Sitting of 13 June 1973

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS

  NORTH WALES HYDRO ELECTRIC POWER BILL
  Order for consideration, as amended, read.
  To be considered upon Tuesday next.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

    Atlantic Community Proposals
    Mr. Deakinsasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will raise the issue of relationships between the EEC, the United Kingdom and the United States of America at the next meeting of EEC Foreign Ministers.
    Mr. Martenasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions have taken place in the Council of Ministers about the American proposals of an Atlantic Community contained in Dr. Kissinger's speech of 23rd April 1973.
    Mr. Moateasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects there to be a community response to the United States proposals for an Atlantic Community.
    The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Sir Alec Douglas-Home): The meeting of Foreign Ministers of the Nine on 5th June discussed the question of relations between the member States of the European Community and the United States. There was general
    1458
    agreement that the Nine ought to harmonise their policies on this essential question. A statement was issued at the end of the discussion, the text of which is available in the Library. The Foreign Ministers will take up the discussion again in July.
    Mr. Deakins: Will the Government be able to express their views to the House of Commons before a Common Market policy is finally formulated on this issue, or does our Common Market membership preclude Her Majesty's Government from expressing independent views in this field in advance of a joint Common Market policy?
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: We could express our views, if we thought it appropriate, at any time. Of course, these matters will be dealt with in different form—finance in the Committee of 20 and trade in the GATT negotiations. Therefore, many policies have to be co-ordinated. I see no restraint on the Government's making a statement.
    Mr. Marten: But does my right hon. Friend himself think that it would be a very good idea if this Parliament did that? Secondly, does he not agree that the talks on this subject should be multilateral and not bilateral, which, I think, is what the French urged upon President Nixon in the Iceland meeting the other day?
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: There are bound to be bilateral discussions with the United States all the time. As I said, the Foreign Ministers are trying to design a plan which we can put to the United States for an approach to international finance and an approach to GATT. The appropriate time for a debate in this House on this matter might be after the July meeting.
    Mr. Jay: But if there is no constraint on the Government's telling us what their policy is—which I welcome—may we now know what it is?
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Yes, Sir. The Government's policy is to agree a sensible approach to the United States in preparation for the GATT talks. There is no reason to suppose that we shall not obtain this when we have further discussions in the Community.
    Mr. Moate: With regard to the trading features of these proposals, do the British Government fully respond to the American proposals for nil tariffs on industrial trade?
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I cannot go into details on this point, but a good deal of theology that has bedevilled this question for a long time is now going out of the window. There will be practical arrangements, which will mean that Europe and the United States will approach the negotiations with a reasonably identified point of view.
    Mr. Shore: The Foreign Secretary will surely recognise that the objective of a tariff-free area between North America and Western Europe is hardly a matter of theology; it is a major objective for British trade policy and, indeed, for the trade policies of the whole developed world. Surely, he can at least tell us whether it is among the Government's objectives, which they are pressing within the Council of Ministers, in negotiations later this year with the United States and with others concerned. Will lie also confirm, in this same context, whether the CAP and the major agricultural commodities covered by it will also be included in those negotiations?
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The approaches to the GATT negotiations are the most important thing here. America has its tariff system and Europe its external tariff. When the right hon. Gentleman talks about an eventual free trade area between the two, my answer would be that one step is enough for me. Therefore, we go on talking in the Community and trying to keep a sensible approach to the GATT negotiations, which is the important thing. As for the common agricultural policy, we have made it clear that the structure of that is accepted—when in office, right hon. Gentlemen opposite said the same—but that does not mean that the policy cannot be varied.
    Mr. John E. B. Hill: What are the prospects of the Foreign Ministers of the Nine meeting as a Council of Ministers of the EEC, with the power and responsibility to evolve a common EEC foreign policy, as distinct from meeting, as they do, as the Council of Nine Foreign Ministers but not with their EEC corporate status?
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: When the Foreign Ministers meet in the Council they are limited, of course, by the Treaty of Rome. When they meet in a political capacity, that is done under what is called the Davignon machinery.

    Rhodesia
    Mr. Haselhurstasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has had any recent communication with the Smith régime in Rhodesia; and if he will make a statement.
    Sir G. Nabarroasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further arrangements he now proposes to re-open negotiations on all outstanding matters, including sanctions, with Mr. Ian Smith.
    Mr. Biggs-Davisonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement about Anglo-Rhodesian relations.
    Mr. Whiteheadasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what contacts he has had with the illegal régime in Rhodesia since 25th May 1973.
    Mr. Hastingsasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on the present state of negotiations with the Rhodesian Government on a settlement.
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: As the House knows, we believe that no worthwhile progress can be made until there is more agreement between the races inside Rhodesia on the basis for a settlement. That position has not, as yet, been reached. We have not therefore entered into fresh negotiations with the Rhodesian authorities, but we are maintaining contact, so far as it is possible, with all sections of opinion in Rhodesia, including the Rhodesian authorities.
    Mr. Haselhurst: Is it not clear, sadly, that there is a world of misunderstanding between Her Majesty's Government and the Smith régime as to what would constitute the proper basis for a settlement? In the absence of a settlement, will my

    1461
    right hon. Friend confirm that the Government's existing policy towards the régime will be maintained?
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I would not care to measure how far there is a gulf of misunderstanding between Mr. Smith and the Government, but my judgment is that the races in Rhodesia have not come together sufficiently yet—although some progress has been made—for me to be able to say that negotiations can be resumed.
    Mr. Judd: Will the Foreign Secretary say what he intends to do about tightening the administration of sanctions, in view of recent convincing revelations of British sanction-breaking? Does he not agree that the degree of commitment to sanctions policy internationally is directly to be related to the degree to which we are prepared to demonstrate our own administration of sanctions?
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: If the hon. Member or anyone else can give me evidence that sanctions are being broken—that is what is wanted, not newspaper stories but real evidence—we shall proceed to examine it and send it to the United Nations committee responsible for enforcing sanctions.
    Sir G. Nabarro: Is it not a fact that the whole world is breaking these sanctions and that Great Britain is evidently the only Power of any substance which is adhering to a sanctions policy? In these circumstances, would it not be best for us to turn our back on sanctions, recognising that it is an impossible policy to implement, and try to reach agreement outside the ambit of the sanctions policy?
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I think that my hon. Friend's objective is really the same as mine and that of the Government, which is to get a settlement. I am sure that the whole House would agree that that is the prize. Therefore, for the moment at any rate, and until I make a statement to the House, I believe that it is better to maintain the status quo. That gives us the best chance of a settlement, and that prize being so great it is worth exercising infinite patience, even though I understand my hon. Friend's impatience because others are breaking sanctions.
    Mr. Whitehead: Does not the Foreign Secretary recollect that last month he told
    1462
    the House that what was needed in the sanctions procedure was the political will to make sanctions effective? In view of that statement, and of what my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, West (Mr. Judd) has said, will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what he proposes to do about firms that were named and against which specific evidence was claimed in the Daily Mirror investigation last month? How can a British newspaper do more than Her Majesty's Government can in this matter?
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: British newspapers can say whether, in their opinion, certain firms are breaking sanctions. Her Majesty's Government must have actual evidence of this before they send it to the United Nations committee. I am having this matter examined, and if the evidence is there it will be given to the United Nations committee.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: My right hon. Friend spoke of contacts. Will he send a diplomatic or consular representative to Salisbury to help British subjects in trouble and to assess from day to day the degree of support obtained by the Rhodesia Settlement Forum, the National African Council and other Africans interested in a settlement; and also to assess the true character of the variegated body, the ANC?
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: It is, as my hon. Friend says, difficult to get accurate information from Rhodesia. I will consider at some point the necessary contacts which ought to be made out there so that the Government may be fully informed and kept up to date.
    Mr. Callaghan: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us how he is having this matter of sanction-breaking examined? Has he asked the editor of the newspaper concerned? What form is his examination taking? It is important in our view, and that of many other countries, that this matter should be examined.
    Secondly, what period of reflection does he think is necessary, and when will it come to an end? Has he seen the words of Sir Roy Welensky, who said that future talks were always bound to fail unless Mr. Smith brought Africans into his Government and made a number of other changes? Is he making any representations to the Smith régime on this matter?
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I am in contact with Mr. Smith. I agree that the situation has not developed possibly as we in this House hoped it might on the ground in Rhodesia in relation to contacts between the races. I do not think that this is any reason for the House to lose patience. We ought to be very patient because the prize of a settlement in that part of Africa—a just settlement agreed to by the Africans—would be enormous.
    As to how the questions are being examined, I shall ask for the evidence of the newspapers on the matter of breaking sanctions. I do not think the House should ignore the fact that on a number of occasions—on 18 occasions—British firms have been prosecuted,
    Mr. Wall: Is there not considerable evidence that Africans who were opposed to the Pearce settlement proposals have now realised that the only alternative is eventual fusion with South Africa and have changed their minds? What is my right hon. Friend doing to ascertain the strength and depth of this opinion?
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: As I said just now, I shall certainly take steps to ascertain as best I can at first hand what is happening in Rhodesia and how far these movements have gone. I would rather not take it further at the moment.
    Mr. Kaufman: Will the Foreign Secretary undertake to examine the evidence in last Sunday's Observer of sanction-busting by Lonhro? Does he agree that sanction-breaking by anyone in aid and comfort of an illegal régime is the unacceptable face of treachery?
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: As long as we are required to implement mandatory sanctions, if there is evidence that sanctions have been broken that evidence will be acted on and sent to the United Nations committee.
    Mr. Molloyasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the latest assessment of the attitude of African opinion in Rhodesia towards a settlement.
    Mr. Hugh Jenkinsasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will invite Bishop Muzorewa and other Rhodesian African
    1464
    leaders to London to discuss the current state of African opinion on his settlement proposals.
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: We try to keep in touch with all shades of Rhodesian opinion, including the Africans, as best we can. But we are not in a position at present to make a comprehensive assessment of African views. I am, of course, always willing to see anyone from Rhodesia if I think that such a meeting could contribute towards a settlement.
    Mr. Molloy: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is evidence of growing apprehension and fear among white Rhodesians as well as black about the illegal régime? What can the Government do to encourage those of all races who wish to return to legality, loyalty to this House and the Crown, and the establishment of a decent democratic society? What can be done to help those in Rhodesia, both black and white, to achieve these desiderata?
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I have a great deal of sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's approach. It is a very bad situation that is arising in Rhodesia, and all Rhodesians, both European and African, should realise it. That it why I hope that they will come together and make proposals that Her Majesty's Government can accept as a basis for settlement. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we shall try our best. We have not made as much progresss as I would hope, but I will report to the House as discussions go on.
    Sir F. Bennett: Does not all history in Africa show that where a minority refuses to deal with a nationalist majority the situation becomes increasingly more difficult? Would not Mr. Smith be well advised to start talking seriously to representatives of African opinion before it becomes more extreme than it is now?
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I agree with my hon. Friend. He is right.
    Mr. Hugh Jenkins: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman specifically to invite Bishop Muzorewa and other African leaders to this country to open negotiations if it proves impossible to open negotiations right across the board? Is he aware that informed opinion in this

    1465
    country—the African Bureau for example—and not irresponsible opinion takes the view that it is time to open negotiations with the majority rather than to continue to attempt to negotiate with an unrepresentative minority?
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: It would be useless to open a negotiation to which the governing party in Rhodesia would not be a party. It does not seem to me that that would lead us anywhere. If we can get the parties to come together, many more things are possible, including possibly the negotiation.
    Mr. Jenkins: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

    USSR
    Mr. Sydney Chapmanasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next proposes to invite the Soviet Ambassador to official talks about relations between the United Kingdom and the USSR.
    The Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Julian Amery): The previous Soviet ambassador left on 9th May. His successor is due to arrive today. We look forward to receiving him later this month.
    Mr. Chapman: I warmly welcome the arrival of the new Soviet Ambassador, Mr. Nikolai Lunkov, but does my right hon. Friend agree that if the good will between our two nations is to be maintained, let alone increased, there must as a first resort be an earnest discussion about minimising, if not getting rid of it entirely, the staggering gap of £137 million in the trade between the two countries, recognising that our exports to the USSR are only £90 million a year?
    Mr. Amery: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry was recently in Moscow and drew attention to the gap, and I hope that he will have plenty of opportunity to re-emphasise the points with Mr. Lunkov while he is here.
    Mr. Peter Archer: Will the right hon. Gentleman point out to the new ambassador
    1466
    that one impediment to improved relations is the Soviet's treatment of a number of Jewish people whose only crime is their wish to join their families elsewhere?
    Mr. Amery: The Soviet authorities are well aware of our views on this subject.

    Libya (British Diplomats)
    Mr. Greville Jannerasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will protest to the Libyan Government concerning their treatment of British diplomats and their families.
    The Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Lord Balniel): We have made repeated protests and representations to the Libyan Government about the difficulties created for British diplomatists and their families and other British subjects by the Libyan requirement for Arabic in passports.
    Mr. Janner: Is not it right that it is not only the requirement of Arabic in passports but also restrictions, for example, on the freedom of British diplomats to drink beer in the embassy, that are worrying people? It is the whole treatment here from beginning to end which is completely intolerable. Is it not time that something serious was done to bring an end to this situation?
    Lord Balniel: We hope that a general improvement can be achieved during negotiations, but on the particular question of the ban on diplomats' use of alcohol I do not think representations would be effective as the Libyan Government's objection to the use of alcohol is based on religious grounds.
    Mr. John E. B. Hill: Are other countries affected? If the Libyan authorities are in breach of international diplomatic agreements, would it not be possible to concert our action with that of other countries in order to persuade the Libyan authorities to adopt a more mature and civilised attitude?
    Lord Balniel: The Libyan requirement has affected diplomatists and others of all countries which do not have Arabic in their passports. We are attempting to concert action to try to achieve a solution through negotiation.

    French Nuclear Tests
    Mr. Juddasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made in making arrangements for monitoring the fall-out from the forthcoming French nuclear tests in British dependencies in the Pacific.
    Mr. Amery: We have as a precaution stationed a two-man team on Pitcairn Island. In the event of a French test series, the team will, as in previous years, conduct radiological monitoring. The team were landed on Pitcairn by the Royal Fleet Auxiliary "Sir Percivale".
    Mr. Judd: Are not these arrangements very poor, since it is possible that far-reaching genetic and health damage will already have been done if the tests have taken place? Why cannot the Government come clean now and make a public pronouncement, in harmony with their Commonwealth colleagues, Australia and New Zealand, denouncing the irresponsibility of these tests and totally dissociating themselves from the French Government's policy?
    Mr. Amery: The hon. Gentleman asked what arrangements we had made for monitoring the tests and I gave him an accurate account of what we are doing. The French Government are well aware of our view that atmospheric tests are wrong, and we hope that in due course they will adhere to the treaty.
    Mr. Marten: Have the Government made really fundamental representations to the French Government about this matter, in view of our responsibility for these islands in the Pacific?
    Mr. Amery: The French Government are well aware of our view, and the entirely independent Pacific Governments of Australia and New Zealand have made their own representations.
    Mr. Dalyell: Precisely what is meant by the phrase "as a precaution"?
    Mr. Amery: Previously, when there have been tests, we have stationed teams to monitor their effect, and so far, as the hon. Gentleman knows, the tests have led to no increase in radiation.
    Mr. Laurance Reed: Does my right hon. Friend believe in consistency in our
    1468
    policies? Is it not inconsistent to send gunboats to Iceland to prevent a large enclosure of the sea for purposes of fishery conservation yet not to utter even a whisper of protest when the French propose to enclose, equally illegally, a large area of the sea for nuclear test purposes?
    Mr. Amery: I do not think so, because there has been what I think one may call aggression on the part of Iceland in regard to fishing, but hitherto on a number of occasions the French tests have led to no increase of radiation.

    False Passports
    Mr. Fowlerasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he can now give the results of his inquiries into the ways that false British passports can be obtained; and whether he will make a statement.
    Lord Balniel: It would not be in the public interest to reveal the methods used to obtain passports falsely, or the precautions we take against this. But my inquiries reveal no evidence that attemps to use false United Kingdom passports are at all frequent.
    I should like to correct one aspect of a reply I gave to my hon. Friend's supplementary question on 9th May. It is, in fact, not easy to alter a United Kingdom passport in a way which will pass expert scrutiny.
    Mr. Fowler: That correction will be widely welcomed, since our controls against illegal immigration are very much centred at the border and consist of checks on people coming into this country. Will my right hon. Friend say how many falsified passports have come to his notice, and whether he is satisfied that the precautions, even though he does not wish to state what they are, are adequate to discover attempts at deception?
    Lord Balniel: I am glad that I have been able to set the record right by means of this Question. In 1972, 139 cases of offences regarding passports came to our notice. That represents about one ten-thousandth of our normal annual issue of about 1¼ million passports. We do not propose to tighten the procedure for the issue of passports, because that would involve lengthy delays for the

    1469
    large body of genuine applicants, and I am convinced that extra tightening for the very limited number of offences would he unacceptable to the general public.
    Mr. Maclennan: What reply have the Government received from the Government of Israel to their extremely strong protest about the use of false British passports in the raid on the Lebanon?
    Lord Balniel: We have still not received a satisfactory explanation from the Israeli Government of the use of falsified British passports in the raid on Beirut.
    Sir D. Dodds-Parker: In view of the allegations of abuse, what progress is being made in insisting on individual passports for children?
    Lord Balniel: That is a rather wider question. If my hon. Friend will be good enough to put it down I shall answer it specifically.

    Greece (Ministerial Visits)
    Mr. John Fraserasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many official visits to Greece have been made by Ministers in the last 12 months.
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: One, Sir.
    Mr. Fraser: Will the Foreign Secretary confirm that when Ministers go to Greece they make clear beyond a scintilla of doubt that it is the aim of British foreign policy to see democracy restored in Greece, as it is the aim of the NATO Treaty, too? Second, may we know which Minister was responsible for the idiotic decision to send British troops on a NATO exercise in Northern Greece at a time when part of the Greek armed forces were revolting against the dictatorship there?
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: NATO exercises have been held over the years, and Greece has taken part. We see no reason to disturb this; nor did the previous Government. On the general matter of ministerial visits to Greece, there has, as I say, been one, as was the case in the previous Government's time.
    Mr. Callaghan: As this illegal and dictatorial régime has now deposed the
    1470
    monarch, to whom is our ambassador accredited, and when will he be coming home?
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: He will not be coming home. We shall leave him there.
    Mr. Callaghan: Why?
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Because there is no need, so we are informed, to alter his terms of accreditation to the Greek Government. The Greek Government meet our criteria for recognition, being in control of the country.
    Mr. Callaghan: Is it correct that he is legally accredited to the Greek Government? Was he not accredited to the monarch, and, if so, has there not been a change, and should we not take advantage of this illegal change which has been made to raise with our allies in NATO, and, indeed, in the EEC, what should be the combined attitude of our countries towards the Greek régime, which is clearly bitterly opposed by many people in Greece?
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: We very much deplore the fact that the monarchy has been brought to an end by this illegal Government, as the right hon. Gentleman described it. Nevertheless, they are a Government with whom we have had relations all these years, and the situation has not changed in that respect. They are in control of the country, and therefore we recognise them.
    Mr. Evelyn King: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that if Ministers were not to visit countries of whose Governments they disapproved, there would be few places to which they could go?
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I agree with what my hon. Friend says.
    Later—
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: With the leave of the House, Mr. Speaker, I should like to correct a slip of the tongue I made just now in picking up a phrase of the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) when he talked about
    "the illegal régime in Greece."
    I think I said that he rightly called it
    "the illegal régime in Greece."

    1471
    I must make it plain that the Greek Government meet our criteria for recognition and we have recognised them.
    Mr. Callaghan: Everyone accepts that the right hon. Gentleman made a slip of the tongue. I thought that it was a very fortunate slip of the tongue.

    European Security and Co-operation
    Mr. Sproatasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a further statement on progress towards a Conference for Security and Co-operation in Europe.
    Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the progress of the talks on European security.
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I am glad to say that the preparatory talks for the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe ended in Helsinki on 8th June with agreement ad referendum to participating Governments on a document containing a detailed agenda for the conference. I shall be arranging for copies of this document to be laid in the Library.
    Subject to confirmation from the Governments concerned, the first stage of the conference should begin on 3rd July at Helsinki on the basis of what has been agreed.
    Mr. Sproat: Will my right hon. Friend ensure that in the next stages of the talks we make clear to the Soviet Union that we attach the greatest importance to the increasing of human contacts between East and West, and that by this we mean not just contacts between Governments or between special cultural groups but increasing communication and travel by and between individuals? Second, will my right hon. Friend confirm that Her Majesty's Government are prepared to look constructively at the question of some sort of continuing machinery to emerge when the CSC comes to an end?
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The agenda covers the question of more contacts between Western Europe and the Warsaw Pact countries. That is satisfactory to us, and we shall certainly argue as my hon. Friend suggests. I have an open mind about the question of continuing machinery. We had better see how the
    1472
    committees which have been set up with specific terms of references get on before we decide whether or not there is to be continuing machinery.
    Mr. Goronwy Roberts: May I say how glad we all are with the progress made at these vital discussions. Will the Foreign Secretary say whether progress is to be made beyond defining the heads of the agenda to be discussed, how far this has proceeded, and whether the report that he proposes to make available to us will indicate how far discussions have now proceeded beyond agreement on the heads?
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I am glad to be able to say that there is considerable progress beyond the heads of agreement. In other words, the discussions which the committees will have to undertake are indicated in considerable detail, as the right hon. Gentleman will see if he looks at the documents in the Library.
    Mr. John Mendelson: Everyone will welcome agreement on the preliminary conference and that this is a comprehensive agenda, but does the right hon. Gentleman accept that most people will expect the conference soon to get down to discussion of the reduction of forces and the halting of the tremendous amount of rearmament now going on on both sides in spite of declarations by Eastern and Western Governments? Far too much money is being spent on active rearmament, and any conference which loses itself in generalities and does not get down to these things very quickly will be a great disappointment to many who have argued for the conference over the years.
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The hon. Member appears to be mixing up two conferences. In the conference on European security there will not be much talk, if any, about the reduction of armaments. There may be talk about supervising manoeuvres. It is when the question of mutual and balanced force reductions is reached that the problems raised by the hon. Member will be dealt with.
    Sir J. Rodgers: Will my right hon. Friend give us an assurance that the question of the free movement of people and ideas between East and West Europe will be on the agenda?
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Yes.

    European Convention of Human Rights
    Mr. Peter Archerasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether it is Her Majesty's Government's intention to renew the right of individual petition under Article 25 of the European Convention of Human Rights upon the expiry of the present period of acceptance.
    Mr. Amery: Like most of the countries which have accepted the right of individual petition, the United Kingdom's declaration is made for a specific period. The current period expires on 13th January 1974. The question of renewal will be considered shortly before that date.
    Mr. Archer: Since it has been known for the last two years that the question will fall to be decided, why does there have to be such prolonged consideration? Since it will fall to be decided almost exactly on the 25th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, would that not be the most inappropriate time to abrogate an important right which has been recognised for the last eight years?
    Mr. Amery: The hon. and learned Member should not decide in advance that we are even thinking of abrogation. This is an entirely new step in jurisprudence and we naturally need all the evidence we can get about how it is working before finally making up our minds and, if deciding to proceed, whether to do so for an indefinite or a defined period.
    Mr. Grieve: Will my right hon. Friend agree that it would occasion considerable dismay to those countries which meet with us in the Council of Europe if we were to abrogate that right? I do not imagine for one moment that we shall abrogate but the Convention of Human Rights is so far the greatest flowering of the European principle in the Council of Europe.
    Mr. Amery: I am sure that my hon. and learned Friend will appreciate that the majority of those countries which have accepted the right of individual petition have done so for a specified period of years. We are in that majority.

    North Vietnam
    Mr. R. C. Mitchellasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make representations to the Government of North Vietnam concerning the continued presence of North Vietnamese troops in Laos and Cambodia.
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The North Vietnamese Government know that we wish to see the Paris agreement fully implemented. I think it right to wait for the result of the talks between the United States and the North Vietnamese in Paris before deciding what diplomatic action should be taken. I understand that a communiqué is being issued on this matter this afternoon.
    Mr. Mitchell: Will the Government consider strengthening our diplomatic representation in Hanoi so that any protest we wish to make on this subject can thereby be strengthened?
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Yes. I opened discussions with the North Vietnamese at the Paris Peace Conference. I am considering matters concerning timing.

    Middle East
    Mr. Goodhartasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a further statement about the Middle East.
    Lord Balniel: The policy of Her Majesty's Government in the Middle East remains to do what they can to help towards a peaceful settlement on the basis of Security Council Resolution 242 of November 1967. We hope that the current meeting of the Security Council will bring progress towards such a settlement.
    Mr. Goodhart: Does my right hon. Friend recognise that there is a danger that the large arms contracts recently signed with a number of Arab States could upset the delicate arms balance in the Middle East? Does he also realise that selling powerful weapons to the Libyan Government is about as sensible as giving matches and petrol to a young child?
    Lord Balniel: I shall not comment on any particular sale because I am not sure

    1475
    to what my hon. Friend is referring, but in general we will not sell arms to either side in the Arab-Israeli dispute which would in our view possibly increase the chances of a resumption of hostilities. That is the criterion by which we judge the sales of arms.
    Mr. Goronwy Roberts: May I welcome what the right hon. Gentleman said in the latter part of his last answer? As it is a British initiative which is proceeding now in New York through the deputy representative, would it not at some stage be helpful to associate with this British initiative the United States and the Soviet Union for political reasons and for the reasons contained in the question put by the lion. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart)?
    Lord Balniel: The Security Council is meeting at this moment for the first time for many years to have a serious discussion on the Middle East. It is likely to adjourn for a short period during the summit meeting and Dr. Kissinger has said that President Nixon and Mr. Brezhnev will be discussing the Middle East when they meet in Washington later this month. It is not for me to say what conclusions will emerge from those discussions.
    Mr. Walters: On the question of arms supply, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that because of the enormous supply of American arms to Israel, including Phantom aircraft, there is still a vast superiority of strike weapons in Israel? On the question of the Security Council meeting, will my right hon. Friend ensure that the Government will continue to reaffirm the need for the return of the 1967—that is the new—Palestinian refugees to the West Bank even before a final settlement is reached?
    Lord Balniel: I can add nothing about the matter of arms. We are well aware of the strength of armaments held by various countries in the Middle East and we judge requests for military equipment from each side on their merits. On the position of the Palestinians, our permanent representative made clear in his speech on 11th June our views on the Middle East and he referred to the position of the Palestinians in that speech.

    Tanzania (British Journalist)
    Mr. Sorefasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what efforts have been made to secure the release of Mr. Percy Cleaver, a British journalist arrested in Tanzania on 3rd July 1972, and subsequently held in prison.
    Lord Balniel: None, Sir. Mr. Cleaver has been charged with an offence under Tanzanian law and it would not be right to attempt to intervene in Tanzanian judicial processes.
    Mr. Soref: I thank my right hon. Friend for his observations. Is it not a fact that Mr. Percy Cleaver has been in detention for almost a year in Tanzania, and that the trial has only just come up? Is it not also a fact that he has been prevented during the trial from reading the indictment, which the public are prevented from hearing? Has he been provided with an adequate defence? Is not the situation of Mr. Cleaver far more dangerous than that endured by Mr. Peter Niesewand, though there have been no protests in the House or the media in this country about the dire straits in which Mr. Cleaver, a British citizen, has found himself for more than 11 months?
    Lord Balniel: The time taken in bringing Mr. Cleaver to trial was a matter in the hands of the Tanzanian authorities, but the high commission made frequent representations to them about it. Mr. Cleaver was charged on 12th February The trial started on 4th June and has now been adjourned until 23rd July. Mr. Cleaver has a lawyer and counsel of his own choice. The difference between his case and the Niesewand case is that the United Kingdom has constitutional responsibilities for Southern Rhodesia but not for Tanzania.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: Is there not another difference? Is not Mr. Cleaver a British citizen, and is not Mr. Niesewand a Southern Rhodesian citizen?
    Lord Balniel: I should like time to confirm that, but Mr. Cleaver certainly is a British subject. There are many differences between the two cases. In the Niesewand case no details of charges or judgment were produced. In this case

    1477
    the details of charges have been made publicly available.
    Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Do not the Government have responsibility for a number of British subjects who have been detained in Southern Rhodesia without trial for many years? Are the Government any less concerned about them because they happen to have black skins?
    Lord Balniel: Of course not.

    Icelandic Fisheries
    Mr. James Johnsonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a further statement regarding the Iceland fisheries dispute.
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Naval protection is working well, provided trawlers stay reasonably close together. But we have no wish to keep the Navy there for a moment longer than it is necessary; and are ready to withdraw it at any time if we can be confident that harassing will cease.
    Mr. Johnson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware how thankful the fishing community, particularly their womenfolk, are about the continuing lull, which is not unconnected in their minds with the advent of the Navy? Will he say more about the initiative taken by Dr. Joseph Luns, the Secretary-General of NATO, particularly following the latest move of the Icelanders to ask the Americans to terminate the Keflavik base? Is it correct that Dr. Luns asked that the Navy should leave pending further negotiations? Will the right hon. Gentleman give a firm assurance that it will not leave those waters until the Icelanders give a guarantee to cease harassment of our men?
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Dr. Luns has not pressed us to take any action that we would not wish to take. We look upon the American base as an entirely separate matter from the fisheries question, not connected with it at all. Unless the Icelanders can agree to stop harassing, I do not see how we can withdraw the Navy.
    Sir T. Beamish: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that protocol 6 of Iceland's trade agreement with the European Community, which covers her exports of fish, will not become operative on 1st July, when it was due to become
    1478
    operative, and that it will have to wait until Iceland complies with her international obligations?
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I can confirm that.
    Mr. Callaghan: Is it not clear that it would be very one-sided to ask for the withdrawal of naval protection until harassment ceased, but that it is not likely to cease until we have some kind of negotiated agreement? Is the right hon. Gentleman ready to use the offices of Dr. Joseph Luns as an intermediary to try to get some negotiations going? Do not we need a temporary settlement until the Law of the Sea Conference next year, which, if advance reports are to be believed, is likely to alter the whole basis of legality in those waters? Therefore, should we not be getting ourselves into a position where we can negotiate against the changes that are likely to take place?
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The right hon. Gentleman has stated the dilemma very well. We are quite willing for Dr. Luns to be an intermediary to get us into a negotiation, and he is trying to help in that direction. But I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not forget that the waters in question are international, and that we went to the highest United Nations organisation—the International Court—to get a judgment on what we should do between now and the time when the Law of the Sea Conference begins, and it gave us a judgment. We not only acted upon it but went 25,000 tons lower than the figure that court awarded. We could hardly have done more.
    Mr. Callaghan: I do not think that anyone disagrees with that, but, because this is an intractable problem, would the Foreign Secretary be willing, for example, to have Dr. Luns sitting in on discussions that might be resumed between Her Majesty's Government and the Icelandic Government to get us both out of the present situation?
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: If that would help, it would be agreeable, but Dr. Luns and the Norwegian Foreign Minister have offered to mediate in that way and the offers have been rejected by the Icelandic Government. When I arrive in Copenhagen tomorrow I shall have to see

    1479
    whether we can devise any conciliatory machinery.
    Mr. Russell Johnston: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, while everything he said about our position is quite true, it is equally true that the fact that many more countries—Canada, for example—are talking about a territorial limit extension of 100 miles is a factor in the persistence of the Icelandic attitude? In view of that, can the right hon. Gentleman say anything about how far ahead we are in preparing a British attitude on territorial limits for the Chilean conference to which the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) referred?
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I do not think that we want to lay down a position before the International Conference on the Law of the Sea assembles. I do not think that it would be a good thing to do. The Icelanders have fallen into that trap. It will be better to go to the conference with fairly open minds and negotiate something reasonable.

    India (Drought)
    Mr. Barnesasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further offers of assistance he plans to make to the Indian Government to help alleviate suffering in drought affected areas.
    Mr. Spearingasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on aid requested or given in relief of drought in central India.
    The Minister for Overseas Development (Mr. Richard Wood): I have made it clear to the Indian authorities that I am willing to consider giving any help from the aid programme that they may request to reinforce their own efforts, but I understand that they do not intend at present to ask us for such help.
    Mr. Barnes: Does the Minister agree that a great nation such as India is unlikely to go round asking for help of this kind except in exceptional circumstances? Is it not the case that the situation is very serious, and that extra offers of assistance from Governments such as the British Government would be welcome?
    1480
    Will the Minister say what he thinks is the prime need? Is the prime need for more help with drilling rigs? If so, could we not do a bit more in that direction?
    Mr. Wood: The hon. Gentleman will know that we have already recognised the need for water supplies and for well drilling. We have offered help for both through the normal aid programme and through a contribution to UNICEF. On the general question, I do not accept that it would be right for me to do more than make it clear to the Indian Government, as I have done, that we are ready to help if they requested it. That is what was done some time ago.
    Mr. Scott-Hopkins: What is the present position regarding the famine which existed in Nepal? Has it finished now? Has our aid to Nepal, which was very welcome, terminated?
    Mr. Wood: That is another matter. I advise my hon. Friend to put down a Question on it.
    Mrs. Hart: It must be accepted, given the substantial programme of the Indian Government, that any help that we could offer would be only marginal. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many people deeply regret that he has seen fit to take a rather rigid attitude—namely, that we give help only if we are asked rather than offer help? Further, is he aware that some of us find it extraordinary that he should even have suggested to the Indian Government that one way of helping would be to distort our existing aid programme to India? It is rather disappointing that he has taken that attitude, in the light of our long-established friendship with India.
    Mr. Wood: The right hon. Lady is becoming an expert in semantics. I do not think that I could do more than make it perfectly clear to the Indian Government that if they put in any request for help in this situation we would be ready to consider it sympathetically. The right hon. Lady will realise—she was responsible for it—that the aid programme to India is very large. If the Indian Government requested any of our very large allocation of aid to the Indian Continent for help in this situation we should be ready to consider that.
    Mrs. Hart: What the right hon. Gentleman seems to be insensitive about is that the Indian Government are very conscious that they have a massive programme to deal with what is a serious drought situation. They will not go on their knees to ask people for help. It is our understanding that if friends were ready to offer aid the help would be gratefully received. There is a difference between asking and accepting an offer.
    Mr. Wood: I cannot add very much more. We have offered to help if the request were made. We consider that is the right approach. Anything further would suggest that we know better than the Indians what is good for them.

    Vietnam (Aid)
    Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what aid the British Government will give to the rehabilitation, recovery and rebuilding of North Vietnam, Saigon and the areas of South Vietnam governed by the National Liberation Front; and if he will ask the British Council to consider bringing graduate students to Great Britain from each of these three areas for training in science.
    Mr. Wood: We have said that we are willing to take part in any general international aid effort which is mounted for reconstruction in Indo-China, and we have already provided more than £100,000 for immediate relief aid. As a part of our bilateral aid programmes for South Vietnam, we provide training in Britain in science and other disciplines.
    We could not consider any bilateral aid for North Vietnam before we have recognised the Hanoi Government. The Provisional Revolutionary Government in South Vietnam fulfils none of our criteria for recognition.
    Mr. Allaun: Is the Minister aware that last month a group of scientists from the Democratic Republic of Vietnam visited British firms making medical and scientific equipment? Will the Minister consider granting credit facilities for such sales?
    Mr. Wood: As the hon. Gentleman knows, our official aid is provided on a Government-to-Government basis. Therefore, it is provided to Governments which
    1482
    we recognise. We have not recognised the Government which the hon. Gentleman mentioned. If we received requests from a recognised Government for the kind of help that he suggests we should consider them seriously.

    Continental Shelf (UN Resolution)
    Mr. Laurance Reedasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs why the British delegate abstained from voting on the United Nations Resolution of 18th December last, concerning the sovereignty of coastal States over natural resources in waters above the Continental Shelf.
    Mr. Amery: Certain passages in the resolution were not acceptable to Her Majesty's Government. They carried implications inconsistent with international law and sought to prejudice the forthcoming Law of the Sea Conference.
    Mr. Reed: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the voting on the resolution was 102 to nil? In view of that overwhelming expression of international opinion, will he explain how he intends to maintain his refusal to recognise Iceland's right to fish above its own Continental Shelf? We have all heard of Horatius defending his bridge, but with odds like this even he would have agreed to call it a day.
    Mr. Amery: Present international law gives no support to claims for exclusive fisheries jurisdiction exceeding 12 miles. No doubt there may be changes as a result of the Law of the Sea Conference which assembles in April 1974. I should have thought that Iceland would do well to co-operate in working out an agreed solution at the conference. In fact, it has tried to extend its limits unilaterally, and has tried to repudiate its binding agreement, which was reached with us in 1961, thus flouting the ruling of the International Court.
    Mr. Maclennan: Is not the Minister reflecting a somewhat too inflexible Government attitude to the development of international law? Is not a resolution of the United Nations a source of international law which would be taken into account in the jurisdiction of the International Court and which has been taken into account in the past? Is this not a remarkable academic approach, and the

    1483
    kind of approach that brings international law into disrepute?
    Mr. Amery: I should have thought that nothing was more calculated to bring international law into disrepute than to follow a course contrary to international law while the law still stands. That is surely the basis on which our whole activity in this House is founded—namely, that the law has to be observed until it is changed. We still have very little idea of what the outcome of the Law of the Sea Conference will be. It is not very far ahead. In fact, it meets next year.
    Mr. Grieve: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the law of the sea is probably the greatest achievement of international law and that many people, not only in Great Britain but in many other countries, hope that Her Majesty's Government will set their face against unilateral abrogation and unilateral changes, from whatever source? Does my right hon. Friend agree that this and all other allied matters, such as the limits of territorial waters and jurisdiction over the Continental Shelf, are best left to the forthcoming Conference on the Law of the Sea?
    Mr. Amery: I am sure that my hon. and learned Friend is right.
    Mr. Callaghan: Surely, in this imperfect world it is even more necessary for small nations to accept the law as it stands than for large nations, especially if they expect the law to be changed, and for others to preserve it in due course? That having been said, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many of us are increasingly concerned that the Government may get themselves boxed into an impossible position if they go to the conference without a well-thought-out agreement or a well-thought-out position? They may find that there will be an extension of the limits of territorial waters. That seems possible at the moment. We are asking that the Government should consider actively the position and present it to the House and to the country so that we do not find ourselves in an impossible international position once the conference has started.
    Mr. Amery: We shall go to the conference very carefully prepared. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State
    1484
    has just said, we ought to go with an open mind. It would be wrong to make up our minds in advance on exactly where we stand. This is always a mistake in advance of any international conference—as I am sure the right hon. Gentleman would have been the first to agree had he been taking over the International Monetary Fund.
    Mr. Paget: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, so far from having proved a source of international law, United Nations' resolutions have proved to be almost the exact opposite, and have in general been expressions of the contempt in which international law is held when racialist emotions are involved?
    Mr. Amery: I bow to the hon. and learned Gentleman's legal experience, without wishing to endorse every word of what he has said.
    Mr. McNamara: We accept what the right hon. Gentleman has said about a unilateral obligation in international law. Nevertheless, is there not something wrong in the attitude he is taking, namely, that as a Government we can go to an international conference with an open mind and no policy? It would surely be helpful, in relation to both the present dispute and the conference at Santiago, which is only a year away, if we had some indication of the attitude of Her Majesty's Government to the whole question of exclusive fishing rights and a general sharing of the world's resources below the oceans.
    Mr. Amery: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will have the generosity to accept that I never said that we would go with an open mind and no policy. I said that we would go fully prepared, but with an open mind, in the sense that we would not determine our final policies until we had heard the arguments advanced by others at the conference. There is not much point in having conferences if people who attend them have closed minds.

PERKINS ENGINES (DISPUTE)
Sir Harmar Nichollsasked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the Perkins Diesel dispute in Peterborough.
The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. R. Chichester-Clark): Production workers at the company have been imposing a ban on overtime working and other sanctions since 5th April in support of a claim for parity with workers at the parent company, Massey Ferguson in Coventry. This could amount to increases of between £15 and £20 a week for the highest-paid workers.
The overtime ban prevented necessary maintenance work being undertaken each week end and led to the lay-off each Monday of between 2,000 and 5,000 production workers. The company claim that industrial action has reduced output by 70 per cent.
In the current wage negotiations, the company has offered increases averaging £2·09 a week and an additional four days' holiday over the next two years. I understand that this offer would be likely to be acceptable to the union concerned providing that the company were prepared to commit itself in principle to parity of earnings in the longer term. For its part, although the company is willing to enter into discussions on the parity issue, it is not at present prepared to do this.
On 7th June the company announced that the loss of production was such that it would have no alternative but to cease production at the plant from the end of the day-shift today unless there was a return to normal working. Negotiations with national officials of the trade unions concerned followed earlier this week but agreement was not, I understand, found possible.
I understand that at a mass meeting of the workers at the company this morning a vote was taken to continue action in support for the claim for parity. Production will therefore halt later today.
My Department is continuing to keep closely in touch with the situation and its conciliation facilities are of course available at any time.
Sir Harmar Nicholls: I well understand why the Secretary of State could not make that statement himself. He is closeted with the TUC and talking about national matters. I only hope that he is taking an opportunity there to discuss the importance of this breakdown in industrial work in Peterborough.
1486
I thank my hon. Friend the Minister of State for making this statement, particularly in the light of the tragedy that occurred in his constituency last night.
But this is a real tragedy for my constituents, too. This has gone on for 10 weeks. At the end of the day, whether the unions benefit or the management benefits, whatever happens, it will be my constituents in Peterborough who will suffer, the families and people in business. More than that, the reputation of Peterborough could suffer. If a city gets the reputation of being a rogue city for industrial relations at a time when, under the new towns procedure, it is becoming a centre for industrial development, it may well be a tragedy, and one which we could have foreseen—[Interruption.] Hon. Members are usually very concerned when their constituents go on strike or are unemployed and lose income because of certain circumstances and I claim the right to speak for my constituents.
Has the question of parity been clearly defined? What is meant by it? It is a word that can mean all sorts of things. Have either the unions or the management defined the word "parity" in the sense of this tragedy in Peterborough? While I accept my hon. Friend's point that his conciliation officers are ready to play their part, I should like an assurance that they are prepared to offer conciliation without waiting to be invited. If this matter is allowed to fester into something bringing about the downfall of Peterborough as an industrial centre, it will be a tragedy that affects the nation, and not just my constituents.
Mr. Chichester-Clark: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's remark about my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, and for his references to the tragic situation which arose in my constituency yesterday.
I recognise the consequences for my hon. Friend's constituents. The whole House will sympathise with them and will recognise the seriousness of the situation. My hon. Friend talked about the claim for parity and whether that had been precisely defined. As I understand it, one difficulty is that a payment-by-results system operates at the Massey Ferguson plant, whereas employees at Peterborough are on measured-day work. That is the answer to that question.

1487
I was asked about the conciliation officers. In fact, officers of the Department have been in touch with both sides in this dispute since it began on 5th April, and they will continue to look for any opportunity which is brought forward by one side or the other which might lead to a helpful solution to the problem.
Mr. Prentice: To clarify the question of parity, would not the hon. Gentleman agree that the facts are that for the measured-day work at Peterborough men have been getting an average wage of about £33 or £34 a week, whereas in negotiations to go over to a similar system in Coventry an offer has recently been made to the workers, doing similar work for the same company, of £54 a week, so that the gap of £20 a week is bound to cause a deep-seated sense of grievance?
I welcome what the hon. Gentleman said about his Department keeping in touch. I hope that this will include a positive offer to mediate between the two sides if and when this seems helpful in the next few days.
On a broader point, in the motor industry and related operations we are going through a very difficult period, unusually difficult even for this industry. But is there not a marked contrast between the kind of approach associated at present with British Leyland, which has been holding detailed talks with the unions and making efforts to solve problems at Cowley, Swindon and elsewhere in recent days, and the element of confrontation which has crept into the two cases that we have been discussing this week, the Chrysler company and Massey Ferguson?
Will the hon. Gentleman take note that we shall expect, if this continues, some clear definition of the Government's attitude towards this matter? Which approach do they endorse? If they fail to condemn the confrontation approach, will not this confirm the suspicion in the minds of many people that the Government want confrontation and have not learned the lessons of the blunders of the last three years?
Mr. Chichester-Clark: I utterly refute any suggestion that the right hon. Gentleman makes about the Government wanting confrontation. That is absurd, and that is recognised on both sides of the
1488
House. I am grateful for some of the other things that he said.
Average earnings are between £41 and £42 a week. The current offer would provide earnings in the range £38 to £48 a week. That is the position. It would not be wise, in view of the discussions that took place in the House on Monday, for me to be drawn into the wider aspects of disputes in the motor industry, but my right hon. Friend made it quite clear that in certain circumstances his mind was not closed to a wider inquiry.
Concerning the part of the Department's conciliation officers in this matter, their services will be available at any time.
Sir D. Renton: Since some hundreds of my constituents work at Perkins Diesel and have done for many years, may I ask my hon. Friend whether he is aware that this firm, like other engineering firms in Peterborough and north Huntingdonshire has, until this unfortunate dispute, had a fine record of industrial relations? Is he aware that the last thing that anyone wants or is seeking, as far as I know, is the confrontation to which the right hon. Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice) referred? Is he further aware that Perkins Diesel has a worldwide reputation for the high quality of its goods, in which it was a world pioneer, and that it has a great potential for contributing further to our export trade? Will the Secretary of State for Employment do all that he can to help both parties to reconcile their difficulties?
Mr. Chichester-Clark: I think that I can subscribe to everything said by my right hon. and learned Friend. That is what makes me so anxious to see an end to the dispute.
Mr. John Mendelson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there are a number of suppliers to this firm who would be seriously affected if production were to cease? While the serious position for the people of Peterborough will be recognised on all sides, does the hon. Gentleman realise that there are other hon. Members representing the interests of those other suppliers? May I put two questions? First, would this not be the right time for the senior conciliation officers of his Department to go beyond the stage of keeping their services available and instead take a fresh initiative,

1489
approaching the two sides to get them together to have further talks? Secondly, although I understand that the hon. Gentleman does not wish to be drawn further than the exchanges on Monday, may I ask whether it is not true that where a foreign firm has acquired certain property rights in this country with the help of successive Governments, there is a residual right on the part of the Government to make an approach to the employers and call their attention to their duties to the people?
Mr. Chichester-Clark: I recognise the hon. Gentleman's concern for suppliers connected with this company, and I share it. It merely underlines the seriousness of the situation which no one is attempting to conceal. As for calling the parties together or holding an inquiry, while that may have presentational attractions for some, I am not sure that it is the best way of going about it. It is doubtful whether it would be an appropriate or useful way of trying to reach a solution. The company has already offered to participate in a joint working party on the parity issue and to have it chaired by a third party. This offer was not accepted.

NORTHERN IRELAND
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. William Whitelaw): I would like, with permission, to make a statement on the bomb explosion in Coleraine yesterday.
At 2.30 p.m. yesterday a telephone call was made to the Telephone Exchange, Coleraine, giving warning of one bomb in Stuart's Garage and one in Society Street. Ten minutes earlier a call to the police had been received from Stuart's Garage saying that a man had driven a car into the premises and had run off. As a result of this first warning police were already on their way to Stuart's Garage when the second telephone call giving warning of the two bombs was received. The area of the garage was cleared and when the explosion occurred at 2.55 p.m. there were no injuries.
As regards the fatal explosion at Railway Road which occurred at 2.50 p.m., the location given by the telephone caller was Society Street, which is about 100
1490
yards from the actual scene of the explosion in Railway Road. Society Street is inside the sealed-off area in Coleraine, and on receipt of the telephone warning call police searched Society Street and found nothing. They were in the process of carrying out this search when the explosion occurred in Railway Road, which is outside the sealed-off area.
As a result of the explosion in Railway Road, four women and two men have died and 34 were injured, of whom 18 are still in hospital. The House will, I am certain, wish to add its sympathy to the relatives of those innocent people who have been killed and to the injured victims. This outrage proves once again the real dangers to innocent people in an indiscriminate campaign of violence and the depths to which those responsible for terrorism are prepared to sink.
My hon. Friend the Minister of State is visiting Coleraine this afternoon at my request.
Mr. Merlyn Rees: The House will be grateful that the Secretary of State has returned especially to make this statement. Is he aware that we stick firmly to the view that we expressed yesterday condemning violence from whatever side? This leads me to ask the question that is almost certainly being asked by so many people on this side of the water—"What sort of people are those who kill innocent people in the name of their brand of patriotism?"
We add our words of condolence to the relatives of the victims, but strongly as we feel, our ritual condemnations and words of condolence here are not enough. We in this House must put our minds to the question of security. The explosions today and the killings yesterday reinforce my view that the Government must look closely at international and local co-operation in Northern Ireland.
Can we rest assured that the Governments of those countries which are the source of the arms and the materials which cause the explosions are being approached and asked to block such supplies? Cannot stronger and concerted measures of control against the import of these weapons into Northern Ireland be taken with the Government of the South, not only over the border but through the ports and perhaps out of ports on this side of the water?

1491
Locally, can we be assured—and I realise the difficulty in answering this—that the leaders of the parties to be elected at the Assembly elections will immediately be confronted with the problems of security in their Province, including policing? The responsibility is ours, but only when the people of Northern Ireland co-operate together in dealing with the gunmen will real security be achieved and shall we be spared—it is far less of a problem to us than to the people involved—these weekly statements on the killings in Northern Ireland.
Mr. Whitelaw: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making it clear that everyone condemns violence from wherever it comes. I equally accept that condemnation itself is not enough. I can only assure the House that I and the rest of Her Majesty's Government believe that everything possible that can be done by our security forces internally in Northern Ireland is being done.
Naturally, everything is done to obtain international co-operation, particularly with those countries from which arms may come. The details are, naturally, a matter for my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, not for me. The question of co-operation with the Government of the South is likewise a matter for him and not for me. I can, however, say that considerable improvements have been made on the border and I have no doubt about the determination of the Government of the South to help and to do their best in this matter.
There has been widespread condemnation of yesterday's outrage from all sections of the community. This I am sure is right and only what I would expect. While it is inevitable that as long as we have British forces in their present strength in Northern Ireland this House, to which those forces are responsible, should have overall control, we have equally made it clear that we are anxious to involve the members of the Assembly in managing the police authority and we would wish to have an executive, which I trust would be formed, to be consulted by the Secretary of State on security matters.
Mr. Pounder: May I on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry
1492
(Mr. Chichester-Clark), who, as the House understands, is precluded from expressing a view but in whose constituency this dastardly atrocity occurred, and on my own behalf express our revulsion and unequivocal condemnation of this brutal outrage and express our deepest sympathy and prayers for the bereaved and injured?
Has my right hon. Friend any indication from his sources that yesterday's hideous outrage could be the beginning of yet another terrorist offensive? If so, is he in a position to say that additional forces could be speedily sent to Northern Ireland between now and the Assembly elections to ensure that nothing can thwart the holding of those elections and the public opinion of Northern Ireland being sought through the ballot box?
Mr. Whitelaw: I am grateful for what my hon. Friend said. Naturally, I have been in consultation with my hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry (Mr. Chichester-Clark), in whose constituency this horror took place, and I shall have further consultations with him.
In answer to my hon. Friend's other question, all I should like to say is that, with all the information available to us, we shall see to it that we have the necessary forces in Northern Ireland for the task of ensuring that the Assembly elections, as with the district council elections, take place in proper circumstances.
Captain Orr: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the expressions of sympathy, ritual though they may be, are none the less appreciated and endorsed by people in Ulster?
Is he prepared to look again at the practice of sealing off areas of towns such as Coleraine, because one of the bombs was inside the sealed area and the one which did all the damage was outside? As there are liable to be more incidents of this kind between now and the Assembly elections, will my right hon. Friend reconsider that matter?
Mr. Whitelaw: Most certainly, yes. The restrictions are a matter for the local authority concerned, but they are considered very carefully with the security forces and we have them constantly under review in the important areas.
It is important to appreciate that sealing off areas and having troops on static

1493
guard at them is not only a very dubious way of employing troops but also detracts from the offensive operations which it is absolutely vital that the troops should continue because, with the ability to catch and, I hope, charge and convict some of those responsible for these offences, the job is much more likely to succeed. But, consistent with that and the need to keep the Army on the offensive all the time, we shall look at the matter and ensure that all possible precautions are taken.
Mr. Evelyn King: On the matter of the supply of arms by foreign Powers, is it a fact that some arms have been supplied by Libya? Did we not recently sell a warship to Libya, and are not members of the Royal Navy in Portland, my constituents, engaged on training personnel from Libya and, incidentally, being subjected to grave discourtesy in that training? Is it reasonable that we should train the armed forces of Libya in Dorset a few months before the Dorset Regiment goes to Ireland where it may be assaulted with arms which have come from Libya?
Mr. Whitelaw: I cannot confirm any of the facts, for the simple reason that they are well outside my responsibilities and I have not personally the slightest idea whether they are accurate. I cannot even confirm where all the arms have come from. It would therefore be wrong for me to speculate.
Mr. Stratton Mills: In joining in the expressions of sympathy, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether there are any further methods or means which can be taken to deal with sadistic madmen who leave high explosives in heavily populated areas? A variety of people are wishing, prior to the Assembly elections, to stir up the greatest amount of sectarian hatred. Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity of spelling out the motivation for the recent events?
Mr. Whitelaw: If I could understand the minds of people who take these actions, I would find it much easier to spell out their motivation. I simply cannot bring myself to understand them. However, I appreciate that there are those who apparently are seeking for their own ends, to stir up trouble prior to the elections. I cannot say in detail who they are or how they are doing it.
1494
As for specific methods to deal with people who plant bombs in built-up areas, we have had very considerable successes in recent weeks against such people. Perhaps it is not out of order for me to say that some of the measures contained in the Bill which is at present in Committee will be, in the view of the security forces, of the greatest importance in catching and apprehending some of these people. I hope that the House will bear that in mind.

DECLARATION OF FINANCIAL INTERESTS BY MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT BILL
3.54 p.m.
Mr. Thomas Cox: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the public registration of the financial interests of Members of Parliament.
I first declare my interest. I am a sponsored member of the EEPTU.
Every hon. Member is no doubt aware of the increasing cynicism of the general public towards Parliament, and many Members must have had people say to them, "You are only in it for your own ends." I certainly do not accept that. However, recent events which have come to light and which involve the business interests of a Member of this House, and Members' associations with companies, be it as members of the board, or as business advisers or as public relations consultants, many of which are unknown to the House and to their constituents, undoubtedly leave great disquiet in the public's mind when they become known. Such interests as these are increasingly being held by hon. Members.
That strengthens the view which is often expressed about whether a Member should be allowed to hold such business interests while he is a Member. My view is that that is a matter which the Member must resolve himself. But if a Member has a business interest, I believe that he or she should be required to declare it and that it is no longer sufficient for any Member, when speaking in a debate in which he has a direct business interest, to declare it, for such are the changes which have taken place in business enterprises that a public relations consultant or a business adviser could well have more influence than a director

1495
of a board, yet no one need know that he held such a position.
To emphasise the point, many hon. Members are deeply concerned about the actions of certain Members who, on Friday afternoons, deliberately object to Private Members' Bills even when they are widely supported in the House and in the country. Often we do not know who the objectors are or—and this is of greater importance—what their motives may be in objecting. Do they object from a personally held point of view or on behalf of an outside interest? No one can say. The House should now, I believe, seek to tackle this lack of openness. Let us and the people of this country know by whom a Member, if employed, is employed. If he wishes to speak, to ask questions, or to contact a Minister, let it be done openly. Let us know when a Member is acting in a paid financial capacity and for whom he is acting. This would benefit a Member who held a position, for if his declaration of an interest were known to the House he could take a much greater part in debate on subjects in which he is interested and his knowledge of those subjects could prove valuable in such a debate.
Under the terms of my Bill, every Member holding such an interest would be required to declare it, and it would be registered, along with the name of the company employing the Member and the amount of his remuneration that is paid. There would be a yearly de-registration of such interests. The register could be deposited at Somerset House, where it would be open to public inspection, which is essential, for without this requirement the composition of a register would be meaningless. I am convinced that these proposals, if accepted, would be warmly welcomed by the people of this country. Also the standing of Parliament would be enhanced by them, and that in itself should be welcomed by all Members.
I am aware that Members on both sides of the Chamber have business connections. The register would apply to all Members irrespective of party and, therefore, there would be no political advantage for any party.
No doubt my Bill will be criticised. It may be claimed that the introduction of such a register would present many
1496
problems, but often the rôle of Parliament is to introduce highly complex legislation and, if there is a willingness to face this matter sensibly and to seek to produce an accepted formula, it can be done. We must not allow the argument of difficulty to be taken as an excuse for doing nothing.
It may be asked why, if such a declaration is to be made by Members of Parliament, a similar declaration should not be made by members of local authorities. I agree with that. Such a requirement should I think have been introduced long ago.
Some hon. Members seek to make outright objection to these proposals on the ground that they are an infringement of a Member's personal and private affairs. I totally reject that argument. The very position we hold and the opportunities that may exist for Members involved in business, of whatever kind, demand that such an involvement is known and can be openly checked.
At a time when Parliament under successive Governments has sought to introduce control on the salaries of millions of workers, what right have Members to attempt to cloak in secrecy the interests and incomes they enjoy other than those they enjoy by virtue of being Members of this House? Those interests and incomes often arise because they are Members of Parliament. Membership of this House demands certain standards, and if Members object to such a register they should seriously consider their position as Members, for I do not believe that the people of this country will accept any attempt to hinder the proposals contained in the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Thomas Cox, Mr. A. W. Stallard, Mr. John Grant, Mr. Barry Jones, Mr. Phillip Whitehead, Mr. William Price, Mr. Well-beloved, Mr. Joseph Harper and Mr. Leslie Huckfield.

DECLARATION OF FINANCIAL INTERESTS BY MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT BILL
  DECLARATION OF FINANCIAL INTERESTS BY MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT
  Bill to provide for the public registration of the financial interests of Members of Parliament, presented accordingly and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday 20th July, and to be printed. [Bill 157.]

HARDMAN REPORT
Mr. Willey: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I apologise for raising my point of order rather late. but I was interested in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Wandsworth, Central (Mr. Thomas Cox) and I did not want to interrupt him.
I have received from the Vote Office a copy of the Hardman Report on the Dispersal of the Civil Service. It appears to be a savage rebuff to the hopes we had on the North-East coast. This matter has repeatedly been discussed in the House, and I ask whether the Government have been requested to make a statement to the House on the subject.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman knows quite well that that is not a matter of order for the Chair.

ORDERS OF THE DAY
  MAPLIN DEVELOPMENT BILL
  As amended (in the Standing Committee and on re-committal), considered.
  MAPLIN DEVELOPMENT BILL
    New Clause 1

      DUTY TO CONSULT WITH STATUTORY BODIES
      It shall be the duty of the Maplin Development Authority, before beginning any work of reclamation authorised by this Act, to consult with the Civil Aviation Authority and with the British Airports Authority about the likely future levels of aircraft noise at existing airports having regard to technological developments in aircraft construction and airport traffic management and to consult with the National Ports Council about the likely effect of the seaport development on the trade of other United Kingdom ports.—[Mr. Oakes.]
      Brought up and read the First time.
      4.5 p.m.
      Mr. Gordon Oakes: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Speaker: It will be convenient to take with this new clause the following new clauses:
      New Clause 2—[Duty to consult on aerospace developments.]
      New Clause 3—[Duty to consult on national ports policy.]
      We shall also take Amendment No. 3, in Clause 2, page 2, line 18, at end insert:
      'provided that such land is not used for purposes which will cause noise nuisance to persons living in Essex and Kent'.
      Mr. Oakes: I take it that it will be in order, Mr. Speaker, if separate Divisions are called for on new Clause 1 and new Clause 2?
      Mr. Speaker: I will allow separate Divisions on new Clause 1 and new Clause 2.
      Mr. Oakes: I know that many hon. Members on both sides of the House wish to speak on this series of new clauses. I therefore intend to open the debate very briefly, despite the fundamental importance to the whole idea of the Maplin development of these clauses.

      1499
      First, I will seek to set out what the new clause proposes to do. Secondly, I will mention what differentiates it, albeit narrowly, from new Clauses 2 and 3. These clauses are rightly taken together because their object is basically the same—to require the Maplin Development Authority to consult, and to think deeply about the results of that consultation, before embarking upon reclamation work which could cost the nation hundreds, if not thousands, of millions of pounds. Thirdly, I will set out some of the many reasons why the clause has become necessary since the Committee stage of the Bill and why this House, which is rightly concerned with the effectiveness of enormous public expenditure quite across normal party political lines, should decide that it is imperative to insert the clause in the Bill.
      The clause seeks to confer a statutory duty on the Maplin Development Authority to look before it leaps. It seeks to require the authority to consult the Civil Aviation Authority and the British Airports Authority with special reference to the level of future aircraft noise at existing London airports in the light of the reduced engine noise in aeroplanes already in service—not projected engine noise or future technological developments—and in the light of advanced techniques in moving aircraft at those airports. The clause also requires the Maplin Development Authority to consult the National Ports Council on the tremendous implications of the development of a huge seaport on other United Kingdom ports—a matter which has never been debated by this House or by anybody else. The clause requires that this shall be done immediately, before any physical reclamation work begins.
      New Clauses 2 and 3 have a similar object. They envisage continuous consultation between these statutory bodies. I do not disagree with that—it may not be a bad thing—but the House would be disingenuous to imagine that the Maplin Development Authority or any Minister, after the expenditure of hundreds of millions of pounds, would stop work on a half-completed Maplin which would stand out like a disused monstrous folly off the Esesx coast, although evidence might be given to the contrary in the
      1500
      light of developments. The consultation required by the clause must take place before any reclamation work begins, so that the Maplin Development Authority and the Minister are well aware of the future implications of the noise levels at the existing airports.
      There are reasons why consultation has now become necessary. Even since the Roskill inquiry three years ago in 1970, there has been a dramatic change in the opinion of experts about the effects of aircraft coming in and out of London. We must remember that the Roskill inquiry decided against Maplin and based its views on the engine noise of aircraft then in existence, with some projections for the future in terms of larger aircraft. Aircraft have become much larger and faster than Roskill realised at that time. The fact is that the techniques in the handling of aircraft at Heathrow and Gatwick and in reducing the "peakiness" of the number of aircraft which can use those airports have improved enormously since the report was published.
      Since the Second Reading of the Bill the Civil Aviation Authority has produced a report which clearly shows that the Maplin project is not an essential project. It is desirable in some ways, but it is not essential so far as the CAA report is concerned. I know that the Secretary of State for the Environment and his Under-Secretary of State have tended to cast away the decisions of the CAA report but that report demolishes the essential need for an airport at Maplin.
      Mr. Ronald Bell: Would the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. Oakes) care to define what he means by "essential"? He sits for a constituency somewhere in the north of England, and he will appreciate that I represent a constituency quite close to Heathrow. Has he any conception of what my constituents and people in the surrounding neighbourhoods endure and does he regard that as an element of essentiality?
      Mr. Oakes: The hon. and learned Gentleman is ahead of me, and I intend to deal with that point a little later in my remarks. When I use the word "essential", I refer to the actual number of aircraft that come into an airport. I shall deal with the question of noise in

      1501
      a few moments. The hon. and learned Gentleman is right to raise the subject of noise, and of course Members on all sides of the House are extremely concerned about noise nuisance at existing airports, and that aspect of the problem must never be forgotten.
      The Civil Aviation Authority report showed that in 1985, five years after Maplin commences its operations, there will still be a considerable surplus of runway capacity at both those airports without major runway developments, although there may need to be some developments in terms of terminal buildings.
      The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Environment has said that his Department is concerned not only with the physical capacity of an airport—indeed, the Under-Secretary of State in Standing Committee aptly said that from the point of view of usage—the most desirable place for an airport may well be in the middle of Hyde Park—but also with the whole question of noise and with the dreadful effects on the lives of people who have to live in the neighbourhood of existing airports. It is on that ground that the Government rest their case for the Maplin development. If that is so, and if Maplin has even a substantial effect on national noise levels in the 1980s at existing airports. then it may be wise to spend these enormous amounts of public money, but even since the CAA report was published it has become clear from many articles written by experts—basing their figures on Government statistics and not on figments of their own imagination—that Maplin will have a marginal effect on noise levels at existing airports.
      We must look at the projections in terms of existing aircraft by way of size and quietness, and I refer to aircraft in service now rather than future aircraft which may be affected by technological developments. We can expect developments from a noise point of view as well as from the point of view of the pressing demands on aviation spirit which will be required to fly those aeroplanes. Most of the research carried out in the past on noise levels which may lead to a reduction in those levels has been as a result of the spin-off from finding ways of reducing spirit consumption.
      4.15 p.m.
      Mr. Toby Jessel: Would the hon. Gentleman include in his concept of noise levels the frequency of flights?
      Mr. Oakes: Yes, the frequency of flights is important, but research shows that the major cause of nuisance is not so much the frequency of flights as the amount of noise generated by a given aircraft. That is the main creator of nuisance. Reducing the argument to an absurdity, if all aircraft were completely silent nobody would care how many aircraft came in and out of the country or at what time they came in. I emphasise that the main problem is the noise generated by a particular aircraft.
      What the reports clearly say is that quieter aircraft are coming into existence and will increasingly come into existence during this decade, and that in the middle of the next decade when Maplin would take effect the noise nuisance index, however accurate or inaccurate that may be. shows that hardly any effect would be caused by the existence of Maplin, and indeed that most of the reduction in noise levels at existing airports arises from the fact that quieter aircraft are using present airports.
      Mr. Hugh Jenkins: I want to try to help my hon. Friend by preventing him from persisting in error. He appears to be mistaken on the question of frequency. The fact is that much of the research into the subject of the impact of noise nuisance on the individual shows that frequency of aircraft movements is an extremely important factor. I am sure my hon. Friend will accept that a person can put up fairly easily with a fairly loud noise once an hour, but if that noise takes place sixty times an hour it becomes intolerable.
      Mr. Oakes: I am not saying that frequency is unimportant and is to be disregarded. I am saying that the noise generated by an aircraft—the sort of level of noise of which my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) and his constituents are well aware, at a high pitch and a high rate—is far more jarring on the nerves than is noise heard more frequently overhead in a given area.

      1503
      I should like to quote from an article in The Times on 18th May 1973, appropriately headed "Time to melt the Maplin snowball" and written by Mr. C. D. Foster, head of the Centre for Urban Economics at the London School of Economics. Mr. Foster writes:
      "The Department of Trade and Industry has already mapped the effect this would have"
      —that is to say, the introduction of quieter aircraft—
      "on reducing the noise expected from Maplin. Rough estimates by Mr. Flowerdew at the London School of Economics, based entirely on official figures, suggest that the replacement of the older aircraft by the new will alone nearly halve the noise from Heathrow. The noise levels at Kensington will be like those in Hampstead, and at Hounslow like those now experienced at Barnes. This will be a persistent, sustained improvement over the next 12 years."
      In the light of expert opinion such as that and the research carried out by Mr. Flowerdew, who was the Assistant Director of Research for the Roskill Commission, and in the light of opinion of other experts, can the Government allow the Maplin Development Authority to go ahead regardless of these opinions as to the noise levels and future noise levels at existing airports?
      It is not a matter of the Opposition saying that there should be a third inland airport. It is not a matter of the Opposition or hon. Members opposite who support the clause saying that we have a cynical and total disregard for those who live near Heathrow or Gatwick under the strain of this enormous noise and that we will not have it exported to Maplin. In terms of the aircraft that we have in service the noise levels at those airports will be reduced considerably.
      If the Maplin Development Authority must consult the Civil Aviation Authority, the British Airports Authority and the National Ports Council before proceeding with any reclamation work, as the clause requires, without disadvantage to the people who live in and around the existing airports, we in this House may be able to avoid needless expenditure on the most inefficient way that this House could devise of reducing aircraft noise or helping people in those areas.
      The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Eldon Griffiths): Since the hon. Gentleman has said what the
      1504
      Opposition do not favour, I hope that he will say before he draws his remarks to a conclusion whether it is the policy of the Opposition that the growth in the numbers of aircraft and air passengers shall be handled at the existing London airports. Is that the position, because I think that we need to know?
      Mr. Oakes: For want of time I have not discussed in any detail the important rôle which could be played by regional airports where people want them, whereas the Government insist on everyone being drawn to the South-East whether they live in Birmingham, Manchester, Yorkshire or any other part of the country. The other point is that we are concerned in the clause to deal with the level of aircraft noise at the existing airports. No one is greatly worried about the use of the existing airports providing that the noise nuisance there is reduced considerably, if possible even to the point of eliminating it. I am concerned to see that the Maplin Development Authority at least considers that.
      I ask all hon. Members who care about public expenditure to support the clause. It will not wreck the Maplin Development Bill, no matter what the Opposition may think of that. If the Government resist the clause they are acting like ostriches and refusing, either themselves or to allow the Maplin Development Authority, to consider the implications of what is being done in the light of modern knowledge and technological advance in aircraft noise and its frequency.
      Mr. Robert Adley: Earlier this afternoon we had the introduction of a Ten-Minute Rule Bill by the hon. Member for Wandsworth, Central (Mr. Thomas Cox) asking that hon. Members should declare their interests. My interest in this subject is that of the taxpayer. In all our discussions about the location of new airports the resulting public expenditure is sometimes forgotten.
      A number of my hon. Friends have put their names to new Clause 2 which seeks to set up a monitoring device on the progress of the Maplin development as the land is reclaimed.
      As the Bill stands at present, there are four groups of objectors among hon.

      1505
      Members. There are those with constituency interests in Essex and Kent. There are those who would like to see the development of regional airports, with regional policies being brought more into the Government's consideration of these matters. There are those who are concerned about public expenditure. There are those who have studied the aviation aspects of the problem, especially the noise problems to which the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. Oakes) has just referred.
      May I briefly trace back the way in which the decision that we are discussing was reached? As the hon. Member for Widnes said, Roskill did not recommend Foulness. He short-listed four sites, three of which were inland, and which rightly and naturally had strong lobbies against them, and one of which appeared at the time anyway to be a decision which could be taken arousing comparatively little objection. That was the negative way in which the decision was taken initially. However, as time has gone by, more and more people have begun to question not only the way in which the decision was taken but the full implications of it.
      This is not and certainly should not be a party political issue, and those of my hon. Friends who have put their names to new Clause 2 have little in common other than our concern to see some form of monitoring device set up as a result of the clause. The hon. Member for Widnes suggested that new Clauses I and 2 were not very different. However, I emphasise to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State that new Clause 2 is a modest one which is designed only as a monitoring device. It recognises that the House has given a Second Reading to a Bill containing powers to reclaim land. I am not interested in trying to kill the Bill with the clause. I am simply interested in doing everything possible to see that the real and continuing interests of the taxpayer are protected.
      If the clause is accepted, I ask my right hon. and learned Friend to appreciate that all that it does is to give the Government an opportunity from now until any time in the future to take account of real developments and not theoretical ones, if necessary to call a
      1506
      halt to the proceedings, and if necessary not to spend money. I should have thought that that would have some appeal to the Treasury.
      Very often the Concorde, Maplin and the Channel Tunnel are compared. The Concorde project has been going for 11 years, prior to which there were five years of deep thought which went into the project. Many hon. Members have doubts about the Concorde. I am not one of them. But having served on the Committee which considered the Concorde Aircraft Bill, I can understand why people have doubts about projects of this kind. It is understandable that the absence of any monitoring device, especially in the early stages of these major projects, can result in a great deal of heartache later.
      The Channel Tunnel has had 150 years of study. Therefore its only comparison with Maplin is one of opposites in terms of the speed and thought which have gone into the projects.
      If my right hon. and learned Friend is so confident that all that he proposes in the Bill is correct and that there will be no developments in the next 10 years to reverse any of the assumptions in the decisions that he has taken, then by accepting the clause he will have a permanent opportunity to prove that he was right. If that turns out to be so, he will never need to invoke the powers that the clause gives him.
      I might say, by way of explanation, that the proposal put forward in the clause has been prompted by a study of the experience of the Canadian Federal Government, who at the moment are going through a similar exercise for the location of a major new airport for Toronto at a place called Pickering. On 30th January of this year the Federal Transport Minister, Mr. Marchand, explained the reasons for choosing the site at Pickering and why he felt it right to build into the proposals a monitoring device not dissimilar to that which we are proposing today. In the course of his remarks, Mr. Marchand said:
      "The Government has gone as far as It could into the technologically-forseeable future. … However an independent board will be set up to hear views on the airport and the urban area around it. … If it produces any vitally new facts on technology, or changes in the attitude of the people that may point

      1507
      to a different conclusion, the Government could be moved to reconsider."
      It is fair to point out that Mr. Marchand went on to say that he thought this unlikely and that he had no doubt that the Canadian Federal Government would be proved right. That may be so. If my right hon. and learned Friend is as confident as he appears, he could accept the clause with equanimity.
      4.30 p.m.
      I turn now to the point touched on by the hon. Member for Widnes—namely, whether quiet and short-runway aircraft are a myth.
      The Toronto Globe and Mail of 18th March 1973 states:
      "The most important question in the controversy over the new Toronto airport in Pickering Township has been completely overlooked. No one has asked—in public at least—why build an airport with long runways when revolutionary new aircraft for short runways are just around the corner?
      When the project is finished, will there he any need of a conventional commercial flying field with long runways, a field that takes up an unconscionable amount of valuable space?
      The implications of the development of short take-off and landing (STOL) planes and especially of quiet short take-off and landing (QSTOL) aircraft do not seem to have been taken into account. This is even more surprising since Canada has done pioneering work in this field and perhaps still has a lead in it, though this is becoming more doubtful by the day."
      We in this country are, with the Swedes, the Germans and the Spanish, researching a new aircraft called the Europlane. I commend to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State a close study of the noise levels of the Europlane. By the time this aircraft would be in service it would be able to restrict more or less to the area of the airport itself the frightful noise which many people around Heathrow and Gatwick have to suffer.
      In passing, I should like to assure those of my hon. Friends who will speak against my new clause that none of us is in any way seeking to dilute the misery and hardship caused by noisy aircraft now and in previous years.
      The new clause raises the issue whether there have been any significant developments since Roskill. I should like to point out, in defence of my new clause, that in 1968 the largest civil aircraft in
      1508
      service, the DC8–63, carried 259 passengers and required a runway length of 11,500 ft. By 1972 the Boeing 747 Series 100 was in service. That aircraft carried 490 passengers and required a runway length of 9,400 ft. Since Roskill there has been an enormous change in the runway lengths required.
      Even more important, there have been enormous changes in noise levels. I should like to refer to a Department of the Environment document, "Maplin Airport", which was published in April 1972. I do not think one could ask for a more impeccable source of information. In paragraph 10, entitled "Noisiness of Aircraft", it states:
      "The greater volume of traffic now forecast for Maplin is however offset in terms of noise by revised forecasts of the noisiness of aircraft in the future. This is one of the most important changes since the Roskill Report. There is now firm evidence of substantial progress in the quietening of aircraft engines. When the Roskill Commission were sitting the best estimate they could make was that by 1985 new types of aircraft would be 10 PNdB quieter than current (1970) aircraft of the same weight—that is to say, half as noisy. But already in 1972 major new types of aircraft (the Douglas DC10 and Lockheed 1011) have emerged and are flying with recorded noise levels well below this. And this is a continuing process."
      Paragraph 11 begins with the sentence:
      "The effect is to produce far more favourable forecasts of quieter aircraft than assumed by the Roskill Commission. Figure 1 shows the present forecasts of aircraft noise reduction".
      The simple fact is that Roskill said that between 1970 and 1995 there would be a noise reduction of X. Within two years, not 25 years. Roskill's estimate of the noise reduction had been more than achieved.
      Those of us who have studied this problem now know that the people who live around airports rightly will not tolerate noise. The airlines have got the message. They have told their suppliers, the aircraft manufacturers, that they must build quiet aircraft. This is going on now. There is nothing particularly difficult about building quiet aircraft. It may be expensive, but the expense involved in building quiet aircraft—
      Mr. Ronald Bell: My hon. Friend made the astonishing statement that noise levels had been halved within two years. Is he seriously suggesting that the noise around Heathrow has fallen by half in the last two years? Surely all that he

      1509
      means is that a type of aeroplane has been developed which has halved the noise level. The whole purpose of the Roskill extrapolation and of others is the time that it takes for new types to supersede existing types. My hon. Friend seems to have ignored that fact, so it can be dismissed from consideration.
      Mr. Adley: I am sure that my hon. and learned Friend, with his legal training, will not want to deceive anybody by suggesting that I said something that I did not say. I read from a Department of the Environment publication which pointed out that already in service are two new aircraft which have reduced the noise level substantially more than Roskill thought could be done in 25 years. By the time that Maplin could be open the numbers of Douglas DC10s and Lockheed 1011s and other even quieter aircraft will be much greater than today. The document is to be believed or it is not. I was not seeking to do anything other than to make a direct quotation.
      Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I want to be sure that I heard my hon. Friend correctly. Did he say that there was nothing particularly difficult about developing a quiet aircraft?
      Mr. Adley: Yes. I said that there is nothing technologically difficult.
      Mr. Eldon Griffiths: The advice that have been given is that, although engine noise may be quietened and may come very quickly, there is apparently a level below which noise cannot be reduced because there is a large piece of metal weighing several hundred tons being pushed through the air at several hundred miles an hour. Will my hon. Friend explain how the noise from that is reduced?
      Mr. Adley: If my hon. Friend believes that, perhaps he will tell the House what aeroplanes will continue to use Heathrow and Gatwick, because he is leaving them open, not closing them, when Foulness is built.
      Mr. John Wilkinson: I think that the House might be interested to know that by 1985 at least 70 per cent. of movements into the London airports will be of wide-bodied airliners and Jumbos and 91 per cent. of passengers will be carried in those aircraft
      1510
      This is the dimension of the change which is taking place through existing, let alone future, technical developments such as the aircraft mentioned by my hon. Friend.
      Mr. Adley:I am greatly indebted to my hon. Friend, who is extremely knowledgeable in these matters. I am aware that he has more knowledge of the subject, with his aeronautical background, than I have.
      My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State has referred to noisy gliders which will be flying around with engines turned off! I am trying to show that aircraft are getting quieter. Of course, a large aircraft flying through the air will make a noise, but if his document is to be believed there has been a substantial change in technological development since Roskill. The new clause seeks to ensure that if there are any further changes, which may confound even my hon. Friend, we would have taken powers to deal with them.
      Mr. Norman Tebbit: Before my hon. Friend leaves that point, because we do not wish to labour it and have the Under-Secretary misunderstanding it, may I assure the House that aeroplanes do not fly at several hundred miles an hour whilst coming into land, however large they are? Let us be quite clear that technically not only is it very much easier to quieten aircraft to the limits of less than 90 decibels outside the airport area, but that the work is being done. We shall undoubtedly achieve it. However, no one is doing that sort of work on the vehicles that will be used to transport passengers to this airfield through East London. My hon. Friend has not yet agreed to publish the noise contours for either side of his motorways and railways.
      Mr. Adley: I am grateful to my hon Friend for his intervention. I will not pursue that point. However, I hope that he will do so, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if he catches your eye.
      I was not blessed with a very elaborate education, but I learned Greek and logic. I say I learned logic. I may not have learned it, but I was taught it. If we are building an airport 55 miles away on the Essex marshes, in order to spare people noise, and we are maintaining two other major airports in service at Gatwick

      1511
      and Heathrow, what sort of aeroplanes will continue to use those airports?
      If my hon. Friend says that they will continue to be noisy aircraft, then the people who live around Gatwick and Heathrow will continue to be pestered by noise. Perhaps he could explain just what sort of aircraft he thinks will be using those airports. If, however, he says that they will be quiet aircraft, that is fine. Then we need not build Maplin in the first place.
      I fully appreciate the point made by the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel), my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) and the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins). We know that they are living in misery, albeit slightly less misery than a year ago. But nothing could be worse than to convince these people that by building an airport on the Essex marshes we shall spare them all noise, when in 10 years they will find that we have not done so.
      Mr. James Allason: Would my hon. Friend recall the situation of Luton, which is creating worse noise than even Heathrow or Gatwick by night? The intention there is that it will be closed down for international flights when Maplin opens. Therefore, in that case, there will be a considerable difference. He should not neglect that argument.
      Mr. Adley: I do not, of course, neglect Luton. I recognise the great concern that my hon. Friend has always shown about Luton. But surely at least 90 to 95 per cent. of the people suffering noise in the London area are those who live around Heathrow and Gatwick. That is what the debate is all about when we consider Maplin. I would ask my hon. Friend to accept the serious point that it would be very unkind, to put it at its mildest, for people to be led to think that, if the Bill were passed unamended and the airport built, they should suddenly be in a quiet and peaceful situation.
      I have been reading a recently published book called "Cublington: A Blueprint for Resistance". This confirms, in a number of quotations that I have marked but with which I will not weary the House, the way in which the original
      1512
      decision was taken. It was taken simultaneously with the decision not to build a second runway at Gatwick, which would have cost £7 million. I do not know what the latest figures are for the cost of Foulness. I should not call it "Foulness", perhaps; the PR exercise calls it "Maplin". We have heard an estimate of £1,000 million. Suppose that it is £800 million at 1972 prices. What estimate has my hon. Friend made of the price of this airport, with all the infrastructure and with inflation built in over 10 years, plus the likely cost overrun in 1984—if that is not an unfortunate date to choose—at 1984 prices?
      I hold no brief for the airlines, but if we are to build this huge airport with public money, it is the Government's responsibility to find out whether there will be any customers for it. Before the British Steel Corporation starts to build a new steel mill, I imagine that it does some research to discover whether it will sell any steel. It is my clear impression that very few of the world's international airlines have expressed any interest in Foulness.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow), the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, in an answer on 7th February 1973 was quite frank. He said:
      "No airline expressed a preference for Foulness."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th February 1973; Vol. 850, c. 126.]
      I presume that my hon. Friend is aware that the Government do not possess powers to direct traffic to particular airports. There is no way at the moment in which the British Government can tell Pan-American to go to Foulness.
      In 15 years of the operation of Gatwick, not one major international carrier has transferred its base from Heathrow. When the Turkish airline THY two years ago decided to start a service from Turkey to London, it wanted to use Heathrow. The Airports Authority told it to use Gatwick, it said that it would not, the British Government, through their agencies, insisted, the Turkish government retaliated—BEA was barred from landing anywhere in Turkey and one had to get off BEA aircraft in Athens—and very soon the British Government were forced to back down and THY went to Heathrow.

      1513
      4.45 p.m.
      So if we pass the Bill unamended, Maplin goes ahead and the Government find that they have an airport which the airlines are not using, they will have to take new and wide-ranging powers, which will have considerable international implications. It is not difficult to build an airport, given £1,000 million, but we must, if we are trying to look after the taxpayers' interests, ask what customers there will be for this airport. Most of us would find it intolerable if we were to build a huge and expensive airport simply for use by charter services.
      Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Japanese are building a second airport in Tokyo which will be 55 miles outside Tokyo, that they will face exactly the same problem, and that they are willing to force the airlines to use it?
      Mr. Adley: I sympathise with the Japanese in their problems. They, I believe, have only one international airport. We already have two in London. There is a substantial difference, which we can see in Paris, for instance, where the French Government intend to close Le Bourget when Roissy is complete. We seem to be thinking that we can keep three airports going indefinitely.
      I would again ask the Minister why he will not make a commitment to close Heathrow, and possibly Gatwick as well, in due course when Maplin, if it is built, is completed as a four-runway airport. I would find this acceptable. If we were ruthlessly determined to make noise abatement our main factor in this decision, we should consider building at Foulness and closing Heathrow. Then we could sell the land for housing and some industrial development and more than raise the money to build the new airport.
      It concerns me that, at the moment, when we are committing this huge sum of money to the South-East of England, we in the South-West are being starved of any funds at all for the development of our airports. Bristol has been refused any loan sanction or assistance for the development of Lulsgate Airport. Even Exeter Airport, which was recently acquired by the Devon County Council and the Torbay and Exeter County Boroughs, has been refused £25,000.
      1514
      I could go on at considerable length, but it might be unwise—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): It might also very easily be out of order.
      Mr. Adley: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
      We should deal with this problem at source by eliminating the noise and not simply by moving it miles away. My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Rost) has mentioned the oil shortage. Again the new clause is concerned with post-Roskill developments. On 22nd March, the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Working, told me:
      "As no marked increase in oil prices was anticipated at the time of the Roskill Commission, no special account was taken of this factor in preparing traffic forecasts,"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd March, 1973; Vol. 853, c. 187.]
      Mr. Peter Rost: In fact, I merely mentioned that, by 1995, the fuel and energy crisis might be becoming serious enough to be an influential factor in the siting of an airport.
      Mr. Adley: I entirely agree.
      The Department of the Environment has rightly recognised that the motor car cannot for ever be allowed to go on an uncontrolled spree and that we cannot go on building more and more urban motorways and roads simply because more and more people want to drive their motor cars to certain places. We might have reached the time when notwithstanding the fact that Roskill was asked to look for a site to cope with the growth of traffic requiring immediate access to London, we shall have to take powers, not, as the Minister perhaps intends, to direct airlines to Foulness, but to stop people flying in aircraft or to stop aircraft carrying out too many short haul journeys. I believe that 59 per cent. of the flights from Heathrow are to destinations less than 500 miles away. The Channel Tunnel is another development which was not sufficiently considered by Roskill and which will make a substantial difference to the traffic pattern in the years ahead.

      1515
      I do not know how a back-bench Member is supposed to make up his mind on an issue of this sort. One considers a great deal of documentation and evidence and in the end one has to use one's judgment. I am not sufficiently confident to say that I know that nothing will change in the next 10 or 15 years, and new Clause 2 has been tabled to take all possible changes into account. The last thing I want to see is our now taking an irreversible step and finding in 10 years that we have done something which has had side effects the like of which we cannot now comprehend. In 1962 we had a shortage of hospital staff and we thought it a good idea to bring into the country large numbers from the Commonwealth in order to staff our hospitals. There are some who would say that this decision, taken at a time of apparent great need, has had repercussions which no one could have foreseen at that time.
      I therefore ask my hon. Friend to give serious consideration to this modest clause which simply seeks to give him an opportunity, with the Civil Aviation Authority and the Maplin Development Authority, to change his plans should technical developments come about which we cannot at this time quite foresee.
      Mr. Douglas Jay: I hope that the House will emphatically accept the new clause. I believe that since Second Reading this project has been shown by the CAA report to be entirely unnecessary and on no conceivable argument worth the grotesque sums which the Government propose to spend. The Maplin project began as a blunder, continued for some time as a sacred cow, and seems now to be in danger of becoming a scandal if we are going to spend money on this scale.
      When the third London airport was first proposed in the 'sixties, the case was wholly based on the need for extra runway capacity. In 1966–67, professional opinion believed that new runway capacity would be needed by 1974 or 1975. One can now see what was not then as easy to see, that expert opinion, as so often, protected itself by consistently overestimating the speed at which we should need new runway capacity.
      The CAA report seems to make this perfectly clear. It puts back to the late
      1516
      1980s the need for substantial extra runway capacity over and above that which we already have, and shows to any impartial person that Maplin cannot possibly be justified on the grounds on which it has always been advocated until a few months ago, when the Government found the arguments untenable and changed their ground.
      The Minister for Aerospace seems to me to have seriously misled the House on Second Reading when he quoted the CAA chairman as saying
      " … that additional airport capacity will be needed in the London area probably by soon after 1980, with a subsequent need for more than one runway some five years after that."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th February 1973; Vol. 850, c. 783.]
      What he did not tell the House was that that additional capacity was based on the assumption that Southend and Stansted were closed, that Luton was seriously restricted and that no second runway was built at Gatwick. The CAA report shows that even in 1985, even if we close Southend and Stansted, restrict Luton and cancel the second runway at Gatwick, then Heathrow and Gatwick together—at any rate on the segregated mode basis—could nearly cope with the expected traffic; and it also shows that the one runway at Maplin would be only marginally needed. Even so that report significantly says,
      " … Maplin's single runway adds relatively little to the annual capacity of the system, because of the expected 'peakiness' of Maplin's traffic, much of which is taken over from Luton, Stansted and Southend."
      That means that the existing airports, together with one more runway at Gatwick, could easily provide enough runway capacity even in 1985, and even if the estimates do not turn out yet again to be too pessimistic.
      Mr. Jessel: I understand the right hon. Gentleman to imply that he believes that Heathrow and Gatwick should be fully used up to their capacity technically regardless of the amount of suffering that might cause to numbers of people living around the airports.
      Mr. Jay: I shall come to that point, but I believe that the hon. Member misunderstands the facts if he thinks that it need involve the suffering of which he speaks. The Government in effect propose to spend £800 million or £1,000

      1517
      million on transferring traffic from Southend, Luton and Stansted to Maplin; and that means that we shall be spending £800 million or £1,000 million for what we could get for £15 million or £20 million at Gatwick.
      Faced with these undeniable facts and figures, the Government now change their ground entirely and devise two new arguments. First, we are told that it is not runway capacity that causes the bottleneck but passenger handling capacity. But the extra passenger handling capacity could he provided at Gatwick and Heathrow for a mere fraction of the £1,000 million now proposed. Gatwick has the rail capacity already, largely unused, and in any case the M23 will be built. Will the Minister today give his estimate of the cost of one extra runway at Gatwick, with the extra passenger handling capacity which would be needed there and at Heathrow? We should at least know the figure, even roughly. If the Minister cannot give us a figure he hopelessly undermines his case.
      Secondly, we are now told that this has nothing to do with either cost or runway capacity at all—and here I come to the point put by the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel)—and that the whole purpose is environmental, to use that blessed word, which presumably means less noise nuisance for fewer people.
      But the idea that Maplin will do this is a pure delusion when we take all the consequences into account. It is accepted only by those who have not grasped that relief from noise in the 'eighties will come from quieter aircraft engines and not from moving airports about, and who have not realised that placing an airport on the east coast does not materially diminish noise nuisance, because the takeoff run must normally be in a westerly or south-westerly direction and therefore over the coast and not over the open sea. The population of the Southend area, as we were reminded in an earlier debate, is nearer 300,000—not to mention the population of the Medway towns—
      Sir Bernard Braine: And South-East Essex.
      Mr. Jay: Yes.
      And, of course, the Maplin project proposes in addition to introduce a new
      1518
      city into East Essex of I do not know how many hundreds of thousands of people, in addition to Basildon and not very far from the airport. First we move the airport from the city at a cost of £800 million or £1,000 million and then we build another city not far from the airport at a cost of many hundreds of millions of pounds more.
      In addition to all this, whereas the traffic facilities at Gatwick already exist, Maplin would involve the forcing of at least one new six-lane or it might be an eight-lane motorway right through thickly populated Essex and presumably into North-East London. If it is not to be forced into North-East London, what will happen to the traffic when it reaches the area of the hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Tebbit)? Will the Minister also tell us what his plans are for roads and rail links between London and Maplin, why they have not been published up to now, and what he estimates they will cost? It is quite intolerable that the House should not have that information when we are being asked to give the Bill a Third Reading.
      We can, as I say, confidently expect relief from noise nuisance through the rapid development of quieter engines, which, I may say, I did my best to encourage when I had some responsibility in these matters six or so years ago.
      5.0 p.m.
      Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has referred to his responsibilities when he had charge of these matters. A few moments ago he spoke of the changing of ground. I remind him and the House that, as President of the Board of Trade, he said at that time:
      "The Government have … carried out a very thorough re-examination, and are satisfied … that a third airport for London will unquestionably be required in the mid-1970s."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th May 1967; Vol. 746, c. 1867.]
      He went on to say that this was necessary with the full development of Heathrow and the building of a second runway at Gatwick. The only question about what he called this inevitable third London airport was when it would be required, and he concluded that it would be needed by 1974.
      Mr. Jay: If the Minister had listened to me just now, he would have discovered

      1519
      that I have learned something from history, even though he has not.
      Mr. F. A. Burden: When the right hon. Gentleman was Minister, he must surely have known about the advance of jumbo jets and the movement then towards quieter aircraft. These things have not happened overnight.
      Mr. Jay: Of course we knew something, but we know a great deal more now, as the hon. Gentleman will realise if he will take the trouble to study the reports to which I have referred. We know that significant results can be obtained from quieter aircraft engines. The Department of the Environment's Report for 1972 has shown that noise per aircraft is likely to be nearly halved by 1980, a far greater relief to Heathrow and Gatwick than can possibly come from any transfer of traffic. Indeed, if we devoted only one-twentieth of £1,000 million to quicker research and development on quieter engines, we should do far more to protect the people who are suffering around Gatwick and Heathrow than we should by building this third airport in Essex.
      My constituency is on the Heathrow landing flight path, and it adjoins that of my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins). I would say to other hon. Members representing West London or South-West London constituencies that they will achieve far more relief for their constituents by pressing for quieter aircraft engines quickly than by advocating this monstrous waste of public money at Maplin.
      The Department's Report for 1972 tells us in paragraph 10 that
      "There is now … substantial progress in the quietening of aircraft engines."
      The sub-commit tee on Maplin of the Noise Advisory Council has made the same point. Mr. Flowerdew, of the Roskill Commission—we have had that report since 1971—and Mr. Alan Day have both forcibly argued the same case, and I believe that expert opinion now overwhelmingly supports their view.
      The plain fact is that the Government are obstinately proposing to spend these vast sums when no case on runway capacity exists—that is no longer in dispute—when greater relief from noise could certainly be achieved by smaller
      1520
      expenditure in other ways, including the abandonment of the Essex motorway, and when it is certain that, if we proceed with this plan, we shall have at Maplin a highly inconvenient and unpopular airport which the airlines will not want to use.
      On top of all that—this further point should be made—Maplin will create a huge new industrial complex and a growing city in East Anglia, which has already been the most overdeveloped region of the country since the war. Such an industrial magnet is bound to be another severe blow to development areas in the north and west of this island. Quite apart from its other follies, it would, I believe, represent the worst piece of regional planning since 1945.
      It is extraordinary that the Minister should ask us to reject the new clause and approve the Bill before he is willing to tell us what would be the cost of one extra runway at Gatwick and the extra passenger handling facilities needed there and at Heathrow, or what are the proposed road and rail links between Maplin and London. We ought to be told that today, and I suggest that, if he does not tell us, the Minister will entirely undermine his own case.
      I trust, therefore, that the House will do what each one of us, I believe, knows to be right—assert its authority in this matter, accept the new clause, and reject the project altogether.
      Sir Bernard Braine: It must be clear by now to all who have followed the debates that this Bill is remarkable not for what it contains but for what it leaves out. The hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. Oakes) said that the purpose of his new clause is to ask the House to look again at the Maplin project before it leapt. I agree, though perhaps for different reasons.
      The people of my constituency—let it not be forgotten that, for good or ill, they will be affected more profoundly than the people of any other constituency in the land if Maplin is developed—are being asked to take far too many matters on trust. For example, we are being asked to approve the Bill before we know where the access routes will run or what will be their cost. We are being asked to approve the Bill before we know the results of

      1521
      essential studies of the effects of reclamation work on tidal and surge behaviour in the rivers and on flood control. We are being asked to approve the Bill before anyone has a clear idea of what the noise impact will be upon the people of Essex and Kent.
      Rarely before have so many hostages to fortune been found within the compass of a single Bill.
      At this juncture we are considering matters affecting the environment at the eastern end of my constituency. I hope the House will permit me to digress for a moment and remind it of the way in which my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has recently discharged his duty to protect the environment at the western end of my constituency, where, in the teeth of opposition from the elected local authorities, from the Member of Parliament and from his own inspector, oil refineries are being put down next door to a growing residential area.
      Such contempt already shown for the environmental interests of my constituents, such total disregard for good planning principles, leads me to say on behalf of my constituents and the local authorities that verbal assurances in regard to Maplin are totally unacceptable to us and the necessary safeguards must be written into the Bill. Hence my Amendment No. 3.
      I do not see how the Government can object to my amendment, for they have argued repeatedly that the case for Maplin is that it will provide—I quote my hon. Friend's own words—the only civilised solution to the problems of intolerable aircraft noise at the existing London airports. In other words, it is proposed to build Maplin in order to improve the environment of those who have suffered discomfort for far too long around the existing airports.
      I understand that purpose and sympathise with it. To reduce discomfort for others is a laudable aim. But one inference from this is that the nuisance at existing airports will increase, not diminish. That is to beg very many questions, not least of which is: what improvements can we expect from quieter engines, and, if there are improvements, what is the justification for the huge expenditure on Maplin? Another inference
      1522
      assiduously cultivated by the Government is that by using the NNI yardstick to gauge noise nuisance and by transferring that noise to Maplin, then because the runways there are to be on land reclaimed from the sea vastly fewer people will be affected by it. But this is a faulty method of judging the scale and intensity of nuisance, as was clearly shown in the evidence given to the Select Committee. Incidentally, may I take this opportunity of paying a warm tribute to the Select Committee for the most painstaking and careful examination it made of the Bill?
      It is a faulty method because the level of noise intrusion differs according to the density of urban development and the absence of other noise. A 35 NNI level that is considered a low nuisance rating at Heathrow does not necessarily warrant a low rating at Maplin. At Maplin a 25 NNI rating would be more realistic because of the absence of other noise. If that is so, it means that many more people living in a substantial part of my constituency, in the neighbouring constituency of Southend East and in North Kent, are likely to be affected by noise than the Department of Environment likes to admit. We estimate that the number will be between 65,000 and 125,000. That is a lot of people to annoy for an airport that is going to be built on reclaimed land so that no one should be worried by the noise, as claimed by the Department.
      There are other uncertainties. We still do not know whether it is better, as has been thought in the past, to concentrate as much traffic as possible in a limited corridor or to spread it over more routes. Research on this is still proceeding. Nor do we know whether flight paths to and from Maplin and the stacking areas will require some rearrangement of international air space over the Channel. This is a delicate matter. The House cannot be told about it because it obviously involves international negotiation. At the moment all the talk is of stacking over the sea. But what if for some reason, after the House has passed the Bill, in the years ahead, it becomes necessary to have a stacking area over the land? What then of the environment safeguards for the people of Essex and Kent? What price then the environmental argument to go for Maplin as opposed to Cublington?

      1523
      Then again we know that the Government promised to consult local interests about where the runways would be sited. They presented us with four choices and rejected out of hand the one furthest to the north-east which would have caused least noise nuisance to Essex and Kent. So much for local consultation and local opinion. Indeed, in environmental matters in South-East Essex there is a wide gap between the Government's promise and their performance.
      Thus there is every justification for my constituents' fear that unless some genuine safeguards are written into the Bill our environment will worsen even where that is not intended, because the implications have not been studied carefully enough in advance. My amendment will put a clear duty on the Secretary of State to ensure that the various powers that he and his colleagues use under other statutes to determine flight paths, the siting of the runways, the altitude of aircraft and where stacking is to take place are used in such a way as to cause no noise nuisance to residents of Essex and Kent. Nothing short of a guarantee of that nature will satisfy us.
      5.15 p.m.
      Mr. Dick Taverne: I wish to speak in support of both the clauses under discussion. They each call for a review of the technological developments particularly on quieter aero engines. I have had no previous opportunity to speak on this matter, since when the Second Reading took place I was not in the House. I wish to make a brief speech and add only one short and, perhaps, comparatively minor point. Part of the review which I would suggest to the Government that they should undertake should be a study of the possible effect on accelerated development of quieter engines of having differential landing charges.
      Everyone agrees on the need for quieter engines. They are being developed; but it seems they are more expensive to run than the noisier ones. Certainly it would be costly to go for earlier refits of existing engines. If that were not so, the problem might be resolved earlier. There is one element in airline costs which is entirely within the Government's control, and that is
      1524
      landing charges. They are already differentiated to discourage peak-time landing and the differential could also be applied to discourage noisy landings. That could be done in a way which was economically neutral with an increase in the charges on noisier landings offset by decreases in the charges of quieter operation. But even if there were no increase in the charges, the social cost would be very much less.
      Dr. Alan Glyn: Would not the hon. and learned Member agree that the effect of having these higher landing charges might be that aeroplanes would terminate their flights at Paris and other Continental terminals and not come to this country?
      Mr. Taverne: If there were lower charges for the quiter engines the total effect might be environmentally most beneficial and that is something the Government should consider as part of their review. The level of the differential could be such as to influence the reordering policy of the airlines and to make refits of existing engines an economic proposition when discounted over the remaining lifetime expectancy. That would undoubtedly be a considerable extra inducement to quieter engines. The technology exists. Refit kits for most types of engine are available and where they were not available it would stimulate their development.
      I want to refer briefly to the cost involved and remind hon. Members of the Fifth Report of the Expenditure Committee on the last White Paper on Public Expenditure. This is the report published on 15th February. Paragraph 9 says:
      "As a result of deliberate policy decisions"—
      which were taken some months ago—
      "expenditure in 1973–74 has been raised by about £1,200 million at 1972 prices (about 4 per cent. in real terms)".
      There have since been some adjustments, but the level is still very much higher than originally envisaged and it does not basically detract from the conclusion reached by the specialist adviser to that Sub-Commitee that
      "even if the economy expands at a rate of 5 per cent. per annum between now and 1974 the rate of growth of personal consumption

      1525
      will have to slow down .. to about 2½ per cent. per annum"—
      from the present rate of nearly 7 per cent. The public expenditure constraint with which the present Government or any Government would be faced would be very serious. In view of the arguments which have been advanced in the debate, it is quite clear that the Government's case for allowing this extra expenditure to go forward has not been made out.
      Mr. Wilkinson: I was unable to take part in the Second Reading debate, so I am glad that I have caught your eye so early in this debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
      We have reached a late stage in the Bill. Although the clause has been supported in various ways, the intention is the same on both sides, and the clause has great merit. It states in effect that we should reconsider, taking advantage of the opportunity provided by the statutory body which we have recently created—the Civil Aviation Authority—to examine these complicated matters in detail from a national perspective. That has never been done.
      It is quite clear that the entire Maplin project is an entirely political creature which arose, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Adley) and other hon. Members have said, from pressurising and public relations resources deployed by the stockbroker belt of Buckinghamshire. It is clear that, in this as in so many other matters, money speaks.
      From a purely aviation development the project has, as many hon. Members have reminded the House, progressed—if that is the word—to a far more grandiose venture. It appears to me that Essex County Council and the Port of London Authority have together hatched a new concept which has proved attractive to my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench, who are desperately looking for reasons to justify an earlier decision which was politically arrived at and which is no longer technically justifiable.
      "The Maplin project is not just an airport",
      my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary wrote in "London's Flight East".
      "It is the rapid, planned development of an entire sub-region, undertaken with the specific intention of improving the quality of life"—
      1526
      [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] presumably for those people who will be removed from their homes for railway and motorway construction, for the cockle fishers and wildfowlers of Foulness Flats, and for the bird-lovers who go there understanding that it is one of the few real bits of wilderness left.
      My hon. Friend continued:
      "improving the quality of life for those who live in the area as well as meeting the national need for better air and seaport facilities. Maplin is therefore a many-sided project."
      I question the claim that the project will mean better seaport facilities. I dread the thought of 500,000-ton oil tankers chuntering up the Channel. It would not be right on environmental grounds. Many accidents befall shipping in the Channel, and the prospect of an accident involving an oil tanker in those narrow waters is horrifying. Therefore, the claim that there would be better seaport facilities is not justifiable. If we wish to have a tanker complex and a container port, it should be developed somewhere on the West Coast, presumably in a development area.
      The whole project is a political child. As I have told my right hon. Friend who is now Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, enthusiasm for the Maplin project varies inversely with knowledge of aviation. The more one knows about aeroplanes, the less one likes the project. This has been well demonstrated by the fact that not a single airline wants to use Maplin. [An HON. MEMBER: "Nor does a single person."]
      I may be old-fashioned, but I have always thought that the air transport business was for the sake of the passengers and for the sake of maximising the profit of the airline operators. If passengers have a choice, they will always, other things being equal, go to the nearer rather than the further airport. The airline operators, other things being equal, wish to operate where they have existing plant and facilities as well as workpeople living nearby, where they have established operations.
      They do not want to take ship—if that is the right phrase—to a place east of London to carry out those operations which they have been doing perfectly well in their existing location.

      1527
      I am gravely apprehensive about the project. My apprehensions were heightened when I returned from a Select Committee visit to the sub-continent to learn of the speech of my hon. Friend the Minister for Aerospace and Shipping in the Second Reading debate. He seriously misquoted a letter from the Chairman of the Civil Aviation Authority. It is often the case in life that the sins of omission are more grave than the sins of commission. My hon. Friend quoted the part in which the chairman said:
      "It is … our view from the material at present available to us that additional airport capacity will be needed in the London area probably by or soon after 1980, with a subsequent need for more than one runway some five years thereafter."
      But then came the crunch. The whole tenor, the whole point, of the letter from the aviation point of view—the Civil Aviation Authority has no mandate to make political judgments but is entrusted with technical aviation judgments—was that the chairman went on to say:
      "From the aviation point of view this additional capacity could with advantage be found by increased use and development of the existing London Airports. It is for the Government to decide whether other considerations"—
      such as the representations from the Port of London Authority, the Essex County Council or the stockbrokers of Buckinghamshire—
      "such as noise offset the disadvantages to aviation and the additional cost of providing this capacity at a new airport. In making this judgment, Ministers will no doubt take account of possible development of quieter aircraft."
      That was a hopeful suggestion if ever there was one.
      The Chairman went on to state:
      "Our assessment takes acount of the recent development and the likely growth in the use of wide bodied jets and the effect this has on aircraft movement rates. Regional airport developments, necessary though they may be for the areas which they will serve, will not so materially affect the growth of traffic needing to be catered for in the London area as significantly to modify the view I have expressed."
      The view lie has expressed is that from the aviation standpoint the additional capacity could with advantage be found by increased use and development of the existing London airports.
      Mr. Carol Mather: Is my lion. Friend aware that many of those who live in constituencies that he refers to rather unkindly as being in the stockbroker
      1528
      belt work in London? We represent our constituents. Is he aware that noise in those areas has already reached an intolerable level? That was the trouble we had last summer when we made all the representations to the Minister.
      Mr. Wilkinson: I am well aware of what my hon. Friend says. That is why I have been such a strong advocate of the use of Government funding, particularly on the scale the Government seem prepared to undertake for other schemes for the quietening of engines and for such technical developments in aviation as will have a universal benefit. If we merely move air transport facilities from one London airport to another, this cannot have the same universal benefit for stockbrokers in Buckinghamshire, wool-men in Yorkshire or Irishmen in Dublin.
      Mr. Burden rose—
      Mr. Wilkinson: I will not give way.
      The whole point is that with technical development we can maximise export opportunities for the aircraft industry and heighten employment opportunities in other advanced technologies as well as the aerospace industry throughout the country. Incidentally, we would not upset the Government's regional development strategy as gravely as we appear to be doing by increasing development in the most congested region at the very time when we are spending more money than ever on rightly trying to develop the industrial regions of the North and other places where such development is vital.
      As we have expended millions of pounds, in my judgment correctly, on nationalising Rolls-Royce, presumably to keep in production the ultra-quiet, high technology RB211, the decision on Maplin seems particularly strange. It also seems to me that very worthwhile aviation decisions are being inhibited because if they were allowed to go ahead they would diminish the argument for Maplin.
      We must consider the Hawker Siddeley 146 feeder airliner and to a much greater extent the Europlane consortium project which the BAC with other European companies is trying to undertake. It is not only to the airframe sector of the industry that consideration must be directed but to other areas also. We must

      1529
      consider the power plant scene. We have a major lead in this country through the development of the Dowty/Rowtol variable pitch fan. That has not been fully exploited for some reason. If we produce quiet airliners that are shown to work, that is another reason for not going ahead with Maplin.
      5.30 p.m.
      I have always advocated a regional and a technical approach to the problem. The two go hand in hand. The Civil Aviation Authority adduces in its report a number of good arguments from an aviation point of view. For example, there is no congestion at the London airports which makes the building of Maplin necessary. The extension of charter operations will to some extent reduce the number of air transport movements in the London area. First, we already know that 92 per cent. of passengers in the mid-1980s will be carried in ultra-large jumbo-size aeroplanes and that the number of movements will not grow as rapidly as expected.
      Secondly, the use of wide-bodied aeroplanes on short-haul routes will increase. Mr. Wheatcroft, of the British Airways Board, was only recently speaking about the need for 800-seaters for BEA. Thirdly, the CAA says that airports outside London will handle a slightly greater proportion of all traffic.
      The CAA says that the advanced passenger train will, by the end of the decade, affect domestic transport. It argues that the main expansion of air transport is in charter operations. Between 1966 and 1971 the increase in charter operations was 14 per cent. The increase in scheduled operations was only 6 per cent. Because of the high load factor involved in charter operations and the affinity group nature involved, the operations lend themselves to the use of departure airports much nearer the catchment area of the passengers which are carried.
      It is rightly argued "Why should we in the north of England have to travel all the way down to Gatwick or Luton to join our flights?" The CAA says in paragraph 4.6 (i) of its report that there will he no reduced, short or vertical takeoff development of commercial significance by 1985. Later in the report it is said that a new 200-seater airbus could
      1530
      be in service by that date and that that will be taken into account in the calculations which will take place.
      It is disingenuous to say that there will be no RTOL development by 1985. It could well be that there will not be such development but it will be a great tragedy for British aviation if that is the case. We will be losing a great opportunity. The technology is there. The Europlane consortium has said that by 1985, if given the go-ahead, it could have well over 200 such airliners—that is about 200 180-seater quiet airliners—in service.
      There are only a few more things which must be said. More could be done in the way of mixed mode operations at existing airports. More could be done in the way of computer sequencing and the greater sophistication of air traffic control. That is particularly important if we operate restricted take-off and landing aircraft. Once that is done, air traffic can be spread about on a more rational basis. In other words, quiet and restricted take-off and landing aircraft could be allowed to use Northolt. There is no reason for not building a small runway north of the existing runway at Gatwick which will allow quiet restricted take-off and landing airliners to operate from that airport.
      The argument in every survey and every analysis has been that if Maplin is developed there will be a significant falling off of passengers. It has been said that some 25 per cent. of the passengers who at present use Heathrow, Gatwick, Luton and Stansted could well be lost to the whole British air transport system. If Luton is forced to close, the traffic will be diverted not to Maplin but back to the point of origin which is towards the Midlands and the North.
      It is interesting to note that over the last few years there has been a marked increase in aircraft movements in what I regard as the natural location for a new intercontinental airport which would fulfil the requirements for charter services and for cargo. I should put that airport at Castle Donington. It would be in the middle of the golden triangle of Leicester, Nottingham and Derby. It would be astride the M1 and there would be ample facilities for expansion.
      Castle Donington has had a remarkable growth record. The number of

      1531
      passengers over the past five years has increased by approximately 21 per cent. The figures of increase for Birmingham, Manchester and Luton are 9 per cent., 8 per cent. and 49 per cent respectively. That shows to my mind that there is great potential in the Midlands.
      Another important consideration is freight. A Midlands airport next to industrial conurbations would be useful but, more particularly, the full utilisation of Stansted is vital. In fact, the full utilisation of Stansted is an essential part of the strategy for doing without a new airport. It makes sense to use existing capital resources to the full and to use Government funding for new technical development which will be of universal benefit.
      On technical grounds the argument which has been put forward is by no means proven. The very fact that the Government are not prepared to say exactly how much the new airport will cost, how much money will be involved in compensation for constructing motorways and road links and where those links will lie is unsatisfactory. There is so much which is unknown. We are being asked more or less to pay a blank cheque which could amount to almost £1,000 million at 1972 prices.
      I am reminded that in 1970 my own local authority, together with the local authorities of Leeds and the West Riding, put in an application for a modest extension of the local regional airport at Yeadon. That extension, which would have cost perhaps £3 million and which was to be paid for entirely by the local ratepayers—the proposal had the support of the three local authorities—would have involved no industrial development, no motorways and no oil terminals or similar intrusions. Yet on supposedly environmental grounds the proposal was turned down by the Government. There cannot be one law for the South and one law for the North. That has applied, in the development of this country, for far too long. The Bill in its present form will perpetuate that. I believe that the new clause is a good escape clause which should be beneficial to Her Majesty's Government.
      Mr. Roy Jenkins: It is nearly eight and a half years
      1532
      since I last intervened in an aviation debate after having spent a fairly brief period of about 15 months intervening in such debates fairly intensively. On this occasion I shall be brief.
      We are in danger of committing ourselves to a gross misapplication of limited public resources which will hang around the necks of successive Governments of which ever party they may be for a long time to come. I hope very much, even at this stage, that we will not make that mistake.
      I have waited a little before trying to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in the hope that I might hear some deployment of the case for the Bill. There has been a certain silence this afternoon concerning that. If I may say so with complete good will to the Minister and the Under-Secretary, in a debate of this importance, which will run for a little time and clearly engages the cross-party feeling of many hon. Members, it would have been wise if the Minister or the Under-Secretary had spoken at an early stage and had told us of their arguments, leaving the other Minister to wind up at the end of the debate. I regret that that has not been done. I realise that it is not easy to foresee how debates will run. But if this debate is likely to run for some time, we ought to hear from the Government Front Bench before waiting until the end of the debate about the arguments that the Government wish us to consider. It may be that the Government case is stronger when presented with silence than when presented with words That we cannot judge in the absence of the words.
      Clearly, a very considerable long-term public expenditure commitment is here involved; £1,000 million; probably £100 million a year. This is coming at a time when any Government would already be in considerable difficulties from a public expenditure point of view. A £4,000 million public sector deficit is not something that one can deal with lightly as the economy picks up and as the peculiar circumstances which have made it possible for it to arise without too much difficulty are disappearing.
      I find it very difficult to believe that members of the Government with broader responsibilities than the two Ministers on

      1533
      the Front Bench this afternoon should lightly add to this in the present circumstances without feeling that there was an overwhelming case and an overwhelming necessity to do so. We should be very cautious on this general ground. I have no doubt that if we proceed and add this further significant sum to public expenditure for a great number of years ahead, we shall have to pay for this by cuts in necessary services throughout the country, which will make an impact upon it.
      Perhaps partly through experience and partly through natural caution, I take a somewhat more cautious view about public expenditure than some of my hon. Friends occasionally take. Public expenditure is not a bottomless purse by any means. It is on the whole desirable that public expenditure should, in the main, be directed towards helping to even out the unfairnesses which are the almost inevitable result of the natural working of the economic system. Money spent upon an airport cannot do that by its very nature. On the whole, because of the nature of aviation, the people who will use the airport will be the richer half of the community. That does not mean that one should not spend money on an airport; but it means that one should look at it with a great deal of critical attention. That is not being done at present.
      To proceed in present public expenditure circumstances is an act of great frivolity. I am surprised, as I have said, that members of the Government who are more senior do not express great hesitation about this. Hon. Members on both sides of the House, and members of future Governments from either side of the House, will greatly regret this decision if it is proceeded with unamended this afternoon.
      Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Roy Jenkins: I shall not give way at present to my hon. Friend but I shall give way to him later, twice if necessary. I know his particular point of view but, with great respect, it does not arise at this point in my speech. It arises a little later.
      It is also highly desirable—at times of public expenditure stringency it always applies—particularly when great mass
      1534
      technical projects of public expenditure are being considered, that we should be very careful and sceptical about being too much led by professional advice. There is such a thing as professional bias which, on the whole, leads us to commit expenditure to vast new projects which may well not be the most socially beneficial way of using that degree of public resource.
      I was surprised that the Under-Secretary intervened in the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) in order to point out the late 1960s' position in relation to the 1975 estimates of the need for airport capacity. I thought that this was a very strong argument against proceeding as the Under-Secretary wishes to proceed at present. I have known my right hon. Friend to be wrong on his own initiative, but on this occasion he was clearly wrong on the basis of professional advice as to what was the likely position in the mid-1970s. It proved to be completely false. The fact that the Under-Secretary could say that these figures were put forward by my right hon. Friend in 1967, or whenever it was, and have proved completely false, and try to use that as an argument why the figures that the Under-Secretary is putting forward at present, which are in some ways even more hazardous, should be accepted without question, is one of the most extraordinary arguments that I have ever heard presented to the House.
      5.45 p.m.
      We are, therefore, in danger of committing ourselves to a vast sum of gratuitous expenditure. It is clear that on the present estimate extra runway capacity is not needed until very well on into the late 1980s. That is not contested. There may be some need for extra terminal capacity. That could clearly be built much more cheaply within the perimeters of the existing airports. The sewage works, or whatever it is, could be moved. If the sewage works are to be the reason for building Maplin, they will certainly become the most expensive sewage processing plants there has ever been in the history of the world.
      Then there is the argument upon which the Government increasingly depend—the noise argument, the environmental

      1535
      argument. These matters are of great concern to my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) and other hon. Members who sit for constituencies greatly affected by London Airport and. to a slightly lesser extent, the Gatwick Airport noise. I do not in any way underestimate this problem. Living in West London, I suffer from it to a small extent, much less than those who live nearer. I was Minister of Aviation at the time when the real noisy aircraft began to come in and I had to deal with the intensive wave of public feeling. I have the fullest possible sympathy with it. What I am afraid of is that at present, having lived with London Airport, almost certainly in an unfortunate site from an amenity point of view, for 25 years, the Government want to deal with the problem partly in the most expensive way possible and at almost exactly the wrong time.
      There is no doubt, first, that Maplin, if built, will not in itself make a great deal of difference. It will make a very small difference to the problem for those who live around existing airports. Secondly, the prospect of relieving intolerable noise and nuisance for those at present affected would be greatly improved by putting all resources, which would still be only a fraction of the cost of Maplin, into the reduction of engine noise rather than into this unwanted, unnecessary and grossly extravagant airport.
      Mr. Hugh Jenkins: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. His courtesy is only exceeded by the fallaciousness of his argument.
      Hon. Members: Address the Chair.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): The hon. Gentleman should address me.
      Mr. Hugh Jenkins: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Intervening in the speech of my right hon. Friend, I naturally turned towards him.
      My right hon. Friend is trying to suggest that there will be very little relief to Heathrow, and so on, by the building of Maplin. I shall deal with that a little later. It needs a fairly extensive argument to disprove that, and I shall do that later.
      1536
      I wished to intervene previously on a point made by my right hon. Friend, but he said "Not now." My right hon. Friend was asserting that he wanted to save public money. He was questioning the expenditure of public funds on this scale and saying that it was giving money to the rich. If my right hon. