Sitting of 11 June 1973

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

    School Building Costs
    Sir A. Meyerasked the Secretary of State for Wales how many education authorities in Wales have complained to him that their school building programme is being held up because of present cost limits.
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Peter Thomas): Several local education authorities have reported difficulties in obtaining suitable tenders in respect of the 1972–73 starts programme. However, only four authorities had projects which were delayed beyond 31st March 1973 and a place is available for these in the current programme.
    Sir A. Meyer: Will my right hon. and learned Friend take this opportunity to put the matter into perspective and make it clear that the very welcome expansion in the provision of school places which has taken place under the present Government is not being held up by such difficulties as these?
    Mr. Thomas: Yes, Sir. I certainly welcome the opportunity. The school building programme for 1972–73 was the largest ever, amounting to over £20 million. It included 98 major projects, but only six failed to start because of difficulties concerning tenders.
    Mr. McBride: Does the reason adduced in the Question form any part of the reason for the alleged hold-up in the completion of the Hafod school in Swansea? Will the Secretary of State
    964
    give every assistance to Swansea City Council in having the school completed as soon as possible so that my constituents' children may have the benefit of education there?
    Mr. Thomas: The only hold-up to a school in Swansea as a result of cost limits was to the Olchfa secondary school extensions. As I have said, a place is available for them in the current programme. Cost limits have been raised again recently.
    Mr. Alec Jones: While putting the matter in perspective, will the Secretary of State give details of the schools and the number of pupils affected in the four schemes that were postponed?
    Mr. Thomas: I can certainly give details. Perhaps I may write to the hon. Gentleman.

    Trunk Roads (Finance)
    Mr. Rowlandsasked the Secretary of State for Wales whether he will make a statement on the effects of the Chancellor's public expenditure cuts in the trunk roads programme for Wales.
    Mr. Peter Thomas: It may be necessary to slow down the preparation of a few schemes, but the overall effect on my trunk roads programme in 1974–75 should be relatively small.
    Mr. Rowlands: Will the Secretary of State confirm or otherwise what a Welsh Office spokesman is quoted as having said, that the whole road programme, including the M4 and the A470 from Cardiff to Merthyr, would be reviewed and that specific economies would be submitted? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman state positively that the commitment to complete the M4 by the end of 1976 still stands, and that there will be no financial or public expenditure argument against carrying on with the completion of the Cardiff-Merthyr trunk road scheme?
    Mr. Thomas: I am very happy to tell the hon. Gentleman that the construction of the M4 will not be affected by the measures. The preparation of the remaining stages of the Cardiff-Merthyr trunk road will not be affected and is going ahead as quickly as possible.
    Mr. Gower: As the prosperity of Welsh industry is particularly dependent on the improvement of the road system, will my right hon. and learned Friend try to ensure that as far as possible any cuts are designed so as not to affect the industrial parts of Wales?
    Mr. Thomas: Obviously, I must find places to make some cuts in my programme for 1974–75. I expect that there will be a cut of about £1 million from the trunk roads programme. The total cuts will be about £2½ million out of a programme of well over £70 million.
    Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: Is the Secretary of State aware that the cuts could he very serious? Can he be more specific as to the major roads that will be affected by them? Is he aware, for example, of the urgent need to improve the A55 in North Wales? Are this important road and future development plans to be affected by these serious cuts?
    Mr. Thomas: It is too early to say what schemes will be affected, but I do not expect that there will be any effect on schemes that have been stated to be priority schemes.
    Mr. Nicholas Edwards: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that, unlike the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins), who believes that no new motorways should be started until those under construction are completed, he regards a continuing motorway programme as being of high priority and that he will press on with the M4?
    Mr. Thomas: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Elystan Morgan: The Secretary of State will remember that last December, in their White Paper on Public Expenditure, the Government stated the expenditure on roads in Wales in 1974–75 to be £71·2 million. How soon can he tell us how near to that figure, or how far from it, expenditure in that year is expected to be?
    Mr. Thomas: The£71·2 million is the proposed expenditure, and there will be a reduction during that year of £2½ million.

    Public Expenditure
    Mr. Roderickasked the Secretary of State for Wales what cuts in public expenditure are to be made in Wales in each of the years 1973–74 and 1974–75 as a result of the proposed cuts announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 21st May.
    Mr. Alec Jonesasked the Secretary of State for Wales what is the estimated cut in public expenditure in Wales for the current year and the year 1974–75.
    Mr. Peter Thomas: I refer the hon. Members to my reply of 25th May to my hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen).—[Vol. 857, c. 217–218.]
    Mr. Roderick: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman explain the need for the public expenditure cuts?
    Mr. Thomas: The need for the cuts was adequately explained to the House by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    Mr. Jones: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give us some idea of the effect that the cuts will have on locally determined schemes which bear so heavily on the quality of life of our community? Secondly, will he give us some assurance that they will in no way affect the aid—for example, accommodation and equipment—which is provided for disabled people?
    Mr. Thomas: Quite a large part of the saving of £7½ million will be borne by miscellaneous local services. The hon. Gentleman will know that in recent years there has been a considerable increase in expenditure. There has been an increase from £63 million in 1971–72 to a projected £75 million in 1975–76 and £79 million in 1976–77. That will be partly in the locally determined sector but will include some rephasing of expenditure which will fall within other sectors not immediately related to housing.
    Sir A. Meyer: Are not the daily announcements of new jobs and the expansion of Welsh firms sufficient justification for the Government's economic policy and for the cuts necessary to enable that policy to continue?
    Mr. Thomas: Yes.

    Employment (Shotton)
    Mr. Barry Jonesasked the Secretary of State for Wales how many new jobs for men were created in the Shotton exchange area in 1972 and to date this year, respectively.
    Mr. Peter Thomas: In 1972, projects approved in the Shotton travel-to-work area promised about 360 male jobs; no firm figures are as yet available for 1973.
    Mr. Jones: That is alarmingly minute. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that to attract more jobs into East Flintshire it will be necessary to improve road communications? In that area there are frustrating traffic jams almost every day. Is not the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that residents, workers and tourists are suffering from maddening delays at Queen's Ferry? Will he give a firm guarantee that no economy axe will fall upon the project at the Queen's Ferry roundabout? Surely he agrees that that is the root of Deeside's traffic jam problems.
    Mr. Thomas: I fully accept the importance of good road communications if jobs are to be attracted. I have no doubt that that matter will feature in the task force report which the hon. Gentleman knows is in process of being finalised. I am sure he will welcome what is being done already in Flintshire. There is a major improvement of the A550 at Drome Corner, which is in the firm programme. In England the recent proposals to extend the M56 westwards will benefit North-East Wales. The hon. Gentleman will know that consulting engineers are now carrying out a feasibility study for an improvement scheme at the Queen's Ferry roundabout. We must await the result of that study.

    Aberdulais—Glynneath Trunk Road
    Mr. Colemanasked the Secretary of State for Wales when the draft orders under Sections 7 and 9 of the Highways Act 1959 relating to the Aberdulais-Glynneath section of the new trunk road between Hirwaun and Llandarcy are likely to be published.
    Mr. Peter Thomas: In the summer of 1974.
    Mr. Coleman: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for that answer. Is he aware that the construction of this road will considerably ameliorate the difficulties being experienced in the village of Resolven because of the passage of heavy vehicles used for industrial purposes?
    Mr. Thomas: Yes, I understand the importance of the road. The preparation of the scheme is proceeding as quickly as possible.

    Quarries (Chemical Waste)
    Mr Johnasked the Secretary of State for Wales what are the intentions of his office towards the investigation of the environmental position at Maendy and Brofiscun quarries.
    Mr. Peter Thomas: I have had this matter under review for a considerable time. A continuing programme of invesgation and monitoring has been carried out. On the basis on an extensive series of tests, the best advice available to me is that there is no evidence to suggest any immediate public health hazard from the situation at these quarries. There is no danger of contamination of public water supplies. As regards possible contamination of the food chain I am also advised that the evidence does not indicate any immediate hazards. Only this morning I have received the results of tests carried out last Friday of milk from four Maendy farms. The public analyst's department of Glamorgan County Council has reported that these milk samples are free from polychlorinated biphenyls. I recognise that there is public concern in this matter and investigations will continue into all aspects of it.
    In the light of the evidence, I stand ready to take whatever action is appropriate. I will ensure that the public is kept fully informed of the progress of these continuing investigations.
    With permission, I will circulate fuller details of this answer in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. John: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the public are by now thoroughly dissatisfied not only with the results of the tests carried out by the Welsh Office but with the methods used by the Welsh Office in obtaining the

    969
    results? Does he not realise that what is called for is a speedy, complete and integrated investigation of the two tips involved by Government Departments, including the Department of the Environment and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food? The right hon. and learned Gentleman's answer falls a long way short of such an integrated investigation.
    Is the Secretary of State further aware that what the local populace demands is urgent action following such an investigation? Has he found evidence of TOCP from the tip, and, if so, in what quantities? I urge him that any special action which is required to make these tips safe for the locality should be taken by the Welsh Office and that any question of who is responsible for taking such action should be considered only after the public is protected. The Welsh Office has been too complacent. It is time that the situation was remedied.
    Mr. Peter Thomas: I deny emphatically that the Welsh Office has been complacent. Tipping stopped in these two quarries in 1970. There had been uncontrolled tipping, apart from the planning agreement, for five years. Since then my office has been concerned to ensure that there is no danger to public health.
    The hon. Gentleman asked for an integrated investigation. That is precisely what is taking place. Monitoring is continuing. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman and the public for which he considers he speaks should look at the details of my answer before exaggerated statements are made. I understand that there is public concern about these matters. However, we must take care not to give currency to exaggerated reports of danger to public health. I have received expert advice from medical toxicologists, chemists and engineers within the Government service and I am satisfied that there is no immediate danger to public health. I need hardly tell the House that if there were any risk of that sort I should take immediate action.
    Mr. Gower: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that, according to information given to me by several local authorities, one of the major problems is the treatment and disposal of industrial
    970
    and domestic waste? As that problem is related closely to the Question, may I ask whether it would not be opportune to have a departmental or some other form of inquiry into the whole problem?
    Mr. Peter Thomas: I do not think that the situation calls for an inquiry at the moment in respect of these two quarries. Monitoring is continuing. There is a full interdepartmental investigation. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that since we have been in office we have passed an Act which deals with the problem he has mentioned.
    Mr. George Thomas: I acknowledge that the Secretary of State must accept the advice of his experts. I recall, however, that my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John) has asked at least 12 Questions about the quarries over a period of two years. Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the public unease in the community, due to the publicity given to the presence of poisons, is such that he should take immediate steps to seal off the quarry? We should not gamble in any way with a possible future risk. We have received a very grave warning. A terrible responsibility would be placed on the right hon. and learned Gentleman if in future it was discovered that people had suffered as a result of toxic substances.
    Mr. Peter Thomas: I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman, and of course a responsibility rests on me. I hope the House will accept that, if I felt that there was a danger to public health, I would not hesitate to take such action as lies within my means. But the right hon. Gentleman knows—I have had a lot of correspondence with his hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John)—that the fear was about PCB. I have given the House the results of tests which indicate that some of the fears which have been expressed are without foundation. These tests and investigations will continue.
    The right hon. Gentleman mentioned TOCP, which has been mentioned in the newspapers. Scares have been started. We were told about this by a consultant, who is engaged in litigation, only on Friday. Investigations took place immediately. We will continue with these investigations

    971
    and the full services of the Government Analyst and of all Departments will be involved.
    Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: When will the investigations to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has referred be concluded? In order to allay the considerable public concern which exists in Pontypridd and, indeed, throughout Wales about this matter, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman undertake to publish a report of these investigations so that we may debate the matter in full in due course?
    Mr. Peter Thomas: Yes, Sir. I am perfectly happy that the results of all the investigations should be made public. I am happy to give full information to any right hon. or hon. Member. I will consider whether a report should be published.
    Following is the information:
    My Department has had the situation at these quarries, where waste, including chemical waste, was tipped from 1965 to 1970, under close review with particular reference to the possible presence of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), in water draining from the quarries.
    My Department has arranged for the laboratory of the Government Chemist to analyse water samples from the immediate vicinity of the quarries for PCBs and, in conjunction with the Glamorgan River Authority, for 20 other possible chemical contaminants. Something in the region of 400 determinations have been made and for most chemicals the levels were below the limits of detection. PCBs were found to be present but at levels which I am advised were toxicologically negligible.
    At the request of my Department the staff of the Water Pollution Research Laboratory have visited the quarries and have taken water samples and analysed them for PCBs as well as for other chemicals. The results for PCBs show extremely low levels. Staff of the WPRL and of the Water Resources Board will collect further water samples and sediment, soil and herbage over a wide area surrounding the quarries.
    The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is undertaking sampling to determine possible contamination of the food chain in the light of the results obtained by the laboratory of the Government Chemist, the Glamorgan River Authority and WPRL. Milk is being sampled on one farm in each of the areas of the two quarries concerned and on another farm unconnected with them to act as a control. Analyses of these samples for PCBs and other chemicals will be undertaken by the laboratory of the Government Chemist and routine tests of milk quality for human consumption will also be undertaken by the Ministry's own laboratory. Further sampling
    972
    and analysis of milk and animal tissue will be undertaken if the initial milk test shows this to be necessary.
    The Glamorgan River Authority, the authority with statutory responsibility for water quality, has been discussing with the firm responsible for the tipping various possible methods of preventing contaminants leaching out of the quarries. The Glamorgan County Council as planning authority has also been involved in discussions with the firm.
    The quarries contain very large quantities of chemical waste. As with all tips of waste materials, irrespective of whether they contain normal waste or chemical waste, parents would be advised to take normal precautions to keep their children away. Farmers have been advised to fence off their stock from water which may be contaminated. As long as normal common sense precautions are taken and unless some new factors come to light, I do not consider the public to be at risk.
    There was and is no danger of contamination of public water supplies, since none are derived from the streams in the areas surrounding the quarries. As regards possible contamination of the food chain, I am advised that the available evidence does not suggest that there is any immediate public health hazard. I will, however, keep the position under the closest review and will ensure that quick and effective action is taken if new evidence calls for it. I will also ensure that the public are kept informed.

    Industrial and Social Infrastructure
    Mr. Kinnockasked the Secretary of State for Wales what provision he has made for future improvements to the industrial and social infrastructure of Wales.
    Mr. Peter Thomas: The continuing aim of Government policies is to bring about further improvements in the industrial and social infrastructure of Wales. Expenditure on this is estimated to rise to about £480 million in 1974–75 as compared with £430 million in 1971–72.
    Mr. Kinnock: May I test the right hon. and learned Gentleman's memory and his credibility? Does he recall that, immediately after the General Election, when the Government were bringing Wales to the verge of ruin by abandoning realistic regional development policies which they have since restored, he and his colleagues put a great deal of emphasis on the value of infrastructural improvement? What has persuaded the right hon. and learned Gentleman since that we do not need £7½ million worth of additional infrastructural improvements, although he has given figures showing that the Government are

    973
    willing to increase enormously the amount of money they spend to keep the pot boiling in Wales? Against the background of abandoning the regional employment premium as well, the two things together deal an unnecessary and unwarranted blow against the Welsh economy.
    Mr. Thomas: That is another example of the way the hon. Gentleman exaggerates his case. He has obviously not taken in the fact that in my answer I mentioned that the expenditure on infrastructure is expected to rise about £480 million in 1974–75 compared with £430 million in 1971–72. That is one of the reasons—there are others—why Wales is showing signs of recovery which were not apparent in 1970.
    Mr. Nicholas Edwards: Does not my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the provision of adequate freight and passenger rail services may be as vital as the provision of other infrastructural services? Will he take full account of this fact in consultation with other members of the Government on the future of rail services in Wales?
    Mr. Thomas: All methods of communication are of great importance in Wales.
    Mr. Fred Evans: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman realise that an adequate rail structure is vital to the Welsh economy, particularly the industrial parts of South Wales? Will he, therefore, undertake to press the Government to see that Regulation 1192 of 1969 of the EEC, relating to transport policy, under which British Rail could benefit by 15 classes of financial aid which could help provide the kind of services we need in Wales, is accepted and operated in Wales?
    Mr. Thomas: All matters which affect the continuation and the improvement of the infrastructure in Wales are looked at with great care by me and other members of the Government.

    East Moors Steelworks (Closure)
    Mr. Michael Robertsasked the Secretary of State for Wales what estimate he has made of the employment problems that will arise in Cardiff from the proposed closure of East Moors works.
    Mr. Peter Thomas: I have received and studied the interim report by the task force. As I have already told hon. Members, the Government's views will be announced as soon as possible after the final report is available.
    Mr. Roberts: While Cardiff is an intermediate development area, it has a greater unemployment rate than many development areas. Would not my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the proposed closure of East Moors steelworks gives a strong case for granting Cardiff full development area status?
    Mr. Peter Thomas: As my hon. Friend knows, the status of assisted areas was reviewed last year and the Government decided to make no change affecting Cardiff. But I am fully aware of the importance attached to development area status by Cardiff. The task force has received substantial evidence on this and will no doubt take it into account when making its recommendations.
    Mr. George Thomas: In view of the deep anxiety in Cardiff, with its present heavy unemployment problem and the threat of mounting figures, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman reconsider his attitude towards a debate on the future of the steel industry in Wales being held in the Welsh Grand Committee? He is reluctant to allow us to discuss this matter. Will he now give an undertaking that we can discuss it at the next meeting of the Welsh Grand Committee?
    Mr. Peter Thomas: The subject for the Welsh Grand Committee is organised through the usual channels. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, both this House and the Welsh Grand Committee have had many opportunities to discuss the problems of the steel industry and, indeed, the unemployment problem in Wales.
    Mr. George Thomas: That is just not good enough. Wales is faced with a very major problem, and, since 29 of the 36 Members for Wales sit on this side of the House, surely the right hon. and learned Gentleman will agree that we must have an opportunity to discuss this major issue at the next meeting of the Welsh Grand Committee.
    Mr. Peter Thomas: I do not think that negotiations for the subject of the next

    975
    meeting of the Welsh Grand Committee can appropriately be conducted at Question Time.

    Hospital Waiting Lists (Newport and East Monmouth)
    Mr. Abseasked the Secretary of State for Wales how many were on the waiting list of the general surgical department of the Newport and East Monmouth group on the appointment of a locum consultant general surgeon who has now been given a notice of termination of employment; what is the present waiting list of this department; and whether the present locum appointment can be extended until the appointment of a permanent consultant surgeon in 1975.
    The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Mr. David Gibson-Watt): When the locum was appointed on 1st January 1970, the waiting lists for in-patient and out-patient treatment stood respectively at 1,121 and 711. On 31st March 1973, the latest date for which figures are available, the figures were 1,905 and 613. I understand that the Welsh Hospital Board does not propose to extend the temporary consultant appointment.
    Mr. Abse: What possible justification can there be for not extending the appointment when, as the Ministry of State frankly concedes, the numbers on the waiting lists are mounting? What possible justification can there be for hundreds of people in my constituency to have to wait months or years because of the parsimony in refusing either to extend the existing locum appointment or to permit another locum to come along until a firm appointment is made? Is there no consideration or compassion for the hundreds of people on the waiting lists? Will not the hon. Gentleman look at this matter again?
    Mr. Gibson-Watt: I say at once that there is great consideration and great compassion, and I am the first to admit that the length of the lists in South-East Wales is longer than it should be. It has been long for a considerable time; I have the figures with me. But that, of course, does not make the position any better. An additional permanent consultancy post in general surgery was filled at Newport last August, and a further new post is approved for 1975, while a
    976
    new consultancy post in anaesthetics is hoped to be filled later this year. I hope that these steps will help.

    M4 Motorway
    Mr. Denzil Daviesasked the Secretary of State for Wales when he now expects that the M4 motorway will reach the borders of Carmarthenshire.
    Mr. Peter Thomas: The Pontardulais bypass, which is the only part of the M4 currently planned for Carmarthenshire, should be completed by mid-1976. The South Wales stretch as a whole will be completed as rapidly as possible subject to the carrying through of statutory procedure.
    Mr. Davies: Is the Secretary of State aware that his assurances will be welcomed but that to some extent in South-West Wales there is still a certain amount of confusion? Can he tell us whether by 1976 there will be a continuous motorway link between London and the Pontardulais bypass?
    Mr. Thomas: I have said frequently that I want the motorway to be finished to Pontardulais by 1976. This depends on the outcome of public inquiries. Obviously I can make no promise in view of the many public objections which have been raised.
    Mr. Gwynoro Jones: Is the Secretary of State detracting from previous assurances given in this House that the M4 will have reached Pontardulais by 1976?
    Mr. Thomas: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I have repeatedly said that it is in my programme to finish this motorway by 1976. I must observe the procedures laid down by the statute and I have to hold public inquiries on the four sections west of Coryton. I have undertaken not to take my decisions on these separately. It has also been necessary to reopen one of these inquiries twice.

    Local Government Reorganisation
    Mr. Gowerasked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will take steps designed to ensure the maximum co-operation in Wales between the existing local authorities and the newly elected local authorities, and assist with arrangements to make available adequate

    977
    premises for the accommodation of the newly elected authorities and their officers.
    Mr. Gibson-Watt: I agree with my hon. Friend that the existing and newly elected councils should co-operate, particularly in the provision of accommodation. But I have no powers to enforce co-operation.
    Mr. Gower: Can my hon. Friend say whether any of the new authorities arc having joint consultations with existing authorities?
    Mr. Gibson-Watt: That is probably true but I cannot give my hon. Friend any details. If he would like to have them, I can get in touch with him.
    Mr. Goronwy Roberts: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the new county of Gwynedd faces serious difficulty in providing not permanent accommodation for its council and staff but even the absolute minimum necessity of temporary accommodation? Will he impress upon his right hon. and learned Friend the need for him to reconsider his recent refusal even to meet a deputation from the council to discuss details of the extremely difficult situation in which it is now placed?
    Mr. Gibson-Watt: I note what the right hon. Gentleman says in the first part of his question and I feel sure that my right hon. and learned Friend has heard what he said in the second part.

    Improvement Grants
    Mr. Roy Hughesasked the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with the county borough of Newport concerning the future of the home improvement grant scheme; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Gibson-Watt: The borough council has sent me a copy of the report of the independent inspector appointed by it to look into the operation of the home improvement grant scheme in its area and of the housing committee's recommendations on the report. The day-to-day handling of improvement grants is a matter for the local authority, to which I am content to leave it.
    Mr. Hughes: Does the Minister appreciate the difficulties which have faced the Newport Corporation in having to work to a limited time scale in the face of such demand? Does he not feel that related to this is the high incidence of poor workmanship which I exposed in the St. Julian area through the columns of the South Wales Argus? Does he further appreciate that the National Federation of Building Trades Employers should be trying to expose this situation and not to hide it?
    Mr. Gibson-Watt: The hon. Gentleman has also exposed his feelings in two letters to the Welsh Office. I will only say that the inspector's report deals with this matter. I would like to congratulate the Newport Borough Council on the inspired way in which it has tried to carry out this scheme, even though it has had some difficulties.
    Mr. Kinnock: Does not the Minister agree that in general the limits imposed on improvement grants are still unrealistic and that it is time to raise the maximum of £2,000? Is it not also necessary to extend the time during which this facility is available from the Government?
    Mr. Gibson-Watt: I have no statement to make on that subject today.

    Mid-Wales
    Mr. Elystan Morganasked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement concerning the implementation of Her Majesty's Government's policies towards Mid-Wales.
    Mr. Peter Thomas: The Government intend to continue with the policy of concentrating development in the growth towns. I am considering the details of this policy in the light of the Welsh Council's Report on Mid-Wales.
    Mr. Morgan: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman undertake not to use that report as an alibi for further delay? Does he not agree that the report is the most insipid and uninspired effort of the Welsh Council to date and that the recommendation it made that no decision should be taken about the establishment of a development body in Mid-Wales until the effects of the 1972 Industry Act

    979
    are known is patently false in that up to 1970 there had been a full experiment over a wide range of assistance schemes?
    Mr. Thomas: I am in the process of considering and studying the Welsh Council Report on Mid-Wales. It is too early for me to give my considered views on it but my initial reaction is that my views will differ from those of the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Roderick: Will the Secretary of State stop paying lip service to the growth policy? He has been saying these things for three years and has not yet acted. Will he start implementing some of the policies?
    Mr. Thomas: If the hon. Gentleman considers the whole of Mid-Wales, he will see that our policy is showing good results.

  TRADE AND INDUSTRY

    Industrial Relocation Grants
    Mr. Thomas Coxasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much financial grant has been given to industries to move out of the Greater London Council area in each of the last five years.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Anthony Grant): I regret that this information could not be provided without disproportionate effort.
    Mr. Cox: Is not the Minister aware that this information is of great importance to London? In view of the vast sums of public money that have been given to industry to move out, we should have these figures. Is he aware of today's report by the London Chamber of Commerce which expresses deep concern at the continued loss of employment in the London area? Can he say what discussions he is having with the GLC and the London boroughs in an attempt to rectify this? Will he say what surveys his Department carries out when grants are given? Is he aware that there is a growing feeling in London that grants encouraging industry to move out have become a racket, a deliberate attempt by firms to get these grants with no concern for the areas they are leaving or those into which they are moving? What work is being done on this?
    Mr. Grant: The view which the hon. Gentleman has just expressed is one which will not be shared by those of his hon. Friends representing assisted areas. The purpose of our policy is to get firms to locate in areas of high unemployment away from places where there is congestion. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Industrial Development has agreed to meet a delegation from the GLC and the London Boroughs Association. That meeting will take place shortly. We must have a sense of perspective about this. The unemployment rate in London is almost half the national average. Another 7,000 vacancies were announced this month and there are over 73,000 vacancies at present.
    Mr. Lipton: Is it not a fact that there is a steady diminution in employment opportunities in the London area and that London is becoming a distress area and will have to be treated in exactly the same way as other distress areas in other parts of the country?
    Mr. Grant: I can only say that, if the hon. Gentleman believes that, he will believe anything.

    Flag Discrimination (GATT Negotiations)
    Mr. Wingfield Digbyasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps he is taking with other EEC countries to counter United States flag discrimination in the context of the forthcoming GATT negotiations.
    Mr. Moateasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps he is taking to counter flag discrimination in the context of the forthcoming GATT negotiations.
    The Minister for Trade and Consumer Affairs (Sir Geoffrey Howe): Which, if any, shipping problems should be brought into the forthcoming multilateral trade negotiations will require very careful consideration. There will of course be discussions within the Community on the matters to be raised in these negotiations.
    Mr. Wingfield Digby: Will my right hon. and learned Friend say whether this matter was raised in the GATT council at the end of May? Will he give an undertaking that he will urge upon our European partners that we should put up

    981
    a united front concerning serious discrimination?
    Sir G. Howe: I can assure my hon. Friend that we regard it as a matter which we should urge upon a number of different people in a number of different forums. It was raised at the GATT council meeting last month but not dealt with successfully. It has been deferred to the council meeting in June.
    Mr. Douglas: Will the Minister accept that there is a feeling in the United Kingdom shipbuilding industry that the Americans are unduly subsidising certain categories of ships, particularly liquefied natural gas carriers, sometimes to the tune of 25 per cent.? In the light of the Booz-Allen Report on the shipbuilding industry showing an extensive market for this category of ship, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman consider having discussions between the United States and the United Kingdom Governments to see what can be done to ensure that some share of this type of shipbuilding goes to United Kingdom yards?
    Sir G. Howe: Where matters of this kind are likely to result in any significant damage to the interests of this country or to producers in this country, we take the matter up with the Government concerned. I will certainly take account of the point raised by the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Moate: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware of the report that at one stage the Common Market Commission had approved a condition restricting to Common Market ships the export of certain surplus butter? Is he satisfied that the Common Market Commission, as distinct from the member countries, is totally opposed to flag discrimination?
    Sir G. Howe: The point raised by my hon. Friend is a different question, but our views on the practices to which he refers have been made known to the European Community and to the Commission. Further discussion of them has, as I say, been deferred until the next meeting of the GATT council.
    Mr. Benn: Are we to take it from what the Minister has said that there will be discussion with the Common Market authorities before the Government make
    982
    clear their attitude to the recommendations, or implied recommendations, of the Booz-Allen Report?
    Sir G. Howe: No. The right hon. Gentleman is seeking to enlarge one aspect of the matter raised by his hon. Friend. The Booz-Allen Report deals with a much wider range of matters. It has already been the subject of discussion and Questions in this House. The question raised by my hon. Friend is a narrow one and different from that.
    Mr. Marten: Is there a Common Market shipping policy? If not, may we have an assurance that if the Common Market moves towards such a policy there will be no discrimination against countries like Norway, which has a great shipping fleet, and others of our old EFTA friends?
    Sir G. Howe: The evolution of a Common Market shipping policy has not yet taken place. We will bear in mind my hon. Friend's concern with the possibility of discrimination against Norway in this as in other matters.

    Pit Closures
    Mr. Edwin Wainwrightasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many pits are scheduled for closure due to coal exhaustion over the next two years; what is the weekly tonnage involved; and if he will make a statement on the action his Department is taking to provide jobs for the men who will be made redundant.
    The Minister for Industry (Mr. Tom Boardman): I understand from the National Coal Board that the number of collieries to be closed because of exhaustion of coal during the first half of 1973–74 is likely to be seven, involving a weekly tonnage of about 23,000 tons. The board cannot forecast beyond that period. Action taken by the Government to meet the problems of those who become redundant includes the Coal Industry Act 1973, the proposed improved terms which I recently announced for the Redundant Mineworkers' Payments Scheme, the Industry Act and the provision of further Government factories.
    Mr. Wainwright: Is the Minister aware that the latter part of his answer causes laughter in the industry because there

    983
    have been no results? Are pits to be closed for economic reasons? Is the Minister aware of the growing anger throughout the mining industry at the lack of information from the Government about what is to happen? In view of the energy crisis which is bound to occur in the next 10 or 15 years, will the Government make a statement about what will be done for the coal mining industry?
    Mr. Boardman: The hon. Gentleman surely knows that the Redundant Mineworkers' Payments Scheme is very much welcomed by the miners and all concerned in the industry. Future closures will depend on the results of the examination of individual collieries by the National Coal Board and the unions in accordance with the new colliery review procedure. It is up to the miners and those engaged in the industry to justify the continuation of pits.
    Mr. Scott-Hopkins: In view of the growing concern about oil supplies, will my hon. Friend confirm that the National Coal Board is doing its utmost to make explorations throughout the country to see what new pits can be opened to increase the supply of coal in the coming decade?
    Mr. Boardman: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. A lot of work has been done with exactly that objective.
    Mr. Varley: Is the Minister specifically discussing with the National Coal Board the sinking of new pits? Do he and the Secretary of State intend to meet the national executive committee of the National Union of Mineworkers soon to discuss energy policy?
    Mr. Boardman: Yes, I give the hon. gentleman an assurance on both those points. There have been and are discussions with the National Coal Board about the sinking of new pits, and a meeting is to take place with the National Union of Mineworkers to discuss energy policy.

    Regional Employment Premium
    Mr. Horamasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a further statement on the progress of his talks with industry and the trade unions about the regional employment premium.
    Mr. Radiceasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a further statement on his discussions with the CBI and the TUC on the regional employment premium.
    Mr. Anthony Grant: Consultations with both sides of industry have begun. A meeting with the TUC was held last week.
    Mr. Horam: Are these talks exclusively about the phasing out of REP or do they cover the whole range of labour subsidies or labour taxes in the assisted areas?
    Mr. Grant: There is an opportunity for anyone to express views on REP in the discussions about phasing out.
    Mr. Radice: In view of the support of the CBI and the TUC for the regional employment premium, will not the Government have the courage or the good sense to change their mind or at least consider the case for a payroll subsidy for development areas? Will the Minister make a statement?
    Mr. Grant: The Government will have the good sense to wait until the consultations have taken place and to take note of all the views expressed. We are meeting the CBI next week.
    Mr. R. W. Elliott: Will my hon. Friend also assure the House that the Government will have the good sense to recognise that the incidence of REP might mean the continuance of jobs, but in some cases, according to recent studies such as the Cambridge study, at fantastically high cost?
    Mr. Grant: I assure my hon. Friend that these factors will be taken into consideration by the Government.
    Mr. John Smith: Why are only the TUC and the CBI involved in these discussions? Is it not a matter of tremendous importance to all the development areas? Will the Minister consult representatives from the development areas before taking away a subsidy which, according to the Cambridge study, provides between 20,000 and 50,000 extra jobs a year?
    Mr. Grant: That is a matter which the hon. Gentleman should put to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

    Company Directors (Cayman Islands Residence)
    Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many directors of British companies are resident in the Cayman Islands.
    Sir G. Howe: The answer is not obtainable except at undue expense.
    Mr. Hamilton: Is the Minister aware that it is not so important for a person to reside in the Cayman Islands as to have part of his salary channelled there? Can he give the House any information about that form of tax evasion? In particular, will he say how many of the Lonrho directors, including Sir Basil Smallpeice, have part of their directors' fees channelled into an account in the Cayman Islands? Will that activity be covered by the inquiry into the Lonrho affair, and will the figures obtained be published so that the country may be aware of these almost criminal activities at a time when the Government are asking the ordinary worker to restrain his wage demands in the national interest?
    Sir G. Howe: The hon. Gentleman makes several imputations. As he knows, the affairs of the Lonrho Company are to be investigated, and the investigators will have power to investigate the affairs of the subsidiaries as well as of the main company. The hon. Gentleman will also know that the tax affairs of individuals cannot be discussed on the Floor of the House. He will remember that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer told the House that the Inland Revenue is making and will make full investigation into the tax position of any taxpayer. In the course of doing so it looks at the use or abuse of any devices. My right hon. Friend has also told the House that he is considering what further action is necessary on that front.
    Sir G. Nabarro: Will my right hon. and learned Friend bear in mind that the scandalous state of affairs which existed in the Lonrho Company could readily be avoided in the future by the House passing legislation to require a residential qualification before any part of a company director's salary or emoluments could be paid in the Cayman Islands or in any other tax haven, and that that is the proper
    986
    recourse which I hope he will apply in any amending company legislation?
    Sir G. Howe: I take note of what my hon. Friend says. The impact of taxation and the way in which it should be assessed and collected are more matters for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer than for me. He has said that he is considering whether further action is necessary on this or associated matters. I will certainly bear in mind what my hon. Friend says in the context of our consideration of company legislation.
    Mr. Pavitt: Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman seen the statistics which suggest that there are more bank accounts in the Cayman Islands than there are blades of grass? Will he make a wider investigation, not just into the single affair before him but into the whole question of what is happening in the banking industry in the Cayman Islands?
    Sir G. Howe: I am not able to speak for the blades of grass in the Cayman Islands but I assure the hon. Gentleman that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has in mind any tax implications that may arise from matters of this kind.
    Mr. Benn: Will the Minister say whether the Lonrho revelations came as a surprise to the Government? If they did not come as a surprise to the Government, why did the Government accept for so long the unacceptable face of capitalism revealed by the Lonrho affair?
    Sir G. Howe: The right hon. Gentleman when he was in office seemed to have found no difficulty in accepting a whole range of unacceptable faces of various kinds. In fact the present Government are concerned to establish the proposition that the democratic capitalist form of society is that which is most likely to ensure the continued prosperity of the people of this country. It is because we are concerned to ensure that form of society rather than to cast it into some neo-Socialist or neo-Communist society of the kind favoured by the right hon. Gentleman that we are alert to ensure that the capitalist system is working fairly and effectively. That is our prime concern because it is on that system that the prosperity of the country depends.
    Mr. Bernn rose——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Questions to the Attorney-General.

    MATRIMONIAL CASES
    Mrs. Sally Oppenheimasked the Attorney-General what is his policy regarding giving advice to magistrates on matrimonial cases.
    The Attorney-General (Sir Peter Rawlinson): I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to her on 23rd March 1971. Since then my noble and learned Friend, on 11th June 1971, addressed the Magistrates' Association on the jurisdiction of magistrates' courts in family matters, which is a subject to which he continues to attach much importance.—[Vol. 814, c. 85.]
    Mrs. Oppenheim: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that since supplementary benefit has been much more accessible to divorced and deserted wives, there has been a marked reluctance by the courts to award or to enforce maintenance payments? Should not courts be made aware that this puts deserted or divorced wives at a great disadvantage? If such a wife receives supplementary benefit and then starts to earn, she loses supplementary benefit, whereas if she received maintenance payments this would not be the case.
    The Attorney-General: I will look at the matter to which my hon. Friend refers. If she could give me specific details, I would be interested to receive them.
    Mr. Dalyell: When do the Government expect to have in their hands the Finer Report?
    The Attorney-General: That does not arise from this Question, but I can answer the hon. Gentleman by saying that I do not know.

    LAND REGISTRY
    Mr. Tugendhatasked the Attorney-General whether he is satisfied with the regulations regarding access to the Land Registry; and whether he will make a statement.
    The Attorney-General: The Law Commission is considering this matter and until it reports I must reserve judgment.
    Mr. Tugendhat: Despite that answer, I wonder whether my right hon. and learned Friend can say why in the past, and indeed at present, the Land Registry should be so confidential whereas the Companies Register is relatively open. Does he agree that the situation in England differs substantially from that which obtains in Scotland? Is he aware that there is concern that confidentiality of the Land Register enables owners to let and sublet their premises for disreputable purposes? Will he assure the House that the present procedure does not impede the police in the progress of their inquiries into disreputable activities?
    The Attorney-General: Scotland does not have a system of land registry similar to that which exists in this country but has a system which involves registration of deeds. Land registration applies to less than half the properties in the country. The contents of the register have been kept confidential with access limited to certain people because they set out many private matters, including the credit reputation of particular persons, the mortgages they may hold and the bankruptcies they may have sustained, all of which go to a person's credit and are private matters. Therefore, it is for consideration whether this should be given access to by anybody who wishes to look at a particular registration. The Law Commission is looking into this matter among others.
    Mr. S. C. Silkin: The Attorney-General said that less than half the land is subject to registration. Can he assure the House that his choice of words does not mean that he has any less enthusiasm for the task of bringing all land under registration than had the Labour Government who commenced the policy?
    The Attorney-General: The Law Commission was given this task to consider and published a working paper in September 1970; it is expected to give a final report covering all aspects of land registration. Among these aspects will be whether it should be right for people to be be able to see what bankruptcies the property owners have sustained, or what mortgages they have. This is a complex

    989
    matter which goes into various wide fields affecting the law of privacy, if there is such a thing.

    POTENTIAL LITIGANTS (MEETINGS WITH JUDGES)
    Mr. Clinton Davisasked the Attorney-General what is the practice regarding meetings on an official level between members of the judiciary and potential litigants.
    Mr. Hefferasked the Attorney-General what is the practice relating to members of the judiciary meeting potential litigants for official purposes.
    The Attorney-General: It would be highly improper for a judge to discuss the circumstances of a particular case outside his court with any litigant or any person who had litigation in view, and if he did have such discussions, whether intentionally or accidentally, he would be disqualified from sitting in that case. But it is plainly desirable that those who have an interest in the work of the courts, whether as professional advisers or potential litigants, should be able to make constructive suggestions which may help to improve the service which the courts provide. If this process can be assisted by representative bodies meeting members of the judiciary from time to time, there is nothing to prevent it; and facilities already exist in the Commercial Court Users Liaison Committee and other bodies to provide for such contacts with the judges concerned.
    Mr. Davis: Does the Attorney-General consider it conducive to the operation of the National Industrial Relations Court, having regard to the widespread suspicion that already exists among trade unionists concerning the operation of that court, for Sir John Donaldson to have met representatives of the engineering employers to discuss the operation of the Act? Does he think that that is likely to create in the minds of the trade unions a belief that justice will be done in that court?
    The Attorney-General: Sir John Donaldson, when he first opened the court, made clear that the court was to provide a service and the court considered that it was engaged in a service industry,
    990
    in the same way as the Commercial Court which asks for constructive suggestions and for dealings between the court and those who appear as litigants or their professional advisers. That applies to the working of the court and involves consultation with those who use the court, not in a particular case but in terms of the procedure and practice which should be followed so that the court can provide a useful and proper service.
    Sir D. Walker-Smith: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the very distinguished judge, Sir John Donaldson equally would welcome constructive suggestions from and discussions with his opposite numbers on the trade union side?
    The Attorney-General: I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend. It has been the practice in the Commercial Court to ask for suggestions from everybody concerned since they may be useful and helpful.
    Mr. Heffer: Has not the whole point been missed? When the court was first established, Sir John Donaldson made it clear that in particular cases there could be informal discussions in view of the informal nature of the court. But that is not what is happening. What is happening is that the representatives of the Engineering Employers' Federation met Sir John Donaldson, the judge, to discuss amendments to the Act. Is it not the job of this House and of the Government to determine the nature of the Act and not the job of the judge, who should be responsible only for implementing it? Does it not underline the point made by the trade unions that this is a political court with a political judge who is interfering in political matters?
    The Attorney-General: It is not a political court and Sir John is not a political judge. It is grossly unfair of the hon. Member to accuse Sir John Donaldson in that way. Sir John made it clear when he opened the court that he would welcome informed and constructive criticism from any and all quarters, and this is what he has been seeking so that the court shall be able to operate in a way which suits the proper parties to any particular litigation before that court. It has been the

    991
    practice followed in the Commercial Court and it is a practice which should be followed in the Industrial Relations Court. I entirely refute the hon. Member's suggestion about this learned judge.
    Mr. S. C. Silkin: Does not the Attorney-General agree that justice manifestly must be seen to be done and that in the circumstances which now exist—circumstances which are quite different from those which apply in the Commercial Court—it is questionable whether a judge of the Industrial Relations Court should see parties on one side only when he does not see the other side at all?
    The Attorney-General: The Engineering Employers' Federation did not make any proposals and has not put forward any proposed amendments to the Industrial Relations Act. The meeting was about the working of the Act as it now is. It was for that purpose that the employers' representatives saw the judge on that date.
    Mr. Davis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the replies, I beg to give notice that I shall seek an early opportunity to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

    MAGISTRATES (WALES)
    Mr. Gwynoro Jonesasked the Attorney-General how many times in the past two years his Department has investigated the actions, decisions or comments of a magistrate during a court case in Wales.
    The Attorney-General: Six times.
    Mr. Jones: Does not the Attorney-General agree that any extension of the stipendiary magistracy in Wales should be viewed with disfavour? Does he agree, further, that there is no lack of genuine impartiality in Wales and that any magistrate who in future disobeys or disregards his oath of allegiance ought to be removed from office?
    The Attorney-General: I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the duties of magistrates and the proper carrying out of them. There have been six cases, only one of which involved a stipendiary magistrate. The other five involved
    992
    ordinary lay magistrates. But it is essential that magistrates, who do not have to take appointments as magistrates, should carry out their duties in accordance with their oaths.
    Mr. George Thomas: Is the Attorney-General aware that at present we have two standards of justice in Wales and that these politically biased magistrates, to the right hon. and learned Gentleman's own knowledge, have on at least six occasions shown favour to people which would not be shown to English-speaking Welsh people? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman take action to ensure that where magistrates are plainly motivated by personal bias they should be removed from the bench?
    The Attorney-General: On each of the previous five occasions, my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor made inquiries and sought and received assurances from the magistrates concerned. In respect of the last case on 17th May 1973—the Caernarvon case, of which the right hon. Gentleman will be aware—my noble and learned Friend asked the chairman of the bench for an explanation, and he is still pursuing his inquiries.

CHRYSLER LIMITED (DISPUTE)
Mr. Edelmanasked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the strike at Chrysler Ltd, Coventry.
The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Maurice Macmillan): Some 4,500 employees at the company's Ryton plant have been on strike since 31st May in support of a claim that 500 day shift workers in the body shop should be paid for 1½ hours lost when management stopped the assembly line on 24th May. This dispute follows an inter-union dispute at the Linwood plant earlier in May. A strike by AUEW millwrights in protest against the employment by a contractor of TGWU millwrights led in turn to a further strike by members of the TGWU at that plant who claimed that they should be paid for the time lost under a guaranteed week agreement. These disputes led to a shortage of sheet metal components at Ryton where assembly workers had to be laid off on 22nd and 23rd May.

993
Following the resolution of the Linwood dispute employees at Ryton were recalled on Thursday 24th May. During that shift the production line was stopped five times to allow discussions on the quality of the work being produced, the company claiming that two out of every three car bodies were having to be rejected. Finally, management stopped the line 1½ hours before the end of the shift. The succeeding night shift worked normally and quality standards were maintained. The following day the day shift went on strike following the company's refusal to pay for the 1½ hours lost.
After the Spring Bank Holiday a normal day shift was worked on Wednesday 30th May by the employees previously on night shift, but when the employees in dispute reported this time for the night shift they went on strike when again refused payment for the time lost. Other employees at the plant joined the strike the following day.
The company is prepared to discuss the issue following a return to normal working, but the shop stewards concerned are demanding full payment for the time lost as a condition for a return to work.
I am keeping closely in touch with the situation, and the conciliation facilities of my Department are of course always available.
Mr. Edelman: Is it not tragic that this dispute has escalated from a shop floor disagreement about 1½ hours' pay into a major national problem? In the meantime, will the right hon. Gentleman discourage those administering this firm from using words such as "sabotage" and making threats in the Henry Ford manner that they will remove investment overseas unless the workers toe the line?
Mr. Heffer: They will do it, anyway.
Mr. Edelman: Finally, will the right hon. Gentleman arrange for an independent investigation to be made into the origins of the dispute in order to prevent the dispute from developing in an even more tragic and unhappy manner?
Mr. Macmillan: I agree with the hon. Gentleman and with the General Secretary of the TGWU that the earlier that these people can talk about the point at issue in this dispute, the better. However, I should make it plain that management
994
representatives have not uttered threats about exporting the investment. They have pointed out, as they did a year ago to the union concerned, that in order to justify further investment in this country it would be necessary for productivity and regularity of work at least to match those of the other countries where they could invest.
Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that if the allegations made both in the Economist and in the Sunday Express about industrial sabotage and about attacks on the homes of those who did not wish to strike in Swansea are true, this is doing great harm not only to the company but to our export trade and to the trade union movement itself, the majority of whose members are moderate and sensible men and women of good will? If the allegations are true, will my right hon. Friend institute an inquiry and expose these tactics as soon as possible?
Mr. Macmillan: At this stage I do not think that an inquiry would do any good in resolving this dispute. It is fair to point out to my hon. Friend that, following the day shift which was in dispute, the night shift worked normally and produced perfectly adequate work. After the Spring Bank Holiday when the members of that night shift became the day shift they again worked normally. It is among the one shift that there is trouble.
Mr. Prentice: Is the Secretary of State aware that the kind of statement that he made in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North (Mr. Edelman) will have a profoundly disturbing effect? The right hon. Gentleman gave a very one-sided account of a great deal of the detail leading to the stoppage but failed completely to mention the effect of the threats uttered by the Chrysler Company, which have had a devastating effect on the situation?
May I put three questions to the right hon. Gentleman? First, does his information confirm information which I obtained about an hour ago that the offer made by the union to the Chrysler Company about talks at either national or local level has been completely rejected by the Chrysler management which says that its attitude about a return to work precludes its representatives from talking to union officials

995
at any level? If that is so, will not the right hon. Gentleman tell the Chrysler management to come off it, that he regards it as urgent that there should be talks between the two sides, and that he expects both sides to try to reach a settlement?
Secondly, and arising out of that question, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is not good enough in a matter of this seriousness for him to act as a spectator? Even if the right hon. Gentleman cannot obtain direct talks between the two sides, will he not consider the other method of securing a forum in which to discuss the matter? Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the organisation known as the Motor Council, which was established to provide a bridge between the two sides in crises of this nature and which I understand has not met for a long time? Why not?
Finally, will the right hon. Gentleman make it clear to Chrysler and other American companies which invest in this country that he, on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, expects them to deal intelligently with their labour problems and that what is required is a patient and sophisticated approach in this very difficult industry? There is no short cut by way of confrontation, and the clumsy threats in the Chrysler statement were bound to lead to serious trouble.
Mr. Macmillan: First, the position of both the management and the shop stewards is clear. I accept that it is that which causes the difficulty. The management has made it plain that it is not prepared to discuss the issue until there has been a return to work. The shop stewards have also made it plain that they are not prepared to contemplate returning to work until full payment for the time lost has been made. That is the position as I understand it.
Secondly, I will certainly look into the question raised by the right hon. Gentleman about the Motor Council. I must admit that I had not yet considered that.
Thirdly, whatever view one may take about the public utterances by the Chrysler management, it is right to recognise that this is not a new position. It was discussed between the management and the unions concerned a very long time ago.
Mr. Grieve: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is tragic, at a time of great expansion in the national economy, that that expansion should be put in jeopardy by strikes not only at Ryton but at factories of component producers in the motor industry? Will he make the facilities of the conciliation machinery of his Department available not only at Ryton but also in those strikes in the production of components which are likely to put motor production in jeopardy elsewhere in the West Midlands?
Mr. Macmillan: There are five other disputes of various kinds within the motor car industry. I am happy to tell my hon. and learned Friend that the two sides concerned are either meeting or are about to meet to resolve the issues involved in all cases. This is the one remaining dispute. I agree that it is tragic that it should occur at a time when expansion in the motor car industry, following the expansion of the economy, should otherwise be looked for.
Mr. William Price: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that much of the trouble at Ryton is due to a union fear, rightly or wrongly, that if Chrysler had the opportunity it would move out of the Coventry-Rugby region altogether? Does he believe that American-sponsored threats and counter-threats will create industrial peace in the car industry, particularly coming a few weeks after the management at Ryton had written to all the employees thanking them for their splendid efforts? What has happened in the meantime?
Finally, I should like to refer to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North (Mr. Edelman) which was not answered. Will the right hon. Gentleman set up a straightforward independent inquiry into industrial relations at that plant?
Mr. Macmillan: If the hon. Gentleman is thinking of an inquiry by the CIR into general industrial relations in the company concerned, may I point out that it is possible for the CIR to examine and report on ways in which industrial relations in an industry might be improved in the longer term but that it is not part of its rôle to inquire into current disputes of this kind with a view to bringing them to an end. These are two separate issues.

997
Regarding the threats, the hon. Gentleman almost answered his own question when he pointed out that the management had written to the labour force. I think it is wrong to regard this is as a threat. It is a statement by the management referring not to current investment or development of existing factories but to new investment about which the company has been in discussion with the unions concerned pointing out that it was difficult to justify continuing investment when the level of productivity and the security of production was in its view less than it could obtain by putting that investment elsewhere.
Sir G. Nabarro: Does my right hon. Friend agree that what was not a clumsy threat, as the right hon. Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice) dubbed it, was the statement by the employers that this company has the worst strike record of any plant of theirs anywhere in the world? Is it reasonable to expect the company to pour new investment money into this country having regard to the dismal record of the past?
Mr. Macmillan: My hon. Friend points out that there have been difficulties at this site. Indeed, the company claims that in the first quarter of this year it has lost close on 4,000 vehicles and £2·7 million in revenue due to internal disputes at Ryton. During the last six months, the company claims to have lost 17 per cent. of its scheduled production, amounting to 17,000 cars in all plants because of internal disputes.
I do not wish to seek to allocate blame, but that is a difficult background against which to see further development. It is very much in the interests of all concerned to try to resolve the problem as quickly and reasonably as possible. I do not think that trying to allocate blame across the Floor of the House or calling people names will help very much one way or the other.
Mr. Leslie Huckfield: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the unions have already shown their willingness to improve industrial relations? In February they took the initiative and conducted a detailed report which involved union district officials virtually living at the plants, going through each area and producing a
998
detailed report, including the body in white section, as a result of which the company has done nothing at all?
Is he also aware that the only reaction to the dispute by the Chrysler management at Ryton has been to lock the gates, to refuse to talk, and not to pay holiday money? Will he disregard some of the more stupid and nonsensical allegations of sabotage made by the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Sally Oppenheim) and find out why the Chrysler management will not talk?
Mr. Macmillan: Obviously I do not accept all that the hon. Gentleman said. It is most unfortunate, at a time of expansion and when there was evidence of improving industrial relations, that this incident should have taken place, particularly as there is also evidence—I put it no higher—that a relatively small number of the work people concerned were affected. This matter has escalated. It is of great importance not only to the country but to the company and the work people involved that we should try to work towards a solution and get a discussion of the underlying problems as soon as possible.
Mr. Tugendhat: Is my right hon. Friend aware that as soon as Chrysler had taken over the outstanding equity in Chrysler (UK) it stopped exporting complete cars to the United States and replaced the cars that it had been exporting to the United States with cars from Japan? Is he also aware that not one of the American-owned motor industries in this country is exporting complete cars to the United States, whereas British Leyland's exports have been rising rapidly? Therefore, in view of this situation and uniquely bad labour relations in the motor industry, does my right hon. Friend feel that there is justification for a much-wider ranging inquiry than that which he has in mind?
Mr. Macmillan: Yes, I certainly would not rule out the possibility of a further and more wide-ranging inquiry. On the other hand, I should point out that inquiries undertaken by the CIR into industrial relations in an industry are geared to the longer term. The CIR is not geared to inquire into a current dispute as a means towards resolving it.
Mr. Buchan: As the right hon. Gentleman places great weight on the circumstances arising at Linwood in my constituency, may I point out that that problem was solved by discussion at local level? Will he encourage the same procedure without pre-conditions to be adopted in the factory in England?
Secondly, will he move a little further? As I understand his last statement, he has agreed to a generalised inquiry. Will he gear it up, to use his term, and have an inquiry on this issue?
Thirdly, does lie agree, as everyone else in the country has agreed, that the letter that was sent out was intended as a threat, is seen as a threat, and ought to be withdrawn?
Mr. Macmillan: I did not say that I would agree to a general inquiry. I said that I would look into the possibility of a general inquiry. But, as I pointed out, an inquiry of this kind would not be suitable to try to resolve this dispute. I agree that the previous dispute was settled by discussion. When it comes to taking up entrenched positions, I should point out that at the moment both sides are taking up such positions. The management says that it cannot discuss the matter until there is a return to work and the union says that it cannot authorise a return to work until there is full payment for the 1½hours lost.

CHRYSLER LIMITED (DISPUTE)

  NEW MEMBERS
  The following Members took and subscribed the Oath:
  Miss Betty Boothroyd, for West Bromwich.
  Roger Stott, esquire, for West Houghton.

  Ordered,
  That the Government Trading Funds Bill be referred to a Second Reading Committee.—[Mr. John Stradling Thomas.]

  ORDERS OF THE DAY
    SUPPLY
    [21sT ALLOTTED DAY],—considered

  NORTHERN REGION
  Mr. Speaker: Before calling upon the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Urwin), to move the motion, I have to inform the House that I have selected the amendment standing in the names of the Prime Minister and of his right hon. Friends, to leave out from 'House' to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
  'welcomes the vigorous regional policy of Her Majesty's Government, which is now reducing unemployment and improving living standards in the Northern Region'.
  3.52 p.m.
  Mr. T. W. Urwin: I beg to move,
  That this House, deeply concerned at the persistent social inequalities, low household incomes and lack of job opportunities in the Northern Region, demands urgent action from Her Majesty's Government in activating a positive regional policy which will create new jobs, sustain economic growth, expand the social services and improve the environment, thus closing the gap between the more prosperous areas and the Northern Region.
  I begin from the very firm basic premise that experience of post-war years sharply reveals the vast difference of attitude between Labour and Tory Governments towards the deeply entrenched disparities existing between our richer and poorer regions. Following the example set by the Attlee Government of 1945–51, the Wilson administration of 1964–70 determinedly attacked the intolerable imbalance by introducing a number of measures deliberately weighted in favour of expanded development areas, and by 1970 the total amount of preferential aid to those areas amounted to an annual sum of £314 million, whilst other forms of indirect aid increased the total value of assistance to well over £750 million.
  The Northern Region, battling as we almost always have done against unprecedently high job losses in coal mining, agriculture and railways, benefited enormously from these policies. New job

  1001
  opportunities generated at a faster pace than ever before. In April 1970, significantly, 42,700 jobs were estimated to accrue in manufacturing industry alone, including 31,000 male jobs. Over the next four years, between 1966 and 1970, arising directly from industrial development certificate approvals, 56 advance factories were provided. In addition, a rapid expansion of industrial floor space involving 9·9 million sq. ft. in 1969, following the record 11 million sq. ft. in 1968, was provided. In the industrial training centres there was an increase in capacity to over 3,000 places per annum, and 30 per cent. of the total national investment in new construction was allocated to the Northern Region.
  That was indeed a legacy of progress, unfortunately compulsorily bequeathed to the incoming Tory Government, but nevertheless requiring continuity and stabilisation. A real opportunity was given to the present Government and their supporters to capitalise on the work which had already been done but this opportunity unfortunately was sacrificed on the altar of doctrinaire Toryism and the dogma of the free market——
  The Minister for Industrial Development (Mr. Christopher Chataway): If the hon. Gentleman is coming to the end of his review of the past, there is just one statistic which he has left out. One of the achievements of the Labour Government between 1966 and 1970 in the Northern Region was that they nearly doubled unemployment and left it on a rapidly rising trend.
  Mr. Urwin: The right hon. Gentleman will have the opportunity of defending the intolerably high levels of unemployment which his Government succeeded in inducing over a period of only three years. Had they taken advantage of the opportunity I have described there is a distinct possibility, indeed the certainty, that unemployment would not have reached those levels. There was, instead, preoccupation with the Selsdon promise to end "wasteful" expenditure of public money on industrial development in the development areas and reliance on what one Government spokesman described as the begging bowl. Those almost endless months of arid Tory thinking following the General Election, relieved only by the positive decision
  1002
  to end investment grants and to phase out REP from 1974, imposed an unnecessary and wholly unjustifiable restriction on the economic development of the Northern Region.
  Faced with the impending descent of the sword of Damocles on the differential grant system IDC approvals fell to 7,359 sq. ft. of factory space in 1970, with estimated provision of 15,389 jobs. In 1971, it fell further to 4,249 sq. ft., an abysmally low level creating on estimate only 4,459 jobs. To July 1972 it fell further still to 1,619 sq. ft. and only 3,108 jobs. I must suggest to the Government that the lack of effective monitoring since the abolition of IDCs in July last year tends to disguise the present situation. It is, however, a fact that enormous publicity is given to what is described as an inundation of applications under the Industry Act, yet to the end of March 1973 only 24 firms have received grant assistance in the Northern Region, to a total of a mere £412,000.
  This most certainly does not justify the lofty claims by the Government about the efficacy of that Act. What we do know is that over the past three years IDC approvals in the overcrowded South-East are estimated to create 41,153 new jobs—a gross and most unwarrantable perpetuation of imbalance in new job creation, and one which is highly detrimental not only to the Northern Region but to other development areas, too. Far from asserting control in such matters, an official of the Department of Trade and Industry has admitted to a sub-committee of the Expenditure Committee that only 10 per cent. of IDC applications in the South-East are refused.
  Additionally, the fact that the present system of incentives to industry considerably reduces the differential element introduces a further deterrent to firms which, in the pre-1970 package, were encouraged to move to the development areas. This is fully endorsed by Mr. Dearing, the DTI's Northern Industrial Director, who, in evidence to the same sub-committee, admitted that there is now less money available to industrial developers than there was in 1969 and that the system is now much less favourable to the attraction of incoming industry.

  1003
  The Government's amendment to this censure motion is clearly one of self-praise. I suggest to the Minister for Industrial Development that the Government's recovery from the high unemployment level for which they were responsible has been achieved very largely in spite of the Government's regional policies rather than because of them. Ironically, the Government have now expressed their determination to phase out the regional employment premium from September 1974, a decision which can result only in the further undermining of confidence of industrialists who may be thinking of investing in the development areas.
  Regional employment premium was introduced by the Labour Government in 1967. Let there be no mistake about this and no room for misunderstanding. Our policy was to review the position in 1974 and to determine the efficacy of REP and the necessity or otherwise of renewing the operation for a further period. During the past three years, the ravages of rampant inflation have heavily eroded the value of the premium, to such an extent that upward revision is the more sensible alternative.
  Now, despite the pleas of local authorities—I have in mind Durham County Council, Sunderland County Borough Council and many others—which warned the Government of impending job losses in the North, and the claim of the CBI that if the REP is stopped the result could be a loss of between 20,000 and 50,000 jobs in the development areas, the Government intend to phase out REP next year. The figure for job losses is now estimated at 10,000 in the northern Region. Compared with the £300 million tax hand-out to richer taxpayers and the £15 million subsidy to private house buyers, at £100 million a year REP represents a very sound investment towards the reduction of unemployment. We urge the Government to think again before it is too late.
  The time has arrived when the Government must begin seriously to approach the question of regional policies much more constructively than hitherto, even to the extent—dare one hint—of further intervention—distasteful as that is to them—in industrial affairs and activities.
  The Northern Region and the steel industry certainly could not afford the long-
  1004
  drawn-out negotiations with the British Steel Corporation—30 months of wrangling, resulting finally in a cut of £1,000 million from the industry's proposed investment. Mindful of the fact that one-third of the estimated job losses in steel will occur in the North, we must have planned alternative industries to take up the displaced personnel.
  Diversification of our industrial base cannot be fully achieved unless and until a large section of the car industry is located in the Northern Region, providing a large number of new jobs, new apprenticeships which are badly needed in diversifying skills and a tremendous boost to the region's morale.
  The Leyland expansion project offers an appropriate challenge to the Government to persuade Lord Stokes to site this development in the Northern Region, which offers excellent port facilities, suitable sites, and an abundance of labour supply with a proven ability to adapt following training.
  There are still 50,000 men unemployed in the Northern Region, only 5,000 of whom have established skills. Nevertheless, they are certainly adaptable to training if training opportunities are provided. An additional advantage in the siting of this major project in the region is that the region already supplies ready access to steel supplies.
  Assuming, perhaps, that the Prime Minister is really concerned about the future of the Northern Region, he may well seek to emulate the successful intervention of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition which resulted in the establishment of the British Leyland national bus plant at Workington and has since proved the wisdom of the British Leyland decision to settle in Workington on that basis.
  I also remind the Government of the increasing urgency attached to the evolvement of a co-ordinated national energy policy, especially in the light of the onset of world fuel shortages, a policy which would firmly establish and maintain the position of coal as a major commodity, thus ensuring the future of the industry as the largest employer of labour in the North, despite continuing vulnerability to pit closures.
  In the shipbuilding world, the growing world demand for new ships

  1005
  undoubtedly brought new stimulus to the industry. Large orders are being won, presenting an exciting challenge to the northern yards. But there are problems. They are especially highlighted in the Booz-Allen Report, which requires immediate Government decision, especially arising from the forecast that there will be large-scale redundancies in this industry.
  Meanwhile, the Government must take an early decision on the application, which has been filed for some time, of the Doxford and Sunderland groups for loans to build a new covered yard at Pallion and provision of finance to Austin Pickersgill and the Court Line in order to assist them with their modernisation. Swan Hunter, despite its splendid record, is in the queue for financial assistance for modernisation and wishes to convert the Hebburn Repair Yard, which the right hon. Gentleman's predecessors lost no time in closing when they took office shortly after the 1970 General Election. The intention of Swan Hunter is to convert this yard to shipbuilding purposes in order to be able to compete in the growing world markets for new ships. These are imperative requirements and must at least be equated with large amounts which have been allocated to shipyards in other areas.
  The Government must seriously consider intervening in the exploitation of North Sea oil to ensure that full benefits flow to the Northern Region. I am deeply mindful of the appointment of Lord Polwarth as oil supremo. This places him in a position to make vitally important decisions which may well detrimentally affect and influence the position in the North.
  I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that the North is not very well served in direct representation, certainly not in comparison with the two other major development areas. The right hon. Gentleman should consider appointing a co-ordinator for the Northern Region as a whole to oversee the oil industry to ensure that the region is fairly treated.
  The right hon. Gentleman may feel that references to the construction industry are not quite in accord with the terms of the motion, which censures the Government for their failure to apply a radical and sensible regional policy. But there are all sorts of components in a
  1006
  regional policy, and the construction industry reveals yet another area where planning, even of an elementary nature, is conspicuously absent. In the midst of absolute chaos, there is an escalation of wage drift, almost all materials are in desperately short supply, the industry is in chaos and labour bottlenecks exist alongside an unemployment figure of 11,000 men, while building costs have almost doubled in the three years of the present Government.
  Yet in housing Government policies have ensured a drastic reduction in new houses for rent—it is not unusual for the Government to regard council housing in this way—with increasing emphasis on building houses for sale, even though the average wage earner cannot obtain a building society mortgage on a new house. Yet the Government used their full weight to prevent the Sunderland Corporation from building houses for sale, presumably because this would present a challenge to the supremacy of private builders.
  We can proudly and justifiably claim that there has been a vast improvement in communications in the Northern Region, especially during the period 1964–70. We frequently boast that we have the best system of communications of any region in Britain, but there is no room for complacency. More needs to be done.
  I draw the Minister's attention particularly to the A66 into West Cumberland, a remote area which is vital to industrial development and which would be infinitely better served if this road were to be programmed and built. Especially in view of the recent cuts in capital expenditure, one is concerned to ask the Minister what is the present position as regards this road.
  Another predominant weakness of this administration is their lack of co-ordination of the work of Government Departments. Here I refer specifically to the disgraceful situation which has developed over the Kielder water project. The inspector's report presented to the Secretary of State for the Environment indicates to him all the known requirements for water supply and conveys to him all the information that he could possibly need to make a decision. On the basis of that information there could have been only one decision for him to make. It is within the Secretary of State's knowledge that the Durham County Water Board

  1007
  will be in shortage by 1974. The Secretary of State has had the very strong and distinct advantage of expert opinions from all people including economists, in the water world; but his decision, which was received with bewilderment, shock, frustration, and indeed anger, in some parts of the Northern Region, was not one favourable to Kielder, even though the inspector had said not only that it should be authorised but that the situation was so urgent that the work should begin immediately.
  However, the Secretary of State chose to defer a decision and to reconstitute the inquiry, which I understand reopens on 19th June. Meanwhile, the Northumbrian River Authority has informed the Government that the cost of this project, which was estimated at £9,050,000 in 1969, has escalated in 1973 to £13,340,000, an increase of 40 per cent. Worse still, every hour that the Minister dallies is estimated to add another £120 to the bill for Kielder water.
  I emphasise the lack of co-ordination between Departments. Evidently the Department of Trade and Industry has no influence over the Department of the Environment, because the former Department must surely recognise, even though the Secretary of State for the Environment does not, that the adequate supply of water is vital to industrial development as well as to domestic users in the badly hit Northern Region. It is a known fact that one industrialist so far has refused to embark on an expansion of his business in the Northern Region because of the uncertainty about water supplies.
  I turn, in much the same vein of coordination, to the outstanding need for office development in the Northern Region. Again I urge the Minister who is to reply on behalf of the Government to speed up the presentation of the Hardman Report. The Government must recognise that the North is woefully short of Civil Service jobs. There is the heavy concentration in London and the South-East, even though London reputedly is the most expensive office rental centre in the world. Yet only one out of 300 employed persons in the Northern Region is a civil servant as compared with one in 49 in London and the South-East.
  1008
  I remind the Minister of the decision taken some time ago by his Government that the PAYE centre which the Labour Government had planned to be built in Washington New Town. It has not been replaced by an equal number of Civil Service jobs. Not only was this regarded as a prestige product, but a minimum of 2,500 white collar jobs would have been provided in an area which is sadly lacking especially the employment opportunities for young people.
  Another field in which the Government might well consider intervention, and in which the next Labour Government most certainly will consider intervention, is the investment of multi-national companies. It is essential in the interests of even regional development that new disciplines should be adopted by multi-national companies to ensure that their industrial development takes place in the right places. It is equally important to ensure that such investment is not scattered indiscriminately around Europe as a result of our entry into the European Economic Community.
  In much the same strain the right hon. Gentleman should address himself perhaps a little more strongly than he appears to have done so far to the Economic Community's proposed development fund. I refer to the definition of "peripheral area". The Minister for Local Government and Development, speaking in Sunderland a few days ago at a ceremony organised by the Design Centre—I think I have his words correctly—said that he had been with representatives of the EEC discussing this very question of peripheral areas and their designation. The right hon. Gentleman said,
  "They were very impressed with the progress made in the North and with its competitiveness."
  I hope that I am not being ultra pessimistic and that I am wrong in deducing from those few words, on which the Minister did not expand, that he had not fought for the inclusion of the Northern Region in these areas or that, if he had fought, he had been defeated.
  The Minister for Local Government and Development (Mr. Graham Page): I assure the hon. Gentleman that that is not true. He should not read that into the words which I used.
  Mr. Urwin: Perhaps when the right hon. Gentleman speaks at the Dispatch Box he will tell us what he said. This is of great concern not only to the Northern Region but to Scotland, Wales, the South-West and Merseyside as well. If the Government are impressed with the competitiveness of the North it is reasonable to assume that we may well not be included in the peripheral areas and eligible for what money may be made available from the Community's development fund. I suggest that we can no more afford to lose out to the EEC than we can to the more prosperous areas of Britain in the matter of development.
  In the interests of the Northern Region as well as the other development areas, the Government ought to begin to assert more rigorous control over industrial development both within and outside the development areas. They ought to revise the incentive system in order to restore the differentials between the SDAs, the DAs and the non-development areas. They should begin to plan development in accordance with the requirements of the region. They may even be bold enough to consider the establishment of joint State-private enterprises where private industry has failed to measure up to its responsibilities. The right hon. Gentleman might be still a little bolder and, in the best interests of the Northern Region, consider setting up new publicly-owned industries. This is something which a Labour Government will most certainly be considering when we return to office.
  The North is admittedly recovering, despite the euphemisms in the amendment to the motion. But the Northern Region is recovering much more slowly from economic depression than the rest of the country, and it is incumbent upon the Government to ensure that there is a continuous policy of development in the North. I say that deliberately because we have already had cuts in public expenditure amounting to £600 million. Inevitably we shall be faced with an autumn Budget, with unquantifiable results for the Northern Region.
  The new chairman of the Northern Economic Planning Council, whom I congratulate on his appointment, is quoted as having said last week that the present boom will flatten out in six months. I
  1010
  say to the Government that when the boom does flatten out, as it surely will—whether six months is the correct estimate or not—we in the Northern Region, having made a major contribution to the economic well being of this country, need make no apology for expecting to be cushioned against those economic effects.
  4.24 p.m.
  The Minister for Local Government and Development (Mr. Graham Page): I beg to move to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
  'welcomes the vigorous regional policy of Her Majesty's Government, which is now reducing unemployment and improving living standards in the Northern Region'.
  Towards the end of his speech the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Urwin) called for a continuous policy of development in the Northern Region. I hope I shall be able to satisfy him that that indeed is the policy of this Government. The policy and the actions of the Government have resulted, are resulting and will continue to result in exactly what the motion demands. They are creating new jobs; they are sustaining economic growth; they are expanding the social services and improving the environment. Indeed, the policy and the actions of the Government, as the amendment asserts, are reducing unemployment and improving the living standards in the North.
  I say at once that, although the Government are entitled to take credit for achievement in the Northern Region, we are in no way smug about it in the face of the very considerable problems presented in the region by changing industries and changing industrial processes. Those changes can, if not handled correctly, be disastrous but they are, on the other hand, the opportunity for very substantial improvement in the quality of life in the North.
  To ensure that the results of change are not disastrous but that the opportunities are seized, I see the basic job of government, whether central or local, as that of providing the foundation and the background for industry and commerce, and indeed the trade unions, to recognise those opportunities and to exploit them, in the best meaning of the word.
  The hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring said that there were different aspects of this problem, and indeed, I

  1011
  think one of the basic aspects—perhaps the basic aspect—is what one might refer to as the infrastructure, or the amenities, or the public works, or the environment generally, some parts of which are the responsibility of central government and some the responsibility of local government.
  I do not want to refer back too far because it is the present and the future with which we are concerned in this debate, but so far as one important piece of infrastructure is concerned—the roads, communications and transport of the Northern Region—the Hailsham plan, started a decade ago, carried out by both Governments, set in motion what I would call a decade of 100 motorway and trunk road schemes, 50 of which have been executed and 50 of which are still in hand. The best regional road network in Europe has given us a wonderful springboard for the next decade. I hope that we can really take advantage of it.
  Dr. John A. Cunningham: While the right hon. Gentleman is talking about roads and the infrastructure of the Northern Region, will he confirm that, in spite of the recently announced cuts, the A66 trunk road proposals will proceed as planned?
  Mr. Page: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to work out my own argument and explanation, I will come to that in due course.
  First-class communications both within the region and connecting with areas outside it are vital to its prosperity. We have just completed £90 million worth of roads under the Hailsham plan, and we are now building on to that. We have repaired the omission from the plan—that is, in the western part of the region—by dealing with the 64 miles, at a cost of £62 million, of the M6 north of Carnforth. We are going ahead—I now come to the point raised by the hon. Gentleman—with the improvement of the A66 from Scotch Corner to Penrith and on to Workington. That is a project which, incidentally, will provide 800 jobs. [An HON. MEMBER: "When?"] While it is being constructed.
  We have just had an inquiry. We have said that this is the preferred route. One then has to go through the all-too-long
  1012
  procedure—it is seven or eight years before one see the traffic moving on a road—but it is our way of doing things in order to protect those through whose land the road is being laid, those who wish to put the amenity points, and so on. We shall get on with that as quickly as the procedure allows, and not only will it provide this number of jobs during the actual construction work but when it is built it will, of course, assist the Leyland National bus factory to get up to its capacity of 350 employees in Workington. Then there is the A69 from Newcastle to Carlisle.
  The road strategy of the North has been based on the A1, the A1(M) and the A19. The A19 construction north from Dishforth through Teesside, bypassing Sunderland and Washington, connecting with Tyneside, and then on to the new road from Newcastle to the A1 at Seaton Burn is really the lifeline of the North-East. Links with the other regions are vital too. I forecast that the M1 extension which bypasses Leeds will become just as famous as the Northern link as is the Midland link between the M1 and the M6.
  Many urban schemes are just as important as the inter-city schemes. There is the Central Motorway East in Newcastle, the Western Bypass to Gateshead and the A19 diversion at Teesside—a £20 million job. The southern bypass of Stockton and Thornaby will cost £8 million and the Billingham diversion some £5 million. There is also the Northern Loop road bypass to Middlesbrough. All these projects in themselves mean extra employment for a considerable period during construction, and then they serve the great industrial areas and increase the employment potential there. The average of nearly £50 million expenditure on roads in the region every year since 1969 cannot fail to have some good effect upon employment and productivity and, therefore, upon earnings.
  It is clear that the Northern Region is not merely benefiting from the significant upturn in the national economy but is progressing in its own right. In the last year the number of unemployed has dropped by 20,000 and outstanding vacancies have doubled.
  Mr. George Grant: The Minister talks about the reduction in unemployed. Will he tell us what the figure

  1013
  would have been had the criteria remained the same as they were in 1970? I am referring to the possibility of large numbers of unemployed being passed on to social security, invalidity benefits and so on. Do the figures show an improvement, and what connection is there between the fall in numbers of unemployed and the numbers who have been passed on to social security?
  Mr. Page: The hon. Member is asking me a hypothetical question and one which he knows I cannot answer off the cuff and which I would not try to answer. Unemployment has dropped substantially and not merely because of the upturn in the national economy. There is an improvement in the Northern Region in its own right.
  Mr. Robert C. Brown (Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West): The Minister is being as preposterous over the regional figures as was the Secretary of State over the national figures. If a Government allow unemployment to rise to 1 million and then reduce it to 600,000, and if they allow unemployment in the Northern Region to rise to 100,000 and then they reduce it to 61,000, is it not a preposterous cheek to claim that that is a success?
  Mr. Page: It would indeed be a preposterous cheek if that had been the case, but it is not. The figure is now the same as it was in early 1970, but then it was rising and now it is falling.
  The hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring mentioned that 50,000 people were unemployed and only 5,000 of them were skilled. This is a problem we are endeavouring to put right by the extension of Government training centres to a further 1,600 places. This has helped to resettle redundant men and to cope with the shortage of skilled labour, and it will help still further when the current extensions are completed and the centres can train nearly 3,500 workers in 40 different trades. That is what is happening in the Government training centres. Add to that the technical colleges and the private firms training capacity and we calculate that there will be 6,000 to 7,000 trainees passing through annually.
  Unfortunately, the inconsistency of the trade union attitude towards Government training centres is a hindrance. On Tyneside and in Cumbria trade unions will not
  1014
  accept trainees in the fitting and turning trades, yet in the building and construction trades the unions are giving encouragement to the GTCs. The northern area has not done badly out of the proportion of training places to the employed population. Over the whole of the country the proportion is one in 1,095. In the Northern Region it is as low as one in 488, so there has certainly been a substantial increase in training places.
  The hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring raised the question of the employment of civil servants in the Northern Region. The region has done pretty well out of Government dispersals. There are 11,000 staff at the Department of Health and Social Security at Longbenton. [Interruption.] It is no good hon. Members complaining. I am giving the figures of the numbers employed there. There are 1,800 employed in the Savings Department at Durham. There are 600 in the Department of Education and Science at Darlington. Three thousand seven hundred non-industrial Civil Service posts have been dispersed to the Northern Region in the last 10 years, and further dispersals of 700 posts are in the pipeline.
  Mr. Urwin: How many civil servants have been dispersed into the Northern Region since June 1970? Will the Minister also tell us when he proposes to take action to fill the vacuum created by the loss of the proposed PAYE centre with a potential 2,500 jobs in Washington?
  Mr. Page: The hon. Member must be aware of the difficulty that the Civil Service is finding in recruiting within the area. The problem is quite clear from the administration which is there already. We must guard against putting too many Civil Service jobs there. [Interruption.] Newcastle at present has the largest number of Civil Service jobs of any city in the country outside London.
  Mr. Geoffrey Rhodes (Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East): Will the Minister give way? He is referring to a matter concerning my constituency.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): Order. I hope that hon. Members will realise the number of people who are hoping to take part in the debate and will restrict their interventions accordingly. It is not a matter for the

  1015
  Chair but it would be in the interests of the House to restrict interventions.
  Mr. Rhodes: I am not one of those who have asked to speak in the debate. I merely ask the Minister to give way because he is talking about a large Civil Service complex in my constituency. Is the Minister aware that staff at the Civil Service centre who are not qualified have been laid off because of the surge of young people leaving school who are qualified, and coming forward for jobs? Jobs must be found for these young people but the Minister must admit that there is no shortage of skill in the area for the staffing of Civil Service Departments? His statement on that matter is a complete deception.
  Mr. Page: It cannot be a deception when Newcastle has more civil servants than any other city outside London. One cannot go on dispersing civil servants into areas of that sort.
  Mr. Robert C. Brown: Shocking. Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Page: I have given way to the hon. Gentleman once. I cannot give way to him when he is sitting down heckling me.
  Mr. Robert C. Brown: My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Rhodes) has made a valid point that civil servants at Longbenton have been dismissed because they are unqualified, in spite of having given many years' service at Longbenton, because there is a surfeit of youngsters wanting jobs. I do not complain about the youngsters who want jobs. However, the Minister said that the Civil Service was having difficulty in attracting recruits. Will he withdraw that misleading statement?
  Mr. Page: It is not a misleading statement. We expect the Hardman Report in a few days, and I hope that we shall discuss the matter in more depth when we have it before us. I am prepared to leave my statements for discussion when we have the report.
  I return to the transport side. I should like to mention two interesting and exciting projects—the Tyneside rapid transit system and the possibility of the new crossing of the Tees. The Tyneside rapid transit system is the largest
  1016
  project so far accepted for infrastructure grant, and the largest provincial urban transport scheme to be prepared in the United Kingdom this century. It involves 34 lines, with bus and rail services, electric trains, tunnels under Newcastle and Gateshead, a new bridge over the Tyne and 46 stations, building to start next year and, we hope, completion by 1979. There will be the creation of many jobs by its construction and a massive increase in employment possibilities by improved accessibility when it is completed.
  With regard to the new crossing of the River Tees, we await the consultants' report on the preferred route, which I hope we shall have in August, so that there can then be further study.
  There are many interesting and exciting projects on Teesside, including the Ekofisk oil terminal near Graythorpe, an £80 million scheme involving 2,000 jobs in its construction and 200–300 permanent jobs in its operation; an iron ore terminal at Redcar; the new potash and phosphates terminal at Tees Dock; the reclamation of Seal Sands for industrial development and the proposals to expand the European container traffic.
  In other North-East coast ports there are similar exciting development projects in hand—the industrial sites on coal trade land and the expansion of the roll-on, roll-off facilities on the Tyne; and rebuilding of the, fish dock at North Shields, with a 60 per cent. grant from the Government. At Blyth there are the terminal facilities for the Alcan smelter, and at Sunderland there is Doxfords' covered ship factory at Pallion Yard. We have only recently received the Booz-Allen Report, which is being studied in connection with assistance to such schemes.
  There are severe problems for certain other ports. In Workington and Hartlepool, we have adopted a new and exceptional way of dealing with the problems so that we can quickly bring expertise to bear on them. We have adopted the system of a task force to examine the issues quickly and act quickly on what is advised. At Workington there is the loss of iron ore imports as a result of the cessation of the steelmaking there, with the possible loss of 440 jobs, and the closure of the Solway Colliery, with the loss of 550 jobs. The

  1017
  task force there has reported, and we hope to act on its recommendations as quickly as possible.
  The same method has been adopted at Hartlepool. The task force has given its advice. We face the loss of perhaps nearly 3,000 steelmaking jobs there, but the task force has disclosed a number of manufacturing industries which may produce at least a thousand new jobs in the area.
  We have then to look at the advancing road schemes, dock improvements, training and town improvements in Hartlepool.
  Mr. Ted Leadbitter: The right hon. Gentleman has spoken of a thousand new jobs. Will he bear in mind that there are 2,300 male unemployed in Hartlepool now, and that 2,450 will become unemployed in 1975? If we add those two figures together and take away the right hon. Gentleman's 1,000, we see that our net unemployment level increases considerably. On the right hon. Gentleman's figures, Hartlepool will have 4,000 people out of work by 1975.
  Mr. Page: I am not minimising the problem. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has made that point. I just mentioned the round figure of a thousand which has been thrown up on first report by the task force to show that we are obtaining immediate value from the system we have adopted.
  Perhaps I should now deal with the point about Kielder, which was raised by the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring. I fully accept the urgent need of all the new industries within the North-East for a massive new water supply, and that Kielder could provide that supply. But the proposal is that we should create the biggest man-made lake in Europe by flooding seven miles of one of the most picturesque valleys in the country. One must be certain that there are no adequate alternatives before making such an irretrievable decision.
  On a careful study of the evidence given at the inquiry—I have read through every word—it was clear that, although the alternatives had been argued, the expert evidence on their feasibility was incomplete. The time-scale of the need
  1018
  for the water is such that there seemed to be sufficient time to obtain the complete evidence. That is why my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State decided to reopen the inquiry and obtain that evidence. When it is possible to set like by like, which was not possible in the course of that inquiry, my right hon. and learned Friend will give his decision, and the North-East will be assured of the water it needs within the necessary time.
  I turn to other transport questions. I have mainly mentioned the roads, but there are problems with the railways. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport Industries made it clear earlier this year that the Government are committed to continued support in general for the loss-making railways in the area. The contribution is about £3 million at present.
  I have mentioned construction and new industries, but these must go hand in hard with the provision of new homes and new jobs; perhaps new homes a little in advance of new jobs. The renewal of industrial life must be preceded by the renewal of residential life.
  The trouble with the house-building industry in the region is that in many parts it is already at full stretch. The success of the improvement grant system is partly to blame. As a result of the 75 per cent. grant for development areas, improvements are running at the rate of 56,000 a year, compared with less than a fifth of that rate four years ago. The Northern Region's share of approvals for local authority house improvements is a quarter of the total for England and Wales. That means that this one region, out of nine in England and Wales, has had improvements to the extent of a quarter of the total.
  New house completions—19,500 for 1972—are recovering dramatically. I am glad to see that in that progress in house-building there has been attention to design. The region walked off with more medals than any other in last year's RIBA competition for house designs. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the meeting called by the Design Council that I had the honour to address last week. It was very gratifying that the Design Council chose to have its annual presentation in the Northern Region, at the Civic Centre in

  1019
  Sunderland, where His Royal Highness Prince Philip presented the awards.
  Housing must be backed up by adequate social services. Fortunately, the recently announced restrictions on public expenditure do not apply to the health and personal social services in any area. In fact, hospitals in the Northern Region have done better than the average hospital in England.
  I was surprised to learn, when I looked at the figures, that the Northern Region contains only just over 7 per cent. of the school population of England. However, the allocation of national resources for schools in the Northern Region is very much more than 7 per cent. of the whole. That is deservedly so because the school accommodation in the area is in general outdated. The score of 114 schools to be built in the region by 1976 should go a long way to replace outdated school accommodation.
  Last January I had the honour to preside over a meeting of the Northern Region Economic Planning Council and the 14 local planning authorities forming the North Regional Planning Committee. The meeting was to launch a study by a professional team leading to the production of a regional strategy. That is a strategy which will provide a rational framework for local and national decisions for the Northern Region—investment decisions particularly—and which will provide guidelines for the local planning authority's structure plans.
  I found no depression amongst those at the meeting either about the future of the Northern Region or about the assistance given by central Government. I admit that the North East Development Council was not present. It has chosen to circulate to right hon. and hon. Members a paper crying "Woe, woe." I should have thought that a development council should be preaching boom and not doom. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]
  If we continue with the present programme of construction work on roads, rail and ports, of attracting new industries to the region, of pressing on with the housing and improvement progress that has already been made, of expanding and renewing the hospitals and schools, and of grasping the nettle quickly when difficult problems arise and when industries
  1020
  in the area have to close, I am sure that it it will be a boom story for the Northern Region.
  4.45 p.m.
  Mr. Arthur Bottomley: The right hon. Gentleman has been given an impossible task. I think that he knows in his heart that the material which he has presented in support of the Government amendment is weak.
  The right hon. Gentleman mentioned Teesside in passing and gave a list of development items. He seemed to indicate that the Government have been responsible for those developments. That is quite untrue, except in the case of the British Steel complex. The Government can claim no credit for any other development. All the people who are knowledgeable about the steel industry were agreed that the only economic site where the complex could have been put was on Teesside.
  The right hon. Gentleman in passing referred to an educational development in the North-East. I wonder whether he is aware that on Teesside there are still more children per teacher per class than in any other part of England, Wales or Scotland. Further, why did he not mention Teesside in connection with the dispersal of civil servants? I know why he did not do so. There is still no Government office of substance in the area. I hope that when the Hardman Report comes out next week we shall get some result. I should have been pleased if the right hon. Gentleman had been in a position to tell us something about that matter.
  The Prime Minister and about half of the Cabinet have at one time or other been to Teesside. For what good they have done they might as well have stayed away. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Knutsford (Mr. John Davies), when he was Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, said that he was well aware that the industrial problems of the North-East were deep-seated and could not be abolished as though by a magic wand. We did not expect him to produce a magic wand but we expected some help. During the right hon. Gentleman's period of office, we received precious little help.
  The right hon. Member for Mitcham (Mr. R. Carr), when Secretary of State

  1021
  for Employment, opened a Government training centre. We were very glad that he was able to do so. When he opened the centre and when he was in the area subsequently he was approached about a scheme which has been operated by the Teesside Youth Employment officer and the personnel officer of ICI. In Teesside, as is well known, young men and women find it difficult to get jobs. Those with lower academic standards tend to roam the streets. The two gentlemen I have mentioned decided to produce a craft scheme in addition to the ICI training scheme. Young men can join this scheme for 12 weeks. They should go for longer. Pressure has been put on the Ministry to allow the scheme to run over a longer period. Young men are taught the basic elements of a craft. At the end of 12 weeks they are able to do jobs. They can undertake jobs, for example, at their friends' homes and some can find employment. That is a good scheme. But what is the Secretary of State for Employment doing? He is doing nothing about it.
  I am told by one person who is knowledgeable about these matters that an application for the scheme to be extended has been under consideration for some time and as yet no answer is forthcoming. Perhaps we were hoping for too much in expecting such help from the present Secretary of State for Employment.
  The Minister for Industrial Development has said that, as far as possible, decisions on Government assistance for industrial development in the North-East should be taken in the North-East. I could not agree with him more. Perhaps he will tell us when decisions on industrial development in the North-East will take place.
  Industrial development in the North-East will be held back, as has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Urwin), by the decision of the Secretary of State for the Environment. But for his action the Kielder Dam could have been in operation in April of this year. The Northern Region's thirst for water is an urgent problem.
  The Secretary of State for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has declined to make a grant to provide Teesside with a new fruit, vegetable and flower market. The need arose because of the clearance of slums and derelict areas. I am assured
  1022
  by knowledgeable people that if a new central market at Teesside is not forthcoming, not only will the cost of goods go up but produce such as fruit and vegetables will be less fresh. That is not a pleasant outlook for those on Teesside.
  The people of Teesside have precious little for which to thank the Government. The area wants many things. I have no doubt that my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. William Rodgers) will mention the university. In the hope that he or one of my other hon. Friends will do so, I shall not pursue that matter further. The fact is that far too little has been done not only on Teesside but in the North as a whole to overcome our basic problems.
  To replace the decaying houses, roads and schools is a heavy burden. The average personal income in the North-East is only 79 per cent. of the national average. The people of the North-East prefer to be self-reliant but the handicaps caused by being pioneers of the industrial revolution are too great to be overcome without Government assistance.
  If the North-East is to be brought up to the higher standard prevailing in other parts of the country, what is needed is a Cabinet Minister with a Department of State to back him. It can be argued that this Government and the Labour Government have been more generous to development areas than other parts of the country, but that is not good enough, because to overcome the difficulties caused by the North-East having been the cradle of industrial development, substantial Government grants are required. After all, the basic wealth of the country comes from these industrial areas.
  There are many other problems in addition to those which I have mentioned. For example, the environmental hazards in the North are higher than in many other large areas of the country. Because of the heavy concentration of industry on Teesside, it has a larger level of pollution. Firms such as ICI, the British Steel Corporation, Head Wrightson, Power Gas and Warner Brothers, and many others, spend large sums of money in trying to control pollution of the area caused by their manufactures. They are under constant pressure from myself and other Teesside Members of Parliament, and I know that these firms sometimes spend

  1023
  beyond what they consider to be reasonable economic limits.
  It is essential for these firms to produce as cheaply as possible, because most of them are exporters on which the country's economy and success depends. The Government should consider creating a special fund, and other parts of the country ought not to mind being taxed additionally in order that Government grants—not loans—can be given to help overcome the environmental problems in areas such as the North-East Region. The same is true of the waterways. The River Tees is heavily contaminated by industrial effluent and to put the entire burden on port, harbour and local authorities is unjustified. Grants, not loans, are required to meet the cost, which can amount to millions of pounds.
  One must recognise that the North-East cannot benefit unless investment improves in the country as a whole. We are told that this is now taking place. But we have not yet seen in the North-East the effects of this measure of economic development, in which we should benefit substantially, as we have a right to expect. For example, because of rationalisation—and one cannot argue against that if it will make industry more efficient—Teesside has lost about 10,000 jobs, which can never be replaced. The unemployment must be soaked up, and for this purpose it is not only necessary to encourage new industry to come to Teesside but the Government must consider giving grants to expand existing industry.
  In looking forward, we must face the fact that, although we have argued for employment now, the time is not too distant when work will be a privilege in this age of automation, computers and technical improvements. It is inevitable that there will be fewer jobs, not only in the North-East but in the country generally. This must compel the Government and all of us to consider now how to bring about shorter working hours, longer holidays and a shorter working life. People will retire earlier and provision will have to be made for further education slanted towards helping them to enjoy their increased leisure, to travel, to understand the arts and culture, and to learn new crafts. In the meantime, we must recognise that our im-
  1024
  mediate and urgent problem is to achieve for the North-East the same opportunities and standards as are enjoyed in the rest of the country.
  5.8 p.m.
  Dame Irene Ward: When I seek to catch your eye in a debate of this kind, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I find myself in a slight quandary, because the problems of the North-East are so vast and require so much attention. I find myself wishing to discuss certain proposals and to find out from the Government what progress is being made. Yet at the same time, as a very good supporter of the Government, I feel that it ought to be my opportunity to discuss the relative proposals and actions of my Government compared with those of the Labour Party. Inevitably, however, what I have to say often carries with it some criticism of my own Government. I hope, therefore, that my right hon. Friends will forgive me if I do criticise them, because I do so from the basis, "Thank God, the Labour Party is not in power and the Conservative Party is." I hope that my right hon. Friends will accept that as my view.
  I am most interested in the motion. The hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Urwin) did his best, as he always does. But his best does not get us very far. He concentrated, quite naturally, on the industrial problems and did not mention the social services aspect, although that is included in the terms of the motion. That was very reasonable of him. Sometimes the Opposition show a little sense—not always—and it was certainly sensible of the hon. Gentleman not to mention the social services aspect because we could massacre the Opposition by pointing out the progress made in the social services since the present Government took office. It was very wise of the hon. Gentleman not to enter into that aspect.
  However, I often feel that when we are discussing such problems some good ideas do come from the Opposition. Much better ideas come from the Conservative Party but the Opposition do have some good ideas, and I always pay my tribute to the hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris) for his Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, which has been implemented by the

  1025
  present Government. That is an example of a very proper co-operation. If Labour Members had embarked on that part of the motion dealing with social security we could have massacred them. I do not want to massacre them on this occasion. It is, however, important to discuss the problems of industry.
  I was in the House of Commons during the last war. When war was declared, the assessment was that the enemy would bomb the North-East Coast and part of Scotland. The edict went forth that we were to have no new industry or development. We were not able to build new schools and things like that. That has added very much to our problems. Any Government ought to give us the maximum amount of money.
  A place such as Birmingham was extremely lucky—although I am glad that I do not have to represent it in the House of Commons. During the war much of the new development which helped us in our victory was carried out in Birmingham. It had the development of the motor car, radio and television industries and, a little further north, there was the development of the man-made fibre industry.
  The people of the North-East Coast have a great genius for invention. We could have made a great contribution which would have helped our area as well as the country. Most people in the House today do not have that background knowledge, but it is worth emphasising.
  I do not agree with what is said in Cambridge or elsewhere about regional employment premium. I have my own views. At the last General Election I did not subscribe to the policy set out in our manifesto. I left myself free to do what I thought was right when the time came. I am not against the Government's policy on this but they are inclined to talk in general terms.
  Before the Government finally take their decision they ought to make an analysis of the small businesses on Tyneside, Teesside and in Cumberland to discover what their problems will be if REP is phased out. Among the many good speeches that have been made recently by members of my Government has been one dealing with small businesses. I am in close touch with what goes on in Tyne-
  1026
  side and I know that there are many small businesses there which in recent years would have been making a loss but for regional employment premium. Governments have to present an overall policy without filling in the detail. I am not prepared to support the Government in phasing out regional employment premium until that analysis has been made to my satisfaction.
  If that phasing out is disadvantageous to the small businesses it may be possible to withdraw the premium from some areas and industries while at the same time maintaining it for others until they are in a position, under a Conservative Government, to do without it. I am certain that we shall win the next General Election. I know that the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring kept talking about "when we win". His party has not won yet and I do not think it will. If small businesses cannot operate without the premium I want to know what the Government intend to do to ensure that these businesses carry on. I beg the Government to pay some attention to those who are in close touch with small businesses.
  I have a great admiration for the Secretary of State for the Environment but sometimes when I like Ministers that does not mean that I like their policies. It was a little unwise of my right hon. and learned Friend to embark on the Kielder project. He said that flooding the Kielder Valley would destroy a lovely valley. I am years older than he is and I do not suppose that anyone else in this House has walked that valley, ridden on a bicycle up it, driven up it. During the war I used to go there quite often because there was an establishment there where we used to send our Naval personnel to recover from some of the terrible experiences they suffered during the war. I know the valley very well indeed. I have come to the conclusion that my right hon. and learned Friend is a conservationist. He appreciates the wonderful constituency which he represents. But I have been in the House of Commons for a long time, and I have always fought to ensure the economic survival of the North-East Coast and the provision of jobs.
  The Member for Houghton-le-Spring asked whether the Secretary of State for

  1027
  Trade and Industry had made any representations about the Kielder project. Last Friday I attended a meeting of the North-East Development Council at which the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry made a first-class speech. He was asked whether any representations had been made by his Department about the Kielder project and the provision of jobs. He answered that, although it was not his responsibility, his Department had made representations, and I was glad to hear him say that. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Development who spoke this afternoon speaks for the environment and not for trade and industry.
  I wonder whether hon Members have seen the beautiful new dam at Derwent Water, which has given a great deal of pleasure to sportsmen and the young. I see no reason why a similar beautiful dam cannot be constructed at Kielder. It was unwise of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Development to embark on this subject. I could tear him to shreds. I am sometimes regarded as a rebel, and I enjoy being a rebel. I have asked to attend the inquiry to give evidence. I have sufficient evidence from industry to show that the industrialists and trade unions concerned are determined so far as is within their power that the Kielder project shall be accepted. Parliament usually comes to the right decision.
  I have received from the CBI a list of the people who will be affected if the Kielder project is rejected. We have in the North the ICI, the river board, many big industries and the Scottish and Newcastle breweries. I ask my right hon. Friend to consider what a commotion there would be if the British working man were unable to get his beer because of a lack of water. I have a long list of important firms which have already made representations, and I have made representations on the subject to Lord Carrington. There seems to be no constitutional reason why I should not give evidence to the inquiry.
  The new inspector who has been appointed, Sir Robert Scott, had a distinguished administrative career in the Far East. I am delighted that he has been appointed. Those who are familiar with his work know of his ability,
  1028
  integrity and understanding. I do not think that we shall have any difficulty in explaining to him the needs of industry. I wonder how much knowledge the Secretary of State for the Environment or the Minister for Local Government and Development have of the industrial needs of the North.
  Mr. Graham Page: The need for a new water supply for the North-East is not in question in any way. We want to see whether the need can be met by the alternative sites which were put forward, and we think that there is time to find out in the short period of the new inquiry.
  Dame Irene Ward: That sounds a reasonable argument, but I know enough about civil servants—whom I very much admire—to know that they are often dogmatic. I also know about dogmatic Ministers, among whom I include the Secretary of State for the Environment. He is perfectly entitled to his opinion, but, having lived with an industrial background all my life, I prefer to be guided by the industrialists who know their own business.
  I am terribly sorry about the few people who will lose their houses if the Kielder project goes through, but there is no reason why they should not be properly rehoused. The Secretary of State for the Environment has allowed an awful mess to be made of Newcastle. Many lovely houses have been pulled down and many splendid trees. The Secretary of State has allowed Eldon Square, of which I am very proud, to be spoiled.
  When I start to fight, I fight and if I lose, I lose. The Secretary of State knows about all the representations that have been made. I will not go into detail now because I do not believe in stating my case until it is necessary to do so. I do not think that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry or the Minister for Local Government and Development have much knowledge of the industrial needs of the north. They certainly do not have as much knowledge as that which was contained in the representations made by the river boards, the Newcastle and Gateshead Water Company and all the industries in my area in seeking to stress the anxiety which has been caused by the Government's decision.

  1029
  I have in my Division one particularly good firm which won the Queen's Award for Industry, and we are very proud of that company. On the very occasion when the Secretary of State wrote to tell me that the Queen's Award had been given to that firm I received a letter from the firm——
  Mr. Robert C. Brown: Too long!
  Dame Irene Ward: I can talk for as long as I like. I know that certain hon. Gentlemen opposite do not want to hear me, but that does not worry me. The firm wrote to me in favour of the Kielder project. The firm wants to expand, but unless it receives an absolute assurance it will have to consider moving to Europe—perhaps to Belgium or to Holland. My comment, which perhaps was a little cynical, was that perhaps they would rather have been given the water to assist them to promote their activities and to help them in their expansion than to have been given the Queen's Award.
  The North-East is benefiting under a Conservative Government, because we have produced plans for the area and we also have the economic resources in the Treasury to meet the various grants. I could probably spend much more money on various projects than many Labour Members, but the point is that I have faith in the Conservative Government because against the background of its economic and financial policies we can supply the money. Those policies are vastly superior to the sort of stupidities which often arise from the activities of various Labour Governments. I am happy to have had the opportunity of making these remarks, and I shall support the Government's amendment because it is in the best interests of the North-East.
  5.32 p.m.
  Mr. David Reed: I do not propose to take up the conversations of the hon. Lady the Member for Tyne-mouth (Dame Irene Ward) about the Kielder Valley or to dwell for long on the speech made by the Minister for Local Government and Development. Both speakers went back to earlier years to find examples of projects in the Northern Region—projects which were started before I was born—to demonstrate
  1030
  that a Conservative Government are able to bring real benefit to the region. I do not wish to go back many years to that sort of experience but want instead to get down to what this debate is really about.
  I wish in my remarks to limit myself to saying that from an industrial point of view we must find the means to attract private enterprise investment into the Northern Region. Labour Members have many projects in mind which we should like to see brought into the region and which would involve public investment, but faced as we are with the present Conservative Government, there is very little point in spending much time on that topic.
  On the question of private enterprise investment, I remember the words of a former boss of mine, the then chairman of the North-East Development Council. His view was that industry was a question of people and money working together and that we must persuade the Government to come up with the money to support our people. This is what successive Governments seem to have done over the last 10 or 15 years. There have been various forms of stick-and-carrot policies aimed at attracting industry to the Northern Region and other development areas. One of our criticisms of the present Government is that they seem to have weakened both the stick and the carrot at the same time.
  I want to concentrate on the other side of the argument, and that is the question of having the right sort of skilled people in the Northern Region. Even with the advent of the Conservative Government's Industry Act, the estimated figure to be spent on industrial incentives in the development regions is £314 million. Up to a point the investment incentive argument is being dealt with, but what is not being tackled is the question of the provision of skilled labour and training facilities in the Northern Region. With over 50,000 men unemployed in the region, it must be remembered that only about 10 per cent. have skills to offer to new industry. Despite what was said by the Minister for Local Government and Development about the expansion of Government training centre places, GTCs, technical colleges and all the rest, including private industrial training, there will be a throughput of only 6,000 people per

  1031
  year as a result of all the schemes lumped together—and that is not enough.
  I should like to see the Government taking a much more sophisticated approach to training, to the business of finding which skills will be in demand in the coming years and to providing places for people to be trained. A useful start to such an exercise would be to carry out a scheme such as that which was conducted by the consultants who produced the Leyland-Chorley development plan. In that plan the consultants took the existing industrial base of the area and carried out an analysis to try to discover what investment would be likely to be attracted in future. They used an industrial complex analysis to demonstrate clearly the sort of new industry that was likely to be attracted. I should like to see such an exercise carried out for the Northern Region as a whole.
  For far too long in the region we have accepted indiscriminate investment on the basis that it is better than nothing. From the long-term point of view that is not the right approach. I should like to see some forward thinking being carried out in terms of the industrial future in the region so that it can be translated into the training sphere and so that we shall know the sort of skills which will be needed in the future.
  I wish to put forward one specific case related to my constituency in which such an exercise would be valuable. There is one operating pit in my constituency, at Fishburn. It is a short-life pit which, because of its geological condition, has probably three or four years of working left. There is no doubt in most people's minds that that pit must eventually close. The people who are employed in that pit amount to some 600 and they are a tremendous asset to the region as a whole. What worries me is that if that pit is allowed to close without some form of compensatory scheme, then that valuable asset of labour will be dissipated and we shall never be able to recreate it.
  The cost to central government of running down that pit, in terms of social security and similar benefits, would probably be in the region of £500,000 to £750,000 a year. If those workers are not enabled to find new employment soon after the pit closes, then there will
  1032
  be an enormous loss unless some sort of compensation is built into the situation.
  I return to the question of training. If the Government first carry out an industrial complex analysis of the region as a whole, we shall have a clearer idea of the kind of skills which will be needed. The Government could then phase in a training scheme and could use the Fishburn pit as a guinea-pig project to try to discover whether the coherent working force of 600 people in the area could be kept together for the benefit of the region. I think that such a scheme could work extremely well.
  I envisage a mass training programme keyed in to a rundown at the pit. Such a programme would mean that 600 people in my constituency would escape the prospects of immediate redundancy. There are many attractions in such a scheme, including the availability of skilled labour in an area which may well attract new investment. There would be obvious benefits for the region as a whole and not merely for my constituents—although, of course, that aspect to me is of vital importance.
  The Minister for Local Government and Development was somewhat snide in his remarks about the reaction of the trade union movement in the Northern Region to retraining schemes. It is a pity that the right hon. Gentleman has left the Chamber. He might like to know that when I was in my constituency working out what I would say in this debate I talked to officials of the trade union movement with a view to obtaining their reactions to this new approach to industrial training. In every single case I was told, "Yes, we will accept it, given certain very minor safeguards". I also talked to the people themselves, especially to those employed in that pit. They, too, said that they would accept a scheme of that nature, again with very minor safeguards. The trade union movement now accepts the need for this kind of training to meet the requirements of industry in the future, and it does not behove the right hon. Gentleman to criticise it from a very inadequate knowledge of the current situation.
  I appreciate that the proposed scheme is a departure and that there could be many snags which would have to be worked out in advance. But it is in an

  1033
  area where new thinking is needed and where we need to start developing new and more sophisticated methods of training people in line with the real demand for them from industry. I hope that we shall hear from the Minister that he intends to see whether it is possible to conduct a feasibility study in the area with a view to discovering whether a scheme of this kind can be introduced.
  5.41 p.m.
  Mr. Ron Lewis: I first became a Member of this House in 1964. In all my years here it has been my experience whenever we have discussed the Northern Region to hear the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) making a marathon speech. Today has been no exception.
  When we discuss the Northern Region there is always a tendency to concentrate on the north-east side of the region. We are apt to forget that the Northern Region stretches across to the Cumberland coast.
  In what I have to say I make no apology for talking about parish pump politics. After all, it is the people in the region who count and, like other hon. Members, I was sent here to speak up for those whom I represent.
  The area which I represent and the county of Cumberland as a whole have always been regarded as a low-wage earning area. Sometimes I wish that the Department would produce a table district by district so that we could see whether there was any truth in the supposition. It is accepted that ours is a low-wage earning area. That being the case, one of the problems facing Cumberland is the lack of job opportunities. There are no prospects, and many of our young people, after receiving their education, have to seek fresh pastures in other parts of the country with the result that their knowledge and skills are lost to their home county.
  We hear a great deal from this Government about the way in which they are improving living standards in the Northern Region. That is the suggestion in their amendment today. However, Ministers ought to come to my part of the country. They will find there and in the county of Cumberland that living standards are not being improved but that, on the contrary, as the result of increased prices the people
  1034
  of the area are having to go without a great deal and are finding life very difficult.
  Recently in Cumberland we experienced the closure of the Solway Colliery. That in itself was a tragedy. I believe that it was a mistake that we shall regret in years to come. In the past, we have been dependent upon coal and, during the last war, the mining communities of Northumberland, Cumberland and Durham made a wonderful contribution to the war effort with their coal production. Now we have just closed Solway Colliery, which has left nearly 500 people in the area without jobs.
  Coming nearer to my own part of the county, I wish to refer to Spadeadam, where we have a number of highly skilled technical personnel. A few weeks ago, like a bolt out of the blue, the management was told by the Government that Spadaedam was to be closed completely by the end of the year. I have been in correspondence with the Ministry of Defence about it. I hope that in the course of the debate some assurance will be given to those who are to be displaced as a result of the Spadeadam closure that job opportunities will be created for them in the area and that they will not be forced to leave as so many of our young people have had to do.
  There are also rumours that the axe is to swing on the railways. I am not unmindful of the fact that ours is a very important railway centre. Last week the Guardian reported that the Government had decided to go ahead with certain branch line closures. If there is any truth in that report, I hope that there will be second thoughts. If the Carlisle-to-Whitehaven line and the Carlisle-to-Newcastle line are closed, the result will be redundancies on British Railways.
  A couple of years ago, this Government decided to hand back to private enterprise the Carlisle District State Management Scheme. That in itself has left its problems in Carlisle. However, immediately after the sale was completed, some of the firms which bought premises put them on the market again. It is rumoured that properties have been sold at enhanced rates and that fat profits have been made. However, that is rumour. I have no evidence to substantiate it. The fact remains, though, that we are still suffering the effects of the Government's

  1035
  decision to denationalise the Carlisle District State Management Scheme.
  Since we are looking at the Northern Region as a whole, I hope that the Minister will help us to ensure that Cumberland is not allowed to die.
  5.50 p.m.
  Mr. R. W. Elliott (Newcastle-upon-Tyne, North): I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Ron Lewis) for one reason above all others. As I told him earlier today, I cannot remember a debate on the Northern Region when he did not interrupt me after I had been speaking for no fewer than two minutes.
  Mr. Ron Lewis: There is plenty of time.
  Mr. Elliott: However, I imagine that we may depart from precedent today in that the hon. Gentleman preceded me for once. I agree with what the hon. Gentleman said at the beginning of his speech, that so often in debates we are inclined to think of the Northern Region as being solely the eastern half. Of course, there is the western half. Those of us who are of the Northern Region try to remember and take due account of it. We recognise to the full the problems associated with the Spadeadam development.
  I should like to refer to the thoughtful speech by the hon. Member for Sedge-field (Mr. David Reed) who preceded the hon. Member for Carlisle. That which he suggested is sound in theory. The hon. Gentleman began by suggesting that he could not go as far back as some hon. Members either in years of experience in this House or in years in which he has lived. That is so. As a comment on his suggestion of pre-thinking before 600 miners become redundant, the matter of training, and particularly retraining, is something that we have had to face in quite recent times. I can recall in my time in this House when there were merely 699 Government training places in the Northern Region and we had difficulty in filling them. That was not so many years ago. Indeed, it is not so many years ago that unskilled labour could find employment quite easily. Although we have known the enormous
  1036
  need to increase our skills, this need has come upon us quite suddenly, and it is a problem with which we are not yet fully prepared to cope. Nevertheless, I found the hon. Gentleman's contribution most interesting.
  One of the great benefits of such a debate as this is that emerging from it should be some forward thinking. An industrial complex analysis, as the hon. Gentleman called it, is something that we would all commend. It may be of interest to the hon. Gentleman that in a debate of this nature a number of years ago I appealed to his right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle), when she had responsibility in this context, to instigate a full inquiry into the needs and reactions of new industrialists who had gone into development areas. I felt at that time, and still feel today, that we do not know enough about the problems of those who have accepted the invitation, have responded to the incentives to go to the development areas, and have found a variety of problems which I have found in visiting them. The new industrialists—I had an example of this last weekend—are finding considerable difficulty in obtaining the new and necessary skills for their developments.
  The attitude of the trade union movement, to which the hon. Gentleman also referred, is much better now. But, with respect to the trade union movement, there are those of us who remember when its attitude was extremely awkward, particularly regarding retraining. It was an attitude which one fully understood, but it was awkward nevertheless. I pay tribute to the trade union movement in this regard in that it has shown an enormous advance and improvement particularly in recent years.
  The right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Bottomley) delivered a most thoughtful speech. I was pleased that he resurrected the ghost of a university of technology on Teesside. It is high time that we started thinking about that again. The right hon. Gentleman rightly emphasised the enormous burdens in our areas which are an inheritance of the industrial revolution.
  I think that we might pause for a moment to appreciate to the full the promise of regional aid which will come from membership of the EEC. I am convinced that such areas as the north-east

  1037
  of England will benefit enormously when the Community gets round, as it will, as its next big stage of development, to aid to areas which have out-of-date industrial plant, machinery and buildings. I am convinced that the Northern Region will benefit enormously when we get to that stage.
  Mr. Rhodes: This question is not designed to embarrass the hon. Gentleman. Is he aware that in priority terms it has been announced in both Strasbourg and Brussels that the three criteria for priority aid are the movement of labour out of an area, the per capita income, and the unemployment in the area? On those criteria, we in the North compare very well with the South of Italy, the South-West of France, parts of Scotland and parts of Ireland. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman, in saying "when the Community gets round to it", is speaking with some inner knowledge that perhaps we shall not be in the first batch, but in a year or two or perhaps three or four years.
  Mr. Elliott: I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's views on the Common Market in general and the Community's plans for development areas elsewhere. We have debated this matter on televsion and in other places. I am still, without pausing too long on the point, optimistic.
  Mr. Rhodes: I hope the hon. Gentleman is right.
  Mr. Elliott: I think that the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East was right to take full note of technological advance. Although it is possibly casting forward into the future a little, I think that those of us who are here this afternoon will have to think more in terms of a shorter working week and and of technical advance and its effects on redundancy generally. Redundancy is an enormous problem of our time. At the annual meeting of the North-East Development Council in Newcastle on Friday of last week, it was a rather moving moment when the director, in presenting his report, said that he had talked just a few days previously to some good, honest working men on Teesside who had been made redundant for a second time. Those of us who have tried to study and follow the problems of our region for
  1038
  some years do not need to have emphasised the psychological effect of being made redundant once. It was a disturbing thought that there are those still in the prime of life who have been made redundant twice. Therefore, we need to think more in terms of technological advance and its effect on redundancy and employment as a whole.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Tyne-mouth (Dame Irene Ward) made an extremely good contribution to the debate. I should like to take this opportunity, having worked with her so happily for many years, to congratulate her most warmly, as I am sure everyone in the House would wish, on the substantial honour that she has just obtained. It gave us all a great deal of pleasure.
  This is one of many debates on the Northern Region in which I have taken part over some years. On this occasion I think that we should once again welcome the opportunity sensibly to discuss our region's continuing problems—but I must express dismay at the terms of the motion.
  First, the past year has seen an enormous improvement in the affairs of the Northern Region. We have 20,000 fewer people unemployed, investment is flowing to us, and production is rising. The success of the Industry Act is already most spectacular. Again, if I may recall the North-East Development Council's annual meeting on Friday, the Secretary of State said that 40 new applications under the terms of the Industry Act had been made in the month of May alone. This, in addition to the other jobs which have come from this legislation, gives a promise of 3,000 extra jobs. Also, 32 factories and factory units have been allocated in the last six months. In other words, at last there is a bright prospect for the Northern Region.
  I cannot remember taking part in any debate here on the Northern Region when the prospects have been better. Those prospects can be summed up no better than in the words of the Chairman of the North-East Development Council when, giving his report on Friday last, he said,
  "The prospects for the Tyne, the Tees and the Wear are brighter than they have been for many a year."
  That is why, however much a discussion of our continuing problems is desirable, I

  1039
  find the terms of the Opposition motion, to say the least, most surprising.
  I am also dismayed because the motion does not help us in our region in one very important respect. For far too long we have derided our region and have suggested that the quality of life there is lower. I myself have for years advocated an end to what I believe the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Urwin) referred to as the "begging bowl" attitude. I have for years advocated an improvement generally in our approach to the nation's economic affairs by suggestion that the North-East of England has an enormous amount to contribute to our national good.
  The amendment quite rightly refers to the vigorous policy of the present Government overcoming our region's problems and bringing us into economic and social balance with the rest of the country. But it cannot be said too often as a lesson from the past for the future that regional balance can be achieved only if the central economic policy of the Government of the day is working.
  We cannot get any better illustration of the fact that grants and aid alone will never solve the problems of a development area than we had in the 6½ years of Labour Government because grants and aid were given then with the best will in the world and with all possible sincerity. I have never doubted the sincerity of Opposition Members in wanting to solve the region's problems, but it was no good pouring in grants and aid when the Government's central economic policy was not working. However, unpalatable it is to hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite the hard fact is that from the dawning of that July morning in 1966 when the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) announced his freeze and squeeze, unemployment rose—as taxation rose—in the North of England. It has taken 2½years of Conservative Government—as taxation has fallen—to reverse that trend.
  We need further to strengthen our position. It has already been stressed that shortage of skill in the Northern Region is at this time quite serious. No fewer than 32,000 of our unemployed have no skills, and principals of new industry having come to our region—and, as I say, I talked to one such principal only this
  1040
  weekend—count this as a major problem which faces them in the development of their business and industry.
  We cannot afford any complacency here. We need more training, more training places. For instance, does it not seem deplorable that we still have twice the national average of unemployment when we have 2,000 unfilled vacancies in the building industry alone? The building industry is just one example. There must be something we can do about it. The number of training places has increased dramatically in my time in the House but it must increase further. I make the suggestion to my right hon. Friend.
  We also need more encouragement to firms to undertake their own training. Much more can be done in sponsored courses, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to give us some encouragement in this respect. We need more area research and development into the needs of new industries, and we need more inquiry into the linking of knowledge in the educational system as a whole.
  We also need more encouragement to be given to unemployed youth. In company with the right hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey), who I am pleased to see in his place, I took part in a recent BBC broadcast in Sunderland in a series called "Man Alive". There are many unemployed people in Sunderland, and I found it somewhat depressing to appreciate the level of self-sympathy existing there, not so much on the part of young people but on the part of fellow members of the panel, and I also found it distressing to realise that the young people of Sunderland—and of other places in the region—were unwilling and unhappy about going beyond the boundaries of Sunderland, to find employment. We do not want them to have to go too far but we must get over this feeling that the job must be brought to the very door of the unemployed person.
  It will just not happen in that way. I can remember in early debates on our regional problems that hon. Members now in opposition but at another time on the Government side used to advocate a new industrial pattern in our region—a pattern of factories being constructed where the pits had been. That just will

  1041
  not do, and we now all have to learn to adhere to the growth area complex. There are certain parts of the region to which new industry will come, and young people particularly have to realise that they must set forth from Sunderland and other places and go to that new industry, having fitted themselves with the required skills.
  The northern part of our region, up on the borders of Northumberland, is badly served by Government training centres. For instance, an unemployed young person or a redundant person in the town of Berwick-upon-Tweed has to travel as far as Galashiels before reaching a Government training centre. The region needs more service industries, as we all appreciate, and we would like to show them that we have a great deal to offer. We welcome the decision of the Thorn heating firm to move from Crawley to Tyneside—a splendid example; the move of McFarlane Foods from Lincolnshire to The Hartlepools; and we very much welcome the increase in investment of the Ever-ready firm in its Tanfield-Lee complex.
  We must make further effort to benefit to the full from the oil boom. In this respect I draw attention to an urgent problem which faces us, and to the surveys conducted by the Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority. I know that the hon. Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. Leadbitter) will, Mr. Deputy Speaker, also wish to draw this matter to the attention of the Government if he succeeds in catching your eye. That authority has expressed grave concern about shortages of land on Teesside. There is urgent and immediate need for reclamation of additional land for industry at the mouth of the Tees if we are to get full benefit from the Ekofisk development.
  Mr. Leadbitter: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees that the sooner we have a survey of the land required there for industrial needs the better it will be. It is essential that a survey and immediate consultation should take place.
  Mr. Elliott: I agree, and I hope that bringing this matter forward will mean that my right hon. Friend will take some note of it.
  1042
  I join with those who have suggested that our region would very much welcome any dispersal to it of Government office personnel from the Metropolis. Nevertheless, having been fortunate enough, as was the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Bagier), to go on a deputation to the Minister concerned, I do not think that we should place very great hopes in this eventuality because the number of civil servants who can be dispersed to the region is not enormous. Nevertheless, there are possibilities, and we await the Hardman Report with enthusiasm and interest. Among other things, this debate should be used to express our desire to have offices of Government Departments in our region, if that is possible.
  Finally, it would be wrong for the debate to pass without some expression of the dismay of some of our major concerns in the Northern Region at the possibility of the alternative Government nationalising major businesses. For firms such as Swan Hunter and Austin Pickersgill, for all firms associated with the North Sea oil industries, proposals by an alternative Government about public ownership can only be wholly discouraging at a time when they need every encouragement.
  6.10 p.m.
  Mr. Frederick Wiley: I shall not be provoked by the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, North (Mr. R. W. Elliott) as I am anxious to be brief and to afford some of my colleagues an opportunity that they might otherwise miss.
  First, for the reasons given by the Minister and others, I think that the outlook for the North-East Development Area is probably more promising than that for any other development area. But that is not the issue. The point at issue is the Government's complacency. What worries me is that the Minister refers with satisfaction to a level of unemployment that is quite intolerable. We are not prepared to hear this from Ministers who do not represent constituencies in development areas.
  The right hon. Gentleman spoke with equal complacency about training. I should have thought that it was obvious to anyone that the fact that nine out of 10 of the men unemployed in the region

  1043
  have either no skills or skills that are redundant is a very grave discouragement to industry coming to the North-East. We should tackle this problem with a determination which reflects our determination to bring work to the North-East Coast.
  Similarly, I complain about the relaxed attitude of the Government towards development area policy. We have repeatedly heard this. It is a recurring pattern. When things are very bad we are told that we cannot do anything because it is impossible to attract industry to a development area; but when there is an upturn we are told that we need not do anything because things are in any case going very well. That is the dilemma. This is the time when development area policy is most important and must be made effective.
  I mention one or two further points merely as headings. It is very important to remove any uncertainty about regional employment premium. The Government talked about phasing out REP next year. We must have some certainty about what is going to be done because the one thing that discourages industry is uncertainty.
  The same applies in relation to the Common Market. I believe that we shall benefit and that the region will be advantaged by our membership of the Common Market. I know that this is not only in the hands of the Government, but as long as there is uncertainty, industry will be discouraged. Industry will put off and procastinate.
  Two aspects of development area policy are increasing in importance and it is recognised that they ought to become much more significant. The first is the importance of service industries and the second is the importance of office employment. We are told that we shall be getting the Hardman Report in a few days. We are also led to believe that it will not be a very encouraging report. Let us have it as soon as possible and let us get effective Government action as soon as possible.
  My main purpose is to call attention to the shipbuilding industry. Shipbuilding is very much in the same position as development area policy. It is a cyclical industry. When things improve we are told that all is well and that we need not
  1044
  do anything. That is exactly what happened about Geddes. We no sooner start to congratulate ourselves on the fact that we are implementing Geddes than we are congratulating ourselves that there is no need to do anything when the order books are full. It is important that we have the Booz-Allen Report when we have a boost in the order books. We should recognise the basic importance of Booz-Allen, which is saying to the industry that whereas hitherto it has emerged from each boom relatively worse off than it was prior to the boom, this time it will emerge absolutely worse off. It warns us that whatever aid is given to the industry there will be substantial redundancy.
  I have previously recognised the interest which the Minister for Industrial Development has shown in the Sunderland shipyards. I now beg him to come to an early decision. In our last debate on the subject six months ago, the Secretary of State said that there was an agreed formula and that we would have a speedy decision. We have been waiting for Booz-Allen, but we have not got Booz-Allen and we need a decision. I cannot complain that we have been seriously prejudiced during our wait of six months by this lack of decision, but we will be if there is any further delay. We cannot wait any longer.
  The hon. Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) mentioned in our previous debate the question of the marine engine Seahorse. Equally, we need a decision about that. These two matters are vitally important in the context of development area policy and of shipbuilding. I hope that we have a decision very soon.
  The other consequence that follows from this is that we must get every patent obvious support from the Government to get British Leyland into the North-East Coast, preferably in the area between the mouths of the Tyne and the Wear. As Booz-Allen points out, the whole structure of shipbuilding has been perverted because massive Government aid has gone into three of the eight major yards in this country. The further significance of the Booz-Allen Report is that unless something is done, if things are left as they are, this will probably affect the future of British shipbuilding to the detriment of the North-East Coast. As we are told in

  1045
  this report that there will be redundancies and the report repeatedly points out that Government money has been poured into three yards in particular and that the North-East is the only shipbuilding district which has not had this Government support, the least that we are entitled to claim is that support now. We are entitled to special and exceptional aid to persuade British Leyland to come to the North-East Coast. I hope that the Government will make it clear that they are trying to do that.
  Finally, although we have been talking in economic terms, the real state of affairs in the North-East is found in social terms. It is the social differences. The average wage is far less in the North-East than it is in the South-East. Every indicator of affluence, except one or two which illustrate the overcrowding of the South-East Coast, shows that the North-East Coast is a deprived region. We are tackling a question of two nations. That is why it is desperately important that now that the Government have the opportunity they should take it.
  6.18 p.m.
  Mr. William Rodgers: I very much endorse what has been said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey). The fact that we can see that conditions are better in the North-East than they have been for some years does not mean that there should be any let-up. On the contrary, the next three, four or five years may provide the very oportunity which was lacking during the 1960s.
  In a debate of this kind we all suffer from a kind of schizophrenia. On the one hand, we want to make the case for the North-East and the Northern Region as a whole. On the other hand, all of us who live there or whose constituencies are there know that there is a great deal to recommend the region. There is sometimes an inclination to be cautious in pressing our case against the Government on the ground that this might somehow prejudice the area which we represent. But, on the contrary, with the very positive credits which stand in the balance sheet, there is nothing inconsistent in urging upon the Government a very firm priority in the period immediately ahead. My concern is that a euphoria about growing manufacturing investment, if this is
  1046
  maintained, about the Chancellor achieving—for a short time at least—his 5 per cent. growth, may lead others in the Government, if not the right hon. Gentleman, to urge strongly that the North-East and other regions no longer require priority.
  This has happened before. We know that from the mid-1930s right through until the late 1940s attention was paid by successive Governments—grudgingly by some, enthusiastically by others—to taking work to the workers, in the then familiar phrase. The plain fact is that in the 1950s Governments were so conscious of the extent to which standards of living were rising because of the very different post-war environment that they believed that the regional problem no longer existed. So at the end of the 1950s the disequilibrium between the development regions and the rest of the country was precisely the same as at the end of the 1940s.
  I go further. In 1950 there was a real chance that within 10, perhaps 20 years—I know that seems a long period, but the problem was deep-seated—we could cure the differential disability of the Northern Region. Then failure throughout the 1950s set back the hope of changing the position for a substantial additional period. That is why I say now that I hope that there will be no slackness of endeavour, no break in the continuity, but that the Government, whatever their inadequacies, will continue to give the North-East the priority it deserves.
  The key remains industrial development certificate policy. Already there has been a dangerous relaxation. We all know the pressures to which the Secretary of State will be subject. The temptation will be to allow further relaxation in the Midlands and the South-East as the necessary price to maintain 5 per cent. growth. It will be put to the Secretary of State that because the unemployment problem is not so acute in the Northern Region or in Scotland or in Wales and because industrialists are pressing very strongly for IDCs for the Midlands and the South-East, there can be further relaxation. I hope that the Minister, and through the Minister the Secretary of State, will be brutally tough. There is no better measure of the seriousness of purpose of the Government than their continued control of IBC policy.

  1047
  Next—this has been mentioned by my right hon. and hon. Friends, but I wish to emphasise the point again—there is no doubt that all informed opinion takes the view that the regional employment premium makes a larger positive contribution than any other incentive to maintaining employment. I hope that the Government will not only change their minds about phasing it out but will argue strongly—I would not deny the necessity for this—that a regional policy in which a regional employment premium plays its part is not incompatible with competition policy within the European Economic Community. This Government would be in a much better position to argue in Brussels for a regional employment premium or the equivalent if they made clear that they had changed their minds and wished to maintain one at home.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Bottomley) referred to a number of specific concerns on Teesside. I endorse them all. I want to ask the Minister first, as his colleague in opening the debate sought to make a point about the Civil Service being unable to recruit in the North-East, how many vacancies there are on Teesside which the Civil Service is unable to fill. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman in winding up will make clear that, whatever the circumstances may be on Tyneside—and my hon. Friends dispute the information given to the House earlier—circumstances are very different on Teesside and that we can claim legitimately that we can have no significant employment of Government Departments.
  Secondly, I support what my right hon. Friend said about youth training. There is an inadequate number of opportunities, particularly in semi-skilled occupations, for young people, and I hope that the Government will support local endeavour on this.
  Thirdly, there is the question of the university. It is now 10 years since my then hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, West and I put forward a plan for a university on Tyneside. We understood fully that events intervened and the estimates made of the need for university population meant that national resources could not best be used by creating a new university on Teesside. I
  1048
  would not now raise the case if it seemed to me that that was still so, but I greatly hope that the right hon. Gentleman will say that he will continue to make representations to the Secretary of State for Education and Science that when the time comes to create a new wave of university places, Teeside will have a priority as the last of the major conurbations without a university.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Urwin) referred in his opening remarks to the possible rôle of public enterprise in the regeneration of the development areas. I will not be provoked by the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, North (Mr. R. W. Elliott) but I greatly hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not reject a rôle fot public enterprise because to do so would be as doctrinaire as to assume that nationalisation provides all the answers to our economic and industrial problems.
  For my part—I can only speak for myself—I see no reason why the nationalisation of ICI, for example, would contribute materially to the solution of slow growth and unemployment in the North-East. I am sure that there is much in the long-term investment plans of ICI, and perhaps something in its day-to-day management, with which I would quarrel. I am concerned about its apparent opposition to white-collar trade unionism. But to nationalise ICI today, tomorrow, or in the foreseeable future would be silly in terms of economic and social priorities, and I would oppose it.
  I say that to enable the Minister to make it clear that he is equally undoctrinaire. If I reject a blanket approach to nationalisation in favour of recognising that public enterprise has a constructive rôle to play, I hope that the Minister will equally acknowledge that there is scope for public enterprise in dealing with the problems of the development areas.
  I see much to commend it in the proposal made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. David Reed) when he spoke of industrial complex analysis. I should like to see an attempt made, perhaps within the Industry Act, to consider the needs of sub-regions in the Northern Region in terms of investment and of manpower and to produce

  1049
  plans upon which action could be taken. I do not ask for blueprints and tedious ministerial decisions, but a fast-moving and aggressive industrial operation. It is a mistake to assume that merchant banks and management consultants between them can deal with all the problems of small firms, which may have a very substantial contribution to make to employment and growth.
  Secondly, on public enterprise, I hope that the existing nationalised industries—I think particularly of coal and steel—will not be checked in any way if they seek to diversify in ways which will provide further employment. If we can have private conglomerates I have never understood why we cannot have public conglomerates as well. There is a unique opportunity in the next 10 years to remedy for all time the problems of the Northern Region. I hope that the Government will seize it.
  6.28 p.m.
  Sir Paul Bryan: I start on a harmonious note by congratulating the Opposition on allotting one of their Supply Days to debating a regional subject. We had a similar debate last year on the Yorkshire and Humberside area. However, that occasion was spoiled to an extent, as this occasion is being spoilt to an extent, by a three-line Whip being imposed—in other words, by the attempt to turn regional policy into a political issue.
  Anybody who has seriously followed regional policy over the years knows in his heart of hearts that this is absurd. Obviously Governments of both political complexions have made tremendous efforts to solve this highly intractible problem. The right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Bottomley) said that many of the projects that are now coming to fruition were started by the Labour Government. This is no doubt true. Should the Labour Party ever come to power again, I dare say that the same type of speech could he made by one of my right hon, or hon. Friends. But I think the useful question is not "which party did best? ". It is how better to tackle the regional problems today which have persisted—I underline the word "persisted"—in face of massive efforts by successive Governments.
  1050
  Whether the right hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) likes it or not, this is the week in which the national executive of the Labour Party has told an incredulous public that 25 major companies are going to be nationalised. [An HON. MEMBER: "Oh."] The hon. Member may well groan, but this is extremely serious. The public assume that the national executive is a body of standing, especially when its sayings are backed up by one of the leading Opposition speakers on industry—the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn).
  I am not surprised that my successor at the Department of Employment, the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Dell) protested in a Sunday newspaper, because he of all people would certainly know how this sort of threat—for it is a threat—does damage the regions.
  Mr. Leadbitter: Who is making party political points now? Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that if he makes such a statement, if he is an honourable man, he will also say what the interpretation of that communication has been. In addition, he will bear in mind the views of the Leader of the Opposition, as well as what has been said by one of my hon. Friends on one aspect of that matter.
  Sir P. Bryan: I am treating the hon. Member's intervention seriously. What does he think the attitude of ICI in the Northern Region is likely to be to this sort of policy? If ICI takes it seriously, is it going to believe that this is a policy which will encourage it to expand its business in the Northern Region? The right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East frequently says that the working people should be consulted. What about those who work for ICI? Would they prefer their firm to be nationalised? I have had experience of this company mainly in connection with training, and I know that the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East also has a high regard for it. I am talking about a very serious matter, and not mere politics.
  The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, over the last few weeks, has been belabouring what he calls the multi-national companies. Those are the very companies that we are trying to get into the regions in order to bring employment to them. Go to Scotland, where I have been, and see IBM. That is the sort of company that we want in

  1051
  the regions—a highly modern and sophisticated firm, paying high wages and giving good employment. Those people do not know our politics here but they know a threat of that sort. Is it likely to come about or is it not? That is a question which they seriously ask not merely as a debating point.
  The Opposition are on weak ground in the timing of this debate. Surely, however biased one is, one must recognise that the Government are doing more than has ever been done before. The powers given to the Minister in the Industry Act are quite unprecedented. Look at the amount of money spent on infrastructure and the amount of effort put into training. The measures may or may not be exactly right, but nobody can deny that the effort is there on a scale as never before.
  We know about the short-term results. Whether or not they are entirely attributable to our policies, the short-term results are clearly good. Unemployment is declining at a great speed.
  I should like to read from the survey on Teesside in the Financial Times, which at least takes an extra-regional view. This is what it says:
  "Business is certainly picking up. The region has won its fight for a new steelworks, oil will almost certainly come to the Tees, bringing a variety of immediate and spin off jobs … and the number of inquiries last month from firms wanting to move to the region was the best for a very long time. When the new roads are complete (leading not only into Teesside but out into the splendid surrounding countryside), when the new buildings are up and when inroads have been made into the unemployment problem, Teesside might be able to forget about being a development area and look forward to becoming a bridgehead into Europe."
  Hon. Members opposite must concede that great strides are being made, and surely this picture in the article is not one of a Government who simply do not care.
  I leave the amendment and turn to ask the Minister for a progress report on some of the problems that have beset and baffled his predecessors for so long. If one tries to take a balanced view of this problem over the years, it is, as the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. William Rodgers) implied, depressing that now, almost 40 years since the first special areas legislation of 1934, after the application to the development areas
  1052
  of an increasing volume of legislation, finance, major efforts by local and central government, the same problems persist—the problems that we know so well and which are listed in the amendment—of low wages compared with other areas, comparatively high unemployment—by that I do not mean moderately high, but high in comparison with other parts of the country—comparatively poor housing and the consequent problems of abnormal emigration. These problems seem now as intractable as ever.
  This does not mean that we should not have gone in for regional policies, or that they are futile. The situation would be disastrous without them. But it is worth reminding ourselves of the longterm reasons. We know of the run down of the traditional industries. We must bear in mind why the new industries did not come to the North. The reason was that they were no longer tied to mines or railways. The markets for the new industriesv—cars, consumer goods and the rest—were in the Midlands and the South. Apart from the rich markets being in the South and the Midlands, there are other attractions there. They have the banking and services of London. They have the major airport of this country, an advantage which I do not think is fully appreciated. It is not only the largest airport; it is the third largest port in the country, with a capacity for creating employment and skills around it. An additional fact is that communications in the South have been so much better. All these things added together have acted as a counter-magnet to the North and Wales which has been hard to resist.
  The truth, as the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees said, is that the only time we have been successful in attracting new industries to the development areas has been in a time of general boom and labour shortage.
  What I should now like to hear from the Minister is how successful we are being now, at the beginning of this period of expansion, in creating employment and, secondly, what his plans are for prolonging this period of progress to a very much higher degree than ever before. I am confident that the period of expansion of the whole economy will be prolonged, but we want to get roots down in such a way that when a depression or a recession comes—as some day it must—the regions

  1053
  shall have the roots to withstand it. I saw in The Times the other day that an official of the Yorkshire Regional Industrial Development Board said:
  "It was the policy of the Board to encourage companies that were Yorkshire controlled, using Yorkshire management. This was within the Board's concept of building up the region as a management centre with decision-taking headquarters. In turn this would spawn financial centres and legal centres to act as a counter-poise to the South-East."
  That seems to me the direction in which he should be going. I should like to hear what thinking the Government are giving in that direction.
  Finally, on the question of employment, I believe we will have to do far more to attract foreign business than we have in the past. There is a limit to the amount of foot-loose industry in this country. All progressive local authorities are trying to attract that limited total. Recently I have travelled around the world a great deal and I have been impressed by the entirely new attitude of national companies regarding erecting factories abroad. In Singapore there are five new factories owned by German companies, by British companies like Beechams and by the Japanese. They have gone there not because the labour is cheap. It is getting more expensive and soon it will be as expensive as ours. They are there in order to get their manufacturing operations near the market. These factories are easier to manage from afar now that air communications have become so efficient.
  We will have to think far more in terms of attracting companies, for example from Japan, which have heavy reserves of currency but a shortage of labour and wage levels higher than ours. I believe that Sony has started up business in Wales. We need these companies and we should not be ashamed to need them. They can give good employment. The Germans are in the same position. They have the money and a labour shortage and we could do with some of their industry as well. These opportunities must be considered seriously.
  6.43 p.m.
  Mr. James Tinn: Twenty-eight years after the war, unemployment remains a major problem in the Northern Region, but it is also a national problem and I should like to concentrate
  1054
  first on that aspect. It is a scandalous waste of our most valuable economic resource—labour—as well as an offence against human dignity. An active regional development policy, far from being a kind of charity dispensed from Whitehall at the expense of the taxpayer, is hard common sense from any point of view. As overheating has appeared in such areas as the South-East and the Midlands, successive Governments have applied the brakes before the development areas have ever been able to achieve full employment. As a result, the inherent productive resources, of these regions have never been fully used in peacetime.
  The Cambridge Economic Policy Group, in its medium-term forecast, has already begun to warn that a sustained annual growth rate of 5 per cent. from 1972 to 1976 would require further devaluations in that period amounting to at least 30 per cent. According to its calculations, even if the fast growth policy were once again to be abandoned, as has happened so often in the past, and a 2 per cent. target were substituted, it would still involve unemployment rising again to 1 million—that miserable milestone of economic ineptitude that we have already experienced. Even so, the pound, it reckons, would fall to 2 dollars, or perhaps even lower.
  If, as the group forecasts, unemployment is allowed to reach a national level of 2½per cent. and the balance of payments could be assumed to remain at least in a small surplus, output could grow at 3·3 per cent. per annum. But even for this dismal outcome to be achieved we should have to ensure that exports rose by at least 9 per cent. per annum in volume, and I doubt that we could have great confidence in being able to achieve that in present circumstances. That is a measure, in national terms, of the situation in which we find ourselves.
  Let us consider the 2·5 per cent. figure and the lower target that is apparently more attainable. That was the figure attained in 1970. If we use that as the comparison it would mean that in the Northern Region unemployment would amount to 4·7 per cent., or nearly 62,000 people. However, what the forecasters do not always seem to realise when considering unemployment rates in national terms and relating them to national conditions, the balance of payments, and so on, is

  1055
  that unemployed labour in the regions is already a heavy direct financial cost on the community. Selectively directed measures to bring this labour into production are not expensive in real terms and need not increase the inflationary or balance of payments problems. On the contrary, in the long and the short term, they help to solve them by increasing supply to a greater extent than they increase demand. That is why regional unemployment is not only a social crime but an economic nonsense.
  Yet in this century the Northern Region has never been allowed to pull its weight, in peacetime. Our unemployment rate has been higher than in any other region of Great Britain, other than Northern Ireland, in any year since 1966, except for 1971, when Scotland achieved the dismal distinction of topping us by 0·1 per cent. Our problem is not unique, but nowhere else in the United Kingdom has it been felt more heavily or more persistently. It is our misfortune not to have a Cabinet Minister able to drive home the facts to his colleagues.
  Even in the Northern Region we are already running into a shortage of skilled labour. Of our 50,000 unemployed only 5,000 have any industrial skill. That is why we find it a savage irony that only a short time ago Teesside MPs were pressing the Government to accept an offer of unused training capacity by large firms in the area which would have enabled at least some of the unemployed youth to gain the skills the nation needs. That sort of thing is so typical of the shortsightedness from which we have had to suffer. What price the Government's vaunted policy of selective help to those most in need? Who needed help more at that time than the unemployed youth of Teesside, help to gain the skills that the area and the country need?
  On the contrary, the Government have actively worked against us. The arbitrary and pigheaded withdrawal of investment grants has endangered the only major industrial development in East Cleveland since the war—the Boulby Potash Mine—and still the Government are not giving that area the roads it needs for the industry it already has at Skinningrove, much less what it hopes to attract to Skelton and Loftus.
  1056
  If the Government have finally and belatedly reversed the policy in some respects and, for instance, reintroduced the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation in a disguised form, they remain adamant that the REP must go, in spite of all the arguments from all sources and despite the fact that this is the one instrument of regional policy that encourages labour-intensive industries.
  We on Teesside have suffered under both Governments from the failure of regional policies that have not avoided the trap of encouraging capital-intensive industries where it is work that is needed and the spurious prosperity, such as in oil and chemical plants which take up large areas of valuable land while making little or no contribution to the solution of the unemployment problem. We need to encourage labour-intensive industries. I have the gravest doubts about the hopes expressed of these oil and chemical plants. We have heard of the Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority expressing concern about the amount of land available. I hope that the Government will give any necessary aid to reclaiming land, but I also hope that the aid will not be squandered on storage farms for chemicals and oil which may be a few miles inland.
  I hope that, instead, enough of the land will be kept in reserve for plant such as Leyland's, if Lord Stokes should decide to site a plant in this area. I take this opportunity of inviting Lord Stokes to Teesside to see what we have to offer. We have what I believe to be the unique coincidence of deep-water access, flat sites increased by reclamation and excellent labour relations, as seen in the activities of the Port Authority.
  Very briefly—because others want to speak—I want finally to draw the Minister's attention to the recently published Annual Report of the National Ports Council. It refers to marine industrial development areas, or MIDAS, and sees the time scale for its introduction to these areas as being shortened because of technological developments that I have not time to discuss now but which are described in paragraph 44. Then, in paragraph 45, having said in the previous paragraph that the Tees is well situated in this respect, it says:
  "For these reasons the Council are disposed now to adopt a somewhat shorter time-horizon for what they regard as practical

  1057
  MIDAS development and to concentrate attention on those areas already under development or where there are proposals for development, in particular the Tees-side, the Cromarty Firth and the Hunterston area of Ayrshire, all of which appear to the Council in different ways to offer unique potentialities for IMEG development in the next decade and a half."
  I hope we may hear from the Minister some encouraging announcement about his intentions in this regard.
  6.57 p.m.
  Mr. Robert C. Brown (Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West): I start by saying that I get very tired of hearing leading Tory speakers telling us, all over the country at the weekends, that the economy booms and that in the development areas all will then be well again, and that in the North-East there is nothing to worry about because this clever Government have now got a boom coming. Apparently we are in the midst of a boom now. It amazes me that anyone should have the temerity to suggest that with 600,000 pairs of hands without work at present we are in the midst of a boom. If that is the midst of a boom there is something sadly wrong with this country. There are 600,000 unemployed in the country, and 10 per cent. of that number are in the Northern Region. There is something still very sadly wrong with the economy of the region.
  We have been told by Tory Members this afternoon that unemployment is receding rapidly. They can have learned very little, if anything, from nature. If they had lived close by the banks of a tidal river, as I have all my life, they would have known that after a spring tide the tide recedes rapidly from its extremely high peak. That is precisely what is happening with unemployment at present. I am not being wise after the event, because it is now about 18 months since, in my constituency, I made a speech in which I said that this Government would let unemployment rocket to about the 1 million mark, and that the tide of unemployment would then inevitably recede as a spring tide does from its high peak. So unemployment has been reduced from 1 million to 600.000, but the Government have the temerity to claim, as I suggested they would, that this is a great victory for their policies. They do that in spite of the fact that in the Northern Region
  1058
  unemployment is still in excess of what it was when the Government came to office in June 1970. The Minister is looking anxious. Does he want to intervene?
  Mr. Chataway: I was just wondering what sort of time span the hon. Member has in mind as the likely delay between action being taken and its reflection in the unemployment figures. Does he think it is a year or 18 months, or that the effect is absolutely immediate? I assume from what he says that in spite of the fact that unemployment was rising steadily through the period of the last Parliament, and was on a rapidly escalating trend, he would regard the Labour Government as in no way responsible for any of the increase that followed.
  Mr. Brown: Unemployment reached I million as a direct result of the policies pursued by this Government in the immediate post-June 1970 period, and the Minister cannot deny that.
  Mr. Chataway: So the time scale in the hon. Member's mind is six months, or three months, is it?
  Mr. Brown: It is not a question of six months or three months at all. I am not going to bandy words with the Minister. He knows well enough that Government policies determine the unemployment levels to a large extent.
  Mr. Chataway: About 18 months later?
  Mr. Brown: I am not going to be pinned down to 18 months or 12 months or six months. I remind the Minister, as my hon. Friends are reminding me, that it was his leader who was elected to office as Prime Miinster on a pledge to deal with unemployment at a stroke. If, indeed, the Minister is suggesting to me that it takes many months of Government action to produce results was not his right hon. Friend being damned dishonest in the election of 1970? Of course he was.
  Mr. Chataway: The hon. Member has not even read what was said.
  Mr. Brown: I think we have gone on long enough discussing this issue. The point I was making to my constituents 18 months ago was that this Government

  1059
  were quite prepared to insult the intelligence of the electorate by that sort of confidence trick, and we see it happening now.
  I want to ask some specific questions of the Minister. I shall not refer at length to the special environmental assistance scheme—Operation Eyesore. None of us would deny that that scheme has been a tremendous benefit to our area, but we have more than our share of eyesores as a result of the Industrial Revolution, which has already been referred to by some of my colleagues, and we in the Northern Region are not likely to be able to undo in a short time all the evils of generations of haphazard industrial development.
  I ask the Minister to give serious consideration, at least in the special development areas, to introducing or again extending this scheme. I know that he has extended it by three months, but it is not sufficient; it is just chicken feed. I hope the Government will see their way clear if not to make it a permanent arrangement at least to allow it to run on for some years to give the development areas time to catch up on clearing these eyesores. It is not good enough to extend it by only three months.
  My second point is one that I have put to successive Ministers over and over again since 1970, as I did to Ministers of my own Government before 1970. It concerns the need for a major research and development organisation in the North—the only region without such an organisation. Within 30 miles of London, research and development organisations, many of them State-financed, are found like mushrooms. It is not right that there should be multitudes of them down here, in the already overheated South-East, when we know that a major research and development organisation has a tremendous spin-off effect in terms of ancillary industry and would be of great value in the Northern Region.
  Swan Hunter, which has already been mentioned, is enjoying a boom. Its order books are full. But I am anxious for the future. When the shipbuilding industry has full order books there is a tendency to think that there is nothing to worry about, but now is the time and the opportunity for the Government to give
  1060
  Swan Hunter an injection of funds to bring about some modernisation and rationalisation, so that at the end of the present long order book we shall be in a better position to compete in the already keen international competition for new shipping orders.
  I do not want to dwell at length on Kielder, but the Secretary of State will go down in the North-East as the architect of industrial stagnation there. The Minister for Local Government and Development shakes his head, but it is not good enough simply to say that the North-East is doing better. Of course we are doing better than we were 12 or 18 months ago, but we have needs not just for today and tomorrow but for the day after tomorrow. That is what causes my concern about the water supply.
  No Minister can put his hand on his heart and deny that the lamentable decision on Kielder water has not already deterred new industry from coming to the North-East. It is sad that the Secretary of State, who has the decision to make, represents a constituency where Kielder water will be situated. The general opinion in the North-East is that he has caved in to constituency pressures. That might be an unkind suggestion, but I would not disagree with many of the suggestions made in the area.
  What distresses me more than anything is that the Secretary of State, with this tremendously important decision to make, cannot—or his Department cannot, though he must take responsibility—even organise a successful public inquiry. He arranged it to open next Monday and did not bother to find out that the inspector is fully engaged with previous engagements in his own home town. It is incredible——
  Mr. Graham Page: The hon. Gentleman is misrepresenting the facts. It was best to start the inquiry on 19th June, the earliest date that the inspector could manage, even if he was engaged elsewhere for a few days during that week, and then resume again on 26th June, rather than leave the inquiry to start on 26th June.
  Mr. Brown: There is no question of misrepresentation. The Minister is confirming the novice way in which the Department approaches matters. It gets a ministerially-appointed inspector to

  1061
  open the inquiry when the Minister knows well enough that the first day of a major inquiry is taken up simply with the formalities. Therefore, the inquiry will be opened and nothing will be done for another week until Sir Robert Scott returns from the hills of Scotland, where he has been cavorting about. No doubt he is entitled to do so, because he arranged it months ago, but it would have been far better if the Minister had accepted that Sir Robert had those engagements and had put back the inquiry for a week, rather than waste people's time in dealing with the formalities and then doing nothing for a week.
  Mr. Page: I cannot leave the matter there. The first two days of an inquiry of this sort are spent in dealing with preliminaries, arranging the programme, and so on. Therefore, why not get rid of those first two days as early as possible? That is what we did by fixing the opening on 19th June.
  Mr. Brown: I do not accept the Minister's half-hearted apology.
  Mr. Page: It is not an apology at all.
  Mr. Brown: If the position is as the Minister has stated it, why did not the Department tell the Northumbrian River Authority that the inquiry proper would not start until 26th June, and give it an extra week to provide its evidence, instead of its having only six weeks in which to prepare it?
  The Minister mentioned the Newcastle-Carlisle road briefly. He said nothing more about it. He forgot about it, or else he must have thought that it was not worth saying anything about. I concede that the Hailsham plan laid the framework, but the Labour Government did massive work on roads in the North-East. As a result, we have the best local road scheme in Europe, but much remains to he done. Among the things that need to be carried out is the Newcastle-Carlisle road scheme, not least the Throckley-Horsley bypass, in my constituency, which should have been started several months ago. There is no sign of any action. My constituents and I wonder whether it will fall victim to the recently-announced spending cuts. It is nonsense for the Department to suggest that where public footpaths cross what, in effect, will
  1062
  be a motorway, there should be a stile at each side of the dual carriageway. I am thinking of Footpath No. 33, in respect of which that is precisely what the Department suggests. I hope that the Minister will look into that.
  I should have liked to say a great deal about roads, but many other hon. Members wish to speak, and I shall now conclude my speech.
  7.8 p.m.
  Mr. John Sutcliffe: A great deal of what I had intended to say seems to be common ground on both sides. We seem to be engaged in a great deal of shadow boxing.
  One thing that has clearly emerged from the debate is that the motion does not mean what it appears to mean. It sets out to castigate the Government for their total lack of a positive regional policy. One would deduce that the motion was very critical of the Government, but we have heard sentiments that run somewhat as follows: that the situation is improving; that unemployment is down, and has been falling dramatically in the past few months; that registered vacancies have been rising, and have more than doubled since May 1972. Whereas in May 1970 there were six adults looking for every vacancy, and two years later there were 12, now there are four.
  The Opposition seem to be saying, "Yes, shipbuilding orders are at a better level, steel is showing a recovery and engineering and allied industries are in a better way." The Opposition seem to accept that forecasts for new orders and output generally will be more buoyant in the months ahead than anyone could have conceived last autumn. They seem to be admitting that investment in the Northern Region has begun to show signs at last of moving forward.
  A number of Opposition hon. Members have said, "This is good progress but this is the time to keep up that progress." We have been advised that the Government must not let up on their present policies. That seems to be a different line from the apparent critical line of the Opposition motion. That motion does not acknowledge by one word the progress which has been made over the last few months, which represents a remarkable change.

  1063
  For at least three years I have had a sticker on my car which says, "Teesside—growth point of the North-East." I have no doubt that other hon. Members have displayed the same sticker. We have talked for a very long time about the potential of Teesside. It has always been a matter of the future. However, there is now a feeling that the prophecy is being fulfilled. My hon. Friend the Member for Howden (Sir P. Bryan) quoted an extract from the Financial Times about the optimistic prospects for Teesside. The right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Bottomley) said that the Government must not claim the credit for that situation. I do not mind where the credit lies. It is the fact that we are on our way that matters.
  The Middlesbrough Evening Gazette reported last week:
  "The pessimists who have decried the strenuous efforts which have been made to bring prosperity back to the area are in for a black eye, for all the indications point to a boom the like of which Teesside has never seen."
  It then goes on to refer to the £200 million steel complex, the £100 million oil terminal, the coming of Cleveland County and the bustling new shopping centres. The Middlesbrough Evening Gazette concludes:
  "all point the way to a period of unprecedented prosperity."
  Let us hope that the local paper, which the hon. Member for Cleveland (Mr. Tinn) has clearly read, is right.
  Mr. Tinn: The hon. Member for Middlesbrough, West (Mr. Sutcliffe) may have seen the statistical memorandum from the North-East Development Council. I draw his attention to the fact that the memorandum indicates that the ratio of unemployed men to vacancies is still 12 to one on Teesside. That is higher than the ratio at Tyneside or Wearside. We do not want so much wonderful piein-the-sky visions on the horizon. What about the position here and now?
  Mr. Sutcliffe: I take the point which the hon. Member for Cleveland is making. I fully endorse what he said and I shall come later to the point which he made. But let us keen the matter in perspective. We must not consider only the oil terminal and the steel complex. The local Press has reported that ICI has
  1064
  recently announced a multi-million pound investment project. Nor does such development relate only to Teesside. The North of England Development Council made it clear that in the last three months there has been considerable industrial expansion from the North Riding to the Scottish border. There has been expansion throughout the Northern Region. If the number of visiting industrialists is any indication of what is taking place, the prospects are good. Inquiries about prospective sites have doubled recently. In a full year the number of inquiry visits will be running at the rate of 294.
  Also encouraging—the hon. Member for Cleveland mentioned this matter—is what the Government can do to decrease the misery and degradation of being unemployed. The hon. Gentleman referred to the social cost of unemployement. Under the Industry Act the Government, by means of selective assistance, have ensured that more firms in the Northern Region have received loans and grants. The total value of such assistance to the Northern Region amounts to about £2 million and is more than any region in the United Kingdom except Scotland. The Government, in doing something about the social cost of unemployment, are taking valuable action.
  All hon. Members attach the greatest importance to the fact that the Government have at last understood the disastrous effect on regional policy of chopping and changing the measures and incentives applying to the regions or cutting them off altogether at the whim of Government or because of a change in the economic climate. The present assurance of continuity is of the utmost importance to any credible regional policy.
  The message which has come from both sides of the House appears to be that progress is being made but that that is not enough. Although we are making progress we must now reinforce our regional measures. We should not let up on regional policy. There are few hon. Members who sit for constituencies in development areas who do not feel strongly that that must be the right message for the Government. That has been the message which has been hoisted during the debate.
  To ensure that the change in the face of the Northern Region, which we hope is beginning to take place, is permanent,

  1065
  there ate a number of things which many would like the Government to do. I find myself repeating various points which have already been made.
  One of the matters about which I feel strongly is training. Industry is now in the most receptive mood ever for training. There are huge shortages building up of skilled craftsmen in the Northern Region and, I have no doubt, in other regions. It seems foolish in the extreme that we should cut back instead of expanding the opportunities for training. I say "cut back" because we have had notice of cuts in public expenditure. There have been many rumours. In effect, we have been told that such cuts will affect training. It has already been said—and I say it again because the matter needs emphasising—that there are in the Northern Region 45,000 unemployed men who have no skills, and that the annual throughput of Government training centres, technical colleges and private firms provides 6,000 trained personnel. This is far too great a gap and we need far more training to bridge it.
  Although the expansion of the community industrial scheme is something which I welcome, because it combines employment for young people with improving the environment of the North, I would not welcome it if I thought that it was at the expense of extending training and increasing the use of available spare capacity, wherever it is, in the training of young people.
  I made a plea on the Report stage of the Employment and Training Bill that consideration should be given to creating opportunities in training for as many young people—after leaving school and between the ages of 16 and 19—as we possibly can, because these are the people who may not have an academic bent but who could be given skills which could be of immense value in the Northern Region. Unemployment among the young in Teesside, and generally, is still very high—far too high.
  I pressed some time ago, in an Adjournment debate that I was fortunate enough to be allotted, for a better analysis of unemployment and of the gap between unemployment and unfilled vacancies. It would help us to pursue more relevant measures towards resolving this problem if the Manpower
  1066
  Agency, which is being set up, had a far better idea how many registered people are actively seeking work, what percentage are capable of working in modern industry, how many in the older age bracket could be retrained, and how many who have been retrained are offered employment. This is the kind of information which would greatly help us and would enable the Government to formulate an effective policy.
  I will refer to the progress being made in building advance factories in the Northern Region. Seventeen of these factories are promised. I am particularly interested because two factories of 15,000 sq. ft. each are to be built in my constituency at Thornaby. I ask my right hon. Friend to say when these factories will be started and when they will he completed, because there is a great deal of inaction in respect of advance factory building and the uncertainty is undoubtedly hampering the efforts being made in the region to promote industry in the area.
  I add my voice to those of so many others in the debate in making a plea for work in the service industries. When our economy in the Northern Region is lopsided—and the Government know this to be the case—and is geared to industrial development, unbalanced by white collar work, is it too late in the day to ask that the dispersal of the Civil Service should be a little more radical than one suspects it will be? I feel that it is important. It is an opportunity which will perhaps not come again for many years and which we shall very greatly regret missing. May we have some positive and specific incentives, which were omitted by the Industry Act, to give some hope of greater office dispersal into the region?
  According to the North-East Development Council, only seven out of 50 major companies established in the region have their headquarters there. I have no doubt that if there were better encouragement from the Government to industry to move office work into developing areas, that work would be moved to a far greater extent than it is now.
  Much has been said in the debate—and certainly by my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward)—about the effect on the Northern Region

  1067
  of ending the regional employment premium. I hope that the Government will seriously consider what has been said on both sides of the House, and especially the importance of not, for the anticipated loss of jobs, terminating the premium suddenly or without ensuring that employment is in some other way sufficiently bolstered for the anticipated loss of jobs to be offset within the context of the EEC.
  The hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West (Mr. Robert C. Brown) mentioned Operation Eyesore. There is no question that this Government initiative has been immensely valuable. The use to which funds have been put in the region, particularly in Teesside, which alone has spent over £1 million, is impressive. It reflects great credit on the Government and also on the efforts of local authorities in the region. Like the hon. Gentleman, I wish that, as long as there were worthwhile schemes to be approved, Operation Eyesore had been continued. I hope that there will be money for it again and that the impetus towards creating an altogether better environment will not be lost as a result of bringing the scheme to an end.
  We cannot possibly be complacent as long as there is a rate of unemployment in the Northern Region higher than the rate in the more prosperous part of the country. We cannot possibly sit back or be smug as long as there is a continuing disparity in the level of income per head between the North and other development areas and the more prosperous areas of the country. I urge the Government to take the message of this debate and to see that regional policy is now geared up rather than allowed to slacken.
  When shall we have in the Northern Region an effective regional body to devise and implement a regional strategy? My criticism of the document initiated by the Department of the Environment, at the moment called "An outline specification for a study of the Northern Region", is that it does nothing to unify regional policy functions of the two major Departments, Trade and Industry and Environment, and of the too-many other bodies which are working with far too little cohesion of effort in the same direction. It is not so much a positive regional policy
  1068
  that we should be debating, in the terms of the motion; it is much more a positive regional body which we now most need.
  I hope that this debate, if it serves no other purpose, will make the Government consider what steps can be taken towards a more positive policy for a concentrated effort within the region so that we do not overlap in our attempts to achieve success for our aspirations.
  7.30 p.m.
  Mr. Robert Woof: In following the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, West (Mr. Sutcliffe) I want to apply my mind to the meaning of the the motion before the House. I promise the hon. Member that I will not shadow box, to which he referred at the beginning of his speech. It is not too late to say that after the shivers and shocks that we experienced on 18th June 1970, after the television celebrities had demonstrated their euphoria to almost giddy heights. after countless newspapers had informed the world of their unrestricted glee at the downfall of the Labour Government, not least after the basket-shopping voters had helped the Tories to make a fundamental shift in the language of finance, one would have thought that we could now have sat back in comfort and ease and receive and taste with delight all the good things of life.
  Whatever drummed-up explanations were made in the comforting thoughts, while completely and deliberately ignoring the underlying trends, it was evidently the view of how the electorate felt about being reassured on the hastening of transformation to improve the quality of life and brighter economic prospects. We have heard some rosy pictures painted this afternoon from the Financial Times about the wonderful things being done on Teesside. I assure the House that has not been fully applied to my constituency of Blaydon.
  We know perfectly well that the state of the economy is always held to be one of the most powerful influences on the minds of people, particularly when they are faced with paying higher prices and when there is less money in the weekly income through jobs disappearing one after another.
  In frequent conversations and communications which I had with many earnest and conscientious constituency

  1069
  workers they have often asked me, "How is it that industrial development is so slow in the Blaydon area?" I have had to explain that when I have had the good fortune to speak in economic debates in this House, from both sides of the Chamber, I have endeavoured to concentrate attention on the restricted industrial development in Blaydon. I have appealed for appropriate measures to be taken to offset the serious lack of industrial occupation.
  With great respect to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, I have many times left this honourable House thinking to myself that I might as well have talked to the cows in the field for all the notice that Ministers took of me. That even applied to Labour Ministers—I might as well be laceratingly frank about it, because it is true. To recount in detail the public misfortune which emanated from industrial slaughter and decay would take much more time than I wish to devote to the subject now.
  However, I can say there has been a bewildering metamorphosis consequent on circumstances entailed by adverse changes in industrial activity. We always wish to recognise things in their true existence and what relative truths we have to face, and the truth is that practically in every aspect the main decayed industries in Blaydon have been so much localised and specialised, so much so, that in the daily experience of such rapid decline certain significant facts have caused understandable anxiety.
  We realise that in any economic calamity, when upheavals bring worrying problems, the undeserved loss of livelihood spreads into all age groups. It is this disturbing thought that is one of the greatest dreads and aversions. As a consequence of natural apprehensions it will be found practical in some circumstances that migration to other regions tends to influence people's minds, to better themselves.
  This involves fundamental decisions. Such breakaway steps, in many instances I do not doubt for a moment, seem to be justified. On this account it is perhaps correct to say that there are advantages and disadvantages in trying to acquire the material wants of life. Before any deductive interpretation can be made in this respect there remains the general induc-
  1070
  tion of comparing populations in their geographical context with what they have to cope and contend with.
  It is almost startling to be reminded of the great and varied contrast between the industrial growth in the south of England and areas such as the one that I have the honour to represent—where the livelihood of so many people is continually threatened by the shifting of the competitive system, posing, as it does, the most acute and economic social problems for the families concerned.
  Unlike the nomadic tribes of the Arabian Desert who follow a pastoral life with the love of liberty to fold up their tents and disappear in the night, I must make the special point that it is not a question of the continuance of those deep laws of human nature involving people's habits and routine. It is that of necessity. Something more is required whereby the means of industrial readjustment to meet the challenge of changing conditions can be brought into existence.
  What is at stake is the weekly livelihood and the worry accompanying the housekeeping revenue of families placed in adverse circumstances through the modern doctrine of economy in the long chain of serious events. This has been happening in Blaydon for many years. Such rapid changes which have a hurtful bearing on economic and social life prove to be the precursor of so much misfortune.
  If we are to avoid frustration as a result of decaying industry, particularly at a time when we need all our energies to establish the British economy on a secure foundation in world trade and exchange, then assuming the foreknowledge that the present purpose of the Government is to promote recovery, there would be some consolation if some serious attempts were made to solve the under-utilisation of industrial labour, especially when men have to look to other avenues for employment, only to be impeded in their attempts through lack of alternative employment.
  It necessarily follows, in trying to abridge this account of the vicissitudes and reaction in my constituency, that it is impossible to look round without perceiving how far-reaching is the process of change. Such large problems cannot escape the duties of hon. and right hon. Members in becoming more and more

  1071
  preoccupied with all the immense issues ultimately involved.
  Whatever else is disagreeable that puts us in the mood which disposes us to conceive what adversity means, first and foremost as a national necessity it is a time when we are continually being drilled that economic improvement must in the main be effected through massive expansion and that such a high rate of growth depends on the British people in the exercise of their responsibilities. With such a premium to be paid on vital needs and for what I have taken the trouble to outline for the desire of a fuller life and brisker existence are motives that are not to be deplored or deprecated.
  It has often been asked whether economics is more correctly described as a science or an art. I would not know the difference between them, but I believe that the art of good government lies in ensuring that industry should gradually be replaced so that the productive capacity of all those affected can be exerted to the full. I therefore appeal to the Government once again to exercise their responsibility for much greater and valuable co-ordination and co-operation with the North-East Development Council, to be equally shared by public interest, from which any industrial development would play a major part in promoting the prospects of employment opportunities in the Blaydon area.
  7.41 p.m.
  Mr. E. Fernyhough: As is customary, my hon. Friend the Member for Blavdon (Mr. Woof) has torn the guts out of the subject. He is saying that until this nation begins to devote, through the Press, the media and Parliament, as much attention to the loss which arises from unemployment as is now devoted to the days lost through strikes we shall not have done our duty. If we recognise that there is no wealth except that which comes from work, then the 600,000 people who are denied the dignity and self-respect which come from work are not only themselves suffering but are also reducing the total wealth of the community.
  I want to deal with some relevant constituency matters. First, I welcome the community work project. While it is second best to being able to offer worthwhile prospects to boys and girls, it is
  1072
  better than the Government standing on the touch-line doing nothing, with these boys and girls knowing all the frustration that comes from not having a place in society.
  Secondly, there are major industries in my constituency which are made viable only by the regional employment premium. Their balance sheets show that if the regional employment premium were to disappear tomorrow they would be in the red before the end of the year. Before finally deciding to phase it out, I hope that the Government will listen to what the CBI and the TUC have to say.
  Thirdly, I wish to refer to Palmers Shipyard which was the first victim of a Government's "no help for the lame duck" policy. My hon. Friend the Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Urwin) said that the Government had to change their policy. Swan Hunter now intends to make Palmers former shipyard one of the most up-to-date yards in the country, but to do that it will need Government help. I hope that Government help will be as forthcoming to Swan Hunter and on no less generous a scale than the help made available to the Upper Clyde, Harland & Wolff and others. The Government should take into account that Palmers was closed by National Shipbuilding Security Limited under a conversant that ships would never again be built in that yard. I know that Swan Hunter has been discussing this matter, but if there are any hon. Members who believe that the decision of dead men should stand in the way of men earning their living, I hope they will get up and speak now. No convenant should be allowed to stand in the way of Swan Hunter being able to provide at Palmers the work which Hebburn and Jarrow badly need.
  Fourthly, Reyrolles four or five years ago employed 10,000 in Hebburn. I have discussed the matter with the Minister for Industry and have taken to see him a deputation of management and men. I wish he were here this evening. Today, Reyrolles employs 6,000 and at present there is a complete shutdown of the works because of a strike. I will not go into the merits or demerits of the strike, but undoubtedly the uncertainty that has overhung this great complex for the past year or so has something to do with the men's attitude. If men are not certain that their

  1073
  jobs will be there three, six, nine or twelve months hence, they will not be as responsible as people would like them to be. I have discussed the problem with the Minister and I should like him to give me some information tonight on what help he can give to Reyrolles in reply to the representations we have made to him.
  Fifthly, I wish to refer to coal. What is happening now in the world is the best possible pointer for the Government to accept the proposals of the NUM and the TUC for an energy policy. If the Government do not accept those proposals they will be acting very stupidly, in view of the world energy crisis, and a future generation will condemn them. There should be no further contraction of the coal industry. If necessary there should be a substantial expansion. Coal is the one indigenous fuel which we can provide for ourselves without the necessity of being so dependent for our energy supplies upon foreign sources.
  Sixthly, are the Government able to help Sterling Foundry? Sterling Foundry has just secured a contract with Russia for £1 million. If that contract is successfully fulfilled, further contracts are likely to follow. The foundry needs steel, but the British Steel Corporation is overwhelmed with orders. If Sterling Foundry gets the steel supplies it needs, additional employment will be provided in Jarrow for between 100 and 200 people and, in addition, the Government's export drive will be helped. I hope that the Minister will do what the Labour Government of 1945–51 did and see to it that when there is a shortage of raw materials the needs of those in the development areas are met first.
  Seventhly, the Government have announced public expenditure cuts. They may or may not be justified, but it would be stupid if public expenditure cuts were to be made right across the board. This is an area in which the Government can act sensibly to help the regions. After all, it is not the regions of high unemployment which have caused overheating in the economy, because those regions have unused resources and still need additional employment. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will exempt the development areas from public expenditure cuts.
  We must always remember that the Government are the largest single cus-
  1074
  tomer of British industry. There is not a thing that is manufactured—from nappies and pins, from tanks to bombs, from motor cars to beds, from bed linen to shoes—which the British Government in one form or another, through the nationalised industries, the hospital service or the Armed Forces, do not buy. Every large customer of which I have had experience uses its economic bargaining power to further its own ends. Therefore, the Government should use their great economic power as the biggest purchaser of what the nation produces to see that those goods are produced where they can best suit the Government policy and serve the greatest social need. This is something which the Government could do if they so determined, and this is one instrument which they have at their command and it is almost all-powerful.
  I have been in this House a long time and I have taken part in many debates of this nature. Unfortunately, I now discern a cynicism which is spreading and which is dangerous for democracy. The unemployed have a right to be cynical if we do not give them the opportunity to take their place as dignified citizens following employment in the proper way. If employment is not available to them, they may well listen to those voices which are the enemies of democracy, and those antidemocratic forces may grow.
  For that reason, if for no other reason, I hope that the Government will renew their efforts to improve the situation in the development areas. Since the Government forced the unemployment figure up to 1 million and then brought it down again, they cannot even now take any comfort from the situation because in my constituency at present the figure of unemployment is still 25 per cent. higher than it was in 1970, despite the fact that we are now, in the words of the Government, enjoying the fruits of a booming Britain.
  7.53 p.m.
  Mr. James Ramsden: I am glad to be called following the speeches of the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Fernyhough) and the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr. Woof), who for as long as I have been in this House have both talked a great deal of sense on behalf of County Durham—long before it began to be called the Northern Region.

  1075
  I hope that Labour Members who sit for seats in the Northern Region will forgive me, as a mid-Yorkshire man, for intervening briefly in this debate. I lived for a slice of my life in County Durham, almost within sight of Fishburn pit which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. David Reed). Mr. Harold Macmillan once said that the further north you go the nicer people get, and that touches a chord in my heart.
  In a debate such as this, in what amounts to a censure motion, we tend to overestimate the recent character of the kind of problems we have been discussing and underestimate the extent of the efforts which have been made in past years to get to grips with them. This does not need saying to those hon. Members who are now present in the House, but I still believe that it is worth emphasising.
  As far back as the 1930s, when I first remember County Durham, problems of a similar character were being experienced because of the cyclical nature of the coal trade and heavy industry. Equally, even then quite a lot was beginning to be done in recognising the problems and in helping to cope with them. Unless my memory is at fault, the trading estate at West Auckland dates back to before the war and it marked a first step towards an attempted diversification of the industry there.
  A good deal was done to improve the roads, and indeed the roads in County Durham before the war were probably the best in any county in the country. Then the war came along and naturally investment slowed up. After the war we saw the beginning of a rundown in the coal industry which intensified the problem. Steps were then taken to cope with the situation, beginning with the establishment of the Aycliffe New Town.
  I also remember, since I was working in Halifax at the time, what was then regarded as a somewhat novel and unprecedented move by Paton and Baldwins knitting yarns from the West Riding to Haughton-le-Skerne, near Darlington. People at the time said that it would not work because one could not get women in the North-East to go out to work and they said there would be difficulty in obtaining the labour. But that forecast proved to be nonsense. Indeed, I was surprised that more has not been said
  1076
  today about increasing opportunities for women to find jobs in the various plans which have been discussed. The motion talks about "low household incomes", and today it is true that there is a high household income by modern standards only where both the man and wife are at work or where a daughter or son of the family has the opportunity to find work and to bring money into the family.
  A good deal has been said about the possibilities of employment inherent in the Government policy of dispersing the Civil Service. I am all for this suggestion and believe that they should get on with the job faster than has happened up to the present. I must be a little careful in what I say because my own constituency is a strong contender in providing this sort of employment and is anxious to obtain its share of any dispersal that is to take place. I am certain that hon. Members who press for more administrative jobs in the regions are on the right lines.
  Reference has been made to the initiative of my noble and learned Friend Lord Hailsham in the early part of the 1960s. Not enough credit has been given to him for the very positive results which flowed from that. I remember it well because I was a member of the Government at the time. My noble and learned Friend did a good job in the North-East, cap on his head, boots on his feet and all. I will not weary the House with them, but I have in my possession some figures which measure the positive results which flowed from his initiative. Over the eight years or so since then, they amount to an impressive total. Great credit is due to the Government of the time.
  Today the Opposition have moved a motion which on the arguments which they have put forward so far does not warrant what amounts to a vote of censure and a three-line Whip tonight. Perhaps briefly I may say why.
  First, I think that there are in the North-East genuine signs of confidence returning to the heavy industrial sector and confidence that the present boom is a reality and that there is a good prospect of its continuing. Whatever one says about the relative performances of the Labour Government and the present administration, it must be true that

  1077
  measures taken for the relief of a region and designed to promote economic growth have much more hope of success against the background of a 5 per cent. growth rate than they do or did against the background of fairly consistent stagnation or at any rate growth at a very much slower rate.
  Secondly, the Opposition's arguments very much underrate the effects of the Industry Act. The present grants and assistance available are not only more in total than they were under the Labour Government but are better conceived and directed. They are better grants in themselves in that they are so devised as to benefit the more potentially profitable industries and, instead of being indiscriminate in their effects, to be of direct and specific help to regions such as the Northern Region where they are needed.
  Reference has been made to the future of the regional employment premium. For what it is worth, I should prefer to see the money spent in other ways. It could be used more usefully in improving and extending training facilities and even in encouraging people to move to where jobs are more readily available. I am aware that others of my hon. Friends take a different view. Mine is only a personal view.
  Thirdly, the Opposition motion does not recognise sufficiently how long it takes for a boom like the present one in the heavy industries to get going and how long, inevitably, it takes for Government assistance to the regions to work itself through and to be evidenced in what is actually happening in industry. Grants are made available, but they have to be processed. They have to go through the bureaucratic machine. The industries themselves have to decide whether to take advantage of them.
  It is comparatively easy to stimulate a consumer boom. It is much more difficult, and requires the instillation of a great deal more confidence, for that to spread through and have its effect upon the basic industries producing capital goods. I believe that that is now happening. The Opposition have given insufficient credit to the Government for the fact that it is happening, and I believe that the North-East can look forward with every confidence to its continuance.
  1078
  I come now to the subject of amenity. Several hon. Members have mentioned Operation Eyesore. I am not certain about the present position on this. But I am certain that every penny spent in the context of Operation Eyesore has been very well worth while. A great deal of work has been done on clearing slag-heaps and on urban renewal both in County Durham and to the north of Newcastle. It is extremely important, if what might be termed middle-management is to be attracted to an area and if wives and families are to be happy there when they are used to the South. The North-East has unrivalled opportunities for outdoor recreation. It is a wonderful part of the world. Anyone should be glad to go there. But over the course of years it has collected a bad image. This can be corrected and to a very large extent it has been corrected. But it costs money to do it, and any more money by way of grant aid advanced to county councils by my right hon. Friends will have my support. It will pay dividends in the beneficial effect that it will have in the North-East.
  My right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Development spoke about roads and referred specifically to the road from Leeds which is to finish up in the North-East. In the context of this debate, I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend was thinking of the northern end of the road. As a Yorkshire Member, I am bound to think of the southern end. Before the final route for this road is determined, I hope that my right hon. Friend will ensure that there is the fullest consultation with local people who will be affected and the fullest inquiry, even extending to whether a road in that direction is required at all or whether an improvement to the existing A1, which will have to happen anyway, will not be sufficient. Like my right hon. Friend, I am inclined to feel that there will be a need for such a road as a link between Leeds and the North-East. But it is very important that the route should be right and that it should do the least damage to a stretch of very beautiful and valuable Yorkshire countryside.
  I leave the matter there, having much enjoyed the debate and having come thus far with the conviction that the House would be right to reject the Opposition's

  1079
  motion, since I do not think that a case has been properly made for it.
  8.10 p.m.
  Dr. John A. Cunningham: There are two points about regional policy that matter more than anything else. The first is the Government's commitment to the policy and the second the confidence of people in industry in the Government's commitment to that policy.
  I think that the Opposition could be forgiven for believing that converts are people who most strongly defend the faith. Throughout the debate we have heard many Government supporters defending the faith of regional policy. Yet one does not need too long a memory to think back to the autumn of 1970 when that same policy was being crucified by the same right hon. and lion. Gentlemen.
  Some of the general points that have been made about the efficacy of regional policy are very interesting. The right hon. Member for Harrogate (Mr. Ramsden) talked about better grants. We can remember when grants were abolished altogether by the present administration. The story then was that grants were too costly and that too much money was being spent on creating jobs in the regions. We are now told that more money is being spent on better grants under the Industry Act. That is an interesting about-turn by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on the Government side. By and large, we welcome this conversion not only of back-bench Members, but of Ministers. However, we are a little suspicious of the Government's commitment to regional development policies, particularly in the Northern Region.
  We also remember the incoming Conservative administration cutting back on the advance factory programme. In no way was this more damaging than in the town of Millom, in South-West Cumberland, where the commitment to build a second advance factory was delayed to such effect that that building is still not available to a new industry, even if one were found, coming into the town.
  One matter that concerns us about the Government's lack of commitment is their seeming inability to obtain any firm decision from the European Economic Com-
  1080
  munity on the direction that its regional policies will take. It seems that most of the questioning and probing about the Commission's intentions in the regional development sphere is coming from the Opposition.
  It is interesting to recall that we have, so we understand, a Cabinet Minister who speaks for the Northern Region. We are not quite sure who he is. Perhaps if he is here he will stand up and let us know. So far as we remember, it used to be the right hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker). He is patently not here. Whether this responsibility has been transferred with the exchange of jobs to the right hon. Member for Hex-ham (Mr. Rippon) is not clear. It would be interesting to know whether the Government have this commitment to the Northern Region and which of these two worthies, or which other Minister, now assumes this mantle of responsibility. It would also be interesting to know when any one of them last made a speech about what is happening in the Northern Region.
  Mr. Graham Page: Last Monday
  Dr. Cunningham: By whom? Several Ministers made speeches. The right hon. Gentleman is not really answering the question.
  One matter which seems not to have been discussed today is the effect of the Government's policies in other regions. It is astonishing that the Government should think that they can mount realistic regional development policies to attract industry to the Northern Region and at the same time pursue the Maplin development, involving the investment of thousands of millions of pounds in an international airport, a deep water terminal and industrial building land, without realising that this will pre-empt a huge percentage of industrial development finances in the next decade. It is staggering that that point does not seem to have dawned on Ministers.
  If we add to that the bone-headed idea of pursuing the Channel Tunnel project—again in the South-East—we see that, despite whatever well-intentioned Ministers might say and do about providing regional incentives, the South-East will develop at a far greater rate with this kind of investment. So, however hard

  1081
  Ministers may run to provide growth in the Northern Region, the differences will grow wider, not narrower.
  This seems to be quite straightforwardly what right lion. and hon. Gentlemen opposite have always argued—namely, the effect of market forces on the development of the British economy. Indeed, on the one hand they are telling us that they have this great commitment to regional development, to the creation of one nation, to a more even balance of growth in Britain, whereas, on the other, they are pursuing these policies in the South-East.
  It is interesting to learn that by the mid-1980s some 400 multi-national companies will control about 75 per cent. of assets in the western world. Can we believe that, without some kind of serious Government intervention, industrial development in Britain, or within the EEC for that matter, will not be continually distorted in the next decade by this tremendous concentration of assets in such a small number of industrialists' hands? This will be one of the biggest single challengers not only to this Government but to the European Economic Community.
  It is astonishing that the Government should deride what I accept may have been some stumbling attempts by members of the Labour Party to devolve a policy on this issue, but it is reprehensible that they have not recognised the need for a policy in this sphere.
  I turn now to the situation in my constituency. The Minister opening the debate for the Government mentioned the situation in West Cumberland and the creation of a task force. -He said that this was something new. As I understand it, the task force is a collection of civil servants who report privately to the Department. I have called for publication of not only the report but its main recommendations. I am told that it is not available. What is new about civil servants reporting on possible courses of action to Ministers? It is a public relations exercise, unless the Government publish the task force's report so that the proposals and ideas in it can be publicly debated. That would be new, but that is not the Government's intention.
  1082
  The bare facts are that in the next few months, already begun with the closure of Solway Colliery, we shall lose 1,000 male jobs in West Cumberland. That is 3 per cent. of all men presently employed in that area. Male unemployment will inevitably edge up towards 8 per cent. or 9 per cent. At the time that I met the task force, there were fewer than 100 new jobs in the pipeline. No announcement since has made any significant difference to that total.
  I understand that people in the Department believe that the main hope is to bring forward firms' expansion programmes to try to close the gap. That is fine, and understandably the quickest way to make some improvement. The only trouble is that it is a once-for-all policy because, in terms of local firms, next year's seed corn and the seed corn of the year after has been used up. This is no substitute for the location of new industry in the region. This will be the crucial test of the Government's commitment; not that a boom produces an expansion but that new jobs should be located in the special development areas. I hope that as a result of the Hardman Report a Government establishment will be located in West Cumberland. The most crucial shortage of all is in administrative technical jobs for young people.
  I welcome the Government's apparent commitment to regional development policies, but the Government have commitments to certain firms in my constituency at the present time. The Minister for Industrial Development knows all about the Sealand hovercraft situation. That company is still in Millom, and still trading, and the project is worth saving. I do not intend to castigate the Minister about his previous behaviour or his apparent penchant for losing his temper on television—that is a matter for himself—but there are two other firms in the area which have had outstanding claims for investment grant since before October 1970—almost three years.
  The firms are Millson Engineering of Whitehaven and Slacks of Millom. I invite the Minister to look at those two companies' applications. Let us have a decision here and now. It is inexcusable that small businessmen setting up in a special development area should have to

  1083
  wait three years for a Government decision on what, in terms of Government expenditure, are matters of small finance. Let us have no more apologies but more muscle in the Government's approach to regional development, and let us see some location of new industry in the special development areas.
  8.23 p.m.
  Mr. David Watkins: In the interests of brevity I propose to restrict my remarks to problems in my constituency, and to concentrate particularly on the lack of job opportunities which exists to a very serious extent in the Consett and Stanley areas of County Durham.
  This is an area the entire future of which is threatened by the closure or projected closure late in this decade of the British Steel Corporation's works at Consett—one of the remaining sources of large-scale employment in the area. It employs between 6,000 and 6,500 people and injects certainly not less than £30 million a year of spending power into the economy of a very large area—not only the area of Consett and Stanley but that of west and north-west County Durham. There is no other comparable industry in the whole area in terms of the numbers employed or the amount of earning power provided. Yet within the terms of the Government's White Paper it is proposed that that place should be closed down late in this decade.
  I was told by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry—who has not attended the debate—when he made his long-delayed statement on 21st December last on the future of the steel industry that there was a possibility of some manufacture continuing at Consett as a supplementary source of steel billet making. The White Paper, published after that statement, indicates that there is only one chance in four of that happening because Consett has to be considered with three other places as a possible supplementary source of billet manufacture. But even if that one chance in four is realised, it will still mean a vast reduction of jobs in the area, and repercussions affecting the living standards of every family.
  When the Secretary of State made his statement he talked of the massive advantages of his proposals for the steel Indus-
  1084
  try. There are no massive advantages for Consett. Furthermore, we are not talking here about closing down an old works but closing down a modern and highly efficient plant in which a new 150-ton basic oxygen steel vessel has been commissioned within a matter of weeks prior to this debate. We are in fact talking of the closing down or projected closing down of a works currently operating at record levels of production and efficiency. All this is projected to happen to an area which has already been hit savagely by a huge rundown in the coal mining industry, and savagely hit not only by that rundown but by a whole series of redundancies in those very industries which were supposed to have been introduced into the area to solve the problems created by the run-down of the coal mining industry.
  For 15 years my constituency has lost an average of 1,000 jobs every year. Last year, in one ever-to-be-forgotten seven-week period, 1,100 redundancies were announced. Whilst Government supporters talk about the booming North-East, the situation in my constituency is that on 6th October next, one of the only two remaining collieries is to be closed down, and another 500 jobs will disappear as a result.
  That is the measure of the problem not only of Consett and Stanley but of a wide area of north-west and west County Durham. When Members of the Government talk about a booming Britain, I must tell them that the only boom they have produced in my constituency is that of prices.
  Because of the extent of the problems I have outlined and also because of its geography and location, this is an area which requires special status if it is to attract new industry. It used to have a special status which gave it an advantage over other parts in the Northern Region, and which it required, but the present Government wiped out that advantage. It is interesting to recall the method of that wiping out.
  On Friday, 19th February 1971, my hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven (Dr. John A. Cunningham) initiated a debate, on a Private Member's motion, on the Northern Region. The day before that debate took place the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced the extension of special development area status

  1085
  to Tyneside and Wearside, no doubt to try to pre-empt my hon. Friend's motion. I do not deny that there then existed and now exist serious problems on Tyneside and Wearside, but what the Government's action then did was to wipe out—at a stroke to use a famous phrase—such advantages as West and North-West County Durham possessed in seeking to come to terms with quite exceptional problems. Since that action was undertaken by the Government there has not been one major development in the area. There have certainly been minor developments—there have been advance factories—but they have done no more than scratch the surface of the problems which there exist.
  If Consett and Stanley and West and North-West Durham are not to be turned into totally depressed areas, the Government will have to do far better in relation to those areas than they have done. Furthermore, they will have to jerk themselves out of the complacency which we have seen accepted so far in the debate.
  I conclude with some positive suggestions as to what might be done. A number of my hon. Friends have referred to the announcement by the British Leyland Motor Corporation of its longterm investment proposals, including a proposal to build a completely new motor-car plant in an area of the country where one does not currently exist. A number of my hon. Friends, including my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Urwin), have drawn attention to the necessity of that plant coming to the Northern Region. My right hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) pointed out that it was necessary for that plant to come within the triangle bounded by the Tyne and the Tees, in effect, the triangle of County Durham. I support him in that. It should come to the western point of that triangle in order to nullify the catastrophic effects which will take place from the run-down of the iron and steel industry in Consett. Something of that sort is the only hope of avoiding ghost towns and villages in a very large area.
  The Minister must use his powers under Section 7 of the Industry Act. For all the talk we have heard during the debate we have had little evidence as yet of the application of those powers to West
  1086
  and North-West Durham. The Minister must use those powers to restore to that area the advantage which it needs in order to overcome its particular problems and which was wiped out by the present Government primarily to secure debating points in the House in an earlier debate rather than to look after the interests and livelihoods of people in the Northern Region.
  8.31 p.m.
  Mr. Wilfred Proudfoot: Before coming to the main body of my speech I should like to refer to the unemployment figures nationally. One or two hon. Members of the Opposition have done exactly that. Over the last two years I have not found any individual in business outside the House who believes the unemployment statistics. Many hon. Members of the Opposition and certainly many of my hon. Friends do not believe the statistics about unemployment. In the last 12 months we have had a departmental look at these figures, undertaken by the Department of Employment. I am not satisfied with the figures. One finds in business and industry the idea that no one can trust these figures. They are high, but they involve many people who will never work again. Today, with better benefits, people between jobs take longer to choose their next job than they ever did previously.
  That does not mean that there is nothing to talk about within the regions. There is. But the trouble with these regional debates is that they are all incestuous. As I look around the Chamber I see nothing but hon. Members representing North-Eastern constituencies and the Northern Region. As Members of this House, it is our duty to go out and drag in some of the Members from the South-East. The problems of the regions are every bit as much theirs as ours. The best thing that has happened in the last two months—perhaps it is not the best thing—is that the control of the Greater London Council has changed hands. The GLC colleagues of hon. Members of the Opposition have given a great fillip to the regions. They have stopped the ring motorway around London. I should have thought that that was great news for the regions. The congestion is to continue in the miserable South-East, for years longer, because they

  1087
  have not started on a peripheral road around London.
  That is good news for the regions. It is simple logic. We should bring in the South-Easterners and tell them what we think of the miserable living conditions and the congestion in the South-East. This is the distressed area environmentally. We read newspapers and watch television programmes produced by South-Easterners who are all involved in this terrible congestion. Some journalists were saying a few months ago that we should not go for economic growth because it ruins the environment. Let me tell those journalists and hon. Members from the South-East that we in the North can do with lots of economic growth. It will not harm our environment. It will be good, and there is plenty of room for this kind of expansion. This is what regional policy should be about. It is not turning it on its head but looking at it through correct and logical eyes.
  One or two hon. Members have poured scorn on this boom. I am glad to say that only one or two have done so, because others have said that when the boom is on, the regions benefit. That is the time when unemployment drops. All hon. Members should ask the Government to continue to go for growth, for a continued policy of growth and not stop-start.
  I know that the bottlenecks will start. Hon. Members opposite have talked about overheating. There is overheating in the South-East. I should prefer to see the Government and businessmen, who are more important, anyway, tackling the problems of bottlenecks rather than worrying about the problems of no growth and no sales. We want to keep on with continued growth. Let us tackle the bottlenecks. Let us have growth as a habit. If boom goes on and on, this will be the best help that the regions can get.
  I am reminded of President John Kennedy's famous precept that the time to mend the roof is when the sun is shining. The sun is shining economically in Britain right now. The time to mend the roofs in the regions is right now. This is what the debate has been about in its multiplicity of ways.
  1088
  I am sorry that the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr. Woof) is not here. He is a very sincere Member from the North-East to whom I enjoy listening. His sincerity shines in the Chamber. I should have liked to ask the hon. Member whether he believes that the document which his party produced last week, which I presume he will support, and which calls for the nationalisation of more and more companies, will bring any more jobs to Blaydon. If he does believe that, he is sincere, but he is mistaken.
  The Northern Region has more than its fair share of nationalisation. The steel industry, the electricity industry and the railways are overmanned. The Northern Region produces a high proportion of electricity. Out-of-date industries must be run down. The people in the regions will not be helped by our pretending that we cannot allow out-of-date industries to be run down. If those industries are not run down we hurt our competitive position in the world. That would be the worst thing we could do for the people in the regions.
  In this debate my mind goes automatically to the question of regional policy in Europe. I have looked with almost a shock at the map of Europe which was produced by the Financial Times. A few moments ago the Chairman of the Parliamentary Committee on Regional Development in Europe came in and talked to another Member of the House. It is good to know that Members of the House are in Europe working for regional policy.
  I plead with hon. Members opposite to urge their party leaders to send some of their own Members to Strasbourg to work for the regional policy which is being developed there by an ex-member of the Labour Party who is now a European Commissioner. I will not describe Mr. Thomson as our member there. He is a member for the whole Community. There is a great job of work to be done in Europe, and the North-East, with its proximity to Europe, is very concerned in this aspect of regional development—[Interruption.]—when I was the hon. Member for Cleveland I believed in our entry into Europe and I still believe in it. I still believe that it is correct for the North and the North-East.

  1089
  It has always been said that there are not enough skilled men in the regions. The Government have introduced additional training schemes, but there is resistance to the schemes—legitimately and probably rightly from the point of view of the unions. It is now said that the attitude of the unions is more liberal than ever before. I believe that this is so and that self-help can take place within the regions.
  Hon. Members should ask the trade unions in the development and intermediate areas to reduce the term of apprenticeships. Nowadays an apprenticeship of four years is not necessary. Last week a boy to whom I gave a lift told me that he was on a four-year apprenticeship. He was going to training school every day, travelling 90 miles, and he was bored stiff. The pace of his training was too slow. I was once a technical training instructor and I know that people can absorb skills and information much more rapidly than they have to. I hope that in these areas the trade unions will make their rules more liberal and will reduce apprenticeship periods to two years.
  This approach is absolutely in line with today's world. As a result of training board levies, employers will send people for short courses of a week or a fortnight, and the employees will be able to adapt their skills to the changes in industry. The trade unions within the Northern Region should reduce the period for training apprentices.
  The Humber and Yorkshire Economic Planning Council has made a suggestion which is worthy of consideration. I do not know whether the planning council has made this suggestion publicly, but I have certainly heard it discussed. The M62 motorway opens on 5th July, at long last. It runs from Liverpool to Hull. The suggestion is that it should be called the central British motorway. For years we have nagged about being too far north. "The Midlands" means only the middle of England. That band across the country is the centre of Britain. For a European looking at Britain, this suggestion makes good sense. Also it brings the Northern Region psychologically much nearer to this complex where many of the firms are, in London. I think this is a sensible suggestion and I hope that the
  1090
  Minister of Transport will bear it in mind when he opens the motorway, and will call it by that name.
  My last point is one which I am surprised has not already been made. I listened to the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Ron Lewis) who reminded the House that the Northern Region extended across the country and included Westmorland and Cumberland. I listened to the hon. Member for Whitehaven (Dr. John A. Cunningham), and I was amazed that he did not make this point. We have had the Water Resources Bill before the House. There have been at least three schemes for putting a barrage and motorway across Morecambe Bay. This is a scheme which surely hon. Members representing this region ought to urge upon the Government. An industrial boom needs more and more water. There has been a scheme for Solway Firth, but I believe that the Morecambe scheme is much more attractive because it opens up Barrow-in-Furness which is difficult to get to.
  I make one last plea, namely that we should not knock the boom. It is a time when unemployment drops in the regions. We must make progress while the boom lasts so that we can obtain lasting benefit in the regions.
  8.44 p.m.
  Mr. Bernard Conlan: The motion refers to a number of extremely important matters, such as social inequality, the social services, and so on. I feel that one may be forgiven for concentrating on the question of unemployment because this problem has been with the region for a long time. Successive Governments have made various attempts to solve this problem. As one of my hon. Friends said earlier, they have used the carrot and the stick. The carrot has taken the form of extremely generous incentives and investment grants but, in spite of these generous provisions, the problem of unemployment remains with us.
  One of the most tragic and distressing features of unemployment is the way in which it affects young people. It is distressing that youngsters, having completed their schooling, are unable to find suitable employment to accord with their educational background. As a result, school-leavers are taking on menial jobs

  1091
  for which their educational attainments make them unsuited. That is a waste of talent for the region and the country. Since 1969 the problem of youth unemployment in Gateshead has been progressively worsening, until now the figure is double what it was in that year. The Government claim—and I accept the point—that the problems of youth unemployment will not be resolved in isolation. Clearly, the issue is also wrapped up with the total unemployment figures. Therefore, we should devise policies which attempt to ensure that greater inroads are made into the total unemployment figure.
  There has been an improvement recently, but any such improvement on the vast increase of unemployment in the last two years is an improvement that makes little progress. Therefore, the policies that have been tried before and have failed have to be replaced. I take the point mentioned by the hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough (Mr. Proudfoot). There must be greater governmental intervention in the regions, and if that means public ownership, so be it. We do not advocate public ownership merely for ideological or doctrinaire reasons. We advocate it for good, sound, solid social reasons. Obviously, the Government are failing to intervene sufficiently in industry, and they are failing to obtain greater investment and create more jobs.
  I want to give one example of what I mean. The Government are probably the largest customer of equipment and services. Therefore, they should take powers directly to intervene in the companies providing equipment and services, to ensure that those companies do their work in regions with the greatest unemployment problem. Unfortunately, the Government are not using the powers they possess. I cite the case of Marconi Radar Systems. Much defence expenditure is being wasted because of purchases that are being made abroad for the Services—purchases that could have been made here, in the regions and in my constituency. Marconi Radar Systems is a good example. The company manufactures high quality radar, and in the domestic market it provides equipment to the three Services and to the Civil Aviation Authority. The Government
  1092
  have said that they cannot intervene in the affairs of the company and that it must be left to the company to use its commercial discretion in deciding where it will do its work.
  There is no problem here, because the company has undertaken to me that if the Government are prepared to put work into the company it will be done at Gateshead. But in spite of many representations by me—I have written to the Minister for Industrial Development several times, asking him to use his good offices to put work into this company, which is threatened with closure and whose work force has been reduced by 50 per cent. in two years—there has been no satisfactory response. I wrote to the Minister asking him to do what he could. Nice polite letters were received, full of sympathy. I have also been in correspondence with the Minister for Defence Procurement, as he was, asking him to examine the programmes of the three Services in order to provide essential work for this factory. Again, I received lots of sympathy and nice polite replies. We do not want nice polite replies and we do not want lots of sympathy. We want work and jobs.
  It may be of interest if I also explain that when I wrote to the right hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Chataway)—who, I understand, will wind up this debate—in his capacity as Minister for Industrial Development, his interest was such that I did not even get a reply. Tonight he will proclaim his great interest in the regions and in providing jobs, but he did not even reply to the letter that I sent him on 14th October 1972.
  Mr. Chataway: I am, of course, extremely distressed to hear that the hon. Member did not have a reply, but I cannot believe that he was so uninterested in the subject about which he was writing to me that he did not write another letter to ask whether the first arrived.
  Mr. Conlan: It was perfectly clear that the Minister was uninterested in the situation, and I had to leave Government responsibility to his two hon. Friends.
  I want now to turn to the problem of the Civil Aviation Authority. It was asked to bring forward programmes. "We are very sorry," was the reply,

  1093
  "but we cannot do this. We cannot give any assistance." At the same time, during the period of the problems of this company in my constituency, where three sets of redundancies have been declared, the CAA, presumably with Government approval, was able to enter into contract arrangements for five sets of radar equipment with the German firm Standard Elektrik Lorenz. If the Government were determined and keen on providing jobs in the regions they could have used their veto on this contract to ensure that it was given to the region.
  Industry in the North-East is doing a fine job, in providing excellent products at the right price and the right time. Unfortunately, there is not enough industry to provide more jobs. What is required is greater investment and diversification. The Opposition's determination is to reduce the threat of insecurity and to remove for all time the scourge of large-scale, long-term unemployment.
  8.53 p.m.
  Mr. George Grant: I, too, welcome this opportunity to debate the problems of the Northern Region. My hon. Friend the Member for Houghtonle-Spring (Mr. Urwin) started by outlining the regional aspects of the problem. I will seek to relate these problems to my constituency. Many other hon. Members have sought to relate the problems to their constituencies.
  Male unemployment in the Northern Region is 6·4 per cent. This is 10 per cent. of national unemployment. My own constituency, Morpeth, which is in the mid-Northumberland exchange area, has a male unemployment figure of 6 per cent. I am very pleased that there has been an improvement in the unemployment situation, but I do not accept that this "boom" is totally responsible for the reduction in the figures. I feel confident that in my constituency civil servants have reduced the number to some extent by changing men from the unemployment list to the social security list, men who because of the pit closure programme and reorganisation in the pits, have no jobs to do, men who were incapacitated but fit to do some types of jobs—but the jobs which they were capable of doing were just not there.
  1094
  Apart from what it has done in the mining industry, mechanisation has taken many jobs on the farms away. Most road building work is now done on the drawing board, and the manual labour required is much less. Work is done in the main by machines. Even road sweeping is mechanised.
  In the Northern Region the figure for male unemployment is 54,000, of whom it is reckoned that 32,000 are classified as general labourers. It is imperative that a new approach be made to training. I am the first to agree that many men in the dole queues are not material for training, but there are many men in jobs which they could do and who have potential to be trained for other work. Men will not volunteer for training if they are in jobs. In the national interest and the interests of our long-term investment, the Government should pay to attract men to take up training. New skills are required in the region.
  In the building industry in the region there are 323 vacancies for bricklayers and 526 vacancies for carpenters. In my constituency a fine scheme has been introduced by the Home Office in which prisoners are trained in building skills. If it is possible for prisoners to be trained in that way, a much more realistic approach should be made in the region to fill vacancies and widen the scope of training. What is wrong in the Government's paying men to be trained on a building site so as to fill vacancies? What is wrong with colliery surface plant being used for training?
  Men who are in jobs will not put forward their names for training. If they were paid to undergo training, men with potential, who might be in dead-end jobs, would leave the way clear for those men who have not got the skills and unfortunately cannot be trained.
  Professor Dennison of Newcastle University, backed by Northumberland County Council, recently made a survey of the Ashington area. The survey highlights the problems in my constituency. In 1958 there were 58 pits in Northumberland. Today there are only 12. In the Ashington area in 1961, when Ashington was probably the biggest colliery village in the world, 69 per cent. of the male population was employed in mining. Today the figure is 48 per cent. The

  1095
  present unemployment figures for the area show that 64 per cent. of the unemployed men are over the age of 55. That is a real problem.
  In his report, Professor Dennison makes a serious prediction. He says:
  "In 1960 there were 17 working pits in the Household Survey Area. By the beginning of 1971 only 6 remained open. We have assumed that a further 4 pits will close by the end of 1975. On the basis of a number of assumptions not all of which are likely to be fulfilled, we estimate that male registered unemployment will rise beyond 15 per cent. by 1975."
  Already one pit has closed. That is the Bedlington pit which is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth (Mr. Milne). Recently the National Coal Board proposed the closure of Netherton colliery. The only two pits that could be classified as long-life pits are Ellington and Lynemouth collieries. I do not accept the prediction which has been put forward that the other two pits will close by 1975. I have discussed this matter with the National Coal Board.
  The fact is that they are not long-life pits. The survey talks about unemployment amounting to 15 per cent. It is time that the Government did something about the matter.
  Earlier this year the Government announced 17 advance factories. There was not one such factory in the Morpeth constituency. This weekend the Secretary of State, when he was in Ashington, made an announcement that there was to be such a factory. Of the 17 factories that were announced, not one brick has yet been laid.
  A serious statement was made by John Hobbs, the chairman of the North-East Development Council. The Evening Chronicle of 29th May says:
  "The shortage of advance factories is seriously hampering efforts to attract new jobs in the region. Mr. John Hobbs, director of the North of England Development Council, said today. Because of the extreme shortage many industrialists who want a factory in the North-East for immediate use just can't have one, he said. Only last week a German firm came to us wanting a factory which would have provided 100 jobs but there was not one available."
  In my constituency there are 108 males who are registered for sheltered work. There is a Remploy factory in the area. However, when the position is reached
  1096
  when there are 108 men registered for sheltered work it is time that the Government were looking for an expansion of Remploy in the district.
  It might be argued that Remploy is not a paying proposition. It must be considered that these men will not claim social security. They pay their stamp. They pay income tax and, most important of all, such employment gives these men an interest in living and restores their pride.
  I shall stress briefly the serious water situation in the Northern Region. The way the Government have dithered and been indecisive about the water supply must represent one of their biggest failures. The Newcastle and Gateshead Water Company and the Tynemouth Water Board both expect to reach the limit of available resources in 1974. The Teesside Water Company expects to be fully committed by 1976. The Northumbria River Authority brought forward the imaginative scheme of Kielder. If that had been started this year it would have provided, by 1976, 15 million gallons of water a day. It would have been completed in 1978. By that stage it would have been bringing 200 million gallons a day to the area.
  The county council, the North-East Development Council, the local authorities and the majority of hon. Members were in full support of the Kielder scheme. It is unfortunate that the present Secretary of State for the Environment had to deal with the problem. He looked at the objectives from within his own constituency. The Government inspector who dealt with the inquiry also came out with his support for Kielder. I realise that the inquiry will be reopened on 19th June. I hope that the Government realise the importance of the scheme to the whole of the Northern Region and that they will give the matter the urgency which it demands.
  9.5 p.m.
  Mr. A. G. F. Hall-Davis: As only half my constituency qualifies for the regional incentives of the Northern Region I shall endeavour to make my speech take only half as long as usual, in the hope that another hon. Member may catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, before the close of the debate.

  1097
  The part of the area that comes within the scope of Northern Region industrial incentives is Furness and North Lonsdale, and in that area are two main sources of employment—manufacturing industry and tourism. They are equally dependent on road communications. They are equally dependent on the same communication route—the A590, which can truly be described as an artery for Furness and North Lonsdale. If my right hon. Friend were to ask, "Is there one thing that I can do to ensure the economic development of the western side of the new county of Cumbria?", I would say, "Yes—press on with adequate improvements to the A590." That would be sufficient, and would be recognised as sufficient, by everybody in the area.
  There has been no argument that improvements to this line of communication are urgently necessary. What has happened is that, due to a weakness in administrative procedures—or, perhaps, to what I hope will be the last time that inadequate administrative procedures were followed—there has been unnecessary delay in bringing about this improvement.
  There were only two ways to improve access to the area. One was by building a new road across the head of Morecambe Bay, which came to be known on the drawing board as the link road. The other was by improving the existing A590. About six years ago, Lancashire County Council put the link road among its four principal priorities for road improvements in the county. In 1967, the Ministry of Tranport put the link road in the preparation pool. At that time it was generally assumed that the question was only when it would be built and not whether it would be built.
  Due to increasing concern about environmental matters, there were objections to the proposal and in 1970 a public inquiry was held. That, I think, is where the administrative weakness showed itself. Unlike the case with the A66 in Cumberland, as I understand it, the two alternative routes were not evaluated together. Nor, as far as I can see, was any serious contingency planning done for work to commence as quickly as possible on the alternative—the only alternative route—if the link road proposal were rejected as a result of the inquiry.
  1098
  It was rejected after a wait of practically two and a half years. We have had experience of delays in getting results from public inquiries, but hon. Members can appreciate the feelings of my constituents who had to wait two and a half years for a verdict and then found that it was against their project, for which they had been waiting eagerly for many years.
  What I am asking is that, so far as can be done within the limits of the administrative resources available, the area should not be penalised by unnecessary delay or by an inadequate alternative route because the proposal which it wished to see adopted was rejected on environmental grounds. If one is to make an environmental decision for the benefit of the community as a whole, then the community as a whole should meet the cost and not those locally who have been affected by the decision.
  That there was not contingency planning is clear from the fact that the comparatively minor design modifications to the Lindale Bypass—itself a major improvement but requiring these small modifications as a result of the decision—will not be completed to allow the statutory notices to be published much before the end of the year. There are several projected improvements on which planning work has already been done. There is the Greenodd Bypass diversion on the A590, which I understand is now awaiting a report from the Lancashire County Council—what, I believe, is known as a firm programme report. The same applies to stage III of the Ulverston improvement.
  There are improvements envisaged to what is known as the Haverthwaite cross roads. It is accepted by the Department of the Environment that there must be substantial improvements to the A590 between Levens Bridge and Lindale. Local bodies, industrialists and citizens who use the road frequently, of whom I am one, are pressing that as much of that length as possible should be dual carriageway. What I am pressing for is the recognition of the fact that because we now appreciate, where there are alternatives, that it would be more sensible to consider them together, because this is perhaps the last major road improvement where such a process was not gone

  1099
  through, and because the new improvements will not show the same return on capital as those which were rejected on environmental grounds, the Government should not expect Cumbria to pay the price for an environmental decision taken on much broader grounds.
  I hope that the Government will press on with these improvements with all rapidity, will make them effective and so help industry in the area and help the Lake District environmentally. At present small geographical areas are being choked with tourists while there are other large areas which could accommodate more visitors if only the road access was much better. We are delighted to see visitors. We can accommodate them. They go away and leave the Lake District much as it was. At the moment there is a grave imbalance between the way they choke certain parts of the Lake District and do not reach other parts.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): Mr. Bagier.
  Mr. Gordon A. T. Bagier rose——
  Mr. Ted Fletcher: This has been a wide-ranging debate——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry. I called Mr. Bagier. I am sorry I cannot call the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Ted Fletcher).
  Mr. Bagier rose——
  Mr. Fletcher rose——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member whom I have called—I thought I pronounced his name correctly—is the hon. Member on my extreme left.
  9.13 p.m.
  Mr. Bagier: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. For the record, my name is Bagier. Sometimes it is pronounced "Badger"—sometimes it is a lot worse. I am grateful for the opportunity to take part briefly in this debate. I regret that my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Ted Fletcher) has been pipped by me.
  One of the most difficult jobs at this late stage is to condense into a few
  1100
  minutes a speech which has taken a week to prepare. I hope the House will bear with me if I hurry along and put my remarks into a few short sentences. I represent a part of Sunderland and it was remarkable to read in this morning's paper the suggestion that because Sunderland has won the FA Cup that has done great things for its industry. It is said that everyone is working happily, that industrial relations are much better and so on. I am afraid that this is so much newspaper talk. Pleased as I am about the Cup, I am afraid it is a rather secondary matter.
  We are still left with a town that is far from happy, with about 7,500 unemployed and a male unemployment figure of 8·9 per cent. It is against that background that we approach this debate in serious tone.
  I wish to underline one or two remarks about shipbuilding made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey). The Minister has been quite forthcoming in holding meetings, but I ask him to have a quick look at what can be done for Doxford and the Sunderland shipbuilders. The Minister for Local Government and Development said that the Booz-Allen Report would need to be studied. Surely the success story of the Wear shipbuilders does not take much studying. According to the Booz-Allen Report, out of about £160 million poured into shipbuilding, the Sunderland area as a whole has had about £13,000 in Government grants. We are not asking for a great deal. We mention the success story and suggest that it might be prudent for the Government to invest in a success story. The report says that Doxford of Sunderland is now controlled by the successful Appledore management. What more justification do the Government want for making a quick decision?
  The report also says that Appledore and Austin Pickergsgill have good delivery arrangements and that the latter company has for several years been successfully taking part in the SD 14 scheme. According to information available to us, when it can get the go-ahead it will build the most modern indoor shipbuilding complex in Europe, and it will make a success story of it. This would help to reduce the high unemployment in Sunderland.

  1101
  I ask the Minister to use his good offices to short-cut this thorough examination right across the board.
  I ask him to think again and to be selective. If there are problems with Cammell Laird and with Glasgow, they should be examined in detail, but Sunderland should also be examined in detail. Investment in Sunderland would be an investment in a success story and not a bolstering up of a lame duck.
  It is ludicrous that a cut of £20 million should be made in the training scheme, particularly when there are 50,000 unemployed men in the region and only 5,000 training places. The Government must again think in terms of being selective and not just do things right across the board.
  The Minister may say that one difficulty is that not all the training positions are taken up, but a married man with two children often cannot afford to take up training particularly if he does not know for what he is being trained. Industry is not in a position to say to a man that in six or 12 months' time he will start at a certain place. He has to explain to his wife why she must accept a reduction in income while he does his training. Perhaps some of that £20 million might go to genuine hardship cases where a man wants to better himself but cannot afford to do so.
  I ask the Government to consider extending Operation Eyesore. I am the first into battle in defending my region as a beautiful region, but it has suffered from the ravages of the past industrial vandalism of the rivers, the river banks and the environment. Much more money could be spent on Operation Eyesore, and I ask the Minister to extend the scheme beyond September.
  I shall not mention the 17 advance factories that have not been started. The Government should bear in mind that the square footage of factory space includes factory space which is broken down, old factories and factories which are unacceptable to industries which might come into the region. Is it possible for local authorities to be given a go-ahead to examine the property to see whether it is usable? The direct works department in Sunderland might do that. I cannot miss this opportunity of deploring the fact that the Government
  1102
  have seen fit to put a specific embargo on the direct works department building houses for sale.
  The Government are supposed to believe in the idea that everybody should be able to own their own houses. Their reasons for so believing are remarkable. In one section of the town where they have been building houses for sale they are half way through the development. But now the Government have said that for policy reasons they are to disallow the direct labour organisation the opportunity to tender.
  The wording of the letter to the Town Clerk of Sunderland is priceless. The letter says that the Department of the Environment will not allow Sunderland to go in for the completion of the second half of the 26 houses for sale. I will quote the precise wording:
  "I appreciate the problems experienced by your Council in trying to obtain competitive private tenders for the earlier competition but the fact that the Direct Labour Organisation is unable to compete in the next stage should go a long way to persuading private firms to submit competitive tenders for the next phase. …"
  No longer will the direct labour organisation be allowed to build cheaper houses, for they are to be debarred from such tenders. I hope that the Minister will have a word with his right hon. Friend about this important matter. Indeed, I hope the Government will take note of all I have said.
  9.22 p.m.
  Mr. Ernest Armstrong: We have had a wide-ranging debate, but I was interested to hear the Minister for Local Government and Development say that this was not the right time for such a debate. Since we are now apparently doing better than we were 12 months ago and are at what is described as the beginning of an economic boom, it is said that this is the wrong time to debate regional policies. I suggest that this is exactly the right time to consider this problem.
  We have had a regional problem for at least half a century. I grew up in West Durham, and we know from the figures that in November 1934 although unemployment in London and the South-East of England was 4 per cent., in West Durham unemployment was running at 50·6 per cent. of the population—in other

  1103
  words, in that area in November 1934 there were more men unemployed than there were men at work.
  The consequences of that kind of imbalance are still with us. Despite all the regional resources which have been put into the regions, particularly the Northern Region, we still have social inequalities, lack of job opportunities and all the other items which are mentioned in the motion. There has been a constant transference of families to the more prosperous areas, and the gap between the more affluent areas and the Northern Region during the past 50 years has never been closed. It is interesting to note that even at peak times of prosperity in the last 20 years unemployment in the Northern Region has always been almost twice the national average.
  To depend on the idea—and this was the theme of the speech made by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in Newcastle on Friday, and indeed it was echoed by the right hon. Gentleman the Minister for Local Government and Development in his remarks today—that because the country is now seeing an upsurge in the national economy there is less reason to be anxious about regional policies is to deny the evidence of the past half century.
  I am pleased and privileged tonight to represent the folk in the Northern Region. I wish to tell the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, North (Mr. R. W. Elliott) that I do not come armed with a begging bowl. There is no question of my proffering a begging bowl for people in the North. No region has contributed more to the well being, prosperity and wealth of the nation than the Northern Region and its people. They have suffered from a rundown in jobs in the basic industries but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Consett (Mr. David Watkins) said, in many of the new industries which have come to the region over the past 15 years they have experienced serious job losses in the past three years.
  We in the North assert the right to work. We assert that we have also the right to a decent return for that work. We have the right to be able to provide by our own efforts the necessities for good
  1104
  family life and that we should be able to do it in the place of our choice.
  I was disturbed to hear the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, North pouring scorn on the desire of folk in the North to have the opportunity to work in the North. He talked about people wanting jobs on their doorsteps and so on. The truth is that during the whole of my lifetime there has been direction of labour for many people in the Northern Region. As a schoolmaster my first job in 1937 was to work at Felling. There were then 300 school teachers unemployed in Durham. I went to what was called the dole school. It was the junior instruction centre for youngsters who had left school. I seem to remember that they received two shillings a week unemployment pay. We were persuading them to come to the affluent South to work in hotel kitchens and to do all kinds of menial jobs which they came and did rather than join the dole queue.
  Mr. R. W. Elliott: I apologise for interrupting the hon. Gentleman. I do so only because, with great respect to him, he has taken my words completely out of context. My point was that we in the Northern Region should all now recognise the growth area situation and realise that jobs cannot be brought to every pit village. There must be growth areas. That is all that I was saying.
  Mr. Armstrong: I am not suggesting that jobs should be brought to every pit village. However, the hon. Gentleman should make speeches like that in Consett or West Durham. Views of that kind explain why it is that no Tory ever represents that part of the country.
  The availability of work is still the basic problem in the Northern Region. We all know that unemployment anywhere and at any time is a waste of human resources. But career destruction and redundancy amongst the middle-aged when there is no alternative is a human tragedy.
  Let us look at the unemployment figures. In mid-May 1973 there were 50,921 men unemployed in the Northern Region. That was 2,200 more than in June 1970. We get no satisfaction therefore from speeches such as that made by the Secretary of State in Newcastle

  1105
  on Friday. It was a complacent speech making it appear that we had nothing to worry about, that because unemployment had dropped drastically during the past 12 months we need not be fearful about the future.
  We are today almost back to where we were in June 1970. If we look at the notified vacancies and the numbers of unemployed men available in May 1973, for every 100 notified vacancies in the South-East, there are 68 unemployed men. In the middle of what the Secretary of State declared to be an economic boom and what the Minister for Local Government and Development described today as "Boom, boom, boom," for every 100 vacancies in the North-East there are 350 unemployed men. That is a great improvement on the position two years ago. At that time the Government had destroyed their regional policy alogether. But it is still a very serious matter for those unemployed in the Northern Region who seek regular work.
  In the course of his speech on Friday, the Secretary of State reviewed the prospects for the future and talked about 6,000 jobs over the next three years. A total of 6,000 jobs is a drop in the ocean compared with the real needs of the Northern Region.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Morpeth (Mr. George Grant) referred to the 17 advance factories which were announced in January this year. When will the construction of the first of those factories commence? They were announced in January, but not a single start has been made during the intervening period. We know now that shortages of land and material are preventing the programme going ahead. No wonder Malcolm Crawford, the economics editor of the Sunday Times, last week headed his article,
  "Jobs flood in yet regions are still on the dole."
  There is no room for complacency here. Of course regional policy has helped. We have succeeded in conducting a holding operation and there has been some improvement in the structure of our industries.
  One of the greatest needs in the Northern Region is positive encouragement to service industries. It is estimated that over the last 12 years for every three
  1106
  jobs created in manufacturing industries five service jobs have been made available. Today, I understand that the manufacturing sector employs only 38 per cent. of the work force. This makes it essential that investment incentives are made available for service industry jobs as well as manufacturing industry jobs.
  I suggest that the Minister, when considering with the CBI and the TUC the future of REP, should take account of two matters. First, on the evidence submitted by the CBI, it is essential that REP or something like it should be continued in the Northern Region. I suggest as strongly as I can that for the health of the Northern Region, and in order to sustain the economic growth which we now welcome, the Minister should extend REP, or something like it, to both service and manufacturing industries. This, indeed, would be a great contribution.
  The Government are relying far too much on expansion of the national economy for the solution of regional problems. We cannot possibly begin to solve our problems unless we have sustained growth in the economy. We readily acknowledge that. Unemployment in the development areas falls when it falls nationally, but the gap between the regions remains in times of both recession and boom.
  I should like to mention the inequalities and injustices that persist, which have been skirted over by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on the Government side. I remind the House that we have not been talking about a geographical location on the borders of Scotland that anybody south of Potters Bar knows little about and where strange people live; we have been talking about families who are anxious to provide a good and rising standard of living.
  At the latest count—I was amazed when I was reminded of the differences—the average household income in the South-East was £43·67 per week, compared with £34·56 in the Northern Region. With that differential it is no use preaching about boom, and so on. People in the Northern Region know that they cannot provide for their families the resources and facilities which are taken for granted in other parts of the country. In the Northern Region 7·2 per cent. of full-time male

  1107
  workers employed in manual work take home less than £20 a week, as against 5·7 per cent. in the South-East. I ask the Minister to note that at the last count 21·4 per cent. of men in full-time work in the Northern Region were taking home less than £25 a week.
  Work is a human need. Not only is it a means of livelihood; it gives social status and function. When a man working a full week is paid less than he could expect to get from social security, no incidence of means-tested benefits is any substitute for the indignity of receiving a wage of that kind. No means-tested benefits can make up for the loss of dignity and of self-respect implied in such a state of affairs.
  Another sad feature of regional inequality—and this comes to the point made by the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, North (Mr. R. W. Elliott)—is the withering and breaking up of existing communities. This is something which has made a great personal impact on me. At the end of the war I was all for people moving to areas where there were better facilities and amenities, swimming baths, new towns and cities, and so on. I have changed my mind. Miners and their families have always lived in closely knit communities. Today, many of those communities have been broken up, and even where they have dreary rundown environments great social and psychological costs are involved when we allow villages to wither away.
  In far too many communities of the North our brightest youngsters, having made the grade in higher education, can find no outlets for their skills and talents except by moving to more affluent areas. This is a great wastage and a great social loss, and provides many of our social problems. We have to strike a balance between planning for reasonable mobility and the preservation of established and cherished communities. Large cities, and even new towns, do not offer the attractive life style for which many people look today.
  Let us examine the educational facilities. Here I have time only to give one figure. At the last count 65·1 per cent. of children in the South-East stayed on after the statutory school leaving age. The
  1108
  equivalent figure in the North was 48·5 per cent. In the health services, a general practitioner in the North has far more patients than has the corresponding general practitioner in the South. Much publicity was given last week to patients suffering from arthritis, who had to wait twice as long for a bed in the North as they would have done in the South. It is the kind of "two nations" about which my right hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) spoke.
  The truth is that we have to face a situation today where living standards have improved in the North and where there has been a change in the environment. Much has been done, but much remains to be done. The gap is still there and cannot be closed without positive regional policy. The Government's attitude has been far too negative. When they came to office they believed that if they let loose market forces they would solve the problems, but even the Prime Minister and others have changed their minds about that and are now standing on their heads in that respect. Tonight we are making a plea—indeed, a demand—for positive regional policies.
  Regional problems are stubborn and persistent. That is what the motion says. They are a source of waste to the nation and bring inequality and injustice to thousands of decent families in the development areas. The South-East has a regional problem no less serious than that of the Northern Region, but it is of a different kind. It is a problem of overdevelopment in the South-East, and I must say that the Government seem to be quite prepared to allow it to go on—when we think of some of the prestige projects coming along. Over-development increases congestion and, indeed, inflation, and leads to ever-increasing demands on the public purse to cope with the social and human problems created, and to make life tolerable, let alone civilised, in the modern complex industrial society that we are creating.
  The plea in our motion is in the best interests of the whole nation. It is not a plea for the Northern Region alone. We are asserting the right of men and women in every part of the country to regular and satisfying work. We are asserting the right of every youngster—above all, of every youngster—to have equal educational opportunities wherever

  1109
  his family may live, and the full development of his talents. We are asserting the right of every family to improved living standards. We believe that only a positive regional policy offering consistent preferential treatment will abolish the imbalances in areas like Northern Region, which, in the past, through no fault of their own but because of rundown in basic industries, have suffered deprivation. We must give them more and more preferential treatment. I can assure the House and the Minister that we do not come saying, "Give us these things"; we say, "Give us the opportunity." It is not a matter of being handed things on a plate. We want an opportunity provided by exploiting all our resources.
  I remind the Minister, too, that the Northern Region includes some of the most beautiful parts of Britain. We have an improving environment. We want the opportunity to improve it further, so that our people may have equal access to the quality of life that other regions take for granted.
  9.40 p.m.
  The Minister for Industrial Development (Mr. Christopher Chataway): I believe that this is the first time that the hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Mr. Armstrong) has spoken from the Front Bench. I hope that he will not think it presumptuous of me if I congratulate him very warmly. In education debates I used to enjoy very much listening to him, and I think that the whole House has listened with considerable enjoyment to what he has had to say tonight.
  Inevitably, in winding up a debate, one concentrates on areas of disagreement. I shall be disagreeing a great deal with what the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members have said. I agree with him fundamentally on a number of the major propositions that he asserted. First, I agree that over a very long period the Northern Region has had to undergo major structural changes. Although Governments have certainly made their mistakes about regional policy, I have not the least doubt that if there had not been a regional policy over the past decades we should be faced with a situation which was even more serious than it is today.
  Secondly, I agree with the hon. Gentleman—this point was also made by the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr.
  1110
  William Rodgers) and my. hon. Friend the Member for Brighouse and Spenborough (Mr. Proudfoot)—that this is very much the time to be concerned with regional policy and that the opportunities when the economy is going well are far greater than in times of difficulty. As my hon. Friend the Member for Brigh-house and Spenborough said, the time to mend the roof is when the sun is shining. That most certainly is the Government's attitude. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer made it clear in his Budget speech that for just this reason we intend to maintain to the full our regional incentives. The House will have noted that despite cutbacks in Government expenditure there is no change in the system of regional incentives that we are operating in the regions.
  There is no doubt that the effect of the Industry Act and of these measures is helping with a very substantial upturn in investment in the Northern Region today. Looking simply at selective assistance—I was asked about Section 7 of the Industry Act—it has been decided by the Regional Industrial Development Board to offer assistance for over 70 projects which are expected themselves to create 6,000 jobs in three years. The hon. Gentleman need not worry that that is the limit of the jobs which we intend to create in the next three years, because the board is now considering a substantial number of further applications and hopes, by the end of July, to have secured the first century of positive decisions. It has to be remembered that each of these jobs is in manufacturing industry and is likely to create a number of other jobs in the service industries.
  There has been a great deal of emphasis in the debate on the importance of service industries and of office accommodation. I have been very anxious to look at the present arrangements for encouraging service industries and particularly office jobs to the regions in the hope of supplying still more effective incentives. Although I cannot make an announcement on this subject tonight I hope to be able to do so fairly shortly.
  It is important that we should realise the extent of overseas investment in the Northern Region. There has been some discussion by my hon. Friends and the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring

  1111
  (Mr. Urwin) about attracting foreign investment. I hope that there will be no doubt in any part of the House about the importance of continuing to attract foreign investment. It has been the policy of successive Governments that we welcomed overseas investment and went out to get it. One detects an unfortunate tendency on the part of some hon. Members of the Opposition these days to characterise any company that works in more than one country as a multi-national and to use that as a term of abuse. The right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) is perhaps the worst offender in this respect.
  This is of fundamental importance to the debate, because there are 35,000 men employed in the Northern Region already in firms from overseas. We are seeing at the moment—I have a list here—a very substantial number of firms attracted into the region by virtue of its excellent location in relation to the Common Market. I therefore hope that there will be no doubt in any part of the House that we want to see that investment attracted and I hope that such notions as are contained in the recent Labour proposals for trying to insist—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] We have had this reaction once or twice, but the Labour Party has produced its proposals.
  Mr. Urwin rose——
  Mr. Chataway: The fact is that in relation to overseas investment, which is of fundamental importance to the North Eastern region, the Labour Party has said that when in government it will seek to appoint directors not only to United Kingdom subsidiaries but to the parent companies of multi-nationals. If hon. Members think that that is helping to attract overseas investment they should think again.
  Mr. Urwin: I am grateful to the Minister for at last giving way. Will he accept from me, if his hearing betrayed him during the course of the contributions from this side, that neither I nor any of my right hon. or hon. Friends attempted in any way to denigrate the activities of multi-national companies operating in the Northern Region or, in-
  1112
  deed, those of any firms coming from outside this country? What I said was that there was some scope for saying that discipline should be introduced on the investment of multi-nationals so that it is directed to the areas where it is most needed.
  Mr. Chataway: I am delighted that the hon. Member has said that. If he could get those views translated into this document in due course, it would be very helpful.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, West (Mr. Sutcliffe) and the hon. Member for Morpeth (Mr. George Grant) referred to the advance factory programme. I was able to announce the biggest ever advance factory programme for the Northern Region earlier this year of 240,000 million sq. ft. We have seen a very rapid take-up of advance factories over recent months. We still have advance factories available—a good many of them older ones. A further half-dozen will become available shortly, when their modernisation is completed.
  I accept completely the importance of moving quickly with the new factories under the advance programme. Three factories are now under construction and will be completed by October. Three more will be started by July this year, and eight more in August or early September. It is hoped to start up to eight more by the end of November. I accept entirely the importance of pressing ahead with this programme, in view of the strong demand for factory space in the Northern Region.
  The hon. Members for Cleveland (Mr. Tinn) and Sedgefield (Mr. David Reed) and my hon. Friends the Members for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, North (Mr. R. W. Elliott) and Brighouse and Spenborough stressed the importance of training. There can be no question about the growing importance of training in the Northern Region. We have seen a substantial increase in the number of places in general training centres. Whereas 10 years ago there were only 80 places, today there are 1,642. That will be pushed up to over 2,000 very shortly. Thirty per cent. of people who completed courses in 1972 did so under schemes for sponsored training for workers nominated by employers. That is expanding steadily.

  1113
  It is important that we attempt by every means to persuade more people to take advantage of these opportunities. There is a substantial difference in the occupancy rate of general training centres between the Northern Region and the rest of the country. In the United Kingdom as a whole it is 82·9 per cent., whereas in the Northern Region it is 73·7 per cent. I know that there arc reasons why it is difficult for many people to train, but there is undoubtedly a job to be done in persuading many more people to take advantage of these expanding opportunities.
  The right hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey), the right hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Fernyhough), with whom I should like to continue discussions on one or two of the matters he raised, and the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Bagier) all stressed the importance of an early decision on shipbuilding. They will appreciate that we have only recently been able to put out the Booz-Allen Report for consultation, and that raises a number of very difficult issues for all of us, such as the size of the industry that we should aim for and the scale of secure employment which it will be right to aim for over the years. It involves issues of weighing claims for limited resources.
  We have to consider what means there are of speeding up the introduction of better management in some of the areas where this is lacking, and promoting better labour relations. I think it would be unrealistic to suppose that a decision can be taken totally in isolation from Booz-Allen. I accept that there may be opportunities to be taken in the present buoyant state of the shipbuilding industry, and it is important that we should reach decisions as soon as we can. I give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that there will be no unnecessary delay.
  Mr. Michael McGuire: How quickly will a decision be reached?
  Mr. Chataway: I cannot give a date yet, but every effort will be made to do so as quickly as possible.
  The right hon. Member for Sunderland, North on a number of occasions mentioned Seahorse, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward), and we hope to
  1114
  satisfy ourselves whether this proposition is commercially viable and technically sound. We have been examining the project with the Court Line and will come to a conclusion as soon as we can.
  This is a pretty curious motion in a number of ways. A good many who have spoken have recognised the scale of the improvement that there has been in recent months. The motion refers to "persistent social inequalities" and "low household incomes." The hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring referred to some figures which are two or three years old. The House may like to know that average weekly earnings of men manual workers are £35·12. That is the figure for October 1972, the latest date for which we have figures, and that is an increase in real terms since October 1969 of 14·5 per cent. The previous three years under the former administration showed an increase of 9 per cent. We have a good way to go, but we are going a good deal faster than hon. Members opposite did. What is more, that increase is somewhat larger than the increase for the United Kingdom as a whole. So a start has been made in closing the gap.
  The motion talks in strong terms of "lack of job opportunities." It does so without a word of apology, and the House ought to know that registered vacancies in May 1973 are nearly 50 per cent. greater than in May 1970. The Opposition motion calls upon the Government to institute action to create new jobs. I think we should have the picture clear. In the course of the last Parliament the then Government succeeded in almost doubling unemployment in the Northern Region and, what is more, as they will know—because I do not think there can be many who believe in totally instant economics—they left a very rapidly rising trend. That rose in 18 months to record levels in the winter of 1971–72. We have turned that trend round. Whereas they left unemployment rapidly rising, we have it back today to the May 1970 figure, and it is falling rapidly, with a far higher level of vacancies.
  Mr. Urwin rose——
  Mr. Chataway: Perhaps this is the key to so much of the debate. The hon. Member and the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees recognised that while regional policy is enormously important and has

  1115
  to be sustained—and this Government will sustain it—it is sustained national growth that provides the only opportunity for making real progress in the regions. Therefore we have a right to ask whether Labour Members are still committed to the notion of sustained economic growth.
  Mr. Bagier: Are you?
  Mr. Chataway: We have seen proposals issued in this last week which we do not believe can be consistent with maintaining economic growth, but, nor, of course do a good many Labour Members. Some of them actually believe that the whole purpose of setting up what is called the National Enterprise Board is to put a stop to the pursuit of economic growth.—[Interruption.] This week we had——
  Mr. Urwin rose——
  Hon. Members: Give way.
  Mr. Chataway: The Opposition should not be so ashamed of their policy documents that they will not hear any criticism of them. The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) in extolling the proposals for a National Enterprise Board has given as his main argument, in his words
  "The pivot of the alternative economic … strategy"
  —the hon. Gentleman is spokesman from the Opposition Front Bench—
  "is a slackening of the voracious and never-ending demands of growth."
  That is what he says the National Enterprise Board is about. We have had discussions on the proposals to nationalise 25 companies and about whether those proposals may or may not be a firm part of the Labour programme. Certainly the 50,000 people in the Northern Region who are employed in some of the 25 largest companies will examine the proposals with a great deal of anxiety. Any hon. Member who believes that it is simply the 25-companies proposal which is likely to slow growth should read what the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Dell) has said, or the analysis in the New Statesman this week.
  In short, therefore, this motion, which is backed by all the forces of a three-line Whip, demands of the Government that they should do what the Government manifestly are doing, and what the Opposition manifestly failed to do in Government and now make it absolutely clear that they would fail to do again. We have a long way to go in the Northern Region but we have today the opportunity of pulling back on some of the ground that was lost in the last Parliament. The motion must set some sort of record for effrontery but I would suggest to the House that that is not sufficient reason for supporting it.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 291, Noes 275.

  Division No. 144.]

  AYES

  [10.0 p.m.

  Adley, Robert

  Braine, Sir Bernard

  Cormack, Patrick

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Bray, Ronald

  Costain, A. P.

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Critchley, Julian

  Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian

  Bruce-Gardyne, J.

  Crouch, David

  Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  Crowder, F. P.

  Astor, John

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

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Buck, Antony

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Awdry, Daniel

  Bullus Sir Eric

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

  Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

  Burden, F. A.

  Dean, Paul

  Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

  Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

  Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

  Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord

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

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Batsford, Brian

  Carlisle, Mark

  Dixon, Piers

  Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

  Cary, Sir Robert

  Dodds-Parker, Sir Douglas

  Bell, Ronald

  Channon, Paul

  Drayson, G. B.

  Bennett, Sir Frederick (Torquay)

  Chapman, Sydney

  du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

  Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

  Dykes, Hugh

  Benyon, W.

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir John

  Berry, Hn. Anthony

  Churchill, W. S.

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Biffen, John

  Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)

  Blaker, Peter

  Cockeram, Eric

  Emery, Peter

  Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

  Cooke, Robert

  Eyre, Reginald

  Body, Richard

  Coombs, Derek

  Farr, John

  Boscawen, Hn. Robert

  Cooper, A. E.

  Fell, Anthony

  Bossom, Sir Clive

  Cordle, John

  Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

  Bowden, Andrew

  Corfield, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick

  Fidler, Michael

  Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampslead)

  Lamont, Norman

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

  Lane, David

  Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey

  Fortescue, Tim

  Le Merchant, Spencer

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

  Foster, Sir John

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Fowler, Norman

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

  Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

  Fox, Marcus

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

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

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

  Loveridge, John

  Rost, Peter

  Fry, Peter

  McAdden, Sir Stephen

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Galbraith, Hn. T. G. D.

  MacArthur, Ian

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

  Gardner, Edward

  McCrindle, R. A.

  Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.

  Gibson-Watt, David

  McLaren, Martin

  Scott, Nicholas

  Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Glyn, Dr. Alan

  McMaster, Stanley

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

  Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

  Macmillan.Rt.Hn. Maurice (Farnham)

  Shelton, William (Clapham)

  Goodhart, Philip

  McNair-Wilson, Michael

  Shersby, Michael

  Gorst, John

  Maddan, Martin

  Simeons, Charles

  Gower, Raymond

  Madel, David

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

  Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Gray, Hamish

  Marten, Neil

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

  Green, Alan

  Mather, Carol

  Soref, Harold

  Grieve, Percy

  Maude, Angus

  Speed, Keith

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

  Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

  Spence, John

  Gryils, Michael

  Mawby, Ray

  Sprout, Iain

  Gummer, J. Selwyn

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Stainton, Keith

  Gurden, Harold

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Moate, Roger

  Stokes, John

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Molyneaux, James

  Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

  Hannam, John (Exeter)

  Money, Ernle

  Sutcliffe, John

  Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

  Monks, Mrs. Connie

  Tapsell, Peter

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Monro, Hector

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

  Hastings, Stephen

  More, Jasper

  Tebbit, Norman

  Havers, Sir Michael

  Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

  Temple, John M.

  Hawkins, Paul

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

  Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

  Hay, John

  Mudd, David

  Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

  Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Murton, Oscar

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

  Heseltine, Michael

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

  Hicks, Robert

  Neave, Airey

  Tilney, John

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Nicholls, Sir Harmar

  Trafford, Dr. Anthony

  Hiley, Joseph

  Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Trew, Peter

  Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)

  Normanton, Tom

  Tugendhat, Christopher

  Hill, S. James A. (Southampton, Test)

  Nott, John

  Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin

  Holland Philip

  Onslow, Cranley

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Holt, Miss Mary

  Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

  Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

  Hordern, Peter

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Vickers, Dame Joan

  Hornby, Richard

  Osborn, John

  Waddington, David

  Hornsby-Smith.Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia

  Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Howe, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

  Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)

  Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

  Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

  Parkinson, Cecil

  Wall, Patrick

  Hunt, John

  Percival, Ian

  Walters, Dennis

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Peyton, Rt. Hn. John

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  Warren, Kenneth

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  James, David

  Pounder, Rafton

  White, Roger (Gravesend)

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Jessel, Toby

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Wilkinson, John

  Johnson Smith G. (E. Grinstead)

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

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Jones Arthur (Northants S.)

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Jopling, Michael

  Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

  Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Raison, Timothy

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

  Worsley, Marcus

  Kimball, Marcus

  Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

  Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

  King, Evelyn (Dorset. S.)

  Redmond, Robert

  Younger, Hn. George

  Kirk, Peter

  Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

  Kitson, Timothy

  Rees, Peter (Dover)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Knight, Mrs. Jill

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Mr. Walter Cleeg and

  Knox, David

  Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

  Mr. Bernard Weatherill.

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

  Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

  Booth, Albert

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)

  Boothroyd, Miss B. (West Brom.)

  Allen, Scholefield

  Baxter, William

  Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

  Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

  Beaney, Alan

  Boyden, James(Bishop Auckland)

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

  Bradley, Tom

  Ashley, Jack

  Bennett, James(Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Broughton, Sir Alfred

  Ashton, Joe

  Bidwell, Sydney

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

  Atkinson, Norman

  Bishop, E. S.

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

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

  Barnes, Michael

  Boardman, H. (Leigh)

  Buchan, Norman

  1118

  1119

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

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Padley, Walter

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Huckfield, Leslie

  Paget, R. T.

  Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

  Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Palmer, Arthur

  Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  Panned, Rt. Hn. Charles

  Cant, R. B.

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

  Pardoe, John

  Carmichael, Neil

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Parker, John (Dagenham)

  Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northleld)

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

  Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

  Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

  Janner, Greville

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

  Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

  Clark, David (Colne Valley)

  Jeger, Mrs. Lena

  Perry, Ernest G.

  Coleman, Donald

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

  Concannon, J. D.

  Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

  Prescott, John

  Conlan, Bernard

  John, Brynmor

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Probert, Arthur

  Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

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

  Radice, Giles

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Johnson, Walter (Derby S.)

  Rankin, John

  Cronin, John

  Jones Barry (Flint, E.)

  Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

  Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Rees. Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

  Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)

  Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

  Rhodes, Geoffrey

  Dalyell, Tam

  Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Darling, Rt. Hn. George

  Judd, Frank

  Roberts, Rt.Hn.Goronwy (Caernarvon)

  Davidson, Arthur

  Kelley, Richard

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

  Kerr, Russell

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

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Kinnock, Ne'.

  Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Lambie, David

  Roper, John

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

  Lamborn, Harry

  Rose, Paul B.

  Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)

  Lamond, James

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

  Deakins, Eric

  Latham, Arthur

  Rowlands, Ted

  de Freltas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

  Lawson, George

  Sandelson, Neville

  Delargy, Hugh

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

  Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

  Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

  Dempsey, James

  Leonard, Dick

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

  Doig, Peter

  Lestor, Miss Joan

  Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N.E.)

  Dormand, J. D.

  Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

  Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

  Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Lipton, Marcus

  Sillars, James

  Driberg, Tom

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Silverman, Julius

  Loughlin, Charles

  Skinner, Dennis

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Dunn, James A.

  Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

  Small, William

  Dunnett, Jack

  McBride, Neil

  Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

  Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

  Edelman, Maurice

  McCartney, Hugh

  Smith, John (Lanarkshire. N.)

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  McElhone, Frank

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Edwards, William (Merioneth)

  McGuire, Michael

  Stallard, A. W.

  Ellis, Tom

  Machin, George

  Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

  English, Michael

  Mackenzie, Gregor

  Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

  Evans, Fred

  Mackie, John

  Stoddart, David (Swindon)

  Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

  Ewing, Harry

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Strauss Rt. Hn. G. R.

  Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.

  Maclellan, Robert

  Summerskill Hn. Dr. Shirley

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

  McMillan Tom (Glasgow, C.)

  Swain, Thomas

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  McNamera, J. Kevin

  Taverne, Dick

  Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)

  Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

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

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

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

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Marks, Kenneth

  Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy

  Foot, Michael

  Marquand, David

  Tinn, James

  Ford, Ben

  Marsden. F.

  Tomney, Frank

  Forrester, John

  Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

  Tope Graham

  Fraser, John (Norwood)

  Mayhew, Christopher

  Torney, Tom

  Freeson, Reginald

  Meacher, Michael

  Tuck, Raphael

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Urwin, T. W.

  Garrett, W. E.

  Mendelson, John

  Varley, Eric G.

  Gilbert, Dr. John

  Mikardo, Ian

  Wainwright, Edwin

  Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)

  Millan, Bruce

  Walden Brian (B'm'ham All Saints)

  Golding, John

  Miller, Dr. M. S.

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

  Milne, Edward

  Wallace, George

  Gourlay, Harry

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

  Watkins, David

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Molloy, William

  Weitzman, David

  Grant, John D (Islington, E.)

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

  Wellbeloved, James

  Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  White. James (Glasgow, Pollok)

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

  Moyle, Roland

  Whitlock William

  Hamling, William

  Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

  Murray, Ronald King

  Williams Alan (Swansea)

  Hardy, Peter

  Oakes, Gordon

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Harper, Joseph

  Ogden, Eric

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

  Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

  O'Malley, Brian

  Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

  Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

  Oram, Bert

  Woof, Robert

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Orbach, Maurice

  Hilton, W. S.

  Orme, Stanley

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES

  Horam John

  Oswald, Thomas

  Mr. Michael Cocks and

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Mr. Tom Pendry

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Main Question, as amended, put;—
  The House divided: Ayes 290, Noes 273.

  Division No. 145]

  AYES

  [10.13 p.m.

  Adley, Robert

  Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

  Loveridge, John

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

  McAdden, Sir Stephen

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  MacArthur, Ian

  Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian

  Fortescue, Tim

  McCrindle, R. A.

  Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

  Foster, Sir John

  McLaren, Martin

  Astor, John

  Fowler, Norman

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Fox, Marcus

  McMaster, Stanley

  Awdry, Daniel

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

  Macmillan. Rt.Hn. Maurice (Farnham)

  Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

  Fry, Peter

  McNair-Wilson, Michael

  Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

  Galbraith, Hn. T. G. D.

  Maddan, Martin

  Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord

  Gardner, Edward

  Madel, David

  Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

  Batsford, Brian

  Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

  Marten, Neil

  Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

  Glyn, Dr. Alan

  Mather, Carol

  Bell, Ronald

  Godber, Rt. Hn. B

  Maude, Angus

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

  Goodhart, Philip

  Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

  Gorst, John

  Mawby, Ray

  Benyon, W.

  Gower, Raymond

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Berry, Hn. Anthony

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Biffen, John

  Gray, Hamish

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Green, Alan

  Mitchell. David (Basingstoke)

  Blaker, Peter

  Grieve, Percy

  Moate, Roger

  Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

  Molyneaux, James

  Body, Richard

  Grylls, Michael

  Money, Ernle

  Boscawen, Hn. Robert

  Gummer, J. Selwyn

  Monks, Mrs. Connie

  Bossom, Sir Clive

  Gurden, Harold

  Monro, Hector

  Bowden, Andrew

  Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Braine, Sir Bernard

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  More, Jasper

  Bray, Ronald

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Hamilton, Michael (Sallsbury)

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

  Bruce-Gardyne, J.

  Hannam, John (Exeter)

  Mudd, David

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

  Murton, Oscar

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

  Harrison, Col. Sir Norwood (Eye)

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  Buck, Antony

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Neave, Airey

  Bullus, Sir Eric

  Hastings, Stephen

  Nicholls, Sir Harmar

  Burden, F. A.

  Havers, Michael

  Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

  Hawkins, Paul

  Normanton, Tom

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

  Hay, John

  Nott, John

  Carlisle, Mark

  Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Onslow, Cranley

  Cary, Sir Robert

  Heseltine, Michael

  Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

  Channon, Paul

  Hicks, Robert

  Orr. Capt. L. P. S.

  Chapman, Sydney

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Osborn, John

  Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

  Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Hlley, Joseph

  Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)

  Churchill, W. S.

  Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)

  Page, John (Harrow W )

  Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

  Hill, S. James A.(Southampton,Test)

  Parkinson Cecil

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Holland, Phillip

  Percival, Ian

  Cockeram, Eric

  Holt, Miss Mary

  Peyton, Rt. Hn. John

  Cooke, Robert

  Hordern, Peter

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  Coombs, Derek

  Hornby, Richard

  Pink R. Bonner

  Cooper, A. E.

  Hornsby-Smith, Rt.Hn. Dame Patricia

  Pounder, Rafton

  Cordle, John

  Howe, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  Corfield, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Price, David (Eastlelgh)

  Cormack, Patrick

  Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

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

  Costain, A. P.

  Hunt, John

  Crouch

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

  Critchley, Julian

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

  Crowder, F. P.

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Quennell Miss J. M.

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  James, David

  Raison, Timothy

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

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

  Jessel, Toby

  Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

  Dean, Paul

  Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

  Redmond, Robert

  Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

  Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

  Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Jopling, Michael

  Rees, Peter (Dover)

  Dixon, Piers

  Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Dodds-Parker, Sir Douglas

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

  Drayson, G. B.

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Kimball, Marcus

  Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

  Dykes, Hugh

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey

  Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir John

  Kirk, Peter

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Kitson, Timothy

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Knight, Mrs. Jill

  Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

  Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)

  Knox, David

  Rossl, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Emery, Peter

  Lamont, Norman

  Rost, Peter

  Eyre, Reginald

  Lane, David

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Farr, John

  Le Merchant, Spencer

  St John-Stevas, Norman

  Fell, Anthony

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.

  Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

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

  Scott, Nicholas

  Fldler, Michael

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

  Scott-Hopkins, James

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

  Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

  Walters, Dennis

  Shelton, William (Clapham)

  Tebblt, Norman

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Shersby, Michael

  Temple, John M.

  Warren, Kenneth

  Slmeons, Charles

  Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

  Wells, John (Maldstone)

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

  White, Roger (Gravesend)

  Skeet, T. H. H.

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

  Wiggin, Jerry

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

  Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

  Wilkinson, John

  Soref, Harold

  Tilney, John

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Speed, Keith

  Trafford, Dr. Anthony

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Spence, John

  Trew, Peter

  Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Sproat, Iain

  Tugendhat, Christopher

  Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

  Stainton, Keith

  Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Worsley, Marcus

  Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)

  Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

  Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

  Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

  Vickers, Dame Joan

  Younger, Hn. George

  Stokes, John

  Waddington, David

  Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Sutcliffe, John

  Walker, Rt. Kn. Peter (Worcester)

  Mr. Walter Clegg and Mr. Bernard Weatherill.

  Tapsell, Peter

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  Wall, Patrick

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

  Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

  Jeger, Mrs. Lena

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Dempsey, James

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Allen, Scholefield

  Doig, Peter

  Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

  Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

  Dormand, J. D.

  John, Brynmo

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Ashley, Jack

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

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

  Ashton, Joe

  Driberg, Tom

  Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

  Atkinson, Norman

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

  Boothroyd, Miss B. (West Brom.)

  Dunn, James A.

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Bagler, Gordon A. T.

  Dunnett, Jack

  Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

  Barnes, Michael

  Edelman, Maurice

  Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

  Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  Judd, Frank

  Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)

  Edwards, William (Merioneth)

  Kelley, Richard

  Baxter, William

  Ellis, Tom

  Kerr, Russell

  Beaney, Alan

  English, Michael

  Kinnock, Neil

  Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

  Evans, Fred

  Lamble, David

  Bennett, James(Glasgow, Brldgeton)

  Ewing, Harry

  Lamborn, Harry

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.

  Lamond, James

  Bishop, E. S.

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

  Latham, Arthur

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  Lawson, George

  Boardman, H. (Leigh)

  Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)

  Leadbltter, Ted

  Booth, Albert

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Leonard, Dick

  Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)

  Foot, Michael

  Lestor, Miss Joan

  Bradley, Tom

  Ford, Ben

  Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

  Broughton, Sir Alfred

  Forrester, John

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

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

  Fraser, John (Norwood)

  Lipton, Marcus

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

  Freeson, Reginald

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Loughlin, Charles

  Buchan, Norman

  Garrett, W. E.

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

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

  Gilbert, Dr. John

  McBride, Neil

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)

  McCartney, Hugh

  Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

  Golding, John

  McElhone, Frank

  Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

  McGuire, Michael

  Cant, R. B.

  Gourlay, Harry

  Machin, George

  Carmichael, Nell

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Mackenzie, Gregor

  Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)

  Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

  Mackie, John

  Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

  Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

  Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.

  Maclennan, Robert

  Clark, David (Colne Valley)

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

  Coleman, Donald

  Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

  McNamare, J. Kevin

  Concannon, J. D.

  Hamling, William

  Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

  Conlan, Bernard

  Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

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

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Hardy, Peter

  Marks, Kenneth

  Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

  Harper, Joseph

  Marquand, David

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Marsden, F.

  Cronin, John

  Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

  Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

  Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

  Mayhew, Christopher

  Grossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Meacher, Michael

  Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)

  Hilton, W. S.

  Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Dalyell, Tam

  Horam, John

  Mendelson, John

  Darling, Rt. Hn. George

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Mikardo, Ian

  Davidson, Arthur

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Millan, Bruce

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

  Huckfield, Leslie

  Miller, Dr. M. S.

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Milne, Edward

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

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

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

  Molloy, William

  Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

  Deakins, Eric

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

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

  Janner, Greville

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Delargy, Hugh

  Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

  1124

  1125

  Moyle, Roland

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

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

  Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy

  Murray, Ronald King

  Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Tinn, James

  Oakes, Gordon

  Roper, John

  Tomney, Frank

  Ogden, Eric

  Rose, Paul B.

  Tope, Graham

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

  Torney, Tom

  O'Malley, Brian

  Rowlands, Ted

  Tuck, Raphael

  Oram, Bert

  Sandelson, Neville

  Urwin, T. W.

  Orbach, Maurice

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

  Varley, Eric G.

  Orme, Stanley

  Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

  Wainwright, Edwin

  Oswald, Thomas

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

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

  Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

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

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Padley, Walter

  Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

  Wallace, George

  Paget, R. T.

  Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

  Watkins, David

  Palmer, Arthur

  Sillars, James

  Weitzman, David

  Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

  Silverman, Julius

  Wellbeloved, James

  Pardoe, John

  Skinner, Dennis

  Wells, William (Walsall. N.)

  Parker, John (Dagenham)

  Small, William

  White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

  Parry, Robert (Liverpool Exchange)

  Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

  Whilehead, Phillip

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

  Whitlock, William

  Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

  Spearing, Nigel

  Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Perry, Ernest G.

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

  Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

  Stallard, A. W.

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Prescott, John

  Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Stoddart, David (Swindon)

  Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

  Probert, Arthur

  Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

  Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

  Radice, Giles

  Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

  Woof, Robert

  Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

  Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

  Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

  Swain, Thomas

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Rhodes, Geoffrey

  Taverne, Dick

  Mr. Michael Cocks and Mr. Tom Pendry.

  Roberta, Albert (Normanton)

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

  Roberta, Rt.Hn.Goronwy (Caernarvon)

  Question accordingly agreed to.

  Resolved.

  That this House welcomes the vigorous regional policy of Her Majesty's Government, which is now reducing unemployment and improving living standards in the Northern Region.

  NORTHERN REGION

    BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
    Ordered,
    That the Motion relating to European Parliament (Supporting Services) may be proceeded with at this day's Sitting, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Gray.]

  INTERNATIONAL COCOA ORGANISATION
  10.25 p.m.
  The Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Lord Balniel): I beg to move,
  That the International Cocoa Organisation (Immunities and Privileges) Order, 1973, a draft of which was laid before this House on 22nd May, be approved.
  This order is needed to give legal personality to the International Cocoa Organisation in accordance with Article 21(1) of the International Cocoa Agreement 1972. We cannot ratify the agreement unless this order has been made. I shall briefly explain the background.
  The United Kingdom has long supported the concept of an international agreement on cocoa. We played a prominent rôle in the lengthy negotiations which led to the conclusion of an agreement last autumn. On 15th November 1972 we became the first country to sign it.
  This agreement aims, by the use of export quota and "buffer stock" arrangements, to reduce excessive fluctuations in the price of cocoa and to ensure adequate supplies at prices fair to both producers and consumers.
  The agreement should be of benefit in helping to stabilise the economies of countries such as Ghana and Nigeria which depend on cocoa for much of their export revenue. Cocoa is of course well-known to be vulnerable to extreme fluctuations of price. Most cocoa-producing and consuming countries—with the exception of the United States—have joined, or are expected to join, the agreement. It will enter into force by the last day of this month provided sufficient countries have by then ratified it or applied it provisionally.
  The International Cocoa Organisation is the body which is being established to
  1128
  administer the International Cocoa Agreement. Despite the title of the order, which follows the precedent of similar orders made under the International Organisations Act, it will only confer upon the organisation the legal capacities of a body corporate. Broadly speaking, this means the capacity to enter into contracts, to acquire and dispose of property and to take part in legal proceedings. The order confers no additional privileges and immunities. We have, however, offered London as a head-quarters and we hope that the organisation will be established here. If it is, the approval of the House will be sought for another order to confer upon the organisation, and persons connected with it, appropriate immunities and privileges. The scale of these would be a matter for negotiation with the organisation but we would expect them to be similar to those enjoyed by the other commodity organisations in London.
  Perhaps I should also mention that another step which has to be taken before we can ratify the International Cocoa Agreement is to enact legislation in order that we can give effect to one of its economic provisions. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food expects to be introducing a short Bill for this purpose tomorrow. This is a separate issue, however, and not something with which I am concerned today. What I am commending to the House is that it should approve this order so that the United Kingdom can, when the time comes, ratify an agreement for which we have worked long. In doing so, the House will be demonstrating its support for an agreement which is likely to be of considerable benefit to the developing countries concerned.
  10.30 p.m.
  Mr. Goronwy Roberts: I do not think I need delay the House on this order. As the Minister of State said, it is addressed entirely to the question of the conferment of corporate status on the International Cocoa Organisation, and if and when the question of diplomatic immunities and privileges were to arise there would be a separate order.
  One hopes that, as in the case of other commodity organisations, London might prove to be centre of this organisation, too. The Opposition certainly hope that

  1129
  negotiations will be conducted to that end. London has a reputation for efficiency and for being able to produce the highly qualified and rather rare personnel to operate this kind of institution.
  The present order flows from an agreement which in turn flowed from the work of the UNCTAD, and successive United Kingdom Governments have taken a lead. The object of the agreement—an agreement which has commended itself to all Members in this House—has been to try to stabilise and maximise the export trade of underdeveloped countries, such as Ghana and Nigeria, whose wealth is almost completely confined to one primary product. It is a long haul to get the right sort of arrangement to help these countries to help themselves to generate from what resources they have the capital necessary for their accelerated development. The cocoa agreement, like one or two other commodity agreements discussed by the House recently, is a case in point where real benefit has accrued and will accrue in the future to such countries.
  I welcome very much the right hon. Gentleman's explanation and his assurance that, if we succeed in attracting this organisation to London, he will give us a more extended explanation of what will follow, namely, the much—debatedand still in the future to be debated—question of the extension of special diplomatic immunities and privileges.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the International Cocoa Organisation (Immunities and Privileges) Order 1973, a draft of which was laid before this House on 22nd May, be approved.

  EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT (SUPPORTING SERVICES)
  10.32 p.m.
  The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. James Prior): I beg to move,
  That, in the opinion of this House and following the resolution come to by the Select Committee on House of Commons (Services) on 20th March and contained in the Minutes of the Proceedings of the Committee ordered by the House to be printed on 17th April
  1130
  (H.C. 69-ii), supporting services broadly equivalent to those provided for the delegations of other member nations should be made available from the beginning of this financial year to Members of this House and of the House of Lords who are members of the European Parliament for the purpose of attending meetings of the European Parliament and of its Committees.
  I am sure that all hon. Members, whatever their views about Europe, would feel that our Members of the European Parliament should have all the backing they need to ensure that they are not placed at a disadvantage compared with Members of the European Parliament from other countries. The purpose of this motion is to enable them to be provided with the supporting services, such as assistance by Clerks and other facilities that they will need.
  Although I intend to introduce the motion tolerably briefly, I shall of course reply to any points made by hon. Members, or if I am unable to answer any points tonight I shall make certain that hon. Members concerned are informed.
  The Services Committee has already passed a resolution broadly on these lines, but perhaps I should tell the House what particular services we have in mind. First, our Members will need some assistance from Clerks and other secretarial and clerical staff when preparing in this country for meetings of the Assembly. I have in mind that there might be one Clerk from each House who would be specialists in this field.
  Next, when British Members attend meetings of the Assembly, they will need the services of a Clerk and appropriate secretarial support available to them on the spot. This is in line with what other member Governments provide for their Members.
  Then again, some form of special mail service between London and Strasbourg may be helpful to our Members, especially in dealing with their constituency mail which, surprisingly enough, does not diminish when Members are abroad——
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: Is all this to be in addition to the £25 tax-free expenses which they get?
  Mr. Prior: That is a separate issue from the expenses allowed to Members——
  Mr. Lewis: Is it £25 a day, tax-free?
  Mr. Prior: —for the execution of their duties——
  Mr. Lewis: Will the Leader of the House now answer my question? Is it £25 a day, tax free, which these people get by way of expenses? If they are Members of another place, do they also get their £8·50 a day expenses, tax free? The engineers, bricklayers and carpenters want to know what these people are getting.
  Mr. Prior: My understanding is that the Members of the other place get their allowance only when they actually attend the other place, so they would not be entitled to both their expenses from the European Parliament and their allowance in another place. Our own Members obtain the full allowances to which they are entitled——
  Mr. Lewis: What are they?
  Mr. Prior: I have not the actual figures with me. But I do not argue with the hon. Gentleman's figures which, broadly speaking, are correct. These expenses are——
  Mr. Lewis: Tax free?
  Mr. Prior: They are not tax free, in fact——
  Mr. Lewis: They are tax free.
  Mr. Prior: They are not tax free. They have to be justified——
  Mr. Lewis: Oh!
  Mr. Prior: They are to enable Members to pay their legitimate expenses and, as the hon. Gentleman will know, £25 a day may seem a great deal, if that is the correct sum, but, as I understand it from my hon. Friends and from other hon. Members who have been to Strasbourg and other places, it is not by any means a sum which allows for a great deal of extravagance——
  Mr. Lewis: Do they get payment in the Cayman Islands?
  Mr. Prior: That is a totally irrelevant remark——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): Order. The hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis)
  1132
  will please not make observations from a sedentary position.
  Mr. Prior: Finally, when Committees of the European Parliament visit this country, while the European Parliament expects to pay the cost, there will be some expenses which as host country we ought to meet.
  These are the main facilities that we have in mind at present. No doubt others will arise in the future.
  I am not asking the House to agree to a proposal which is completely open-ended. The motion would allow facilities to be provided only if they were broadly mirrored by those provided by other member countries. Nor will there be duplication of services provided by the European Parliament itself. Of course, the European Parliament provides extensive administrative and clerical supporting services for its Members. For example, three Clerks from this House are now with the European Parliament. But these central services are provided for the European Parliament as a whole, and other countries besides ourselves have found it necessary to supplement them for the specific service of their Members.
  I hope that the House will agree to this uncontentious motion, which I believe will greatly help the British Members to make an effective contribution to the work of the European Parliament. As I said at the beginning of my brief remarks, I cannot believe that any hon. Member of this House wishes other than to see that its Members are properly catered for when they are on service abroad in the interests of this country.
  Mr. Eric Deakins: I am not clear what the right hon. Gentleman means by the provision of postage to help Members of the European Assembly with their correspondence. Does this mean merely a redirection to Brussels, Strasbourg, Luxembourg or wherever it may be, and then a separate postal service to this country to tie up with the present free postal service, or is it proposed to give additional support to these Members in terms of secretarial facilities which at present are paid for by Members out of their own pockets?
  Mr. Prior: There will be no additional support in terms of secretarial services for constituency duties.

  1133
  We wish to consider two possibilities—first, a special air bag service for Members' mail between London and Strasbourg, or, secondly, with the agreement of the French postal authorities, a special data post service between London and Strasbourg while the European Parliament is meeting. Data post is a special international postal service guaranteeing overnight delivery, but at present it operates only between a small number of countries. Those are the alternatives which will be looked at, provided that the motion is passed.
  Mr. Neil Marten: If this mail comes on a five-day sitting, Monday to Friday—I think there is one coming up in July—it might amount to 200 letters. That is about the average number of letters from constituents in five days. What secretarial help will be made available to Members to deal with that amount of mail while they are abroad?
  Mr. Prior: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's intervention, because it shows the difficulties under which Members of the European Parliament have to work. I am not suggesting that the House should provide these services for our Members at the moment. However, I believe that we shall have to see how things work out over the next few months. I want our Members to have the best possible services. They undertake extremely arduous duties. Therefore, it would be in the interests of the House and the country to give them every possible facility. Naturally, this should be done in as economic a way as possible.
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: How much will it cost?
  Mr. Prior: The hon. Gentleman keeps worrying about the cost. He must realise, as I do only too well, that the accounting officer for all the moneys spent in this House, the Clerk of the House, is not one to allow the House of Commons vote to be used in an uneconomic way. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman need have no worry that there is, as it were, free money available for Members who go to Strasbourg.
  With those assurances and the undertaking that we shall wish to scrutinise the use of money for this purpose very care-
  1134
  fully, I hope that hon. Members will agree that the motion should be accepted.
  10.42 p.m.
  Mr. Michael English: Since the Opposition do not believe in sending a delegation to Europe, one should say that this is a pure example of the right hon. Gentleman giving cash to the Government's supporters.
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: Lonrhoism.
  Mr. English: It does not add to the confidence of Members of this House or of people outside when they see the body which is described by law in the Treaty of Rome as the European Assembly described by a different title as the European Parliament. We know that that body describes itself like that, quite illegally because it has no power to change the wording of the treaty, but we expect more of a Member of the Government than to use such a term in a motion before the House when he knows it is illegal under the law of the Community which, by act of the Government, is now the law of this land.
  I suggest that this is an excessive motion. The right hon. Gentleman said that there will be a check on it and that the services will be broadly equivalent to those provided for the delegations of other member nations. That sounds rational. The right hon. Gentleman said that no Member will want us to have fewer services. But traditionally this House has been more abstemious than other European countries' legislatures. For example, many European Members of Parliament are paid extremely high salaries compared with others. Because their salaries are so high they are expected to contribute to their own political parties. Therefore, there is a concealed subsidy to political parties. Certain practices in other Parliaments—I could list them—have been followed in the European Parliament with, I understand, procedural disadvantages in some cases.
  For example, it is quite frequent, as I understand it, for a committee to meet on a given occasion to discuss something, but there is no rule of progress as we have here, so that such a committee may meet on a second occasion to discuss the same thing because some Members were not present previously. The net effect

  1135
  of frequent short meetings is to increase travelling allowances, expense allowances and other items. We all know how it works: if one has a standard rate per day and there is a series of little meetings at different times, one gets rather better travelling allowances than if such a committee were to sit solidly for a good week's work.
  It is not sufficient to say that the only control that this House will have over the motion once it is passed is that the amount involved will be broadly equivalent to the amounts for other delegations. In other words, one decision of one member of the Nine will so alter the structure that it will cease to be broadly equivalent. It will probably go up. I cannot imagine that it will go down.
  I hope, also, that the right hon. Gentleman will take some care to answer some of the points made in an article by Andrew McEwen in the Daily Mail this morning. There it was stated, for example, that the motion was being introduced because
  "The Treasury has played merry hell by cutting off the MPs'"
  —he means the members of the delegation to the European Assembly—
  "support staff of Civil Servants—secretaries, road managers and breathless young organisers."
  The Leader of the House said that he would provide some Clerks of the House, who are not civil servants and there may be a mistake there, but one would wish to have an assurance from him that civil servants are not being used for the service of people who are not Ministers of the Crown. If they are being so used it would be a considerable breach of the normal principles of Government in this country.
  Mr. Prior: Let me answer at once: we are dealing with Clerks of the House.
  Mr. English: I took it that that was a mistake in the article, but I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his assurance that that is the case.
  In addition, and this is of some importance since we are to provide services broadly equivalent to those of others, would the Leader of the House state what his Government's policy is with regard to the siting of the European Assembly? In my view, it is quite clear that it ought
  1136
  to be with the European Commission and Council's headquarters in Brussels, but what no-one can conceivably defend is that it should be in both Luxembourg and in Strasbourg.
  I quote again from the article in the Daily Mail:
  "Budget officials tell me that a fixed Parliament would save £260,000 on travelling costs "
  —and that is something that is paid in part by us:
  "£625,000 on rent of buildings, and £195,000 on publications and incidentals. It"
  —that is the fixed European Assembly:
  "could cut the staff by 5 to 10 per cent."
  It is obvious that the Government ought to have a policy on this issue. We have never heard it expressed: the Government seem to be quite happy with the status quo. When has any member of the Government raised the issue in the Council of Ministers, or when do they propose to raise it? When, for that matter, have the delegations sent by the Conservative Government to the European Assembly raised it in the European Assembly, or when do they propose to do so? As I say, there might be a conceivable argument about the site, although I should have thought it obvious that the site of the executive Government of the Common Market should also be the site of its discursive assembly. Surely no one can defend this extraordinary situation of the officials, staff and meetings being in two places, Luxembourg and Strasbourg, at the cost of the European taxpayers, including our own.
  Perhaps I should address another point to the hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Kirk), who is sitting behind the Leader of the House. The article goes on to say:
  "Not that the MP's lot is a wholly unhappy one. Once a month Peter Kirk has an airliner all to himself. The MPs charter an Andover plane from the Civil Aviation Authority and on the way back twenty-one get out at Heathrow. The plane flies on to its home base at Stansted with only Kirk and two pretty hostesses in the back."
  If that is not true, it ought to be denied at once. If it is true, a different situation arises.
  Mr. Peter Kirk: It is perfectly true. The airline happens to have this airliner based at Stansted, which is in my constituency. It is a matter of

  1137
  convenience. I fly on from Heathrow to Stansted I pay the difference. There are two very charming hostesses on the flight.
  Mr. English: The hon. Gentleman will realise that I, too, would like the charming hostesses. I am glad that he made the point that he pays the difference. That is the essential difference, which is not made in the article.
  Mr. Kirk: We all pay. What is the hon. Gentleman trying to prove?
  Mr. English: The hon. Gentleman said that he paid the difference. If he is talking about Common Market travelling allowances, out of which this is paid, do hon. Members make a profit or a loss out of it? Let us be quite clear. If it is merely a case of getting a travelling allowance and then using it for such purposes because it is a substantial travelling allowance, that does not mean that an hon. Member is paying. It is the European taxpayer who is paying. Let us be honest about it.
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: The workers are paying for it.
  Mr. English: I turn to another aspect of this European Assembly also mentioned in the article, which states:
  "If the Common Maket subsidises butter for Russians, why not holidays for Britons? Indeed it will, if asked nicely. Drop a line to the European Parliament in Strasbourg or Luxembourg saying you'd like to visit, and they will contribute £6 to £12 towards travel expenses, depending on where in Britain you live. Last week there were 1,600 visitors, but none from Britain."
  They would apparently like to encourage them from Britain, too.
  Does this seem a proper use of taxpayers' money? Our taxpayers are part of the European taxpayers. These days, when people are sometimes concerned about Parliament, should not we suggest to them that we would even subsidise their quite substantial rail fares from different parts of the country to see their Members at work in their own Parliament, if we believe this to be true? If we do not believe it to be true or believe it to be unnecessary—we certainly do not do it in Britain—when will our delegates to this Assembly say that some of these things are regarded in this country as a
  1138
  fantastic waste of public money, the public money of European taxpayers, which includes British taxpayers?
  Whether it happens to go on the individual delegate or for other purposes, or unnecessary purposes such as keeping this institution in its variety of places, it is of some importance that we should be as concerned about expenditure of taxpayers' money in Europe, because a great deal of it is ours, as we are when we are here.
  My final point relates to the fourth service which the right hon. Gentleman has provided. We can understand that he may wish to provide the services of Clerks of the House, either here or abroad. We can understand that he might wish to provide a special mail service, although it is difficult to imagine what happens when someone gets his mail if his secretary is in Britain and if the secretarial service is not allowed to be used for the purpose of answering it.
  What is the expenditure incurred by us when a committee of the European Parliament comes here? The institution has its own resources. It wastes its own resources on subsidising visits by anybody and on living in two places. It wastes its resources on a vast scale. Is it not capable of paying for the expenses of its committees? The right hon. Gentleman did not make this clear. He said that it pays for most or some of the expenses of its committees but that we have to pay some. What are the costs that we must incur and why should not they be borne by the institution?
  If a Committee of the House of Commons goes to anywhere in the world—I believe a sub-committee of the Expenditure Committee went to Germany—we pay. We do not expect the Germans to pay. Why on earth should we pay when a committee of this institution chooses not to pay some costs but chooses as an institution to waste the public's money on a vast scale?
  10.56 p.m.
  Mr. Neil Marten: Whatever one's view about the Common Market and the work which is being done there, one or two points should be raised tonight, because the way in which the motion has been presented to the House is unsatisfactory.

  1139
  I agree with the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) about the unfortunate choice of description—"European Parliament"—in a motion on the Order Paper, because clearly it is not the European Parliament. I have received a letter today—I wish I had it here now—from my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in which he refers throughout the letter to the "European Assembly". That is the correct title. It is fooling itself to call itself a parliament, because it has no power. However, that is only a small point.
  I was somewhat alarmed to see in the proceedings of the Select Committee on Services, to which our attention is drawn in the motion, that in the sentence before the Committee was discussing the attendance of doorkeepers of the House to the European Parliament and recommended that this should be further considered. We should be told en passant by my right hon. Friend why any consideration is being paid to the suggestion of Doorkeepers of the House of Commons being sent to the European Parliament.
  The way the motion is phrased is too vague. Some estimate should be given to the House of the sum involved. This is virtually an open-ended cheque which it is possible will be abused. The House must be more precise in expending the public's money than the terms of the motion would secure. For example, we are asked to agree to
  "supporting services broadly equivalent to those provided for the delegations of other member nations".
  If the other member nations suddenly decided to give all their delegates flats in Brussels——
  Mr. English: And in Luxembourg.
  Mr. Marten: I will take Brussels or Strasbourg for the moment—and we followed suit, under the terms of the motion, it could add up to a great sum, without the control of Parliament. It is very wrong that this should happen.
  My right hon. Friend said that cars would be provided. How many cars—one per delegate; or, as with the car system for junior Ministers here, will it be on a pool system? Unless this is tightened up, the scrutiny by the House
  1140
  to which my right hon. Friend referred will be virtually impossible, because this could escalate and inflate without the control of the House.
  I also agree with the point made by the hon. Member for Nottingham, West about the absurdity of having two sitting places for the Parliament. Surely Europe is supposed to speak with one voice. If it has one Parliament and one Assembly, surely it is entitled to only one building. It cannot have one voice and two buildings in different cities. True, there are two buildings here—the one in which we are now sitting and the other place—but they are in one major centre. We should take steps to bring great pressure to stop this rather foolish divisive nonsense between what are supposed to be partners among the nine Community countries.
  I admire the energy of those who go to the European Assembly. I admire them for the time that they spend there. They spend a terrific amount of time travelling, sometimes in great difficulty, and I take this opportunity of paying a tribute to them. I only wish that they could be more effective. On the one occasion when they could have done something for this country they passed a motion in the Assembly in favour of freezing food prices. But what happened? Food prices were not frozen; they rose. That just shows that so far we have done nothing effective. Nevertheless I congratulate them on all the energy which they put into it, and we are glad to see them back here. When they come back to this country they spend a lot of time in this House, and for that we ought to be very pleased.
  11.2 p.m.
  Mr. Edward Milne: The hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) has rightly drawn attention to the question of the wording in the motion about
  "supporting services broadly equivalent to those provided for the delegation of other member nations".
  This underlines the argument that many of us have advanced during the many debates on entry into the European Economic Community about power slipping away from this Parliament. This wording means that at no time in the future shall we be able in this House

  1141
  to decide on the type of expenses and services to be provided for the European Assembly.
  Sir Robin Turton: Surely it will have to be in the House of Commons Vote. Therefore, the House can challenge the Vote at any time, and any supplementary estimate upon it.
  Mr. Milne: That may be so. It is perfectly correct, as the right hon. Gentleman said, that at some stage we shall be able to challenge what has been done, but the point that I am making is that we shall not be able to decide what is to be done because the amount allowed under the term
  "supporting services broadly equivalent"
  will be determined by assemblies other than our own. The decision will then have been made when we are actually able to challenge it.
  Let me assume, as my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) said, that the representatives of other Parliaments in the European Assembly decide that they are going to increase the amount allowed under the terms of the resolution. By passing this motion tonight we automatically grant that increase as well. If that is not the case, the right hon. Gentleman responsible for this motion should be able to tell us what the cost of these services will be and what safeguards we have over increases in the future.
  There has been a tremendous amount of euphoria in the Press about the impact made by our parliamentarians in the European Assembly. One got the impression from reading those articles that this Assembly had been overturned virtually overnight, that Peter Kirk—if I may use that term instead of "the hon. Member"—and his crusaders were completely transforming this Assembly. That is absolute nonsense because the Assembly cannot be transformed. It is not being transformed. Under the agreements that we made and the decision that we took in October 1971 we cannot alter it.
  Therefore, on the basis of the proposal before us, the House should refuse to give this particular commitment because we are committing taxpayers' money in Britain to something that we are not completely certain about. As the right
  1142
  hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Sir Robin Turton) pointed out, we can change this matter in the documents of the House but we can do it only after the action has been taken. This course of action takes us down the slippery slope that many of us foresaw with Common Market membership—the removal of all powers from this Parliament. This may be only a small issue to some but it is indicative of a general trend that has resulted from EEC membership. It is disappointing that it should have been brought on at this late hour because we should have had a major debate.
  11.6 p.m.
  Mr. Peter Kirk: I shall be brief because I do not want to go as wide as some hon. Members have gone. I merely wish to say on the name of the institution, to which some of us from both sides of the House now go, that it was originally called in the Treaty of Rome the European Parliamentary Assembly. In the 1963 merger treaty it was called the European Parliament and all documents now addressed to it by the Council of Ministers and the Commission are addressed to the European Parliament. I do not want to make anything of this. It is perfectly reasonable for the Government in a motion which it puts down to use the phrase used in the merger treaty.
  Mr. Deakins: Will the hon. Member say why the institution was not called the European Parliament in the Treaty of Accession which was approved by this House only a few months ago?
  Mr. Kirk: Because the Treaty of Accession referred specifically to the Treaty of Rome and not to the merger treaty. This is a legal matter which I should not particularly like to go into. To try to build up a great case over the use of particular words is not only wasting the time of the House but is unworthy of the hon. Member.
  What the Government are asking for tonight, and what I freely admit I have asked the Government to ask the House for, is something that does not apply only to one party in the House. The suggestion was made by the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) that the Government were making available to their supporters services which were not available to others. The reason they

  1143
  are not available to hon. Members on the Labour side is that those hon. Members have not chosen to take advantage of them. The Opposition may have different reasons for adopting that attitude. However, we have a delegation in the European Parliament that consists of Members of the Conservative Party, of the Liberal Party, of an independent party and of a body called the Democratic Labour Party to which it might be indelicate of me to refer in this House in the presence of the Opposition, but which exists on a national and local level.
  Any time that Labour Members agree to come along the facilities will be available to them as they are to other international delegations.
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: How did the hon. Member get elected?
  Mr. Kirk: We were elected by this House unanimously. The hon. Member did not vote against me. I remember the night that we were elected, and the hon. Member was not even here. He was not here, and he did not vote against it. It was a unanimous vote of this House, and of the other place as well.
  What we are asking for is something broadly equivalent to what other delegations have. This motion is not providing us with opportunities for riotous living in Strasbourg—which anyone who knows Strasbourg knows is impossible anyway—or, indeed, anywhere else. What we are asking for is simply a form of infrastructure enabling us to have the programme in advance, a process of briefing which will be available to members of all parties, as it is now, a process of normal arrangements for delegations of this House proceeding abroad. Nothing more.
  What the cost would be it is not for me to say. I cannot work it out. However, it would be very small. We are not asking for anything which supports party political activities in Europe. That is something which does not fall within the scope of this motion, and could not fall within the scope of this motion.
  Whether we are doing a good job, and whether we have been doing a good or a bad job in the last six months, is largely irrelevant in this context. I think we have been doing a rather good job, but that is simply because I am biased in
  1144
  this matter, but whether we are doing a good or a bad job, we are doing a job as a delegation appointed by this House to do certain things—and, in order to do them, we need certain support. This motion asks the House, after six months, to give us that support. This is all that is in question tonight, and I hope the House will accept the motion on that basis.
  Mr. Marten: Will my hon. Friend answer my question about cars? Is the idea of a pool of cars, or one each, or what?
  Mr. Kirk: I am delighted to answer the question about cars. This was the subject of a resolution by this House before we rose for the Whitsun Recess. One is provided for the Leader of the Liberal Party, and one is provided for the rest of my hon. Friends. I myself have a car provided by the European Conservative Group.
  11.12 p.m.
  Mr. Michael Foot: Other hon. Members may wish to contribute to the debate, and by rising now I am certainly not wishing to interrupt the proceedings in any sense, but I am wishing to make my comments at this stage. They may, conceivably, influence the comments which may be made by others. Alternatively, it may be the case that they have no influence at all. However that may be, I would like to make my comments at this stage.
  I say to the right hon. Gentleman that I missed the first two or three words of his introduction of the motion, and if I missed any factor relevant to what I shall say, I apologise to him. I hope that it will not prove to be the case.
  I approach this matter, as I think most of my hon. Friends approach it, as saying that, whatever we may think about the purposes of delegations, whether to the European Assembly or to any other bodies of which we may approve or disapprove, the people we send from this House should be given the facilities which enable them to discharge their duties with dignity and proper support. I have never been in favour of people sent from this House on deputations being put at a disadvantage in discussions with other deputations in the way these matters are arranged. In that sense I am not opposed

  1145
  to the idea of saying that this House should give facilities to those who go to the European Assembly even though I am opposed to Members of this House going to that Assembly—for reasons which I would be prepared to discuss but which are not specially relevant to this motion, but reasons to which I shall refer obliquely in a few minutes. My hon. Friends can do what they wish, but I am not disputing that we should provide some facilities.
  However, I must say, listening to the debate so far, that my hon. Friends and the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) have certainly made a case about the very vague nature of this proposition. To say that facilities should be provided which are "broadly equivalent" to those provided elsewhere provides such an open door for any kind of facilities that it is almost an incitement to those engaged in the Assembly, Parliament or whatever they like to call it, to get together and raise the stakes. If they collaborate they are assured by this House in advance that we shall provide an equivalent for whatever increase may be made elsewhere, or that the Government would be entitled to provide it under this extremely lax definition.
  The Government have not been very clever. I now understand the explanation. It is under the inspiration of the hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Kirk) that they have introduced the motion, which explains almost everything. But it is an extremely lax proposal.
  I know very well what would have happened if the Labour Government had introduced such a motion for ensuring that amounts were to be provided "broadly equivalent". We do not know what the figure is. We do not know what it will be this year, next year or the year after. We have no understanding of what is to be the report to the House as to how it is to be investigated.
  When I read the motion I examined the report of the Services Committee, expecting enlightenment there. Anyone who looks at that document will see how flimsy is the information the Committee has given to the House. I am not a member of the Committee, which makes me all the more eager to offer criticisms. If the Committee wants to convince the
  1146
  House, it should produce a better report. Why should the House accept its word on a matter of this kind? That is what we are asked to do. We are not asked to accept any evidence or argument. We are not even told who the Committee investigated or what the figures are. Not within £100 million are we told the figure. We are not even told how the Committee discussed the matter. We have the vaguest possible report saying, "This is what we should do", and the Government have accepted it holus-bolus, without any attempt to justify it in detail.
  I hope that, whatever else may be the result of the debate, the Government will never again produce a motion that says that we should merely agree to provide resources that are "broadly equivalent" to those supplied in other Parliaments for the same purpose.
  The hon. Member for Saffron Walden has gone far to justify my case in his intervention in reply to the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten). He told us how the question of the motor cars that are to be provided was dealt with under a different resolution a little earlier. We have had dribs and drabs of motions brought before the House for providing the amounts required for people who go to the European Assembly.
  I approach the matter not as one of tremendous principle but as one of orderly administration, particularly when we are trying to instruct the European Assembly in how it should have control over financial matters. I understand that the hon. Member for Saffron Walden is trying to give its Members elementary lessons in that respect. We should teach them a few elementary lessons here and now. It is not a satisfactory way of dealing with this question that every few months we should be presented late at night with a motion dealing with one particular aspect of the finances and expenses of those who are to go to the European Assembly.
  There is the particular question about the hon. Gentleman himself, which I raised when we discussed the delegates being sent to the European Assembly some time ago. We raised it in a most delicate manner, not in an obstreperous way. I said "Here is a matter I should like to return to on a future occasion." I thought we raised it in a way that could

  1147
  not be regarded as discourteous in any sense. I will raise the question again.
  The hon. Gentleman and the Government owe us explanations about the matter. Maybe they have a very good explanation. Maybe the Government are now able to tell me that the arrangements which had been made at that time have now been abandoned and that it is thought fitting to have a different arrangement. I remind the House that it was confirmed to me on a previous occasion that the hon. Gentleman had agreed to an arrangement whereby the salary that he was previously receiving as a member of Her Majesty's Government was to be made up by the European Movement to his salary as a Minister. He said that was a reasonable arrangement. I did not think that it was a reasonable arrangement and I told the House that I did not think that it was reasonable. I am prepared to repeat my reasons for thinking that it is unreasonable and so offensive to the traditions of the way we do things in this House.
  The European Movement is in the main, although not entirely, dedicated to the idea of a federal Europe, federal government and a federal parliament. That is the Movement's general theme and it is entitled to campaign for it. But if the hon. Gentleman is to be a spokesman in that Assembly he should be clearly representative and he should be paid by this House. He should not be paid by the organisation towards which he has an obligation in these matters. Will he owe any obligation to the people who are making up his salary?
  I gave the Government every opportunity to dispose of the matter. I thought that they would have disposed of it by now. If the Government want to deal with it properly, if they want to have a figure built up as the leader of the delegation sent by this House to the European Assembly, it is proper that they should come before the House and say, "We will pay this individual Member of this House a higher salary than he receives as an hon. Member. We will have a Vote as we would have for an ordinary Minister." That is the proper procedure. If that were done we could have a debate on the principles of the matter. I say again, and I say it most
  1148
  politely—next time I may not be so polite—that the Government should deal with the matter in the way which I have described. I am not prepared to tolerate the situation where we are asked to have the hon. Gentleman paid for partly by the House and partly by a propagandist organisation outside which is not responsible to anybody here.
  When the right hon. Gentleman gets up and speaks in the European Assembly, does he speak as an hon. Member who is answerable to his constituents, even though like the rest of us he did not ask his constituents whether he should go to the Assembly at Strasbourg, Brussels or anywhere else, or is he answerable to the European Movement when he goes to the European Parliament? Will he declare his interest? Will he say, "I happen to be paid by you. I am making a report just as I make a report to the House".
  The right hon. Gentleman is in an extremely invidious position because he has been introduced and placarded all over the country as a great figure in these matters. He has said, which I resent, that he has been sent to get on with the job and to shake things up. Who sent him? He was not sent by us to do that. He was not given any instructions by the House. Those instructions were given to him by the Prime Minister.
  We understand that he is the spokesman of the Prime Minister and of the Government in the European Assembly. That is another reason which causes some of us to think that the whole arrangement of the European Assembly is so ridiculous. He is not an independent hon. Member speaking in that Assembly. He is someone who is partly paid by the House, although his salary was originally not arranged for him to go to Strasbourg. He is partly paid by a propagandist organisation and he goes to the European Assembly, on his own confession, to put the case of the Prime Minister and not as an independent Member.
  Those are some of the matters which we should have out clearly and openly in this House. The great virtue of this place is that we can discuss some of these matters even when they turn up late at night on curious motions which hon. Members do not believe will lead to such

  1149
  debates. We get such opportunities in this House. That is one of the reasons for causing some hon. Members to think that this House is so different from the kind of institution which the European Movement is seeking to establish. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House thought that the best way to deal with the matter was to make a few taunts—and we have heard many taunts from Government hon. Members—about the Opposition not sending hon. Members to this body in Europe.
  The Opposition do not send delegates to the European Parliament, and we are prepared to state to the country why, as we have done on previous occasions. First, we believe that Members of this House should go to other bodies to discharge their parliamentary duties only when they have the sanction and the approval of their own electorates, and not merely the sanction and approval of their parties. Secondly, we believe that the whole question of our entry into the EEC and the European Parliament should have been submitted to the British people. We say that that applies not merely in general but in particular as well.
  Other hon. Members may hold different views, but personally I think that it would be wrong for me, having contracted with the people of Ebbw Vale to represent them in this House, to go off to some other body for a week every month in order to perform duties there—for what? The hon. Gentleman's duties are to carry out the Prime Minister's instructions. Whose instructions would I be carrying out? This is the crux of the problem. One cannot have a parliament in which one has members who carry out particular functions of that character. The hon. Gentleman's whole position at the European Parliament is extremely invidious. He should at least start to clear it up. He is paid partly as a Member of Parliament in this House and partly as a propagandist of the European Movement.
  Mr. English: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, for I hate to spoil his beautiful flow. But does he realise that his case is even more persuasive because we cannot question anyone in this House who is on the delegation? I have inquired of the Clerks of the House whether, for example, the hon. Member
  1150
  for Saffron Walden (Mr. Kirk) could be questioned, and have received the answer that he could not be questioned because lie is only the leader of a party delegation. They thought that the British Vice-President of the European Parliament could be questioned, but no doubt for precisely this reason the Government have carefully made sure that he is a Member of another place.
  Mr. Kirk: Lord Bessborough was nominated by me as Vice-President as the best person for the job. It had nothing to do with the Government. Whatever may be the Government's fault, that was entirely mine.
  Mr. Foot: I understand. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) was eager to say that that was a more persuasive point, but I am not sure that it was. I do not believe that it would be a remedy for the situation, as my hon. Friend suggested, that delegates from this House to the European Assembly should answer Questions here. For whom would they be speaking? About what would they be speaking? For what would they be answerable? The whole situation is anomalous.
  That is one of the reasons why I do not believe that we could ever have satisfactory arrangements whereby Members of this House are delegates to this Assembly or other Assemblies. Indeed, I think that one disrupts the processes of this House because the more effective the hon. Member for Saffron Walden may be at Strasbourg or Luxembourg, the more he will be wresting powers from this House. If the hon. Gentleman were to carry through the whole programme he has enunciated, he would carry that disruption of this House much further.
  That is another reason why some of us oppose on principle the whole business of sending delegates to the European Assembly. We do not think that it was ever thought out. The hon. Gentleman was noticeably absent from our debates when the European Communities Act was going through. He was not here to take part when we had that one-and-a-half hour or two-hour debate on the question of what form of representation we should have in the European Assembly, while the European Communities Bill was passing through the House.
  Mr. Kirk: The hon. Gentleman is being unfair to me here. I was a Minister at the time, in another Department and he knows that I could not intervene.
  Mr. Foot: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman on that score. I should have remembered that. I fully appreciate that he was debarred from being able to take part and I agree that in that sense what I said was unfair. It does not alter the case which I am making, and that is that the House of Commons was denied by the Government the chance to discuss fully the whole question of what would be the relationship between this Parliament and the Assembly set up in Europe. We had only an abbreviated debate, which the hon. Gentleman was not able to attend because of his Ministerial duties but which many of us thought should have been a full day's debate or even longer. We should have had far more preparation.
  This is strictly relevant to the motion. My prophecy is that we will have a dribble of debates of this nature. We have already had a dribble. We had the debate on the sending of delegates. We had another on the motor cars, although we did not have a full opportunity to debate that. We now have this proposition. This motion is drawn in such general terms that if the Government take any notice at all of what the House of Commons is saying tonight they will have to come back and give a clearer account of what is happening in future.
  Instead of settling this question of the relationship between this Parliament and the European Assembly before we went in, we are settling it afterwards. I say that that is an extremely unsatisfactory way of doing business. What we are seeking to do—and the hon. Members plays a leading part in this—is to begin an entirely novel process in the history of this country. I am not saying that it is to be objected to because it is novel. We have to undertake novel actions on many occasions. But we ought to appreciate what we are doing.
  For us to establish relationships between this Parliament and that Assembly will have a continuous effect on this Parliament as well as on that Assembly. Moreover, we have had disputes—ever since I have been a Member—about the money that is paid to Mem-
  1152
  bers of Parliament, or their expenses. I can remember bitter disputes about that. Some of us in the Labour Party had to argue for many years against Conservative Members about the pay of a Member of Parliament. We always believed that it was necessary for the functioning of the House that their pay should be increased and the facilities should be improved.
  As far as I can see, although it is impossible to judge from this extremely loose motion, the facilities that are to be provided for Members of this Parliament operating at Strasbourg or Brussels will be at least broadly equivalent with those of Members here. In some respects they will be considerably better. It is not very easy to judge from the motion. When we dealt with the question of improving facilities for Members there was a Bill. There were a number of clauses to it. The Government brought it forward and it was discussed with Members and the House. The Government even set up the Boyle Committee to look at these matters and to report to the House and say whether what was proposed was satisfactory.
  What we have on this occasion is the report of the Services Committee, which is not the same thing. I am not sure whether the House of Commons, certainly Conservative hon. Members, would have accepted a single report, or a single sentence from the Services Committee, dealing with expenses and facilities for hon. Members. I do not propose to vote against the motion. Maybe we should have considered whether to do so more carefully, but certainly we do not regard the present situation as satisfactory, for all the reasons I have tried to elaborate.
  I say that partly for the general reason that the relationship between the British Parliament and the European Assembly not only on questions of financing—is becoming a much more dangerous relationship. The European Assembly will be either a farce or a menace. That is the basis on which we should have voted when this matter was in front of us, but it was impossible for us to do so partly because only half the case was presented. We did not have before us the proposals for economic and monetary union and the proposals for paying part of the hon. Gentleman's salary.

  1153
  The Opposition are dissatisfied with the present situation. We believe that the Government should come forward with a statement of their attitude—not the attitude of the hon. Gentleman; we do not want to hear what he says at second or third hand at Strasbourg on the inspiration of the Prime Minister, as he confessed. We want to hear the Government's policy. The Government are still answerable to the House of Commons on their general attitude to the European Assembly. We want a general debate in which they will explain their attitude, and a much more detailed, comprehensive account of all the money they are proposing to pay out to make this Assembly function. We want to be able to compare the facilities and expenses provided to Members of the House of Commons here and to Members operating in the Assembly. There is nothing unfair about that. We also want to know what facilities of the House are made available to Members who go to Strasbourg.
  I am not opposed to the hon. Member for Saffron Walden and other Members having the assistance of Clerks of the House and the experts who play an extremely important part in the functioning of this House of Commons, but I am bitterly opposed to their having greater facilities than are available to other Members who wish to discharge their functions here. If there is to be any increase in the numbers of people assisting delegations going to Strasbourg or Brussels, there must be a much bigger increase in the facilities provided for people who are conducting operations in this House. We hope that there will be no objection from the Treasury on that account.
  If we give the opportunity for the passage of this motion, I hope there will not be any objections if we introduce a motion to provide facilities for Members of Parliament here which are broadly equivalent to those they have elsewhere. Why not cross the Atlantic and provide facilities broadly equivalent to those in the United States? Why stop there? Why not cross the Pacific? The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House should not imagine that this motion does not raise these wider issues. Although I think that it would be ill-advised for
  1154
  us to press the motion to a Division tonight——
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: Why?
  Mr. Foot: It is a free country and a free House of Commons. My hon. Friends may do as they wish. I do not wish to deter them. The Labour Party will return to this subject to debate the essential question how we are to preserve the rights of this House of Commons against this farcical or menacing body in Europe. We shall also return to the question whether Members of this House who stay here to do their duty four weeks in every month are penalised or disqualified compared with others who choose to do their duties elsewhere.
  As for the hon. Member for Saffron Walden, I hope that before we have the next debate on any question concerned with the finances of those who are sent from this country to Strasbourg or Brussels this invidious question of who pays whom will be cleared up by the Government.
  11.40 p.m.
  Mr. John E. B. Hill: The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) ranged widely in the questions he raised, and I cannot help feeling that much of his anxious curiosity might have been satisfied previously if only the Labour Party had co-operated in the much earlier suggestion when the project of joining the European Community was first under discussion and if it had supported the offer of an ad hoc committee to consider how all these matters might be inquired into well ahead of the time when they had to be decided. I think that explains a good deal of the hon. Gentleman's uncertainty.
  The fact of joining the Community has taken place, and I was glad to hear the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale state that in his view delegates from this House should have facilities according to the dignity of the House of Commons where-ever they were sent to serve. Later in his speech he deplored the fact that the salary of my hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Kirk) has had to be made up by voluntary effort on the part of the Conservative Group for Europe, of which I must declare I am an officer. That action was quite without strings. It arose from our desire to

  1155
  see that Britain was not handicapped at the moment of entry and we were prepared to forgo other important items in our programme to enable Britain to get off to a punctual start.
  The real importance of this motion is that it is designed, as my hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden has adumbrated, to enable the delegates to act as an effective group. Considered individually, we can all travel to Strasbourg, Luxembourg or Brussels for committees as tourists on holiday, but to be effective as a political group we need a good deal of administrative servicing and underpinning.
  There are now 22 Members of both Houses in the European Parliament and they attend meetings in Strasbourg, Luxembourg and possibly some other capital city. Perhaps more important, there are no fewer than 12 committees, plus sub-committees, covering a whole range of subjects which do not coincide exactly with departmental responsibilities in this country. Therefore, there is an immense problem of effective liaison and co-ordination if the British delegation is to act as efficiently as it might. I cannot believe that anybody in this House would wish British representatives to go abroad to any Assembly with less chance of doing their best than they otherwise would have, especially in comparison with other foreign delegations.
  First, there is a great problem in arranging travel. It is not just a matter of booking a package holiday. To begin with there is the process of substitutes, and one of the things we need to know individually is who else is likely to be travelling to the meeting. We wish to know whether, for example, we have a full complement for a particular committee. It is obviously more convenient to travel together because one can discuss the business, the agenda and so on on the journey, and there are many ways in which committee representatives can do their job more effectively.
  When we are not in the European Parliament or in a committee we are back here as individual Members, and it is not easy to meet as a delegation in this place. Therefore, we always need a reference point that we can contact in order to discover what is happening to the delegation
  1156
  as a whole. This is one of the important functions of the European Office, and that needs some staffing.
  In addition to the organisation of our appearance, we need some organisation of the knowledge available. To appreciate that, one has only to reflect how various Government Departments are doing their best to keep us informed on an enormous range of technical matters exceeding the range of such matters that one deals with as an ordinary back bencher. As the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale said, these subjects run on for a long time. He rather decried that. But this is the process of government not by the hammer and anvil of Government and Opposition but by the evolution of consensus, and obviously it takes time.
  A great body of relevant paper builds up. Some centre has to handle that and make it available. It is small comfort to receive, as I did in my mail this morning, some of the briefs that I was intended to receive before the meeting of the Parliament in Strasbourg last week.
  That leads me to the topic of communications. It is not satisfactory to go away, as if on a tourist holiday, cut off both from this place and from our constituencies. It is quite unnecessary, and the idea of instituting, as I should like, a daily courier service between the Members' Post Office and the office of the British delegation is essential. We need information from Departments to catch us up.
  Equally I want to know, if any constituent wants to get in touch with me, that there is not more than about 12 hours' delay. That too could easily be arranged, but it needs the authority of this House.
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: And more money.
  Mr. Hill: These are facilities which are required to give us the chance of being efficient in the business that we have to do. Therefore I hope that this House, which is not usually ungenerous as a House—though individuals may be ungenerous—will realise that it is essential that the British representatives should be enabled to develop such power, knowledge, argument and political force as they can as a group. This motion is necessary to bring that into being.
  11.48 p.m.
  Mr. Marcus Lipton: The course of the debate has demonstrated clearly what a difficult position this House has been placed in by the Government. It is therefore right that we should take advantage of this opportunity to explain to the Leader of the House and to the Government what these difficulties are.
  Before us we have a motion asking the House to agree to supporting services broadly equivalent to those provided for the delegations of other member nations. We look at the minutes of proceedings of the Committee to glean some additional information. All that we find there is a bald recapitulation of the motion. What is worse is that we do not have available the minutes of evidence that show what arguments were presented to the Services Committee, who wanted what, and why. We are up against a blank wall in endeavouring to find out what is going on and the reasons for the motion coming before the House tonight.
  I do not object to adequate facilities being provided for the representatives of the British Parliament when they are carrying out their duties in foreign parts, but all I find when I look at the minutes of the proceedings of the Select Committee is that some discussion took place about the attendance of doorkeepers, after which the hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Kirk) was apparently examined, and the Committee deliberated. That is all we know about the attendance of doorkeepers We then have this motion about supporting services boldly presented and a resolution that Mr. Speaker be advised accordingly.
  We then find that another motion was accepted by the Services Committee to the effect that two additional cars should be authorised for the use of our parliamentary delegation. Additional to what? I did not know that motor cars were already provided. We have picked up a scrap of information in the debate about the motor cars that are already available, but apparently two additional cars are now required.
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: I think that my hon. Friend was present when the hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Kirk) remarked upon the fact that the Leader of the Liberal Party or the Liberal dele-
  1158
  gation was to get a car and then made a facetious comment about some Democratic Labour delegate. Is he aware that if, as is likely, every party so-called is entitled to a car, we could have the situation that every Member had a car. Therefore, each Member of Parliament here could claim the same.
  Mr. Lipton: That is an additional point that will have to be investigated at some stage.
  I am grateful to the Leader of the House for not trying to get this motion through "on the nod", which is what he sometimes tries to do when resolutions from the Services Committee come before the House, and for providing time for the debate. On the other hand, it is fair to point out that the facilities provided for debating the motion will ensure that it gets no coverage in the Press, on radio or television or in any of the media. Therefore, the public will still be completely in the dark about the debate we are having this evening.
  It has been pointed out, in particular by my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot), that if a motion of this kind had been presented by a Labour Government all hell would have been let loose. I cannot imagine any circumstances in which a Labour Government would have the nerve to submit such a sloppy, flabby motion, representing an open-ended commitment broadly equivalent to goodness knows what. We are being asked to buy a pig in a poke. We do not know what the Government are asking us to accept. In those circumstances, I must record the strongest possible objection to the motion. Indeed, if need be, and if there is a sufficient volume of support, I am prepared to carry it to a Division.
  11.55 p.m.
  Mr. Martin Maddan: I want to address myself to some of the remarks of the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot), who seemed to be very upset at what he considered to be improper support for the activities of my hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Kirk) by the Conservative Group for Europe within the European Movement. I thought it extraordinary, coming as it does from a member of a party about which we all are told daily

  1159
  in the newspapers that that part of it outside the House has a governing influence on the attitudes and policies of that part which is within the House. What the hon. Gentleman had particularly to complain about in the arrangement I cannot imagine. If ever there was a pot which was very black indeed which addressed the kettle, it is the hon. Member.
  There are no strings at all attached to the help given by the Conservative Group and the European Movement to my hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden, and no attempt has been made by either the Conservative Group or the European Movement to call some tune. The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale should understand that the views of those bodies are not necessarily on all fours with those of the Prime Minister who, he seemed to think, was giving my hon. Friend instructions. The views of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister about the distance in the future of any direct elections are not those common in the European Movement, which would like to see such elections very much nearer. I want to put on record the fact that there are no strings whatever attached. The hon. Member knows it, and I do not believe that he should have raised the matter in the terms he used.
  Mr. James Scott-Hopkins: Does not my hon. Friend agree that many hon. Members on the Labour side receive a salary from the trade unions and are called to order by the trade unions to explain their attitude, their voting and their behaviour in the House? Is it not incredibly hypocritical, therefore, for the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) to use those terms about my hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Kirk).
  Mr. Maddan: I agree. I think we have said enough to expose that attitude for what it is worth. But if it was meant seriously, and if it can be taken that the hon. Member at some future time, should the Government of the day decide that the leader of the delegation should be fully and properly remunerated by the House for the responsibility he takes, will join in support of such a proposition, perhaps this present debate has not been wasted.
  Mr. Michael Foot: Had the hon. Gentleman been here on the previous occasion when the subject was debated, he would have heard exactly what I said. I said that if it is believed that the leader of the so-called delegation to the Assembly should be paid a higher amount, the proposition should be brought before the House and the House should be able to discuss it. There may very well be a good case for it, but there is no case whatsoever—I am astonished that the hon. Gentleman, or any hon. Member, cannot draw the distinction—for having a British representative at that Assembly partly for the House of Commons and partly for a propagandist organisation which is not instructed by the House of Commons and which is dedicated in the main to the creation of a federalist Europe. The whole thing constitutes an invidious situation which the Government should hasten to clear up.
  Mr. Maddan: I thought I had dealt with that point and I shall not repeat what I said. But I was present at the previous debate, when the hon. Gentleman did not reveal what his attitude and that of his party would be if the Government of the day brought forward such a proposition. It would be more constructive if he spent more time giving some indication about that, instead of trying to score points which have no validity whatever and are nothing but hypocrisy coming as they do on behalf of a party whose members find themselves in such a position as they now are.
  The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale talked about the European Parliament being either a farce or a menace. I should think that that is exactly what was said by some of Simon de Montfort's opponents over 700 years ago. Of course the European Parliament is not perfect and does not have very much influence. Simon de Montfort's Parliament was not perfect and did not have much influence—but, thank God, it started.
  I join in the tributes to my hon. Friends who discharge duties in the European Parliament on behalf of this House and the country as a whole.
  12.2 a.m.
  Mr. Prior: The House has given the motion very careful scrutiny indeed. I make no complaint about that. As my

  1161
  right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Sir Robin Turton) has pointed out, however, expenditure on the services which we have been discussing tonight will be included in the Estimates which have to be laid before the House and which hon. Members can then question if they see fit. There is no question of a service being approved simply because another country provides it. On a matter of this kind, however, where the sole wish of the Government is to help hon. Members concerned, a reasonable amount of discretion should be allowed to us and to the Clerk as accounting officer.
  I find it hard to believe that hon. Members seriously think that this discretion would be abused, but should the House ever think that it was being misused it would have the opportunity of making its views clear.
  There is no question of a service being provided just because other Governments provide it. It would be provided only if it was clearly right to do so. This evening hon. Members have made a mountain out of the motion before us.
  In reply to the point made by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) about comparison with Members' allowances, the facilities which we are suggesting in the motion are supporting services for Members of the European Parliament as a whole. They are not personal facilities to individual Members. They are the equivalent services to those provided for Members in this House, such as the Clerk with his secretarial help assisting a Select Committee travelling abroad. My hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. John E. B. Hill) dealt with this point. He said that it was an organisation of our appearance and all the information that is available. That is perfectly correct on the interpretation that we place on it.
  The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale also complained that we are dealing with this matter in dribs and drabs. He can have it one way but he cannot have it both ways. Either he accepts that the motion will embrace the various needs of Members of the European Parliament as we see them as time passes or he will have to accept that as each occasion arises we shall have to come to the House with a specific motion to deal with a particular
  1162
  issue. I thought that it was much more for the convenience of the House and much more in line with the spirit of the House in wishing to see its Members served properly when on duties outside the House that we should now have a motion of this nature.
  A point was raised about the costs of committee visits to this country. The European Parliament expects to pay all the expenses of visits of its committees to this country. It is not unreasonable that some provision should be made for customary hospitality on behalf of this Parliament on such occasions. I do not believe that there is anyone in this House who is so mean as to wish to try to deny that sort of hospitality.
  I deal now with the point about doorkeepers. In so far as other members of the Community occasionally loan staff, including doorkeepers, on a short-term basis to attend sessions of the European Parliament, it seems not unreasonable that we should take our part in such loan schemes. If such temporary loans of doorkeepers lead to additional staffing costs in this House, it is intended that this would be covered in the motion now before us.
  The hon. Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton) mentioned two additional cars. This was a recommendation made by the Services Committee in respect of cars for the delegation to the Council of Europe and has no relevance to the European Parliament or to the motion before us.
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: If the motion is carried and the Assembly decides to give every Member a car, does it not follow that we would be expected to accord broadly equivalent services to our Members and that every Member could expect a car?
  Mr. Prior: If this most unlikely situation should arise, it would still be within the responsibility of the Government and of the accounting officer to provide only such services as we thought were correct and reasonable. This could always be challenged in the House on an Estimate. The hon. Gentleman must have sufficient knowledge of how difficult it is to screw money out of the Treasury, the Government of the day or the accounting officer.

  1163
  It is greatly to the credit of the United Kingdom Parliament that there is no other Parliament where this matter would be being debated. In every other Parliament it would be taken for granted that these services would be automatically provided. I regard it as a great tribute to the United Kingdom Parliament that it should be prepared to spend about two hours debating what to some may seem a trivial issue but which to others is a matter of great importance involving as it does the scrutiny of the expenditure of public money.
  Mr. English: I take the right hon. Gentleman's point, but will he please leave the accounting officer of the House out of it? The right hon. Gentleman has just suggested that, in spite of the terms of the motion, the accounting officer should not pay something that was broadly equivalent if that something broadly equivalent happened in the future to include other things than that. The accounting officer's duty is to carry out the law and the resolutions of the House. It would be better if the right hon. Gentleman suggested that these things are the responsibility of the Government and of the House and left the accounting officer out of it.
  Mr. Prior: I do not altogether agree with that. The truth is that if, as is suggested, Members of Parliament from every other country were allocated cars and it was then considered by our delegation that each United Kingdom Member should have a car, it would first be a matter for the Government of the day to decide whether that was something they were prepared to do. If they were not prepared to do it, that would be an end of the matter. If they were prepared to do it, it would then fall to the duty of the accounting officer to consider whether it fell within the terms of the motion. That is the strict duty of the accounting officer.
  Mr. Lipton: Everything falls within the terms of the motion.
  Mr. Prior: The hon. Gentleman must recognise that there is still the responsibility on the Government of the day and on the Minister in charge as to how money under any Vote is spent. After
  1164
  all, we pass motions which have then to be interpreted and carried through by the responsible Minister. He does not have to spend everything that the House grants him or asks him to spend. This is left to his discretion.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Maddan) drew attention to the remarks of the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale on the subject of my hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Kirk). If the occasion arises when the Labour Party joins in sending Members to the European Parliament and at that time it appoints, as it would, a leader to its delegation, I think that would certainly be a suitable time for the Government to ask the House for proper arrangements to be made to cover any salary that the House thinks fit to be paid to the leader of the delegation.
  I must tell Labour Members that the Government felt that it would really not be right to ask the House to grant money to the leader of a party delegation, which of course is what my hon. Friend is. He is not the leader of the British parliament delegation. He is the leader of the Conservative Party's delegation to the European Parliament. I think that explains why the Government have so far not thought it right to adopt this policy. But of course as and when—I am quite certain that it is only a matter of time—the Opposition join in sending Members to the European Parliament, that will be the time for us to consider a further motion on this subject.
  The hon. Gentleman has described the European Parliament as a farce or a menace. He probably thinks it is both, although I am not quite certain which he thinks is the more evil of those two descriptions. My own view—I think it is the view of many people—is that our delegation has played a very active part in helping the European Parliament over the last few months. I am certain that it is already a far better Parliament as a result of their presence there. I think it will be an even better Parliament when the Labour Party comes to its sense and sends its own Members.
  The hon. Member for Brixton said that the debate had demonstrated what a difficult position the House and the Government are in. All I can tell him

  1165
  is that, from all I have heard tonight, it is in nothing like such a difficult position as his own party is in on this matter.
  I believe that in one respect the House tonight has shown itself to be a proper and good watchdog of the way the Government spend their money. On the other hand, it has shown itself to be in a pretty mean mood. My own hope is that the meanness shown by some hon.

  Division No. 146.]

  AYES

  [12.14 a.m.

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Lamont, Norman

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

  Carlisle, Mark

  Le Merchant, Spencer

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Chapman, Sydney

  Maddan, Martin

  Shelton, William (Clapham)

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Money, Ernle

  Shersby, Michael

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Speed, Keith

  Clegg, Walter

  Murton, Oscar

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Cooke, Robert

  Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

  Crouch, David

  Normanton, Tom

  Tope, Graham

  Eyre, Reginald

  Nott, John

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Fortescue, Tim

  Osborn, John

  White, Roger (Gravesend)

  Fox, Marcus

  Pounder, Rafton

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Gray, Hamish

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

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

  Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk S.)

  Redmond, Robert

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  James, David

  Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

  Mr. Paul Hawkins and

  Jopling, Michael

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Mr. Hugh Rossi.

  Kirk, Peter

  NOES

  NIL

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Mr. Michael English and Mr. Arthur Lewis.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That, in the opinion of this House and following the resolution come to by the Select Committee on House of Commons (Services) on 20th March and contained in the Minutes of the Proceedings of the Committee ordered by the House to be printed on 17th April (H.C. 69-ii), supporting services broadly equivalent to those provided for the delegations of other member nations should be made available from the beginning of this financial year to Members of this House and of the House of Lords who arc members of the European Parliament for the purpose of attending meetings of the European Parliament and of its Committees.

  EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT (SUPPORTING SERVICES)
    ADJOURNMENT
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Humphrey Atkins.]

  MERCIA BUILDING SOCIETY
  12.22 a.m.
  Mr. Fergus Montgomery: I am grateful for the chance of raising this issue on the Adjournment because the situation is causing concern to some of my constituents.
  Members in their remarks tonight will not be taken too much to heart by my hon. Friends who are doing a very difficult job in Strasbourg, and that we shall pass this motion with the best wishes of certainly all the Members on this side of the House.
  Question put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 45, Noes 0.
  Some years ago people took out mortgages with the Mercia Building Society and in the agreements they signed at that time there was a clause which said specifically that the interest rate should not be increased beyond the rate of 9 per cent. per annum. In other words, the Mercia Building Society was giving its word in writing, so far as those mortgages were concerned, that there would be a 9 per cent. ceiling.
  I understand that before the war many building societies had some such clause in their agreements. However, since the war this has been dropped and few, if any, building societies, apart from the Mercia, give this undertaking. I cannot understand why the Mercia Building Society has continued with such a clause, unless it is a sales gimmick to people seeking a mortgage and wanting the assurance that the interest rates payable will never rise above a fixed ceiling.
  In March this year some constituents of mine received a document from the society which said:
  "In view of the expected recommendation by the Council of the Building Societies

  1167
  Association to increase the rate of mortgage interest, and the probability that the new rate will be in excess of 9 per cent. per annum, I am writing to inform you that your Board of Directors have reviewed the interest charged on your mortgage. In your legal charge it states that the maximum rate chargeable should be 9 per cent., and as this is now an uneconomic rate the Society, regretfully, has no alternative but to serve six months' notice on you to repay all moneys secured by the legal charge. In practice, if you do not wish or you are unable to repay the outstanding mortgage the Society is prepared by way of a deed of variation to vary the terms of your present mortgage so that the rate decided by the Directors may be charged from 1st October 1973. The deed of variation will be prepared in this office to avoid any legal costs. Your Directors did not make this decision lightly, because they realise the concern that the proposed action will cause, but, in view of the economic climate in the country, they were faced with no alternative.
  I must therefore request you to let me know, at your earliest convenience, which of the two alternatives you propose adopting."
  In other words, the society was telling those people that within six months they should pay off the money they owed and that if they could not do so there would have to be a variation in the mortgage agreement.
  On 12th April the Express and Star published a statement from me, along with a reply from the manager of the society. The report said:
  "An urgent Government probe into allegations that a West Midland building society has been guilty of ' sharp practice' over interest rates was called for by an MP today. Mr. Fergus Montgomery, Tory MP for Brierley Hill, has taken up with Environment Secretary, Mr. Geoffrey Rippon complaints against the Mercia Building Society, which, was formerly the Wednesbury Building Society.
  Borrowers are seething with anger at a decision by the society to raise interest rates above an agreed nine per cent. ceiling.
  The nine per cent. ceiling was provided in a clause when the mortgages were taken out.
  Mr. Montgomery said: 'This clause was used as a sales point to assure customers that in the unlikely event—at that time—that mortgage rates should go over nine per cent. customers should not be required to pay more.
  The society has now written to people who have mortgages with them saying that this agreement should now be declared void and that the rate of interest should be changed as from October 1st 1973.'
  Mr. J. Pollard, manager of the Mercia Building Society, said today: 'The notices I sent out did not in themselves increase the rate of interest to any member.
  1168
  It was a step to enable an increase to be made in the light of the current situation. Any increase to be made will be no greater than that of other borrowing members of the society and will be in line with the rate recommended by the Building Societies Association.
  The step taken is not, as has been suggested, a breach of contract, but an exercise of a power contained in the mortgage deed. Neither was the ceiling of 9 per cent. a sales gimmick.'"
  The vital words are:
  The step taken is not, as has been suggested, a breach of contract, but an exercise of a power contained in the mortgage deed. Neither was the ceiling of 9 per cent. a sales gimmick."
  We all know that building societies have the power to call in mortgages at any time. That is a right of every building society in the country. Where I take issue with the society is on its failure to give any reason why a 9 per cent. ceiling was ever written into the agreement. The society gave a solemn undertaking to people, and it seems that it is now going back on its word.
  It is not the first time the society has been faced with this situation. I am told that some years ago there were people who had 8 per cent. ceilings written into their mortgage agreements. Those mortgages were called in and higher interest rates were charged. There seems to have been little outcry from those concerned then. No doubt the people who run the society today are surprised at the anger that has greeted their action on this occasion.
  It would be interesting if my hon. Friend the Minister of State could tell us how many other mortgagors there are with the Mercia Building Society with interest rate ceilings of 10 per cent. and perhaps higher. If it is true that the society is still giving mortgages with a ceiling of interest stipulated in the agreements, it is time it stopped making agreements that it either will not or cannot keep.
  The society issued a statement to the Express and Star, which reported on 28th April:
  "A West Midlands building society has hit back at an MP's reference to ' sharp practice' over interest rates.
  The reference was made by Mr. Fergus Montgomery, Tory MP for Brierley Hill, after a row involving the Mercia Building Society, formerly the Wednesbury Building Society.

  1169
  In a statement issued today, Mercia said: 'Some members may have been occasioned anxiety by the implication that the society's action was not authorised by the deed or mortgage contract.
  It is. This fact could, and would, have been established to Mr. Montgomery had he contacted the society. Unfortunately, he did not do so.'
  Mr. Montgomery called for an urgent Government probe into the society's move to raise mortgage rates to more than 9 per cent, after borrowers had claimed that a clause in their contracts provided a 9 per cent ceiling.
  The Mercia statement added: No communication has been received from any Government department, probably because, as a spokesman for the Building Societies Association put it, the society was well within its rights to take the measures it had taken.'"
  There is no mention in that statement of why the clause stipulating a ceiling of 9 per cent. had been included.
  We all realise how building societies work. We realise that they have to pay competitive rates of interest to depositors to attract money to make loans to would-be home buyers.
  The reason why I did not contact the Mercia Building Society was that the hon. and learned Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. Peter Archer) had already done so. He had shown me a reply which he received from the Mercia Building Society dated 6th April 1973. The letter stated:
  I thank you for your letter of the 4th instant regarding my letter sent to Mr. and Mrs. Ward of 56 Bagnall Street, Ocker Hill, in which I stated that in view of the expected rise in interest rates the Society had no option but to request repayment of the loan after the expiration of six months or Mr. and Mrs. Ward could sign a deed of variation so that the terms of the mortgage could be varied. I wish to stress that I did not at that time say that interest rates would be increased, but that I expected such an increase, and from an item in the Express & Star on Monday last you appeared to be under the impression that I had increased the mortgage rate.
  The reasons for Building Societies increasing their interest rates is because of the shortage of funds. caused by higher interest rates being offered by other bodies. Joint stock banks arc now in competition with us for savings on their deposit accounts; local authorities are offering a higher gross interest rate than Societies. In the recent Budget the Chancellor announced a new issue of Government stock at 9½ per cent. with a bonus at maturity, plus increasing the amount of National Savings Certificates, and this action I feel was the last straw.
  1170
  I am sure that I express the views of most building society managers when I say that our aim is to serve the public. …"
  In other words, the general manager of the Mercia Building Society was passing the buck and blaming the Government. He must be unbelievably naïve to have written such a letter.
  The shortage of funds at that time was due, as most people were aware, to the withdrawals from building societies because of the consumer boom which was taking place before VAT came into force on 1st April. Most of us realise the concern that building societies felt about the Chancellor's decision to make national savings more attractive. In fact, their fears and anxieties have not been borne out. The situation today is that money is pouring into the building societies. Therefore, the hasty action taken by the Mercia Building Society may not be justified in a few months' time.
  While legally the society may be right, morally it is completely wrong. I deplore the ham-fisted way in which it has handled the whole business and its failure to abide by a bargain which has been struck. If any of the mortgagors who are concerned with the present dispute had broken their bargain with the society, I suggest that the society would have been very quick to take the necessary action. When is a bargain not a bargain? I suggest that is when a bargain is struck with the Mercia Building Society.
  The society has done a great deal of harm to the reputation of building societies. To use a phrase used not so long ago in another connection by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, this is another instance of
  "the unpleasant and unacceptable face of capitalism ".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th May 1973; Vol. 856, c. 1243.]
  I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister can give some guidance as to ways in which mortgagors can be aided.
  12.34 a.m.
  The Minister of State, Treasury (Mr. John Nott): As my hon. Friend the Member for Brierley Hill (Mr. Montgomery) knows, the activities of the building societies are governed by the Building Societies Act 1962. That is a comprehensive measure which, broadly speaking, is intended to regulate the interests of the societies' borrowers and

  1171
  investors. It deals with such matters as the incorporation of societies, their powers, the duties of directors, annual accounts and notice of meetings. The Act also sets out the powers of control of the Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies over building societies.
  The Chief Registrar has the power, among other things, to suspend building societies' borrowing from the public if he thinks it is in the investors' interests and to control building societies' advertisements. He also has the duty to lay an annual report before Parliament. His consent is necessary under certain sections of the Act—for example, before a building society can lend money to another building society. However, the Act does not give the Chief Registrar powers to prevent building societies from calling in a mortgage or from raising the interest rate payable on mortgages. It is only right to mention initially just what the powers of the Chief Registrar are under the existing law.
  Building societies normally grant mortgages for a specified period, with the borrower paying interest and repaying capital in monthly instalments. It is his normal expectation that his mortgage will be allowed to run the full period. However, mortgage deeds used by building societies and other mortgages often provide a power to call in the mortgage at, say, six months' notice. This is the clause which was in the deeds to which my hon. Friend has referred. Virtually all mortgages granted nowadays by building societies include a provision to permit the societies to vary the rate of interest charged on a mortgage. This has not always been the case. It was common for mortgages arranged in the immediate post-war period to be at a fixed rate of interest.
  If societies wanted to increase a fixed interest rate, their normal practice was to call in the mortgage and then, as it were, reissue it at a higher rate of interest. The Mercia Building Society is, in the way it is currently behaving, following that kind of practice. This is clearly a cumbersome procedure, and this was one reason for the introduction of the present system whereby building societies have power to vary mortgage rates at their option.
  1172
  Besides fully variable and fixed rate mortgages, a number of building societies have mortgages under which they are empowered to alter mortgage rates within specified limits, and the Mercia society is one of the small number of societies which still have this kind of mortgage outstanding. There are not many of them and the total involved is relatively small beside the approximately 4 million or so of all building society mortgages outstanding. I understand that most if not all building society mortgages nowadays are of the fully variable interest rate type.
  My hon. Friend asked me to comment upon other maximum rate mortgages which he believes the Mercia society might have issued recently. The information available to me—but I will look further into the point—is that the society issued mortgages with a limit of 9 per cent. until 1967 and then until January 1969 issued mortgages with a limit of 10 per cent. My information—but I will check further since my hon. Friend said that mortgages have been issued quite recently with this kind of provision—is that no mortgages with a fixed limit have been issued by the society since January 1969. It may be that my hon. Friend has drawn an important piece of information to my attention and I will check it.
  The burden of complaint against the Mercia society, which my hon. Friend clearly set out, is that many of the society's mortgage deeds state that the maximum rate of interest chargeable is 9 per cent. But I understand that the society has decided that this is an uneconomic rate and has served six months' notice with mortgagors to repay their mortgages in accordance with the provision in the mortgage deed. Alternatively, if the mortgagors concerned do not wish or are unable to repay the outstanding mortgage, the society has given them the option to vary the terms of their present mortgage by way of a deed of variation so that from 1st October 1973 the mortgage rate charged will be decided by the society's directors. But the society has made it clear that it is prepared to draw up the deed of variation so as to avoid legal costs for mortgagors.
  My hon. Friend's constituents clearly believe that they have been hard done by. I have read the letter which the society has sent to mortgagors. I can quite see

  1173
  that it must appear to them that the society has voluntarily set itself a limit within which to vary the interest rate and now has decided to call in the mortgage because of a change in circumstances. This is obviously causing great concern to my hon. Friend's constituents. I can understand their feelings.
  I have to point out that because of its responsibilities to its mortgagors any building society has to bear in mind also its responsibilities to its investors. The House will be aware that although savings deposited in building societies can be withdrawn at quite short notice, the societies customarily advance money on long term, often for 20 years or more. To borrow short and lend long in this way, a society must retain its flexibility over a course of time to keep its investment rate in line with the rate paid by its competitors. Otherwise a society will find that it is losing its funds and in the long run this could result in serious embarrassment for borrowers as well as investors with the society. Unless a society increases its mortgage rate commensurate with its investment rate, it will operate at a loss. This is clearly something which no responsible building society could tolerate.
  Mr. Montgomery: The crux of the matter is that this building society gave a guarantee to these people. I have already explained that it previously gave another at about 8 per cent. It obviously found this was wrong. Why is it continuing with a ceiling interest rate? In his investigations, did my hon. Friend get any explanation why the society has continued to do this? We have had no explanation in the Midlands from the Mercia Building Society.
  Mr. Nott: My information was that these maximum rate interest mortgages had ceased being issued by this building society in 1969. If the Mercia Building Society is still issuing that type of mortgage, I will look into it and consider the matter. I certainly give that undertaking. When I came here tonight I was not aware that any maximum rate interest mortgages had been issued by the society since 1969. I will check this point.
  My hon. Friend's constituents clearly feel aggrieved by what they regard as the high-handed attitude of the society con-
  1174
  cerned. There is, no doubt, room for argument about the manner in which the society confronted its members with the proposition it put to them. I have read the letter and I think it could have been more appropriately worded.
  But on the other hand, as I have pointed out, any building society must have regard to the general position of interest rates and take steps to retain its funds while at the same time striking a balance between the interests of its investors and borrowers, The Government have no powers to intervene in this dispute between the society and its mortgagors and I am sure that the problem can be resolved only by the parties concerned.
  I understand that there was a meeting between representatives of the mortgagors and the building society tonight. I have not heard what happened at that meeting. My understanding of the latest position—this information comes to me from a Press release to the local Press issued on 9th June—is that the Mercia Building Society has made certain suggestions which were contained in the Press release, in which it says that the minority of the borrowers who have not already accepted the Mercia's proposals are invited to do so on the basis that the interest rate will be increased to 9 per cent. on 1st October but no further before 1st April 1974. This is the proposal which I understand has been made by the society to a group of those who are complaining about its actions. I very much hope that out of these meetings some satisfactory compromise arrangement will arise.
  I fully appreciate the concern which has been expressed by my hon. Friend's constituents and which he has echoed, and I sympathise with the people concerned. But the Government have no statutory powers to intervene in this dispute and in the last resort I am afraid that there is only a legal remedy which is open to the mortgagors themselves. I naturally hope that some reasonable compromise can be arrived at between the building society and the mortgagors as soon as possible.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at fifteen minutes to One o'clock.

WALES
  M4, Carmarthenshire
  M4, Carmarthenshire
  Public Expenditure
  Public Expenditure
  Brenig Reservoir (Construction Contracts)
  Brenig Reservoir (Construction Contracts)
  Vale of Glamorgan
  Vale of Glamorgan
  Brecon Bypass
  Brecon Bypass
  Trunk Road Schemes
  Trunk Road Schemes
  Mid-Wales Industrial Development Association
  Mid-Wales Industrial Development Association
  Tourism
  Tourism
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  North Sea Oil and Gas
  North Sea Oil and Gas
  Third London Airport
  Third London Airport
  Maplin
  Maplin
  Airliner Production (BAC-Boeing Partnership)
  Airliner Production (BAC-Boeing Partnership)
  Sale of Goods Contracts (Exclusion Clauses)
  Sale of Goods Contracts (Exclusion Clauses)
  Wool Textile Industry
  Wool Textile Industry
  Slater Walker—Hill Samuel (Proposed Merger)
  Slater Walker—Hill Samuel (Proposed Merger)
  Steel Industry (Investment Programme)
  Steel Industry (Investment Programme)
  Newsprint
  Newsprint
  Watling Street Tool and Gauge Company
  Watling Street Tool and Gauge Company
  Supersonic Air Travel
  Supersonic Air Travel
  Price Commission
  Price Commission
  Steel
  Steel
  Discount 50 Fares
  Discount 50 Fares
  Regional Unemployment (Grants)
  Regional Unemployment (Grants)
  Public Boards (Members' Interests)
  Public Boards (Members' Interests)
  Maplin
  Maplin
  Regional Policy
  Regional Policy
  Rolls-Royce Aircraft Engines (Turbine Blades)
  Rolls-Royce Aircraft Engines (Turbine Blades)
  Aerospace
  Aerospace
  Eurocontrol Route Charges
  Eurocontrol Route Charges
  Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1971
  Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1971
  Oil Pollution Damage (1971 Convention)
  Oil Pollution Damage (1971 Convention)
  Norton Villiers Triumph Limited
  Norton Villiers Triumph Limited
POSTS AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS
  Charges
  Charges
  Capital Programme
  Capital Programme
ENVIRONMENT
  Ports (Movement of Trade)
  Ports (Movement of Trade)
  Channel Tunnel
  Channel Tunnel
  Tachographs
  Tachographs
  Motor Insurer's Bureau
  Motor Insurer's Bureau
  Public Boards (Members' Interests)
  Public Boards (Members' Interests)
  A2 (Boughton Bypass)
  A2 (Boughton Bypass)
  Maplin
  Maplin
  Building Regulations (Legislation)
  Building Regulations (Legislation)
  Civil Service (Rented Accommodation)
  Civil Service (Rented Accommodation)
  Office Accommodation (Rent)
  Office Accommodation (Rent)
  Office Development (London)
  Office Development (London)
  Lorries (Urban Routes)
  Lorries (Urban Routes)
  Disc Parking Schemes
  Disc Parking Schemes
  Urban Bus Services
  Urban Bus Services
  Park-and-Ride Schemes
  Park-and-Ride Schemes
  Serpentine Gallery
  Serpentine Gallery
  Dashboard Controls (Standardisation of Symbols)
  Dashboard Controls (Standardisation of Symbols)
  Trunk Road Schemes
  Trunk Road Schemes
  Mansfield—Alfreton Growth Area
  Mansfield—Alfreton Growth Area
  Roads (Hertfordshire)
  Roads (Hertfordshire)
  Ellesmere Port Motorway
  Ellesmere Port Motorway
  M53 (Southerly Extension)
  M53 (Southerly Extension)
  M56 (Westerly Extension)
  M56 (Westerly Extension)
  CHISWICK ESTATE
  CHISWICK ESTATE
  DEPARTMENTAL VOTE
  DEPARTMENTAL VOTE
  COMPANY LAW (REVIEW)
  COMPANY LAW (REVIEW)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Live Animals (Export)
  Live Animals (Export)
  Turkeys and Chickens
  Turkeys and Chickens
  Cobalt
  Cobalt
DEFENCE
  Shoeburyness Gunnery Range
  Shoeburyness Gunnery Range
  Northern Ireland (Recruitment)
  Northern Ireland (Recruitment)
  DEPARTMENTAL VOTE
  DEPARTMENTAL VOTE
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  St. Gabriel's Primary School, Upper Holloway
  St. Gabriel's Primary School, Upper Holloway
  Nursery Education
  Nursery Education
  Broomhill House, Tunbridge Wells
  Broomhill House, Tunbridge Wells
EMPLOYMENT
  Equal Pay Act
  Equal Pay Act
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Libya (British Subjects)
  Libya (British Subjects)
  United Nations (Resolution 2925)
  United Nations (Resolution 2925)
  Warsaw Pact Nations
  Warsaw Pact Nations
  Grenada Constitutional Conference
  Grenada Constitutional Conference
  Icelandic Fisheries
  Icelandic Fisheries
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Non-Criminal Prisoners
  Non-Criminal Prisoners
  Fines (Imprisoned Defaulters)
  Fines (Imprisoned Defaulters)
  Firearms Control (Green Paper)
  Firearms Control (Green Paper)
  Metropolitan Police (Pay)
  Metropolitan Police (Pay)
  Pakistani Residents (British Citizenship)
  Pakistani Residents (British Citizenship)
  Civil Defence (Rescue and First Aid)
  Civil Defence (Rescue and First Aid)
  Bomb Threats (Warnings)
  Bomb Threats (Warnings)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Tax Relief (Pensioners)
  Tax Relief (Pensioners)
  Investment Income (Tax Relief)
  Investment Income (Tax Relief)
  Marginal Relief
  Marginal Relief
  Stamp Act 1891 (Matrimonial Assets)
  Stamp Act 1891 (Matrimonial Assets)
  Maplin
  Maplin
  EEC Budgets (Control Mechanisms)
  EEC Budgets (Control Mechanisms)
  EEC Sterling Account
  EEC Sterling Account
  Office Staffs (London)
  Office Staffs (London)
  Value Added Tax (Taxis)
  Value Added Tax (Taxis)
  Tax Assessments
  Tax Assessments
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Terrorism and Murder
  Terrorism and Murder
  Terrorist Activities
  Terrorist Activities
  Border Areas (Protection of Families)
  Border Areas (Protection of Families)
  Employment
  Employment
  Rights of Way
  Rights of Way
SCOTLAND
  Crofting
  Crofting
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Pakistani Doctors
  Pakistani Doctors
  Mentally-Ill Persons (Health Visitors)
  Mentally-Ill Persons (Health Visitors)
  Paracetamol and Phenacetin
  Paracetamol and Phenacetin
  Retirement Pension
  Retirement Pension
  Tea and Coffee Vending Machines
  Tea and Coffee Vending Machines
  Unemployed Persons (Wage-Stop Allowances)
  Unemployed Persons (Wage-Stop Allowances)

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

MAPLIN SANDS PROJECT AND BRENT GEESE
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how soon and at what cost the studies of the Brent Geese problem at Maplin Sands will be complete, and whether a report will be published.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, the studies of the Brent Geese are part of a three year research programme which began in September, 1972, and will be complete in September, 1975. The cost of the programme will be about £200,000. The research contract with the Natural Environmental Research Council provides that the right of publication remains with the Council; but, subject to that, the Government intend to make available the results of the research studies.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that reply. I am sure that all bird lovers will be grateful for the considerable efforts made to encourage the geese to move to other winter grounds. Could my noble friend confirm that the present number of geese at Maplin are between 20,000 and 30,000 every year and each bird is larger than the domestic goose? Could my noble friend also say what the Government's strategic plan will be if the geese decide not to be enticed away from Maplin?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, I hold somewhat the same opinion as my noble friend (although it is not in my brief) that 20,000 to 30,000
366
geese wintering there is about the right figure. I have to confess that I am not a buyer of geese for my home table. I did, however, look up my 1870 edition of Morris's Birds this morning, which says that the male Brent Goose is slightly less than 3 lb. and the female smaller. I am not sure whether that is more or less than the domestic goose. As regards my noble friend's third question, my honourable friend Mr. Heseltine dealt with this point recently in the other place. At the moment we feel that there is no risk, if the geese remain, of their being a danger to aircraft. Aircraft flying in and out at the moment produce only something like 3½ hits in every 10,000 take-offs and landings. Of these, only 6 per cent. are of any significance, and in the years that we have studied, since 1961 there has never been a fatal casualty in any British line caused by bird strike.
LORD THOMAS: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that there is considerable concern in the aircraft engine industry about the location of Maplin and the likelihood of these geese remaining there? The future aircraft engine, if it is to be quiet and efficient, must have a very large air intake. Already the RB.2l1 has an intake that is more than 7 ft. in diameter. If there are three or four of these on a jet there is a very large area which is extremely sensitive to bird strike. I hope that great care will be taken before Maplin is finally decided upon to see that this unnecessary increased danger to flying will be avoided.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, I should like to say two things in answer to my noble friend. First, if the food source is reduced, then the geese may not go there. Secondly, the study will consider putting the sort of food the geese like in other suitable places where they might go instead. On the last point referred to by my noble friend, it is true that with the incidence of wide-bodied jets the risk goes up; but it is equally true that safety factors have been built into the engines of wide-bodied jets with this risk in mind.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, when my noble friend was quoting accident figures, were they accidents caused by geese or by seagulls.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, they were caused by bird strikes by various breeds of bird.

NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE: STAFF ELIGIBILITY
2.34 p.m.
LORD REIGATE: 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 it is their policy to exclude from eligibility to apply for Senior Area and Regional posts under the reorganised National Health Service, the staffs of the Dental Estimates Board, the Joint Pricing Committee, the London Post-graduate Teaching Hospitals, the London Ambulance Service, and general practitioners in contract with Executive Councils.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SECURITY (LORD ABERDARE): Yes, my Lords in respect of initial appointment to top medical, nursing, works, financial, administrative, personnel and ambulance posts. This is in accordance with the advice of the Staff Advisory Committee, which is charged with responsibility for safeguarding the interests of the staff of the merging services. They have accepted the principle that none of those whose jobs in the existing Service will disappear on the Appointed Day should feel that he had suffered because another officer whose post was not in danger had been enabled to compete.
LORD REIGATE: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that that is a very disappointing Answer and that if he is going to recruit the best possible people for the reorganised National Health Service there should be no restriction on the field of appointment? Is he also aware that the views of the National Staff Commission, which the Secretary of State has powers to override, are very unfair to many outside the merging descriptions whose future is in some jeopardy?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, before accepting the Committee's advice my right
368
honourable friend asked that its effect on the staffs of the London Post-graduate Teaching Hospitals should be carefully considered. The Committee have considered these representations most carefully and have come down in favour of the principle that I have already spoken of: that much the fairest way to proceed was that only those whose jobs were in jeopardy should have the chance to apply in the first instance.
LORD COTTESLOE: My Lords, will my noble friend invite his right honourable friend to give special consideration to the small but important group of officers of the London Postgraduate Teaching Hospitals whose boards are to be reserved under the Bill, and who, unlike the other staffs referred to in my noble friend's Question, are precisely on all-fours with the staff affected by Clause 18 of the Bill, excepting only that their positions will not cease to exist on March 31, 1974, but on an unspecified date, probably not very long afterwards, by which time the positions for which they might apply now, if they were allowed to, will already have been filled? Is my noble friend aware also that among this small group of officers are a number who are of very high Quality and who might play a most valuable part in the reorganisation of the Service? Finally, is he aware that the Staff Commission's ruling on these officers has caused deep resentment not only among the officers themselves, but very widely in the Service, as a prime example of setting administrative convenience over the requirements of natural justice?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I am well aware of the outstanding ability of many of those who serve the London Post-graduate Teaching Hospitals. On the other hand, I cannot possibly agree with my noble friend's last statement, that this decision has anything whatever to do with administrative convenience. It would have been most administratively convenient to include the London Post-graduate Teaching Hospitals. The fact is that we have been advised by the Staff Advisory Committee, on grounds of principle, that simply those people whose jobs will go should be allowed to compete for the new jobs in the reorganised Service. The post-graduate hospitals will remain in being, and naturally their

369
staffs will have an opportunity of applying for jobs after the reorganisation is complete.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that most people who are associated with the National Health Service will agree with him that his proposals are, in the circumstances, the fairest?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I am very glad to hear that, and I am also very glad that the noble Baroness is agreeing with me for a change.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL:I thought you would be!

BRIDPORT BY-PASS SCHEME
2.41 p.m.
BARONESS STOCKS: My Lords, before asking the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper, I should like to deal with a personal aspect concerning it to which my attention has been drawn. It has been put to me that I may have a private interest in this Question, as being the part-owner of a house in West Dorset. May I say, first, that this house is in no way affected by the proposed development with which my Question is concerned; and, secondly, this is not at the moment a matter of personal interest to me because it has recently been burnt down. I will, of course plead guilty to a partial affection because I have a partial affection for the area of West Dorset as a whole.
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, in view of the cut-back in expenditure on roads, this would now be a useful opportunity to withdraw the draft proposal fora Bridport by-pass and reconsider it later in the wider context of regional planning requirements.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, I think the whole House would wish me to sympathise with the noble Baroness in having her house burnt down. I am sure that no one in your Lordships' House would think for one moment that she would motivated by personal interest. The answer to her
370
Question is that my right honourable friend the Minister for Transport Industries is examining the relative priorities of individual road schemes. It is too early to say which schemes will need to be deferred.
BARONESS STOCKS: My Lords, if that is so, and if these road schemes are under examination, would it not be desirable and economical to postpone the inquiry which is to be held by the Department of the Environment on July 26? It will mean money being spent by both the objectors to the scheme and the Department of the Environment, whose officials will doubtless have to go down to Bridport to attend the inquiry pending possible doubts as to the implementation of the scheme.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, the simple answer is that the relative priority of schemes is being examined by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, but the inquiry which will take place next month, as the noble Baroness said, will deal with traffic figures and planning issues: it is going to be open to examination. The noble Baroness and her friends who feel like her will then be able to put forward all their points, because it is only deferment that is being mentioned and what has been deferred will still need re-examination at the end of the day.
BARONESS STOCKS: My Lords, I raised this point on February 1, and I was told at the third time of asking that the experts, acting on behalf of the Minister, were in charge of the matter. The word "expert" may mean different things to different people. I recall that I pressed the noble Lord to say who the "experts" were and was told that they were officials, presumably of his Department. We all know what an expert hairdresser is, what an expert surgeon is and also. I think, what an expert magistrate is—but what is an expert of the environment other than a person who lives in it?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, I think the simple answer is that the inquiry is there to consider all such questions. If anyone is claiming to be an expert he can show himself to be one or not. Local opinion can make itself felt. be it through the local council or the county council. What perhaps should be borne in mind by the House is that the

371
relief of historic towns and residential areas is a major objective. Safety and the reduction of congestion also have to be considered. Many towns are allegedly delighted to hear that through traffic is to be removed from their roads. This is one of the aspects which will be dealt with at the inquiry.
LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that quite apart from the specific town of Bridport (where, incidentally, my married daughter lives) all other towns in the South-West are anxious to have by-passes made so that these juggernauts which are at present rattling places to pieces can be removed from their roads?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, the noble Lord on my right and the noble Baroness from the Opposition Benches are in opposition to each other. This is the kind of thing that inquiries go into.
BARONESS STOCKS: My Lords, could the noble Lord perhaps throw a little light on who wants this particular bypass?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, the county council, for one.

TYNEHAM HEATH: PROPOSED MINERAL WORKINGS
2.45 p.m.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question about Dorset which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will instruct the Department of the Environment to prevent the spoliation of archaelogical historic Tyneham Heath (the Egdon Heath of Thomas Hardy) by the excavation of china clay which would provide limited results whilst destroying its unique beauty.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT (BARONESS YOUNG): My Lords, I understand that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has so far received no representa-
372
tions on this matter. The day-to-day planning control of mineral working is a matter for the local planning authority, and any question of the granting or revocation of a planning permission for mineral working would be for the authority in the first instance.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, while thanking the noble Baroness for that Answer, might I ask her whether she is aware of the almost mystical beauty of this Heath, described wonderfully by Thomas Hardy? May I further ask: if china clay were to be found under Westminster Abbey, would we not all oppose the suggestion that it should be blown up? Is this not a gift of beauty over the ages which we should not see destroyed by this proposed development?
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, I do not think I know Dorset as well as the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, but I agree with him that it is a very beautiful place. My Department have been in consultation with the Dorset County Council, who are the local planning authority, and they do not report any recent local controversy about any workings; nor have they received any new planning applications.
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, may I congratulate the noble Baroness on answering her first Question from her position of new responsibility. May I also ask her whether, in view of the special importance of this area, she could arrange for her Department to call in ally applications which might be made in this regard?
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, I think it would be very difficult for me to say in advance whether my Department would call in a plan. But, as I think the noble Baroness will be aware, the Secretary of State has power to call in any planning application which represents a major departure from the agreed Development Plan, and if there were to be one of course he would do so.
LORD BURNTWOOD: My Lords, is it not the case that there have been other workings in the West Country for this particular material, and could the noble Baroness perhaps arrange for a display of pictures in the Library showing the spoliation that has taken place as a result

373
of workings in that particular part of England over the last 12 to 15 years?
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, I will certainly undertake to look at this matter. I do not know of any further details or whether such photographs are in existence, but I will certainly look at the matter.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, may I associate myself with the congratulations extended to the noble Baroness. I did not know that I had the honour of putting the first Question to her in her new office. May I ask whether it is not the case that this area is now under the control of the War Office, that promises were given by Mr. Winston Churchill during the War and that all the residents received letters saying that the territory would be returned to them? Is it not a fact that, under War Office control, these excavations spoiling this beauty are already in operation? Would Her Majesty's Government ask the War Office to stop these excavations at least until the Nugent Committee has reported on this matter?
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, I am sure that the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, have been listened to with great interest by my noble friend the Secretary of State for Defence. But as the noble Lord will be aware, under the chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford, a Committee has been looking at the whole question of defence land holdings. It was announced on May 10 that their Report is soon to be published.
LORD ARWYN: My Lords, may I ask whether in this case the noble Baroness could seek the advice and perhaps the co-operation of the China Clay Council? I have had 50 years' experience of mining china clay. I was a member of the China Clay Council for 20 years. In this case they might help and co-operate. I think they would have every sympathy towards the very important point which my noble friend Lord Brockway made.
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, I will certainly note the suggestion that the noble Lord has made. I would have thought that there would have been considerable discussions between the china clay company and the local planning
374
authority who have the first responsibility for these matters.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, is that the case? Is not this area now under the control of the War Office? Has the planning authority of the Council any responsibility at all? Is it not entirely a matter for the Ministry of Defence? Could the noble Baroness say when it is likely that the Nugent Committee will be reporting on this matter?
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, I have just indicated ndicated to the noble Lord that the Committee under the chairmanship of by noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford will be reporting shortly. As I said in my original Answer to his first Question, the planning applications are, in the first instance, a matter for the local planning authority.
LORD CLIFFORD of CHUDLEIGH: My Lords, would the noble Baroness convey to the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, the congratulations of the House for asking a Question of interest to England for a change?

BUSINESS
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I should like to inform the House that it has been found necessary to alter the business to-day. We are not able to take the Ulster Defence Regiment Bill during what is generally considered to be the dinner break. But for the convenience of your Lordships it is proposed that we should adjourn at approximately seven o'clock for about three-quarters of an hour.

BRITISH TRANSPORT DOCKS (HULL DOCKS) BILL
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a. (The Earl of Listowel.)
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, before the matter is put to the House and before it goes "on the nod", may I draw your Lordships' attention to one or two matters of principle which

375
have been raised by this seemingly inoffensive Bill? It might even be helpful to the Select Committee if their attention were drawn to the significance of it.
First, this Bill involves two nationalised industries: one, the British. Transport Docks Board, who are the Promoters, and the other the British Waterways Board, who are petitioning against it, supported by private enterprise in the shape of the Hull Chamber of Commerce and Shipping. The object of the Bill is to abolish the system known as "free override" on the Humber by which goods are transferred from ship to barge without crossing the dock wharves. When such transfer takes place it escapes most of the costs otherwise related to landing goods. The two Petitions which have been lodged against the Bill make essentially the same point; namely, that the imposition of new charges, certainly if they are heavy, must damage the barge-carrying business on the inland waterways which are directly affected. Barge business is the business of carrying goods by water along what is left of our canals and waterways; but in the case of the Humber it means at the present time carrying goods by water up to and down from Leeds and Nottingham.
This might in itself seem a small matter, but I call attention to it for the same reason as in a debate on the Government's original Circular on water reorganisation on December 9, 1971. Then I expressed anxiety lest we allow our inland waterways to die away just as new technologies give the opportunity to revive them. The now much publicised ocean-going LASH ship, which carries barges across the wide ocean, has since been matched by a new ship, the BACAT, able to carry barges across the North Sea from the Humber to the mouths of the Scheldt, the Rhine and the Baltic and all the rich provision of inland waterway transport to which they lead in the heart of the Eurasian Continent.
As it stands this Bill could irrevocably damage the barge traffic inland from the Humber. As such it could deal a real blow to inland waterway transport in general. As such it could push more traffic on to already overladen roads. As such it could become an environmental offence. My object now is not to delay the Second Reading, but to call the atten
376
tion of the Select Committee to the wider implications. My object is to call the attention of the Promoters to the possibility of serious opposition on Third Reading if some suitable accommodation with the Petitioners is not made meantime. My purpose now is to express the hope that under the influence of examination in the Select Committee good sense may yet prevail, whereas negotiations between the two nationalised industries concerned have hitherto been disappointingly abortive.
I wish this Bill, I wish its promoters and, above all, its petitioners Godspeed. I wish them all Godspeed, subject to the clear understanding that the wider implications of the petitioners' appeal are appreciated. This is not a matter to be enterprised wantonly, inadvisedly or lightly.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, as the noble Earl has said, this is an opposed Bill because two petitions have been deposited against it. If your Lordships give it a Second Reading it will be referred to a Select Committee. The petitions contain points very similar to those raised by the noble Earl. I have no doubt that if they arise from the terms of the petitions they will be considered by the Select Committee. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a. —(The Earl of Listowel.)
On Question, Bill read 2a and committed to a Select Committee.

ULSTER DEFENCE REGIMENT BILL [H.L.]
2.58 p.m.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DEFENCE (LORD CARRINGTON): My Lords, your Lordships will rarely have seen so short a Bill, and I hope I shall not need to detain the House for long in dealing with what I hope the House will find to be an uncontroversial measure. It is nearly three and a half years since we debated the first Ulster Defence Regiment Bill and over three since the Regiment first undertook operational duties. Since then it has grown considerably in size and it has also established for itself a firm position in Northern Ireland. I am sure that

377
before I turn to the Bill itself it would be right for me to record the thanks from all sides of the House for the valuable, patient and selfless work which members of the Regiment have given to Northern Ireland in these difficult and testing years.
Throughout that time, a key feature of the Regiment's status has been its place as part of the Armed Forces of the Crown. The Bill before the House to-day is, in effect, a further recognition of this because, for many years now, opportunities for service in the Armed Forces have been open to women as well as to men. And women have made a very significant contribution in all three Services, both in general duties and in jobs where particular skills are required.
The Bill opens the door to service in the Ulster Defence Regiment by another section of the community, the women of Northern Ireland. As Clause 1(1) of the Bill declares, its object is to enable women to volunteer and be accepted for service in the Ulster Defence Regiment. Your Lordships may think it odd that when non-discrimination is so widely accepted it should be necessary to pass an Act of Parliament to allow women to join a unit of Her Majesty's Forces. But when the Ulster Defence Regiment was being set up it was not foreseen by the Government of the day that there would be an operational need to employ women; and in defining the character of the new force it was only natural that Parliament at that time should have drawn the boundaries of the new Regiment as closely as possible. Accordingly, Section 1 of the Ulster Defence Regiment Act 1969 restricted enlistment to men. The effect of Clause 1 of the Bill is to remove this restriction and to enable women to serve in the Regiment.
There is an immediate operational need for women members of the Regiment because the I.R.A. often call upon women to transport weapons and explosives. They do so in the knowledge that the security forces are very restricted, in dealing with women suspects, by the lack of women searchers. There is a small number of women in the R.U.C. and in the Army who can on occasion carry out these duties, but they could not be deployed all over the countryside, by day and night, as are the Ulster Defence Regiment, which carries the main burden of checks on cars
378
and passers-by. So there is an operational need for each company of the Ulster Defence Regiment to be able to call on the services of two women searchers to help the daily and nightly patrols.
We hope, if this Bill receives the approval of Parliament, that some 700 women can be recruited into the Ulster Defence Regiment for search duties. But there will be nothing to prevent other women members from being engaged, for example as clerks or telephone operators or radio operators, thus freeing men for operational duties. Women serving in the Ulster Defence Regiment will neither bear arms nor be trained in the use of arms. These women members can be accommodated within the present limit of 10,000 shown in my Department's Estimates and approved in another place.
Clause 1(3) of the Bill extends to women in the Ulster Defence Regiment the advantages already given to men in the Regiment, as to other Service men and women in Her Majesty's Forces, by the Disabled Persons (Employment) Acts. The effect is to allow preferential treatment for vocational training, industrial rehabilitation and assistance towards employment to be given to any disabled person who has served full time in the Regiment. All the other existing provisions of the Ulster Defence Regiment Act 1969 will remain in force. Women members, like men, will primarily be recruited for part-time service. But they will also, like men part-timers, be liable to call-out at times of emergency. Moreover, just as a number of men are employed on the permanent staff of the Regiment on administrative duties, it will be possible in future for women to be similarly employed if the need arises. And just as in the case of men we have attached great importance to excluding extremists of any complexion from the U.D.R., we will do the same in the case of women. The non-sectarian character of the Regiment will continue to be jealously preserved.
Your Lordships have taken the closest interest in the fortunes of the youngest Regiment in the British Army and have watched its growth in these turbulent and often heart-breaking conditions in Northern Ireland in recent years. I believe the House will have been encouraged to note the sense of responsibility and purpose which, in a non-sectarian spirit, a substantial body of men have shown by

379
their service in the Ulster Defence Regiment. I am sure that Parliament and the country at large will welcome the idea of giving some women in Northern Ireland this chance to help in restoring normality and banishing violence; and I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a. —(Lord Carrington.)
3.4 p.m.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, the Secretary of State has pointed out that when the main Bill was introduced into this House—and may I say that I was responsible for introducing it and still should like to show my "war medals" for this particular operation—we did not foresee the need for the employment of women within the Ulster Defence Regiment. At that time women, and particularly teenage girls, were not as yet heavily involved in the conflict in Northern Ireland; and at that time it seemed perhaps a little bizarre to enrol women into this force. However, times change, and not always for the better, and for this reason I welcome the Secretary of State's proposal to recruit some 700 women into the Ulster Defence Regiment.
May I ask the noble Lord my first question? Presumably they will have a proper structure: there will be women officers as well as women other ranks. I think this is important because as a group they will have special problems and will need special representation. And I welcome the proposal for a second reason—and this deals with my second question—because, as your Lordships may remember, I have always advocated that women should play a role even more important than the one they play at the moment. Without both the support services and the operational services they give—and your Lordships should not forget those operational services—the Armed Forces would be in a poor position. For this reason I have always argued that there should be no differentiation in the treatment of women in the Armed Forces, as there is in fact at present. I do not want to make a great deal of it, but I should like to know the pay structure of the women who are coming into the Ulster Defence Regiment. Is it the same as that of the men, or is there an x factor for men and a y factor for women? This is of some
380
importance. I believe that these women are going to be marked out as potential targets, as are their male colleagues, and they should be treated in terms of emoluments and, with reference to Clause 3, in the terms of any sort of pension arrangements equally with their male colleagues.
I believe these women have a great deal to offer. As the Secretary of State has said, women are getting involved on the side of disorder to an ever-increasing degree. Men do not like the problem of having to search women, and the presence of these women to do the actual searching of people who have been held up is of the utmost importance. They will be able to give most invaluable support services and—may I say also?—will improve morale. It is a fact—and I know this, speaking from my old Royal Air Force days—that where a woman is in quite a senior position as an aircraft controller, if a man operating a fighter aircraft is being guided by a woman's voice it often has extremely beneficial effects on that man in difficult conditions. So I welcome this particular proposal. I want to know that the women who are entering the Ulster Defence Regiment are in fact treated equally with their male colleagues. As a House, we can only wish them well in the very dangerous task they are about to undertake.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord one question? Apparently women have been discriminated against, but when an emergency arises it is discovered that the business in Northern Ireland, so far as the Army is concerned, cannot be conducted without the help of women. So at long last, while they have, as I say, been discriminated against during peace time, now they are, I understand for special reasons, being used in the Army. May I have an assurance that when the emergency is over this discrimination will not be reintroduced and these women will not be discharged from the Army?
3.9 p.m.
LORD DUNLEATH: My Lords, I warmly welcome the proposal in this Bill to admit female recruits to the Ulster Defence Regiment. I suppose that as a member of that regiment myself I ought to declare an interest, but not too close an interest. I have for quite some time

381
privately advocated the course that women should be introduced because from my own experience those areas which suffer most acutely from manpower shortage are those in which women would be not only just as effective as men, but probably even more effective. I am thinking of the kind of cases the noble Lord has mentioned: searching vehicles which have been stopped, and personnel; undertaking typing and general office work; manning teleprinters and other signals equipment, medical and first-aid duties, driving staff cars and, of course, cooking.
I also think that Her Majesty's Government are right in deciding that the women personnel of the U.D.R. should not be armed, because that is a very different thing, and a very different mentality is required in the case of armed personnel for the case of those who are not armed. Proof of the willingness and ability of women to fulfil this type of role is aptly demonstrated, both by the response to the Royal Ulster Constabulary Women's Reserve and by the high level of efficiency and enthusiasm that was displayed by the Territorial Women's Royal Army Corps. I saw a certain amount of them because for a time, until they were disbanded, my wife was Colonel Commandant of the Northern Ireland unit. In fact she was a colonel when I was just a humble captain, but by careful stage management I succeeded in avoiding the ultimate in domestic indignity of actually having to salute her. But I saw at that time that in many ways these girls excelled their male counterparts in their keenness and assiduity. I am sure they will do an excellent job for the U.D.R. and I hope that, if many of them join, at least it may shame some of their men friends and relations into joining as well.
I am filled with admiration for the men of the Ulster Defence Regiment, as indeed I am for those of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the R.U.C. Reserve who have suffered far more hardship and danger than anything to which I have ever been exposed. For this reason I think, with respect, there is a serious omission in the Ulster Defence Regiment Bill. Surely this would be the opportunity to redress the injustice to which the men of the U.D.R. have been subjected over the three years of the regi
382
ment's existence, and the injustice to which perhaps the women will be subjected. I refer to the fact that not only do the men who are at present serving, and also their wives and families, have to suffer the disruption, the inconvenience and indeed apprehension of active duty, perhaps two or three times a week, but also when the regiment is called out considerable financial hardship is involved. In the company in which I have the privilege to serve there have been many instances of men losing more than £20 a week during a period of call-out.
Another problem exists with the full-time members of the U.D.R. Under the consolidated rate of pay—they are known as "con. rate men"—I think they are paid something like £2·75 a day, which is by no means an attractive salary compared with what similar duties and responsibilities would earn in civilian life. From what I have seen, I am sure that this is one of the main reasons why there remain so many vacancies among the full-time members of the Ulster Defence Regiment. On various occasions over the last couple of years attention has been drawn to the financial disadvantage suffered by members of the U.D.R., and in answer it has been pointed out that the salary scale for the part-time members, when they are on call-out, is identical to that of the Regular Army and the Territorial Army. I would submit that neither of these comparisons is really valid. A regular soldier enjoys a much lower cost of living than does his U.D.R. counterpart, together with benefits of security of employment and career opportunities. The U.D.R. man, on the other hand, has to try to hold down his job in civilian life, to placate his wife, find enough time to sleep, to see his children occasionally. pay the rent and rates on his house and provide himself with means of transport to get from his home to the U.D.R. centre.
Furthermore, those regular soldiers in Northern Ireland can look forward to the end of their tour of duty, the duration of which is normally four months. However "hellish" it may be, at least that is something to look forward to. In the case of the U.D.R. man there is no identifiable termination of his tour of duty: for him, it is entirely open-ended. When I was in the Territorial Army it was a very different matter. Most of

383
the people who served did so because they enjoyed it, and many of them were happy to give up part of their holidays or suffer financial sacrifice in order to attend the annual camp, mainly, of course, because of loyalty to the regiment to which they belonged but also because it was fun. I think the fact must be faced that the majority of U.D.R. duties are by no stretch of the imagination fun. Coming home from work at six o'clock in the evening, having a quick meal, changing into uniform in time to get to the U.D.R. centre at 7·30, standing all night guarding a key point, in the knowledge that you may be shot at; returning home again at six o'clock in the morning, just in time to change back into civilian clothes, to have a quick breakfast and go out to work shortly after seven o'clock, is nobody's idea of fun.
In the Territorial Army interesting training and enjoyable social activity were important factors, but in the U.D.R. the operational commitment does not allow for such incentives. I would therefore put it to Her Majesty's Government that in passing the Ulster Defence Regiment Bill, which I warmly support. the opportunity should be taken to rectify the financial imbalance which at present exists, so that the men and their families who are prepared to endure the danger, the hardship, the inconvenience and the unsetting effect of membership of the regiment should at least be relieved of the financial disadvantage which they at present suffer.
I know there have been negotiations with employers to see whether they would make up the wages of U.D.R. members when they are called out. Some employers are well able to do this, but one must not forget the small firm with not many employees and without big reserves. When its members are called out (and many of the members are at lower management level —chargehands, foremen, that sort of level) it is a grave embarrassment to the firm in question, quite apart from having to pay for that embarrassment. This, too, is a matter which should be borne in mind.
I would also suggest that the role of the U.D.R. should be re-examined, to see whether there is any way in which the boredom of the present duties—and they are boring: standing beside a power
384
station or a reservoir with an S.L.R. in your hand all night is not interesting—could be alleviated. If that could be done it would have a good effect on morale and on recruiting.
In conclusion, I should like to raise a couple of points which in fact do not come within the ambit of the Bill now before your Lordships' House but which concern a force with whom we work very closely indeed—the Royal Ulster Constabulary. We see quite a lot of them, and I should like to draw the attention of Her Majesty's Government to the grave degree of frustration and resentment that at present exists within the ranks of the R.U.C. The members of this dedicated and over-stressed force, who are at risk every day of their lives, whether they are on duty or off duty, have still not been granted the special salary allowance which is at present enjoyed by the Prison and Fire Services. I would stress that if this were granted, the result in improved morale would far outweigh the financial cost to the taxpayer.
The second point is that, most regrettably, the Leader of the Democratic Unionist Party in Northern Ireland, by an unscrupulous piece of pre-election scandalmongering has dropped the hint that the R.U.C. are likely to be disbanded. That has been denied by my honourable friend Mr. Peter Mills. I was speaking to a senior civil servant in the aeroplane on the way over here, and he said that there was not a scrap of truth in that suggestion. But if the Leader of the Democratic Unionist Party who shouts so loudly and so often about his loyalty, had been motivated by his loyalty to serve in any of the Armed Forces, he would know that the one way to cause morale to take a nose dive is to hint that the unit is to be disbanded. I ask the noble Lord, therefore, whether he will be good enough—and I am sorry to introduce this matter, but it is urgent—to help to restore confidence by giving a clear, unequivocal assurance that there is no truth whatever in that rumour.
I conclude, my Lords, by sincerely and respectfully asking Her Majesty's Government to give their earnest consideration to the recommendations that I have made.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, as several members of the Ulster Defence Regiment have been assassinated or

385
ambushed in their homes, is the Secretary of State absolutely sure that the lack of training in arms for the female members of the regiment is right?
3.21 p.m.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I am grateful to your Lordships for the welcome that you have given this small but important Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom—and I apologise for not having paid tribute to his parentage of the U.D.R.—asked two questions: the first was whether or not there was to be, among the women, a proper structure. I can confirm that there will he, and indeed I agree with him that it would be unthinkable in the circumstances that there should not be. Secondly, the noble Lord asked about pay. Women part-time members of the Ulster Defence Regiment will qualify for pay subject to exactly the same conditions as their male counterparts. They will qualify for Regular Armv women's rates of pay.
The noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, in what I thought was a rather grudging acknowledgement that we had put right what her noble friend had done, asked me about discrimination and what would happen in the future. It is very difficult, of course, to know exactly what will be the requirements for the Ulster Defence Regiment after the emergency is over. I do not think that any of us can foretell that; or indeed when the emergency will be over; or who necessary it will be to have women searchers, and how many and in what proportion. But it is very unlikely that there will be any possible intention of repealing the provisions of the Bill which we are now asking your Lordships' House to pass. It all depends on what the role of the U.D.R. will be.
The noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, is the only Member of your Lordships' House who speaks at first hand about the U.D.R. Coming from him, what he has said is all the more important. May I pay my tribute to him, therefore, for the work that he has done in the U.D.R. in what I know to be extremely difficult circumstances, and which shows a great sense of public duty. The only thing I found a little strange was his unwillingness to salute his wife. We are all infinitely more deferential to our wives than saluting them. He asked me about remedying the injustice on pay which he feels the men in the U.D.R. have suffered.
386
It would be extremely difficult to justify our paying members of the U.D.R. more than is paid to the British Regular Army in Northern Ireland. What we are trying to do is to persuade employers who, after all, are allowing their employees to join the U.D.R. to make up the money which those members of the U.D.R. forgo as a result of being members of the Regiment. Perhaps what the noble Lord has said and the words which I have now spoken will do something to encourage other employers to follow that generous path.
With regard to the other matter which the noble Lord raised, I shall bring that to the attention of my noble friend who is responsible in this House for Northern Ireland matters. But I should like to say—and I associate myself here with Mr. Peter Mills—that there is absolutely no truth in the reported statement about the R.U.C. I am happy to deny that in common with my honourable friend.
In answer to what my noble friend Lord Onslow said, I do not think that it would be appropriate at the present time, or indeed in the foreseeable future, that women members of the Ulster Defence Regiment should be trained in arms and should keep arms in their homes. I do not think that that would be the right thing to do. After all, they are not to be used in exactly the same way as the present members of the Regiment. They will be used for searching other women, and I cannot bring myself to believe that even those who are murdering British soldiers and members of the U.D.R. and R.U.C. in Northern Ireland will bring themselves to murder women of the U.D.R.
May I end as I began by paying my tribute to the Ulster Defence Regiment and reiterating my belief that the recruitment of women will make it more effective and indeed help us in the task of restoring order in Northern Ireland?
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

WATER BILL
3.28 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND SCIENCE (LORD SANDFORD): My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lady Young,

387
I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Sandford.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF LISTOWEL in the Chair.]
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: May I point out to the Committee that owing to a printer's error, Amendments Nos. 5 and 7 on the revised Marshalled List are not numbered?
Clause I [National Policy for water]:
On Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?
BARONESS WHITE: Before we proceed to the consideration of the Bill in Committee, may I have some comment from the Government as to why they have not moved a Motion that certain Schedules shall be taken with their related clauses? This is normally done for the convenience of the House, and the Government have not moved any such Motion on this occasion. We are in some danger, therefore, that we may have two debates when one might do. If we do not have two debates, it may be very awkward for certain noble Lords who have Amendments to Schedules. Having seen the Order paper they will suppose that such Amendments may come on Thursday rather than to-day and will therefore possibly not be in their places. It seems odd in a Bill of this kind, where frequent references are made, particularly in the earlier clauses, to the related Schedules, that the Government have not moved any such Motion.
LORD SANDFORD: I agree with the noble Baroness that it is often for the convenience of the Committee (and it was done in the case of the Social Security Bill) for the Schedules to be considered in connection with the clauses to which they refer and in a different sequence from the one in which they are printed in the Bill. I mentioned to the noble Baroness over a week ago that we were considering that method in this particular case. But when it came to the point, and in the light of the Amendments then put down,
388
it did not seem that there was any particular gain in following that procedure in this particular case. The noble Baroness's noble friend Lord Gams-worthy, for instance, was kind enough to send me a letter which I passed on to my noble friend Lady Young, to the effect that he was proposing to move his Amendment No. 1 and would be content if—and in fact was going to suggest that —we considered with it 24 other Amendments, many of which are in the Schedules. I think that would certainly be a practical way of proceeding, unless the noble Lord has changed his mind since then.
On the other hand, I agree that over the weekend a very considerable number of further Amendments have gone down —nearly 70—and this may well alter the situation. It may be that this is one of the reasons why the noble Baroness is making this suggestion. I would suggest to the Committee that if, on looking through the Bill in the light of all the Amendments before us, it would be more convenient on the next day of the Committee stage to consider the Schedules with the clauses to which they particularly refer, then the next Marshalled List could be printed in that form. But I should think that we are now in the position, with the Orders under which we operate, the fact that the Marshalled List has been printed in this order and that this is what the Committee were expecting, that it would be better to proceed as it is, but of course making full use of the flexibility that we always have to discuss subsequent Amendments whenever they arise on earlier ones. I hope that the noble Baroness will agree that this will meet the requirements, at any rate for to-day.
BARONESS WHITE: I do not think we can do any other to-day, because it would be very unfair to noble Lords who are not in the House if the order of business were changed without notice. But I would reiterate that I do not think that this is a sensible way of doing things. Of course, my noble friend Lord Garnsworthy is here present in his place, and it is true that he has a very large number of Amendments which stand or fall together; but there are other Amendments to the early Schedules which, to my mind, would be far better discussed with the relevant clauses. I appreciate

389
that there has been a little difficulty, possibly owing to the change of Minister; and before going any further I would say how very warmly we welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Young, who will be taking a very active part and I think is technically in charge of the Bill for the Government. We are delighted that this should be her first full Ministerial task in the House. I will not press the point, having made it. It seems to me that the arrangements made by the Government are not for the convenience of the House, but we shall have to leave it there.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: As I am one of those affected by the point raised by the noble Baroness, I would associate myself with everything she has said—including, of course, the welcome to the new Minister.
LORD SANDFORD: Fortunately we have the flexibility of being able to discuss any topic relating to an Amendment later in the Marshalled List, and, of course, we have the opportunity of discussing such a matter on the question whether the clause shall stand part, which is an additional flexibility. I know my noble friend Lady Young and I will be very happy to discuss with the noble Baroness what we should do for the next stage.
BARONESS WHITE: I wish to have a word, if I may, on this clause—I thought it was better to get the other point out of the way first—although at this stage we have not put any Amendments to this clause on the Marshalled List. I have two points I wish to raise and they are concerned with subsections (5), (6) and (7). Subsection (5) says:
"It shall be the duy of the Welsh National Water Development Authority … to consider and advise the appropriate Minister or Ministers … concerning that part of the national policy for water which falls to be executed by the Authority …".
In other words, there is a very definite limitation there as to the matters which the Welsh Authority are permitted to consider. They may also consider other matters, even though they may not have responsibility for them, if such matters are
"… referred to the Authority by the appropriate Minister or Ministers."
I would submit that the subsection is very tightly drawn. I was in Cardiff, the
390
capital of Wales, last week, discussing these matters with some of my friends there who are much more expert in the matter of water organisation than I am. They were pointing out that conferences are being held all over the country, looking forward for the next decade or two to the possible pattern of transfer of water over the most fantastic areas. For instance, there was a conference at Hereford last week concerning the possible future arrangements for the River Wye, and the experts are now discussing—it is not a matter of immediate action, but in the quite foreseeable future—how at various times of the year water from the River Wye, for instance, may be used to supplement the waters of the River Dee, and at other times to supplement the waters of the River Thames. The River Dee, comes within the Welsh Authority's responsibility, and therefore anything that happened between the Wye and Dee could be discussed; but it seems to me that any liaison, as it were, between the Wye and the Thames, according to the very tight way in which this subsection is drafted, could not be studied from their point of view by the Welsh National Water Development Authority without having a specific reference from the Minister.
I do not want to make too heavy weather of this matter at this point, but 1 think it may be very important for the Welsh Authority—which is particularly singled out; it is on a somewhat different footing from the other authorities—to be able to consider and advise on matters which do not necessarily fall to be executed by them. I would ask the Minister, therefore, if between now and a later stage of the Bill he or his noble friend would look carefully at this matter to make certain that we are not putting an unnecessary restriction on the activities of the Welsh National Water Development Authority by the wording of this particular subsection. I do not want to press the point further than that at this moment. I have anxieties on this subject and should like them to be allayed, if not to-day, later on.
Coming to subsections (6) and (7), I think this matter is of interest for the whole system, for England and Wales. It seems to me a little puzzling. Subsection (6) says:

391
"It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to collate and publish information from which assessments can be made of the actual and prospective demand for water, and of actual and prospective water resources …."
And then in the next subsection it says:
"The Secretary of State may also (in so far as he considers it appropriate to do so) collaborate with others in collating and publishing the like information relating to the demand for water, and to water resources, whether in England and Wales or elsewhere."
One can see the point of difference between a positive duty and the power to do so if desired, but we are entitled to have a little more explanation from the Minister as to exactly how he thinks this is going to fit in with the organisations to be set up, the National Water Council, the central planning unit, the research unit and the data collecting unit. They are presumably all going to do this.
Is the Secretary of State simply going to publish the results of their researches, and does that count as collaboration, which is not provided for in subsection (6) but only in subsection (7). or does he regard them as all part of all one body at the Ministry? Where do they collie in? Does he collaborate with them, or are they part of the D.O.E., which is what we always suspected. I think we are entitled to have more information why this peculiar form of words is used about the way in which the Secretary of State is to collate and publish, separately from, I should have supposed, under subsection (6), the National Water Council or the other bodies set up or to be set up under this Bill. Therefore, before we pass this clause I think that we should have a little enlightenment on the matter.
LORD SANDFORD: I am glad to be able to provide that, perhaps briefly at this stage, and more extensively later if need be. In this particular subparagraph (5) we are dealing with the special duties of the Welsh National Water Development Authority and about what it has a duty to do in respect of the discharge of its own particular functions. We also have to bear in mind that those duties form part of the national policy for water referred to in Clause 1(1), which covers the whole of England and Wales and in which the Secretary of State for Wales, as well as the Secretary of State for the Environment, will participate with the assistance
392
of the Central Planning Water Council, the National Water Council, the Water Research Association and other national bodies referred to later in the Bill in Clause 4, and which we shall certainly be discussing. In these circumstances, what might be open to the criticism that it is too tightly drawn to stand on its own is not, I think, drawn unnecessarily tightly if it is seen in this context. The right moment to discuss the relationships and the interdependence and the independence of the national water bodies is perhaps when we get to Clause 4. This is the way in which I would give the noble Baroness the assurance she wants for the time being. I hope that she will be satisfied with it.
BARONESS WHITE: I expect I shall have to be satisfied with it for the time being. The noble Lord will appreciate from what I have said that at some later stage I shall need some further assurances on both these matters.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Establishment of water authorities]:
3.43 p.m.
LORD GARNSWORTHY LORD GARNSWORTHY moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 39, leave out ("For") and insert ("Subject to the provisions of Schedule (London Water Authority) to this Act. for").
The noble Lord said: Clause 2 deals with the establishment of water authorities, and I beg to move Amendment No. 1 standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Champion and myself. This Amendment is one of a series designed to secure an alternative to the proposals set out in the Bill for dealing with the exercise of functions relating to water and sewerage in an area which is quite different from the rest of the country, and where it is possible to give local government responsibilities which it is admirably equipped to shoulder and leave it with functions which it has discharged with outstanding efficiency. As the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, indicated just now, the number of other Amendments concerned is fairly large; they are Nos. 5, 6, 7, 8, 16, 17, 18, 33, 38, 48, 75, 76, 77, 80, 87, 90, 95, 98, 99, 110, 117, 118 and 119. With your Lordships' permission I will speak to them all now, in order not only to save the Committee's time but, perhaps more

393
importantly, so that we can have a tidier and more satisfactory debate on the issues involved. The two substantial Amendments are Nos. 38 and 80.
This Bill deprives the Greater London Council of control of a service which is recognised throughout the world for its efficiency. I believe it is correct to say that no criticism has at any time been made by the Department of the Environment of the manner in which that service has been conducted. I believe that to be the case because none can be made of a record which is to the credit not only of the Greater London Council but of Londoners generally. The facts of the situation are rather impressive. The Greater London Council provide the main drainage for some 7½ million people living in an area of about 630 square miles, an area larger than Greater London itself. Over 1,350 staff are employed in operating that service, which is indeed a comprehensive one, dealing, as it does, with sewers, sewage treatment, sludge disposal, land drainage—the lot.
The G.L.C. and its forerunner, the L.C.C., have built up a quite remarkable service with well-equipped laboratories manned by highly expert staff. It is greatly to their credit that there has been such a marked improvement in the quality of the water in the Thames and some of its tributaries. One understands their pride in the evidence of this, which is exemplified, if any of your Lordships go to County Hall, by the exhibition tank of live fishes which have been taken from the Thames. I believe that at various times something like 60 different species have been taken from the Thames since this tremendous improvement has been effected.
The Council are actively pursuing proposals to protect London from tidal flooding. They know the problems of the river and the dykes. They have vast experience of them, and considerable expertise in dealing with them. The immediate, direct effect of this Bill as now drafted will be to deprive a democratically elected authority and to transfer to the Thames Water Authority, London's main drainage service, which includes all the main sewers, sewage treatment works, pumping stations, sludge disposal fleet, together with the functions of regulating trade effluent discharges, and, additionally, pollution control. On pollution
394
control, the terms of the Bill seem to be a little obscure, and it would be helpful if the Minister could introduce some clarity. One wonders what the Government are doing, why they are doing this to London, and what good reason they have. They have told us on many occasions that they want to make local government more worthwhile and give it a greater sense of power and responsibility. They were the stated purposes for the reorganisation of Greater London in 1964, yet here we find the loss of functions I have mentioned which, together with the intended loss of Health Service functions, will mean a reduction of nearly 15 per cent. in the G.L.C. staff, and, the G.L.C. estimate, reducing by almost a half the Council's direct services to London.
One would have anticipated that the very success with which the G.L.C. have handled London's main drainage service had established the Council's capacity, and indeed suitability, to discharge the functions of a regional water authority; and if th Government wish to prove their faith in local government one would have expected them—as I hope it is still possible to anticipate they may do—to demonstrate that faith by recognising the strength of these Amendments and the case they represent. These Amendments are drafted to ensure democratic control of services vital to the interests of the people they are intended to serve, the people of London. If the aim of the Bill is to secure rationalisation and control which will secure the best overall solution where there may be any conflict in regard to water undertakings and sewerage authorities, as I understand is the aim of Circular 92/71, then I believe that these Amendments fully satisfy that requirement. Here I would say that arguments that may apply in the rest of the country seem to me to have little relevance in the London conurbation.
Let us consider the London position a little further. First, the Greater London Council were set up in 1964 as the authority responsible for the strategic planning of the environment of London. The fundamental part of that environment is London's river, and London's river is the tidal estuary of the Thames, physically distinct from the inland river, with commercial, recreation, pollution and flood prevention problems different

395
from those of the inland Thames. The boundary is generally understood to lie somewhere about Teddington; indeed, the very name Teddington is said to derive from "tide ending town". The river has a port and is a commercial highway, a situation currently recognised by the division of responsibilities between the Port of London Authority and the Thames Conservancy. The scope for recreation and amenity development below Teddington weir is dominated by the rise and fall of the tides. It must also be integrated with the overall planning of London as a capital city and tourist centre. The action of the tides in a tidal estuary leads to the retention of pollution within the estuary, with special problems of sampling and analysis. Flood protection in a tidal estuary is primarily the problem of defence from tidal flows and can require solutions quite outside the range of experience of most river authorities. The Thames Barrier itself is a case in point.
The supply of water in London is overwhelmingly under a single organisation, and the growth of demand for water which is anticipated throughout the rest of the country as a whole is, it is estimated, unlikely to be reflected here in London because there is expectation of lack of growth, and even decline. I venture to submit that the G.L.C. are a natural choice to fill the role of a regional water authority because the Council have a primary responsibility as a strategic planning authority. They manage the best metropolitan main drainage service in the world and have demonstrated their ability in regard to a very large estuary-wide flood prevention scheme. The G.L.C. staff and the G.L.C. itself are firmly of the opinion that the Council ought to form the basis of a London Regional Water Authority for that part of the proposed Thames Water Authority area as falls below Teddington weir—that is the point as I have indicated where the inland Thames and the tidal estuary meet. The region would consist of the London-excluded area, with the addition of the catchments of the Lee, Roding, Ingrebourne, Darenth and Cray, and if this were done the remainder of the Thames Water Authority would still be as large, I believe, as the area now managed by the Thames Conservancy, com
396
parable in size and area to other regional authorities proposed in the Bill.
The Amendments propose that the Greater London Council shall be the water authority for those parts of the proposed Thames Water Authority's area to the East of the Thames Conservancy area and in exercising their functions as a water authority the Council would be known as the London Water Authority. A London Water Committee would be established by the Greater London Council to whom all matters relating to the discharge of the functions conferred on the London Water Authority by virtue of the Bill would stand referred. The Committee would consist of members appointed by the Greater London Council, the London Borough Councils, the Common Council of the City of London and other local authorities wthin the relevant area, the Secretary of State and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The new subsection (6) of Clause 14 would retain the present sewerage area of the G.L.C. as an entity within the new London Water Authority although it extends slightly into the Thames Conservancy area.
Amendments similar to those to which I have spoken were defeated by the narrowest of majorities—a majority of only one—when the Bill was at Committee stage in the other place. I venture to suggest that they do not represent a Party point of view. Indeed, I may say that before the G.L.C. elections I received a letter from Sir Desmond Plummer in which he made it perfectly clear that both Parties at County Hall were, as I think he put it, adamant in their opposition to this Bill, and if the result of the elections had been other than it was I should have taken exactly the same position as I take this afternoon. I believe that local democratic control of vital services which affect the people of London so directly is preferable to control by those who will be responsible to a Secretary of State.
I apologise if I have taken some considerable time in speaking to those Amendments, but they constitute quite a number and I hope that I have been able to put before the Committee, despite the time I have been on my feet, what must inevitably be a brief case in support of London's claim, and I think they are fully justified in looking to your Lordships to

397
ask the Government to have a second look at this matter. I think it would be very much in line with what it seems to me is occasionally a function and at times, also, a duty of your Lordships' House. I beg to move.
4 p.m.
LORD STOW HILL: My noble friend Lord Garnsworthy has deployed the case in favour of this series of Amendments so very cogently and with such an ample demonstration of argument, that I hesitate very much to take up more of your Lordships' time in support of these Amendments. If I venture to do so, it is because the subject matter is of such very great importance. It will decide for decades the future pattern, in large measure, of the role of the G.L.C. In its passage through Parliament, the issue has already aroused a great deal of anxiety not limited to any one Party. My noble friend reminded your Lordships of the result of the debate in another place, and for that reason I venture to intervene not, so far as I can avoid it, to repeat what my noble friend has already put so very fully and admirably, but possibly to supplement in some respects the arguments which he produced, in the hope that the Government will, nevertheless, take the matter back and give it some further thought.
Of course, broader issues than those which relate merely to the administration of water functions are involved. As my noble friend said, there is the status in general in our national life of the G.L.C., which was created as the environmental authority in 1964. It would be very sad if the London voters began to think that it was rather less worth while to go to the polls when the time came to vote on the membership of the G.L.C. But, as he has already said, the changes which are proposed by the Bill would lead to a reduction of some 15 per cent. in the personnel engaged in these functions. He might have added that if one also takes into account the proposed changes which will be introduced as the result of the recent Act about the National Health Service, the direct services rendered to the people of London by the G.L.C. will, if I understand the position correctly, be very nearly halved. If, in those circumstances, there was a gradual decline in the interest and in the enthusiasm of political and non-political Parties in the
398
work and in the role of the G.L.C., it really would be extremely serious. Once it has set in it is, of course, extremely difficult to arrest; it is a disease which, as it were, spreads. In my submission, the changes which are proposed bring some danger of that kind of tendency to show itself in our national life.
May I add to what my noble friend said in this sense? It so transpires that, as he said, nature has created what is really a very convenient area of division of the responsibility which might be allocated to the G.L.C. as the London Water Authority and to the rest of the Thames Authority which is one of those set up under Schedule 1. Teddington, as he reminded your Lordships, is in a sense the boundary and if one looks at the proposals in the Amendments as to the re-allocation of areas between the London Authority and the remainder of the Thames Authority, the division fits very conveniently with the natural circumstances of the Thames. Teddington ends the area of the river where there is a tidal flow. The problems of water above and below Teddington are different in character. London has a great international port and is a great international highway. That is a problem peculiar to London. I submit that these problems have to be considered in the context of the general position of London as a great international centre, particularly a tourist centre. That does not apply so much to the river above Teddington.
If your Lordships accepted the division of areas as between the new Authority which the Amendments would set up and the remaining area of the Thames which is the Thames Authority, which is set up under the Schedule, the remaining authority would still cater for the needs of some 3 million people. So that, on the one side, you would have the G.L.C. catering for London's population and the river below Teddington, and on the other side, you would have the Thames Authority remaining, which would still cater for some 3 million people above Teddington. Anxiety has already been expressed as to the very large responsibilities which the Bill would impose in terms of numbers of population and scope of authority on the Authorities which are set up in Schedule 1. Far and away the biggest of them is the Thames Authority which finds its place now in

399
that Schedule, and which, in effect, these Amendments would seek to divide into two. I submit that that is an important consideration. It makes for a much more tidy pattern and, the pattern at the moment is untidy. The Thames Board is unduly big and it is top-heavy. That is one aspect of the matter.
Another aspect of the matter is one which was again developed by my noble friend. It seems very unfortunate to take the existing achievements of the G.L.C., and the enormous organisational work that has gone to make that possible—the expert staff, the supporting services in the matter of finance, and the other expert services which can be brought to its assistance within the present framework of the G.L.C.—and to dismantle it. It seems such a pity, as it were, to arrest it in mid-stride. One knows, as my noble friend has again said, that the G.L.C. are concerned with the creation of the movable barrier to deal with Thames flooding. Is that again to be held up, as it were, by a change halfway? I do not say that it will be arrested, but the arrangements will be altered. It is that sort of general consideration which I would urge upon your Lordships, in support of a prayer to the Government that they once again give some thought to the question whether we are really acting unwisely in taking apart what started with the 1964 Act, and erecting in its place something which is in a sense, in the terms of this Bill, a little bit of a monstrosity. There will be this exceptionally large Thames Authority, with the responsibilities vested in it taken away from the G.L.C., put out of the scope of the voter in the G.L.C., removed from his practical sphere of interest as a voter. For what? The answer is really for very little.
If one looks at the Government's paper referring to disputes and conflicts of interest between various bodies at present responsible, it may be—and I am not arguing one way or the other at the moment, so far as that is concerned—that that is an ample justification in relation to authorities in the areas of the country. But because of the work that the G.L.C. has done and the general admiration which its achievement has won for itself, it surely cannot be said that those arguments have really any practical applica
400
tion in the case of the G.L.C. The groundwork for the changes proposed by the Bill, therefore, really are not found applicable to the particular problems which centre round the work of the river of London up to Teddington.
Those are the general reasons I should like to deploy in support of my noble friend's argument, and I hope that the Government will be able to say that they recognise that there is anxiety on all sides of both Houses. I cannot speak for your Lordships' Committee at the moment because noble Lords on the opposite side of the Committee have not yet spoken, but certainly in the other House, and I would have submitted certainly outside the Houses of Parliament, it would be thought a great pity to interfere with, and in large measure to dismantle, the direct services for which the people of London are at present indebted to the work of the G.L.C. in this particular field of activity, as in others. For those reasons, I beg to support the arguments presented by my noble friend in support of his Amendments.
LORD HENLEY: Perhaps I should say from these Benches that I and my noble friends really feel that we ought to resist London's attempt at a separatist movement. I think—and I believe my noble friends do, too—that the smallest possible number of these large multi-purpose regional water authorities is the right answer, and I see no reason to suppose that the Thames Authority is top heavy or too large. Nor do I see any reason to suppose that, because certain functions are taken away from the G.L.C. as a result of the formation of this new water authority, that will in any way discourage electors from thinking that they are running their own affairs. The Thames area is a sound hydrological area in the hydrological cycle, and I think that to take London out of it would be to diminish its value in that respect. I hope the Government will not in fact reconsider this decision.
4.11 p.m.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: Perhaps I may just add a thought on this technical side which the noble Lord, Lord Henley, was starting to develop, because this is essentially a technological Bill. The whole concept of it is to try to make the best management we can of the water in this country as we see our increasing

401
demands endangering our resources and, indeed, endangering an adequate supply for our domestic and industrial needs. I rather sympathise with some of the points that are being made from the Benches opposite: the Thames Water Authority is going to be a very big authority indeed—enormous. So far as the present administrative structure goes, with the Thames Conservancy above Teddington and the G.L.C. and the Metropolitan Water Board below, this has been a very happy relationship in which I have taken a part for many years, and in many ways I would have been very happy to see it continue. But one must look at the ever-increasing demand for water supply—and it will continue to increase in demand, I think I should say to the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, in spite of the diminishing population of London. Each year that goes by, the peak demand on the Metropolitan Water Board goes up, and it is quite evident that the increasing domestic demand in everybody's house and the increasing demands of industry are such that, even if there is some diminution of the total population in the London area, the overall demand will still continue to increase. So I have not much doubt that this will go on; and, indeed, one has to remember that through these channels flows quite an amount of supply going into South Essex, and that will increase as well.
So looking at this picture we have to see how we can get a sufficient supply to meet the needs of London; and I should say straight away that if we do have a really dry summer this year (which in many ways would be very attractive) there really is not sufficient water coming down the Thames and the Lea to meet the needs of London. The needs could only be met by reducing the statutory flow over Teddington Weir. As noble Lords will know, there is a statutory minimum of 170 million gallons a day, and this is a sort of safety valve for London's supply. That can be reduced by a Ministerial Order; and, indeed, there is a very carefully adjusted formula which is related to the supply of water which is lying in the reservoirs belonging to the Metropolitan Water Board. When that water falls to a certain level danger is in sight, and at that level this statutory flow has to be reduced. That can be done, and it could be done
402
even down to half that level, say to 70 million to 80 million gallons a day; but that is not particularly agreeable in this section of the river, because it means that there is not enough fresh water coming down the river in order to flush out this tidal estuary. Therefore, a certain amount of smell arises during the hot summer months. This could happen this year. The ground water flows are low as a result of an exceptionally dry winter and, therefore, unless we have certainly average, if not rather above average, rainfall during the summer months, we shall have to fall back on that emergency measure. So we arc already in danger, and no prudent Government could possibly go ahead on that basis. All the future provision must be to see that the supply of water for London and the South-East is progressively increased.
Now as soon as you look at that picture you are obliged to look not only at the River Thames as a whole but, indeed, at the supply of water in the country as a whole; at, possibly, as the noble Baroness mentioned earlier, a link with the Severn in the future rather than with the Wye in order to bring further supplies, possibly from the Welsh hills. The demand must be met from somewhere. The supplies are mainly in the West, and they have got to be brought to the East and brought down the natural channels. It just is not possible to manage satisfactorily the supply of water over such a big area, where the demand is so heavy as down here, unless the authority concerned covers as far as possible the area from the sources of supply are going to come. We are hopeful that, with the assistance of the ground water scheme now being developed, the Thames itself will be able to meet the requirements of London and the South-East for at least another decade or so, and possibly longer. But this general principle must be right: that, so far as possible, these new regional water authorities should have supply and demand in the same authority—and that, of course, is the concept here.
Now let me take this point one stage further, coming to the sewerage authority about which the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, spoke particularly cogently. I entirely agree with him that in the last 20 years the L.C.C. and the G.L.C. have done a tremendous job in improving the effluent from the London Sewage Works

403
and thus improving the quality of the water in the Thames Estuary. The result, of course, is that fish are now coming back, and in every way the environment is benefited. In some ways it would have been very attractive to say, "All right; accepting that the Metropolitan Water Board must, for good hydrological reasons, be brought in, could you not leave the sewerage authority out, with the G.L.C.?" The answer is that we may very well find within the course of the next 10 or 20 years that we shall wish to recirculate that sewage effluent, progressively further cleaned up. It is already very good, but it is going to be cleaner still as the years go by. We may well wish to recirculate it and bring it back into the river somewhere higher up, well above Teddington, so that it can be used again. This is one of the many schemes which is being examined now; and, therefore, it really is vital, especially in a river like the Thames, where there is already a large element of re-use, to bring this enormous volume of water which flows out in the effluents from the London Sewage Works under the same authority so that if in the future it is desirable to bring that in for further recirculation it can be managed by the same authority as is managing the whole of the water supply and the water reclamation for the river as a whole.
I would suggest that as soon as you look at this total hydrological picture, the total hydrological cycle of conservation, distribution and reclamation, the arguments for bringing London within the Thames Water Authority are very strong indeed. The question of reservoirs has not been mentioned but the reservoirs of the Metropolitan Water Board could be most effectively managed if managed in conjunction with the general management of rivers, and particularly the ground water scheme now being developed, so that the most economic use of water could be achieved. I should have thought in the light of this general picture that the Government have done the best they can in setting up a constitution which will give the Greater London Council a large number of the members on the new Thames Water Authority so that they are very fully represented there. This gives London, and rightly so, a major voice in the running of this proposed new regional water authority.
404
To my mind, that is about the best compromise you can make in order, on the one hand, to meet the hydrological needs and, on the other hand, to meet very properly London's very strong claim to play a major part in this picture.
LORD SANDFORD: I think it will be a great relief and comfort to the Committee to know that, following the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, we are now dealing in one debate with 24 of the 208 Amendments that lie before us. I am sure that that is the right thing to do. But I am afraid that I must follow my noble friend Lord Nugent and say, perhaps rather more strongly than he did, that this particular proposal can only be regarded as a reactionary and old-fashioned one, clinging to concepts of water management which, whatever merits they may have had in the past, are now almost universall regarded as distinctly passé. The present pattern of water services for London already reflects the unsuitability of the Greater London Council as a comprehensive water authority. Water supply is by the Metropolitan Water Board, a body distinct from the Greater London Council and covering a quite different area. Responsibility for sewerage and land drainage is certainly discharged by the Greater London Council. I would not deny, I would confirm, that they have done it most efficiently in the past; but that too is undertaken over a quite different area from the area which is the responsibility of the Greater London Council and each of the two areas is different from the other. Water resources and pollution control, two other functions of a modern future regional water authority, are not exercised by the Greater London Council but by the Thames Conservancy, the Lee Conservancy and the Port of London Authority; so, however well equipped the Greater London Council may be—and again I do not deny that they are—to deal with sewage, they are not equipped to deal with these other important functions of a regional water authority.
Furthermore, the Greater London Council proposals are quite unacceptable to other local authorities that are involved. The first proposal which the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, mentioned was put before the Committee in

405
another place—and if one realises that one realises that a majority of one is not all that small. It would have had the Greater London Council being responsible for the water supplies of Banbury in Oxfordshire and Cirencester in Gloucestershire. Although the second one, now put before us, is more moderate in the territorial claims that the G.L.C. are making, it still has the Borough of Luton and the town of Bishops Stortford in the Lee catchment area looking to the Greater London Council for water; and the proposal is totally unacceptably to them and to the Hertfordshire County Council.
We have to face the fact that the more the area concerned is truncated—and the Greater London Council have done that in their attempt to make the proposition more palatable—to make the scheme acceptable to Cirencester, Banbury, Luton, Bishops Stortford or the Hertfordshire County Council, the more nonsensical the proposition becomes in terms of the area really needed for a modern comprehensive management of water services; and the less self-sufficient, as my noble friend Lord Nugent has said, in resources the area becomes.
The effect would be that, splitting the Thames as this proposal would require to be done, would mean that reservoirs from which the greater part of London's water supply is derived, the rivers from which water is taken and the schemes to augment these supplies would all be the responsibility of a second powerful authority, the Thames Water Authority whose primary duty would be the efficient provision of water services within their own area and not within the area of the Greater London Council.
But there is no denying the fact, and the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, was right to stress it, that the capital City of London is unique in a lot of ways, and not least its enormous size and that its need for water is imperious. But London is not unlike all other cities, as I think he was claiming, in the way in which it draws its water supplies. Like almost every other city, it draws its supplies from a river basin. That being so, I would claim that it has to be regarded in the same way as any other city. But its special position has to be
406
recognised—and I would claim that it has been recognised in the following three ways: the Greater London Council and the London Boroughs Association between them have a clear and substantial majority over all other interests in the Thames Water Authority—36 or so seats out of 52; the Greater London Council and the London boroughs retain their present responsibility for land drainage and flood protection, and the Greater London Council retains its present responsibility for the great Thames flood barrier. There is now no proposal to transfer those functions after 1980. Furthermore, since the Bill was first introduced and in response to the special claim for London put forward by the Greater London Council, the Greater London Council will now be responsible for the recreational and amenity aspects of all the water in the Thames over all the Greater London Council area. That proposition will be embodied in a Government Amendment in a new clause after Clause 23.
To sum up the Government's attitude to this, I would suggest that the Greater London Council's future in water does not lie in a truncated, half-baked sphere which it will dominate and which it will call its own, but rather in the larger by far more natural area of the river basin of the Thames and its tributaries. It will be heir there to all the great traditions of the Thames Conservancy and much more besides, the authority on which it has always (and will always) depend for its water supplies and in the affairs of which it can command as powerful an influence as its unique position requires; and to which it can make a notable contribution from the present experience and skills in one or two fields of the Thames Water Authority of the future. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, and his noble friends will with that explanation come to see that this is much more promising as well as more apt a future role for the Greater London Council and the London boroughs and that he will not feel it necessary to press his Amendment.
4.30 p.m.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: I am grateful to the Minister for the care he has taken in replying to the case advanced from this side of the Committee. I should like to thank my noble and learned

407
friend Lord Stow Hill for his powerful support and to say to the noble Lord, Lord Henley, in respect of his powerful intervention, that what he had to say deals with any suggestion of community participation, when it comes down to brass tacks.
LORD HENLEY: No. I think that if the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, had been listening to the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, he would have realised exactly how participation was to take place. It seemed to me that the participation that Lord Sandford was suggesting with regard to London was very much better than the kind of participation that Lord Garnsworthy was suggesting, which could kill the thing stone dead.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: We may be able to return to that point presently. I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Henley, has got it quite right. He may have interpreted Lord Sandford's remarks in a way that pleases the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, but I must say that I wish that he had himself developed his case a little more, as the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, suggested that he expected him to do. I have paid tribute before to the work of the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, in connection with Thames Conservancy. The noble Lord speaks from a very considerable experience. He speaks very persuasively and I only wish that he were on this side of the Committee, because I am quite sure that he could argue as persuasively in support of my Amendments as he has argued against them.
To return immediately to this question of community participation, I think I am right in saying that, of a total of 52 representatives on the Regional Water Authority, there will be only 20 for London; 10 for the Greater London Council and 10 for the London boroughs. It will be interesting to see what is the attitude of the Committee with regard to a later Amendment about the ability of regional water authorities to elect their own chairmen. That may carry the matter a little further. When the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, referred to these proposals as "old-fashioned and reactionary" he was not rendering the acknow
408
ledgement which I think is due to the people on both sides of the Chamber at County Hall. I do not think there is any question of their being old-fashioned and reactionary.
We shall return to this matter later unless the Committee decide to accept these Amendments and the Government decide to allow them to stand. Far from having heard the last of the argument, I am convinced that in the years to come local government will demand a much greater say than it has been given in respect of such services as this. This is not the last scheme of reorganisation that we shall witness. If the G.L.C. has any claim to your Lordships' attention I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, to bear in mind that they are making a claim based on proven ability and on practical achievements in so many fields. The noble Lord confirmed that they had done a good job. But for him to indicate that they could not be entrusted to continue with the work that they have been doing, or undertake the responsibilities they seek is, I think, to underestimate the role they are capable of playing. I think that we have a duty to the people of London to divide on this Amendment because it is the only one of the series to which I shall be speaking. I think it right and proper that the Committee should indicate its view, whatever it may be, so that it is on the Record and the people of London will know.
LORD SANDFORD: Before the Question is put, I wonder whether I may put the Record straight. I think that, inadvertently, I gave wrong figures about representation on the Water Authority. The G.L.C. and the London boroughs as the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, said, have 10 members each, which itself is a majority among all other local authorities. The number will amount to 36, and they have a majority over all others.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: I thank the noble Lord for saying that. He has made it perfectly clear that the G.L.C. and the London boroughs together will have 20 out of 52 seats. To suggest that they will have a majority of local government representatives does not, I think, affect the issue very much so far as London is concerned.
4.36 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendmnt (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
4.40 p.m.
LORD SANDFORD LORD SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 3, line 7, leave out from ("the") to ("and") in line ll and insert ("existing areas described in column 2 of Schedule I to this Act (being, in general, areas established for the purposes of functions relating to water resources or land drainage)").
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 41; Not-Contents, 100.

CONTENTS

Archibald, L.

Faringdon, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Arwyn. L.

Gaitskell, B.

Serota, B.

Bernstein, L.

Gardiner, L.

Shepherd, L.

Beswick, L.

Garnsworthy, L. [Teller]

Shinwell, L.

Blyton, L.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Slater, L.

Brockway. L.

Hale, L.

Snow, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Henderson, L.

Stow Hill, L.

Burntwood, L.

Jacques, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Lindsay of Birker, L.

Summerskill, B.

Champion, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B. [Teller]

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Chorley, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Collison, L.

Nunburnholme, L.

White, B.

Davies of Leek, L.

Phillips, B.

Winterbottom, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Rhodes, L.

Wright of Ashton under Lyne, L.

NON-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Eccles, V.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Airedale, L.

Effingham, E.

Ogmore, L.

Allerton, L.

Emmet of Amberley, B.

Platt, L.

Alport, L.

Ferrers, E.

Rankeillour, L.

Amherst, E.

Gowrie. E.

Reay, L.

Amory, V.

Grenfell, L.

Redcliffe-Maud, L.

Amulree, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Reigate, L.

Auckland, L.

Hailes, L.

Ridley, V.

Aylesford, E

Hanworth, V.

Rochdale, V.

Balfour, E.

Harvey of Prestbury, L

Rockley, L.

Berkeley, B.

Henley, L.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Bessborough, E.

Hood, V.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Bridgeman, V.

Hurcomb, L.

St. Helens, L.

Byers, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Sandford, L.

Carrington, L.

Ingleby, V.

Sempill, Ly.

Cawley. L.

Inglewood, L.

Shannon, E.

Chelmer, L.

Jessel, L.

Sinclair of Cleeve, L.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Killearn, L.

Somers, L.

Coleraine, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Stamp, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Kinnaird, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Conesford, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Congleton, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Strathspey, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Lonsdale, E.

Swaythling, L.

Courtown, E.

Lothian, M.

Teviot, L.

Craigavon, V.

Loudoun, C.

Thomas, L.

Daventry, V.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Davidson, V.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, B.

de Clifford, L.

Merrivale, L

Vivian, L.

De Ramsey, L.

Milverton, L.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Denham, L. [Teller]

Monck, V.

Windlesham, L. (L. Privy Seal.)

Derwent, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L. [Teller]

Wise, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Wolverton, L.

Dundonald, E.

Northchurch, B.

Young, B.

Ebbisham, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

The noble Lord said: On behalf of my noble friend Lady Young, I beg to
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 41; Not-Contents, 100.
move Amendment No. 2, and I would suggest that it might be for the convenience of the Committee if together with that we discuss Amendments Nos. 3 and 4. The purpose of these three Amendments is to make it clear that the areas within which water authorities will exercise their functions are the areas described in column 2 of Schedule 1 in the form in which those areas exist immediately prior to Royal Assent. But if between Royal Assent and April 1, 1974, any of those areas is altered under or in consequence

411
of the exercise of powers conferred on Ministers by another enactment, such as the Water Resources Act 1963, which enables the Ministers by Order to alter the boundaries of river authority areas, then the water authority area will be the area described in column 2 of Schedule 1 as altered prior to April 1, 1974. The date of April 1, 1974, is relevant because all the river authority areas and the Thames and Lee Catchment areas will cease to exist immediately before April 1, 1974.
The water authorities will have certain functions of a preparatory nature to perform between Royal Assent and April 1, 1974, and it is therefore necessary to describe the areas as they exist at Royal Assent, as well as to anticipate any altertion of the river authority areas or catchment areas which may occur between Royal Assent and April 1, 1974. I think the Committee will see that these three Amendments amount to little more than technical improvements. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD SANDFORD: I beg to move Amendment No. 3.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 13. after first ("the") insert ("existing").—(Lord Sandford.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD SANDFORD: I beg to move Amendment No. 4.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 15, at end insert—
("In this subsection any reference to an existing area is a reference to that area as existing immediately before the passing of this Act, except that in the case of an area which is altered after the passing of this Act under any enactment other than this section. it is a reference to the altered area.")—(Lord Sandford.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 2, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
4.50 p.m.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: May I take this opportunity of mentioning the Severn and Trent River Authority, on which I have down two Amendments, Nos. 78 and 79 in Schedule 1. By doing so, not only shall I save two Amendments, which is less than Lord Garnsworthy's 24, but I
412
think it might be for the convenience of the Committee, because my objective in moving these Amendments is to increase the efficiency of local government representation in the water sphere, a matter to which I know my noble friends Lord Ridley and Lord Amory will be referring.
I am sorry that I was not present for the Second Reading. 1 know how sorry my noble friend Lord Sandys is that he cannot be here to-day to support me—he is the President of this year's Three Counties Show. My first point is a perfectly simple one. The framers of the Bill, though realising that the Trent-Severn Authority is on the large side, were nevertheless convinced that the technical considerations outweighed any resulting disadvantages. My own contention is that the reverse is the case. This contention, I know, is supported by my own county council of Shropshire, the Trent River Board and also the County Councils' Association. My noble friend will be speaking for them. I do not mean to go into any detail on technical points, because they were thoroughly canvassed in another place in the Standing Committee on March 15. There the Minister rested his case for this very large board on two considerations. The first was that if the West Midlands conurbation was split, waterwise, the utmost confusion would result. The second was a more technical point, because the first, though described as technical, was really an administrative one. The second point was that the Trent area depended for a great deal of their area on the water that comes from the Severn—or, to put it round the other way, a lot of Severn water goes into the Trent in the form of sewage. There the matter was left in another place after an honourable gentleman—and I paraphrase his words—had said that technical considerations should be subordinated to the needs of people. My honourable friend agreed to have the matter looked into again; but nothing more happened in another place.
I was very sorry to read in Hansard that on Second Reading my noble friend Lord Sandford gave no reason to suppose that any consideration on this point has taken place in the Ministry. He said that the pattern had been dictated by acute and urgent technical problems, problems of the kind I have mentioned.

413
So here we have the disputed territory. Ministers, no doubt on the advice of their experts, take the view that technical considerations outweigh wider ones. Others, including many noble Lords experienced in local government, take the opposite view.
With all respect to technicians, I have always thought that anybody with any experience of management at all knows that when it is suggested that the technicians govern policy you have seen the amber light. There is a proverb—I do not know who invented it—that the difficult can be done at once but the impossible takes a little longer. None of us is terribly keen on having technical arguments given to us. We never are, especially when we are told that British trains or British aircraft cannot start because of technical hitches; and a technical argument is very apt to be a "joker" when it is given to those who cannot understand it. There is a story that Marshall Foch was once dealing with what I suppose one might call a pride of technicians, and when he gave an opinion he was asked what right he had to give any opinion in such a technical atmosphere. To that he replied that he was the technician of general ideas: "Je suis le technicien des ideés getter-ales." I hope that Hansard will do better with my French than with the Greek of my noble friend Lord Amory.
The price of accepting a technical argument in this instance will be a high one, because, whatever may be said in theory, in practice anybody who has had any experience of finding the right people to man these boards and taking the time —not talking but travelling—knows that in the end, whatever may be set up on paper, in practice no one will have any control over the chief engineer of the board. If that is what the Government really want, all well and good; but I do not know whether it is what this House wants. I feel that this is a matter which has to be taken in conjunction with the arguments which I know my noble friends Lord Amory and Lord Ridley will be putting forward, to make sure that when this Bill is passed the position of local government and of local government representatives on this Board will really be effective. At the moment, I very much doubt that it is.
414
It might be said that this is only a question of degree—that all the boards are big and that this happens to be just a little bigger than the others. That is a lovely Whitehall argument, but against that one can always say that a line has to be drawn somewhere. In my opinion, and in the opinion of those I have consulted, the Board is far too big to make sense; that a line ought to be drawn in such a way as to exclude this, and that the technicians and administrators should be made to give a very much harder look at this before we are asked to accept such an enormously large area going from the Humber and not merely to the Welsh Border—I see the noble Baroness opposite, and I know she is not entirely happy about this either—but entirely beyond it.
I hope your Lordships will forgive me for having put forward these considerations at this stage of the Bill. I hope that what I have said will assist my noble friend on the Front Bench to look at this matter again between now and the Report stage, and to see whether something cannot be done to improve the present position.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, it gives me great pleasure indeed to stand up and support the noble Lord opposite who has just spoken. I will be brief and, I hope, cogent. I have a split loyalty between Wales and the Trent River Authority, and the one thing I am worried about with all modern legislation —and it has been growing with all Parties and all Governments—is that they worship size and believe that the bigger area you get, the greater the efficiency. I am quite sure we are losing the personal touch.
I was delighted to hear the noble Lord say that he would look at this with regard to the people who can give a service to this wide area from Bristol to the Humber. We are going to have a huge area. I have been going through all this background on water reorganisation. I have read it all very carefully, and it smacks of future shock: the apotheosis of human technology at the expense of the human being. We are losing something of devoted service in this bigness. We are told that the people concerned (who will have to earn their living) will get expenses. But in this case. in such a large

415
area, it will mean a night, or perhaps two nights, away from home so as to give service to both the Severn and the Trent areas. Like the noble Lord opposite, I have read through both volumes of the proceedings of the Committee stage upstairs, and certainly the technical details were gone through thoroughly. I know that the officials and the Government have looked at those technical details. Consequently, it would be wrong of me to bore the Committee by being repetitive.
All I wanted to do was to add my voice to that of the noble Lord, in the hope that another look will be taken at this. I assure the noble Lords speaking from the opposite Benches that when a constructive opportunity arises I shall try at each juncture of this Bill, where appropriate, to get this point across. I beg the House to look again at this huge water authority. I know the Trent Authority and the Severn Authority and I know the good work that they have done. Are we gaining by this massive geographical expansion? I think not. I am grateful that the opportunity was taken on the Motion, That the clause shall stand part of the Bill for a little constructive and, I hope, human approach to this problem.
VISCOUNT AMORY: I hope my noble friend, when he comes to reply, will attach great weight to the case my noble friend Lord Bridgeman has made. I should like to add to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, from the point of view of the lay members of this body. The technicians will no doubt manage to grapple with an area of this size because that is their special role, particularly on paper. But when it comes to the lay members, I think it is asking too much of them to know such an area really well. In practical terms, the time spent in travelling and having to spend the night away from home, as the noble Lord said, will militate against the efficiency of this huge area. I hope that my noble friend will satisfy us further than he has at present that it is absolutely essential. I hope very much that it can be split into two.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: As I spoke at the Second Reading, I want to add support to my noble friend Lord Bridgeman.
416
I am sure that this is much too big an authority. There is the argument as to the position of Birmingham, which is between two river valleys. Presumably that is not an easy one to solve. I do not think that is an argument which stops one making two smaller authorities. I feel more strongly now than I did on Second Reading that we ought to think again about this matter.
LORD HENLEY: I hope it will not be forgotten that the whole point of having these large regional water authorities is to make use of modern technological hydrocycles.
LORD INGLEWOOD: May I ask for an explanation on two small points? Am I right in assuming from subsection (4) that there will be a separate order for establishing each authority? I think that is the right way to read the subsection. Subsection (5) reads:
"The Ministers may by order change the name of any water authority or alter the boundaries of a water authority area for the purposes of any functions specified in the order."
Does that mean that if certain functions under this Bill are to be carried out by one authority, and there is difficulty for geographical or other reasons, they could be transferred to a neighbouring authority for administrative purposes? If not, could my noble friend say what it means?
May I reinforce the pleas from both sides of the House that the boundaries of these authorities should not be so great that the lay members will have great difficulty in carrying out their functions. I have looked at the dimensions of the authority proposed for the North-West of England. It is 150 miles from North to South. Reference has been made to spending one or two evenings a week away from home. If a lay member lives in the North of the area he will be expected frequently to travel not necessarily to the far extremity, but maybe the middle of the area, and not spend one or two evenings a week away but spending nights away from home. That means that a great many people—particularly the mothers of families—will not be able to accept office on these authorities. A great deal more responsibility will in the end rest with the engineers and other officials than I am sure Parliament thinks is ultimately for the nation's good.
BARONESS WHITE: What has now occurred strengthens the point I made earlier on about difficulty in not discussing the Schedules in their due place. We are now faced with a discussion on an exceedingly important point on the Motion, That the Clause shall stand part of the Bill, which means that even if it wishes to do so the Committee can hardly come to a sensible decision on the matter. The noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, said that he hoped his noble friend would think again; but the trouble is that if the Committee does not make itself felt by coming to some conclusion on an important and specific point of this kind, the chances of the noble Lord think ing again are somewhat remote. I say this because of the kind of discussion which went on in another place.
This is a specific and crucial issue in this Bill—whether or not the Committee is of the view that we are justified in including in legislation a water authority of the dimensions of the proposed Severn-Trent Authority. I know very well that among the people concerned on the technical aspects of the matter, as the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, and others have said, there is virtual unanimity that they want the largest authorities possible. But the logical deduction from that is that one ought to have a national water authority, because there are no logical divisions between these different water authorities. The fact that one takes water from one area into another means that in a sense every one of these authorities is artificial. It is the totality of the system which counts.
The noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, was right in saying that the trouble over this particular area is the Birmingham conurbation and where it comes. We recognise that this is a genuine difficulty. Against that, I feel strongly that one must look at the working of a water authority, and of the persons who will be composing this authority. I have the strongest sympathy with the point made from all quarters of the House that it will be extraordinarily difficult, however conscientious they may be, for the individual members of these authorities to do their jobs adequately.
I should like to remind your Lordships that under the proposal with the Severn-Trent Authority a large area of mid
418
Wales is going to be included—the Severn Catchment Area. One member of the Severn-Trent Authority will be appointed by the Secretary of State for Wales; one will be nominated by the new Powys County Council; one will be appointed by the district composing the area of that county. None of us can tell where the Secretary of State for Wales's nominee might live. He might not even live within the cachment area; he might live in an even more remote part of Wales. If he was someone with particular knowledge in matters of water supply it would be perfectly open and very proper for the Secretary of State for Wales to appoint someone as his nominee who, for example, might live in Milford Haven. The others, presumably, would live within the County of Powys. That, as we said on Second Reading, stretches a little further than Llanidlocs. Anyone who knows the conditions of motoring, let alone the rail service, in that part of the world, will appreciate that this is going to be a very difficult matter indeed.
On grounds of good sense as to the way in which the proposed river authority may do its work there is a strong case for reconsideration. I fully understand the technological arguments and the way in which those who are concerned with this business of moving water feel that they would like to have no boundaries at all. But we are discussing a body which has to run these things. With great respect, I do not entirely agree with my noble friend Lord Davies of Leek about the personal touch. Where you are dealing with water, I do not think the personal touch, in one sense of that word, comes into it very much except in the field of recreation and amenity where it matters very much indeed. The rest of the operation is largely one where the general public, so long as it gets good water and adequate sewage, does not need as much influence as it does in some other directions of life. The lay members, as the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, said, are another matter altogether. It is largely on this question of proper management that we feel strongly disposed to support the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, in what I had hoped would be an Amendment to a Schedule; but as it has turned out this is a discussion on "clause stand part" and, as we would not wish to throw out

419
the entire clause, this rather deprives us of an opportunity of voting on it.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: May I point out to my noble friend that she kindly uttered that she did not think the "personal touch" came in with water, but I am sure she has been approached and lobbied by masses of people who were afraid of fluoride being put into their water. If she were in Maindee, where somebody has been putting poisonous water in a quarry, my noble friend would find that all round that valley the "personal touch" in water is most important at the moment. Water being the staff of life, with bread, I think the personal touch comes first and foremost.
BARONESS WHITE: I must grant my noble friend the point about Maindee.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: If we had been on Report stage I should have agreed with every word that the noble Baroness has said, but we are on Committee stage and I hope very much that it will be possible for discussion to take place between now and the Report stage. I am not saying now whether or not I shall put down another Amendment, or what I shall do if I put one down.
5.12 p.m.
LORD SANDFORD: The first thing I should like to do is to join with the noble Baroness, Lady White, and hope very much that the Committee will not through some inadvertence move out Clause 2 of the Bill, because we should then be in some difficulty. I hope my noble friend will therefore wait for some other, future occasion. I agree it has been useful to have this discussion. The whole subject certainly merits discussion and it has been convenient to have this discussion now. I wonder whether, before I enter it, I might just deal with the rather different points which were raised by my noble friend Lord Inglewood, which will enable us to put them to one side. The answer to the first part of his question is, yes, there will be separate Orders establishing each authority. On the second question, there will be slightly different areas for different purposes, but he will find there is provision for rationalisation at Clause 7. As to distance, these authorities are much larger than local government authorities
420
but nobody will be required to travel any further than the noble Lord himself does in order to come and grace our debates here.
LORD INGLEWOOD: The noble Lord will surely concede that that is an utterly and totally different problem. If Members of this House attempt to attend it regularly they make it, as it were, almost a profession. But we are asking county councillors and people who serve their county in many different ways to take on a job which is in many cases almost impossible.
LORD SANDFORD: My noble friend Lord Ridley behind me, and my noble friend Lord Ingleby on my right, are both examples of the fact that it is possible to combine local government and Parliamentary service at one and the same time.
To turn to the question of the Severn and Trent in particular, which was raised by my noble friend Lord Bridgeman, of course here we are dealing with something which is unique in that this Authority combines two separate river basins, and this is what has provoked the doubt and uncertainty as to whether it is really sensible to do it. It involves the Trent draining into the Humber and the Severn draining into the Bristol Channel. But in drawing up these boundaries, as well as giving prime consideration to the natural features which have produced the river basin, we have to take into account the pattern of human development—that is what the noble Lord, Lord Gams-worthy, was doing in Amendment 1—and the pattern has reflected that. But when we do it here we must come to the conclusion that the two river basins are inextricably linked together. In terms of population, in terms of actual or potential pollution, the whole of the proposed region is dominated by the West Midlands conurbation, and we cannot get away from that fact. Wherever possible it certainly is right that the responsibility for water services within a single major conurbation should lie with a single water authority, and this has been achieved in every other case. But we, again, were faced with the facts of geography, that the watershed between the Trent and the Severn runs right through the middle of the West Midlands conurbation, and it

421
could not possibly therefore produce a boundary that made sense in terms of the planning and development of that conurbation to split the two river authorities. This explains why the local authorities in the West Midlands do not object to the Government's proposal.
Moreover, the West Midlands draws large and increasing quantities of water from the West and discharges them into the Trent. Separating the Trent and the Severn could not make sense in that neither would then be self-sufficient; it would still be necessary for one authority to supply another to a large extent. The Trent basin, for instance, contains not only Birmingham but Leicester, Nottingham, Derby, all with a great and increasing demand for water; and it is not self-sufficient in water resources now and it would become less so in the future, and it must look to the Severn for supplies. So it would not therefore meet one of the other criteria for water authority areas: that they should be self-sufficient. In contrast, however, a Severn-Trent Authority will be reasonably self-sufficient and in addition will be able to take account of the opportunities for optimisation (to use the technical word) offered by the combination of a large clean river with a large and rather dirty river. So in terms of water management—and I would agree with my noble friend Lord Nugent that this is what we have to consider all along in this Bill—there is indeed a very strong case for the Severn-Trent Authority. I think the argument that my noble friend and others are putting forward is that the area is large, geographically big. This is in fact an optical illusion because it will not be the largest authority. It is not the largest authority in terms of population; the Thames is much larger. It is not the larger geographically; the Anglian Authority is larger.
BARONESS WHITE: May I take the Minister up on that point? When he says "larger" he may be thinking of total area, but what about the maximum linear measurement from edge to edge?
LORD SANDFORD: I daresay that on maximum linear measurement Lady White may have it.
BARONESS WHITE: I am sure I have.
LORD SANDFORD: With no disrespect: that could have been much bet
422
ter put. The fact of the matter is that we are dealing here with technical and geographical problems and it is they that dictate the two linked river basins. It really is much more than the technical people involved wanting this as a convenient solution. Nevertheless, the Government have borne in mind the considerations which my noble friend has been putting to the Committee and, so far as possible, have responded to them. Two quite significant alterations have been made to the proposition as it was first put forward. First of all, North Lincolnshire, which was originally to have been administered by the Severn-Trent Authority, will now be administered by the Anglian Authority; and secondly, the Government propose that an area on Severnside which is at present part of the Severn River Authority should be transferred at least for most purposes to the Wessex Water Authority. These changes at the extremities of the Severn-Trent area will mean that this authority will no longer have to concern itself with services in the Bristol area.
I would put it to the Committee that what is now left is a thoroughly rational and sensible area dictated by the geography and the population and the natural features of the area, albeit a large one. There is admittedly the further point that a number of the new counties will have to be represented on the Severn-Trent Authority, thus producing a relatively large total membership, but the Government have weighed this also and consider that it is acceptable in view of the other considerations.
All the factors which have been put forward in this short debate have been weighed and the Government have been able to respond to them, but I must tell the Committee that I think the Government have gone as far as it is possible to go while still leaving the authority responsible for an area which is sensible from all points of view (for regional water authorities have to be sensible) and taking into account all the factors which apply.
BARONESS WHITE: Before the noble Lord sits down can he tell us whether there is any possibility of the Government accepting later on an Amendment that there should be a special helicopter allowance for members of this authority?
LORD SANDFORD: That, so far as I know, is a new proposition, but we will consider it.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3 [Members of water authorities]:
5.22 p.m.
LORD GARNSWORTHY LORD GARNSWORTHY moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 4, leave out line 5.
The noble Lord said: In moving this Amendment I might say that Amendments Nos. 12, 88, 96, 97, 100, 102, 112 and 113 all follow and will be necessary if your Lordships decide to accept this Amendment. This clause deals with the appointment of members to water authorities, and the Amendment itself deals with subsection (1)(a) which lays down that the chairmen of regional water authorities shall be appointed by the Secretary of State. The Amendment would remove this unsatisfactory and, if I may say so, somewhat autocratic proposal, and the other Amendments would ensure that the chairmen would be elected by the members of the authorities.
I acknowledge that the Government have made some concession to local authorities in that the clause provides that the total number of members appointed by the Secretary of State and the Minister is less than the number of those appointed by local authorities. But that could be a bare majority only, and in any case they will have to sit under a chairman chosen by the Secretary of State. I hope that it is not to be taken as demonstrating the lack of confidence that exists in the ability of the persons to be appointed to choose wisely. I can think of few proposals more calculated to show that whatever the members think the man in Whitehall knows best. Clearly it is intended, while making a gesture to local government, that strong centralised control of these bodies will in practice be exercised by the Secretary of State and his Department—a Department which is not always as flexible and understanding as one might wish. What we need are chairmen who will be responsive to the views and the advice of colleagues; people who have their ears to the ground and who are aware of public feeling and capable of representing at higher level the opinions held by the public. Indeed,
424
what I am proposing is that regional water authorities should elect their own chairmen. This would ensure that there would be on the National Water Council spokesmen of the regional water authorities, some of them likely to be elected by them and therefore possessing their confidence, which would be a distinct advantage.
I think we all know that when chairmen are appointed by a Secretary of State there is a strong tendency to get someone whose loyalty will be to his Departmental boss rather than to those who should be his colleagues, and here we are dealing with services which are not likely to arouse strong political feeling.
I can appreciate that it is thought desirable that the Secretary of State, and indeed the Minister, should have someone on the authority who can represent Departmental views, but that is surely met by the provisions in paragraph (a) and (b) of subsection (1). With bodies covering such huge areas as are here proposed, and the travelling problems thus presented for the generality of members who have other interests and duties to attend to, it is inevitable that the meetings of any such authority will be fairly widely spread. Control of the effective day-to-day running of the authority must therefore be left largely in the hands of the chairman and the chief executive. If, as the Bill proposes. the chairman is the appointee of the Secretary of State in every case, this indeed keeps the hand of Whitehall in firm control and is bound to generate feelings of frustration among the local authority appointees and doubts as to whether they are playing a worthwhile and significant role.
Accordingly, the Amendments I propose seek to ensure that each water authority and each regional land drainage committee will elect their own chairmen on the same lines as the chairmen of local authorities under the Local Government Act 1972, except of course that the water authority chairmen could be appointed for up to four years under the terms of the Amendment whereas the local authority chairmen are elected annually. If these Amendments are accepted it will still remain possible (and even probable in some cases) that a Ministerial

425
appointee will become chairman of any particular water authority, but at least the door to the most vital and rewarding task will not he shut on experienced and capable local authority appointees. I suggest that if the Bill is amended to allow the water authorities and the regional land drainage committees (for the same reason arises) to elect their own chairmen the possibility, indeed the very strong likelihood, is that it will attract from the field of local government men and women of the highest possible calibre.
In another place on Committee stage an Amendment along similar lines was accepted by 11 votes to 5—a very substantial majority—but that decision was reversed by the Government at Report stage. This is an instance where, having regard to what happened in Committee in another place, this House, with advantage, should say that the matter should be looked at again. I beg to move Amendment No. 9.
LORD MERRIVALE: I hope my noble friend will resist this Amendment. Already, as the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, said, any such Order shall be so framed that the total number of members of a regional water authority appointed by the Secretary of State and the Minister is less than the number of those appointed by the local authorities. Initially the Department of the Environment envisage that the regional water authorities should, first, be compact, managerial-type boards and, secondly, that local authorities should enjoy substantial representation, but that this representation should not constitute a majority. This original concept, which would have seemed to be effective management, has now given way to large or representational-type organisations, with such organisations having, as I said earlier, a local government majority.
It seems to me that the two noble Lords who have put their names down to this Amendment want the Government to go still further in this process of reducing effectiveness by allowing the regional water authorities to elect their own chairmen. It seems to me, and it is I suppose a truism, that the Secretary of State is ultimately responsible for the carrying out, or implementation, of this Bill when it becomes an Act. Therefore, is it not right that he should retain the
426
power to nominate chairmen, who have to be carefully selected? One of the essential points in considering this Amendment is that the chairmen should be carefully selected. That is why my preference goes to the Secretary of State to be in the position to do so. I should have thought it was self-evident and essential that the men who will be the chairmen of these authorities should be chosen because of their experience, knowledge and impartiality. Their top management and administrative skills must be of the highest order, especially if one considers the size of some of these authorities. Mention has been made that in certain cases some of these authorities will have 40 to 50 members. Not every one is a born chairman, and that is why I should have thought that a very effective selective process, as I mentioned before, is essential. May I also add that if one wishes to attract men of the right calibre for the chairmanship, then surely it must be a full-time post with adequate financial remuneration. On that aspect, perhaps my noble friend Lord Sandford can give the House an assurance.
I believe I am right in saying that Government spokesmen in the past have estimated the annual investment of the water industry for post-1974 to be of the order of £300 million and the revenue account to be around £350 million. We are considering, therefore, a highly important industry which must contain a high proportion of managerial skills in the authorities: in other words, men with a knowledge also of water management problems.
Finally, in view of the importance of the industrial use of water (and one should stress that the industrial user is the single most important user in this country) I trust that my noble friend will be able to assure the House that some of the members—and perhaps this could be done under Clause 3(1)(c—will be appointed for their expertise in and experience of industrial water problems. The regional water authorities must surely suffer if industry is insufficiently strongly represented in that respect.
5.34 p.m.
LORD WOLVERTON: I should like to support this Amendment because I spoke on this matter on Second Reading and, having served on a local authority, a

427
county council, for nine years, I am sure that if local authorities are allowed to have control in numbers on these new regional water authorities then it is right that they should be allowed to elect their own chairmen. They are going to send to serve on these water authorities only men and women of great experience and will choose them very carefully. It is only democratic these days that a Board should he allowed to elect its own chairman and not have one imposed on them by the Minister. The Minister has ultimate control. I am very sorry to have to disagree with my noble friend here, but I am sure that that arrangement will work better.
It was said in another place that the only persons who would be paid would be the chairmen of these new Boards and that probably it would be about a threeday-a-week whole-time job. It was not considered by the Under-Secretary, from what I understood at the Committee stage, that it would be a whole-time job. I strongly support this Amendment, because when we were debating the Bill on the reorganisation of Local Government last year, it was stressed by the Government, and also by the noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud, the Chairman of the Royal Commission, that we must strengthen local government. Bit by bit local government is being eroded. We are now taking away large sections of the Health Service; we are taking away large sections of the water and sewage services—and I supported that move as probably being right although I thought that sewage should be given back to the local authorities to run on an agency basis under the supervision of local authorities. But I strongly support this Amendment and hope that Her Majesty's Government will accept it.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: This is a sad comment on our Parliamentary practice over this last couple of years. It is one which is growing, so I am not putting the burden on any one political Party, but it is no wonder that Parliamentary authority is being eroded in Britain. I shall not go into any pet hobbies of mine about the erosion of the authority of this Parliament, but let me give a concrete example in support of my noble friend's Amendment from this side of the House, but without any Party bias whatsoever. We
428
have had example after example in the short period I have been in this House and after about 30 or 40 years in general politics and 26 or 27 years in the other place. The County Councils' Association, the Association of Municipal Corporations, the Urban District Councils' Association and the Rural District Councils' Association write in their professional journals and in local government journals; they lobby the other place and they lobby this House; they give the result of their experience and know-how in local government without political bias—irrespective of what my Party political bias has been over the years—and they add their experience to advise Members of both Houses in efforts to get constructive Amendments to very important Bills like this one. And what do we find? The only major concession to local government views which the Government have introduced in this Bill—and they did not change anything in the Common Market Bill, not one comma, but they have made concessions in this Bill; I had to get that point in, and I apologise—is the provision to give local authority representatives a majority.
I have the figures although I shall not bore the House with them. This is an informed House and it knows them. The matter has been discussed at length. The Minister has been approached. Standing Committee D, particularly during the ninth sitting on March 20 on an Amendment to guarantee local authority members a majority of at least three, despite an undertaking by Mr. Eldon Griffiths to consider the matter further, divided and the Amendment was lost only on the casting vote of the Chairman. Since then further discussions have taken place between representatives of the associations, including the Greater London Council and representatives of the Department, when the associations urged strongly that the number of local authority appointments should be increased to ensure stronger local government representation. So far, the Government have been unwilling to meet that point. And now, on this matter of the appointment of chairmen of the regional water authorities in Clause 3, the view of the associations was considered and an improvement was achieved in Committee stage in the Commons by an

429
outstanding majority. That decision was won and the Committee felt that the chairmen should not be appointed by the Minister. Unfortunately, the decision was reversed by a Government Amendment at Report stage (Hansard, May 1, cols. 1099 and 1127) and the majority of the Standing Committee saw no justification for the chairmen being ministerial appointments. I shall not bore the House. There is a great deal of constructive comment and constructive lobbying of which no notice whatsoever is taken. But this information, though it is culled from dull type on rough, duplicated sheets is the result of years and generations of local experience.
Now all this is swept away, and we are giving to the Minister the right of appointment. One argument made by a noble Lord opposite was that the Minister by some marvellous alembic from the heavens above will be able to distil out of his pot a first-class chairman. I ask you! Having had experience as a Minister, and having waddled around the corridors of power in Number 10, I know what sometimes happens when they are looking for a chairman. The Minister comes along and says, "Have you got a good boy who will make a good chairman?" The House knows this to be true. I used to do mathematical problems: how many coloured stockings could you get out in three grabs. If you are digging into the pot for a chairman, sometimes you telephone to some part of the country—I have done it myself—without having a clue who the man is. Neither has the Minister.
LORD MERRIVALE: May I interrupt the noble Lord for a second, because I think he was referring to a remark I made? If in fact what he is saying is true—and I am quite sure it is not—would it not equally apply to the corridors of power in local government?
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: Not so much. The power of election in local government can have devastating effects. I do not like it, but Lincoln is a typical example. When a Party get too cocky they can move people, and the same is true when a Government get too cocky, if I may use that ignoble language in this noble House. What I am saying is that it is all poppycock to say that the Minister knows best. The accumulated
430
judgment of local authority in Britain over the years usually brings to the top capable men and women, who may be innumerate, and from the Oxford University—not the Welsh University—point of view illiterate; but illiteracy does not mean ignorance or lack of wisdom; failure to pronounce the aitches does not mean that a man may not know a wealth of information about water supplies, et cetera. Let us shake off this attitude and give to local authority, where it belongs as the result of years of service, the right of appointing the pivot of these authorities, the chairmen. I hope my side of the House will press this forward to a Division.
5.43 p.m.
VISCOUNT AMORY: I am afraid that my brief intervention will be a tremendous anticlimax after the very colourful speech from the noble Lord, Lord Davies.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: The Committee needed waking up.
VISCOUNT AMORY: I can promise him one thing, that we shall never regard the noble Lord as too cocky. I should like only to speak for a minute or two. Normally I believe tremendously in the advantages, whenever possible, of allowing a committee to appoint its own chairman. I think it is a good thing. When it cannot be done, the reasons need to be very strong indeed. I would just say that I am not suggesting that, because these water authorities are to have, anyhow, a nominal majority of local authority representatives, therefore the chairman should be a local authority representative. That does not go at all. But I think we ought to look and see whether the reasons are strong enough not to allow the authorities to appoint their own chairmen. As the noble Lord, Lord Davies, implied, in the last year or two we have been getting accustomed to seeing a new type of authority set up, very much on a management-business basis. That may have advantages and it may work out well. But there is risk with those new bodies that we have got to watch out against: that they do not become too bureaucratic and rigid.
I understand that the view of the Government in this case is that the duties laid on the Secretary of State under Clause 1, to promote these functions, mean that the chairman of each authority

431
should be the appointee of the Minister, the Minister's man. I am sure Ministers will try to find the most competent and able chairman they can find. There is inevitably the danger that the chairman who is most popular with the Department is the one who is most of a "yes" man. It has been said that the functions of these water authorities go well beyond the experience of any one local authority, and that is clearly true. But the representatives of local authorities who are likely to be appointed are not likely to be parish-pump local politicians.
I am afraid that running through this Bill, as through the National Health Reorganisation Bill, we are bound to notice a kind of suspicion of the local authorities which I believe is completely unjustified on their record. These water authorities are going to be very responsible bodies, and the members will react, as they do, to that kind of responsibility. Those who have experience of joint bodies on which members of local authorities sit know that members almost inevitably do their utmost, their best, to secure the services of the best chairman available on the body, irrespective of what body that individual happens to represent. In this case the chairman selected by the committee might well not be a member of a local authority, but he would be the person most likely to have the confidence of that authority. If the Government are thinking of full-time appointments, then I see a difficulty that comes into it. In such a case I should think the chairman would probably have to be an appointee of the Minister. But we gather, as my noble friend has just said, that the Government do not envisage the chairmen as full-time appointments. If not, I hope that, before agreeing to the proposal of the Government that these chairmen should be appointees, the House will weigh up very carefully the disadvantages that may follow from such a course. I have a good deal of sympathy with the Amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, has moved.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: I wonder whether I might briefly add my support to the Amendment, and the very wise words spoken by my noble friend Lord Amory. I think the Government must realise that this implied lack of confidence in local
432
government is very keenly felt; and the further away you get from London, the more keenly it is felt. I think that this decision, if it becomes a decision, has done a good deal of harm to the already bruised contact between local and central government which I do not think is in the interests of the country. The chairmen of bodies of this kind should, in my opinion, have the full support and encouragement, and indeed the complete confidence, of his colleagues, and I think we shall get a chairman with those qualities only if he is allowed to be elected by the members themselves. As the noble Viscount, Lord Amory said, it is not in any case a question of necessarily having a local authority parson; it should be the person most competent to do the job—and it is a very big job.
I realise that the Secretary of State has placed on him in this Bill the duty to secure the effective execution of a national water policy. These are very fine words, and exactly what we want. But I do not see how he can better implement this policy by appointing the chairmen himself. We all know that the effective implementation of this national water policy really depends on the availability of finance as the programme progresses. A chairman who is not popular with his authority could just as easily be overruled as any other member, and I think if he was unpopular the carrying out of this duty would be more difficult. For example, the Secretary of State for Education—and I do not wish to involve Lord Sandford's new post in this comment—has a duty to carry out a national education policy, using local government as agents in this matter; but he has never thought it necessary to appoint the chairman of education committees. I think there is a parallel here which we can draw. I hope the Government will accept this Amendment.
LORD REDCLIFFE-MAUD: I find this an extraordinarily difficult question, and I have found the speeches on both sides almost irresistible. I would like to say very briefly where I stand at the moment. In the first place, I am quite clear that the real question we have to decide is how we can be most certain to have the best man or woman at the head of each of the regional water authorities. When I say the best man or woman, I

433
personally would put as top priority the person—he or she—who will most effectively control the technocrats, the chief executive officers, the people who will be the main instruments of those regional water authorities, and who will interpret democratically, and therefore as effectively as possible, the wishes of these huge communities which the regional authorities represent, and not allow the professional gentlemen to think that they know best. In other words, to control the technological expertise in this very highly technological field seems to me to be the first need in a first-rate chairman of a regional water authority. This seems to me to require at least halftime, two or three days a week, solid work, and I hope that he or she will be properly paid for that work—not a full-time salary, but something pretty good. The person chosen should also be willing to undertake this work and see it through for a period of years. I do not think that this person is going to find it at all easy to get the hang of the work, particularly by April 1, 1974, and do the job on behalf of these great communities unless he can do it, or at least intend to do it, for at least, I would say, four years. That being the kind of person I am looking for, why should not we expect the regional water authority membership to find that best person?
I absolutely reject the view that, because very large sums of money are involved, it means that the Secretary of State, advised by his Department and others, is the right person to do it. Local Government deals in large sums and always elects its own chairman. The noble Lord referred to the education committees, which are only part of it. Something like £5,000 million a year is spent by directly elected local representatives electing their own chairmen as an essential part of the democratic process. But I feel that we must clear our minds of the assumption, because it is an erroneous assumption, that these new water authorities are going to be democratic bodies; they are not. I wish that they were, but the whole Bill rests on the assumption that the technical reasons which require us to put water supply and sewerage, and all the water-based services, in new hands, outweigh the simple democratic argument that this should be a part of elected local government.
434
We have to face the fact that these regional water authorities are not like ordinary, elected, democratic education committees, county councils, district councils, or anything of the kind; they are—and I am delighted that they are going to be, at least by a bare majority—indirectly constituted from a number of elected local authorities. But do not let us kid ourselves; that is not the same as an elected county council or district council. I seriously ask myself, and my noble friends in this House: is the collective judgment of a regional water authority going to get that best man or woman to be the chairman of each of these regional water authorities. I am afraid that my judgment is that they are not. I think it is extremely doubtful, particularly at the outset, whether they will have a collective mind. Remember that they come from many parts of a widely scattered area, representing many different elected bodies, several Parties and Independents as well, mixed with appointees of the Secretary of State and the Minister. I very much doubt whether they really can be expected to seek out and find these indispensable elements in the new set-up.
Some of your Lordships may say, "They may not be very good at it, but aren't they going to be better than a Secretary of State, a Minister, or these horrible bureaucrats behind him?" I am going to be very frank; for six years I had the privilege of advising Ministers on the appointment of chairmen and deputy chairmen of Gas Boards and Electricity Boards throughout England and Wales. It was an exceedingly delicate and difficult operation, and I do not for a moment pretend that I or my colleagues did it as well as we would have liked.
VISCOUNT AMORY: May I remind the noble Lord of the task that we used to regard them as having, which was to march out the "stage army" for us, from which we could select one individual? The noble Lord was extremely clever at producing and maintaining the strength of the "stage army".
LORD REDCLIFFE-MAUD: Of course there is a very slight risk, whichever of the great Parties is running the country, that any Minister might possibly

435
give one of these jobs to a political pal; at times in British history it is a thing that has not been unknown. It is conceivable that a Minister, on the advice or not on the advice of his Department, might give a job to someone he thought was going to be a "stooge"; and this is a risk that has to be faced. All I can say is that I do not believe that any of the chairmen of the Gas or Electricity Boards, or indeed the great national corporations like the Coal Board, who were appointed at the time that I knew anything about it, could be described as "stooges". I think particularly of the noble Lord, Lord Robens of Woldingham.
Be that as it may, I cannot believe that in this Bill we are likely to do the country better by allowing this Amendment to be made, and by asking the regional water authorities to take the responsibility for finding these indispensable chairmen, than if we take the Bill as it stands and trust the Secretary of State and the Minister to take all the serious advice they can from people on the spot: from the National Water Council and its Chairman (who I imagine will be a man or woman of great distinction) who will know a lot about the personalities in the field, and to whom I imagine the Secretary of State will look, among others, to guide him. In that way we shall hope to get something as near first-rate chairmen as possible to do the job of controlling the technocrats in the interests of these widely dispersed regions.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: Is the noble Lord thinking of the National Water Council? I am talking of the regional water authorities now, and we are moving to the managerial revolution. Is he arguing that the National Council should have an appointed chairman, as well as the regional authorities? I have seen managers in the United States with water undertakings, and other things. I am sorry that the noble Lord mentioned the Gas Board, because I have had the gas people coming to my daughter for I do not know how many months about a tap.
5.58 p.m.
THE EARL OF BALFOUR: May I for a moment quote part of Section 6 of the Water Resources Act 1963? In this Act, which I presume is the main predecessor to the Bill under discussion, there had
436
to be not less than 21 members on a water board, and of those one or more had to be appointed. The list I am now giving is of those who were appointed by the Secretary of State:
"one or more members appointed by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food …
one or more members appointed by that Minister as being qualified in respect of fisheries;
one or more members appointed by that Minister as being qualified in respect of agriculture;
one or more members appointed by the Minister as being qualified in respect of public water supply; and
one or more members appointed by the Minister as being qualified in respect of industry other than agriculture."
If the intention of the Bill, as it stands before your Lordships, is that certain people should be appointed by the Secretary of State (I am not too sure, but I believe it was something like one-third who were appointed by the Secretary of State)—is it wise that he should also appoint the chairman? Certainly there is no mention in the Water Resources Act of the Secretary of State—that is if I read it properly—appointing a chairman. I am putting this as a Question. I felt that the Water Resources Act has worked well and I merely put this forward as an idea.
LORD DE RAMSEY: My Lords, this was a highly controversial subject in another place and appears to be no less so today. The noble Viscount, Lord Amory, was kind enough to refer to me in Second Reading as one of his advisers at one time on land drainage. I was very disappointed to hear him take the line that he did today and had I been still his adviser—which, alas! I am not—I should have tried to dissuade him: not that he would have paid the slightest attention. I feel some trepidation in getting up after the noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud and the noble Viscount and in disagreeing with them. The point I wish to make is a brief and simple one: whereas in local authority circles the line that we have heard is felt most strongly, in water circles to which I belong it is felt equally strongly that the Secretary of State should make this appointment. I would certainly have liked to hear the thoughts which the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, would have ex-

437
pressed in this matter, but I should like to put the other side to the House.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, I had not intended to take the time of your Lordships, especially after hearing the excellent speech of the noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud, who I think made out the case against the Amendment far better than I could. In a way I suppose I am slightly being a traitor to myself, because on the Thames Conservancy I am an elected chairman and I am very fortunate that some 39 members on the Board are kind enough to re-elect me each year. But perhaps the Thames Conservancy are exceptional. I should have thought that, generally speaking, the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud, are right: that these Boards inevitably are made up of the local government members coming from a number of different local authorities, the appointed members coming from other areas; and therefore I do not think we are really judging a completely democratic structure comparable with a county council, or indeed a county borough council, where the members know each other, where there is a coherent unity in the body and therefore a collective sense of responsibility. I think these bodies would find it very difficult to start with to use that kind of collective judgment which would be necessary, and therefore I am bound to say that I find myself against the Amendment.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, before the noble Lord resumes his seat, I am bound to say that I thought he did himself less than justice as regards his chairmanship of the Thames Conservancy. I have vivid recollections of the work he did on Surrey County Council. Does he not feel that his training in local government did much to fit him for the very high responsibilities that he has undertaken and served with distinction. I would also ask him; does he fault the Metropolitan Water Board; does that not also elect its own chairman, and is that not based on local authority representation?
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: Yes, indeed, I did serve with much pleasure on the Surrey County Council some years ago, and I learnt a great deal
438
about local administration and indeed about public administration. I should like to think that perhaps that knowledge has helped me in making such contribution as I have, but I still hold to the view that I have expressed.
6.5 p.m.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, it has been a most interesting and useful debate, not least because of the insights given to us by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, on how the Party opposite picks its key men.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, I did not say that at all. This is absolutely typical of the way the boys opposite work. I blamed it on all Parties; they are all tempted like this, and it occasionally happens, as the noble Lord knows quite well.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, as I was going on to say, there are perhaps abuses, but when key figures such as the one we are talking about are being chosen, the situation is of course as the noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud, described, and very great care and the most delicate and thorough consultations are always undertaken by all concerned. I am sure noble Lords would not wish us to pursue the question of puppets and stooges, because if there are, or have been in the past, or may be in the future, appointments which would merit that name, I am sure noble Lords would agree that they are not confined to appointments made by Ministers or wholly excluded from appointments arising within local government. So my inclination is to leave those considerations entirely to one side.
Nevertheless, the fact remains that the chairmen of the regional water authorities are indeed key men responsible for executing in their regions a national policy for water for England and Wales. That is the basic reason why the Bill provides for the chairman of each authority to be appointed by the Secretary of State: a Bill which places the responsibility for the first time upon the Secretary of State and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for promoting a comprehensive national water authority. That includes the responsibility for securing the effective execution

439
of such a policy by the bodies responsible for carrying out the various functions as listed in Clause 1 of the Bill—meeting the increasing demand for the natural resource of water which cannot be increased by the work of man's hand, the growing complexity of effluent treatment, water reclamation and re-cycling and calling for the development of fresh comprehensive nationwide policies and for their effective execution across the whole country.
The appointment of the chairmen of the regional water authorities, who will be the key figures in carrying out these policies, is an indispensable part of the machinery whereby the Secretary of State can discharge this new responsibility for which he will be answerable to Parliament. That I would put forward as the main and first argument for having the chairmen appointed by the Secretary of State. Of course it is true that such persons could be found from within local government, but the system of local government and local government election is designed to secure that those running it should be answerable to their council and to their own electorate whose policy they are carrying out. Regional water authority chairmen must be answerable to the Secretary of State, whose national policy they and their regional water authorities are carrying out; and regional water authorities will be able to follow local authorities in their practice of appointing their own committee chairmen—a consideration which it may well be necessary for them to want to apply.
The second argument which I would bring forward in support of the Secretary of State making this appointment is the importance of securing really experienced and competent managers. This is a function which includes the supply of water, the treatment of sewage, the control of pollution, the development of fisheries, the enhancement of amenity and the promotion of recreation, and the development of reclamation of water. I would immediately respond to my noble friend Lord Ridley behind me, by saying that the decision that the Secretary of State should make this appointment does not indicate a lack of confidence in local government. Persons fit for the role of
440
managing that wide variety of functions may well be known in the ranks of local government. But I would put it to the Committee that local government elections are not of themselves designed to produce such men, and therefore cannot be counted upon to do so. They may do so, and if they do so then so much the better; and, certainly, it may well be that the Secretary of State will find men to appoint to this important position who, like my noble friend Lord Nugent, have the benefit of local government experience in their background. So that there is by no means a lack of confidence in local government. The Government are not doing what I think it has been claimed they are doing; that is, saying that Whitehall always knows best and can invariably pick the best people. The Government are not saying any such thing.
Furthermore, there are certainly many aspects of local government—and I think particularly of urban renewal—which are every bit as daunting, complex and diverse in their nature as the management of rivers. When we come to balance the importance of democratic control with technical efficiency, the argument clearly comes down in favour of the importance of securing democratic control and checks. But, as my noble friend Lord Nugent said earlier, it is the technical solution of the problems which is of paramount importance. However, this decision certainly does not indicate a lack of confidence in local government, and I hope that the stress I have laid upon this point will make that quite clear. If local government has been bruised by this decision, I am sure that it is out of a mistaken impression of the reasons why it has been necessary to give this appointment to the Secretary of State.
The third reason that I would give in support of the argument that the chairman must be appointed and not elected by his fellow members is that of detachment. The chairman of a regional water authority, like all the other members, needs to have a range and a width of vision stretching far beyond any of the areas for which the local government members will have been chosen. He will be the servant of a population far more extensive than the electorate of any of the local authorities that may cover the regional water authority. He will be

441
discharging responsibilities wider in geographical extent than any of the individual counties represented in the river basin, and will have a range of water functions, which I have just listed, more diverse than and going beyond any that have hitherto been discharged by any existing local authority in the water field. There, again, I am not saying that there are not people in local government who have reached the position which they are in through the elective process, who do not have these qualifications, do not have this width of vision, and could not acquire them. What I am saying is that these are qualities of the utmost importance which the Secretary of State must be looking for and there is no guarantee—because the system is not designed to produce it—that the process by which the other members are found will necessarily produce them.
The fourth point which I would make, which has not been made in the debate so far, is the absolute necessity, the indispensability, of continuity of direction at the top and at the leadership of each water authority. This will be vitally important for the first decade and it will continue to be an essential and important requirement, given the time scale for the planning and development of water schemes of every kind. Continuity cannot be guaranteed for the majority of the members who will be subject to local government elections. This makes it all the more important to secure continuity in the chairmanship and—though it might be secured in other ways—this can be guaranteed only if the chairmen are appointed by the Secretary of State. The noble Lord, Lord De Ramsey, for whose support I was—
LORD WOLVERTON: May I ask the Minister for how long a period these chairmen will be appointed by the Secretary of State?
LORD SANDFORD: This may come with experience as we go along, but it will not be broken by the chances and changes of local government elections. That is the important point. I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord De Ramsey, for his support of the Government's view. He mentioned that there are other bodies outside local government who are also in support of this measure, and I should like to list them in order to indicate to
442
the Committee how substantial the support is. There is the C.B.I., the C.E.G.B.—who use more water than anybody else—the Chemical Industries Association, the Association of British Chambers of Commerce, the N.F.U. and the Country Landowners' Association, just to mention the most important ones.
I hope that this debate, and what has been said by myself and by other noble Lords in support of this difficult decision which the Government have, nevertheless, now firmly arrived at, will enable the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, whose Amendment we are discussing, to feel that there is no necessity to press it, because, after all, the Government have come to the right conclusion. But if he feels that he must press it, then I must ask the Committee to reject it.
LORD MERRIVALE: Before the noble Lord sits down, may I ask him one question? He has said, quite rightly, that one of the bodies which have given their support to this measure is the C.B.I. But will he agree that, in effect, the C.B.I. feel very strongly indeed that the chairman should be a full-time member of the authority?
LORD SANDFORD: We do not go so far as that, but I would confirm—and I would apologise to my noble friend for not answering that point—that somebody representative of water-using industry is certainly to be considered in making up the composition of a regional water authority.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: Is the vice-chairman, if there is such a person, also to be appointed by the Secretary of State, or will he be elected?
LORD SANDFORD: The Bill provides only for the chairman to be appointed.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: I take it that we all want the best chairmen, and I think there is no difference between us on that point. But the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, has been talking as though this Amendment, and those who have spoken in support of it, intend that the local authority representatives will necessarily, and always, appoint one of their own number. That is not so, and there is no reason for supposing that it would be so; or, if I may put it a little more optimistically, that it will be so. I was extremely

443
interested in what the noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud, said. We always listen to him with the greatest possible interest. Of course, he presided over that Royal Commission whose Report was accepted by the Government of the day, but it has not been put into effect by this Government. That makes it quite clear that what the noble Lord has to say, although my Party accepted the Report, is not necessarily always the view of the people who make the ultimate decision. With great respect I think that he does less than justice to local government generally; and I understand that he was for a time a member of a local authority.
I should have thought there would be more recognition in this House of the great men who have risen to positions of the highest rank in the service of this country and who have established their names in the first instance in the field of local government. I reminded the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, of how high his services were regarded while he was at Surrey. He is not alone. He is not the only one in this House, and neither am I, who has service in local government and who has been a member of local government while attending fairly regularly in this House. I can think of the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, the noble Lord, Lord Wolverton, and the noble Viscount, Lord Gage, all eminent members of this House who give outstanding service. While the noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud, was speaking, my mind went back to Herbert Morrison and also to James Chuter Ede who came to your Lordships' House and who was an extremely valuable servant at national level. My mind went back to Neville Chamberlain who made his name in Birmingham local government.
Let this House not underestimate the talents that reside in the seats of local authority. Let us not underestimate the size of the task the county councils and county boroughs have undertaken. There has been talk in this House this evening which by implication suggests that local government cannot throw up the right people. I do not think that those who have talked in this way have been mindful of the thought and care that the county councils give when choosing who is going to represent them. I venture
444
to suggest that when the county councils are called upon to select from among their number one or perhaps two or three to speak for them they choose people who have demonstrated their ability to deal with large issues.
I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, may well have confused the Committee in another matter—I am sure he did not do so deliberately. But do not let us confuse chairmanship with management. I think the noble Lord. Lord Sandford, was in grave danger of doing that. I thought that his criticisms in regard to the ability of the chairmen that local government may throw up was an indication that he expected them to do the job of the manager. Local government, and particularly local government chairmanship, is a great school at which to learn how to work with and to get the best out of the executive administrator and people below him. It is high time that this Government, and the Department of the Environment in particular, gave a little more credit to people who for so long have given so much voluntary service. If they have committed one fault in matters like this it seems to me that many of them appear to have done too well.
We shall be coming back again to the question of the nationalisation of the water industry and I may have more to say when we reach that matter. I am tempted to reply to points that would take far too much time; but I shall say only this. I am grateful to those noble Lords who supported the Amendment to which I am now speaking and on which I shall invite the Committee to divide. I know that the local authority associations are behind it and I know that this is not a Party political issue. What is the limit of the risk—and it is a very limited risk—that we are asking the Government to take? It is that some regional water authority might appoint as its chairman someone who is in local government and who has a sense of responsibility to people that comes about as a result of an elected appointment. It would not be a bad thing if we had one or two of those people on the National Water Council. May I remind the Committee—
LORD SHINWELL: May I ask my noble friend a question? I have not taken

445
part in this debate but I have been listening very closely and I suppose we are sure to come to a Division. Do I understand the position of the Opposition to be that the appointment of chairman should be made by the local authority?
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: No.
LORD SHINWELL: In the case of the Electricity Board and the Gas Board, when we nationalised both electricity and gas we did not demand that the chairmen should be appointed out of local government representatives. They were appointed by the Secretary of State.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: The answer to my noble friend's question is quite clear. It is "No." Earlier I dealt with that. I made it clear that this Amendment was not intended to ensure that the local authority representatives would necessarily choose one of their own number. My Amendment would provide an opportunity for some local authority representatives to be considered for election as chairman.
I was coming to the question of the National Water Council. Let us briefly

CONTENTS

Amory, V.

Hale, L.

Rhodes, L.

Balogh, L.

Hall, V.

Ridley, V.

Beswick, L.

Henderson, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Blyton, L.

Ingleby, V.

Segal, L.

Bridgeman,

Jacques, L.

Serota, B.

Brockway, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Slater, L.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Lauderdale, E.

Stow Hill, L.

Champion, L.

Lindsay of Birker, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Chorley, L.

Llewelyn-Davies, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.[Teller.]

White, B.

de Clifford, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Douglas of Barloch, L.

Maelor, L.

Wolverton, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Nunburnholme, L.

Wright of Ashton under Lynwe, L.

Garnsworthy, L. [Teller.]

Phillips, B.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

NON-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Cowley, E.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Allerton, L.

Craigavon, V.

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

Alport, L.

Crathorne, L.

Amulree, L.

Daventry, V.

Hanworth, V.

Auckland, L.

Davidson, V.

Harvey of Prestbury, L.

Aylesford, E.

De Ramsey, L.

Henley, L.

Balfour, E.

Denham, L.[Teller.]

Hurcomb, L.

Berkeley, B.

Derwent, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Digby, L.

Inglewood, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, B.

Dundonald, E.

Lonsdale, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Ebbisham, L.

Lothian, M.

Byers, L.

Emmet of Amberley, B.

Loudoun, C.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Falkland, V.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Colville of Culross, V.

Ferrers, E.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Conesford, L.

Gainford, L.

Merrivale, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Gowrie, E.

Milverton, L.

Courtown, E.

Grenfell, L.

Monck, V.

examine it. The chairman is to be appointed by the Secretary of State. The Council will include the chairmen of the water authorities, all of whom are to be appointed by the Secretary of State. There will be also 10 other members of whom not more than eight are appointed by the Secretary of State and not more than two appointed by the Minister. On the National Water Council all the people will be appointed by the Secretary of State. In this vitally important public service I think it would be an excellent thing if at some point we could have the kind of check that the election of chairmen by members of the regional water authorities would ensure; with those chairmen ultimately going on to the National Water Board and being more representative than they are likely to be if this clause is not so amended.
6.28 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 9) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 40; Not-Contents, 80.

CONTENTS

Amory, V.

Hale, L.

Rhodes, L.

Balogh, L.

Hall, V.

Ridley, V.

Beswick, L.

Henderson, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Blyton, L.

Ingleby, V.

Segal, L.

Bridgeman,

Jacques, L.

Serota, B.

Brockway, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Slater, L.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Lauderdale, E.

Stow Hill, L.

Champion, L.

Lindsay of Birker, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Chorley, L.

Llewelyn-Davies, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.[Teller.]

White, B.

de Clifford, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Douglas of Barloch, L.

Maelor, L.

Wolverton, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Nunburnholme, L.

Wright of Ashton under Lynwe, L.

Garnsworthy, L. [Teller.]

Phillips, B.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

NON-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Cowley, E.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Allerton, L.

Craigavon, V.

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

Alport, L.

Crathorne, L.

Amulree, L.

Daventry, V.

Hanworth, V.

Auckland, L.

Davidson, V.

Harvey of Prestbury, L.

Aylesford, E.

De Ramsey, L.

Henley, L.

Balfour, E.

Denham, L.[Teller.]

Hurcomb, L.

Berkeley, B.

Derwent, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Digby, L.

Inglewood, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, B.

Dundonald, E.

Lonsdale, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Ebbisham, L.

Lothian, M.

Byers, L.

Emmet of Amberley, B.

Loudoun, C.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Falkland, V.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Colville of Culross, V.

Ferrers, E.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Conesford, L.

Gainford, L.

Merrivale, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Gowrie, E.

Milverton, L.

Courtown, E.

Grenfell, L.

Monck, V.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Rochdale, V.

Somers, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Rockley, L.

Stocks, B.

Newall, L.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Strathclyde, L.

Northchurch, B.

St. Aldwyn, E.[Teller.]

Tenby, V.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

St. Helens, L.

Thomas, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Sandford, L.

Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, B.

Rankeillour, L.

Shannon, E.

Vivian, L.

Redcliffe-Maud, L.

Sherfield, L.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Reigate, L.

Sinclair of Cleeve, L.

Young, B.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

6.36 p.m.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL THE EARL OF KINNOULL moved Amendment No. 9A:
Page 4, line 8, leave out from the first ("than") to end and insert ("one-sixth of the total membership;").
The noble Earl said: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I spoke on this Amendment and, at the same time, on Amendment No. 10, which stands in the names of my noble friends Lord Davidson, Lord De Ramsey and Lord Henley. The purposes of both these Amendments are entirely the same, although the approach is somewhat different. After that sparkling Amendment, No. 9, which dealt with the chairmen of the new authorities, these Amendments deal with the nominated members; that is, the members nominated by the Minister of Agriculture, with their special knowledge, their special expertise and their special experience covering the subjects of agriculture, land drainage and fisheries. The purpose of this Amendment is to achieve what is hoped will be a better balance between these expert, nominated members and the elected members, with their general experience. Under this clause as it now stands the Minister of Agriculture is to be allowed to appoint a minimum of two members and a maximum of three members, whatever the size—however big, however small—the new regional authority may be. The view which has been put to me—and it is one with which I hope my noble friend may feel able to agree—is that in the cases of the larger authorities, particularly the new Thames Authority, with possibly 50 members, the numbers of the nominated members will really make the authority seem very out of balance. In saying that, one fully accepts the principle that there should always be a clear majority of the elected members over nominated members. Nothing in this Amendment, nor indeed in Amendment No. 10, would affect that.
This general argument was in fact aired in another place during the Committee stage, and at that time the Government's reply was that the Minister of Agriculture himself felt quite content with being allowed to nominate just two or three members. I am not sure whether the Minister has now been able to reconsider this matter, or indeed whether his advisers have. But what I am sure is that those representing agriculture and land-owning interests are concerned about it because I gather that when the Bill was in its consultative stage the number of the regional water authority's members was anticipated to be between 20 and 30 members, and not, in the case of the Thames, as I have mentioned, 50. I have looked around for guidance on this matter in other legislation, like my noble friend Lord Balfour, and indeed, if one looks to the Water Resources Act one finds that in that case the Minister nominates five members: one to look after drainage, one to look after fisheries, one to look after agriculture, one to look after public water supply and one to have a general interest in industry other than agriculture. All, one assumes, are experts in their fields; all have added a balance of knowledge, experience and wisdom to the authorities which they serve. What is perhaps significant is that these five appointed members represent between one-fifth and one-sixth of the total membership of these authorities.
The purpose of this Amendment is to give a similar balance to the new authorities, to increase it to the same ratio as under the Water Resources Act and to keep it to a ratio rather than to a precise number because of the widely differing size of the 10 regional authorities. I hope that my noble friend will feel able to accept the concern which has been expressed and to reconsider getting the balance right—the better balance for the very important and powerful authorities which both Amendments are designed to achieve.
LORD SANDFORD: I do not rise now to answer my noble friend but to confirm

449
that, from my point of view, it would certainly be for the convenience of the Committee if we were to discuss Amendment No. 10 now, and I hope that my noble friend Lord Davidson, the noble Lord, Lord De Ramsey and the noble Lord, Lord Henley, would deploy their arguments, when I will try to answer all four noble Lords together.
VISCOUNT DAVIDSON: I am grateful to the Minister and also to my noble friend Lord Kinnoull and I agree that it would make sense that these two Amendments should be discussed together, not only for the convenience of the Committee but also for the convenience of the Minister, in that he will have only one reply to make. The two Amendments are similar in principle. The only difference between them is that they propose two alternative mathematical equations to which only one reply is feasible. First, I would remind the Committee that the Amendments have nothing to do with land drainage considerations, which are already covered adequately in the Bill. On the contrary, they have to do with the importance of the availability of water for agricultural purposes, for crop irrigation, the watering of livestock and other uses, all of which are vital not only to our agricultural economy but also to the national economy. In general, they have to do with the proportion of agricultural representation on the new regional water authorities.
I am afraid that I may cover a little of the ground my noble friend has gone over already, but I will try to be as brief as possible. When the Government issued their original proposals it was understood that no regional water authority would have more than 15 members, of which a maximum of three would be appointed by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Those three members would be persons who according to subsection (2) of Clause 3 appeared to the Minister
" to have had experience of, and shown capacity in, agriculture, land drainage or fisheries."
So far, so good. This proportion was accepted by those representing the agricultural interests as being fair and adequate. Now it is clear that some of the new authorities, the Severn, Trent and Thames and in particular Anglia, are to have a considerably larger total member-
450
ship than the 15 originally proposed. It is obvious that if the maximum number of members appointed by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food remains at three, their influence will in those cases be proportionately whittled down, or perhaps "watered down" would be a more appropriate description.
As I said earlier, there can be only one answer to these two Amendments. It is possible that the Minister might be willing to consider and to put forward a formula which, although not completely meeting either of our proposals, would go some way to reassuring the agricultural community that its interests are not only acknowledged but also safeguarded so far as is possible and practical.
LORD DE RAMSEY: The noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and the noble Viscount, Lord Davidson, have covered fully and ably the arguments in favour of this Amendment. It is highly desirable to increase the agricultural representation in certain regional water authorities though we are not suggesting that it should be an across the board increase. We are happy to leave to the Secretary of State and the Minister where this should be done, provided that the principle is agreed to. Furthermore, though I am adamant that there are too few in some instances, I am not so dogmatic, any more than was the noble Viscount, Lord Davidson, about whether the number should be four, five or six. So the noble Lord will see how reasonable I am, and I trust that he will be equally so.
6.45 p.m.
LORD SANDFORD: I think it was helpful to have the two Amendments debated together and I would straight away admit that the situation under which this provision was originally made has changed since the Bill was first introduced to Parliament, when 15 was thought to be the appropriate size for each of the regional water authorities. However, the situation has not changed in every case, and that is one of the reasons why I do not feel that I can accept either of the Amendments in precisely the form in which they have been put forward. Nor has it changed—even in the case where it has changed most—to the extent that would require a figure as high as five. I was, therefore, glad to hear my noble friend Lord Davidson, and the noble Lord, Lord De Ramsey, say that they

451
think that perhaps some other figure than five, but nevertheless above three—the indications now fairly clearly point in one direction—might be suitable in all the circumstances. So I agree that the situation is changed in some cases and it might require a figure between the figure in the Bill and what the noble Earl has proposed. I think I am able to forestall an allegation from the Benches opposite that the Government are being inflexible in their approach to this Bill by saying, without that accusation being hurled at me, that in this case the Government would be happy to consider the points which the noble Lords have made, if they in their turn would be good enough to withdraw the Amendment.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: I am happy to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment. I feel that my noble friend is still watering down the figure, and I hope that we may persuade him to go up a little. I am grateful for his assurance that this matter will be looked at again before the next stage of the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT DAVIDSON: In view of the reasonably reassuring reply by the Minister I do not propose to move Amendment No. 10.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY VISCOUNT RIDLEY moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 4, line 16, after ("is") insert ("at least three").
The noble Viscount said: Before commence to move this Amendment, wonder whether, at this rather late stage, I may offer my congratulations to the noble Baroness, Lady Young, on het arrival on the Government Front Bench on the occasion of this very important debate. I feel that the noble Baroness must have spent a lot of time and burnt a lot of midnight oil trying to read up the Water Bill in a very short time, and our sympathies are definitely with her. If this Amendment were to be accepted by the Government, I think that Amendment No. 19 would be consequential and it might be for the convenience of the Committee if I took the two together. It could be that other drafting Amendments would follow which I have not as
452
yet put down. I wish to be brief because I think this is not a matter about which we should take a lot of time.
The point is that the Government have conceded the principle of the local authority membership majority on the regional water authorities. This is a very real concession. It would be time-consuming and unnecessary to go into the arguments why the Government conceded this in another place. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, spoke eloquently on the subject when we were debating the previous Amendment. The noble Lord is not now in the Chamber to add to what he said then, but what he said then is what I might have said now. This Amendment seeks to secure a working majority in six areas where the majority is only one member. In the Severn—Trent it is of six members and in the Thames Authority area it is of 20 members. I do not think in asking, that this majority should be increased from one to three the local authority associations, all four of whom I think unanimously support this Amendment, are being too greedy. There are many large counties, for instance, Kent and Lancashire, with populations of well over one million who would have only one councillor, one member from the district on their water authority. I do not think this is enough for such huge populations. Similarly, the position of Cumbria, where only one member to the authority is proposed, is not enough in view of the special circumstances. But as we are to debate that later on an Amendment put down by my noble friend Lord Rochdale, I will not go into it further.
I should like to ask the Government whether they will consider each area on its merits in this respect. A majority of one sounds all right (it may have been possible for the Labour Party to govern with a majority of three), but in practice I think it is neither one thing nor the other. It would make much more sense if this could be looked at again, to see whether it is possible to increase the majority by two more local authority members either from the county or the new district council. I see no conflict here with the two Amendments, Nos. 9A and 10, which have just been taken back by the Government where the constitution is about to be

453
looked at again in the light of circumstances regarding the Minister of Agriculture's appointees. If this is done, I think here is a good opportunity to look at whole thing again and to come back to it on Report.
If my proposals were to be agreed, it would mean at the minimum appointing only 13 more members to the authorities in England—that is to say, the nine English authorities—distributed, if my mathematics are correct, as follows: 2 for the North-West; 2 for the Northumbrian; 2 for Yorkshire; 1 for the Anglian; 2 for the Southern; 2 for Wessex; and 2 for the South-West. That makes 13 more members out of a total of some hundreds of members of the effective authority, and I do not think this is being too greedy. I have not included Wales in these figures because it is not really relevant to my argument. It is not because I ignore the position of Wales, but I have not the figures. I hope that the Government will consider looking at this in the light of what has happened under the two previous Amendments. I beg to move.
VISCOUNT AMORY: I should like to support what my noble friend Lord Ridley has said so lucidly. He mentioned that he believes the local authority associations agree with the view he has put forward, and I can assure your Lordships that that is so: they feel very strongly about it. Not wishing to be outdone by my noble friend in gallantry, I should like to say how delighted we all are to welcome my noble friend Lady Young to her new position. I think that will make it impossible for any other of your Lordships who propose to speak not to offer congratulations.
I hate saying this, but under the National Health Service Reorganisation Bill the Government seem very anxious to keep participation of the local authorities to the absolute minimum. They rather grudgingly agreed to a bare majority of local authority members on the authorities. In the case of six of the nine mentioned by my noble friend it will mean a majority of one, and in the other cases the majority is adequate for a working majority. All we are asking in this Amendment is that the majority should be a workable majority in all cases, as indeed it is in the other six.
454
My noble friend Lord Sandford may well say: "Well, bearing in mind that the Government are going to be helpful in allowing local authority members to have substitutes, this will be unnecessary". But I very much doubt whether that will go quite far enough. In the discussions on this matter in the other place, I thought the Minister in his remarks showed consistently a lack of confidence in local authorities; on one or two occasions it amounted almost to contempt. I know that my noble friend does not feel like that and will not say anything to that effect. In the other place, however, the Minister said that they wanted to keep politics out of water. Did that mean that they wanted to keep the voice of local democracy entirely out of the new organisation? I cannot think that. It seemed to me to be saying that central Government itself was entirely free from any political views or bias, whereas, of course, the Secretary of State is himself a politician.
All my noble friend Lord Ridley is asking is that a formula should be devised which will ensure that the principle that has been conceded by the Government is effective. My noble friend has mentioned the difficulties in some of the big counties, like Kent and Lancashire, but I am sure if the formula which he would prefer should be considered by the Government defective in itself, then he would be quite happy if my noble friend the Minister would say he will produce another formula which will have the same effect, of making a provision for the majority effective and therefore in line with the principle.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: Before my noble friend replies, I should like to make one point in which I am going to conflict with both my noble friends Lord Amory and Lord Ridley. They both talk about the need to have a working majority. Neither of them, I know, sits on a river authority, and I doubt if they sit on water undertakings. The business is not run that way. These boards work as a team. They have a technical job to do, and irrespective of the political Parties to which the members belong, whether they are appointees of Ministers or of local authorities, they work together quite happily. I think it is a misconception to think that you must

455
have a few more local government members so that the local government section will always have a majority and will always vote together. I cannot think of anything more disastrous for the proper working of the regional water authorities than that they should work like that. The concept here, as I see it, is that the local authorities should have a majority because of their importance: they are local people; they have their roots in the local community, and they know the feelings of the local community. But after that, when they get there, I hope they are going to shake down with the appointed members and all work together quite happily.
VISCOUNT AMORY: Perhaps I might say that I do not disagree with my noble friend that that is the way in which bodies like these work. All we are saying is that if the principle is being conceded, then the principle should be effective. I always pay great attention to what my noble friend Lord Nugent says, and I should have paid even more attention in this case had he remembered to congratulate the Minister.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My noble friend Lord Amory has done it so well that I do not think there is anything else to say.
LORD REDCLIFFE-MAUD: I entirely agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, said about this not being a matter of a working majority or any idea of one side against the other—the elected representatives, on the one hand, and the appointed on the other. None of us believes that this is what will happen, because the parties will be sensible when it comes to working the matter out. But let us face facts. There is no doubt that this Government have a reputation for not having confidence in local government. This is a very serious thing. I personally do not believe that they do lack faith in local government. I very much hope, particularly in the light of what has gone before in this Committee, that something can be done, even if it is only symbolic, which the acceptance at any rate of the principle of this Amendment would do to reassure local government that the speeches made from this side on an earlier Amendment are not made in vain—in other words, that this Government believe in local government
456
and recognise the enormous debt that we still owe not only for the past but at present for what is being done in local Government, and to express how much we all rely on the "local governors" which are in transition, if I may put it that way, in continuing to have confidence in themselves and in believing that they have the confidence of the central Government.
LORD DIGBY: I supported the Government over the appointment of the chairman and I feel that this makes it all the more important that working control should lie with the water authorities. No one thinks it will work as a caucus, but I am sure we all realise how facing an electorate concentrates the mind. It is for that reason that I hope the Government will consider this Amendment.
LORD SANDFORD: It is now clear that one can only win one's case by a suitable display of gallantry at the outset! Let me say at once that my noble friend Lady Young is being reserved, with her skills and charms (as she was on the Housing Finance Bill), until the Amendments become really difficult. My noble friend will be dealing with the later stages of the Bill when that position is reached. I would agree with the noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud, that local government is feeling bruised, but I would claim that that is not because of anything to do with this Bill, or with this particular Government. They are still in the middle of the biggest reform in the history of local government, and that is something which is bound to leave some bruises. I think that is something we have to reckon with.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: If I may say so, the noble Lord misses the point. It is in the very middle of this reorganisation that they are being bruised and their powers are being reduced. I think this Government are failing to take into account what I would describe as just ordinary human feelings.
LORD SANDFORD: I have gone out of my way once, and I will do so again now, to say that there is no such motive behind the balance that has been arrived at between the appointed and the elected members of the regional water authorities. It is the importance of local government which has led to their being given a majority of the membership of

457
the regional water authorities. But much the most important point is that made by my noble friend Lord Nugent—that we are not here setting up bodies with a delicately balanced power on one side or the other. It is inconceivable that these regional water authorities, once they start work, will sit with the elected on one side and the appointed on the other, facing one another across a table as we are doing here. They will all come to make their several contributions in a joint operation—one in which they will all be involved and in which they will work as a single team. It will be the job of all concerned, and particularly that of the chairman to bring about such a situation from the very start.
Nevertheless, there are subsidiary technical difficulties in meeting this point. Noble Lords who have spoken in support of the Amendment from the point of view of the local authority associations will know that a pattern has been developed which is fair as between counties with a large population and those with rather less; as between metropolitan counties and non-metropolitan counties; and with respect to district councils as between those with a large population in the river basin and those with a not-so-large population. It would be very difficult, if not impossible, to increase that representation by anything except by something quite arbitrary, to adjust the formula upwards. But on top of that we have been doing all we can—not always successfully—to keep the total numbers of the regional water authorities down to an appropriate figure for bodies which are going to exercise executive functions rather than the functions of deliberative bodies. Any further increase in numbers, whether by elected or nominated members, will have to be looked at very carefully. Even the modest proposal which we dealt with in the previous two Amendments will not, I hope, amount to more than an increase of one in one or two particular cases.
The only other way of doing this would be to reduce the number of appointed members. Here we are in the position where the Secretary of State, in making these appointments, has to choose men to cover an immensely wide range of functions: industry, agriculture, amenity, recreation, conservation. The next two Amendments will suggest that there
458
should be a statutory requirement to include somebody from the trade unions, and so on. All these people have a claim, but it really is not possible to meet such claims either in a strict statutory way or any other way, if at the same time the numbers are to be reduced in order to get the balance right. However, I agree it would be reassuring to the local authority interests if the principle which has been adopted to secure a local government majority on the regional water authorities were extended to ensure that the majority was reasonably secure. My noble friend Lord Amory says it really will not go far enough to meet him if there is some kind of arrangement for substitutes so that, in the event of the sickness of local authority representatives, the authorities would not lose their majority where it is only a bare majority. But if he or his noble friend Lord Ridley, whose Amendment this is, would care to discuss with me between now and the next stage whether it would help, even if it does not go as far as they would like, this can certainly be looked into. I do not believe this is necessary, though it would go some way towards meeting the points, for the reasons that my noble friend Lord Nugent gave, that we are not going to be dealing with a body which is working in two camps facing each other in antagonism across a table. I do not really believe that this is a substantial point, but we can certainly look at it.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: I thank my noble friend for his reply. I think I can quickly say that I do not foresee, as the noble Lord Nugent does, any sort of division between the local authority and the non-local authority members, whom he envisages as not being able to speak to one another. From my experience on river boards, this does not happen, wherever the member comes from. All I am saying is that the majority of the members should be subject to the feelings and pressures of the electorate on what are often very important and sensitive areas indeed. However, my noble friend Lord Sandford has said that he will be prepared to have discussions on this as regards the question of substitutes. A substitute is a very second-best solution but it is a possibility, and in view of the promise which has been extended to give

459
further thought to this, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD SANDFORD: I believe this might be a convenient moment to suspend the Sitting for three-quarters of an hour; that is to say, until five minutes to eight.
[The Sitting was suspended at 7.8 p.m. and resumed at 7.55 p.m.]
7.55 p.m.
LORD HENLEY LORD HENLEY moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 4, line 23, at end insert ("including the conservation of the natural beauty and amenity of the counutryside.")
The noble Lord said: This time I am not asking for an extra body, or a voice, or a vote to be provided. What I am suggesting is that regard should be had to an attitude of mind. Under the clause the appointed members of the water authority have to be people who appear to the Secretary of State to have had experience of, and shown capacity in, some matter relevant to the functions of water authorities. I should like to add the following to those words:
"including the conservation of the natural beauty and amenity of the countryside".
Clearly, conservation of natural beauty is a matter that is relevant to the functions of water authorities. It may well be that the noble Lord will feel that it is sufficiently covered by the phrase which precedes my Amendment. There is a point, in that amenity is clearly not a function, and to that extent it might be as well to add my words. I feel that they should be given special emphasis when appointments to water authorities are being made. Other specific requirements for appointments are mentioned in the Bill; for instance, knowledge of agriculture and land drainage, and familiarity with local circumstances. Conservation must not be allowed to be swamped by these other important considerations.
As I say, I am not asking for another voice; indeed, I would go so far as to say that I would rather not have a special statutory voice for a matter like amenity, because there would be a danger there that the statutory voice would become isolated and an authority might give the impression that matters of amenity had been considered when in fact the voice
460
that was supposed to stand up for them was kept down. I would rather the Minister gave me an assurance, if he cannot go so far as to allow my words to go into the Bill, that these considerations will be taken into account when he appoints members to the water authority. I beg to move.
BARONESS WHITE: I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Henley, in this Amendment. It is right that we should indicate that we consider the matters of conservation and cognate affairs of considerable importance. I also warmly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Henley, that one does not want to have a statutory member for amenity. That might be unfortunate. But the words as they are now in the Bill can be taken to be extraordinarily limiting. Sometimes when we have tried to get women members on to certain bodies we have been told that the Minister cannot appoint them because they cannot show that they have had experience of various functions which are detailed in the Bill concerned. I am not suggesting that that applies in this case, but these words can be extraordinarily limiting if one is not careful. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will give a constructive and sympathetic reply to the noble Lord, Lord Henley.
VISCOUNT ROCHDALE: I also would support the noble Lord in this Amendment. It so happens that its subject matter is closely related to an Amendment I have down and hope to deal with shortly. It is perhaps platitudinous to say so, but it so happens—we sometimes forget it—that areas where water can be conserved happen to be areas of particular beauty and need care. To have it written into the Bill in this way is immensely important. I also hope that my noble friend will feel able to accept this Amendment.
LORD SANDFORD: I can certainly give the assurances that are called for. The noble Lord, Lord Henley, used the happy phrase that regard, he hoped, would be had to "an attitude of mind". And it certainly will—an attitude of mind which gives proper weight to the conservation of amenity and other characteristics which make up the natural beauty of the countryside. Conservation in those terms is indeed among the functions of

461
regional water authorities, and is specifically so stated, first of all and in general in Clause 1(2)(e): "the enhancement and preservation of amenity …", and then, much more fully, in Clause 21—"Duties with regard to nature conservation and amenity"; together with other important and related functions. I hope that the noble Lord will be content with those formulations and will agree that the Statute should not be more precisely drawn in such a way as to tie the Secretary of State's discretion more exactly than that, in all the considerations that he has to bear in mind in creating a regional water authority of suitable membership.
The chief reason for saying that is that I think the noble Lord would agree that the pattern should be variable as between one river basin and another; it should be capable of being developed as experience dictates and as circumstances change; and there should be a certain scope for variety according to the range and variety of talent that is available in each particular case. But the main point I hope I have made is in giving the assurance that this particular aspect is fully covered in at least two places in the Bill already and does not need to be covered in the way proposed.
LORD HENLEY: I think that with that assurance I can withdraw the Amendment. I agree with the noble Lord that one must not over-define these things and over-constrict what the Bill is trying to do. If I have the assurance which the noble Lords gives me, that an attitude of mind will be taken care of here, I am pleased to beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.5 p.m.
LORD GARNSWORTHY LORD GARNSWORTHY moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 4, line 23, at end insert ("and shall include, for each regional water authority a member appointed after consultation with such organisation or organisations as the Secretary of State considers to be representative of persons employed in the water industry").
The noble Lord said: The noble Lord, Lord Henley, in moving his Amendment No. 13, just now drew attention to what is set out in Clause 3. It will be a matter of interest, not only to members of the
462
Committee but outside the House, and indeed it will be of considerable value, if we can be informed of the criteria the Secretary of State will be using in selecting persons to sit on regional water authorities in the area to which my Amendment refers. I speak as a life-long trade unionist myself who is privileged to hold a whole-life membership card of one trade union, and I enjoy association with another. To that extent I suppose I have an interest in securing recognition of the trade union movement on bodies such as regional water authorities and indeed on the National Water Council.
We have persons with trade union experience on the boards of industries which are publicly owned, and it would seem to me logical, or at least in line with that, that we should ensure participation in the work of these bodies by trade unionists with experience in the water industry. Perhaps the Minister will be able to tell us how the Government propose to give effect to the recent proposals from the European Commission on Company Law harmonisation, which, as I understand it, suggested that workers' representatives should have a statutory right to sit on the supervisory boards of companies. It seems to me to bear some relevance to the Amendment I am putting forward.
Again, it seems to me that my Amendment could be very helpful, particularly so if the Government would have another look at the measure of disqualification of a paid officer of the Authority; but I do not want to take up your Lordships' time at this stage on that point. But I would say in passing that to my mind that appears to conflict with what the Commission suggested. The greater the extent to which the trade union movement is consulted and given opportunity to render service, the greater the cooperation it can be expected to give. When the National Health Service Reorganisation Bill was going through your Lordships' House some clear assurances were given, and indeed some Amendments were made to the Bill along the lines of this Amendment, but not in these precise terms. I hope that the Minister will be able to give us information, as I have said, that will be extremely helpful and indicate that proper acknowledgment is going to be made of the role that trade unionists with experience of the water industry can play.
LORD SANDFORD: Once again, I think I can respond to that request for a general assurance, provided that it is not pressed to something more specific. The main criteria which my right honourable friend will have, in deciding the membership of the regional water authorities will, of course, be the functions they will have to perform. In so far as people are employed in large numbers to discharge those particular functions they certainly have a claim to be represented in some way and to some degree. If I am cautious about expressing myself in any more detail than that, it is not because trade union men are not wanted; still less because of any thought that they have no contribution to make—of course they have, a very considerable contribution. I think that all the factors I mentioned in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Henley, apply here: the particular circumstances of each river basin regional water authority; what experience with this new Authority dictates; how circumstances change, and particularly the way in which the necessary talent becomes available. It may be possible to secure trade union representation in the person of somebody who is representing some other interest or some other locality, and that would be all to the good. The noble Lord will already know that one of his noble friends, Lord Cooper, is one of the members representing the industry on the Thames Conservancy. That is the kind of thing which we shall see being continued. The noble Lord was right, of course, to point out that the normal local government practice does disqualify paid employees of a water authority from being appointed members of the authority. That will still apply here, but it is only one limited bar.
The noble Lord mentioned the proposals emerging from the European Commission and I should be glad to acknowledge our recognition of these, but I think he would agree that it would be premature to transplant them, without further consideration, direct into this Bill because they need to be considered in a wider context and on a wider front before that is done. We are certainly aware of the point he was making.
I hope that what I have said, which I am afraid is rather a repetition of the same points that I made to the noble Lord, Lord Henley, will satisfy the noble
464
Lord that the Amendment is not strictly necessary and would be going a little further than would be strictly desirable in limiting the discretion of the Secretary of State.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: I am grateful to the noble Lord for what he has said, but I am not at all sure that he has met my request. Certainly he has not met it to the extent that I hoped he would do, unless I have not fully understood him. If he could give an assurance that there will be consultations with such organisation or organisations—that is to say, trade union or trade unions—as the Secretary of State considers to be representative of the persons employed in the water industry, I should be content. I have no anxiety to press this Amendment too far. I put it down as a probing Amendment because it seemed to me to be important to get it on the Record at this stage. I appeal to the noble Lord to be a little more forthcoming than he has been so far with regard to consultation with specific organisations, without naming them, that is to say trade union organisations catering for the water industry.
LORD SANDFORD: I did not mean my resistance to this particular Amendment in this particular form to mean that everything included in it was ruled out and that there would be no consultations with any organisation of representative persons. I was saying that the importance of this matter was recognised, that there would be consultation in a general way and there would be a need for the persons that the noble Lord has in mind to be considered, alongside all the others, for membership of the regional water authority and that that will be weighed by my right honourable friend. I am sorry I did not make that clear before.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: I am sorry that the noble Lord has replied in such a general way because my Amendment deals with people who are investing their lives in the water industry. I regard them as being in a very different category from a number of other people whom one would expect to see serving on the regional water authority or on the National Water Council.
There was no question here of thinking the noble Lord had, as it were, refused

465
the point. I think he has replied in a rather negative way instead of, as I could wish, in a more positive way. I really do not think that my Amendment asks for very much. I think I am being moderate in saying that at this stage I will not press it, but unless the noble Lord can be a little more positive I may have to come back to it at Report stage.
LORD SANDFORD: Let me try to be more positive now. What I can say is that of course there will be consultations with the organisations representative of persons employed in the industry about representation on the various bodies concerned in this Bill. What I do not want to be pressed to say is—
LORD GARNSWORTHY: I am satisfied. If the noble Lord had said that in his first reply I should not have pursued the point any further. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.14 p.m.
VISCOUNT ROCHDALE VISCOUNT ROCHDALE moved Amendment No. 14A:
Page 4, line 31, after ("subsections") insert ("(7)");
The noble Viscount said: This is really a paving Amendment, and I wonder whether we may debate it along with my next Amendment, No. 15A, which is the main Amendment. First, I should like to apologise to your Lordships in that I was unfortunately unable to be here during the Second Reading debate and therefore, as it were, to give notice of this point that I wanted to raise today.
The point deals essentially with the North West Water Authority, and perhaps it would be a help if I could just remind your Lordships of what that authority is like. It is a very long one—150 miles from North to South—and essentially divided by a comparatively narrow neck in the middle. In the North there is an area which is predominantly the producer of water. There are few industrial users there. In the South there is the area which is the predominantly major user of water. The purpose of this Amendment is tb try to redress the balance on local authority representation as between, on the one hand, the producers of water to the North and, on the other hand, the users of water to the South. To get the matter into perspective it is as well to mention the numbers that
466
now exist in the Bill for local authority representatives, including both county and district authorities. The total number of elected representatives is 14, but Cumbria, the area to the North where the bulk of the water comes from, has only two of those representatives. I submit to your Lordships that that is an unreasonably small number, bearing in mind particularly the very special circumstances of the district of Cumbria, an area of great natural beauty—I dare to say it, the principal National Park in the country, and an area also which has had a not entirely happy history when one remembers the rather greedy (or perhaps I should say thirsty) looks which have come to it from the South and which have not always resulted in very satisfactory arrangements.
So this is a problem. Can we not have a better balance of representation from local authorities as between the water producers in Cumbria and the water users to the South? I say this with some deference because I happen to be a Lancastrian myself and I realise very well indeed how important water is to industry in that area; but there must be a give and take. This was a matter that was dealt with in another place and referred to in Standing Committee, and I shall mention that in a moment. The procedure adopted in that case was not the procedure that I am suggesting, of altering the representation, but to divide the North Western authorities into two authorities: the one in the North was the Lakes/Lune Authority, which would be all the producers, and the one in the South would be the rest of the present authority now in the Bill.
I think there is a great deal to be said for that approach, of having two authorities, but 1 think the argument can be debated fairly easily both ways. On balance, I personally should have preferred to have a Lakes/Lune Authority; but I can see the other side of the argument. At any rate the Amendment was not accepted in another place and the arguments against it which were put forward, both then and in correspondence that I have also seen, really amounted to three separate points. The first point against this separate Lakes/Lune Authority was a point that has been mentioned in earlier debates this afternoon, that major sources of water should be in the

467
same area as those who depend on those sources. That is the first argument that the Secretary of State had against a separate authority. The second argument against it was that the smaller authority would have insufficient financial resources. And the third argument was that the Lakes/Lune Authority would have insufficient technical resources.
As regards the last two arguments—the financial resources and the technical resources—I do not think that they are tenable arguments because whether there are enough financial resources or whether you can pay for adequate technical resources depends on the amount of money that the user authorities are prepared to pay for their water. There is provision in the Bill that money can be transferred from one authority to another where the water it uses comes from a neighbouring authority.
On the first argument, the question of the major sources of water being within the same area as those who depend on those sources, my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford referred to that in an earlier Amendment. That is important and can be debated both ways. What emerges is that it will probably be generally admitted that in cases where you have a user interest and a consumer interest there is bound potentially to be a conflict of interests as between the users and the producers. That conflict of interest has been very well seen in the Cumbria/Lancashire area over the years in the case of Manchester and the Thirlmere and Ullswater water supplies. Many of your Lordships will remember only too well the notable debate held in your Lordships' House some years ago when the late Lord Birkett, in what was probably the last speech he made in your Lordships' House, made such a tremendous impression in this House that the Order we were debating was defeated. The Secretary of State's solution to this question of conflict of interest between user and producer is found by putting both sides round the same table and hoping that they will come to a harmonious agreement between them. That is plausible enough provided the two sides are reasonably well balanced. And that is what I am seeking to bring about in my Amendment.
I have not so far mentioned the question of the appointed members, who have an important bearing on this issue. In the Standing Committee in another place on March 8, Mr. Griffiths, the Minister, gave an assurance which I should like to read to your Lordships. Referring to the Lake District he said:
"Without prejudging my right honourable friend's choices, I should like the Committee to know that he will pay special regard to the situation of the Lakes within the whole area when he makes his appointments."
That was a valuable assurance and one that I personally welcome and feel very grateful for. But of course one has to bear in mind that no Minister can bind his successors, and even with the very best will in the world the Minister could only bear that point in mind in certain of his appointments. That being so, taking both local authority representatives and the appointed members, the outcome would still be a balance very much in favour of the users as opposed to the producers.
My Amendment, therefore, does not go very far but it seeks to write into the Bill a larger proportion of producer members from local authorities. Many of my friends in Cumbria would say that it was not nearly drastic enough. But I believe that it is enough, particularly taken alongside the assurance that the Minister has given. It seeks to do what I have been saying. It would do so without in any way undermining the principle of the Bill, which I feel is essentially a good Bill. Admittedly it increases the size of the body, but not by all that amount. I very much hope that my noble friend will be able to accept this Amendment which I regard as a very important one. I beg to move.
8.26 p.m.
LORD INGLEWOOD: I rise to support my noble friend. As he has explained, the area of the proposed North West Water Authority is a very strange one. It is 150 miles long from North to South, and in the middle there is a narrow neck, no more than 15 miles wide, dividing the area not just into two districts of roughly equal size but also of a completely different character. The area to the North, which is England's premier National Park, under the Bill is allowed two local authority members, whereas the area to the South, of approximately the same extent but where there is great

469
concentration of industry, is to have 12 local authority members. There is no difficult watershed dividing this area such as has been suggested was one of the problems when the Trent and Severn were under discussion. And it is worth noting that there is no member to be appointed by the Lake District Planning Board.
I hope that my noble friend will not accuse us of being old-fashioned and reactionary just because we do not happen to agree with what is written in the Bill. The Bill proposes certain changes from the present position and I submit that they are not changes for the better. It is interesting that they are very roughly what was proposed in the original draft of the 1963 Act when it came before the other place as a Bill. But in fact they are rather worse. After much discussion in the other place, the Minister agreed to a change, and as I sensed it then it was against the Department's advice. He agreed to a change so that the greater part of the Lake District was treated as a self-contained area and became the Cumberland River Authority area which has worked very well and which people in the district, and not least the Cumberland County Council, would like to see continued. There has been no criticism voiced against it.
The case was argued in another place for continuing a smaller area, but no convincing reasons for the change have been given. I am afraid that we believe it is Central Government's view here that in order for anything to be better it must be bigger. If the noble Lord thinks that disagreeing with him is reactionary, then I would say that this firm, uncritical belief that in order to be better you must be bigger is just vulgar. The other argument to which I think the administrative side of the Government machine always attaches undue importance is uniformity, and that if a certain principle is accepted then it must be applied ruthlessly to all parts of England, whether it abuts on the metropolis here or whether it is some 100 miles away where the character may be entirely different. Far too great a worship of uniformity is at present to be seen in this country.
My noble friend has dealt with the arguments in the Minister's letters and in the reply from the Front Bench in the
470
Committee in another place, but they leave the people of Cumbria unconvinced and sad that the Government should have so little regard for what we claim to be the premier National Park with its special character. The noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud, spoke about the Government's reputation (perhaps not as high as it ought to be) in their regard for local authorities, and I am afraid it is true that the Party which I have supported over many years has never shown the enthusiastic support for the National Park movement that I should have liked to see. They have been ready over the last few years to pay great lip service to the very precious status of National Parks in this country at this time, but their acts have not, I am afraid, always lived up to their words. Of course, the members of these authorities will try to work as a team, as people in Britain always do when they are well led and well chosen, but it would be entirely wrong for us here tonight to overlook the fact that there has for a long time been feeling between the Lake District and the urban areas of Lancashire, and it is not just an imaginary fear.
We have had experience of Manchester Corporation when they thought the going was easy and showed complete indifference to the interests of the area to the North where population was less dense, where rateable value was much smaller and where they thought they would not have any difficulty in getting their own way. I was sorry when I read the Second Reading debate the other day to see that the noble Baroness, Lady Stocks, actually said this—and she is not a fanatical person:
"When I lived in Manchester, the city of Manchester had made absolutely adequate provision for its own needs. … They were busily and efficiently exploiting the lakes of Cumberland and North Wales."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st May 1973, col. 1035.]
She made not a word of apology for that, and I am afraid this cannot be overlooked. But, as my noble friend has said, the situation was saved by action in this House. That was ten years ago, and since then things have changed greatly for the better. The relations between the two parts of the North-West of England have improved out of all recognition, but the fact remains that it is really asking too much to assume now that all will be well. Water is as important to us in

471
the North-West of England—it is one of our principal resources—as oil is to the Gulf States.
If a separate area is not possible, at least I think the Government should give greater representation to the North, as my noble friend asks in his Amendment. This is important in recreational as well as other interests. We have been as anxious as any to try to give the greatest possible recreational opportunities to people who come to the area, from the North-East as well as from the North-West. Surely the area should have a bigger voice than just two against twelve among the local authority members, not least since tourism is our principal industry. But there is a danger here in two ways. There is urban pressure for all kinds of water sports, with no distinction between the noisy ones and others, which could easily change the character of that whole district for the worse. Then, on the other side, it should be noted that in the Lake District there are only two lakes where there are no recreational opportunities at all, and those are the two under the control of the Manchester Corporation. There have been many promises in the past that they will try to meet this need for recreation, but up to date very little has happened, as I am sure my noble friend Lord Rochdale will bear out, and I see he nods.
We shall listen with the greatest interest to the Minister's reply, and I hope he will not reply from the same brief as I heard in 1963, because sometimes these pieces of grey paper are left in pigeonholes for a long time. This is not our last chance to improve this Bill. I hope the Minister will show appreciation of our case and our arguments, and will give us an assurance that if he cannot accept the wording of this Amendment he will himself table an Amendment broadly on the same lines at Report stage. I am sure my noble friend does not want to come back at Report stage, and I certainly do not want to come back at Report stage, but I cannot accept the Bill as now drafted.
LORD HENLEY: I feel great embarrassment and a certain difficulty here, because I do not want to appear to be, as it were, disloyal to my noble neighbours, nor indeed to Cumbria, nor indeed
472
to the Lake District. Furthermore, I agree with everything the noble Lord has said; but I am not at all sure in my mind that what he wants and what I want and what the noble Viscount, Lord Rochdale, wants is to be achieved by putting two more members representing Cumbria on this water authority. The difficulty I feel is that one must be very careful lest further changes in the constitution of the new authorities makes them less effective. I have great sympathy with this conflict between the producer and the user. I want to try to redress that balance, but I have a sort of feeling that it can only be redressed in a different way. I agree that most of the areas where water is produced are poor upland areas which are in great difficulty. It seems to me perfectly fair that we should try to give them some of the benefit of having supplied that water to the richer urban conurbations. I think it could be done in some different way; I am not at all sure how; but I do not believe that the conflict can be resolved in this particular way.
I was very impressed with what the noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud, said earlier. What we are dealing with here is not analogous to a democratic process at all, but a technological device along rather new and untried paths to try to make the best use of public utilities. One must forget some of the basic liberal ideas with regard to democratic representation, because I do not believe they are relevant to what we are talking about. That is why I feel embarrassment: because I want to do the best for Cumbria and the best for the Lake District National Park and the upland areas, so that they get some advantage from what they have to sell—and they have very little—but I am in some doubt as to whether it can be done by the device the noble Viscount puts forward.
Naturally, if he were to press it to a Division, in that kind of boneheaded way which one does I would say "Blow my principles, I will come in!"; but I do not want to do that because I feel that this is wrong. I think we must try to find other methods of making good for Cumbria what ought to be done for Cumbria and for the Lake District National Park and other National Parks and upland areas. I am not sure what it should be, but I am not convinced that it is

473
along the lines we have been talking about today. We have talked about London in terms of democratic control; we have talked about local authority representation and landowners' representation—and I have put my name to an Amendment—we have talked about amenity representation, and we have talked about election or appointment of chairmen. We have talked about all of these things in a way which I suspect to be irrelevant to the kind of thing we are trying to do. For this reason, though I have every sympathy with the Amendment and should be delighted if the Minister would give way, I nevertheless cannot help feeling that it would be the wrong solution.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: If the question I ask is right out of order, I hope the noble Lord will tell me and I shall be the first to sit down. It seemed to me from the speeches I have heard that it might just be on the edge of order. It seems to me that the right place to get water from is not the tops of the rivers, as in the Lake District—I would remind the House that I was a Member for the Lake District for 20 years—but the bottom of the rivers where they enter the sea. That is the point at which if you do not take the water it goes into the sea and becomes part of the ocean and is lost. I therefore want to ask this single question. If the Morecambe project is thought by the technical people to be feasible, does this Bill provide the opportunity of bringing it into operation? There we have 500 square miles of sea, which is of great value to the nation because it produces the Morecambe shrimps, all of whom used to vote for me of course; but it is much more important that people who need the water should have the water. Here we have a lake of 500 square miles, water which has done its turn in the rivers and the lakes and is of no more real use, and it is just going into the ocean to be salinised and lost. That is my question. If it is irrelevant to the Amendment, and I am pretty sure it is, would the Minister tell his Front Bench to give me an answer before this debate ends?
8.40 p.m.
LORD SANDFORD: I should like to start by agreeing with my noble friend Lord Inglewood that it certainly is not
474
always better to be bigger. I think that that applies with as much force to the Cumbrian representation on the North-West Regional Water Authority as to anything else. I do not really think that they need to be bigger in order to do a good job on that water authority. I would claim to be among those who are enthusiastic supporters of the National Parks, and I am particularly enthusiastic after my experience of the last three years. One of the things that I have learned is that there is not one premier National Park, but ten. I am glad of support for that proposition. There is one of them at the head of almost all—certainly the majority—of the regional water authorities, and their situation has to be borne in mind. They are strange, unique, wild and beautiful areas, and they have to be preserved and their natural beauty safeguarded. I have already indicated that there is ample provision in the Bill for that. It will all, I hope, be better and more readily done than in the past.
The particular point that I want to make is that the necessity will remain for any water authority that wants to build a reservoir to go to the planning authority and get planning permission, and if a National Park is involved to come to Parliament for endorsement of the decision, if the Secretary of State gives his permission to such an application. That is the way in which that is safeguarded, and of course it must be. In answer to my noble friend Lord Fraser, I would certainly say that estuarial schemes have a role to play and have been considered. Morecambe Bay has been considered, but I would go on to say that this Bill provides a better framework for such further consideration of such schemes as are before us, and furthermore a better framework for exploiting the potentiality of estuarial schemes. I would not agree with him that he is out of order; I think it is entirely appropriate to raise the matter in this particular context.
I would go on to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Henley, when he surmises and feels, as I do and as I think many other noble Lords do, that there are better ways of overcoming the problems which my noble friends Lord Rochdale and Lord Inglewood feel exist in this authority for Cumbria. I think that we can all understand the wariness with

475
which the new county of Cumbria and the new metropolitan county of Greater Manchester will come to lie down together, as it were, in the same river bed. That is a natural attitude borne of the experience of the bad old days, to which that notable debate in this House over Ullswater and the use of Ullswater by Manchester related. I venture to think that these can now be regarded as things of the past, and these two authorities in particular, and the others in the authority, will soon learn to get on well together, perhaps helped to compose their past unhappy differences by the other 24 members of the new authority. That, I venture to agree withthe noble Lord, Lord Henley, is the way in which these conflicts—and I can see that they are potentially there—will in fact be resolved. It is for this reason that the regional water authorities have been composed in the way they have been. I would end by agreeing wholeheartedly with my noble friend Lord Inglewood that bigger is not necessarily better, and I am sure that it is not for Cumbria in this authority.
VISCOUNT ROCHDALE: I am sorry that the noble Lord takes that view. I agree with him that we hope very much that the two authorities will come to lie down together. Obviously this is what we want and this is by far the better way of achieving our end; but will they lie down together when they can be compared to the lion and the lamb, when I should prefer it to be the lion and the lion, or the lamb and the lamb? That is the sole purpose of my Amendment.The noble Lord, Lord Henley, said he was agreeing with what I was trying to get at but thought that there were better ways of achieving it. I wonder if my noble friend Lord Sandford—and I think that he agreed with that point—would consider whether there are betterways of dealing with the main point of making it apparent to the people of Cumbria that they are not being ridden over roughshod and that they really are having an adequate say in the authority. That is all I am trying to get. I entirely agree with everyone who says that you do not want a bigger authority. I have taken the chair over a great number of authorities and I know how much easier it is to get effective control over
476
the smaller authority. I ask my noble friend whether there are not ways and means that he could bring forward in an Amendment on Report which would achieve the same purpose, but do so in a different way from the one I have suggested in my Amendment.
LORD SANDFORD: Certainly I cannot but respond to that request. Needless to say I have considered, and so have my noble friends, how Cumbria might fare. I believe that, with all their charms, natural beauty, and so on, they will get on very well in this authority, and I am sure that they will find ways and means of influencing the many friends that they will have within it. I will certainly respond to my noble friend's request to give the matter further thought, and if I cannot, as I do not think I shall be able to do, accept the idea in this particular Amendment, I will consider whether there is anything else that might be done in its its place.
VISCOUNT ROCHDALE: I am grateful to my noble friend for that statement. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD SANDFORD LORD SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 5, line 6, leave out ("discharges any functions") and insert ("discharge any functions or, as respects the period between the passing of this Act and 1st April 1974, the area as respects which they will discharge any functions as from that date.")
THE noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 15, which is little more than a technical Amendment. Local authority representation on a water authority is to be based upon the proportion of a local authority's population which is located within the area in which the water authority discharge any of their functions. The water authority, however, will not be discharging their main functions until April 1, 1974. The new form of words in this Amendment relates the calculation of representation during the period from Royal Assent until March 31, 1974 (that is, the time during which the calculations will have to be made in respect of the first members of the water authority) to the area in which the water authority will discharge any of their functions as from April 1, 1974.
8.49 p.m.
LORD SANDFORD LORD SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 19A:
Page 5, line 43, leave out from ("this") to end of line 44 and insert ("section require to be enacted by a public Bill which cannot be referred to a Select Committee of either House under the Standing Orders of either House relating to Private Bills").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 19A on behalf of my noble friend. This is really just a drafting Amendment. Clause 3(11), to which it relates, is necessary in order to prevent orders under Clause 3 altering the constitution of the water authorities from having to be treated in the circumstances set out in the subsection as though they were private persons. There is a corresponding provision in paragraph 1(3) of Schedule 3 to the Local Government Act, 1972, which relates to orders giving effect to proposals submitted by the Local Government Boundary Commission for England for defining areas of the non-metropolitan counties. I beg to move.
On Question, Whether Clause 3, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
8.50 p.m.
BARONESS WHITE: I want to raise one matter on Clause 3. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, is not here. I had understood he was going to be at the service of the House on Welsh matters and I did give some notice of this point. I want to ask what exactly are the Government's intentions under subsection (10), whereby the Welsh authority is treated entirely differently from the nine English regional water authorities in so far as it will be set up by special order. As I understand it the reason for this differentiation between the Welsh and the English authorities was that the Government apprehended that conceivably at some time—though heaven knows when—the Kilbrandon/Crowther Commission on the Constitution will report, and that this might have some bearing upon the constitution of the Welsh water authority. I am, of course, gratified if this is the correct explanation for the difference in treatment between the Welsh and the English authorities, because of course for a very long time we in Wales have said that the administration of water in Wales should be one of the functions of an elected Welsh Council, and we have
478
had some suggestions from the Prime Minister—he made them first in Scotland but repeated them in a recent visit to Wales—that something of the kind (though he was naturally not very specific about it) may be expected.
If I am right in my conjecture on this, I should like to know in some detail from the Government what precisely they propose to do in the interim. It seems to me plain that we must have an interim arrangement in Wales. Subsection (10)(b) of this clause says:
"a draft of the order establishing that authority shall be so laid not later than one month after the passing of this Act".
I am not quite sure when the Government propose that the Act is to receive the Royal Assent, or precisely what is to happen when an Order has to be, very properly, approved by Resolution of each House of Parliament. It seems to me that we might be running rather close to the end of our summer Sitting before this could be achieved. If it is not achieved in time, then is the Welsh authority going to be lagging behind all the others in assuming its functions? What is the timetable which the Government have in mind? And may we perhaps know a little more specifically so that we can then understand exactly what it is that Wales is to expect in so far as the Welsh National Water Development Authority is concerned?
I will go on talking for a little while to give the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, time to catch up on what the matter under discussion is if he so desires. In fact I will give him the name in Welsh again, if that will help matters at all. I am sure he will appreciate that this is a matter of concern and that we really would like to know what the Government's intentions are as to the timetable which will plainly be different for the Welsh authority—I did give notice of this —from the English ones. I do not know that we can wait while the noble Lord reads the brief which I suggested some time ago he might have the opportunity of looking at.
LORD SANDFORD: If the Committee and the noble Baroness will let me venture into this tricky field I shall do my best. May I say that my noble friend Lord Aberdare is, as the noble Baroness indicated, entirely available to deal with Welsh water matters, but if the

479
noble Baroness would let me or my noble friend Lady Young know when she is going to raise things which in the nature of things are unexpected on the Question, That the clause stand part of the Bill, I will certainly make sure that a Welsh voice answers these Welsh points instead of an English one, because I know an English one is entirely unsatisfactory.
BARONESS WHITE: I did give notice to one of the Lords in Waiting.
LORD SANDFORD: May I, as an interim point, make some response? The reasons which the noble Baroness has supposed lie behind subsection (10) are the real ones. It is indeed in order to allow for the recommendations of the Commission on the Constitution to be taken into account because these are expected to be available later this year. The intention is that subsection (10) will enable the Government to propose either an interim or a final constitution for the Welsh authority at the time when the draft of the Order is to be laid depending on whether the Report of the Commission has been published or has not been published at that particular date. In any case, the constitution of the Welsh authority, whether interim or final, is obviously a very important matter. All Welsh matters are important, but they are particularly important in this case because the greater part of the water that is required for England and Wales as a whole falls in the first place as rain over Wales—so it is very important. That is the reason for the further provision that a draft of the Order, subject to the approval of the Resolution in both Houses, is provided for here. There may be further Welsh nuances to this topic which perhaps my noble friend may be able to supply.
LORD ABERDARE: I am very sorry; I did not understand that the noble Baroness intended to raise this point and therefore I am not briefed on it, but the brief that I have entirely corroborates what my noble friend has already said and I can only confirm that this is the position.
BARONESS WHITE: I am sorry that the message which I delivered obviously did not reach the noble Lord. I am sure
480
that the Committee will appreciate that we are placed in some difficulty. If I may say so to the noble Lords who come from England, the Commission on the Constitution of course deals with the entire United Kingdom and not with Wales only; and although it is quite true that we in Wales attach particular importance to the findings of this Commission on the Constitution, Scotland might equally do so, though Scotland of course is not germane to this particular Bill. Nevertheless, I should imagine that those concerned with English regional water authorities might also like to know whether there are any recommendations in the Commission's Report on the Constitution which might affect regional organisation in England.
It is not very satisfactory to have to proceed in the dark on this. Furthermore, I am still not at all clear what the pattern of authority in Wales is to be. If, as I can only suppose, this Bill is passed and one month elapses before the Report of the Kilbrandon Commission sees the light of day, on what basis in those circumstances is the Welsh authority to be formed? I think we are entitled to have a little further information about this, because Wales is not covered by any other provisions in the Bill, and therefore it is surely time that the Government should tell us what it is they have worked out and what their proposed timetable is. I cannot see how they can escape an interim Order, and I think we are entitled to know what their plans are.
LORD ABERDARE: I think it is quite clear that we are trying to meet the point which the noble Baroness made very clearly at the time of the Local Government Bill—that we should take the Report of the Commission on the Constitution very carefully into account. This gives us the latitude to produce an interim solution which will carry us over until a final solution can be arrived at.
BARONESS WHITE: I am not in the least quarrelling with that, as it seems to me absolutely inevitable. What I am saying is that we should rather like to know what thoughts the Government have had about what seems to be inevitable; namely, an interim constitution. I raised the matter in this way—on the Question, Whether Clause 3 shall stand

481
part of the Bill?—because we did not wish to put down an Amendment, and I am sure that noble Lords opposite will appreciate that one is in some difficulty. I say that, because at Report stage one cannot further discuss it, on the Question, Whether Clause 3 shall stand part of the Bill? and we shall then have to put down a substantive Amendment. But I suppose one could put down an Amendment to leave out the entire clause, and perhaps by that time the Government would be able to give us a little further information.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 4[Establishment and functions of National Water Council]:
9.0 p.m.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY VISCOUNT RIDLEY moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 6, line 25, after ("State") insert ("including at least four appointed after consultation with such Associations of local authorities as he considers appropriate.")
The noble Viscount said: It has not so far been a very successful night for local government, and looking around me I do not think it will get much better, especially since my noble friend and colleague Lord Amory has had to leave the Chamber. Very briefly, this Amendment seeks to ensure the participation of local government as a whole in the formation of the National Water Council. I hope it will not have escaped your Lordships' notice that the Council consists of a chairman to be appointed by the Secretary of State, ten chairmen of the water authorities—and your Lordships have just decided that those ten shall be appointed by the Secretary of State—and not more than ten other members, of whom not more than eight shall be appointed by the Secretary of State and not more than two by the Minister of Agriculture. This gives the Secretary of State very nearly a full house; in fact, this amounts as near as nothing to a complete and utter majority. I am here suggesting that, having conceded the principle that local government should become involved in the process of water reorganisation, with which they generally agree, they should be consulted in so far as four people should be suggested by the local authority associations; that is to say, four out of the latter ten.
I do not think that this is a greedy or a thirsty request, and having conceded the principle I think the Government should realise how much this matters to local government. I am not asking for the appointments to be made by local government; only that consultation should be held and names suggested. We all know that they are not always appointed, however much one suggests names. When we come to the Water Space Amenity Council, and such like bodies too numerous to mention, we shall find the position becoming exactly the same as in this case. I believe that local authorities have the right, and indeed the duty, at national level to be involved in the many serious problems for the future of the water industry as such, particularly in the question of supplies which will become more and more difficult; and we have already heard, with great eloquence, the feelings of the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, on the problems of supplies in his part of the world. I do not here see any conflict with subsection (3) which follows immediately after my Amendment, and I feel that local government can offer very valuable assistance at national level as well as at local level. I therefore hope that the Minister will be kind enough to take this Amendment away and look at it again. I feel that some form of specific provision is needed. Otherwise, some future Secretary of State may feel disposed to ignore completely the interests of local government in this vital matter. I beg to move.
LORD SANDFORD: I am very sorry that my noble friend Lord Ridley feels that local government is not having a good night. I have sought, over and over again, to stress the importance of local government in the whole of this machinery and I shall go on doing so not least on this Amendment, because it is so. Local government constitutes the largest single element in the whole of this new structure and it has an indispensable part to play. I should have thought, of all the assurances that one might be asked to give—I have been able to give most of them so far—the one that local authorities should be consulted about the way in which these bodies are composed is the least necessary. It is even less necessary to provide for it in the Bill in this rather inflexible way, which would go beyond anything that has been insisted

483
upon by any other noble Lords who have wanted to have regard to trade unions, to natural beauty or to any of the other interests, such as the water industry and the industries which use water.
I am sure my noble friend appreciates that it is not possible to respond; in fact, he himself expected me to take the Amendment away and consider it. I am glad of that indication that he does not wish to press the matter; but certainly I shall give him the assurance for which he asked, that of course local authority associations will be consulted about the membership of these bodies, and they will clearly have to be because their interests are so much bound up in them. But I should not want to go so far as he seeks to go in his Amendment, so that there are specific consultations about specific appointments to specific authorities. I hope he will appreciate, not only from what I am saying now but from what I said earlier, that that would be tying my right honourable friend's hands too much and not allowing some flexibility, which he needs, to reflect on the characteristics of each river area, on the changing experience and changing circumstances, and on the different way in which the suitable talents for these authorities become available. But I shall be glad to give him the general assurance which he is seeking.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: I have listened with the very greatest care to what the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, has said in reply to the very persuasive arguments advanced by the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley. I must say that I feel that either his brief is restricting him to a point where he can make no concession of any great value, or he has not understood the point which the noble Viscount seemed to me to be making. If the noble Viscount was not making it, then let me make it. Local government are looking for actions; they will not be satisfied with mere words. They have had all sorts of assurances and have been told that of course their value is recognised, the quality of the service which they can give is appreciated. But when it comes to any real concession that establishes the position of local government on this National Water Council nothing satisfying has been said.
484
When we were discussing an earlier Amendment to enable regional water authorities to elect their own chairmen I drew attention to the fact that if they were allowed to do that, there was a considerable probability that we should get on to the National Water Board people who came from local government. As things are, we have no assurance that any substantial number of people on the National Water Board are going to come from local government. The noble Lord would rightly say that a knowledge of local government is not enough; that what we want is people who understand water—how to conserve it, how to use it. how to re-use it; people upon whom we can rely to be useful. Such people are to be found in local government. Our county councils have tremendous experience in many directions. Many of our local authorities are themselves, and have been for a very long time, water undertakers. I hope that the Government will be prepared to do as the noble Viscount suggested and have another look at this proposal and not turn it down this evening. The noble Viscount has indicated, 1 think quite clearly, that he is prepared to withdraw it. I should have thought that there could be an undertaking to look at it in the light of what has been said.
I appreciate that there is some difficulty. The noble Lord, Lord Sandford, is no longer at the Department of the Environment, and it may well be that he cannot commit anybody to anything very much; I do not know. It may be that he is as free as he ever was, if he was ever free, to make some sort of concession. But the noble Baroness serves at the Department of the Environment, and on this matter I really think that local government ought to have some little comfort at least this evening that their plea for recognition to be given to them is going to be looked at anew.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: I should like to go part of the way with the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, because although I felt that the answer given by my noble friend Lord Sandford to the Amendment was a very good one, I felt it was an answer to a slightly different point from the one which I understood to be raised in my noble friend's Amendment. What I thought he was trying to do—and I hope it was—was

485
to make quite sure that the Council would be so composed that in their deliberations there would always be someone sitting around the table with knowledge of local authorities. That, to my mind, is the right way to test local authority opinion, and not to send a proposition outside the Council and get the Minister to ask the local authority associations, and that sort of thing. I am quite sure that the local authorities want to get the situation where they are properly represented on all these boards and where through their representatives they can give the right sort of opinion without any further procedure. So although I believe my noble friend is going to withdraw his Amendment, I hope that point will be seriously taken when my noble friend Lord Sandford takes it back to his advisers.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: The longer we listen the more it emerges clearly that the Government are oscillating from one contradiction to another. Their policy is to establish regionalism, but with all due respect to the excellent replies given, I would point out that Machiavelli was brilliant in giving replies but the hypotheses were always wrong—that is the point. It is not good replies which count: it is the hypotheses upon which the replies are based. What is sad it that, these days, Governments do not seem to be basing their replies on the good, old-fashioned approach that it has taken us a thousand years to establish against all the winds of change: that, come hell, fire or deep water, the best method of Government is to give the ins and outs a chance at different times to attack the other side through democratic representation, without too much technocracy and without too much expertise, because native wisdom counts. It is acknowledged now that there will be no real local representation. This National Council is primarily to be under the direction of the Secretary of State, and it will be subject to strict Ministerial reply.
It reminds me that, years ago, when I had to study a little philosophy for some silly little exam I had to pass, we were told a lot about the pantheon of Hinduism and its gods. Vishnu was always depicted with four great arms: one of them had a club, the other a lotus, the other a shell and the other a disc. The
486
Government are developing regional arms. The trouble about the Government is that there are no flowers in any of their arms; in every arm there is a club. They are clubbing local representation out of existence. I would ask the Minister: what formula now exists for the easy passage—never mind the Party political point of view—of democratic local views and complaints to get to the top? Even on this subject of water meters (if they ever come about) one must remember that the people working in dirty jobs in the "coffin areas", the industrial areas, use more soap and water than anybody else. Have not the Government considered the burden that will be placed on those living in those areas, as against those in the clean parts of the country like Brighton? It will be ten times as much. An old document I have of 1931 showed the amount of soap and water used by the people of Rochdale, for example, compared with those of Brighton. None of this seems to have been taken into account.
I believe that we are right in urging that there should be some local representation on the National Water Council. Without burdening the Committee—as I can and as at some time I threaten to —I beg the Minister not to give us replies based on handed down hypotheses. I hate to talk against such charming noble Lords as those on the other side; I hate bandying words with them. It hurts me to go into the Division lobby; I feel crippled, and when the poor noble Lord, the Whip on the other side, is about to tap me on the shoulder, I feel like a lumbering member of the proletariat, as though I had no right to vote against him. I beg the noble Lord to look at this matter again. It is not good enough for the country at the moment to have the kind of answer that sweeps aside appeals from both sides of the Committee from men of vast experience, men serving on local authority organisations which have been in existence since the formation of local government in Britain.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: I have only two arms and I shall not be able to answer at great length or with Lord Davies of Leek's eloquence. In each arm I hold a leek, this being also a Welsh Bill. My noble friend gave me some assurance that local government will be consulted. I am prepared to

487
accept that as representing some step towards the solution of the problem. I think that we should have this provision written into the Bill if possible, and it is only fair to say that if we cannot get it written into the Bill it may be necessary to return to the matter at Report stage. I beg to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.16 p.m.
LORD GARNSWORTHY LORD GARNSWORTHY moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 6, line 31, at end insert ("and of the members appointed by the Secretary of State one shall be appointed after consultation with such organisation or organisations as the Secretary of State considers to be representative of persons employed in the water industry".
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is very similar, but not exactly the same in wording, as Amendment No. 14. This clause deals with the National Water Board. If the noble Lord could give me the same assurance that he gave during our discussion on the early Amendment I should be happy to withdraw this one. So that I may be in order, however, I beg to move the Amendment.
LORD SANDFORD: Yes, I am very happy to give that assurance—if anything with even greater conviction than in the first instance.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: I am grateful to the noble Lord. That was the most satisfying speech I have listened to from him this evening. He is coming on! I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD CHAMPION LORD CHAMPION moved Amendment No. 22A:
Page 6, line 33, at end insert—
("( ) (a) The Council may arrange for the discharge of any of their functions by a committee or sub-committee but any arrangements so made shall not prevent the Council from discharging those functions.
(b) For the purpose of discharging any of their functions in pursuance, of arrangements under this subsection the Council may appoint one or more committees of the Council, and any such committee may appoint one or more sub-committees.
(c) The number of members of any such committee and their term of office shall be fixed by the Council, or, in the case of a
488
sub-committee, by the appointing committee, and any such committee or sub-committee may include persons who are not members of the Council or, in the case of a sub-committee, of the appointing committee.
(d) A person who is disqualified for being a member of the Council shall be disqualified also for being a member of a committee or sub-committee appointed under this subsection.")
The noble Lord said: I am moving this Amendment on behalf of my noble friend Lord Hughes who very much regrets that he is unable to be here. This Amendment deals with a Scottish and Northern Ireland aspect of the Bill. Amendments Nos. 22A and 27A go together and with permission I shall discuss them together. The first is a paving Amendment for the second.
This clause provides for the establishment of the National Water Council which will have among its varied duties that of setting up a scheme for the testing and approval of water fittings and the very important scheme for the provision of training throughout the United Kingdom. For these functions, at the moment there exists a Standing Committee on Water Regulations dealing with fittings. In the case of training there exists the Supply Industry Training Board. Both those bodies cover the United Kingdom as a whole, and when their functions are undertaken, as they will be, by the Water Council, I gather that the staffs of both those bodies are to be taken over, and for these aspects the Water Council will function for the whole of the United Kingdom.
In preparing these schemes, the Council is to be under an obligation to consult, among others, regional water boards and water development boards in Scotland and the Ministry of Development in Northern Ireland. In connection with the Council's training functions, consultation has to take place between the Council and "such educational and other authorities or bodies" in Scotland and Northern Ireland "as the Secretary of State may direct". It would seem to us, and to our friends over the Border and over the sea that it is not enough for the Council to consult the named authorities in Scotland and Northern Ireland. Neither does it seem to be enough to that highly responsible body, the British Waterworks Association. For that association takes the view that, so far as

489
the interests of water authorities in Scotland and Northern Ireland are concerned, there should be a statutory requirement for the Council to make provision in these schemes for the representation of these authorities on any committee or other body established to administer the scheme. This would accord with the present arrangements for the administration of the testing and approval of the fittings and training in the water industry and is especially important, since neither Scotland nor Northern Ireland will be represented on the National Water Council.
That is a very modest statement of what ought to be readily acceded to, for all it asks is that provision shall be made by Statute for representation on the appropriate committees; that is to say, that consultation shall be followed by representation. At the outset I said that the first Amendment is a paving Amendment. I admit that it is a "paving stone" of considerable size, but it seems necessary in that form to lead to the second Amendment which is the reasonable purpose of both Amendments. I feel its very reasonableness will appeal to the responsible Minister and the Government. I sincerely hope that we shall have the sort of answer to this modest Amendment that the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, has just given to my noble friend Lord Garnsworthy.
LORD SANDFORD: There is so much charm emanating from both sides of the Committee to-night that I cannot but respond as the noble Lord, Lord Champion, would wish, and say that if it is necessary to reassure the Scottish bodies that their interests will be properly safeguarded, that is something which we must look into. Of course we had hoped that the terms of the Bill would do this, but if they do not, then certainly discussions may be reopened. They would have to include the draftsmen to see how the terms of the Bill can be modified, but I will undertake to be ready to have discussions with the noble Lord between this and the next stage of the Bill with a view to meeting his point.
LORD CHAMPION: We are getting on. Sweet reasonableness is guiding us all in everything we say, and I am happy to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.25 p.m.
LORD HENLEY LORD HENLEY moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 6, line 38, after ("authorities") insert ("and, in particular, to promote co-operation between them in the exercise of their functions.")
The noble Lord said: This Amendment deals with co-operation between regional water authorities, but I think that to some extent I must discuss it with several other Amendments, one in my name and others in the names of various other noble Lords, which in part deal with the same sort of thine. Where they do not deal with co-operation they deal with co-ordination. First of all, there is my Amendment No. 23, which would add the words
"and, in particular, to promote co-operation between them"—
that is, between the regional water authorities—
" in the exercise of their functions."
There is also my Amendment on page 5, Amendment No. 26, which would put in the words "and planning". Then there is Amendment No. 24 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Young. Her Amendment deals with co-operation, but it seems to me that it limits the co-operation to the area covered by the specific reference to Clause 23; that is to say, that it is only co-operation with adjacent areas and not between all the regional river authorities together. There is then my noble friend Lord De Ramsey's Amendment, No. 28, dealing with the same sort of thing with the National Water Planning Unit, and there are two Amendments in exactly the same terms from the noble Lords, Lord Sinclair of Cleeve and Lord Molson, dealing with research and planning. The National Water Council deals in a manner with research, but I am not sure that it is the right way to deal with it.
When we came to the Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill, a great deal of what I am talking about was aired by the noble Baroness, Lady White; the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, gave an answer, and we suggested that we should all be coming back to this matter. The same thing happened to some extent, when the noble Baroness spoke on the Question, Whether Clause 2 shall stand part of the Bill? Then she said that the logical answer to all this

491
was, of course, a National Water Authority.
What worries me and a number of my noble friends is that there is no requirement in the Bill whereby regional water authorities shall co-operate. There is a danger of separate planning. Lady Young's Amendment goes some way to meet this, but, as I say, it deals only with co-operation with adjacent river authorities, and to that extent I feel it is too limited. In the Bill, the Minister of the Environment, assisted by the National Water Council, is to be responsible for planning. But the Bill does not state that it is part of his duty to co-ordinate. The provision, on the other hand, is altogether weaker. What it says is:
"The Council may be directed by the Minister to consider matters which appear to affect the execution of the national policy for water or otherwise to affect the national interest."
Indeed, the Secretary of State for the Environment said in another place:
" The function of the National Water Council is to provide a forum for discussion and examination of matters of common concern to all regional water authorities."
I feel that that is not enough. Not only is it not enough, but at least half of the members of the National Water Council will be chairmen of regional water authorities, and they could be a majority if the Minister does not make all the appointments that he may make. There is a danger, which has been pointed out a good many times by noble Lords on the Opposition Front Bench, that the National Water Council will therefore be subservient to the water authorities and the Minister, rather than independent and able to give strategic planning advice from a national or detached viewpoint.
The strength of the old Water Resources Board, whose abolition everybody except Ministers seems to deplore, was that it was able to do this. I think research would suffer, as well, and I dare say the noble Lords, Lord Sinclair of Cleeve and Lord Molson, will have something to say about that. I shall listen with interest to what they have to say, because I think it may well be that their suggestion is not the right one.
Clause 23(9) of the Bill gives regional water authorities a facility for making an
492
organisation for the purpose of research, and that is to be under the Minister's direction. Again I feel that where this breaks down is that it is not really coordination for research any more than it is co-ordination for planning; and the Government's proposal for a central water planning unit cannot develop an effective national water policy on its own. It has to be responsible to the very Ministers who themselves have to take quasi-judicial decisions on, for example, the planning of new reservoirs. A lot of us are anxious that the National Water Council should have the widest possible functions and responsibilities independent of the central Government. I myself believe this to be essential, and I also believe this would go some way towards meeting some of the criticisms of the local authority interest which we have heard expressed this evening. The more it is directly (that is, of its own right) involved in the planning of water resources and overseeing the planning of such water resources by regional authorities, the better. Unless the National Water Council gets contacts as least as strong as those of the existing Water Resources Board, we risk the fragmentation of water policy. I begto move.
LORD SANDFORD: I am grateful to the noble Lord for what he has said. I think he has, as it were, raised the curtain on the debate which we were bound to have—and it is welcome to the whole Committee, I am sure—on the various national bodies which are going to be concerned in this structure. I will not, if he will excuse me, follow him into that general area in order to answer this particular Amendment, because I think it might be more convenient to turn to the rather narrower point which is raised by the Amendment alone. I would assure him that the wish of the Government is that the National Water Council should do what the Amendment seeks: to promote co-operation between the regional water authorities in the exercise of their functions. However, I should like to assure the Committee, and in particular the noble Lord, that it is not necessary, because this is already achieved by subsections (5)(b) and (11), if they are taken together, and particularly subsection (11) which says:
The Council shall have power, if so authorised by any two or more water authorities,

493
to perform services for or to act on behalf of those bodies …"
which really amounts to promoting co-operation. That is also the effect of subsection (5)(b), because there the Council is charged with the function of promoting and assisting the water authorities in their functions. This is another way of expressing the same thought as that which is in the noble Lord's mind. I hope those explanations are sufficient, though I will certainly enlarge on them if necessary, in order to assure the Committee in general and the noble Lord in particular that his purposes are fully recognised and are met in those two ways. I hope therefore he will not press the Amendment.
LORD HENLEY: I shall listen with some interest to what the noble Lord says to my later Amendment, which adds the words "and planning". I feel very much that one of the weaknesses of the Bill, which in general I warmly welcome, is that there is no proper machinery for coordination and overall planning. I believa this to be generally recognised, and in spite of what the noble Lord says I am a little doubtful at this stage whether it is taken care of in the Bill. I am even more doubtful, because when we come to debate the Amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady Young, it seems to me that these limit what the noble Lord has said to be the purpose of (5)(b). We shall hear whether the Government think it does limit, or, if it does not limit, what they think it does. It certainly weakens the force of the noble Lord's argument that part of what I want is already in subsection (5)(a). Having said that, I will withdraw this Amendment and see what comes up in the course of the continuing debate on several further Amendments which are cognate.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.35 p.m.
LORD PEDDLE LORD PEDDLE moved Amendment No. 23A:
Page 6, line 40, at end insert ("and, without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, to advise any Minister and the water authorities on the discharge of their respective functions so far as they relate to recreation and amenity").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 23A. The purpose of this Amendment is to place on the Water Council the responsibility of advising the Minister and the water authorities on
494
matters relating to recreation and amenity. Noble Lords will be aware that recreation and amenity have loomed pretty large in the discussions so far. Water authorities and, indeed, water companies, for a long time past have been deeply concerned with this particular activity. It is rather interesting to note that in the list of duties which are placed upon the National Water Council in Clause 4 there is no reference at all to the matter of amenity or recreation. Therefore this Amendment seeks to lay on the Council that responsibility of advising on such subjects; and the Council will be well equipped in terms of expertise and responsibility to undertake that job. I would, however, point out that this Amendment is linked with another Amendment with which my name is associated, to leave out Clause 22. I draw the attention of the Committee to that fact because although this Amendment could stand on its own regardless of what happens to the Amendment relating to Clause 22, I think in any discussion upon my Amendment one should bear in mind the matter I have just mentioned with regard to my Amendment relating to Clause 22. I beg to move.
LORD SANDFORD: The noble Lord's Amendment raises a number of substantial issues. He dealt with them briefly, and I will respond briefly for the reasons he gave, and also because there are probably several members of the Committee who until the noble Lord's Amendment appeared on the Marshalled List—a little bit late, but I make no complaint about that—were perhaps expecting a substantial debate on recreation to come later in our discussions on the Bill.
To answer the noble Lord's point briefly at this stage, and without any unwillingness not to return to this later at much greater length, either on Committee or later, by virtue of Clause 4(5)(a) the National Water Council will, as things stand in the Bill with the Water Space Amenity Commission in being, have its own locus in relation to recreation. Recreation is a matter relating to the function of the regional water authorities and therefore comes within the purview of the National Water Council. That is the first point I would make in answer to the points the noble Lord has made to me.
Furthermore, under Clause 22, which is where we will next be debating this

495
matter, it is provided that the chairman of the Commission is to be appointed from among the members of the Council. There is a link there. But the main and final point I would make is that the Government's view is that it would not be sufficient just to provide for recreation by having a member with that function on the National Water Council, but that if what has been described as the "fourth dimension"—amenity and recreation in the Government's water policies; this is a new feature, or it is new to give it so much prominence—is to be properly followed through, a separate body is needed with the special expertise and time and resources to devote itself to the many facets that there are in water recreation and amenity. Those would be my general reasons for resisting the Amendment, which would have the effect, coupled with the next one, of eliminating the Water Space Amenity Commission. I hope that the noble Lord will be satisfied with that explanation for the time being, with the understanding that we shall be able to return to it.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: I listened with care to the Minister's reply and I noted the point. I think it would be wise to leave a fuller debate to Clause 22 of this Bill when we have the Space Amenity Commission discussion. When the noble Lord was speaking a moment ago he said that Parts II and III of Schedule 3 to this Bill—I may have misunderstood, and I apologise if I did—covered part of the answer to my noble friend Lord Peddie, who moved this Amendment. When I turn to Part II and Part III of the Schedule, which I have read very carefully, I see that it refers to numbers, salaries and other things. Have I got it right?
LORD SANDFORD: I am afraid not. I referred to Clause 4(5), not a Schedule.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: I beg the noble Lord's pardon.
LORD PEDDIE: I thank the noble Lord for that reply, although it certainly gives me no satisfaction at all. However, I respond to the appeal that I should withdraw the Amendment at this stage, because I am quite conscious of the fact that there will be Members of
496
this House who would be anxious to take part in this debate, since it involves certain matters of principle. It is only fair that other Members of the House should be present to hear the debate. I thought it would probably come up a little earlier; I am sure that other noble Lords thought the same, but it is surprising how much talk can be generated by water, far more than is the usual experience. Therefore I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment, and hope to return to it at a later date.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.43 p.m.
LORD SANDFORD LORD SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 6, line 43, at end insert ("and their duty under section 23 below to prepare plans and keep them under review").
The noble Lord said: On behalf of my noble friend Lady Young I beg to move Amendment No. 24 and to respond to the suggestion from the noble Lord, Lord Henley, that with it we should discuss his Amendment No. 26. I think it is true to say that both Amendments are intended to clarify—that is how I would put it in respect of mine, at any rate—the functions of the National Water Council in relation to planning by making special mention of planning in the context of the duty placed on the Council by Clause 4(5)(b), which is the one we have been talking about, and assisting the efficient performance by water authorities of their functions in that respect.
I think that my noble friend's form of Amendment does this rather more precisely than the noble Lord's, though the general object is the same. There is already special mention in the context of the functions of water authorities relating to research, and the Government agree with him that it would be appropriate to add a reference to planning. But the word "planning" by itself is, we think, too imprecise and would not link this provision with other provisions of the Bill. My noble friend's Amendment achieves the same purpose in a more satisfactory way by tying the N.W.C.'s duty down to the specific provisions in the Bill set out in Clause 23, which relates to the preparation of plans by the water authorities and the review of those plans. I hope in that way I

497
have satisfied the noble Lord that co-operation in this respect is indeed fully safeguarded in the terms of the Bill and he will be able to confirm that he can accept my Amendment and therefore not need to move or to press his Amendment. I beg to move.
LORD HENLEY: I most certainly cannot accede to the noble Lord's suggestion. It seems to me that this Amendment operates altogether too narrowly. The noble Lord suggests that in fact it clarifies the position, but it does not seem to me to clarify it at all. If noble Lords will look at the words of subsection (5)(b) they will see that it says there:
"to promote and assist the efficient performance by water authorities of their functions, and in particular, their functions relating to research;".
Then this Amendment ties that to Clause 23(1), which says:
"It shall be the duty of each water authority, as soon as practicable after 1st April, 1974, in consultation with any water authority or authorities for an area or areas adjacent to that of the first-mentioned authority."
What in fact that means is, as I suggested when I argued my earlier Amendment, that it does not clarify but it damages subsection (5)(b). I do not know whether the Government can be persuaded to say whether their Amendment is not intended to be restrictive, because it most certainly is very restrictive here. I will say something about my own Amendment later, but I should like to hear what the noble Lord has to say, because clarification here is very much a limiting activity which operates far too narrowly.
LORD SANDFORD: I do not see that the Amendment does restrict it. I think it does exactly what I claimed for it, namely, clarifies it. It adds to the general duty of the Council to promote the efficient performance by water authorities of their functions, without specifying then and there what they are; and that must cover co-operation, because "authorities" is in the plural. It specifies not only research but planning as set out in Clause 23, and I should have thought it was helpful to have that cross-reference there to the particular forms of plans and programmes which under the Statute are called for from the water authorities. But it does not limit the terms of the previous phrase.
LORD HENLEY: I cannot see why it does not limit them. It limits what is said in subsection (5)(b) to areas adjacent to the particular regional water authority. I suggested before that the weakness of this Bill is that there is no overriding duty on the National Water Council to co-ordinate or control. My first suggestion about co-operation is meant to go some way towards this, and my later suggestion about adding planning would do the same thing. But this Amendment does neither: it merely weakens the effect of what already exists in a Bill which is defective in this respect.
LORD SANDFORD: It may be that we should make better or easier progress if the noble Lord felt that he was able to accept my Amendment for the time being and we could discuss the nature of the National Water Council and its relationship to the Central Water Planning unit under the next set of Amendments. I had not quite appreciated that there was as much behind the noble Lord's Amendment as he is now indicating.
LORD HENLEY: I am far from happy to accept it, although I shall not attempt to divide your Lordships' House on this issue.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Why not?
LORD HENLEY: It is entirely up to noble Lords. I can only ask to withdraw unless noble Lords wish to press it. The Government's Amendment is a bad one but I should be very glad to have some guidance from the Front Bench about it.
BARONESS WHITE: With regard to that challenge, I should be disposed on this particular point to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Henley. The reference to Clause 23 is limiting, and I do not feel that the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, has given us an adequate explanation. Quite frankly, I was not intervening because I thought that we would at some point in time have an opportunity to discuss the whole matter of central planning more fully under Amendment No. 25 to be moved by the noble Lord, Lord Sinclair of Cleeve, and subsequently Lord Henley's own Amendment, No. 26. It seems to me that both those Amendments take in the much wider concept of national planning which is not included in the Amendment now being moved by the

499
noble Lord, which is a very narrow one and does not meet the point of the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Henley, at all. I entirely agree with him. Nor does it meet the point to be raised under Amendment No. 25. On the other hand, there is no harm in it so far as it goes and therefore we were not proposing to oppose positively the Amendment moved by the noble Lord.
LORD SANDFORD: So far as procedure goes, I entirely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady White, that we could have a much more successful discussion under Amendments Nos. 25, 26, 27 and 28, which all deal in various ways with the central national water bodies, if that is the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Henley—
LORD HENLEY LORD HENLEY: That is indeed my concern.
LORD SANDFORD: May I finish by saying that certainly my noble friend's Amendment, No. 24, which I am moving now, does not go into the full range of matters which we all want to discuss.
LORD HENLEY: Would the noble Lord himself be willing to withdraw his noble friend's Amendment? Because as I say I am not at all happy to accept it, even for the time being. It seems to me to be limiting what I want to extend, and I should be much happier if the noble Lord could withdraw it. He could then perfectly well move it at Report stage if he wants to. But if he could withdraw it now we could then discuss the central issue of planning under the next three or four Amendments.
LORD SANDFORD: I still contend that this is not a limiting Amendment, but it is preventing us from getting on to a much more substantial debate and I am happy to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
BARONESS WHITE: Before the noble Lord moves the next Amendment may I ask what are the Government's intentions for business tonight? It is now nearly 10 o'clock and we are about to embark on what many of us feel to be possibly the most important group of Amendments in the entire Bill. It seems to me that it would be regrettable to embark on these
500
Amendments because, as we have just indicated, Amendments Nos. 25, 26, 27 and 28 are all concerned basically with the same matter. I wish to know what the Government's intention is as regards business. May I make it perfectly plain that we have reached no agreement on this matter?
LORD SANDFORD: I think we ought to have made more progress than we have made so far, although I would not complain at the rate we have been proceeding. These topics certainly ought to be discussed and perhaps after we have the central water bodies behind us we could consider how much further it is necessary to go. We are not aiming to go as far as we originally intended, which was to the end of Part II. That is obviously not necessary.
BARONESS WHITE: The noble Lord will appreciate that it is not our fault that the Ulster Defence business was taken as first business. We had supposed that we were to start with the Water Bill, and the fact that we have not made as much progress as the Government hoped does not lie at our door. As I say, my concern is that this is a very important group of Amendments and a number of noble Lords wish to speak. It seems to me we are going to keep the Committee pretty late if we embark on them. If the Government insist, of course, we will go ahead, but I think it is right to make this protest.
LORD DE RAMSEY: I should like to support the noble Baroness, Lady White. I think this is undoubtedly the most important Amendment we have down at the Committee stage of the Bill, and to embark on it at this late hour with a not very full Committee seems to me a great pity.
LORD SANDFORD: I wish I could agree to that suggestion, but I think we have to make a little more progress tonight. I have discussed with the noble Lords who are moving the next four Amendments whether they would agree with me that they could be profitably discussed together, and at an earlier stage they agreed. So I do not think this debate will be as protracted as perhaps it looks as though it might. I should have thought that the best thing would be to get on at least with this amount of business.
LORD SINCLAIR OF CLEEVE LORD SINCLAIR OF CLEEVE moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 6, line 43, at end insert ("and for those purposes the Research Centre and the Central Pianning Unit shall he vested in the Council.")
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 25. May I, at the outset, reassure the Committee to the extent that I believe Amendment No, 27 to be accidental. I had communicated with my noble friend Lord Molson in regard to Amendment No. 25; he replied that he entirely supported it and would take steps to see that his name was put down in that way, but much regretted that he would not be able to be present to-day to speak to it. So I believe that the Amendment in identical terms with Amendment No. 25 can, so to speak, be disregarded.
In the debate on Second Reading from all sides of the House great tribute was paid to the services which had been rendered by the Water Resources Board and great regret was felt at its impending demise as an independent unit. In some quarters, too, I believe, regret was felt that under the proposals in the Bill the National Water Council had functions that were in effect little more than advisory. As we all know, the function of the testing and approval of fittings is adequately handled by a committee of the British Waterworks Association, and the training and education is largely dealt with under the existing training board. The National Water Council—and I will not repeat its constitution because it has been referred to to-day so often already—can obviously exercise, by its constitution, a most important co-ordinating and advisory function, including, I think, not least the harmonisation of the proposals or plans of the water authorities, for the best utilisation of resources and the development of new resources in their areas, with the overall long-term national water plan which, in the first instance at any rate, is, or will be, the responsibility of the Central Water Planning Unit.
In the re-organisation of this very important industry I am sure there will be universal agreement that the functions of planning and research are vital and that they are complementary. I do not think there can be any possible argument about that. The Government have made it clear that, with the passing of this Bill, there
502
will he three separate units—the Central Water Planning Unit, the Research Unit and the Data Processing Unit. The Data Processing Unit is really, in effect, a general service unit, and there is no reason why it should be suggested that that should be a part of the National Water Council. I think that it can be very well left as proposed; but I feel that there is a strong case for planning and research units being directly under, and a part of, the National Water Council, and this Amendment is so worded that they should be "vested in" as being the simplest way of conveying the general idea that I am trying to argue. Organisationally I feel sure that this is right.
I have good reason to believe that industry, as a whole, would welcome it. They appreciate the importance of the contribution that the Water Resources Board made as an independent unit; they looked at the National Water Council as being an independent unit. I think conceivably there may be some objection to this proposal on the ground that the staffs of these two bodies (the Planning Unit and the Research Unit), are going to be the staffs of the old Water Resources Board, and in fact civil servants, and therefore there might be some difficulty in their being, so to speak, employed in units which are vested in an independent body. On the other hand, I find it difficult to see why there is much difference between the degree of independence that we have been asking for and the degree of independence that was accorded to the Water Resources Board. If there is some technical reason why this is a difficulty, then surely it is not beyond the bounds of human ingenuity to find some form of secondment of that staff, which would ensure their being employed in the capacity in which we want them to be employed, and exercising the functions we want them to exercise, under conditions in which their existing rights and privileges and so on are amply preserved. It would be a great pity if something which is organisationally sound and administratively desirable is prevented by a technicality of this sort.
This question was so fully raised at Second Reading that it does not require any further elaboration from me. I hope that the Government will give it serious and sympathetic consideration, and, if there are any technical difficulties, that

503
they will genuinely try to find ways of overcoming them. I beg to move.
10.4 p.m.
BARONESS WHITE: I, too. referred to this matter on Second Reading, and to my mind this is probably the most important Amendment in the entire Bill. Anyone who read the Ninth Annual Report of the Waterworks Board, published last December, could not fail to have been impressed by the extremely lucid and cogent criticisms—made by what we all agree has been an outstandingly capable body—of the Government's proposals so far as the central organisation of planning and research were concerned. I honestly fail to understand how the Government could have proceeded with this Bill in the way that they have done when they had these criticisms before them. The Government have taken cognisance of two of the criticisms made in paragraphs 11 and 13 of the Water Resources Board in so far as they are proposing to incorporate into the research organisation the Water Pollution Research Laboratory as well as the Water Research Association. That is all to the good and we are very happy that they are doing so. The Government have also made it clear in their consultation paper that they propose that there should be free interchange of staff between these various units, and this also is to the good and we certainly welcome it. But where the Government have entirely failed is to meet the basic criticism, and it is that which is concerning all of us who have put our names to these various Amendments; and although the noble Lord, Lord Sinclair of Cleeve, said that the name of the noble Lord, Lord Molson, was put down by inadvertence, I think that although the noble Lord, Lord Molson, is not able to be present we should be quite clear that he, with all his great experience, is supporting these Amendments; otherwise one presumes that his name would not have appeared on the Paper at all.
LORD SINCLAIR OF CLEEVE: I am certain that that is so. He said that in his letter and he in fact said it on Second Reading. I am sure that is right.
BARONESS WHITE: So we have his support. I also have a letter here from
504
the noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman, who was the former Chief Scientific Adviser to the Government, in which he says, apropos of the Amendment which we are now discussing:
"I cannot be there"—
that is, in your Lordships' House—
"and feel that I therefore should not add my name as one of the sponsors although I am fully in sympathy with its purpose"—
that is, the purpose of the Amendment. He goes on to say:
"You may quote me as saying that these are my views";
and he goes into further detail. Here we have from all quarters of the House—the name of the noble Lord, Lord De Ramsey, is also on this Amendment—from the Government side, from the main Opposition Bench, from the Liberals, from the Cross-Benches and from the former Chief Scientific Adviser to the Government, absolutely basic criticism of one of the central features of this Bill.
I very much regret that this subject has come up at this very late hour when, for very understandable reasons, we do not have as many noble Lords present as we could have hoped to listen to this debate. If one looks at the comments made in their official report by the Water Resources Board one finds that they say that there are problems of an interregional or national scale which can be effectively dealt with only by a single body covering England and Wales. They say:
"The national body should evolve, direct and co-ordinate national water policy and management; and it should have specific executive functions."
And they proceed to list those functions, which include planning, research and development, national capital investment appraisal and allocation, promotion and operation of major works, powers of delegation and so on. It is perfectly clear that in the view of this highly experienced body, which has won universal regard expressed in all quarters both of this House and another place, the Government proposals now before us are quite inadequate.
They continue that to carry out functions which they think are desirable
"will require an element of central co-ordination and decision."

505
But the National Water Council and these appendages—they are not even appendages because they are separate—these bodies which are to be set up, have no powers of central co-ordination and decision. That is entirely lacking. If one looks at the proposed functions in Clause 4, one finds that the Council is to consider and advise. It is also permitted to promote and assist, but that is as far as it is allowed to go. The only executive functions which it has are to deal with water taps, training and education and so on which are important but entirely subsidiary.
The Report of the Water Resources Board goes on:
"… the Council will not be able to perform really effectively without an adequate expert staff, and for this the present proposals make no provision."
This, again, is true, because the expert staff will be included in these other separate bodies—the planning unit and the research centre, respectively. These will be subject to contract work from the Council, but they will not be under the control of the Council and the Council will not be able to give them any lead or any directions. The Water Resources Board Report continues:
"The Government proposal is for a central planning unit staffed by civil servants and reporting both to Departments and to the National Water Council. This proposal is welcome in that it recognises the need for some central planning capability, but has the serious weakness that the unit will serve at least two masters and will be unable to resolve conflicts which will necessarily, and rightly, arise between them. The central planning unit should be an arm of the National Water Council"
This is absolutely specific in this Report. It goes on:
"We recognise that Ministers will also need some expert advice on their own, but we do not believe that this need result in wasteful duplication of effort."
I could quote more from this Report, but I think I have said enough to make it plain that we are seriously disturbed about the proposals in the Bill, and about the proposals not set out in the Bill but included only in the various consultative documents which have been circulated. Unless we can obtain something on the lines of the Amendment which is now before your Lordships, I believe that there will be no firmness of purpose in the planning of this great reform of the water
506
organisation of this country. It just will not happen, because there is no organic line between the National Water Council and these other separate bodies—a separate body for planning and a separate body for research. It is not as though even those two were put together: they are not. They are two quite separate entities, and the National Water Council does not have any firm powers of decision. It has only free access to the two bodies concerned.
At this late hour, I do not want to weary the Committee, and I am sorry that this debate has come on so late. But I wish the Government to appreciate, as they can see from the degree of support for this Amendment, that this is something which profoundly disturbs us. We think that the Government have made a cardinal error of judgment, and we are supported in this view by people of far greater authority than the majority of your Lordships. I speak now of the Water Resources Board itself which, with a frankness which is unusual for a public body, felt it its duty to indicate publicly its complete lack of confidence in the pattern proposed by the Government. It is for these reasons that we on this side, in company with noble Lords from all other parts of the House, implore the Government even at this late hour to recognise that they have made an error of judgment here. They have perhaps listened to advisers within their own Departments who, naturally enough, are thinking in departmental terms. But one has to rise above departmental terms from time to time, and this is one of those occasions. I beg most warmly to support this Amendment.
LORD DE RAMSEY: In the circumstances, I shall be very brief. The only point I wish to add is that, under the Bill, the Department of the Environment controls planning; and, of course, research must go hand in hand with it. With many other noble Lords I believe that this is wrong. Furthermore, the Department also have to hear appeals against their own plans, and this, I know, is very wrong. The right of appeal should remain to the Secretary of State and the Department. The planning should be taken out and, together with research, vested in the National Water Council. I support this Amendment.
10.15 p.m.
THE EARL OF SHANNON: Unlike those who have just spoken, I am going to oppose this Amendment most strongly. In doing so I ought to declare that, as your Lordships all well know, I have a connection with research associations as a group, though not with any one in particular. But I make no apology for that; I think it gives one a very good background against which to discuss this particular subject. I am not in any way referring to the Amendment in so far as it affects the central planning unit, but purely as regards research. I think many of us are tending to fall into the trap of thinking that this National Water Council is an all-embracing global authority: it is not. In its field it covers approximately half the United Kingdom geographically—that is all; and even less than half executively. It is not the all-powerful global authority that perhaps we all tend to think it is. For these reasons, it will be absolute nonsense, with the greatest respect, to allow the water research centre to develop into a department of the National Water Council, however tidy this might appear at first sight.
The Government have evidently considered this matter very carefully, and the setting up of the water research centre as an organisation based on the Water Research Association makes sense. If I may refer to the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, when he introduced this Bill into your Lordships' House on Second Reading, he said:
"It is essential that the unit's reports should be objective assessments of the facts, independent of Government and of the water industry."—[OFFICAL REPORT, 21/5/73, c. 975.]
In the same way it is quite obvious that, whereas one must be divorced to be objective, research, on the other hand, must co-operate with industry. That is the only way in which really valuable results will be secured. Does the noble Baroness wish to interrupt me?
BARONESS WHITE: I just want to make quite clear, because this is something which puzzled me in the Government's own consultative paper, what is the noble Earl's definition of the water industry. The National Water Council will not be running the industry, in the way in which the regional water
508
authorities will be doing it. Therefore, I cannot see what the noble Earl's objection is to linking up with the National Water Council.
THE EARL OF SHANNON: Perhaps if I had gone one sentence further I might have answered the noble Baroness's question. If 1 do not, perhaps the noble Baroness's would let me know. Other than through a research association organisation, how are you going to attract support, not only from the National Water Council—and I agree that that will be the largest single member of the research association—but from the regional water authorities and from the water authorities in Scotland and Northern Ireland? Neither of the latter is covered by this Bill. You are going to get the consulting firms—many of them—consulting water engineers, the manufacturing industry who make the stuff and the university departments. Does that answer the noble Baroness?
BARONESS WHITE: No, not entirely; because there will be nothing to prevent all the bodies mentioned by the noble Earl, including private firms, from buying research. But if the National Water Council has no control whatever over the activities of the association how can the National Water Council make certain that there is a conspectus, or what I called a synoptic view, of research to be undertaken?
THE EARL OF SHANNON: The National Water Council, I agree, will be the largest individual member. It will obviously dominate and will be the largest shareholder. It will have at least 55 per cent. of the shareholding. One has only to look at the figures for research from private industry with departments of that sort and compare them with the support they give research associations percentage-wise, to realise that the research association type of organisation beats absolutely hollow the agency type. The figures show it. With the research association type of organisation, it is quite possible that all these people can be brought together, and if it is based on an existing research association which has all these people in membership—for they exist at present—it becomes a highly desirable project. It is much more so than just the water research centre as a department of only one of its members,

509
albeit the largest one. In contrast, there is a strong temptation—and one must exist; anybody who has run a company that has an in-house research facility knows that there is this strong temptation—to go on finding work to keep an in-house research department going. The R.A. type of organisation allows the customer/contractor principle to operate, and basing the water research centre on the autonomous style of the R.A. constitution ensures that it will grow only to match the requirements of the industry and not for any other reason.
There is no doubt that it will take time. Several years will be needed for the reorganised industry to accommodate the changes which the Bill envisages. It will be of value for the industry to have its research managed by a research association type of organisation already in existence, or the basis or nucleus of it, since past experience of the working of the 40 or more research associations we have in this country shows that this type of structure has the necessary flexibility to enable the organisation to evolve gradually and to meet the changing circumstances of its members. Such a body would form a focal point for all concerned with the water industry. I submit that a department absorbed into the Water Council would not do so, even on an agency basis. In addition, from such a broad base of membership it will be in a far better position than any other organisation to supply the comprehensive service that the industry requires. If I may again refer to the Second Reading debate, when the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe introduced this Bill, he said (col. 976):
"Your Lordships will have noted that a Committee under the chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Bessborough has recently completed a comprehensive survey of the work of the research asociations in this country and in that Report the committee endorse the Government's proposals for the reorganisation of research in matters of water."
That Report was prepared under the chairmanship of the noble Earl, Lord Besborough. The Committee consisted of another Member of your Lordships' House and three very important scientists well known in industry and the Civil Service. I would remind the Committee shortly of what the Report said:
"The proposed new Industrial Research Centre would have in membership the new regional water authorities and the Scottish and Northern Ireland water supply bodies which
510
are outside the reorganisation, the industries supplying to the water services and other present Water Research Association members. The Government considers that the new Centre should embrace the Water Research Association and the technology division of the Water Resources Board, and that the Centre should place contracts with the Water Pollution Research Laboratory for the appropriate part of its work. We understand that the Water Research Association is not itself opposed to this proposal, and indeed that it is likely that the Water Research Association will form the nucleus of the centre. It is at all events intended that the Centre should retain the principle of membership and that industrial representation should be sustained. This would seem therefore to be an extension of the R.A. principle which, while it may involve the apparent dissolution of the present Water Research Association, will in fact lead to a more extensive and more rational provision of R. and D. service to the water supply industry."
In view of that, I think that this Committee would be very unwise to be associated with a scheme to put the new Water Research Centre within the National Water Council. It could result only in duplication, because the Water Research Association is bound to go on to serve the rest of them and it will only waste facilities and money.
BARONESS WHITE: May I interrupt the noble Earl? When he says that it is bound to go on to serve the rest of them, what is to prevent the facilities from being made available to Scotland, Northern Ireland or private industry?
THE EARL OF SHANNON: I suppose nothing. But when you have something which is already working remarkably well, why not build on it, instead of saying, "Let us scrap it and start again"? I cannot see, and I cannot agree, that we should just find another job for another under-employed National Water Council.
VISCOUNT INGLEBY: Speaking also from the Cross-Benches I should like to take a different line from that taken by my noble friend. I have the honour to be chairman of the Farndale Defence Committee. The Committee will remember that three years ago a Bill was introduced to make provision for flooding the top half of Farndale. This Bill was rejected by a Select Committee in another place. But Farndale is still threatened because it is one of 10 possible reservoir sites that are currently being considered by the Yorkshire River Authority. The reason I mention it is that under the proposed procedure in this Bill, as I understand

511
it, if the Farndale proposal were opened up again and got as far as a public inquiry, an inspector would come from the Department of the Environment and would, in effect, have to sit in judgment on the proposals of the Central Planning Unit, It seems to me that this is asking almost too much of any man.
10.29 p.m.
LORD SANDFORD: As I have said, I welcome this opportunity to offer a fuller explanation than I did on Second Reading of the way in which the Government feel it would now be appropriate for the central national bodies to be organised in respect of water. I start with the National Water Council. This is clearly going to be an important body though it cannot, for reasons that I will set out, fulfil all the functions which some noble Lords seem to think it should fulfil. The Council will be the main source of advice on the execution of the national water policy. It will have the further function of providing the regional water authorities with a forum for the discussion of common problems, and a means whereby they can do together things which they decide will be best done together, rather than within the framework of their own organisation in each particular region. It is a body which will help them to form a united view on matters of common interest, two of which are specified in rather more detail in Clause 4(5), testing equipment and training staff for the development and dissemination of uniform policy and practices, and for the provision of common services. That is a two-way role, and the second of them one could describe as being a tool or servant of the regional water authorities.
But we need further specialist national bodies to be set up to deal with planning, research and statistical information. These things cannot just be tacked on to another body which has a different function, because in these fields there are particular requirements. The other bodies must have a special relationship with each other and with the National Water Council: they cannot all be absorbed in one. These bodies will be the successors and inheritors of work now being done by a variety of different organisations. Initially they will be formed by grouping these existing bodies, and it is intended that they should be
512
staffed by those at present employed in similar work.
First of all, we come to the Central Water Planning Unit. It is perfectly true that the Water Resources Board developed an important capability in the field of planning for water resources. They said that they had some reservations (that was the word they used, not "a complete lack of confidence") about the Government's proposals. There has been some anxiety, I think, because of a misunderstanding of the extent to which the previous functions of the Water Resources Board have to be widened and developed to fit the new situation. What they have previously done in the preparation of regional strategies now falls naturally to the regional water authorities and no longer needs to be done by a central organisation. The Water Resources Board, as I say, came to know a great deal about the whole business of water resources and how much water there might be. The regional water authorities will take over from the Water Resources Board everything that they had previously done in the way of regional planning for water resources. But they will have a whole lot of work in five other fields with which the Water Resources Board were not concerned, the most important being water quality. There now has to be much more planning in that field.
The Government propose that the Central Water Planning Unit should be a planning team which will take over the national planning function of the Water Resources Board, and identify and study the main strategic options for the benefit of the National Water Council, the water authorities and the Government, so that a new national strategy can be developed for execution by the regional water authorities. This body needs to be independent, in the same sense that the Water Resources Board was independent, of the Government, and it will be independent to the same degree. It will be composed of civil servants, as the Water Resources Board was. It will be steered by an independent committee (and this is important; it would not be feasible if it were just part of the National Water Council), though the chairman will be the Chairman of the National Water Council. Other members of the committee will include representatives of the

513
Water Research Centre, to which I will come to in a moment, and other relevant Government Departments, who of course will have to be associated with the formulation of a national water policy.
The scope of this Unit, as I say, will be broader in a very important respect than that of the planning division of the Water Resources Board, which was limited to water resources. This one embraces water quality, and other things. It is not necessary to go quite as extensively as I had intended into water research, because the noble Earl, Lord Shannon, has already done so; but the new Centre will take over and embrace the Government's Water Pollution and Research Laboratory, the work of the Water Research Association and the small amount of research done by the Water Resources Board—small but significant, because it accounts for about £600,000 out of a total of £3½ million. The Centre will undertake all this, together with the research previously commissioned by the Director General of Water Engineering in my own Department, under the pattern of a water research association which will be able to serve not only the regional water authorities (which will be its main clients, as the noble Earl, Lord Shannon, said) but also Scotland, together with other countries outside the shores of the United Kingdom. This will be a much more powerful research organisation than it would ever be appropriate to establish within the National Water Council which, however extensive its functions may be, is not broad enough to embrace this.
I need not say very much about the Data Collection Unit, because that is not covered by this Amendment; but I should like to end by pointing out to the Committee that this Amendment, even if it could be satisfactorily drafted as it would need to be, is not only too restrictive but also unnecessary. We have not specified any of the things I have been talking about in the Act. The precise division of responsibility between the National Water Council, the water authorities and the Central Government and these bodies ought not to be confined and established in that restricting statutory way. The Government's proposals I have so far outlined represent what we consider to be the right division at the
514
moment and for the foreseeable future. But if at some future date experience were to show the desirability of a shift in the balance between these bodies and their relationship with each other and to indicate a somewhat larger role for them at the expense of other national bodies, then it would be possible to achieve this shift within the framework created by the Bill.
I hope the Committee will be able to agree that, now that I have spelt out their functions in rather more detail, it would be unsuitable to provide for these bodies in the Bill, and certainly to provide for them in the particular way this Amendment seeks to do. I very much hope that my noble friend Lord Sinclair will not feel it necessary to press his Amendment.
10.39 p.m.
BARONESS WHITE: It is of course for the noble Lord, Lord Sinclair, since he moved the Amendment, to reply to the Minister; but I think it is only right for me, since my name also appears on the Amendment, to say a few words. Frankly, I have not been convinced either by the noble Lord or by the noble Earl, Lord Shannon, that the proposals under the Bill are satisfactory. Neither—certainly not the noble Earl, Lord Shannon, though that was because he was speaking ex parte for the Research Association—has explained why they are entirely content that there should be a complete divorce between the planning and research functions. As they know very well, one of the great reasons for the success of the Water Resources Board, within its own terms of reference, was precisely that responsibility for planning and research was within the compass of one organisation. As we said on Second Reading, it did not mean necessarily that they did all the research themselves, but there were people there who did have to take cognisance of all aspects of this organisation. I have discussed this with some of the people who have been working in this field and they feel very unhappy indeed at the way in which Government Planning in this matter is going. The noble Lord simply stated categorically that it was not possible for these bodies to be one. He gave no reason whatever why they should not be connected one with the other. This is one

515
of the reasons why we are extremely unhappy about it. We are perfectly well aware that the terms of reference of any such body would be entirely different from those of the existing Water Resources Board; we are cognisant of that. We know that the Water Resources Board are concerned with the water supply and not with quality, for example, and this would have to be extended. We are perfectly well aware that in the changed circumstances a great deal of the work done by the Water Resources Board in the regions will no longer be required because the regional water authorities will be taking that on.
But there still remains the great problem of how do you best plan at national level? The Minister has not said, but I can only assume he must be meaning, that it is the Department of the Environment that will do this. If it is the Department of the Environment why set up all these separate bodies? What co-ordination is there to be between the Department of the Environment, the National Water Council, the Water Research Unit and the central planning organisation?
The noble Lord said that the Amendment before us in his view was restrictive and unnecessary. It is restrictive only in the sense that he has admitted the Government may be wrong; and he is hesitant about putting in Statute form something about which the Government are not certain as to where they are going. It seems to me that that is the only valid basis for his criticism that the Amendment is restrictive. Apart from those who may have certain direct interests in some of the research organisations, our information is that the people who are best qualified to know—that is to say, if I may put it bluntly, the people best qualified to know outside the Department of the Environment—are not happy with the pattern proposed by the Government. They regard it a serious error of central organisation for the planning of our water resources, and feel that it would be far better to bring together planning and research under the National Water Council.
LORD SINCLAIR OF CLEEVE: May I say, in answer to the Minister, that he has interpreted the Amendment much more narrowly than I had intended? I say this rather more particularly on research than on planning, because on
516
planning the general case is fairly clearly established. The National Water Council envisaged in the Bill will be, as I understand it, a truly national body for the water industry. This is something which the water industry, as an industry, would very much welcome. Those essential functions of planning and research we say, slightly loosely but basically truly, should go together. This has resulted in the very natural approach that what the Government are proposing to call the research unit should go, with the central planning unit, under and be part of this national body that the Bill is setting up, the National Water Council. I believe that this, in effect, includes direction, supervision and support of the Water Research Association, which I know very well and the industry knows very well; and the industry believes that something of this nature would be very much in the interests of the industry as a whole. I say "of this nature"—under which research and planning came somehow (and I think this form of vesting is very difficult to define) within the ambit of this central body which the Bill proposes to set up.
Having tried to explain this, I am afraid not very clearly, I find my situation rather difficult because of the general sympathy in this Committee. It is a small Committee, I know, but I think predominantly there is a great deal of sympathy with the Amendment. But I should be rather loath to press this Amendment to a decision to-day, which would simply mean that this would go on the Record as a clause in the Bill. If the Government could give us some undertaking that before Report they will consider this matter further I personally should be happy to have the matter thoroughly reviewed then in the light of the fullest information we could get. We put this Amendment down as a basis for the fullest possible debate on the subject, and this we have secured, but unfortunately in a rather small Committee.
10.47 p.m.
LORD SANDFORD: I shall be glad to respond to that. One of the difficulties is that the bodies we are talking about are not provided for in the Bill. Their functions are not spelled out in detail, and it may be that by furnishing additional documents between this stage and the next I may be able to help your Lordships. I wonder whether I might

517
deal with just one or two points. The National Water Council, as my noble friend Lord Sinclair of Cleeve has said, is indeed an important body, but it is not quite as all-embracing as perhaps he and some other noble Lords have supposed. I do not believe it could embrace the Research Centre and the Central Water Planning Unit, as he supposes.
The noble Baroness, Lady White, spoke as though in providing for the demise of the Water Resources Board we were divorcing two things which together had made up almost everything that needs to be done for water. This is not the case. The Water Resources Board were dealing, so far as planning goes, solely with the planning of resources. This is the important function, but it is not enough. We must provide for planning in the field of quality, and they did not do that at all.
BARONESS WHITE: Would the noble Lord forgive me for interrupting? Of course we are, as I tried to explain, fully aware of that; but that is not a matter of principle. If you can plan one, you can plan another. It does not touch the organisational aspect of this at all.
LORD SANDFORD: I think it does a little. The noble Baroness also spoke as though we were divorcing from that planning all the research that was done, or was needed to be done, in water. The Water Resources Board certainly did some research, but it is less than one-fifth of all the research that is being done at the moment, in terms of the cash put into it, and that will need to be increased. This breaking up of two important functions which the Water Resources Board fulfilled is not something to be regretted in the circumstances; it is something which follows inevitably from this broader and more comprehensive approach.
BARONESS WHITE: I am so sorry to keep interrupting the Minister but this is a very important matter. Again he is touching on something which is not a matter of principle. If you add one bit of research to another bit of research to another bit of research, you have a larger bit of research: you have not changed the principle.
LORD SANDFORD: No; but what I am saying is that, whereas there might have been a case for bringing together research and planning of water resources in the limited field in which the Water Resources Board worked—that might have been right—what we now need to do is to develop a whole bunch of research comprising all the bodies which I have described, on the one hand, and provide for a Water Research Centre which goes far wider than the area covered by the regional water authorities, and, on the other hand, a bunch of planning far wider than anything undertaken by the Water Resources Board in the past, and going beyond the planning functions required for the regional water authorities.
I was asked how you plan. The regional water authorities plan as indicated in Clause 23. The rest of the planning is done not by the Department of the Environment but by the Central Planning Unit, which comprises and serves a number of other relevant Government Departments—because there are more Departments concerned with the national water policy than the Department of the Environment. I will certainly respond to the point raised by my noble friend Lord Sinclair of Cleeve, that before the next stage it may be possible to spell out the functions of these bodies which are not provided in the Bill and are therefore not before members of the Committee. Having said that, I hope that he will be good enough to withdraw his Amendment at the moment.
LORD SINCLAIR OF CLEEVE: I do not know whether, if I withdraw this Amendment, others who have spoken will wish to press it. My judgment is that it would be wise to leave this to the Report stage for further consideration in the light of such evidence as can be produced by the Government in the form of additional papers. We have all had a certain number of additional papers about the research unit and the planning unit (I think the Minister would confirm this), but they do not materially increase the information on which our present debate is based. What we said before was based entirely on the facts as we were given to understand them by the Government as to their proposals. But if there are further facts that can be produced I

519
should like them to be considered on Report, rather than that we should proceed now with this debate and then contest it.
LORD SHACKLETON: Do I understand that the noble Lord has asked leave to withdraw his Amendment?
LORD SINCLAIR OF CLEEVE: I was about to withdraw it.
10.53 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: In that case I feel that I must ask one or two questions of the noble Lord. It is of course for the Committee to decide whether the Amendment is withdrawn. Having listened—and I thought it was rather important in this context—to the speech made by the noble Earl, Lord Shannon, I am bound to say that, unfortunately, the very interesting Report of the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, on the research associations is one that we have not debated; and it is one in which there is a good deal of controversial material, some of it on this very subject. It is a very late hour to vote. I do not know what value the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, put upon the Amendment when he said he would consider the arguments, but I wonder whether he would be frank enough to say whether there is the slightest chance in his opinion of the Government changing their minds on this matter. He will remember that not so long ago, when we debated the Nature Conservancy Bill, a resounding defeat was inflicted on the Government—at least there was not a defeat because they forgot to put their Tellers in, or something went wrong; but in fact it was the view of the House that a research capability should be put in the Nature Conservancy Council.
As I have come in rather late it would be quite improper for me to attempt to prolong the debate—and I see that the Government Chief Whip supports this observation on my part. However, I should have been extremely inclined to test the opinion of the Committee on this Amendment, because many noble Lords have heard the debate and I should have thought that was probably the better course. The noble Lord, Lord Sinclair of Cleeve, has had an unfortunate experience in the past over Somerset late at night, but I think he should take his
520
courage in both his hands and see what in fact the Committee think of his Amendment. He is perfectly free thereafter to try again, and no doubt the Government, having given a promise to consider the matter, will honour that promise, whether the Committee divides or not.
I am bound to say that I have listened very carefully to the arguments. This is an area of extreme difficulty for any Government. One can divide this up in a dozen different ways. I have the greatest sympathy with the Department in coining to this solution. I discount to some extent, though not entirely, the opinions of the noble Earl, Lord Shannon, in this matter and, for reasons I will not go into, I do not find them convincing. That is the only support the Government have and we have not been given an answer to the very powerful arguments put by the noble Lord, Lord Sinclair of Cleeve, my noble friend Lady White, the noble Lord, Lord De Ramsey, and indeed, in absentia, the noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman.
LORD SANDFORD: I have been very willing to test the opinion of the Committee on several occasions already today, but those occasions were on matters about which the Committee had full information as the matters were fully set out in the Bill. Here I was anxious to respond to my noble friend Lord Sinclair of Cleeve because we were discussing two bodies, the Central Planning Unit and the Water Research Centre, which are not provided for in the Bill. Before the noble Lord came in I was explaining that the Government's mind was not finally and for all time made up on this matter. I was explaining that it would be possible to modify the arrangements for linking these two bodies with the National Water Council within the framework of the Bill. We are not now establishing something by statute which cannot be altered; we are doing the very reverse. But I am anxious that the Committee should have all the necessary information before it. It may be possible to extend the information I have given. But if the noble Lord feels that this is a matter on which a Division must now be held, that is all right with me. I should have thought, however, that it would be far better to leave it to the next stage.
LORD SINCLAIR OF CLEEVE: I feel that that is right, and I shall not press

521
the Amendment. I beg leave to withdraw it.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
LORD HENLEY: I do not know how much longer noble Lords wish to go on.
BARONESS WHITE: No longer.
LORD SANDFORD: May I suggest to the Committee that the right thing to do now would be to tidy up Clause 4. I do not think that it will take very long.
LORD HENLEY: As I said before, I do not know how long noble Lords want to go on. My Amendment No. 26 is a couple of words but could take a couple of hours, and there is the Amendment of my noble friend Lord De Ramsey which covers similar things. There is the whole question of the clause's standing part. We have disposed of certain aspect of research, but the question of planning has been left somewhat in the air. We have had a long exposition from the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, which in my opinion was a very lame one. Do noble Lords wish me to argue my Amendment now? The noble Baroness, Lady White, put this question an hour and a half ago as to whether noble Lords wanted to go on. I certainly have not finished and I do not believe the noble Lord has.
BARONESS WHITE: Perhaps we might appeal to the noble Earl the Chief Whip. It is entirely unreasonable to expect us to go any later. I hope that we shall now adjourn.
LORD SANDFORD: I thought we should just tidy up Clause 4. I had hoped that the noble Lord, Lord Henley would do what I did with my Amendment relating to planning, which was to withdraw it, so that we could have a general discussion. But if he wants to deploy the whole argument afresh and have an extensive debate, the Committee as a whole would much prefer to call a halt where we are now. On that basis, I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved, That the House do now resume.—(Lord Sandford.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and House resumed accordingly.

LAND COMPENSATION (SCOTLAND) BILL
Message from the Commons: That they concur in the Resolution of this House communicated to them on Tuesday the 22nd of May last.
  AIRCRAFT ACCIDENT REPORT: REFUND OF FEES
  AIRCRAFT ACCIDENT REPORT: REFUND OF FEES
  MALAGASY REPUBLIC: TEACHING OF ENGLISH
  MALAGASY REPUBLIC: TEACHING OF ENGLISH
  PUBLIC EXPENDITURE AND DEVELOPMENT AREAS
  PUBLIC EXPENDITURE AND DEVELOPMENT AREAS