Sitting of 25 July 1973

Preamble
The House met at Eleven o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS

  GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL
  Ordered,
  That in the case of the Greater London Council (General Powers) Bill Standing Order 208 (Notice of Consideration of Lords Amendments) be suspended and that the Lords Amendments be now considered.—[Mr. Clegg.]
  Lords Amendments accordingly considered, and agreed to.

  TYNESIDE METROPOLITAN RAILWAY BILL
  Ordered,
  That in the case of the Tyneside Metropolitan Railway Bill Standing Order 208 (Notice of Consideration of Lords Amendments) be suspended and that the Lords Amendments be now considered.—[Mr. Clegg.]
  Lords Amendments accordingly considered, and agreed to.

  PETITION

    Value Added Tax
    Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I beg to present a petition on behalf of the National Consumer Protection Council, the National Assembly of Women, the Women's Labour Council, the National Union of Small Shopkeepers and the Women's International League which sheweth
    That sanitary protection and toilet paper have had Value Added Tax imposed upon them.
    Wherefore your Petitioners pray that Value Added Tax be removed and the items given a zero rating in order to bring the prices within the reach of all consumers.
    "And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray."
    The petition is signed by more than 11,000 petitioners.
    To lie upon the Table.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

    Northern Ireland (Executive and Assembly)
    Mr. McMasterasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions have taken place between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of the Republic of Ireland relating to the setting up of a new Executive and Assembly in Northern Ireland, the future administration of the Province and any proposed joint action to improve the security position in the face of the threat to law and order caused by the continuing Provisional IRA terrorist campaign; and if he will make a statement.
    The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Sir Alec Douglas-Home): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland had a meeting with Dr. FitzGerald on 9th June at which he was able to discuss matters of general interest and also to clarify certain points in the Northern Ireland Constitution Bill. My right hon Friend the Prime Minister met Mr. Cosgrave on 2nd July, and I would refer my hon. Friend to the replies he gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) on 3rd July and the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy) on 5th July.—[Vol. 859, c. 716–18 and c. 81.]
    Mr. McMaster: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply and remind him that the results of the two recent elections in Northern Ireland show that it is the overwhelming will of the people of Northern Ireland to remain part of the United Kingdom, and that the South of Ireland has, by her own choice, adopted independent Republican status. Therefore, was any internal constitutional matter discussed during these talks or were they restricted to matters of security, trade and tourism—which can be well discussed with officials of the South of Ireland?
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: On many occasions, pledges have been given that Northern Ireland will remain part of the

    1587
    United Kingdom unless the majority of the people of Northern Ireland decide otherwise. I cannot go into details of our talks, which must be confidential, but security was discussed. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland was able to point out some improvement on the border in terms of our co-operation in this respect. On constitutional matters, it is our desire to see the Assembly and the Executive formed, first of all, and then we shall have an opportunity of working out how the Council of Ireland will work.
    Mr. Orme: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the recent statements by Mr. Cosgrave—especially when he spoke to the 1900 Club in London—and by Dr. FitzGerald have been helpful to the improvement of relationships and of working towards a settlement in Northern Ireland?
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: We have no control over speeches made by other people. It is quite often desirable to keep quiet.
    Mr. Orme: The right hon. Gentleman misunderstood my supplementary question.
    Mr. Kilfedder: Will my right hon. Friend confirm or deny the statement which Mr. Cosgrave made immediately after seeing my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister that one of the matters discussed was the lack of confidence by the minority in the Royal Ulster Constabulary? Has my right hon. Friend seen the report in yesterday's Irish Press stating that along the border the Eire Army does not take police with it and therefore cannot take any immediate action against those engaged in terrorist activities on its side of the border?
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I cannot give details of the talks between the two Prime Ministers, but there has been an improvement of security on the ground and we hope that it will be carried further by co-operation between British forces and forces in the South.

    Portuguese Prime Minister (Visit)
    Mr. Robert Hughesasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussion he had
    1588
    with Dr. Caetano during his recent official visit to the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Clinton Davisasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the recent official visit to this country of Dr. Caetano, the Portuguese Prime Minister.
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Dr. Caetano had discussions with my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, as well as myself. These discussions covered a variety of matters of mutual concern.
    Mr. Hughes: In these discussions did the Foreign Secretary make plain to Dr. Caetano that the continuing open connivance of the Portuguese Government with the Smith régime on sanctions busting is behaviour hardly fitting in one of our oldest allies? Did he make clear also that this was in opposition to the British Government's policy and against the interests of the people of Rhodesia, and that so long as the Portuguese Government carry on this war of aggression in their overseas territory the British Government will makes moves towards ending the alliance and seek to have Portugal expelled from NATO?
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The answer to the last part of the question is "No, Sir". We think that Portugal is of great value in the NATO Alliance. I told Dr. Caetano that Portuguese policies towards sanctions were contrary to our interests and I asked whether he could change them.
    Mr. Davis: Was the Portuguese Prime Minister prepared to give any undertakings on the sanctions-busting operations that his evil régime has been engaged in? Was not it completely paradoxical that the Foreign Secretary should be engaged in these junketings with the Portuguese Prime Minister at a time when he was seeking to undermine our foreign policy? What effect has the Portuguese Prime Minister's visit had on our relations with black African States which are wholly opposed to his régime?
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I do not think that it has had any effect on our relations

    1589
    with black African States, which perfectly well understand that our relationship with Portugal is concerned with security in NATO and trade between the two countries. I do not think, therefore, that there has been any adverse effect in this respect.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: Having regard to Atlantic defence and the Cape route, does not the suggestion of the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Robert Hughes) amount to the complete destruction of the Western Alliance and the defence of this country? Should not such hon. Members say which side they are on in these matters?
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: During our recent debate we attached considerable importance to Portuguese membership of the NATO Alliance, and Portugal has a very important seaboard.
    Mr. Goronwy Roberts: Does the right hon. Gentleman nevertheless agree that there is a substantial view in this country and, indeed, in Europe, that the cohesion of NATO may ultimately depend upon the Portuguese Government's taking a wholly new attitude in their colonial policy and towards United Nations sanctions policy?
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The cohesion of NATO is very important, but I do not notice a great interest in the country about this matter.

    Commonwealth—EEC Relationships
    Mr. Dormandasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will issue a White Paper, at an early date, on Government policy towards the Commonwealth in relation to Great Britain's membership of the EEC, in the light of the obligations of EEC membership as they are now known.
    The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. John Davies): No, Sir.
    Mr. Dormand: Although it is only seven months since the United Kingdom became a member of the EEC, is it not abundantly clear that the Commonwealth takes a poor second place in the Government's thinking? Imports from and exports to the Commonwealth at 19 per cent. are the lowest for at least a decade. Do not recent developments in the EEC
    1590
    demonstrate that the fears expressed by the Opposition about the agricultural policy are now materialising and are bound to have an effect on our relationship with the Commonwealth? Would not a White Paper showing "warts and all" at least allay some of these fears?
    Mr. Davies: The matters concerned with Commonwealth interests in relation to British membership of the Community were fully set out in the White Paper of July 1971. Since then, and since Britain has become a member of the Common Market, there has been continuing and extensive activity between Britain and the Commonwealth countries, between them and the EEC, and between Britain and the EEC on these matters. I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. What has transpired in the last seven months confirms the confidence which the Commonwealth countries rightly put in the arrangements we made with the Community.
    Sir D. Dodds-Parker: Does not the Minister agree that the proposals put forward by the Commission, for example, on sugar, could be very satisfactory to the Commonwealth?
    Mr. Davies: Yes, indeed. The Commission's proposals on sugar are entirely in accordance with the Lancaster House undertakings, which the Commonwealth sugar producers accepted.
    Mr. Alfred Morris: How does the right hon. Gentleman regard Mr. Chirac's intemperate outburst on the question of sugar?
    Mr. Davies: The Government cannot make themselves responsible for a ministerial statement by another Government. On the contrary, it is important to take note of what the Commission has had to say, and the Commission has said things that are entirely constructive.
    Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the developing trade arrangements and agreements between the Commonwealth countries and the EEC are, in general, greatly to their advantage, and that in future there will be increased trade between Commonwealth countries and the Community?
    Mr. Davies: That is the expectation of several Commonwealth countries with which I have recently been in contact.
    Mr. Shore: Surely the right hon. Gentleman will reconsider that reply? It is one thing to say that particular Commonwealth countries may be catered for in the arrangements with the EEC, but there is widespread apprehension throughout the Commonwealth that the whole organisation is heading for a major breakup, not least because the arrangements which are now about to be discussed between African and Caribbean Commonwealth countries—however those arrangements develop—are bound to separate the African and Caribbean Commonwealth from the Asian Commonwealth.
    Mr. Davies: I realise that the right hon. Gentleman apparently feels that some useful purpose is to be served in trying to create the very feelings which I do not find exist.
    Mr. Juddasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what consultations he has had with Commonwealth Governments following the July meetings in Lagos concerning the future relationships between the Commonwealth and the EEC.
    Miss Lestorasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on future relationships between the Commonwealth countries and members of the EEC following recent discussions in Lagos.
    Mr. John Davies: The opening conference of the negotiations between the Community and the developing countries covered by Protocol 22 to the Treaty of Accession began in Brussels today. We have been, and shall remain, in regular contact with our Commonwealth partners on matters arising from these negotiations.
    Mr. Judd: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are grave doubts whether the Government are pursuing, with the vigour that they displayed before 1st January last, the interests of the developing countries in the Commonwealth? Does he agree, on reflection, that the distinction between the associables and nonassociables is an invidious one, which works against the interests of the developing countries both in and beyond the Commonwealth? Will he impress upon his colleagues in the Community the fact that associate status must be a temporary
    1592
    phase as the Community works out a genuinely global trade and aid policy for the developing world?
    Mr. Davies: As I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows, the Community has before it proposals and recommendations dealing with a global aid policy related to all developing countries. This is under careful scrutiny. It is recognised that there is a special relationship to be achieved between the Community and the associable or associated States of Africa, the Caribbean and the Pacific. It is with regard to these special considerations that the present negotiations are taking place. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will agree that they are taking place under not unfavourable conditions.
    Sir D. Dodds-Parker: As a member of the committee concerned, at the European Parliament, may I say that the implications of the hon. Member's question are entirely wrong—[HON. MEMBERS: "Question".] Is the Minister aware that the Commission and the committee concerned have taken the greatest trouble to see that all concerned should be treated—
    Mr. Judd: What power has the hon. Gentleman got?
    Sir D. Dodds-Parker: —on the same basis, and that Her Majesty's Government be given all reasonable help to see that the facts are put to the countries concerned?
    Mr. Davies: I agree with my hon. Friend that in discussions Asian members of the Commonwealth have professed themselves as being not dissatisfied with the way in which the negotiations with the Community are going.
    Mr. Shore: Has not the hon. Member reinforced the point made earlier about the need seriously to examine future relationships between the Commonwealth and the Common Market? The case for a White Paper, at the least, has been made. Will the right hon. Gentleman turn his mind to the question of sugar, which is of great importance to the so-called associable countries? Will he tell us that he has made it plain to the EEC not only that we will fulfil the pledge to take 1.4 million tons of cane sugar but that, in addition, we are not prepared to accept the export quota, under the IAS, of 800,000

    1593
    tons of exported beet sugar from Europe, because that would ditch the developing cane-producing countries just as much as a reduction in the import quota?
    Mr. Davies: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Community has before it the recommendations of the Commission about the relationship between the Community and any future International Sugar Agreement. The Community has professed itself to be anxious to be a member of the International Sugar Agreement in future. If it were to be a member it would have to be with the agreement of the countries that are parties to the agreement, and it would therefore have to be an a basis that accepted the rate of sugar import and export related to Community affairs. I would have thought that the right hon. Gentleman would have taken with some satisfaction the recommendations made by the Commission, which are specifically to that end.

    North Atlantic Treaty Organisation
    Mr. Peter Archerasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will propose a meeting of ministerial representatives of the North Atlantic Treaty Powers.
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I see no need to do so. I represented Her Majesty's Government at the ministerial session of the North Atlantic Council in Copenhagen on 14th and 15th June.
    Mr. Archer: Is it not time to reflect how an organisation which purports to be based on the principle of democracy can include Spain how one based on individual liberty can include Greece and Portugal: and how one based on the rule of law can include France, which has defied the International Court of Justice? Who is defending what against whom?
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I have already made clear that the NATO Alliance attaches importance to the membership of Portugal and Greece. The security of Europe should be in the hon. and learned Gentleman's mind as well as in mine.
    Mr. Wilkinson: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the countries of Western Europe should be deeply aware of what goes on the other side
    1594
    of the Iron Curtain—the suppression of human rights in the Ukraine, the Baltic States and in other nations, incorporated against their will in the Soviet Union—and should take the appropriate measures to concert their defence against potential aggression?
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Unhappily, there are infringements of human rights in many countries, but we must pay overriding attention to the security of the Continent of Europe.
    Mr. Richard: With respect, the Foreign Secretary must not be so complacent—[Laughter.] I am serious about this. What he should realise and apparently does not
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman must put his remarks in the form of a question.
    Mr. Richard: Is it not time the Foreign Secretary realised that a considerable body of opinion in this country—not confined to one party or one view—is seriously considering the continuation of the membership of Portugal and Greece of the NATO Alliance? Does the Foreign Secretary think that he is being helpful in giving the bland answer he gave?
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I hope that I am not being complacent about injustice, but I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman is being complacent about security. We make representations to Greece from time to time about infringements of justice, from the point of view of those who are in prison, but it is much better to do so in private than in public.

    Organisation of American States
    Mr. Luceasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the current position on Great Britain's application for observer status at the Organisation of American States.
    The Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Julian Amery): Our application for observer status failed to obtain enough votes to be considered at the General Assembly of the OAS in April this year.
    It remains on the table for consideration at next year's assembly.
    Mr. Luce: In view of the enormous fund of good will among many Latin American States towards Great Britain and the fact that other European Powers have observer status in the OAS, does my right hon. Friend agree that there would be positive advantages for Britain in having access to the Organisation of American States? Will he again press the application very hard?
    Mr. Amery: I agree with my hon. Friend. We should have observer status, and we propose to leave the application on the table for consideration next year.

    Passports
    Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made in the consultations with other Governments concerning the validity of family passports.
    Mr. Sydney Chapmanasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs if he will now issue individual passports to a family for the cost of a joint passport, provided such applications for the individual passports are made at the same time.
    The Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Lord Balniel): We have had consultations with some Governments and may be consulting others. Meanwhile, to remove any element of discrimination in the present system, we have decided that in future a wife may be issued with a family passport in her own name on the same basis as a husband.
    Mr. Hamilton: The House will be gratified by that measure of progress, but will the right hon. Gentleman go a little further? In his consultations with other Governments, will he try to ascertain which of them would be prepared to accept all the adult members whose names are on a family passport and then suitably endorse our passports to that effect, so that adults whose names are on our passports will know that they can use the passports in the countries in question?
    Lord Balniel: That is a suggestion for a joint passport. I am considering whether it is possible to issue joint passports. But there are difficulties. It would be a
    1596
    completely new departure, and international acceptance might be a problem. Problems of cost are also involved. All these matters will be looked into. Meanwhile, I hope that the House will be satisfied with the step that I have taken to remove all existing discrimination.
    Mr. Chapman: Will my right hon. Friend go further and implement the proposal outlined in Question No. 8? Does he agree that if it were implemented it would remove entirely the suggestion of sex discrimination and would minimise the undoubted abuse of the joint passport for the purposes of illegal immigration? Is not my proposal feasible? From the charges which they make the Government make quite a profit on the issuing of passports.
    Lord Balniel: I have studied my hon. Friend's proposal. Although no doubt it has certain advantages, he will recognise that it would mean issuing two passports for the price of one. That would be very difficult to justify.
    Dame Irene Ward: May I, on behalf of a great many people, thank my right hon. Friend very much for the action that has been taken? It will be considered by many people in the country and in the House to be a very good step forward.
    Lord Balniel: I appreciate my hon. Friend's remarks. I also appreciate the way in which the case has been advanced by hon. Members.

    Rhodesia
    Mr. Haselhurstasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has received any recent representations about a settlement from groups or bodies in Rhodesia; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Knoxasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a further statement about relations between the British and Rhodesian Governments.
    Mr. Hastingsasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on the present state of negotiations with the Rhodesian Government on a settlement.
    Mr. Leadbitterasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he intends to initiate any further negotiations for a settlement with Rhodesia.
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I have nothing to add to the statement I made to the House on 19th July.—[Vol. 860, c. 712–3.]
    Mr. Haselhurst: Does my right hon. Friend have any reason to believe that meaningful discussions about the possibility of a settlement are taking place within Rhodesia? Does he think that meaningful discussions might be assisted by Britain's position being one of resolutely maintaining the existing policy, including that of sanctions?
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I made that clear, and I hope that Mr. Smith is now seeing other groups of Africans and Europeans in Rhodesia with a view to bringing forward a policy which we may hope to follow.
    Mr. Knox: Will my right hon. Friend consider putting further pressure on the Smith regime to release the interned African political leaders in Rhodesia? Does he agree that if they were released it might facilitate internal discussions in Rhodesia?
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I have often made representations about detainees, both European and African, and when necessary I shall do so again.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: If there are to be further discussions about the future of Rhodesia, will the Foreign Secretary make it plain that they will not be solely with representatives of the Smith regime but will include representatives of all opinions in Rhodesia, including those people who are detained?
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: That might come at a future stage. The important matter at the moment is for all Rhodesians to get together in Rhodesia and come forward with proposals.
    Sir D. Dodds-Parker: While maintaining the status quo, would it be possible to offer the training facilities that were suggested two years ago as port of an overall settlement?
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Such matters as the moneys we proposed to contribute
    1598
    for development and moves in the direction of helping over education could be carefully considered in relation to a settlement.
    Mr. Duffyasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he is satisfied with the present effectiveness of sanctions against Rhodesia.
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: No, Sir. Some countries do not apply them as conscientiously as do we. We are always encouraging them to do so.
    Mr. Duffy: What about this country? Did not the Foreign Secretary see the news clipping from the Daily Telegraph advertising for local government personnel for Rhodesia? Is not this export of services by P-E Consulting Group Limited, as well as the Daily Telegraph, a deplorable instance of sanction-busting—or did the Daily Telegraph console itself that, while it is anti-British and derogatory to the right hon. Gentleman's policy, nevertheless it makes good business sense?
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman—
    Mr. Duffy: I sent the clipping to the right hon. Gentleman.
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I know. I was about to say, if the hon. Gentleman can control himself, that I was grateful to him for sending me this advertisement, I am having inquiries made. If necessary, action will be taken.
    Mr. Soref: Does my right hon. Friend not agree that nothing has done as much to unify the electorate and the population of Rhodesia as the futile economic sanctions against that country? Is it not a fact that if they were to work, which is extremely unlikely, this country would have to give massive aid to Rhodesia at the expense of the British tax payer?
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Sanctions are part of the policy adopted by this House, and as long as they are mandatory we must fulfil our obligations. Our whole purpose is to get an agreement in Rhodesia so as to be able to go to the United Nations and say that

    1599
    Rhodesia can be brought back into independent and proper legal relationship with the Crown, and then end sanctions. That is the right way.
    Mr. Richard: Will the right hon. Gentleman go a little further and say that the fact that Mr. Smith and Bishop Muzorewa are at least talking to one another, even if only tentatively, is certainly in part due to the fact that sanctions have been continuing and have not been lifted, as some of the right hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends wish.
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Certainly one cannot deny that sanctions must have had an influence on the Rhodesian situation. The hon. and learned Gentleman will recognise that they have been going for eight years. I believe that the bishop and Mr. Smith are more concerned to see independent status given to Rhodesia again, and to gain recognition by outside Countries, than with the sanctions situation.

    Freedom of the Seas
    Mr. Reedasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will recognise the right of ships flying the French tricolor to exclude ships flying the White Ensign from any part of the high seas beyond the 12-mile territorial limit.
    Mr. Amery: There are at present no British warships in the area. The question therefore does not arise.
    Mr. Reed: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the mere assertion by the French of national jurisdiction on the high seas is contrary to the Geneva Convention on this subject and therefore detrimental to British interests? Will he consider summoning the French Ambassador and reminding him that the preservation of the rule of law is just as important as the possession of nuclear weapons in keeping the world free of aggression and conflict?
    Mr. Amery: As I told my hon. Friend in a Written Answer on 12th July,
    "The question whether the exclusion of shipping from an area of the high seas is lawful or not is one of the issues before the International Court of Justice in the current proceedings brought by Australia and by New Zealand against France."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th July, 1973; Vol. 859, c. 410.]
    Mr. Dalyell: Why has the voice of Britain been silent in support of Australia, Canada and New Zealand in protesting against the French tests?
    Mr. Amery: The matter is not one about which we are called upon to express a view beyond a reiteration of the view, several times repeated, that we hope that France will sign the partial test ban treaty.

    Republic of Ireland (Extradition)
    Mr. Biggs-Davisonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations Her Majesty's Government have made to the Eire Government about extradition of persons wanted in connected with criminal offences; and if he will make a statement.
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The Government of the Irish Republic are fully aware of our concern that persons wanted in the United Kingdom should be returned from the Republic. We have expressed this concern to them on a number of occasions.
    May I be allowed to say, because I misinterpreted an earlier question, that, while we must be very careful about what we say on Irish matters, the speeches of Dr. FitzGerald and the Prime Minister have been uniformly helpful.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: As one who was at the 1900 Club dinner, may I assure my right hon. Friend that it was a very high Tory occasion? On the question of extradition, would it not help the security of the British Isles, which is our common interest, if people accused of terrorism were not only extradited from the United Kingdom to the Republic, which is the case, but extradited in the other direction, which is seldom, if ever, the case?
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: That has seldom happened, but we notice that there are 10 cases before the Irish courts, which is new.
    Mr. McMaster: Has my right hon. Friend noticed that although many cases have been brought before the Southern Irish courts very few people have been extradited? Will he make representations to the Southern Irish Government to the effect that "political offence" should be

    1601
    very narrowly interpreted, so that people cannot escape justice in Northern Ireland for terrorist activities by simply pleading political privilege?
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The important point is that when people are charged and an extradition claim is made it should be met when justified.

    Resettlement Fund
    Mr. Huntasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs why the United Kingdom has not yet joined the Council of Europe's Resettlement Fund.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Anthony Royle): Since the establishment of the fund in 1956, successive British Governments have preferred to provide assistance for refugees and migrant workers through other institutions. They have also given aid on an ad hoc basis in cases of special need. We continue to think that this is the right policy.
    Mr. Hunt: Is my hon. Friend aware that that is a rather disappointing and somewhat unconvincing answer? Is he further aware that this fund fulfils a very important social purpose in Europe, particularly, as he has said, concerning migrant workers? Is it not very important for Britain to be seen to be positively identified with the work being done?
    Mr. Royle: I think that it is recognised that we are helping refugees and migrant workers in the best way, which is to direct our assistance through the international bodies which I have mentioned. Within the Community similar assistance is available through the European investment Bank and Social Fund.

    USSR
    Mr. Terry Davisasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will now invite a representative of the Government of the Soviet Union to visit the United Kingdom.
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: In Helsinki I expressed the hope that Mr. Gromyko might be able to visit London before
    1602
    long. If he can do so we shall be very glad.
    Mr. Davis: The right hon. Gentleman has noticed the repressive policies pursued by the Soviet Union, both at home and abroad. Does he see any difference between those policies and the policies pursued by the Portuguese Government?
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: As I have said, there is injustice in too many countries, but that must not stop us having contacts with the leading statesmen in those countries and frankly explaining our point of view to them.
    Mr. Edward Taylor: Before my right hon. Friend issues an invitation to any member State or its representatives, would it be wise and prudent to consult the Leader of the Opposition and the Parliamentary Labour Party to find out whether they wish to boycott the visit?
    Mr. Peter Archer: When he meets representatives of the Soviet Government will the Foreign Secretary make it clear that those who condemn tyranny in Portugal, Greece and Spain are no less concerned when it occurs in the Soviet Union? Will he express the hope that the talks in Helsinki will lead to a better deal for the little guy, wherever he is?
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I will make it clear, as the hon. and learned Gentleman suggests. I hope that Mr. Gromyko will be able to come. I have had two good meetings with him lately—one in Paris, in the summer, and more recently in Helsinki—and I hope that he understands our position, particularly regarding Jews in the Soviet Union.

    French Foreign Minister
    Mr. Martenasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he will next be meeting the French Foreign Minister.
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I saw M. Jobert only the day before yesterday at a meeting of the Foreign Ministers of the Nine at Copenhagen. I have no firm plans for an early bilateral meeting, although M. Jobert and I naturally remain in close touch on all matters of common interest.
    Mr. Marten: When the Foreign Secretary meets the French Foreign Minister

    1603
    in Brussels, Copenhagen, or in an aeroplane, will he make clear to him that, whatever the French attitude may be towards the Commission's proposals on Commonwealth sugar, Britain will honour its undertaking, which was given as an honourable assurance, and that, whatever the Common Market Ministers decide, Britain will import 1–4 million tons of sugar? What instructions will be given to the Commission's negotiators when the International Sugar Agreement comes up again at the Geneva session on 10th September? The Council of Ministers will not meet again until the 24th or 25th September, and therefore the Commission will have no new ministerial instructions as to the attitude to be adopted in the ISA talks.
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: We will make clear to the French and anyone else that we will honour the engagement which we undertook to Commonwealth countries. As my right hon. Friend has just said, there is nothing inconsistent in the Commission's proposals and our undertaking.
    I should like notice of the question about the organisation of the Council's work.
    Sir G. de Freitas: In view of the French Government's recent rebuke to a French member of the Commission for not being nationalist enough, will the Foreign Secretary, when he next meets the Foreign Minister of France, draw his attention to the possible amending of Article 157, as suggested in my Question No. 37, to make it clear that the Commission is international?
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Moate: In a recent speech on the GATT negotiations M. Jobert said that in the French view the common external tariff should not be allowed to fall below a certain minimum level because it had a political purpose. Is that the view of the British Government?
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I have not seen reports of that speech. The common external tariff will remain. There has been no discussion in the Council of Ministers about the level of tariff.
    Mr. Jay: If NATO can get on without France, cannot it get on without Portugal?
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: NATO does not get on without France. The right hon. Gentleman should polish up his knowledge of the alliance.

    Egypt (Princess Margaret's Visit)
    Mr. Kaufmanasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the advice given by Her Majesty's Government to Her Royal Highness Princess Margaret with regard to her forthcoming visit to Egypt.
    Lord Balniel: Her Royal Highness Princess Margaret is visiting Egypt at the request of Her Majesty's Government in order to open a new British Council building in Cairo.
    Mr. Kaufman: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that in 1971 the Prime Minister of Jordan was assassinated in Egypt, and that his assassins, after kneeling to drink his blood, were housed in luxury by the Egyptian Government before being returned in safety to their henchmen in the Lebanon? Recalling the events of the past week and taking account of the inability of the Egyptian Government to guarantee the safety of their guests, is it fair to ask Princess Margaret to involve herself in this kind of risk?
    Lord Balniel: The security situation will be kept under review. We have every confidence that the Egyptian Government will ensure that Princess Margaret is given adequate protection throughout her visit.
    Mr. Kilfedder: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that President Sadat has serious difficulties in Egypt, but is none the less striving to bring peace to that region? Will my right hon. Friend offer his good offices to bring some sort of reconciliation between Egypt and Israel?
    Lord Balniel: My hon. Friend will know that a debate in the United Nations is now proceeding on the subject of the Middle East. In general we, the Egyptian Government, and, I hope, Opposition Members, place great importance on the establishment and re-establishment of the close cultural relations between this country and Egypt that we had in the past. We believe that the restoration of an

    1605
    independent British Council in Egypt after 16 years is of considerable importance, and I hope that the visit will be successful.

    United Nations (Disaster Relief)
    Mr. Michael McNair-Wilsonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been made at the United Nations by the United Kingdom delegate to improve the United Nation's ability to assist with disaster relief.
    Mr. Amery: Britain played a major part in the establishment last year of the office of a UN disaster relief co-ordinator.
    Mr. McNair-Wilson: Can we offer either finance or relief supplies to the United Nations relief co-ordinator, or to the United Nations development programme?
    Mr. Amery: Our experience has been that it is better to proceed ad hoc on these matters. There is no great difficulty about assembling supplies. Difficulties usually arise in distribution and transport.
    Mr. Pavitt: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that the Inter-Parliamentary Union, on the initiative of the United Kingdom delegation, put forward a strong resolution, which was subsequently adopted by the United Nations, about 24-hour first-aid relief? What has happened about that? Has the scheme of computerisation for immediate relief been achieved?
    Mr. Amery: All these matters are being studied at present by the coordinator, who has three functions: first, to act as a focal point for the co-ordination of relief; secondly, to act as a clearing house for information; thirdly, to stimulate pre-disaster planning in countries that are subject to earthquakes and other likelihoods of disaster.

    French Nuclear Tests
    Mr. Dalyellasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received from his observers on the Pitcairn Islands on French nuclear tests.
    Mr. Amery: Our team in the Pitcairn Islands has reported no evidence of fallout.
    Mr. Dalyell: Does that mean that the Foreign Office is quite sure that there is no identifiable trace of short-lived iodine 131?
    Mr. Amery: The evidence we have received from the team shows no evidence of fall-out in any form. The team has a wide range of sensitive apparatus to monitor radioactivity levels, in the air, on the ground and in the water, and to check contamination of clothes. The specific constituents can be determined from radiological monitoring equipment.
    Mr. Cormack: Has my right hon. Friend any evidence of the recent Russian nuclear explosion, reported earlier this week to have been the biggest ever?
    Mr. Amery: I should have to have notice of that question.

    EEC Institutions
    Mr. Biffenasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the most recent discussions that have been concluded with various institutions of the European Economic Community.
    Mr. John Davies: Recent statements to the House by my right hon. Friends, coupled with the statement which, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I shall be making later today, bring the record up to date.
    Mr. Biffen: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that in the various discussions that have been taking place with M. Simonnet, on the second stage of economic and monetary union, it has been made clear by the Commission that that involves a harmonised value added tax in respect of coverage and rates? Will he confirm that he shares my opinion that a value added tax extended to cover foodstuffs would command the wholehearted discontent of the British people and would meet with the determined opposition of many on the Government as well as the Labour benches?
    Mr. Davies: Yes, but my hon. Friend is postulating a set of circumstances that do not exist. There is no agreement to, harmonise the rate of VAT on food

    1607
    within the framework of our taxation system.

    European Political Union
    Mr. Deakinsasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will raise the issue of EEC political union at the next meeting of the Council of Ministers.
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: No, Sir.
    Mr. Deakins: Will the right hon. Gentleman make it clear next time he meets his colleagues that this ludicrous commitment by the Government to Common Market political union has no support among the British people, and that neither he nor the Prime Minister has any authority to commit this country to such a concept without a decision having first been taken in Parliament?
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I should not have thought that anyone would object to attempts by the European Community to come to political agreement over as wide an area as possible. There has been one useful example of this lately. The joint approach on matters concerning the Conference on European Security and Co-operation was very effective indeed. This kind of co-operation is desirable.
    Mr. Powell: Will my right hon. Friend be careful to make the important distinction between political agreement and collaboration between independent countries, on the one hand, and political union on the other?
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Yes. Our objective of political union has been declared. For the foreseeable future it must be the nine countries working independently but achieving as great a consensus as they can.

    Mozambique
    Mr. Wallasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what protests he has received from the Portuguese Government about the activities of British subjects involved in guerrilla operations in Mozambique; and if he will make a statement.
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: None, Sir.
    Mr. Wall: Is it not unfortunate that British subjects have made unsubstantiated allegations about Portuguese con-
    1608
    duct in Mozambique, particularly when the success of the Portuguese Government's policy in Africa has been achieved by winning the hearts and minds of the people of that country and not, as is alleged, by supporting and encouraging atrocities?
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: As a Government we are not, happily, responsible for statements made by British subjects in other countries.
    Mr. John Mendelson: Is it not quite clear, contrary to what the hon. Member has said, that the Portuguese policy in Mozambique and Angola is possible only at the price of the physical destruction of thousands of Africans, and that the cruel policy of moving whole villages lock, stock and barrel has involved a great degree of cruelty, which British subjects and newspapers have revealed? Have not those facts been fully proved by additional evidence and will not the people responsible for publishing them be regarded as having done an honourable job when the history of that country is written?
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The accusation was of a massacre on a considerable scale, and that has not been proved.
    Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Is the Minister aware that the Portuguese Government have as much chance of winning the hearts and minds of the people of that country as I have of winning the heart and mind of the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall)?
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I should not like to express an opinion on that matter.

    Indonesia
    Mr. Hugh Jenkinsasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the total amount of aid given by the United Kingdom to the Indonesian Government during the year 1972.
    Mr. Anthony Royle: During 1972 we supplied about £6.8 million in development aid.
    Mr. Jenkins: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Indonesian regime is extremely repressive and barbarous and that 50,000 political prisoners are detained there without trial? What action are the Government taking to

    1609
    ensure that aid is not used to uphold the regime and enable it to pursue its repressive policies even more efficiently?
    Mr. Boyle: The hon. Member may not be aware that the Indonesian authorities have recently confirmed that there are 18,000 detainees. The total is very much lower than the 50,000 he mentioned. We do not think we are justified in any way in raising with the Indonesian Government the question of political detainees. It is a matter relating to the internal affairs of Indonesia. We should not wish in any way to link the giving of aid to that country with the question of its internal arrangements.
    Mr. Edward Taylor: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is many years since the previous Indonesian Government seized British assets in Indonesia? Will he give the House a report on the discussions that have taken place about compensation, and does he agree that future aid policy should depend a great deal on our success in these matters?
    Mr. Royle: I know of my hon. Friend's great interest in this subject. In March of this year the Indonesians put forward proposals for the settlement of claims to most of the British companies whose claims they considered eligible under the present compensation scheme. Some of the claimants are still considering the proposals. We have reminded the Indonesians that a number of claimants have had no response to their claims.

    Hong Kong (Students)
    Sir John Tilneyasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether, owing to the lack of space for most teenage students to work at home in Hong Kong, he will consider granting some scholarships for Hong Kong students in direct grant and independent boarding schools in Great Britain.
    Mr. Anthony Royle: I share my hon. Friend's concern for students in Hong Kong. The Hong Kong Government are improving education and social conditions there, and Her Majesty's Government will give them all possible support and encouragement.
    Sir John Tilney: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that in California 36 per
    1610
    cent. of foreign students come from Hong Kong? Would it not be better that in future at least a proportion of the potential leaders of Hong Kong were British rather than American-oriented?
    Mr. Royle: I agree with the latter point made by my hon. Friend. We have allocated £35,000 to the Hong Kong Government for training purposes this year. This is on a recurrent basis, and, under the programme during the current financial year 39 students are expected to follow postgraduate vocational and professional courses in this country. I recognise that that is not what my hon. Friend is getting at, but, in addition, the Hong Kong Government are paying for an additional 107 students to take similar courses here.
    Mr. James Lamond: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that Hong Kong is a Crown Colony for which we bear a considerable responsibility, and from which we obtain considerable financial benefit? If educational matters are in the sort of state outlined in the Question and if 36 per cent. of Hong Kong students are taking courses in the United States, is it not time that the Government considerably increased the assistance given to Hong Kong, so that we may discharge our responsibilities there?
    Mr. Royle: I recommend the hon. Member to read the speech that the Governor made to the Legislative Council last autumn. It was an outstanding speech, and outlined extensive plans to improve the quality of life of everybody in Hong Kong, including educational and social conditions. I am grateful for what the hon. Gentleman said.
    Mr. Marten: Does my hon. Friend believe that, unless circumstances show that they come from a developing country, overseas students who come to this country for postgraduate courses should pay the full cost?
    Mr. Royle: That is another question.

    Sahelian Africa (Drought)
    Mr. Barnesasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had within the EEC about the co-ordination of aid for the drought-stricken Sahelian countries of Africa.
    Mr. John Davies: Britain is represented both in the EEC Food Aid Group, which co-ordinates this Community aid, and at higher-level meetings, where the subject is also discussed.
    Mr. Barnes: Why is it that the airlift by NATO countries called for by the EEC is proving so inadequate? Why are thousands of tons of food piling up at Dakar with only small quantities getting through to areas where starvation is very great? Why is it that invariably, in the case of disasters such as this, those responsible for co-ordinating international relief prove extremely reluctant to communicate effectively with their counterparts in other countries?
    Mr. Davies: I share the hon. Member's anxieties about the relief problems which have been encountered. But we have responded to the requirements made on us and have diligently tried to undertake relief where we can, within the framework of Community activity.
    Sir D. Dodds-Parker: Will my right hon. Friend see whether it is possible to do some pre-planning by the seven members of WEU which are members of the Community, so that we can anticipate the need that has been shown in the last three months instead of going in for the sort of ad hocery about which we have heard?
    Mr. Davies: I shall bear in mind what my hon. Friend says.
    Mr. Spearing: In view of the fact that we were told that once we entered the EEC we would play our full part in international affairs, is it not disgraceful that in this respect the EEC's food aid programme has not been as effective as it might have been? Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to find out why this programme has failed, in terms of distribution, and will he report to the House on his investigations?
    Mr. Davies: I am clear that the Food Aid Group in the Community exists to ensure that the Community's activities are improved and optimised in this respect. Our representative on that group will work to that end.

    Greece (Diplomatic Representation)
    Mr. Woodhouseasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will reduce the level
    1612
    of British diplomatic representation in Athens.
    Mr. Anthony Boyle: No, Sir.
    Mr. Woodhouse: I thought not. But could not my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary find some way to make it clear to the Greek people that diplomatic recognition of the Republic does not imply approval of the military dictatorship—and will he do so before the plebiscite next Sunday? I assure him that this message has not got through.
    Mr. Royle: I note my hon. Friend's remarks. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State made clear to the House on 4th July the basis on which we have accorded recognition to the Greek Republic. I have nothing to add to his full explanation of our decision, in which there was no element of political or moral approval or disapproval.
    Sir Elwyn Jones: In the meantime. would it not be indecent for Her Majesty's Government to continue negotiating with the Greek Government about the adherence of the United Kingdom to the treaty of association between the EEC and Greece in view of the fact that the Greek representative, Mr. Pesmazoglou, who negotiated the treaty of association, and the Greek Foreign Minister, Mr. Averoff, who signed it, are both in the custody of the Greek military security police and have been there for a very long time without trial?
    Mr. Royle: So far as Mr. Pesmazoglou and Mr. Averoff are concerned, I am always sorry when friends of Britain are imprisoned anywhere in the world. The Greek Government are aware of our concern about recent arrests, too. In regard to the EEC, the Heads of Government at the summit meeting last October said that full membership of the EEC must depend on democratic institutions. As for the supplementary protocol, I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman is aware that under the Treaty of Accession we are obliged to apply the provisions of the Community agreement with third countries, subject to any transitional arrangement or adaptation that may prove necessary. There can be no question of our seeking to renege on those obligations.
    Mr. Marten: If some form of subsidiary legislation comes before the House.

    1613
    will the House be in a position to reject it?
    Mr. Royle: Had my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) been present last night when I introduced an order on this subject, he would have heard me tell my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Woodhouse) that the House is perfectly able to vote against the order.
    Mr. Orme: On the question of free democratic institutions, what representations has the hon. Gentleman received from our ambassador in Athens about the proposed plebiscite? Is he aware that there is a widespread feeling that this will be a fraud and that the American ambassador, who is normally an apologist for the Greek colonels, has raised this matter directly with the Greek Government? What information do we possess about the plebiscite?
    Mr. Royle: The Greek Government are aware of our hope that Greece will be restored to full democratic processes, but we have no locus standing in making representations to any foreign Government about the way in which they run their affairs.

  QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS
  Mr. Heffer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I apologise to the House for holding up its proceedings for a few moments. My point concerns a Question which I tabled and which appears on the Order Paper as No. 65. It was addressed to the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and particularly to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. In any event, we face the difficulty of having to put down Questions about the European Economic Community to the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary. Then I discovered that the Question had been transferred to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I wrote to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. I have not yet received a reply.
  The point arises how we are to table parliamentary Questions dealing with EEC matters. My point does not relate just to the matter of my Question being transferred. There is also the problem of how we can put Questions directed
  1614
  primarily to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. This is a matter of great importance, and I hope that the House will consider it. It is very difficult for us to direct Questions to EEC problems which, incidentally, affect many of my constituents, who may be thrown out of work if the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement is not at least continued at 1–4 million tons. This is a matter of importance to us, and I ask what can be done about it.
  Mr. Speaker: This is not a matter of order. It is not a matter for me. But I have no doubt that those responsible have heard what the hon. Gentleman said and will consider it. But it is not a matter for the Chair.
  Sir Harmar Nicholls: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Although I have a great deal of sympathy with the point raised by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heller), is it not the practice that a parliamentary Question is put not to a specific Minister but to the Government? Provided that the answer comes from a Government spokesman, I should have thought that to insist upon questioning a specific Minister was outside the good usage of Parliament.
  Mr. Speaker: In any event, it is a matter which will not be debated now.
  Mr. Biggs-Davison: Further to that point of order—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. It is not a point of order, although it is a point which is usually allowed to be made. It is not a matter for the Chair. But when an hon. Member makes a complaint of this kind it is for the Minister concerned to consider it and to decide whether anything should be done about it in the future.

CAMBODIA (BRITISH SUBJECTS)
Mr. Dalyell Mr. Dalyell (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the safety of British subjects in Cambodia.
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Sir Alec Douglas-Home): My present information is that there is no immediate danger to British

1615
subjects in Cambodia, but the situation around the capital, Phnom Penh, is becoming more uncertain. It is possible that the airport may become insecure.
The British Ambassador is therefore arranging the departure of Embassy wives and dependants and certain non-essential staff on the next commercial flight to Bangkok. He is also telling British subjects that they should similarly think carefully about their own position and should consider leaving now while civil flights are operating normally.
Mr. Dalyell: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman is as appalled as anyone at the misery being inflicted on people in Phnom Penh. Those of us who have been there in happier times will have sympathy with the Khmer people. What is the British position in relation to our obligations to Cambodia under the previous agreements? Furthermore, can we be certain that representations have been made to the United States Government asking why they are continuing the deluge of bombing when they know that it will be counterproductive because of what has happened in the United States Senate?
Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I share the 7 ton. Gentleman's anxieties about the situation there and about the situation of people who find themselves in Phom Penh, although I hope that they will get out safely. As regards our position, we are members still of the Control Corn-mission, and I am joint chairman with Mr. Gromyko. But the Russians have refused to operate this piece of machinery. All foreign troops were supposed to withdraw from Cambodia according to the Paris agreements. This has not been done. As for the American bombing, it looked as though Phnom Penh would be cut off without the Mekong River route, and it was directed to keeping that open.
Mr. Goronwy Roberts: May we take it that the area of uncertainty and possible danger in the immediate future is round the capital and that generally in the country there is no serious anxiety about the fate of British subjects? About how many British subjects are involved in this situation and how many are non-Embassy staff?
Sir Alec Douglas-Home: This is a comparatively small problem. There are 50 British subjects including dependants and the staff of our Embassy in Phnom Penh. There are very few outside Phnom Penh. It is a problem, in other words, which can be handled quite well. But we do not want the situation to deteriorate to a point where they may not be able to get out.

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 2nd July.
May I take this opportunity to apologise to the right hon. Member for Stepney (Mr. Shore) for the late delivery to him of a copy of this statement which according to the conventions should have been in his hands? I am sorry that that was the case.
There have been three meetings of the Council—one of Foreign Ministers, one of Ministers responsible for questions of the environment and one of Agricultural Ministers.
My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food made a statement to the House on 18th July on the meeting of Agricultural Ministers, which took place on the preceding two days.
The meeting of Environment Ministers on 19th July approved a Community environment programme, in two parts. The first part deals with the control of pollution and the second with the improvement of the environment. In addition there are proposals for concerted Community positions in the work of international organisations in the field of environment. The adoption of this programme fulfils the decision of the European Summit meeting of October 1972 that an action programme for a Community environment policy should be established by 31st July this year.
The meeting of Foreign Ministers on 23rd and 24th July was concerned principally with a number of aspects of the Community's external relations.

1617
The Council reached agreement on the opening statement to be made on behalf of the Community at the Conference between the Community, the countries already associated with the Community under the Arusha and Yaounde Conventions and those developing Commonwealth countries which are eligible for association under Protocol No. 22 of the Treaty of Accession, which opens in Brussels today. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development is attending that Conference on behalf of the United Kingdom.
The statement of the Community's views in no way prejudges the content of the new Association Convention, nor does it seek in any way to oblige the Commonwealth countries to make a choice prematurely between the different options that will be open to them. The Associated and developing Commonwealth countries are expected to make preliminary statements in reply, and the negotiations will then be resumed in September. All the developing countries will have every opportunity to make their own views and wishes known, both at this meeting and in subsequent meetings.
The Council considered further the Community's approach to the forthcoming multilateral trade negotiations under the GATT, in the light of recent developments in the international monetary situation. They agreed on the line to be taken by the Community in further preparatory work for the meeting of the participating countries of the GATT which is to take place in Tokyo in September.
The Council also discussed further an offer to be made to those countries which are claiming compensation from the Community following its enlargement, in accordance with Article XXIV: 6 of the GATT. Progress was made, and it was agreed that further consultations should take place with the aim of reaching a constructive and definitive negotiating position by early September.
The Commission yesterday presented the Council with a supplementary budget for the current year amounting to 1008.66 million units of account, and the implications of this for United Kingdom public expenditure if the total supplementary budget is finally accepted would be an extra gross cost of £33·2 million offset by certain additional receipts. Of this
1618
figure of 1008·66 million units of account, 879·29 million units of account were for the agricultural budget: 120 million units of account for the Social Fund and 9·37 million units of account for administrative purposes. The agricultural section of the supplementary budget was accepted by the Council as consequential on decisions previously taken and will now be forwarded to the European Parliament for further consideration. The Social Fund increase was not agreed and will be the subject of further consideration. As a result of pressures to achieve savings approximately 15 million units of account have already been identified and we expect more.
The Council agreed that the Community should announce its readiness to participate in the negotiation of a new textiles agreement under the GATT, in succession to the long-term agreement for cotton textiles.
A number of procedural proposals for improving the efficiency of the meetings of the Council of Ministers were adopted.
Mr. Shore: From the five minutes or so that I have had to look at the statement, I can strongly confirm the right hon. Gentleman's words yesterday when he said that what he had to announce about the increased size of the Community budget would be received with a pretty sickening thud in this country. This is an appalling increase and an equally appalling statement.
To many of us it is outrageous that the right hon. Gentleman should come to the House now and tell us of a decision made by the Council of Ministers only yesterday involving £30 million expenditure by this country and a supplementary increase in the whole budget of over £400 million in one year when he refused a fortnight ago to answer a PNQ which I raised on this very matter—and a number of his hon. Friends supported him in his refusal to reply to it. This is treating the House of Commons with absolute contempt and is making it impossible for us to exercise what residual powers are left to us under the terms of the Treaty and the European Communities Act relating to European matters.
To many people it is almost incomprehensible that this year this £400 million

1619
should be asked for. If, as we have been told, world food prices generally have risen above Community prices during the past year, and therefore the Community has nothing to do with the increase in British domestic food prices, why is this vast extra expenditure needed when half the Community food budget is spent on subsidising dumped Community surplus export food on the world market? If the right hon. Gentleman can explain that I shall be very surprised. Is it due to the most incompetent negotiation by the Minister of Agriculture on food prices in the Community only two months ago, or is it due to the fact that the whole system of monetary compensation amounts, which he has been so keen to press earlier, has blown back and misfired?
The right hon. Gentleman must be aware, and surely will agree, that we have reason to be greatly concerned about the preparations for the GATT talks this autumn. We have had a steady retreating, apparently under French pressure, from the original position to ever-increasing pre-conditions and restrictions which threaten the whole opening of these talks in Tokyo in September.
Having heard all these statements covering so many different matters, I must ask why the right hon. Gentleman has failed to report to the House on, and to raise with the Council of Ministers this time in either Copenhagen or Brussels during the whole course of the day of the meeting of Foreign Ministers, the question of the French nuclear testing? Why, on the day after the bomb was exploded in the South Pacific, was this matter not put on the agenda? Is it because he asked and was refused or that he did not ask at all?
Lastly, did the right hon. Gentleman take the sensible precaution of raising with the Council of Ministers the action that Britain might be forced to take to safeguard its balance of payments this year now that our balance of trade with the Nine is running at a deficit of £1,000 million?
Mr. Davies: When the right hon. Gentleman put his Private Notice Question recently, I told him that I did not have a proposal before me and it was therefore impossible to respond to his
1620
question in the terms that he wished. I am sorry that it should be so, but it was a fact.
On the broad question of the effect of the common agricultural policy on the budget and on the contribution that Britain makes to it, the right hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that there are many factors in that policy that we would certainly like to have amended. He knows very well, and it has been reported regularly to the House, that at present the Commission is engaged on a review of the policy, upon which we expect to receive a report by October, which we strongly hope will give us the opportunity of raising many matters which concern us.
The right hon. Gentleman is right in saying that a considerable part of the additional budget arises from the changes in parities with the effect that they have on monetary compensatory amounts. It is a matter of fact that the common agricultural policy, as at present devised, throws up this heavy additional monetary compensation amount, and we pay our part. I think that he also knows that in this respect the Government hope that the Commission's report will enable us to see means by which these heavy charges can be reduced. As he will have heard from my statement, the next step in the operation is for the supplementary budget in question to be considered by the European Parliament— [Interruption.] It is a matter of fact. Is the right hon. Gentleman seeking to infer that this is not so? The right hon. Gentleman and his right hon. and hon. Friends voluntarily decided not to be parties to that assembly where they could effectively bring their voices to bear if they wish to do so.
I do not agree with the right lion. Gentleman about the GATT negotiations. The process of moving towards an effective discussion starting in Tokyo in September is proceeding satisfactorily. I realise that these are difficult preparatory tasks, but I do not feel disquieted by what is happening at present.
Matters relating to nuclear tests are not germane to the proposals upon which I have been reporting today. The Council of Ministers has no locus in those matters.
Mr. Adam Butler: Will my right hon Friend tell us something more about the

1621
textile agreement to which he referred? Will he press for some arrangement whereby our partners in the Community bear equally with us the load that we have to bear at present from ever-increasing imports from low-labour-cost countries?
Mr. Davies: Yes. As my hon. Friend knows, it has been a matter of concern to the Government that the extent of penetration of our market in cotton and textile terms is substantially greater than that of other member States. Certainly it is our hope that in the negotiation of a new long-term textile agreement it will be possible for that load to be shared more equitably.
Mr. Jay: Is it true, as reported, that the Agricultural Ministers agreed that if beef prices should fall, even by a small fraction, between now and the autumn, import duties and levies would be reimposed on beef, which would prevent a fall in prices from the present outrage-our levels? If so, why did a British Minister agree to such a proposition?
Mr. Davies: The position surely is that the level of prices for beef in the world market is unpredictable. That being so, the necessary provisions were made so that such levies could be reimposed.
Mr. Powell: If the Council of Ministers approved the supplementary budget, what can the European Parliament do about it? Alternatively, if the European Parliament can do something about it, why was it approved by the Council of Ministers? Do I deduce from my right hon. Friend's first reply to the right hon. Member for Stepney (Mr. Shore) that Her Majesty's Government themselves had less that a fortnight's previous knowledge of the proposed supplementary budget which was approved yesterday?
Mr. Davies: On the second part of the question, the extent of that budget was defined only yesterday. There has been protracted argument and discussion about the content of the budget for weeks because the matter was conducted within the framework of discussion in the Community. Until such time as there is a firm proposal there is no basis on which matters can be discussed in this House.
1622
On the subject of activities of the European Parliament, there is an obligation on the Council to put to the European Parliament such a supplementary budget for its consideration. It has within a certain period to make known its views on the supplementary budget—views which the Council can then take into account.
Mr. Heffer: Has not the right hon. Gentleman made one of the most astonishing statements ever made in the House, certainly in my recollection? First, he said that he knew of no proposals whatsoever. Then he referred to protracted discussions in which he was not involved. Now, we find out that this country did not learn of the budget until yesterday. Is it not clear that the Government must begin to stand up to the Council in these matters and that this House must have a full debate on the issue at the earliest possible moment?
Mr. Davies: The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) did not get my answer correct. I said that the defined budget was not available until yesterday. I added that there had been discussion and argument about the budget for weeks within the framework of the Community.
Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that, as the monetary compensatory amounts account for a large part of the supplementary budget, there is even more need to work as quickly as possible and with extra vigour towards a monetary union along the lines proposed by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer earlier this year? Secondly, does not the remaining part of this supplementary budget underline the firm stand taken by the Minister of Agriculture in refusing to accept, intially and indeed throughout the protracted negotiations for the farm price review, the stupidly high levels of price proposed by the Commission? Will my right hon. Friend not confirm that, if the European Parliament decides not to accept the supplementary budget there are two ways in which it can give effect to that refusal —first, by refusing to pay the civil servants working in the Commission and, second, by refusing to give advice to the Council?
Mr. Davies: It is undeniable that the problems caused by compensatory monetary amounts are recognised as being a major problem to the Community and that progress towards monetary union would help to overcome it. The determined efforts of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Agriculture have led towards a much more realistic attitude to farm pricing in the Community, and will continue to do so.
Mr. Hooson: Will the Minister explain that exceptionally vague portion of his statement about pressure of savings resulting in identifying "15 million units of account"? What does that mean? If the detailed budget were put before the Community only yesterday, may we take it that the 15 million units of account were identified only yesterday?
Mr. Davies: No. The identification of those savings has also been under consideration and pressure for some time. As the hon. and learned Gentleman knows, any budget is composed of a series of different sections in which it may be possible to find economies. This is what has been proceeding in the Community.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am in a certain difficulty.
The remaining time today has been allocated to private Members. This is an important statement. I will not stop the supplementaries now, but I would ask hon. Members to be as brief as possible because these other debates have been arranged for certain times.
Mr. Marten: In view of the fact that the supplementary budget was defined only yesterday, may we assume that this great sum which we have to pay out had the approval of the British Cabinet? Presumably it will have to come before the House under a Supplementary Estimate. What will happen if the House rejects it?
Mr. Davies: As was said in a debate last night, the House is in a position to reject a Supplementary Estimate should it come before the House. There is no doubt that in that event the Government would have to take the consequences of that rejection.
Mr. John Mendelson: Apart from the scandalous revelation that the budget was not defined until yesterday, was the Minister in a position to agree to the budget immediately on having it presented to him for the first time? Will he say more about that brief reference which he made to the fact that agreement was not reached on the proposals for expenditure on social policy? Is it correct, as reported in Paris, that a proposition to devote £50 million to certain policies which might, to some extent, benefit this country has not been agreed, in fact has been blocked, while £33 million in addition will fall on the shoulders of the people of Britain to finance the butter mountain and the sale of butter to the Soviet Union? How could the Minister agree to the additional £33 million expenditure in the absence of agreement on the £50 million on social policies?
Mr. Davies: As the hon. Member will have realised from my statement, the increase in the budget related to agricultural matters is consequential on decisions taken previously. Thus, the figures which arise from those decisions are a matter of fact and a matter of consequence. The position of the Social Fund is different. There is not a specific criterion which gives rise to an automatic extent in figures. Therefore, there is a decision to be taken about the extent of the Social Fund. The hon. Gentleman may take my word for it that I have struggled strongly to obtain an adequate increase for the social budget. No agreement was reached yesterday, but I am not unhopeful that an agreement will be reached in due course as a result of maintaining these pressures. The hon. Gentleman will realise that there is a distinction between the two forms of fund.
Sir D. Dodds-Parker: Is my right hon. Friend aware that these matters have been discussed in a committee of the European Parliament for some time in the absence of Opposition Members and that their absence has been regretted, especially the absence of so many individuals who are constructive and could help so much in these deliberations? I thank my right hon. Friend for coming so promptly to the House, which is about to adjourn for two-and-a-half months, to advise us about these matters. The same handful of hon. Members

1625
would have made a dickens of a fuss, to put it mildly, if my right hon. Friend had not made such a statement today.
Mr. Davies: My hon. Friend is right. Part of the undertaking that the Government have given is that I should come and report regularly to the House. I have endeavoured to do so continually and will continue to do so. Many of the questions that have been raised here could have been raised by Labour Members to good effect in the European Parliament.
Mr. Spriggs: Will the right hon. Gentle. man take notice of the fact that many of us regret that the agenda of the Common Market was defined only as late as yesterday? We should welcome some spirited action by the United Kingdom representatives at the EEC meetings, so that that our Ministers would reject out of hand any proposals that might lead to an increase in the cost of living. Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that if he agrees to the addition of an import levy on the already high cost of food such as beef it will put that food out of the reach of ordinary people in this country?
Mr. Davies: I take note of what the hon. Gentleman said. I must clarify one point. It was the supplementary budget, not the agenda, which was defined only yesterday. The Government have strongly pressed for the need for a proper interval between the submission of proposals to the Council and its consideration of them. Decisions to that end were taken yesterday and I am hopeful, therefore that we shall not be faced again with a short time in which to consider proposals.
Mr. Biffen: Does not the rocketing increase in the size of the agricultural fund and the increases in the size of the Social Fund being sought by my right hon. Friend bring appreciably nearer the day when the Community budget will have to be financed out of a 1 per cent. rate of VAT? In these circumstances will he be a little more cautious before disavowing that the second stage of monetary union implies a harmonious VAT?
Mr. Davies: The second stage of monetary union has not been defined as yet. It is not therefore a matter which has so far arisen.
Mr. Orme: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain to me and to the British taxpayer why the Government have flatly refused to introduce subsidies for important foods in this country, yet in the same week that they made that refusal they agreed to proposals that the Government should subsidise people in the Community? What is the difference?
Mr. Davies: The hon. Member has failed to appreciate that the subsidies in question included a subsidy to the Community in respect, for instance, of butter consumption in this country, which will be to our benefit.
Mr. Shore: I hope that the Minister has taken on board the seriousness of this matter. Is it not disgraceful that a fortnight ago the right hon. Gentleman refused to answer a Private Notice Question that I put down on the pure technicality that he did not have a formal proposal, when a draft proposal for the Commission, asking substantially for what he has now announced he has granted, was with the Government and was available to me and other hon. Members? Now, a fortnight later, he has so arranged things that he has made his statement after having agreed to the proposals. It is disgraceful that what he has been asked for is a British subscription to help finance unwanted food surpluses in Europe and yet he has been unable to get some modest quid pro quo through the Social Fund. The right hon. Gentleman has behaved in a way which is quite contrary to the national interest. He has behaved cravenly. That is the only way to describe his actions. If he wishes to be taken seriously about changing the CAP, has it not occurred to him that if he wants to change the CAP this October the correct approach would have been to refuse the supplementary budget yesterday?
Mr. Davies: I did not have a draft proposal a fortnight ago, as the right hon. Gentleman infers, and nor did he.
Mr. Jay: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will it be in order to move, That this House rejects the supplementary budget of the EEC, which was presented to us without notice? There will be no further opportunity to debate it for some weeks, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: No, it would not be in order and I do not think that I would accept such a motion if it were.

MOTORWAY (ANNOUNCEMENT OF ROUTE)
Mr. Cormack: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday I had down a question on a matter of vital importance to my constituency concerning the siting of a motorway asking when we could expect a decision. I was told by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State would be making an announcement very shortly. This morning on the front page of The Birmingham Post it says:
"The southern route—which The Birmingham Post learned yesterday would be adopted—"
I need quote no more. I suggest—
Mr. Speaker: I do not detect a point of order in what the hon. Member is saying.
Mr. Cormack: I am asking, Mr. Speaker, for your guidance and protection for hon. Members that leaks of this sort should not happen and that hon. Members should not be put at a disadvantage.
Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter for the Chair.

ADJOURNMENT DEBATES (TIMING)
Mr. Speaker: It may be for the convenience of the House if I indicate that we shall have to revise today's timing of the debates on the motion for the Adjournment owing to the length of the last statement and the supplementary questions. The changes will be announced when we have had time to work them out.

MATRIMONIAL INCOMES AND REMUNERATION (NOTIFICATIONS) BILL
12.35 p.m.
Mr. Hugh Dykes: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to empower and require regular notifications by male spouses of their incomes from all sources to their wives; and where applicable reciprocal notifications by wives in receipt of incomes not emanating from their spouses and notifications of all or any changes therein.
The House by now is used to being deserted when Ten-Minute Bills are introduced, even if they involve, as I believe this Bill does, important subjects. Without being presumptuous I suggest, however, that the House might have had a better attendance if, as originally envisaged, today had been the penultimate day of the Session.
This is an important measure for a number of reasons. The furore that this idea has caused in certain quarters is almost as great as would have happened if it were proposed that Dr. Caetano should be a Knight Commander or that traffic wardens should be exempt from income tax. But the Bill should not be considered in the context of the alarm which might be felt about it in certain quarters. It must be looked at in a balanced way. It must be seen as part and parcel of the modern world and modern Britain. There should be a balance of rights between married couples to know the details of incomes emanating in the household, primarily from husbands but also from earning wives.
This proposal is long overdue not only in the more fundamental context of the gradual equality between sexes, which I welcome very much, but also when considering the gradual emancipation of women in many ways, and of married women in certain ways. In recent years there has been a reinforcement of their rights in respect of the property of a marriage. My Bill is one additional logical step.
There is a shorter-term reason for the Bill. It arises from the prices situation. I do not suggest that a Bill of this kind should be the sum total of Parliament's response to the grave and urgent problem of rising prices. Manufacturers, retailers and traders must take a lot of the respon-
1630
sibility. The trade unions must take a great deal of responsibility in wage restraint. There is much that the Government should do in due course to tackle urgently the problem of rising prices. But it is clear that there is an important social lacuna in the current situation whereby a minority of wives do not know how much their husbands are earning and, as a result, there could be grave injustice for them and their children and, paradoxically, for their husbands, too. I am not suggesting that there is ignorance by wives of their husbands' earnings, of recent changes in those earnings or of other incomes in the majority of marriages. I believe that most husbands tell their wives what their earnings are, but good law can arise from the need to protect a minority or to allow a minority, however small, to have an injustice removed by the legislature. Even if it were a small minority—and it may not be—such a provision would be eminently worth while.
To those who say "Gross invasion of privacy!", I reply that it is simple to provide that the wife can say" I want none of the arrangements between my husband and me to change. I am satisfied, and do not want to know his earnings. I trust him completely". It would be easy to make such a simple declaration. But there are enough embattled housewives who may not be given justice by their husbands to make the Bill worth while, although one hesitates to intervene in the private arrangements of the domestic scene.
I want to establish the right for wives who feel that they are not being treated fairly by their husbands to know what the position is. How that can be done is another question. Obviously, the mechanical provisions would need to be elaborated by way of Inland Revenue and Treasury regulations. It would be simple to allow the wife to sign the husband's tax return, where tax returns are regularly made. If there were any change in that system, it would still be easy to tackle the mechanics of the problem.
I have received many letters from wives throughout the country who say that they do not know their husbands' earnings and feel that they are badly treated. They support the Bill and I have received encouraging indication of support from

1631
many hon. Members. The Bill is not a gross invasion of privacy because of the reserve protection for husbands that I have explained. Wives support it because they have not always benefited by receiving their own "wage increases" from their husbands, although last year average earnings per man-hour rose by 14–15 per cent. The Bill would play a part in giving wives better treatment with regard to prices.
I remind those who say that the Bill concerns only an insignificant minority, and therefore is not worth bothering about, or that we should not introduce it because it is too fundamental a legal step, that last January a Gallup poll showed that about a third of the respondents up to the age of 44 had not received any increase in their housekeeping budget last year, even though on average their husbands' earnings had risen substantially. In many sectors, particularly the skilled sectors, they had risen more than average.
There is now cause for Parliament to consider the situation, even at this eleventh hour, as it were.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Hugh Dykes, Sir John Rodgers, Mr. Clinton Davis, Miss Joan Hall, Mr. Maurice Edelman, Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman, Mr. John D. Grant, Mr. Cecil Parkinson, Mr. Edward Taylor and Mr. Christopher Tugendhat.

MATRIMONIAL INCOMES AND REMUNERATION (NOTIFICATIONS)
Bill to empower and require regular notifications by male spouses of their incomes from all sources to their wives; and where applicable reciprocal notifications by wives in receipt of incomes not emanating from their spouses, and notifications of all or any changes therein, presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon 16th October and to be printed. [Bill 205.]
ADJOURNMENT
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Jopling.]

AIRLINE SAFETY
12.45 p.m.
Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: May I ask, Mr. Deputy Speaker, how much time I am to have?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): I think it would be for the convenience of the House if the first three debates lasted 35 minutes each, or as near that as hon. Members can make it.
Mr. McNair-Wilson: I am grateful to have the opportunity to raise the question of airline safety. I am naturally disappointed that more of my colleagues are not here to join in, but I look forward to the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Tebbit), who so long served as an airline pilot.
My reason for asking for this debate is that at this time of year hundreds of thousands of British people fly off on holiday. I suppose that everyone who goes in an airliner feels, at least as the aircraft starts to taxi out, butterflies of uncertainty, and wonders whether his flight will be the unlucky one that will result in fatalities and injuries.
This year has been important for civil aviation because two reports relating to flight safety have been published. One was the report of the inquiry into the Trident crash at Staines in June 1972, when 118 people were killed. It was the worst crash ever in the United Kingdom. The second was the report by the committee under Group Captain Douglas Bader into pilot fatigue, a report which had perhaps as its complement a similar document from the British Airline Pilots Association.
Flying is one of the safest forms of travel known to man. Although we may each have that moment of doubt that our flight will be the unlucky one, I understand from statistics in The Times that the chances of our being among the fatal casualties are 175,000 to 1. Odds of that sort should not give us a moment's doubt about the safety of the aircraft we are in. Yet the fact is that air crashes, whenever and wherever they occur, make headline news around the world. Perhaps it is because the crash of a civil airliner so often involves a great number of deaths and injuries and

1633
because we can identify with the casualties.
Therefore, although the odds may be so great against our being involved in a crash, the fact that there are crashes requires that we should continuously consider whether the air safety measures employed by the airlines and those who run air traffic control and all the other systems at an airport are adequate in this day and age, when more and more airliners are flying and more and more people are flying in them.
There are three main causes of accidents—pilot failure, aircraft failure and the failure of airports and air traffic control systems. Yet last year when we first heard stories about flight captains going to sleep on the flight deck of their aircraft, we were inclined to dismiss them as the sort of gimmicky tales that so often find their way into the national Press. if we had looked back to 1966, we should have found that the flight safety officer of the Board of Trade had produced a most detailed report on the question of pilot fatigue and flight times. Yet for some reason that report received so little attention in the airlines that when the question was revived last year there was some doubt whether this was a gimmick subject. Now we know from the Bader Committee's report and from BALPA's report that pilot fatigue is a very serious danger that confronts any pilot who is asked to do more than a certain number of hours on the flight deck. If BALPA is to be believed, at least six accidents relating to United Kingdom aircraft were caused by that source.
Admittedly, Group Captain Bader is not prepared to state that he knows of an accident caused by pilot fatigue, but he is willing to agree that pilot fatigue can so reduce the mental alertness of a pilot as to be a contributory factor. Indeed, in his report he produces what he considers to be the right working hours for a pilot. I merely mention them because they are part of the very important recommendations in the report. Group Captain Bader states that there should be an annual limit of 900 flying hours per pilot, in any calendar period of 12 months. He gives a table of minimum rest periods, which I understand has been accepted by the CAA, which set up the committee. He also makes a suggestion for a flight time limitation
1634
board to operate in an advisory capacity to the CAA, and suggests that the board should have on it representatives of the airlines and the pilots and an aeromedical specialist.
Although I welcome the Bader report, I have to repeat that I find myself wondering why pilot fatigue has only now been recognised as the danger that it has clearly been for so many years. Why, by the same token, are we not yet in a position to persuade pilots to report all the incidents that take place on the flight deck and might give a clue either to their own mental alertness or to that of their colleagues? As I understand it, the reason is a feeling that it might produce the belief that they were somehow falling down on the job or were spying on those with whom they worked. That is a pity. Until we have incident reporting not only if an aircraft is involved in a near-miss accident but also of what happens on the flight deck, we shall not guarantee to pick up the pilot who is overstressed and deserves to be rested.
Pilot fatigue leads to pilot error, and pilot error was a contributory factor to the crash of the Trident at Staines last year. As I have said, 118 people, passengers and crew, died. Why someone as experienced as the pilot of that aircraft should have made the mistake that he did in retracting the leading edge droops we shall never be able to say. But the point in the report of the inquiry on which we ought to spend a little time about is wondering how three similar incidents, which fortunately did not cause a crash in which passengers were killed, should have been allowed to happen without there being the most rigorous examination of the controls of the aircraft, how such an accident could happen, and whether any change should be made in the way the aircraft was operated. After all, the level that controls the droops is one of the most crucial instruments in the cockpit of the aircraft and there is little doubt its premature retraction caused the accident.
We also know that Captain Key, the Trident's captain, was a sick man with a serious heart condition. It is, perhaps, not unreasonable to wonder how a man with that heart condition could be the captain of a passenger aircraft taking over 100 people out of London. One must wonder whether the medical tests

1635
to which pilots are being subjected are adequate to uncover heart conditions of that kind.
I strongly recommend to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary that there should be the most strenuous examinations of the tests currently being employed and that the rather curious statement in the report, that when it becomes more reliable the stress test electro-cardiogram should be substituted for the "resting" ECG, needs not only explanation but, perhaps, further action to bring this reliability into being as soon as possible.
The other cause of that accident was the inability—for that is all that we can say for certain—of the second and third pilots to carry out the safety procedures which British European Airways prided itself were such as to avoid that sort of crash. One must wonder why that was so. How was it that after years of training those two pilots did not respond to the various warning signs that were given by the aircraft's controls that it was in a dangerous situation? One must wonder, also, whether such a situation could happen again, to the extent that a highly experienced 50-year-old captain could find himself flying with two very young men, in their early twenties, who, put in such an emergency, were unable to take the right action.
It is not enough for the inquiry report to say that it was "bad luck" that Senior Officer Keighley was flying as No. 2. It is not a question of luck that we are concerned about, but of safety. Luck surely should not be part of the safety techniques on an airliner's flight deck.
I must ask my hon. Friend whether he is now firmly convinced, first, that any incidents relating to the possibility of an accident as serious as could have happened with the droop retraction on the Trident—and did happen in June last year—would be picked up by the monitoring system which I understand the British Airways Board claims to have introduced since the crash?
I must also ask my hon. Friend whether he is firmly convinced that in future on the flight deck of one of the airliners operated by the British Airways Board one could not find such a mix of old men and young men, so that even if the young men knew what to do they might be overawed by the fact of having such an
1636
experienced captain as the No. 1 and, perhaps, might wonder—if one assumes for the moment that the captain was ill rather than dead—whether he was carrying out the right routine and that it was not for them to query what he was doing.
I should like to touch on the question of the noise abatement procedures, which are also considered to have been a contributory factor in the crash. I understand that these procedures have now been severely revised to the extent that the safety margin has been greatly increased. But perhaps the time has come for the noise abatement procedures to be dropped altogether. Perhaps what we should be doing is encouraging those who operate our aircraft to get them off and out of the airspace of the airfield and up to their cruising height as quickly as possible thus increasing the safety margin enormously without extending the noise footprint to any great extent. The noise abatement procedures are considered by many to provide only minimal relief anyway. This would seem to be a method of increasing safety with no great loss to the environment.
Lastly, before leaving the Trident accident, I want to refer to two remarks made to me by a number of British airline pilots. They said this, and I think that these words are worth noting: Airlines should never allow themselves to believe that dinning set procedures into young pilots will train them to do the right thing in an emergency. What matters is that the pilots understand the procedures and have had experience of using them in the air.
The second point these pilots made, and a point which also relates to the Trident crash, is that pilot morale is as important as the good health of those who fly the planes. Therefore, pilots' relationships with their management play an important part in their overall wellbeing. A happy pilot is a good pilot. Alas, as we know, Captain Key had been involved in a row just before that aircraft took off and, as we also know, graffiti was found in the cockpit of the aeroplane, suggesting that perhaps the morale amongst some of the pilots was not what it might have been.
Having touched on those two reports and their recommendations, I want briefly to touch on the safety record of Britain's independent airlines. In May of this

1637
year the magazine Flight produced an article in which it showed by its own index that Britain came out about ninth in the world air safety league, that the two State airlines enjoyed the better of the safety records, and that the independent airlines suffered between 1963 and 1972 60 per cent. of the accidents while carrying about 25 per cent. of the traffic. Although the article specifically makes it clear that some of the famous names like British Caledonian, Laker and Court Line have never had a fatality, the thought is left that some of the other independents do not have the safety performance that we should expect of them. I therefore wonder whether the Civil Aviation Authority would be justified in setting up an inquiry into the safety standards of independent airlines to check why this statistic should be held against them.
For instance, in the last 14 years 14 or 15 charter aircraft have flown into high ground with the loss of 600 people, and only last March 104 persons died in the crash of a Vanguard aircraft which flew into a mountainside near the airport at Basle. The passengers were all ladies on a one-day charter flight to Switzerland. Although I know that we are still waiting for the report of the Swiss court of inquiry, I am wondering why, when weather conditions were so bad at the airport, the pilot was not diverted to another.
The Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Cranley Onslow): May 1 point out to my hon. Friend that he is raising a number of points which I am very anxious to answer and which I shall need to answer fairly fully. We are at half-time already.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think I should reinforce the point that the Minister has drawn attention to, which is that the debate is due to finish at 13.20. Even with the allowance of a few extra minutes, it will not be easy to contain it. I understand that the hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Tebbit) has a small share in the debate.
Mr. McNair-Wilson: I will heed your warning, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and do my best to draw my remarks to a close in the next seven minutes.
Is there any substance in suggestions which have been made to me that charter
1638
aircraft operators operate on such narrow profit margins that the pilot is almost bound to try to get into the airfield—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Did I hear the hon. Gentleman aright? Did he say that he would try to conclude his remarks in seven minutes? It is not for the Chair, but if the hon. Gentleman wishes an answer from the Minister he must allow the Minister some time in which to make a reply.
Mr. McNair-Wilson: I take all your remonstrances in very good part, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I find it rather hard that the 60 minutes that I had been allotted by Mr. Speaker for this debate have been reduced to 35 minutes. However, I will do my best to bring my remarks to a close as quickly as I can.
Is it the case that those operating this type of flight find themselves bound to operate into an airfield even if the weather conditions are bad, simply because to divert could damage the profitability of the operation? If this is so, should not the Civil Aviation Authority insist that such airline operators insure themselves against such an eventuality?
Then there is the question whether the profitability of airlines generally is weighed against the safety measures used on an airline. The British Air Line Pilots Association has a sneaking feeling that this is so. It makes the point that
"the inability or refusal on economic grounds of an airline to invest in crew training and flight simulators, navigation aids, flight data recorders and any other equipment that could improve the efficiency of their flight crews and the safety of their aircraft threatens the safety record of the airline and the lives of those who are flying in the aircraft."
In those circumstances, does the Civil Aviation Authority have sufficient power to insist on safety measures? Is it fully aware of the financial circumstances of all airlines operating out of this country? Is the position as Flight stated on 19th April—
"British airlines still do not have to disclose their accounts—capital and operating—in any meaningful detail."
Just one word about air traffic control. Near misses are a constant source of worry in safety terms. Too many aeroplanes fly over the centre of London for any of us to feel easy when we hear that the Mediator air traffic control system is not operating at 100 per cent.

1639
efficiency. What is being done to improve that system?
Lastly, has my hon. Friend heard the fear which I have heard expressed that Runway 23 at London Airport—the north-south runway—is considered by many pilots to have a dangerous approach, to be too short, and to be so badly drained that the danger of aquaplaning is an ever-present threat to safety?
I close with one sentence from Lord Boyd-Carpenter. He wrote this in The Times in February:
"Even one accident is one accident too many."
1.17 p.m.
Mr. Norman Tebbit: I shall be extremely brief. I have the greatest sympathy with my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, East (Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson), to whom we owe a debt of gratitude for this debate. My hon. Friend has raised many points to which I know that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will want to reply and I shall not raise any new points to concern him.
It is unusual that we debate air safety except in the light of a disaster. I shall confine my remarks solely to those aspects of the work of the Civil Aviation Authority which I think we should note. At this early stage of the work of the authority under Lord Boyd-Carpenter we should recognise the extent to which it has moved on safety problems, pilot' fatigue, the carriage of flight data recorders, and the carriage of cockpit voice recorders, all of which will make a considerable contribution to safety.
I shall write to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary about the other matters which I should have liked to raise with him. I hope that he and the House will accept that on this last day of term it is appropriate for us to make a couple of school-report type remarks. The first I would make is to the British airline industry, saying, "Good progress, but you could do better." Secondly, I would say to Lord Boyd-Carpenter, "An excellent start. We look forward to seeing far more of your work in the future."
1.9 p.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Cranley Onslow): I am sure that nobody will be more grate-
1640
ful than our former right hon. Friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter for the advice which my hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Tebbit) tendered, and I am certain that Lord Boyd-Carpenter will take due note of it.
The House must be grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, East (Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson) for initiating this debate. When he reads the report of his remarks in the OFFICIAL REPORT he will see that he has given me a deal to answer in 10 minutes. Therefore, I shall crack on.
Since 1st April of last year the responsibility for safety matters has been that of the Civil Aviation Authority and not directly of my Department, nor, incidentally, that of the British Air Line Pilots Association. Anybody who has any concern about air safety matters is free to go to talk to Lord Boyd-Carpenter about them.
I wish that my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, East had spoken to Lord Boyd-Carpenter, because some of the things that he said today were more likely to frighten airline passengers than to reassure them. That is a pity because, as he said, this is the height of the travel season and we do not merely want to travel hopefully; we want to arrive. I have no doubt that British airlines will take good care of us and get us to our destinations, whether those airlines are independent or nationalised.
To come to the nuts and bolts of the matter, airworthiness and safety matters are a Civil Aviation Authority responsibility, and that authority is constantly trying to improve standards by inspection of a physical kind and by concentrating much more on flight deck work rather than on paper work, and also—I take this opportunity to stress this fact —by concentrating on the financial aspect. The Edwards Committee stressed that it believed that there was a possible connection between financial soundness and safety, and the Civil Aviation Authority has this point very much in mind, though it was wrong of my hon. Friend to suggest that because an operator falls into some kind of difficulty and has an accident this implies that he is financially unsound. There is no substance in the suggestion, and if my hon. Friend has any doubt I hope he will talk to the Civil Aviation Authority about it

1641
and, having done that, I hope he will come back and say what the Authority has told him.
Although there cannot be any cause for complacency, there is no need for alarmism. The Flight statistics to which my hon. Friend drew attention were alarmist. They were also—Flight admitted this—statistically unsound. What they ignored was the significant factor, which is the trend. Statistics can be made to prove many things, but what one needs to find out is what is going to happen and not what has happened. 1 remember my hon. Friend the Member for Epping and his analogy of the tadpole and the whale in the context of what can be misproved by statistics.
The statistics for fatal accidents per 100,000 stage flights on passenger-carrying services, on five-year moving averages, from 1963 to 1967, indicate 0.30 for scheduled airlines, and in 1968–72 it is down to 0.23. On the non-scheduled transport—that is, the independents—in the same period the rate has improved from 1.15 for 1963–67 to 0.20 for 1968–72, which gives a better safety record to the independent airlines than to the national airlines or, rather, to the non-scheduled than to the scheduled. This is a significant point which has to be borne in mind. The United Kingdom total average compares favourably with the figures for other countries, and I hope very much that we shall not allow the debate to proceed on the basis of false statistics.
My hon. Friend reminded the House of the Trident accident and, as one who was on the scene of that tragic disaster within an hour or so of its happening, I can tell him that I have been determined ever since that no possible chance should be missed of making sure that the lessons were learned and that it should never happen again if it can be prevented. This spirit has animated everyone concerned with the occurrence, whether in my Department, in the airline or in the Civil Aviation Authority, and there has been the closest and most continuous scrutiny, before the Report of the Lane Commission and since, to make sure that all possible action is followed up.
It may help the House if I add one or two points to the statement which my hon. Friend made to the House on 9th May about the accident and the action
1642
which has been taken, in particular relating to four of the recommendations in the Lane Commission's findings. On the first, which had to do with the fitting of a physical baulk to prevent the retraction of the lever, I can say that the installation of this in the BEA Trident fleet has begun and it is expected to be completed by the spring of next year. In the meantime, there is a great awareness on the part of Trident pilots of the correct procedure. Training methods have been overhauled and substantially revised, and procedures have been changed in such a way that it should be impossible for a mistake of this kind to recur. The situation is one in which everything possible has been done and in which the highest levels of safety should once again prevail.
On the question of cockpit voice recorders, the Civil Aviation Authority has consulted the aviation industry about the proposal that these should be mandatory on all civil passenger-carrying aircraft of more than 27,000 kilogrammes all-up weight. The Authority is getting reactions in, and there has been fairly general support for this, although there is some difficulty about specification and installation requirements and there will need to be further discussion with everybody concerned.
In the matter of subtle as well as obvious incapacitation of a pilot, which was very much highlighted during the inquiry, the Civil Aviation Authority's Flight Operations Inspectorate has completed an examination of operators' crew training and flight procedures and has ensured that instructors take proper account of this. So there again, something has been done to meet the point.
On the question of young pilots, and particularly the action taken by BEA, I can tell my hon. Friend that the airline has introduced procedures to give young pilots more experience as observers on the flight deck before they operate as P2 on passenger-carrying flights. The Flight Operations Inspectorate has reviewed with all United Kingdom airlines their rules on minimum experience for co-pilots. Therefore, action is being taken, and I hope that this will reassure my hon. Friend.
With regard to electro-cardiograms, I am sorry that my hon. Friend has overlooked what was said at the time of the

1643
statement on 9th May, and 1 direct his attention to the OFFICIAL REPORT for that day, particularly to col. 496, where he will find that what he describes as a rather ambiguous statement is considerably clarified.
Mr. McNair-Wilson rose—
Mr. Onslow: No, I cannot give way, I have but four minutes left in which to deal with the rest of what the hon. Gentleman said.
It is worth stressing that the Civil Aviation Authority's action in connection with the Bader Report is a useful follow up to the Trident inquiry. In fairness to its comments on BALPA's findings, it is right to say that the words were:
"on the evidence we received we were unable to decide whether fatigue had caused any accident to a United Kingdom registered aircraft in recent years."
The Bader Committee took evidence from BALPA as well, so that an impartial assessment of BALPA's findings tends to put it in a lower key and in a more accurate way.
One of the most significant steps taken has been to make incident and defect reporting mandatory. My hon. Friend the Member for Epping and I have campaigned for this in the past, and we are both delighted that it should be so.
There has certainly been a thoroughgoing review of noise abatement procedures by the Civil Aviation Authority, but there is nothing in the Lane Commission Report to suggest that there was anything necessarily wrong with the safety measures.
Mr. Tebbit rose—
Mr. Onslow: I am sorry; this will have to be the subject of correspondence.
It may be that the safety margins could be made greater by changing the procedures, but it does not mean that the margins which are applied are unsafe. I know that pilots have a preference for getting off the ground as quickly as they can, but there might be consequences on the noise front if they simply blasted off into the sky. I have to admit this in a somewhat reluctant sense because while I have a responsibility to see that people get the greatest protection from the adverse effects of aircraft noise, it comes up against the overwhelming requirement
1644
to put safety first. I am more anxious than ever that aviation should be safe and should be accepted as safe. One of the measures which occur to me is the two-segment approach. The Civil Aviation Authority is looking at this, but nobody is under any illusion about the need to put safety first. This is the message which I address to the House.
We shall, I hope, have an opportunity in due course to debate air safety in circumstances which are not associated with accidents and disasters. My hon. Friend was right to make that point. We look forward to the first report of the CAA, which should be available later this year. I know, meanwhile, that the authority is doing a great deal to raise the standards of safety in British civil aviation and I am sure that it has the wholehearted support of the House. I am sure, too, that it is as anxious as I am that its work should be known. I therefore repeat my suggestion that anyone who has doubts about air safety should talk to the authority and I echo my hon. Friend's thought that it is not the glamour of the air hostesses or the excellence of the food or the modernity of the equipment which makes us willing passengers but the knowledge that we can fly safely. I believe that on British airlines we can.

CIVIL SERVICE (EXECUTIVE GRADES)
1.21 p.m.
Dr. M. S. Miller (Glasgow, Kelvin-grove): One of our British traditions is that our Civil Service is politically impartial. Unlike the United States, for example, where the civil administration undergoes extensive change every time there is a change in the political complexion of the Government, no drastic convulsions of personnel alteration take place in our Civil Service, regardless of which Government are in power. This concept of impartial service is a noble one, but there are signs that the modern civil servant does not want to become too institutionalised, to be taken too much for granted, to be looked upon as someone who will never complain no matter how unfairly he feels he is being treated.
In the last 25 or 30 years the Civil Service has become far more integrated into the social and economic life of the country and the civil servant wants to be

1645
considered as an integral part of our society and to bear comparison in job structure, in salary, in promotion and in conditions of employment with comparable people in society. In addition, the civil servant wants some kind of a say in the working life he is expected to lead.
The executive and directing grades of the Civil Service are a case in point. The duties in those grades range from special purchasing for their own department, the management of a labour exchange, determining the benefits laid down by the Department of Health and Social Security, the programming of computers, the conciliation of industrial disputes, advising business on export possibilities and opportunities, the preparation of parliamentary correspondence, and the preliminary drafting of proposed legislation. All these are executive duties which require judgment and analysis, and many of these personnel have to exercise personal skills, with the ability to express themselves clearly to the public with tact and even with persuasiveness.
The maximum salary for an executive officer in these grades is £2,288 per annum, reached after 15 annual increments with a starting level of £951 per year. Surely there can be nowhere in industry or commerce where the commencing salary for a named position is less than half the maximum and where a 16-point scale of increments is involved.
I know that the basis on which salaries are negotiated is the findings of the Pay Research Unit, which compares Civil Service jobs with similar positions in outside employment, but the unit operates only on a biennial review, which almost inevitably results in the process becoming a catching-up exercise on something which may be already a year out of date.
I am not suggesting, however, that the unit is not a useful tool in salary discussions. What I am saying is that it cannot be considered a complete substitute for negotiation. The position to which the unit has brought the executive officers at this moment exemplifies my point.
If one takes the base of 100 in January 1966 for the average earnings of all employees in industry, one finds that by September 1972 it had risen to 178·6. Over the same period the executive officers at the maximum level received an increase to 147·6. The higher executive officers at maximum level were at 152·2 while
1646
senior executive officers, again on the maximum, were at 151—all of them well behind the average industrial reading.
But the dissatisfaction in the Civil Service is not confined entirely to remuneration. There is discontent amongst civil servants at the lack of encouragement to the achievement of recognised qualifications in pure managerial skills. Management is also a highly advanced technology, and in the modern world the Civil Service must recognise this by embarking upon a programme of training of employees and instruction in managerial skills.
There is discontent also about the system of promotion in the Civil Service. In 1972 only one in 25 executive officers was promoted into the next grade of higher executive officer, and only one in 26 higher executive officers was promoted to senior executive officer. This is reflected surely in the alarmingly high staff turnover in the executive and directing grades.
Nearly 16 per cent. of those who joined the service after 1st January 1970 left during 1971, and during the same year over 13 per cent. of executive grades who had joined in 1969 also resigned. Instead of modern methods of promotion, including case studies and discussions depth, interviews and assessments by psychologists, the chief method of promotion in these grades is by annual reports and promotion boards, an outmoded method of selection which is wide open to possible exploitation to perpetuate promotion by patronage rather than by ability.
There is discontent also about the absence of effective participation in decisions which affect the lives of people employed. Civil servants have complained to me that decisions are made by command rather than by consent, that the system is, to say the least, authoritarian, and that even a condescending consultation has to be looked upon by the employees as a major victory.
I know that time is short so I will summarise my conclusions. First, the 16-point salary scale should be shortened. After a maximum of 10 years an executive should be able to count upon earning a salary comparable with his counterparts in industry or commerce, and I believe that it is not pitching it too high to say that at this moment that should be at least £3,250 a year.
Secondly, the service should develop a scientific and less subjective method of

1647
selection for promotion. Thirdly, the Whitley Council machinery is outdated and needs to be reformed.
Finally, there should be regular and constant retraining in the service. No job of this kind has static requirements, and in a profession which plays such a large part in the life of every man, woman and child in the country it is vital for the well-being of the country that every member of that profession should be efficient, compassionate and content.
1.30 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Civil Service Department (Mr. Kenneth Baker): I welcome the widespread interest in the well-being of the Civil Service which has been expressed by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Kelvingrove (Dr. Miller). The motion refers to executive grades but many of the problems—and I do not deny that they exist—involve also other grades. My colleagues and I are deeply concerned about all grades and classes of civil servants.
We in this House and everyone in the country have an interest in ensuring that the outstanding service that the Civil Service renders to us, not only as a legislative assembly but as a nation and community, is not impaired. No one is more concerned in Government than I, as the Minister charged with responsibility for the Civil Service and every aspect of the conditions of employment of civil servants.
I do not want to deal with the underlying implication in all that the hon. Gentleman has said, which is a dispute between two unions—
Mr. Ian Mikardo: No, it is not.
Mr. Baker: The hon. Gentleman rightly brought to the attention of the House the working conditions of certain grades in the Civil Service. He knows as well as anyone that his union is conducting a campaign and has produced a booklet from which he quoted freely "The case for Middle Management in the Civil Service." I do not wish to be drawn into an argumentative dispute as to who should represent whom in the Civil Service, and that is what, outside the House, the debate is generally seen as being about. If the hon. Gentleman
1648
says that that is not what the debate is about he turns away his eyes from one of the issues. I do not intend to deal with this. It is not for me. If there is a dispute between unions that is a matter for the TUC and Bridlington.
Mr. Mikardo: With great respect, what the Minister is saying is unfair. It is his business to reply to the speech made by my hon. Friend, who did not mention a trade union, either his own or any other. The Minister has no right to assume what is the basis of the debate. He should rest on the words used and reply to those words. His aspersion is utterly without justification. I say that as one who knows.
Mr. Baker: I have made no aspersion. I was about to say that I did not intend to deal with this point. I intend to reply to the points raised by the hon. Member for Kelvingrove, but I cannot help drawing the conclusion that the arguments put forward by the hon. Gentleman are almost word for word in this booklet.
I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman and many others are genuinely interested in the arguments he put forward. From his opening remarks it is apparent that he appreciates the changing position of civil servants, and the changing position of civil servants within the Civil Service.
The hon. Gentleman referred to Whitleyism, and in this I am sure that we shall be helped by the contribution of all the Civil Service unions. He did not pay due tribute to the achievements of over 50 years of Whitleyism. Over this long period a joint approach to problem solving has proved succesful and has often been the envy of both management and staff in the private sector. This is something of which the Civil Service has been rightly proud and I am sure that it will continue to be so.
I do not underestimate the strength of feeling which recent industrial action has evinced, nor do I wish to understate the regret that must be felt by most people, including large numbers of civil servants, at this departure from tradition whereby a solution was generally found in matters of dispute through the Whitley Council system rather than through industrial action. I refute the implication that progress can be achieved only by coercion and confrontation.

1649
Whitleyism does not preclude direct negotiations by individual unions in matters which are the sole concern of the staff whom they are recognised as representing. Pay research negotiations, for example, are invariably conducted with the unions recognised to represent the staff concerned in the survey.
The hon. Gentleman spoke of the difficulties that the executive grades are experiencing and have experienced for some time. I am well aware of the arguments expressed in the publication "The Case for Middle Management in the Civil Service". The hon. Gentleman dealt with many of these arguments and I will specifically reply to them.
The hon. Gentleman claimed that the various methods used in the past are not appropriate and have not produced job satisfaction nor the appropriate rate of reward for the degree and type of responsibility involved. The hon. Gentleman said that pay research reviews, which were established under the Priestley Report—a policy which has been followed by successive Governments—are based on reviews which are made a year previously and are, therefore, a year out of date. The rates collected during the Pay Research Unit's review are continually up-dated as changes occur through the year. All the rates used to settle Civil Service pay for a 1st January settlement are in payment in the firms concerned on that date. I think that the hon. Gentleman must have misunderstood the position. The reviews are not a year out of date.
The hon. Gentleman dealt at some length with promotion, the lack of promotion and how long promotion took. He also referred to the length of the incremental scales. The system of scales in the Civil Service is important not only for executive grades but for typists and others. The hon. Gentleman omitted to recognise that the executive officer grade is a reservoir of talent into which three streams of recruitment flow—promoted clerical officers, "A" level entrants and graduates, for all of whom different parts of the scale are used. The scale relates starting pay to age, from 18 to 25. The hon. Gentleman ignored the system introduced in negotiation with the Society of Civil Servants in 1971 which can give an incremental jump after three years' satisfactory service.
1650
The hon. Gentleman asserted that the system of promotion was old-fashioned and did not allow recognition at a sufficiently early age. That is simply untrue. About two-thirds of those in the principal grade are former higher executive officers, and 30 per cent. of those at under-secretary level and above do not come from the former administrative class.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned staff reports and job appraisal reviews. Staff report forms have been thoroughly revised to provide the best vehicle for achieving a common assessment, and an imaginative programmed learning system of training has been devised, validated and introduced. Job appraisal reviews have been introduced. There is nothing political in this. They were introduced under the Labour Government. They are a follow-through from the Fulton Report and have been introduced only with the most thorough preparation.
The Civil Service Department has produced a training film on these reviews which has been much admired by firms outside the public sector. Private firms have hired it. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will have the opportunity of seeing that film and appreciating the great care we take over the job appraisal of civil servants from year to year. This is not confined to executive grades but includes other grades as well.
The hon. Gentleman implied that the executive officer was very dissatisfied, underpaid and under-appreciated and that we were having difficulties in recruitment. We are having difficulties in recruitment. But they are very much restricted to the London area. They are not experienced in the area which the hon. Gentleman represents, for example. Some of his colleagues on the Labour benches came to see me only last week to advocate greater dispersal of civil servants to the Glasgow area, to West Central Scotland and to Scotland generally. They made the reverse point to that which the hon. Gentleman made. They said that there was a superfluity of people waiting to become executive officers in Scotland. The point which the hon. Gentleman made about a shortfall of recruitment does not assist his constituency, his city or his country.
Dr. Miller: The hon. Gentleman misunderstood me. I did not suggest or

1651
imply that there was a shortage of recruits. I did not say anything about that. I said that there was a tremendous turnover of people in the Civil Service. An alarmingly high number of people leave. Will the hon. Gentleman stop giving the impression that it is unusual for hon. Members to quote from documents and to use expertise? Will he appreciate that I may have had a hand in drawing up the document?
Mr. Baker: I should not be at all surprised to hear that. The hon. Gentleman may well have had a hand in it. I was anxious to point out that quite a few of the statements which he made did not reflect an understanding of the position in the Civil Service, just as the statements in the pamphlet did not. There are errors in the pamphlet and in what the hon. Gentleman said. But there is also a deep strain of misunderstanding about how the Civil Service works.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned in his intervention the question of turnover. He also mentioned the wastage in the executive officer grade. There is a problem about staff turnover. It is a problem which we share with other employers, and a thorough independent study which looked into the matter in 1970, comparing our experience in the Civil Service with that in 35 other organisations, suggested that our turnover figure was no higher than that of other organisations. A full-scale study has not been undertaken since then, but we keep in contact with the large employers in the private sector to ascertain their experience and to discover the situation in the labour market in particular parts of the country. It seems that our experience is not dissimilar from that of the private sector in large areas of clerical work in, for example, insurance companies and banks. They have similar problems to those to which the hon. Gentleman referred in the first part of his speech when he said that the nature of the job was changing and that people wanted to be more satisfied in their jobs. They do not want to work in clerical factories. I support what the hon. Gentleman said.
We are continually looking at the nature of the work to see to what extent responsibility can be pushed down the line so that the sort of people about whom the hon. Gentleman spoke are not doing
1652
work which more junior grades, such as clerical officers and clerical assistants, could do. We have a team of consultants doing job satisfaction work in the area of the executive officer grades about which the hon. Gentleman has been speaking. We are experimenting to see whether changes in the organisation of work can bring greater satisfaction.
It is not only a matter of pay. We undertook a major study to ensure that the executive officer grade was not being misused and that executive officers were not being given low quality work. We found that at most 3 per cent. of the executive officers were being given work of poorer quality than they might have been expected to tackle. But, even though the percentage was small, this is a matter which concerns us and we are discussing it with the Society of Civil Servants and, in particular, with the Civil and Public Services Association, because the association is concerned almost entirely with the work of clerical officers and clerical assistants.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the question of training. I resented most his remarks about training. The Civil Service needs to make no apology about the amount of training which it does or the quality and calibre of it. We have just experienced a five-year programme, which is continuing, of improving training by means of training colleges. Much of the training of executive officers is done at departmental level. They are trained in managerial techniques and in such things as management by objectives. They are trained in use of all the latest managerial tools. Although 94 per cent. of all training is done by Departments, a growing percentage is done by the Civil Service College in the courses which it runs in London and Edinburgh. In 1971–72 more than 600 executive officers and higher executive officers attended courses at the college. They were mainly four-week courses specially designed to develop their general management skills.
Dr. Miller: Will the hon. Gentleman say how long it will take to retrain and keep up-to-date the 83,000 people involved?
Mr. Baker: The great mass of training in the Civil Service is done on the job in Departments by the respective

1653
training departments. That has always been the case and will, I think, continue to be the case. There are very good training courses in managerial skills and not simply in the mechanics of a Department.
I wish to deal with the question of promotion. The hon. Gentleman said that talent was being suppressed. That is not true. Today we have issued a new set of instructions revising some of our procedures to ensure that there are no bars to equal opportunity throughout the Civil Service. The procedures now open up a fast route for outstanding executive officers who will be able to reach the grade of principal, which carries a salary of £3,635 a year, in their twenties. They also contain a specific right of appeal for anyone who has not been called for interview or is not selected for promotion. I remind the hon. Gentleman of how rapidly the rate of the age of promotion from executive officer to higher executive officer is dropping. In 1967 the average age was 34. In 1971 it was 31 and in 1972 it was 30.
I wish to deal with the matter of pay, because the hon. Gentleman dealt with it at some length. I assure hon. Members that Ministers, and particularly myself, are aware of the strong feelings of civil servants about the effect of the counter-inflation policy and about maintaining the fair comparison principle. We reached a settlement within the stage 2 limits and increases have been paid from 1st April. Executive officers get between 6½ and 10½ per cent., and this followed the 7 to 7½ per cent. which they received on 1st January 1972. The executive officer maximum in inner London is now £2,463 a year.
However, I recognise that feelings of unfairness have arisen from the impact of the standstill. That is why the Pay Board has been asked to report on any anomalies which may have been created by the provisions of the counter-inflation policy. It is due to report its findings on 15th September. Hon. Members may know that written and oral evidence has been given by both sides of the National Whitley Council and separately by the Society of Civil Servants and other Civil Service unions.
It is now for the Pay Board to consider the evidence and construct its report. Hon. Members will not expect me to speculate
1654
about its findings. The final outcome will be for the Government to decide in the light of the board's general report and the consultations which will be had on it. But if the board reports that anomalies exist, we have already assured the National Staff Side that they will be considered in relation to stage 3.
I do not want the House to gain the impression, which recent advertisements in the Press have sought to encourage, that one particular union has a monopoly of concern. It is not for me to comment on the claims made by individual unions about their effectiveness, but we should be suspicious about claims that only one union cares. The history of over 50 years of Whitleyism demonstrates how much has been achieved through joint consultation between the employers and unions who do understand and do care.
I hope I have said enough to make it clear that care and concern are being applied to the current problems faced by executive grades in the Civil Service. While welcoming any suggestion from any quarter we know that there are no easy solutions to these problems. But with the help of the staff representatives whoever they may be, we shall do our utmost to overcome the challenges that lie ahead. The philosophy and practice of Whitley-ism have served the Civil Service and the country very well over the years, and we shall not abandon them lightly. I only wish that those who seek to join in were more imbued with this spirit.
1.51 p.m.
Mr. Douglas Houghton: I wish to declare an interest, solely as a former member of the Civil Service National Whitley Council and as its chairman at the time of negotiation of agreements, which are still current, regarding the principles for fixing Civil Service pay and conditions. I was also secretary of the Inland Revenue Staff Federation which has in its membership a large number of executive grades, to which my hon. Friend referred.
The executive grades in the Civil Service are covered by three main groups of organisation, all of which are affiliated to the staff side of the Civil Service National Whitley Council. There is the Society of Civil Servants, which represents the broad general grades of the executive classes, including a section of

1655
Customs and Excise; there is the Inland Revenue Staff Federation, covering a large section of departmental executive classes in the Inland Revenue; and the Association of Her Majesty's Inspectors of Taxes.
When my hon. Friend refers to the conditions of executive officers and their grievances, which I fully understand, and with which I am familiar, I ask myself what is he seeking to remedy. It can come only from trade union organisation, trade union activity, joint consultation and joint agreement and, if necessary, arbitration. That is the structure which exists in the Civil Service today, and that is where the remedy lies.
The House may be unsuspecting of the delicate issues which lie behind the debate today. I must refer to the fact that executive grades of the Civil Service, fully represented as they are by the organisations to which I have referred, have recently been under attack from another quarter, the Association of Scientific, Technical and Managerial Staffs. That association has entered the field for membership in some parts of the executive grades and has been making inroads into the membership of the Society of Civil Servants, especially and particularly in the Ministry of Defence.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Kelvingrove (Dr. Miller) is a member and an officer of the Association of Scientific, Technical and Managerial Staffs. Therefore, one has to consider this debate in the light of this rivalry in the background. These two unions, the Society of Civil Servants and the ASTMS, are both affiliated to the TUC, which is fully alive to the problems which have lately arisen in this connection. I understand that under the TUC's dispute machinery a conference has been called at which the matters in dispute between the two unions can be fully considered. I fear that without that information the House does not fully understand the underlying considerations relating to the executive classes particularly.
Why not the clerical classes or the professional classes? At present, this sensitive area is the executive grades in the Civil Service. I must strongly dissent from any suggestion, if there is one, that the remedy can come from any source
1656
other than the recognised machinery and organisation. I disagree most strongly with my hon. Friend when he alleges that the Civil Service National Whitley Council is out of date. It is not. It is very much up to date. It is reviewed from time to time by independent Royal Commissions to see whether anything needs a new look and perhaps considerable review. An example was the Priestley Commission in 1955, out of which sprang for the first time an agreed formula, an agreed principle, for fixing Civil Service staff pay and conditions—that of fair comparability with a Civil Service pay research unit established especially to gather information on which negotiations could be conducted. That system has operated satisfactorily since 1955 and has been interrupted only once—by the present Government's counter-inflation policy. The rhythm of reviews for fair comparability purposes in the Civil Service has been intercepted by that policy.
We hope that this will be purely temporary. There is nothing wrong with the system, or with accredited and recognised organisations, or with their membership. There is nothing which needs the intrusion of another organisation.

NATIONAL SAVINGS
1.56 p.m.
Mr. Martin McLaren: I have asked for some time to discuss the subject of national savings so that we can have an opportunity before we rise to look at the recommendations of the Page Committee and give the Minister an opportunity to tell us the Government's views.
I wish to thank Sir Harry Page and the members of his committee for their interesting and valuable report. It may be controversial in some respects, but is none the worse for that. It is a rather long document and in the short time available it will only be possible for me to touch on some of the main points. I will be brief because I hope that there will be time for my hon. Friends to join in the debate.
The Government have a dual role, perhaps a conflicting role—and there is always trouble where there is a conflict of interests. On the one hand, the Government have long thought it to

1657
be their social responsibility in a paternal role to provide facilities for savings and to encourage thrift. In their other role they want to obtain finance and borrow money in the cheapest way possible.
Savings can be regarded as an alternative to taxation in affecting the level of demand, and can help improve the rate at which investment and growth can develop. Therefore, the Government appear to be in a Doctor Jekyll and Mr. Hyde situation, encouraging savings through the national savings movement, yet wanting to get savings as cheaply as they can.
The Government ought to offer a fair deal to the small and unsophisticated saver, yet a survey of the history shows that there is little doubt that this has not been done in the past. Like other fixed interest securities, national savings have had no protection against inflation.
Although £4,000 million was added during the last 20 years, the present stock of £10,000 million is worth in real terms only two-thirds of what savers owned at the start of the period. Savers have had a bad deal compared with, for example, owners of land or of French impressionist pictures. For those with national savings, inflation has operated like a tax from which the Government as a debtor have derived great advantage.
People investing in national savings have begun to get wise to this. For instance, the recently published June figures were poor, showing that in the first three months of the financial year only £53 million was invested as compared with £199 million for the some period of last year.
The Government for some time has been on the defensive, trying to maintain the existing stock rather than to expand it. There has been growing and gathering criticism of the way they treat the national saver. An article in the Financial Times recently appeared under the headline:
"The grimy capitalist face Page uncovered."
One reason for the poor figures is undoubtedly that savers have been switching over to other forms of saving such as life insurance or unit trusts which they reckon will give them more protection against inflation.
The Government try to hang on to national savings for as long as they can. Let me give two examples of this, the
1658
first relating to national savings certificates. These have a lower nominal rate of return in the early years than in the later years and this is presumably to encourage savers to retain their certificates and suffer their losses through inflation for a long time. The second example is that when the earlier issues, particularly the first to the sixth, reach maturity they are not automatically paid off but can continue to be held at a low rate of interest. Unsophisticated savers often keep these for years, not realising that it would be better to convert them into the current issue or to take out the cash for investment elsewhere.
The least that ought to be done is that on maturity all investors should be approached and offered repayment or conversion as in the case of dated stocks. I ask my hon. Friend for an assurance that this will be done. At paragraph 451 Page said:
"We think that the Department for National Savings might have shown a greater desire to remedy this defect."
I think so too. One of the difficulties has been the hotch-potch of different schemes, many of low face value. The 10p saving stamp is a recent example. That has been a reason for the high administrative cost of the present arrangements, running at over £7 million a year.
There is a need to review the schemes, to simplify them, bring them up to date and in line with the high prevailing interest rates. I agree that the British savings bond 8½ per cent. introduced recently is a step in the right direction. Page recommends that there should be a new single security to clear the jungle, bearing in mind the negative real return on some current issues. That calls into question whether there should be an issue which is inflation-proof, an index-linked scheme to protect capital and interest in real terms. Page recommended this. Some years ago the Radcliffe Committee remarked sardonically:
"A Treasury driven into a tight corner might do worse."
That gave some encouragement to this idea.
The Government always like to pretend that inflation does not exist, just as the courtiers pretended that the emperor was wearing fine clothes and that his nakedness did not exist. It will be interesting

1659
to hear what the Government have to say about an index-linked scheme.
Questions are also raised about the trustee savings banks but I would like to leave that subject to my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg), who has an expert view on such banks. There is also the controversial question whether the voluntary movement should be closed down. Page thought that it was wasting its time. The Government refused to accept that recommendation. With some hesitation I support the Government on this. The movement has a fine record of voluntary work and encouraging thrift. If it is to continue in business let us provide it with something worth selling to small savers.
The Page Committee will not have laboured in vain if its report induces the Government to have to have a new look at national savings, to simplify and modernise them and to give the small saver a better deal than he has had for many years. The only party point which I will introduce briefly is that the other day I heard the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) making a considerable fuss about how he had no opportunity before the recess to discuss national savings and the Page Report. I have given him this opportunity.
2.5 p.m.
Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: I welcome the opportunity of participating in this debate which my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. McLaren) has been fortunate enough to start. I declare my interest in that I have been for many years an unpaid trustee first of the London and subsequently of the London and South-Eastern Trustee Savings Bank, which is the largest trustee savings bank in this country. I am also a member of the parliamentary committee of the trustee savings banks of which my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Sir J. Rodgers) is the distinguished chairman.
The House ought to be aware of the astonishing development of trustee savings banks over a comparatively short period. Sir Harry Page's report shows this quite clearly. I join in the tribute to Sir Harry, whom I knew as one
1660
of the distinguished financial advisers to the Association of Municipal Corporations when I was deputy chairman of that body. If, using the figures from the Page Report, I compare the total amount saved over five years by the Post Office Savings Bank and the trustee savings banks, it will show the enormous difference which has taken place in under 30 years.
In 1935 the total deposits of the Post Office Savings Bank were £390 million while for the trustee savings banks the figure was £233 million. In 1945 the Post Office figure had shot up to £1,540 million, with the trustee savings banks figure at £675 million. In 1955 the Post Office figure was £1,700 million and the trustee savings banks figure £1,178 million. In 1965 the figures were £1,823 million and £2,235 million respectively. In 1971 the Post Office figure had risen to £1,831 million while the trustee savings banks figure had gone to £3,006 million, almost double the figures of the Post Office Savings Bank, which by then had taken refuge under the name of the National Savings Bank.
An even more significant figure is that of the percentage share of national savings. In 1951 the Post Office Savings Bank had 32 per cent. and the trustee savings banks 15 per cent. By 1972 the Post Office share had dropped to 20 per cent. and the trustee savings banks share had risen to 30 per cent. I said that it was an astonishing development, and so it is when we consider the restrictions that have been placed on the trustee savings banks over the years. The Treasury has never been swift in giving permission to the trustee savings banks to advance.
There was a lengthy delay when the London and South-Eastern Banks wished to merge. There was a battle with the Treasury when the cheque scheme was first contemplated, and when eventually the Treasury gave approval there was a battle with the joint stock banks. The cheque scheme is now highly successful. There was less difficulty in getting the unit trust movement off the ground. I want to give two quotations from the Page report. The first is at paragraph 188 when it says:
"We experienced some difficulty in getting a full picture of the trustee savings banks' situation because the evidence submitted by the Association appeared to be directed specifically

1661
to a modest set of requirements which they considered to be capable of early achievement, rather than a blue-print for the long-term future of the trustee savings bank system."
The proposals put forward were "modest" because the trustee savings banks had learned by bitter experience that if they made any large claims they would be likely to be sat upon heavily by the Treasury, by the National Debt Commission or some other body. Therefore, it is slightly unfair that there should be criticism of that kind.
Paragraph 192 of the report says:
"The National Debt Office representatives believed that the trustees savings banks were less confident in their own ability than they were entitled to be, and consequently tended to be over-conservative in their plans."
Again this is in light of bitter experience over a number of years since the war. The trustee savings banks movement in this country has less freedom of manoeuvre than is enjoyed by any other savings bank in the western world. When one considers that we were virtually the pioneers of the savings bank movement, it is a sad commentary on successive Treasury Departments that ours is the most hamstrung savings movement in the Western world. Trustee savings banks wanted some while ago to make loans to their depositors. They had a tough battle with the Treasury which lasted almost two years. Then, just when it seemed that they were on the point of success, the Page Committee was announced and the Government said "Sorry, you cannot proceed." There has been a further two-year delay in allowing trustee savings banks to make loans to their depositors.
The trustee savings banks wish to consider the possibility of giving mortgages to their depositors. I quote from paragraph 203(v):
"The United Kingdom was almost the only country whose savings banks did not offer a loans service."
The report goes on in paragraph 205 to say that the Trustee Savings Banks Association's proposals
"were vigorously supported by the National Union of Bank Employees. We received no evidence which objected to the proposals on grounds of principle."
There are two major issues on which I hope the Government will take speedy action. The first is Page's proposal to give complete freedom to the trustee
1662
savings banks movement to move away from the national savings bank movement. At this stage I express no views because the parliamentary committee of the association has not come to any firm or final conclusions, but it will be interesting to have the Government's preliminary reactions. The other issue on which there is need for a swift statement from the Government is whether they are prepared to allow the trustee savings banks to lend money to their own depositors.
There is one other minor matter which is mentioned in the Page report and which relates to a change in status of the people who make up the controlling bodies of trustee savings banks. Up to the present they have been known as honorary managers and trustees, and Page recommends that the status needs to be changed and that there is no further use in some categories for trustees to have a part in the management of trustee savings banks. I hope the Government will not agree to this, because trustees have an important part to play, particularly in central development and policy. If one is able to bring about a closer amalgamation of trustee savings banks so that there are fewer and more powerful banks, I believe that they can play a major part in helping their depositors. Therefore. I hope that the Trustee Savings Banks Association and the Treasury will meet soon to work out the policy, and I hope that my hon. Friend in his reply will be able to say that there will be legislation in the next Session to deal with this subject.
2.15 p.m.
Mr. R. A. McCrindle: In the short time I have at my disposal I want to make two points. Before I do so I should like to declare an interest in that I am a director of a life assurance company which deals extensively in unittrust-linked policies. It is to that point I wish to draw attention in regard to the implications which flow from the Page report.
One of the major recommendations of the Page report is that there should be an index-linked investment launched by the national savings movement. At the risk of giving some assistance ostensibly to competitors, I wish strongly to support that recommendation. Although national savings could be seen as a fair investment in terms of return on money, just as

1663
building societies can be seen to be a good investment, the national savings movement has found it more and more difficult to attract new savings. I am persuaded that the only way in which it is likely to obtain a breakthrough is by the launching of a completely new dimension in national savings.
I very much welcome the idea of an index-linked national savings bond. There can be no doubt that commercially the most dramatic development in national savings has been the launching of the managed bond. This bond has attracted money because it spreads investment among property, fixed interest and equities, and also because past performance has shown that this method of investment keeps pace with inflation. Something of a similar nature is necessary in terms of the national savings movement. I look forward to the launching of a similar bond in sufficiently small denominations to persuade the unsophisticated saver to get in on the act.
I strongly oppose the suggestion that the national savings stamp should be abolished and that consequently the voluntary savings movement should be wound up. With regard to the national savings stamp, I cannot over emphasise the need to encourage at an early age the idea of thrift. The opportunity given to young people to save at an early age, particularly in small amounts initially, is something that may well stay with them in their later years. I disagree with the suggestion that the 10p savings stamp should be abolished. I believe that there should be a wider range of savings stamps, including those of very much larger denominations but retaining the 10p stamp to encourage the idea of thrift at an early age.
I cannot pay too high a tribute to the work done by dedicated men and women in the voluntary savings movement, and I believe that it would be a retrograde step to abolish a structure which has been so carefully built up.
I hope that my hon. Friend will take account of the social aspect. Recognising that we are dealing with a national savings movement which should not be run at a loss, there is nevertheless an element of social contact between the national savings movement and the people they call upon which cannot be
1664
evaluated in terms of money. I want to see the national savings stamp remain, albeit in different denominations, and I also wish to see the voluntary savings movement preserved because of its social function. I ask the Government carefully to consider the situation before agreeing to accept all the recommendations of the valuable Page report.
2.20 p.m.
The Minister of State, Treasury (Mr. John Nott): I am sure that we all thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. McLaren) for raising this subject. I very much welcome the opportunity that this debate gives me to reply to a number of matters arising out of the report of the Page Committee.
At the outset I ought to say that we are looking at the whole subject against the background of what we consider to be an immensely valuable and comprehensive report on national savings. It was an awareness of some of the problems which have been outlined in the debate which led the Government to set up the Page Committee in the first place. We have already given preliminary consideration to the committee's recommendations. But we do not wish to reach final conclusions on the recommendations until a number of organisations, including the national savings movement and the Trustee Savings Banks Association, have been properly consulted and given an opportunity to present their views. Those consultations are now in progress. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg) is aware, the Trustee Savings Banks Association is meeting today to consider the recommendations of the Page Committee's report.
The performance of national savings in the past year or two has been very encouraging and very much better than the years of the late 1960s. The net addition to the balances held by the public in all forms of national savings increased in 1971 by £632 million, which at the time was the highest increase ever achieved in a single year. The following year, 1972, saw this record handsomely beaten with a net increase of £855 million.
The reason for the improved inflow of funds into national savings is not hard to find. The Government have very substantially improved the terms of national

1665
savings, and this has been successful in attracting a substantial volume of funds. Although there has been a falling off in recent weeks, the net inflow in the first half of 1973 has been £358 million, which is no mean amount. The outstanding feature of recent weeks has been the great success of the new British savings bond announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget speech. In the first eight weeks of sale the public have invested £96 million in the bond, which pays 8½ per cent. in the form of a half-yearly dividend with a tax-free bonus of 3 per cent. on maturity after five years. These sales are nearly treble those of the previous issue of bonds over a comparable period.
It has been alleged that the terms of national savings are unfair to small savers. That is an allegation which I do not accept. It is true that all fixed interest saving—not just national savings—is threatened by inflation. Inflation exercises its pernicious effect on all features of our national life. That is why it is so important to bring inflation under control. But national savings offer a wide range of securities and facilities whose terms are kept competitive with other comparable forms of savings. In addition to the British savings bonds, there is the 8 per cent. available on the investment accounts of the National Savings Bank and trustee savings banks and a wide variety of other securities offering competitive terms.
When my right hon. Friend increased substantially and made more attractive the terms for national savings in the Budget, there was some criticism. The right hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland) complained on 9th April:
"The Chancellor, by beefing up the attractions of national savings in the Budget—these are the building societies' most direct competitor—has worsened the position still further … In the Budget, he improves the attractiveness of national savings. When this has the predictable and, presumably, desired effect that other savings become less attractive, he reverses himself and pumps money into other forms of savings."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th April 1973; Vol. 854, c. 953.]
There was criticism from other quarters of the Government's action in increasing and improving the terms in this year's Budget.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West asked a number of questions
1666
which I shall now try to answer. He referred especially to savings certificates. It is quite true that holders of certificates of the early issues are receiving interest at far below the current market rates. That is not of this Government's seeking, and it has been drawn repeatedly to the notice of holders that they should encash those early issues of national savings certificates. The capital amount now outstanding of these early issues has halved from £16 million to £8 million in the past two years. The total amount outstanding of these early issues of national savings certificates is now only about £8 million out of a total held in national savings of £10,000 million. Although I accept the importance of what my hon. Friend says, the amount is relatively small. The Government would be delighted if holders of these early issues would redeem their certificates and invest them in higher yielding British savings bonds and other securities.
The problem is that the manner in which the national savings certificate was set up when first issued in 1916 has remained constant ever since under every Government. Many of the holders of early certificates are untraceable. We simply do not know where they are. But we shall make further efforts to advertise the fact that the Government wish these early holders to encash their certificates and invest the proceeds in higher yielding securities.
My hon. Friend also referred to the new security recommended in the Page report—a kind of amalgam between the national savings certificate and the British savings bond. This is a matter which we are looking at with great care as part of our consideration of all the recommendations in that report. In due course when we have consulted various bodies obviously we shall say more on the subject.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead raised a number of matters about the trustee savings banks. I can confirm that all his figures were correct. There is no doubt about the splendid progress of the banks, and the dedication of their trustees and staff, and the support of the national savings movement has been outstanding, and it was recognised in the Page report.

1667
The recommendations in the report involve a substantial reorganisation of the entire basis and structure of the banks. We are now in consultation with the Trustee Savings Banks Association, which, as I said, is meeting today to discuss the Page Report, to try to elucidate the full wishes of the members of that association and to discover what they feel should be done about the Page recommendations. Those consultations are in hand, and in due course we shall be delighted to receive the representations which they will make to us.
Even if there were time it would be inappropriate to answer the specific questions which my hon. Friend asked. But I can say that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer sent a message of good will today to this meeting and expressed the hope that the Trustee Savings Banks Association would reach conclusions likely to help in formulating decisions about the future of the banks.
Mr. McLaren: Before my hon. Friend leaves my points, will he try to deal with the Page Committee's recommendation about index-linked bonds?
Mr. Nott: I shall be coming to that in just a moment.
I now wish to comment on the voluntary movement and the stamp. As my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mr. McCrindle) knows, the voluntary savings movement is made up of more than 150,000 active voluntary workers in England, Scotland and Wales from all walks of life—industry, teaching, local government, banking, etc. The total membership of savings groups amounts to more than 5 million, making it the largest voluntary movement in the country. My right hon. Friend felt that consideration should be given to how its work should proceed in the future. He felt it right that it should continue in view of its very valuable work in the past.
The Page Report recommends that the stamp should be withdrawn from sale. This will need careful consideration in the light of the views of the voluntary movement, which we must consult. Although the stamp is widely used among certain sections of the public, with the more widespread development
1668
of banking schemes it is now playing a smaller part in the national savings groups system than it was.
Finally, I come to the whole question of index-linking which was raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Bristol, North-West and Billericay. Page recommended a modest experiment and recognised that the question raised issues well beyond his committee's remit. My hon. Friends will not expect me to advance all the arguments against index-linking, but it might be helpful if I indicate briefly why successive Governments have so far been reluctant to adopt index-linking.
The idea has obvious attractions, although the experiences of countries where it has been tried have not been very encouraging. I think my hon. Friends would agree with that. The objections are formidable. The implications of such a scheme are far-reaching and difficult to assess. We could not estimate in advance what the effect would be on future sales and existing holdings of conventional national savings, nor the extent to which institutions, both in the private and public sector, would follow the Government's example. Index-linking could become widespread and have implications, for instance, for the market for existing fixed interest Government debt. Before embarking on this road, we should want to feel sure that this would help curb inflation and not act as a further stimulus to it.
Nevertheless, there are recommendations in the Page Report for an experimental issue of an index-linked bond, and naturally we will consider them when we are looking into the whole of the report.
I am delighted that this opportunity has arisen to discuss a few aspects of the Page Report. The Government are conscious of the criticisms outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West. We set up the Page Committee with a view to looking into these matters in depth. We are now in the midst of our considerations of these detailed recommendations, some of which are very complicated. For example, the one about the trustee savings bank is extremely far-reaching. In due course, when we have consulted all the relevant interests, I hope that we shall be able to say something more.

MRS. JOAN ROSINA SMITH
2.32 p.m.
Mrs. Barbara Castle: I am glad of this opportunity to raise the case of Mrs. Joan Rosina Smith, who, since her divorce, likes to be known as Mrs. Carroll, because her case vividly highlights two aspects of the problem of battered wives. That Mrs. Smith qualifies as a battered wife there can be no doubt, as her story will show.
Mrs. Smith was separated from her husband and lived with her brother-in-law, Mr. Robert McNab Smith, for seven years and had a son by him. In July 1971 she left him because of his terrifying behaviour. But, not for the first time, as in the case of a wife, or a common law wife, driven from home by her husband's behaviour, finding she had absolutely nowhere to go she was forced to return to the house with her small boy. However, she did so on a strictly businesslike relationship with Mr. McNab Smith.
What follows flows directly from the fact that we have failed to provide the "sanctuaries" for battered wives for which my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) made such an eloquent appeal in an Adjournment debate only a few days ago.
The relationship between Mr. and Mrs. Smith was no longer of a marital kind. They had separate rooms. He paid her as a lodger for his accommodation. All she did was to cook his meals, and nothing else. But in January 1972 she decided to end even this arrangement. Eventually, Mr. McNab Smith agreed to go, and he packed his bags and left.
What happened next is best described in the words of Mrs. Smith's solicitor:
"On Monday 31st January her brother-in-law told her that he had found lodgings and was going out. He went out. She went to bed, and, having been asleep for some time, was aware of something cold on her and her brother-in-law saying, 'We are going to have a gorgeous fire.' She did not know anything else until some six weeks later when she woke up in hospital in the Intensive Care Unit for burns. She suffered extensive burns on the body and limbs, her jaw was fractured and her bones were cracked in the right ankle. She also suffered injuries to the back of her head which required stitches."
In other words, her brother-in-law, having set her alight, had thrown her
1670
out of the window and she was picked up from the pavement below like a human torch. Battered! She was nearly murdered.
In June last year Mr. McNab Smith appeared at Lancaster Assizes where he pleaded guilty and was sentenced to imprisonment for six years. Therefore, there can be no doubt that Mrs. Smith suffered criminal injuries.
In September last year Mrs. Smith wrote to me. Whilst she was in hospital she had been told about the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme, and she consulted a solicitor. It was then that she discovered that her claim had been ruled out by paragraph 7 of the scheme, which provides:
"Where the victim who suffered injuries and the offender who inflicted them were living together at the time as members of the same family no compensation will be payable. For the purposes of this paragraph where a man and woman were living together as man and wife they will be treated as if they were married to one another."
I do not think it is disputed that in this case Mr. and Mrs. Smith were no longer living together as man and wife. However, that has made no difference to the application of paragraph 7 of the scheme, because the phrase
"living together at the time as members of the same family"
is pretty wide.
Indeed, when I wrote to the Home Secretary on Mrs. Smith's behalf, he replied confirming that her application had been dismissed as a result of paragraph 7 of the scheme. Incidentally, he also confirmed that no legal aid is available for legal representation before the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board on the ground that this is just a tribunal like any other. I believe that point needs looking into extremely urgently.
The Home Secretary rejected Mrs. Smith's complaint to me that she had no redress under the law. On the contrary, he said, Mrs. Smith could sue her brother-in-law under the civil law for trespass. That is a remedy which a moments' thought will show is no remedy at all.
I have met and spoken to Mrs. Smith. I have seen the scars on her body. She is still a bundle of nerves and under constant medical attention. Can one be surprised? Her response was: "Sue him? I never want any contact with him again."

1671
Not only that, clearly she is terrified of him.
So we face the situation that battered wives, those for whom we now say we have such concern, form the one group which is not covered by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme. What is more, the greater the criminal injury, the less likelihood there is of redress. What is the good of telling the woman to sue a man who will be in prison for another five years? Even if she did and hope was held out that he might come back and earn a decent wage and be able to pay her something, surely the more violent the man's treatment of her in the first place the less likely she will be to want to incur his further wrath. So Mrs. Smith has no redress under the law, de facto, and she is extremely bitter about it.
Having been sent the Home Secretary's reply and having learned from her solicitors that she has exhausted all the stages of representation before the compensation board—she had gone from the single man assessment to the three-member consideration of the case, with the same result—she wrote to me a short while ago very bitterly:
"This is my first encounter with British Law, and up until now, I thought it was the best. But now I discover that Law defends the wrongdoer. The person who admitted guilt, and who was tried and found guilty, is the person who comes out best. He has changed my life for the worse, caused me terrible injuries (which was what he wanted). The British public have to keep him for 6 years, they also had to keep myself and 7-year-old son for 12 months, as I couldn't work because of my injuries. My son had awful upsets as a result of his father's actions. But as British Law stands, I can claim no compensation. It is all very wrong. British Law must be changed …".
I want to put these points to the Home Secretary through the Minister. It is not a question of waiting for British law to be changed. The Home Secretary, in his reply to me, explained that the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme was introduced on an experimental non-statutory basis in 1964, and that payments under it are ex gratia. I understand that the compensation board's findings are final and that there is no right of appeal.
The Home Secretary said also that the operation of the scheme was under review. I am sure that the Minister will agree that that review is bound to be a
1672
substantial undertaking. Since it is an experimental scheme, many questions have arisen from its operation. However, it can be claimed that, broadly, the scheme is a success. There are many factors which must be under review, such as whether the hearing should be in public, whether there should be a formal right of appeal, and so on.
I put it urgently to the Government that, with our new awareness of the problem of battered wives, it is absurd that they should be asked to wait for a change in the law. Apart from anything else, when the review is concluded, if one has to wait for an Act of Parliament to be passed to put the scheme on a statutory basis, that will take a great deal of parliamentary time.
The whole point of making the scheme non-statutory was to alter it as found necessary in the light of experience before being tied by the terms of an Act of Parliament. However, there is no reason why the Home Secretary should not make an immediate alteration by removing the provisions of paragraph 7 of the scheme. As I understand it, that is simply a matter of decision by the Government. I ask that that action should be taken urgently.
On the problem of battered wives, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South said, we are failing totally to provide a sanctuary to which a woman who is frightened of her husband —or her common law husband—can go if she wants to leave home and to leave him. Again, there are possibilities here for the Government to act immediately. I know that this is not in the departmental responsibility of the Home Office, but we cannot allow the pigeon-holing of this issue simply because a number of different Government Departments are involved. There should be an urgent Government strategy covering all these points.
I conclude with one great example of where the Government could help. In my constituency there is a voluntary hospital, the Bethany Home, which is run by devoted voluntary workers who take in from the streets anybody who may be destitute or homeless. The hostel has taken in a number of frightened and battered wives. But it is finding that rising costs are swamping it. Unless some

1673
action is taken it may have to close. I have written to the Secretary of State for Social Services saying "Please, if you care about the problem of battered wives, make a grant to this voluntary hostel now, and to all voluntary hostels of approved standards and all homes and sanctuaries provided by municipalities."
I hope that we shall get from the Home Office a promise that in the light of this case, which establishes the needs irrefutably, the Government will amend the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme in this respect at once.
2.46 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Mark Carlisle): The right hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) raised the tragic case of Mrs. Joan Smith, whose application for compensation was recently refused by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board.
Before I turn to her specific points, I should like to emphasise how much I share the sympathy that the right hon. Lady expressed in view of the appalling injuries that Mrs. Smith suffered. It is, as the right hon. Lady said, in a way a classic and horrific example of the type of brutality which is from time to time inflicted by one person on another. Perhaps the seriousness of the attack that was made is well illustrated by the length of the prison sentence imposed upon her attacker.
At the end of the right hon. Lady's remarks she made various wider comments about the problem of battered wives which was raised by her hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) in a debate in the House recently to which I replied. I shall ensure that her comments about the hostel in her constituency are conveyed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services. I can only repeat my reply to the other debate—that the right hon. Lady's views about the need for availability of accommodation will be conveyed to the relevant Department. If I might venture a suggestion, it has been my personal view, as a practising barrister, that this is the greatest need of all for those who are attacked in this way.
I shall limit myself to commenting on what the right hon. Lady said about the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme,
1674
which comes directly under the responsibility of the Home Office. I confirm that the scheme was established in 1964 on an experimental and non-statutory basis. It provides for ex gratia payment by the State of compensation for personal injury directly attributable to a crime of violence.
Until 1964 there was no such State scheme and any victim was thrown back on to his common law rights—rights which, I accept, as the right hon. Lady said, are there in law but which in practice are often illusory. The person often does not have the money to pay the damages that are awarded. In cases such as the one that we are discussing, I accept the unreality of obtaining a judgment unless a man has money somewhere tucked away when he is starting a sentence of six years of imprisonment. That was the situation until 1964.
I am glad that the right hon. Lady said that the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme has proved a success in meeting the needs of those who are victims of violent crime. Some indication of its success is that applications to the scheme, I am told, are rising at the rate of well over 1,000 additional applications a year
From the time the scheme was started in 1964 until the end of the financial year 1972–73 the board has received some 53,549 applications and awarded compensation totalling more than £15 million. That is evidence of the need for the scheme. It is administered by a board of eight legally qualified members under a chairman who has wide legal experience. It is entirely the responsibility of the board to decide within the terms of the scheme whether compensation should be paid in any particular case and, if so, how much that compensation should amount to.
The procedure under which the board considers applications is set out in the scheme. The application is first looked at by the board's staff. It is then referred to a single member of the board who decides whether the application falls within the scope of the scheme and, if so, what award should be made. An applicant who is dissatisfied with the decision of the single member is entitled to ask for a hearing before three members. I must emphasise that the board's decisions are in no way subject to any form of ministerial

1675
review. The decisions of the board are binding although, as the hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris) knows from a recent case, the board is subject to the normal supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court in the interpretation of its terms. But subject to that the board's decisions are binding and are not reviewable by Ministers.
Paragraph 7 states that compensation will not be payable where a victim who suffered injuries and the offender who inflicted them were living together at the time as members of the same family. In applying that, the board has been guided by the Divisional Court in the case of R v. the Board ex parte Staten, 1972, where it was stated that
"living together … as members of the same family"
was to be given its ordinary, straightforward meaning.
I do not propose to go into the details of the individual case. I have expressed my horror at it and I confirm the facts mentioned by the right hon. Lady. The application for compensation was initially rejected by the single member of the board on the ground that Mrs. Smith was ineligible for compensation under paragraph 7. She subsequently asked for a hearing before the three members of the board and, although legal aid at the moment is not available for applications to the board, she was legally represented before the board. After a lengthy hearing the board again decided that Mrs. Smith's application was excluded by paragraph 7. Having come to that decision it was excluded from making any form of ex gratia payment. Although, it is not normally subject in any way to ministerial review, from what one has read of that application there certainly appeared to be evidence on which the board could come to the conclusion that it was excluded from treating this case.
Mrs. Smith was legally represented. I know the firm of solicitors who represented her and I have no doubt that she was adequately and well represented at that hearing. The right hon. Lady said that the trouble lies with paragraph 7. When the scheme was originally brought in, the White Paper set out the reasons why those living together were excluded. It said:
1676
"Offences committed against a member of the offender's household living with him at the time will be excluded altogether, in view of the difficulty in establishing the facts and ensuring that compensation does not benefit the offender."
That was the basis on which in 1964 it was decided that applications in this area should be excluded.
Whilst these arguments—the difficulty of establishing the facts and the danger that the assailant would benefit from his crime—clearly have considerable force, I appreciate from what the right hon. Lady said and from what was said in correspondence that there are arguments the other way. Clearly it was envisaged that the 1964 scheme should be reviewed with a view to placing it on a statutory footing when adequate experience of the working of the scheme had been gained.
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced in answer to a Question on 17th April the establishment of a working party to carry out such a review. He stressed in announcing that review that the working party would take steps to canvass opinion widely among interested bodies and would take account of the views of members of the public. That working party is now set up. I cannot tell the right hon. Lady how soon it will report, but certainly the question of paragraph 7 is within the terms of the review and, in addition to that, the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board in its eighth report specifically asked that the exclusion of this clause should be reconsidered when the scheme is reviewed.
I can assure the right hon. Lady that this is being done and that what she said and the case that she mentioned will be taken into account in the course of that review, as will the question of the right of legal aid before an inquiry.
Mrs. Castle: Assuming that the working party works quickly and comes to some conclusions by the autumn, it would not then be necessary to wait for legislation. Could not the Government act administratively to alter the scheme?
Mr. Carlisle: I had intended to deal with that point at the conclusion of my speech, namely whether this matter could not be considered in isolation. I shall convey the right hon. Lady's views to my right hon. Friend. I believe that what she said must be correct. The

1677
board is a non-statutory body and therefore it could presumably be changed without legislation because it had no legislative background and it works on ex gratia payments because there is no statutory basis for it. We are anxious to carry out the review and to put the scheme on a statutory basis.
We have always said that we should like to look at the whole of the scheme and all the various points raised in the context of the review. I cannot promise that my right hon. Friend will he able to examine the point in isolation. But the board has specifically suggested that the exclusion should be reviewed because it believes that the arguments are counter-balanced by others. I can assure the right hon. Lady that I shall make sure that her suggestion is brought to my right hon. Friend's attention.

