption, the development of nuclear weapons was resumed in Britain by Mr. Attlee's Government. In the fifties steps were also taken to initiate nuclear weapon programmes in France and in the People's Republic of China.
The development of all these weapons involved a series of tests in the atmosphere, first in the kiloton range and then in the megaton range. These tests were undertaken by the United States on the

57
American mainland and later in the Pacific; by the Soviets within the territory of the Soviet Union; by Britain at Montebello Island and Maralinga with the co-operation of the Australian Government and later at Christmas Island; by China in Sinkiang; and by France first in the Sahara and later in the Pacific.
For a long time international opinion was primarily concerned with the whole problem of the limitation and control of nuclear weapons. But, by the mid-1950s an important body of responsible opinion was becoming increasingly exercised by the need to limit nuclear tests because of the increase in levels of radioactivity in the Northern Hemisphere and fears that these might have adverse effects on health and the environment—all this quite apart from any consideration of disarmament or non-proliferation.
As far back as 1955, Mr. Speaker, then holding my present office, made certain proposals in the United Nations which in 1957 were developed, when Mr. Speaker was Foreign Secretary, into a system for the suspension of nuclear tests. After thorough scientific investigation, the British and American Governments came to the conclusion that fears about the effect of fall-out were very much exaggerated. They nevertheless proposed that a United Nations committee be set up to study the question.
Later, in March 1957, in the Bermuda Declaration, the two Governments undertook to conduct their own testing in such a way as to avoid significant increases in world levels of radioactivity.
We and the Americans also appealed—as it happened, without success—to the Soviet Union to give a similar undertaking. In 1958 negotiations began in Geneva. While these were going on, there was an informal and voluntary suspension of tests by the three Powers. This became a virtual moratorium.
In 1961, however, there was a setback when the Soviet Union announced its intention to break the agreed moratorium, which it had itself proposed, and resumed nuclear tests in the atmosphere on an intensive scale, including weapons of 50–100 megatons. These led the Americans in their turn to resume their own nuclear tests, though I think it worth saying that they deferred for a time at
58
the urging of the then British Prime Minister, Mr. Macmillan, who still hoped that an East-West summit conference might be arranged to discuss this matter among other matters.
In this connection, it is only fair to recall that the American decision to undertake tests in the Pacific was formally and publicly endorsed by the Australian Government of the day.
In 1963 the Soviet Union finally agreed to Western proposals for a partial ban, covering nuclear weapons tests in the atmosphere, in outer space and under water, but excluding those underground. I happened, as chance had it, to play a small part myself in these negotiations in June 1963, when, at the then Prime Minister's request, I explored with Mr. Khruschev possible ways forward. This was a first modest step in the approach march to the partial test ban treaty.
Shortly after my visit, my right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor went to Moscow and there conducted the main negotiations which led to the signing of the treaty in Moscow later that year.
I rehearse these events to show that there can be no question as to the importance attached to the control of nuclear tests from 1957 by the Government presided over by Mr. Harold Macmillan and in which Mr. Speaker and my right hon. Friend were Secretaries of State for Foreign Affairs, nor as to the diplomatic efforts which we deployed to help bring this about.
Following the conclusion of the partial test ban treaty in 1963, the number of atmospheric tests fell dramatically. There have been no tests since then in the atmosphere by the United States, the Soviet Union or Britain, though a large number have been undertaken underground and are continuing.
As far back as 1960, however, the French and the Chinese declined to subscribe to any international agreement on testing. They are not bound, therefore, by the obligations of the test ban treaty of 1963.
China exploded her first nuclear device in 1964, and this has been followed by a further 14 Chinese tests in the atmosphere including the one last week. These, taken together, have yielded a total of 20 megatons of explosive power, all in the

59
Northern Hemisphere; the test last week yielded between two and three megatons. The French, after a period of atmospheric and underground tests in the Sahara, resumed atmospheric testing with their first tests in the Pacific, exactly seven years ago, on 2nd July 1966. Some 30 shots since then have added up to an estimated total of 10 megatons, all in the Southern Hemisphere.
The combined total of these continued atmospheric tests by both France and China has, therefore, been of the order of 30 megatons over nine years. This compares with about 200 megatons in the years immediately preceding the partial test ban treaty. The total megatonnage—if I may use the word—of French atmospheric tests, both before and after 1963, is thus about 4 per cent. of the total, and about the same as the British figure.
From this historical review, I come next to the programme of tests which France is expected to undertake in the Pacific this summer. Our attitude here is perfectly clear. In 1963 Her Majesty's Government, as well as the United States Government, urged the French Government to sign the partial test ban treaty.
As initiators and signatories of the treaty, we are seriously concerned at the continuation of nuclear tests in the atmosphere, and we urge that all Governments which have not yet done so should adhere to it. This view is well known to the French and Chinese Governments. It has been stated publicly by successive Governments. It was stated by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition in relation to the French tests of 1966, though not to those of 1967 and 1968, and by Mr. George Brown, as he then was, in relation to the Chinese tests of 1966, though not in respect of the subsequent Chinese tests.
The same position has been repeatedly stated in this House in 1972 and again this year by my right hon. Friend The Prime Minister, by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, by other Ministers and by myself. These statements have been further confirmed by our support of Resolution No. 2934 which was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on
60
the initiative, among others, of the Australian and New Zealand Governments.
That resolution expressed concern that nuclear tests in the atmosphere had continued in some parts of the world, including the Pacific area; stressed the urgency of halting all atmospheric tests in the Pacific or anywhere else in the world; and urged all States that had not already done so to adhere to the partial test ban treaty. Nothing, therefore, could be clearer than the position adopted by successive British Governments—our predecessors, like ourselves, though perhaps less frequently.
The question then arises whether, in addition to the statements I have referred to and to our support of the United Nations resolution, we should make specific representations to our French friends about their prospective programme. We must remember that we are not concerned here with the question of whether France should or should not develop her nuclear power. That is a decision entirely for France and it is not one which concerns our debate this afternoon.
Our concern is with the possible risks from fall-out and the effect of any rise in background levels of radioactivity which will result from continued atmospheric testing. It so happens that we are responsible for the nearest centre of population to the French testing ground—the Pitcairn Islands. We have accordingly carefully monitored previous tests undertaken by the French in the area. We are arranging for this to be done also in this case. The hon. Gentleman asked me about the terms of reference of our monitoring team. They have orders to conduct on the spot monitoring of the radiological effects if an explosion takes place, and to report the results. We have also exchanged our findings with the Australian and New Zealand authorities, and with the United States, which also has dependencies in the area. The hon. Gentleman asked who would pass judgment. The Government's scientific advisers make an assessment and it is for me as Minister to endorse their findings and not to specify which individual expressed a particular view.
The information so derived points to the following conclusions. The Chinese

61
and French tests are together responsible for about one-tenth of the total annual radiation doses to people in the Southern Hemisphere. Current radiation levels in the Southern Hemisphere have reached only a tiny fraction, about one-hundreth part, of the so-called "reference levels" recommended by the International Commission on Radiological Protection as safety limits for continuous exposure of populations to radiation.
Perhaps I may put the point in a simpler way. Even if there had never been any man-made nuclear explosions we would all still be, and indeed are, subject to constant exposure to radiation. Radiation reaches the earth from space, from the sun's rays, and is also caused by elements naturally present in the earth, such as thorium and uranium. The levels of this natural radiation vary appreciably from one part of the earth to another, and even from city to city within individual countries.
The contribution to present radiation levels of all the nuclear devices so far exploded in the atmosphere, including all the Northern Hemisphere test shots before the partial test ban treaty, by Britain, by America, by Russia and by France, is smaller than the variations in existing natural radiation levels between many individual countries and even between many cities in the same country. In other words, a man can be exposed to greater increase in the levels of radiation by moving home than from nuclear test fall-out.
A vivid illustration of this fact came up at the United Nations Conference on the Peaceful Uses of Atomic Energy in 1971. On that occasion, Indian researchers reported cases in Kerala of individuals who received as much as 2,500 millirems of natural radiation per head a year. The average annual exposure of individuals in the Kerala area as a whole was 500 millirems per head. This can be compared with the figure of 0·2 millirems per head in the Southern Hemisphere attributable to French tests. Furthermore, the Indian scientists reported no resulting damage to the health of the Kerala population.
Mr. Dalyell: If all this is true, why are not the tests conducted in the Bay of Biscay or the Massif Central?
Mr. Amery: It is no responsibility of ours where the tests are conducted. These
62
are French tests conducted by the French. Every effort is made to conduct these tests in the safest possible area, but, as I explained at the outset of my remarks for a very long time the Soviet and American tests were all conducted in areas of much denser population than those to which we are now referring and the Australian Government themselves made no objections at the time that the tests were conducted at Maralinga and Montebello.
Mr. Laurance Reed: When I was at the atomic tests at Christmas Island what worried us most was not so much the radiation that would follow if the bomb went off according to plan but what would happen if the bomb went off accidentally by dropping into the sea. Has my right hon. Friend made any estimates of what the effect would be on Pitcairn if anything went wrong with the French tests?
Mr. Amery: As my hon. Friend will know, a team of scientists, including Australian scientists, visited the French testing centre the other day, and they, as I understand, in no way criticised the security and safety facilities they found there.
Much has been made of the possible long-term genetic effects of current nuclear fall-out. The discussion here is based on statistical projections about which there is a considerable division of scientific opinion. The fact is that no one knows what the remote effects of very small increases in radiation will be. This very uncertainty is one of the reasons why the majority of the international community has taken the view that atmospheric nuclear testing should cease. All the same, it is fair to point out that in a report on this subject to the Australian Prime Minister in April of this year the Australian National Academy of Sciences stated that
"… the average levels of radiation due to the French explosions are unlikely to make a statistically detectable increase in the cancer or genetic effects in Australia …".
This conclusion was based on the worst assumption—scientists base their conclusions on a number of assumptions and this conclusion was based on the worst assumption—namely, that genetic effects would be proportional to dose, even down to the lowest dose rates. On past experience we have no reason to doubt that French safety precautions are

63
such that there is no danger to the inhabitants of Pitcairn.
I understand that Australian and New Zealand experts have recently visited the French test site and have been able to see for themselves the precautions which the French are taking and have not represented, to me, at any rate, or to us, that the French precautions are inadequate However, in order to reassure ourselves and the Pitcairn Islanders on this point we have this year, as in past years, made arrangements to carry out radiological monitoring. There are two RAF technicians on Pitcairn itself to carry out this monitoring, and the Royal Fleet Auxiliary "Sir Percivale" is also stationed in the area.
I say all this not to suggest that we condone nuclear tests in the atmosphere. We do not. We deplore them. We believe that all countries should submit to the restraints which the signatories of the partial test ban treaty have accepted. But in discussing the effects of current testing we should not allow our opinions on this matter to lead us to distort the facts.
I conclude from this that there is no evidence arising from the programme of French tests now contemplated, judged against the background of previous tests, such as would, in the Government's view, justify making specific representations to the French Government on health and environmental grounds, over and above the statements and representations that we have already made in this House and at the United Nations.
Dr. John A. Cunningham: The right hon. Gentleman seems to be saying that there was no need for the nuclear test ban treaty. May I ask him a specific point about the British—not the Australian—Radiological Protection Board's report published in May this year, which states that radiation carries
"some risk of disease or death. Even when the doses are small enough for the risks to be ignored for all practical purposes, it is prudent to require justification for these doses".
Will the Minister explain what the justification is in this particular case? In doing so, he ought to do us the credit of differentiating between atmosphere-borne radiation from strontium 90 and caesium 137 and the so-called natural radiation to which he has referred.
Mr. Amery: The hon. Gentleman will give us credit for accepting that all these recommendations and considerations have been carefully studied by the Government's scientific advisers before we take a decision, such as we have taken, and before I say what I have said to the House today.
The conclusion that I was drawing to the attention of the House is simply that we have made our public position clear on a number of occasions—Conservative, Labour and again Conservative Governments—that we have voted at the United Nations and that the French and Chinese Governments are well aware of our point of view, but that we do not see, from our experience of previous French tests or from our anticipation of anything that is likely to occur in the light of the reports which not only our experts but the Australian and other experts have had of the precautions taken by the French, that there is any evidence to justify further specific representations other than those which we have already made publicly, in the House and through the United Nations.
Mr. Dalyell: In the winding-up speech may we have a categorical assurance that the Government advisers are aware of the work of Tamplin, Goffman and Stern-glass, or are we to be told that their work is considered to be invalid? That specific question is crucial to this kind of argument.
Mr. Amery: I shall do my best to see that an answer is available for my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General to give when he replies to the debate. But I should be extremely surprised if any serious consideration had not been fully taken into account by the Government scientific advisers on these matters.
The motion before the House is concerned with the Interim Measures Order made by the International Court of Justice on 22nd June. The French Government have rejected those orders and, indeed, have denied the jurisdiction of the court in this whole matter. Their reasons for taking up this attitude are set out in their White Paper published last week, a copy of which is being placed in the Library.
Generally speaking it is Her Majesty's Government's view that all countries have

65
a duty to observe orders of the International Court in so far as such orders apply to them. However, the orders in question are addressed to the French Government and to the Governments of Australia and New Zealand and not to the British Government. The question of their observance is a matter for the court and for the three Governments concerned.
Mr. Clinton Davis: Rubbish.
Mr. Amery: There is no obligation on Her Majesty's Government in international law to take action in support of an order of the International Court in a case to which we are not a party and in which we are not involved.
It may be that the state of international law is imperfect. My right hon. and learned Friend and the right hon. and learned Member for West Ham, South (Sir Elwyn Jones) may wish to discuss that later, but in the present state of international law there is no obligation on Her Majesty's Government to take action in support of the International Court in a case to which we are not a party and in which we are not involved.
For the British Government, therefore, to make a protest to the French Government on the basis of the orders of the court would be a purely political action not imposed on us by any international obligations. It would not be fulfilling an obligation.
We see no cause for any such action. We see no cause for it because we have made our views on the subject of testing in the atmosphere crystal clear already. We see no cause for it because we do not consider that risks arise for the Pitcairn Islanders, for whom we are responsible—or for the populations of other territories in the Pacific for which Her Majesty's Government are responsible—which would justify it.
That is why we are not able to support the representations made by the Governments of the two Commonwealth countries of Australia and New Zealand.
We see no cause for it because, although we support the general principle that all countries should observe orders of the International Court which apply to them, it is not for us to enter into judgment over the disputes of others—and, in any case, there is no obligation
66
on us to take any action in cases in which we are not involved.
I apologise for the length at which I have detained the House. But this is not an easy question and it is an important one. We have had to consider our responsibilities and record both as a nuclear Power and as signatories, indeed initiators, of the test ban treaty.
We have had to consider our direct responsibilities in the Pacific and as members of the Commonwealth, and in particular our close and long-standing ties with our friends and allies in Australia and New Zealand. We have had to consider our responsibilities as allies of France and partners with her in the European Economic Community.
We have tried to set out once again in clear and positive terms the Government's policy. It is for all these reasons that I am asking the House not to accept the motion put forward by the Opposition but, instead, to accept the Government's amendment, which sets out our position unambiguously, namely, that this House
"shares the widespread concern at the continued testing of nuclear weapons in the atmosphere by any state and urges that all Governments that have not yet done so should accede to the partial test ban treaty."
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Before calling upon another hon. Member to speak, I should like to draw the attention of the House to the very considerable number of hon. Members who hope to catch the eye of the Chair. I hope that hon. Members will, accordingly, make their speeches as short as is reasonably possible.
5.7 p.m.
Mr. Charles Loughlin: I assure you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that my speech will be very short. I am only sorry that the Minister made such an appalling speech in such an appallingly long time, after the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell), which was first-class. There is no need for anyone on the Opposition side of the House to make a long speech. Indeed, my biggest problem today will be the inadequacies of the English language in expressing my abhorrence of not only the testing of nuclear weapons in the atmosphere but the attitude of the British Government, as so far demonstrated, and particularly in relation to the speech of the Minister today.

67
I equally oppose the testing of nuclear weapons in the atmosphere by China, as does my hon. Friend. But we are dealing today particularly with the French tests. Both we and France are partners in not only the Common Market but the Western Alliance. If we cannot influence France, we are wasting our time in even talking about trying to influence China.
The pollution of the atmosphere with nuclear fall-out is the greatest crime against humanity. That is something to which the British Government should be wholly and completely opposed and on which I hope the Government would have the fullest support of the British people.
France has claimed, and the Minister of State has reiterated the claim, that the proposed test is a clean test and that no danger to life is involved. If that be so, why is there a need to go so far from the mainland of France to carry out the tests? Why not carry them out over the English Channel or the mainland of France if there is no danger to life or to the future of the environment?
I underline the point which has already been made, that there can never be a guarantee in this kind of testing that there is not likely to be an error of some kind. The truth is that the tests represent a grave danger to life, and we have a responsibility to all people who are likely to be so endangered.
We have a particular responsibility to the people of the Pitcairn Islands and the people of New Zealand and Australia. The people of New Zealand and Australia came to our assistance when Britain was endangered. We should be failing in our responsibility if we did not go to their assistance and offer support.
I make the following suggestion to the Government seriously and knowing full well the danger which is involved. It is a matter which I have discussed with some of my hon. Friends on the back benches in the last few weeks. I know that the time is late but, late though it may be, I believe that, given the will, the suggestion which I shall make can be carried out. It would have to be done with the use of our planes and one of Her Majesty's ships. There must be a ship fairly close to the area of testing. We could within a matter of hours ferry volunteers by plane
68
to a ship which would then go into the test area during the tests.
I suggest to the Government that they should give the opportunity for hon. Members to join such a ship. I say that in all seriousness, knowing the dangers which are involved. If such a ship were placed at the disposal of hon. Members who are prepared to join the New Zealand frigate in the area, a number of hon. Members would be prepared to sail and to stay in the area until such time as France agreed to call off the tests or carried them out.
I should go, but very reluctantly. I should go in fear. I think that most of my hon. Friends with whom I have discussed this matter would go reluctantly. However, if we can in that way make a contribution to the stopping of nuclear tests in the atmosphere we would go willingly.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman, even though he made such an appalling speech, will recognise our responsibility. I hope that he will recognise that we must take more than normal action. I do not believe that there is not a danger. If there was not a danger, tests would be carried out nearer home. I hope he will take on board the suggestion which I make. I make it not for any other reason but that I believe that it is the one way in which France can be brought to the conclusion that the action which it proposes to take is repugnant in the nostrils of any decent person.
5.16 p.m.
Sir Anthony Meyer: I salute the heroism of the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin). If he carries out his intention there will be great sorrow in the House at the loss of so well loved a Member. At least he will by his departure from our midst have clarified one issue which has been deliberately obscured in the course of the debate—namely, the difference of being within a matter of miles from the centre of an atomic explosion and that of being thousands of kilometres away, as is the nearest inhabited area to where the French nuclear tests are to take place.
To talk about the advisability of holding such tests in the Channel or in the centre of France is deliberately to obscure this all-important issue. Before going further, I should say how much I enjoyed and appreciated the speech of

69
the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell). If any hon. Member is entitled to speak of this issue in moral terms it is he. I should like to acquit him of any bad faith in the matter.
There is a rather odious and smug tendency on both sides of the House to criticise the French for what they are doing. The United Kingdom has the nuclear capacity which it needs for its esential national interest, and it intends to keep that capacity up to date. Britain has reached the point at which it can maintain its nuclear capacity without having to resort to atmospheric tests. Britain has that capacity because of decisions taken by the post-war Labour Government under Lord Attlee. Those decisions were taken, as I understand it, without any consultation with Lord Attlee's colleagues. They were subsequently implemented by Conservative Governments in the 1950s.
The Labour Party, before the 1964 Labour Government was formed, pledged itself to put an end to Britain's independent nuclear deterrent and to renegotiate the Nassau agreement under which the Macmillan Government were proposing to keep the independent deterrent up to date. That renegotiation did not come to anything very much. That makes me wonder whether other promised renegotiations by the Opposition will come to any more. Renegotiations apart, the Government and the Opposition of 1964 did nothing whatever—and rightly so—to put an end to the British nuclear deterrent. That means that both parties now consider it necessary for Great Britain to have its own nuclear capacity and to keep it.
We carried out tests in the atmosphere, so did the Americans, and so did the Russians. All those tests were far more damaging to the environment than the tests which have been carried out and are proposed to be carried out by the French Government. Britain, having carried out tests in the atmosphere, equipped itself with the nuclear capacity which it required. The British, the Americans and the Russians then negotiated the partial test ban treaty. I do not deny that that was a great step forward, but it looks a more satisfactory step forward from our point of view than it does from the point of view of those Governments which had not got to the point
70
of being able to dispense with atmospheric tests.
Of course, France and China are to be criticised for carrying out tests in the atmosphere. They are to be criticised—indeed, they are criticised—for their determination to become nuclear Powers. I am not sure that this criticism can be quite so wholehearted now as it could be a few years ago—at a time, for example, when there is talk of the possibility of a pre-emptive strike by the Russians against the Chinese, at a time when the Americans and the Russians are evidently finding nearer and nearer identity of views on more and more topics which could conceivably include agreements at the expense of Europe.
The arguments for Chinese and French deterrents are a good deal stronger now than they were a few years ago. But for whomsoever it is proper to criticise the French and the Chinese for insisting on having their own independent deterrents, we are not the nation best qualified to offer that criticism.
France and China can likewise be criticised for carrying out their tests in the atmosphere, and I certainly very much wish that the French Government could have carried out this series of tests underground. I have, in fact, taken the opportunity to make this plain to French friends of mine and to the French Embassy here. I am certain that the Government have lost no opportunity to make it absolutely plain to the French Government that they deplore the continuation of tests in the atmosphere. I still submit that British Governments and British people are not the best qualified to make this criticism.
It is a national weakness of ours to assume that we British have some sort of moral status which entitles us to lecture the rest of the world on how to behave. It is a weakness which particularly affects the Labour Party, and it was particularly noticeable in the case of the Vietnam war. It is a weakness, but it is not a grave defect. What is a very much graver defect, and what I find very much more objectionable, is the growing tendency of hon. Members opposite—again I acquit the hon. Member for West Lothian—to seek foreign scapegoats for everything which goes wrong in this country and in particular to blame France and the French Government for all our

71
misfortunes. There is nobody on the opposite side of the House who is more guilty of this than the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition. Such an attitude is totally unworthy of a party which claims to be an international party, and it is unfair to a great country, an ally of ours, which has at its head a man who has shown that he is both humane and civilised, and a great friend of this country.
5.24 p.m.
Miss Joan Lestor: I want to make one or two points arising particularly from the speech from the Government Front Bench. First of all, I wish to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) on what I believe to be one of the most informative and well argued brief cases on defence and on this issue which we have heard for a long time.
I am somewhat puzzled by the speech of the Minister of State and by the amendment which has been put down by the Government. I cannot understand the logic of saying "We deplore the tests" and then saying that there is nothing wrong with the tests because there is no danger. If there is no danger, why deplore them? Why share the "widespread concern", as the amendment says, if there is nothing wrong with the tests? I do not understand the point of putting down an amendment and then delivering a speech contradicting what the amendment says. Presumably there is no reason for anybody here to have any widespread concern; everything is fine. We have this, apparently, on the very highest authority.
What struck me most about the right hon. Gentleman's speech was his failure to answer a point raised by an hon. Member on this side of the House and also by one of his own hon. Friends—the two points hung together—namely, what happens to Pitcairn if the tests go wrong? It must be a great comfort to the people there to know that the British Government, to quote the right hon. Gentleman, "are going to watch the situation carefully". Presumably they are going to watch it go wrong. What safeguards can the British Government give to the people in Pitcairn, even on the very narrow argument, which I do
72
not accept, that the only danger would be if the tests went wrong? What safeguards can be given? None at all. No safeguards can be given, and the right hon. Gentleman is well aware of that.
Listening to several hon. Members and having read the views of people who support the tests, I wonder why the tests have not been held in the Bay of Biscay. If the bomb is so safe, why not explode it over Paris? Of course, it is not safe. I think the right hon. Gentleman made out a very good case for not having a test ban treaty at all. All the arguments today to the effect that the tests are safe and that there will not be any increase in radioactivity were used by those people who opposed the test ban agreement. But the British Government did not oppose it, presumably because they did not accept those arguments. They said there was danger and that we must get together and see that these things are not tested. Now the Government share "widespread concern" about something which they say has no danger at all, but they will not talk to the French Government and do something about it.
Reference has been made to the arguments which were advanced in favour of Britain joining the EEC. It was said that we would have a tremendous influence on what our EEC partners were doing. We have no influence at all over sanction-breaking in connection with Rhodesia, and presumably we have absolutely no power at all to influence the French, which is why we have made no protests to the French Government—or so it would seem from what has been argued.
I believe in moral indignation. I believe that if enough moral indignation were aroused over these tests and the dangers to which people would be subjected, we would have some influence on the French Government. It is because people like the right hon. Gentleman say that it is not important and that there is no danger that the French are going to get away with it.
I must say that it was tactless of France to start her tests after the environmental conference which took place in Stockholm when widespread concern was expressed about the effects of those tests. The right hon. Gentleman has discarded all the evidence which has been produced and has produced counter quotes to show

73
that there is no danger. He has dismissed what was said about the increase in certain diseases known to have a link with increased radiation. I have come across a quote which has not been used by the Government Front Bench. We know that the French have argued that there is no danger, as our Government have argued, but the 1970 report from the United Nations Scientific Committee said that there had been a significant increase in radioactive iodine in milk in the Southern Hemisphere since the French nuclear tests began in the Pacific.
The more evidence which is brought forward, the more do we become concerned about the point at which danger begins. Yet the point seems to go creeping up, and we are never given a point at which there is danger. I believe there is danger. Thousands of young people, and people who are not so young, who are concerned with the environment and about the use to which bombs will be put—this is a topic on which we shall have to have a debate before long—do not accept what the right hon. Gentleman has said; and on the arguments of his party at the time of the nuclear test ban agreement, I do not believe that he accepts them either.
5.30 p.m.
Mr. Julian Critchley: I am not a French Member of Parliament—though at times I wish I were, since the food would be better and the oratory largely incomprehensible—but I think there are times when one should speak up, as it were, for the French point of view. Listening to what is said by the Labour Party in particular, though I do not absolve my own side from blame in this matter, I am struck by the amount of humbug surrounding this issue. If humbug be the essential lubricant of international affairs, this afternoon we are certainly awash in it.
The English disease, as the French often diagnose it, is a desire to inject into foreign affairs a degree of morality, mostly bogus. If one asked a Frenchman to define the phrase "perfidious Albion", a phrase of French origin, he would say that it was the pursuit of England's national interest while lecturing others on the need for rectitude. This, I am afraid, is something to which the British—Labour, Liberal, Whig, Tory or Conservative—
74
all have to plead guilty, and there is evidence of that attitude running throughout this debate. At least, the rebuke of Her Majesty's Government to France has been as sotto voce in its effect as was the rebuke of the Labour Government to France in similar circumstances.
Mr. Dalyell: I am personally sensitive to criticism of that kind, but is it not a fact that seven years ago, or even five years ago, it was thought that there was a threshold below which radiation was not dangerous, whereas we now know that there is no threshold and that any radiation, which is cumulative in its effect, is dangerous? There is a difference in the state of knowledge.
Mr. Critchley: I am not a scientist, and I can claim no special knowledge, but I know that on this issue, as on any other, there are scientists ready for hire. We have our prejudices on all sides of the House, and if we look for experts to back them, they are easy to find. Before the hon. Gentleman intervened, I was about to say how much I enjoyed his first speech from the Front Bench, and I see no reason to change my mind about that.
Sir Elwyn Jones: Are we to assume from that most unhappy observation that the Government scientists on whom the Front Bench rely are merely gentlemen on hire?
Mr. Critchley: The right hon. and learned Gentleman must save his legalisms for his winding-up speech. I have made my point and I stick by it. There are experts for hire in every walk of life, and I suspect that the right hon. and learned Gentleman and I have probably done our share of hiring in the past.
The hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell), in his most interesting opening speech, implied that he regretted that he had voted for British entry into the Common Market and went on to say that others of his party who did not vote for it might, in retrospect, have been correct. He gave as his reason—a curious reason—that we had been unable to influence French foreign and defence policy, especially defence policy, since 1st January this year.
The hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that the Common Market is the EEC,

75
not a defence community of any kind. There was never any suggestion—I say this in reply also to the hon. Lady the Member for Eton and Slough (Miss Lestor)—in the context of the European Economic Community that the defence policies of any one of the nine countries were, as it were, up for negotiation, or for bargaining. It is an economic community, which may in time, I hope, develop into a defence community, but at the time when we entered it it was an economic community only. The argument about influence, therefore, breaks down.
In May this year, in company with a number of Labour colleagues, I went as a member of the Western European Union delegation to inspect the French nuclear deterrent force in Provence, and a most interesting 48-hour visit it was. We saw en route to Provence the French Mirage squadrons. They have 40 aircraft which have been in service since 1964 and will be phased out in 1975. After a very good lunch, we saw 18 solid-fuel French IRBMs in Provence, to which another nine are to be added before 1978, and, at the same time, the French are constructing five nuclear submarines.
I mention all this to show that the French have gone in for a little of everything in terms of nuclear weapons, unlike ourselves who have gone in for some of some things only.
The point I am making is that if hon. Members opposite are so eager to see the French not explode a thermonuclear device in the Pacific, as the French, at present, have solid fuel missiles, and we have no missiles of any kind, but we have thermonuclear warheads whereas the French have only atomic warheads, why do they not, instead of wagging the finger at the French Government and saying "Please desist from doing something which we do not like", carry the logic of their argument to the point of saying that we should make an offer of some of our nuclear knowledge and material, which, were it offered and accepted, would overnight prevent the need for the French nuclear tests in the Pacific?
Is that not the logic behind the Opposition's request? There are the makings of a bargain here between Britain and
76
France—the so-called entente nucleaire, about which we shall, if we are lucky, be debating in the House over the next three, four or five years. The logic of the Opposition's case is that if they want the tests not to go on they should suggest that the information which we have gained from tests might conceivably be made available to France so that her tests would no longer have any validity. I do not know whether the Opposition would like to extend their argument to its logical conclusion, but, no doubt, that is something which we shall have to wait to hear from later speeches.
There has been a remarkable degree of humbug about the whole of this debate. If hon. Members would for a moment put themselves in the position of French Members of Parliament—and not just those who support the French Government, either—they would find a cynicism towards our approach very vividly expressed, and we should indeed deserve the rebukes which our attitude merits.
5.38 p.m.
Mr. Mark Hughes: First, I take up the point made by the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley) about our giving nuclear know-how to the French. I have always held that our nuclear know-how should be held exclusively within an alliance, within NATO, and that it is not for us unilaterally to go in for a bargain with a single other party. The nuclear deterrent, if it is to be held at all—I have certain doubts about that—must be held within an alliance of more than two parties. It must be an Atlantic alliance, including the French, as an integral part of NATO.
I make no apology for wanting to see a moral content in the conduct of British foreign policy. I find our history on matters such as slavery not indecent because it had morality associated with it. I find no great joy in the amoral stance taken towards the Italian invasion of Abyssinia in the 1930s, on the argument that this was a matter of close international diplomatic legality and we must therefore keep back. I do not see that as one of our more glorious moments in foreign affairs.
I found the Minister of State's presentation of the Government's case an exercise in a narrow legalistic diplomacy which I hold to be as outdated now as it

77
has been these last 50 years. It was those concepts which allowed us to get into first one world war and then another. It was the absence of a preparedness to take a moral stance which weakened our whole position between the wars.
As some hon. Members may know, had the New Zealand Government seen fit and been able to agree, I might well at this time be on their frigate sailing towards Mururoa. I made that offer. The question I wish to put to the Government is the one that I have had to face myself. Why should a father seek to put his own life in danger not because he dislikes the French, not because he has some particular axe to grind against them, nor even less because he wants to commit early suicide? It is because in the same way in 1914 there were fathers who held that the world required them to take risks to preserve it for their children.
In that way I feel that if we allow this sort of thing to go on, not just this specific test but this sort of brigandage of private right against public and international requirement, the future for my children is not a world I would willingly see them left to endure. It is on this basis and not merely the immediate impact of possible radiation danger that I oppose the test.
The concept of one scientist being able to say that there is nothing to fear when our scientists have been bought at a lower price and, therefore, their views are less confident, is something I find totally repugnant. I should have thought that all scientists accepted that their ignorance was so profound on these matters that they dare not take any risk and that the cumulative evidence is growing. Every time they push back the frontier of knowledge the greater is the risk that is known.
I read a Press report today that, following the Chinese test, the level of fall-out in Korea is 240 or 250 times the accepted limits. This may be a newspaper story which is lacking in foundation. In the case of both the Chinese test and the proposed French test it is not enough for this country to say that it is none of our concern. It is not enough for this country to say, as the Minister did, that the French must have the right to develop their own nuclear capability. I risk once again being told that it is humbug, but those of us who have been
78
brought up and reared under the threat of Hiroshima and nuclear warfare reject the whole concept of further testing in the atmosphere. Proliferation from the French and the Chinese is too horrific to contemplate. In this matter in particular the Government's attitude has been that too often they have been like M. Pompidou's poodle, and like that dog they have been showing every sign of degenerate in-breeding.
5.43 p.m.
Mr. Laurance Reed: The nature of the issue of French nuclear testing has changed radically with the interim ruling of the World Court. I no longer see it simply as a question of whether it is desirable or dangerous for France to detonate its weapons in the atmosphere, but rather whether it is desirable for a country as important and influential as France to be allowed to ignore the jurisdiction of the World Court and to flout the court's rulings without a whisper of protest from its friends and allies.
I find the Government's attitude towards the World Court a trifle perplexing. Surely if we wish to maintain the rule of law we must be prepared to support the decisions of the judges, whether it is politically expedient to do so or not. When we fail to support the court we help to undermine its status and authority. That is self-defeating at the moment, when we are seeking the authority of that court to sustain the legitimacy of our claim against the Icelandic Government.
In the past Britain has not merely been a firm supporter of the World Court but the most active user of it, and some of us might say we have been to that court so often that it has worked out against our national self-interest. I remember the case of the Corfu Channel and the Anglo-Norwegian fisheries case. In each of these instances the essential issue in dispute related to freedom on the high seas. These cases have a far closer affinity with French nuclear testing than our Law Officers seem to conceive. One of the specific submissions made to the court by either New Zealand or Australia, and upon which they required a ruling, was whether or not the closure of a large area of the high seas for testing nuclear weapons was compatible with freedom of international law on the high seas.

79
Perhaps my right hon. Friend will enlighten me as to exactly how it is that ever since the war British Governments have been firm and active supporters of the World Court but that in these circumstances they cannot even go so far as to express support for the decision of the court and to deplore France's rejection of it.
5.47 p.m.
Mr. Raymond Fletcher (Ilkestone): Much play has been made from the Conservative side about whether it is right to express moral indignation in this Chamber. If this were no place in which to express moral indignation there would not be much point in this House discussing foreign or military affairs. There are very few hon. and right hon. Members who have that degree of recent acquaintance with weapons systems which will permit them to speak in this House as experts. Nevertheless, I do not intend to overlay my argument with too much morality. I rarely do. It is a bad habit of mine to engage in arguments with Frenchmen and I try to match them with their own logic. I do not always succeed, but I hope to stick more to logic than morality in my short contribution this evening.
There is a powerful case which can be presented against the exercise of the power given to France by her existing nuclear size, and that argument is in no way diminished if it is maintained that these forthcoming tests are as harmless as a posterior raspberry delivered by a rather flatulent monkey. We have to look at the tests in a totally different context from that which obtained in 1966, and I am not referring to different attitudes about radiation levels. I refer to the nature of the proliferation problem as it exists in 1973, as distinct from the situation as it was in 1966.
The terrible fact is that nuclear weapons are now becoming fairly cheap. It is now much easier than it was a decade ago for countries to embark upon a nuclear weapons programme. Anybody in this House with 5½ kilogrammes of weapons grade plutonium or 17½ kilogrammes of enriched uranium could construct his own nuclear weapon. It would be a simple fission weapon and could act only as a trigger for the big stuff which the French are now trying to perfect, but it is possible.
80
In terms of cost, a survey was made in 1968 under the auspices of the United Nations. The International Institute for Strategic Studies recently took the 1968 figures and attempted to bring them up to date. It argued on the assumption that a primitive 100 weapon nuclear force would require only 550 kilograms of a special type of plutonium, and plants handling 100 metric tons of uranium per annum would be all that would be required for providing enough explosive to give the State embarking on such a programme some kind of a weapons system, although a primitive one, which would be demolished in the first stage of nuclear war but could nevertheless be used to terrorise other States for a certain period.
When one looks at the States able to do this in technical and financial terms, one sees that 20 of them are already in a position at least to make a decision to embark upon a nuclear weapons programme. Among the 20 are States which are Pacific States by definition, including Australia, India—which has a rather advanced nuclear installation at Trombay—and Japan. I was rather astonished to find, on reading the study, that they also include both South Korea and Taiwan.
We have to consider the impact of this French determination to continue with a programme which seems to have no clearly defined and, to me certainly, no politically acceptable strategic aim, on the Pacific itself. If I were an Australian or a New Zealander—I can think of no better thing to be at the moment—I would regard it as a slap in the face and an insult to my country that President Pompidou should insist on treating the whole of the Pacific Ocean as France's aquatic back yard.
If I were an Australian or a New Zealander with some influence on my country's defence policy—the more so if I were Japanese or perhaps South Korean—I should perhaps feel inclined to argue that, since nuclear devices have come to the Pacific, since it is to be an area in which nuclear weapons may be deployed because they have been tested, we too should go in for this game because we can indeed go in for it if we want to.
Quite apart from the morality or immorality of nuclear weapons, do we imagine that we will be in a safer world if we get that degree of proliferation in

81
the Pacific or anywhere else? If the Government thought that it would be a safer world, they would not have signed, in a previous incarnation, the non-proliferation treaty. They cannot argue their signature to the treaty away. They obviously regard the dangers of proliferation in much the same light as I do.
What the Opposition object to about the French nuclear tests—and we have no divisions on this issue—is first of all the danger to life because of the radiation hazards but, secondly, the contribution the tests and the French determination behind them are making towards aggravating the proliferation problem which the Government recognised a long time ago as a major problem.
I have always felt that the time to be frank is when one enters into a new relationship with another country. We have just done so with France in the EEC. The Conservative Party wants the Community to evolve into something else. Earlier today we heard talk of economic and monetary union. But I would have thought that if we object to any actions by a French Government on any grounds whatever, it is time to raise these objections very strongly when we are entering into a totally new relationship with the Government and people of France. I would also have thought that our membership of NATO imposes obligations upon us, perhaps even stronger than those imposed upon us by any international court.
The strategic conceptions applied behind the French nuclear programme are destructive not only of the atmospheric conditions of the Pacific Ocean but of the whole accepted strategy of NATO, and possibly will create enormous difficulties between ourselves in NATO and the United States, without which NATO cannot be effective. We are confronted here with a new expression of French chauvinism. If we did not object, we would have no right to talk about international affairs at all.
5.56 p.m.
Mr. Christopher Woodhouse: Recently the hon. Member for Ilkeston (Mr. Raymond Fletcher) paid me the compliment of saying of a speech of mine that he wished that he had made it himself. I am happy to reciprocate that compliment. I have every sympathy with
82
the logic of his argument and the moral stance taken by several hon. Members opposite today. I have every sympathy with all that has been said both about the French and about the Chinese in this matter. But I think it right to remind the House that the motion is aimed only indirectly at the French. It is aimed more directly at Her Majesty's Government and at what the Government ought to be doing.
Hon. Members opposite will acquit me of any reluctance to urge the Government to intervene in good causes overseas wherever I believe it to be right and practicable. I do not think that we should take a narrow view of what is practicable. But even the British Govment have to draw the line somewhere, and I think that in this matter of the French nuclear tests we are getting very near the borderline of what makes sense and what makes political nonsense.
It is fair to the Government to say that their position is unambiguous on the merits of the case. They have consistently taken the view that nuclear tests should not be carried out any longer in the atmosphere and have made that view known to the French Government. They have urged the French Government to sign the partial test ban treaty of 1963. They have supported the United Nations General Assembly resolution calling for a suspension of all atmospheric nuclear tests. They have impressed on the French Government the importance of the resolution passed at the South Pacific Forum two or three months ago charging the French with deplorable indifference to the effects of their proposed tests on the peoples of the Pacific.
I will leave the detail of these aspects to the two right hon. and learned Gentlemen who are to conclude the debate but it is worth remarking in passing that the British judge at the International Court voted with the majority in the recent ruling against the French case. But he did not do so as a servant of Her Majesty's Government, and it is right to say that his vote does not impose any more obligation upon Her Majesty's Government than would the vote of any other judge.
Nor does it impose any more obligation on Her Majesty's Government than it imposes on any other independent Government. Nevertheless, there is no doubt

83
in my mind that Her Majesty's Government concur in the view expressed by the judge at the International Court. Her Majesty's Government have clearly registered that fact, and I do not see that there is much more they can do.
The motion criticises the Government for their failure to make "adequate protests". What would be an adequate protest in these circumstances? The only significant meaning that can be attached to an adequate protest would be that it should be a protest which would cause the French to change their policy and abandon the proposed tests.
There is nothing more certain than that no matter what the Government did it would make no difference at all to the French intention. I say that because, like everyone else who knows the French people, I know that nuclear weapons are for them a symbol of national independence. This may be immoral, wrong, out of date, but it is a fact. This has always been so, ever since nuclear weapons came into existence.
Let me recall that the French reaction to the débâcle of the intervention in Egypt in 1956 was totally different from ours. Their reaction was one of a total absence of shame about the operation. It was a reaction NA, which argued that this showed that one could not trust even one's closest allies not to let one down in a crisis and that to be independent one must have the ultimate control of the ultimate weapon. Their reaction was to go all out to create the force de frappe with the strongest possible emphasis on the national independence which this force would confer upon them.
It bears recollection that this decision was taken by a French Government before the return to power of General de Gaulle. This was not a Gaullist policy, although of course it was adopted by General de Gaulle, reinforced and expanded. It was net de Gaulle himself but it was the French people who reacted in this way. I recall a few years after these events hearing one of General de Gaulle's closest associates saying in my hearing at a Bilderberg conference that the French attitude in this matter could be expressed in a simple phrase which has stuck in my memory ever since—"Il n'y a de force nuléaire que nationale", meaning that
84
there is no such thing as nuclear power except under national control. In other words, they have never been interested in nuclear sharing because they believe that a shared weapon is no weapon at all.
It is, therefore, no use trying to dissuade them from a nuclear test programme by saying that it has all been done before by their allies or offering them know-how from our own store of experience or by offering them facilities for underground testing, as the Americans are said to have done in Nevada, or even by offering them a share in allied nuclear weapons. To the French this is all totally irrelevant. Whatever we do and whatever we say and however much we protest, they will go ahead. I regret that this well-meant debate is doomed to sterility.
6.5 p.m.
Mr. Michael Meacher: No one who listened to the Minister's defensive speech this afternoon can fail to appreciate how embarrassed the Government are over this issue. Britain in particular has a clear moral obligation, and it is highly significant that the Minister never once used that crucial word. The Pitcairn Islands, which are extremely close to the test zone, are a British responsibility. There will certainly be an increase in cancer deaths as a result of these tests, even it the right hon. Gentleman regards them as statistically insignificant. I would remind him that people remain people even if an attempt is made to define them away as statistically insignificant.
Secondly, Britain is a signatory of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and is surely obligated, and well placed, to seek to dissuade France from these further nuclear tests. It cannot be said—here I disagree with the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Woodhouse)—that British pressure would not be influential. Last year the French displayed their sensitivity to world protest by reducing the number of tests in their series from seven to five.
The argument used so cynically by the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley)—namely, that Britain might be inhibited from taking such a moral stance with France because of her nuclear record policy—does not stand up. Britain was not inhibited in condemning the use of dum-dum bullets before the last war

85
merely by the fact that British troops had used them in the Boer War, although, I agree, wrongly and regretfully. Britain did not use them again.
The only argument which the Government have consistently posed to explain their deafening silence over this issue is that there is no real evidence of any danger to health. It must be known that there is no objective reason to justify such a dogmatic assertion of complacency. The truth is that no one knows how widespread will be the carcinogenic effects of these tests, partly because the cancer they will produce and the deaths they will cause are indistinguishable from other cancer cases which might arise from other causes.
One authoritative report—I do not apologise for quoting yet one more important report which has not so far been quoted—was recently published by the United States Academy of Sciences. It estimates that cancer deaths arising from fall-out amount to no fewer than 150 a year in the United States alone. I calculate that for the whole world it must be at least 10 times that figure. Even if the French tests—I readily concede this—do not add more than a small percentage to this total, I still think that they have to be justified, because they will be the deaths not of Frenchmen but of people, many as yet unborn, who have no conceivable interest in French military aspirations. Given the almost certain fact—almost all the literature agrees on this—that at least some innocent people, whether statistically insignificant or not, will die if these tests are carried out, it is clearly understood that the latest round of explosions will be much bigger and a great deal dirtier than last year's.
The key question is whether the benefit of these atmospheric tests outweighs the deaths, however small in number, which they are certain to cause. It must be stressed that the real purpose and objective of these tests is to complete the miniaturisation of the trigger and warhead devices so that France may have two nuclear submarines with nuclear warheads by 1976. These tests could be carried out underground which would be entirely compatible with the partial test ban treaty. Apparently the French lack the technology. It would certainly be a great deal more expensive. It is for these reasons that 50 to 100 future Australian
86
deaths or disabilities are being risked by atmospheric testing. But, given this risk of fatalities, the fundamental question is whether the French defence policy objective is viable.
The paradox is that France is struggling to produce submarine-launched ballistic missiles which will still have a shorter range than Britain's Polaris submarine missiles—missiles which will not be fully operational for another three years. By that time, however, the United States will largely have replaced its Polaris missiles with Poseidon, while at the same time Russia may well have achieved a considerable break-through in its programme to improve submarine-tracking devices. For three years France will continue to lack a credible deterrent, but even at the end of that time technology may well have pushed the illusion of a credible deterrent still further into the future. This is particularly the case when Russia, which is presumably the main target, may continue to improve its anti-ballistic system, since SALT I did not specifically forbid further research on ABM systems, nor did it prevent modernisation and replacement of existing missiles.
In this situation where the French may well be chaising a Gaullist military illusion, like some will-o'-the-wisp, one must ask what are the real reasons why Britain has become so morally compromised over this affair.
Mr. Critchley: The hon. Gentleman's remarks about the French nuclear force are not unreasonable, but they are based on the assumption that he believes nuclear weapons can be used first against convential forces. Is that really what he believes?
Mr. Meacher: I do not see that my remarks are necessarily based on that premise. I do not concede that point. I do not think it is relevant to my main argument.
The real question that needs to be asked is why the British Government have allowed themselves to become so morally compromised over this affair, because I do not think the reasons were brought out in the Minister's speech. There can be no doubt that one reason, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) said in his excellent speech, is the Prime Minister's domestic political needs for French good will towards a

87
compromise over CAP and over Community regional policy. But there is a deeper reason still for the reluctance of the British Government to intervene, and that is the present Government's interest—however much they seek to deny it—in an Anglo-French nuclear deterrent.
What has been quietly left unspelt out in this affair is the interest of both sides in the other's nuclear advance, for each side has elements that the other really needs for a more convincing stake in the nuclear power game. The French have their own supplies of natural uranium, and they have their two reactors for producing tritium, which is one of the basic materials necessary for the manufacture of hydrogen weapons, while we have superior technology and greater intelligence data about Russian nuclear facilities.
It is no doubt part of the calculation of Her Majesty's Government that six or seven jointly-owned nuclear submarines within a combined Anglo-French nuclear framework would present a far more credible deterrent than either country could operate by itself. But if these are the kind of considerations and manoeuvres that lie behind the Government's official silence over these tests, as I believe they are, they represent a callous sacrifice of some innocent lives as well as a serious abuse of Britain's rôle in today's power politics. For these reasons I strongly condemn the Government.
6.16 p.m.
Mr. Jeffrey Archer: I should like to congratulate the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) on giving the House an opportunity to debate this extremely important topic. I had the privilege over a year ago of being the only Member on this side of the House to sign the hon. Gentleman's motion on this issue and I have stuck with him consistently. I hope my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer) will note what I say when he quietly allows the hon. Member for West Lothian to be the only one who is allowed to make any comment on this subject.
I very much respect the rôle which has been played by the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in the past, and I realise the rôle he played in the test ban treaty. What I
88
do not fully understand is that, having played that rôle with such determination under Mr. Macmillan, he can now play his rôle so quietly under the present Prime Minister. Time and again in this House I have been of the view—possibly my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General will put me right—that we have played this one very quietly and that our protests have been almost in corners. I should like to see somebody on the Government Front Bench rise at the Dispatch Box and thoroughly deplore what is going on—not just on the lines "We do not think what is happening is very good", coupling the Chinese with what is going on, but in a forthright way condemning the tests.
I must take up the comment of my hon. Friend the Member for Flint. West, who said that we had no right to protest because of what we did in 1953. In 1953 I was at prep school and was unable to have any influence on any Government at that time. If that is supposed to preclude me from having any influence on present events, heaven help the next generation. I was not able to come to a decision then—although perhaps my hon. Friend was able to make up his mind—but my decision now is that we have done the wrong thing. Surely we should not be influenced by what was done in this House 20 years ago. I hope that in 20 years' time when a young Member disagrees with me in this House—if the people of Louth decide to keep me—that young man will not be influenced by what happened in 1973.
I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley) has left the Chamber, because I thought that his point about scientists and their effect on the situation was the weakest which has been made in this debate. The truth is that when scientists put down their thoughts in leading scientific journals, it is a matter of very great importance to them since their whole reputation is involved. Therefore, he should think again about what he said. Science has made enormous advances in the last 10 years and the situation has become considerably more dangerous. What the scientists say is good enough for me.
My hon. Friend the Member for Flint, West rather brilliantly criticised the Opposition for their attitude on this subject. He did it with wit and sarcasm

89
rather than by the direct hit. I must confess that the men who most appeal to me in political history number among them Wilberforce, Bright and Russell. If such men had not been able to make moral protests and had not been able to make some of the great moral statements of the day, I doubt very much whether this House would have led the world in the way it did in the periods in which those men existed. Although my hon. Friend dismissed moral indignation in a puff of smoke on the lines that we are not the nation we were 100 years ago, surely that does not stop us getting up and saying that we believe somebody else is wrong.
If we think in terms of the European movement, of which I thoroughly approve, we must look at the matter from that sort of standpoint. If in one's own family one's son does something wrong and then something right, one approves him for doing right and criticises him for doing wrong. But one criticises him with as much vigour and determination as one praises him for doing right. It would have been a lot healthier if the British Government had said to the French Government "We agree with you on A, B and C, but as for point D we deplore what you are doing and you cannot expect our support."
I also agree with the hon. Member for West Lothian about China. Perhaps it was a clever way out for China. It was a way for China to have a position on this subject, though it is bad for the French to be able to do their nuclear tests because it gives the Chinese a way out. It would be a lot better for the Western world if there were no one in the Western world doing tests. In that way we should have a stronger position when making statements vis-à-vis the Chinese and other nations.
I shall not add to the more than competent scientific comments on the Pitcairn Islands. I am willing to believe—because my right hon. Friend the Minister of State said so—that the "upping" of danger will be 10 per cent. He said that it was not very much, and he may be right. But it is 10 per cent. too much, and it is that 10 per cent. which I am against.
90
I was hoping so hard that I should be able to get through three months without voting against my party. Here we are again. I have not survived. I would have made it by the end of this week. I should then have gone 12 whole weeks without opposing my Government. Concerning the Government's amendment, I shall abstain. Concerning the Opposition motion, I shall vote with the hon. Member for West Lothian and his right hon. and hon. Friends.
6.22 p.m.
Sir Elwyn Jones: I at once commend the courageous and admirable speech of the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Jeffrey Archer), and I express the hope that those like-minded hon. Members who have spoken in the same sense will join the hon. Gentleman in the Division Lobby.
As the hon. Gentleman indicated, the Opposition motion, which I invite the House to support, is in two parts. The first deplores the failure of Her Majesty's Government to make adequate protests to the Government of France for ignoring the decision of the International Court on nuclear testing. The second supports the Governments of Australia and New Zealand in their opposition to the impending tests.
The Government's amendment fails to deal with either of the propositions in the Opposition motion. In the face of France's announced determination to go on with the tests and the failure of Her Majesty's Government to take any action in regard to it, in our view the Government amendment amounts to no more than a pious and irrelevant platitude in the circumstances that we face.
During the debate several questions of great importance have been raised, and we look forward to hearing the answers of the learned Attorney-General. For my part I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman a direct question. Do Her Majesty's Government support the Governments of Australia and New Zealand in their opposition to the impending tests and in their attempts to enlist the aid of the International Court to bring to an end the threatened tests? If not, why not?
If Her Majesty's Government support the Governments of Australia and New Zealand, how have they manifested that

91
opposition? They have not done it in this House. They have not done it in their amendment. I find it a matter of great regret that the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary has not yet done it.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) opened the debate in a superb manner which gave all of us great pleasure. As my hon. Friend pointed out, it was, after all, the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary who played a leading part in bringing about the 1963 treaty banning nuclear weapon tests in the atmosphere, in outer space and under water. If what the Minister of State said earlier today is true, I wonder why the Foreign Secretary bothered.
All that the Foreign Secretary said about the matter in the foreign affairs debate last week was:
"Our position is that we do not think that these tests should be carried out, but the French are capable of making their decisions for themselves. They will no doubt decide in the light of all the approaches which have been made to them whether to go ahead."
That sounds more like condonation of France's intended and announced defiance of the International Court and, through it, the international community than a condemnation of it. The speech of the Minister of State today combined much special pleading with only a faint and certainly not specific disapproval of what the French are planning, with no hint of condemnation.
The 1963 test ban treaty was largely achieved because of increasing awareness of the dangers to the health of present and future generations which most responsible opinion considers to be involved in the dispersal over wide areas of the globe of radioactive fall-out. Each atmospheric nuclear test is now thought by many of the world's greatest scientists to make an irreversible contribution to the pollution of the human environment.
Professor Linus Pauling, who has been described as the greatest geneticist in the world and is twice a Nobel Prize winner, has translated that proposition into stark human terms. He has estimated that about 1,700 deformed babies would be born in Australia if the French exploded a 20-megaton hydrogen bomb and that, of those, 1,500 would die. He has said that 500,000 unborn children would suffer gross mental and physical defects and that the same number of people would con-
92
tract cancer. If there are scientists ready to be bought, as the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley) suggested. Dr. Pauling is not one of them.
Mr. Critehley: The right hon. and learned Gentleman ought to study my speech a little more carefully. I did not say that. I passed a light-hearted comment—[HON. MEMBERS: "0h."] Very well: a serious comment, if hon. Members prefer—that there are experts in all walks of life who are easibly obtainable. [HON. MEMBERS: "Buyable."]
Sir Elwyn Jones: Having sought to withdraw what he said, the hon. Gentleman compounded his offence. However, let me proceed with what I was saying when I was so unhelpfully interrupted.
The maturing of national and international attitudes towards nuclear weapons development, especially nuclear testing which gives rise to nuclear fallout, has been evidenced by a series of treaties and resolutions. Of pre-eminent importance is the 1963 treaty. The principal provision of that treaty prohibits the carrying out of nuclear explosions if their radiation debris is present outside the territorial limits of the testing State. That treaty is now accepted by more than 100 States, and its basic demand has been constantly and almost universally stressed by members of the world community, culminating last year in the Stockholm resolution on nuclear weapon tests passed by the Conference on the Environment.
As the Attorney-General for New Zealand submitted to The Hague Court, during the same period and as a corollary to the intensified governmental and popular action to control and prohibit nuclear weapons and their testing in the atmosphere and elsewhere and to safeguard the environment and natural resources, there has also been a growing juridical perception and acceptance in legal circles of the nature and quality of this activity and a rapid development of the law concerning it.
As I understand it, the French attitude is that the French tests concern no one but the French and that they are entirely within their own French domestic jurisdiction. But, as a learned article in this week's New Law Journal points out:
"Firstly, there are not many questions which international law leaves to the exclusive competence of States. Secondly, it is inconceivable

93
that the use by State X of its own territory in such a way that the measurable and harmful effects are felt in the territory and by the population of States Y and Z is such a question."
There is authority to the contrary in the Frail Smelter arbitration between the United States and Canada relating to the pollution of the air by fumes from smelting operations; a fortiori if the nuisance committed or threatened by X is to occur on the high seas and not solely on X's territory. That was the point made by the hon. Member for Bolton, East (Mr. Laurance Reed) in his admirable speech. The French testing zone apparently extends for 120 miles out to sea from Mururoa.
The tests concern above all the nations in and around the Pacific Ocean. They are above all questions not of French business but of the business of the Pacific nations.
It is true that some scientists do not agree with the assessment made by my hon. Friend on the basis of the expert scientific knowledge which he cited to the House. The most extreme statement of the opposite point of view has been expressed by the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. He went so far as to say last week, and in effect repeated today, that according to the evidence available to the Foreign Office there is no danger whatever to health as a result of the French or Chinese tests in the atmosphere. I doubt whether even the French would go so far as to say that. That assertion flies in the face of the evidence submitted by the Australian and New Zealand Governments to the International Court.
I earnestly invite the right hon. Gentleman, when he has time to do so, to read paragraphs 38, 39 and 40 of the Australian application to the court. I cannot conceive that he would have made that rash and unqualified statement had he given serious thought to the quality of the evidence offered by the spokesmen of Australia and New Zealand to the court. The conclusion of that evidence was:
"There is undoubtedly some threat to the life, health and wellbeing of exposed individuals and their descendants from radiation doses arising from radioactive fallout generated by nuclear explosions."
94
The Minister was not even prepared to go so far as to support the somewhat cautious expression of opinion by the court that the information submitted to the court, including reports of the United Nations Scientific Committee on the effects of atomic radiation between 1958 and 1972,
"does not exclude the possibility that damage to Australia might be shown to be caused by the deposit on Australian territory of radioactive fallout resulting from such tests and to be irreparable."
The court concluded that it was
"satisfied that it should indicate interim measures of protection in order to preserve the right claimed by Australia in respect of the deposit of radioactive fallout on her territory"
and commanded that the French Government should avoid nuclear tests causing the deposit of radioactive fall-out on Australian territory.
Does the Attorney-General agree with those conclusions and recommendations of the International Court? We have not even had any expression of agreement with them from the Government. That order from the court had the support of eight of the 14 judges, and the majority included one of this country's most eminent international lawyers, Sir Humphrey Waldock, who exercised his own distinguished independent judgment. I have found regrettable the attitude of the Minister of State towards the interim orders of the court.
While it is true that, as the right hon. Gentleman has said, international law in its present form does not call on other Powers to enforce the judgment of the court, it would have befitted the Government at least to say a word of condemnation of France's contemptuous attitude towards the order.
Mr. Woodhouse Mr. Woodhouse rose—
Sir Elwyn Jones: I will not give way. I am sorry. Pressure of time is too great. I promised to finish in five minutes.
Our obligations across the world make it especially important that not only should we respect the rule of law but that we should take all appropriate diplomatic and legal steps to promote it and in particular to sustain the authority of the International Court. After all, we

95
ourselves have recently sought, and now seek to enforce against the Icelandic Government, the very kind of remedy which the Australian and the New Zealand Governments have now obtained, an order for provisional measures against the Icelandic Government. We have shown that we are prepared to use force to enforce those provisional measures.
Pressure from the international community is essential to give support to the court's decision, and in that community our voice should be heard loud and clear. Instead, all we have had is a largely submissive bleat about the French case from the Government. Their legal and moral duty is to do far more than they have done. I commend the staunch statements on the matter by the hon. Members for Louth and Bolton, East.
Where does the Government's political duty lie? This country's duty, as head of the Commonwealth and its only European member, is to stand by Australia and New Zealand and our Pacific dependencies and to support in clear terms their denunciation of the tests.
In this context it is important to realise that the opposition to the tests is not confined to Australia and New Zealand, to which we and France herself owe so much. There was a moving reminder of that in the note from the Australian Prime Minister to the French Government in February this year, when he said:
"The presence of over 25,000 Australian graves in France bears full witness to the sacrifices made by Australia."
New Zealand could say much the same:
"The Australian Government hopes that your Government will not be led by its concern for the security of France to seek to strengthen that security at the expense of the welfare and peace of mind of other peoples."
I recently returned from a visit to the South Pacific, where I experienced for myself the deep concern felt among the inhabitants of places such as Fiji, Nauru and others of the Pacific islands about the planned French nuclear tests. It is a significant fact—the Government should take note of it—that when, in August 1971, the new Pacific States of Fiji, West Samoa, Tonga, Nauru and the Cook Islands all joined with Australia and New Zealand for the first South Pacific forum, their first act was to denounce French testing and send a joint protest to Paris.
96
That is the kind of action Her Majesty's Government should have taken. Instead, they have stubbornly kept out of step with what I believe to be the opinion of most people in our country, of trade unionists and others in all walks of life, and of civilised opinion in most of the rest of the world.
I appeal to the Government, even now, to make at the end of the debate a clear denunciation in specific terms of the proposed French nuclear tests and a demand to the Government of France, which would come well indeed from the Attorney-General, in the name of so many peoples of the world who have so far looked to us in vain for a lead, that the judgment of the International Court should be respected and applied.
6.40 p.m.
The Attorney-General (Sir Peter Rawlinson): The terms of the motion are selected by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition side. They have chosen to frame the motion in a way which does not include straightforward political condemnation or moral assertions about the attitude which should be adopted but, in its first part, deals precisely and completely with the protest which it says the Government should make to the Government of France for ignoring the decision of the International Court at The Hague.
The motion is worded solely upon the decision of the International Court of Justice and what action the Government ought to take in the face of the preliminary measures indicated by the International Court of Justice in the case recently heard at The Hague. The issues therefore involve questions of international law, and if there are any complaints about a legalistic reply I ask hon. Members to bear with me while I deal with these important matters and issues.
I appreciate the strong feelings expressed in the debate, principally by the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell), who moved the motion with skill, by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, East (Mr. Laurance Reed) and by others of my hon. Friends. I draw to their attention the fact that, as my right hon. Friend the Minister of State said, the Government have made it clear that they deplore the resumption of atmospheric nuclear tests and, in the

97
broad terms of the amendment, express their concern and share the widespread concern that has been expressed about the continued testing of nuclear weapons.
The framework of the debate has been set by the Opposition, and it is to the first part of the motion as it relates to the International Court that I must now turn. It is the fact in international law that the International Court has power, and always has had power, to determine questions of its own jurisdiction under Article 36 of the statute. The court may make a valid interim order before reaching a final decision as to its jurisdiction. So long as the International Court is satisfied that a prima facie case has been made on jurisdiction it is permitted, within its procedures and within its own jurisprudence, to make an indication of provisional measures. In this case, that is what the court did in respect of the application made by New Zealand and Australia.
It is the view of Her Majesty's Government that, under international law, a State party to which such an order is addressed should comply with such a provisional order, and it is their view of international law that, once a State party has had addressed to it such a declaration by the International Court, it is the duty of that nation to obey that order. As far as I am aware—and I challenge the right hon. and learned Member for West Ham, South (Sir Elwyn Jones) to deny this—it has never been the practice in international law for other States which are not parties to the proceedings to take diplomatic or other action when a State party which is denying the jurisdiction of the International Court takes no action to obey or to implement an interim order directed to that State. There is no legal obligation upon Her Majesty's Government under international law to protest should France not comply with the provisional measures indicated on 22nd June.
Sir Elwyn Jones: Would not the Attorney-General agree that, bearing in mind that it is Australia and New Zealand which are the applicants, and that we have special responsibility in regard to them and to the inhabitants of our possessions in the South Pacific, we would be entitled to raise a vigorous voice in protest?
The Attorney-General: If the right hon. and learned Gentleman is saying that we are entitled to make a protest, or to make our views known as a matter of policy or as a matter of judgment, so be it. All I am saying in reply to the terms of the motion drawn up by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite is that where a State is not a party to proceedings it is not, and has not been on the few occasions when interim measures have been ordered, a requirement of international law that that State should intervene to make the protest which the right hon. and learned Gentleman and some of his hon. Friends seek to have made.
It was not done in the Anglo-Iranian case when right hon. and hon. Members opposite were in office at the time of Mr. Attlee's Government. It has not been done in the recent Icelandic fisheries case to which Her Majesty's Government are a party. There have not been official protests that the order of the court has not been obeyed by the Icelandic Government. Perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman can tell the House which countries have made official protests of the kind which, I understand, some hon. Gentlemen are saying is required by international law.
Mr. Robert Maclennan: Does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that it would have been open to the Government to intervene at an earlier stage of the proceedings as amicus curiae and make submissions which might have helped the court to take a different view from that which it took? If the Government take the view, as they appear to do from what was said earlier, that there is little to be feared from the French tests, why did they not intervene in the proceedings and make that point? Does not the Government's failure to intervene suggest that they do not put much faith in the case?
The Attorney-General: The hon. Gentleman should appreciate that it is no more significant than other nations not having intervened in the Icelandic fisheries case. No other country has sought to become amicus curiae in order to intervene before the International Court. This was an application by two countries directed to a particular State party. If there had been a denial of a

99
legal right vested in the United Kingdom, there might have been a breach of international law.
Opposition Members have chosen to debate the motion in terms of the action taken by the International Court. They have not set down a motion setting out on political or moral grounds what the United Kingdom should have done. But even if France is in breach of an international obligation, that obligation is not owed substantially to the United Kingdom, and there is no substantive international legal right of the United Kingdom which would seem to be infringed.
Mr. Laurance Reed: If my right hon. and learned Friend thinks that the British Government should not support decisions of the International Court when we are not a party to them, how does the United Kingdom expect to get international support for cases which it takes before the court and wins?
The Attorney-General: If my hon. Friend looks at Article 59 of the International Court's own statute he will see that, whether we like it or not, by the statute which establishes the International Court the fundamental principle of the International Court's operations in contentious litigation is that its decisions are binding only upon the parties. and the States which set up the International Court made that clear.
Where a State party is directed to do or to refrain from doing certain acts in accordance with provisional measures ordered by the court, that State should so do. The United Kingdom has no locus standi in international law to make a formal protest if any party, for whatever reason, does not comply with an order of the court. There is no requirement that the United Kingdom should protest in this case, and the statutes and the jurisprudence of the court show this.
Her Majesty's Government's attitude has been wholly consistent with the attitude of successive Governments. The United Kingdom has always upheld the authority of the court when we have been a party before it, whether the court has been in our favour or not. The Government of Mr. Attlee took a similar view in the 1951 Anglo-Iranian dispute.
100
The rule of law that State parties should comply with orders of the court is accepted by the Government, but when it comes to an interim measure, when one of the parties does not accept that the court has jurisdiction, when that still has to be decided, when the court has merely set out interim measures based upon a preliminary, prima facie view of the jurisdiction, in international law there is no proper opportunity for the United Kingdom, and certainly no obligation on the United Kingdom, to protest.
As my right hon. Friend the Minister of State has said, however, the position of the Government about nuclear testing has been made clear in the United Nations and elsewhere: that is, that the United Kingdom hopes and expects that other nations will agree to the conditions of the partial test ban treaty. That view was repeated in 1972 and this year. Of course there are strong feelings on this subject, which no Government take lightly. The views of the Government are on record and my right hon. Friend the Minister of State reiterated them today. To put it beyond doubt, the amendment expresses our widespread concern about atmospheric tests by any State.
We should bear in mind the facts when we consider whether there should be a protest, even if not in international law, by Her Majesty's Government. The facts presented today show that the nuclear testing in the atmosphere is to take place, as in the past, in an uninhabited zone of ocean which, in the direction of the prevailing winds, is 4,000 miles from the nearest land. The Pitcairn Islands are 600 miles away, but monitoring has been done there since the tests began in the time of the Labour Government and that monitoring has shown that there is no detectable risk. The French have been careful—[Interruption.] As the hon. Member knows, there are two considerations with regard to fall-out. There is local fall-out, with an effect up to a few hundred miles, and there is the long-term effect. It is the latter that is being monitored by the team on Pitcairn Island. The report made by the Australians to their own Academy of Science cannot be brushed aside as unimportant, irrelevant or incorrect.
The French have been careful to time their tests to suit them to the prevailing

101
winds from Mururoa into the uninhabited zone, which stretches for 4,000 miles. There has been a monitoring team during all the years of testing. When the French have detonated their devices, we have never detected radiation levels showing a danger to health.
World public concern has focused of course on the second effect—world-wide fall-out—which is the only one that could affect Australia and New Zealand. I must repeat what my right hon. Friend has already said. Our estimate is that world-wide fall-out is detectable but insignificant in terms of damage to health. The hon. Member for West Lothian maintained that there was a mounting danger to health from strontium 90 and other long-lived elements. I am informed that the accumulated activity from these elements has been showing a decline in the past few years.
The hon. Member also referred to the work of three scientists, Mr. Tampling and his colleagues, and asked whether we were aware of their work. We are, but their speculation about nuclear effects is by no means acceptable to scientists in general. Therefore, I take it that, when my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley) jocularly replied to an intervention about purchasing scientific information, he meant that there are scientists who would and who will disagree with some of these conclusions.
However, as a result of the partial test ban treaty, the level of radioactivity in the atmosphere has fallen greatly in the past 10 years. The present level of testing by the French and the Chinese is not such as to cause any fears on health grounds. My right hon. Friend said that their tests are responsible for one-tenth of the total annual radiation that goes to people in the Southern Hemisphere. It reached only one-hundredth part of the reference levels recorded by the International Commission on Radiological Protection.
My hon. Friends the Members for Aldershot and for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer) referred to this debate as humbug. The right hon. and learned Member for West Ham, South, in order to dress it up with some respectability has drawn in the International Court of Justice, but the requirements of international law do not demand a protest by Her Majesty's Government. Right hon. and hon. Members opposite have always been guilty of great humbug over all questions of nuclear weapons. They did not make their protest in 1967, 1968 or 1969. I would ask the House to reject the motion and to accept the amendment.
Question put, That the amendment he made:—
The House divided: Ayes 276, Noes 266.

Division No. 179.]

AYES

[7.00 p.m.

Adley, Robert

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

Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

Alison, Michael (Barkaton Ash)

Buck, Antony

Dixon, Piers

Aliason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

Bullus, Sir Eric

Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec

Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian

Burden, F. A.

Drayson, G. B.

Astor, John

Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

Dykes, Hugh

Atkins, Humphrey

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

Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir John

Awdry, Daniel

Carlisle, Mark

Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

Cary, Sir Robert

Emery, Peter

Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

Channon, Paul

Eyre, Reginald

Batsford, Brian

Chapman, Sydney

Farr, John

Bell, Ronald

Chataway, Rt.Hn. Christopher

Fell, Anthony

Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

Chichester-Clark, R.

Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

Churchill, W. S.

Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

Benyon, W.

Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

Berry, Hn. Anthony

Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

Biffen, John

Cockeram, Eric

Fookes, Miss Janet

Biggs-Davison, John

Cooke, Robert

Fortescue, Tim

Blaker, Peter

Coombs, Derek

Foster, Sir John

Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

Cooper, A. E.

Fowler, Norman

Body, Richard

Cordle, John

Fox, Marcus

Boscawen, Hn. Robert

Corfield, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick

Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

Bossom, Sir Clive

Cormack, Patrick

Gardner, Edward

Bowden, Andrew

Costain, A. P.

Gibson-Watt, David

Braine, Sir Bernard

Critchley, Julian

Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

Bray, Ronald

Crouch, David

Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

Brinton, Sir Tatton

Dalkeith, Earl of

Glyn, Dr. Alan

Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)

Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

Goodhart, Philip

Bruce-Gardyne, J.

d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen.Jack

Gorst, John

Bryan, Sir Paul

Dean, Paul

Gower, Raymond

Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

MacArthur, Ian

Rost, Peter

Gray, Hamish

McCrindle, R. A.

Royle, Anthony

Green, Alan

McLaren, Martin

Russell, Sir Ronald

Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

St. John-Stevas, Norman

Grylis, Michael

McNair-Wilson, Michael

Scott, Nicholas

Gummer, J. Selwyn

McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)

Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)

Gurden, Harold

Maddan, Martin

Shelton, William (Clapham)

Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

Madel, David

Shersby, Michael

Hall, John (Wycombe)

Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

Simeons, Charles

Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

Marten, Neil

Sinclair, Sir George

Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

Mather, Carol

Skeet, T. H. H.

Hannam, John (Exeter)

Maude, Angus

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

Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

Mawby, Ray

Soref, Harold

Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

Speed, Keith

Haselhurst, Alan

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Spence, John

Hastings, Stephen

Mills, Peter (Torrington)

Sproat, Iain

Havers, Michael

Miscampbell, Norman

Stainton, Keith

Hawkins, Paul

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

Stanbrook, Ivor

Hay, John

Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Seiner)

Hayhoe, Barney

Moate, Roger

Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward

Monks, Mrs. Connie

Stokes, John

Heseltine, Michael

Monro, Hector

Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

Hicks, Robert

Montgomery, Fergus

Tapsell, Peter

Higgins, Terence L.

More, Jasper

Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

Holland, Philip

Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

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

Holt, Miss Mary

Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

Hordern, Peter

Morrison, Charles

Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

Hornby, Richard

Mudd, David

Tebbit, Norman

Murton, Oscar

Temple, John M.

Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia

Nabarro, Sir Gerald

Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

Neave, Airey

Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

Howell, David (Guildford)

Nicholls, Sir Harmar

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

Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

Hunt, John

Nott, John

Tilney, John

Hutchison, Michael Clark

Onslow, Cranley

Trafford, Dr. Anthony

Iremonger, T. L.

Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

Trew, Peter

Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

Tugendhat, Christopher

James, David

Osborn, John

Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin

Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)

Vickers, Dame Joan

Jessel, Toby

Parkinson, Cecil

Waddington, David

Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

Percival, Ian

Walder, David (Clitheroe)

Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

Peyton, Rt. Hn. John

Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)

Jopling, Michael

Pike, Miss Mervyn

Wall, Patrick

Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

Pink, R. Bonner

Walters, Dennis

Kaberry, Sir Donald

Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

Wells, John (Maidstone)

Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine

Price, David (Eastleigh)

White, Roger (Gravesend)

Kershaw, Anthony

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

Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

Proudfoot, Wilfred

Wiggin, Jerry

King, Tom (Bridgwater)

Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

Wilkinson, John

Kinsey, J. R.

Quennell, Miss J. M.

Winterton, Nicholas

Kitson, Timothy

Raison, Timothy

Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

Knight, Mrs. Jill

Ramaden, Rt. Hn. James

Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

Knox, David

Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

Lamont, Norman

Redmond, Robert

Woodnutt, Mark

Lane, David

Rees, Peter (Dover)

Worsley, Marcus

Langford-Holt, Sir John

Rees-Davies, W. R.

Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

Younger, Hn. George

Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield)

Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)

Ridsdale, Julian

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Longdon, Sir Gilbert

Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey

Mr. Walter Clegg and

Luce, R. N.

Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

Mr. Bernard Weatherill.

McAdden, Sir Stephen

Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

NOES

Abse, Leo

Boothroyd, Miss B. (West Brom.)

Coleman, Donald

Albu, Austen

Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

Concannon, J. D.

Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)

Conlan, Bernard

Allen, Scholefield

Bradley, Tom

Corbel, Mrs. Freda

Ashley, Jack

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

Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

Ashton, Joe

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

Crawahaw, Richard

Atkinson, Norman

Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

Cronin, John

Bagier, Gordon A. T.

Buchan, Norman

Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

Barnes, Michael

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

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

Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)

Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)

Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

Dalyell, Tam

Baxter, William

Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

Darling, Rt. Hn. George

Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

Cant, R. B.

Davidson, Arthur

Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)

Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

Bidwell, Sydney

Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

Davies, Ifor (Gower)

Bishop, E. S.

Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

Blenkinsop, Arthur

Clark, David (Colne Valley)

Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)

Boardman, H. (Leigh)

Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

Deakins, Eric

Booth, Albert

Cohen, Stanley

de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

104

105

Delargy, Hugh

Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

Pendry, Tom

Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

Perry, Ernest G.

Dempsey, James

Kaufman, Gerald

Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

Doig, Peter

Kelley, Richard

Prescott, John

Dormand, J. D.

Kerr, Russell

Price, William (Rugby)

Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

Kilfedder, James

Probert, Arthur

Douglas-Mann, Bruce

Kinnock, Neil

Radice, Giles

Driberg, Tom

Lambie, David

Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

Duffy, A. E. P.

Lamborn, Harry

Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

Dunn, James A.

Lamond, James

Rhodes, Geoffrey

Dunnett, Jack

Latham, Arthur

Richard, Ivor

Edelman, Maurice

Lawson, George

Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)

Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

Leadbitter, Ted

Robertson, John (Paisley)

Edwards, William (Merioneth)

Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick

Roderick, Caerwyn E. (Bec'n & R'dnor)

Ellis, Tom

Lestor, Miss Joan

Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

English, Michael

Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

Rose, Paul B.

Evans, Fred

Lipton, Marcus

Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

Ewing, Harry

Lomas, Kenneth

Rowlands, Ted

Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.

Loughlin, Charles

Sandelson, Neville

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

Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

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

Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

McBride, Neil

Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N.E.)

Foot, Michael

McCartney, Hugh

Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

Ford, Ben

McElhone, Frank

Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

Forrester, John

Machin, George

Sillars, James

Fraser, John (Norwood)

Mackenzie, Gregor

Silverman, Julius

Freeson, Reginald

Mackie, John

Skinner, Dennis

Galpern, Sir Myer

Mackintosh, John P.

Small, William

Garrett, W. E.

Maclennan, Robert

Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

Gilbert, Dr. John

McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

Spearing, Nigel

Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)

McNamara, J. Kevin

Spriggs, Leslie

Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

Mahon, Simon (Bootie)

Stallard, A. W.

Gourley, Harry

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

Steel, David

Grant, George (Morpeth)

Marks, Kenneth

Stoddart, David (Swindon)

Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

Marquand, David

Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

Marsden, F.

Stott, Roger (Westhoughton)

Hatton, F.

Marshall, Dr. Edmund

Strang, Gavin

Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

Mayhew, Christopher

Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

Hamling, William

Meacher, Michael

Swain, Thomas

Hardy, Peter

Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

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

Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

Mikardo, Ian

Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

Millan, Bruce

Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy

Hattersley, Roy

Miller, Dr. M. S.

Tinn, James

Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

Milne, Edward

Tope, Graham

Heifer, Eric S.

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

Torney, Tom

Hilton, W. S.

Molloy, William

Tuck, Raphael

Hooson, Emlyn

Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

Valey, Eric G.

Horam, John

Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

Wainwright, Edwin

Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

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

Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

Huckfield, Leslie

Moyle, Roland

Wallace, George

Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

Watkins, David

Hughes, Mark (Durham)

Murray, Ronald King

Weitzman, David

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

Oakes, Gordon

Wellbeloved, James

Hughes, Roy (Newport)

Ogden, Eric

Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

Hunter, Adam

O'Halloran, Michael

White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)

O'Malley, Brian

Whitehead, Phillip

Janner, Greyville

Oram, Bert

Whitlock, William

Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

Orme, Stanley

Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

Jeger, Mrs. Lena

Oswald, Thomas

Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

Padley, Walter

Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

John, Brynmor

Paget, R. T.

Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

Palmer, Arthur

Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

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

Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

Woof, Robert

Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

Pardoe, John

Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

Parker, John (Dagenham)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Jones, Dan (Burnley)

Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

Mr. John Golding and

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

Pavitt, Laurie

Mr. Joseph Harper.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House shares the widespread concern at the continued testing of nuclear weapons in the atmosphere by any state and urges that all Governments that have not yet done so should accede to the partial test bantreaty.

TEACHER SUPPLY
7.11 p.m.
Mr. Roy Hattersley: I beg to move,
That this House regrets the Government's intention to reduce the number of initial training places in colleges and polytechnic departments of education from 114,000 in 1971–72 to between 60,000 and 70,000 by 1981; deplores the instruction to area training organisations to cut back the intake of non-graduate students in 1974; and believes that a teaching force rigidly limited to the size stipulated by the Government cannot meet the full educational needs of the next decade and will result in severe and damaging shortages of trained teachers in many parts of England and Wales.
I begin with a point which I believe will unite the Secretary of State and myself and, indeed, the entire House. That is the conviction that the teacher remains incomparably the most important element in our education system. Were I to say simply "the most important", that would be the most vacuous sort of platitude. Therefore, I say "incomparably the most important" element. We may have arguments and views about the importance of the quality and age of school buildings and arguments about the proper organisation of secondary education, but I am sure that we all agree that all our plans fail and all our hopes are dashed if we do not have teachers in the right quantity, of the right quality and with the right attitude.
About quality I think that most of us are satisfied. Many things that have happened over the last year and will happen during the next six years—I refer in particular to the third cycle of the James proposals—seem likely to improve quality.
About quantity we are in dispute this evening, but before I pass on to that I want to say one thing about the attitude of the teaching profession. Attitude is deeply dependent on and related to the morale of the teaching profession, and the morale is deeply related to and dependent on the teachers' view of the importance that the State attaches to their work and the importance that the country attaches to their work as reflected by the Government's attitude towards them.
I do not believe that anything that the Government have done in terms of
108
either salary or supply over the last three years has made the teacher feel that his crucial rôle in education is properly and fully appreciated. As a result, I am sure that teaching morale has suffered. That is especially so in London, but it is not a problem which is exclusive to London by any means.
Despite that, I say again that I am sure that the Secretary of State and I agree about the crucial rôle that the teacher plays in all our education equations. Nor shall we disagree about the targets that the Government have set for their future teaching force. The Government want to see by 1981 the equivalent of 510,000 full-time teachers in maintained schools. Of that number 465,000 will teach children above five years of age. That target—the plus-five target—is substantially smaller than targets set by previous Governments.
In 1965 we talked of 510,000 teachers in primary and secondary schools. In 1968 we aimed at 526,000 teachers in primary and secondary schools. I am sure that, in part, the right hon. Lady the Secretary of State will say that that change of emphasis, of direction and of estimate is a result of projected changes in the birth rate. I want to say two things about that.
First, it is in part the result of a calculated decision of the Government to aim for no better than classes of 40 and 30, rather than the class of 30 in primary and secondary schools for which the Labour Government aimed. But a more important point is that even if the reduction in birthrate was the crucial factor in the number of teachers that the Government want and hope to see in schools in 1981, that would be deeply indicative of the different attitudes of the two major parties. For one party, the Government party, a reduction in the birth rate can be looked upon as an ideal opportunity to save money. For the Labour Party a reduction in the birth rate would be looked upon as an ideal opportunity to improve standards. That is the crucial difference between us.
That reduced target of 465,000 teachers in primary and secondary schools is to be achieved by an enormous literal reduction in college of education places. There are now 114,000 places. By 1981 that number will have been cut by almost

109
50 per cent. to between 60,000 and 70,000 places.
In their White Paper the Government tried to explain what that figure meant in real terms. They described it as a 10 per cent. increase, even when account was taken of an increased school population—a 10 per cent. improvement in the present staffing figure. The Government said that it was a future pupil-teacher ratio of 18·5 to 1. That figure has been amended, if not by the right hon. Lady, by the professional Press. It is in reality 19·3 to 1. The lower figure is possible only if we pretend that teachers in "in-service" training are really in front of their classes. But I make no bones or fuss about that subterfuge. Indeed, I go on to talk as though the 18.5 figure quoted in the White Paper was accurate.
Mr. Norman Morris of the University of Manchester, by the application of those mystic tables that relate staff-pupil ratio to class sizes, has analysed what that figure—the best possible interpretation of the Government's intention—18·5 to 1, means in terms of class sizes. It means, averaging it out throughout the country classes of 30 in secondary schools and 40 in primary schools.
The Government may regard that as an adequate target. The Opposition do not believe those figures and that aspiration to be remotely acceptable for 1981.
Certainly the idea of 40 pupils in a primary class is unacceptable to us. It is particularly so because in the areas of greatest need, for children with the most desperate educational problem, the classes should be appreciably smaller than 40. When a national average of 40 is the going figure, the figures in the most deprived and depressed areas are often a great deal larger than that.
Indeed, the policy is very clear. Under the Government's intentions it is not simply that areas of greatest need and most desperation are not getting adequate teachers. They will never get adequate teachers. Certainly the figures specified by the Government will not produce a teaching force that is remotely adequate to meet the needs of the most deprived and depressed areas. The figures of 40 in primary schools and 30 in secondary schools obscure many regional difficulties. I am sure that the right hon. Lady appre-
110
ciates that those are difficulties which often amount to near crisis and on occasions produce crisis. That is true particularly of secondary schools.
The White Paper records a gradual improvement in the overall figures of teachers to pupils over the 10 years from 1961 to 1971. In fact, it is the Secretary of State's only recorded compliment to the last Labour Government. The White Paper goes on to record that only 2·5 per cent. of primary classes have more than 40 pupils. But the White Paper is significantly silent about the size of classes in secondary education and about the number of classes which have more than 30 pupils.
That is because in city after city there is an increasing shortage of teachers and a particular shortage in secondary schools. That is a shortage which is obscured by the figures of overall improvement. That is dramatically true in London and applies to the ILEA and outer boroughs. It is also true of some remote counties, and some old industrial cities and towns. Within those old cities and towns there are areas of special need—namely, schools with shortages even more desperate than the overall shortages of the town and remote country areas.
The areas of special need or shortage come basically under two heads. There are those decaying central areas where the population has not shown a rapid decline. Second, there are new housing estates into which the old central area residents have gone. Such areas need extra educational resources but they often receive less than the national average. Under the Government's present policy, I believe that that imbalance will continue.
We must face the fact that already some of the special areas within deprived LEAs are facing near-crisis situations. Many of our old towns report a 10 per cent. shortage of teachers in terms of the staff available when their schools open in September. I know that the Under-Secretary of State always complains when I quote the evidence of LEAs. That is the evidence of real people talking about the real world and their real problems. I shall give the hon. Gentleman one example. I can give him more if he doubts that example. In the Kirby area of Liverpool—that is a specially difficult locality

111
for teachers within a difficult LEA—there is a general shortage of teachers. Out of 300 places which should be filled in September there is a net shortage of 50 teachers. Those figures do not represent the difference between adequate and inadequate education, but the difference between adequate education and educational crisis.
It is that grave shortage which we believe the Government's limited aspiration is certain to increase and to intensify. I suppose it is possible for the right hon. Lady to argue that there are enough teachers in the country as a whole but that for some reason they are not going to Kirby, to London, to Salford and to the other places which I have contacted during the last four days. If that is the case, I hope she will tell us. If she thinks that the quota system is wrong and should be changed, let her tell us why.
There is only one of two conclusions which we can draw. Either the quota system is wrong or the overall supply is inadequate. If the supply is inadequate, it will be made more inadequate as demand increases over the next eight or 10 years and if the teacher supply does not increase sufficiently to meet it.
Against that background we must consider and judge the Government's intention to cut initial training places. I see at once that there can be no lasting solution to the teacher shortage until there are substantial changes in teachers' pay. That is not a matter of the overall level of teachers' pay. The structure of pay as a whole has to be improved. There must be incentives to attract teachers into the areas with the severest difficulty. There must be a substantial change with the system of allowances shifting towards those teachers who work with the underprivileged rather than, as often is the case now, concentrating on those who work with the intellectually gifted. Those are alterations which I want to see in what I hope will become the free negotiating machinery between teachers and local authorities.
Of course, that is the supply side of the teacher equation. We must get the demand side right as well. If we are to get that side right for the maintained schools there is no better criterion than the independent schools. I know that
112
the right hon. Lady is the defender and protector of the independent schools. I know that she has made speeches in which she has said that one of the peculiar contributions to English education is the small classes which independent schools can provide for the boys and girls who go to them. She is right about that. There are about 13 pupils for every teacher in the independent sector.
I ask the right hon. Lady again the question which I asked her during the White Paper debate and which she did not answer. If 13·1:1 is right for the independent sector, why is that a figure which the maintained sector cannot even aim at? If it is good enough for the independent schools, why is not it good enough for the schools for which the right hon. Lady has responsibility? What does she believe to be the ideal size of class? We know from a fortnight ago that she thinks that some grammar schools should have smaller sixth form groups. That is an interesting view from a Secretary of State who, by the prevention of comprehensive reorganisation has perpetuated the small grammar school and the consequent small sixth form.
Perhaps today we may hear the right hon. Lady's views about the proper size of classes and, therefore, the need for extra teachers in areas of special difficulty such as areas representing the socially under-privileged. At least the Opposition's view about that are absolutely clear. The Opposition's view is that the Government's aim is too low, that its aspirations are too limited and that the problems of the cities and of the poor areas within the cities are ignored. The duty to encourage those authorities which employ too few teachers to employ more has been abdicated.
A great opportunity has been missed. It was an opportunity to meet the needs of the area of shortage. It was an opportunity to get smaller classes in the educational priority areas. It is an opportunity to mount a great drive to provide suitable small remedial classes for the children who need such education and very often do not receive it because of the present shortage of teachers. It is also a missed opportunity to expand the rôle of teachers in a way in which the Department of Education and Science, in a more philosophical

113
moment, believed it should be expanded. That is the real difference between the Government's policy and the one which the Opposition would have them adopt.
The present system is an opportunity for some cheese-paring or for real improvement and expansion. Our criticism is that that opportunity has not been taken. The number of college of education places now available could be used for a vast expansion of educational standards. The Government have, however, set a rigid limit on how many teachers they are prepared to provide. The colleges are required to cut their intake to meet that rigid limit. Because of that—this is the second part of our charge—the country is facing a grave potential difficulty. As well as claiming that the Government's target is too low, we fear—fear is the appropriate word because it will give us no joy in four or five years' time if our fears turn out to be correct—that the Government's target will not be reached.
We fear that the achievement of 510,000 teachers, or the adequacy of that figure, depends on too many imponderables and that with so many imponderables in the equation it is irresponsible for the Government to have provided a minimum number of places to meet even their limited aspirations. I shall put some of the imponderables to the right hon. Lady in the hope that she will comment on them later.
This should be the most difficult time to judge how many students from colleges are going into teaching. If the Diploma of Higher Education has any real meaning, if it is a really flexible qualification which may result in someone taking a diploma or degree which does not take him automatically into teaching, it is almost impossible to predict how many college of education students, as I loosely call them, will eventually go into teaching.
Equally, the number of graduates who go into teaching is uncertain. The number of graduates who entered the teaching profession in the last five years is a direct result of high graduate unemployment. But that, fortunately, is tailing off. The right hon. Lady will recall that the letter which she sent out 10 days ago about the reduced numbers in colleges of education drew attention to the fact that the number of graduates applying for college
114
of education diplomas decreased compared with last year. I hope that graduate unemployment is decreasing, not only in terms of the interests of the graduates but also in terms of the interests of the schools. I do not want schools to be populated by graduates because, although they entered university intending to do something else, there was no other job for them when they left university. I do not believe that the reluctant teacher is in the interests of the education profession any more than it is in the interests of the teachers themselves.
Those graduates who go determined into teaching are clearly an essential part of the teaching profession, but those who go, as Mr. Martyn Berry described them in The Times Higher Educational Supplement, of March 2nd as "graduates driven into teaching by depression" are something which, if possible, we ought to avoid.
I offer the right hon. Lady a third imponderable. Is she sure of her assumption about wastage in the profession between now and 1981? I hope she is. I am told that she will advise her advisory committee on Wednesday that if there is a 1 per cent. error in the assumption of wastage there will be 5,000 teachers fewer every year going into the profession; 5,000 teachers fewer between now and 1981 is an enormous reduction on her own target. It is because of those extraordinarily imprecise qualities in the teacher supply ratio that many of us regret the Government's marked reluctance to answer any of the questions about how the teacher supply figures were arrived at.
For the first time, for instance, the appropriate unions were not asked to comment on the draft circular dealing with higher education in the public sector before it went out. Anyone who was here during the Adjournment debate of 4th April, or who has read the report of that debate, cannot escape the impression that the Government decided to take their decision first and to cobble the evidence between them about the decision afterwards. The Under-Secretary's performance on 4th April was typical. I do not mean it was typical of him; I mean it was typical of the Government's record. It was comparatively accurate. In columns 577 to 583 of the OFFICIAL REPORT it is reported

115
how he set out the Government's intention in detail, explaining how the figures were arrived at. In column 584, with apparent seriousness—it is never easy to tell with the Under-Secretary—he is reported as saying:
"What is needed now is to establish … the basic facts".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th April 1973; Vol. 854, c. 584.]
We all say "amen" to that.
Some of us might say that what was needed was to establish the basic facts before the basic decisions were taken. Perhaps the Advisory Committee on the Supply and Training of Teachers is supposed to provide them. The advisory committee is meeting for the first time on Wednesday. Yet, as the national advisory committee assembles, it must know that all the important decisions on teacher training and supply have been taken. Not only have the decisions been taken; the Secretary of State has instructed that they be implemented.
The cuts in college places for 1974 are now being worked out in detail—worked out on the instruction of the Secretary of State. We are left with the gloomy possibility that the Government are simply hoping that they can meet the targets and exceed them by a fraction in the hope that the birth rate will continue to decline and that the school population will not rise, as was expected when the White Paper was drawn up. A decline in the birth rate is not quite the same as a fall in the school population. That will certainly continue to rise. Indeed, I understand that the advisory committee will be told on Wednesday that if the 10 per cent. improvement figure is to be met it may not need 510,000 teachers by that year, but there will certainly be a need for something in excess of 509,000, which seems to me as good as anything that the Secretary of State will get.
The school population will rise, and may rise a good deal more quickly than the Secretary of State intends. I say "intends" for two reasons. First, the exclusion of the full-time rising fives from the primary schools is certain to reduce the numbers on the primary school registers. Also her Birmingham decision, and other decisions like it, will certainly reduce the number of working class boys and girls who stay at school after the
116
statutory minimum leaving age. Despite that, we remain uncertain about all the figures.
In the light of that uncertainty let me ask the right hon. Lady why she has been in such extraordinary haste not only to announce her policy in increasing detail but to implement it before the full picture is available. Her instruction to ATOs last week is the beginning of that implementation. Why, in the light of all the uncertainty, have the Government decided to cut the college of education places next year by the degree and to the point they have? Why have they decided to do that when, if everything goes right and according to plan, the target of 40 and 30 in classes will only just be met for the country as a whole and not met at all for the areas of special and desperate need?
The answer can only be this. The Government do not even aspire to an overall target of a better teacher supply than 40-sized classes in primary schools and 30 in secondary schools, which is the 1945 target at which the Government are still aiming. It is certainly not a target which a Labour Government will aim at, and it is a figure which we hoped would fade into the past by the end of the first Labour Government's lifetime.
Consider again the opportunity which the Government have lost here. The college of education places are there. A simple continuation of the present trend between now and 1981 will produce an extra 54,000 teachers in our schools. Those teachers could provide a national increase of 10 per cent. More important, there would be extra teachers to meet the needs of the deprived areas. There will be extra teachers for the essential small classes to be created for remedial children. There will be the opportunity to meet the needs of the children whose needs are greatest and which are often the last to be met. Once again we have to come to the gloomy conclusion that the Secretary of State, for whomsoever she speaks, does not speak for them.
What shall we hear from the Secretary of State? I think we shall hear two things. Before I suggest what they are, let me beg her not to repeat that tired old debating point which she produced at Blackpool 10 days ago about 400 teachers unemployed when she said she hoped she would not hear any more about

117
that. Those were her words—"I hope I will not hear anything more about teacher unemployment."
The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): I did not mention 400.
Mr. HattersleyI have no doubt the right hon. Lady did not make any reference to 400. Had she done so, it would have demonstrated how fatuous her point is. The number of unemployed teachers, which the appropriate unions were able to give, was 400 out of 364,000, and the right hon. Lady makes my point as to why she should not go repeating that hoary old debating point.
Mrs. Thatcher: It did not prevent the unions from writing to me about it last year and expressing their fears about teacher unemployment.
Mr. HattersleyOf course not. It is the duty of the unions to be concerned about 400 unemployed among their members. The idea that the right hon. Lady can turn up at a meeting of the Association of Education Committees and pretend that teacher unemployment—400 out of 364,000—is remotely related to the question of demand for teachers and supply of teachers I say again is fatuous.
However, I believe that the right hon. Lady will make two points. The first is inherent in the wording of the amendment, and it is the argument we have heard in debate after debate when we have discussed her policy. It is simply this: everything is all right with the right hon. Lady because her policy promises slightly more in 1981 than the Labour Government managed to do in the late 1960s. No one is enormously impressed by a policy whose principal virtue is that there will be slight improvements over a full decade. Certainly, the AEC was not impressed by that argument last week, and I think that all the debates in the various organisations and in the professional Press have demonstrated time after time that a simple arithmetical promise that things will be better in the early 1980s than they were in the late 1960s impresses no one.
I suspect that the right hon. Lady's second point will be a reference to the availability of money. I suppose that she and I have to agree to differ about
118
growth rates in the education service. I say that reinforced by the knowledge that not only do she and I agree to differ but The Times Educational Supplement, The Times Higher Educational Supplement, Education and virtually every other enlightened view on education matters disagree with her as well.
I reaffirm that the next Labour Government will expect to spend a good deal more of the national product on education than the right hon. Lady chooses to spend. But that is a point of fundamental disagreement between us, and I must put this question to the right hon. Lady. What sort of standard of values is embraced by a Government who are unable or unwilling to provide as many teachers as the nation needs but who are yet determined to press ahead with the Maplin development? What sort of standard of values do a Government have who are prepared to leave London with a crucial teacher shortage and yet would gladly have thrust the motorway box down London's throat?
I suppose that the only answer one can give—it is the answer one comes to over and over again—is that the right hon. Lady's standards and ours are different. We at least rejoice in that.
7.42 p.m.
The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): I beg to move to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof,
"welcomes the policy of Her Majesty's Government to plan for an increase of over 140,000 teachers between 1971 and 1981, to improve staffing standards, and to extend in-service training".
The motion criticises action which I am taking in 1974 which cannot possibly have any effect on staffing in the schools until the year 1977–78. Somehow or other, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hatterlsey) manages to support that criticism by criticism of the staffing position in the schools now and next year. In so far as the staffing position in the schools next year or this year is inadequate, the hon. Gentleman is delivering the most cogent attack on the teacher supply policy of his own Government, and the most cogent attack yet delivered on that Government's planning for teacher supply in deciding to raise the school leaving age.

119
In addition, the hon. Gentleman criticised the operation of the quota and mentioned some of the problems which schools will face this year. This year, the output from teacher training colleges and teacher training graduates will be about 43,000 newly-trained teachers. The teacher quota distributes that fairly round the authorities. That is the output this year, in July 1973. In so far as they are three-year trained teachers, they went in in October 1970, and the size of that intake to the teacher training colleges would have been determined by what was done in July 1969 and must have been a decision of the Labour Government.
Before coming to the motion itself, I should say a word about the teacher quota. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be the first to agree that a large part of his speech was, to put it kindly, only obliquely related to the motion. The teacher quota is not the Department's quota. It is an employers' quota, the local education authorities' quota, which happens to be administered by the Department. It sets out to give a fair geographical distribution round the country of all the newly-trained teachers available.
On 31st January this year we sent out to each local education authority details of the quota. We pointed out that
"it is specially important that quotas for 1973–74, when the full force of the increased numbers produced by the raising of the school leaving age will be felt in the schools, should correspond closely with the total supply of quota teachers expected to be available. Authorities are therefore asked to ensure that individual quotas are not avoidably exceeded and that any substantial foreseeable shortfall in recruitment is notified promptly".
It is early days yet for authorities to have reached their quotas. There followed a total list of quotas, and here are some of them. The hon. Gentleman mentioned Lancashire. Lancashire's quota for this year is 20,916 teachers. Birmingham's is 8,892. Manchester's is 4,682. Newcastle's is 1,639.
There will be many teachers coming out of the teacher training system this year who have not yet got jobs, and there will be a number of areas which are as yet nothing like up to quota because a number of those teachers will probably be applying for places which attract
120
them most and may subsequently be redistributed. Therefore, in so far as there will be a problem next year. it is early days to say that there will be shortages.
Mr. Hattersley: The right hon. Lady talks about teachers coming out of colleges this year. It is her Department's policy and that of the authorities to have all the vacancies filled by 1st May, and most of the colleges are now down.
Mrs. Thatcher: The hon. Gentleman should know that it is not possible to have all the vacancies filled by 1st May, for the simple reason, apart from other things, that some of the teachers will not know whether or not they are qualified until all the results have come out.
The teacher quota is operated in exactly the same way as it has been hitherto. The policy of my Department is to see that those who come out of the teacher training system—the numbers this year will have been determined by the policies of the hon. Gentleman's Government, of which he is so critical—are fairly distributed among the authorities.
The hon. Gentleman has a good deal to say about class sizes. He should know that the former regulation prescribing maximum class sizes of 40 for primary and 30 for secondary was withdrawn by the previous Secretary of State in circular No. 16/69, and no new targets were set in terms of class sizes because it was thought better at that time—and I still think it is better—to have a judgment in terms of pupil teacher ratio.
I come now to the motion, which is about three things: the change in training college places between 1971 and 1981, the intake of students to training places in 1974, and the teaching force needed to meet the educational needs of the next decade. That is the order in which the points are put, but, of course, they are back to front. One begins with educational needs for the next decade, one moves on to the size of the teaching force and the training plant required to meet those needs, and one then makes plans accordingly.
I shall begin, therefore, with the educational needs of the country as they were set out in the framework for expansion in the White Paper last December. So far as they relate to the supply of teachers, they were threefold. First, we set out

121
to improve the school staffing standard. Second, we set out to provide the qualified teachers needed for a planned expansion of nursery education. Third, we set out to provide the extra teachers needed to allow for the proper induction of new teachers and to allow for improved in-service training.
For all the hon. Gentleman's talk and that of his predecessors, they were not able to achieve either of those last two aims. They are good talkers, but when it comes to performance they cut, as we know only too well.
I admit that this is an ambitious programme. It is ambitious in two quite different ways. It is ambitious, first, because no previous Government have committed themselves to school staffing objectives 10 years ahead. It is ambitious, secondly, because we were not content to specify better staffing in the schools. we went on to set ourselves two new policy targets, which Labour Members had often talked about but had failed to find the resources to provide. We thought it was time to stop talking about giving children an earlier start and giving their teachers a better professional preparation, and to get on and do these things.
The conclusion that we came to was that for these three purposes we should plan to bring about, in addition to the expansion already achieved, a further massive increase of over 140,000 teachers in service by 1981. This is something not to be regretted but to be firmly welcomed as an important new stage in school staffing policy. The hon. Member for Sparkbrook said that I had not given the full arithmetic of this policy. I shall now go into a very difficult part of my speech and give a good many statistics, which will not necessarily provide the best hearing material but will, I hope, make good reading.
I shall give the very simple arithmetic of the policy, expressing it in terms of full-time teachers. First, to preserve the school staffing standards of 1971 for the numbers and ages of pupils in the schools by 1981, we must make provision to increase the teaching force by about 60,000 to 422,000 teachers. Secondly, to add 10 per cent. more teachers to ensure an improvement in standards we need another 42,000 teachers. Thirdly, to provide two adults for every 13 nursery
122
children, of whom one would be a qualified teacher, we shall need another 27,000 teachers. Fourthly, to replace the teachers on induction or in-service training we shall need another 22,000. That gives a total of 513,000, which we rounded in the White Paper to 510,000. Later school population projections suggest a figure of 509,000—which the hon. Member for Sparkbrook mentioned, so I expect he has seen the paper which has gone out—for which the appropriate rounded figures continues to be 510,000.
A teaching force of this size will mean attaining standards and achieving reforms which would have seemed visionary only a few years ago when teacher supply was still at the mercy of sharply rising pupil numbers and a particularly heavy loss of young women teachers who left to start families of their own. We are therefore committed to providing over 140,000 additional teachers for the maintained schools by 1981. This increase in 10 years will be greater than the increase in the teaching force over the previous 20 years.
Let me spell out the implications in terms of pupil-teacher ratios. The movement of the ratios is a striking indicator of the progress already made and the greater progress now planned for the future. In 1950 the ratio was 27·1 pupils per teacher, falling by 0·3 to 26·8 in 1955; by 1·7 to 25·1 in 1960, a good period for improvement; by 1·6 to 23·5 in 1965, also a good period for improvement; and by 0·8 to 22·7 in 1970. On present projections, and subject to all the obvious uncertainties of forecasting, the subsequent landmarks on the way to the White Paper target for 1981 will be 20·7 in 1975, an improvement of 2·0, the best improvement yet, even though it covers the raising of the school leaving age, and a further 2·0 to 18·7 in 1980. Our plans therefore constitute the biggest improvement in teacher/pupil ratios yet.
Moreover, within this progression there has been qualitative as well as numerical improvement—through the increased recruitment of graduates, the introduction of three-year training in the colleges, and the phasing out of unqualified teachers. This qualitative improvement too will continue at what we hope will be an accelerating pace. These further improvements will be to the direct and immediate benefit of the pupils, in terms both

123
of smaller classes and a wider range of choices. I know the importance which teachers and parents alike attach to class sizes. There is at present little convincing evidence one way or the other about the effect on educational attainments of class size, but I agree with most informed educational opinion that a further reduction in average class sizes is desirable.
The House will appreciate that these improvements have been brought about despite an increase in the school population in the maintained schools from about 5½ million in 1950 to over 8 million in 1970. To improve the pupil/teacher ratio for such greatly increased school rolls has meant a massive investment of resources in the training system, in calls on the nation's highly educated manpower, and in the bill for teachers' salaries.
Of course, we could have named a higher figure. The hon. Member for Sparkbrook makes about a promise a day, and we have come to expect that. But I notice that, for all that is said in the Opposition motion, neither it nor the Labour Party policy statement has named a larger figure.
Teachers' pay amounts to 70 per cent. of the cost of running the schools. We cannot act as if there were no other demands on the local education service, as though the local authorities had unlimited funds from which to pay for a teaching force of unlimited size. The hon. Member is not slow to press for more improvements in school building, in school equipment and books and needs for special schools, let alone express the demand for higher education and now more adult education. The figures I have given for teacher supply are part of a balanced programme of expansion in almost every sphere and, unlike the hon. Gentleman's figures, they have been specifically defined and costed.
Our policy is to increase further the supply of teachers, and in that process to improve staffing standards, develop nursery education and enhance the professionalism and so the status and prestige of the teachers, which I agree matter tremendously. We have preferred the course of realism. The important thing for us now is to move steadily towards our declared target of 510,000 teachers by
124
1981, regulating our progress as necessary from year to year.
I turn therefore to consider how many teachers we need to recruit to reach the target of 510,000. There are two sides to the calculation: first, how many and of what kinds will be leaving—we have to provide for their replacement; and secondly, how many and of what kinds need to come in. Let me deal with those who will be leaving the profession—the wastage. This is a big factor in teacher supply, extremely complex and notoriously unpredictable. The rates of wastage vary between teachers of different kinds. They vary between trained and untrained graduates, between bachelors of education and non-graduates, and between men and women in each of these categories, and within each sub-category they vary again according to the age group of the teachers.
Total wastage therefore depends upon the mix and age structure of the teaching force, and it involves complex calculations. There is no reliable basis upon which to predict changes in the specific wastage rates for each age in each category. The White Paper therefore played safe by assuming that wastage rates would remain constant, although recent evidence all suggested a downward trend. We did not carry on that downward trend. We estimate that wastage will remain constant. Allowing for wastage and other factors, we estimate that we would need to work towards some 47,000 recruits from all sources in 1980–81 to achieve our target of a net increase of over 140,000 by 1981. This compares with a total recruitment of about 57,000 in 1973–74.
There are three main sources of recruitment to consider. The first group is the three- and four-year trained teachers from the colleges, the second is the one-year trained graduates, and the third is the re-entrants. I will deal with the last group first, the re-entrants.
There is a large and growing reserve of qualified teachers, mainly women, not at present teaching but who are potential re-entrants at any time. There are probably 250,000 already and there could be 500,000 by the end of the decade. If wastage rates are uncertain, we can look to the recruitment of teachers from this reserve to provide the necessary flexibility. In 1971, for example, local authorities recruited some 14,000 and there is no

125
doubt that the number could rise substantially.
It would be unreasonable to assume no further increase and it would be unwise to assume too much. For the present, we have taken a modest figure of 16,000 recruits from this source in 1980–81, compared with 14,000 now, an increase which takes into account the fact that the pool will double in size from 250,000 to 500,000. We have taken the figure of 2,000 believing that it could be increased if wastage turned once more against us.
I want to deal now with the new recruits who will constitute the remaining 31,000 or so, coming from post-graduates and three- and four-year training. Bearing in mind that recent surveys have shown that head teachers are calling for more graduate teachers in both primary and secondary schools, we have judged that we should plan for some 16.000 recruits from three- and four-year training and 14,000 from post-graduate training, with about 1.000 from various other sources. On this basis, the proportion of one-year trained graduates in the whole teaching force would increase from about 14 per cent. to about 21 per cent.—a substantial increase—between 1971 and 1981. This is part of the qualitative improvement in the teaching force.
To secure the 14,000 recruits from postgraduate training, after allowing for wastage during and at the end of training, would require the number entering postgraduate training—because there is some wastage—to rise to some 19,000 in 1980 compared with 11,000 in 1972. This is compatible with the general expansion of higher education which the White Paper promised.
To achieve the 16.000 entry to teaching from three- and four-year courses in the colleges of education, after allowing for wastage during and at the end of training and for the time lag between entry to training and entry to teaching, means admitting some 18,000 to such training at the end of the decade. This is a substantial drop from the 1973 figure of 36,000. It is for this reason that the number of initial training places in the colleges of education will need to fall to between 60,000 and 70,000 in 1981.
The route by which the policy target of 510,000 is to be attained is not yet firm
126
but depends on a number of factors. Some of these, like wastage, are very difficult to predict, and the development of the policy must be flexible enough to accommodate changing trends in either direction. Others, like the balance between different sources of recruitment—the number of graduates, three-year trained teachers and four-year trained teachers—are matters of judgment, and a great variety of judgments is possible.
The route mapped out as a planning basis in the White Paper is an attempt to strike a reasonable balance. The eventual choice will be made by the partners in the education service—the local education authorities and the various branches of the teaching profession.
To advise me on these matters I have established, as foreshadowed in the White Paper, the Advisory Committee on the Supply and Training of Teachers. Professor Armitage, the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Manchester, is to be chairman. As the hon. Gentleman said, the committee will be meeting shortly. I have been asked why in this case I have not waited for the new committee's advice before giving guidance to the area training organisations on the intake of students to training places in 1974.
The reduction from 36,000 to 32,000 in the intake is, of course, a first step towards the figure of 18,000 at the end of the decade. Although the detailed inflows and outflows in 1981 are at this stage a matter of judgment, on any reckoning it is clear that a substantial adjustment in the teacher training rôle of the colleges will be needed, and in fact the colleges are to have new rôles as the teacher training rôle is reduced.
It is necessary to move without delay in the right direction, bearing in mind that the results of any action taken now will not show in teacher supply before the school year 1977–78. That is the length of time at which we have to operate. The reduction I have announced will be large enough to minimise the severity of the rundown in later years but not so large as to prejudice decisions about the future of individual colleges. The colleges needed to know the level of their 1974 recruitment quickly. They needed to get their brochures and their details ready to send out to the schools in readiness for next term.

127
The subsequent scale and timing of the rundown will depend on further studies and later information and advice. As we move into this important new phase in school staffing standards, we can be much more concerned now about what kinds of teachers offering what subjects and what skills and specialities will best meet the needs of the schools.
An increase in the quantity of teachers and potential teachers available can shift the emphasis to quality. We can be much more selective at the point of entry to the profession and subsequently much more concerned with the questions of teacher deployment in the schools.
I sum up what our policy offers. It means greater advances in the staffing of schools in the next 10 years than in any previous 10 years. The colleges' reduced rôle in teacher training will be complemented by their widening rôle in the higher education programme. All these developments have been planned and costed. Moreover, they have been fitted into a balanced programme of advance on a number of fronts, from nursery provision to higher education. It is, therefore, with confidence that I ask the House to approve the programme and adopt the Government's amendment.
8.7 p.m.
Mr. Frank Hatton: I ask the indulgence and tolerance of the House in making my first speech in this assembly.
My predecessor, Will Griffiths, was a close personal friend of mine whose passing I greatly mourn. Mr. Griffiths had a great personal affection for his native city. He was born and educated within his constituency, and he had an intimate knowledge of its people and their problems, which he made his particular concern. His greatest interest was in the National Health Service. The great group of Manchester hospitals were within his constituency and he made it his own particular concern to be ever vigilant in promoting their interests.
During his period of service to his constituents of the Exchange Division of Manchester, Will Griffiths rejoiced in the sweeping away of thousands of unfit houses because he knew very well of their ill effect on the health of his constituents. During recent years the old residential
128
parts of the constituency have been almost totally rebuilt. I believe that the task of rebuilding the inner areas of our old cities and towns is one of the most difficult problems of our time. To achieve satisfaction for everyone and to prevent any human unhappiness would seem to me at times to be almost impossible.
Recently some publicity has been given to the problems that arise in new developments. I want to put this into perspective. I know of the misery and heartache caused to families which for generations have lived in almost total decay. My interest has been in Manchester's education service. I rejoice, as did Will Griffiths, that the children in my constituency attend schools very different from those which existed when Mr. Griffiths first entered this House.
I rejoice, as I know Will Griffiths would rejoice, that the children of my constituency now have the opportunity of entering a secondary school with unlimited opportunities. When Mr. Griffiths first entered this House, by and large the children entered the old secondary modern schools that gave them no entry to any form of higher education. Very few entered the city grammar schools, none at all entered the city's direct grant schools. Today the situation is different. Children have the opportunity of entering the city's high schools, and there the opportunity exists for them to make the fullest use of their talents.
Almost all of our primary schools have been rebuilt in recent years. The standard of existing nursery provision in my constituency is such that it equals the standard which the Secretary of State is urging upon other authorities. I rejoice that from the allocation recently made by the Secretary of State another school is to be built within the constituency. Already the city can proudly boast the Cheetham-Crumpsall school, a major new development in educational planning—a community school in which library facilities and sporting facilities such as swimming baths are available for public use as well as the use of the school. These facilities will be repeated in the new development in the Beswick area of Manchester. There is tremendous importance in the type of building in which our boys and girls are educated. I am more than ever convinced of the importance of teachers and equipment and I hope that we are entering a

129
phase in which we can see a new surge forward in this country with the emphasis moving away from buildings to that of teachers and equipment.
I hope that when the projections are made the difficulties of planning will be considered. I hope that those making the projections will get close to the schools because many of the shortages that exist today in the area of crafts, music, English and modern languages are not recognised.
Within my constituency is the famous Manchester educational precinct. I remember when the city decided in its wisdom to develop 60 acres of land for higher education. In the years that have passed, that area has increased to nearly 300 acres. In the Manchester colleges of education today there are more students than there were in Manchester University in pre-war days. We should make the fullest use of our educational capital equipment to exploit the opportunities in our colleges of education.
I have no statistics to quote. However, I have a burning faith in the ability of this country's teachers, given the opportunity in size and in numbers, to make a magnificent contribution to some of the current social problems. I thank the House for its courteous and tolerant hearing.
8.15 p.m.
Mr. Timothy Raison: I have not had the pleasure of following a maiden speech before, and I say at once that the House will have been impressed by the firm, modest, yet confident way in which the hon. Member for Manchester, Exchange (Mr. Hatton) addressed us, and by his manifest sincerity. His ramming home of the fact that teachers matter even more than buildings was a point which I am sure will be accepted by all hon. Members as being one of the most important messages in education.
I can understand why the hon. Gentleman was in something of a hurry to get on with his maiden speech as I understand that his constituency is to disappear in the as yet unknown future. I am sure that the House will agree that, having heard him once, it will want to hear him again.
130
Obviously I cannot claim any long and close acquaintanceship with Will Griffiths but I did know of his keen interest in health affairs. I served under the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Renée Short) on the Health Sub-Committee of the Expenditure Committee, of which Will Griffiths was a member. We all recognised that he was someone who cared very deeply and passionately about the National Health Service.
We had occasional disagreements on that sub-committee on one or two matters, as the hon. Lady will recollect, but there was no doubt that Will Griffiths was someone who stuck to his view with great passion and was also an agreeable person to work with. We know that the hon. Member for Exchange has a high reputation to live up to, and the signs are that he will certainly do so.
I will not enter into the statistical battle which has just taken place between my right hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley). It seems that once again my right hon. Friend has managed to rout the hon. Member. I will say that, although the hon. Member departs at the end of these debates with his tail between his legs, he comes back fighting. We give him credit for that. My right hon. Friend mounted what seemed to be a formidable argument, and I shall be surprised if any Labour Member is able to make a dent in what she said.
The hon. Member tried to draw a distinction between the excellent virtue of spending money on teachers and the folly of spending it on things such as Maplin and Concorde. I know that these are controversial schemes and that there are pros and cons. But what he said was symptomatic of something constantly undermining the Labour Party and its approach to these great matters. It is that hon. Members opposite cannot see that all sides of life are equally important.
It is no good having the most marvellous schools and colleges and so on if we say that we will not go ahead with any of the great schemes which may strengthen our economy and provide the opportunities for the people whom these schools and colleges turn out to exercise their talents. I do not believe that the hon. Member is really as committed to

131
this view as he made out but I am sure that many Labour Members are committed to it by instinct. They will not recognise that in the modern world we need economic success just as much as we need excellent social provision.
I turn to deal more directly with the topic under debate. This is a discussion about resources. For the last two years or so we have seen a tremendous increase in public spending. I do not think any of us would deny that there were good reasons for it. The unemployment level acted as a trigger to greater public spending. I am delighted that this is beginning to blow over and that we are seeing a substantial fall in unemployment. But one cannot for ever live in the world where there are no serious checks on public expenditure. Inevitably, we have to apply some sort of test in terms of financial and human resources. We must be prepared to make comparisons. Of course we all want to spend unlimited amounts of money on education budgets. This applies particularly to those of us who have children. But we cannot go on for ever trying to pretend that there will not be severe constraints in the years to come. It does not make sense—except to the Opposition in their most euphoric and irresponsible mood—to discuss these matters without paying attention to resources.
What we must assess—and this is the spectre at the feast—is the effectiveness of increasing the supply of teachers. My right hon. Friend in her White Paper said
"Although there is no conclusive evidence yet on the educational effects of class size, the Government think it right to be guided by the judgment of experienced teachers and educationists that a further reduction in the average size of classes would be justified on both educational and social grounds."
My right hon. Friend was right to say that, and I do not dispute it, but, equally, we cannot look at teacher supply or at class sizes and say "This is the magic ingredient in education. The more teachers we have the more dramatically gill our education results improve."
There is now a body of evidence which makes us think twice about this matter. I wish briefly to refer to one or two of the pieces of evidence which we have to face. The situation was well summarised in an article by Dr. Alan Little and two associates in New Society on 21st October 1971. The article was headed "Do small
132
classes help a pupil?" That article picks out five different pieces of research which led to a surprising conclusion.
The first piece of research was carried out by Joyce Morris, who found that there was a tendency for the children in larger classes of top infants and juniors to have better reading attainments. She advanced possible explanations of that trend. I do not think anybody regarded her piece of research as of major importance in this respect because there were imponderables.
There was then an interesting piece of research undertaken by Professor Stephen Wiseman, in evidence presented to the Plowden Committee. I was a member of that committee, and I well remember the puzzlement with which we received that evidence. It said something that nobody expected. To summarise the point, which was a complicated exercise, the result was that the larger the class the better the reading ability.
Furthermore, the National Child Development Survey was carried out as a study of a complete cohort of children born in one week in 1958. The results may be summarised as followed. Even taking account of small size, length of schooling, parental interest and occupation, children in larger classes still had higher attainments.
The next piece of evidence was carried out by the Swedish researcher Marklund. He concluded that
"… a reduction in class size would not in itself lead to improved attainments …".
Some research was undertaken—and it is set out in the New Society article—by Dr. Little and his colleagues, which amounted to a literacy survey covering all the ILEA junior and junior infant schools. Again the findings were striking. There was an increase in reading attainment with an increase in class size.
The researchers discussed the results in that article and decided that reduction of class size, on the scale currently envisaged, may have little impact on reading. They then said
"Our main findings have been that little or no differences exist between the reading standards of children in relatively small classes, compared with those in larger ones, and even when social class, length of education, immigrant status and the educational priority status of the schools are controlled, little difference can be found."

133
They sum up by saying,
"Reduction of class sizes on the scale currently envisaged … may not directly improve pupil performance, in so far as this has been measured by reading skills.… The magnitude of the differences found in the score of children coming from interested and stimulating homes against the scores of children from unstimulating and uninterested homes, surely suggest that the social and psychological factors are of greater immediate significance than the types of reductions in class size envisaged."
I do not think anybody has been able to dismiss this research. When initially we had one piece of research and then another it was possible to say that there must be something a little odd about the explanation, but we were faced with repeated pieces of evidence to show that, contrary to all expectation, there was not a correlation between reduction in class size and rising standards.
What are the conclusions? They are not that we should aim at larger classes as an act of policy—and I would not for a moment argue that, any more than did Plowden. Plowden had this research before it, and said "Despite that research, we want to get class sizes down." Plowden was right to do so, and my right hon. Friend has shown that this is her policy, too. What the research illustrates is that class size alone is not the decisive factor and that there are other educational factors which are just as important.
Mr. Hugh Delargy: I realise that the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) is in difficulty and is speaking at length because there is only one back bencher present in the Chamber on the Government side of the House—which shows that the Conservatives have not very much interest in this subject. However, the hon. Gentleman's speech seems to have only one argument: namely, that the fewer teachers there are the better the education provided. Is that really his argument?
Mr. Raison: I was not arguing that. I said specifically that I was not.
It is not completely out of place in a debate about teacher numbers to refer to a series of very important pieces of research on a crucial aspect of the subject. I know that the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Delargy) wants me to sit down as soon as possible so that he can make a stiring speech. However, in a debate of this kind an hon. Member can-
134
not be criticised for introducing a note of respect for the work done by academic researchers. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Spearing) appears to be a little agitated. I have no doubt that he will have a chance to express his views later. In any event, the Opposition may be philistine and anti-intellectual, but I believe that hon. Members are entitled to raise these important points.
What are the other factors which matter? I believe that they fall into two classes. One category primarily concerns matters not affected by money. Nevertheless they are very important. They have to do with raising the professionalism of teachers. We have a very large number of high quality teachers. But I do not believe that teaching is yet a true profession. Taking the conventional yardsticks, at the moment it is a semi-profession. I believe that it should be one of our first aims to try to convert teaching into an out-and-out thorough-going profession. I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to push ahead faster with this than she has done so far. There are certain matters concerned with the Teaching Council where we could bring about a dramatic change.
We should tackle the standing of teachers in a different frame of mind. Perhaps we do not ask enough of our teachers. For example, in my view we do not ask enough of headmasters, because of our peculiar system of tenure. However, that is a favourite hobby horse of mine, and perhaps I had better not become too deeply involved in it at the moment.
We want a greater commitment to the notion of straight academic quality, especially in our comprehensive schools. I have a considerable amount of time for comprehensive schools. But there is a risk in the comprehensive world that the out-and-out egalitarians gradually over the years will to an extent corrupt their teaching standards. Fortunately, most teachers have enough sense to resist this. But it is tempting to say that, because not all children are of academic standard, those who are do not matter and that what we need is some kind of contemporary pop culture. It would be a mistake to allow this mood to go further. However, I will not continue with that,

135
because it may be outside the scope of this debate.
We have to recognise that there are immense social problems affecting our society and our education system which demand an increasing share of national resources. The hon. Member for Spark-brook spoke about the difficulties which exist in secondary schools in the deprived areas. I am with the hon. Gentleman. He is right. But fundamentally they are not matters of teacher supply. I know that there is a shortage of teachers and a very high turnover. But it is not really the global supply problem which afflicts them. It is the difficult conditions in which they teach and possibly the fact that we have not found ways of making teaching in such schools sufficiently attractive. This is very important, and I should like to see more done to support teachers in these areas.
Going back to resources, I also believe that there are matters outside the education budget which may be capable of doing more for the quality of our education than factors coming directly within the education budget. I have in mind such matters as housing and the overall physical environment which in these areas may be the greatest problem that teachers have to face in their schools.
Government is about allocating resources between one Department and another. Looking back over the past 15 years we can say that the period between 1950 and the middle 1960s was when education was dominant in social policy. It was the subject to which most attention was given and where we had a high rate of expansion. That was right. It is arguable today that in terms of allocating both public and private resources housing needs most support, together with the concatenation of problems in twilight areas, inner cities, and so on. In some ways I believe that we shall do as much to improve the quality of our schooling by increasing the environmental budget as we shall by providing a larger number of teachers. We have to make choices, and the same applies to the social work services and to many other features of this sort where we desperately need more money and where we do not have a bottomless purse. We must make decisions. It is right that we should be pre-
136
pared to say every now and then "Let's look at this a little more closely."
This is a worthwhile debate, in that it enables us to look at a very important area. It is right that we should have had once again the arguments between the two Front Benches on the figures. It is one that needs rehearsing, particularly as it is generally rehearsed with such satisfaction to our side. But however committed people are to increasing teacher supply—and the pressure should be kept up—I hope that they will not succumb to the belief that it is a kind of panacea, because there are many other things we want to spend money on as well.
8.35 p.m.
Mr. John Pardoe: First, I declare an interest. Secondly, I congratulate the hon. Member for Manchester, Exchange (Mr. Hatton) on his maiden speech. He will understand me if I say that I suppose I welcome him with certain mixed feelings, though he would need a very tortuous mind to know just how mixed they are. I was once told by my right hon. Friend the Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) that the ideal constituency to choose was one in which one would spend one's summer holidays. Having spent a short while in the hon. Gentleman's constituency over the past couple of weeks, for diverse reasons, I must admit that I would not choose to spend my summer holiday there, but that is not a criticism of his constituency as such.
The hon. Gentleman spoke of the difficulties of urban redevelopment. He will pardon me if I say that I found some of the redevelopment there, as in all the cities I visit, unutterably depressing. But Manchester, Exchange has a new voice, and we look forward to hearing the hon. Gentleman on this and many other subjects in the future.
The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) seemed extremely mixed up. I understood him to be arguing that we do do not really need all that many teachers and that small classes are not a very good thing. He produced the research with which we are all familiar, particularly that presented to the Plowden Committee, of which he was a member. If I had been a member of that committee, faced with the research of Professor Wiseman, I should have asked some very hard and

137
tough questions about the conclusions he had reached.
Mr. Raison: I assure the hon. Gentleman that hard questions were asked about it. The curious thing about the whole area was the way in which we had first one bit of research and then another. The Wiseman research came fairly late on, and then there were successive pieces of research which, contrary to all expectations and common sense, produced the answer that I have described. There is an accumulation of evidence—not just one bit of maverick research but a solid body.
Mr. Pardoe: I have spent the greater part of my working life in market research, and I have long since discovered that, whenever the figures show anything interesting, one can bet one's bottom dollar they are wrong. I believe that that is true of the research we are discussing.
The hon. Gentleman's argument was extraordinary. He says that the Plowden Committee was presented with all that research but that he will discount it because he still believes that we need more teachers, and that it is a very good thing that the Government are going for more. It is a mixed-up argument. I believe that we must discount that research, because all of us who have been involved in education or education policy in any way know that the most essential factor in the whole of education is the interaction between the teacher and, preferably, a small group of pupils. That is what education is about. It is not about how many primary schools or how many secondary schools we build.
The Secretary of State made a very confident—I almost say strident—defence of her White Paper and her policy. She was right to point out that the present situation is inadequate and that to a large extent it is the fault of the Labour Government. But does she think that the present situation, put forward a few years, will be any more adequate then? After all, in the White Paper the Government take credit for the fact that only 2·5 per cent. of all primary school classes now number about 40. I do not believe that that is a very good standard. It is certainly not one that I wish to aim at.
The right hon. Lady said that it was an ambitious programme because no Gov-
138
ernment had ever set a target for staffing 10 years ahead. It depends on what the target is before one can say whether it is ambitious. After all, it is not very ambitious to say that over the next 10 years I wish to climb a molehill, but that is what the White Paper is doing in relation to teacher recruitment.
What is the Government's target for the pupil/teacher ratio? The right hon. Lady told us what the Government hope to get to by 1980, but what is the Government's target for the size of classes? Will they tell us, without muddying the waters by referring always to the pupil/teacher ratio?
In my view, the number of teachers required to bring all classes in both secondary and primary schools to below 30 is the number for which we must be aiming. If we cannot do it by 1981, let us take it to 1985, but let us state, and unite in stating, what we see the essential target at which to aim. Even under the present situation there are many secondary school classes of more than 30.
I propose to put some questions to the right hon. Lady, because she has defended her case with a large number of statistics and has obviously considered some of the intricate questions involved. When we are considering how to increase the total number of teachers in schools, it is, as the right hon. Lady said, a complex question, and we have to consider a large array of factors.
How many of those who qualify join the profession? Is the figure going up, or is it going down? The right hon. Lady says that there is a downward trend in wastage. For how long has it been going down? I ask that because it has had its ups and downs even in recent years. How long do teachers stay in the profession, and how many leave after four or five years? That is particularly relevant to the problem of the wastage of female teachers.
What are the reasons for the downward trend of wastage? When that is considered in relation to male teachers, it must be related to the prospects in jobs which are seen as alternative jobs for those who are four or five years out—which is the crucial time—of training college. If one considers the state of the economy and compares salaries in those jobs which are seen as direct alternatives

139
to the teaching profession, one realises that there is no great ground for optimism for the future.
Because of the way in which the economy has sagged over the last three years one can see why there was a temporary downward trend in wastage, but I should like to bet that that downward trend will continue during the present boom conditions. I think it unlikely that that will happen because, even under the Government's pay freeze, salaries are racing ahead in jobs which are direct alternatives to teaching for people four or five years out from college.
There are two factors to consider in the wastage of female teachers. First, there is the pressure to have a second income in the home, which is the old problem of recruitment of women back into industry of all sorts. The economic pressures here are great, for a variety of reasons and there is no reason to suppose that they will not stay as great as they are now.
Secondly, there is the factor which is similar to that for men, namely, the prospects in those jobs which are seen as alternatives. I shall not go through the list of jobs which are obvious alternatives to re-entering the teaching profession for a married woman. Clearly, a great factor is how much time a married woman can spend with her family and, therefore, how easily the alternative job fits into her married life.
One has only to look at the pages of The Times to see the enormous increases that have taken place in, for instance, top secretarial salaries. When one realises that there are organisations offering temporary secretarial posts—and very comfortable ones—at £1·15 per hour, one realises that it would be a brave man or women who would forecast that the downward trend in wastage among female teachers will increase. I guess that fewer women teachers will be coming back to teaching. In my view, the right hon. Lady's figure in the White Paper is optimistic.
The right hon. Lady based her case primarily on the fact that there are many other claims on resources. I am not going into the whole question of resources and the Government's budget, although there is obviously the argument whether
140
education is to get more or housing is to get more of the resources, but this is not the time to debate that. Within the totality of the education budget the right hon. Lady, of course, has to make her priorities, and today, as indeed on other occasions, she has said that she believes she is giving adequate priority to teacher recruitment vis-à-vis the rest of the education budget. I do not happen to believe that this is so. I believe that teacher recruitment is of enormous importance and could be greater, and is certainly far more important than sheer statistics make out.
It really is time, is it not, that we started to consider teacher recruitment in terms of quality? How one assesses the quality of teachers, how one assesses whether it is going up or down, is as difficult as assessing the productivity of teachers, but the Government and all those interested in education have to make some attempt at it. It is a very difficult thing for anybody to say, but I would guess that the rewards for teaching, which are not very high vis-à-vis the alternative occupations, must inevitably mean that, unless we increase the rewards very substantially, teacher quality in the future will decline.
Mr. Raison: I wonder whether the hon. Member can say whether the small percentage of teachers who would not go to college, because one is not expanding the programme as fast as the Opposition claim they would expand it, would be likely to be teachers of the higher or the lower quality?
Mrs. Renée Short: On a point of order. The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) took 20 minutes of the time of this House in what is a very short debate. It is not for me to tell you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, how to run the business of the House—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—and I am not proposing to do that, but it would be helpful if—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu): Order. The hon. Lady knows full well that that is not a point of order.
Mr. Pardoe: I certainly do not wish to take up any more time. I was just drawing my remarks to an end, and I should have finished had I not been interrupted by the hon. Member for Aylesbury, but

141
he has raised a point which I can quickly deal with. I do not think it is possible to say that those who are on the margin, those who would not go to teacher training colleges or other places because of the current rewards, would necessarily make bad teachers. There are, I am quite convinced, outside the teaching profession a large number of people who would make excellent teachers, and the important thing is to get them in. Therefore, I do not accept the argument behind the hon. Member's question.
I would say to the right hon. Lady, finally, that all the figures she has given us this evening to back up her case look, in the way she presented them, effective from the Government's point of view, but I would remind her that on teacher recruitment and teacher wastage every Government have always got it wrong because we have tried to forecast the unforecastable. I would simply remind her—although it was not particularly her Department which did it nevertheless, it has responsibility in education—that in the latest case of forecasting matters relating to teachers, the forecast of the amount required by the teachers' superannuation fund to ensure the whole question of the rate of contribution of future entrants has proved catastrophically wrong, as the Government Actuary's report has shown. It has proved wrong partly because the figures relating to teacher recruitment have had to be changed in the light of experience. I only emphasise that it is a great pity that the right hon. Lady does not now admit that she got it wrong the first time and that she does not reduce the teacher's contribution from 6·75 per cent. to 6 per cent., which would materially improve the financial rewards for entering the profession.
8.50 p.m.
Mr. A. P. Costain: Since this is a short debate, I will make a short speech, in the hope that I will have the indulgence of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Renée Short).
I agree with what the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) said about the quality of teachers. It is just as important as quantity. In the last generation the squire, the schoolmaster and the parson were the three great people
142
of the village. There is a great difference today in the teacher's prestige.
Too little account is taken in the House of the difference between the teacher of the village and the teacher of the town. My hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) made an interesting and comprehensive speech on this. Recruitment of teachers and the maintenance of their position depend on prestige. We do not pretend that teachers' pay can compete with that of temporary secretaries. My hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury said that teaching was a profession. It is much more a vocation. The Minister should consider whether we are doing enough to improve the amenities available to schoolteachers.
A schoolmaster in my constituency who lives in a village is anxious to maintain his home there. He put up for planning permission to build a house in the village and it was turned down by the local authority as unnecessary. Had he been a cowman, the Minister of Agriculture would have supported his application. In a matter of planning permission, the village schoolmaster is not as important as the cowman, it seems.
Mr. Pardoe Mr. Pardoe indicated assent
Mr. Costain: I have the support for once of the Liberal Party.
Could not my right hon. Friend's Department give priority to housing these essential people who carry out the services of her Department? The man I am speaking of was interested not in salary but in living in the village community and getting to know the parents and the children in their homes. He had no priority for planning permission to build a house in the old school grounds, despite the fact that both the village and the school favoured the idea. It cannot be right that a person with a vocation is not given priority.
The housing situation for teachers is the same throughout the country. We cannot expect people to have a vocation without being given the facilities to carry it out. This is done for the manses of parsons, for instance, and it should be done for the teaching profession.
An uncle of mine who was headmaster of a well-known public school complained that he had to retire at 65. Should the

143
retirement age for headmasters be the same as for other people? With the present shortage of teachers, should not the retirement question be given greater consideration?
The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East seems to be getting restless. I am sure that she has a contribution to make, so I will end by asking my right hon. Friend to give special consideration to this aspect of teachers' welfare.
8.55 p.m.
Mr. Terry Davis: I will not follow the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain) in his description of his relative's problems. I recognise that teachers have a problem in finding accommodation. I know that teachers coming to my constituency have great difficulty in being able to afford to buy a house. Redditch Development Corporation is willing to provide houses to rent at Redditch in my constituency for teachers willing to teach there. Houses can be provided but that is not much use if a town cannot get the teachers.
Apart from a general objection to the Secretary of State's policy of reducing the number of people who will enter the teaching profession, I have a specific objection. The right hon. Lady's decision to cut the September intake into colleges of education by 10 per cent. is totally arbitrary. It affects bad areas and better areas equally. It makes no distinction between areas which have the worst pupil/teacher ratios and those which have the best.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) said that there were regional variations in the national ratio of pupils to teachers, but he will recognise that there are also variations within regions. I was interested to discover in looking at the statistics that one of the worst ratios in the country is that of my own county of Worcestershire. The figures for 1972 show that the national ratio of pupils to teachers in primary schools was 25·9:1, but in Worcestershire it was 27·9:1. The county ranked fifty-sixth out of 58 counties in England and Wales.
Again, the national ratio of pupils to teachers in secondary schools was 17·7:1, but in Worcestershire there is no compensation for the fact that we have one of
144
the worst primary school ratios. On the contrary, we have the worst ratio for secondary schools, at 19·1: 1. Worcestershire is the worst county in the whole of England and Wales.
It is true that between 1971 and 1972 under the present Government there was an improvement, but the improvement in Worcestershire was less than that in the national average, so our county was falling behind in comparison with the rest of the country. As my right hon. Friend said, these figures are averages, and it is also true that the ratios within counties tend to be worse in urban, suburban and semi-urban areas than in rural areas, the reason being, as will be understood by hon. Members, that rural schools are so much smaller.
The Secretary of State said that the yardstick of class sizes was abandoned four years ago in favour in pupil/teacher ratio, but class size is what parents can see. It is the size of the class for their own children that matters to parents. My 9-year-old daughter sits in a class of 34, and my 7-year-old son is even more disadvantaged in that he is in a class of 40. These are not exceptional conditions: these are typical classes in Worcestershire.
As I listened to the right hon. Lady's recital of statistics it seemed to me that she had not asked the basic question. She has not taken the basic decision. At no time did she tell us what the size of class should be or what the ratio of pupils to teachers should be. She produced a lot of statistics for the past and some estimates for the future, but she did not tell us what her aim should be. She did not tell us what is the right size of class or the right or best ratio of pupils to teachers.
I feel that the right hon. Lady missed the whole point of the debate The difference between the Government and the Opposition is that her standards are not high enough. She is satisfied with a national average of 18·7: 1 in 1980, but we are not satisfied. The most important statistic was completely omitted from the right hon. Lady's catalogue of statistics. She told us what the ratio was in 1950, 1955, 1960, 1965 and 1970, and she told us what the ratio will be in 1975 and 1980, but I did not hear her tell us what the ratio would have been in 1980 is she had not taken the decision to reduce

145
the intake of people who go into colleges of education with the intention of becoming teachers. That is the most important statistic of all.
My hon. Friends are being somewhat unfair to the Secretary of State, however, because she is not the only person who is satisfied with this trend and with her figures. I am sorry to say that some local education authorities are satisfied with this situation. Worcestershire County Council is among them. Only recently Worcestershire County Council has stopped, with effect from next September, a special scheme which has operated in Worcestershire to provide grants for mature students who would like to become teachers but lack the qualifications to enter colleges of education.
I referred earlier to the situation in Redditch. This is particularly appropriate because it was at the Redditch College of Further Education that we had a special course, running since 1965, for mature students. These are mainly married women who wish to become teachers but lack the qualifications. During the last few years 75 students received grants from the county council, and, of those 75, over 50 have become teachers or are at colleges of education or universities with the intention of becoming teachers eventually.
Now the Worcestershire County Council has suddenly stopped any awards for mature students who would like to become teachers but lack the 0-levels or other qualifications.
If a married woman decides to become a teacher in Redditch and goes to Red-ditch College of Further Education, when she is qualified she will not move to another part of the country. She will stay in Redditch to teach, in a developing and expanding town which needs new teachers.
These married women will not have housing problems—any more than they have at present. The additional income might help them to afford the high rents of the development corporation houses or help them to buy their own homes. But they are being thwarted in their desire to serve the community by becoming teachers as a direct result of the county council's decision last October.
Although I condemn the Secretary of State's decision, I also condemn the local education authority of Worcestershire.
9.2 p.m.
Miss Janet Fookes: The greatest tribute which can be paid to the Government's plans for teacher supply was unwittingly paid by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Spark-brook (Mr. Hattersley). I thought he showed a conspicuous lack of moral fervour and indignation when moving the Opposition motion. I suspect that in his heart of heart he knows that his case is rather weak.
We have heard from the hon. Member for Sparkbrook and other hon. Members of the Opposition about their dissatisfaction with the standards which the Government have set themselves in the period to 1981. But when hon. Members speak in that way I recall the period when they were in office. It was then that we had an opportunity to see what their achievements were. We heard from the hon. Gentleman that in 1965, and again in 1968, they talked about the standards of teacher supply that they wanted for 1981. It is interesting to note, however, that in the figures given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State about the improvement in pupil/teacher ratios over the five-yearly periods it so happened that the least improvement coincided with the period of the Labour Government. That is the measure for me. Words are all very well, but we want to see action.
Mr. Ernest G. Perry: Is the hon. Lady aware that during the period of the Labour Government, for the first time in our history, we expanded teacher training colleges to an extent never previously known, and that we spent more on education, for the first time, than on defence?
Miss Fookes: I also seem to recall that that was the period when school building was cut back and when the raising of the school leaving age was postponed. That had been brought in by a Conservative Minister and postponed by a Labour Government. Again, there was a contrast between action and words.
I welcome my right hon. Friend's strategy. It is realistic and it makes worthwhile improvements in teacher supply. I am particularly happy about the teachers who are to be set aside for nursery education. That is something which I have long advocated. That will be one of the real

147
improvements in our education system in recent years.
I am also happy that provision is being made for the in-service training of teachers during the induction year. We probably lose more teachers because of an unpleasant probationary year of teaching than through any other cause. It can be a horrible and frightening experience to be thrown in at the deep end. Any way in which we can help teachers during the time when they are at their most vulnerable is worth while.
I am glad that my right hon. Friend has been cautious and has not taken the downward trend of wastage as the norm in her calculations. Because of the unpredictability which has already been mentioned, my right hon. Friend has adopted a sound and sensible course. I think that she may be erring a little too much on the side of pessimism but I do not quarrel with that.
I suspect that the increasing trend, which is observable in all walks of life, for women to return to full-time or part-time work after a period away when they have their families and when their families are small will mean in future years that there will be a far greater number of women returning to teaching. I notice that my right hon. Friend has made allowance for only a small increase of approximately 2,000 over the present return rate.
By restricting recruitment to some extent we shall have people going into teaching who are keen to teach and will be less likely to drop out either during training or afterwards than is the case at present. That slight restriction will have a positive merit. One of the matters which concern many of those who are interested in education is that the expansion of the teacher force over the last decade or more has meant that more attention has been paid to quantity than quality. I am glad to see that my right hon. Friend is seeking in all manner of ways to pay more attention to quality.
The initial requirements for people going into training should be raised and far more attention should be given to their training and the weeding out of those who prove to be unsuitable. I can recall a college of education lecturer some time ago saying to me privately that when she was a lecturer—she had
148
just retired—she had hardly dared to fail anybody, however unsuitable he was, because of the immense impetus of getting more teachers into the school somehow. It is wise that we should be turning our attention to the quality of entrants and how they are trained. I hope that my right hon. Friend will give more and more attention to that aspect.
I believe that the Government's targets are reasonable and sensible. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will be flexible in making any alternations which prove to be necessary as time goes by.
9.9 p.m.
Mr. Caerwyn E. Roderick: In the 1950s the British Medical Association made a forecast of the future needs of doctors in Britain. That forecast was proved so wrong that we are still suffering from it. We have returned to that position with teacher supply. I think that the Secretary of State will be so wrong that we shall suffer for the next 20 years as a result of her follies.
We cannot afford such a mistake. The right hon. Lady has suggested that she will be flexible and that she can make adjustments. I suggest that some of the guesswork to which we have been listening will not be readily remedied. Once we cut down on the number of students going to colleges of education and the staffs in those colleges it will take some years to remedy the situation.
I take issue with the right hon. Lady and with some hon. Members who have been using the tables of pupil/teacher ratios. The right hon. Lady contradicted herself when she suggested that it was due to the Labour Government that the figures were low in the mid-1960s. Those figures had been planned for in the period of a Conservative Government. The pickup occurred when the Labour Government policy started to take effect, and at a time when we were introducing the three-year degree and students were staying on longer at colleges of education.
I am sorry that the right hon. Lady did not suggest that we ought to abandon the concept of class sizes of 40 by the 1980s. I have children who have gone through primary school in class sizes of 40. I admit that this was during the period of the Labour Government, but the right hon. Lady has no better target

149
for the 1980s than to abandon such a concept—
Mrs. Thatcher: The problem is this. There can be extra teachers—large numbers of them—going into the schools, but it does not show in a reduction of class size. I have no control over how headmasters deploy their teachers. I have an illustration in front of me. Over a period of four years the pupil/teacher ratio fell, which means there were more teachers in the schools compared with the numbers of pupils, but this did not show in the size of teaching groups. The head teachers in this case decided to deploy the teachers among remedial pupils, counselling and so on.
Mr. Roderick: I would not disagree with what the Secretary of State says, that we need so much more resources to deal with remedial education and matters like that. Nevertheless, if classes over 40 have remained it is still to be deplored because we cannot have proper education in classes of that size. How can a teacher teach children to read when she has 40 children under her control?
Mrs. Thatcher: I agree.
Mr. Roderick: The right hon. Lady must agree. We must deal adequately with remedial work in the schools and reduce the numbers in the classes. Even though she has only indirect control, she has control of teachers overall. She admits it in the White Paper. She will have to have a massive increase in numbers if she is to have any effect whatsoever on this problem.
I should like to refer to that little bit of nonsense in paragraph 49 of the White Paper, and I should like to ask who takes the decisions which are about to be carried out. Are they people whose children and who themselves went through the State machine or did they go through the independent school schemes? Are they people who live in the poorer areas and suffered the worst educational facilities? I suggest that they have had the advantages of schooling in the better areas.
Paragraph 49 of the White Paper states:
"The pupil:teacher ratio is now in more common use and provides a simpler and more reliable indicator of current standards and a better index of progress in improving them.
150
But it does not allow for changes in the age distribution of the school population. For example, an increase, within a given total school population, in the proportion of older pupils with their more favourable staffing ratio would necessitate an improvement in the overall ratio merely to retain the same standards."
Have these trends not been with us over the past years? Have children not been staying longer and getting to the sixth forms? Have we not just been standing still? Under the policy enunciated in this White Paper we shall do nothing but stand still.
My accusation against the Secretary of State is that she is not trying to make progress. She is trying to stand still. With the spread of comprehensive education, I hope that pupils will stay on longer at school, thus requiring better staffing ratios. We cannot afford to suffer staff shortages in the schools. Does the Secretary of State really appreciate what it means for teachers, whose numbers are already short, to see their free periods whittled away when one of their number is away from school? We ought to make allowances for this sort of thing. This is what creates the disaffection among teachers. These things must be allowed for, but the right hon. Lady is not making adequate provision.
9.15 p.m.
Mr. Fergus Montgomery: Every time I listen to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), my heart sinks lower. If I had to write a report on him, I should say "Full of promise, but achieves little". Referring to the hon. Gentleman, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that he seems to come out with a promise a day. All I can say is that if a promise a day keeps Roy away from the Department of Education and Science, there will be no tears shed on this side of the House.
Despite the criticisms which pour forth from the Opposition in every education debate, my right hon. Friend has done an excellent job as Secretary of State for Education and Science. What I find so difficult to understand is that, although Labour right hon. and hon. Members make all these criticisms now, in opposition, when they had the chance to do something for education they did very little. [Interruption.] I hear the hon.

151
Member for Acton (Mr. Spearing) make a muttered comment. If he spoke to anyone connected with education, particularly to Socialists connected with education, he would soon learn that they were deeply disappointed with the record of his party when in power.
The hon. Member for Battersea, South (Mr. Ernest G. Perry), in a burst of praise, told us that under a Labour Government this country had for the first time in its history spent more on education than on defence. It is true that they cut defence spending enormously—
Mrs. Renée Short: Not enough.
Mr. Montgomery: —so that it was not difficult to show that education was taking more of the gross national product than was defence. I gather that the hon. Lady the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Renée Short) thinks that they did not cut defence spending sufficiently. Nevertheless the cuts were made, and in such circumstances it is easy to show an increase in spending in one sector in comparison with another sector where a substantial cut has been made. There is no force in that argument, and the truth is that it is the present Conservative Government who are pushing forward with expansion in education.
It is not without significance that the figures for the reduction in class sizes given by my right hon. Friend—I return here to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Merton and Morden (Miss Fookes)—show that the worst period of all was 1965–70. What this Government are planning to do is to have a teaching force by 1981 of about 510,000. In 1961 we had a teaching force of 276,000, so that that will be a substantial increase.
Moreover, the Government have made and are making substantial improvements in the education service, and these will require more teachers. We have an enormous expansion in nursery education, we have the raising of the school leaving age, which was neglected by the Labour Government, and we have an expansion of in-service training and improved induction arrangements for new teachers. All these will require extra teachers.
152
It is estimated that for those sectors we shall require additional numbers as follows: 110,000 extra teachers to deal with pupils over the age of five, an extra 25,000 to cope with the expansion in nursery education, and about an extra 20,000 for the expansion in in-service training.
Mr. Hattersley: The hon. Gentleman misunderstands his own Government's plans if he thinks that 20,000 teachers are needed, for example, to deal with in-service training. The 20,000 is all that the Government are prepared to allow in the equation. In fact, the demand for in-service training will make an infinitely greater call than that.
Mr. Montgomery: We recognise, of course, that the demand will be greater, but at least this is a start, a step in the right direction. It has been long overdue in the teaching profession. I wish that in the days when I began to teach I could have had some of the advantages which will accrue for new recruits to the profession today.
Mr. Ernest G. Perry: It was a Tory Government, no doubt.
Mr. Montgomery: No, when I began to teach it was a Labour Government, and a very bad one at that.
If my arithmetic is correct, we shall require about an extra 150,000 teachers over the 10 years from 1971 to 1981 to bring us to a teaching force of 510,000, and to achieve that increase will mean that approximately 15,000 new teachers should be coming into training each year. However, already in the first two years of this period there have been about 40,000 new teachers, which is far in excess of the planned rate of growth, and to have continued at that rate would have entailed a pre-empting of resources.
It is therefore important to underline that the Opposition tonight are trying to make a piece of cheap political capital. It is not that the Government are trying to cut back on the teaching force—far from it. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has shown that we are increasing the teaching force enormously. We are merely reducing the rate of increase in the force, and that is an entirely different matter. I hope, therefore, that the House will overwhelmingly reject the

153
hypocritical motion moved by the Opposition.
9.21 p.m.
Mr. Barry Jones: I always wonder why the hon. Member for Brierley Hill (Mr. Montgomery) should be on the Conservative Benches, because he comes from the North-East of England and was a teacher.
The Secretary of State made disparaging remarks about her predecessor. She accused the Labour Government of talking and not acting. Perhaps I may give her one statistic which indicates that the Labour Government did act, and for the good of the teacher education service. I understand that in 1964 11,597 men entered training colleges and that by 1970 this had increased to 16,531. For women the figures were about 23,000 in 1964 increasing by 1970 to 36,824. Surely that is indicative of the Labour Government's success in acting and doing something about education. It is very much to their credit.
I can guarantee a brief speech always provided that there are no old Etonian and garrulous interventions. I am sorry, too, that there are no representatives from the Welsh Office on the Treasury Bench tonight. I hope that the Government have got their figures right. If the Secretary of State's crystal ball is faulty, thousands of youngsters will suffer, and, indirectly, so will our economy. There is a good case for saying that the quality and number of the nation's teaching force is as vital to the prosperity of the country as is the machine tool trade. I suspect that in planning for 510,000 teachers in 1981 the Government are being complacent and over-sanguine, because all the actuaries and statisticians have disgraced themselves in these last decades in their estimates of population growth in the same silly way, I suppose, as the recently defeated Liberal psephologist in the Manchester, Exchange by-election.
If the Government are being so bone-headed about this they should take out immediate insurance in the form of better salaries and conditions of service for teachers generally, better London allowances for teachers and the speeding up of modernisation and replacement of slum schools. If these requirements are not met, the alarming exodus from the classroom by young teachers in the big cities
154
will accelerate into something like mass migration. Practical matters like these are never fully seized by Whitehall slide-rule and computer-mad experts.
On a wider sphere the Government need to pay more attention to house prices and their current reckless inflation than they do to clearing house reports. Teacher supply in the big cities is directly related to housing prospects for those teachers, and the Secretary of State should urge the LEAs to be more imaginative in their efforts to help young teachers find reasonably priced accommodation.
I know that the Government want to reduce pupil/teacher ratios, but it is deplorable that they will not make a policy target of a maximum class size of 30 pupils. This is tragic. In no way is it useful to quote today's pupil/teacher ratio of 22·6.
The truth is that the local education authorities fiddle this figure. With Whitehall's connivance they juggle and rearrange. I wish the Secretary of State would take charge of the policy and try to intervene more actively. Sadly, the kids most in need of help are often those who would benefit by the Government going pell-mell for a maximum class size of 30. The debate is about that issue. An overcrowded classroom is undoubtedly a brake on a child's intellectual and social development.
It would be better for the Government to over-estimate rather than underestimate the requirement of teachers. The great reports of Plowden and Newsom demonstrated that the overwhelming priority for working class children from deprived homes was for them to be treated as individuals in the classroom. If that is the case, I say that teachers should have manageable classes to be able to provide compensatory treatment for those children who often find good conditions only in the classroom. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) said, it is sad to compare what is available to youngsters in fee-paying schools with the miserable and often squalid lot of youngsters from the down-town areas of our big cities. It is unjust, a national disgrace.
The policy advocated by the Secretary of State will not guarantee a better deal for the working-class child. One of the

155
conclusions that I draw is that we must persuade the bourgeoisie to throw in their lot with the workers in matters educational—that is, to abolish the private sector and to seek to accelerate the improvement of the State sector by sustained, organised and vocal pressure on Whitehall and the local education authorities.
9.23 p.m.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: The one figure that the right hon. Lady did not use was the 40,000 places she is cutting out of the colleges of education. I am sorry she did not make that plain, because what she is doing means that the colleges will be disrupted, together with the morale of the teachers and of those who may well have their courses disrupted. All this will have its effect on the teaching profession.
The right hon. Lady said that we must put the needs of education first and then see how we could meet them. I agree that that is the right way to do it. We cannot spend all we would like, so we must seek a meaningful compromise. But when I said on 4th April that the demands for teachers and schools would be the same, irrespective of White Papers, the Under-Secretary of State could not deny it. His predecessor in May last year could not give me the projections of teacher supply after 1976, explaining:
"I cannot usefully make longer term projections until major issues which my right hon. Friend is now reviewing concerning the rate and direction of development of the educational system have been resolved."
That was before the White Paper. In the previous paragraph, he had said:
"These projections will be revised in the light of latest information on these and other matters in preparation for the next Public Expenditure White Paper."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd May 1972; Vol. 837, c. 290.]
It is clear that the Secretary of State has not done what she said today must be done. She has not asked herself the question "What teachers do we need and how do we get them?" She has instead done what was hinted at in that reply of 22nd May 1972 and has asked "What is the minimum we can decently spend on colleges of education?".
I understand that the National Union of Teachers said that the number of teachers required by 1981 was not 510,000 but 584,000, or another 74,000
156
teachers. I am also told that its calculations show that this would mean that the pupil/teacher ratio would be 17:1. Can the Under-Secretary say whether he broadly agrees with those figures and, if so, what is wrong with the pupil/teacher ratio of 17:1?
My hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Terry Davis) was right when he said that the right hon. Lady had not given her figures for a reasonable balance between what the country can afford and what education demands. I challenge her to say that 17:1 is not a reasonable compromise. If we had left the colleges of education alone and she had not cut 40,000 places, we might have got to about that figure. That seems right, and that is why I support the motion.
9.30 p.m.
Mr. Roland Moyle: We have had a good debate on the Labour side of the House. I thought that the speeches on the Tory side improved as the debate went on. I was particularly interested in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Terry Davis) and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East (Mr. Barry Jones) because they drew attention to the difficulty of obtaining the right teachers in the right places as a result of the difficulties experienced by young teachers in affording houses in the areas in which they wished to work.
As a London Member I echo those sentiments with vigour, not only because I am a London Member but also because I am a parent of children going through the London education system. If that system breaks down as the result of failure to act on the part of the Secretary of State, I for one as a parent in the London area will make sure that she does not forget it in a hurry.
The House had the pleasant experience of listening to my hon. and newfound Friend the Member for Manchester, Exchange (Mr. Hatton). He is a new boy to us but in listening to his speech I think we all came to the conclusion that his was a voice which had been matured by long years of educational administrative experience. We realise that he has made a distinguished contribution to education in Manchester and we look forward to the distinguished contribution he will be making on the

157
national stage. He will, I known, enrich our future debates on education.
The House has been debating the divergence of teacher supply. The Government are aiming to provide 510,000 teachers by 1981 and many of the Government's critics outside the House, including the National Union of Teachers, feel that 580,000 might be a more appropriate target. Mr. Morris of Manchester University, with a very minor alteration of some of the variables in the equation, thinks that 594,000 could in certain circumstances be a more appropriate target. In my experience, professions normally try to restrict entry to their ranks for the simple reason that this tends to provide a great deal of extra employment for their members and strengthens their hand in bargaining for salary improvements.
When a profession such as the teaching profession and an organisation such as the NUT argue that there ought to be a greater increase in the numbers entering the profession than that for which the right hon. Lady is making provision, we ought to take serious note. The Government seem determined to stick by the figure of 510,000 in the White Paper. The right hon. Lady gave us a great number of statistics in an attempt to convince us that she was aiming at the right target. Those statistics were not really of much help to people outside the House in trying to check her projections.
For example, the right hon. Lady said she was aiming to produce a figure of 14,000 graduate teachers by 1981. What people would like to know is not that the overall target includes 14,000 graduates but how the right hon. Lady plucks this figure out of the air and puts it into her calculations. On that matter the right hon. Lady gave us no explanation whatever.
Only last week the Government announced their reductions for colleges of education for September 1974. Instead of 36,000 entrants into the colleges, the figure has been cut to 32,000, a reduction of 11 per cent. That 11 per cent. is applicable only if the 36,000 figure proves to be correct. It may be that the colleges were aiming at a figure of nearly 38,000, in which case the cut would be even greater.
Even more interesting is the fact that the cuts which are to take effect in Sep-
158
tember 1974 were announced on 23rd June. Then, on 4th July this year, the Advisory Committee on the Supply and Training of Teachers is to meet for the first time. The advisory committee will meet on that date with the major decisions of teacher projections having been taken in the White Paper and with the most immediate cuts having already been decided. Talk about taking one's harp to a party and not being asked to play: it simply does not come into the picture! My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Exchange is twice blessed. He has been able to take part in this debate and he will be fortunate enough to be present for the meeting of the advisory committee on 4th July. He will certainly be able to ask why he had to bring his harp all the way from Manchester to that party, and he may ask what he should do with it. I wish I were there to see what happens.
While we are on the subject of colleges of education, I wish to remind the House that in the debate on 19th February I said that the colleges deserved well of the nation and therefore they are certainly worth one undertaking from the Government. Despite the cuts of at least 11 per cent. which are being imposed on the colleges in September 1974, I hope that the Government will undertake that there will be no redundancies among college staff for the academic year 1974–75. If there is a surplus, it can easily be used to plan the curricula in terms of the higher education diversification which they will be undertaking, to retrain their teachers and to plan for the future. We should like an undertaking to this effect from the Under-Secretary of State.
The Secretary of State has defended her forward projection—I emphasise that the word is in the singular rather than in the plural—with a vigour that is worthy of a better cause, but I believe that her figures will prove to be wrong. It is in the nature of forward projections of this sort about manpower requirements that they will be wrong. They are not designed to he right. They are designed to form a reference point as one moves forward. The right hon. Lady seems to have nailed her colours to the mast of 510,000.
Surely the most sensible thing for the right hon. Lady to do is to put forward her projections and then wait to see what happens in the future. The Government

159
will probably be wrong about graduates from polytechnics and universities who want to become teachers. The Government will probably be wrong about wastage in the teaching profession. They will also probably be wrong about the numbers who require in-service training. Demand from the profession is likely to be much greater since many will wish to catch up on the lost opportunities of the past. How the Government can nail their figures to a mast of 510,000 when they have a diploma of higher education—a diploma which has not yet been agreed in firm terms—to fit into the machine, I do not know.
Then we come to the important question of how many married women will return to the teaching profession. Here again the Government are likely to be wrong. Indeed, the Govrenment themselves think that they will be wrong because, having in the December 1972 White Paper produced a figure in respect of married women who will return to teaching and having based their calculations on that figure, they then set up a study to find out how many married women are likely to return to teaching. It reminds me of what happened at a crucial stage in my career when I worked with a research officer who used to come to me and say "If you tell me the answer you want, I will provide the figures to prove it." For a time we worked successfully on that basis, butt I was never very happy with it. As the years went by and I came to this House, I have gradually come to see that the Department of Education and Science was being run on exactly the same basis.
There are a number of other problems in regard to married women who wish to return to teaching. One would expect the Government to hope for an increase in their numbers since they are cheap, in that they need no more training because they have already had their teaching training. New entrants to the profession must undergo the full three to four years' training before they are available. Therefore, by comparison the married women teachers are cheap.
Many of our young people in training at colleges and universities have a sense of vocation which leads them to go to teach in the city centres where social
160
conditions are difficult. But married women re-entrants often still have a number of family commitments and tend to live in the suburbs. So their contribution to teaching comes in the suburbs where they live and not necessarily where they are most in demand.
Another point which has not been mentioned is that there will be a decline in the opportunities for young women in higher education. Only 40 per cent. of young women appropriately qualified go to universities compared with 60 per cent. of young men. The balance of young women go into the colleges of education. That is the route to higher education which has been selected for them. That is not a happy situation. As a nation we must move to a situation in which young women go into any form of higher education as easily as young men. But that will take time.
What will happen in the meantime is that the opportunities for higher education traditionally provided by colleges of education will be gradually whittled away by the right hon. Lady, so that there will be less opportunity for young women to enter higher education than they have been able to look forward to in the past.
It is in the nature of forward planning to be wrong. It is only a guideline. It is a different way of arguing a different philosophy from the one which might otherwise be expected. If we are wrong, with the British education system, whole groups of children will miss opportunities for ever because under our system there is no opportunity of readily turning back the clock.
Let us remember that a 1 per cent. reduction in the supply of teachers or a 1 per cent. error in the calculation may lead by the end of the decade to a plus or minus of approximately 5,000 teachers. It will be a very substantial number, given the tight ratios for which the right hon. Lady is aiming. The right hon. Lady is likely to say that she is entitled to aim for the middle point. But it is much easier to achieve a cutback if she finds that there are more teachers coming forward than it is possible to provide a stimulation to demand quickly if she finds that she is going too low.
A daring thought occurs to me. At the very worst, if the right hon. Lady finds a surplus of teachers she can

161
improve the quality of the teaching service, of the teacher ratio and of the class size.
A great deal of experience on all these vague items in the equation about which the right hon. Lady talks—wastage, graduates from polytechnics and married women returners—is available in the education world from the National Union of Teachers, the Association of Headmasters, the Association of Education Committees and so on. The right hon. Lady should produce a variable range of projections and in close consultation with members of the profession, all the time adjusting her projections.
The only other way in which the right hon. Lady can make her projections right is by forcing teachers and children to conform to the machine that she is setting up. That is not the way to treat children or, for that matter, teachers. If the right hon. Lady adopts that line and sacrifices have to be made, it will not be the machine which makes them but it will be the teachers and the children. The Opposition know just where those sacrifices will be made. They will not be made in the lush pastures inhabited by the right hon. Lady and her right hon. and hon. Friends. They will be made in the decaying inner zones of our cities and in the socially deprived areas. It is for that reason that we shall divide the House.
9.45 p.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Norman St. John Stevas): I must first congratulate the hon. Member for Manchester, Exchange (Mr. Hatton) on a most distinguished maiden speech, which was fully in accordance with the already very important contribution he has made to education. Like other hon. Members, I hope we shall hear him many times in the House. I only regret that the vagaries of the electoral law will compel him, unlike Charles II, to go on his travels again. I would merely say that 1649 was, after all, followed by 1660.
In replying briefly to the debate, I do not wish to make in the same detail the case for the Government which was deployed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. She did it with her customary lucidity and cogency, and completely answered the point we have heard from time to time that insufficient statistics have been made available by the
162
Department. Her speech tonight, taken in conjunction with the document which has been issued to the advisory committee, gives a full statistical background to the Government's conclusions on teacher supply.
I wish to single out three of the themes which have dominated our short debate and have informed not only those arguments but Government policy as set out in the White Paper and elsewhere. They are the themes of expansion, quality and balance. All three are needed for a successful education programme; if any one is missing, the policy is vitiated from the start.
I shall deal with expansion first. There can be no argument but that we shall have a massive expansion in the number of teachers. The figure is beyond dispute: 140,000 more teachers by 1981.
Of course, the estimates must be subject to subsequent events. We shall have a big expansion, but every figure given in a projection over a period up to a year such as 1981 must, in the nature of things, be provisional. It must be subject to revisions upwards or downwards depending on events. But the estimates are very much more than the guesses which the hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) tried to dismiss them as. They are the best estimates on the information now available as to needs in the future. The increase of 140.000 is needed, first, to maintain and improve the staff/student ratio in our schools, and that it will do.
Perhaps the most significant statistic that emerged from the debate was that in the period 1965–70. which was roughly the period of responsibility of the Opposition, the teacher/student ratio fell by only 0·8 from 23·5 to 22·7, whereas in the White Paper plan—
Mr. Kenneth Marks Mr. Kenneth Marks (Manchester, Gorton)rose—
Mr. St. John-Stevas: If the hon. Gentleman will let me finish my figures—
Mr. Marks: What about the number of children?
Mr. St. John-Stevas: Between 1970 and 1975 the teacher/pupil ratio will go down from 22·7 to 20·7. [Interruption] I have made it clear that these are provisional figures. From 1975 to 1980 the ratio

163
will fall from 20·7 to 18·7. Those figures represent a rate of reduction nearly three times as great as that which was achieved by the previous Government. [Interruption.] Of course it is a forecast, because it refers to the future.
A number of hon. Members have suggested that the debate might have been more usefully conducted in terms of class size rather than aggregate numbers or the ratio of teachers to pupils but, as my right hon. Friend said, it was the right hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central (Mr. Edward Short) who withdrew the class size criterion in favour of the pupil/teacher ratio.
The reason is simply that it is no longer appropriate to define staffing standards in those terms when schools are, in practice, organising their work differently with team teaching and flexible teaching methods in which individual and small group work have a place as well as class teaching, and so on.
The hon. Member for Sparkbrook tried to cast doubts on the White Paper's estimate that the planned employment of 510,000 teachers in 1981 would reduce the pupil/teacher ratio to a lowest-ever figure of 18·5 to one. The hon. Gentleman would have made it 19·3 to one, apparently on the extraordinary ground that those teachers who would be benefiting from the new provision for teacher induction and in-service training should not count. Why should they not count? Does the hon. Gentleman take the view that a teacher does not count except when he is standing in front of a class? Does the hon. Gentleman wish to disparage that part of a teacher's time that is spent in his own further development and enrichment in his pupils' interests? As a quibble, that is thoroughly worthy of the hon. Gentleman.
The second point is the expansion of nursery education, one of the most important reforms in education this century, for which we shall need 27,000 more teachers. The third constituent of the figure is the 22,000 teachers who will be needed to implement the proposals for in-service training.
There have been expressions of concern about the colleges of education. The number of places for teacher training will be reduced, but the colleges will still
164
play an extended rôle in our higher education system and discussions are proceeding on that basis now.
The second major theme of the debate has been quality. it has been commented on by my hon. Friend the Member for Merton and Morden (Miss Fookes) and by the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe). We wish to improve the status of the profession—I agree on that one point with the hon. Member for Sparkbrook—but how does one do that? Does one do it by pious platitudes and the encomia which is all that the hon. Gentleman can offer, or does one do it by doing something for the training of teachers?
The profession will not be helped by producing thousands of teachers whom local education authorities cannot afford to employ. But it will be helped by improving the quality of teachers, by improving in-service training, by moving towards an all-graduate profession, and by putting into operation proposals for the Diploma of Higher Education and related degrees in education which will give us the most highly qualified teachers in the world.
The third theme of the debate is balance. It is easy to ignore other aims of the educational system in favour of whatever happens to be in the public eye for the moment. That is the policy that has consistently been followed by the hon. Member for Sparkbrook. My right hon. Friend and I and the Government who are responsible for that educational system cannot do that. We have carefully to weigh and cost the needs of the system, and it is that careful weighing and costing which characterises the White Paper and makes it largely a realistic policy declaration in contrast with the uncosted fantasies of the official Labour Party policy and the even more way-out Green Paper on policy for education.
Mr. Spearing rose—
Mr. St. John-Stevas: I cannot give way. I have only a few minutes left in which to reply.
Whatever the costing proposals put forward by the Labour Party in the course of the debate, it has been extremely difficult to find out exactly what is the Opposition's policy on teacher supply because, apart from an irrelevant reference to the independent schools, where

165
the Opposition are willing to wound but still afraid to strike, there has been no firm commitment by the Labour Party on its policy on teacher supply.
The hon. Member for Sparkbrook spoke about 54,000 more teachers, but we do not know whether that is a firm policy commitment. What we can do, however, is to set that proposal, vague as it is, against a background of wild promises and commitments that have been made. My hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) mildly referred to it as the resources problem, and it was given a rather more astringent reference by my hon. Friend the Member for Brierley Hill (Mr. Montgomery).
It is true that hardly a week has passed without our having had some new and costly proposal from the hon. Member for Sparkbrook. We have had two in the debate tonight. We have had one referring to the general number of teachers; we have had another referring to in-service training. In the debate on 15th May I gave some costings of the proposals for 1981 which had been put forward by the hon. Member and his colleagues. I estimated that they would cost £1,700 million over and above the expenditure we already project in the White Paper. Since then we have had a call for higher education to be made more expensive and for discretionary grants to be abolished. That would cost, I estimated last month, an extra £1,000 million. Possibly the proposals we have had put forward tonight would add several hundred millions of pounds to the education budget. The only item of extra expense which we have not yet had from the hon. Member for Spark-brook is compulsory grants for pre-retirement courses in adult education. No doubt we shall have that in due course.
If the hon. Member for Sparkbrook has got himself into such an exposed
position, it is because he has consistently ignored the dictum of a former great member of the Labour Party, Aneurin Bevan, who said that the language of priorities was the religion of Socialism. If this be so, the hon. Member for Sparkbrook is one of the great Labour heretics of our age. If he spent more time on sorting out his priorities and less in fighting his hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Rhodes) over the Green Paper, it would be an improvement for the cause of education in Britain. [Interruption.] I do not know why the Opposition Chief Whip is glaring at me: I am not a member of his party.
Therefore, the choice facing the House tonight is a simple one, between the policies on teacher supply outlined in the White Paper, which are thought out, which have been worked out and which have been integrated with other proposals so as to make a coherent whole, and a hotch-potch of vague and contradictory statements, designed to snatch at every passing educational fashion, and any fad or fancy that the hon. Member for Sparkbrook thinks will bring in an immediate short-term vote.
My right hon. Friend has just completed the longest unbroken term of office of any Tory Education Minister since the war. She has celebrated it by winning the educational argument tonight, just as she has won it every time she has clashed with the hon. Member for Sparkbrook. We shall continue our celebrations in the Lobby by carrying the amendment.
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The House divided: Ayes 281, Noes 264.

Division No. 180.]

AYES

[10.0 p.m.

Adley, Robert

Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

Benyon, W.

Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

Berry, Hn. Anthony

Bruce-Gardyne, J.

Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian

Biffen, John

Bryan, Sir Paul

Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

Biggs-Davison, John

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

Astor, John

Blaker, Peter

Buck, Antony

Atkins, Humphrey

Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

Bullus, Sir Eric

Awdry, Daniel

Body, Richard

Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

Boscawen, Hn. Robert

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

Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

Bossom, Sir Clive

Carlisle, Mark

Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

Bowden, Andrew

Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

Batstord, Brian

Braine, Sir Bernard

Cary, Sir Robert

Bell, Ronald

Bray, Ronald

Channon, Paul

Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

Brinton, Sir Tatton

Chapman, Sydney

Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

Howell, David (Guildford)

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

Chichester-Clark, R.

Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

Proudfoot, Wilfred

Churchill, W. S.

Hunt, John

Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

Hutchison, Michael Clark

Quennell, Miss J. M.

Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

Raison, Timothy

Cockeram, Eric

James, David

Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

Cooke, Robert

Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

Coombs, Derek

Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

Redmond, Robert

Cooper, A. E.

Jessel, Toby

Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

Cordle, John

Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

Rees, Peter (Dover)

Corfield, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick

Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

Rees-Davies, W. R.

Cormack, Patrick

Jopling, Michael

Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

Costain, A. P.

Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

Critchley, Julian

Kaberry, Sir Donald

Ridsdale, Julian

Crouch, David

Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine

Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey

Dalkeith, Earl of

Kershaw, Anthony

Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)

Kilfedder, James

Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

Rost, Peter

d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen. Jack

King, Tom (Bridgwater)

Royle, Anthony

Dean, Paul

Kinsey, J. R.

Russell, Sir Ronald

Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

Kitson, Timothy

St. John-Stevas, Norman

Dixon, Piers

Knight, Mrs. Jill

Scott, Nicholas

Drayson, G. B.

Knox, David

Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)

du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

Lamont, Norman

Shelton, William (Clapham)

Dykes, Hugh

Lane, David

Shersby, Michael

Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir John

Langford-Holt, Sir John

Simeons, Charles

Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

Sinclair, Sir George

Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'field)

Skeet, T. H. H.

Emery, Peter

Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)

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

Eyre, Reginald

Longden, Sir Gilbert

Sorel, Harold

Farr, John

Luce, R. N.

Speed, Keith

Fell, Anthony

McAdden, Sir Stephen

Spence, John

Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

MacArthur, Ian

Sproat, Iain

Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

McCrindle, R. A.

Stainton, Keith

Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

McLaren, Martin

Stanbrook, Ivor

Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Maurice (Farnham)

Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)

Fookes, Miss Janet

McNair-Wilson, Michael

Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

Fortescue, Tim

McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)

Stokes, John

Foster, Sir John

Maddan, Martin

Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

Fowler, Norman

Madel, David

Sutcliffe, John

Fox, Marcus

Maginnis, John E.

Tapsell, Peter

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

Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

Galbraith, Hn. T. G. D.

Marten, Neil

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

Gardner, Edward

Mather, Carol

Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

Gibson-Watt, David

Maude, Angus

Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

Tebbit, Norman

Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

Mawby, Ray

Temple, John M.

Glyn, Dr. Alan

Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

Goodhart, Philip

Mills, Peter (Torrington)

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

Gorst, John

Miscampbell, Norman

Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

Gower, Raymond

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

Tilney, John

Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

Trafford, Dr. Anthony

Gray, Hamish

Moate, Roger

Trew, Peter

Green, Alan

Money, Ernie

Tugendhat, Christopher

Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

Monks, Mrs. Connie

Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin

Grylls, Michael

Monro, Hector

Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

Gummer, J. Selwyn

Montgomery, Fergus

Vickers, Dame Joan

Gurden, Harold

More, Jasper

Waddington, David

Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

Welder, David (Clitheroe)

Hall, Sir John (Wycombe)

Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)

Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

Morrison, Charles

Wall, Patrick

Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

Mudd, David

Walters, Dennis

Hannam, John (Exeter)

Murton, Oscar

Ward, Dame Irene

Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

Nabarro, Sir Gerald

Wells, John (Maidstone)

Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

Neave, Airey

White, Roger (Gravesend)

Haselhurst, Alan

Nicholls, Sir Harmar

Whitelaw. Rt. Hn. William

Hastings, Stephen

Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

Wiggin, Jerry

Havers, Sir Michael

Nott, John

Wilkinson, John

Hawkins, Paul

Onslow, Cranley

Winterton, Nicholas

Hay, John

Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

Hayhoe, Barney

Osborn, John

Wood. Rt. Hn. Richard

Heseltine, Michael

Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

Hicks, Robert

Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)

Woodnutt, Mark

Higgins, Terence L.

Parkinson, Cecil

Worsley, Marcus

Holland, Philip

Percival, Ian

Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

Holt, Miss Mary

Peyton, Rt. Hn. John

Younger, Hn. George

Hordern, Peter

Pike, Miss Mervyn

Hornby, Richard

Pink, R. Bonner

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia

Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

Mr. Bernard Weatherill and

Howe, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

Price, David (Eastleigh)

Mr. Walter Clegg.

168

169

NOES

Abse, Leo

Foot, Michael

Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

Albu, Austen

Ford, Ben

Mayhew, Christopher

Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

Forrester, John

Meacher, Michael

Allen, Scholefield

Fraser, John (Norwood)

Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

Freeson, Reginald

Mikardo, Ian

Ashley, Jack

Galpern, Sir Myer

Millan, Bruce

Ashton, Joe

Garrett, W. E.

Miller, Dr. M. S.

Atkinson, Norman

Gilbert, Dr. John

Milne, Edward

Bagier, Gordon A. T.

Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)

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

Barnes, Michael

Gourley, Harry

Molloy, William

Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

Grant, George (Morpeth)

Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)

Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

Baxter, William

Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

Bennett, James(Glasgow, Bridgeton)

Hamling, William

Moyle, Roland

Bidwell, Sydney

Hardy, Peter

Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

Bishop, E. S.

Harper, Joseph

Murray, Ronald King

Blenkinsop, Arthur

Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

Oakes, Gordon

Boardman, H. (Leigh)

Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

Ogden, Eric

Booth, Albert

Hattersley, Roy

O'Halloran, Michael

Boothroyd, Miss B. (West Brom.)

Hatton, F.

O'Malley, Brian

Bottomley, Rt. Hr. Arthur

Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

Oram, Bert

Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)

Heffer, Eric S.

Orme, Stanley

Bradley, Tom

Hilton, W. S.

Oswald, Thomas

Brown, Robert C. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne, W.)

Hooson, Emlyn

Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

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

Horam, John

Padley, Walter

Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

Paget, R. T.

Buchan, Norman

Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

Palmer, Arthur

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

Huckfield, Leslie

Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

Pardoe, John

Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

Hughes, Mark (Durham)

Parker, John (Dagenham)

Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

Cant, R. B.

Hughes, Roy (Newport)

Pavitt, Laurie

Carmichael, Neil

Hunter, Adam

Pendry, Tom

Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)

Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)

Perry, Ernest G.

Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

Janner, Greyville

Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

Jay. Rt. Hn. Douglas

Prescott, John

Clark, David (Colne Valley)

Jeger, Mrs. Lena

Price, William (Rugby)

Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

Probert, Arthur

Cohen, Stanley

John, Brynmor

Radice, Giles

Coleman, Donald

Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

Concannon, J. D.

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

Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

Conlan. Bernard

Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

Rhodes, Geoffrey

Corbet, Mrs. Freda

Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

Richard, Ivor

Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

Jones, Dan (Burnley)

Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)

Crawshaw, Richard

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

Robertson, John (Paisley)

Cronin, John

Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

Roderick, Caerwyn E. (Brc'n & R'dnor)

Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

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

Kaufman, Gerald

Rose Paul B.

Kelley, Richard

Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)

Kerr, Russell

Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

Dalyell, Tam

Kinnock, Neil

Rowlands, Ted

Darling, Rt. Hn. George

Lambie, David

Sandelson, Neville

Davidson, Arthur

Lamborn, Harry

Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

Lamond, James

Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

Davies, Ifor (Gower)

Latham, Arthur

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

Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

Lawson, George

Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N.E.)

Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)

Leadbitter, Ted

Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

Deakins, Eric

Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick

Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

Lester, Miss Joan

Sitters, James

Delargy, Hugh

Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

Silverman, Julius

Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

Lipton, Marcus

Skinner, Dennis

Dempsey, James

Lomas, Kenneth

Small, William

Doig, Peter

Loughlin, Charles

Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

Dormand, J. D.

Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

Spearing, Nigel

Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

Spriggs, Leslie

Douglas-Mann, Bruce

Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

Stallard, A. W.

Driberg, Tom

McBride, Neil

Steel, David

Duffy, A. E. P.

McCartney, Hugh

Stoddart, David (Swindon)

Dunn, James A.

McElhone, Frank

Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

Dunnett, Jack

Machin, George

Stott, Roger (Westhoughton)

Edelman, Maurice

Mackenzie, Gregor

Strang, Gavin

Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

Mackie, John

Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

Edwards, William (Merioneth)

Mackintosh, John P.

Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

Ellis, Tom

Maclennan, Robert

Swain, Thomas

English, Michael

McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

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

Evans, Fred

McNamara, J. Kevin

Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

Ewing, Harry

Mahon, Simon (Bootie)

Tinn, James

Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.

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

Tope, Graham

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

Marks, Kenneth

Torney, Tom

Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

Marquand, David

Tuck, Raphael

Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

Marsden, F.

Varley, Eric G.

Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

Marshall, Dr. Edmund

Wainwright, Edwin

170

171

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

White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

Whitehead, Phillip

Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

Wallace, George

Whitlock, William

Woof, Robert

Watkins, David

Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

Weitzman, David

Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Wellbeloved, James

Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

Mr. James Hamilton and

Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

Mr. John Golding.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to.

Resolved,

"That this House welcomes the policy of Her Majesty's Government to plan for an increase of over 140,000 teachers between 1971 and 1981, to improve staffing standards, and to extend in-service training.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ordered,
That the Order of the Day relating to the National Health Service Reorganisation Bill [Lords], may be proceeded with at this day's Sitting, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Weatherill.]

NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE REORGANISATION BILL [Lords]
Consideration of a Lords amendment to a Commons amendment and Lords reason for disagreeing to certain Commons amendments.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu): Before I call the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Social Services to move his first motion, I must call the attention of the House to the fact that privilege is involved both in the Lords amendment to the Commons amendment and in the Lords disagreement to the other two Commons amendments.
May I also suggest to the House that as all three of the right hon. Gentleman's motions are interconnected they should be debated together. The Question on each motion must, of course, be put separately, and that will be done at the end of the debate.
I now call the right hon. Gentleman to move his first motion.

Clause 4

  FAMILY PLANNING SERVICE
  The Lords had agreed to the amendment made by the Commons: In page 4, line 7, leave out from 'and' to second 'for' in line 8 and insert
  'it is hereby declared that the power conferred by section 1(1) of the National Health Service Act 1952 to provide for the making and recovery of charges includes power to provide for the making and recovery of charges'.
  with the following amendment—
  In line 4, leave out 'includes' and insert 'does not include'.
  10.15 p.m.
  The Secretary of State for Social Services (Sir Keith Joseph): I beg to move,
  174
  That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment to the Commons amendment.
  The Lords have disagreed to the following amendments made by the Commons:
  In Schedule 4, page 63, line 13, at end insert—
  '22A. At the end of section 38(3) of that Act (which relates to charges for pharmaceutical services) there shall be inserted the words"; and it is hereby declared that regulations under this subsection may include provision in respect of charges for the supply of such substances and appliances as are mentioned in section 4 of the National Health Service Reorganisation Act 1973"
  In page 69, line 37, at end insert—
  '(2) In section 1(2)(c) of that Act (which provides that no charge is to be made under that section for the supply of an appliance for a young person) after the word "appliance", there shall be inserted the words", otherwise than in pursuance of section 4 of the National Health Service Reorganisation Act 1973."'
  for the following reason: because disagreement to them is consequential on the Lords Amendment to the Commons Amendment in page 4, line 7.
  In respect of these two amendments I shall be moving, Mr. Deputy Speaker, "That this House doth insist upon its amendment to which the Lords have disagreed."
  As you have said, Mr. Deputy Speaker, a question of privilege arises and the House will wish to bear that in mind. The effect of making the Lords amendment and of not making the Commons amendments with which the Lords disagree would be to remove the power to charge for contraceptive substances and appliances from the Bill. It would thus reverse the decision of the House, reflected in our amendments to the Bill, that family planning supplies should be treated as other drugs and appliances under the National Health Service—namely, subject to prescription charges. Under the Bill as amended family planning services would become a normal part of the National Health Service and subject to the normal charges and the normal exemptions.
  That decision was reached by this House after full discussion in Committee and on Report after consideration of revised Government proposals, which, as

  175
  the House will recall, went a great deal further than we envisaged when the Bill was first introduced in another place.
  We have, in the light of the Lords message, reviewed our decision. However, we remain of the view that it was right and that the proposals in the message from the Lords are open to strong objection. I shall lay before the House the argument against the Lords amendments.
  First, they would involve additional expenditure. The sum involved of £3 million is not astronomical but it is not insignificant. There are many other priorities. Even when the general cause is good we cannot adopt every matter irrespective of what it might achieve and irrespective of its cost.
  Secondly, the Lords amendments would create a serious anomaly between drugs and appliances prescribed for contraceptive purposes and all other drugs and appliances prescribed under the National Health Service. It is true that vaccinations and general public health services are usually free but preventive drugs and medicines are not as such free under the National Health Service. Drugs subject to normal prescription charges include medicines which are intended to prevent conditions developing or recurring as well as those intended to cure and relieve.
  I turn now to the crucial issue. The arguments which I have already mentioned against the Lords amendments might not prevail in our minds if it were the case that to eliminate the 20p charge would serve the purpose which we all share. Of course, all extremes of argument on both sides of the House wish to reduce unwanted pregnancies, illegitimacies, and abortions. That is common ground. The House generally agrees with the moves that the Government have already made which will expand the tax-borne cost of advice and supplies for the next few years from the £1 million a year which we found on taking office to about £30 million. That will be likely to reduce but not eliminate unwanted pregnancies, illegitimacies and abortions.
  The question is whether the 20p charge will stand in the way of a still larger reduction. That is the crux of the argument to which hon. Members must address their minds tonight. Those in
  176
  the Lords urging a totally free service assume that the charge will stand in the way of a greater reduction. I believe that that is a delusion and that the facts are much more complex. First, there will be group exemption. There will be automatic exemption for those on supplementary benefit, those on family income supplement and those who have had a baby in the previous year.
  Secondly, we shall encourage the Health Education Council and the new area health board authorities to give much increased publicity to the services which will be available under the National Health Service. Much of the increased take-up in the free zones stems from increased publicity. Those who take the trouble to go to clinics will not be deterred by the 20p charge—20p at most once a month for a few months while a woman and her medical adviser are seeking the contraceptive supply most clinically apt for her, and thereafter 20p two or three times a year. Those who are or can be motivated to avoid pregnancy will use the service if we put supplies on prescription at 20p. The 20p will make no difference to those who are or who can be motivated to avoid pregnancy.
  Those who ate not so motivated—and these are the people most in our minds—who are casual or are overwhelmed will not use the service even if it is free. It will not be the 20p which will deter them. This second group, the casual and the overwhelmed, cannot be reached by free supplies but only by domiciliary persuasion. That we intend to increase sharply. There is no question whatsoever of charging the casual and the overwhelmed for domiciliary supplies. We intend to make administrative arrangements for waiving charges in such cases.
  These arrangements will have to be used tactfully but will cover all the existing domiciliary cases and those who are so defined in future or are felt by the professional workers used by area health authorities to be in need of this sort of help. There will also be powers to widen the provision for exemption by amending regulations if this proves desirable or practicable.
  Mr. Leo Abse: The right hon. Gentleman is indicating these new administrative arrangements. In view of

  177
  the large number of people who at present and in the past have had domiciliary visits and have been transferred to clinics, is he suggesting that the people who will be going to the clinics, having been so directed or encouraged from domiciliary visits, will have to pay a prescription charge—yea or nay?
  Sir K. Joseph: Nay, while they are still considered to be in need of the service which I have described in shorthand as domiciliary. That is, by sustained persuasion. Once they are considered to be self-motivating, they will not need to be treated any differently from anybody else. [Laughter.] I beg to the House not to dispose of this argument. While the professional workers concerned judge that such people need persuasion, whether by domiciliary visit or in the clinic, they will be exempted as they are now.
  We have considered whether there is any alternative proposal that we should recommend in the place of the Lords amendment. A possible variant which has been suggested, for example, by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Dr. Stuttaford) of free supplies in particular areas is open to equal or greater objection. It is surely wrong in a national service that a person's ability to obtain free supplies should depend on the past decisions of a local authority which has ceased to carry responsibility for the service. I must emphasise that what we are discussing is not a requirement to make particular charges but a power to do so by regulation. The power is flexible, as shown in Clause 55(4).
  Dr. Tom Stuttaford: Did my right hon. Friend suggest that the social workers in the clinics will have to carry out a means test of motivation as well as a cash need?
  Sir K. Joseph: My hon. Friend may or may not be aware that there is at the moment a domiciliary service which normally involves totally free supplies. That domiciliary service is needed only by a very small proportion of the population. The individuals are identified by co-operation between a number of social services—some probation officers, health visitors, midwives, social workers, district nurses and clinic nurses. This is happening now in different parts of the country. It is the Government's intention that it
  178
  should spread throughout the country to those people who are considered to need the encouragement and who are not self-motivating. Therefore, my answer to my hon. Friend is "Yes".
  I was pointing out that the power under the Bill is flexible. This power enables us to provide, if necessary, for exceptions to be made in particular cases or classes of case. If, therefore, further experience should show that our present proposals should be looked at again, the power is already in the Bill to modify these proposals. Indeed, there would be power by regulation to abolish charges for contraceptive supplies if this turned out to be the right social priority and if evidence showed that our judgment was wrong. The Lords amendment which the other House ask us to agree gives no such flexibility.
  I return to the heart of the issue. The Bill provides that contraceptive supplies should be treated like any other medical supplies on prescription, with automatic exemption for those on supplementary benefit or on family income supplement, or who have had a baby in the previous year.
  It would just not be understood by large numbers of the public if we went further than that. I say with full deliberation that there is no case for going further. Totally free supplies will not, just because they are free, reach the casual and the overwhelmed. We intend to reach them by much-expanded domiciliary services offering supplies which will be free in their case. It is the Government's view that the right thing to do is to stand by the judgment which this House has made.
  I shall, with permission, seek an opportunity to answer any new points which are made by hon. Members.
  Mr. John Silkin: When the subject of family planning was discussed on previous occasions in the House or in Standing Committee, the debates were wide-ranging. We had to consider en bloc a number of amendments, including the question whether there should be a family planning service at all. For my part, I have always regarded this latter question as a matter of moral decision which hon. Members must make in their own way, and for that reason I recommended to my right hon. and hon. Friends

  179
  a free vote on our side. I still regret that the Government did not follow that example.
  Tonight, however, the House has only one question to consider—whether family planning, which will now be on the National Health Service in any event, should be provided free or by prescription and therefore subject to prescription charges. In my view, there arc three major reasons why the Government ought to have thought again about their opposition to the Lords amendment.
  First, I do not think that the Secretary of State has fully taken into account the attitude of general practitioners. When we were in Committee, negotiations had started with the general practitioners to obtain their view of a GP-based service. As I understand it, the negotiations still continue. But if I interpret the views of the British Medical Association correctly, they are that the question of family planning should not be regarded as an obligation for the doctor. The BMA regards this as an additional service, and one which should be paid for.
  In that event, what happens to the £3 million which the Secretary of State told us he would save if there was not a free service? The right hon. Gentleman's arithmetic, no doubt, is far better than mine, but if only half the GPs in the country operate the service and charge £1 a visit, which does not seem to me to be excessive these days, the total cost will be well over three times his £3 million. Perhaps he could check those figures. He has the time.
  10.30 p.m.
  Secondly, the BMA does not consider that the supply of appliances should be made generally available to men through their family doctor. They should, it thinks, be available only to women, so that the basis is not a comprehensive universal service for family planning. Thirdly, it also takes the view, perfectly understandably, that the doctor should be able to refer a patient to another doctor if his personal views are inimical to family planning. I understand that, but it means that there is a tremendous gap in the comprehensiveness of the service. The three arguments that the BMA has in mind clearly demonstrate that the
  180
  service will not be universal, that administratively it will be inefficient, costly and irregular. These irregularities will be constantly open to public criticism, and rightly so.
  The second major disagreement that we have is on the question of the prescription charges. We contend that the use of prescription charges for family planning is a totally unjustifiable extension of the prescription charge base. The Secretary of State tried to make the point that it was on common ground with those items that are subject to prescription charge. The House must know that I am against prescription charges of any sort but that I fully accept the reality of the situation that prescription charges will continue during what is left of the lifetime of this Government. [Interruption.] We plan to abolish them. [Interruption.] Hon. Members will just have to wait and see.
  Nevertheless, because the reality is that prescription charges are here to stay during the lifetime of this Government my right hon. and hon. Friends and I contend that the levying of prescription charges on family planning appliances is totally out of context with other prescription charges. It is always possible to judge the validity of a rule by its exemptions. Here the exemptions include children under 15, elderly persons over 65 and expectant mothers, which shows that this is not an area which has much common ground with prescription charges. As my hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt) has said, common ground exists in the area of preventive medicine, and the Secretary of State did not give that fact due weight. To that extent it can be compared with immunisation, vaccination, X-ray and other such services which remain free.
  For these reasons we are grateful for the opportunity to re-examine the problem. Experience has shown that where free family planning services already exist an increasing number of persons is using the facilities. Nor does that offend the general view of the people of this country, as the Secretary of State seemed to think. A National Opinion Poll in December 1972 showed that 64 per cent. of people asked—and the figure was 79 per cent. for men and women under the age of 45—were in favour of free family planning.
  The Secretary of State has certainly moved a good deal between February 1971 and today. I now ask him to catch up with the rest of the public because they are in favour of free family planning. Therefore, in giving them such a service we shall not only be in accord with their view but shall be in accord with common sense. For those reasons I call on my hon. and right hon. Friends to agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Mr. J. Selwyn Gummer: I believe that we ought not to hide from ourselves the enormous steps which have already been taken towards comprehensive family planning arrangements. The real question before us is the specific one of whether we would extend the number of people who would be likely to use family planning if it were a free service rather than if it were on prescription charge. That is the narrow point at issue.
  But even in discussing that point, it should not be omitted that the Bill in general has done more in this matter in a very short space of time than has been done at any time before, and my right hon. Friend ought to take proper pride in that fact. But having said that, we have to ask ourselves whether, if we agreed to the Lords amendment, we would reach that group of the population we are all concerned should have the opportunity and, indeed, the encouragement, to use family planning, which it does not do at the moment.
  What we really ought to be doing is spending as much money as possible on the domiciliary service and on the monitoring of the service to see whether it should in future be extended or changed. We should not be spending the money on free family planning for two reasons.
  First, no evidence has been adduced that even a free service would reach precisely that group of the population which, rightly, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Deptford (Mr. John Silkin) and we all wish to reach. All we have had is a general statement which, in effect, is that anything free is likely to reach more people than something which is not free. The question is whether it is not more sensible to spend this money in another direction. I do not believe that a case has been made
  182
  out that the £3 million can be usefully spent in providing a free service. There is, indeed, considerable argument that the people believe that it should not be.
  It is all very well for the right hon. Gentleman to quote a public opinion poll, but I suggest that if a person is asked whether he would prefer something to be free, he will say that he would prefer to have it free. The purpose of this House is to decide not whether it would be eminently desirable to make a whole range of things free, but whether, given the resources, this is the right way to spend them. It is this House which has to make the decision, and no one else, because it is this House's responsibility to decide the way in which we spend the money raised in taxes. In this case, we have to decide whether the money would be better spent on the domiciliary service or some other parts of the National Health Service, or whether we should be more concerned, for no really provable benefit to make the family planning service free.
  The second point, which is incontrovertible, is that the argument of the right hon. Gentleman that this service is not like anything else provided under the NHS does not stand up. The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that we should not ask people to pay for life-giving drugs or medicines necessary to keep them alive—although I remind him that the Labour Government reintroduced prescription charges—but most people would agree that it is rather odd to turn round and say that all people should get family planning service free. Surely it is reasonable to say that people should pay for that if they can afford it, just as they do for anything else.
  Mr. R. J. Maxwell-Hyslop: Is my hon. Friend under the impression that the Secretary of State has offered to spend another £3 million on the domiciliary service? I have not heard any such offer.
  Mr. Gummer: I am under the impression that the Secretary of State has stated clearly that if it is necessary to extend the domiciliary service in order to reach the people we wish to reach, he will have, under the Bill, the means whereby, through regulations, that can be done.
  Sir K. Joseph: Perhaps I should point out that estimates that have been given include a great increase in the domiciliary service, including free supplies for that service.
  Mr. Gummer: If we are concerned to reach that section of the population pointed out by the right hon. Member for Deptford it does not help to make the service free. It means that we are saying to the people that because it happens to be a trendy thing to do we will do this rather than consider the real issue which is how do we help these people directly. The domiciliary service is a much better way of doing this. if at the end of the first year we find it does not work effectively we ought to extend the domiciliary service rather than make the social services pay for this.
  Mr. Laurie Pavitt: This is a short debate and I do not have time to demolish the arguments of the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Selwyn Gummer). If he has time will he please spare an hour and come to my constituency and I will give him all the proof he wants that his argument is a lot of nonsense?
  I want to direct the Secretary of State's mind to the possibility, even at the eleventh hour, of accepting some of the extremely important arguments advanced in another place. There is a deal of administrative nonsense involved here. The right hon. Gentleman is creating a NHS reorganisation Bill based on efficiency. Yet in this part of the Bill he has created enormous administrative bureacracy. This £3 million will be lost in it. Another 15 million EC10 forms will have to be printed and distributed. All of the exemptions will have to be checked to make sure that they apply to those who are exempt. All this adds to the weight of work.
  The general practitioners and the pharmacists will want more money. The reorganisation of the NHS chemists and the contract chemists will involve more work. There is also the effect of voluntary workers. At the moment there are 1,500 and the right hon. Gentleman hopes for 2,000. People are prepared to volunteer for a good social purpose but are not prepared to volunteer to work as tax collectors. If they have to put 20p stamps on prescription forms or find some way
  184
  of getting round it there will be the same problem as we had with the prescription charges.
  This makes a nonsense of the GP service and distorts the delivery of care by the imposition of charges. Already condoms will not be supplied by doctors. We are supposed to be going into action by 1st April, but the way in which negotiations are going means that the work load on GPs will vary widely. Some will be on the obstetric list some will be FP doctors, others will not. There will be difficulty in sorting out doctors and patients and there will be competition between doctors in terms of capitation fees.
  In health centres and in group practice there will be a need for more ancillary workers and this will cost hard cash. After the present salary negotiations with the Review Body and the SMSC there will be very little cash saving.
  Unusually for the right hon. Gentleman this is very narrow and shallow thinking. He has not gone into this in depth, realising the comprehensive nature of his responsibilities to the Health Service. For the sake of a doctrinaire approach on a small matter he is distorting the rest of the Health Service. I remind him that he is responsible for social services as well as health. For every £1 saved in prescription charges he will spend at least £20 on all the other problems that will arise.
  This is the first time a charge has been made on the prevention of social problems. Just as he would not think of putting a charge on the work of probation officers, on work for the welfare of the elderly, the provision of geriatric wards, psychiatric social workers, assisting the mental and physically handicapped and the disabled surely for the sake of 20p it is nonsense to erect this huge machinery. The right hon. Gentleman is erecting an unnecessary barrier between the doctor and those who require human understanding.
  In my area of Middlesex doctors have panels ranging from 2,500 to 4,000 people, and doctors are to be expected to take on this extra responsibility. I plead with the right hon. Gentleman, even at this late stage, to cut out this nonsense and to accept the matter as their Lordships have given it to us.
  10.45 p.m.
  Mr. Ronald Bell: On the Report stage of this Bill in this House some of us made clear our position on the clause which sought to confer these powers to subsidise the use of contraceptive appliances. But, as the right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. John Silk in) pointed out, that is no longer the question before the House. The clause is in the Bill, but the provision applies to unmarried as well as to married people. This must regulate one's attitude to the Lords amendment.
  It was my view on the wider issue—as it is my view on the narrower issue—that considerations of money are not responsible for any appreciable part of the proportion of unwarranted or illegitimate pregnancies. I do not believe that lack of money ever stands between people and the contraceptives they want to use. [An HON. MEMBER: "How do you know?"] It could be argued that old-age pensioners might find it a burdensome expense, but unwanted pregnancies do not characteristically occur among old-age pensioners. Therefore, I think we can discuss that consideration from our minds.
  If it be true that the prescription charge of 20p will not come between any person of child-bearing age or child-procreating competence and the acquisition of contraceptives, then the narrower question which is before us tonight, as the Lords have left the Bill, should be decided as a moral issue.
  There have been those who have argued that the provision by the State of totally free contraceptives to all who come in for open-handed largesse will have no impact on people's moral attitudes. They are entitled to their view, but I do not accept it—indeed I find it impossible to accept. We cannot make this distinction. If the Lords amendment were passed, many people would consider that the State had given respectability, and even its blessing, to promiscuity—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] We cannot separate the two things. One cannot make promiscuity easier and at the same time argue that one is not encouraging it.
  Mr. Robert Hughes Mr. Robert Hughes (Aberdeen, North)rose—
  Mr. Ronald Bell: This is to be a short debate and I am afraid I cannot give way. I want to be brief. As I was saying, one cannot separate the consequences from the state of mind in which people enter upon courses of conduct. I feel that the House tonight should insist on the Bill as it left this House and reject their Lordships' amendment.
  Mrs. Renée Short: The Secretary of State misled the House, and I think that he did so deliberately when he said that the public—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order."] I ask hon. Members to wait to hear what I am about to say—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the suggestion of deliberately misleading the House is not parliamentary.
  Mrs. Short: Very well. I withdraw the word "deliberately". But the right hon. Gentleman still misled the House when he said that the public outside did not want us to go any further than he was prepared to go. The right hon. Gentleman is deliberately ignoring the expressed view of the public in public opinion polls which have been conducted. Before the Lords Amendment was carried in the other place, they showed that something like 64 per cent. of the general public were in favour of a free comprehensive family planning service. Something like 64 per cent. of those Conservatives who were asked also supported it, as well as 70 per cent. of Labour supporters. I believe that something like 62 per cent. of the Liberals who were asked also supported it. So it goes right across the board and shows that a majority of the supporters of all parties support the introduction of a free family planning service.
  The right hon. Gentleman also chose to ignore the experience of those local authorities which have introduced completely free family planning services in their areas. On Report, my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Robert Hughes) spoke of the results in Aberdeen, of which the right hon. Gentleman is aware, quite apart from the results in many of the London boroughs, in Birmingham and in other areas, all of which show a very large increase in the

  187
  take-up of family planning advice when the service is given completely free.
  I should have thought that that experience would encourage the right hon. Gentleman to go just a little further than apparently he is prepared to and to say that the £3 million, which is a very small proportion of the total spent on the National Health Service, would be money well spent. Past experience in a large number of local authority areas shows that if the service is provided, some of those women who are most in need avail themselves of it. After all, it is those women with whom we are concerned. I hope therefore that the right hon. Gentleman will think again.
  Let me ask the right hon. Gentleman also to think of the consequences of not doing this. These are all arguments which were rehearsed in the various stages of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Bill. But the recent figures which show the cost of keeping a child in care, for example, are very considerable. To keep a child in care now costs almost as much as it does to keep a prisoner in prison—more than £1,000 a year. In 1971, 90,000 children were taken into care. Of those, 5,000 were under two years of age, 600 were abandoned or lost, 3,000 were illegitimate and were taken into care because their mothers were unable to provide for and to cope with them, and a further 25,000 were taken into care because of the incapacity of their parents together or their guardians. This represents an enormous well of misery and unhappiness among women, among mothers who have had children they cannot cope with and, last but not least, among those children.
  I ask the House to think of the children who are abandoned at six months, a year, two months or two years and who are thrust into foster homes and into local authority care, with many people looking after them during their developing years. The Secretary of State should be concerned about what happens to those unwanted children when they become adolescents. I will not develop it, but it is a situation for which we should have great regard.
  It so happens that most of the methods of contraception which require medical supervision are those used by women. If
  188
  men are too lazy, too ignorant or too bloody-minded to take precautions themselves, the onus falls on the women. I put it to the Secretary of State that what he said about people not using the service if it is free is disproved when one looks not only at the local authority situation where this has been done but at the large numbers of working-class women who are not in a position to pay for contraceptives. They cannot afford it. Many women have to operate on a very tight family budget. The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that many families do not claim family income supplement. He is concerned about that, and nods agreement. He knows the facts.
  Mr. Martin Maddan: Nonsense.
  Mrs. Short: One of the right hon. Gentleman's less enlightened hon. Friends says "Nonsense"
  Mr. Maddan: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. She is trying to show that there is a great ground swell of opinion, fact or statistics in favour of her case. Would she care to comment on the fact that the amendment in another place was carried by the votes of the life peers, who are very much older than we in this House are—[AN HON. MEMBER: "TOO long".]—
  Mrs. Short Mrs. Short rose—
  Mr. Maddan: The hon. Lady will have to sit down.
  Mrs. Short: On a point of order—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Interventions must be of reasonable length.
  Mr. Maddan: My intervention is very reasonable in length, Mr. Speaker. I only wish to ask the hon. Lady whether she would care to comment—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is not entitled to make a speech.
  Mrs. Short Mrs. Short rose—
  Mr. Maddan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have always understood that if an hon. Member gives way he or she will at least allow a point of challenge to be developed. Therefore, I wish to say to the hon. Lady—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. An intervention is not an opportunity to develop a point. An intervention is to put a short, sharp point, which the hon. Gentleman has not done.
  Mr. Maddan Mr. Maddan rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman has a short, simple point to put to the hon. Lady, I will let him do it—if it is short and simple.
  Mr. Maddan: I will put my short and simple point—[Interruption.]—I will put my short and simple point—[Interruption.]—I will put my short and simple point—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. It does not become any shorter and any simpler if the hon. Gentleman repeats himself three times.
  Mr. Maddan: If the House would allow me to make my point, it would be short and simple. I must rely on your protection, Mr. Speaker, to allow me to do that.
  My point is simply this: does not the hon. Lady acknowledge that her cause is years out of date, and that the amendment was carried in another place by the life peers, who are all of a different generation from that of hon. Members of this House?
  Mrs. Short: The only comment I make about that little interlude is that it persuades me that retrospective legislation has many advantages.
  The Secretary of State must be aware that many women are hard pressed and find it difficult to pay for this service, and will not do so if the charge is maintained. Many unmarried women who are working and living on low earnings will also find things difficult. I therefore ask the Secretary of State, bearing in mind that this is something that will affect women very much more in future, to reconsider his advice to the House. I hope that those right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite who had the courage of their convictions when almost 70 of them signed the motion on the Notice Paper will think of that effect and vote with us in the Lobby tonight.
  11.0 p.m.
  Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: The last remark of the hon. Lady the
  190
  Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Renée Short) might have been more to the point on the last occasion when we debated this subject if she had had the support of her right hon. and hon. Friends, so perhaps we can draw a veil over that.
  My right hon. Friend talked about the extra cost of £3 million. I remind the House that the approximate cost of providing a full free service is between £6 and £7 per head of those using the service. It costs something in excess of £1,000 per annum to keep an unwanted child in care, and about £300 per annum to take a child into a nursery school during the time that the parent is working.
  Sir K. Joseph: I hope that my hon. Friend will not make the fashionable assumption, which I have tried to argue against, that a charge will necessarily affect those who have illegitimate children, abortions or unwanted pregnancies. My hon. Friend has that link to establish before he can make the argument that he is trying to put forward.
  Mr. Finsberg: I made a similar point last time, and my right hon. Friend did not give me that rejoinder. I was merely pointing out that even if one wants to leave aside ethical, moral and health considerations there is still the cost-benefit consideration that one cannot overlook. That was the only point that I was making. My right hon. Friend has treated the subject with deep sincerity, but I hope he will acknowledge that those who cannot go with him have deep and sincere convictions, too.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Selwyn Gummer) wondered whether the service reached the right people. I should be delighted to take him to Camden and show him that it does. My hon. Friend does not require to go to Aberdeen to find out.
  I gave the House certain statistics on 13th June, and perhaps I may now give some up-to-date ones. In the calendar year 1972, in the London borough of Camden, there were 2,791 requests from general practitioners for family planning supplies. In the first 23 weeks of 1973, there have been 2,257 requests from general practitioners in that area for family planning requisites.

  191
  The reason why I ask my right hon. Friend to think again on this is that he was being a little unfair in the argument that he developed when he put this matter to the House tonight. About 10 million people now living in local authority areas are able to get the benefit of fully free family planning services. These have been voted to them by their elected local authority representatives of both parties, and I cannot accept that just because the House is being asked to reorganise the Health Service, and because local authorities are to disappear, that right, which was voted to them by both parties in 33 local authorities, should disappear, too. It is illogical, to me. I have spent 25 years in local government, but this is not how I ever thought the Conservative Party looked at local government. The Labour Party also has had many failures in its attitude to local government. When local government is dealt with by Parliament Members on both sides protest that they like local government, but then they find reasons for saying, "Not on this occasion; it had better fall into the Civil Service plan". To this extent Governments of all parties have failed.
  I hoped that my right hon. Friend would have found it possible to say, "I recognise there is deep feeling on this matter". On the last occasion the House considered it there were three votes. One was for a fully free service. I forget for the moment what the second was, but the third was for the service to be retained for all those local authorities which had the service. The House took a decision by an odd majority, because a large number of people were not here. Now we have been given an opportunity by the House of Lords to think again, and we ought to think again.
  I am speaking only for myself, not for my hon. Friends, many of whom signed the motion to which the hon. Lady referred, and many of whom voted in the same Lobby as I on that last occasion, but if my right hon. Friend can say, "I understand the position; I will make certain that at least those local authorities which have a fully free service may continue with it when they become part, or parts, of area health authorities next year", then I will not vote against my right hon. Friend tonight.
  192
  However, if he is unable to give me that assurance, then I fear that I must vote against him. I will vote in support of the Upper House which on this occasion, as on many other occasions, has shown itself to be more closely in tune with the moral feelings people have and the worries people have.
  Mr. Leo Abse: As one heard the hon. and learned Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) adumbrate once again his opposition one was aware that that battle was fought on the Family Planning Bill. Hon. Members of all parties realised that they were not then primarily concerned with the conduct of unmarried parents; all were concerned primarily with the children and with the illegitimate.
  The Secretary of State, as he began to speak, laid down that it was the view, and, he rightly said, the view of the whole House, that we were all concerned to see if we could reduce the numbers of the illegitimate and the numbers of abortions. Rightly then, as in his intervention, he stressed the error of the simplistic view that the giving of family planning devices and appliances will automatically and necessarily reduce illegitimacy or abortions. He rightly stressed that nobody can make that assumption and rightly criticised those who make, without evidence, that assumption. That is true, but, just as we must not take those simplistic views or attitudes to prove our case, we must expect him, too, not to take such a stand, and I return to what he emphasised when he opened this debate.
  The right hon. Gentleman is concerned with reaching out to that section of the population who by their behaviour are helping to perpetuate the cycle of deprivation which he is constantly stressing has in some form got to be broken. He presented the argument that the way to do it is by domiciliary visits. He has unfortunately got himself into the position that, having done more than any Minister since Kenneth Robinson in the way of family planning, he is reacting to pressure. He is in the curious position that although he is spending millions—yea, tens of millions—and has given considerable assistance to many who could well afford to buy their own family planning appliances—he has not reached to

  193
  that very area which all of us are concerned about, and that is, those who have to be motivated to family planning if we are to succeed in breaking the cycle of deprivation. He has fallen back entirely on the argument that the only way to reach these people is through domiciliary visits. He knows that there is a vast grey area of people who could and would be reached if the service were free, and who will not be reached unless the service is totally free.
  Is it not true that, after all the work that the Minister has done in advertising, only half the families estimated to be eligible for family income supplement are claiming it?
  Sir K. Joseph indicated assent.
  Mr. Anse: The Secretary of State agrees with me.
  That means either that the remainder were not in touch with the referral agencies, like health visitors or social workers, or that the agencies failed to make it clear to them that they could claim the benefit. Family income supplement carries exemption from prescription charges, but that cannot be any good to those women who are theoretically eligible if they do not receive FIS. If they are not in touch with the referral agencies, they are unlikely to be included in the domiciliary family planning programme. When the right hon. Gentleman stresses the domiciliary programme alone, he is leaving out probably half of those who should be reached.
  Although it would be absurd for anyone to be didactic, there is the more suggestive evidence that, since some local authorities have been giving a totally free service, precisely those women who feel the burden and have so little to spare are taking advantage of it. For example, when Lambeth began such a service, 14 per cent. of those who applied were women with three or more children. I find it impossible not to believe that that group had not been deterred, at least in part, by charges for contraception. Apparently the doctors, midwives and health visitors had not referred those women to the Lambeth clinic.
  The Secretary of State should not deceive himself: domiciliary visits alone are not enough. The only possible way of reaching these people is by "overkill".
  194
  Having gone so far and given so much to people who could afford to pay, we are spending millions in the wrong direction and ignoring the area of greatest need. The right hon. Gentleman is being impaled by his own bureaucrats. He did not think out beforehand the strategy for reaching this area. As the pressures have built up, the Department has responded, but it has not been able to alter its basic strategy so as to help those who, as the Secretary of State's past speeches have demonstrated, need help above everybody.
  I hope that the House will vote in such a way as to save us from this bureaucratic attitude—not in any partisan spirit or spirit of condemnation. There are hon. Members on this side of the House who in my judgment should be ashamed that they were not present on the former occasion. They can claim no kudos from that. But the time has now come to talk not in terms of party spirit but in the thought that if we take the wrong decision, perhaps tens of thousands of children will be born who will perpetuate the social problems that we seek to avoid.
  I hope that the House will rise to the occasion.
  11.15 p.m.
  Dr. Anthony Trafford: When we last debated this subject I voted in support of my right hon. Friend, and I have listened with interest to learn what case the Opposition would present in trying to persuade us to change our minds. With great clarity the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Deptford (Mr. John Silkin) presented three points: the medical or doctors' objections; the question of the proven existence of the local authority services, and the question of prescription charges. Although, as I say, he presented those points with great clarity the fact is that, first, there are a large number of contradictions in the doctors' attitude. For example, we often hear a lot about the total care of the patient which the local practitioner reserves quite properly to himself. But now we hear from the right lion. Gentleman that this is something they would wish to dispense with.
  Then there is the implication that there is something peculiarly special about the administration of these drugs and, in

  195
  particular, the drugs referred to rather than any others. We are told that a humane and difficult task has to be performed in six minutes, or whatever the time is, but essentially there is no difference in the prescription of these drugs from that of a dozen others, and these drugs are quite frequently used for purposes other than those of contraception. Many drugs are far more difficult to use than these are. Therefore, again, there is something of a contradiction in the medical objections.
  Particularly with regard to male appliances I have a slight suspicion, and I hope that the House will forgive me if I am a little cynical, that doctors like other people in the professions and elsewhere, may be making out a bit of a special case here. They know very well that from time to time there are reviews of their responsibilities and the payment for them, and they are perhaps putting it on a bit. There is nothing easier than to fill in the EC10—putting in the number of the particular contraceptive. It may take six minutes to assess the capabilities of a certain person, but one certainly does not need six or seven years of medical training to decide that sort of thing.
  Again, there is enormous substance in the arguments of the right hon. Gentleman with regard to the proven value of existing local government services. These are based on figures, and one hears at once loud cries of "Aberdeen," "Camden" or elsewhere. With regard to figures, there is an enormous difficulty in separating cause and effect. It is very difficult to distinguish the concentration, the drive and the enthusiasm in Aberdeen or Camden from the actual benefits of the free service. In what is called a controlled trial one would have to distinguish in some way the effect of all that generosity and enthusiasm—and perhaps of a particular attitude in some part of the country—from the mere provision of free contraceptives. This has not been proven, and it is very difficult to do that.
  I hasten to add that that does not mean that the figures which the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Renée Short) was quoting were necessarily wrong, but it would suggest that they are not necessarily right, and that she may be—as her right hon. Friend
  196
  the Member for Deptford may be—drawing more conclusions from those figures than they justify.
  Finally, the third argument of the right hon. Gentleman was on the question of prescription charges. I happen to disagree with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State about the values and the ways in which prescription charges should be imposed. There are better ways of dealing with an ever-escalating drug bill than prescription charges. However, by and large, my views have not prevailed. I shall leave that argument aside.
  As these prescription charges exist, I shall be asked, as will others, to prescribe on the same basis, digitalis and minovlar. In all conscience, I cannot see how these two can be equated. It would be wrong to exaggerate too much and to refer to one as a fun drug and the other as a lifesaving drug, but the fact is that they are different in both quality and substance. I cannot see, so long as the present situation exists, with prescription charges, that it would be morally right for me to say that those which are inessential shall be free and those which are vital shall be charged for.
  Dr. Stuttaford: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Dr. Trafford: No. I am trying to be exceedingly brief.
  An Hon. Member: We do not want a second opinion.
  Dr. Trafford: I apologise to my hon. Friend, but I will not give way.
  Although I accept the sincerity of the case put forward by the right hon. Member for Deptford, and by some of his hon. Friends and some of my hon. Friends, even on those three bases, particularly on the last one, I should be wrong to do other than support my right hon. Friend tonight.
  Mr. Eric Ogden: In less time than any of the previous speakers I wish to make three brief points. I am not interfering in the dispute between the two sections of the medical community. Obviously that is represented in the House as it is outside it.
  First, my right hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Mr. John Silkin)

  197
  reminded the House that we have had a free vote until now. It was right that we should have had that. It is unfortunate that we have had to change that, but a two-line Whip is not that strong.
  The Secretary of State will recall the circumstances in Committee that enabled the Government to carry their amendment. I have some responsibility for that, which I am not shirking. But tonight the right hon. Gentleman referred to the fact that the free service would be available to "the casual and the overwhelmed." Other words that he might have used could have been "the irresponsible" and "those who are not responsible for one reason or another."
  The right hon. Gentleman has my voting record. It seems that for the sake of this sum of money the right hon. Gentleman is getting into tremendous administrative difficulty. The whole purpose of the argument is that it will not be worth it for what he will save or not save.
  If there is a moral reason that a painkilling drug has to be on prescription and paid for and a drug for another purpose should be free, certainly that can be countered by the argument, in the Secretary of State's words, that those who are responsible and accept their responsibilities will have to pay, and those who may be casual or overwhelmed—I would accept the overwhelmed having it free—the casual, in the right hon. Gentleman's terms, through the domiciliary services, are to have the service free. There is complete opposition between the right hon. Gentleman's words and those of his hon. Friends.
  Why should the responsible pay when the deliberately irresponsible are getting it free? In those circumstances, however is one to persuade the deliberately irresponsible to accept responsibility? The right hon. Gentleman is getting into tremendous administrative difficulty for no particular reason.
  Mr. Anthony Fell: First, I apologise to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for being absent at the beginning of the debate when he was speaking.
  It would be as presumptuous of me were I not to credit those who believe passionately and with absolute sincerity
  198
  that all family planning appliances, and so on, should be free to everyone, as it would be wrong for them not to credit people who believe that what the House of Lords did is wrong and that there should be some brake upon the increase of permissiveness. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) referred to the morality of this matter. In the last 25 years this country has seen the most extraordinary changes take place. They are changes that many people have helped to bring about—and one respects their views—and which have left thousands, indeed millions, of people in a state of turmoil as to the direction in which the country is heading.
  The hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse), whom I supported once on such matters, feels passionately about these things. He spoke—and it was a sad thing to say—of the hundreds and perhaps thousands of children who will be born if there are no free contraceptives. He was, I believe, talking about Lambeth, where I live. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman lives in Lambeth; it does not really matter whether he does or not.
  Mr. Ogden: What part does the hon. Gentleman live in?
  Mr. Fell: By Kennington Cross. Does that help the hon. Gentleman? Come down there any day with me. Parts of Lambeth are crowded with young children, some of them from very poor families. Pick out the children who ought never to have been born. This is what has to be faced by those who have brought in all these aids to permissiveness. Why is it not possible for people to face the facts? Are hon. Members afraid to face them? Are they afraid of admitting that there are people who have moral standards that are different from those of other people?
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I am sure that my hon. Friend abhors abortion as much as I do. Many abortions regrettably take place in this country. Would my hon. Friend not agree that if this sum of £3 million were granted for the provision of free contraceptives and saved but a handful of abortions it would be money well spent?
  Mr. Fell: It is difficult for me to answer my hon. Friend. I can see perfectly well what he is getting at, but it is difficult to answer him because I believe, with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South that we are taking another step along the road to greater immorality and less regard for the moral values of life. The hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) may wag his head, but obviously he has permissive views. [Interruption] I apologise if the hon. Gentleman has not got permissive views. There are millions of people in this country who do not hold the permissive views that have been pushed down our throats by Governments ever since the end of the war.
  Those people must be heard, and anything that my right hon. Friend does to fight against the growth of the permissive society is a help to at least that part of the nation which has some regard for the moral values of our people.
  11.30 p.m.
  Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: Obviously, there are strong arguments on both sides of this subject, but I wonder whether those who advocating free issue ad lib have considered one practical point. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about the Navy?"] I was about to say that I had some small practical experience, since, quite rightly, the Navy makes the issue free. The question I put to those who are advocating free issue ad lib is whether, under their scheme, there is anything to prevent a man's going to his doctor seven days a week—[Laughter.] Perhaps not everybody would be virile enough to make use of supplies on such a scale, as has been pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Dr. Trafford), with his medical knowledge.
  But, seriously, what is to prevent people taking abroad suitcases full of what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State delicately calls substances and appliances, and selling them in huge quantities to pay for their very cheerful holidays!
  Mr. James A. Dunn (Liverpool, Kirk-dale): I find it difficult to follow that argument. I want to bring the discussion back to a serious level. If I may say so with respect, I do not think that the intervention by the hon. and gallant
  200
  Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles) has helped one iota in resolving the dilemma facing us tonight.
  This argument has gone across the Floor on many occasions. The culmination has now been reached by the message from the Lords, and it is up to each of us to decide how we shall vote, according to our own view. I thought that my right hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Mr. John Silkin), replying to the Secretary of State, made a telling point. I remember the time during the Labour Government when I found myself in grave difficulty, opposing the imposition of prescription charges. If there was a contradiction for me then, I plead guilty to the same fault now, because, having voted in those days against the Government in their wish to reimpose prescription charges, tonight I am turning tail and saying that I believe that the argument has not been established by my right hon. Friend that we should support the Lords amendment.
  In all honesty, I believe that the prescription charge for contraception should be retained, bearing in mind the qualifications laid down by the Secretary of State. If I were asked to choose priorities for the spending of money to mitigate prescription charges, this would be the last on my list.
  I feel that my right hon. and hon. Friends should hear from me because on another occasion I made a declaration. I should add that it has caused me vexation since I made it. I have constantly thought about it, and I have come to this conclusion. I took office with the Opposition as a Whip, and that imposed certain responsibilities and discipline upon me. I would find it extremely difficult, even at this point, to disobey that trust which was vested in me. At the same time, I cannot go along with what my right hon. Friend and other hon. Friends would wish me to do. I respect their point of view. I have known that they have campaigned for a long time on the issues that are before us tonight.
  I ought to tell the House in honesty that I have never been against contraception. If, as was suggested by one hon. Member, the embracing of a free and comprehensive contraception service within the National Health Service would

  201
  stop abortions, I would embrace it tomorrow. But we were told this before about abortion. We were told that once it was made possible, the figures would go down. Unfortunately, there has been a reversal.
  Mrs. Renée Short: We were never told that.
  Mr. Dunn: With respect, I was not addressing my remarks to my hon. Friend. We all know her point of view. Perhaps she will do me the courtesy of listening to mine.
  Mrs. Short: Do not misrepresent us.
  Mr. Dunn: I would not misrepresent my hon. Friend, because she does not need me to represent or misrepresent her. She is quite capable of dealing with her own subject.
  There is a dilemma before us tonight. Many of us believe that the issue is a quite clear and simple one. My right hon. Friend put it this way, and other hon. Friends have understood the dilemma facing many of us on this side of the House. My right hon. Friend says that the abolition of prescription charges for contraception should have priority. I will have none of that, and this evening I do not intend to support either one argument or the other.
  Had there been a free vote, there might have been a different cast to the debate. I must say to the Secretary of State and his colleagues that I would have preferred a free vote on this matter, as was done on the first occasion. It might have been to his advantage had that been done. It might have left for me at least—and there might be many others—a difficulty that did not have to be surmounted. Indeed, it is probable that there would have been more sincerity at the end of the day, because on his side of the House on a moral issue the Secretary of State has a three-line Whip which I do not believe should ever be imposed on a question such as this and one of such importance.
  Mr. Norman Tebbit: The whole House will have felt very deeply with the hon. Member for Liverpool, Kirkdale (Mr. Dunn). What he has said emphasises what this debate tonight has been about as opposed to earlier debates. Tonight's debate is undoubtedly
  202
  about the fact that my right hon. Friend has moved 80 per cent—[An HON. MEMBER: "Ninety per cent."]—90 per cent. of the way he has been asked to go by those who will now vote against the Government tonight.
  We all know the argument. In essence, if it were true, it is that the cost of 20p means that people get involved in unwanted pregnancies. My goodness, if that were true there would be no unwanted pregnancies among the middle and upper classes. Sad to say, there are.
  The practicality, however, is that there are those on this side of the House, and some on the Opposition side, and many outside, whatever the opinion polls say, who would be deeply affronted if this House went any further than it has already made up its mind to go and if it did so merely because a group of what I think are best described as trendy, backstreet—not backwoods—peers have instructed us to do.
  Let us say again what we said before, because this House is the master, as Labour Members would have reminded us had their Lordships decided to axe the provision instead of increase it.
  Sir K. Joseph: With the leave of the House, I should like to welcome the support of a number of hon. Members, some of whom feel that the Government have already gone too far. I include my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Selwyn Gummer), my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell), my hon. Friends the Members for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell) and Epping (Mr. Tebbit). I pay tribute also to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Kirkdale (Mr. Dunn) for his authentic views.
  The costs of all the factors in the Government's policy—including the general practitioners' services, free supplies for the domiciliary services, and the administration—have, of course, been included in the estimate given to the House. I assure the hon. Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt), whose sincerity is not in question, that no bureaucracy is involved in this policy. The clinics already charge. They will act under the National Health Service, and I hope that large numbers of volunteers will continue to serve, but

  203
  I can confirm that no extra process will be involved.
  The principal issue tonight remains as it did before—between those who believe that the 20p will stand between some women and contraception and those who do not. The hon. Members for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Renée Short) and Pontypool (Mr. Abse), and my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg), all in differing degrees, prayed in aid common sense, common experience or the free zones that 32 local authorities are now running. There is no doubt that the free services have attracted large extra demand. That is because in practically all cases they have used a great deal of extra publicity and because, above all, the alternative to going to these clinics is to buy the contraceptives commercially not at 20p, 40p or 60p a year, but at £4, £6 or £8 a year, as is now the commercial charge.
  My hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Dr. Trafford) rightly said that the local authority free zones are not experiments with proper control arrangements. There is no evidence from them that merely because the supply is free it will reach those who are in all of our minds. The House must bear in mind that we are to provide supplies at 20p for everyone, with free supplies for those who are identified as being without motivation and therefore in need of encouragement. But the maximum anyone would have to pay would be 20p and this seems to me totally to invalidate the argument that my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead feels so strongly about—that the local authority free zones are a pattern that we should follow.
  The hon. Member for Pontypool argued that there are not just two groups—the motivated and the non-motivated—but a third "grey" group of people who are neither. One of our biggest intentions, however, is so to expand what I call, for shorthand, the domiciliary services that the professional workers involved—through clinics, through hospitals, through those GPs who are willing to co-operate, and through social workers, health visitors, district nurses and the probation service—will identify, so far as is practicable, those who are not motivated, and thus will reach, we hope, not
  204
  in every case but in most cases, those who need our help.
  The hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden), in a brief intervention, asked how we could possibly justify helping with subsidies those who did not need help, and giving supplies at no cost to those who do not ask for help. We do not need to reach out far for justification. To help the non-motivated to protect against pregnancies they do not want is in their interests and is in the public interest and that is why we have every justification for what we are doing.
  I turn finally to the arguments of the right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. John Silkin) which, had they been valid, would have been formidable. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin dealt effectively with most of them.
  11.45 p.m.
  The right hon. Gentleman said that we were getting into a muddle with the general practitioners—that they had rejected the chance to co-operate in a contraceptive service, and that we would fail because in our plans we had depended on them and they would not be working with us. That would be to misrepresent the position.
  Mr. John Silkin: It would be to misrepresent it—but I did not say it.
  Sir K. Joseph: I think that the general purport of the right hon. Gentleman's argument was that I had counted excessively on their co-operation and had under-estimated what their co-operation would cost. In our estimates we have taken into account what we think the cost will be of a general practitioner service. We are discussing with the GPs the pattern they may be willing to fall in with. We have assumed such a charge.
  The fact is that large numbers of GPs offer contraceptive advice no one forces them to do so if they do not wish it—to their patients in their surgeries, and that large numbers co-operate voluntarily—though for pay—in family planning clinics. We expect both these habits to continue.
  I must ask the House to face reality. Both the House of Lords and those in this House who argue for a free service

  205
  are asking the Government to suppose, quite wrongly, that a free service will achieve a larger fall in unwanted pregnancies, illegitimacies and abortions than a service on prescription charges. These assumptions are wrong. The casual and the overwhelmed will not use the service whether it is free or at 20p. They will not in any case, be charged. We shall reach to them and seek to persuade them, through clinics and domiciliary services,
  to use the service which, for them, will be free. I hope the House will stick to the decision which, on the merits, we have twice reached.
  Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment to the Commons amendment:—
  The House divided: Ayes 247, Noes 220.

  Division No. 181.]

  AYES

  [11.48 p.m.

  Adley, Robert

  Farr, John

  Lane, David

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Fell, Anthony

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

  Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian

  Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

  Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)

  Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Luce, R. N.

  Astor, John

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  MacArthur, Ian

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Fortescue, Tim

  McCrindle, R. A.

  Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

  Foster, Sir John

  McLaren, Martin

  Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

  Fowler, Norman

  Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Maurice (Farnham)

  Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Fox, Marcus

  McNair-Wilson Michael

  Batsford, Brian

  Galbraith, Hn. T. G. D.

  McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)

  Bell, Ronald

  Gardner, Edward

  Maddan, Martin

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Madel, David

  Benyon, W.

  Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

  Mahon, Simon (Bootie)

  Berry, Hn. Anthony

  Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

  Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

  Biffen, John

  Glyn, Dr. Alan

  Marten, Neil

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

  Mather, Carol

  Blaker, Peter

  Goodhart, Philip

  Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

  Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

  Gorst, John

  Mawby, Ray

  Body, Richard

  Gower, Raymond

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Boscawen, Hn. Robert

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Bossom, Sir Clive

  Gray, Hamish

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Braine, Sir Bernard

  Green, Alan

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

  Bray, Ronald

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

  Grylls, Michael

  Moate, Roger

  Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

  Gummer, J. Selwyn

  Money, Ernie

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Gurden, Harold

  Monks, Mrs. Connie

  Bruce-Gardyne, J.

  Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

  Monro, Hector

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  Hall, Sir John (Wycombe)

  Montgomery, Fergus

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

  Halt-Davis, A. G. F.

  More, Jasper

  Buck, Antony

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

  Bullus, Sir Eric

  Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

  Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Mudd, David

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

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Murton, Oscar

  Carlisle, Mark

  Havers, Sir Michael

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Hawkins, Paul

  Neave, Airey

  Channon, Paul

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Nicholls, Sir Harmer

  Chapman, Sydney

  Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

  Heseltine, Michael

  Nott, John

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Onslow, Cranley

  Churchill, W. S.

  Holland, Philip

  Oppenhelm, Mrs. Sally

  Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

  Holt, Miss Mary

  Osborn, John

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Hordern, Peter

  Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

  Cockeram, Eric

  Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia

  Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)

  Cohen, Stanley

  Howe, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

  Parkinson, Cecil

  Cooper, A. E.

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Percival, Ian

  Cordle, John

  Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

  Peyton, Rt. Hn, John

  Cormack, Patrick

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  Costain, A. P.

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Critchley, Julian

  James, David

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  Crouch, David

  Jenkin, Rt. Hn. P. (W'st'd & W'df'd)

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)

  Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

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

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen.Jack

  Jopling, Michael

  Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

  Dean, Paul

  Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

  Raison, Timothy

  Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

  Dixon, Piers

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine

  Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

  Drayson, G. B.

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Redmond, Robert

  du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  Rees, Peter (Dover)

  Dykes, Hugh

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir John

  Kinsey, J. R.

  Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Kitson, Timothy

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Knight, Mrs. Jill

  Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey

  Emery, Peter

  Knox, David

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

  Eyre, Reginald

  Lamont, Norman

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Rost, Peter

  Tapsell, Peter

  Welder, David (Clitheroe)

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Wall, Patrick

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

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

  Walters, Dennis

  Scott, Nicholas

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Shaw, Michael (Scth'gh & Whitby)

  Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Shelton, William (Clapham)

  Tebbit, Norman

  White, Roger (Gravesend)

  Shersby, Michael

  Temple, John M.

  Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

  Simeons, Charles

  Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

  Wilkinson, John

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

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

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Soref, Harold

  Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

  Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Speed, Keith

  Tilney, John

  Woodnult, Mark

  Spence, John

  Trafford, Dr. Anthony

  Worsley, Marcus

  Sproat, Iain

  Trew, Peter

  Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

  Stainton, Keith

  Tugendhat, Christopher

  Younger, Hn. George

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)

  Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

  Mr. Bernard Weatherill and

  Stokes, John

  Waddington, David

  Mr. Walter Clegg.

  Sutcliffe, John

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

  Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

  Maclennan, Robert

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

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

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

  Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  McNamara, J. Kevin

  Ashton, Joe

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

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

  Atkinson, Norman

  Foot, Michael

  Marks, Kenneth

  Bagler, Gordon A. T.

  Forrester, John

  Marquand, David

  Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

  Fraser, John (Norwood)

  Marsden, F.

  Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)

  Freeson, Reginald

  Marshall, Dr. Edmund

  Baxter, William

  Garrett, W. E.

  Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

  Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

  Gilbert, Dr. John

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)

  Mayhew, Christopher

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Gourley, Harry

  Meacher, Michael

  Bishop, E. S.

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

  Mikardo, Ian

  Booth, Albert

  Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

  Miller, Dr. M. S.

  Boothroyd, Miss B. (West Brom.)

  Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.

  Milne, Edward

  Bowden, Andrew

  Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

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

  Bradley, Tom

  Hamling, William

  Molloy, William

  Brown, Robert C. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne, W.)

  Hardy, Peter

  Morgan, Elysian (Cardiganshire)

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

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

  Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Buchan, Norman

  Hattersley, Roy

  Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Hatton, F.

  Morrison, Charles

  Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

  Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

  Moyle, Roland

  Cant, R. B.

  Heifer, Eric S.

  Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Carmichael, Nell

  Hooson, Emlyn

  Murray, Ronald King

  Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)

  Horam, John

  Oakes, Gordon

  Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

  Hornby, Richard

  Oram, Bert

  Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Orme, Stanley

  Clark, David (Colne Valley)

  Huckfield, Leslie

  Oswald, Thomas

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

  Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Coleman, Donald

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

  Padley, Walter

  Concannon, J. D.