ROYAL ASSENT
Mr. Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

1. Appropriation Act 1973.

2. Fair Trading Act 1973.

3. National Insurance and Supplementary Benefit Act 1973.

4. Hallmarking Act 1973.

5. Heavy Commercial Vehicles (Controls and Regulations) Act 1973.

6. Domicile and Matrimonial Proceedings Act 1973.

7. International Cocoa Agreement Act 1973.

8. Protection of Aircraft Act 1973.

9. Pakistan Act 1973 (c. 48).

10. Bangladesh Act 1973 (c. 49).

11. Employment and Training Act 1973.

12. Finance Act 1973 (c. 51).

13. Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973.

14. Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1973.

15. Nature Conservancy Council Act 1973.

16. Statute Law Revision (Northern Ireland) Act 1973.

1678

17. Land Compensation (Scotland) Act 1973.

18. Badgers Act 1973.

19. Insurance Companies Amendment Act 1973.

20. Aberdeen Corporation Order Confirmation Act 1973.

21. Dundee Corporation (Brokers etc.) Order Confirmation Act 1973.

22. National Trust for Scotland Order Confirmation Act 1973.

23. British Transport Docks (Hull Docks) Act 1973.

24. Dee and Clwyd River Authority Act 1973.

25. Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1973.

26. Trent River Authority Act 1973.

27. Tyneside Metropolitan Railway Act 1973.

28. Greater London Council (Money) Act 1973.

M6, BESCOT
3.0 p.m.
Sir Henry d'Avigdor-Goldsmid: In expressing my gratitude to you, Mr. Speaker, for selecting my modest topic for debate, I shall not be out of order in expressing to you on behalf of all hon. Members on both sides our respect and regard for the way in which you have conducted what has been a long and hot-in many more ways than one-Session. I am sure that if all hon. Members were present their views on the matter would be unanimous. When I heard you read the list of important measures to which Her Majesty has given her Assent, it seemed to me that there must be very little left for the spill-over session with which we are threatened.
I am speaking on behalf of constituents living in Hough Road, Bescot, Walsall, which forms three sides of a hollow square, the fourth side of which is an open space now looking towards the M6. The distance to the M6 from the closest of the Hough Road houses varies from 180 yards to as little as 70 yards.
That part of the M6 was opened on 20th December, so it is not possible for

1679
me to argue that my constituents are covered under Part II of the Land Compensation Act 1973, under which the cut-off date, before which no compensation is payable, is 17th October 1969.
So much for the facts as seen by legislation. The realities are different. The noise has become intolerable. I am fortified by the presence of the hon. and learned Member for Walsall, North (Mr. William Wells), who will be able to corroborate what I say.
In a short report, the chief public health inspector of Walsall said:

M6, BESCOT

  SURVEY—TRAFFIC NOISE M6 MOTORWAY
  An eighteen hour survey of traffic noise from the M6 motorway was carried out on Friday the 18th May, 1973 between the hours of 6.00 a.m. and 12.00 midnight, at a position adjoining No. 92 Hough Road.
  The method used was that noise levels were taken continuously for five minutes every hour, at about two second intervals. The results were tabulated and final results calculated.
  A traffic census was carried out at the same time.
  The Department of the Environment recommend that two values of noise level should be calculated viz.:

  (1) The L10 level. This represents the noise level which is exceeded for 10 per cent. of the time.

  (2) The L90 which represents the noise level which is exceeded for 90 per cent. of the time.

  The L10 and L90 values of each set of hourly readings is calculated for the 18 hour period, and the averages of the 18 results are accepted as the L10 and L90 levels respectively for the day.
  The results obtained from the survey carried out as above are:—

  (1) L10=69dBA.

  (2) L90=64dBA.

  At the moment the Department of the Environment regard an L10 of 70dBA for road traffic noise as acceptable, and their proposals for compensation are based on this figure."
  In anticipating this debate in a way, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary said last night:
  "I hope I am now restored to the celestial station that my hon. Friend assigned to me earlier, because I have said on many occasions that, although there was the discretionary power extending back to October 1969—this will be maintained for local authorities—the Government, namely, the Department of the Environment as a highway authority regard this as mandatory for its schemes. I am sorry that there were people, including constituents of my hon. Friend, who were misled and
  1680
  obviously worried by inaccurate Press reports. If the Press had bothered to check with me, they would have obtained an answer very quickly at that time".—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 24th July 1973; Vol. 860, c. 1526–7.]
  It is interesting that my hon. Friend speaks in those terms. I was about to quote him speaking slightly earlier.
  The houses in Hough Road were built by the Walsall authority in 1952 at a time when they looked over the green pleasance of Pleck Park. They were so attractive that many were bought by their occupiers. Little did they know what was in store for them. Even when the M6 stretch was opened in 1968, traffic was infinitely smaller than it is today, when the links have been completed connecting the M5, M6 and MI—the so-called Spaghetti Junction complex.
  This was quite an issue at the last General Election, when many of my constituents raised it in no uncertain terms. I was, therefore, much pleased to receive a letter from my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Development dated 23rd November 1972, which it seems best to quote in full:
  "Thank you for your letter of 12th October to Keith Speed about the noise from the M6 motorway experienced by your constituent, Mr. E. J. White."
  Mr. White lives in Hough Road.
  "You are no doubt aware that, since you wrote, our proposals to alleviate the adverse effects of new and improved roads on the environment have been published in the White Paper "Development and Compensation—Putting People First" (Cmd. 5124), and that a Land Compensation Bill to implement these proposals was presented to the House of Commons on 9th November. 1 am sorry that until the Bill is enacted I cannot say with any certainty whether any of the proposed measures will be of assistance to Mr. White. Experiments are still being conducted with screening, but I am afraid it is too early to say how effective they are likely to be.
  There are two other significant features in the Bill which might apply to people in Mr. White's situation. Payments will be made to offset any substantial reductions in the value of residential and certain other properties which have been caused by noise and other nuisance from new or improved roads opened on or after 17th October 1969—this would include the section of the M6 near Mr. White's home. There will also be regulations made under powers in the new Bill enabling highway authorities to sound insulate certain properties affected by noise levels rising above prescribed limits. It cannot be assumed that Mr. White will necessarily be eligible to take advantage of this scheme, but details will be publicised when the regulations are made."
  My right hon. Friend said
  "It cannot be assumed that Mr. White will necessarily be eligible."
  He may as well have said "It can be said that Mr. White would not be eligible. "That would have been a more accurate description of the state of affairs when that letter was written.
  It now appears that this letter was written under a misconception as to the date of the opening of the section of the M6 in question, but, if so, it was a misconception shared by no less than my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, though he is reported as having said, as recently as the by-election at West Bromwich in May, that people in Great Barr, which is an adjoining section of my constituency, would be compensated because of the noise effects of the M6. I accept that misunderstandings of this sort are inevitable in a Department as large as the Department of the Environment, but this does not lessen the plight of my constituents.
  In the same speech the Minister is reported as saying:
  "In future sound insulation may be installed at an early stage to protect people as far as possible from the effects of road construction noise."
  If road construction noise, why not road traffic noise?
  Last night my hon. Friend the Minister expressed great concern for people living in the areas where motorways were opened after October 1969, who will be suffering the same, and in some cases possibly less, noise disturbance than my constituents in Hough Road. I appreciate that to go back further than October 1969 would involve the Government in vast expenditure and that a line must he drawn somewhere, but I must point out that when the part of a motorway along Hough Road was built almost no effort was made to alleviate the noise factor, added to which there are gasometers opposite from which the traffic noise bounces back on to the houses of the Hough Road estate. With the final linking of the roads which go to form Spaghetti Junction, the amount of traffic has increased out of all proportion to what it was in 1968.
  Yet on the part of the motorway completed after the Hough Road section, where my hon. Friend is able to give
  1682
  genuine assurances of further help, experimental sound barriers have already been erected. Why not on the Hough Road, my constituents ask with justifiable indignation? Why not indeed?
  I hope that the Minister in his reply will not put off my constituents with sympathetic platitudes and no further action. I remind him of the White Paper he published nearly two years ago, Cmnd. 5124, entitled "Development and Compensation—Putting People First". Here is an opportunity for him to do just that.
  3.11 p.m.
  Mr. William Wells: The hon. Baronet the Member for Walsall, South (Sir H. d'Avigdor Goldsmid) has very properly raised a matter affecting some of his constituents. It is evident from what he said, and it is known to me apart from what he said, that this is a problem not confined to those who live in South Walsall. As the hon. Baronet said, it applies to residents in Great Barr and to some residents in North Walsall.
  I can only reiterate the hope expressed by the hon. Baronet that the Department will, in the words of its own White Paper, take such steps as to show that the expression "Putting People First" was something more than a pious hope and that it can be translated now or very soon into some effectual remedial action.
  3.12 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Keith Speed): I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Sir H. d'Avigdor-Goldsmid) and the hon. and learned Member for Walsall, North (Mr. William Wells) for raising this important topic. It is perhaps very timely, because I understand that the noise regulations which follow from the Land Compensation Act which we debated in the House last night have now been approved in another place and will be taking effect from 1st September.
  Following last night's debate I should perhaps say a few things, to put the situation into context. My hon. Friend mentioned the letter from the Walsall council saying that the noise level we were operating, on the L/10 index, was 70 decibels on the A scale. This is rather technical, but we must try to get it right.

  1683
  The regulations Parliament has now approved provide for the qualifying noise level for sound insulation to be at 68 decibels. This is 68 decibels measured in the design year of the road, which is normally many years ahead of the construction date. The figure can be 3 decibels down, so that instead of being at 68 when the road comes into use we can be dealing with 65 decibels.
  That was the situation which the House approved. That means that where there is residential property affected by new trunk roads from the date of opening-17th October 1969—the Government accept that, although there is an element of discretionary retrospection back to 1969 and where the Department is the highway authority, we regard this as mandatory upon us. We shall use the powers under the regulations to install double glazing or a sound-proof barrier, or even on occasions a combination of both, in any properties affected by roads coming into use from 17th October 1969.
  Unfortunately, a line has to be drawn. I do not wish to enter a discordant note, but the remarks of the hon. and learned Member for Walsall, North were a little unfair. As I said last night, this legislation, the Land Compensation Act, and the regulations which flow from it are in advance of anything that has taken place anywhere in the world relating to environmental damage from highways.
  Clearly at some stage in the proceedings there has to be a cut-off point, because these are expensive measures. The element of retrospection alone for trunk roads going back to 1969 will cost about £10 million, and the annual average cost each year to the Department for double glazing and sound barriers will be about £5 million, which will extend into the future. It would have been agreeable if we could have gone right back and had complete retrospection but, as I said last night, that would have cost well over £1,000 million. I am sure my hon. Friend will recognise that in the present public expenditure situation that is a very large sum of money indeed.
  Perhaps I should make particular mention of the point which was raised by my hon. Friend concerning his constituents. Unfortunately, the letter which my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Gov-
  1684
  ernment and Development wrote to my hon. Friend last year contained a mistake in as much as it related to the opening of the road. My hon. Friend knows this section of the road quite well, as I do. The problem was that the road opened in different phases, and the key changeover point is junction 9, the Bescot interchange.
  The actual date of opening of the road ought to be put on record because I do not think it was incorrect when I made my remarks in May. The first section of the road in this area which was opened was Shareshill—junction 11—to Walsall, Bently and Darleston—junction 10—and that was in September 1966. In December 1968, junction 10 to the Bescot interchange—junction 9—was opened. This particularly concerns the area of my hon. Friend and his constituents. Therefore. that date was clearly some 10 months earlier than the October 1969 retrospective date. Junction 9, which is the Bescot interchange, down to Great Barr—the M6/M5 interchange—opened in May 1970. It is that section to which I was referring, and it will be covered by the regulations which Parliament has now approved since that particular section of the road opened seven months after this retrospective date in October 1969.
  My hon. Friend knows that my right hon. Friend has apologised to him for the mistake which was made. We have admitted that this was a mistake. It is unfortunate that his constituents in Hough Road are just the wrong side of the interchange and did not and do not qualify under the regulations. I should like to say one or two things which I hope will reassure him. I do not intend merely to make sympathetic noises.
  We have accepted the retrospective provision to October 1969 so far as the regulations and the double glazing are concerned, and this will be a big, sustained and expensive effort. I am sure that the first priority should be to concentrate on these matters where the noise levels are the highest. My hon. Friend mentioned the 69 decibel noise level, which is bad. He knows that there are other sections along the M6, possibly in his constituency and certainly in the constituency of Perry Barr, where noise levels are considerably in excess of that, where these houses and flats will qualify for double glazing. We are giving

  1685
  priority to the West Midlands where there is a particularly high noise level. At the same time, a plan is being drawn of noise contour levels at this point, and when the regulations come into effect on 1st September we can move into action as quickly as possible to carry out double glazing and other installations.
  There are other parts—Manchester and London in particular—where again there are very high levels of noise to which we have to give first priority. But sound-proof barriers are not subject to the same restraints necessarily as double glazing. We cannot go any further back than 17th October 1969 on double glazing, although I admit that double glazing is the most effective way of dealing with the problem. But with barriers the situation is a little easier.
  My hon. Friend suggested an experimental barrier in this area rather on the same lines as that at Perry Barr. But the experiments at Perry Barr are not yet complete, and we have not got the complete answer there yet. Therefore, purely on an experimental basis I would not be justified in embarking on another barrier in the area before the experiment to find out what the noise attenuation is has been completed. However, the indications are that the noise barrier at Perry Barr is giving an attenuation of between 8 and 12 decibels. This is a substantial reduction when one remembers that a reduction of 10 decibels is equivalent to halving the noise.
  There are, of course, problems with motorway barriers—maintenance, aesthetic attraction, or otherwise. Some people may well not like to see a barrier which, with the best will in the world, still looks like a barrier on top of a motorway. There may be advantages compared with double glazing, which reduces noise very substantially inside the house but does nothing for the garden or for the street or for the general exterior. This can be an important factor, particularly where children and elderly people are involved who wish to play or sit in the garden, or for others who have business outside the house. Nevertheless, it appears from the Perry Barr experiment that barriers, particularly on elevated sections of motorways, will play an important part not only in the regulations but in the powers we shall have to install them elsewhere.
  1686
  I cannot give an open-ended undertaking that all areas affected by noise from motorways and trunk roads will, whenever those motorways and trunk roads were built, be protected by noise barriers. First, there are some situations where a barrier would not be particularly effective, and it would be wrong to waste public money in putting them up in such circumstances. Secondly, there are now many trunk roads and motorways, and one has to bear in mind the cost and, particularly, the present public expenditure restraints. Thirdly, there are certain areas where local people, for some reason or other, would not wish to have a noise barrier, particularly from the aesthetic point of view, and although they may not qualify under the regulations for statutory double glazing they may wish to make their own arrangements.
  The first priority must go to those properties affected by the regulations, properties which are alongside trunk roads and motorways opened since October 1969. But we certainly intend to look carefully and sympathetically into cases where remedial work through the provision of a noise barrier would protect a number of people from noise.
  The area about which my hon. Friend is concerned in particular is an elevated section of motorway. But there is an added complication in that on the west side of the motorway there is a gas installation and a form of concrete barrier has been set up for safety purposes so that vehicles do not plough into the gas plant if they crash off the motorway. This, of course, may well have made matters worse for my hon. Friend's constituents. My advice is that they may well be getting a reflection of noise from this concrete barrier going on to their houses, which makes matters even worse than they would otherwise be.
  So, subject to the caveats I have had to declare—and they are genuine—I can give my hon. Friend my personal assurance that I shall be looking very sympathetically into the possibility of erecting barriers on this section of the M6, and in this respect I am not necessarily covered by the regulations, so we need not worry about that. There may be difficulties, and I cannot give the highest priority to his constituents that my hon. Friend would like, but I am doing more

  1687
  than make sympathetic noises. We shall look closely into this and, as soon as I have technical and other information, I will write to my hon. Friend telling him the proposals we have in mind and the time scale within which we hope to implement them.

  RENT SCRUTINY BOARDS
  3.25 p.m.
  Mr. James Lamond: I am grateful to Mr. Speaker for his kindness in selecting this subject for discussion. I make no apology for returning so soon to the subject of rent scrutiny board's decisions on council house rents which was discussed last week in our debate on inflation. The subject is of such importance to more than 5 million householders that it is well worth another airing.
  Rent is an important element in the cost of living of all council house tenants. This month we have reached a new stage in the Government's persecution of council tenants. In embarking on the Housing Finance Bill the Government made their objective clear, and we have now moved a considerable way along the road outlined in the Act. First in Lees, then in Royton, which are both close to Oldham, now in several other urban district council areas in the North-West, reports have been received from the rent scrutiny boards which have been considering the proposed rent levels for the coming three years. These reports have caused the Opposition and council tenants to become alarmed. Everything that was said in the debates on the Housing Finance Bill by the Opposition has been borne out. Rents will be two-and-a-half to three times what they were in October 1972.
  Lees Urban District Council, which forms part of my constituency, is one of the smallest councils in the country, and it has 199 local authority houses. What has happened there is a pointer to the future that will have repercussions throughout my constituency, from there throughout the North-West and possibly through the country.
  Lees Urban District Council which, I am pleased to say, became for the first time Labour controlled in 1971, is a
  1688
  responsible authority. It is not militant, it does not try to act unlawfully and it has complied completely with the Act. It has fought on behalf of its tenants and it has had lengthy correspondence about the Housing Finance Act with the Minister, culminating, first, in the refusal of the Minister to receive a deputation from the council to discuss the implication of the Act and, secondly, in a letter from the Department of the Environment of 3rd May 1973 which contained the phrase:
  "I am afraid I see little point in continuing this correspondence".
  In other words, even further correspondence has been denied to the council. However, the council complied and increased rents by an average of 90p per week for all its tenants. Six or seven tenants still object to the increase and are withholding payment.
  The council submitted its proposal to the rent scrutiny board after full consultation with the local rent officer. This officer has considerable experience of the rents charged locally for private dwellings and, by consulting him, the council was acting in accordance with the recommendations of the Francis Committee. The council submitted a full list of the proposed rent increases, understandably keeping them to the minimum because it has no deficit on its finance housing account. The council has no wish to increase rents There is no financial pressure for an increase. The tenants certainly do not want an increase. There is no indication from the ratepayers in the urban district that it is necessary. However, the Government are hell-bent on increasing council house rents and they set up rent scrutiny boards, including that in Manchester, to consider the councils' proposals and either to accept them or to make counterproposals.
  Lees was the first urban district council to receive the report, and it was shocked by it. Its tenants and the tenants of surrounding authorities were shocked by it. The reactions published in the Oldham Chronicle indicate that the tenants in the surrounding areas clearly understand the implications for them, and, as many people in Oldham are refusing to pay the 90p increase levied last October, their reaction is likely to be a refusal to pay a further increase.

  1689
  Let me give some examples of the proposed increases. The rent of a two bed roomed house in Lees was increased in October 1972 to £2·02. The proposal by the council for the new rent was £2·50. The rejoinder from the scrutiny board was that the rent should be £3·25–75p above the 48p proposed by the urban district council. The rent of a three bed roomed house was, according to the urban district council, to be increased from £2·06 to £2·75. The rent scrutiny board thought that it should be £3·85. The £2·06 includes a 90p increase imposed in October last year. Therefore, the rents have doubled. In fact, they will be 2½ to 3½ times what they were only a few months ago.
  The Lees Urban District Council, at its meeting yesterday, decided to make representations against the rents which the scrutiny board has substituted for those submitted by itself. A letter of protest is to be sent to the Prime Minister by the council. The Secretary of State is to be asked to vary his direction under Section 62(4) of the Housing Finance Act so that increases of less than 50p may be made. However, the council cannot hold out much hope of an acceptable response from the Minister because of its experience—a refusal to meet it and, finally, a refusal to carry on correspondence.
  I wish to make some points about the report from the Manchester Rent Assessment Panel. The report lists over 30 dwellings which the panel inspected in Lees before arriving at its decision. When I read the list annexed to the report I was impressed. I thought that at least the board had gone into the matter fairly thoroughly. However, I understand that only two of the eight members of the board inspected the dwellings. I do not consider it totally honest, and certainly not thorough, if only a quarter of the members of the panel are prepared to carry out the inspection expected of them before making their decision. The council tenants and the council in Lees support that view.
  There is a marked difference of opinion between the council and the scrutiny board about how much should be allowed for heating in the rent of some special purpose accommodation. The council
  1690
  has been in the habit of charging a fixed amount on the rent for heating in flats occupied by elderly people. The council had proposed that this charge should be 45p per week, but the rent scrutiny board's assessment for heating is £1·30 per week—a considerable difference. The council has therefore made a careful examination of the cost of providing heating. The board's assessment at £1·30 is considerably above the actual cost and cannot be justified. It exceeds the actual cost by as much as 35 per cent.
  The report mentions that the council has relied on its consultations with the rent officer in determining the fair rents. Surely that is the proper procedure. I should have expected that after the council had done that and arrived at the figures, which were in line with the proposals of the rent officer, those figures would be accepted, but they have been turned down.
  It is interesting to note that it is considered that the council may have had insufficient regard to the effect of inflation. If the House were crowded, as it sometimes is, there would be gasps of amazement from my hon. Friends at the inclusion of such an observation. If this is not an example of inflation feeding on inflation, I do not know what is. We are all, including the Government, doing our best to contain inflation and inflationary tendencies, yet rent increases are proposed far above what the local council proposes because the local council is said to have had insufficient regard for the effects of inflation. Is the Minister prepared to say that inflation is to continue at the present rate? If he is not, he should take some action on this observation.
  These unnecessary increases in rent will undoubtedly result in further wage claims. There are many newspaper reports about what has been happening, including one report in the Eastern Evening News about a case in Norwich in which 50 per cent. of tenants are being forced to ask for rebates. If there are similar proposals there from the rent scrutiny board, that percentage will rise to 75. It is ludicrous that this level of application for rent rebate should be necessary.
  Inflationary tendencies will be increased by such proposals. There is a

  1691
  comment in the Labour Weekly from a constituent of mine saying:
  "if the Government is going to let rents go up willy nilly so should they let my pay go up willy nilly. I got a £3 rise in April of which £1 went in tax, 90p in rent rises—forced by the Government—and the other £1 or so has gone to meet the rise in the cost of living. With this new rent threat and the incredible rise in the cost of living still going on I will need a £5 rise to stand still."
  I wish to help the Government. I suggest to them that this is an excellent opportunity to carry out the Prime Minister's claim to cut prices at a stroke by freezing rents at a stroke and cutting back on the pressure on working people, for rent is an element of the cost of living from which they cannot escape.
  3.40 p.m.
  Mr. Frank Allaun: I want to make two points showing how the rents of millions of families will be affected by what we are discussing this afternoon. Lees was "let off" by the Minister last October with an increase of less than £1. It was required to impose an increase of only 90p, following an examination of its case. The council objected to this because it did not want to increase the rents even by 1 p. It did not need to do so. It increased them, unwillingly, having been given the impression that that was the limit of the increase. It is now told in this first decision, which we fear will set the pattern for further heavy increases, that there will be another increase.
  There are 180 local authorities throughout the country, many of them very large, such as Birmingham, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Salford and so on, which were "let off" with less than a £1 increase last October and were clearly given the impression that the Minister felt that was a fair increase and there would therefore be no further increases. The former Minister for Housing and Construction made great play in the House of the fact that he was "letting off" Newcastle-upon-Tyne with less than £1. He quoted other cities and created the impression that the Act would not be nearly as severe as some of us were saying.
  By this move he took the steam out of the opposition to the Act which at that time was mounting fiercely. Many councils were saying that they would
  1692
  not implement it. It is now clear that those councils, who have between them millions of tenants, have been taken for a ride. They have been deceived and the councillors and their tenants will be bitterly angry when they see what has happened.
  The second point is that hard on the heels of the first decision in Lees comes a second decision in Northwich Urban District Council, Cheshire. There 2,000 council houses, just like the houses in Lees, are to have their rents roughly doubled compared with what they were last October. For instance, the rent on a typical post-war house is to go up from £2·58 to £4·68 plus rates in both cases.
  The Minister may say that these are low rents. But the council did not want or need to raise the rents even by 1p, because it was not in deficit on its housing account. Secondly, hundreds of other councils with similar rents will now presumably have to suffer similar increases. Once again the councils are told that they have been paying insufficient regard to current inflationary trends. In Lees that was one of the criteria on which rents were to be fixed, according to the Act. Is it right that houses built perhaps 25 years ago and paid for then should now suffer rent increases because the pound is sinking?
  The Minister will remember that we were accused of scare mongering when we said that rents would double under the Act. We said that we were only quoting the Government's own estimate circulating privately in the Ministry. It is now clear that our worst fears are confirmed and that average rents are being doubled. These decisions and the next instalment of the increase—which this October will amount to 50p—will be bitterly opposed by the trade unions, the local authorities, the tenants' associations and the Labour Party.
  3.45 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Reginald Eyre): This debate, initiated by the hon. Member for Oldham, East (Mr. James Lamond), relates to the working of the rent scrutiny boards, and I think that it will be helpful if I describe the process leading up to the determination of fair rents under the Housing Finance Act.

  1693
  As the House is well aware, this is a statutory process and takes place in accordance with the provisions of Part V of that Act. The House may like to be reminded of the details of the system.
  First the council makes a provisional assessment and publishes it. Councils are required to make arrangements for adequate general publicity and to notify each individual tenant of its proposal for his dwelling. Any tenant may then make representations to the authority and the authority must consider those and, if it thinks right, re-assess the proposed fair rent for the dwelling. The authority must then submit the assessment—revised, if it thinks fit, in the light of the tenants' representations to the rent scrutiny board. The board then has the duty to consider the fair rents in the assessment and either to confirm or amend them.
  The board gives its decision by reporting to the authority. The authority must publish the board's report at its principal office. If the board in its report disagrees with some or all of the fair rents proposed in an authority's assessment, the authority then has a two-month period in which to make representations to the board. I wish to emphasise this point because it will be a matter for the local authority in Lees and also the local authority in Northwich, which were mentioned by the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun).
  The board must have regard to those representations and it concludes its operations by amending or declining to amend the assessments in its report. Where the board disagrees with an authority's assessments, the fair rents are determined only after the authority has been given two months to make representations and after the board has considered any representations made within that period. The rent scrutiny boards play a closely defined and limited role.
  Mr. Julius Silverman: To make the situation clearer, perhaps the Minister would add that the rent scrutiny boards are the final arbiter, that there is no appeal against their decision, and that it is entirely what they say that goes.
  Mr. Eyre: It is true, as the hon. Gentleman said, that it is the duty of the rent scrutiny boards ultimately to determine the fair rent. The boards are essentially
  1694
  checking the fair rents proposed by the council. In doing so, they apply the criteria for determining a fair rent for council dwellings set out in Section 50 of the Act. With a few minor differences, these are the same criteria as those used in determining a fair rent for a private rented dwelling as laid down in the 1968 Rent Act.
  Mr. Reginald Freeson: Will the Under-Secretary of State for the record clarify the point whether rent assessment committees in the private sector are required to take account of inflationary trends in the economy as distinct from specific rises in costs in running a housing service, compared with the situation in terms of the rent scrutiny boards? Will he make clear that, although in the private sector the rent assessment committees act in public, the rent scrutiny boards undertake all their considerations in secret?
  Mr. Eyre: I shall come to the first point raised by the hon. Member for Willesden, East (Mr. Freeson) a little later in my speech. On his second point, it is true that there is a difference in the process followed in the two boards, but the hon. Gentleman has taken part in many debates on this subject and knows that the difference is that the detailed proposals in the public sector are put up by the local authority after taking into account all the representations of the tenant. These are considered by the rent scrutiny board which then operates publicly in announcing its decision. The results of its deliberations are reported fully in public.
  The Lees council was quite right to consult its rent officer about fair rents registered in the private sector. The rent scrutiny board did not discount this evidence but considered that it provided insufficient single evidence on which to base the fair rents for the authority's dwellings. So it increased the range of this evidence by taking into account also fair rents determined throughout the whole rent assessment panel area.
  The task of the board is to check whether the local authority has applied these criteria reasonably and properly to the rents of its dwellings. The board is well placed to discharge this task as its members are drawn from the rent assessment panel, which is the body from which the

  1695
  members of rent assessment committees are also drawn. These committees have functioned satisfactorily, as the Francis Committee found. The members of rent scrutiny boards also consist of laymen, valuers and lawyers, and the board which considered Lees included—
  Mr. Lamond: A Tory MP.
  Mr. Eyre: —a social worker and a trade unionist, as well as the former hon. Member to whom the hon. Member for Oldham, East referred.
  The Secretary of State plays no part in determining fair rents. He cannot instruct the rent scrutiny board on what the fair rents of a local authority's dwellings should be. The board has the knowledge and it looks at the evidence and the facts in each case. The Act gives the board a specific job and the Secretary of State cannot intervene in its performance.
  The rent scrutiny boards up and down the country have now received the provisional assessments of most local authorities and are considering them. In some 40 cases boards have issued reports. Lees is one such case. In that case the authority has until 29th August to make representations to the board, and fair rents are not finally determined until after the board has considered any representations made to it by then.
  The authorities for which there has been a report by an RSB are generally small authorities and are only in certain parts of the country, mainly in northern parts. So it is not yet clear what the eventual pattern of determined fair rents will be nationally, It follows that some of the assumptions of the hon. Members for Oldham, East and Salford, East cannot be properly made. We do not know whether the rents in the reports which have been issued hitherto, assuming always that in due process they become the determined fair rents, are typical or untypical of fair rents generally.
  I want to make clear the difference between the circumstances where the Secretary of State exercises his discretion to authorise a lower rent increase towards fair rents and where the rent scrutiny boards determine the fair rents. In the first case, as regards the exercise of discretion, the Secretary of State has a purely negative role to ensure that rents are not
  1696
  increased substantially over likely fair rents before these are determined. In the case of Lees the Secretary of State exercised this discretion because he considered that the £1 increase last year might cause the rents of some old people's dwellings to exceed the estimate of their probable fair rents. But, in the second case, the rent scrutiny boards fulfil a more positive, if limited, role in actually determining the fair rents of all an authority's dwellings according to criteria laid down in statute.
  Mr. Freeson: Which section?
  Mr. Eyre: Section 50.
  As regards Lees it is perhaps worth noting that this is a very small authority with only 200 council dwellings. The board, in its report, made it clear that the majority of the council's dwellings were of a good standard and well maintained.
  Mr. Freeson: Where in Section 50 is it laid down that, compared with the private sector, inflationary trends in the economy should be criteria for fixing upon fair rents in the public sector?
  Mr. Eyre: The hon. Gentleman has debated the wording of Section 50 on a number of occasions. I am glad that he has come to this point again as I told him that I would deal with it.
  With respect to the board's reference to inflation, the rent scrutiny board takes a decision at a point in time taking into account all the circumstances. The hon. Gentleman knows that that is the requirement of Section 50.
  Valuation is not an exact science. A broad commonsense view is what is required. I should stress that the opportunity to challenge the rent scrutiny board's view is open now and until the end of August. If Lees UDC considers that the board has misdirected itself on this or any other point, it is up to it to say so.
  I should like to remind the House of two points about the effect of fair rent determinations on council tenants. First, the rent of the dwelling is progressed to the fair rent by stages at an average rate of 50p a year. Secondly, it is the rent of the dwelling which is being so progressed, not necessarily the amount which the tenant actually pays. Those tenants —there are many thousands throughout

  1697
  the country—who cannot afford the increase, do not pay it in full. Indeed, this October tenants who now receive a rent debate will not normally pay any more rent as the result of the increase in the rents of dwellings. Most of them will pay less rent—about 25p a week less —immediately after the increase in the rent of the dwelling than they paid immediately before, because of the further increases in the needs allowance which we have just proposed and will be operatting in October.

  M3 AND A316
  3.58 p.m.
  Mr. Toby Jessel: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise a matter of increasing concern to large numbers of my constituents, especially in Twickenham, Whitton and St. Margarets, but also in Teddington, Hampton, Hampton Hill and Hampton Wick. My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Surrey (Mr. Anthony Royle) is also concerned about this matter because he has similar, though not identical, problems.
  As a community, we face a serious situation when the final 14-mile stretch of the M3 motorway from Lightwater to Sunbury opens in the spring of 1974. It will connect, via the Greater London Council's new link road—the A305 from Sunbury to Apex Corner at Hanworth with the A316, the Great Chertsey Road, which is the main traffic artery through my constituency.
  There are three aspects which are causing most worry to my constituents. The first is the effect of noise and fumes upon the conditions of those living, working and attending schools near the A316 and the other main roads which turn off it. The second is safety, especially the safety of pedestrians, including children and old people. Third, there is the fear—I think a perfectly reasonable fear—that traffic will jam up at roundabouts along the A316 with two consequences: that motorway traffic may spill over into residential side roads, damaging the environment of the residents, and that local motorists will be caught in traffic jams, thereby losing their freedom of movement and manoeuvre, leading to severe inconvenience and delays.
  1698
  I wish to assure my hon. Friend that I do not blame the present Government for the existence, or the problems, of the M3 as it was initiated by the previous administration. The line was fixed in 1967—the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) was then the Minister of Transport—and the construction of the M3 commenced in 1969, also under the Labour Government. However, the present Secretary of State for the Environment now finds himself responsible for the completion of the M3, and I must insist that his Department now accepts the responsibility to do all in its power to mitigate the nuisance from which my constituents might suffer. I wish to know what action the Government intend to take.
  The former Greater London Council, which was defeated and went out of office last April, faced three choices in handling the roundabouts on the A316 road: first, to do nothing; second, to carry out major schemes with flyovers or underpasses; or, third, moderately to restructure the roundabouts, as was done at the roundabouts immediately to the north of Richmond town centre, a little further to the east along the main road. The third course was chosen.
  In January 1973 it was decided that, after various preparatory stages, the bulk of the work would be carried out the following winter. However, since the change of control following the GLC elections in April, the new Greater London Council decided to review its policies. It decided to proceed with the roundabout improvements only last night, 24th July. Thus, three precious months have been lost. Further, the new GLC says that it will need at least two more years in which to complete the work.
  It is intolerable and unacceptable that these improvements should take so long. My first request to the Minister is that he should use all his influence to hurry up the GLC. I hope he will not hesitate to twist its arm in any way he thinks necessary. If its procedures do not allow such a speeding up, they must be changed. I am sure that, if the will is there, corners can be cut. I do not see why my constituents should be made to suffer from any delays.
  My second request relates to the control of the quantity of traffic allowed from

  1699
  the M3 on to the A305 and the A316. On 2nd July I saw the Minister for Transport Industries. First, I asked whether he would defer opening the M3 motorway until the GLC had completed its roundabout improvements. He said that he would not do this as motorways were not only the safest but the most expensive roads that we had and that no one in his position could totally deprive the public of the use of a completed motorway. I asked whether he would taper the exit to control traffic flow. He agreed to cut the exit from three lanes to two. Others had also asked for this to be done, but I believe that at the meeting on 2nd July we were able to clinch it, and I was able to announce it in my constituency at a public meeting on 6th July.
  Yet I am still not satisfied. 1 doubt whether tapering down to two lanes is enough. At the same meeting on 2nd July I asked the Minister if he would consider tapering the exit of the M3 to one lane pending the completion by the Greater London Council of its work on the roundabouts. The Minister said then that he could not give any undertaking to do so, but he said that if when the M3 was opened in 1974 it caused serious local problems in my constituency and elsewhere he would be prepared to take another look at the matter.
  My second request, then, is to ask that rather than wait to see what happens when the M3 opens my right hon. Friend should put in hand an immediate study to assess what volume of traffic might emerge from the M3 if it were tapered to two lanes or to one lane, including at peak hours, and to assess whether the A316 roundabouts could cope in the short term before the GLC roundabout improvements are completed. I am sure that there are experts in the Department who can make these assessments. I do not see why my constituents should have to suffer from experiments. If we cannot cope with two lanes of motorway traffic. I suggest that we should begin with one lane only from spring 1974.
  My third request is for my hon. Friend to confirm that after next spring when the M3 opens, its traffic to Heathrow Airport should be signposted away from the M3 at Lightwater, near Bagshot. I also
  1700
  ask for a sign to be put in the same place to the effect that traffic should turn off there for an alternative route to North and Central London. via the A30 and the A4. I further suggest that when the M25 is opened in 1975—that motorway leading from the M3 near Chertsey to the A30 near Egham and coming off the M3 about half way between Lightwater and Sunbury Cross—these signs should be transferred there. That would give considerable relief to Twickenham.
  Fourthly, will my hon. Friend give a categoric assurance that the Government have no plans to turn the A316 into a motorway? At the public meeting on 6th July, attended by about 200 of my constituents, I made clear that my view was that we should not have a motorway along the A316. The Greater London councillor Mr. Tremlett and the leader of the borough council Alderman Hall agreed. The majority of the audience quite plainly agreed too, and they showed their feelings vociferously. In spite of that there has been put about in my constituency within the last week, by a political party which I shall not name, a leaflet saying that "The Tories want to turn the Chertsey Road into a motorway". I am certainly against it, and 1 hope that my hon. Friend will be able to make clear this afternoon that the Government have no such intention.
  Will my hon. Friend give attention to several other local aspects which are causing anxiety? These are mainly the responsibility of the Greater London Council and 1 shall therefore mention them only briefly: first the provision of safe crossing facilities over the main road for pedestrians, including children and old people; secondly, the traffic flow, including the buses, from north to south and south to north at the roundabouts, which people are fearful might be obstructed by traffic which runs from east and west; thirdly, the preservation of trees; fourthly, the sound-proofing of property, including houses and schools, such as St. Stephen's Church Primary School; fifthly, the possibility of phased traffic lights; sixthly, the question of how to prevent severe traffic standstills on the days of big rugby football matches, the Twickenham rugby football ground being very close to one of the A316 roundabouts.

  1701
  I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and the House for listening to me so patiently on matters which are of the most acute concern to large numbers of my constituents. I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to give me assurances about action the Government intend to take or, where he cannot give such assurances now, an undertaking that these points will be carefully examined with a view to action.
  4.11 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Keith Speed): I hope that I shall not be out of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I wish you, the Serjeant at Arms and the staff of the House a very happy and well-deserved recess. We have admired the way in which you and your colleagues have looked after us in what has been a long and hectic Session. This is the last time I shall be speaking before the recess. I seem to have been in the Chamber for most of the past few days.
  I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jesse!) on raising a matter of considerable importance to him and my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Surrey (Mr. Anthony Royle) and others of my hon. Friends in that area. This is not the first time my hon. Friend has been in touch with us about the problem. He has been extremely assiduous, both by correspondence and personally, in making clear to me and my right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport Industries the problems he feels may be faced by his constituents if certain action is not taken.
  My hon. Friend will appreciate that many of the matters raised are for the Greater London Council, as the highway authority in certain circumstances. It would be wrong for the Government to answer on behalf of a major local authority on those matters. But I hope to be able to give my hon. Friend some reassurance. I have no doubt that the GLC will be looking closely at the debate and taking note of my hon. Friend's very helpful suggestions.
  The Lightwater to Sunbury length of the M3, the London-Basingstoke motorway, is due for completion next May. There will then be a continuous length of
  1702
  the motorway open to traffic totalling 402 miles between Popham, to the north of Winchester, and Sunbury.
  To cope with the additional traffic that will then have easy access to Sunbury, just outside its boundary, the Greater London Council prepared a scheme to improve the approximately 11 miles of the A305 between the M3 at Sunbury and its junction with the A316, Great Chertsey Road, and the north-south A312 route at the Hope and Anchor roundabout.
  The A305/A316 provides a direct route between the M3, through Twickenham, Richmond and Chiswick to the A4 and thence towards Hammersmith and Central London.
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State agreed to contribute 75 per cent. of the cost, estimated at about £10 million, of improving the A305. The A305 improvement is being carried out in two main stages. The first stage which, like the M3, is due for completion next spring, will provide dual two-lane carriageways, with some dual three-lane, to cope initially with M3 traffic.
  Stage II, completing the scheme with dual three-lane carriageways and grade separation, is expected to be ready by the autumn of 1975.
  The Greater London Council also gave thought to the effect of this additional traffic on the A316. A number of north-south routes cross the A316 at ground-level roundabouts which are a source of congestion, particularly at peak periods.
  In February 1973 the council accordingly asked that the Preparation List of Metropolitan Road Schemes be adjusted to include schemes, estimated to cost over £2 million, to improve the A316 roundabout junctions and to provide improved facilities for pedestrians to cross this route. My hon. Friend attaches particular importance to that.
  My hon. Friend said that the new council has been reviewing the priorities of all the preparation list schemes and, as lie told the House, we have now heard from the Director General that it has been decided that these A316 schemes should go ahead. My right hon. and learned Friend is, of course, willing to consider these schemes for grant.