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Palmer, Arthur

  Conlan, Bernard

  Janner, Greville

  Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

  Coombs, Derek

  Jeger, Mrs. Lena

  Pardoe, John

  Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

  Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

  Parker, John (Dagenham)

  Crawahaw, Richard

  Jessel, Toby

  Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

  Cronin, John

  John, Brynmor

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

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

  Perry, Ernest G.

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

  Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

  Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg

  Cunningham, D. J. A. (Whitehaven)

  Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

  Prescott, John

  Dalyell, Tam

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

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Davidson, Arthur

  Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

  Probers, Arthur

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

  Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Kelley, Richard

  Radice, Giles

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

  Kerr, Russell

  Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

  Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)

  Kinnock, Nell

  Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

  Deakins, Eric

  Lamble, David

  Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

  de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

  Lamborn, Harry

  Richard, Ivor

  Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

  Lamond, James

  Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Brc'n & R'dnor)

  Dormand, J. D.

  Latham, Arthur

  Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

  Lawson, George

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Lestor, Miss Joan

  Rowlands, Ted

  Driberg, Tom

  Lipton, Marcus

  Sandelson, Neville

  Dunnett, Jack

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

  Edelman, Maurice

  Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

  Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

  Edwards, Robert (Bliston)

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

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

  Edwards, William (Merioneth)

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)

  Ellis, Tom

  McCartney, Hugh

  Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

  English, Michael

  Machin, George

  Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

  Ewing, Harry

  Mackenzie, Gregor

  Sillars, James

  Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Silverman, Jullus

  208

  209

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Swain, Thomas

  Wallace, George

  Skinner, Dennis

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

  Watkins, David

  Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Weitzman, David

  Spearing, Nigel

  Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy

  Whitehead, Philip

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Tinn, James

  Whitlock, William

  Stallard, A. W.

  Tope, Graham

  Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

  Steel, David

  Torney, Tom

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Stoddart, David (Swindon)

  Tuck, Raphael

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Stott, Roger (Westhoughton)

  Varley, Eric G.

  Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

  Strang, Gavin

  Wainwright, Edwin

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

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

  Mr. Joseph Harper and

  Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Mr. John Golding.

  Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

  Question accordingly agreed to.

Schedule 4

  MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS OF ENACTMENTS
  The Lords had disagreed to the following amendment made by the Commons: page 63, line 13, at end insert:
  '22A. At the end of section 38(3) of that Act (which relates to charges for pharmaceutical services) there shall be inserted the words "; and it is hereby declared that regulations under this subsection may include provision in respect of charges for the supply of such substances and appliances as are mentioned in section 4 of the National Health Service Reorganisation Act 1973"'.
  Motion made and Question [Sir K. Joseph], That this House doth insist upon its amendment to which the Lords have disagreed, put and agreed to.
  The Lords had disagreed to the following amendment made by the Commons: page 69, line 37, at end insert:
  (2) In section 1(2)(c) of that Act (which provides that no charge is to be made under that section for the supply of an appliance for a young person), after the word "appliance", there shall be inserted the words", otherwise than in pursuance of section 4 of the National Health Service Reorganisation Act 1973."'
  Motion made and Question [Sir K. Joseph], That this House doth insist upon its amendment to which the Lords have disagreed, put and agreed to.
  Committee appointed to draw up a reason to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to their amendment to one of the Commons amendments and for insisting on two other amendments to which the Lords have disagreed: Mr. Michael Alison, Mr. John Golding, Sir Keith Joseph, Mr. John Silkin and Mr. Marcus Worsley; Three to be the quorum.—[Sir K. Joseph.]
  To withdraw immediately.
  Reason for disagreeing to their amendment to one of the Commons amend-
  ments to which the Lords have disagreed reported, and agreed to; to be communicated to the Lords.

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (SCOTLAND)
12 midnight.
The Under-Secretary of State for Home Affairs and Agriculture, Scottish Office (Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith): I beg to move,
That the Representation of the People (Scotland) Regulations 1973, a copy of which was laid before this House on 13th June, be approved.
The order simply amends Regulation 21 of the Representation of the People (Scotland) Regulations 1969. It provides that a Member representing a Scottish constituency should receive from the electoral registration officer on request a free copy of the electoral register for his constituency.
A similar provision for England and Wales was debated on 26th February and came into operation on 19th March.
12.1 a.m.
Mr. Edward Taylor: I wish to ask my hon. Friend three brief questions.
It appears that the order makes an unusual use of the powers contained in Section 42 of the principal Act. That relates to the form and procedure of the lists and does not relate to their distribution. Section 171(5) is a mere definition, and Schedule 4 relates to the publication or the provision of these lists in a public place. At a time when so many orders are coming before the House, it is important to discover whether an unusual use is being made of powers. At one time, we had a committee specifically looking at these matters.
Secondly, as the order is to come into operation very soon, can my hon. Friend

211
say whether it relates to old constituencies or new ones? Whereas it is true that at the next election Members will be fighting on the basis of constituencies different from those which they now represent, many of us now represent people who, if we are successful at the next election, we shall not represent. It is obviously of great help to us to have lists of our existing constituents available. Can my hon. Friend say whether this regulation will relate to our existing constituencies?
Thirdly, the order puts an obligation on the registration officer, on being requested, to supply one copy to the Member of Parliament for each constituency. Does that mean one copy of the register in the duration of a Parliament, or one copy whenever a Member asks for one?
I have raised three detailed points. My main concern, however, is that the order appears to make an unusual use of the powers in Section 42 which relates only to form and procedure. I shall be grateful for my hon. Friend's comments.
12.4 a.m.
Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am pleased to respond to my hon. Friend's questions.
On the use of powers, I ask my hon. Friend to refer to Statutory Instrument No. 912 of 1969, the Representation of the People (Scotland) Regulations, No. 21 of which contains power, in certain circumstances, for the registration officer to supply copies of registers to people. No new power is being granted to the registration officer. It is just that he can use the power to give copies of the register to Members of Parliament in addition to those to whom he can already give it.
As Regulation No. 21 stands, copies can be supplied to candidates and prospective candidates at parliamentary elections, but those copies, which are used in connection with the election campaign, are usually supplied to the election agent, and the Member himself may or may not receive a copy.
It was my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg) who drew attention to the matter earlier, and it is as a result of his suggestion to the Government that the regulation has been introduced.
Mr. Edward Taylor: That is exactly the point I was making. My hon. Friend is pointing out that the powers that are being used are in a regulation that was passed by the House under the Act, and the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments drew attention to the unusual use of powers that relate to powers stemming from a regulation that stemmed from an Act. In other words, this is delegated legislation at the second step and not at the first step, which appears to be rather unusual.
As the order refers solely to powers conferred under Sections 42 and 171, and not to powers conferred by a regulation, this would appear to be a very unusual set of circumstances—certainly one that has been deprecated in the House before.
Mr. Buchanan-Smith: My hon. Friend is the first person to raise this point. I should not have thought that it particularly concerns or worries the House. It is very much to the convenience of hon. Members, and I do not see any abuse of the power. Certainly, the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments has not drawn attention to the regulations.
My hon. Friend asked two other more detailed questions. He asked to what constituencies the regulation would apply. It is for the constituencies for which people stand that the copies will be made available; it applies to the existing constituencies. Members will be able to get a copy for each time the register is issued, which is annually.
I believe that the regulation will be helpful to hon. Members. It was much welcomed by hon. Members for England and Wales when the matter was debated earlier. I am sure that I speak for hon. Members on both sides of the House when I say that they will find it useful in the exercise of their parliamentary duties.
Mr. Taylor: One final point—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu): Order. The hon. Gentleman has already made his intervention at some length.
Mr. Albert Booth (Barrow-in-Furness): As the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward Taylor) has raised the question whether the instrument has been examined by the Joint Committee on

213
Statutory Instruments to ascertain whether the Minister is in this case making an unusual use of powers, perhaps I, as Chairman of the Committee, may say that it has been examined by the Committee, which determined not to draw the instrument to the special attention of the House because it is of the opinion that the instrument in no way breaches any of the matters which are within its terms of reference.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Representation of the People (Scotland) Regulations 1973, a copy of which was laid before this House on 13th June, be approved.

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

SOUTH AYRSHIRE (EMPLOYMENT)
12.9 a.m.
Mr. James Sillars: As the Minister knows, I first obtained time for an Adjournment debate under the heading "The Effect of the Maxwell Colliery Closures on Dailly", but when major closures were announced in Cumnock late last week I thought the wisest course was to widen the subject and draw to the attention of the Government the problems facing both areas. I should also like to deal with two other areas, Doon Valley and Maybole, just to register them with the Minister, if time permits.
I shall deal first with Dailly, which lies within the Girvan exchange area and which must seek alternative jobs to mining. Those alternative jobs will have to he found at Girvan's Grangestone industrial estate.
For many years Dailly, in common with our mining communities, has lived with the uncertainty and apprehension that comes from a heavy reliance for jobs on a coal industry that has been subject to closure after closure. In Scotland, Dailly has been among the most vulnerable mining communities because of its relative isolation from the major part of the Ayrshire coalfield, which lies 30 miles to the north, and I am sure that
214
the Minister has been furnished by his Department with a map of South Ayrshire, which proves the point. It has been possible to redeploy men from some smaller pits in the north when closures have affected those areas, with them finding work in Barony and Killoch collieries, but similar solutions are not so easy in the case of Dailly miners.
It was recognition of those and other circumstances, together with the persistently high unemployment around Girvan, that led to the area being designated a special development area. One of the reasons for such designation—a pit closure—has, unhappily, occurred. At the moment the exact numbers of jobs lost is not known to me, and I doubt whether the Minister knows, either, because the National Coal Board and the National Union of Miners are still discussing the matter and no doubt will not be able to finalise arrangements for a few weeks to come.
We know that jobs will be lost, however, and that Dailly's mining hopes will now stand or fall on the performance of Dalquarran colliery, which lies just at end of the village. It is not my intention to throw a question mark over the future of Dalquharran. It is my experience—and I have some experience in this matter—that more pits than many suspect have been talked into closure in recent years, and I am certainly not going to be party to such an exercise in relation to Dalquharran.
However, I should be failing in my responsibilities if I did not point out to the Government that the natural forces that caused the closures at Maxwell are not themselves unknown at Dalquharran. Heating is a phenomenon that has been associated with the pits at Dailly for many years. That is a factor which the Government must take into account when deciding their policy towards the Dailly and Girvan area.
In the lights of events at Maxwell, what we require is an assurance from the NCB that, with the use, if necessary, of money made available by the Coal Industry Act 1973, it will continue to operate Dalquharran while coal reserves last, which should be for a good number of years. From the Government we need an assurance that they recognise that nature might intervene at Dalquharran and that they

215
are moving positively to establish more male-employing industry in the area as a safeguard to general employment needs.
I previously mentioned the special development area status accorded to the Girvan employment exchange area. This status has been put to good use by the local authorities so far, and every effort has been made to build upon the opportunity offered by that status. Advance factories have been built and filled, and we have to record a recent success in establishing a new tenant on the Grange-stone industrial estate.
Although I have some points of conflict with Girvan Town Council in other directions, a special tribute must be paid to its efforts in attracting new industry. Using the natural attractions of the area, which is one of the most beautiful in Southern Scotland—and I invite the Minister to come and see for himself—and employing a housing strategy that is geared to industry's needs, it has steadily built up the Grangestone estate which is a monument to the fine work done by members and officials of the council, both past and present. They have managed to do that against a background of difficult economic problems.
Whilst the Girvan Town Council takes justified pride in its achievements it will, I am certain, be the first to admit that the present level of development at Grangestone does not meet the employment needs of the district, especially on the male employment side. Further job losses in the coal mining industry at Dailly could not be met at Grangestone without further significant expansion of industry at that estate.
I am really putting forward two propositions. The first is that Dailly is a community worth preserving. The second is that we need Government help over and above that which is available at present.
I must emphasise the importance of maintaining Dailly as a living community. It is a small village peopled by men and women of high quality who value the comradeship, loyalty and social responsibility that is part of their way of life, and something peculiar to mining communities. Naturally, although recognising that their way of earning a living will
216
change with the years, they wish to retain and pass on the social ethos which makes this village important to all who know it.
Last Saturday I attended a joint branch meeting between the Maxwell men and the Dalquharran men at which the district secretary of the NUM and members of the executive discussed with me the problems involved in the colliery closure. It is a significant pointer to the quality of the people involved that in the middle of that meeting of men with their own human problems, one of the items raised by one of the men, who has a redundancy threat hanging over him, was what contribution Dalquharran and Maxwell collieries were able to make to the Sea-field disaster fund. Even in the midst of their own difficulties the men there had sufficient compassion and humanity to think about mining families on the other side of Scotland.
I must emphasise the importance of maintaining Dailly as a living community. If it is to escape from the break up which can follow loss of a basic employment or loss of confidence in the future there must be Government action to bring new male-employing industry to Grangestone.
This brings me to my second proposition, that additional Government help is now required. I think the Minister would agree that conditions are such at present that it is fair to ask the Government for action to "direct"—I put the word in quotation marks—industry to Grangestone. I put the word in quotation marks so as not to offend the ideological instincts of the Minister. It would not be new for the Conservatives to direct industry to certain areas of Scotland. I can remember the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) boasting how they managed to do so in relation to Wiggins, Teape. The Minister will boast of growth in the United Kingdom economy; there has been considerable expansion in the South-East, the Midlands and in East Anglia. There has been a much lesser pace of expansion evident in the Scottish economy. We need more of the benefits of growth directed to the Scottish economy, and within that exercise we can fairly claim attention for Girvan, which has always had unemployment well above the

217
national average. The Government are a powerful institution. They are big purchasers in industry and the source of big handouts to industry in all parts of the country. I want the Government to use the power to "direct" industry to Grangestone by using their influence to lean on private and public undertakings to shift to our area.
Because of the pressure of time I think I should now shift attention to the other part of South Ayrshire presently experiencing difficulties, and that is Cumnock, but before leaving Dailly I want to put a specific question to the Minister. It concerns the assistance available under the provisions of the European Coal and Steel Community treaty, with which we are involved since joining the Common Market. My own personal view of the Common Market is totally irrelevant to this consideration, but since we are a contributor to the common agricultural policy and other Market policies I do not think it wrong that the Government, who boast of having entered the Common Market, should ask for something back from the Community in the form of the aid it gives. As I understand it, Community financial aid is available for areas facing difficulty with colliery closures and contraction of the mining industry; the purpose of the aid is to help in retraining men and improving the infrastructure.
If my information is broadly correct, will the Government make a specific request to the Commission for funds to be used in the Girvan-Dailly area? I can assure the Minister that the local authorities would quickly respond with schemes to improve the infrastructure and communications. Communications are an important matter; we need better communications with the north of the county, towards Hunterston, where we confidently expect big developments this year for the planning decision of the Government.
I turn to the question of Cumnock. I shall try to cover the whole of my constituency—about 700 square miles. It is not an easy task, but I shall try. When I say "Cumnock" I have to be careful, because it refers to the town and district—a number of villages and communities in the northern part of my constituency. When I say "Cumnock" I embrace a much wider area than the burgh itself.
218
I mean the whole of Local Government Area No. 5, which the Cumnock growth area has always been intended to serve.
The town council and the county council have been most vigorous in pursuit of new industry, and they have had some terrible experiences associated with pit closures in this area also. People have shown a remarkable determination to widen the structural base of the local economy. They have had their successes. Indeed, Cumnock town council is widely recognised as one of the most advanced and progressive small burgh burghs in the country. Everything that local authorities can do has been done in this area, to make it an attractive proposition to industrialists. The town of Cumnock itself is exceptionally well planned and a most pleasant place to live. Housing is readily available for key workers, educational provision is of the highest standard, there is redevelopment and improvement in every village, the whole area abounds with recreational opportunities and is set in a wonderful environment. Inevitably, such an effort is rewarded with success, and we can see the fruits of these efforts in the Caponacre industrial estate and in factories as widely spread as New Cumnock, Catrine and Drongan. In the last few weeks, however, much of the job build-up over many years has been undercut by two industrial decisions.
First, we lost over 30 jobs at a carpet factory at the beginning of June, and last week we had an announcement that the Bankend Mill will be run down and ultimately closed, with an eventual job loss of 225. I know that the management at Bankend is in discussions with the trade unions, and that it has given considerable notice of its intentions to the workers and the local authority. Although no one welcomes the decision of the company to move its whole operations to Yorkshire, I suppose we can be grateful to have received timely warning. It is a small mercy in a situation where a firm which has used the labour of Cumnock people since 1948—not unprofitably, one can safely assume—has now decided to waltz off. The practical situation is that we have been given notice of a gap that will need to be filled in 12 to 18 months' time. It is a considerable employment gap, and we are looking to the Government for action to help fill it.

219
Although it has not suffered the same level of unemployment as Girvan, Cumnock has always suffered from high unemployment in past years. The economy of the area is still heavily dependent on the coal industry, and in our view it is a candidate for more Government assistance than we have been receiving over the past few years. We should like the DTI to find a suitable tenant for the building which Bankend Mill presently occupies. The company will be a willing seller if the DTI can assist in finding a willing buyer. We would also like to see the Government show their faith in Cumnock's industrial future by building another advance factory at Caponacre.
It is easier to get an industrialist in the early stages to look at a factory of 20,000 to 30,000 square feet than to interest him in 80,000 square feet, which is the area of Bankend. Action of that sort would be most welcome. I have previously set out the self-help undertaken by the local authorities, and I am now asking for equivalent Government action to meet our urgent need for an injection of new industry into the Cumnock district.
The Minister should know that, although having received the set-backs mentioned, there is no loss of spirit in the Cumnock area. There is no danger of our drowning in despondency. I am coming to the Minister early, rather than after the horse has bolted. The people in the district have experience of setbacks. Anyone who has lived in a mining community has built into his nervous system an ability to face setbacks. This applies to Cumnock, where people are not easily knocked off balance.
What exists are communities that wish to see their district flourish; people who want to see their children enjoy wide and interesting job opportunities in their own area, not Australia. New Zealand or England; people who know the large contribution their councils have made to create the local conditions for growth; and who look to the Government to make their contribution to maintaining the life of the area.
As there is still time available before I give way to the Minister, I will take the opportunity of drawing his attention to the needs of two other areas—Maybole, and the Doon Valley.
220
Maybole is within the Ayr employment exchange area, and many of the people work in Ayr, in Kilmarnock and in Irvine. I cannot see that pattern being disturbed, but there is a need to recognise that Maybole requires more industry than it presently has to maintain a health local economy. It has to be borne in mind that Maybole is the centre of a catchment area which covers a large part of South Ayrshire.
As with the other towns mentioned it has to its credit a go-ahead town council, ably led by its Labour Provost, Willie Cuthbert, now in his second term, in recognition of his outstanding achievements for the town. The council has helped to establish a number of employers in the town, but it is naturally anxious to continue with progress. I would ask the Minister to place Maybole high on his list when the Government announce their next advance factory programme. Too often, Maybole feels that it is left off official maps, and official thinking. I ask the Minister to put it on the advance factory map as soon as possible.
Finally, I come to the Doon Valley, again heavily dependent on coal mining for employment, and which must look for alternatives at the Mosshill industrial estate. The Minister knows that we have recently been informed that a tenant has been found for the first advance factory at Mosshill. He also knows that I have pressed him to expand the estate immediately with the construction of another advance factory. I hope that it will not be long before he can give me a positive response to this reasonable request.
I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the Doon Valley's coal industry, where we are concerned about the future, say, some four or five years from now. Will he look at the position with the National Coal Board, get the facts from the board, and lay his contingency plans now, perhaps taking aid from Community funds in a similar approach to that suggested for the Girvan-Dailly area, and start the infrastructure improvements which we must have to attract new industry into that valley in my constituency?
I thank the Minister for his patience in listening to me.
12.26 a.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Peter Emery): First, I congratulate the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) on securing the Adjournment debate this evening and also on the most sensible use he has made of that opportunity. He will understand if I do not enter into a discussion concerning Maybole and the Doon Valley. He has registered his point. His request for extra assistance I will refer both to the Scottish Office—and we have present with us a Scottish Minister in the person of my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger)—and also to my colleagues at the Department of Trade and Industry concerned particularly with industrial policy.
I therefore turn particularly to the problems of South Ayrshire, which, in recent years, has suffered from relatively high unemployment and from an unbalanced industrial structure, as I would be the first to recognise.
At present the rates of unemployment in the Girvan, Ayr and Cumnock areas are around the level for Scotland as a whole, but still well above the Great Britain average. The main source of difficulty is, of course, an excessive dependence on coal mining for male employment. This has been recognised for some time—indeed, Girvan was one of the original SDAs in 1967—and efforts have been made under Governments of both political colours to diversify the industrial base and provide a wider range of job opportunities. In this work my Department has co-operated closely with the local authorities and, with the benefit of the various regional incentives that have been available, significant results have been achieved. Firms involved in such diverse activities as distilling, chemicals, ladies' underwear, assembly of moulding and encapsulation machinery, and metal finishing have been attracted to the Grangestone industrial estate at Girvan, for instance. I am delighted to be able to tell the House about that. I am certain that the hon. Gentleman is pleased to be able to welcome these industries into his constituency.
This estate now provides some 550 jobs altogether, while 700 are employed on the Caponacre Estate at Cumnock. But this is an uphill struggle. Nothing could
222
demonstrate that more clearly than the closure to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. The closure of Maxwell Colliery on 12th July again highlights features of a situation which can arise so quickly in the coalmining industry. I suppose that it is in that industry alone that this situation—I was about to use the phrase "flare up" but, being concerned with heating, that would be inappropriate—can arise and form the difficulties.
The hazards of the industry are known to us all. The problems of Ayr are known to my Department. I know the extent of the concern of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Development, Scottish Office, who represents the constituency of Ayr. Although geographically next door, he is still ultimately concerned with the whole problem, as is the hon. Gentleman.
Apart from the dangers to life and limb in the problem which has arisen in the Maxwell Colliery, there are also the uncertainties associated with geological factors, of which Maxwell is a particular example.
The closure of this colliery has come about suddenly and will have an effect on the relatively small community of Dailly. I accept that immediately. The unavoidable suddenness of the closure makes it worse. However, there is no question of all the men involved immediately finding themselves unemployed. The usual period of notice of redundancy will be observed. Some men may be employed for a term on salvage work, and possibilities of redeployment to other pits will be explored. In all this there will, as usual, be close co-operation between the NCB and the unions and, as the hon. Gentleman suggested, negotiations are taking place to deal with that particular matter.
It is, perhaps, one slightly redeeming feature of this particular closure that the number of men involved is relatively small, when one thinks of the very much larger pits throughout the country. Nevertheless, I would not for a moment suggest that that diminishes the problem for individual families. It is a real problem even if it concerns only one family. It is a major problem which has to be faced.

223
Therefore, it is no easy matter with this loss of employment at a familiar workplace for many of these men who have given many years of work if not all of their life's work to their pit. There is the need, therefore, for each individual concerned to readjust himself, and to make the readjustment to a completely new set of circumstances. The hon. Gentleman has explained with great clarity the prospect before a group of men and their dependants situated in what some would describe as an isolated community, deprived of the opportunity, through no fault of their own, to continue working, in the industry of their choice.
I should like, therefore, to assure the hon. Gentleman that I and the Government as a whole are fully conscious of the difficulties that beset mineworkers as a result of colliery closures. There is little need for me to remind the House, however, of the massive financial aid recently provided by the Government to the industry under the provisions of the Coal Industry Act 1973. Under that Act powers were taken to make schemes for men becoming redundant in the industry up to March 1976 and, by parliamentary permission, they can be extended to 1978. The hon. Gentleman will know that my hon. Friend the Minister for Industry proposes shortly to present to the House for approval the draft order of a new redundant mineworkers payments scheme, the main features of which were indicated by the Minister for Industry in May. I reiterate this only because it is important that the men in the pit should realise that they will benefit from the new redundancy payments scheme, although it has not yet been laid before the House. It will be some slight compensation to them to know that they will benefit from its much more generous terms. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will make certain that no one, and they in particular, will be in any doubt about that matter.
I believe that the new schemes, whilst not as great as everybody would like, are, on the whole, much more generous than previously and, therefore, will be of some help. It must be right to consider the prospects of the men concerned finding new jobs, and we must look at the Girvan area as a whole. There are some hopeful signs. Unemployment has been falling rapidly and it now stands at less than half
224
the level of the beginning of the year. Part of this sharp fall is, no doubt, seasonal; but even compared with the position in June last year it is appreciably better. The second DTI advance factory at Grangestone was allocated in May to Century Aluminium, which will eventually provide 50 jobs, mostly for men. Production, I am able to announce, will begin next month. That may have been known, but I can now say it officially.
I do not wish to minimise the problems. Certainly no one can pretend that the prospects are excellent, but the area is certainly in a better position to stand the impact of the Maxwell closure than it was recently, last year or the year before last.
It would be right to emphasise that whilst the hon. Gentleman has asked that the DTI should "direct"—I accept the hon. Gentleman's inverted commas—industry to locate in Dailly or the Girvan area, he will realise that it really does no good, either to the community or to our policy of helping the regions or the areas of high unemployment, to direct—without the inverted commas—or twist the arm of industry to locate against its will because too often it only fails, and then the situation is made that much worse by a company not really working and having to pull out. It makes the situation doubly bad because it becomes a recurring factor.
With the little time left, I ought to turn to the announcement to which the hon. Gentleman referred—the closure of John Foster and Son Ltd. at Cumnock. Clearly this announcement must come as a blow to the Cumnock area and, of course, I understand why the hon. Gentleman has felt it necessary to widen the debate in the way that he has. I can assure him that my Department considered the implications and alternatives very closely before granting permission for the development—
The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock on Monday 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 twenty-one minutes to One o'clock.

WALES
  Oil (CBI Report)
  Oil (CBI Report)
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  District General Hospital (West Monmouthshire)
  District General Hospital (West Monmouthshire)
  Roads
  Roads
  A40, Raglan—Abergavenny (Traffic)
  A40, Raglan—Abergavenny (Traffic)
  Task Forces
  Task Forces
  Heads of the Valleys Road
  Heads of the Valleys Road
  Tourism
  Tourism
  Home Ownership
  Home Ownership
  Nurses
  Nurses
  Splott (Compulsory Purchase Order)
  Splott (Compulsory Purchase Order)
  Chemical Wastes (Dumping)
  Chemical Wastes (Dumping)
  Concessionary Bus Fares
  Concessionary Bus Fares
  Local Authorities (Cultural Activities)
  Local Authorities (Cultural Activities)
  Departmental Units
  Departmental Units
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Education Colleges (Licensing)
  Education Colleges (Licensing)
  Professional Practices
  Professional Practices
  Oil-Fired Power Stations
  Oil-Fired Power Stations
  Regional Employment Premium
  Regional Employment Premium
  Concorde
  Concorde
  Consumer Relations (Small Traders)
  Consumer Relations (Small Traders)
  Price Increases
  Price Increases
  Fair Trading Legislation
  Fair Trading Legislation
  Advance Factories (Northern Region)
  Advance Factories (Northern Region)
  Company Law (EEC Directive)
  Company Law (EEC Directive)
  Regional Development (EEC Discussions)
  Regional Development (EEC Discussions)
  Advertisements (Legislation)
  Advertisements (Legislation)
  Charter Aircraft (Safety)
  Charter Aircraft (Safety)
  Telephone Equipment (Deaf Persons)
  Telephone Equipment (Deaf Persons)
  Portal Engineering Co. Ltd.
  Portal Engineering Co. Ltd.
  General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Tokyo Meeting)
  General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Tokyo Meeting)
  Regional Aid (North West)
  Regional Aid (North West)
  Imports
  Imports
  Aircraft Noise
  Aircraft Noise
  General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade
  General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade
  Price Commission (Report)
  Price Commission (Report)
POSTS AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS
  Members' Correspondence
  Members' Correspondence
  House Numbers
  House Numbers
  Charity Postage Stamps
  Charity Postage Stamps
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Pornography
  Pornography
  Prisons
  Prisons
  Community Development Projects
  Community Development Projects
  Police (Northampton and County)
  Police (Northampton and County)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Farm Improvement Grants
  Farm Improvement Grants
  Tenant Farmers
  Tenant Farmers
  Sugar Industry
  Sugar Industry
  Butter Stocks
  Butter Stocks
  Whales
  Whales
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Public Expenditure
  Public Expenditure
  Value Added Tax
  Value Added Tax
  Travel-to-Work Expenses
  Travel-to-Work Expenses
  Mortgage Relief
  Mortgage Relief
  Unearned Income
  Unearned Income
  Telephone Equipment (Deaf Persons)
  Telephone Equipment (Deaf Persons)
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Approved Schools
  Approved Schools
  National Health Service (Salaries)
  National Health Service (Salaries)
  Battered Wives
  Battered Wives
  Doctors
  Doctors
  Pensions
  Pensions
  Broadmoor Hospital
  Broadmoor Hospital
  Fluoridation
  Fluoridation
  Children in Trouble (Treatment)
  Children in Trouble (Treatment)
  Doctors (Training Costs)
  Doctors (Training Costs)
EMPLOYMENT
  Vacancies (Construction Industry)
  Vacancies (Construction Industry)
  Carmarthenshire
  Carmarthenshire
  Postal Charges
  Postal Charges
  Retail Prices
  Retail Prices
  Industrial Relations Act
  Industrial Relations Act
  Regional Employment Premium (Scotland)
  Regional Employment Premium (Scotland)
  Pay Board (Report)
  Pay Board (Report)
  LEGAL AID
  LEGAL AID
  LAND REGISTRATION
  LAND REGISTRATION
CIVIL SERVICE
  Her Majesty's Stationery Office
  Her Majesty's Stationery Office
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Alperton High School, Wembley
  Alperton High School, Wembley
  Welfare Officers (Training)
  Welfare Officers (Training)
  Secondary Schools
  Secondary Schools
ENVIRONMENT
  Roads (Speed Control)
  Roads (Speed Control)
  Drivers' Regulations (Local Government Employees)
  Drivers' Regulations (Local Government Employees)
  Mrs. M. Truman (Driving Licence)
  Mrs. M. Truman (Driving Licence)
  Housing (Development Agreements)
  Housing (Development Agreements)
  Vehicle Testing
  Vehicle Testing
  Housing Land
  Housing Land
  House Building (London)
  House Building (London)
  Pavements (Costs)
  Pavements (Costs)
  Homeless Persons (London)
  Homeless Persons (London)
  Transport Policy
  Transport Policy
  Planning Appeals
  Planning Appeals
  Environmental Improvement Schemes
  Environmental Improvement Schemes
  Mersey Docks and Harbour Company
  Mersey Docks and Harbour Company
  Government Departments (Office Accommodation)
  Government Departments (Office Accommodation)
  M3
  M3
  Health and Social Security Offices
  Health and Social Security Offices
  Hyde Road and Wenlock Way, Manchester
  Hyde Road and Wenlock Way, Manchester
  Road Safety (Children's Training)
  Road Safety (Children's Training)
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Nigerian Diplomats
  Nigerian Diplomats
  Middle East (UN Resolution 242)
  Middle East (UN Resolution 242)
  EEC Political Co-operation
  EEC Political Co-operation
  Overseas Policy (Official Documents)
  Overseas Policy (Official Documents)
  European Assembly
  European Assembly
  PARLIAMENTARY BUILDING
  PARLIAMENTARY BUILDING
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Parades and Marches
  Parades and Marches
  Disabled Persons (Employment)
  Disabled Persons (Employment)
  Work Permits
  Work Permits
  Industrial Disputes (Days Lost)
  Industrial Disputes (Days Lost)
SCOTLAND
  Public Boards (Members' Salaries)
  Public Boards (Members' Salaries)

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Southwark.

HOUSE VALUATIONS FOR ESTATE DUTY
LORD HALE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what is the present basis for the valuation for estate duty purposes of a residential house which passes on death from one member of the resident family to another member, or other members, of such family.
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: My Lords, a house is commonly valued for estate duty on the assumption that it can be sold on the open market with vacant possession. It would make no difference whether or not the house passed from one member of a resident family to another. There are circumstances in which a different basis for arriving at the open market value would apply: for example,
2
if account had to be taken of the rights of a tenant, whether or not a member of the deceased's family.
LORD HALE: But, my Lords, is it not quite outrageous to value a house with vacant possession merely because a corpse has left the building, if there is no possibility of vacant possession? Is the noble Earl aware that a man who bought a house for £5,000 in 1970 and has mortgaged it for £4,000 may on that basis now have it valued for estate duty purposes at £ 12.500 at least?—which represents an increase not of 150 per cent., as is normal under a Tory Government, but of 750 per cent? That is calculated on the basis that the man's investment was £1,000 only. Is the noble Earl aware, further, that the owner derives no benefit because if he sells the house he has to spend just as much in buying a replacement as he gets in selling his old one, and that in these circumstances under the present rules at the lowest rate of estate duty a man may be called up to pay £2,000 in estate duty on a £1,000 asset?
TIME EARL or GOWRIE: My Lords, I think that from many points of view it is felt that estate duty is not the best form of taxation in the best of all possible worlds. Nevertheless, I would say to the noble Lord that since 1972 the law has given a special relief from estate duty where property passes on death to a surviving spouse. The 1972 Finance Act provides that such property up to a maximum of £15,000 is to be disregarded for estate duty purposes, so I think there has been a significant improvement.
LORD HALE: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that I give him full credit for that improvement and am most happy to find something on which to congratulate him? However, is he also aware that the unfortunate persons who at the same time invested money in Government securities have seen them go down by several thousand million pounds and that they are still going down at this moment?
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: My Lords, we are debating money matters on the 16th of this month. If the noble Lord cares to take up some of these points on that occasion I shall be very happy to accommodate him.

SOUTH AFRICAN URANIUM: FOREIGN INVESTMENT
2.38 p.m.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, since South Africa has not signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty, they will make it illegal for British investors to accept the invitation of the South African Government to invest in its nascent uranium separation industry and will also introduce a resolution into the United Nations Assembly calling on all member countries to do likewise.
TIIE MINISTER OF STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE): No, my Lords, the obligations of Her Majesty's Government under the Non-Proliferation Treaty do not include control over private investment from the United Kingdom in the nuclear industry of non-parties to the Treaty. Therefore, Her Majesty's Government do not intend to make British investment illegal in the South African uranium separation industry, or to introduce a resolution into the United Nations General Assembly, as suggested by the noble Lord.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, while the Non-Proliferation Treaty does not make this necessary, may I ask the noble Baroness whether it is not very desirable
4
from the point of view of the policy of Her Majesty's Government that, if a nation which is not a party to the Treaty is asking for investment in uranium for the purposes of nuclear weapons, we should raise this issue in the Security Council, if not in the General Assembly, so as to get the matter dealt with?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, there is no evidence that South Africa intends to manufacture nuclear weapons. The recent statement by the South African Government was about preparatory work on the construction of a prototype stage of a plant for the production of enriched uranium. I have no reason to suppose that British investment in this process is being considered.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, is not enriched uranium precisely what you make bombs with? If there is no reason to suppose that South Africa intends to make bombs, why do the Government not take what steps they can, in the United Nations and elsewhere, to get South Africa to sign the non-proliferation Treaty, as we have done and as most other civilised countries have done?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I would entirely agree that we very much hope that South Africa will sign the nonproliferation Treaty; but on this particular process I think that few conclusions can really be drawn from the limited information available.

URANIUM DEPOSITS AND MINERAL RIGHTS
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in view of the discovery of uranium under the soil of Britain, they will now take all mineral rights into public ownership; and, if not, whether they will take the mining rights of all fissile materials into public ownership.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD DRUMALBYN): My Lords, the Government have no intention of

5
extending the public ownership of mineral rights. The noble Lord no doubt has in mind the recent reports of the work carried out by the Institute of Geological Sciences for the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority between 1968 and 1972. Reports of this work were published as the programme progressed, and occurrences of uranium in the North of Scotland were first announced in 1970. I understand that these deposits could not be economically exploited at to-day's world prices. I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving me the opportunity to put this matter into perspective.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, whatever may be one's opinion about allowing landowners to profit from the sheer chance of happening to sit on minerals, does it not become an absurd, if not dangerous, matter when those minerals include uranium, which is going to become the very sinew of our industry in the future, to say nothing about the defence position?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I do not think so. The reason why successive Governments have taken this line is that they want to encourage the exploitation of the mineral resources of the country, and this is the best way to do it.
LORD ARWYN: My Lords, is the Minister aware that 24 years ago the Mineral Development Committee sat and considered this subject and came to the conclusion, after two and a half years' work, that the nationalisation of minerals was absolutely necessary before a thorough geological survey of this country could be made?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, when the Party opposite were in power they came to the conclusion that they did not intend to use their powers to deprive mining companies of the opportunity of working any uranium which they might find and for which they might obtain planning consent. That was in 1970.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, since the Government introduced a Bill, which became an Act, concerning nuclear fuel, is it not right that uranium is now regarded by Her Majesty's Government as a fuel? Is it not therefore appropriate that this should be nationalised in exactly the same way as coal?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, it is a question of prospecting for and getting the mineral. So far as that is concerned, it seems to Her Majesty's Government, as it seemed to our predecessors, that the best way of doing this is to leave it to the mining companies.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that my Question did not refer to prospecting and getting the minerals? My Question did not refer to taking that into public ownership, but to taking mineral rights into public ownership; namely, the rights belonging to the landowner who happened to be sitting on a mineral—in this case uranium.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, first of all you have to prospect to find out whether there are minerals below the surface. I do not think there is any particular case for saying that this should be taken into public ownership; and the more so as at the moment they cannot be economically extracted.
LORD SHINMELL: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that he is not too well informed on this subject? Is he aware that when a Labour Government were in office—and I happened to be responsible for this matter of mineral rights—they accepted the principle that the minerals that were discovered should belong to the State, although at the same time they accepted a decision that the exploitation of those minerals should be left in private hands?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I am aware of the fact that the last Government intended to legislate on this matter, and so do we; but my right honourable friend has said in another place that the Parliamentary timetable could not accommodate legislation during the present Session, and probably not in the next Session, either.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, is it not a fact that this was carried out not by the Labour Government of 1959 to 1964, but by the immediate post-war Government? An Amendment was accepted, as my noble friend said, to the Atomic Energy Act. Are we to understand that this was later rescinded by a succeeding Government.
LORD DRUMALBYN: No, my Lords. Section 7 of the Atomic Energy Act 1946 empowers the Government to acquire compulsorily the exclusive right to work radioactive substances without paying compensation. It was on this that the right honourable gentleman Mr. Anthony Benn said:
"I do not intend to use my powers to deprive mining companies of the opportunity of working any uranium which they may find and for which they may obtain planning consent."
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, does the noble Lord object to the principle that minerals, of whatever kind—uranium, lead, tin or copper—which happen to be located on private land but which were not placed there by the owner, and which the owner probably never knew about, should belong to the State? What possible objection can noble Lords opposite—particularly on the Government Front Bench—have to a principle of that kind being accepted?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, this would be an entirely new departure in principle from present legislation. The existing minerals which are not privately owned are coal, oil, gas, gold and silver. But, apart from that, mineral rights in Great Britain are privately owned and always have been. The Government are saying that they regard it as better that this should be so rather than that mineral rights should be taken away, especially as nobody knows whether they are there or not.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, would my noble friend not agree that if minerals were found on the estate of a private landowner and any profits accrued, nearly all those profits would go back to the State in taxation and that the whole question is therefore completely academic?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I agree that a large part of it would go back to the State.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, would my noble friend agree that nationalisation might prove a disincentive to exploration?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, this is the view of the Government. The point is arguable both ways, but this is the Government's view.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, the noble Lord has not replied to the point of principle raised by my noble friend Lord Shinwell. Can the Minister justify that a mineral of devastating power which over the centuries has grown under the land, should by accident be the private property of the owner of that particular piece of land?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, in a sense it is by accident, but as a matter of law, he is the owner of it. What the noble Lord is proposing to do is to take away that ownership.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: My Lords, will the Minister say what is wrong with a new departure in this technological age?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, it does not follow merely because the age is technological, that it is necessary to change the law on the ownership of property.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, is not the noble Lord convicted of complete confusion by his own words in saying that there was no ground for doing something unprecedented and then giving three excellent precedents: coal being nationalised, oil being nationalised and gas being nationalised, these three things being fuel and uranium being a fuel?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, the noble Lord has given a parallel, but these things were nationalised when they were being exploited in many parts of the country. The uranium has not been exploited and it does not look like being exploited at the moment. How far one extends the existing principle is a matter for argument and decision. All I have said is that the Government have no intention of extending mineral rights at the present time.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, is it really the case that natural gas was nationalised when it was already being exploited?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, gas had been nationalised, and natural gas was gas.

HYDROCARBONS: EXPLORATION AND LICENSING
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 when they expect to offer a new round of licences for offshore exploration for hydrocarbons and whether they intend to offer licences over areas West of the Scottish mainland and islands.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, the Government have no immediate plans for a new round of offshore licensing. The areas to be offered in any future round will be decided at the time.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, could the noble Lord say, further to that, whether there has been a delay in making the next round of licences available inasmuch as it was widely expected there might be a round issued during this summer?
LORD DRUMALBYN: No, my Lords; there has been no delay, and it is not intended that the next round will take place in 1973.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, would my noble friend agree that the spacing out of licensing may be a very important factor in regard to getting British industry involved in the exploration and development activity and that, whether or not the licences should be widely spaced or narrowly spaced, there is a consideration here which is relevant? Is this being taken into account?
LORD DRUMALBYN: Yes, my Lords; the noble Earl is quite right. It is very much being taken into consideration, as indeed is the fact that the obligations to drill remaining from the last round are still considerable: about 200 wells remain to be drilled out of 225 committed under agreed work programme.

ORFORDNESS RADAR RESEARCH STATION
2.53 p.m.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Government a Question of which I have given Private Notice; namely:
Why the Radar Research Station at Orfordness has been closed down without warning after only two years; how much the British taxpayer has put into it, and if they will make a Statement.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DEFENCE (LORD CARRINGTON): My Lords, under agreements made in 1967 R.A.F., Orfordness, Suffolk, has been the location for a joint programme of long-range radio propagation research by the United States' Air Force in co-operation with United Kingdom authorities. Since this programme started new technical and scientific studies conducted in the United States have been more effective. In the light of this, it was decided that a further programme at R.A.F. Orfordness could not be justified and, consequently, that the U.S. Air Force would not renew the contract with R.C.A. Limited for the technical maintenance of the equipment as from June 30, 1973.
The British civilian employees of R.C.A. Limited have been given one month's notice, until the end of July, 1973. Urgent consideration is being given to the future of the site and the future employment of the British civilians employed by the Ministry of Defence and the Department of the Environment. Work on running down the installation is likely to last a further three or four months and some of the personnel will be needed for that period.
The United Kingdom capital contribution over the whole of the programme has amounted to £1·4 million. In addition, Her Majesty's Government have shared in the running costs, and our annual contribution has risen to a maximum of some £250,000 over the last twelve months.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the Secretary of State for that Statement, but does it not remain very odd that a major research station should be closed down after only two years? Who can think that a

11
research station becomes useless after two years?—without any warning at all from one day to the next, instead of being phased out in the usual orderly manner? Can the Secretary of State tell the House whether or not this station has been closed as part of a deal between the United States and the Soviet Union?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, the answer to the last supplementary question is, No. The reason why it has been closed is, as I said, that the United States have discovered better ways of doing what they were seeking to do at R.A.F. Orfordness. It is a great pity that the notice was so short, but of course it does not make any difference so far as the people there are concerned because the contract they entered into gives them a month's notice. It is a pity there was not more warning that this was going to happen, but this arises from the United States and their accounting procedures.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, can the Secretary of State for Defence say, in view of the answer heha s just given, whether the new technical devices which have made this radar site no longer necessary are to be made available to the United Uingdom Government?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, all the information obtained from operating this research establishment with the United States was given to us, and we shall get other information from them.
LORD HARVEY OF PRESTBURY: My Lords, will my noble friend say whether the Opposition are now suggesting that more money should be spent on defence?
LORD CARRINGTON: I wish it were so, my Lords.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, would the noble Lord agree that his answers imply that he is regretful about the way this decision has been taken, and that if he had himself been fully in control it might have been done in a more orderly and decent way?
LORD CARRINGTON: I did not mean to imply that, my Lords. What I was
12
trying to imply was that when you have to take a decision at short notice, even though you give a month's notice to the employees, as you are in honour bound and as the contract requires, it is better if you can give more time. It comes of course as a great shock to the people employed if there is no warning about what is going to happen. But I understand the difficulties of the United States. We all have our accounting difficulties.
LORD THOMAS: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that a month is a very long time in electronics technology?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I think it was the month's notice that was worrying people, not so much the month's technology.
LORD TREFGARNE: My Lords, can the noble Lord say how many British personnel will be made redundant by this closure?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, R.C.A. Limited employ for the United States Air Force about 130 men.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, if I may have one last question, is it not the case that rather than a month's notice most of the men are on contract giving them three weeks' severance pay per year they have been there, and since of course nobody has been there for more than two years this is not very grand? Secondly, although I naturally do not wish to press the Secretary of State on anything which is classified, can he tell us what are the new means of research which are going to give better results than the Orfordness Station did in the past?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, the noble Lord would be astonished if I answered the last part of his Question, as indeed would all your Lordships who know anything about defence; but it was a good try. With regard to the first question, I am told that the contract specifies a month's notice, but I understand there are also redundancy payments included in it. But this of course is primarily a matter between the contractor R.C.A. and the United States Air Force.

OFFICIAL REPORT AND PARLIAMENTARY PAPERS
2.58 p.m.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (LORD WINDLESHAM): My Lords, the House will wish to know that the Pay Board have now given a ruling on the dispute which has led the Hansard Reporters recently to take industrial action. The claim which the Pay Board considered was for the payment of a special bonus in respect of long hours worked in the Session 1971–72. The Board have ruled that, if conceded, such a payment would be outside the pay limit. This ruling has only just been received and its implications need to be studied.
Progress has, however, been made towards a settlement of the industrial dispute concerning Linotype operators employed by Her Majesty's Stationery Office at the Parliamentary Press. Normal working has been resumed to-day and, while it will not be possible to resume the full service immediately, it is hoped that delays in the printing of Parliamentary Papers will be progressively reduced.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord for making this Statement. Is he aware that many of us will be disappointed, not to say surprised, by what he has to say in the first part of his Statement? While I agree with him that the implications of this non-award will need to be studied very carefully, can he confirm meanwhile that this seasonal bonus was paid in similar circumstances, in lieu of the restructuring of the pay scale, the previous year, and that a similar payment was made in years previous to that?
With regard to the second part of the noble Lord's Statement, we are of course all pleased that some settlement has been reached here; and so that we may follow this matter as intelligently as possible I wonder whether he will be good enough to give some idea of what was at issue: what was the backeround, what are the pay rates, and what is the basis of the settlement?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, the interpretation of the Pay Code is of course the responsibility of the Board. They have given a ruling on a case which
14
has been put to them in this instance. I shall be happy to make available to the noble Lord and, through the normal channels, to other noble Lords who are interested, the terms of the letter. I think the noble Lord would like to study that before making any further comment. As regards the progress that has been made in the dispute in the Parliamentary Press, I understand that it was possible to re-shape an offer from H.M.S.O. and to agree a formula within the limit of the pay policy and within the context of the current review of the house agreement which covers all staff in H.M.S.O. presses and binderies.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his answer. But is there any reason at all why he should not give me the sort of confirmation for which I asked; namely, that the seasonal bonus had been paid in the previous year? I say that, of course, without going into the merits of the matter at all. I shall look forward with interest to seeing the contents of the letter to which the noble Lord has referred. As to the second matter. I asked the noble Lord whether he could give us some indication as to what had been said. Since the noble Lord appears to have said something to the Press on Friday, could he not equally tell the House what were the issues and what are the sums of money involved?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I can confirm that payments were made to our own Hansard Reporters on a number of occasions in the past. What I cannot confirm is what the noble Lord wants to extract out of me; namely, whether they were regarded as seasonal bonuses by the Pay Board. This is a highly technical matter and I think it is better to examine what the Board has said. I said nothing to the Press on either of these disputes on Friday.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I did ask whether the noble Lord would be good enough to tell the House what apparently he or another spokesman for the Government had told the Press about the pay rates involved in the case of the Linotype operators.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I hope the House will be content if I do not get drawn on this point. I said in my Statement that progress had been

15
made towards a settlement of the industrial dispute. These are extremely technical matters, and I think it would be wrong possibly to jeopardise the chances of achieving a settlement in these circumstances.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he is aware that from these Benches at least he will have support in this matter? It is not just a technical matter; I believe it to be a delicate matter, too.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord why he sought to draw a conclusion from the very simple question put by my noble friend? He was not trying to establish whether it was a seasonal bonus; he was merely trying to establish one fact. While fully acknowledging the delicacy of this question, may I ask the noble Lord whether he would not agree that we have behaved with much more restraint than his noble friends did when we were in this situation, and we intend to continue so.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Oh!
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, if noble Lords make noises like that they had better read Hansard of a couple of years ago. May I therefore ask the noble Lord whether he will continue to keep us and, if necessary, House Committees informed on this matter, which clearly is not one suitable for debate on the Floor of the House but which does involve us all?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I should certainly like to give an undertaking on that last point.

E.E.C. COUNCIL OF MINISTERS' MEETING
3.5 p.m.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, with the leave of the House my noble friend Lady Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie will make a Statement at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. on the recent E.E.C. Council of Ministers' meeting.

POWERS OF CRIMINAL COURTS BILL [H.L.]
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, on behalf of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to consolidate certain enactments relating to the powers of courts to deal with offenders and defaulters and to the treatment of offenders and of persons on bail. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read la.—(Earl St. Aldwyn.)
On Question, Bill read la, and to be printed.

WATER BILL
3.7 p.m.
TUE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT (BARONESS YOUNG): My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now received.
Moved, That the Report be now received.—(Baroness Young.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 1 [National policy for water]:
BARONESS WHITE BARONESS WHITE moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 25, after ("Authority") insert ("or which may affect their responsibilities").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 1 standing in my name on the Marshalled List. This is a matter which I raised on the Question, Whether the Clause should stand part of the Bill, when we were in Committee. I received what seemed to me to be a rather perfunctory reply from the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, but as he had not had any notice that I proposed to raise the matter I make no complaint at all about that. However, it occurred to me that it would be more satisfactory if he were to make it quite clear in the Bill, by means (I would hope) of this Amendment, that the Welsh National Water Development Authority, which is particularly referred to in Clause 1(5), would not be precluded from looking at matters over which they might not have a specific executive responsibility but which might nevertheless affect the ways

17
in which they discharge their responsibilities.
I do not think one need go into the argument at any great length. All of us who are working on this Bill are aware that there are certain responsibilities within a particular water authority area which may impinge on the work of other areas, and vice versa, and I only want to be assured that the Welsh National Water Development Authority would not be unduly circumscribed.
When we discussed this matter before, the Minister quoted in aid the earlier part of this clause, but it does not really seem to me to meet the point which I then made and I hope very much that he may be prepared to accept this Amendment to-day. I beg to move.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SECURITY (LORD ABERDARE): My Lords, I think I can satisfy the noble Baroness in what she is asking. Clause 1(5) as it stands gives the Welsh Authority a duty to consider and advise the appropriate Minister on matters about that part of the national policy for water which it is responsible for carrying out. The effect of this Amendment is to give the Authority an additional duty to give advice on any other matter concerning the national policy for water which may affect its responsibilities. But to my mind she is going a little too far in laying this on the Authority as a duty. What she is really trying to achieve is that there shall be no unnecessary restriction on the activities of the Welsh National Water Development Authority. We feel that if we write in a duty of the sort which she has put forward in her Amendment it might have the very opposite effect to what she would wish, in placing an unnecessary burden on the Welsh Authority, since it would be in duty bound to comment on any issue which would not have direct or substantial relevance to its own duties. But when she said it would not be precluded I would agree with her entirely. It is not to say that the Welsh Authority will only wish to advise Ministers on that part of the water policy which it will carry out itself. I am sure there will be many instances when it will wish to comment on other matters. One example would be inter-river transfers, but certainly the Authority
18
is not precluded from giving advice on such matters under the terms of the Bill. There is nothing in the Bill to prohibit them from doing that and we are confident that the new Authority will take this responsibility seriously and conscientiously and will not interpret this subsection in a restrictive way. We are convinced this is a matter best left to the judgment of the new Authority and they will feel free to make any recommendations they wish without the need to lay the duty on the producer.
BARONESS WHITE: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord and in view of the now quite specific assurances received, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 [Members of water authorities]:
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND SCIENCE (LORD SANDFORD)THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND SCIENCE (LORD SANDFORD) moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 4, line 10, leave out ("three") and insert ("four").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend, Lady Young, I beg to move Amendment No. 2. This is the first of nine or ten Amendments which are being moved by the Government in fulfilment of undertakings which I gave at an earlier stage. This particular one fulfils an undertaking given by me to my noble friends Lord Kinnoull, Lord Henley, Lord De Ramsey and Lord Davidson in connection with the number of members who might be appointed to a regional water authority by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on the basis of their experience of land drainage, agriculture or fisheries. As your Lordships will see, the Amendment increases that figure from three to four.
The moving of this Amendment also gives me the opportunity of saying that agreement has now been reached on the actual number of members the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will be appointing to each of the regional water authorities. These numbers will be specified in the Order which falls to be made, after the Royal Assent, under

19
Clause 2(4). They are to the Anglian, Severn-Trent and Thames Water Authorities four members, to the North-West Yorkshire Authority three members, to the Northumbrian, Southern, South-West and Western, two members. I hope that the noble Lords concerned will agree that this Amendment meets the point they make. I beg to move.
LORD HENLEY: May I thank the noble Lord. This Amendment does meet the requests put forward by myself and various other noble Lords.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, it is not my intention to speak against the Government Amendment, but I should like to make one or two comments and take this opportunity of seeking assurances from my noble friend. For it seems to me that an increase in the number of R.W.A. members appointed by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food could result in one of two things, especially, as my noble friends have said, in regard to certain authorities where there would be four members. In the first place, it could result in an increase in the total membership of the authority; or, secondly, the result could be that there would be a decrease in the number of members appointed by the Secretary of State, and if the second alternative were to happen, the diminution in the numbers appointed by the Secretary of State could easily lead to a decrease in the number of industrial members appointed.
Already during the Committee stage I thought my noble friend Lord Sandford was not over-forthcoming when he said, in column 442 of Hansard of June 11 last:
"…I would confirm that … somebody representative of water-using industry is certainly to be considered in making up the composition of a regional water authority."
I do not know how many people make up "somebody", but it seems rather limited. While no doubt it is appropriate that several members should be appointed by the Minister, as my noble friend Lord Sandford said, these should be persons knowledgeable in matters of agriculture, fisheries and land drainage. Would not my noble friend agree that a local authority representation will largely and effectively cover the public
20
interest? That being so, I think there is a very strong case indeed for the majority—and I stress the word" majority"—of members appointed by the Secretary of State being suitable persons with an industrial background.
There are two reasons for this. One is that industry is the largest user of water, particularly in areas of industrial concentration; secondly it is within the category of largest user of water that one could certainly find top-echelon people with considerable experience—and these qualifications are important—in all aspects of management, organisation, planning, technical direction and financial control, not forgetting the importance of being accustomed to decision-taking processes.
In conclusion, may I ask my noble friend for an assurance first of all that there will be no—and I repeat, no—diminution as a result of the Government's Amendment in the number of persons appointed by the Secretary of State; that is to say, persons with an industrial background? Secondly, I ask for the assurance that the majority of the members appointed by the Secretary of State will be persons with considerable experience in management and knowledgeable in running large organisations, because I think my noble friend would agree that this should make a valid contribution to the viability of these new authorities.
VISCOUNT AMORY: My Lords, I should like to ask my noble friend a question which is rather comparable to that asked by my noble friend Lord Merrivale, but dealing with local authority members. I ask that this slight change will not upset the proportion of the regional authorities which it is intended should be composed of members specified by the local authorities.
LORD SANDFORD: I am glad to give the assurance asked for by both my noble friends. The Amendment slightly modifies the balance but not, to use my noble friend's words, so as to upset the important feature for which we have all along striven—that there shall be an overall majority of local authority representatives on each regional water authority. My other noble friend asked for an assurance that the needs of industry, as being one of the greatest users of water, were not going to be overlooked. I can give

21
him that assurance, and also the assurance that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State will be looking for members with experience of the management of large industries and concerns. In giving him that assurance, I should not wish my remarks to be taken as implying that the experience was not also available among local authorities, because I am sure it is.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
3.19 p.m.
LORD SANDFORD LORD SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 4, line 40, after first ("county") insert ("or of a county in Wales").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 3, which is little more than a drafting Amendment. Clause 3 at present provides for the appointment of members of regional water authorities to represent metropolitan counties and non-metropolitan counties but not members to represent counties in Wales, which under the Local Government Act of 1972 are a separate category. The Amendment ensures that the same numbers of members can be appointed for the Welsh counties as for a non-metropolitan county of England, provided that the population test is satisfied in the same way. This is necessary because the Severn-Trent Water Authority will include in its area a substantial part of mid-Wales and the new county of Powys will therefore be represented on it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
3.20 p.m.
BARONESS WHITE BARONESS WHITE moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 5, line 26, leave out subsection (10).
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is simply a move to endeavour to obtain information; I have no real wish to leave out subsection (10). Those of your Lordships who were here will recall that when I was trying to obtain information about the proposed structure of the Welsh Authority that information was not at that time forthcoming. I shall be glad to know just what the Government propose and what their timetable is for what will presumably be an interim arrangement for the Welsh Authority. Your Lordships will see that this is subject to the Affirmative Resolution procedure in Parliament; therefore it seems
22
to me it is going to run pretty tightly for time, as we are still not entirely in the concluding stages of this Bill.
Beyond that, I should very much like to have from the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, who I presume is to speak for the Government, just what the numerical composition of the Welsh National Water Authority is to be and, in particular, what is to happen to Powys, which presumably will have representation on this Authority as well as on the Severn-Trent Authority, because parts of Powys are not included in the Severn catchment area. Is there any suggestion that there shall be cross representation from the Severn-Trent Authority on the Welsh National Water Development Authority, as there is provision in the earlier part of Clause 3(4) that there shall be a member of the Welsh Authority sitting on the Severn-Trent Authority. Perhaps we could be vouchsafed this information. I beg to move.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I hope I can go some way towards satisfying the noble Baroness's question. I am delighted to know she has no wish to leave out the entire subsection, which would have rather an unfortunate effect on the Bill. The interim constitution for the Welsh Authority has not been finally decided, but it is intended that the draft Order shall contain provisions for every county in Wales, and that includes Powys, for two counties in England, Cheshire and Hereford and Worcester, to appoint one member to the Authority, and for the districts within each of those counties to appoint one member each. So the total local authority membership of the Welsh Authority as proposed will be 20 members.
BARONESS WHITE: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but I am not quite clear. Does he mean that the Cheshire districts and the Hereford and Worcester districts between them appoint one member?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, each county will appoint one member; each Welsh county, and the two English counties of Cheshire, and Hereford and Worcester (which is one county), will each appoint one member, so that gives a total of 10; then the district councils in each county—the same 10 counties—will also appoint one member each, so that will

23
bring the total to 20 members from the local authorities. Proposals for ministerial appointments will not be finally decided until the Bill has become an Act and we know exactly what Parliament has resolved with regard to the regional water authorities in England. But, whatever is decided, I can give the noble Baroness this assurance: that there will be more than a bare majority of local government members on the Welsh National Water Development Authority. Without prejudice to Parliamentary consideration and the Welsh Authority's constitution Order, letters have recently been sent to the local authorities concerned inviting them to consider whom they might wish to appoint to the Authority. This is in order to minimise any possible delay once the Order has been passed. Letters have also gone to various interested bodies, Welsh bodies, such as the appropriate Welsh authorities of the C.B.I., T.U.C., Countryside Commission and so forth, asking them to suggest names which the Secretary of State might consider for his appointees. I hope that goes some way at least to clarify the position for the noble Baroness.
BARONESS WHITE: My Lords, I think the noble Lord did not quite answer my question about timetable. Are the Government hoping to have this Order approved before we rise for the Summer Recess?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, the Order has to be laid within one month of the Bill's receiving Royal Assent.
BARONESS WHITE: Yes, my Lords, but it is the Affirmative Resolution procedure, and therefore it has to be placed before both Houses of Parliament. That is why I am asking whether we can hope to get it done so that we can get a move on with the organisation. Otherwise, if we have to wait until October, it seems to me that the Welsh Authority will be at a disadvantage.
LORD ABERDARE: We are getting rather like Committee stage, but if I may, with permission, answer the noble Baroness, we are in the same position as the English Authorities, who also have to bring their processes into effect within a month of passing of the Bill.
BARONESS WHITE: My Lords, with that explanation I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 5, which again is little more than a drafting Amendment. At present, the subsection in question mentions reference to a Select Committee of either House, but a Private Bill can in certain circumstances be referred also to other types of Committee.
The Amendment is designed to take account of that. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 2, after ("Select") insert ("or other").—(Lord Sandford.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4 [Establishment and functions of National Water Council]:
BARONESS WHITE BARONESS WHITE moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 6, line 39, leave out ("the") and insert ("a").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, perhaps in moving this Amendment I may say how delighted I am to receive a note from Lord Aberdare about my preceding Amendment, saying that they are hoping to get this matter through before the Recess. I beg to move Amendment No. 6. It might be convenient to take Nos. 6 and 7 together, because although they are not on precisely the same point they do have a bearing one upon the other. May I first address my remarks to Amendment No. 6? The reason for submitting this Amendment is that in the Bill as it stands it appears to me that the Government have been far too categoric in referring to the national policy for water, because, taken at its face value, that would appear to mean that once for all a national policy had been determined and that this was something received from Mount Sinai and never to be altered. I am sure that is not in fact what any intelligent Government would propose.
On the other hand, one is a little concerned at reading paragraph 7 in the extremely interesting paper, to which I wish to refer further and which was circulated on June 21 by the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, on this whole question of the central organisation of research and

25
planning. In paragraph 7 there is reference to a general framework within which detailed planning must be carried out. The paragraph goes on:
"Fortunately, this framework is already provided by the work of the Water Resources Board for they have examined the possible large new source of water for the whole of England and Wales and have studied their possible combination to meet various patterns of expected demand …".
and so on. Up to a point that is quite true. We have not yet received the final report, what I call the swan song, of the Water Resources Board, but when we do presumably it will set out in terms what appears to be the framework within which our longer-term planning must now take place. Nevertheless changes do occur, knowledge is extended, circumstances alter, and therefore it appears to me that to refer to "a national water policy" would be a good deal more satisfactory than to insist on calling it "the national water policy".
The really important Amendment on this clause is Amendment No. 7, which we put down in an endeavour to meet the doubts and difficulties which a good many people, both inside and outside this House, felt in relation to the Government's concept of the way in which they propose to organise planning and research in the future. The document which the noble Lord very kindly circulated to us and which I hope all noble Lords who are interested have received (I know there was a fairly wide postal circulation of this paper and it is also available in the Printed Paper Office) is a most revealing document. I was extremely interested to read it because it sets out with far greater clarity than anything we have hitherto seen the thinking behind the Government's proposition. I hope I may be forgiven for saying that reading between the lines one cannot help having a certain suspicion—perhaps not well founded but certainly in my mind—that possibly one of the reasons why the Government did not accept the advice of the Water Resources Board on this matter, which is set out with great forcefulness in the introduction to their ninth report, was what one might call a certain professional jealousy of the Department for the success of the Water Resources Board. I do not think there is any other way of interpreting this document.
As we have all said, both in this House and in another place, the Water Resources Board has been one of the success stories of public administration in the last decade, but if one looks at the explanatory paper, particularly paragraphs 10 and 11, it is made very plain that in the view of the Department, and presumably therefore the Government, the Water Resources Board have been going further than the Government like. They have been thinking too hard; they have been accused of having made political judgments. My Lords, I believe that the word "political" in this sense is being used erroneously. I do not believe for a moment—and as a Minister I had undertakings and negotiations with the Water Resources Board—that they were doing anything which by any stretch of the imagination one could call Party political. Had they been doing that, any such criticism would have been well founded because it would have been entirely improper for such an organisation to take Party sides in any matters in which they were to advise the Government, not least because they themselves are civil servants and as such have to obey the normal rules of the game.
Surely, what is meant here is that the Board was making value judgments, which is not the same thing as political judgments. Such value judgments may take into account social matters, economic matters and political matters only in the sense that if, for example, you are proposing to have a large reservoir in mid-Wales you know that there will be political trouble. In that sense they may have been taking political judgments, but any intelligent person who knew anything at all about the background of any such enterprise would do so. So it seems to me that the criticism in this paper is really of extreme importance for bodies of this kind because this is setting out a philosophy on the terms on which such scientific advisers should presume to advise Governments. It is saying, in paragraph 11, for example:
"The Central Water Planning Unit"
which is now proposed under the Government scheme—
"will therefore be limited to producing the technical answers to the problems which it is asked to examine, but it will not be asked to select one in preference to another."

27
In the preceding paragraph it had been propounded that if you select one in preference to another you are making what is called—as I say, I think wrongly—a political judgment. I say you are making a value judgment.
I ask myself, supposing I were someone well versed in these matters of water planning, should I wish, if I were really at the top of the tree, to work under this sort of limitation? Should I not work far better if my remit were to make certain that one had all the possible facts and all the possible options, but that then one used one's intelligence, which is a fusion of one's basic scientific knowledge with the total situation which one is asked to study, and, on suitable occasions obviously, one said, "We have looked at all these possibilities, (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), and, taking everything into account, in our considered judgment we say that (c) or (d) is to be preferred". Whether the Minister then accepts that advice is of course entirely up to him. It is he who makes the political judgment in the proper sense of the word "political", and presumably he would then take advice from his Department.
It is these comments on the way in which the Water Resources Board and the Department work, and the way in which a somewhat comparable body—although we have said frequently already, with different terms of reference—might work in the future which worry me. The Government obviously have been influenced by their advisers into taking this line of thought. I do not think that it is going to produce people of the highest quality who would be prepared to work under such limitations. I think you are putting a limitation on the way in which the best minds work. There are, as we all know, scientists and scientists, as there are in other professions. There are those who work best within a fairly narrow field where they know more and more about less and less, but there are others who have the kind of creative imagination which one needs in these circumstances, who are not satisfied with the barest of facts but who, to my mind rightly and properly, want to put those facts into their proper context and use their intelligence to form rational judgments as to the probable effect of what they may be recommending to Ministers.
28
This is one thing which worries me very much about the Government's attitude towards this question.
Furthermore, when one considers this document, one finds that towards the end of paragraph 11, about the relationship between the Central Water Planning Unit and the National Water Council, the document says:
"The Government consider it essential to ensure that in this work the Unit is fully independent not only of the Department but also of the water industry itself".
One must recall that this is a planning unit which will be advising on planning schemes of one sort or another, presumably the major schemes which would be of such national importance that they could not be left exclusively to the regional water authorities. It continues:
"… the programme of work"—
of this planning unit—
"will be determined by a steering committee which will be presided over by the Chairman of the National Water Council with members drawn from the Council, the Water Research Centre and Government Departments."
But, my Lords, if the programme of work is going to be determined by the steering committee which includes, so far as one can judge, as full members, the representatives of Government Departments, how does it maintain its independence of the Government Departments?
I am supposing that the Government Departments concerned would be the Department of the Environment, the Welsh Office and the Ministry of Agriculture. If your programme of work is to be determined by a steering committee on which these Departments are fully represented, how can you then maintain your complete independence of the Departments? The two things do not go together, and I should be glad to have a further explanation from the Minister about this. We are told that the Director of the Unit will be responsible for his own publications, but again he is subject to the steering committee being satisfied that the questions posed have been covered. In other words, he is not completely independent even in the matter of publication.
I am glad to see further on that the Government reiterate what has been said before, that there should be opportunities for interchange of staff. I wonder whether

29
there is any significance in the National Water Council being omitted from the various staffs mentioned. It is not included. The staff of the Unit, the staff of the regional authorities, the staff of the Water Research Centre, the staff of the Director General of Water Engineering and the Department of the Environment are in here, but not that of the Water Council. If that is significant, I think that we should have an explanation. So far as the Planning Unit is concerned, we are not happy about the Government's attitude to the way in which these national planners are to engage on their work; we are not satisfied that they will really be independent of the Department; and we are not happy on our side that the National Water Council will not be able to do very much more than be a sounding board for the views of the regional water authorities and the various other organisations that are mentioned, the C.B.I., the N.F.U., the amenity societies, and so on. I am sure that it would exercise a useful function there as a go-between between the Government and these various bodies, but it will not, as a Council, have any kind of real responsibility for the work of the Planning Unit because this is going to be shared by the various other people referred to as members of the Steering Committee, including the Government Departments. Therefore, it will not be a really independent adviser of Ministers. I think that the noble Viscount, Lord Ingleby, said at an earlier stage that if it came to planning matters, this lack of independence would seem to be of a considerable constitutional importance.
I do not wish to speak at much greater length, because I hope that one or two other noble Lords who have knowledge of these matters of research and planning will intervene in the debate. I have had apologies from a number of noble Lords who have very strong views on this matter but who are unable to be here to-day; in particular, of course, the noble Lord, Lord Sinclair of Cleeve, who intervened on an earlier occasion. The noble Lord, Lord Molson, is sorry he cannot be here, as is the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook. I do not pretend that the noble Earl is completely of one mind with us because I do not think he had been following the Bill with such close attention as have the
30
noble Lords, Lord Sinclair of Cleeve and Lord Molson; but I hope that nevertheless he may be able to come in at some later stage in our deliberations. I am sure that your Lordships will appreciate that one of the objects of the Amendment which is before us—while it is by no means the same as the argument that arose over the Nature Conservancy Council Bill, it nevertheless has a certain element of similarity with it—is that we want to make sure that, if it should prove desirable, the National Water Council may itself undertake such planning or research work as we think may be necessary for it in order to carry out its other duties.
When we discussed this previously the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, pointed out that neither the Research Centre nor the Planning Unit is mentioned in the Bill, and this was one reason he gave for resisting an earlier Amendment which would have included them specifically as pan of the National Water Council. Those Amendments were not accepted by the Government, and therefore it seemed to me that instead of being as specific as those earlier Amendments had been which, with the Government's philosophy, might have caused some difficulties, it was better to have a situation in which the National Water Council would be enabled to extend its activities if this proved to be a sensible way of doing things. If we do not make some such Amendment to the Bill as the one proposed—and if the drafting of it is not acceptable we could of course have consultations before Third Reading—it might be very difficult, even if experience proved it to be desirable, for the National Water Council fully to carry out the functions that many of us think are necessary.
I have spoken more of the Planning Unit than the Water Research Centre. I understand from the paper circulated some of the difficulties about the Water Research Centre because of its conglomerate nature; nevertheless, it seems to me that the arrangements proposed in the Amendment could be used to meet any difficulties that might arise if the Water Research Centre was not able, or was unwilling, to carry out the kind of central research which I believe might be necessary and desirable in this field. I beg to move.

E.E.C.: COUNCIL OF MINISTERS' MEETING
3.47 p.m.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, with the leave of the House, and if it is convenient, I should like now to repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. It concerns the main matters considered in the Council of the European Communities since last reported to the House on May 23. The Statement is as follows:
"There have been in all five meetings of the Council—two of Foreign Ministers, two of Agricultural Ministers, and one of Finance Ministers.
"A meeting of Transport Ministers planned for June 25–26 was cancelled.
"The Council has made further progress in the work arising from the decisions of the European Summit Conference of October 1972.
"At the meeting of Foreign Ministers on June 25–26 agreement was reached on a document setting out an overall Community approach to forthcoming multilateral trade negotiations under the GATT.
"The Foreign Ministers also made substantial progress towards agreement on the Community's approach to negotiations with Spain, Israel, and the Maghreb in the context of the Community's policy towards the countries of the Mediterranean following decisions taken by the Agricultural Ministers on June 18–19 on the possible agricultural content of such a policy.
"The Council has discussed further the Community's future relations with the developing countries of the Commonwealth and countries already associated with the Community under the Arusha and Yaounde Conventions.
"These developing, countries have been invited to an opening conference on July 25–26 at which the Community will give a broad outline of its proposals on the form of a new Association Agreement.
"These proposals will be subject to further discussion in the Council in July on the basis of ideas put forward by the Commission.
32
"The Council has continued its consideration of a Community policy on development co-operation on a worldwide scale.
"The Council has agreed that the provisional location of the European Monetary Co-operation Fund shall be in Luxembourg subject to certain conditions including a review by June 30, 1975.
"The Community Finance Ministers meeting on June 28 discussed the current economic situation and the continuing need for action on a Community scale against inflation.
"They agreed that this was the most serious economic problem facing the Community and adopted a resolution setting out the determination of all Member Countries to pursue policies aimed at slowing down the rate of increases of prices.
"The Finance Ministers also discussed a Report by the Commission on the second stage of Economic and Monetary Union which is due to come into effect on January 1, 1974.
"The Council reaffirmed the Communities' commitment to this move and agreed that there should be further detailed technical study of the Commission's proposals for the second stage preparatory to the subject being considered again in the Council later in the year.
"The Commission also gave a brief oral account of its reports on reserve pooling and short-term monetary management. These will be discussed at the next meeting.
"I now turn to Article 154 of the Treaty of Accession.
"As the House knows, under this Article the Commission was required to supplement by July 1 its Communication of June 23, 1971, dealing with central and peripheral areas in a manner which took account of the enlargement of the Community and placed all the Member States in the same position over the arrangements for co-ordination of regional aids in the Community.
"At its meeting on June 27, the Commission reached an agreement for this purpose.

33
"The effect is that the central areas of the United Kingdom have been defined as our non-assisted areas and our Intermediate areas.
"The precise classification of the remaining areas of the United Kingdom has been held in abeyance, pending a major Community-wide review to be carried out in this field by the Commission.
"Their aim is to determine by December 31, 1974, a more complete and detailed system than that communicated in 1971.
"This would take account of the variety of different regional problems of the enlarged Community.
"Such an intention is wholly welcome to us, as contributing in a more sophisticated way to the restraint of excessive bidding and counter-bidding between Member States and even regions for mobile investment projects.
"As is known, Her Majesty's Government's view in this matter is shared by both the T.U.C. and the C.B.I.
"Meanwhile those areas of the United Kingdom not classified as central will be treated as at present.
"We shall wish, of course, to keep the Commission informed of the aid we give in respect of major projects.
"As far as our central areas are concerned, the standard aid will be well within the 20 per cent. authorised.
"The Commission have also told us that the present arrangements allow of higher levels of support being acceptable if cases of special difficulty arise and, in particular, they have given us assurances as to measures we might consider necessary to relieve the consequences of major steel redundancies in the intermediate areas.
"The outcome of these discussions is wholly satisfactory."
My Lords, that is the end of the Statement.
3.53 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I am sure we are all grateful to the noble Baroness, and I should like to offer to her my warmest possible congratulations on making so interesting a piece of non-information like this. I wonder whether she can tell us where we can go for the
34
substance behind these various remarks. We learn that the Council has made further progress, that agreement was reached on a document, that substantial progress was made towards agreement, that the Council has continued its consideration, that the Community Finance Ministers will discuss further, and so on. Where can we go for what is behind those words? On the question of the finance discussions—and I would agree that this is really the most important problem which faces us at the present time—since sterling is something like 14 per cent. below the original Smithsonian parity, can the noble Baroness tell us to what extent our obligations to the Community are increased, now that we have floated so far down in relation to the other European countries? In relation to the latter part of the Statement—which when we get a copy of Hansard, we shall wish to study very closely because it would appear to be a fact that there is more information there about the regional policy—can the noble Baroness say whether there is any other document to which we can turn for further information?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Lord feels that this is a Statement of non-information, because I think he was one of the first noble Lords to ask that regular progress Statements should be made to this House, and that is basically what this Statement is. Regarding the documents, the document on the GATT, for example, will be available in the usual way in the Printed Paper Office once the translation has been made. Perhaps I may just say that I thought the Statement had some very positive and very important matters in it as regards regional policy, which is of considerable interest to this country, and I should have said that it gave a great deal of information.
As regards the financial obligations which, as the noble Lord knows, are extremely complicated, the fact remains that although sterling is still floating we have of course undertaken that we shall return to a fixed parity when we consider that it is in our reasonable interests, and indeed in the interests of the Community, to do so. The noble Lord asked in particular whether there is any document about the regional policy. I must tell

35
the noble Lord that at present there is not, because that relates to Article 92 and Article 93 of the Treaty, and it is of course a provisional arrangement until a new system is devised in the Community, which takes into account the problems not only of agricultural areas but of industrial areas.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, may I say that it was precisely because I wanted information that I thought we really must have this Statement, even though I was not too optimistic about factual information. The noble Baroness did not really answer my point about our financial commitments to the E.E.C., in the light of the continuing downward float of sterling. What I asked was: what is the amount of our increased commitment to the E.E.C. in terms of sterling? With regard to the regional policy, I think I said that I thought the Statement was most forthcoming, but here again there is no indication about the definition of the areas, and I wonder to what extent Parliament here is permitted to have its say as to how the various areas should be defined.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, as the noble Lord knews well, we have our own arrangements in this country for special development areas and for development areas. These will not be defined as peripheral areas. They are being left as they are; in other words, we can continue to give exactly the same amount of regional aid in the same way as we do at present. Those parts of the country which are now defined as intermediate areas, as well as those areas which are not assisted at all, will come within the definition of the "central areas". The noble Lord will remember that the E.E.C. limitation on aid given to central areas is 20 per cent., and our level at the moment approximates to 4 per cent. But on top of that, if there were particular difficulties—for example, if there were steel closures—we should be able, even in the intermediate areas, to give some special assistance; and we have, of course, undertaken to tell the Community of any large aid project which we feel is necessary. So far as our commitment is concerned, despite the change in currency
36
—which might also affect the German mark, for example—our commitment as to the percentage of the Community budget which we give in each year still remains the same as a percentage.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: My Lords, will the noble Baroness tell us how the central and peripheral planning of the E.E.C. differs from our own ideas about regional policy? This is a most sensitive area for us, and I should like to know how the E.E.C's. arrangements differ from our own ideas on the subject.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, the noble Baroness asked specifically about the central areas. They do not differ from our own idea of what are central areas; in other words, that one should give aid which is transparent, which can be seen. The idea of having central areas at all is to try to avoid a bidding among all members of the Community for these big mobile industries in areas which do not really need them.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, may I thank the noble Baroness for that long Statement while saying that it puts some of us at a disadvantage not to have had previous notice of it because we cannot possibly ask constructive supplementary questions. May I make an effort to do so, however, by asking the noble Baroness if she is aware that centripetal forces are now working in the E.E.C. and that the German Financial Minister Scheel himself seems to be getting bored with it? Secondly, despite the fact that to-day at the Royal Show at Warwick Mr. Soames said that C.A.P. had nothing to do with the English cost of living, will the noble Baroness be prepared to admit that the fact that we have abandoned the sterling area in favour of a floating pound is one of the vital factors in our cost of living? Finally, so far as Cardiff is concerned, we have a lobby on the steel industry which is going to lose £36 million on wages in the Cardiff area and its periphery unless we can find some answer to the British steel problem that will satisfy this traditional home of steel? In this connection, may we at some time have a half-day debate on this very important Statement given to-day?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, on the question of a half-day debate, this is a matter that I think I should draw to the attention of my noble friend the Leader of the House. On the question of whether I am aware of centrifugal—
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: Centripetal, Ostpolitik—
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, if it is forces which draw towards the centre that are in the noble Lord's mind, I may say that it is for that reason that the central areas have been defined. They are meant to avoid drawing industry inevitably into the central areas. So far as the floating of the pound is concerned, I think the noble Lord will agree from various Statements and debates that have taken place on this matter that this was the correct decision to make at the time. My right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has given a pledge that he will return to a fixed parity as soon as he considers it correct to do so. On the question of Cardiff, certainly I understand the problems of steel in that area; and that is why I said that we had the assurance that even in that kind of area we should be able to give help if needed.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness whether she is aware that what she has given us is largely a series of headlines without the facts on which those headlines are based? Can we therefore have statements of the various pieces of evidence which were put forward in the discussions so that we may be able to judge of those particular matters? In particular, can the noble Baroness tell us what lay behind her bare statement that a discussion took place, or a paper was submitted, with regard to the slowing down of the increase in prices? Can we have the fullest information about what was contained in that document?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVTE: My Lords, I think it is inevitable, when a progress report is made to your Lordships' House, that there are occasions when one cannot say what conclusions have been reached because matters are still under negotiation. The noble Lord will be aware also that the proceedings within the Council are themselves private, although the fact remains
38
that certain documents are translated and made available. And I refer particularly to the documents on the proposals about discussions on the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. About prices, the Community adopted a resolution on a counter-inflation policy, and as soon as the official English text is agreed it will be made available to the House.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the noble Baroness will remember that last Wednesday we had a debate on the E.E.C. institutions and about the relationships of the national Parliaments. I hope that the noble Baroness will agree that it is not a very sensible procedure to break into the Report stage of a Bill to receive a report of one month's work of the Council of Ministers. Will the noble Baroness not agree that we need to look at the procedures of this House not only to ensure that we fully understand and appreciate what is being decided by the Council of Ministers, and is binding on this State, but also to consider ways and means by which Ministers may be informed prior to the meeting of the Council of Ministers so that the Ministers may be aware of what Parliament has in mind? We need to look at our procedures and not to continue with this inadequate process. We accept that by so doing the Government have met an undertaking they gave, but it is a procedure totally inadequate for the circumstances and importance of this subject.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVTE: My Lords, the noble Lord is a member of the Select Committee on Procedure. He more than anyone else will know what is in the mind of that Committee on how this House should discuss draft instruments and thereby inform their Ministers on the actions that they may take in discussions within the Community. But my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy thought it important that the House should have a Statement, particularly on Regional Policy which is a matter of great importance. That being so, he thought it right to record the type of discussions which have been going on, many of which are of a very long-term nature.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, may I make it clear that I was not complaining,

39
but merely seeking to point to the complete inadequacy of our present procedures?
VISCOUNT AMORY: My Lords, will my noble friend agree that a short progress report covering a very broad field is bound to be of a very general nature and will inevitably lead us to feel that our appetite for more information cannot be satisfied by a single Statement of this kind? Having said that, I should like to ask my noble friend whether she agrees that this particular Statement could be summarised as saying: "So far, so good." In relation to one sector of the field, international currency and the monetary aspects, I would guess that progress is going to be very slow and I would ask whether my noble friend thinks that in that sector we shall have to get used to progress on the lines of what I think Mr. Baldwin called "the inevitability of gradualness".
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Amory very much for having agreed that in a progress report like this, where many of the problems are of a long-term nature, it is better to have the information in this way than not to have it at all. If you take, for example, a problem such as reserve pooling, when it is being suggested that there should be economic and monetary union and full pooling by 1980, it is not the kind of question to discuss in a Statement across the Floor of the House.
LORD RITCHIE-CALDER: My Lords, will the Minister ask her noble friend to let us have our ball back? It was not Baldwin but Sydney Webb who talked about, "the inevitability of gradualness".
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, my noble friend said that it was Mr. Gladstone.
BARONESS WHITE: My Lords, Mr. Baldwin certainly practised it.
VISCOUNT AMORY: My Lords, there has been a suggestion by one of my noble friends that it is attributable to neither of those but to Mr. Sydney Webb.

WATER BILL
4.10 p.m.
Report stage resumed.
LORD RITCHIE-CALDER: My Lords, I should like to support my noble friend Baroness White on this Amendment, and I have a feeling that even in the term of life which the present Government have they might be grateful to us for it. I have studied this very useful document, this brief, or whatever we may call it—I do not quite know what it is. We have a Green Paper and a White Paper; I do not know what colour we call this one. Anyway, we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, for letting us have his observations on this matter. As my noble friend has pointed out, it reveals something very significant, and I entirely agree with her. I think that what is reflected in this Paper, and indeed in the Bill itself, is the success of what I would almost call the conventional Departmental approach to people who have ideas. The fact that this is now being embodied in something which is supposed to be the liberation or the aggregation, or whatever it is, of Departments into something more constructive makes quite clear to me what has happened.
I have of course studied the Water Resources Board very carefully over the years and, like my noble friend Baroness White, I have a great deal of respect both for its integrity and for its frankness. It is obvious that what is being reflected in the present Bill is an antagonism towards people who have the honesty to stand up and say things in matters which are in fact too dangerous to be left to politicians—and I say this apropos what we are discussing. The water issues to-day are far beyond anything we can discuss in terms of conventional politics. We have had a Freedom from Hunger Campaign, and in my function as a Doomsday man I say that we shall one day have a Freedom from Thirst Campaign. I think the world at large will have to face this issue in terms which will take a great deal of imagination and a great deal of insight, and it will indeed affect this country in a very serious way.
Therefore, in asking your Lordships to insert the words,
"and to carry out or commission such planning and research as may be required

41
adequately to fulfil such duties, in particular in relation to a national water policy;",
I would simply point out that, so far as I can see from the papers and the Bills I have studied, any research or insights which can be valid at regional level are certainly not going to be valid in the kind of situation which we are going to confront presently and probably are confronting now. Indeed, from the point of view of the Water Resources Board we are confronting it now in terms of what in fact should be a national policy and, in that relationship, an international policy as well. I therefore think that perhaps the Ministers opposite might consider that we are doing them a service by giving them at least this Amendment, which will enable them within their own short lifetime to give effect to something which some Government presently will have to do, to provide what I regard, by and large, as a very effective approach to the problem.
4.13 p.m.
Loan WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, this Amendment is dealing with the question of research to be carried out by the National Water Council. Your Lordships will be aware that we have at the present time a Water Resources Board, and that that Water Resources Board is being abolished. The Water Resources Board itself has issued reports at intervals, as my noble friend Lord Ritchie-Calder has just said, and in the last report they issued they stated that they were strongly of the opinion that there must remain a central research organisation. They stated this quite emphatically. In their introduction they said:
"Nothing has happened since 1970",
when they made this statement,
"to cause us to modify our view that a national authority on these lines is needed".
Now I know that it is the habit of Governments to ignore the opinions of those bodies which have been set up in order to do a job, and very often the better the body does its job the more likely it is that a Government will dislike its recommendations and wish to abolish it. But if this Board is to be abolished then we want to know exactly what is being proposed by the Government to replace the research activities of the Board. I do not know whether the Water Resources Board has been an ideal Board or not. Few Boards are.
42
I do not know whether their research has been adequate. Research of this type rarely is adequate. But if we are going to abolish it, then surely we ought to know that something is being put in its place to do the job, not just as well as but better than the Board that is being abolished; otherwise, there is no sense in abolishing the Board.
Now we have this useful memorandum that the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, has distributed, and there are about three pages on the question of research. But I find it extremely difficult, in reading this document, to find a single sentence which defines what the new body, if it is set up —it is not mentioned in the Bill so far as I can see, but if a new body is set up —is going to do. We are told emphatically at one point that the new body, which is called the Water Research Centre (or will be called the Water Research Centre if it ever comes into being) is therefore based upon the form of a research association. This is an extraordinary statement to make, because the research association pattern is quite clearly defined, and as far as I can see there is nothing in the memorandum which lays out the organisation of this Water Research Centre in the same form as an industrial research association. I think it is not good enough at all for the Government to present a Bill and, in this Bill, to abolish the organisation which does centralised research, even if it does not do it well enough, and then to let us know in a casual way that something else is going to be created, and that even a name has been found for it. We are even told that it is to take the form of an industrial research association, but we are given no evidence at all that it is going to be an industrial research association.
An industrial research association is a body which is set up within an industry, usually where there is a large number of firms inside that industry, and where the industry, in its individual units, has not been able to carry on adequate research. Therefore, an industrial research association has been set up in order to get collaboration between a large number of these units, which units are normally concerned with a variety of activities. I have known a little about research associations. I was visitor to three of them at different times. For example, the Woollen Research Association, which I think is one

43
of the oldest and one of the best known, has a large number of members covering the whole range of the woollen industry. This research association has done very good work indeed. Why? Because the different units knew that there was a need for research, but they had not the resources to do the work effectively themselves, and therefore, by making a central contribution, they were able to get the work done.
Does this really apply to water? It seems to me that there is no analogy at all. Take the case of the coal industry. It has no research association now. It used to have; there used to be the B.C.U.R.A., but it has disappeared, for the simple reason that the industry set up its own centre of research. Now it is suggested to us that under the Government's Bill the various regional authorities will be doing research and will have their research groups. If they do, is there any inducement for them to contribute in addition to a central organisation for doing research? It seems to me that there is no inducement. We are told in this Memorandum that other organisations will come in. What are these other other organisations? We are not told. We are told that there will be some others coming in. Will they be powerful, independent units, able to dominate the association, or will they be trivial organisations contributing practically nothing to it? We do not know.
I submit, my Lords, that this is an extremely unsatisfactory position. Water is not an unimportant resource; it is among the most important resources that we have. It is extremely important that it be properly used and that we get as much water as possible. I am not certain about the figure, but I believe that at present only 5 per cent. of our rainfall is actually collected and used. This is something, surely, which has to be investigated in a central way and not left for each region to do its own particular job. So, my Lords, I think it vital that the central organisation should be doing research; and since the Government are setting up a National Water Council and propose the abolition of the Water Resources Board, surely it is clear and obvious that they ought to ask the National Water Council to be responsible for seeing that proper research activities
44
are maintained. Otherwise one is left with the suspicion that the Government are not interested in research in this matter.
4.23 p.m.
LORD ZUCKERMAN: My Lords, until I heard the noble Baroness, Lady White, I thought that I not only appreciated all the arguments set out in the Paper which I was pleased to receive, but that I also accepted the force of most of them. I understand why it is necessary to have independent planning. I understand why independence should be a necessary characteristic of the Water Research Centre. I understand that the 10 regional authorities would have to settle their own problems and set their own priorities in research. I also recognise the fact that the Water Research Centre is not, as now defined, acceptable either to Scotland or to the Government of Northern Ireland; and equally, that there are a number of industrial participants who would be denied participation if something different were done.
At the same time, there were certain questions which I felt it necessary to ask, and, having listened with attention to the noble Baroness, Lady White, I now feel that I must put my doubts a little more strongly than perhaps I should otherwise have done. My first question is, essentially, what is the relation of the Central Water Planning Unit to the National Water Council? We are told that it has to be independent, and I shall come to the question of what we mean by independence in a moment. But then, as was pointed out by the noble Baroness, in paragraph 7 of the document we were sent we read that the Central Water Planning Unit will be limited to producing technical answers to problems it is asked to examine. My Lords, is this independence for a planning unit? Is this the way one encourages initiative in a body of men who are to be responsible for putting up alternative and updated plans for the formulation of a national water policy? Because nobody could for all time define the national water policy, as was said by the noble Baroness, Lady White, any more than one could define for all time the defence policy of this country.
If it does not initiate, how then is it independent? And if in fact it does what

45
the National Water Council, or some other body, asks it to do, what is the responsibility of the National Water Council? I keep thinking in terms of my personal experience as a Government servant in the Ministry of Defence. There is a Secretary of State with responsibility, and he has advisers, military and civilian advisers. He has joint Chiefs of Staff. In my time they used to have, and I assume they still have, joint planners. The joint planners are meant to be independent in the sense that they have the knowledge to bring to bear at any given moment freely on problems which are of national import. But the responsibility is with the Chiefs of Staff to impart that information to the Secretary of State, and through him to the Cabinet—or so it was in my day.
Therefore, I come to the question: what do we mean by independence in this context? I would interpret it as the need to ensure that those people who are part of the Central Water Planning Unit do their work totally honestly and are not pushed round by political considerations, even though they may stray into the political field; and equally, that they can initiate, that they are not taking directions. If they are taking directions, we have to start differentiating between the question of independence, which I think can be assured, and that of responsibility. Because, as set out in this Paper, I do not see to whom the Central Water Planning Unit will be responsible. We are told that it has to be independent. We are given the reasons for the need for its independence, and that is why I should wish to interpret the word "independence" as different from what is implied here.
We are told what its staff will be and who its chairman will be. We are told where its members will come from. But what is the authority of the steering committee? This Paper does not tell me to whom the steering committee are responsible. I hope that if the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, is to reply he will give us some indication of where responsibility rests, because I, too, would urge that the word "independent" be interpreted in the sense that there are no constraints on the free expression of whatever genius resides in this Planning Unit in devising and keeping up to date a national water policy, and that responsibility is another matter.
46
I come to my second question, especially having heard the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady White: what is the relationship of the Central Water Planning Unit, which is now being set out slightly differently, with the Water Research Centre? Is an interchange of staff enough to make quite certain that the planners on the one hand and the research people on the other are reciprocally aware of each other's problems? In my experience this would not be the case. It is said here, and this is the defence as I understand it (I have had some talks outside your Lordships' House on these matters), that only a relatively small part of the water research now carried out is directly relevant to planning. Elsewhere I have read that it is something like 5 per cent. The figure here does not matter. The question whether it is relatively small does not matter. What matters is that the relatively small is absolutely critical to future investment policy. There can be no policy, no plan, made by people who are unaware of the technical possibilities which are coming up over the horizon.
I do not entirely agree with the noble Lord who spoke before me because I know what are to be the component parts of the Water Research Centre, as it is intended, in the same way that I know that the Water Resources Board never carried out research; it co-ordinated a certain kind of research of a planning variety, but it did not carry out laboratory research. What I am saying is that however widespread the day-to-day, bread and butter work carried out by the Water Research Association now, this does not in general matter to what future policy is likely to become. I would expect the Water Research Association to carry on this work as it does now. But unless an opportunity is given to scientists and engineers who are engaged in this field to exercise their imagination in planning and in the formulation of policy, we shall get what we deserve; and we would get another kind of thing if people who are engaged in the research function are allowed to contribute directly and intimately, and on a day-to-day basis, to the formulation of policy. This has applied throughout my experience in Whitehall.
I would say the same about the planners. If I were a member of a planning unit, I should like to be as up to

47
date in what is happening in the technical field as I should, if I were a research man, wish to know what changes were likely to take place in the field of policy because—and I think I have said this before in your Lordships' House—I reject utterly the proposition that we can subdivide our administrative life into one set of people who know what questions to put and another set of people who know how to provide the answers. That does not happen in the real world. We may have got ourselves into this tangle, but I am afraid that this is not the way it will work out in practice.
I should like to know therefore whether anything can be done for the Water Research Centre which is on a par with what is now proposed about the Planning Unit—except, as I have said, that I do not know where responsibility rests for the Planning Unit. Why should not the same steering committee look after both bodies? Why should not the same steering committee, with an interchange of top personnel between the planners and the research people, be set up? I have been told that what is proposed now implies participation in the Water Research Association of a vast number of people who would not otherwise be able to get together. One hundred and fifty people do not constitute a committee—and I think the figure given me as the number of people involved now is 142. I do not believe for one second that one determines the policy of a research association or of any research body as though one is dealing with a company of shareholders, however much they may have a central interest in the results.
Then, finally, I come to the question which has been raised: what is the function of the National Water Council? I see it as a body which, as the Bill says quite plainly, has a duty
"to consider, and advise any Minister on any matter relating to the national policy for water,"
and so on—and we are discussing at the moment an Amendment to that particular clause. I do not see this job being done with co-ordination unless the Council has immediate access to the work of the regional authorities.
The noble Baroness, Lady Young, sent me a kind and informative letter adding to the
48
information given to me when, on a previous occasion when this matter was being debated, I intervened to put a question. While this helps me a great deal, it does not, I am afraid, provide me with all the information that I want. I am told (I hope I have the noble Baroness's permission to quote from her letter) that,
"Subject to the terms of any directions which may be given by the Secretary of State it would be the responsibility of an individual water authority to decide whether to include any full-scale desalination plants in the plans and investment programmes required".
In the same way, the Bill says quite plainly that,
"It shall be the responsibility of each water authority to make arrangements for the carrying out of research and related activities in respect of matters within the authority's functions".
May I with respect point out that these two things—I use the first in illustration—would be an impossible responsibility to impose on any single regional water authority, because what any authority might do in this field would automatically affect other water authorities, and might even affect other matters which are outside the ambit of the responsibility either of the National Water Council or of the regional water authorities. For that reason, I believe it is essential to provide that the National Water Council have responsibility and a major voice in the co-ordination of the research done over the whole of this field. I say that not only because otherwise we might find there is unnecessary overlapping and a waste of resources, but because any single authority by itself might find itself forced to do things which will affect the well-being of other authorities.
These are early days, my Lords. I also heard the noble, Lord, Lord Sandford, say that the reason why these matters are not spelt out in the Bill is that we want to see which way the work actually gets done. I hope that an open mind will be kept about these matters, and that we are not setting up institutions in a rigorous way so that we will get them fixed into a kind of concrete and it becomes difficult to make any change. In short, I should like to be satisfied that the work of the Water Research Centre is co-ordinated by the same body that looks after the Central Water Planning Unit and I should like to know to whom the Central Planning Unit is responsible.
4.37 p.m.
LORD HENLEY: My Lords, I am afraid the answer to Lord Zuckerman's principal question is 'that the Central Water Planning Unit is the creature of the Department of the Environment, and not of the National Water Council which is what we all want. The noble Lord, Lord Sandford, may deny that, but he knows as well as I do that this is where we all stick. The Department of the Environment have dug in their toes and they wish to have control here. The noble Baroness said she hoped other noble Lords would speak. I find it difficult to know what to add. I have looked at everything that was said in Committee —we argued this in every direction possible—and I have looked at the arguments I produced myself, and I can find nothing that I left out or anything that was left out by any other noble Lords. Sometimes arguments about what the National Water Council should do got tangled up with what the regional water authorities should do. Nevertheless, we were all around the same point: that the National Water Council is nothing if it is not more closely involved in planning and research than the Government intend it to be. Here we are with the Government having come up with this rather lame idea, in the face of all the advice that has been given to them from the scientific, amenity, land and farming aspects: everybody has said the same thing throughout, and the only answer they have come up with is this Central Water Planning Unit. This is a body, as has been said over and over again, that is going to be judge and jury in its own case and will put Ministers to embarrassment. It will be a body which, instead of being forward-looking and one which initiates policy, will be subservient to the Department and to Ministers. The noble Lord can get out of this position, to some extent, if he will accept the Amendment of the noble Baroness.
VISCOUNT INGLEBY: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady White, touched on the subject of planning, and there is one point I should like to mention on the subject of public inquiries. If, for example, a new reservoir project gets to the stage of a public inquiry, it is likely at that stage, I should have thought, to have had some sort of unofficial blessing
50
from the Central Water Planning Unit. In that case, is it not desirable, if not essential, that the inspector should not be an employee of the Department but someone who is independent, such as a judge or a Q.C.?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, once again I think the House will be grateful, as I am, to the noble Baroness for having given us the opportunity for a further debate on the important topic of the central national water bodies that will be operating under the new dispensation provided by this Bill. I should like to thank her for her two Amendments. I agree that it is certainly convenient to discuss them together but to speak briefly to the first one. I would also agree that at this particular point there is perhaps a good deal to be said for using the word "a" rather than the word "the", if by so doing we make it clear that the role of the National Water Council is at least as much concerned with formulation of a water policy as with giving advice on a policy which is already settled and established. I would confirm that that is the Government's intention.
What I should like to do is to take this Amendment away to see whether it is possible to accept it. The only reason for having some doubts about it is the possibility that there might be unforeseen and unwitting effects on the rest of the Bill where "the" water policy is perhaps what we want to talk about. I do not think we want to use the word "a" in every case. So perhaps I could say, in answer to Amendment No. 6, that if the noble Baroness would be good enough not to press it now I should like to take it away and consider it.
The noble Baroness went on to express her thanks for the paper which has been circulated since the last stage. I am glad that noble Lords have found it helpful and frank—because my intention in producing it was to show as clearly, frankly and candidly as possible the reasons behind the arrangements that the Government were proposing. If it has revealed things which were previously hidden from your Lordships' understanding, so much the better.
BARONESS WHITE: So much the worse!
LORD SANDFORD: No, my Lords; whether we agree or not, I think it is

51
good that we should start with a clear understanding of what we are trying to do. The paper certainly set out to make clear that the Government share the views which have been generally expressed that the Water Resources Board has been a highly successful and valuable body. If this was not clear before, I am glad that we have been able to make it so now. There is no criticism in it and I hope there is no expression of professional jealousy on the part of the Department towards a highly successful board or any expressions of antagonism towards it. What has happened is that the Board has indeed had a successful period. The fact that it has made judgments which are described in the paper as being political is not the fault of the Board at all. I will not quarrel with the noble Baroness about the words, "political or value judgments". I think that is a point on which we agree. There are judgments to be made, some of which are purely professional and technical judgments which can be measured scientifically as a result of research; but there are others which go beyond the technical and which are involved in deciding precisely where to build a reservoir, and consideration as to whether it is a good thing to make incursions into a National Park, or, alternatively, to use up good farmland. These are judgments which go beyond those which a Water Research Centre or Water Planning Unit is primarily designed to take. This is what is meant here. It is not the fault of the Water Resources Board that their judgments have gone into that field: it is just a statement of fact.
The point I should like to stress is that, so far from looking at this as the abolition of the Water Resources Board, we must look on it as a point at which it is desirable, and indeed necessary, to extend its range of concern and to build upon its experience. A number of things have happened which make it quite certain that it cannot carry on exactly as it has in the past. A lot of regional planning which the Water Resources Board did before will now fall to regional water authorities. One of the reasons for setting them up is that they will be big enough to undertake this. It becomes absolutely essential to add considerations of quality to those of quantity, to which
52
the Water Resources Board have been restricted in the past. There has also been the opportunity and the necessity to bring together a whole lot of activities in research under the Water Research Centre.
I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, for his comment that the paper had been helpful. I would have been happier still if there had been any indication in his remarks that he had read as far as paragraph 14, because if he had done so he would have seen that the bodies that are coming together under the Water Research Centre, which contains the already existing Water Research Association, the Water Pollution Research Laboratory, the development division of our own Directorate-General of Water in the Department and the technology division of the Water Resources Board. That is all set out there in some detail.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: If the noble Lord will excuse me, I did read as far as that, but it did not seem to me that those bodies amounted to a research association. Essentially, that is a collection of certain existing bodies. A research association, as I understand it, is a body set up by industry with contributions from all the firms in the industry, and it is not just a case of bringing a number of existing laboratories together.
LORD SANDFORD: The Water Research Association is already in existence, and was created originally in the way to which the noble Lord referred—it was much approved of by the Report of my noble friend Lord Bessborough on the Water Research Centre. It is not something which is being created now ab initio as part of this devolution.
Perhaps this is the moment for me to comment to the noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman, who asked that the same steering committee for planning and research should be considered. Of course it has been, but I think he would agree, if he were to consider this particular set of national bodies very carefully, that it is not really feasible here because planning is something which has to be provided for the statutory bodies and for the regional water authorities in the first instance. But the research which is needed for them—and which of course they can commission—is also required for a whole

53
lot of other people: the water industry, Scotland, Northern Ireland and also, we hope, countries and commissions outside the United Kingdom altogether. So this is the main reason for not being able to have precisely the same committee; and I will come on to the business of the links between them in a moment or two.
LORD ZUCKERMAN: My Lords, would the noble Lord allow me to intervene? I fully accept that point. That is not the point I was trying to make. My main concern is that by making those considerations overriding, we are separating people in the research field from people in the planning field. They are separated geographically and in every conceivable way. It is my experience, as I have said, that whether you are a planner or a researcher you will benefit by working together.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I would absolutely agree with the noble Lord if the answer were just as I said, and we were doing nothing else about it. It is because we cannot have the same steering committee for each body that we have to make other arrangements. I will come to it in a moment.
I should like next to deal with the criticism, which I believe the noble Lord, Lord Henley, and others made, that the Central Water Planning Unit is somehow not as independent as the Water Resources Board. It is at least as independent as the Water Resources Board. It is composed of civil servants, as the Water Resources Board was, but it is more independent in that, so far from receiving its directions and instructions directly from the Department or the Secretary of State, as the noble Lord implied, there is a steering committee which is chaired by the Chairman of the National Water Council. It is not directly controlled by the Secretary of State. Several noble Lords were anxious that I should attempt to spell out more precisely of what its independence consisted. I do not think I can do better than put it in the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman, expressed it. It is free and independent of political considerations in the way it sets about making technical assessments that will be needed in order to develop the national water plan. It can put forward, and will put forward, a whole set of options based on purely
54
professional and technical considerations of what it is feasible to do in particular cases.
The next point of the many that were raised dealt with the interdependence of these bodies, and the way in which they will be related. The best thing I can do here is to draw on remarks which I may have used previously at an earlier stage, and I hope your Lordships will forgive me. In addition to being able to commission research directly, which is what the next Amendment specifically asks for, the National Water Council will have a voice in determining the general programme of work of the research centre in the following ways. The first is through the central role of the Council, with its representation on the steering committee of the Central Water Planning Unit and on the governing body of the Water Research Centre itself. The second is through the representation of the Water Research Centre on the steering committee of the Central Water Planning Unit, and probably through the representation of the Central Water Planning Unit on the Research Advisory Committee of the W.R.C. The third way is through the Central Water Planning Unit's placing contracts with the Water Research Centre for specific pieces of research. I hope that that goes some way to answering the noble Lord's anxieties on that score.
The steering committee of the Central Water Planning Unit will represent the views and consider the planning requirements as expressed by the regional water authorities, the National Water Council and the Government Departments, who will also be members of the steering committee. While I am mentioning the National Water Council, I should like to reassure the noble Baroness that there is no significance about the omission of the N.W.C. from paragraph 12 of this Paper, except in so far as it will have far fewer staff than any of the bodies that are mentioned. It could have been included but it is not really in the same class as the others so far as the interchange of staff is concerned.
Perhaps I may now follow the noble Baroness's invitation and consider her next Amendment at the same time as talking to this one. The question posed is: is there in practice anything that Amendment No. 7 would enable the

55
National Water Council to do that it would not be able to do under the Bill as it is now drafted? In answer, I can say categorically that there is nothing under the Bill which would prevent it from doing what that Amendment would enable it to do. This is because of the wide terms in which its powers are drawn up in the Schedule. It gives the Council power to do anything, whether or not involving expenditure, that would enable it to carry out the functions assigned to it by Clause 4.
I think the noble Baroness introduced the analogy with the Nature Conservancy Council which we were discussing a little time ago. As a result, we decided to move into the powers of the Nature Conservancy Council something which was not already in the Bill. The powers to act in the way described in her Amendment are already there. We should prefer to stop short of adding that to the duties and functions of the National Water Council, for the cogent reasons which several noble Lords expressed when we were discussing this matter; namely, that there is a strong case for avoiding duplication and fragmentation in matters of research and that the balance of the argument comes in favour of leaving research as the primary function and duty of the Water Research Council, while giving powers to the National Water Council to do the things set out in the Amendment of the noble Baroness if it is necessary, and if the Council desires to do it. The powers are there, and I hope that, now that I have been able to explain the point, the noble Baroness will not feel it necessary to press Amendment No. 7.
LORD BROWN: My Lords, may I interrupt? It appears that the noble Lord may be failing to observe the difference between importing into a Bill a duty (he used the word "duty" in referring to my noble friend's Amendment) and referring to the fact that the Bill is permissive, in the sense that the Water Council may do something as the Bill stands. There is a world of difference between an Act's saying, "You shall carry out this duty" and saying merely that there is nothing in the Act or the Bill to prevent a body doing something. It seemed to me that the noble Lord was not differentiating sufficiently between those two things.
LORD SANDFORD: I assure the noble Lord that I am. The whole thing hangs on that. If the noble Lord had heard our debates on the Nature Conservancy Bill he would have realised that it was hanging on this same issue. It is because I think it is important to give the National Water Council the powers to do what the noble Baroness's Amendment No. 7 would provide for, but not to go so far as making it part of the Council's statutory duties, that I should prefer to leave the Bill in that respect as it stands. I shall be glad to consider her Amendment No. 6.
BARONESS WHITE: My Lords, I will of course respond at once to the suggestion that I should not press Amendment No. 6, and I leave that for further consideration by the Government. It seems to me to be a sensible and intelligent Amendment. I can understand that the Government may wish to look at any consequentials in the Bill. But anybody with an objective mind who had listened to this debate—and particularly to the impressive and powerful speech of the noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman, who with his great experience knows what he is talking about in this field of the relationship between Government and research—would feel that the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, has not met the genuine anxieties of those who have been concerned ever since the beginning of our discussions with this matter of the relationships of the central bodies and in particular the rúle to be played by the National Water Council. He, frankly, did not in the least allay my anxieties as to the genuine independence of a body which was to be subject to a steering committee on which, as I understand it, members of the Government Departments were to sit as full members, not as assessors. I cannot see how one can say, therefore, that such a body can be independent. The noble Lord did not even refer to that. I would not wish to repeat the arguments that have been put so forcefully by the noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman, because they are on the Record, but I do not feel that the very searching questions put by the noble Lord were in the least adequately answered by the noble Lord, Lord Sandford.
Of course, I fully understand that in regard to Part II of Schedule 3, where the powers of the National Water Council

57
are described, he can argue—it is a perfectly valid point—that the Council
"shall have power to do anything…which…is calculated to facilitate, or is conducive or incidental to, the discharge of any of their functions".
But surely in legislating we want to be as sure as we can that any body which is set up under this Bill shall go further, as the noble Lord, Lord Brown, indicated. They merely have very wide and general powers; we want to give them an indication as to how we think they should exercise such powers. It is for those reasons that I wish to press Amendment No. 7. We must try to put it on the Record that we are not satisfied with the Government's concept on the relationship between planning and research or the relationship of either to the National Water Council. At the moment, at any rate, I can think of no better way of indicating our lack of conviction than by asking the House to support our Amendment No. 7.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down I might perhaps answer one of the points she made. Of course it is important to set down in the Bill as fully as we can the things we are sure about, but one of the things we are trying to do is to respond to the point that the noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman, was making. Here we are creating an entirely new set-up, regional water authorities and so forth. It is also
important to proceed with an open mind and to give ourselves a certain amount of flexibility to develop them. This is why we have ended up as we have.
BARONESS WHITE: My Lords, we are not on Committee stage, but, after all, the Amendment is carefully drafted so that the body would
"carry out or commission such planning and research as may be required adequately to fulfil such duties "
as are described. So there is a very wide flexibility there and room for manœuvre. We are not, in other words, tying down the Government, or the National Water Council, in the way in which, as I indicated, would have been so had an earlier Amendment at Committee stage been pressed.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
BARONESS WHITE: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 7.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 43, at end insert ("and to carry out or commission such planning and research as may be required adequately to fulfil such duties, in particular in relation to a national water policy").—(Baroness White.)
5.4 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 7) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 56; Not-Contents, 70.

CONTENTS

Amherst, E.

Green way, L.

Segal, L.

Archibald, L.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Serota, B.

Arwyn, L.

Hacking, L.

Shackleton, L.

Bacon, B.

Hale, L.

Shepherd, L.

Beswick, L.

Hanworth, V.

Shinwell, L.

Blyton, L

Henderson, L.

Slater, L.

Brockway, L.

Henley, L.

Somers, L.

Brown, L.

Hirshfield, L.

Stocks, B.

Byers, L.

Hood, V.

Summerskill, B.

Champion, L.

Ingleby, V.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Chorley, L

Kennet, L.

White, B.

Davies of Leek, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Wigg, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

McLeavy, L.

Williamson, L.

Douglas of Barloch, L.

Maelor, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Fulton, L.

Morris of Grasmere, L.

Wise, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Phillips, B. [Teller.]

Wright of Ashton under Lyne, L.

Garner, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Garnsworthy, L. [Teller.]

Sainsbury, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

George-Brown, L.

St. Davids V.

Zuckerman, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Brecon, L.

Amory, V.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Atholl, D.

Belstead, L.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, B.

Auckland, L.

Berkeley, B.

Carrington, L.

Chesham, L.

Harvey of Prestbury, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Coleraine, L.

Hawke, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Conesford, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Cottesloe, L.

Inglewood, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Courtown, E.

Jessel, L.

Sandford, L.

Craigavon, V.

Killearn, L.

Savile, L.

Daventry, V.

Kinnaird, L.

Selkirk, E.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Lauderdale, E.

Sempill, Ly.

Derwent, L.

Lothian, M.

Shannon, E.

Drumalbyn, L.

Lyell, L.

Sharples, B.

Ebbisham, L.

Mancroft, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Merrivale, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Emmet of Amberley, B

Milverton. L.

Falkland, V.

Monck, V.

Stratheden and Campbell, L.

Ferrers, E.

Mottistone, L.

Thomas, L.

Furness, V.

Mowbray and Stourton, L. [Teller.]

Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, B.

Gowrie, E.

Vivian, L.

Grenfell, L.

Northchurch, B.

Windlesham, L. (L. Privy Seal.)

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Wynford, L.

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

Oakshott, L.