  1703
  The Greater London Council will wish to agree details of these schemes with the London Borough of Richmond, and no indication can yet be given of likely completion dates.
  Mr. Jessel: When the Department of the Environment considers these schemes for grant, will my hon. Friend ensure that there is no delay in the consideration and that it is done by his Department with maximum dispatch?
  Mr. Speed: I give an assurance to my hon. Friend that in so far as the Department is concerned in these schemes there will be no unnecessary delay whatsoever. I hope and believe that the same attitude will be taken by the Greater London Council, which I am sure will give high priority to the work. I am sure that it will also read in HANSARD what my hon. Friend has urged.
  My hon. Friend also urged me to twist the GLC's arm. I am not sure that I can go as far as that. But we in the Department shall have no unavoidable delay. I give a personal assurance of that. I am sure that the same thing will apply to County Hall. The boroughs will have to be consulted on this matter, and there is a number of interested bodies.
  The traffic flow on the A316 in 1971 was 22,000 vehicles per 16-hour day. Our assessment of the maximum likely flow when the M3 has been opened is 37,000 vehicles per 16-hour day. The traffic management measures to which I have referred should reduce this volume, but to an extent which cannot yet be estimated. Completion of the A305 stage II improvement would increase the A316 flow to 45,000 vehicles per 16-hour day.
  In order that these figures can be seen in perspective—they are of major magnitude—I would mention that the comparable figure for the A4 east of the Hogarth roundabout is 80,000. That puts the situation in some perspective.
  My Department and the council have also given thought to the traffic implications of the opening of the M3 and the stage 1 A305 schemes. A working party, consisting of representatives of my Department, the Greater London Council, Surrey County Council, the London Borough of Hounslow and Staines Urban
  1704
  District Council was set up for this purpose.
  Earlier this year the working party recommended that certain measures be carried out before the M3 is opened. They were as follows: the straightening out of a kink in the roundabout at Felt-ham Hill Road; the interim A305 to be made a "clearway"; direction signs to be provided on the M3 at Lightwater to divert North London, Heathrow and Ml traffic to the A30; direction signs to be provided on the M3 west of Sunbury Cross to divert traffic that could go via the A308; for other local roads, details to be worked out locally; and the possibility to be investigated of improving the capacity of the Hope and Anchor junction by installing traffic control signs.
  The working party added that if these measures should prove insufficient, the M3 carriageway for London-bound traffic should be reduced from three lanes to two west of Sunbury Cross. This particular course of action was strongly urged by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport Industries to my hon. Friend when he saw him, and that course of action was adopted by my right hon. and learned Friend. All these measures have been adopted by us in so far as responsibility rests with us.
  My right hon. and learned Friend has decided that the M3 should initially be opened with the east-bound carriageway tapered to two lanes west of Sunbury Cross. The tapering arrangements will be continued only as long as necessary. I understand that the GLC, for its part, is considering the working party's recommendations that the Feltham Hill Road roundabout be improved, that clearway restrictions be applied to the interim A305, and that the value of traffic control signals at the Hope and Anchor junction be investigated. I am sure that the GLC is well aware of the urgency of these matters and is pressing on as fast as possible.
  My hon. Friend raised a number of points and suggested that possibly the Lightwater to Sunbury length of the M3 should not be opened until both stages of the A305 improvements have been completed—that is, not until the autumn of 1975. He urged that upon my right hon. and learned Friend when he saw him. I think my right hon. and learned

  1705
  Friend himself gave the answer. This is a major investment in the country's motorway programme. Motorways are our safest roads. For the reasons given to my hon. Friend at that time, we could not go along with that suggestion. In addition, I am sure that a large proportion of the traffic on the M3 will be destined for places on and adjoining the route, for example, Shepperton, Ashford, Hanworth, Feltham, Sunbury, Hampton, Twickenham, Teddington, Richmond, Kingston, Hounslow and Chiswick.
  Moreover, any traffic problems that may ensue are likely to be confined to the peak traffic periods, which total, say, four hours per day Monday to Friday. It would be quite wrong to deprive motorists of the full use of the 121 miles of M3 between Lightwater and Sunbury in order to preserve the status quo on the A305/A316 for 20 hours per week.
  My hon. Friend asked whether it was sufficient to taper M3 to two lanes or whether we should not consider tapering it to one lane. We think that it is sufficient to taper it to two lanes. The interim A305 will itself be dual two lanes, and the other measures that the GLC is looking into will help.
  We have been looking at these problems in conjunction with the GLC for some time, and it is not necessary to have another study now, because the A305 should marry up with the reduced capacity on the M3. As my right hon. and learned Friend told my hon. Friend, if there were to be considerable problems after the motorway was opened, we, with the GLC, would be prepared to have another look at this. I repeat the assurance given to my hon. Friend.
  My hon. Friend told the House about a strange leaflet which is apparently circulating saying that the Tories want the A316 to be a motorway. I do not know where this leaflet comes from or who are its authors. The A316 is the responsibility of the GLC, which, as we all know, is now not controlled by the Tories. However, the council has not indicated to us that this road should be a motorway. We have no intention of suggesting this. Any suggestion that this road should be a motorway could come only from the GLC. I know of no reason why this should be so. As I have said, we have no intention of suggesting this to
  1706
  the council. The authors of the leaflet will have to make inquiries at County Hall.
  I understand and appreciate my hon. Friend's concern for his constituents. He has been very vigilant and vigorous on their behalf. I hope that I have given him sufficient information today to show him—this is not just a trite phrase—that this position, which obviously is fluid and will change particularly when the motorway is open, will be kept under continuous review by my Department and the GLC with the object of taking any practicable measures that may prove to be needed.
  There is a great deal of work still to be done on the various schemes, most of which are matters for the GLC. I have indicated where, if appropriate, we would be prepared to consider grants. I have given a firm indication that my Department will do nothing to hold up any of these arrangements.
  I hope that with the arrangements that are now being made in a partnership between the various councils concerned and my Department, and, for that matter, the Members of Parliament concerned locally, the worries and fears of my hon. Friend's constituents will prove to be groundless. I will not pretend that the next two years will be easy. Nevertheless, I am sure that at the end of the day the various measures which are being taken, at considerable cost, will ensure that my hon. Friend's constituents and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Surrey and those living elsewhere to the west of London will not have to put up with the problems that at one time seemed possible.
  The steps that my right hon. and learned Friend has taken as a temporary measure to restrict and taper M3 will be particularly helpful until, as we hope, in a year or two all these measures will be properly in operation and the M3 can revert to its proper role as part of our strategic road network.

  THURROCK (DISUSED PITS)
  4.25 p.m.
  Mr. Hugh Delargy: I am going to talk about holes in the ground, many holes-98 of them. These holes are deep; their depth ranges from 10 ft.

  1707
  to more than 80 ft. Some of them are very large. One of them extends for about 300 acres. They are ugly, useless and dangerous. Speaking from memory, within the last seven or eight years two children have been drowned in these disused pits, and there have been several other accidents. All these 98 disused pits are in my constituency. They are sand, gravel, clay and chalk pits. They cover rather more than 9 per cent. of the total land area in Thurrock. That is nearly 4,000 acres out of 42,000 acres.
  This problem of land dereliction in Thurrock is so vast that in a brief Adjournment debate one can only outline it in general terms, and that is all I intend to do. But I would add that, although the problem in Thurrock is more serious than anywhere else in the country, it is not confined to Thurrock. It is a problem which is becoming increasingly national and, therefore, it needs a national solution. That is why it must be raised in Parliament.
  In this part of Essex there have been excavations for many years. Sand and gravel have been dug out for whiting and lime. There used to be brick and tile works at Grays, Orsett and East Tilbury. But all these excavations are on a somewhat modest scale. It was only with the invention of Portland cement that the excavations began to be very deep indeed. That was a long time ago. It was, I understand, in the last century that Portland cement was invented, and the chalk and clay which exist there were needed for the manufacture of cement.
  Later on, before and during the First World War, concrete became used in great quantities, and all the constituents of concrete are, we think unfortunately, present in Thurrock in abundance—clay and chalk for cement manufacture, and gravel and sand for concrete aggregates.
  For a long time until fairly recently, minerals like these could be worked at the owner's wish. He could do what he liked, and, indeed, owners did what they liked. They came along with their great machines. They excavated all the gravel, clay, chalk and whatever else they wanted; they became rich in the process, and then they blithely walked away, ignoring the local population and leaving these great gaping holes which are there to this day.
  1708
  Since the last war, however, some legislation has given control over the working of these sand, gravel and chalk pits. My first observation—and I repeat that it is a general observation—is that this control is not enough. The undertakings sometimes given by Ministers are not enough, either. As Shakespeare said:
  "…put not your trust in princes."
  He meant, of course, Ministers. That is a rule which I have followed, no matter what party has been in power. I have never put my trust in Ministers.
  I recall—I read the report again this morning—that I once opposed the digging of yet a new pit in Thurrock, in a very pleasant spot with a very pleasant name, Rainbow Shaw. "Shaw" is an old English word for a copse, a thicket or small wood. A very beautiful place it was. We were horrified to hear that even this was to be dug up for sand and gravel. In an Adjournment debate I opposed this, as indeed the local authority did. The county council, the Council for the Preservation of Rural England and nearly everybody concerned opposed it, except of course the owners and the Ministry.
  I was given an undertaking by the then Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, who now occupies, as Secretary of State for Social Services, an even more distinguished position in the State. In the midst of great regrets and apologies that this excavation had to be done, he said:
  "The hon. Gentleman"—
  that was me—
  "will find it the condition in the report of the inquiry that trees shall be planted over the worked out area of the site in accordance with such scheme as may be agreed with the local authority…
  "This taking of sand and gravel will probably take about ten years at the end of which trees will be planted."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th July 1961; Vol. 645; c. 569–70.]
  Only part of that statement, the first part, dealing with the taking of sand and gravel for about 10 years, has turned out to be correct in fulfilment. Indeed, it took rather less. But the undertaking was given to me almost 12 years ago to the day. Yet where Rainbow Shaw used to be is still desolate, with this enormous gaping hole under the sky. The undertaking about the tree planting was not honoured.
  However, I do not wish to be recriminatory today. What I want to do is to

  1709
  acquaint the Under-Secretary of State with a report which has just been published. I think that he has a copy. I hope he has. I requested that he should be given one. It is called "Land Dereliction in Thurrock". It is the result of an inquiry carried out under the supervision of the leader of the local council, Councillor J. W. Evans, OBE. It is remarkable in its scope and detail. It embodies months of observation and study, and examines in detail every one of the 98 sites, large and small, old and new.
  The report explains the reasons for the problem and its extent. Under various headings it describes what the sites look like and what needs to be done. It states which is chalk, which is gravel and which is clay, and which is now derelict. It states which have water in them and which have not, which are used for tipping and which are not, and so on. It is a comprehensive report. I think that it is the 'first such report ever made, and we should take great notice of it. This is one of the chief reasons why I asked for this debate.
  The report makes certain recommendations. One has already been acted upon locally in that the district council has appointed a committee for the environment to study this and other environmental problems in Thurrock. Besides the nuisance of these disused pits, we have other nuisances there—cement dust, for example, of which I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware. We have the nuisance of the oil refineries in East Thurrock. We have oil installations along the river from the neighbouring area of Canvey almost down to Purfleet. I join the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Sir Bernard Braine) in protesting against the construction of two more oil refineries at Canvey. Although it is not in my constituency, it is not far away.
  I do not ask the Minister for all the answers today. There is not time and the Minister will not have had an opportunity to examine the problem in all its details. All I wish to do is to acquaint him with the problem and introduce him to this splendid report. I ask him to introduce a policy of firmer control over excavation. There has been some control since the end of the war but it is not sufficiently firm. We want to hear from the Government precise plans for the refilling of pits. We are vague about the
  1710
  Government's powers and plans for the subsequent use of the reclaimed land.
  Many suggestions have been made. It might be used for rehousing. That would be useful as there is a strong suspicion that green belt areas might be used for the construction of houses. It would be much better for those houses to be built on the reclaimed sites which cover an area of nearly 4,000 acres. A great many houses could be built on 4,000 acres.
  The reclaimed land could also be used for industrial sites. Along that part of the river there is already much industry. The area is handy for the river, the railway and the roads. Part of the land might be used for recreational purposes. There are already pleasant boating and angling facilities there and we should like to see more of them.
  I know that the Minister is interested in this area. I hear that he intends to visit the site and look at the holes for himself. This is excellent news, but I am a little disappointed that I heard it by accident and not officially. The place he is to visit first is a pleasant corner in my constituency. Despite all the nuisances I have mentioned—cement dust, oil refineries and disused gravel pits—there are still some beautiful rural parts of Thurrock and I am sure he will enjoy his visit. I hope that he will come back full of knowledge and plans for the future, and the not too distant future. If so, the people of Thurrock, the district council and the modest Member of Parliament for Thurrock will be grateful to him.
  4.39 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Eldon Griffiths): I am glad that the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Delargy) raised this important question because it has stimulated me—indeed it has required me—to examine in some detail what those responsible—the extracting companies, the local authorities and my Department —have been doing to mitigate the effects of the sand, gravel and workings on the environment of Thurrock.
  I listened with care to what the hon. Gentleman said, because he has been concerned with this problem for a very long time. I pay tribute to the tenacity with which he has pursued this matter

  1711
  and to the great care for his constituents which he has shown over the years. It would be invidious of me to attempt to match his great local knowledge and concern. I content myself with paying tribute to him for his anxiety, which I share, that something must be done to improve an unacceptable situation.
  I was interested, though saddened, to hear from the hon. Gentleman that not only are the workings ugly, which no one can dispute, but they are dangerous to the extent that two children have been drowned in the area. I join with the hon. Gentleman in much regretting that that has happened.
  I have seen something of the area because recently I have flown over it on a number of occasions by helicopter. From a helicopter one is able to obtain a panoramic view of the whole, which is disturbing. I accept that the condition of the landscape in that part of Thurrock is very bad. It is a monument to the extractive industry's being allowed to tear great scars in the land, no doubt for perfectly good commercial reasons, but in too many cases to leave the mess behind for other people to clear up.
  If the conditions of Thurrock are not good enough, as I believe to be the case, the same, I fear, must be said of the action—or lack of action—of both local and national government. My examination of the record—and I have gone into the matter fairly thoroughly since the hon. Gentleman initiated this debate—shows a large volume of good will and reams of good intentions, but almost no remedial action.
  In 1966, seven years ago, in reply to a Question from the hon. Member for Thurrock, one of my predecessors at the former Ministry of Housing and Local Government said that the local authorities had
  "adequate powers for restoring or improving the appearance of derelict, neglected or unsightly land."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th March, 1966;465.]
  That description, on the face of it. would seem to be tailor-made to fit the circumstances of Thurrock. But, as I shall show, there is apparently no clear agreement about the application to the Thurrock pits of that power of local authorities. The Government went on to say in the same answer to the hon. Gentleman
  1712
  that they would be making available grant to the local authorities for the purpose of restoring and improving derelict land. That promise has been honoured. Since that time, substantial and very welcome improvements have been made to derelict sites in many parts of Britain. Progress on derelict land clearance has been particularly encouraging in the North-West, the North-East, the Midlands, and so on. I should record the figures so as to put the matter into perspective.
  Since 1966, just under 4,000 acres of derelict land have been reclaimed in the North-West, just under 8,000 acres in the North-East and about 7,200 acres in the Midlands. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will welcome this heartening evidence of progress on a national scale, as I do, but the fact remains that I have been unable to find any record of comparable progress in Thurrock, and that is not good enough.
  Mr. Delargy: May I ask t question here? Is some of the reclaimed land which the Minister hag mentioned the result of open-cast mining?
  Mr. Griffiths: It varies a great deal and I would be wrong to attempt to break down the figures.
  I have been unable to find any progress in Thurrock comparable to that which has taken place elsewhere. The hon. Gentleman is therefore absolutely entitled to complain about this on behalf of his constituents. One must rely for measuring the size of the problem on two reports.
  The first is the Thurrock Report on Land Dereliction and the second is the Report of the Northern London Local Authority Sand and Gravel Working Party, both of which may be available to the hon. Gentleman. These reports do not always agree precisely on the figures but together they give a good indication of the scale of the problem. The Northern London Working Party calculations show that 515 acres are being worked for sand and gravel in Thurrock with 457 acres of sand and gravel workings having been completed and brought back to beneficial use. That is good. There are 1,488 acres of sand and gravel workings which have been completed but not. brought

  1713
  back to beneficial use. There is the problem.
  The same working party has not made the same calculations for the clay and chalk workings. The figures I have given are for sand and gravel only. But the Thurrock Report on Land Dereliction shows that in addition to the figures I have given there are 615 acres of completed chalk workings, none of them restored, and 227 acres of completed clay workings, again none of them restored. There are 846 acres of chalk being worked or about to be worked, and in addition there are 158 acres of clay being worked or with permission to be worked. This demonstrates that the scale of the problem is great.
  In a congested area such as Thurrock I can understand that it must lead some people to suppose that they are living on a part of the moon. In Thurrock 450 acres of sand and gravel workings have been brought back to beneficial use for open space and agriculture. This is good but not good enough. There are 1,500 acres no longer being worked which have not been restored at all. That is the problem that we have to tackle.
  What I have discovered in examining the record of both Governments is that there has been a great deal of considering, studying, discussing and consulting. The one thing I have not been able to find is a great deal of action. I am determined, as are my right hon. Friends, that more must be done, and faster. I hope that we shall have the hon. Gentleman's support in seeking to achieve this.
  It is acceptable neither to the Government nor to the local authorities that this disfigurement of the environment in Thurrock should remain year after year. We have to find in the late 1970s, or before, ways and means of tackling the problem more vigorously. It can be done only on a co-operative basis, through a working partnership between the county and district authorities on the one hand, and the industrial firms concerned, the amenity and other interests and my Department, on the other hand. All must take an active part in this programme. To this end we shall call meetings with all these bodies and with others concerned to discuss a possible action programme so
  1714
  that at long last, if we can get the agreement of all those concerned—and this will not be easy we shall come to an action programme by means of which we shall make a fresh start to do something, instead of merely talking about it, to try to get rid of some of this blight on the face of Essex.
  I shall be asking why it is that planning conditions placed on the working of gravel, clay or chalk—planning conditions which require that such areas should be restored for beneficial use—appear not to have been enforced. That question needs to be answered.
  Another question is why in some cases industry has had no planning conditions imposed upon it. It may be that in some cases work started on the pits before the days of planning control. Obviously we cannot go back retrospectively in the past to do anything about that side of the matter, but where planning conditions have been imposed requiring restoration, I shall want to be told why they have not been enforced and why some firms have failed to comply with conditions imposed upon them when they obtained planning permission for excavation.
  We must also consider the matter of grants. This is a crucial matter because it is the giving of grants which has led to the clearance of so much derelict land in so many parts of the country. I have looked into the question of restoration of such land in Thurrock. We must remember that Thurrock is not a development area or a special development area and therefore in some senses is less in need of central Government grant than are some areas in the country where the problem is somewhat greater.
  One of the problems to be faced is that there is no statutory definition of derelict land. The phrase used in the various Acts is "derelict, neglected or unsightly". The definition which successive Governments have adopted for administrative purposes is
  "…land so damaged by industrial and other development that it is incapable of beneficial use without treatment."
  The practical fact is that where planning conditions have been imposed successive Governments have felt that that should be sufficient and that no grant should be payable on top. That is a

  1715
  reasonable proposition because the responsibility should lie with those on whom planning conditions have been imposed and who are benefiting from their commercial activities. Nevertheless, I shall be happy to look into the possibility of paying grant in some circumstances, but I make no undertaking on that matter, save only that I shall examine the matter in some detail.
  The problem of mineral workings is not confined to Thurrock though I accept that it is very apparent in that area. To tackle the problem on a national scale, the Government last year appointed a committee of inquiry, under the chairmanship of Sir Roger Stevens, into planning control over mineral workings. So far the committee has taken evidence from a number of interested parties—local authorities, the extraction industries and so on, and has visited various parts of Britain where the problems caused by mineral workings are at their worst.
  I do not know whether that committee has visited Thurrock. I will certainly extend an invitation to Sir Roger Stevens and his committee to visit the area. I understand that the Stevens Committee expects to report some time next year, and in the meantime I shall draw to their attention the hon. Gentleman's concern about the situation in Thurrock.
  I think that the conclusion of the debate should be this. There are parts of Britain where, by the application of skill, diligence and care for the environment,
  1716
  old mineral workings have been recovered for a really valuable social use. I think of the great new recreation centre at Holme Pierrepont, near Nottingham, of the Cotswold Water Park, of the Raven-stone gravel pit at Olney in Buckinghamshire and of the Great Waltham quarry at Chelmsford. These are all examples where, with a little effort and co-operation, it is possible to recover old workings for valuable recreational and amenity purposes.
  The problem at Thurrock is great. It would be an unwise man who suggested that solutions of this kind can be brought about easily in the Thurrock area. But something can be done. More needs to be done than has been done. I hope very much that the hon. Gentleman will accept from me that, against the background of a national programme whereby derelict land is now being recovered at a faster pace than ever before, the situation in Thurrock is unacceptable. We shall do our utmost within the parameters of the law to bring together the local authorities, local industries, local amenity societies and my Department to see whether more can be done in the near future than has been done in the far too long and indecisive past.
  Mr. Delargy: I thank the hon. Gentleman very much.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at four minutes to Five o'clock till Tuesday 16th October, pursuant to the Resolution of the House of 19th July.

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

THE LORD BISHOP OF DERBY
Cyril William Johnston, Lord Bishop of Derby—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
LORD CROWTHER-HUNT
Norman Crowther-Hunt, Esquire, having been created Baron Crowther-Hunt, of Eccleshill, in the West Riding of the Country of York, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Shackleton and the Lord Fulton.

RHODESIA
2.31 p.m.
LORD BROCKWAY: 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 has been their response to the proposals of Mr. Ian Smith for a settlement of differences regarding the status and future of Rhodesia.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE): My Lords, we have received no new proposals from Mr. Smith. As noble Lords are aware, we believe that agreement between the races in Rhodesia is the prime need.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, while thanking the noble Baroness for that Answer, may I ask whether she is aware that I have had this Question on the Order Paper for several weeks and that the Statement of last week anticipated it by seven days? Arising from her Statement on that occasion, may I
1820
ask her whether she can supplement the answer she then gave, which was that she did not think there was any necessity for discussion about any agreement made during the Recess, because the Rhodesian Parliament would have to endorse it? Is the noble Baroness now able to say that if there is any agreement after a settlement between our Government and the illegal Government of Rhodesia, Parliament will, if necessary, be recalled?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, as the noble Lord will quite well know, there is always provision for Parliament to be recalled in an emergency. I do not foresee this arising because even if there were agreement, for example next week or when we have all departed, the fact remains that the Rhodesian Parliament would have to undertake certain legislation before we could present an independent Bill to this Parliament.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, has the noble Baroness seen the Statement made by the Foreign Secretary in another place, that Parliament will be recalled if this emergency arises?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I thought I said there was always provision for Parliament to be recalled if it were necessary.

AIRLINE USERS' COMMITTEE
2.34 p.m.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, prior to the rising of the House for the Summer Recess, they are in a position to make a Statement concerning progress made by the Civil Aviation Authority in the setting up of an Airline Users National Council.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD DRUMALBYN): My Lords, the Civil Aviation Authority is today announcing that it is in the process of establishing an Airline Users' Committee. It will sit under the chairmanship of my

1821
noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, the Chairman of the Civil Aviation Authority which has the statutory responsibility for furthering the interests of users of air transport. The other members of the Committee, including the Deputy Chairman, will be drawn from persons outside the Authority able to speak from experience on a wide range of users' interests.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, in thanking the Minister for that statement and all those in this House who have helped to bring it about, may I ask the Minister whether he is aware that originally I had anticipated the Chairman of such a Committee being an independent; but considering that the Civil Aviation Authority will not itself be being inquired into, it would seem that having the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, as Chairman has advantages. May I ask the Minister whether he envisages that perhaps two of these advantages would be additional status for the Committee and the fact that matters referred from it to the Civil Aviation Authority might be expedited?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness and I am glad we have reached a solution to this very difficult problem. I quite agree with what the noble Baroness has said, and it is because the Civil Aviation Act of 1971 lays a specific duty on the Authority to further the reasonable interests of consumers of air transport that the Chairman of the C.A.A. has decided that it is right for him to take the Chair himself. It is a measure of the importance that he himself attaches to this responsibility that he has involved himself personally in the Committee's work, and I would agree with the noble Lady that this should enhance the status of the Committee.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, could my noble friend say, as I am sure it would be of the utmost interest to the House, whether the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry, is going to be a member of the Committee?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I do not quite know how to answer that problem; I rather suspect the noble Baroness knows the answer better than I do. But I should not be at all surprised.
LORD SLATER: My Lords, would the noble Lord allow me to say that the making of this appointment is rather peculiar in itself? May I ask him whether he will pass on to the Government the fact that when the Post Office was made into a Corporation, all hell would have been let loose by members of his own Party if on that occasion we had taken such a decision as has been taken on this one?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, there are very distinct differences in the position of the Civil Aviation Authority, which is there really to supervise the whole area of air transport, and that of the Post Office, which is an operating authority. There is a long section in the Post Office Act which is devoted to the establishment of the Post Office Users' National Council whereas so far as the Civil Aviation Authority is concerned there is no statutory provision for setting up its Consumer Committee, although it is doing so.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, may I just ask the Minister, in this happy state of affairs, whether he will recall that on Monday last in this House, as reported in column 1505 of Hansard, he referred to consultation services and the matter of check-in facilities at the West London Air Terminal. May I ask the noble Lord whether he is aware that I should expect and hope that this matter of the check-in facilities at the West London Air Terminal would be determined outside this Committee, and even before it started work? May I ask him furthermore whether he realises that I ask that question because of the extremely high level at which these matters are now being considered?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I think there are difficulties about this matter. If one is setting up a body of this sort it is natural that that body should be given the opportunity to discuss this issue. As the noble Baroness knows, the check-in facilities will not be withdrawn until January 1 and I have no doubt at all that the British Airways Board will pay attention to anything that the Committee may do on this matter.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, if the House will allow me, may I ask the Minister whether he

1823
realises how much I have appreciated his good humour and his tolerance over the past fourteen months, and that of his noble friend, Lord Ferrers? I hope he will also realise that even if one has to be a nuisance, one can appreciate at the same time.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness. I think she has done a great deal to bring this about; indeed, she can almost be said to have had the major part in doing so.

WIRELESS FOR THE BLIND AND V.A.T.
2.38 p.m.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will consider in the next Budget freeing wireless sets for the blind from V.A.T., bearing in mind that these sets, provided on free permanent loan to the blind by the British Wireless for the Blind Fund, have been free of purchase tax since the Finance Act 1945.
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: My Lords, the Government have considered the matter most carefully but have come to the conclusion that introducing legislation on the lines suggested would inevitably lead to pressure for similar reliefs for many other groups.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that 8,000 people, mostly old, go blind each year and that this new tax will rob 1,000 of them of a wireless set next Christmas? Is he further aware that it would be very surprising if this ancient Parliament, having done something for 28 years, should now cease to do it for the convenience of the Treasury?
NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: My Lords, my own awareness of the number of people who go blind every year is very largely as a result of the work over very
1824
many years of the noble Lord who asked the Question—and of course the Government acknowledge it. I cannot accept, however, that not exempting wirelesses from V.A.T. is in fact a discriminatory tax against the blind.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl whether this is not a really mean attitude on the part of the Government towards this project? The Government say that they would not be able to resist any other pressures. Surely, if they can resist this they can resist all kinds of pressure.
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: My Lords, I appreciate the noble Baroness's feelings, but not exactly her logic. As to the point about the Government being mean, I would draw her attention to the very considerable estate duty concessions to charities made by my right honourable friend in the last Budget.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, would not the Minister say that this serious case is a repercussion of joining the Common Market?
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: No, my Lords.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, if this small facility were given, could the noble Earl say how much it would cost the nation?
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: My Lords, this is not a question of how much it would cost the nation. It is impossible to assess how much it would cost. The question is what other brands of unfairness would be created by an exemption of this nature.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, nevertheless, is it not true that the unfairness, if it be such, has persisted for 28 years?
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: My Lords, I appreciate the concern of the House in this matter. I read most carefully the noble Lord's arguments on this matter on a Private Notice Question raised by my noble friend Lord Kinnoull last year. It is to the regret of the Government that we cannot do anything about this matter, but the reason we cannot do anything about it is that we believe it would open the floodgates to a very considerable degree of unfairness.
LORD COLERAINE: My Lords, is it really conceivable that any other class of person besides the blind could have a case for freedom from the tax? Surely the Government could take a stand on the case of the blind. It is surely inconceivable that any other class of persons could make the same case.
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: My Lords, the Government have already recognised the point made by my noble friend, because for V.A.T. purposes talking books for the blind are zero rated. I think that that is a very considerable acknowledgment of the special claims of the blind.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that all Governments use these weary arguments, and would he please consider whether there is not a need to restore the situation to what it has been? Would he therefore convey very strongly to his right honourable friend what I believe to be the undoubted feelings of your Lordships on this matter?
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: My Lords, I am always happy to do that.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, could the noble Earl define the floodgates which would be opened as a result of this tiny concession?
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: My Lords, the definition is really fairly simple. It is that there are many classes of disabled people in this country and many charities for them. The Government recognise this, and that is why my right honourable friend the Chancellor made considerable concessions in the last Budget. It would be considered unfair to other groups of disabled people, however, if there were a special exemption of this kind.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, Would not the noble Earl agree that blindness is the greatest disablement of all?
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: No, my Lords; not necessarily.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, does the Minister recognise the very deep feeling in all parts of the House on the issue that has been raised? Is not the proposal that the Government should wait until the next Budget a very moderate
1826
proposal? Why should not wireless sets for the blind be exempted from V.A.T., as other goods are exempted at the present time?
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, will have read my noble friend Lord Fraser's original Question, which has a subsidiary clause asking us to bear in mind that many of these wirelesses are provided on loan. There are, of course, no taxes on loans of this nature.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, is the noble Earl taking into consideration that most classes of disabled persons are able to listen to the radio, and that blind people are by definition unable to see television, which is available for most other classes of disabled person.
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: My Lords, it is because my right honourable friend is aware of the very valuable point the noble Baroness has made that he exempted talking books from V.A.T.
LORD O'NEILL OF THE MAINE: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware—and I speak with great respect for him personally—that it is inevitable that this deprived class will compare the cost of the proposed Channel Tunnel, Concorde and Maplin with the Government's refusal to grant this comparatively small concession? I am speaking with great respect personally for the noble Earl.
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: My Lords, I must thank my noble friend for his kind remarks about me personally, which I in every sense reciprocate, but I really fail to see the connection with Maplin or the Channell Tunnel in this connection.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl whether he is aware that the replies he is giving are not being well received, and that, as he has given an undertaking to bring to the attention of his right honourable friend the feeling of the House, it would be appreciated if he could indicate that he was accepting with a little more sympathy than he appears to do the points that the questioners are trying to make?
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: My Lords, I have every sympathy for any questions which are connected with any group of disabled people. I fully acknowledge

1827
that. I have also every intention of relaying the feeling of this House to my right honourable friend. I have no intention, however, of misleading the House as to what could or could not be done.

STATUTE LAW REVISION (NORTHERN IRELAND) BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING BILL
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.
NORTHERN IRELAND (EMERGENCY PROVISIONS) BILL
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.
GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL
Returned from the Common, with the Amendments agreed to.
TYNESIDE METROPOLITAN RAILWAY BILL
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.
FORMERLY INSURANCE COMPANIES BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, with the Lords Amendment made in lieu of certain Commons Amendments agreed to, and with the Lords Amendment to one other of the Commons Amendments agreed to.

HARWICH HARBOUR BILL [H.L.]
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): My Lords, the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper is the usual form of Motion
1828
required to enable a Private Bill to continue its passage through Parliament in the next Session. It results from a similar Motion moved yesterday in another place of which this House was informed by Resolution. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House do concur with the Commons in their message of yesterday, that they have made the following Orders relating to the Bill vizt.:
That the Promoters of the Harwich Harbour Bill shall have leave to suspend further Proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office of their intention to suspend further Proceedings not later than the day before the close of the present Session and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid.
That, if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the next Session, the Agent for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration, signed by him, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the present Session.
That, as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office that a declaration as mentioned above has been deposited has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be read the first and second time (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read) and shall be committed to the Chairman of Ways and Means, who shall make only such Amendments thereto as have been made by the Committee in the present Session, and shall report the Bill as amended to the House forthwith, and the Bill, so amended, shall be ordered to lie upon the Table.
That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any Proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session.
That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.
—(The Earl of Listowel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

EDUCATION (AMENDMENT) BILL [H.L.]
2.49 p.m.
LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to confer on the local community for the benefit of which an educational foundation was endowed an option to purchase or otherwise acquire land or property disposed of by the governing body of that foundation.
I should explain that this Bill is in substitution for the Endowed Schools Act (Amendment) Bill which I introduced on July 17 of this Session. Accordingly, if the Motion for the First Reading of the Education (Amendment) Bill is agreed to, I will ask leave to withdraw my original Bill. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Clifford of Chudleigh.)
On Question, Bill read 1aand to be printed.

ENDOWED SCHOOLS ACT (AMENDMENT) BILL [H.L.]
LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the Endowed Schools Act (Amendment) Bill.
Bill, by leave, withdrawn.

ROYAL ASSENT
2.51 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD HAILSHAM OF SAINT MARYLEBONE): My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

Appropriation Act,

Fair Trading Act,

National Insurance and Supplementary benefit Act,

Hallmarking Act,

Heavy Commercial Vehicle (Controls and Regulations) Act,

Domicile and Matrimonial Proceedings Act,

International Cocoa Agreement Act,

Protection of Aircraft Act,

1830

Pakistan Act,

Bangladesh Act,

Employment and Training Act,

Finance Act,

Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act,

Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act.

Nature Conservancy Council Act,

Statute Law Revision (Northern Ireland) Act,

Land Compensation (Scotland) Act,

Badgers Act,

Insurance Companies Amendment Act,

Aberdeen Corporation Order Confirmation Act,

Dundee Corporation (Brokers &c.) Order Confirmation Act,

National Trust for Scotland Order Confirmation Act,

British Transport Docks (Hull Docks) Act,

Dee and Clwyd River Authority Act,

Greater London Council (General Powers) Act,

Trent River Authority Act,

Tyneside Metropolitan Railway Act,

Greater London Council (Money) Act.

BUSINESS
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, may I put a question before the continuation of the business on the Order Paper? May I ask the Deputy Leader of the House whether an important Statement which was made this morning in the House of Commons on the E.E.C. Ministers' meeting is to be repeated here?
THE MINISTER OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF SCIENCE AND SOCIAL SECURITY (LORD ABERDARE): My Lords, we are in a slight difficulty. We have no knowledge at the moment on this side of the House of this Statement. May I go into the matter and see what can be arranged?
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, I can assure the Minister that it was made, because I sat there and listened to it this morning.

MAPLIN DEVELOPMENT BILL
2.52 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT (BARONESS YOUNG): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee (on Recommitment) on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee on Recommitment. —(Baroness Young.]
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF LISTOWEL in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [The Maplin Development Authority]:
On Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?
VISCOUNT HOOD: My Lords, I hope it may be convenient to the Committee if at this point I speak briefly to report on the Select Committee appointed by the House to consider the Petitions against this Bill. I have no doubt that other members of the Committee will speak later on points which are of particular interest to them. One member of the Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Hinton of Bank-side, is not in his place, no doubt because of the loss he has sustained by the sudden death of his wife. The Committee owe him a particular debt for his grasp of the abstruse subjects which we explored in the Select Committee and for his ability to make them almost intelligible to a layman like myself. I hope that the House will be able to profit at a later stage of the Bill from his wisdom and knowledge, and in the meantime I am sure that you would all wish to join in expressing your deep sympathy to him.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
VISCOUNT HOOD: My Lords, I should like first to say what the Select Committee did not do. We did not consider the problem of the new town; we did not consider the problem of the six alternative access routes, because the consultative documents which are now in your Lordships' hands were not before the Committee; nor did we call in question the policy contained in the Bill. This,
1832
so I was informed, is in accord with the accepted practice of this House where a Hybrid Bill is more in the nature of a Public Bill than a Private Bill and where the policy has, or may be said to have been, accepted by Parliament. And this Bill of course has been passed by the House of Commons, and has been given a Second Reading in this House.
That procedure seemed the more sensible to follow in this case, since two of the three Petitions before us—including the main Petition from the Defenders of Essex Association—stated in terms that they were not opposing the Bill in principle. The third Petition, from the Essex River Authority, did not say so specifically but said so implicitly because they raised two very minor points on which they were given assurance by the Promoters at an early stage in the proceedings, and thereupon withdrew their Petition. Therefore, what the Committee did was to consider these Petitions, and in particular the Petition from the Defenders of Essex, in relation to what we learned about the Government's plans for reclaiming and developing the Maplin Sands.
We made three Amendments to the Bill, which are shown on a piece of paper numbered (139a). The first two of those Amendments were in fact proposed by the Promoters as a result of their discussions with the Kent County Council, who were the authors of the second Petition. As a result of these two proposals and other assurances given by the Promoters to the Kent County Council, the Kent County Council withdrew their Petition. These two additions were, as I say, made in particular in response to the Kent County Council, but they are of general application and, I think, give satisfaction also to the local authorities in Essex, and to the various amenity societies who are interested in the development of the Maplin Sands.
In addition to those Amendments, the Select Committee also put in a short Special Report, which is printed on a piece of paper (No. 179). In that Report there is reference to a term of art, "model-work". This term was perfectly plain to the members of the Select Committee, who had been sitting together for eight or nine days, but may not be quite so clear to your Lordships. It refers to the studies which are being undertaken at the Hydraulics Research

1833
Station at Wallingford, where they have constructed a model of the Thames Estuary of several feet extending over a very wide area, and which will give the opportunity of studying the effects of the reclamation of the Maplin Sands on the neighbouring coastline as regards tides and silting and various other matters. Those studies are still in train, and will continue for some time to come. I hope that otherwise the Special Report is clear, but of course members of the Committee will be glad to elucidate any points if elucidation is required. I dare say that that will be most conveniently sought and given when we come to the relevant clause.
In conclusion, I should like to make two comments on the Amendments put in by the Petitioners. Several of them sought to include provision in the Bill for regulating the operation of the airport when it opens seven years' hence—for instance, restrictions on night flying and on the use of flight paths, and grants for sound-proofing buildings. On the evidence which was brought to us, we were satisfied that adequate powers exist under present legislation to enable the appropriate authorities—whether the Secretary of State, the London Port Authority or the Civil Aviation Authority—to do all the things desired by the Petitioners, if they wish to do so. Therefore we felt that it was unnecessary to include in this Bill statutory powers to enable these things to be done. We also felt that it was undesirable to make provision in the Bill now, because it seemed to us almost impossible to find the right answer so far ahead in point of time and without regard to what the position will be at the other airports. We were convinced by the case put to us that it is important to retain flexibility.
The other point that I should like to leave with your Lordships is that this was not the first Select Committee to consider this Bill. It was given a thorough going-over in the House of Commons, where a number of clauses—Nos. 9, 10, 11, 12, 21 and 23—were added in response to the representations of the Petitioners. The Amendments which came before your Lordships' Select Committee were, in many cases, designed to improve still further the provisions of these clauses in favour of the Petitioners.
1834
We made an addition in the case of the white weed which, in case some of your Lordships share my previous ignorance, is a peculiar form of seaweed found only on the Maplin Sands and which, when processed, becomes an emerald green and is in great demand in the United States for floral decoration. That was a point which had been left over by the House of Commons for further investigation.
Also, as your Lordships will see from our Special Report, we thought there was need for further thought in the case of the Havengore Creek. But, for the rest, we thought that the House of Commons had struck the right balance between the general interest and public expenditure on the one hand, and local interest and legitimate local grievances on the other, and our conclusion was to confirm the judgment of the House of Commons. That is all that I wish to say at this stage, but I repeat that members of the Committee and I will be only too glad to help your Lordships on any further points that you may have to raise.
LORD COLERAINE: Before the noble Viscount sits down, may I ask whether he will be kind enough to elucidate one point on which I am not clear? He referred to the model which is to show the effect of the reclamation on the tidal streams in the airport and so on. Does that model exist now, or is it something that is to be created in the future? If it does not exist now, how long will it be before results from it can be expected?
VISCOUNT HOOD: It exists now. I dare say the Government spokesman will want to say more about this, but the evidence given to us was that the authorities are at present studying the effects of the reclamation of the whole of the Maplin Sands, and that they hope to complete those studies by the end of the year. They will then immediately turn to studying the effects of Stage 1, which is the two runways and the seaport in the Southern part of the area; and studying the effects of that part alone will take a matter of months.
3.2 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: I am sure we are all grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Hood. What he said has been most important and most informative, but what leaves me a little surprised is the fact that the Special Report from the Select

1835
Committee makes no mention of any of the most interesting matters to which he has just referred. All that I can find in the Special Report is a reference to Clause 10 and Clause 25, and it really would be of greater help and assistance if we had a Report which really was a Report, after a Select Committee had gone through these matters. I put it forward as a point for consideration, that in future we have something of rather greater length when a Select Committee reports. That would give us an opportunity of studying these matters before we came to the Re-commitment stage. As for the rest, I wonder whether it would be of more convenience to the Committee if any other points of information which the noble Viscount has were given when we come to the relevant parts of the Bill.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: I wonder whether the noble Viscount, Lord Hood, can help me on one small matter. He referred to further consideration being given to the future of Havengore Creek. As a small rural creek, more or less able to look after itself without very much dredging, it has existed for many years. But with the great build-up it will become an urban creek and will need completely different treatment, including, possibly, an authority to control it, if it is to continue to exist as anything other than an aquatic rubbish dump. Has that point been considered?
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT (BARONESS YOUNG): I wonder whether it would be for the convenience of the Committee at this stage if I said right away that we should like to thank the noble Viscount, Lord Hood, and his Committee for their Report, for the thoroughness of their work and for reporting it to the House. I should like to echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, and say that I think it would be for the convenience of the Committee if the various points which have been raised were taken when we come to the appropriate Parts of the Bill. May I say to the noble Viscount, Lord St. Davids, that the question of the Havengore Creek comes under Clause 10,
1836
and I suggest that he makes his points then.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Reclamation and disposal of land in Maplin area]:
3.7 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 4, after ("may") insert ("after such date as the Secretary of State may by order appoint").
The noble Lord said: On behalf of my noble friend Lady Young, I suggest that with this Amendment we take Amendment No. 3 and discuss at the same time Clause 25, which we cannot avoid doing. These Amendments give effect to the statement which I made on Second Reading about the Government's intentions with regard to Clause 25, which was added to the Bill at the Commons' Report stage. My noble friend and I made it clear on Second Reading that the Government remain convinced of the need for Maplin, and this remains the situation. The effect of the Government's Amendments, taken together, is to remove from the Bill Clause 25 and to replace it with a provision which provides an opportunity for further Parliamentary debate on the basis of a report before the reclamation works authorised by the Bill go ahead.
I explained the main reason for deleting Clause 25 on Second Reading. Unfortunately, your Lordships are under the handicap that we do not have Hansard in its customary form to refer to. It is not acceptable for the Civil Aviation Authority to be given executive responsibility for making decisions about the Maplin project. The Civil Aviation Authority have an advisory role only. It must be for Ministers who are answerable to Parliament to take decisions in this field. If Parliament takes the view that some further control is required, then it is right for this to be in the hands of Parliament. Clause 25 also has the defect of specifying too narrow a field of review. It would require a review of
"…technical developments of new quieter aero engines, short take-off capability, or other relevant factors, affecting the operation of civil aircraft.
These factors are very important, but they are not necessarily the only ones which have to be studied. As I said during the Second Reading debate, the Government accept that, before substantial public expenditure is committed,
"we ought to look again at all the factors affecting the need for the project".
Any provision providing for the further study should be wide enough to enable this study to take account of all relevant factors, and from this point of view it is preferable not to have a list of factors written into the Bill.
There is a third objection to the way in which Clause 25 deals with this problem. It attempts to introduce control over the construction of the airport. A control of this kind is not appropriate to the present Bill, which is concerned with the authorisation of reclamation work. Although the Bill grants planning permission for the airport, the actual work of construction will be carried out under other statutory powers. This construction work will be the responsibility of the British Airports Authority, and satisfactory arrangements for control over this aspect of the project exist in the arrangements by which the British Airports Authority's investment programme is controlled by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. Clause 25 would give the Civil Aviation Authority power to take such action as may be appropriate to delay, vary or desist from the construction of an airport, but the proper point of control, not only in terms of the object of the Bill but logically, is the beginning of the reclamation work. It would surely not be sensible for the Maplin Development Authority to make an early start if further consideration of factors affecting the need for the airport showed that the airport would not need to be operational until, say, 1990. The prudent thing to do, therefore, is to place control not over the construction of the airport but on the commencement of the reclamation works.
Accordingly, Amendment No. 1, to subsection (1), restricts the Maplin Development Authority's exercise of the power conferred on them by the Bill to carry out the works shown on the deposited plan. The effect of this Amendment is that the Maplin Development Authority cannot exercise their power to
1838
carry out the reclamation works until after such time as the Secretary of State has made an order. The provisions concerning this order are set out in Amendment No. 3, which contains the new subsection (9). The new subsection (9) provides that the order activating the Maplin Development Authority's powers under subsection (1) is to be subject to the Negative Resolution procedure in both Houses of Parliament. It provides also that before making an order the Secretary of State is to consult with those concerned, and is to lay before Parliament a report of these consultations and of his conclusions. This subsection therefore provides the basis for further Parliamentary debate if necessary, and for this debate to be based on a full appreciation of all the factors involved, including the views of interested bodies. It follows that the order will not be so framed as to come into effect immediately. Time will obviously have to be left for both Houses to study the report and to debate the order before reclamation can start, if a debate is desired in either House.
The Government Amendments preserve the principle that decisions must rest with Ministers, who are answerable to Parliament, and if necessary with Parliament itself, and not with an advisory body like the Civil Aviation Authority. The views of the Civil Aviation Authority and of other bodies are of course relevant, and the Amendments therefore provide for the Secretary of State to consult with such bodies before making his order. In fact, such consultations have already begun. The bodies listed are those concerned with airport policy and with the reclamation. This reflects the Government's thinking that the basic factors to be studied will be those affecting the timing of the need for the third London airport. The British Airports Authority and the Civil Aviation Authority will have the prime role here, though other organisations can of course be consulted as necessary. But because the procedure in the Amendments operates on the power to carry out the reclamation works, the bodies to be consulted cannot be limited only to those dealing with airport policy. Clearly, the Maplin Development Authority will need to be brought into consultation. The Port of London Authority are also included, because it will clearly be necessary to look at the repercussions

1839
on the seaport of any changes in the reclamation timetable arising from consideration of the timing of the need for the airport.
This does not mean, however, that we accept that the review should cover the need for the seaport or the implications of it for other ports. These questions are dealt with under other statutory procedures, which it would be wrong to duplicate in the Maplin Bill. This point will be dealt with in more detail on Amendments Nos. 4 and 5, put down by the noble Earl, Lord Perth, and others. By contrast with Clause 25, the new subsection (9) puts no restrictions on the matters which the Secretary of State may take into consideration in deciding when to make an order. The main matters to be studied will, as I have said, be those affecting the timing of the need for the airport; but the new sub-section does not prevent the Secretary of State from taking into account other factors also if these are shown to be relevant. The point of control, in the Amendment to subsection (1), is the commencement of reclamation works. This is clearly appropriate if it is accepted that the objective must be to provide for the control to operate
"before there is any substantial commitment of public money to this project",
which are the words I used.
On this basis, the right time for Parliament to be given a further opportunity to debate the project must be the point at which the Maplin Development Authority are ready to go out to tender for the first major stage of reclamation. In the light of the Government's objectives, which I explained at Second Reading, it is clearly right that this opportunity for further debate should be offered at this point. What we want to provide, in other words, is an opportunity for a final check before a decision is taken.
On present indications, it is unlikely that the Maplin Development Authority could be ready to go out to tender until early 1974, with the objective of beginning work in the summer, if that be decided. On this basis the report which the new subsection requires the Secretary of State to produce, and the laying of the order, are not likely to take place before the beginning of 1974. There will,
1840
therefore, be an interval of some time after Royal Assent is given to the Bill. Meantime, the Maplin Development Authority can be set up and can do all the preparatory work which will be necessary before they could be ready to go out to tender for the first stage of this major reclamation project. It is only in this way that the opportunity for further debate can be provided at the final stage, so that we can be sure that our judgment is based on the most up-to-date information, and that it has the support of Parliament. I beg to move.
LORD KENNET: May I interrupt to make it perfectly clear which Amendment we are inserting? Is it No. 1 only, although the noble Lord spoke to Nos. 1, 2 and 3?
LORD DRUMALBYN: With respect, I spoke to Amendments Nos. 1 and 3, and the Motion to leave out Clause 25, but if it is desired to treat this as a paving Amendment I shall be quite happy.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
3.19 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 37, leave out from ("whether") to ("shall") in line 38 and insert ("or in what state any land is to be made available under subsection (2), (3) or (4) of this section, or when different parts of the land to be made available under each of those subsections are to be reclaimed, shall be decided by the Maplin Development Authority in accordance with the reasonable requirements of the British Airports Authority or, as the case may be, the Civil Aviation Authority or the Port of London Authority but").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this Amendment is to clarify the relationship between the Maplin Development Authority and the three "statutory clients"—the British Airports Authority, the Port of London Authority and the Civil Aviation Authority—over the making of land available for the airport, seaport and air navigation services. The Government have always accepted that the statutory clients should be able to specify the quantity and quality of the land required and the time at which it is required, while recognising that this last factor might be subject to constraints outside the control of the authorities. They have also maintained that there must be arrangements for the Secretary of State to resolve disputes by reference

1841
to any of the Authorities. So far as quality and timing is concerned, however, this policy has been implicit rather than explicit, and Clause 2(7) at present refers only to the question whether any land is required for the purposes of a statutory client. This Amendment meets the request of the British Airports Authority. It should be made clear on the face of the Bill that the requirements which they make on the Maplin Development Authority can relate to quality and timing as well as to quantity. This applies to all the statutory clients. At present subsection (7) is formed so as to provide specifically only for the situation where there is a disagreement between the Maplin Development Authority and a statutory client which has to be settled by the Secretary of State.
The effect of the Amendment is threefold. First of all, where any particular reclaimed land is demanded by a statutory client under subsections (2), (3) or (4) the Maplin Development Authority must make their decision whether this land is required in accordance with the "reasonable requirements" of that other Authority. This covers the question of the quantity of land to be made available. Secondly, the Maplin Development Authority must decide in what state the land is to be made available in accordance with the "reasonable requirements" of the appropriate Authority. This covers the question of quality and reflects the fact that the authorities may have different requirements, for example, on the depth of reclamation fill or the weight-bearing capacity of the land or sections of it. Thirdly, the Maplin Development Authority must decide when different parts of the land to be made available to an Authority under the appropriate subsections are to be reclaimed in accordance with the "reasonable requirements" of the appropriate Authority. This covers the question of timing to meet, for example, a situation where the British Airports Authority want one section of their land to be reclaimed before another to meet their construction programme. The Amendment does not change the original provision for disputes to be settled by the Secretary of State.
I should like to make it clear that the Amendment does not mean that the Maplin Development Authority become the agent of the statutory Authorities.
1842
Decisions on quantity, quality and timing rest with the Maplin Development Authority in accordance with the Authorities' reasonable requirements. If the Maplin Development Authority has doubts about whether the requirement is reasonable, for example, because of external constraints on the reclamation programme, they can appeal to the Secretary of State for a decision. The Amendment simply reflects the commonsense proposition that the statutory Authorities should be able to tell the Maplin Development Authority what they require in terms of land and when they want it, and that the Maplin Development Authority should if possible endeavour to meet such requirements. I beg to move.
LORD BESWICK: I am sure this is a sensible improvement of the Bill and we are glad to support it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
3.25 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I beg to move Amendment No. 3.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 45, at end insert—
("(9) The power to make an order under this section shall be exercisable by statutory instrument, which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament; and before making such an order the Secretary of State shall consult with the Civil Aviation Authority, the British Airports Authority, the Port of London Authority, the Maplin Development Authority and such other persons as appear to him appropriate, and shall lay a report of the consultations and of his conclusions before Parliament.")—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
THE EARL OF PERTH THE EARL OF PERTH moved as an Amendment to the Amendment Amendment No. 4:
Line 6, after first ("Authority") insert ("the National Ports Council,").
The noble Earl said: I beg to move Amendment No. 4 standing in the names of myself and the noble Lords, Lord Kennet, Lord Coleraine and Lord Henley which shows that it is an all-Party Amendment. If it is convenient to your Lordships perhaps we might take in this discussion Amendment No. 5 at the same time. That does not mean that we may not in fact vote or move each Amendment separately at a later time, but I think they are really part of a whole, so if it is agreeable I propose to move them both now and then we can consider what in

1843
fact we should like to discuss in Commit tee.
First, I would thank the Government for Amendment No. 3, so far as it goes. When the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, introduced it he pointed out that there would be opportunities for the House to have a further debate later, and that, of course, we all welcome. He went on to say, "…on all the factors involved". We are not satisfied for certain that all the factors involved will in fact be taken into account, and it is for that reason that we want Amendments Nos. 4 and 5.
Let me take Amendment No. 4 first. It suggests that we insert the words "the National Ports Council" after the words: "Civil Aviation Authority, British Airports Council and the Port of London Authority"—in other words, you have listed at the present time various Authorities that the Secretary of State is going to consult, but perhaps the most important one of all from the angle of the seaport is not in. The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, said that there was a reason for this—let us hear it. At this moment I am bound to say that I, and I am sure many other noble Lords, are very worried about it. Why are we worried? I am worried because only the National Ports Council can assess the importance of this proposed seaport at Maplin in relation to the other ports in this country—Humberside, London itself, Southampton or elsewhere—and what is proposed is a formidable project.
Some of your Lordships had the advantage of listening to the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, on the Second Reading debate, but those who were not present then will, with very few exceptions, not have had the opportunity of reading Hansard. I have the relevant Hansard here; but not all noble Lords will have it, so I think I had better explain that what is proposed is a port capable of taking tankers of up to half a million tons. These would go through the narrow Straits of Dover. Further, it is said that it would be a rival to Rotterdam. I only mention these matters to draw to your Lordships' attention how very important this seaport may be. I believe that the ports for this Island are more important than the airports, and therefore I feel that it is essential that the National Ports Council be listed as an authority which
1844
the Secretary of State is bound to consult, hence the first Amendment, Amendment No. 4.
If I may now come to what I call the second part of the overall Amendment, in fact Amendment No. 5, this is concerned not only with the seaport but also with the airport, with the roads, and with the great town of 600,000 people. I should like to suggest that when the Secretary of State considers this he should also consider the question of the Channel Tunnel, because they are all part of an overall complex and it is no use trying to deal with each piecemeal. Therefore in our Amendment we are asking that the Secretary of State should consider this overall question in relation to national policy for regional development and land use planning.
I endeavoured to find out how this scheme, which is going to cost us £2,000 million to £3,000 million, compares with the amount of money that has been spent ever since the beginning of regional development—and I go back 40 years. This is a pretty formidable task and I have been led into such things as the Economic Journal of March. 1973, which had a very interesting article on this point, and various other statistics. I think that the facts are of general interest. Until about 1963 the amount the Government spent on regional development in one way or another was relatively small, a few tens of millions a year. Then, in 1963, there was a very large increase. In the next six years it ran at the rate of about £100 million a year, and in the last three years, from 1970 to 1973, we really have been going it! The expenditure on regional development has been about £250 million a year. I tried to add all that up and I got a figure of somewhere between £1,500 million and £2,000 million for expenditure on regional development ever since the beginning.
How does that compare with what is proposed here? Of course, it could be argued that there has been a change in the value of money. But I think that what comes out from this study is that both expenditures are of about the same order of magnitude. If you are going to spend on the South-East Region—which in a sense does not want any money spent on it, from the point of view of overall employment—the same

1845
amount as you spent over 40 years on regional development, that makes one think. If I am right about that, we need to think the more, because regional policy is at last showing signs of success. Some of your Lordships may have seen the Sunday Times of July 15 which contained an article headed, "At last jobs move North". I will not go into it any more, but the implication of that is clear. Then if Maplin and the Channel Tunnel are to go ahead this may be a very serious thing in relation to regional development as a whole. For this reason, I and my colleagues feel, and I am sure that many of your Lordships feel the same, that it is essential that the Government should look at this subject from the point of view of regional development, and not just in isolation. That is the reason why I am moving Amendment No. 5, which I hope that the Government will be able to accept. It is in no way a wrecking Amendment. It has been put down just to make sure that the Secretary of State will give to this matter all the attention needed from an overall point of view. If the Government can give us that satisfaction, that will be fine. If not, we shall have to think about what we are going to do.
LORD SHINWELL: Unless the noble Lord who is dealing with this subject from the Government Front Bench is ready to accept this Amendment, I should wish to support the noble Earl, Lord Perth, who has advocated what I think is a reasonable proposition, indeed an inevitable proposition, and I shall give the reason why. After the submission, not so long ago, of the Rochdale Report, which defined, geographically and economically, the number of ports required for the purpose of commercial transactions, shipping and the like, I should have thought that it would be most undesirable to construct another seaport. In the course of Questions that I have ventured to address to Ministers on the subjects of Maplin, Concorde and the proposed Channel Tunnel, I have had in view, I think quite appropriately, the probable expenditure; an expenditure which may be estimated but the estimate, as we know, is usually falsified.
I can recall when the Attlee Cabinet considered the Heathrow proposition. The estimate presented to us was £6 million. Consider what it has actually cost
1846
since the project was initiated. I am not certain about what I am now going to say, but I would hazard a guess that it has cost well over £600 million, and it is still in the process of development—but that is another story. The purpose of the Rochdale Report was to provide for the United Kingdom an adequate number of seaports commensurate with our trade. In the course of Lord Rochdale's investigations there was a great deal of controversy because of the competition between the ports, but eventually it was decided that some of the smaller ports which were not regarded as profitable and economic should be closed down, and that was done.
Let us consider the situation. I am not going to object to another airport because the principle has already been accepted. There may be great difficulties ahead. The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has indicated them, and they are indicated in the Amendment and in the clause which is under review. There may be many difficulties before the project is completely developed. But, in principle, I would not object to another airport for a variety of reasons apart from the expenditure involved. But an additional seaport would be in competition with other ports throughout the country, many of which are finding considerable difficulty in paying their way—for example, on the Mersey—and sometimes the difficulties encountered create industrial disputes, for one reason or another. In particular, an additional seaport would compete with Southampton. If we require additional seaport facilities in the South of the United Kingdom the appropriate course would be to develop the Port of Southampton, where all the facilities for development are available. No doubt the Government have considered this; I hope that they have. If we are to proceed with an airport at Maplin, well and good, if a case can be made out and if the reclamation will not impose a much heavier financial burden on the Exchequer than is in contemplation. But no additional seaport is required.
Let us consider what would happen if there was another seaport. Obviously, it could not be of a minor character; it would have to be a port which would pay its way in the future, a vast seaport which would cost a great deal of money. It is to be in competition with other ports in the United Kingdom and, in

1847
particular, with the ports already available in the South of England which can absorb all the shipping and trade that is required if further development is necessary. Moreover there is Falmouth and other ports in the South and the Bristol Channel not far away. Why, in Heaven's name, do we require another seaport at Maplin? Go ahead with the airport, if that is necessary, but by no means go ahead with the construction of another seaport. For that reason I venture to support the noble Earl, Lord Perth, in his proposition.
LORD ORR-EWING: Before my noble friend winds up, perhaps he will consider whether in his Amendment, where he says "and consult with such other persons" the National Ports Council would be included. If the word "persons" also includes the term "bodies", then one would be happier to support the Amendment. Perhaps he could elucidate that point when he comes to address the Committee.
LORD SHINWELL: I omitted to mention what is the relevant point in the course of my observations—I had not a prepared speech. I should have mentioned that the reason I support the noble Earl, Lord Perth, is because of his proposition that the National Ports Council be consulted.
LORD HENLEY: In the face of great criticism from all sides in both Houses that the Government have not shown enough keenness in co-ordination in planning transport, the Government have conceded this Amendment which, on the face of it, seems a very good one. The noble Earl, Lord Perth, and I and one or two others have put down two Amendments to that Amendment to try to get an assurance from the Government that they will go as far as they possibly can in this kind of consultation. The first Amendment asks that the National Ports Council should be added to the list of consultations. It may be that the Government will be able to demonstrate to us that the National Ports Council in any case will be consulted. We want a firm assurance on that, and if we can get it then I feel sure we shall be satisfied. The second Amendment, No. 5, asks for a rather more searching examination into the co-ordination of these plans. Again
1848
the Government may say that this goes without saying and that that is what they are going to do. If we can get that assurance then I feel we may be satisfied.
What everybody on all sides wants is to be assured that there is rather better co-ordination in the minds of the Government as to what they are doing. The whole problem of transport in this country is so daunting that no Government has been prepared to face it. There is no central organisation looking at the whole question of air, sea, road and rail. Each is taken individually. We have this new idea of a Europort which is going to measure up to Rotterdam. That has come upon us by surprise as something incidental to Maplin airport. One of the reasons for going to Maplin was to reduce the noise affecting other airports, yet here we are moving an airport to Maplin to get rid of noise and proposing to make a town of 200,000 or so underneath it. Has anyone thought about this? The noble Earl asks what would be the effect on the Channel Tunnel. None of these things is properly co-ordinate. What the Amendments are doing is trying to extract from the Government an absolute guarantee that these things will be looked at in greater detail than they have been up to now.
LORD AVEBURY: May I add one or two words? Presumably the Government could give an assurance that the National Ports Council was one of the bodies they had in mind in drafting their Amendment when they used the words "such other persons as appear to him appropriate". This often happens when such a phrase is included in the drafting of a Bill: the Government reply that they have the intention of consulting them but that they do not think it necessary to list all the bodies that might be brought in under the Bill. If that is to be the answer, then we say to the noble Lord in advance that it will not be satisfactory, because the same might have been applied to the Port of London Authority or the Maplin Development Authority. Naturally the Government are going to consult them but they need not put them in the list at all. They could have merely said "such persons as appear to him to be appropriate". If that were the reply, I think it would be less than a satisfactory argument, from the Committee's point of view.

1849
There is one other point in the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Perth. It is his mention of the half-a-million-ton tankers which might use this seaport coming up the congested lanes of the Channel. If the Government have that in mind, they must be "off their rockers", to take along the congested and dangerous sea lanes enormous tankers which might come into collision with other vessels and cause incidents that would dwarf the "Torrey Canyon". With respect to the noble Earl, I do not see how the Government could have that in mind, because the original statement of the Secretary of State cm February 2, 1972, ruled out the location at Maplin of industries such as oil refineries and petro-chemical works; and one understands from the Consultative Document issued yesterday by the Department of the Environment that that is still the case. If there are not going to be refineries in the Maplin neighbourhood, why should enormous tankers want to come in, in the first place? It would imply that the oil companies would need to invest large additional sums of their scarce capital in pipelines which would take oil from Maplin to wherever the refineries were located. If an alternative solution is available where tankers can get to existing refineries, that is the solution that they would prefer.
There is another point arising from some of the discussions I have been having with experts in the oil industry, who tell me that it is quite possible that with developments in the North Sea oilfields we could reach self-sufficiency at some point in the 1980's and that we should be producing the whole of our requirements from the oil fields already discovered, together with additional wells that they hope in the course of time will come into production, judging from the experience that they have had so far. That does not mean necessarily that we should refine North Sea oil at our refineries. We might need to export some of it, because it is of very light specific gravity, not entirely suitable to the needs of the fuel economy of the country, where heavy fuel oils predominate. We might still want to export some proportion of our North Sea oil and replace it with heavier crudes from the Middle East. Even if we were self-sufficient there should be an indefinite number of tankers coming in.
1850
We have already capacity to do this. Your Lordships last year approved a Bill which has since attracted some criticism in the Sunday newspapers, to allow the Shell Company to build a marine terminal at Anglesey, where they would bring in half-a-million-ton tankers and feed the whole of the North West through their refinery in Stanlow. If we are now saying that the capacity for refining in the South East is not enough and that we must bring enormous tankers up the Channel, we are saying that there is going to be such a rate of growth of oil consumption in the South East as to justify the additional investment. It is the practice of the oil industry to locate their refineries near the centres of consumption. Therefore we are expecting not only that we are going to create this enormous additional consumption to a value which, as the noble Earl calculated, is equivalent to all the money poured into regional development in the past, but anticipating, quite apart from that, industrial growth of manufacturing industry to use the oil produced in the South East which will justify these tankers. I hope that Lord Drumalbyn will be able to reassure us and say that even if this port is constructed—though I do not see the need for it—it will not be allowed to bring in such giant vessels and to create difficulties of congestion and danger in the Channel.
3.50 p.m.
LORD KENNET: I had intended to hold my fire on this Amendment until I saw the whites of the Government's eyes, but since we have had two Liberal speakers on it, perhaps the Committee will bear with me if I make some observations about it at this stage. The Committee considers this Amendment in a season when emotive language is ringing out in the country about this matter. We are invited to say, "Yes to the future", and all that sort of thing. Some of us have always thought that it does not matter much whether we say, "Yes to the future", because it is going to arrive anyhow. The thing is to make sure that when it does arrive it contains the right thing and not the wrong thing. This we on our side of the Committee think is what Parliament does not yet know. These Amendments are put down in order to ensure that we may get some notion of what the future holds for us.

1851
On Amendment No. 4, to insert the words "the National Ports Council", I think I should be right in saying that even the Port of London Authority itself does not yet really know whether it wants the Maplin seaport. In saying that, I bear in mind the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, on Second Reading, when he said this:
"The Port of London Authority in due course has to apply for permission…for expenditure on…the oil terminal and the container port. In order that it should justify its case it has to show that the marketing of these projects"—
here I think the noble Lord meant that it has to show that there would be people ready to avail themselves of the facilities made available by the Port of London Authority—
"indicates that there is a need for them, and, in particular that the container port will have people who will definitely want to come to it. This process of marketing has already begun, but it is not possible for the Port of London Authority to submit firm proposals to the Government until after the Bill is law. Then the Port of London people can say to likely users of these two terminals, 'The Bill is law; the Maplin project is going ahead; let us now enter into agreements to do this, this and this.' Until we have done that I cannot satisfy my right honourable friend"—
that is, the Secretary of State—
"that the work that my people have done justifies his approval of the project."
There is a statement by the Chairman of the Port of London Authority that he cannot justify the project itself to the Secretary of State until he has done more work on it. That, in itself, I would submit to the Committee, is sufficient reason for having another stage—the other stage offered by the Government—before a decision is taken by Parliament to go ahead with this construction.
But we need not only the view of the Port of London Authority on this seaport; we need the view of the National Ports Council as well. Plenty of evidence has been given to Parliament that the Port of London will be better served if it moves downstream. Plenty of evidence, I would say, has been given to Parliament that Britain is in need of a great new port. But no evidence, to my knowledge, has been given to either House of Parliament or the public that the great new port ought to be in London. It might be on the Humber; it might be, as my noble friend said, in Bristol,
1852
or anywhere else. What we need is that evidence, and that must come from the National Ports Council.
It may be said—indeed, I have a shrewd suspicion that it will be said from the correspondence which the Government have been courteous enough to send me copies of—that there is no need for Amendment No. 4 because the Government are bound to consult the National Ports Council in any case. I would make two points about this. First of all, O.K., so the Government are bound to consult the National Ports Council. But why not write it in this Bill, too—belt and braces? It would not do any harm. In any case, when the noble Lord comes to speak, I hope he will tell us in great detail on what terms the Government are bound to consult the National Ports Council under the 1964 Act. Can we be perfectly confident that they will put to the National Ports Council the broad question: Should a great new national port go to the London Estuary? Can we be confident that they will put that question to them under the 1964 Act; and would it not be better that it went into this Bill, the context of which is clear to everybody?
The purpose of Amendment No. 4 is to get a national view on the national port question. The purpose of Amendment No. 5 is to make sure that when tile Secretary of State reports all these consultations to Parliament he does so not only with airport and seaport considerations, but all national considerations, in view. Amendment No. 5 mentions the new town. I make no complaint that the new town was not mentioned in the Bill as it comes to us in Committee. The plan for the new town was published only two days ago. It all hangs together. We are, in effect, being asked to approve an airport, a seaport and a new town standing in one place in South-East Essex.
The last thing I want to say is this. We on this side of the Committee think that that is wrong. It is true enough that the document called Strategy for the South-East, which was published jointly by the Government, the Regional Economic Planning Council for the South-East and the Standing Conference on South-East Local Authorities some two or three years ago, says that South-East Essex should be a major growth point. It did not say that there should be a new town,

1853
but that it should be a major growth point. But since then the population projections themselves have been revised downwards; that is, both the national population projections, and within that the regional South-East population projections. We do not now expect so many people in the South-East by population increase as we did when this document calling for major growth there was published. We ought to have some report to Parliament on that fact before this all goes ahead.
What are the Government going to do about the fact that the Greater London Council have refused to contemplate any major new roads within Ringway 3? How is this new motorway going to get into London? This is a question of major regional planning. Nothing about it has been laid before Parliament. The whole development of South-East Essex must depend on it. It is no good having a vast new industry, port, airport, a new town, with wealth going into London, which stops "bonk" 12 miles out. How is it going to get in? I think that Parliament should know.
There are three elements in this plan—airport, seaport and new town. The airport, I think, has been widely discussed—and my noble friend Lord Beswick will have something to say about that in a minute. The second and third aspects, the seaport and the new town, have not been widely discussed. The Government have not shared their thoughts with Parliament. One may suspect that the Government have not indeed clarified their own thoughts. Elements two and three, in our view on this side of the Committee, are wide open. It may be right to have them—we do not kno—but let us have the reasons. That is why we on this side support Lord Perth's Amendments Nos. 4 and 5.
3.59 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, it is of course a good many months since it was announced that the Government were contemplating the possibility of a seaport in connection with Maplin. This was done in February 1972. Since that time, had anybody bugged what was going on in the Government they would have seen a great deal of co-ordination going on and a great deal of planning in connection with the Maplin project. So
1854
I think I can reassure noble Lords who have spoken that the whole question of co-ordination on the economic side, on the manpower planning side, and all the rest of it, has been very much taken into account in these proposals.
It would not be proper for us to go into a detailed discussion on this Bill of the Consultative Documents that were issued yesterday either on the new towns or on the access roads. Of course there will be ample opportunity for comment on these documents and I should like to make it quite clear that this is an additional stage which the Government have introduced into these procedures. This opportunity for comment does not in any way remove the right of individuals to object to proposals affecting them when the formal statutory procedures take place—that is, those procedures that will have to be complied with before any of these developments can go ahead. So there is this additional stage when the public will be able to comment on both the new town and the access routes proposed before the Secretary of State takes the next step. That will take the form of designating the town in the first place and then, so far as the access roads are concerned, the actual form of legislation adopted will depend upon which of the access roads and railway routes are chosen. Noble Lords will know of the difference in the form of legislative provision that is made as between road and rail routes.
LORD AVEBURY: The questionnaire which is to be filled up by members of the public asks them to state which of several alternatives they prefer; it does not ask them in the first place whether or not they like the scheme. There is no place on this form to record opposition to Maplin as a whole, is there?
LORD DRUMALBYN: These are proposals put forward for access routes, subject to the procedures in the clause that we are now discussing. If that goes forward, then the access routes will also go forward, and it is essential that these should be provided before the airport itself becomes operational. Therefore we shall have a different time-scale here for the access routes. They will be completed at one time, and of course the construction of the airport will be going on for a long time after that.

1855
I feel I can give the noble Earl, Lord Perth, the assurance that he wants; in other words, that there will be the fullest consultation with the National Ports Council. In fact, although the Bill gives broad planning permission, the port could not go ahead under the provisions of Section 9 of the Harbours Act 1964 unless and until the Secretary of State for the Environment had consulted the National Ports Council. They will advise him not only on the viability of the proposals but also on their applications for other ports; that is to say, how they fit into the national context. If we were to add the National Ports Council to the list of bodies to be consulted under the proposed new subsection (9), we should be cutting across these existing statutory controls. The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, says, "Let us have belt and braces as well"—but if the belt and braces get all tangled up together the last result might be worse than the first. It is right that the Secretary of State's consultation with the National Ports Council should be carried out in the context of a submission by the Port of London Authority under Section (9) of the Harbours Act. This procedure provides a well-established arrangement for considering all the aspects of the proposed port development, and it will enable the Secretary of State to be fully apprised of the views of the National Ports Council on the Port of London Authority's proposals for Maplin and how they affect the national interest as a whole.
LORD BESWICK: I should like to ask the noble Lord just one question, if I may, because as he said—and I thought he was right to do so—the practical arrangements already on the Statute Book make it possible for the House to be fully apprised of these matters; but what we are asking for and what indeed I think I am later on going to thank the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, for giving to us, is the opportunity to have a report given to this House, and on the basis of that report Parliament can then say yea or nay to the Order that will be required. It is in relation to that further Order that he has new been good enough to say will be needed that we think this ought to go into the Bill.
LORD DRUMALBYN: Perhaps I could start from this point: the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, mentioned that my noble friend Lord Aldington had said that the application to the Secretary of State would be unlikely to happen before the start of the reclamation at Maplin. The point is that what we are considering, so far as the Order is concerned, is whether reclamation should go forward for the airport. The seaport is not necessarily involved with the airport. We could have the airport without a seaport. It would mean that the amount of land to be reclaimed would be less and it would mean certain adjustments in the plans for reclamation, and all the rest of it. But—
LORD SHINWELL: Why was it necessary to insert the Port of London Authority? The Port of London Authority obviously is intended to consider whether at some stage Maplin should be developed for the purpose of another seaport.
LORD BESWICK: And before the noble Lord replies to my noble friend, may I ask him to look at the first three lines of Clause 2, which read:
"For the purpose of reclaiming land from the sea for the establishment of an airport and a seaport in the area comprising Maplin Sands and Foulness Sands…".
LORD DRUMALBYN: May I say first of all to the noble Lord that in Clause 2 we are dealing with the powers that are conferred, and the powers are conferred for the purpose of the establishment of an airport and a seaport. All I am saying now is that it does not follow absolutely that a seaport would have to be established, even though it was decided to establish an airport. There is nothing mandatory in the clause to say that a seaport shall be established.
LORD BOWDEN: Since the case for the airport seems to have vanished almost without trace and the case for a seaport is very hard to establish, are the Government proposing to consult the Ministry of Agriculture on the grounds that reclaimed land of this sort is very valuable—I believe it costs roughly about £10,000 an acre—and that this could be part of a major reclamation scheme comparable to the Delta plan which the

1857
Dutch have so industriously adopted for reclaiming land for agricultural purposes? I find the arguments which have been deployed by the Government absolutely unconvincing. I believe in fact that they are about to do this—that is, to reclaim farmland—and I should like to ask whether this is to be part of the Bill.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I am not sure whether the noble Lord was present for the Second Reading debate when the arguments were fully deployed. I hope that in due course when Hansard is published he will have an opportunity of reading those arguments. I thought I had stated them very clearly indeed. The Bill, after all, was given a Second Reading so that the noble Lord's views that nothing is left in the arguments in favour of having an airport really do not have the support of your Lordships' House as a whole. But if I may go on from that to the point which we are here dealing with, I should first like to say that the fact that the National Ports Council are not named in the new subsection (9) will not mean that the Secretary of State's report under the subsection cannot deal with the port proposals. Indeed, as the port will be a relevant consideration when the Secretary of State comes to make his Order—I repeat a relevant consideration, not a conclusive or critical one—it will clearly be reasonable for a report which precedes the Order to deal with the Port of London Authority's proposals in so far as these are relevant to the overall consideration of the reclamation scheme. That is why the Port of London Authority is mentioned.
LORD KENNET: The noble Lord has just mentioned the Port of London Authority. Did he mean that or did he mean the National Ports Council? We are interested in the National Ports Council, of course.
LORD DRUMALBYN: The noble Lord, Lord Beswick, has drawn to my attention something of which I was already well aware—the fact that the Port of London Authority is one of those bodies which are to be consulted before the Order is made. I was explaining why that was so. This proposal for an Amendment to subsection (9) so far as the National Ports Council are concerned is not one we could accept, but the case for consultation with the National Ports
1858
Council, under the appropriate statutory proceedings, is entirely accepted. Of course there must be consultation, and there must be consultation under the Statutes as they now exist.
THE EARL OF PERTH: May I try and understand this because this is of great relevance to me in relation to whether we press on with our Amendment. Before this Bill goes forward will the Secretary of State, under Clause 2, have consulted the National Ports Council on the Port of London Authority's proposals? I have the letter which was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Henley, winch does not make me happy. I am not going to read it at length, but it says that the fact that the National Ports Council are not referred to in the Bill will not prevent this going forward. It does not say the Council will, it says that they will not prevent. I must ask the noble Lord to give us a perfectly straightforward answer to this, that before the Secretary of State goes ahead with the powers under the Bill the National Ports Council will be consulted.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I thought that my noble friend Lord Aldington had explained fully that when the National Ports Council are consulted will depend entirely on when the Port of London Authority puts forward its proposals. Naturally, the National Ports Council cannot be consulted unless the Port of London Authority has put forward its proposals at that time.
LORD BESWICK: May I ask an important question? I follow the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, perfectly. We do not know when the National Ports Council are going to make a report, or offer their observations, to the Government. Is the noble Lord therefore saying that the Government may well come to Parliament with an Order activating this Bill before they get the report from the National Ports Council? If so, does he not realise that this is precisely the contingency we are trying to meet with this Amendment?
LORD DRUMALBYN: I do not understand the noble Lord's difficulty. Let me put the matter again. What we are mainly concerned with here is the establishment of an airport at Maplin. Added to that, or in conjunction with that, there may be a development of a

1859
seaport at Maplin which is within the Port of London Authority's area already.
THE EARL OF PERTH: Only part of it.
LORD DRUMALBYN: It goes up to Foulness Point.
LORD KENNET: The noble Lord does not know the facts.
LORD DRUMALBYN: The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, must not say that. That is not true. I can open a map in front of me, and I know the facts perfectly well.
LORD KENNET: I should hate to be thought discourteous, but have we not had an interjection from the Chairman of the Crown Estates Commissioners, who have some responsibility and knowledge about who owns mud and sand round our shores, that only part of the proposed airport and seaport reclamation lies within the Port of London Authority area? I should be reluctant to see that dismissed by the Government as being of no account; and I should be happy to keep on talking about it for a moment if it would be a help to tide over the time which is always necessary for the finding of documents and plans.
THE EARL OF PERTH: I do not want to rest on anything to do with Crown Estates. One has only to look at a map to see the point here. I believe it was a 1958 Act which gave the Port of London Authority rights over a considerable part of the area—far the greater part, but not all of it. I am not speaking with any authority from the Crown Estates, but I am speaking from my knowledge of the 1958 Act, and from having seen the map.
LORD BROWN: I suggest—
LORD DRUMALBYN: I have not finished my speech. I have been interrupted many times, even while I was speaking, which is unusual in your Lordships' House. I concede that the noble Earl, Lord Perth, knows his facts on this matter. I have a map in front of me and entirely concede that part of this scheme is outside. This is within the Port of London Authority's area, and that area, as I understand it, extends to Foulness Point. It is the very Northern part of the reclamation. Indeed, it is not until we get to four runways that it is
1860
outside the Port of London Authority's area. The whole of the land likely to be available for the seaport will be within the Port of London Authority's area. I hope that I have managed successfully to answer that point.
LORD COLERAINE: The point I am not—
LORD DRUMALBYN: I really must not be interrupted too much because one can lose the thread, but I give way to my noble friend.
LORD COLERAINE: I am most grateful. The point I am not clear about, and which affects my attitude towards this first Amendment, is this: under Section 9 of the Harbours Act 1964, which we have been discussing, is the Secretary of State obliged to consult the National Ports Council, or need he only do so if he wishes?
LORD DRUMALBYN: I have been trying to make the point that he must consult; he is obliged to consult the National Ports Council.
LORD BESWICK: But the noble Lord has not replied to the question I put to him before. I understood that the Secretary of State was obliged to consult the National Ports Council; what we have not got clear is whether the two Houses of Parliament will have the benefit of those consultations before they are asked to approve an Order. So far as I understand the noble Lord he cannot say that this will be so. In order to ensure that it should be so I suggest we put it in the Bill.
LORD DRUMALBYN: Let us try to get the logic of this matter. What is the point of putting the National Ports Council into the Bill until they have something to be consulted about? What they have to be consulted about is the Port of London Authority's proposals. The Port of London Authority are bound to be consulted, and this will be contingent on the acceptance of the Port of London Authority's proposals after taking advice from the National Ports Council. I am not prepared to say at the present time that necessarily the proposals will have been formally made to the Secretary of State before an Order is laid. That is all I am saying now. I am saying that because we are concerned

1861
mainly with the provision of an airport, and the provision of the airport can go forward perfectly well without a seaport.
I am sorry to detain your Lordships on this, but I do not think I have been the only person to do so. If I may turn now to the second point, about regional planning policies, the second proposal to amend Section 9 would bring within the ambit of the proposed report to Parliament regional and land use planning matters. As drafted, however—
LORD SHINWELL: I am sorry—
LORD DRUMALBYN: I am sorry; I must be allowed to go on.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order, order!
LORD SFIINWELL: May I ask a question? Are we discussing now another Amendment? Ought we not to dispose of the first Amendment? Why are we discussing the second Amendment? Should not the first Amendment that has been moved be put to the Committee before we discuss the second Amendment? That is all I am asking.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I think it is the custom of the Committee when two Amendments are discussed together to complete the discussion and then one can take each Amendment separately; each Amendment can be moved separately and the Committee can make its own decision on each one. I am, after all, only following speeches which have been made by noble Lords who did not confine their remarks to the one subject. I do not think the noble Lord would expect me to confine my remarks to the one subject, either.
The Amendment would require the Secretary of State to cover in the report the regional and land use planning implications only of the seaport and the new town, and not of the Maplin project as a whole. As I have explained, in considering the Port of London Authority's proposals for a seaport at Maplin the Secretary of State will have the advice of the National Ports Council on the implications of these proposals for other ports. This means that regional implications will be studied under the existing statutory procedures. This aspect of the second Amendment is therefore subject to the same objections as is the
1862
proposal to add the National Ports Council to the list of bodies to be consulted.
It is not clear what is meant by studying the regional implications of the proposed new town. The main regional issue that arises when a new town is proposed is the call that such a town will make on mobile industry; that is, industry which might otherwise be available to boost employment in the assisted areas. But in this respect the Maplin New Town will not be like other new towns; as the Consultation Document published on Monday, July 23, shows, the major source of employment for the Maplin New Town will be the new airport. If, therefore, the case for going ahead with the Maplin airport is made out, there is no separate issue of regional policy arising in relation to the new town. Similar considerations arise on the references in the Amendment to the land use planning implications of the seaport and the new town. The seaport is not expected to be a major generator of employment—something like 4,500 by 1990, according to the Port of London Authority's present estimate. Its effect on planning policies in South-East Essex will therefore be small in comparison with the effect of the airport. Certainly, any employment generated by the seaport would be well within the scope of the kind of population growth envisaged in this area under the provisions of the South-East Plan, which has been accepted by the local planning authorities in the area and by the Government.
The siting of the new town clearly has land use planning implications, but this is not a matter to be explored in detail in the Government's review or in the report to Parliament prior to an order under Clause 1 being made. The procedures in the New Towns Act provide for full consultation on the siting of proposed new towns and for full consideration of objections. The Consultation Document which was published on Monday indeed represents an addition to these procedures, as I have said, in that it provides a preliminary stage of consultation before the drawing up of the draft Designation Order on which statutory consultations and the holding of a public local inquiry are based.
These objections to the second Amendment do not mean that the regional and land use planning applications will not

1863
form part of the Government's review of the project and be reflected in the report to Parliament. In relation to the airport, one factor to be considered will naturally be the extent to which growth in traffic handled by regional airports may affect the timing of a need for the third London airport; and the review will certainly cover not only the land use implication of Maplin but also the catering for all the expected traffic growth of the existing London airports, as some of the opponents of Maplin have proposed. It will cover all those things. So both regional and land use planning aspects will be fully considered, in so far as they are relevant to the decision to go ahead with reclamation for an airport and seaport at Maplin.
The principle—I say this only in conclusion to the noble Earl, Lord Perth—of including in the review and in the report to Parliament regional and land use planning implications, in so far as these are relevant to the proposed order, I entirely accept; but the Amendment is not viable for the reasons I have suggested. In the first place it is not comprehensive; it is limited to part of the problem; and, in the second place, the main examination of the question will be carried out under other statutory procedures.
LORD BROWN: The Minister's arguments about Amendment No. 5 really are somewhat breath-taking. I think I understood him quite clearly to say, "If you want to take into account regional developments, then to some extent they are not relevant, because if you put down an airport and a seaport at Maplin you are not going to take employment away from other parts of the country; they are going to create their own employment. Therefore, one does not need to consider this question of the development areas and employment in them". That is an absolutely breath-taking argument—I think I am quoting the noble Lord accurately—because if in fact you put an airport somewhere else near a development area, then it will create employment and help the development areas. If you put this new port at Maplin, it is not going to create more tonnage coming into the country. So necessarily, if it is successful it is going to take employment away from some other port. Indeed, when I heard Lord Perth's
1864
figures about expense on these two projects in the South, and what we have for forty years spent in other parts of the country—I did not realise the comparison of these figures before—I could not but come to the conclusion that the Government are gravely mistaken; and these two Amendments will indeed help, I hope, to prevent this great scheme from going forward at all. My reason for hoping that it will not go forward is simply this. Unless we change the boundaries over a very long time between the South and the other parts of the country, then the South is going to become increasingly overpopulated and the North is going to become increasingly devoid of all the institutions and industries and the other things that keep a live population going in our great cities to the North. To bring these two considerations fully into play before this issue is debated next time in Parliament is extremely important, and these two Amendments help. I therefore support both of them.
4.27 p.m.
LORD COLERAINE: Although I was not altogether convinced by the argument of my noble friend on the first of these two Amendments, I must say I am inclined to believe that our fears are probably without any real foundation. As I understood him, the Secretary of State is obliged to consult the National Ports Council and, moreover, the Secretary of State can take no further steps towards the seaport side of the Maplin project until the National Ports Council has been consulted. But I am less impressed by the Minister's argument against the second of the Amendments. He said that this Amendment was not valid because it dealt with only part of the problem; it dealt with only the seaport and the new town, and left out of account the airport. But that is perfectly natural because, after all, it is not the airport that is going to interfere with the national policy of regional development; it is the new town and the new seaport if they come about.
I, like the noble Lord, Lord Brown, was most impressed by the figures which the noble Earl, Lord Perth, gave at the beginning of the debate. As I understood him, he said that over the past ten or fifteen years, or whatever it was, in trying to attract industry from the South-East to

1865
the North we had spent about £2,000 million, and we are now going to spend about £2,000 million in order to attract industry from the North down to the South-East. I am not, and never have been, a believer in what is called consensus politics, but I think that in all my political memories, at any rate since the war, there has been agreement on both sides of both Houses on one thing at least, and that is that there is a wholly undesirable lack of balance between industrial and social development in the South-East of England compared to social and industrial development in the rest of England. It seems to me to be quite extraordinary—I must say this—that the Government should suddenly put all that into reverse and inevitably, not redress the balance but make it even more uneven than it is to-day.
I should like your Lordships to consider first the effect of these new proposals—the new seaport, if it comes off, and especially the new town which will be a town, as I understand it, about the size of the city of Hull—on the national regional policies that we have to pursue. First, let us consider the effect on London. I may be unfortunate in where I live, but where I live the postal services are quite clearly breaking down because the strain on them is too great. The telephone service seems to be breaking down because the strain on it is too great. Transport is breaking down, as I am sure any of your Lordships who do as I sometimes do and take the Underground between five and six o'clock in the afternoon, will know. It is breaking down because the strain on it is too great. What will happen to all these services if we impose this additional burden on this part of the country? Because this new town and everything associated with it will in fact be another suburb of the already too great conurbation of London.
The second thing we ought to consider is what is the effect going to be on the regions. I suppose each of us thinks first of the region with which he has been most closely associated, and I think of Humberside. In the new areas of Humberside where, on the North bank at any rate, there has been heavy unemployment, there are now great hopes of attracting new industries. One thing which militates against that is the lack of skilled labour, because all the skilled labour has
1866
been drawn into the maw of this not "Great Wen" but great ulcer which London is becoming. Another evil effect on a region like Humberside is that great companies which have been based for perhaps a hundred years in Hull have had to transfer their headquarters to London because of the poor communications between Hull and the South. If we are to have a new seaport, I think there is a great deal to be said for having it on the Humber. I believe it would be far less costly if we were to make a new seaport in the hook of Sprun head—far less costly even, than the proposal for a new seaport as an adjunct to the Third London Airport.
I should like to go back for a moment to what the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, said about the giant tankers. It is said that adversity makes strange bedfellows. I do not know what has put me into bed with the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, but I entirely agree with him on that point. Anyone who, like myself, has navigated, not a 500,000-ton vessel but five-ton vessel through the Straits of Dover, across the Thames Estuary and through those shoals, knows that they are probably the most dangerous waters in the world, and if it is really intended to have a new London seaport to deal with these mammoth tankers—if it is really our intention to attract that kind of traffic away from Rotterdam to this country—then surely the obvious thing to do is to have the seaport, as the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, suggested, in Anglesey or somewhere in the West, where there are comparatively few navigational hazards and where these vessels can come with perfect safety, because the prospect of one of these 500,000-ton tankers being wrecked, say, on tile Goodwins, is so terrifying that I do not see how anyone could contemplate it.
There is another point that I should like to put to your Lorsdhips as briefly as I can, on national planning. I believe we suffer from a shortage of houses. Surely a demand on the civil engineering industry such as would be represented by the Maplin project and the Channel Tunnel (if we go into that) would really make any sensible housing programme absolutely impossible, and it would so inflate the price of houses, which are already inflated enough now, that it would be disastrous. Earlier in the debate on this

1867
Amendment my noble friend said that Maplin would not become operational until 1990, I think it was.
LORD DRUMALBYN: No; it is intended that one runway should be in operation in 1980 or shortly afterwards.
LORD COLERAINE: I beg my noble friend's pardon: I entirely misunderstood.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I did say that development would be going on thereafter, possibly until 1990, if the four runways were required.
LORD COLERAINE: That was the point that I was really taking my noble friend up on, because I do not see how anybody can deny that this project in its early stages, until we begin to get an income from it, is highly inflationary; and if the Government believe, as I believe, that inflation is the greatest evil that threatens not only this country but Western civilisation, then anything that contributes to that inflation should be postponed. If we begin this expenditure (as I think my noble friend said) at the beginning 1974, I cannot see that it would matter very much if we waited until 1975 or 1976. Would it matter so much if the airport were not in operation until 1980 or 1981 or 1982, or if the complete works were not finished before 1993 or 1995? If we can get a pause in this inflationary spiral, to which this work must make its contribution, surely—
LORD DRUMALBYN: May I just intervene? This is what we are talking about: it is essentially what the review is going to establish. It is a question of when we could start this: there will be a review which will lead to an order, after which we can invite tenders and the reclamation will be able to start. The point which my noble friend is now making is exactly this.
LORD COLERAINE: And these are the points that I have been dealing with, which I believe to be covered by Amendment No. 5. Therefore I hope very much that, in spite of what my noble friend said earlier, he will perhaps have a change of mind and be able to accept this Amendment.
4.39 p.m.
LORD CONESFORD: I wish to speak only to Amendment No. 4. I am puzzled, and I am sorry if I did not quite follow the Minister's reply. He was repeatedly interrupted, and that may have caused me to miss his conclusive argument against Amendment No. 4. It seems to me, however, that the case for Amendment No. 4 is very strong indeed and I am not at all clear why Her Majesty's Government think it necessary to resist it. I understand from my noble friend the Minister that it would be perfectly possible, under the words in his Amendment, to consult with the National Ports Council: it would be perfectly possible, but would not be certain. What I believe this House desires, and I rather expect the other place desires as well, is that when the order which is mentioned in my noble friend's Amendment comes to be debated in Parliament, each House of Parliament should have as much information that it considers relevant as possible.
I was very much impressed by two speeches made in earlier debates by noble Lords who know a great deal about the shipping industry. First, there was the speech of my noble friend Lord Addington, which has been mentioned by several noble Lords in this afternoon's debate—and a very powerful speech it was! I also remember the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, in the debate on the Channel Tunnel. Both speeches convinced me that the shipping industry had a right to be consulted on both these great projects, and, indeed, could contribute much for our consideration. The Amendment of my noble friend the Minister would make it compulsory for the Secretary of State to consult with the Port of London Authority. I cannot see what the Government would lose, and I can see a great deal that Parliament could gain, if it were also necessary for him to consult the National Ports Council. It may be that my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn has given some conclusive reason against it that I missed, but I was following him as carefully as I could. I admit that he was continually interrupted, but I cannot see the answer to the simple question, "What harm would it do to anybody if Amendment No. 4 were adopted and the National Ports Council were added to the

1869
list of the named bodies in the Amendment of my noble friend?"
LORD WYNNE-JONES: I hope I may be allowed to ally myself with the noble Lords, Lord Coleraine and Lord Cones-ford, in pleading with the Minister to give consideration to, and accept, Amendment No. 4. To that I would add also Amendment No. 5, but in this matter No. 4 is particularly important. I happen to have been fortunate in spending a whole day yesterday with the Port of London Authority visiting Maplin in their launch, and I saw in detail exactly what they propose doing. I was a little surprised to learn from the Minister that no plans had been prepared, because we were shown plans in very considerable detail. I must say that I was very much impressed by the argument put up by the P.L.A. I thought they put up an extremely important case. I do not want to go into it in detail, but they dealt with such matters as approaches through the channel, and it is quite an important matter.
They have themselves, with the Admiralty, explored the deep-water channel which runs through the Straits of Dover and have found that there is a very good channel, up to 100 feet deep and two miles wide at its narrowest, which goes almost straight to Maplin. It does not go to Rotterdam or Antwerp, and this is a very interesting matter. Apparently the Dutch would have to do a considerable amount of dredging to maintain a channel that would allow the big tankers to go in. These are important matters which made me feel that the Port of London Authority have a very good case indeed, In fact, they stated that they had their plans for a seaport four years before anyone thought of an airport at Maplin. It sounded a little odd to me to hear from the Minister that one could drop the seaport and go ahead with the airport, because all the evidence is that the seaport was planned first.
Furthermore, I should like to ask the Minister this question with regard to the dropping of the seaport. The seaport takes up about a quarter to one-third of the width of the proposed Maplin development. If the seaport is not built, will they reclaim the whole of that area?—because this would seem extremely
1870
extravagant. If they do not reclaim all that area, have they the hydrological evidence yet to tell them what they can reclaim, because the exidence we were given on the Select Committee was that the hydrological evidence for the present scheme will not be available until the end of December. In other words, we do not yet know in detail—we know in general terms but not in detail—what the reclamation area might be. If one were suddenly to slice off one-quarter of that reclamation area, it seems to me one would be bound to go back for further hydrological experiments.
What I am saying is that the Minister would do no harm if he accepted this Amendment. As one who now believes that the seaport, though not necessarily the airport, has a good case, I still feel that this case can be accepted only as part of a national policy. It would be madness to accept something which gave the Port of London something fine and superior, only to discover that it turned out to be at the expense of the rest of the country. It is quite essential that the National Ports Council should be properly consulted and, furthermore, that we in Parliament should know what are the results of that consultation. Therefore I urge the Minister to show on this occasion that reasonableness with which he frequently indulges this House, and allow this Amendment to be accepted.
LORD WOLVERTON: May I speak for a moment on Amendment No. 5, on the question of water supplies? If we are to have a great area of seaport complex, an airport complex and a new town, a very large water supply will be necessary. I know from my own experience that South-East Essex has been very short of water. There is a big scheme for taking water from the Ely Ouse and from the Stour to try to keep up the level of water in South-East Essex. This is an important point. May I ask the Minister whether the question of the water supply to such a large complex as the Maplin Development has been fully considered?
LORD PEDDIE: May I give my support to Amendments Nos. 4 and 5, and also to the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Wolverton, concerning water supplies. While one may give general

1871
support to the concept that we have under discussion, I am given to understand by those who are personally involved in the matter of water in this area that it has already been made clear that there will be serious problems concerning the adequate provision of water, particularly for the size of population that is in prospect. Can the Minister give some precise information as to the extent of consultation that he has had on this aspect with those who are in authority in the particular area, so that the House may have positive assurances that adequate water supplies are or will be available?
4.49 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I cannot reply to-day to the last question put by the noble Lord, Lord Peddie, but I am certain that there have been consultations. Since water is such an essential commodity, these plans would not have gone ahead without such consultation. What I was going to say to the noble Lord, Lord Peddie, is that we are here talking about the Maplin Development Plan. We are not talking about access roads or water supplies for the new town, or anything of that sort; we are talking about the Maplin Development Plan relating to the recovery of those lands and to the subsequent construction of the airport upon them. It is the reclamation of these lands with which we are primarily dealing, and at the moment we are talking about who should be consulted before the order is laid in order that this reclamation work can start. I think it would be as well if we stuck to that point.
I thought my noble friend Lord Cones-ford dealt with the matter very succinctly. He asked what harm it would do to consult the National Ports Council. The difficulty here is simply to see what good it would necessarily do, because the National Ports Council will in any case have to be consulted when the Port of London comes forward with its authority. If—and I am saying "if" because I do not know; and nor for that matter did my noble friend Lord Aldington know when he made his speech—these proposals do not come forward by the time the other authorities have been consulted, I am not sure that it would be putting the National Ports
1872
Council into a very easy position if they were then to be consulted in general without knowing what the Port of London Authority's proposals were going to be in particular, as they will later have to pronounce on those proposals as a statutory duty. I think there is that technical difficulty here. I am quite prepared to look at this question again to see whether my fears of the embarrassment to the National Ports Council are right or wrong. I am quite prepared to take this back to see whether or not it would be worth while putting the National Ports Council into this list. My own view is that it would not be desirable, but it may be that it might turn out to have some advantages after all.
Perhaps I may say this to my noble friend Lord Coleraine. We have, after all, already taken a decision in principle on the Bill, and the reason why we have done that is that the question was put to Roskill: do we need more provision to handle passenger air transport, and in particular where should a third airport be situated. That was the point.
LORD KENNET: I think I must challenge the noble Lord on this. I do not believe it was put to Roskill whether we needed more provision for air transport.
LORD DRUMALBYN: If you are asking him where a Third London Airport should be situated, and also asking him whether a Third London Airport is needed, I think my paraphrase there was justified. In any case, the point is this. Granted that you are going to have more air traffic over the years ahead, you are obviously going to need more people to handle that traffic, and if that traffic is going to be generated in the South—and such a very high proportion of it is—then you are going to have to meet that need one way or the other in the South. I do not think we should go into this part of the matter further, because this is precisely the sort of thing that will be considered in the review—to determine when this need will arise in the South. What we are here being asked to determine is only, first of all, whether we should consult the National Ports Council. As I have said, I do not believe that we should, but I am quite prepared to have another look at this.
The second matter we are being asked to consider is whether we should also

1873
review the whole question of the new town and the seaport needs particularly. I am quite certain in my own mind, and I would strongly advise noble Lords not to accept at any rate the second Amendment, because, as I have said, this is something which is being amply covered by the various proposals put forward for the new town, the access roads and the like; all that comes into this side of the matter. And, of course, unless you have the airport you will not need the new town, so the whole thing hangs together there. Given the order being put forward, we shall then have the designation of the new town. We might even have the designation beforehand in order that studies can be started. In any case we should not have the new town if there were no airport. So this is going to be considered anyway. I really do advise my noble friends not to accept the second Amendment.
LORD COLERAINE: I see the noble Lord's argument about the connection between the airport workers and the new town, but does the airport really require a new town with a population of 600,000 people?
LORD DRUMALBYN: The position is that the numbers expected are 200,000 extra by 1990, and that might rise to 300,000 by the year 2000 or the early part of the next century. The requirement to service the airport is likely to be about 60,000, and there would be another 60,000 probably to be added on to that to service industry in general, and 4,500 for the seaport. These are the needs in this area.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: I thought one of the arguments for Maplin was that it would prevent people being deafened by more noise because there are very few people there. If you have a town of 600,000 all
round the airport—and I understand the noise shadow is 24 miles—you are going to affect 600,000 people.
LORD DRUMALBYN: Not in the flight path of the aircraft in line with the runway.
LORD KENNET: I will not seek to say anything more on the substance of Amendment No. 4. We on this side have heard with interest and gratitude the noble Lord's assurance that he will reconsider the matter before the next stage. I think the only question that remains is whether, in the presence of that assurance, we should leave out the National Ports Council or carry it in, in the knowledge that it can be taken out again later if the Government persuade us to do so. We believe it would be right to put the National Ports Council into the list, and we urge the Committee, after having heard the pros and cons from all sides, to do precisely that and carry this Amendment.
THE EARL OF PERTH: I am very puzzled about Amendment No. 4 in the light of what the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has said. I cannot get it clear in my mind. It is one thing to refer it back, but I think there is a problem here and I feel, with the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, that unhappily we really ought to press this Amendment and get it in. I cannot see what harm it does. If at Report stage it can be shown that it is wrong, fine, I will rejoice. But at this stage I feel that I must press Amendment No. 4.
4.59 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 4) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 113; Not-Contents, 68.

CONTENTS

Adeane, L.

Beswick, L.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Airedale, L.

Birk, B.

Byers, L.

Albemarle, E.

Blackett, L.

Carnock, L.

Alport, L.

Blyton, L.

Champion, L.

Amherst, E.

Boothby, L.

Clwyd, L.

Amulree, L.

Bourne, L.

Conesford, L.

Archibald, L.

Bowden, L.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Arwyn, L.

Bradford, E.

Crawshaw, L.

Auckland, L.

Braye, L.

de Clifford, L.

Avebury, L.

Brayley, L.

Diamond, L.

Bacon, B.

Brockway, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Balogh, L.

Brown, L.

Douglass of Cleveland, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Erskine of Rerrick, L.

Essex, E.

Kinnonll, E.

Samuel, V.

Ferrier, L.

Leatherland, L.

Sandys, L.

Fiske, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Gage, V.

Lucas of Childworth, L.

Shackleton, L.

Gaitskell, B.

McLeavy, L.

Shepherd, L.

Gardiner, L.

Maelor, L.

Shinwell, L.

Garnsworthy, L. [Teller.]

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Simon, V.

Granville of Eye, L.

Monckton of Brenchley, V.

Slater, L.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Monson, L.

Stamp, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Mountevans, L.

Stonehaven, V.

Hale, L.

Ogmore, L.

Stow Hill, L.

Hall, V.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Strange, L.

Henderson, L.

Peddie, L.

Strathspey, L.

Henley, L.

Perth, E. [Teller.]

Summerskill, B.

Hood, V.

Phillips, B.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Hoy, L.

Platt, L.

Thomas, L.

Hughes, L.

Raglan, L.

Vernon, L.

Hunt, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Vivian, L.

Inchyra, L.

Rhodes, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Inglewood, L.

Roberthall, L.

White, B.

Jacques, L.

Royle, L.

Williamson, L.

Janner, L.

Rusholme, L.

Wolverton, L.

Kahn, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Kennet, L.

St. Davids, V.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Killearn, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Elles, B.

Merrivale, L.

Abinger, L.

Elton, L.

Milverton, L.

Ailwyn, L.

Ferrers, E.

Moyne, L.

Allerton, L.

Fortescue, E.

Northchurch, B.

Ashbourne, L.

Glasgow, E.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Balfour, E.

Gore-Booth, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Barnby, L.

Gowrie, E.

Redesdale, L.

Berkeley, B.

Greenway, L.

Rhyl, L.

Bessborough, E.

Gridley, L.

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Bethell, L.

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

Sandford, L.

Bledisloe, V.

Sharples, B.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Howe, E.

Somers, L.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, B.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Stocks, B.

Caccia, L.

Ironside, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Cole, L.

Jessel, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Kinloss, Ly.

Craigavon, V.

Lauderdale, E.

Sudeley, L.

Daventry, V.

Limerick, E.

Tenby, V.

Davidson, V.

Long, V.

Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, B.

Denham, L. [Teller]

Loudoun, C.

Wakefield of Kendal, L,

Derwent, L.

Luke, L.

Windlesham, L. (L. Privy Seal.)

Drumalbyn, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Wise, L.

Ebbisham, L.

Margadale, L.

Young, B.

Eccles, V.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
5.8 p.m.
THE EARL OF PERTH THE EARL OF PERTH had given Notice of a further Amendment (No. 5) to Amendment No. 3:
Line 9, after ("conclusions") insert ("thereon, and his assessment of the probable effects of the seaport and the proposed new town on national policy towards regional development and land-use planning,").
The noble Earl said: I am very conscious of the fact that as it stands this Amendment to the Amendment is in a degree defective in relation to what we want, which is that the whole of the question of the Maplin Development shall be related to the regional develop-
1876
ment throughout the country. The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, told us that it referred only to the seaport and to the town, and it is not meant to. In these circumstances I think the proper thing to do would be to move a correct Amendment at Report stage. I, for one, do not feel prepared to move this particular Amendment.
LORD DRUMALBYN: Perhaps the noble Earl, in considering whether to move a suitable Amendment, will have regard to the new Clause 2(6).
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER): Is the noble Earl moving his Amendment, as some noble Lords wish to discuss it?
THE EARL OF PERTH: No, I am not moving this Amendment, I prefer to do it at Report stage, but other noble Lords who have put their name to it may wish to do so.
LORD KENNET: If I am in order, I should like to move the Amendment so that it may be discussed briefly by the Committee. I think that the points made by the noble Earl are very clear. When there is an Amendment which the Government declare is defective towards achieving its own purpose it seems at first sight a reasonable thing not to move it and to come back at Report stage with another and better Amendment to achieve the sane purpose. But one should look at another point beyond that. How far is the wording removed from perfection? The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has told us that it ought to refer to the airport as well as to the seaport and the new town. He has implied that the Government would be perfectly willing to lay before Parliament the report which it ought to lay before Parliament, on the national regional policy implications and the land use planning implications of the whole of Maplin in all its three parts—that is, the airport, the seaport and the new town—but that the Government would not be willing to be bound to lay before Parliament a report on the national implications of only the latter two parts.
These two attitudes are not really very far apart. Most of the effect on national policy will come from the new town and the seaport—I make no bones about that. The actual reclamation of the airport itself will have very little effect upon regional policy. It is the regional economic infrastructure which goes with the new town, which goes with the industry to come to that, that will have the national impact, and this would be caught by the Amendment which is before the Committee. We on this side would say: let us carry this Amendment into the Bill at this stage, and let us amend it and improve it if we can at Report stage. That would be better, while we have all the arguments in our heads (because it very much relates to what we have been discussing), than leaving it out now and having to start all over again when we come back in October. I beg to move.
LORD HENLEY: I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, will accept that
1878
suggestion. He has seen the very strong feeling in the Committee in the heavy defeat which the Government have just sustained. Would it not be better to accept the advice of the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, and accept this Amendment? If necessary, we can think about it again at Report stage.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I do not think that that would be so. I have made it quite clear that all the relevant considerations will be taken into account and that a report will be made upon them. I do not think there is anything that need be said. It is acknowledged that this Amendment is not perfect, and it would therefore be a mistake for your Lordships to accept it.
LORD BROWN: The noble Lord drew attention to subsection (6) and asked the noble Earl, Lord Perth, who was considering whether to move his Amendment, to think again about that subsection. Subsection (6) in no way has the same intentions as the Amendment before us, and I would put it to the Committee that the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, is quite clearly in some difficulty. I do not want to import suggestions, but he is clearly under instructions not to accept these Amendments if that can be avoided. We ought to put him out of his misery, because the country and the large proportion of this Committee are very concerned about the total effects of these great schemes in the South.
England is the most densely populated country in the world, and the South-East is the most densely populated part of England. This means that we are going to load into that part of the country this intensive development which will, in one way or another, ensure that the population is still further increased. We shall be bringing into the South-East more institutions—the new airport and other developments which follow these great investments—and we shall widen still further the gap between London and the other great cities of this country. That may seem irrelevant to this Amendment, but the implication of resisting this Amendment is that the Government are not open to arguments of this sort on this issue, and they never have been. By rejecting this Amendment they are saying, "We shall go so far with you in considering the total situation, but we are not going the whole way".

1879
The country and the large part of this Committee are extremely concerned, not simply about Maplin, not simply about a port, but about the whole implications of this £2,000 million investment in the most densely populated part of England. If we put this Amendment into the Bill, it will at least be a signal to the Government that they have to take the global attitude much more seriously. This Committee should divide on this Amendment, and I hope it will be put into the Bill as an indication to the Government that they are not taking the will of the country and the will of this Committee sufficiently seriously. They must take more account of what this House and the country thinks than they are doing at the moment. Let us therefore have this Amendment.
LORD DRUMALBYN: May I comment very briefly, and say that the whole purpose of the review is to consider the timing of the need for the airport. That being so, all the relevant factors will be considered in that connection. But there is no point in going beyond that, given the fact that the Bill has already received a Second Reading.
THE EARL OF BALFOUR: I feel that Clause 2(6) gives the Secretary of State very wide powers indeed. It states:
"… the Secretary of State shall have regard to the interests of the environment … that may be affected … and he shall not give his approval unless satisfied that the use of the land … would be consistent with the proper distribution of industry and employment."
I should have thought that that gave a very much more satisfactory overall power than the rather tight wording of Amendment No. 5. Therefore, if the Amendment goes to a Division I will certainly oppose it.
LORD LEATHERLAND: Has the noble Lord noticed that that clause deals only with the reclaimed land, and not with the totality of the land which is covered by the Bill?
LORD DRUMALBYN: I am aware of that, but what we are talking about involves employment.
5.17 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment to the Amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 86; Not-Contents, 88.

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Mountevans, L.

Amherst, E.

Erskine of Rerrick, L.

Ogmore, L.

Amulree, L.

Ferrier, L.

Peddie, L.

Archibald, L.

Fiske, L.

Perth, E.

Arwyn, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Phillips, B.

Avebury, L.

Gardiner, L.

Platt, L.

Bacon, B.

Garnsworthy, L. [Teller.]

Raglan, L.

Balogh, L.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Beswick, L.

Hale, L.

Rhodes, L.

Birk, B.

Hall, V.

Royle, L.

Blackett, L.

Henderson, L.

Rusholme, L.

Blyton, L.

Henley, L. [Teller.]

Sainsbury, L.

Boothby, L.

Hoy, L.

St. Davids, V.

Bowden, L.

Hughes, L.

St. Just, L.

Brain, L.

Hunt, L.

Segal, L.

Brayley, L.

Inchyra, L.

Shackleton, L.

Brockway, L.

Jacques, L.

Shepherd, L.

Brown, L.

Janner, L.

Shinwell, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Kahn, L.

Slater, L.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Kennet, L.

Stamp, L.

Byers, L.

Killearn, L.

Stow Hill, L.

Carnock, L.

Leatherland, L.

Summerskill, B.

Champion, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Clwyd, L.

Longford, E.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Coleraine, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

White, B.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

McLeavy, L.

Williamson, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Maelor, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

de Clifford, L.

Meston, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Diamond, L.

Monson, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Elton, L.

Milverton, L.

Abinger, L.

Essex, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Ailwyn, L.

Ferrers, E.

Moyne, L.

Allerton, L.

Fortescue, E.

Northchurch, B.

Auckland, L.

Gage, V.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Balfour, E.

Gore-Booth, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Barnby, L.

Gowrie, E.

Rankeillour, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Greenway, L.

Redesdale, L.

Berkeley, B.

Gridley, L.

Rhyl, L.

Bessborough, E.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Bethell, L.

Hailes, L.

Saint Oswald, L.

Bledisloe, V.

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

Sandford, L.

Bradford, E.

Sharples, B.

Braye, L.

Hanworth, V.

Somers, L.

Brentford, V.

Howe, E.

Stocks, B.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Stonehaven, V.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, B.

Inglewood, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Caccia, L.

Ironside, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Cole, L.

Jessel, L.

Cork and Orrey, E.

Kinloss, Ly.

Strathspey, L.

Craigavon, V.

Kinnoull, E.

Sudeley, L.

Crawshaw, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Tenby, V.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Limerick, E.

Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, B.

Daventry, V.

Long, V.

Vernon, L.

Davidson, V.

Loudoun, C.

Vivian, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Luke, L.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Windlesham, L. {L. Privy Seal.)

Ebbisham, L.

Margadale, L.

Wise, L.

Eccles, V.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Wolverton, L.

Elles, B.

Merrivale, L.

Young, B.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment to the Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.25 p.m.
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER): The Committee will now return to the discussion of Amendment No. 3, as amended by Amendment No. 4. Amendment No. 3 has already been moved.
LORD BESWICK: On the major substance of this Bill the Government have gone as far as I originally asked them to go, and I should like to offer my thanks to them for the way in which they listened to the arguments and for the way in which they have phrased their Amendments. Of course, we have contrived to improve this Amendment in one particular; and, in passing, I must say that I really was surprised that the Government left out the National Ports Council. I hope that, on Report stage, we can obtain other words which will implement the intentions behind the Amendment which has just been so narrowly defeated. I should also like to express my appreciation of the general helpfulness of the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, in the way he has contrived to cover up some of the shortcomings
1882
of the governmental machine at the present time. I am referring to the fact that we are in great difficulties with Hansard. It was only a clay or two ago that, thanks to the noble Lord, I was able to see a copy of his Second Reading speech, and we have been handicapped to some extent—and those outside who have tried to follow these matters have also been handicapped. Having read that speech may I say to the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, that I thought it was a very good speech; and, indeed, he made a better case for the airport than his colleagues have been able to do up to now.
Having said that, I would also say that, had they not agreed to come back to Parliament again and to amend the Bill to ensure that there will be another opportunity for both Houses of Parliament to give the go-ahead or otherwise, then it would have been most surprising, for let us recall that so far there have been two Government Reports on this matter—and I speak now especially about the airport. We have had the Roskill Report, and that specifically recommended against the Maplin site. Then there was the Civil Aviation Authority Report, and that specificaly said that the original basis for the Third London Airport was

1883
not now a sound one. Had the Government gone ahead without giving Parliament another opportunity to voice an opinion it would have been, as I say, most strange behaviour indeed.
Having said that, may I make a reservation? On Second Reading the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, made some comment to the effect that the Government had been charged with, as he put it, "cooking the books" so far as the C.A.A. Report was concerned. I have not made a charge of that kind and I do not intend to make a charge of that kind, but I do say that we shall look most carefully at the reports which will eventually be laid before Parliament, and we shall look particularly carefully for their objectivity and for their completeness. I say that for two or three reasons. The first is that, by strange coincidence, on the very same day as it was announced that the Government were tabling these Amendments to make it possible for Parliament to have another look at the whole thing, the Prime Minister said that it was essential to go ahead with it, and that those who were against these projects and that particular project were lacking in moral courage; and indeed the noble Lord, Lord Lord Windlesham, only yesterday, accused some of us of lacking in confidence when we are confronted with these large projects. It does still seem from that that there is a very firm indication to go ahead with it, irrespective of what reports come out.
I find this attitude of the Prime Minister in particular rather strange. It is not just my feeling in the matter; I find that it is a doubt which is shared by a good many other people. For example, in the Sunday Times of July 8 there is a heading to an interesting article in which it is stated:
"Civil servants in revolt over Maplin airport".
And again later, on July 22:
"Maplin Ministers hush up report on quieter jets".
We are given information about the way in which the Prime Minister has intervened on what should have been, one would have thought, a departmental matter. For example, I read, and I quote:
1884
"On Ministers' orders in fact Mr. Michael Woolf, one of the Conservative Central Office recruits into Whitehall, has spent some weeks in the office of the Lord President of the Council drafting a resounding Ministerial speech in favour of Maplin".
Then again it is said:
"The Prime Minister has now initiated an interdepartmental study to see how the weightings of the N.N.I. index could be changed".
There is another indication in that the Prime Minister—and again I quote:
"Has sponsored the setting up of an interdepartmental committee to devise ways of recalculating noise figures so as to improve the case for Maplin."
I would say to noble Lords opposite that there is this feeling, expressed here and elsewhere, that there is an intervention from higher up into the activities of some of these people who are having to look into the various matters upon which they have now undertaken to report. We are also aware—or so we are told—that the C.A.A. report itself, was, in draft, an even more damning document than the final publication. There was a change of emphasis, a rewriting of certain phrases in order to bring it more into line with Governmental policy. I stressed at the beginning that I am not making any great charge of "cooking the books", but I do want an assurance from the noble Lord that we shall have complete reports on all the matters which are at issue here. They are not stated in the Amendment which we are now discussing, and which I am pleased to accept, although they were in earlier Amendments. They were in Clause 25, and they would have been in the Amendment which had been put down in the name of some of my noble friends and myself. I want an undertaking from the noble Lord that there will be no selectivity when presenting these conclusions of the various committees that are now working on such matters as, for example, aero-engine noise, noise shielding, RTOL, STOL, computerised air traffic control and the whole of the quite exciting possibilities that lie open before us for dealing constructively with the noise problem.
In addition, I want to ask the noble Lord whether he will give us an assurance that the question of air traffic control into Maplin will be dealt with in these reports. It has been indicated that there will be no noise over this new town because all the aeroplanes

1885
will come in over the sea. I do not think this matter is quite so simple as they have tried to make out. I am not entirely convinced that it is possible. In addition, there may well be certain international problems about the stacking of aircraft over waters which are not within our own territorial boundary. All these things should be included in the reports that are laid before us. If they are, I shall again be in a position of thanking the noble Lord and his colleagues for what they have done, and I am sure that we shall then have the fullest possible debate on these issues before we eventually give a final go-ahead.
5.35 p.m.
LORD WOLVERTON: I am also grateful to the Government for putting down this Amendment. I was very worried when we were debating the Bill on Second Reading and I had the honour of speaking on the Roskill Commission's Report. I said that if the airport went anywhere it ought to go to Maplin. I was quite certain on that point, but I was a little dubious about the enormous expense of this project, and in view of the big new developments which are taking place in quieter aircraft—shorter take-off and so on—I have put down an Amendment (it is not in order yet to discuss it) to leave out Clause 25 and substitute a new clause. The Government are wanting to cut out Clause 25 and the matter was dealt with under Clause 2. I only wish that they had included in Clause 2 consultations on quieter aircraft, shorter take-off capability and bigger aircraft for the report which they are going to make to Parliament. I should have liked to see provision for an Affirmative Resolution of both Houses of Parliament, rather than the Negative Resolution procedure for which I do not much care. So far as it goes, I think the Amendment which Her Majesty's Government have put down is a great improvement and I welcome it.
LORD BRAYE: I should like to endorse the remarks which have been made by the noble Lord, Lord Beswick. A report from the Government on the approaches and corridors to be taken to this new airport is surely due at a very early stage, because these will affect not only the new town project but everything else on the set-up of the airport, and
1886
naturally the people who are living in Kent and Essex are all looking to see what decision is going to be made over the approaches. As I see it at present, it is possible to approach this airport over the sea—landings and take-off could be made over the sea—but this is by no means certain, and at the moment there is no statement from Her Majesty's Government on this point. May I ask that this be put in the report?
LORD BOWDEN: I should like to support some of the observations which have been made by the noble Lord, Lord Beswick; he may feel a certain personal diffidence about saying some of these things since he is connected closely with the British Aircraft Corporation. Perhaps I ought to say on his behalf, if he will forgive me for doing so, that the latest developments in quieter aircraft are extraordinarily promising and there is no doubt at all that the greatest relief to the people living round Heathrow will come—at least for the next twenty years—not from the development of Maplin but from the development of quieter aeroplanes. It is probable that by the time Maplin is functioning a significant number of the aircraft using Heathrow will confine what they call their "noise profile" almost within the boundaries of the airport itself, and if this is done a great deal of the case for Maplin which is resting on environmental grounds will disappear.
The second point which I must make is that very dramatic improvements have been made in the last few years in the development of various electronic aids to navigation, particularly the marshalling of aircraft before they land. Your Lordships will doubtless recall the complete congestion at Kennedy Airport, particularly, a few years ago which was entirely eliminated by the introduction of secondary radar. Work is still going on in this country, on what I think to be far too small a scale, for the improvement of the electronic aids to the proper marshalling of aircraft. I suggest that the Government should be prepared to invest, let us say, one-tenth of 1 per cent. of the moneys which are being spent on Maplin in an attempt dramatically to increase the scale at which the work is being done, for example at Malvern under the direction of the C.A.A. and the Department of Trade and Industry.

1887
The case for Maplin, as for any airport, must always be considered in the light of current technology which changes as we watch it. The change has been dramatic, and there is no reason to believe that it has stopped or that the direction in which change and improvement can be expected will not itself change. It is extraordinarily important that these things must be borne in mind and be reconsidered at all stages. The last point I would make—perhaps it is a personal one, based on my own experience of other places—is that we are taking an enormous amount for granted in this project. It has taken us nearly twenty years to fail to link Heathrow Airport with the London Underground system. It has been impossible for twenty years to build an extension to the Uxbridge line about five miles long. It has proved impossible to link the Cromwell Road Air Terminal with the local Underground station 100 yards away. Yet we are confidently expecting the construction of a railway and a motorway system about 100 miles long, ending up at somewhere like Barking; and when we have arrived at Barking the problem of getting from Barking to Central London would be considerably more complicated, and the distance considerably greater, than that which now separates Central London from Heathrow.
So I think that the problems yet to be solved are so enormously greater, in terms of cost, planning and so on, than those which have so far been faced, formidable though they are, that it is essential that the matter be kept under revision at all stages. Before we finally commit ourselves to this enormous expenditure of money, Parliament should have another opportunity to discuss the matter in considerable detail in the light of the available technology, be it of road construction, railway construction or quieter aeroplanes; and, most particularly, the electronic aids to navigation and landing. I support the Amendment warmly for that reason.
5.43 p.m.
LORD ORR-EWING: I should like to suport the Amendment. It is sensible that we should have a comprehensive report. I am still a little worried about how the Government think that they are
1888
going to compel airlines based at Heathrow to move to the new airport at Maplin. I do not imagine that there is any provision in the Bill for financial compensation, but any airline making the move will have to compensate their staff. Redundancy payments will be applicable over a long move like that; they are applicable in respect of a move from one factory to another factory a mile away. So there will be considerable redundancy costs and there will be considerable training and recruiting costs in the new abode.
I can conceive that it would be possible to squeeze people out of London Airport towards Maplin by a whole host of pressures. It would be possible, perhaps, to say: "You must go there if you are operating aircraft of a certain noise factor." incidentally, that would be an incentive to operators to fit present-day aircraft "hush-kits", which can reduce noise substantially. I can conceive that charter operators could be told, "Yes, you may be given a charter licence, but you will have to operate out of Maplin." But, of course, British Airways, the old B.O.A.C. and B.E.A., are increasingly coming into the charter market. They will not want to split their operations between their main bases at Gatwick and London and also at Maplin. I can conceive that you could say to the long-haul operators going to Australia, that the fact that you spend an hour and a half getting to the airport, rather than threequarters of an hour, is probably of no consequence; but it will become of consequence when Concorde comes into service.
I can conceive, also, that you could say to those who wish to operate either landing or take-off during the dep night hours, "If you wish to operate in this country you will have to go to Maplin." At present, the hours they can operate in and out of London Airport are between 11 p.m.—or it may be 12 midnight—and 6 a.m. For the sleeping habits of those near the London Airport, those hours might well be stretched when there is the alternative of Maplin so that people might be allowed to sleep until 7 a.m. or go to sleep even earlier than midnight. I can see all these pressures coming. But we have to remember that the only people whose arms we can twist are the British operators. If we try to twist the

1889
arms of the international operators and say to them, "You can operate scheduled services in and out of this country only from Maplin", they will bite us back by saying, "That is quite all right, but you cannot come into our capital cities, either. None of your British aircraft can. You are going to operate from a lesser important airport 55 miles away from our capital city." Then, of course, we should have to concede and they would come into London Airport.
These, I think, are problems which must beset the Government and the licensing authorities when Maplin comes into existence. I do not want to make a Second Reading speech, but I hope my honourable friend will consider this problem, because otherwise I cannot see how those efficient international air carriers who are already deeply entrenched at Heathrow will be persuaded to move elsewhere.
5.45 p.m.
LORD ELTON: I rise with the greatest diffidence, primarily because I have not addressed your Lordships before, and I hope that you will be kind enough to extend to me the indulgence which is usual on these occasions to enable one to make one's initial blunderings without too much embarrassment. Also, I find myself in a difficulty in actually finding my way round what has happened. I understand that we are now dealing with an amended Amendment that deals in turn with Clause 25, which appears to have been rendered very nearly superfluous.
I welcome this Amendment because it seems to me to be a way of buying time for the Minister before the final decision is made. As has been rightly said on numerous occasions, this decision must be made in the light of developments and technological expertise. I think it would be a mistake to expect too much from these developments. Briefly, the computer-assisted approach system allows one to fly aeroplanes at the very minimum safe interval one after the other. But at the same time the wide-bodied jet leaves a vortex or jet-wash behind it of such duration and intensity that it is not safe to fly as close behind it as the C.A.A.S. could get you, and so the one militates against the other.
1890
The main technological development which I think concerns us all has been mentioned this afternoon; that is, the advent of the quieter aeroplane. I live—and perhaps I ought to have mentioned this to your Lordships as a declaration of interest—within six miles of the runway of the East Midland Airport and I have become something of a connoisseur of aircraft noise. I have discovered, for instance, that a BAC 1–11 in a really bad temper can inflict physical pain to people indoors. Fortunately, the occurrence is rare. Only recently, I discovered to my astonishment, because it actually happened, that it is possible to conduct an intelligent conversation—with effort, it is true, but not with discomfort—while a TriStar, powered by RB.211 engines, three of them, is immediately overhead at about 1,000 feet, which is something I would not have believed had it not actually happened to me. I regard this as one of the most important technological developments of the age.
This brings me to the question of how long people ought to be able to fly in and out of Heathrow in the evening. I feel that the effect of this in general will be that it will be acceptable, even to the people of West London and Windsor, to lift the night-flying restriction on Heathrow, thus increasing its capacity by 20 per cent. or more, which puts still further back the date at which Maplin will become necessary. Moreover, I think it worth while to draw your Lordships' attention to the obvious fact that if we were to say that no aircraft that made more noise than the TriStar was allowed to land at or take off from British airfields, as the sole manufacturers of engines at present meeting this specification there will be a considerable financial advantage for us to do this. Therefore, I am impelled to support this Amendment because of the reasons of environment and finance and practical common sense, which will save us throwing money into the sea, sinking vast sums of capital under the water.
There is another reason, though it may perhaps appear trivial to your Lordships. The first Public Bill to which my father gave any support and interest was concerned with motor car engines and motor cycle engines. His effort was to insert the phrase that they,

1891
"shall be fitted with effective methods of silencing". Your Lordships' ringing eardrums will have marked for you the singular lack of effect that this has had down the generations. I am not content to leave matters there, not merely out of injured pride, but because I think it wrong that the will of Parliament, of this House, should be flouted as a result of manufacturers' interests and that this nation should be subjected to a greater and greater barrage of cacophony while we stand idly by. This Amendment provides an opportunity for the Minister to make an order and to take advantage of a situation which will benefit us both in terms of environment and in terms of hard cash. For those reasons, I support the Amendment.
LORD GORE-BOOTH: May I first have the privilege of congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Elton, on his intervention, evidently to all of us extremely expert and well-informed. I, like him, would support this Amendment, but I want to bring out at this stage some contrary reasons. It seems to me that a great deal of the emphasis has been on the negative side. Like other noble Lords I do not wish to make a Second Reading speech, although I was unable to make one when it happened, but I think it right to mention the reasons on the other side why this Amendment will be advantageous. We have heard a great deal about the environment and about quieter engines, but we know that for quite a time to come engines will not be all that quiet. When we look at this from the regional point of view we must look at it not only from the Essex point of view but from the point of view of the next 20 years for the inhabitants of Richmond, Feltham, Windsor, Staines and so on.
Again, we must perhaps look at this not only as a great technological problem but also as a great problem of how we are all going to live in the future. The first impact of the new proposals by the Government on me seems to have been very much the opposite to that experienced by most noble Lords who have spoken this afternoon. There is a reason for this, but none the less perhaps it is important to say that possibly in the future we will be living in circumstances in which we can go rather faster and fur-
1892
ther on land than we have previously. It may be easier and better to have a coordinated transport policy from Maplin than the unco-ordinated one that we have had hitherto from Heathrow. It may be easier for us to start again rather than to go on 'botching up" the transport situation between central London and Heathrow as we have half tried to do, but now thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Burton we shall now do a little better than before. There are also a great many reasons on the other side, the imaginative, the looking-into-the-future side, why further thought should be given, further views expressed and further ideas generated. For that reason, a reason opposite from that of other noble Lords who have spoken, I too welcome this Amendment.
5.55 p.m.
LORD AVEBURY: May I also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Elton, on his excellent maiden speech. There was no reason for him to be diffident. I have not heard a better maiden speech either here or in the other place. He displayed a mastery of technical detail which I believe few of your Lordships could equal. His contribution was of great help in reaching a conclusion on this Amendment, which I must say we all welcome.
Every speech that has been made also convinces me that the circle of bodies with which the Minister is to consult should be as wide as possible. There is no mention of the British Aerospace Industry and yet a number of speeches this afternoon have been concerned with the development of QTOL aircraft, including that of the noble Lord, Lord Elton. I do not think anybody could have foreseen the advances in technology which have occurred even in the last few years. As an illustration, I would point out that the U.S.A. is now considering legislation imposing compulsory noise limits on domestic airlines, which the Roskill Report said that we should not attain until 1995. This also illustrates the point that the noble Lord, Lord Bowden, made, that things are happening so rapidly that within the time scale we are talking about—the Minister is thinking of producing a draft Order in the early part of 1974—we may have to revise our opinions again and bring in possibilities such as the expanded use of Heathrow Airport by better terminal facilities and

1893
the possibility that with short take-off and landing aircraft we might be able to use one runway for both take-off and landing—perhaps by dividing it into two and thus doubling the capacity. All this might happen well within the time scale we are talking about in the construction of Maplin.
There are other factors, apart from the development of other types of aircraft, which ought also to be taken into consideration. One of these is the Channel Tunnel. This has been mentioned before en passant. The estimate is that it will take only five million passengers from the air services in 1985. But most people that I have spoken to think that this is an extremely cautious assumption. Certainly when electrification of the railway between London and Manchester came into effect virtually all the airline traffic was removed except for inter-line passengers who travel from Manchester to Heathrow to catch onward flights; whereas the estimate for the Channel Tunnel assumes that only some 60 per cent. of the passengers on routes like London to Paris and London to Brussels who now travel by air will transfer to the Tunnel. Although the journey time from city centre to city centre would be 3 hours 40 minutes in the case of Paris and 3 hours 25 minutes in the case of Brussels (which compares favourably with the air journey taking into account going out to the terminal, then to the airport and in again in the other direction) virtually the whole of that traffic between London and destinations like Paris, Brussels and Amsterdam, could be diverted to the Tunnel and instead of having 20,000 fewer aircraft movements a year, which is the C.A.A. estimate, it could be considerably larger; hence again, we postpone the need for a third London airport still further.
A noble Lord said in a previous debate that it was granted that we are going to have more air traffic over the years and more people to handle it. He assumed that, right up to the end of the century and beyond—because some of his figures related to the 21st century—we are going to see the sort of growth in air traffic that we have experienced in the last 15 years. That is an unwarrantable assumption. I do not think that in the future air traffic is going to grow as rapidly as it has in the past. One of the obvious reasons for
1894
this, if one is thinking of very long time scales which I think should be taken into account in relation to a project like Maplin, is the availability and the price of aviation fuels during the 1980s and the 1990s.
I have already made some reference to the supply of oil in relation to the port. I should now like to point out to your Lordships that between now and 1980 the major oil companies are anticipating at least a doubling in the host Governments' take per barrel of fuel taken out of the producer countries from the present levels of something like 2 dollars 20 cents per barrel to 5 dollars per barrel and upwards. But these assumptions may prove to be optimistic, because the producer Governments have the bit between their teeth at the moment and will be seeking to screw the last possible ounce of royalties and tax out of the oil companies. This is going to have an effect on the end user, and particularly the user of aviation fuels, where the cost of the fuel is a fairly high percentage of the total cost of the fare. So I do not think it is reasonable to assume that air travel will retain the same relationship to people's disposable spending power as it has done in the last 10 years. In fact, it is one of a few commodities that have gone down, in real cost, over recent years. I do not think we can expect this trend to continue. Therefore people's choices of spending may not be quite so heavily geared to more travel; they may find other things that they would like to do with their disposable income. It may be of course that by the turn of the century we shall have come to the stage where oil and oil products are so valuable that they can be used only as feed stocks in the chemical industry for processes of very high added value, and we shall look back and say how wasteful it was to have burned them as fuel for the purpose of transport. I am of course looking very far ahead in making this kind of possibility apparent to your Lordships, but when one is proposing to spend upwards of £1,000 million we cannot take our thinking only as far as 1980, or just beyond it; we have to consider how this airport will be operating towards the end of the century.
Therefore I should like the Minister, in the consultations he is to have, to discuss with the oil industry what sort of

1895
price they expect aviation fuel to be when the scheme comes into operation, and how they think this will affect the volume of traffic. In fact, I hope that the Minister will be able to assure us that not only will bodies such as have already been mentioned be consulted, but also all those concerned with transport generally. British Rail, for instance, certainly should come into the consultations. To what extent will the advent of the high-speed train and the Advanced Passenger Train enable British Rail to compete so successfully on long-range domestic services that B.E.A.'s flights to Glasgow and Edinburgh, for instance, will no longer be required and will be replaced by surface transport? I hope that the Minister will be able to give us the kind of assurance that I am seeking, and I am sure we all welcome the partial assurance he has given in moving this Amendment.
Loan LEATHERLAND: I shall be brief, and I do not intend to make a Second Reading speech. It is a pleasure to me to be the first from these Benches to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Elton, on the informative nature of his maiden speech and on the persuasive charm with which it was delivered. I do not intend to enter into the fundamental question of the desirability or otherwise of the Maplin Airport. Rather I want to raise two questions of a perhaps localised interest, but on which I hope we shall be given full information when the reports come from the Government. I should like to join with my noble friend Lord Beswick in saying that up till now on many of the aspects of this whole matter we have not had full information. We have been showered with statistics, many of which have been mutually contradictory.
The first matter upon which I hope to see full information in the reports is that of the roads. The maps that had been circulated to us show that these roads stop suddenly at the London border. Where do they go from there? They have shown us, along with the legends that accompanied them, that very few houses will need to be destroyed. That is indeed very welcome. But when the roads leave the London border and go into Inner London, it is most important that we should know what routes they
1896
are to take, and the number of houses that are likely to be destroyed, because this factor could weigh considerably with people who up to the present have not finally made up their minds.
The second point I wish to raise concerns the rates of the Essex County Council and the other local authorities in the County of Essex. I speak here as one who for many years was Finance Committee Chairman of the Essex County Council, and who had to endure the experience of seeing new towns and London County Council estates springing up in the county. We found that the county, through its ratepayers, had to meet enormous expenditure in providing schools, police stations, fire stations, clinics and other services for the increased population. In this case, when the new town has been built (I hope that the tense has been noticed there as indicating my general point of view) the Essex County Council will need to spend an enormous amount of money.
This is a national scheme, and I feel that the national Exchequer should contribute a considerable proportion of that expenditure which the Essex authorities will have to incur. The Essex ratepayers should not be unduly punished for what is a national scheme. Unless the Government come forward with generous financial assistance on the lines that I have been suggesting, I am sure that many people in Essex who are at present neutral on the question of the Maplin airport scheme will turn into very severe opponents indeed.
6.7 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I am grateful to noble Lords for their contributions, and particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, for the way in which he introduced this subject and the kind things that he said. The debate has ranged over a wide number of topics that will have to be taken into account. I do not think we have mentioned all of them, but almost every one that was mentioned seemed to me to be something that would be taken into account. That is precisely one of the reasons why we have not attempted to list them. I should like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Elton on his speech, which he delivered with the utmost grace and to the manner born as if he had been doing it all his

1897
life. I thought he struck exactly the right note here when he said that we are "buying time". I think that is what we are doing. We are having a pause, if you will, so that before we actually make up our minds we can up-date all the information that we have built up so far and take account of the developments in the meantime. I think this is what all your Lordships want us to do. I am sure I can speak with the utmost confidence in saying that there will be no question of fudging the books in this matter. We shall genuinely attempt to get all the information and compare all the predictions, estimates, forecasts and the like on how affairs will develop. At the end of the day we shall have to reach a judgment upon them, which judgment we will put before your Lordships. No doubt your Lordships will feel critical of some parts of them, but I hope that when the time comes your Lordships will feel able to reach agreement with the Government on the Order that they propose to make.
LORD AVEBURY: Whatever advice the Government are given by all these bodies that are to be consulted, the decision will still be the same. Is that right?
LORD DRUMALBYN: No; I did not say that. I said that the whole thing will be re-evaluated, up-dated and looked at again. We shall get a mass of advice, and at the end of the day we shall have to reach a judgment on that advice. All I am saying is that it is not just a question of ascertaining the facts, or even the extrapolations or anything of that sort. It is a question of judgment, bearing in mind all the considerations as to the right time to go forward, if we are to go forward at all. This is what we are talking about.
I was very interested indeed in the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. I am certain that everything he mentioned will be taken into account in the general calculation. I was also interested to see a close correspondence between the observations of my noble friend Lord Elton and those of the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, and to observe where they put the emphasis—they are both experts in their own fields. I took the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Bowden. I think he is quite right: noise is one of the things, together with the
1898
development of engines and how fast new developments will be produced, which have to be kept closely under review. But at a given moment in time we have to reach a judgment, because we have these estimates as to how traffic may develop. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, may be quite right in saying that this is a change. We have to seek to evaluate it, but, as I said in the Second Reading debate, the estimates made separately by Roskill and the Civil Aviation Authority correspond very closely indeed for the periods of 1972, 1980 and 1985. They represent a formidable increase which will have to be provided for. If those estimates are made, then we have to consider how the demands are to be met and we must reach a judgment at the end of the day. I hope we shall be able to do this competently and fairly.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 3 to 5 agreed to.
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Exclusion or modification of certain provisions]:
6.13 p.m.
BARONESS YOUNG BARONESS YOUNG moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 20, leave out lines 11 to 14 and insert—
("(4) Subject to sub-paragraph (5) below, where the Maplin Development Authority fails to comply with a direction given under this paragraph").
The noble Baroness said: I beg to move Amendment No. 6 and at the same time to speak to Amendments Nos. 7 and 8. It might be helpful if I explained that these three Amendments must be seen against the purpose of the third Schedule which, taken as a whole, frees the Maplin Development Authority from various statutory controls. This Schedule was substantially amended in another place, and the main purpose of these Amendments was to extend the circumstances in which the Port of London Authority could give directions to the Maplin Development Authority on the conservation of the Thames. The Port of London Authority has a duty under Section 5 of the 1968 Act to safeguard not only the conservation of the Thames but also navigational safety. These three

1899
Amendments are concerned with navigational safety. The first is a paving Amendment. Amendment No. 7, which proposes a new sub-paragraph (5), would allow the Port of London Authority, if it thought that urgent action was needed to prevent danger to navigation, to step in and do whatever was thought necessary before the fourteen days normally allowed for compliance for appeal had elapsed. Of course, if the Port of London Authority, on subsequent appeal by the Maplin Development Authority, were to be found to have misjudged the situation and to have carried out works which were not necessarily required, then the cost of such work would, under the terms of the new sub-paragraph, have to be borne by the Port of London Authority itself. Such a situation is perhaps unlikely to occur, but it is reasonable that the Maplin Development Authority's position should be safeguarded.
The new sub-paragraph (6) would make the Maplin Development Authority liable to a fine if it failed to comply with a direction given by either the Department of Trade and Industry or the Port of London Authority in the interests of navigational safety. It might be, for example, that a direction was given that dredging or works should not be carried out in a particular way or in a particular place, and in such a case the power to do works in default provided for in sub-paragraph (4) would not present an effective way of dealing with non-compliance by the Maplin Development Authority. There are adequate precedents in legislation—for example, in the Thames Barrier and Flood Prevention Act 1972—for imposing on public authorities a liability to a fine in such circumstances. It is of course to be expected that the Maplin Development Authority will act reasonably and in close co-operation with the Port of London Authority, and the penalty is not expected to be used in practice. It is in effect an ultimate sanction. I beg to move.
LORD BESWICK: I should just like to thank the noble Baroness for explaining the position so clearly and so briefly.
BARONESS YOUNG: I beg to move Amendment No. 7.
Amendment moved—
Page 20, line 20, at end insert—
("( ) The Port of London Authority shall not take the steps specified in a direction given by it if an appeal against the direction is pending or may be brought (within fourteen days of the giving of the direction) unless it appears to the Authority that immediate action is required to prevent danger to navigation; and may not recover any costs incurred in taking such steps if the direction is cancelled on appeal.").—(Baroness Young.)
BARONESS YOUNG: I beg to move Amendment No. 8.
Amendment moved—
Page 20, line 20, at end insert—
("( ) Subject to sub-paragraph (3) above, where the Maplin Development Authority fails to comply with a direction under this paragraph which—

(a) is given by the Secretary of State; or

(b) is given by the Port of London Authority and expressed to be given for the purpose of preventing danger to navigation;

the Maplin Development Authority shall be liable, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding £400 and, on conviction on indictment, to a fine.").—(Baroness Young.)
Schedule 3 agreed to.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Schedule 4 agreed to.
Clauses 7 and 8 agreed to.
Cause 9 [Protection of flora and fauna]:
6.18 p.m.
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. 9:
Page 5, line 20, after ("Conservancy") insert ("Council").
The noble Lord said: On behalf of my noble friend, I beg to move Amendment No. 9 and to speak at the same time to Amendments Nos. 10 and 11. Your Lordships have this afternoon heard the Royal Assent to the Nature Conservancy Act. That creates the new Nature Conservancy Council, which will broadly take over the conservation functions of the previous Nature Conservancy. The purpose of this Amendment and of Amendments Nos. 10

1901
and 11 is to adjust the Maplin Development Bill to this new situation. I beg to move.
LORD SANDFORD: I beg to move Amendment No. 10.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 22, after ("Conservancy") insert ("Council").—(Lord Sandford.)
LORD SANDFORD: I beg to move Amendment No. 11.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 25, leave out ("the Nature Conservancy") and insert ("that Council").—(Lord Sandford.)
Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 10 [Havengore Creek]:
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD ALPORT): I should point out that in Clause 10 there is a misprint. The figure of 25 in the Marshalled List should in fact be 39.
6.21 p.m.
LORD WYNNE-JONES LORD WYNNE-JONES moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 5, line 39, leave out ("1·2") and insert ("2").
The noble Lord said: This Amendment deals with the entrance to Havengore Creek. This may seem a trivial matter; in fact it is something which is very small indeed. It is a creek which yachtsmen use in moving round from the River Crouch and the River Roach out into the Thames, and they go round to Shoeburyness and Southend without going into exposed waters. The information that we were given at the Select Committee was that although there will not be a large number of people using this creek at the present time, the number is significant and the creek plays an important part in the recreational facilities which are available. We in the Select Committee were necessarily concerned only with the matters that the Petitioners raised with us. The Petitioners were naturally worried about the impact on themselves—in fact that was their only right to come before us to put forward a plea. We are entitled to look further at
1902
this matter because the plan is that there should be considerable development in this part of Essex, and therefore one can reasonably assume that there will be a considerable extension in the amount of yachting which occurs in the neighbourhood.
I am told this is a part where very often the week-end yachtsman goes, the person who does not yacht regularly but who sails as a recreation at the week-ends and who uses and sails a small boat in this part. At the present time coming out from Havengore Creek the yachtsmen have to cross a part of the Maplin Sands where there is a channel. There is also clearly marked on the survey map a roadway, which I think is called the Broomway. This roadway is an old one which was at one time used for access round the sands. It is fairly close to the shore. This roadway is one of the obstacles which restricts passage out because of silting up round it; consequently, the access to Havengore Creek is restricted to about an hour at high water. This means that at the present time the boat owners who use this channel know all about the situation and they operate in the appropriate way during the restricted period of entry.
With the reclamation of Maplin Sands, which we have discussed and to which approval has been given, the whole of this entrance will be enclosed within the reclamation area. But the Government gave an undertaking that where practicable the channel would be maintained. This can be done. We were informed by all concerned—by the Director of Wallingford Research Laboratory, the hydraulics laboratory; we were also informed by the firm which has been responsible for making estimates of the cost of reclamation, the cost of bridging, and everything like that—that everything indicated that this channel could be maintained. Nevertheless, it will be closed during most of the period of construction of this reclamation area, so the yachtsmen will undoubtedly lose this facility over the next few years once the scheme has started.
Why do they want the facility to be continued afterwards? It is because, when the whole area has been reclaimed, the only way they will be able to get round from the Southend area to the Crouch will be by using a main shipping

1903
channel in which operate large ships. This is something about which the expert yachtman would not worry too much; if he had a well found boat he could undoubtedly use that channel. But there will be many who at the present time use this region for their yachting who will not be expert, and who will not wish to go out into the main channel, which involves a 31 mile reach right round and can be in exposed waters. Therefore they wish to have this entrance to Havengore Creek maintained.
Provision is made in Clause 10 for the maintenance of such a channel. Sub-section (2) reads:
"… the channel to be maintained by the Maplin Development Authority shall be such as to allow direct access to Havengore Creek from sea, at all times during a period beginning one hour before and ending one hour after mean high water springs, by any vessel—

(a) requiring clearance above water level of not more than 4 metres;

(b) having a depth below water level of not more than 1·2 metres at any point; …"

The 1·2 metres restricts the use of this channel considerably. The evidence given to the Select Committee was interesting on this point. I quote from evidence given by Mr. Ventris. He said:
"Once the shallowest part of the entrance is negotiated—8–9 feet at Mean High Water Springs and 5 feet at Mean High Water Neaps …"
This means that only at certain times can they hope to have this 8 to 9 feet. The 1·2 metres that is given in the Bill will not adequately maintain the existing channel. I have taken advice on the matter and I am told that if that channel were raised to 2 metres that would almost certainly be adequate for all the boats that use this creek, and further it should not be disturbing to the régime which will settle in this region. Naturally, this is something which has to be accurately worked out on the hydraulic model, and it is impossible to say until it has been worked out whether you could have the 2 metres maintained regularly. But equally it is uncertain whether you could get the 1·2 metres because the hydraulic model has not yet been operated. It is beginning operation and we shall not know the results until the end of December. What I am suggesting is we should put in the figure of 2 metres instead
1904
of 1·2 metres in order to maintain an amenity which is being used at the present time, and which will become even more important with the developments which are going to take place. Surely, if we are doing something at Maplin which is meant to be an amenity for the country as a whole, we should not forget the people who in small numbers are living there at the present time and we should ensure that they retain what amenity they have now, and that they have this properly maintained for them.
There is the separate problem of the bridge. To this your Lordships will recollect the noble Viscount, Lord Hood, made reference in the Special Report from our Committee, which was that the road and rail services coming across Maplin might be put in a tunnel, and that this should be examined to see whether it could appropriately be done. We were told by the consultants that there was, in their opinion, nothing technically impossible about it, and they gave an estimate, which is available of course to the Government, of the cost. But, quite apart from what is done about bringing the road and railway over, the adequate dredging of this channel will make an enormous difference to its availability. I speak not as a yachtsman; I speak as one absolutely innocent of such a vice, but I feel it is immensely important that people should have available for them amenities to which they are accustomed and which form a proper part of their recreation. Others will be able to say more about the technical details of this matter. I beg to move.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: May I ask a question for clarification? Does this depth of 1·2 metres, at low water, refer to a sailing boat with its centreboard down or with its centreboard up? I see that according to paragraph (2)(b) it means at any point That point should be clarified because it appears to be rather vague. I quite agree with the noble Lord who has just spoken that if the channel can be made deeper without any vast expense, it will be far more useful. I should like clarification regarding the centreboard.
6.32 p.m.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: I wish I had been here earlier on the debate on this Bill. Unfortunately, when the Bill was

1905
in its earlier stages I was abroad navigating some rather warmer, deeper and certainly less muddy waters than those we are dealing with at present. On coming back I find that it is almost essential that I speak on this Bill because I seem to be more or less unique. I have navigated over the Maplin Sands a great many times. I have passed backwards and forwards through Havengore many times: and, what is more, I believe I am the only noble Lord present, at any rate, who has fished on these Sands both for cockles and also for white weed. So I know a little about the area and perhaps I may be of use to your Lordships. This is a very odd area, a very odd area indeed. Geographically I believe the Maplin Sands is older than the land at Foulness which lies to the North of it. It appears that the sand bar caused the silt to deposit to the North, to form saltings. Then primitive man built himself this incredible road with brushwood along the top of the Maplin Sands so as to get himself out to safe harbourage on the Point, and the land to the North of the sand bar was then inned for agricultural purposes. Naturally, they put seawalls round the mud for agricultural purposes, rather than try inning the sand, which is of course our present purpose. So Maplin was built up.
The astonishing thing is that the highest natural ground in the area (I am not talking about the seawalls) is actually in the sea under the sand, along this Broomway. The land slopes downwards to the North, and if there were no seawalls the whole area would be largely covered at highwater. The slope of everything, therefore, is northwards and all the streams run northwards. As a result, this natural creek, Havengore Creek, runs from South to North. The tide enters it first of all from its northern end and the water does not actually flow northwards until the Broomway covers, which is very late on the tide indeed: so much so that there can be plenty of deep water all along the creek if you are coming from the North, and you do not hit a shallow which you stick on until you are actually where the old lift bridge is, which will now presumably be abolished.
I know all this very well. I have waded in the creek at this point in sea-boots; I have walked along the Broomway and I have walked across the
1906
Broomway at this point. The fact of the matter is that there is masses of water in the creek—a quite astonishing depth—if you are coming from the North to South, until you reach the lift bridge. At that point it starts to get a little shallower, but the actual shallow patch is a quite steep hump where the Broomway is, and that hump, as was given I think in evidence, is only 20 or 30 yards wide. This is what we are talking about when we talk of dredging. We are not talking about dredging 10 miles of derelict canal; we are talking about dredging away a hump of sand about 20 or 30 yards wide. It could almost be done with children's buckets and spades. It could not be an expensive business. To dredge it would be immensely valuable and would get rid of a lot of opposition in the locality which is being generated by what may be done at Havengore.
The fact of the matter is that there is easily 6-foot of water to the North of that lift bridge and there is normally plenty of water in the creek. The difficulty is simply to get over this hump, and if that hump were dredged down 2 or 3 feet, as could easily be done, the result would be to produce a creek, not with 1·2 metres but with 2 metres of water in it at high water; and that would be far more valuable, enormously more valuable.
This creek was very useful to me, I must say. I had a shallow draught barge yacht. What is more, I had mast dropping gear so I was able to go under the lift bridge without bothering to lift it. This is a point in the Bill concerning the height of this bridge where, I must say, I feel slightly opposed to the local inhabitants. I do not see the necessity for large fixed masts which cannot be taken down. My experience with mast dropping gear—I must say I invented and installed my own—was that I could get my gear down and up again with all sails set in 48 seconds. That was a bit special; maybe not everybody could have done that. But it shows that, with a little thought, and not very much money, it is possible to install mast dropping gear and use it.
I am prepared, as everybody in this House knows, to support waterway causes when they are genuine, but I do not feel that I could inflict many million pounds' worth of expense on the Exchequer

1907
simply for the purpose of raising the bridge a little higher. I think one could get at least part of the necessary effect by dredging the bottom a little lower, and that that extra height would at least get the superstructure of larger motor craft under a fixed bridge, and also would have the extremely valuable effect that you would not only have one hour either side of high water to enter, but you could enter possibly for another hour or half hour either side of high water. That would be enormously valuable for small craft. This is important to small craft because the trip round outside the tip of Foulness can be tricky. You set off in nice weather; but is it nice weather when you reach the tip? With our changeable British weather it very often is not. And these little craft are going to multiply enormously; those wishing to go through the creek are going to multiply simply because the journey round the Point has been made more dangerous, as we have already heard. They are multiplying by the natural multiplication of small craft which is happening all over the country. They are multiplying for a further reason, and that is that the average size of small craft that people are using is becoming smaller and smaller. They will multiply again because this is now going to be made into a very large built-up area. This creek will become a major asset in the area, and for that reason we really should set about doing something for it instead of just trying to keep it to its present rather shallow depth over the Broomway. I am sorry to say that, for all its age, the Broomway must go so far as the creek is concerned.
That was the main point I wanted to make, but I should like to make one other subsidiary point. For hundreds of years now this has been a nice little rural creek. A nice little rural creek largely maintains itself: it silts up gradually but the process goes on over the centuries. It is not something that happens at once. But this creek will cease to be a nice little rural creek; it will become a very urban creek indeed; and my experience of urban creeks is that they silt up with astonishing and horrible rapidity as everybody in the locality throws his rubbish into them. This creek must have an authority in charge
1908
of it, otherwise it will soon cease to be a creek and become a rubbish bin; and it will not matter to what depth the Statute says it should be dredged.
Another thing about this creek is that the sea walls are slowly becoming too low. They were rebuilt at the time of the 1953 floods. That was when the previous creeks which paralleled this creek were blocked off. They were blocked off for the simple reason that it saved the raising of the sea walls all along their length. It was a matter of economy. Now, with Havengore, if the sea walls have to be raised again—and they will have to be raised again in the next few years—what are we going to do? Are we going to raise them all along its length, through the middle of an urban area? I suggest that it would be far better for an authority to be formed for this creek; for it to fit locks and lock gates at either end of the creek so that when the time came to raise the sea walls they would have to be raised only at the entrance and not along the two sides of the creek. This would represent a saving of many thousands of pounds. I cannot give the exact sum, but because of the windings the distances along the sides of the creek are quite considerable. If this point is taken into consideration it might save any money which might otherwise be spent on improving the creek itself.
Those are the two points I wish to make. This creek could be made much better. It must be preserved, and if we are to preserve it we should do something about putting an authority in charge of it, otherwise, instead of being a rural creek it will end up as a piece of water largely in the interior of a town, which will be wanted as a town amenity and which will serve many purposes besides the actual passage to and fro. It will be a very valuable piece of water indeed, and when we consider the depth it is going to be we should take into account that it should be deep enough for all the craft which will use it. I therefore support my noble friend in asking that this creek should be dredged for its very short length to a depth of two metres.
LORD TREFGARNE: I do not pretend to have any expertise in the world of yachting, but I have received some representations from the Wakering Small Boat Users' Association, who have asked me

1909
to support any moves in your Lordships' House, either to increase the depth of water or to raise the height of the bridge. I am satisfied from what I have heard that to raise the height of the bridge by an Amendment to this Bill is impracticable, but I think the proposal made by the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, is reasonable and I hope that it will commend itself to the Government.
LORD CRAWSHAW: As a colleague of the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, on the Select Committee over nine days I, too, should like to say a few words in support of his Amendment. I think we were all impressed by the general attitude of the people of that particular area of Essex. They did not whine about the principle of the Bill. They were not represented by counsel. They came as laymen and put their case before us and I think the odds were stacked against them from the beginning. This is a national project and as such I support it, but in so doing I think we should do our utmost to protect the interests of the comparatively few people in the area who will be adversely affected. In spite of the possible advantages of increased property values, and so on, there are very few people who welcome an airport on their doorstep, and I should have thought that the outcry over the Roskill proposals for Cublington would substantiate that. So I think we should lean over backwards to protect the minority interests of the people in this case.
I am not a sailing man, but clearly sailing is the primary interest in that part of the world. It is equivalent to the interest in horses in my part of the world and I know what an outcry there would be if there were any intereference with equestrian pursuits in the Midlands. I hope the Government will be able to protect this creek, which is obviously a lifeline to the sailing people. I hope they will be able to improve the channel, particularly, as we have heard, as they might be able to avoid the expense of increasing the height of the bridge. In so doing they would help enormously the present locals and also the future so-called immigrant locals.
LORD GORE-BOOTH: As an unskilled navigator of inland waterways who enjoys them very much, I support the
1910
noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones. It obviously makes an enormous difference if one can go through this channel once every tide without have to consult the times of the tides to see when it is possible to go through and when it is not. The other point that was stressed by the noble Viscount, Lord St. Davids, is that the inland waterways are one of the amenities in this country which will be increasingly used over the years. It is a very great recreation for the people who are not sufficiently skilled to navigate the sea. I am sure that this small Amendment would give enormous pleasure to a great many people, and it seems important to get it right in legislation now instead of having to amend it later.
THE EARL OF BALFOUR: Before my noble friend replies I should like to ask one question. Is there at the present moment a depth of more than 1·2 metres at the datum point in question at one hour before or after high water springs? I sought a little advice about this clause and it appeared to me that the information given here in depths and heights are as they actually exist, and I am wondering whether in fact this is correct?
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: I think perhaps the Committee might like me to answer that, as I feel it may puzzle anybody else. The fact is that there is considerably more water over this sand bar at high water springs, but high water springs occur once a fortnight, and yachtsmen of course may want to get in at other times of the moon. After all, the perfect spring tide does not necessarily apply at the week-end and therefore we must have enough water through this channel not only at high water springs but also at other times in the week. There is actually at this moment a great deal more water over high water springs, but anyone knowing his Thames will know that it is impossible to say anything with accuracy to 0·2 of a metre in the matter of high tide and the spring tide. It may go a foot or two up or a foot or two down on that. I am afraid that the question is really unanswerable, but I would say that 1·2 metres at high water springs is much too little. I rather fancy that there is a misprint in the Bill and that it ought to have been 1·2 metres at high water and not at high water springs.
6.50 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND SCIENCE (LORD SANDFORD): I do not think that is so, speaking as a "former naval person". I would confirm with the noble Viscount, Lord St. Davids, that this is indeed a tricky part of the world in which to navigate; the weather is fickle, and if you are driving destroyers you have to be even more careful than if you are driving small boats, but I would agree that this creek we are talking about is a useful sheltered channel for small boats seeking to make their way from the Thames estuary to the Crouch. The depth of the channel is 1·2 metres at high water springs and, as the pilot says, it is suitable at those times only for boats drawing no more than 4 feet. I think that is the datum from which we have to start. As I have said, I would agree that this is a useful sheltered channel, but I am not sure I would agree that without it small boats or other boats that cannot use it have to navigate in exposed waters for as far as 31 miles. Thirty-one miles may be the total extent of their passage, but they are not exposed for that length of time and distance to rough or uncertain weather. Nevertheless, it is a useful sheltered channel.
It was for that reason that after hearing those who raised this matter in another place, notably the Royal Yachting Association, the Select Committee there incorporated what is now in the Bill as Clause 10. In this House a further Amendment of exactly the same effect as that which has been moved by the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones—as he will know because he was a member of the Committee himself—was moved by the Defenders of Essex, and others. The Committee of which he was a member considered that Amendment and, as we have heard from the noble Viscount, Lord Hood, the Committee of which he was a member rejected that Amendment; and I think they did so prudently. We know, because the noble Viscount, Lord Hood, has told us, that they did so because they understood that the model work—and the noble Lord described to your Lordships what that involved—now being undertaken by the Hydraulics Research Station at Wallingford was not yet at a sufficiently
1912
advanced stage for anyone to know what would be involved in having this channel artificially deepened beyond the natural depth at which it now stands. So that of the Select Committees in both Houses, who heard all this, one initiated this Amendment and the other agreed that the right thing to prescribe was that the statutory duty laying down what the Maplin Development Authority must do should be to protect and maintain facilities in the form in which they now exist for the benefit of the boats that use them at the present time. I hope your Lordships will agree that so far as it is right to make or prescribe by Statute the obligations, the duties, the things that the Maplin Development Authority must do, what has been prescribed is appropriate.
The object of this Bill is to ensure that the existing amenities and facilities in this area are as far as possible safeguarded, protected and maintained, and this clause in its present form does exactly and precisely that. In the present state of knowledge, and in the present state of knowledge of model work I submit to your Lordships that that is the right thing to do. When the Hydraulics Research Station model has revealed its results, we can then consider what more might be done, not just to preserve these amenities but to go into the very proper question of enhancing and improving them, for all the reasons which noble Lords have put forward. If many more people are going to live here, many more recreational amenities must be provided. That would be the moment to consider what more can be done to make this existing amenity a better and greater one. The provision in the Bill for that is contained in Clause 2(5)(a) where it says that the remainder of the land that is being reclaimed may be used for such other recreational, amenity or other purposes, and so the Authority there have the power, as distinct from the duty, to use land for just this sort of purpose. But that is not all. In addition, we have the authority for which the noble Viscount, Lord St. Davids called. We have a Regional Water Authority; we have a Water Space Amenity Commission, and it will be the duty of both of these bodies to consider how to make the best use of all the water in the country; but this will be of particular

1913
importance for recreational and amenity purposes.
I do not think that at this moment, therefore, it would be right to write into the Bill a duty the implications of which we cannot see, the implications of which the Select Committee could not see, the implications of which they thought it right not to put into the Bill (and the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, was a member of that Committee), but rather to accept the assurances from me that the Maplin Development Authority now have, thanks to Clause 10, the specific duty to maintain this creek in the condition it now is in for the purposes of the boats than can now use it. Then, when we know what the Hydraulics Research Station model has shown, we can see what further might be done, and it will be practical, right and reasonable to do so. I hope that with the assurance that the matter will be considered, that the powers to take action on whatever is decided are there in the Bill, and in the Water Bill which we have just passed, the noble Lord will not feel it necessary to press his Amendment. But I am sure the Committee will be grateful to him for the opportunity he has given to the House to look at this matter and for me to give these assurances.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: I am grateful to the noble Lord for the statement he has just made. However, I should like to call his attention to the fact that Clause 10(4) states:
"Where the Maplin Development Authority satisfies the Secretary of State that serious adverse effects have arisen, or are likely to arise, from any siltation, scouring or alteration of tidal flow attributable to the maintenance of a navigable channel in Havengore Creek in accordance with this section the Secretary of State may by order provide for the closing to navigation of so much of the creek within the said limits of deviation as he considers appropriate."
In other words, whatever figure one puts in, whether it be 1·2 or any other figure, it is not an obligation on the Maplin Development Authority to maintain that creek if they can show to the satisfaction of the Secretary of State that it is not possible or reasonable to do so. And so, surely, whatever figure we put in is at the moment really an instruction to aim at that figure and furthermore to ask the Hydraulic Research Station to do their tests with that figure in mind rather than
1914
with a different figure. If we leave the figure 1·2 metres in, then the Hydraulic Research Station will do all their research on 1·2 metres until some time later someone comes along and says, "Why not 2 metres?" They may say by that time that it is too troublesome to revise the model. It would be sensible to put in the figure 2 because it does not state at all that this must be carried out independently of whether it is feasible, because surely, subsection (4) guards the Authority entirely against anything of that type.
THE EARL OF BALFOUR: Before my noble friend replies, may I raise one matter which I think he touched on? If the depth was increased by 0·8 of a metre, is there a chance that this creek could become a tidal race which I feel might have a very adverse effect? Is this possibly one of the reasons why we are carrying out this tidal exercise in model form at the moment?
LORD SANDFORD: I am grateful to my noble friend. That is the kind of contingency for which subsection (4) provides. If the effect of the reclamation and the attempt to keep this particular creek open, which will result from the discharge of the duty laid on the Maplin Development Authority by this clause, were to produce very serious silting or other effects disturbing navigation over a much wider area, then the whole matter would have to be reconsidered in the greater interests of the greater number of people who might be adversely affected. But before the Maplin Development Authority can draw back from the obligations laid on them by Clause 10(1), they would have to satisfy the Secretary of State that that was so. I think this is the opposite side of the coin, but in certain circumstances, where the effect of keeping this creek open really has very adverse effects elsewhere, then of course it would perhaps be necessary to close it. On the other hand, our hope and expectation is that the work of the Hydraulics Research Station will show that it may be possible to go beyond maintaining the creek in its present state, which is the duty of the Maplin Development Authority as the Bill now stands. I hope that satisfies the noble Lord, and that he will not feel it necessary to press his Amendment.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: Will the noble Lord correct one remark he made? He said it was intended to keep the creek in the same state as now. This is clearly not so. At present there is unlimited headroom along this creek. He intends to build a low bridge. That is going to make a considerable difference to the navigation.
LORD SANDFORD: I wonder whether I may interrupt the noble Viscount? We are speaking to the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Wynee-Jones, which has to do with the depth of the channel. He mentioned the bridge, but I did not follow him on that because it was not strictly in order. If the noble Viscount wants to raise the question of the bridge, it would be in order for him to do so on the Question, Whether the clause shall stand part.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: The noble Lord misunderstands me. We do not want the bridge raised, but you get exactly the same result by lowering the bed of the channel; you get the same result more cheaply. When you go under a bridge the height under the bridge depends on the height of the tide. If the channel is deeper and you can enter it earlier and later on the tide, it means you can get under a low bridge, and if you deepen the channel that much you have in fact heightened the bridge that much. What is more, you can get under that bridge earlier and later on the tide. This is the simple point. We do not want to alter the bridge; it is the channel we want to alter.
LORD SANDFORD: I hope the noble Viscount will not navigate on that basis, because he will find he hits the bridge if he does.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: This is a very simple principle on which one has navigated so many bridges. One can point to many places. One might point to Brentford Bridge at the entrance to the Grand Union Canal, which you cannot get under at high water springs, but which is perfectly navigable shortly before high water springs and shortly after high water springs. Nobody wants that bridge raised, because they know that just before or just after high tide they can get under it, because there is sufficient depth in the channel. This is the simple
1916
point. If you push the bottom of the channel down, you have in fact rather cheaply raised the height of the bridge.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: In reply to the noble Lord, I certainly do not propose to press this Amendment. But I hope I am entitled to assume that the Government will bear this point in mind and will make sure that in all the considerations of the Hydraulics Research Station this additional depth will be taken into account. If that is done, then I shall be perfectly satisfied.
LORD SANDFORD: Certainly I can give that assurance.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 10 agreed to.
Clauses 11 to 24 agreed to.
Clause 25 [Duty to consult on aerospace developments]:
On Question, Whether Clause 25 shall stand part of the Bill?
Resolved in the negative, and Clause 25 disagreed to accordingly.
Remaining clauses and Schedules agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with the Amendments.

TRAFFIC LIGHTS MAINTENANCE
7.8 p.m.
VISCOUNT HANWORTH VISCOUNT HANWORTH rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in view of the Ministry Circular Roads 3/73, which provides for better maintenance contracts, there has been any improvement in the performance of strip operated traffic lights which for more than 50 per cent. of the time are defective and have reverted to fixed time intervals thereby greatly increasing traffic congestion and driver frustration. The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. I can assure your Lordships that it will not take me much more than five minutes to do so. Under modern traffic conditions pneumatically operated traffic lights have been proving increasingly unreliable, and a point was reached where at any one time 50 per cent. or more of these traffic lights in London were defective and had reverted to fixed

1917
time intervals. This has caused increased traffic congestion and frustration to drivers when they have had to wait quite unnecessarily for the lights to turn in their favour.
There are two remedies for this situation. The standard of maintenance can be improved so that the defects are dealt with quickly, or an inductive loop can be fitted in place of the pneumatically operated strip, which is frequently physically damaged by the traffic passing over it. The inductive loop is the device which is in fact fitted to many car parks at stations to-day. The Ministry has recently negotiated with the signal companies four new types of maintenance contract which will provide for much quicker repair. The decision as to which, if any, of these contracts will be adopted—and they allow for varying delays in dealing with a fault—rests with the local authority.
I should first like to ask the Government what response there has been from local authorities in adopting the new contracts and whether, if this response is unsatisfactory, they will bring pressure to bear on the authorities concerned. It seems doubtful whether, in many cases, local authorities have sufficient incentive for spending their ratepayers' money on improving matters, and it is certainly true to say that they have not done so very successfully in the past. If the Government are not prepared, where necessary, to make improvements mandatory, will they consider paying some subsidy for the better classes of the new maintenance contracts? I should also like to be assured that the unsatisfactory state of traffic lights will be kept under review. A more efficient system of reporting on the incidence of defects and the time taken to repair them is needed. It would seem that, taking into account the cost of maintaining the existing unsatisfactory equipment, the amortisation period for fitting inductive loops and new ancillary equipment may not be a long one. Be that as it may, I should like an assurance that there is a phased policy for change-over to the new equipment and that this will be implemented with vigour.
Since the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, has not been able to stay for this Question, I should like to mention a matter which I know he intended to raise; that is, the provision of some visible warning
1918
when traffic lights are defective. It would be salutary if everyone could see this, but the main point is that those concerned would easily know when traffic lights have reverted to fixed time intervals. This is by no means always obvious, and engineers have to open up the control boxes to inspect the circuits.
7.14 p.m.
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, my experience in this matter has been very much the same as that of my noble friend. I have noticed, in going round London, that very few of the old crossroad strips over which one drove to control the lights are still remaining. They were probably either proved defective and so removed, or else they have been covered up by re-metalling. I could not say which it was. But certainly an alternative system such as my noble friend has described is very desirable. I should also like to raise the question that he raised of defective lights. These are not infrequent in London. Very often the green or the red has burned out. There are, of course, repeater lights at most junctions, so that one need not, if one is observant enough, be misled by that, but not all drivers are observant, and if it happens to be the light on one's left (which is the one to which one has to pay attention) one may think that the lights have just been turned off for some purpose and that they are under police control. Therefore I think that the suggestion made by the adviser to the Institute of Advanced Motorists might be a good one for the Minister to consider, namely, that both green and red lights should have two bulbs, so that if one goes the other would still be there.
I should like to raise one point which does not quite come under my noble friend's Question but I hope that I am in order. Are the Government considering the possibility of doing away with the amber between red and green—not between green and red, but between red and green? The reason I ask is that, as everybody knows, so many drivers start off on the amber. Furthermore, they start off when they see, as they often can, the lights on the cross road changing. That could be avoided by putting up screens so that they could not see what the cross lights were doing. I should have thought that there was no

1919
need for the amber when moving from red to green. I cannot see any particular purpose for it now except to give one a second to get into gear, but there are so many drivers who are already in gear and dart off the moment the light turns to amber that it is not altogether safe.
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, the noble Viscount said that he was going to make a very short speech, and he did. I will make an even shorter speech: I have nothing to add to what my noble friends have already said.
7.18 p.m.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, I think that after Maplin the House will be grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, for having introduced this subject, which my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing last raised some two years ago and which, in substance, concerns the 50 per cent. deficiency in efficiency, to which the noble Viscount referred. We are fortunate in this country in that we are the only country which has all its traffic signals capable of full "v.a."—vehicular actuation. We have been unable, though, to take full advantage of this in the past because insufficient maintenance has led to a serious deterioration in the performance of our traffic signals, as the noble Viscount has indicated. It is for that reason that new maintenance arrangements are being introduced at this time. Details of these new arrangements are included in the Circular, Roads 3/73, which was issued on January 6 this year. This Circular notified local authorities that new arrangements would be introduced as from July 1 this year that in the three months before and after that date the signal companies would have to bring all existing traffic signals up to full working standards.
There are some 5,000 sets of signals in the country which are divided approximately equally between the G.E.C-Elliott Traffic Automation Limited, who have to date brought between 60 and 70 per cent. of their signals to full working standard already, and the Plessey Company Limited, who have the other half and who have already completed about 45 per cent. of theirs. The present position in England is that G.E.C. have dealt with some 289 authorities and have
1920
signed 167 new agreements, while Plessey have dealt with 309 authorities and have signed 112 agreements. So we can be reassured that the position is changing fairly rapidly, and the companies expect the remaining agreements to be signed within the next two or three weeks.
These new arrangements make it clear that it will be the responsibility of local authorities to test their traffic signals and to see that they are functioning satisfactorily. In association with this, they will need to institute a formal reporting and clearance recording procedure, so that there will be a fault reporting source formally recognised by the signal companies which will be responsible for informing them expeditiously of any faults that may be found. The noble Viscount said that if my noble friend, Lord Orr-Ewing, had been here he would have asked about detection fault monitoring lamps. I understand that modern controllers with loop detectors have a detection fault monitoring lamp which is displayed externally. More elaborate monitoring arrangements are available with computer control.
The new maintenance contract provides that a signal company must, when a fault report is received, repair the fault within a period defined in the contract. In the event of failure to do so, the company is required to pay a rebate to the council for failing to comply with the terms of the contract. The faults will be classified as either "urgent" or "non-urgent". For urgent faults, the signal company will be required to carry out repairs within the specified period to repair the fault, to carry out emergency repairs to get the signals working, or, in the case of damaged signals, at least to make them safe. For non-urgent faults the same principles apply, but the specified periods are longer. The final clearance of urgent faults which it has been possible to deal with only on a temporary basis will be treated in the same manner as a non-urgent fault.
There is an important innovation in the new arrangements affecting pneumatic detector tubes. Under the old arrangements renewal of these tubes was included as part of the maintenance contract. In future, while under the contract the signal companies will maintain

1921
the tubes, their renewal will be paid for as a separate item by the council as and when replacement becomes necessary. The rates of wear to which these detectors are subjected varies widely between different sites. It will therefore be much more satisfactory to pay the actual renewal costs than to expect the companies to attempt to include a realistic standard figure within the charge for installation. New sets of signals are now provided with buried loop detectors, in place of the surface pneumatic rubber tubes. The noble Lord, Lord Somers, mentioned that he had not noticed these, but of course they will not be noticed. The buried loop is invisible to the eye. These are not subject to wear and tear by traffic and are thus less liable to faults.
Of the 1,000 sets of signals on trunk roads, the Department of the Environment have already converted some 700 from pneumatic tubes to buried loops, and the Secretary of State has asked regional controllers to complete this process within this financial year. It is hoped that the Department's example will encourage local authorities to convert their own traffic signals. Our Circular Roads 15/68 stated that from the date of that Circular all new traffic signal installations should be provided with inductive loop detection, and pneumatic detectors would cease to be installed. This Circular is due for re-issue under the five-year rule and the opportunity will be taken to remind local authorities of the advantages of converting their signals.
In the past, no effective guidance has been given to local authorities on the maintenance of traffic signals, and therefore in many cases the regular monitoring of their performance has not been up to the standard that one would like to see, which is the point made by the noble Viscount and also by my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing two years ago. This position has been rectified with the issue of our Circular Roads 2/73, in which paragraph I of Appendix A states clearly, that it is the responsibility of local authorities to test their signals and to report faults. To this end, we have been running a series of one-week courses to train and assist local authority staff on the new maintenance arrangements. We think that these have been very well-
1922
attended and appreciated. We have so far run some 18 courses, which some 220 representatives of 129 authorities have attended. So long as there is an interest and demand, we shall continue these courses. The indications are that most, if not all, authorities who have responsibility for these matters in their areas will adopt the new maintenance arrangements. New contracts with one or other of the signal companies have been signed by about half of the local authorities in England. But in Scotland and Wales the dates for the introduction of the new arrangements are likely to be September 1 and October 1, 1973, respectively. Four different classes of maintenance are available at different costs to suit roads of varying traffic importance.
As I said, this maintenance is the responsibility of the local authorities and there are no specific grants issued in this respect. However, expenditure on traffic signal maintenance is relevant expenditure for the purposes of the rate support grant. From meetings which the Department have had with local authorities, we have every reason to think that the majority are opting for as high a class of maintenance as the signal companies are able to offer within their areas. It is too early yet for factual evidence to be available of any improvement resulting from the introduction of the new arrangements. After these have been in operation for a few months the Department will be repeating an earlier survey in order to make an assessment.
The earlier survey carried out during 1972 showed that, out of 884 sets of traffic signals in South-Eastern, Eastern, South and West Midland regions, 40 per cent. were working on fixed time cycles instead of with full vehicle actuation, as they should have been. This unsatisfactory standard of performance showed very clearly the need to up-date the arrangements for traffic signal maintenance, and led to the introduction of the new procedures. Their success will obviously depend upon the quick identification and reporting of faults, and the speedy and effective response of the signal companies to these reports when they receive them.
The timing of traffic lights is the responsibility of individual local authorities. Initially, the timings are set by the signal companies, generally in the presence of,

1923
and to the requirements of, the local authority staff and the Department's regional electrical engineers. Not all local authorities have sufficient trained staff to carry our regular checks and to adjust timings. Instructions on the timings and signals have been fully set out in the Road Research Technical Paper No. 56, which was issued a few years ago. More recently, we have called the attention of local authorities to the availability of computer programmes to optimise the timing. This will have a very important effect in encouraging larger cities to install computer control, which is the purpose of the noble Viscount's Question. This, of course, optimises the timings over a wide area, and also automatically monitors faults. Computer control is operating in London, and is, as the noble Viscount knows, only in its first phase, as is also the case in Glasgow. In London, it is being rapidly expanded by the G.L.C. Contracts have now been let for computer systems in Leicester and Liverpool as well. Tenders have been or will be invited during this year for four other cities—Coventry, Nottingham, Northampton and Wolverhampton—and seven more are due in 1974.
So although many factors have indeed led to a deterioration of the maintenance of traffic signals in this country, it has caused concern for some time within our Department. Local authorities have been upset; and the signal companies, obviously, have not liked having to produce an inefficient machine through inefficient maintenance. The Department initiated discussions, as I have said, with the signal companies and the local authorities to evolve an improved form of maintenance, and this action has been generally welcomed by all the bodies concerned. There has been extremely good co-operation, we think, by all concerned in reaching agreement so far; and, although I say it hopefully, I now confidently look forward to an improvement in the standard of maintenance which will lead to more efficient working and a reduction in delays to drivers.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT: PARISH COUNCIL STATUS APPLICATIONS
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT: PARISH COUNCIL STATUS APPLICATIONS
  CHICHESTER AND PARISH COUNCIL STATUS APPLICATION
  CHICHESTER AND PARISH COUNCIL STATUS APPLICATION
  FURNISHED TENANCIES AND SECURITY OF TENURE
  FURNISHED TENANCIES AND SECURITY OF TENURE
  TYRE MARKING AND ROAD SAFETY
  TYRE MARKING AND ROAD SAFETY
  UNEMPLOYMENT AMONG YOUNG BLACK PEOPLE
  UNEMPLOYMENT AMONG YOUNG BLACK PEOPLE
  TOP SALARIES REVIEW REPORT
  TOP SALARIES REVIEW REPORT