Young, B.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

5.12 p.m.
LORD SANDFORD LORD SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 7A:
Page 7. line 3, leave out ("planning") and insert ("their functions with respect to the preparation, review and provision of plans under section 23 below").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 7A and to suggest that it would be convenient for the House if we were to consider with it Amendment No. 27A, because they cover rather similar points. Amendment No. 7A to Clause 4 follows upon the addition of planning to research as functions of the water authorities, whose efficient performance the National Water Council has a particular duty to promote and to assist. This was the result of an Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Henley, at the beginning of the second day of the Committee stage, and at that time I withdrew an alternative Government Amendment, largely because we wanted to get on to a general discussion of the kind we have just had, but I indicated then that I should need to consider returning to the charge at this stage. Since then we have had further discussions with the draftsmen of this Bill, particularly in the light of what the noble Lord, Lord Henley, said in Committee, and these two Amendments are the result of that further discussion and further consideration. The noble Lord, Lord Henley, will correct me if I am wrong, but I think his argument was that the original Government Amendment would restrict the functions of the Council by referring
60
to the planning functions of the water authorities as set out under Clause 23 of the Bill.
LORD HENLEY: My Lords, it is Clause 23(9).
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, if I may say so, I think that argument fails to take into consideration two points. The first is that the duties of the water authorities about planning are contained in Clause 23 and any reference to planning will therefore have to be read in the light of that clause, whether it is made explicit or implicit. Secondly, the words used would not have the effect of restricting the activities which the Council are empowered to undertake because they are merely selecting for special mention (as I think they must) the most important aspects of the general duty of the Council to promote and assist the efficient performance by water authorities of their functions. Nevertheless, we have sought to meet the noble Lord's point by using more general wording in Clause 4, while still making what we regard as the essential cross-reference to Clause 23, and also by dealing with a point which the noble Lord raised on the detailed drafting of Clause 23. At present this clause requires a water authority, in carrying out its planning functions, to consult with adjacent water authorities. The plans for a given water authority area, however, may have inter-relationships not merely with those of adjacent authorities but also with those of authorities further afield, and it does not take much imagination to see how easily that could happen. It is those points that Amendment No. 27A seeks

61
to take account of by amending Clause 23 so that a water authority will be required to consult any other water authority about its duty. I hope that explanation sets out the purpose of these Amendments and serves to remind your Lordships how we carry forward a matter which was raised at the earlier stage but not carried through to its conclusion. I beg to move.
LORD HENLEY: My Lords, so far as I can see, this Amendment meets my point. The original restriction which the noble Lord sought to put in his Amendment tied the activities of Clause 23(9), which in fact referred only to adjacent regional water authorities. It now refers not merely to Clause 23(9) but to the whole of Clause 23 and to that extent I think it will probably meet everything that I want. It also cuts out the words
"for an area or areas adjacent to that first mentioned authority",
which was the specific point I raised. So that although in principle I still like my own words "and planning" tout court I am perfectly prepared to accept that the view of the Government draftsmen is that their version is better. Subject to any other noble Lord pointing out to me that I have made a mistake, thank the noble Lord for his Amendment.
5.17 p.m.
LORD SANDFORD LORD SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 7, line 31, at end insert—
("(5A) If the Council establish any such scheme as is mentioned in subsection (5)(d) above, they shall secure that the scheme is administered by a committee of the Council which includes among its members persons representing the interests of regional water boards and water development boards in Scotland and of the Ministry of Development in Northern Ireland.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lady Young, I beg to move Amendment No. 8. This is another Amendment which fulfils an undertaking I gave at an earlier stage of the Bill: that was the promise to consider the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Champion, on behalf of himself and the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, and to consider whether it would be possible to reassure any further the Scottish and the Northern Ireland water undertakings that their interest in the
62
proposed scheme for testing and the certification of water fittings was safeguarded. I hope they will agree, or any noble Lord who is going to speak on their behalf will agree, that this does in fact achieve that end. I beg to move.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Champion is attending a Select Committee meeting. Had he been present he would have expressed appreciation of the Amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, has just moved. It does indeed meet a point that he raised in Committee. He is satisfied that this point has been adequately met, and on his behalf I express appreciation.
Clause 6 [Water conservation]:
BARONESS YOUNG BARONESS YOUNG moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 10, line 4, leave out ("other than a sub-committee)").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 9, which is concerned with a constitutional point. Under Clause 6, which is concerned with committees and sub-committees of regional water authorities, the Bill specifies that at least two-thirds of the members of a committee of the regional water authority must be members of the authority itself; the other one-third may be co-opted from somewhere else. This Amendment brings sub-committees into the same group so that two-thirds of any sub-committee would have to be members of the regional water authority, and one-third could be co-opted from anywhere else. The reason why this Amendment is introduced, as I am sure the House will recognise, is that when we discussed the purpose and functions of the regional water authorities it was to ensure the integration of all the services for which they would be responsible. As these are executive committees, it is considered to be the right principle that the majority of their members should be drawn from the regional water authority. I should like to make it quite clear that the same principle does not apply to the advisory committees under Clause 6(8), which may consist entirely of co-opted members if that is wished.
BARONESS YOUNG BARONESS YOUNG moved Amendment No. 9A:
Page 10, line 24. leave out ("were") and insert ("and the Council were each").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment 9A. This is a tactical Amendment and its purpose is to enable the National Water Council to receive goods and services from local authorities, under the provisions of the Local Authorities (Goods and Services) Act 1970, by treating them as if they were a public body within the meaning of Section 1 of the 1970 Act.
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment 9B. This is a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 40, leave out ("replaced") and insert ("replace")—(Baroness Young.)
BARONESS YOUNG BARONESS YOUNG moved Amendment No. 9C:
Page 10, line 42, after ("of") insert ("not more than").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this Amendment is concerned with the compulsory arrangements that will be made between regional water authorities and local authorities over central services in the next five years. The Government accepted an Amendment on Report stage in another place that the duration of such arrangements should be increased from not more than three years to five years. Since then it has been represented to my Department that the present requirement is too inflexible and that it is reasonable to expect that water authorities will be able to provide many of the services which would be covered by such an arrangement within the five years. It is to give this flexibility that this Amendment is moved. I beg to move.
BARONESS YOUNG BARONESS YOUNG moved Amendment No. 9D:
Page 11, line 5, leave out from beginning to ("are") in line 7 and insert—
("(12) An existing local authority who between the passing of this Act and 1st April 1974 discharge functions transferred by this Act to a water authority or, where that local
64
authority is abolished by the 1972 Act, the local authority or one of the local authorities who replace the abolished authority may require the water authority to enter into an agreement under section 1(1) of the said Act of 1970 with the requiring authority for a period of not more than five years from that date, and it shall be the duty of the water authority to enter into such an agreement, unless it is determined by the Secretary of State that the requirement is unreasonable having regard to the circumstances of the existing local authority immediately before that date and the operation of any enactment which comes into force on that date.
(13) If an authority who have required another authority, and an authority who have been required, to enter into an agreement under subsection (11) or (12) above.")
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this Amendment meets the undertaking I gave on Committee stage to the noble Lord, Lord Champion. The noble Lord was concerned about the short-term transitional problems that will confront local authorities in the next five years, and the effect of this Amendment is to place upon a water authority an obligation to continue for up to five years to provide goods and services to a local authority which, between the passing of the Bill and April 1, 1974, is discharging functions transferred to the water authority. I beg to move.
BARONESS WHITE: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Champion I would say that we are much appreciative of this Amendment. There were apprehensions, I know, and, so far as I can understand it, I think this Amendment will serve to meet those fears as to possible difficulties.
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment. Its purpose is to create two clauses out of one very long one. The first, subsections (1) to (9), deals with the internal arrangements of a water authority and the second, subsections (10) to (13), deals with the arrangements between a water authority and a local authority. I beg to move Amendment No. 9E.
Amendment moved—
Divide Clause 6 into two clauses, the first consisting of subsections (1) to (9) and the second consisting of subsections (10) to (13).—(Baroness Young.)
Clause 10 [Water supply]:
BARONESS YOUNG BARONESS YOUNG moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 13, line 3, leave out subsection (2).
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 10, and to speak at the same time to Amendments Nos. 11 and 12. These Amendments are in response to an undertaking given at the Committee stage in another place, to consider the widening of the proposed duty of water authorities to supply water otherwise than in pipes to those parts of their areas where there are houses or schools but no piped water supply, and to cover areas where there are offices, factories, caravans or camping sites, but no schools or houses. The Government have consulted the local authority associations and the British Water Works Association who have shown that although it would be undesirable to refer to offices, factories, caravans or camping sites specifically, the proposed duty could be generalised to cover any premises where the local authority notify the water authority that there is a danger to the public health because the present water supply is insufficient or unwholesome. The term "premises" is wide enough to cover a camping site or a caravan site, and any dispute there might be as to either the insufficiency or unwholesomeness of the water supply, or whether it could cause a danger to health, would be determined by the Secretary of State. I beg to move.
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 11.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 23, at end insert—
("(3A) Where the following conditions are satisfied, that is to say—

(a) a local authority notify a water authority that the supply of water to specified premises in the local authority's area is insufficient or unwholesome to the extent of causing a danger to health; and

(b) a supply of wholesome water by the water authority for domestic purposes is required for those premises and it is not practicable to provide such a supply in pipes, but is practicable to provide such a supply otherwise, at a reasonable cost;

it shall be the duty of the water authority to provide a supply of wholesome water otherwise than in pipes for domestic purposes to, or within a reasonable distance of, those premises.
66
(3B) Any dispute between the local authority and the water authority as to the insufficiency or unwholesomeness of any supply of water or whether it causes a danger to health shall be determined by the Secretary of State.")—(Baroness Young.)
BARONESS YOUNG, My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 12:
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 24 leave out from ("subsection") to ("can") in line 25 and insert ("(3A) above whether or not any description of supply of water".)—(Baroness Young.)
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move Amendment No. 13.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 32, leave out second ("to") and insert ("and").—(Baroness Young.)
BARONESS YOUNG BARONESS YOUNG moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 13, line 41, at beginning insert—
("The following provisions shall have effect with respect to the supply of water—
(a)")
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 14, and to speak to Amendments Nos. 15 and 16. I take these three Amendments together; the first and the third are drafting Amendments made necessary by the second Amendment. These are legal provisions and govern the supply of water. They are complicated because they differ with different water authorities. Representations have been made to my Department by certain statutory water undertakers who are supplying water under local Acts which impose lesser obligations than those in Parts VII and IX of Schedule 3 to the Water Act 1945. The difference lies in the pressure at which water is to be maintained in the mains. The process of identifying these areas, discovering whether it is possible for the new obligations to be met, and if so taking steps to see that they are met, could be a lengthy one. Consequently it may be necessary to exclude certain new obligations from parts of a water authority's area by orders under Clause 32(2) of the Bill. If this Amendment is carried, the resulting subsection would be unwieldy. The first and third Amendments divide it into

67
three paragraphs, the first dealing with the meaning to be attached to the expression "statutory water undertakers" in Sections 27, 36 and 37 of the Act of 1945, the second dealing with application of Parts VII and IX of Schedule 3 to that Act, and the third dealing with the meaning to be attached to the expression "statutory water undertaker" in those Parts. I beg to move.
BARONESS YOUNG: I beg to move Amendment No. 15.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 44, leave out ("and") and insert—
("(b) subject to any provision to the contrary contained in any instrument made under or by virtue of this Act,").—(Baroness Young.)
BARONESS YOUNG: I beg to move Amendment No. 16.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 1, leave out from ("by") to ("references") in line 2 and insert ("or under any other enactment; and
(c)").—(Baroness Young.)
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 17. This Amendment and the following one are both drafting Amendments.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 5, leave out ("(1)").—(Baroness Young.,)
BARONESS YOUNG: I beg to move Amendment No. 18.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 6, leave out from ("vary") to end of line 7 and insert ("the boundary between two water authority areas").—(Baroness Young.)
Clause 11 [Supply of Water by statutory water companies on behalf of water authorities]:
5.33 p.m.
BARONESS YOUNG BARONESS YOUNG moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 14, line 22, after ("1973 ") insert ("or such later date as the Secretary of State may
68
authorise in the case of that authority generally or in any particular case").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 19, and I would speak to No. 23 at the same time. These two Amendments specify the date by which a water authority must send to a statutory water company and a relevant authority for sewerage purposes draft arrangements for the discharge of functions, and the date is given as November 1, 1973. This matter was debated during the Committee stage in another place. Amendments were moved that would have deleted the date from the Bill. The Government undertook to reconsider this date should it later transpire that this was impracticable. It is clear that water authorities will have to work quickly, when they are set up, to get together all the various arrangements that will be required for the transfer of functions on April 1, 1974. In the particular case of arrangements under Clauses 11 and 15, model agreements are being prepared by the Department in consultation with the local authority associations and the Water Companies Association. In view of this preparatory work, November 1, 1973 is not regarded as impracticable in ordinary circumstances. Nor do the Amendments imply that it is. The present Amendments provide for a later date to be specified for the sending of draft arrangements if unforeseen circumstances arise which prevent this target date from being met. It therefore provides more flexibility in the date for the arrangements. I beg to move.
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 20. This is a drafting Amendment. I spoke to an Amendment at Committee stage, and I indicated then that the drafting might be not quite right. This is the correction of it.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 13, at end insert ("and to the need to provide for any contributions which they may lawfully carry to any reserve fund or contingency fund to make good depreciation (in so far as provision therefor is not made by any such fund as aforesaid) and to meet all other costs, charges and expenses properly chargeable to revenue").—(Baroness Young.)
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 21, and I will speak to Nos. 22, 28, 29 and 64. These are all drafting Amendments; they are designed to explain more clearly the relationship of the statutory water companies to the planning function of water authorities under Clause 23.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 23, leave out ("5").—(Baroness Young.)
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 22.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 24, leave out ("surveys").—(Baroness Young.)
Clause 15 [Arrangements for discharge of sewerage functions]:
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 23.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 40, after ("1973") insert ("or such later date as the Secretary of State may authorise in the case of that authority generally or in any particular case").—(Baroness Young.)
Clause 16 [Requisitioning of sewers for domestic purposes]:
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 24, which is a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 22, line 39, leave out from ("If") to end of line 40 and insert ("the conditions mentioned in subsection (2), (3) or (4) above are satisfied and the water authority").—(Baroness Young.)
Clause 20 [Recreation]:
5.39 p.m.
LORD SANDFORD LORD SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 27, line 5, at end insert—
("(4A) Where the Secretary of State makes an order under section 23 of the Water Act 1945 or section 67 of the Water Resources Act 1963 authorising a water authority to carry out works for or in connection with the construction or operation of a reservoir in England or conferring compulsory powers for that purpose on a water authority, and
70
it appears to him that the works to be carried out may permanently affect the area in which they are' situated and are not primarily intended to benefit the inhabitants of that area, he may include in the order provision with respect to facilities for recreation or other leisure-time occupation for the benefit of those inhabitants.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 25. At an earlier stage an Amendment was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Henley, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Lonsdale, asking that similar provision should be made throughout England of a duty laid upon the Welsh Authority to carry out works for the benefit of an area in which a reservoir or other similar construction was being undertaken. I undertook to consider the matter with a view perhaps to providing a power in the rest of England corresponding to that duty in Wales.
The Amendment that I am now proposing deals with the matter by providing a power for the Secretary of State, at his discretion, to impose and confer a duty upon a regional water authority in England. I hope your Lordships will agree that this is perhaps the most apt way of meeting the point. There are certainly a number of places in England in which the situation is very similar to that which pertains over most of Wales. One thinks particularly of the Lake District and the Peak District, which already have a number of reservoirs and where, if there were any more, it would be useful to be able to invoke this power. I think your Lordships will agree that the conditions which prevail there do not prevail over the whole of England, and to have a power vested in the Secretary of State to impose a duty on regional water authorities in particular cases at his discretion is perhaps the best way of meeting the point. I beg to move.
BARONESS WHITE: My Lords, I should like to repeat what I said at the Committee stage when this matter was raised: that provided the mandatory duty remains so far as Wales is concerned, we of course would have not the slightest objection to some crumbs of comfort coming in the way of any English area which might be similarly affected. I agree with the noble Lord that, so far as I can judge, this Amendment is satisfactory from the English point of view

71
in that it confers a power on the Secretary of State if the circumstances seem to warrant it without making it absolutely essential. I am delighted that, for once, the Government's political sense so far as the difference between England and Wales is concerned has been rather more acute than it has sometimes been in the past.
LORD HENLEY: My Lords, once again I thank the noble Lord. I am not quite sure why England should not be put on an equal footing with Wales. I agree that it is not necessary over the whole of England, but it is certainly necessary over the whole of Wales. The noble Baroness says "Absolutely"—well I will accept that, but could the noble Lord explain to me whether there is any settled reason other than putting England on a different basis?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, we were discussing a little while ago the nature of the various judgments that had to be made here. There are technical judgments and there are political judgments, and I think that most of the House will agree that there are political judgments here.
LORD REDCLIFFE-MAUD: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord for clarification? I am sure it is my fault for not having understood him. I understood him to say that this Amendment was giving the Secretary of State the power to impose a duty. Is that so, or is it only authorising, and therefore giving a power to do what is set out in the printed paper? It may not be important, but I read this as meaning that it was the right of the Secretary of State to enable this to be done in any part of England. Perhaps I misunderstood the noble Lord. I thought he said it enabled the Secretary of State to impose the duty.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, if I may speak again, with the leave of the House, I was condensing the actual position. The Secretary of State has power to make orders under the Water Act 1945, Section 23 and the Water Resources Act 1963, Section 67. It is under these that he would include in the orders the kind of provision we are talking about. This
72
Amendment has the additional merit that the particular proposal which the Secretary of State incorporates in the order will be before the public local inquiry which will almost certainly take place if the building of a reservoir is involved, and which will be followed now also by some Parliamentary procedure if that reservoir is in a National park. I think this Amendment will ensure all the necessary provisions.
LORD SANDFORD LORD SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 25A:
Divide Clause 20 into two clauses, the first consisting of subsections (1) to (4A) and the second consisting of subsections (5) to (10).").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, perhaps I may just reiterate what has already just been said; namely, that we are talking about the words at the bottom of page 4 of the Marshalled list:
"Divide Clause 20 into two clauses".
This in fact is an editing Amendment and I think speaks for itself. I beg to move.
BARONESS WHITE: My Lords, we are entirely satisfied. This divides the English and the Welsh interests satisfactorily.
Clause 22 [Water Space Amenity Commission]:
LORD SANDFORD LORD SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 29, line 5, after ("State") insert (",after consultation with the Countryside Commission, the English Tourist Board and either the Sports Council or an organisation prescribed for the purposes of subsection (2)(c) above, on the formulation, promotion and execution of the national policy for water so far as relating to recreation and amenity in England;
((aa) to advise").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lady Young, I beg to move Amendment No. 26 and to speak to the succeeding Amendment No. 27, which is a consequential and drafting Amendment. These two Amendments together fulfil another undertaking that I gave the Committee in reply to the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Byers, which sought to secure a national policy for the development of facilities for water-based recreation—something which was recommended in our own Select Committee on Sport and

73
Recreation. The effect of the Amendment will be to impose on the Water Space Amenity Commissioners a statutory duty to advise the Secretary of State, who already under Clause 1 has a duty to promote and secure the effective execution of a national policy, to advise him on the formulation, promotion and execution of a national policy for water so far as it relates to recreation and amenity in England. The point we had to safeguard was that that should not be done other than after consultation with the Sports Council, the Countryside Commission and the English Tourist Board who inevitably had overlapping responsibilities in this field. My Lords, I beg to move.
LORD SANDFORD LORD SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 27:
Amendment moved—
Page 29, line 7, leave out from ("as") to end and insert ("so relating ").—(Lord Sandford.)
Clause 23 [Periodical reviews, plans and programmes]:
LORD SANDFORD: I beg to move Amendment No. 27A, which we considered when we were dealing with No. 7A.
Amendment moved—
Page 29, line 37, leave out from ("authorities") to end of line 38 and insert ("likely to be affected by the matters mentioned below").—(Lord Sandford.)
LORD SANDFORD: beg to move Amendment No. 28, and to speak to No. 29. These Amendments were considered when my noble friend moved Amendment No. 21 to Clause 11.
Amendment moved—
Page 30, line 15, at end insert—
("(1A) Where a statutory water company are supplying water in a water authority area, the water authority may require that company—

(a) to carry out a survey of the existing consumption of and demand for water supplies in the part of the water authority area within their limits of supply;

(b) to prepare an estimate of the future water supply requirements of that part of the area;

(c) to formulate proposals for meeting the existing or future water supply requirements
74
of that part of the area, including proposals for the joint use with any other statutory water undertakers of any existing or proposed new source of water supply; and

(d) to submit a report on any of the matters mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (c) above to the water authority within such time as the authority may specify.").—(Lord Sandford.)

LORD SANDFORD: I beg to move Amendment No. 29:
Amendment moved—
Page 31, line 4, leave out from ("shall") to ("to") in line 5 and insert ("take account of any operations proposed under subsection (1A) above").—(Lord Sandford.)
5.47 p.m.
BARONESS YOUNG BARONESS YOUNG moved Amendment No. 30:
After Clause 25 insert the following new clause:
Superannuation of employees of statutory water undertakers
".—(1) Statutory water undertakers may establish and administer pension schemes and pension funds in the interests of persons who are or have been employed by them, and may pay pensions, allowances and gratuities to or in respect of such persons or enter into and carry into effect agreements or arrangements with any other person for securing or preserving pension rights for any such persons.
(2) It shall be the duty of all statutory water companies, by participating in a scheme for or in respect of persons who are or have been employed by any such company, to secure benefits in respect of their service after their entry into the scheme not less in amount than the corresponding benefits for employees and former employees of water authorities in the standard water authority scheme and on terms (including terms as to the transferability of benefits) not less favourable to the persons entitled to the benefits than the terms of that scheme; and in this section "standard water company scheme" means a scheme under this subsection and "standard water authority scheme" means a scheme designated by an order under subsection (3) below.
(3) The Secretary of State may by order—

(a) designate any scheme made for or in respect of employees and former employees of water authorities (including in particular a scheme contained in regulations under section 7 of the Superannuation Act 1972) as the standard water authority scheme;

(b) designate a corporation to manage the standard water company scheme; and

(c) prescribe a date before which any person who is in the employment of a statutory water company on 31st March 1974 and intends to remain in the employment of such

75
a company after that date, and for whom on that date superannuation arrangements will be in operation, may opt that the standard water company scheme shall not apply to him.

(4) A person who has exercised the option conferred by subsection (3)(c) above may revoke it at any time after 31st March 1974.
(5) Every employee of a statutory water company who is eligible for membership of the standard water company scheme shall be a member of that scheme unless he has exercised the option conferred by subsection (3)(c) above and has not revoked it.
(6) Any question whether the terms of the standard water company scheme are less favourable than the terms of the standard water authority scheme shall be determined by the Secretary of State.
(7) The powers conferred on statutory water undertakers by this section are without prejudice to any of their other powers."
The noble Baroness said: I beg to move Amendment No. 30, and with it I would take No. 37. These two Amendments introduce a new clause which is very important and is concerned with superannuation. As this is the first time this matter has been raised in the course of discussions on this Bill, it might be helpful if I gave some information about the general background and how the arrangement will in fact affect the employees of water authorities.
My Lords, in January, 1972, the Government issued a consultation paper entitled, Safeguards for Staff. Many comments were received which advocated the introduction of an overall superannuation clause for the water industry. Among the supporters were the local authority associations, the Association of River Authorities, the National Association of Local Government Officers and the Institute of Municipal Treasurers and Accountants. Further views on the subject were obtained in reply to the consultation paper on economics and finance issued in April, 1972, and the majority or those who did comment felt that if there was to be a scheme for the staff of water authorities this should be either the Local Government Superannuation Scheme or an adaptation of it. Opinion on the responsibility for running the scheme was divided between those who favoured the National Water Council and those who favoured the water authorities' running their own funds.
After full and careful consideration it has been decided that the Local Government Superannuation Scheme should
76
apply to employees of water authorities and the National Water Council, and that all these employees should be within a fund administered by the National Water Council. This will be provided for in the draft regulation under Section 7 of the Superannuation Act 1972, in relation to the Local Government Superannuation Scheme which the Department of the Environment will be circulating shortly for comment and which will be designed to come into operation on April 1, 1974. This will ensure that there are superannuation arrangements fully operative on that date, and that the water industry has the freedom of investment management associated with a relatively large fund.
The other point that was made on the consultation document concerned the mobility of staff between water companies and water authorities. In commenting on this point the Institute of Municipal Treasurers and Accountants, the Institution of Water Engineers and the British Waterworks Association all made the point that mobility of staff throughout the water industry would be greatly helped if appropriate superannuation arrangements could be made for the staff of companies. Independently of these consultations but in the context of the reorganisation of water services, several branches of NALGO expressed the concern of members at the lack of full transfer of pension rights between water companies and water authorities.
The Department of the Environment approached the Water Companies Association on this subject, and the Association agreed to commission consultants to report on the future superannuation arrangements for their employees. Following this report the Association have decided to set up a central superannuation fund for the employees of water companies, and they have agreed that this should incorporate terms which are not less favourable than those applying to employees of water authorities, and so permit full transfer-abilities of superannuation rights, and full mobility of staff, between water companies and water authorities. As water authority employees will be within the Local Government Superannuation Scheme, this will mean that the terms applying to company employees will be not less favourable than those of the local government scheme.
May I now say a few words in detail about the clause. Subsection (2) of the new clause places a duty on all statutory water companies to participate in a scheme of the kind described above, which is referred to in the clause as the "standard water company scheme". The benefits under this scheme will not be less in amount, and are to be given on terms not less favourable, than those in the standard water authority scheme. The advantage of this formula is that it will ensure that the standard water company scheme keeps pace with any future improvements in the arrangements applying to water authority employees.
Subsection (3) gives the Secretary of State power to designate by order a body to manage the standard water company scheme (it is intended that this should be a trust corporation which will be formed by the Water Companies Association), and to prescribe what is to be regarded as the standard water authority scheme for this purpose, and this will, in practice, be the Local Government Superannuation Scheme. It also empowers him to prescribe a date by which a company employee may choose, if he so wishes, to remain in his existing superannuation scheme, rather than transfer (with his accrued pension rights) to the standard water company scheme. Subsection (4) gives an employee who has opted to remain in his existing scheme the right to transfer to the standard scheme at any time after March 31, 1974. Subsection (5) provides that every company employee who is eligible for membership of the standard scheme is to be a member of that scheme unless he has opted to remain in his existing scheme. Subsection (6) gives the Secretary of State power to determine any question as to whether the terms of the standard water company scheme are less favourable than the terms of the standard water authority scheme.
I have taken a little time to explain this, but it is a matter of great concern to the staff and it will now be on the Record for them to consult. We hope that we have achieved a satisfactory arrangement for all the employees. I beg to move.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, the noble Baroness was at some considerable pains to explain the meaning of this clause, and gave us a detailed explanation
78
such as will enable us to appreciate fully what is being done. I should like to say that we on this side welcome the clause. The way the noble Baroness has presented the case clearly shows the great concern the staff have had about this matter. Indeed, there has been concern on the part of those who speak for them. I think that the Amendment does all that we could ask should be done. I am sure that it will be received with considerable appreciation. There is a great deal I should like to have said, but I do not wish to take up the time of the House unduly. However, I think it right and proper that appreciation should be expressed.
Clause 27 [Water charges]:
5.55 p.m.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK LORD DAVIES OF LEEK moved Amendment No. 30A:
Page 35, line 7, at end insert ("Provided that this subsection shall not apply to water supply and sewerage functions").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with permission, and to expedite the work of the House, I should like to move Amendment No. 30A to Clause 27, and speak to Amendments Nos. 30B, 30C, 33A, 33E, and 52A, and I will leave in the lap of the gods until later Amendment No. 50C. The noble Baroness, or the noble Lord, who is to reply will know from what happened at Committee stage in the other place the nub of the argument that is put forward here. As a young man and a youngster I was interested in the Taf-fechan Water Board, who themselves were unanimous in their belief that the water supply should be treated as a public health service. While it is almost platitudinous to say it, it nevertheless seems necessary to reiterate all the time that water supply, even in this sophisticated age, is still one of the most important public health functions and one of the most important necessities of mankind.
What in these Amendments I am trying to do is to elicit some further information about the method of the payment that is to be made to take the place of the subsidies that were hitherto given. The Government propose that the administration of sewerage and sewage disposal will be transferred to the new regional

79
water authorities, but do not clarify really what the position will be. My Amendments may not be thought to be absolutely vital, but nevertheless the costs will probably be met, or could be met, by a precept. If the water authorities inflict upon the consumer the lost charges they are going to incur there will be quite an effect in some places on the cost of living and even on the cost of attracting industry, and it will be a new feature in the whole water consumption system.
Let us take the Taf-fechan Water Board area alone. In 1972–73, the cost of water supply and disposal in that area was over £2 million, of which the rate resources grant covered one-half. In other words, 50 per cent. of the cost of the services was met indirectly by central Government, through the rate resources grant. I want to know how this cost will be made up, because I am still a little befogged. Under my Amendment to Clause 28, a water authority will still wish to charge for a water supply for non-domestic services. We had a long discussion about this point earlier, and it would be unfair to hammer it out for another ten minutes now. Nevertheless, sewerage functions are not covered, so the position of authorities such as Taf-fechan must be made clear. The feeling behind my Amendment to Clause 29 is that there should be no charge at all. In fact other people, in addition to those in Taf-fechan, feel that the whole water problem could, strangely enough, be met by a Treasury grant for the entire water supply of the country. It might come directly through universal taxation.
One point which has not been made is that we may have a different sort of energy in a very short time. When we get a national or a European energy policy, we shall have to know how to deal with atomic waste. The great difficulty with atomic energy at present is in dealing with the pollution and the waste, but whatever progress we make will depend upon a vast water supply. That is why, during the discussions in Committee, I agreed with my noble friend on this side who said that we ought to be exploring the possibility of a water grid. Far from our canals being allowed to become derelict, they should be used for water supplies. Consequently, it may be
80
better policy to look to the Treasury to meet the charges.
Schedule 7 contains a number of Amendments to the Water Act 1945. That Act provides for charging water rates, but it seems to me that it has not been repealed and one of my Amendments draws attention to that fact. The whole purpose of this series of Amendments is to draw attention to what some of us consider to be a rather draconic approach to the future financing of water supplies. We should link the whole question of water research and its cost—I have not spoken on the research side, because of the time factor—to an intelligent energy policy, because in the next 25 years we shall certainly have to look to atomic energy and massive supplies of water will be needed.
Those of us who know the Taf-fechan area would therefore like to know how the Government expect to meet these charges, which could have a bad effect on the attraction of industry and on the cost of living in intermediate or regional areas which need aid. Most of the other arguments are well known, so I shall take up no more of your Lordships' time. I shall listen with interest to what the noble Baroness has to say, so that I may carry the glad tidings to the Taf-fechan Water Board. My Lords, I beg to move.
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Davies of Leek has made a very strong case for the changes, but not perhaps for any assurances which the noble Baroness might be prepared to give him. He has made out a case for changing the whole charging policy in the Bill from charges for water to precepting, which is a method very much preferred by the authorities that he has mentioned, and, in particular, by the Taf-fechan authority. That is an authority which I know particularly well, because it covers the area in which I live. I can understand very well their fear that the result of this Bill will be to relieve the Exchequer of the amount of grants paid to authorities in those poor areas, to cover the cost of sewerage and to assist them on the resources side, and that having saved the Exchequer these amounts the burden of meeting the cost of sewerage and sewage disposal will be placed upon the water users in the area. This will mean a heavy burden of charge on people living in these poor areas. Because

81
of their poverty, these areas have been selected to receive a greater amount of grant than is paid throughout the whole of the rest of the country.
I can see the difficulty here. This Bill is based on charges for water, to meet the cost of the whole system from the collection of the water to its final discharge into the sea. I must admit that I should have put down this Amendment in Committee, but for the fact that it seemed to me to be a little outside the Long Title of the Bill, and although it is true that one can amend the Long Title of a Bill I am sure that the Government are bound to stick to what they have decided in this connection. I rather fear that the noble Baroness will say just that. But before she does, I am bound to say in support of the Taf-fechan Water Board and those other authorities which will be hard hit by this change, that I hope it will be possible to give this matter further thought. Having said that, I recognise the difficulty which the noble Baroness is in and I am sure that my noble friend will listen very attentively to what she has to say.
VISCOUNT AMORY: My Lords, may I say that on one point I take a different view from that of the noble Lord, Lord Champion. I should have thought that this was an occasion for reassurances from my noble friend, instead of for the rather drastic change in procedure which the noble Lord, Lord Davies, has outlined. I should have thought it was very difficult, against the background of the whole Bill and the mechanism set up in it, to envisage going back to precepts to local authorities. But having said that, I hope my noble friend will give the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, the assurances which will enable him to travel rapidly back to Wales again and to indulge in the consumption of many pints of the delicious water which is no doubt produced there.
6.10 p.m.
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, it is with considerable trepidation that I rise to speak not only on finance but on a matter to do with Wales. The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, has explained the purpose of his Amendments; and, if I have understood the noble Lord, Lord Champion, aright, I think he recognizes
82
that it would be very difficult for the Government to accept these Amendments as they stand. The fact is that they would completely change the basis of the finance that the Government have proposed under this Bill. Not only that, but we think that they would introduce even greater inequalities between local authorities and their ratepayers, and between different classes of consumers, than there is at the moment, and that is not something which we should wish to increase.
I recognise that the specific point that the noble Lord has raised—and the noble Lord, Lord Champion, has also raised it —is on the question of the present resources element of the rate support grant which is given to the poorer authorities, and of course the consequential attraction by way of precept for the poorer authorities, and that this makes up the deficiencies which they have at the moment. I hope I can give the noble Lord some assurance on this point. It is recognised that there will be many changes in the incidence and levels of charges in 1974–75. These will be partly the result of local government reorganisation and the shifting of responsibilities from local authorities and changes in local government finance, as well as the consequences of water reorganisation. Ministers in both Houses have given assurances that in taking a decision about the appropriate level of Exchequer grant to local authorities after reorganisation, the Government will take full account, not only of local government expenditure but also of the fact that in the future ratepayers will be paying directly for same water services that are at present paid for by local authorities from rates or rate support grants. I am glad to reiterate that assurance, and I hope it will go some way to meet the fears of the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for those interesting and hopeful words, understanding fully what kind of commitment she has made. Consequently, I think it would be wise for me now, with the leave of the House, to withdraw the Amendments that I was so kindly allowed to speak to en bloc.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn
Clause 28 [Charges schemes]:
BARONESS YOUNG BARONESS YOUNG moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 35, line 29, leave out ("and (5)") and insert ("to (5A)").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I should like to move Amendment No. 31 and also to speak to both Amendment No. 32 and Amendment No. 33 at the same time; but with the leave of the House I should like to make another point before I do so. I think I should at this stage tell the House of the conclusions that we have reached on a point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady White, about what is now Clause 30(2). I am sure that the noble Baroness will recall that at Committee stage she thought that it should be mandatory for the Secretary of State to make regulations with respect to metering before any water authority began to meter supplies to houses in any part of its area. My noble friend Lord Colville accepted this principle and said that we should be prepared to meet the noble Baroness's suggestion by proposing an Amendment to Clause 30(2) to require regulations to be made by April 1, 1976. I think everyone recognised that there was no particular significance about that date, but it was virtually certain that there would be no extension of the metering of supplies to houses, or indeed any other substantial change in the charging structure, before that date; and, on the other hand, the two years would be sufficient time for drafting regulations and for consulting about them.
We have run into a difficulty. We are advised by the draftsman that satisfactory action against the Secretary of State in the courts to enforce such an obligation would not be possible, so an Amendment on those lines would be meaningless. We have, however, considered this matter, and I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady White, wilt be prepared in these circumstances to accept my assurance that we shall make regulations within the next two years—and these would of course be subject to Negative Resolution procedure—and certainly that we shall make them before there is any significant extension of domestic metering. I hope the noble Baroness will feel that this assurance meets her point. I wished to explain that before moving my Amendments. If she
84
would like to comment, I will sit down at this point, but I move the first of these Amendments so that she can comment on that matter first. I beg to move.
BARONESS WHITE: My Lords, I am greatly obliged to the noble Baroness for her explanation. I was looking rather anxiously at the Marshalled List to see what was going to appear, as I was obviously not wishing at this stage to put anything down on behalf of the Opposition until we saw what the Government's decisions were. As we have been having various starred Amendments one hoped that a star might arise on this part of the horizon, too. I suppose from what the noble Baroness says, as she has taken advice, that possibly there is no way to include this provision in statutory form. We shall have to consider very carefully what she has said, but she will recall that the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, also felt that we needed some assurances on this matter. The difficulty is that if it is not in the Statute one cannot bind one's successors, and so forth. But if she will allow me to consult with our advisers and with my noble friends, I think that at the moment all I can do is to thank her for her explanation and say we will look at it with great care.
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, with the leave of the House perhaps I may thank the noble Baroness, Lady White, for leaving the position like that. If I may now speak to the Amendments, the first of which I moved formally at the beginning, these are virtually drafting Amendments, and Amendments Nos. 31, 32 and 33 should be taken together. Clause 28(3) gives the water authorities a permissive power to fix their charges by reference to such criteria and to adopt any system for the calculation of their amount which seems to them appropriate. The power is subject to any directions that the Secretary of State may give after consultation with the National Water Council. As originally drafted, the subsection seemed to give the authorities a wide measure of discretion in deciding whether to comply with these directions or not. There should in fact be no doubt that any directions of the Secretary of State on charging policy should be mandatory, and these Amendments achieve that.
BARONESS YOUNG BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 35, line 32, leave out from ("appropriate") to end of line 35.—(Baroness Young.)
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 33.
Amendment moved—
Page 36, line 2, at end insert—
("(5A) The Secretary of State may, after consultation with the Council, give all or any of the water authorities directions as to the criteria to be applied or the system to be adopted by them under subsection (3) above and in giving a direction under this subsection the Secretary of State shall have regard to the provisions of subsections (4) and (5) above."). —(Baroness Young.)
Clause 29 [Charges Schemes]:
6.20 p.m.
BARONESS YOUNG BARONESS YOUNG moved Amendment No. 33B:
Page 36, line 34, leave out from ("may") to end of fine 36 and insert ("give directions to all water authorities or any particular water authority as to the services, facilities or rights for which provision is to be made in a charges scheme").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment. As originally drafted, the provision could be taken to mean that the directions of the Secretary of State could apply to the actual levels of charges fixed by water authorities if the charges were incorporated in a charges scheme. However, the Government have already said that Ministers should not concern themselves with detailed levels of water charges and should confine their powers of direction to matters of broad policy on charging and the formulation of tariffs for the authorities. I beg to move.
Clause 31 [Abolition of existing central and local bodies]:
BARONESS YOUNG BARONESS YOUNG moved Amendments Nos. 33C and 33D:
Page 39, line 16, at end insert ("and joint committees of sewerage authorities existing immediately before the passing of this Act").
Page 39, line 18, leave out from ("Act") to end of line 20 and insert ("(continuation of existing joint boards and committees) shall not apply to bodies which cease to exist by virtue of this section").
The noble Baroness said: I beg to move Amendments Nos. 33C and 33D together. They are drafting Amendments. The first adds joint committees of local authorities for sewerage and sewage disposal purposes to the list of bodies abolished by the Bill. The second is a drafting Amendment to the provision which disapplies Section 263 of the Local Government Act 1972.
6.20 p.m.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL THE EARL OF KINNOULL moved Amendment No. 33L:
After Clause 32 insert the following new clause:
Isle of Wight
" . The Secretary of State may, on the joint application of the Southern Water Authority and the Isle of Wight County Council, make an order providing for the exercise as respects the Isle of Wight of functions corresponding to any of those transferred from the Isle of Wight River and Water Authority to the Southern Water Authority by this Act."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the House may recall that during the Committee stage of this Bill I moved an Amendment similar in character to the one now before the House. At that time, other noble Lords supported the Amendment in its general purpose. Eventually my noble friend undertook to look again at the Isle of Wight case to see whether, within the framework of the Bill, the special situation of the Isle of Wight could be written into the Bill as a sub-authority to the Southern Water Authority.
This undertaking was received gratefully by the Isle of Wight authorities because they fear that although under Clause 6 something similar to sub-authority status could be set up, their future is very uncertain. The Southern Water Authority could well take a view that an advisory body will be all that is necessary in the case of the Isle of Wight. What the Isle of Wight authorities want —and I believe they have a good case, which I tried to deploy in Committee and do not wish to inflict again on your Lordships—is an executive body to be set up on the island with its own office and not just an advisory body.
There is a second purpose in moving this Amendment, and that is to ask my noble friend to be good enough to correct an impression given in Committee that

87
the Isle of Wight authorities' past record on sewage treatment is somewhat laggardly, it was something that my noble friend said—and I will quote his words:
"The sewerage of the Isle of Wight very much needs to be done better, more quickly and by a much larger authority".
My noble friend went on to cite 23 out-falls at present discharging untreated sewage directly into the Solent. To say the least, these comments were a little wounding to the Isle of Wight authorities. I understand that they have written to a number of noble Lords on this matter.
It has been pointed out by these authorities that their programme on improving the treatment of sewage was blocked by the central Government for over nine years by the refusal of Ministers to grant tidal water orders. They point out that they had lodged before the Minister some weeks ago an application for some five tidal water orders, and they have in the pipeline a programme over the next seven years of improvement to sewerage costing some £5 million. This is not a bad record. Lastly, their untreated sewage discharged into the Solent is a mere drop in the ocean compared with what is done by the Hampshire authorities. I am sure that my noble friend Lord Sandford's words were not intended to be offensive. Nevertheless, it may be an opportunity to my noble friend to restore any damaged relations and to put the Record straight.
My noble friend Lady Young has had a chance of looking at the Isle of Wight case and I hope that she will be able to say that the Isle of Wight case can be written into the Bill; or, if not, will be able to give an undertaking that the Government will specifically encourage the Southern Water Authority to set up under Clause 6 not just an advisory committee for the Isle of Wight but an executive committee with its own office on the island to look after the special problems and needs of the Island.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords. I thought that the noble Earl presented quite a good case at Committee stage. This afternoon he has again deployed a very good argument and made the best of the case that is to be presented on behalf of the Isle of Wight. May I say that I can understand the resentment on the Island to which he referred. I am certain
88
that what was said from the Front Bench opposite made a considerable impression on everybody who was listening in that debate. It may have accounted for a feeling that the Government case was stronger than the noble Earl is prepared to accept and the people living on the Island are prepared to accept. It is true that some of us have received literature from the Island. At least they are aware of what was said; and it seems to me they show an anxiety to get matters put right.
I think that what is good about this Amendment is that the matter can proceed only if there is agreement between the Southern Water Authority and the Isle of Wight County Council. That being so, if the Government were minded to accept this Amendment, it is something that could be pursued steadily and it need not come into operation until there was satisfaction that any problem with regard to disposal of sewage into the Solent was going to be dealt with effectively. The case as presented finds understanding on this side, and one appreciates the feeling of the people on the Island that, having been given county council status, they should be given as much opportunity as possible to look after their own affairs. When the noble Baroness replies, I hope that she will be able to indicate that the Government are prepared to look at this sympathetically.
LORD MOTTISTONE: My Lords, I should like briefly to support the remarks of my noble friend Lord Kinnoull and the noble Lord, Lord Champion—
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My noble friend is indeed a champion. I am a lesser man.
LORD MOTTISTONE: I humbly ask the noble Lord's forgiveness. What is most important about this is that the difficulty of administering anything in the Island from the mainland (which was given great rein in discussion in this House at the time of the local Government Act) applies to practically anything of this nature. I hope very much that the Government will give careful consideration to the plea of my noble friend that there should be some arrangement by which executive power under the terms of Clause 6 could be devolved upon the Island. What form this executive power should take is not the key point. To

89
leave the Island with a mere advisory function in this connection would not be quite good enough for the practical administration of the supervision of the water in the Island.
THE EARL OF COURTOWN: My Lords, I should like to support this Amendment. I think it will be helpful to the water authority to be enabled to do this; for 99 per cent. of the decisions that will need to be made about the Island will not affect anybody else. It only an advisory committee is set up, it means that everything from the Island will have to go forward to the mainland authorities—which is going to occupy a great deal of time and cause a great many travel difficulties. Also I think it is bound to have some effect on the many schemes now in the pipeline and which will be held up if they have to go to a central authority which is detached from the Island. The schemes do not affect anybody except the islanders.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD. My Lords, the pleas of the Isle of Wight in the world of local government are well known to me and they are always very persuasive and engaging. I am not surprised to hear them put again to-day so eloquently by my noble friend Lord Kinnoull. It seems to me that it would be contrary to the whole concept of the Bill, which is trying to set up a national structure for the water industry and to make a strong and effective national structure which will deliver the goods in terms of future water supplies and the cleanliness of our rivers, if the Isle of Wight were to be granted this special status of a separate executive authority. Pleas could be made for other parts of the country. It is true that the Bill is reaching an advanced stage in its legislative process, but there is still time for the noble Baroness, Lady White, to put down an Amendment in terms of Anglesey, a very attractive island standing on its own and able to look after itself. Why should not Anglesey be given its own show?
BARONESS WHITE: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, will appreciate that there is a bridge between Anglesey and the mainland, which is not the case with the Isle of Wight.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for reminding me of the presence of the bridge, but the water does not run across that bridge, nor does the sewage. It is not beyond the bounds of imagination to imagine other areas of the country for which a similar plea could be put up. I should have thought that this would be a dangerous precedent when the general philosophy of the Bill is to sot up a strong and comprehensive national structure. So much for precedent, my Lords. When you come to functions there are certain intrinsic considerations. There is still an important point in respect of sewage. However much the pollution of the Solent may be due to Hampshire rather than to the Isle of Wight, there is a share of interest in that to some extent both the communities are bound to put sewage and effluent into the Solent. Therefore it is very desirable that they should be managed by the same authority.
My Lords, there is a third point relating to staff which I think very important in the general context of this Bill. There is a desperate shortage of really competent staff. There are not the competent, qualified staff to go round to cater for a separate authority to be set up, with a separate manager highly competent and able to do the kind of job we shall be asking of him in future, for such a small independent unit. It will be difficult enough effectively to staff the new management units in the sewage disposal section, even in the comprehensive structure of the ten regional water authorities. To some extent this is true generally in respect of water management. There is an acute shortage of really competent professional staff and as soon as separate executive authorities are set up men who are fully capable of being leaders responsible only to their authorities must be appointed. I suggest that it would be a mistake to start fragmenting a comprehensive national structure at this stage. I earnestly hope that my noble friends will not press this point again, however deeply their sympathies may be engaged, because I think it is going completely contrary to the whole concept of the Bill.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, I hope that my noble friend Lady Young will not be too greatly influenced by the words of my noble friend Lord Nugent of

91
Guildford, who seemed to think that it was impossible to achieve a strong and efficient organisation in this country without creating very large areas. I have heard my noble friend supporting the heresy of "the bigger the better" on other occasions. But England is a small country and there are great variations in it. I would have thought it would be a mistake to try to impose the same plan equally on all parts of the country, quoting the sort of arguments that we have heard advanced over and over again from the Front Bench during the discussions on this Bill. I certainly would not want to fragment the whole organisation, but I think that where there is a reason we should not shut our minds to the genuine exception and if there are to be exceptions I think that the Isle of Wight is one which deserves great consideration.
LORD REDCLIFFE-MAUD: My Lords, my only excuse for speaking is that I did advocate it, and I was delighted when the Government agreed, to making an exception for the Isle of Wight in respect of local government. But, looking at the matter objectively, I must confess that it is exceedingly difficult to agree with the noble Lord who said that 99 per cent. of the decisions in this area would concern only the Isle of Wight. I may have misunderstood the noble Lord, but I think he said that. It is true only in one sense, that the decisions that need taking on the spot will be far better taken on the spot in the island by those who live there. But the effect of the decisions taken concerning the island of course affect the Solent and other parts of the country in exactly the same way as those taken in Hampshire must affect the Isle of Wight. Therefore, in general, I should have thought it most unfortunate if the wise decision of the Government on local government for the Isle of Wight was used to persuade them to make a last minute decision in favour of an exception for the Island in this Bill.
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, since we had a somewhat similar debate on Committee stage, the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and some of his colleagues have been to see me and that is the reason we have discussed this matter at considerable length and why I am replying to-day. I
92
should like at once to clear up any misunderstanding there may be about the Government view regarding the Isle of Wight. What my noble friend Lord Sandford said was that although there were 23 discharges of sewage into the sea, there were not 23 discharges of sewage into the Solent. We do not want to denigrate what the Isle of Wight has done, and we recognise that a number of schemes are in preparation, including one for a new sewage disposal plant to serve Cowes and Newport.
The general point which has been made throughout this debate is that one of the purposes of the Bill is to deal with sewage disposal and pollution, which are major matters calling for large and powerful authorities who will have the financial resources as well as professional advisers to deal with the problem. From what has been said by noble Lords who have spoken, we all recognise that the Isle of Wight is unique. But the words of Lord Nugent of Guildford have explained once again very clearly the purpose of the Bill and the function of the regional water authorities, and I was very glad to hear the support of the noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud. It might help the Isle of Wight to consider again all the possibilities that are open to them to put their point of view in the new regional water authority. In the first place they will have two members on the authority, one representing the county council and the other the two new districts. As I think I said to the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, when we discussed this matter, if I may speak from personal experience, I think that two effective local government members can make a big difference on a committee of the size with which they will be dealing. Besides this, there will be the provision in Clause 6(8) for local advisory committees, and of course there is no reason why there should not be such a committee for the Isle of Wight.
Under Clause 15 there are provisions for the executive control of the island's sewerage (as distinct from sewage disposal) which will devolve upon the two new district authorities on the island. Clause 19 provides for local land drainage committees which also are to exercise executive powers, and although this is a matter for the Minister of Agriculture there will almost certainly be one for the Isle of Wight. There are also

93
the provisions in Clause 6 for executive committees to be set up by a regional water authority, although, as my noble friend Lord Kinnoull recognises, two-thirds of such committees must be members of the regional water authority in question. Finally, Clause 6(10) enables water authorities to make arrangements with local authorities for the provision by one authority to another of any administrative, professional or technical services.
My Lords, I have elaborated all these points at some length because I hope that those who have the interests of the Isle of Wight particularly at heart will recognise that there are a good many provisions in this Bill which will help such a place as the Isle of Wight, and the Bill does provide a framework of co-operation between a water authority and local authorities.
A great many people have, I know, expressed real concern about this, and I should like to say to my noble friend Lord Kinnoull that either I or my honourable friend Mr. Griffiths would be prepared to write to the chairman of the Southern Water Authority drawing his attention to what has been said in Parliament. We cannot of course pre-empt the decisions that he might make, but we can draw his attention to the concern about the Isle of Wight which has been expressed in this House. I hope with that undertaking, and with the explanations I have given, the noble Earl will feel able to withdraw his Amendment.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friends who have supported the general purpose of this Amendment, and to the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, whose words were very welcome. I would say to my noble friend Lord Nugent, whose experience one admires and appreciates very much, as the mentor in the sense of this Bill, that one understands that this proposal would be contrary to the Bill and might cause a dangerous precedent, but the case one was trying to put over was that the Isle of Wight was a special case, as the noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud, recognised in regard to local government. The purpose in moving the Amendment was not to press it. As my noble friend has said, we have had a meeting on this matter, for which we are grateful, as also we are for her patience. We are grateful, too,
94
for her undertaking that the Government will draw attention to the points that have been made in Parliament over the case of the Isle of Wight; and, with that assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 1 [Regional water authority areas]:
6.43 p.m.
LORD INGLEWOOD LORD INGLEWOOD moved Amendment No. 33F:
Page 45, line 6, leave out ("Cumberland").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 33F and, in order to save your Lordships' time, I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 33G and 33H at the same time. Ministers are fully aware of the great dissatisfaction that has been shown with the boundaries of the North-Westorn Water Authority as drawn in the Bill. There is the obvious disadvantage of putting together the not inconsiderable area of the Lake District National Park, with its smaller population and larger water resources, with the Southern part of the area, thickly populated, with a much larger population, and its big industrial interests, so giving the industrial consuming end of the area a permanent and overwhelming majority of members of the new authority drawn from the local authorities. That needs no further explanation.
Here I would submit that it is a mistake to adhere to the principle that the new areas in order to be strong and efficient, as Ministers and others keep repeating, must necessarily include both producing and consuming interests, although in many cases I am sure that that would be an advantage, in particular if they are closely interlocking. But in this case there is much to be said against putting the two together. There is a clear geographical boundary, a narrow neck, between the two parts the rural Northern part, which includes the National Park, and the industrial areas to the South.
In another place the Government recently showed reluctance to amend these boundaries, and so in your Lordships' House at the Committee stage my noble friend Lord Rochdale moved an Amendment which attempted to improve

95
the position in another way: that was to increase the representatives from the local authorities in the Northern half of the area, with its thinner population and the special interests of the National Park. I think I am right in saying that there is a precedent for weighting an authority in this way. I supported my noble friend Lord Rochdale in that debate, and during the course of it both he and I said that we should have preferred to see the area cut into two; that is to say, a Lake District or Cumbria in the North as a separate district and I would not admit that this is parochialism, because the North has so little in common with the Southern half, and if not changed it will leave this area far from being an equal partnership. We all know that relations over the years between the Northern and Southern parts of the North-West of England have not been good, and I am not going to quote anything this evening which might be taken to make them worse.
There was no very warm response from the Government to my noble friend's Amendment and later a letter was sent to my noble friend, and the Minister very courteously sent me a copy. Again, it amounted to no warm response, but rather to a reiteration of what the Government are pleased to call the safeguards which are built into the Bill. Hence, I feel it was a natural thing to put down this Amendment at the Report stage in an effort to achieve what people in the Lake District, and not least the county council and the river authority, want. They feel that what I am proposing is the better solution. It is not just myself, or myself and my friends, but the responsible authorities of the district who would like to see the solution that I propose. They maintain that there are ample resources in the district, as the recent successful administration of the existing river authority has shown.
It is worth recalling that when the 1963 Water Resources Bill was drafted, it included a provision for a larger area very similar to what is now proposed in this Bill. The same old arguments about size contributing to strength and efficiency were used over and over again, convincing bureaucrats, perhaps, but few others. Finally, I am glad to say, Ministers saw the strength of the argument on the other
96
side. I am sure we will be told now that a change would upset the advanced stage of planning. But surely it is better to get things right now rather than to have a wrong solution and then buttress it with so-called safeguards. In 1963—and this is a very good precedent—the then Government at a late stage saw the light and agreed to an Amendment on the same lines as that which I am now proposing, and I know of no argument ever being put forward to show that the smaller area which has been responsible for our water resources over the last ten years has in any way been inefficient, unpublicspirited or short of resources, either financial or of manpower. Therefore I hope that the Government this evening will advise the House to accept this Amendment, just as the Minister in 1963 advised another place to accept a similar Amendment at a similar stage of the previous Bill, if they do not do this and if later damage is done to the Lake District, as I fear it could be, we shall then know at whose door the blame must be laid. I appreciate that there are safeguards in this Bill, but I would submit that accepting safeguards is not the same thing as putting the position right now, which is a much more certain and much less laborious way of achieving what we all want to see.
6.50 p.m.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, it is perfectly true that at a late stage in the passage of the 1963 Bill Amendments such as my noble friend has described were made. It is also true to say that those who had been engaged in the management of water resources in the area have been regretting the Amendment ever since. The areas proposed—
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, may I interrupt my noble friend for a moment? I hope I shall not do so again. The river authority support my Amendment.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I was just coming to that. The areas proposed in the present Amendment might have been all right for the river authorities in 1963, but that does not mean it will be right for the regional water authorities with a much larger range of functions and in the designing of which it is necessary to take account not only of river basins and other similar natural features but

97
also the major man-made water conservation systems—which in this case mean the extensive dams and aqueducts of the Manchester Corporation which, whether we like it or not, are there already. I am afraid I cannot recommend to the House the acceptance of this particular Amendment, but I should like to set before the House the background against which the matter needs to be judged and which has been improved in three particular respects. First of all, there is the undertaking given by my honourable friend in the Standing Committee in another place, that the Secretary of State, in considering his own appointments for this particular water authority (and the same applies to a number of other water authorities), will have particular regard to the amenities of the Lake District and the recreational features that need to be specially considered in this context. If I may say so, I think that is a much better way of redressing the balance, as my noble friend would put it, in favour of these particular interests in Cumbria.
To make the kind of exception which his noble friend was asking us to make in the earlier form of Amendment would be to do something quite different from anything which is done in the composition of the other regional water authorities. Several of them are in much the same case as the Lake District is in relation to the other authorities making up the North West Water Authority. There is also the firm assurance, which I am glad to repeat, that the Secretary of State will have regard to this special situation when he comes to making his own appointments. The second one I have mentioned before, though not in this context: namely, that, unlike what my noble friend would regard as the bad old days when the Manchester Corporation did a number of things—or sought to do a number of things—in the Lake District to which your Lordships' House in particular took exception the position now is that any proposal for a reservoir there, for instance, would have to go before a public local inquiry and in addition any order would be subject to a Parliamentary procedure as well, following the provisions incorporated in the Water Resources Act 1971. The third point—and this is a new one—is the one which we have just incorporated in the Bill in Amendment No. 25, which I moved a little while ago. This would
98
provide for the Secretary of State to incorporate in the Order authorising a new reservoir a duty upon the regional water authority to make such other provision for the benefit of the area as he might see fit. That proposal itself would also be before a public local inquiry.
I do not quarrel with the use by my noble friend of the word "safeguards" because that is an apt description of what we are talking about; but the fact that these are there now and that these assurances have been given, I think does go to meet the fears and anxieties which my noble friends have been expressing. I should like to recommend to the House that they meet these points in a better way either than the present Amendment or that put down by the noble Lord's noble friend previously. We are now leaving intact the framework and the balance which is incorporated in the Bill for all the regional water authorities, and I hope I have shown that the fears for Cumbria and the Lake District are fully met. I hope that with those assurances, which I have expressed in a letter to my noble friend and to the noble Viscount, Lord Rochdale, but have not had the opportunity previously of putting to the House as a whole, my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his Amendment.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
6.58 p.m.
LORD PEDDIE LORD PEDDIE moved Amendment No. 33J:
Page 45. line 25, leave out from beginning to end of line 27.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment and should like to take this opportunity of thanking my noble friend Baroness White for the effective way in which she presented the case and outlined the strong objections which the Kent River Authority had on the grounds of land drainage, water resources, pollution control and water supply organisations. Since then a fairly long document has been received from the noble Baroness, Lady Young. This, I regret to say, I have not yet had the opportunity of studying in the detail it deserves. Therefore I should welcome any amplification or further comment upon this matter, following upon the discussion which took place at Committee stage.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, before answering this Amendment, may I say that I understand it has been agreed between the usual channels that after this Amendment has been dealt with we should adjourn the consideration of this Report stage and move on to the next business.
BARONESS WHITE: My Lords, we have not been consulted on this proposal.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I am glad I have mentioned the point. Perhaps the usual channels will confirm the message I have received, and I suggest that meanwhile we continue with our consideration of this Amendment.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, would the noble Lord tell us when we shall be returning to this Report stage?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, it is suggested that we should adjourn the consideration of this Report and deal with other business; and after that come back to this Bill.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: In other words, the noble Lord intends that we should come back to it this evening at some unspecified time?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, that is my understanding of what had been arranged, but perhaps the usual channels, now that the matter has been raised, can consider the exact arrangement that has been made, if my understanding is not correct.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, before my noble friend goes on to deal with these Amendments, may I say that we are all interested in what the usual channels have arranged, apart from the Water Bill. I wonder whether the noble Lord can tell us when we are to return to this Bill?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, my understanding of a message which was conveyed to me a few moments ago was that we should adjourn consideration of this Report stage after this Amendment, at about seven o'clock, which is about the time now, and deal with the remaining business on the Order Paper; and when that was finished return to the consideration of this Report.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, that means that those of us who are engaged in the consideration of this Bill will have to wait until we do not know when, because already consideration at the Report stage has gone beyond the time which it was indicated it would take. We have no guarantee at all. I wonder whether the noble Lord could be more helpful than he has been.
7.0 p.m.
VISCOUNT AMORY: My Lords, it would be a great convenience, if our business is to be adjourned, to have an idea when we should resume. It seems to me a rather bad precedent to break consideration of a Bill for other business without any assurance on when we are to resume.
BARONESS WHITE: And, my Lords, without any dinner being provided, as I understand it.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I was aware of the disadvantages of this course, but it is not my job to arrange the business of the House. I am just conveying to noble Lords what my understanding of the arrangements is. If we can discuss the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Peddie, for a little while, which fortunately could run to two or three pages of foolscap, perhaps we shall arrive at a satisfactory solution to the way business is to be conducted.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, why not let us have the vote now and then honour would be satisfied all round.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, the Amendment before the House may not involve a vote; it involves an exposition by me of the reasons why the boundaries of the Kent River Authority are what they are in the Bill rather than what the noble Lord, Lord Peddie, might like.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, may I raise this further point about the conduct of business? We are near the end of the Report stage on this Bill and I wonder whether it would be for the convenience of the House to finish it before going on to other business.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I am sure it would be for the convenience of those at present concerned with the Bill, but that may not be the only consideration.

101
The matter before us is how the boundary between the Thames Water Authority and the Southern Water Authority should be drawn. The issue was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Peddie, at the earlier stage. He was not able to remain to take part in the debate which followed. His Amendment was moved by the noble Baroness, Lady White, and in view of the hour we had then reached it was agreed that I should not deal with the matter at great length, but that I should write at great length to the noble Lord, which I have done. Unless it is necessary for me to keep speaking, I propose to deal fairly briefly with the issue, because I think that is still the wish of the House and the noble Lord.
The fact of the matter is that it is surface watersheds which primarily determine the boundaries between the new regional water authorities and not administrative boundaries, which have arisen for different reasons, between statutory water undertakers or any other bodies concerned with water. It is also the intention of the Government not to follow this particular guiding principle if it causes unnecessary disruption, and provision has been made in the Bill for exceptions to be applied, as they will be in this case. The main point I would make in answer to the noble Lord is that the Metropolitan Water Board lies wholly within the area of the Thames Water Authority. Its supplies into Kent involve more than twice the amount of water of the authorities with which he is particularly concerned: the Seven-oaks, Tonbridge and Mid-Kent water companies. But land drainage and flood protection, the other additional functions of regional water authorities, need to have different boundaries from those required for the other functions of these authorities; but exceptions in both those cases can and will be made under Clause 2(3).
There is the further factor in this case where the management of water resources involves the effective management of the chalk and green sand aquifers. The aquifers cannot be divided for management purposes by their very nature, but arrangements can be made for their joint management under Clause 6(1) and that will be done in that case. Those factors being taken into account, the view of the Government is that the balance of arguments
102
is in favour of the boundaries set out in the Bill which have been modified since it was first introduced in a number of minor ways as the result of further consideration which the matter has had. I hope that explanation will satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Peddie, and the rest of the House.
LORD PEDDIE: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that explanation which, along with the documentation, will be closely studied. I apologise for the length of time it has taken, but I am certain it has been due to circumstances that have been outside my control and probably that of the noble Lord opposite. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, it would be for the convenience of the House if we could clear up the point about the break. My understanding is that through the usual channels agreement has been reached that we shall break for one hour to take the next two pieces of business and resume the Report stage of the Bill at five minutes past eight.
BARONESS WHITE: That, my Lords, is provided we have the firm assurance that we will resume again at five minutes past eight; and if my noble friend is happy with that, we shall be willing to acquiesce.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, I have just heard the noble Baroness refer to two items of business; fortunately I have responsibility for only one. So far as tboat is concerned, with the cooperation of everybody on the other side of the House, I shall be happy to attempt to get the business through in one hour.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I am sorry that there has been a slight misunderstanding here. If it is agreed, we shall adjourn for one hour and then come back on the Water Bill again in one hour's time. I hope that will allow time for Lord Mottistone's Bill, and also for the Bill of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, to be dealt with. I believe that the Third Reading should not take very long.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (VISCOUNT Hoop): The Motion is, That the House do now adjourn until eight o'clock.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: No.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, the Motion before the House is, That consideration of the Report on the Water Bill should now be adjourned.
BARONESS SEROTA: My Lords, on a point of clarification, as I understood it the noble Earl suggested that we might take the Domicile Bill after the Employment Agencies Bill before we resumed on the Water Bill. Was that understanding correct?
EARL ST. ALDWYN: That is correct, my Lords. I understand that it is not intended that there should be discussion on the Third Reading and presumably it wilt be formal and will take a matter of seconds rather than minutes.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, perhaps it would help if I moved once again, That the consideration of the Report of the Water Bill should be adjourned in order that we may proceed with the next business.
Moved, That the consideration of the Report of the Water Bill be now adjourned.—(Lord Sandford.)

EMPLOYMENT AGENCIES BILL
7.10 p.m.
LORD MOTTISTONE: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, that the House do again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Mottistone.)
House in Committee accordingly.
[The VISCOUNT HOOD in the Chair.]
Clause 5 [General regulations]:
LORD DIAMOND LORD DIAMOND moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 6, line 5, leave out from beginning to ("regulating") in line 6 and insert ("(h)").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 4 I wonder, in view of the pressure of time about which we have just been advised, whether it would be
104
for the convenience of the Committee if we discussed Amendment No. 5 with it. They both deal with the same area: namely, the question of charging fees and licensing agencies in that respect. Amendment No. 4 is a fairly substantial Amendment and has the effect of giving the Secretary of State power to make regulations restricting the charging of fees to employers by persons carrying on such agencies and businesses. As at present drafted the Bill proposes to prevent the Secretary of State from having that power. The other Amendment which we could perhaps discuss at the same time relates to page 6, line 14, and is to leave out from "fee" to the end of line 15. That has the effect of preventing an employment agency from charging any fee at all. So we are now discussing the general question of charging of fees. One point is whether the Secretary of State shall have power to regulate the charging of fees to employers, and the other is the question whether agencies shall charge fees at all. I recognise that these are fairly substantial Amendments, but they are moved so that we might get the position clear.
There has been in existence an I.L.O. Convention on this subject for a very long time, and here is a Bill which could make an "honest woman"—rather late nevertheless, better late than never—of this country by providing that fees should be restricted. As I understand it, that is one of two methods by which we could subscribe to the I.L.O. Convention doing the various things which are in the Bill plus one further thing for which this Amendment provides.I should have thought therefore that there is a very good reason for doing this and that a responsibility rests upon the Government to say why they are not seeking to persuade the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, to amend his Bill so that the country could subscribe to the I.L.O. Convention. That is one major reason.
Another major reason is that in the years that have passed since the I.L.O. Convention was signed we have become a member of the European Economic Community and are therefore interested in how other members of the Community regulate these affairs. I refer to what the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, said at col. 345 of the OFFICIAL REPORT On June

105
8 when we gave a Second Reading to this Bill.
"It is true"—
he said—
"that, in most E.E.C. countries, private permanent placing agencies are generally prohibited"—
not merely is there a restriction on the fees charged but agencies are prohibited. The noble Earl went on to speak about temporary hire agencies, which need not concern us now (we have discussed them on a previous occasion), and a few lines further down he continued:
"The E.E.C. Commission is at present examining this question"—
that is, the question of having to harmonise or agree provisions affecting employment agencies throughout the Community because of activities of agencies across international boundaries—
"and the Bill will, so far as we can see, enable us to comply with any Directives which might emanate from Brussels."
I think the noble Earl has to explain that statement. I should have thought that the addition of the Amendment might go some way towards justifying it. It is a statement which I welcome, but I do not see the justification for it on the Bill as at present drawn. Therefore, I should have thought that the fact that we are now members of the E.E.C. is a further reason why this first Amendment should be accepted. I have already referred to the second Amendment and to what the noble Earl said about the position so far as most E.E.C. countries are concerned. Again quoting him, he said that " private permanent placing agencies are generally prohibited".
The second Amendment refers to not charging a fee at all. I daresay that if no fee was charged there would be quite a few private employment agencies which would not be all that keen to open up business, incurring the overheads of rents, rates, telephones and what-have-you. I daresay, therefore, that this Amendment might be quite fairly read as meaning that a private employment agency would be in effect prevented from carrying on profitable business, except of course for temporary hire work. That is, as I say, a substantial Amendment, but it is moved because the noble Earl drew attention to the fact that in most E.E.C. countries private permanent placing agencies are generally prohibited, and it is the
106
Government's intention, apparently, that we should be in a position to comply with any Directives which might emanate from Brussels. That is the reason for the first Amendment, and I think that the arguments in support of the first Amendment touch on the second Amendment and it is therefore saving time to discuss them together. I beg to move.
7.18 p.m.
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: I do not know whether my noble friend Lord Mottistone wishes to deal with these substantial points here. I imagine he will wish to do so, but the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, made an appeal to me to substantiate certain remarks that I made at an earlier sitting of this Committee and also to deal with the point concerning the International Labour Organisation. If I may deal with just those parts of his remarks, I will then sit down and leave the remainder to my noble friend Lord Mottistone. I must say right away that it is true that, without the provision which the first Amendment would make possible, it will not be possible for the United Kingdom to ratify I.L.O. Convention 96. But it is generally believed that, although that Convention refers to the control of fees, in general the real spirit was to prevent employees from being charged. This Bill takes note of the spirit of Clause 6 of the Convention which prohibits the charging of fees to employees, except in circumstances prescribed by the Secretary of State.
The noble Lord showed his concern, in his colourful phrase, to make an "honest woman" of Britannia in this respect. I imagine he would be satisfied as to her honesty if I.L.O. Convention 96 were ratified. I must say to him that there are many, indeed the majority of, members of that organisation who have not seen fit to ratify. However, the noble Lord will have noted that this Bill goes a considerable way towards meeting the spirit of the Convention by the prohibition contained in Clause 6; and this seems to me to be consistent with my earlier remarks.
The progress of this Bill has been marked by an unusually accommodating spirit. The noble Lord himself is very accommodating, if I may say so, to move the two Amendments together, so I ask him to accept the compromise which

107
Clause 6 offers by withdrawing this Amendment.
LORD MOTTISTONE: If I may take up the other points about this Bill, as the noble Lord, Lord Diamond said, these Amendments would effectively rule out any form of fee charging by employment agencies, whether immediately or in the future. Under the first Amendment which we are considering it would be possible for a future Government (I trust not this one) to so frame the regulations that no business could remain viable and comply with whatever regulations were put forward. Therefore it gives the Government immense power to push the employment agencies out of business altogether, and I would have thought that was not really part of the spirit of this Bill. The Bill is designed to provide what one might call "reasonable regulations", to ensure that agencies behave in a manner which, on the whole, is acceptable and agreeable to us in society at the moment.
The other point is that there exists experience on where a limit to the fee charges has been imposed—I can think of at least one, and there are probably others—and this has the effect of removing incentives to good standards from all the agencies. A particular place where this has occurred is in New York, where all the agencies charge the maximum fee and there is no incentive for them to improve on this at all. So the whole purpose of the employment agency is taken from it, and one could ask: "Why not do away with employment agencies in private business? "But that is not the purpose of this Bill; this Bill is designed to provide a framework for them. It may he that with the passage of time, what with the I.L.O. restrictions and the E.E.C., we may get to a stage where that will come about. Speaking from these Benches, I personally hope we do not; but I ask noble Lords to think of the matter in terms of this Bill, to improve agencies and to ensure that they can operate under the optimum conditions to conduct good business in an orderly fashion, to satisfy what Parliament wants them to do.
VISCOUNT FURNESS: Perhaps my noble friend Lord Gowrie can confirm
108
that Her Majesty's Government have been forced to denounce the I.L.O. Convention 88 because of the introduction of fees in the State areas. If we have fees in the State areas, is it not reasonable to have fees in the private sector as well?
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: I am not sure whether I can be very helpful to my noble friend Lord Furness on this, but as I understand, in general, the Common Market countries prohibit permanent placing agencies. Brussels is only considering temporary agencies. I do not know whether that helps my noble friend, but if it does not, I will look at the point in more detail.
LORD DIAMOND: I will come back to the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, in a moment, but perhaps I might ask the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, whether that last remark meant that the justification for what he said on June 8 about complying with any Directives which might emanate from Brussels is to be taken in the context of temporary hire only? Do I gather that is all they are considering?
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: Yes.
LORD DIAMOND: Then that explains the statement, and so long as it is clearly understood that this Bill certainly does not give the Government powers automatically to comply with any Directives which might emanate from Brussels, dealing with permanent placing as well as private placing, then I think any misunderstanding has been removed. I am grateful to the noble Earl for that.
I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone. What he said is quite right and the points are taken. I was particularly concerned as to the second Amendment, not in regard to what he had said but what the noble Earl had said, and I thought this was a suitable opportunity to seek clarification of that.
As to the first part, the noble Earl has asked me to say whether I am satisfied that in this modern and somewhat permissive age Britannia might be held to be an honest woman notwithstanding that she has not fully complied with everything which her Victorian agent required. I think we can accept that,

109
and in those circumstances I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 5 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD DIAMOND: May I ask the noble Earl whether he has had an opportunity of looking into the question I asked him on the last occasion, as to whether the regulations which the Government have in mind and which are covered in this clause would include the question of requiring agencies to see that the National Health insurance cards of prospective applicants for a job were or were not in order? Has the noble Earl had time to look at that and, if so, what is the answer?
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: I am afraid the answer to that is "No". I apologise if I should have done and I will try to chase up that point.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clauses 7 to 11 agreed to.
Clause 12 [Regulation and orders]:
7.29 p.m.
LORD DIAMOND LORD DIAMOND moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 9, line 8, leave out ("cases ors").
The noble Lord said: As at present drafted, this subsection provides that regulations under this Act may make different provision in relation to different cases or classes of case. I can understand the need for the reference to "different classes of case". What I am concentrating on by this Amendment is the question of whether it is necessary to have regard to individual cases, because if it is we are entering again on a most difficult field of delegated legislation and I think we ought to be either prepared to justify it at the time that Parliament is giving the Government these powers, or at all events to realise the difficulties that arise from hybrid delegated legislation of this kind. As I understand the position, the clause as at present drafted would make it possible for regulations to deal with a single case. Such an order would clearly be a hybrid order and therefore I think one's attention should be drawn to it. It is in order to seek the justification for that, that I beg to move this Amendment.
LORD NIOTTISTONE: I think this is a matter of endeavouring to identify what the Bill is trying to deal with. When one talks about classes of cases as opposed to cases, what one thinks "classes" are really matters. The fact is that there are different sub-classes, as it were, within classes, which are cases. For example, one could have an agency dealing with domestic staff, but it might be dealing with domestic staff from the United Kingdom only or it might be dealing with domestic staff from the United Kingdom and overseas. The regulations for these two would need to be slightly different. Another example might be secretarial agencies. There might be a secretarial agency which dealt with providing staff for overseas work, and another one which dealt with staff for work at home; and again, the regulations would need to be slightly different. It is in order to give a flexibility to allow these different applications of classes that there is a sub-unit, let us say, of cases by themselves; that is, cases within classes. I hope that is a sufficiently good explanation for the noble Lord.
LORD DIAMOND: Well, we all have hopes, and I hope the explanation I shall eventually receive will be good enough, but I do not think we have got there yet.
My difficulty is that I think those promoting the Bill have the responsibility of showing either that it is essential to deal with individual cases, or that the words "classes of case" are not sufficient for their purposes. The noble Lord has described what to my mind are subclasses—and he used the words: "classes" covers sub-classes. He has talked about classes of case only in my view—I am not a lawyer, but as I understand what he was saying, he was referring to classes of case and not to cases. The trouble I want to avoid is a regulation dealing with Mr. X or Messrs. X Limited, full stop; not a category, however small a category, because that is something with which we are all familiar. There are provisions for dealing with categories, however unsatisfactory and however difficult they may be, by way of delegated legislation, especially in another place. But dealing with hybrid delegated legislation is a specially difficult matter, and I want to avoid that difficulty by preventing Parliament from

111
enacting the possibility of a Government's issuing regulations in that form unless it is essential.
The noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, said that there are classes. Therefore I say that then it is not essential to have the word cases ", unless he is telling me that through my ignorance of the law I have misunderstood the meaning of the word and "cases" does not mean, does not include and could not include an order affecting a single case—Mr. Jones or Messrs. X Limited, as the case may be. What I am seeking to do—and the noble Viscount, Lord Furness, ought to be on my side—is to prevent a Government by edict affecting a single individual agency unless there can be shown good reason for it here and now. So I ask the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, is he proposing to give the Government power to affect a single agency, and, if so, for what reason?
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: It might be helpful if I came in here. The noble Lord, Lord Diamond, as we should all expect, has not misunderstood his law; he has used the word "case" perfectly accurately. It could, of course, apply to an individual case. The noble Lord talked about difficulty, and this is both a difficult and a knotty point. It is difficult to state very definitely at this stage whether any individual case would be the subject of a regulation, but I must tell him that this might be so in connection with exemptions under the powers of Clause 13(7). It might be so if it were deemed appropriate to exempt some particular quasi-public service from the requirements of the Bill—for example, the Crown Agents who, technically speaking, are covered by the Bill, although the Crown itself is excluded from its provisions. Therefore we do find this Amendment, though I think it has been helpful to pinpoint this difficulty, somewhat restricting, since the effect would be to require regulations to refer only to classes of agency as my noble friend, Lord Mottistone said, and not to individual cases.
LORD DIAMOND: What the noble Earl has just said is important. What he is saying is that the words in the Bill mean what I thought they meant, which gives the Government power to
112
issue regulations affecting a single case, but that they envisage using that power only where that case is a public body or a Government body of the kind he has mentioned. If that is so, I can well understand it, and that comes into my second category of justifying that particular use. But that would mean that Parliament would, of course, have to be very watchful indeed if by any mischance or oversight any Department—of course, the Minister would not necessarily be aware of it—should seek to use this machinery for hybrid Instruments affecting a private individual. I am most grateful to the noble Earl and seek leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 12 agreed to.
Clause 13 [Interpretation]:
LORD DIAMOND LORD DIAMOND moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 10, line 2, leave out from beginning to end of line 17 and insert ("the Manpower Services Commission established by any Act of this Session establishing such a Commission").
The noble Lord said: Although we are very comfortably winning the race against the clock, it would be sensible, if I may suggest it, that this Amendment should be discussed with Amendment 8 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Derwent. I understand it is agreeable to him. He is also quite agreeable that it should be discussed with Amendment 9 as well, which says very much the same thing as Amendment 8, because all three affect the same point, namely, who the licensing authority should be. As at present drafted "the licensing authority" means a number of different authorities for different purposes, different areas, but excluding the most local of local authorities, namely, the district council, and excluding the most general control, namely, the Government or Government agency.
The reason I think these Amendments might well be discussed together is that I see two main arguments for deciding on the licensing authority. One is the very familiar one that one wants an overall licensing authority so as to secure equality of treatment in all respects against all those who are affected and over those who are affected. That would mean either the

113
Government, or, as we are happily dealing with a Bill at this very moment which sets it up, the Manpower Services Commission. That would seem to me, at all events, to be the ideal body to take over this responsibility, if one accepted that as the major argument. Indeed, it has many points in its favour. It means, for example, that any unsatisfactory employment agent whose licence in a particular area had been withdrawn for some reason or other—assuming a licensing authority restricted to an area—would not be pre-vented from attempting to set up in another area in the hope that he would not be known in that area, moving across the boundary, if the licensing authority covered only an area within a boundary; whereas if you have an overall licensing authority, such as the Manpower Services Commission, there would be a central register and this would be a satisfactory remedy for that evil. That is an additional argument in favour of an overall authority.
It so happens that the Manpower Services Commission, which is almost certain to be set up, would be advantaged if it could have the information which would stem from the employment agencies themselves in terms of the movement of labour, which jobs were becoming scarce and which vacancies were becoming scarce. It would be more likely to get that information and to require that information if it were the overall licensing authority. So it would assist from its own point of view. Then again it would ensure that there were equal vigour and enthusiasm brought to bear in the deployment of the licensing provisions as respects all employment agencies, wherever situated. It would not be the case that employment agencies in the South could get away with things that their competitors in the North could not, or vice versa. At all events, these are reasons why the familiar administrative arrangement of overall control could be accepted as the dominant argument.
As against that, there is an alternative point of view. The noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, found it surprising that I should express difficulty in understanding at Second Reading that I should contemplate two alternatives. I do not think it is beyond anyone's breadth of imagination to contemplate that either there is that argument or there is the alternative
114
argument; namely, that what is the most important thing is that the licensing authority should know its customers and know them well, and, therefore, should be the local authority; namely, the district council. A district council would know all those who have licences within its area. On Second Reading, I gave the example of Southampton and of Plymouth as being areas where the district council would know not only what was going on in their cities, which the county would not know, but the district council would be the body which would know what was mainly happening in the county, because what was happening in the county was in fact happening in the city, the rest of the county being more or less a vacuum so far as employment agencies are concerned. They are all concentrated, in those two cases, within the one major city in the county, and the rest is not the kind of industrial setup which requires or feeds employment agencies. So I repeat that the alternative point of view is that you want to have as local a body as possible, and that is why the second Amendment provides for a local body.
As noble Lords will know, I am anything but dogmatic, and could well accept either point of view if either could be fully justified. What I find difficulty in accepting is the kind of compromise at which those who built the famous bridge over the famous river arrived. Those responsible for building it were told that the ships they had to accommodate were sometimes very tall ships and sometimes very low ships, and so the decision, no doubt emanating from a politician, was, "Let us have a compromise and build a bridge halfway between the two." That is the kind of compromise which it seems to me is the sole justification which the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, adduced at Second Reading for the licensing authority being the county. The county is not local. If I may quote what the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, said, I think he will find it valuable to have his memory refreshed. He said on June 8, at column 346—this was in the days when there used to be a publication called Hansard:
"We are talking about something that concerns people every day within their own local community. On balance, this is the sort of thing which needs to be handled locally rather than even as a subordinate department of some

115
central body like the Manpower Services Commission."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8/6/73; col. 346.]
The noble Lord, to be fair to him, was obviously dealing then with the argument about a central body, but his argument against a central body was in favour of a purely local body. He used the word, "vicinity". I think either would be satisfactory, but the halfway house would be unsatisfactory. It is for those reasons that I beg to move the first Amendment.
LORD DERWENT: As we are discussing all these Amendments together, perhaps I may speak next. I do not think this is a matter of principle. I believe it is a matter of good administration; therefore, I do not like the first centralised method of licensing, because I believe it will not be efficient. That will doubtless be answered by my noble friend Lord Mottistone in due course. May I go straight to the question of district licensing. This is not only a matter of Plymouth or Southampton. There are many counties under the new set-up which are very large geographically. In London, which, after all, is very large geographically, with an enormous population, it is not the G.L.C. who will do the licensing, it is the borough councils. Why? Because they will know what happens in their local boroughs. In the metropolitan counties exactly the same applies: it is not the metropolitan county which will do the licensing, it is the small towns. Then suddenly we come to these non-metropolitan counties and we are told that the county is going to do the licensing.
May I, as an example, nothing more, take my own part of the world. We do not know quite where our new county council is going to be; it is either going to be at Northallerton or at York. Most of the employment agencies are in the holiday resorts down the coast, Scarborough, Whitby and so on. They are all between 40 and 50 miles from York and they are all between 40 and 50 miles from Northallerton. If it happens to be York eventually, the far end of the county is 80 miles away at Ripon, where they do have employment agencies. A wretched inspector will first of all be asked to make inquiries. How can he cover these districts and expect to know what is going
116
on? He simply will not know at all. On the other hand, in a town like Scarborough, for instance, if there is something a bit fishy about somebody who wants to set up an agency, somebody will know locally, and over a pint of beer will say to the inspector, who has asked "Do you know anything about this fellow"?, "We do know a bit about him. You had better watch him". If he lives 50 miles away, he will not have a clue. That is how these things work.
There is one other matter. There will be a local authority inspector at a place like Bridlington who will have to inspect the premises of these agencies under the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act. He comes under the local authority. Are we going to have yet another man brought in from 40, 50 or 60 miles away? If the inquiries are made by the district, without doubt the same man will be doing both inspectorates. It is not good administration to bring officials from miles away who will not know the locals.
VISCOUNT FURNESS: I want to intervene briefly. My noble friend Lord Derwent, whom we all respect as a former Minister, mentioned the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act, and what he said is no doubt true. But in fact the licensing of employment agencies, while technically on an individual basis, will also be to a great extent the licensing of a particular employment agency which may have many branches scattered throughout the county. I submit to your Lordships that a large inspectorate would be more useful from the point of view of having a satisfactory inspection. Having said that—
LORD DIAMOND: May I interrupt the noble Viscount and ask him whether, with his great knowledge of these matters, there are likely to be agents who would have branches not only within the county but covering several counties?
VISCOUNT FURNESS: I must concede that to the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, immediately. However, I was about to come to centralised administration and all I can say is that I support the noble Lords in front of me who have already rejected that argument.
LORD DERWENT: May I add that in my part of the world they are small

117
employment agencies. I know several of them and they are almost one-man firms.
LORD MOTTISTONE: We really have two arguments. May I take what one might call the "maxi" solution first and go to the "mini" solution afterwards? On the "maxi" solution, I would endorse what I said at Second Reading and I am delighted that there was a Hansard to read it from. I rather felt from what the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, was saying that the great advantage—and I entirely acknowledge this—of some manpower services commission authority dealing with the work would be the centralisation of information so that one could compare the previous records of agencies and that sort of thing. Indeed, on the Second Reading I mentioned the fact that this particular subject had been considered by the Employment and Social Services Sub-Committee and the Expenditure Committee which made various recommendations which are embodied in the Bill, one of which was that there should be a central register for just this sort of purpose. In fact I am advised that there is provision within the Bill, in Clause 8(3), from which such a central register can and—subject to what my noble friend on the Front Bench will say —will be built up.
The "mini" solution is a more difficult one. I owe the Front Bench a great deal of gratitude, in that they forced us to split our Committee stage of this not very big Bill, which gave me time to consult with my own county council and my own district. The county council said, "Oh, there is no problem over this question, within the Bill as it is framed, of who should have the licensing responsibility within the county, because in Clause 101 of the Local Government Act authority is given to counties to delegate any suitable functions to districts "and I am advised that the Department of the Environment say that this particular part of the Act will apply to this licensing regulation within this Bill. Therefore there is provision by which, within a county which has this problem of perhaps rather more agencies than another county, and one which has the geographical problem of 90 miles travel, such as my noble friend Lord Derwent mentioned, the district could well say to the county—and one hopes that they will be on very good terms—"This is something
118
which in your own interests you should delegate to us". From two people to whom I spoke in my own county I am sure that this is the way in which they would handle it and that there would be no problem.
It is perhaps recognised—though I have not heard the noble Lord, Lord Diamond do so yet—that there are some counties in which the county authority is probably the best one from the point of view, as the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, put it, of efficiency of administration. If the county is relatively small and has only a few agencies within it, there is much to be said for having it on a county basis. If, on the other hand, there are other factors applying which make it more suitable to have this decentralised or delegated to the district, there is the opportunity for this to be done under Clause 101 of the Local Government Act. I hope that these two suggestions of the "maxi" solution and the "mini" solution to the problem will be acceptable to the noble Lord, Lord Diamond.
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: My Lords, I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, wants to add to that. It seems to me that the questions have been expeditiously replied to and that my noble friend has dealt with the point admirably.
LORD DIAMOND: I agree immediately that the question has been dealt with admirably, but I do not want to convey to the noble Earl that there is ever an occasion on which we are not delighted to listen to him. I understand the arguments full well now—that the noble Viscount, Lord Furness, wants county authorities because of employment agencies which are going to cover the country at large, and the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, wants county authorities because the counties are going to delegate all the work to the districts. So we have here the two points of view very well argued. All three of us seem to be in agreement that there are arguments for the overall basis, or the "maxi" solution, and there are arguments for the "mini" solution; but nobody except the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, thinks that there may be counties to which the intermediate solution might be appropriate. But he has not given the reasons for saying that that might be the

119
case. We have all heard the reasons for saying that either the "maxi" or the "mini" solution is the appropriate one. I am in a little difficulty here because the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, has also put down—
LORD MOTTISTONE: I am sorry if I did not convey the full flavour of what I was trying to say, which is that the solution that seems to me to be the best one is in fact the middle solution, as I said at Second Reading, bust that in those counties where it would be more efficient to do it another way there is this provision available. But the middle solution is my preference.
LORD DIAMOND: I may be wrong, but if the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, will forgive my being personal for a moment, he was at one stage, I believe, an ornament to the Navy. I am surprised therefore that he is putting forward the "ship" solution after I carefully explained what would happen to the top of the mast of those tall ships attempting to go under the bridge. However, this is not the time, nor is it appropriate on a Bill like this, subject to what the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, wants to say, to pursue these matters too far. I thought it was worth while to put down the Amendment to hear the reasons for it, and it is obvious that one will have to watch how the administration is going and hope that the solution will be a practical one. It will probably mean that in most cases the district will, at the end of the day, do the work. Therefore, if the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, is content, I would seek to withdraw my first Amendment and not to move the second one.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 13 shall stand part of the Bill?
8.0 p.m.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: Clause 13 deals with interpretation and Clause 5 deals with regulations. This excellent little Bill has, as one of its objectives, the desire to see that persons recruited from overseas have some protection. I hope when regulations are made that they will be more helpful in regard to prohibiting the taking of large fees, and in giving some protection to girl workers from overseas who might suffer like the
120
Filippino girls did in the Rochdale affair. This can still be done under regulation, and there is no need to develop a long argument about it because it is self-evident. I hope to see this Bill become law, and when it becomes law I hope that some organisation is set up by means of which girls who come from overseas, or workers from overseas, will receive pamphlets and leaflets in their own language, so that if they are in real distress they can get some comfort and succour from a Government organisation.
Clause 13 agreed to.
Clause 14 [Short title, repeals, commencement and extent]:
On Question, Whether Clause 14 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD DIAMOND: Could I perhaps hold up the Committee for one further moment and say that I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, on the way he has handled this Bill. I wish him every success with this Bill. It is quite an honour to be as closely concerned as he is with something which is going to affect the lives of so many people, and we on this side wish the Bill well.
Clause 14 agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment; Report received.

DOMICILE AND MATRIMONIAL PROCEEDINGS BILL
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

WATER BILL
8.5 p.m.
Report stage resumed.
Schedule 2 [Boundaries of water authority areas and area and main river maps]:
LORD SANDFORD LORD SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 34:
Page 48, line 30, after ("consist") insert ("of the following maps, in so far as not replaced by maps sent to water authorities under paragraph 9 below:—
(a) in the case of the areas which immediately before that date consisted of the Thames

121
Catchment Area and the Lee Catchment Area,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 34, and to speak at the same time to Amendments Nos. 35 and 36. These are purely drafting Amendments to clarify the existing text, the substance of which remains unaltered.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 35.
Amendment moved—
Page 48, line 33, at beginning insert ("in the case of other areas").—(Lord Sandford.)
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 36.
Amendment moved—
Page 48, line 36, leave out ("(c) of") and insert ("and in either case, shall also consist of any").—(Lord Sandford.)
Schedule 3 [Administration, finance, etc., of water authorities and the National Water Council]:
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend I beg to move Amendment No. 37, which we discussed when Amendment No. 30 was moved.
Amendment moved—
Page 55, line 4, leave out paragraph 13.—(Lord Sandford.)
LORD SANDFORD LORD SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 37A:
Page 55, line 10, at end insert—
("13A. Without prejudice to paragraph 2 above, a water authority may—

(a) provide housing accommodation for persons employed by them (whether by constructing, converting, enlarging or acquiring any buildings and whether by selling such accommodation or letting it or permitting it to be occupied with or without requiring the payment of rent or other charges);

(b) permit a person for whom the authority provided housing accommodation while employed by them to occupy such accommodation provided by them after ceasing to be so employed.")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 37A. The purpose of this Amendment is to remove any doubt that there might be about
122
the powers of water authorities to provide housing for their employees and their retired employees. A number of employees of water undertakings have had their houses provided for them because, in the nature of the job, it has been necessary for employees to be housed in rather out of the way and remote areas, and there is no intention that the powers that have been used to do this should lapse or in any way be diminished by the passage of this Bill. The matter is safeguarded in this Amendment.
8.8 p.m.
LORD SANDFORD LORD SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 38:
Page 55, line 26, at end insert—
("14A.—(1) Subject to the following provisions of this paragraph, a person nominated by one or more local authorities may act as deputy for a member of a water authority appointed by that local authority or those local authorities and may accordingly (instead of the member) attend and vote at a meeting of the water authorities or any committees or subcommittees to which the member for whom he is a deputy belongs.
(2) A person acting as deputy for a member of a water authority shall be treated for the purposes for which he is nominated as a member of that authority.
(3) A person shall not act as deputy for a member of a water authority unless his nomination has been notified to an officer of the authority appointed to receive such nominations.
(4) A nomination shall be in writing and may apply either to a particular meeting or to all meetings during a stated period or until the nomination is revoked.
(5) A person shall not act as deputy for more than one member of a water authority.
(6) The reference to committees and sub-committees in this paragraph does not include a reference to regional or local land drainage committees.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 38, which, together with Amendment No. 43, to which I should like to speak at the same time if it is convenient to the House, fulfils another undertaking which I gave to my noble friend Lord Ridley and to my noble friend Lord Amory on the position about which they were rather anxious, that a bare majority of a local authority's members would not really serve to meet their purposes. The main point I made in answer to that was that I

123
did not think that we should regard the water authorities as being made up of two opposing camps of appointed members and elected members, but that in so far as there was some valid reason for having a bare majority of local authority members, that could be safeguarded if it was open to the local authorities to appoint deputies or substitutes. This undertaking is met in Amendment No. 38 and Amendment No. 43.
My noble friend Lord Amory has asked me to apologise to the House for not being able to be present when this Amendment was moved, but he has authorised me to say that he is grateful for what the Government are doing, and he wanted me to say that it goes quite a long way to meeting his misgivings, though it is not precisely what he would have liked or what he asked for originally. I hope that with that commendation the House will be prepared to accept these two Amendments.
BARONESS WHITE: My Lords, we sympathise with the objectives of this Amendment, although, as I have made clear at earlier stages of our deliberations, I am sceptical as to the validity of the principle of a majority of local authority members, because I do not regard it as being genuinely democratic. On the other hand, one can see that a local authority may wish to make certain that its views are conveyed to the appropriate meetings, and that therefore provision for deputies is not unreasonable. So on that basis, rather than on the question of the majority, we should be disposed to go along with this Amendment.
On a small matter of detail, I should like to ask the Minister about subsection (5) of this Amendment which I think is repeated in Amendment No. 43 mutatis nuttandis. It states that
"A person shall not act as deputy for more than one member of a water authority."
One assumes that that means at any one moment of time, because one can foresee occasions when the same person might be nominated as a deputy for more than one person at successive meetings. I should have thought that, as a matter of careful draftsmanship, it might be better to make the position absolutely clear. Just occasionally difficulties may arise in situations of this sort, when one has rather
124
frustrating arguments or squabbles. I am not quite sure whether it might be better to make it perfectly plain that these words are intended to mean that one cannot simultaneously represent more than one other person, although there may be occasions—possibly at successive meetings—when the same deputy might be deputising for different persons.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I think that I can give the noble Baroness the assurance for which she has asked on that point, because the procedure would be that they were nominated in writing to an appropriate officer of a water authority. The nomination might apply to a particular meeting, or to all meetings during a stated period, or until it was revoked. But certainly, in the light of all that the noble Baroness has said, we shall look at the wording again to make sure that it meets the point.
Schedule 4 [Land drainage]:
8.12 p.m.
EARL FERRERS EARL FERRERS moved Amendment No. 39:
Page 66, line 21, leave out sub-paragraph (3).
The noble Earl said: My Lords, perhaps with this Amendment we may also consider Amendment No. 42. The purpose of these Amendments is to allow local authorities, when considering their appointments to local land drainage committees, to consider either members of the appointing council or other people. Latitude is already provided in the Bill for local authority appointments to water authorities and regional land drainage committees. We think it fair and consistent that this latitude should be extended to local land drainage committees. My Lords, I beg to move.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 40 and 41 are linked. They are clarifying Amendments, in order to make it quite clear that the appointment of members to a local land drainage committee by local authorities will be made in accordance with, and subject to, the scheme which establishes the local land drainage committee, and which in turn has to be approved by the Minister. My Lords, I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 68, line 23, leave out ("by") and insert ("in accordance with and subject to the terms of the local land drainage scheme, by or on behalf of")
Page 68, line 33, after ("by") insert ("or on behalf of").—(Earl Ferrers.)
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 42.
Amendment moved—
Page 69, line 11, at end insert—
("(3A) Section 3(12) of this Act shall apply in relation to members of a regional or local land drainage committee appointed by or on behalf of a constituent council or constituent councils as it applies in relation to members of a water authority appointed by a local authority or authorities.")—(Earl Ferrers.)
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 43.
Amendment moved—
Page 70, line 8, at end insert—
("8A.—(1) Subject to the following provisions of this paragraph, a person nominated by one or more constituent councils may act as deputy for a member of a regional or local land drainage committee appointed by or on behalf of that council or those councils and may accordingly (instead of that member) attend and vote at a meeting of the committee.
(2) A person nominated under sub-paragraph (1) above as deputy for a member of a regional land drainage committee may by virtue of that nomination attend and vote at a meeting of a sub-committee of that committee (other than a meeting of a local land drainage committee) to which the member for whom he is a deputy belongs.
(3) A person nominated under sub-paragraph (1) above as deputy for a member of a local land drainage committee may attend and vote at a meeting of a sub-committee of that committee to which the member for whom he is a deputy belongs.
(4) A person acting as deputy for a member of a regional or local land drainage committee shall be treated for the purposes for which he is nominated as a member of that committee.
(5) A person shall not act as deputy for a member of a regional or local land drainage committee unless his nomination has been notified to an officer of the water authority appointed to receive such nominations.
(6) A nomination shall be in writing and may apply either to a particular meeting or to all meetings during a stated period or until the nomination is revoked.
126
(7) A person shall not act as deputy for more than one member of a regional or local land drainage committee.")—(Earl Ferrers.)
Schedule 5 [Consequential, transitional and supplementary provisions]:
BARONESS YOUNG BARONESS YOUNG moved Amendment No. 44:
Page 79, line 6, leave out ("the Water Supply Industry Training Board").
The noble Baroness said: In moving this Amendment, I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 45, 46 and 47. These Amendments are all drafting. Amendment No. 47 adds the Water Supply Industry Training Board to the definition of the term "transferor body". My Lords, I beg to move.
BARONESS WHITE: My Lords, I appreciate that we are trying to get through this stage as quickly as possible, but I wonder whether the noble Baroness could be a little more helpful to us. What exactly happens to the Water Supply Industry Training Board under these Amendments? What is its status or standing, if any?—because we are not entirely clear as to the purpose of these Amendments. It would be very helpful if the noble Baroness could indicate the substance of the Amendments.
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, I shall try to explain further what these Amendments mean. The practical effect is that the Water Supply Industry Training Board will come within the scope of paragraph 3(a) of Schedule 5, or that, for example, anything done by the Board before April 1, 1974, will thereafter be treated as having been done by the National Water Council, subject to any express provisions to the contrary, as provided for in subsection (5) of Section 254 of the Local Government Act 1972. The staff of the Board will come within the provisions of Section 259 (compensation for loss of office) and Section 260 (early retirement in lieu of compensation for loss of office). The object of the Amendments is to ensure that all appropriate matters relating to the Board are properly covered, given that the Board itself is to be abolished by the Bill.
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 45 and 46.
Amendments moved—
Page 80, line 1, leave out ("and the Water Supply Industry Training Board").
Page 80, line 16, leave out ("the Water Supply Industry Training Board").—(Baroness Young.)
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 47.
Amendment moved—
Page 80, line 29, after ("corporation") insert ("the Water Supply Industry Training Board"). —(Baroness Young.)
Schedule 7 [Minor and consequential amendments, etc.]:
8.17 p.m.
BARONESS YOUNG BARONESS YOUNG moved Amendment No. 48:
Page 86, line 40, leave out ("third") and insert ("fourth").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 48. This is a drafting Amendment to delete words accidentally retained in Section 39(1) of the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1923. My Lords, I beg to move.
BARONESS WHITE: My Lords, does this mean that these words have been in the Act since 1923 and that we are now taking them out?
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, I am not quite sure that that is the exact meaning, but the intention is that water authorities should be able to apply for Orders under Section 39(1) and this Amendment enables them to do that.
BARONESS YOUNG BARONESS YOUNG moved Amendment No. 49:
Page 91, line 20, leave out from ("sewers") to end of line 23 and insert ("belonging to a road maintained by a highway authority").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this Amendment corrects an omission in the new definition of the term "public sewer" which is contained in paragraph 33 of Schedule 7. My Lords, I beg to move.
BARONESS YOUNG BARONESS YOUNG moved Amendment No. 50:
Page 91, line 43, at end insert—
("35A.—(1) Notwithstanding the repeal by this Act of section 37 of the London Government
128
Act 1963 (which applied certain provisions of the Public Health Act 1936 to Greater London and the sewerage area of the Greater London Council)—

(a) the following provisions of the Public Health Act 1936, that is to say, section 32 (map of public sewers) and sections 39 to 41 (miscellaneous provisions as to drainage) shall continue to apply throughout Greater London (except the Inner Temple and the Middle Temple); and

(b) the following provisions of the said Act of 1936, that is to say, section 25 (need for consent to building over public sewers, etc.) and sections 37 and 38 (drainage of new buildings) shall continue to apply to the outer London boroughs.

(2) In the said provisions in their application to a London borough or the City of London references to a local authority shall be construed as references to the borough council or the Common Council of the City, as the case may be, except that references in section 41 of the said Act of 1936 to a local authority shall, in relation to a private sewer or a cesspool or other receptable for drainage be construed as a reference to the council of the London borough in which the sewer, cesspool or other receptacle is situated or, if it is situated in the City of London the Common Council of the City.
(3) At the end of section 32 of the said Act of 1936 there shall be added the following subsection:—
"(4) The council of every inner London borough and the Common Council of the City of London shall supply a copy of the said map to the Greater London Council."
35B.—(1) Where a person proposes under section 34 of that Act (right of owners and occupiers to drain into public sewers) to make a communication between a drain or sewer and a main sewer in Greater London, the grounds on which the local authority may refuse under subsection (3) of that section to permit the communication shall be such grounds as they think fit and no application to a magistrate's court may be made under the proviso of that subsection in respect of any such refusal by the water authority.
(2) In this paragraph "main sewer "means a public sewer used for the general reception of sewage from other public sewers and not substantially used for the reception of sewage from private sewers and drains.")
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, with this Amendment I should like to take Amendment No. 77. These Amendments are designed to ensure that the necessary modifications are made in the London Government Act 1963, to take into account the setting up of water authorities and the transfer to them of the responsibility for sewerage and sewage disposal. I beg to move.
BARONESS YOUNG BARONESS YOUNG moved Amendment No. 51:
Page 93, leave out lines 5 to 11 and insert—
("44A. For subsections (1) and (2) of section 10 of the Water Act 1945 (variation of limits of supply) there shall be substituted the following subsections:—
"(1) Subject to section 10(7) of the Water Act 1973 (which relates to the boundaries of water authority areas), the Secretary of State may—

(a) on the application of any statutory water undertakers, by order vary their limits of supply, but not so as to include any area which is within the limits of supply of any other statutory water undertakers;

(b) on the application of two or more statutory water undertakers, by order provide for the variation by agreement of any common boundary between their respective limits of supply.

(2) Subject to section 10(7) of the Water Act 1973, where it appears to the Secretary of State that it is expedient to vary the limits of supply of any statutory water undertakers and he is satisfied that such variation cannot be secured under the last foregoing subsection, the Secretary of State may make an order providing compulsorily for such variation."
44B.—(1) In the second paragraph of subsection (10) of section 14 of that Act (control of abstraction and prevention of waste) for the words from "application" to "take" there shall be substituted the words "application of the water authority within whose area the well, borehole or other work is situated, authorise them to take".
(2) In subsection (12) of that section—

(a) for the words from the beginning to "concerned" there shall be substituted the words "Any officer of a water authority authorised for the purpose by the authority", and

(b) for the words "area of the river authority" (which were substituted by the Water Resources Act 1963) there shall be substituted the words "water authority area".

44C. In the proviso to section 15(1) of that Act (agreements as to drainage etc.) for the words from "otherwise" to the end of the subsection there shall be substituted the words "into a watercourse otherwise than through public sewers, the undertakers shall before entering into the agreement—

(a) consult any water authority exercising functions in relation to the watercourse; and

(b) if the watercourse is subject to the jurisdiction of a navigation authority, consult that authority".")

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 51 and to take with it Amendments Nos. 52, 55, 56, 57, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73 and
130
80. This is a very large number of Amendments to take all at once, but I understand that they make consequential modifications in Schedule 7, and repeals in Schedule 8 in the water supply legislation in order to take account of the transfer of functions from local authorities to water authorities. They cover the financial provisions in Part III of the present Bill, the disappearance of river authorities, who were the successors to the catchment boards, fisheries boards, the Rivers Board and river boards mentioned at various points in earlier legislation. I beg to move Amendment No. 51.
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 52.
Amendment moved—
Page 93, line 14, at end insert—
("46A. In paragraph (a) of the proviso to section 22(2) of that Act (acquisition of land and execution of works) for the words from "watercourse" to the end of the paragraph there shall be substituted the words" watercourse—

(i) consult any water authority exercising functions in relation to the watercourse; and

(ii) if the watercourse is subject to jurisdiction of a navigation authority, consult that authority;".

46B. In section 34 of that Act (temporary discharge of water into watercourse)—

(a) in paragraph (a) of subsection (2), for the words from "to the" to the end of the paragraph there shall be substituted the words "to any water authority exercising functions in relation to any watercourse into which the water is to be discharged;" and

(b) in subsection (3), for the words from "under", in the second place where it occurs, to the end of the subsection there shall be substituted the words "to send to a water authority under paragraph (a) of the last foregoing subsection;".").—(Baroness Young.)

BARONESS YOUNG BARONESS YOUNG moved Amendment No. 53:
Page 93, line 16, leave out from ("for") to ("Schedule") and insert ("amending and modifying sections 36 to 38 of that Act (obligation to supply water and recovery of water rates) and for adapting references in").
The noble Baroness said: I beg to move Amendment No. 53 and to take with it Amendment No. 54. The first Amendment paves the way for the second, and the purpose of the Amendment is to empower water companies to

131
collect charges for regional water authorities. It is concerned simply with the mechanics of the system and is not introducing any new principle. I beg to move.
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 54.
Amendment moved—
Page 93, leave out lines 18 to 22 and insert—
("(2) Subject to the following provisions of this paragraph

(a) any reference in section 38 to a water rate shall be construed as including a reference to any charge payable under Part III of this Act; and

(b) any reference in Schedule 3 to a water rate shall be construed as including a reference to any such charge for services which include a supply of water for domestic purposes.

(2A) Without prejudice to the power of a statutory water company to act as agent for a water authority apart from this sub-paragraph, a statutory water company who are supplying water on behalf of a water authority may recover on behalf of the authority any charge payable under Part III of this Act for services provided by the authority within the company's limits of supply and exercise on behalf of the authority any other powers of the authority under section 38, and references in that section to the undertakers shall be construed accordingly.")—(Baroness Young.)
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 93, line 43, at end insert—
("48A. In section 55(1)(c) of that Act (authentication of documents) for the words "not being a local" there shall be substituted the words "other than a water".").—(Baroness Young.)
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 93, line 45, leave out from ("of") to end of line 47 and insert (""watercourse" for the words "joint board of local authorities" there shall be substituted the words "water authority".").—(Baroness Young.)
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 57.
Amendment moved—
Page 94, line 4, at end insert—
("50A. In paragraph 3 of that Schedule, for sub-paragraphs (ii) and (iii) there shall be substituted the following sub-paragraphs:—
"(ii) on any water authority exercising functions in the area affected by the Order; and
(iii) where it is proposed that the order shall authorise the execution of works, on any navigation authority exercising functions in relation to a watercourse affected by the works proposed to be executed."
50B. In paragraph 12 of that Schedule—
(a) for sub-paragraph (ii) there shall be substituted the following sub-paragraph:—
"(ii) on any water authority exercising functions in the area affected by the order; and";
(b) in sub-paragraph (iii) after the word "undertakers" there shall be inserted the words not being a water authority";
(c) for sub-paragraphs (iv) and (v) there shall be substituted the following sub-paragraph:—
"(iv) where it is proposed that the order shall authorise the execution of works, on any navigation authority exercising functions in relation to a watercourse affected by the works proposed to be executed."
50C. In section 1(1) (interpretation) of Schedule 3 to that Act (procedural provisions), in the definition of "watercourse" for the words "joint board of local authorities" there shall be substituted the words "water authority".").—(Baroness Young.)
8.25 p.m.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK LORD DAVIES OF LEEK moved Amendment No. 57A:
Page 94, line 4, at end insert—
("51. In paragraph (a) of section 40 the words from at or before "to the end of the paragraph shall be omitted").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I apologise for detaining the House for a moment. This is more or less a point of clarification and I am sure the noble Baroness will be able to help me. As I said previously when I moved a number of Amendments en bloc, this Schedule contains a number of amendments to the Water Act 1945 and other enactments. The 1945 Act provides for charging water rates, but as these will now be repealed no further modifications are necessary except to Section 40, to which this Amendment refers. The proposed modification of that section is based on the provisions in the Mid-Northamptonshire Water Board Order 1948, which provided for water for domestic purposes to

133
be met by precepts and not water rates. That is the only precedent for enabling a water undertaker to raise money solely by precept for these purposes. It was proposed in the case of the Isle of Wight in 1964 but the proposals were not allowed.
The point I should like to put to the noble Baroness is this. I think that this Amendment may be necessary in any event, and has possibly been overlooked by the Government, as under the Bill there will be no water rate but a charge. The reference in paragraph 48 of Schedule 3 to the Water Act 1945 therefore does not seem appropriate. If the noble Baroness has not the answer at her fingertips, I shall not be cantankerous if she will drop me a note on that moot point and will let me know whether I am right or wrong. I beg to move.
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, I think that at this stage I should be glad to accept the offer of the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, to write to him about this point. I am almost certain it is covered by the Bill but I should not like to give a categorical assurance, and if I may write to him on this matter I will do so.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness and beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 58, which is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 94, line 45, at end insert—
("Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1953
55A. For section 12 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1953 (application of provisions of Schedule 3 to the Water Act 1945 to the water undertakings of local authorities) there shall be substituted the following section:—
"Water undertakings of water authorities.
12.—(1) Section 64 of Schedule 3 to the Water Act 1945 (waste of water by non-repair of water fittings) shall have effect, in its application to the undertaking of a water authority, as set out with modifications in the Schedule to this Act.
(2) Notwithstanding anything in section 41(3) of the said Schedule 3 (recovery from owners or occupiers of expenses incurred by the undertakers in laying communication pipes) as it applies in relation to the water
134
undertaking of a water authority, or in any corresponding provision of a local enactment within the meaning of the Water Act 1945 relating to the supply of water by a water authority, that authority may, if they think fit, themselves bear the whole or any part of any expenses recoverable by them under that subsection or the corresponding provision."").—(Baroness Young.)
BARONESS YOUNG BARONESS YOUNG moved Amendment No. 59:
Page 95, line 5, leave out ("National") and insert ("Natural").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 59. I believe this was a typing error and, as my note says, a "natural" mistake. I beg to move.
BARONESS YOUNG BARONESS YOUNG moved Amendment No. 60:
Page 98, line 19, at end insert—
("71A.—(1) The following provisions of this paragraph shall have effect with respect to section 82 of that Act (transfer of functions or property of other authorities) and orders under that section.
(2) In section 82 references to a navigation authority, conservancy authority and harbour authority shall each include references to a body which no longer has any members but which, if it had members, would be such an authority.
(3) The Minister shall not be under any duty under paragraph 1 of Schedule 10 to that Act to consult or consider representations from any body from which functions or property are proposed to be transferred by an order under section 82 if the body no longer has any members.
(4) Where an application is made to the Ministers to make an order under section 82 transferring functions or property from a body which no longer has any members, the Ministers need not cause any such notice as is mentioned in paragraph 2 of Schedule 10 to that Act to be served on that body.
71B. In section 120 of that Act (service of documents), in subsections (1) and (5), after the words ("this Act") there shall be inserted the words ("or the Water Act 1973").")
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 60, which follows from an undertaking given by my noble friend Lord Sandford at the Committee stage in a debate on an Amendment by the noble Lord, Lord De Ramsey. It permits the Secretary of State to make an order under Section 82 of the Water Resources Act 1963 transferring to a water authority the functions and property of a harbour or navigation authority notwithstanding the fact that

135
the harbour or navigation authority has become inoperative because it has no remaining members or power to create new members. This Amendment, I hope, meets his point. It is a small advance on what was said before, because in general the principle in this Bill has been that we were transferring powers and not increasing them. But we are making an exception in this particular case and I hope it meets the point which the noble Lord raised at Committee stage. I beg to move.
BARONESS WHITE: My Lords, as there are no Liberals here at present, perhaps on their behalf I could thank the noble Baroness. This provision seems sensible because, after all, if there were no members left and no means of appointing new ones one would be in a state of complete and utter deadlock unless this Amendment was made, and it seems very desirable that it should be.
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 61, and to speak to Amendment No. 79. Both are consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 98, line 25, leave out paragraph 73 and insert—
("73. In section 135(3) of that Act (definition of "local authority sewer") for the words from ("a sewerage authority") to the end of paragraph (b) there shall be substituted the words ("any of the following, that is to say—
(a) a water authority;
Page 102, line 53, leave out ("4") and insert ("5")
Page 103, line 12, column 3, leave out ("and")
Page 103, line 16, column 3, at end insert—

("and subsection (8).

Section 15(3).

In section 19, subsection (6)(b) and the word "and" immediately preceding it and subsection (7).

In section 23(1), paragraph (ii) of the proviso, and the words from "A consent required "to the end of the subsection.

In section 24(4), the words "local authority or".")

Page 103, line 17, column 3, at end insert—

("In section 32, in subsection (1) the words "or section forty", in subsection (2) the words "supplying water under a local enactment" and the proviso and subsections (4) and (5).

Section 33(3).

In section 34, in subsection (2) the words "board or "and in subsection (4) the word "boards".")

Page 103, line 23, column 3, at end insert—

("In section 46, the words from "or", in the third place where it occurs, to the end.

In section 55(1)(a)(ii) the words "the water engineer or manager of the water department or".")

(b) a local authority").").—(Baroness Young.)
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 62 which is a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 100, line 46, leave out ("under the Water Act 1973") and insert ("by a water authority").—(Baroness Young.)
Schedule 8 [Repeals]:
8.31 p.m.
BARONESS YOUNG BARONESS YOUNG moved Amendment No. 63:
Page 102, line 31, at end insert ("In section 41(1), the words from the beginning to "this Act"")
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 63 which modifies the words of Section 41 of the Public Health Act 1936, that is: notice to be given of intention to repair, construct or alter underground drains, in order to reflect the fact that as a result of the Local Government Act 1972, it will now apply throughout England and Wales and not merely to urban districts and certain specified rural areas.
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, I have already spoken to Amendments Nos. 64 to 73 inclusive and with the leave of the House I would move them en bloc.
Amendments moved—
Page 103, line 25, column 3, leave out (""joint water board"") and insert—

(""catchment board" and "catchment area", "fishery board" and "fishery district "and "joint water board", in the definition of "limits of supply" the words from "so" to the end of the definition, and the definition of "rivers board"")

Page103, line 28, column 3, leave out from ("1") to ("and") in line 31 and insert—

("in paragraph 16, the words "board or"." )

Page103, line 32, column 3, at end insert—

("In Schedule 2, in paragraphs 3, 5, 6 and 7 the words "local authority or "wherever occurring.")

Page 103, line 33, column 3, leave out from ("3") to end of line 35 and insert—

("In section 1(1) the definitions of "catchment board "and" "catchment area", "fishery board" and "fishery district" and "rivers board", section 46(1), sections 47 to 51, and in section 78, paragraphs (a) to (c) of subsection (1), and subsection (2).")

Page 104, line 17, at end insert—

("6 & 7 Eliz. 2. c. 67

The Water Act 1958.

Section 4(2).").

—(Baroness Young.)

BARONESS YOUNG BARONESS YOUNG moved Amendment No. 74:
Page 104, line 19, at end insert—

("8 & 9 Eliz. 2. c. 54.

The Clean River (Estuaries and Tidal Waters) Act 1960.

Section 1(6)(c).")

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 74 and to speak to Amendment No. 76. The first Amendment repeals Section 1(6)(c) of the Clean Rivers (Estuaries and Tidal Waters) Act, 1960, and the second repeals
Page 104, line 31, at end insert—

("9 & 10 Eliz. 2. c.50.

River (Prevention of Pollution) Act 1961.

Section 12.")

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I should explain that this is really a warning shot for possible future legislation rather than an intention substantially to amend this Bill. In discussions with various scientific friends who are concerned with the whole question of the cleanliness of our rivers my attention was drawn to the Second Report of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution in which reference is made to Section 12 of the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Act, 1961, in paragraph 4 and succeeding paragraphs.
The point here is that those concerned with research into these matters find extremely irksome the provisions in the Act of 1961 regarding confidentiality of information concerning industrial effluents which now prevail. In their Second Report, the Royal Commission pointed out that while in 1961 there seems to
138
certain words in Section 13(2) of the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Act, 1961.
BARONESS WHITE BARONESS WHITE moved Amendment No. 75:
have been a valid reason for insisting on this confidentiality, in their view the situation has to a large extent changed. They say in Paragraph 6:
"As a rule the legislation which protects secrecy over industrial effluent and waste no longer safeguards genuine trade secrets."
They go on to say in succeeding paragraphs:
"It is in the public interest that information about waste should be available not only to the statutory bodies which have a right to demand it but to research workers and others who can make use of it to improve the environment. Unless adequate information is available about these discharges it is impossible to say whether or not they constitute an ecological hazard. The waters into which these pollutants are discharged are public property and interest in the nature and quantity of these pollutants is entirely justified."
I have great sympathy with those who raised this point with me, and particularly because in the Third Report of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution

139
in Paragraph 24(b) it appears as though they are weakening in their resolve that this matter of excessive confidentiality and secrecy should be amended.
I chose this opportunity to raise the matter on this part of the Bill in order, if we are going to have legislation on pollution—which, we hope, may be in the next Session of Parliament; for we are not considering it in this Bill, urgent as it is—the Department should take note of the fact that we are concerned about the cleanliness of rivers and inland waterways. The work of scientific research is also affected. Although I do not expect to have any substantial answer from the noble Baroness to-night, it seems to me that it would be opportune in a sense to give notice that we shall certainly wish to take this matter up in greater detail when we have the chance to consider the other side of this Bill, namely, the effect of pollution on the waterways, the organisation of which we are now reforming.
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, we recognise that the noble Baroness, Lady White, has raised a very important point in this matter. I am glad that she said it is really a probing Amendment to see whether we can give any more information about the Government intention on this particular issue. I can confirm that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has announced that it is his hope to introduce during the lifetime of this Parliament a Bill to improve recent measures for the protection of the environment, and among the provisions would clearly be something on the lines of the Amendment that the noble Baroness has given us this evening. I understand that this is in fact a very complex matter and that there would be considerable difficulty on this particular issue of the disposal of information.
The Amendment of the noble Baroness would enable the water authority officers to disclose any information they may obtain in connection with an application
Page 104, line 31, at end insert—

("9 & 10 Eliz. 2. c.50

The Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Act 1961.

In section 13(2), the words form "and in sub-paragraph (2)"onwards.")

—(Baroness Young.)

BARONESS YHOUNG: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 77:
Amendment moved—
to discharge. It will sometimes be to the advantage of a water authority in their efforts to protect their rivers to be given a great deal more information than the would-be discharger would be obliged to give; therefore, a frank discussion of the processes used in a factory and of the problems which they might cause might enable the water authority's officers to suggest ways and means of overcoming particular difficulties or of building in better safeguards. There are some, if only a few, cases where the publication of particular information could result in serious detriment to the discharger for commercial reasons or could even harm national security.
These are all matters not strictly relevant to this Bill, as I am sure the noble Baroness will recognise. This Bill is concerned with organisation. The powers of water authorities are only concerned in so far as they must be modified or altered as a consequence of this reorganisation. I hope that I have said enough to assure the noble Baroness that it is the Government's intention to legislate on this matter, and I hope that as a result of this assurance she will feel able to withdraw her Amendment.
BARONESS WHITE: My Lords, I am greatly obliged. I understand this is a complex matter. On the other hand, I was concerned that the Third Report seemed to be far less firm than the Second, and I thought it only fair to give advance notice that we are concerned about this matter and would wish to encourage the Government and their advisers to apply their minds to something which is complex but important and of considerable public interest. Having had that reassuring reply from the noble Baroness, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 76:
Amendment moved—
Page 104, leave out line 38 and insert:
("In Schedule 9, Part I; in Part II, paragraphs 1 to 4. 7 to 10, 12 to 16 and 19: in Part III, paragraphs 4(3), 5, 7, 8 and 10 to 12. Schedule 10.")—(Baroness Young.)
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential. I beg to move Amendment No. 78:
Amendment moved—
Page 105, line 33, at end insert ("Section 69(2)")—(Baroness Young.)
Page 106, line 33, at end insert—

("1965 c. 56.)

The Compulsory Purchase Act 1965.

In section 33(1)(b) the words from "that", in the second place where it occurs, to the end of the paragraph, in subsection (2)(b) the words "a local authority within the meaning of the Act of 1946, or " and in subsection (4) the words "a local authority within the meaning of the Act of 1946 or".")

—(Baroness Young.)

BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move Amendment No. 81:
Amendment moved—
Page 107, line 18, column 3, at end insert
("in the second place where it occurs"). — (Baroness Young.)

  UNITED NATIONS AND INVESTMENT IN SOUTH AFRICA AND NAMIBIA
  UNITED NATIONS AND INVESTMENT IN SOUTH AFRICA AND NAMIBIA
  SOUTH WITHAM HOUSING AND R.A.F. PERSONNEL
  SOUTH WITHAM HOUSING AND R.A.F. PERSONNEL
  R.A.F. PERSONNEL: MILEAGE ALLOWANCES
  R.A.F. PERSONNEL: MILEAGE ALLOWANCES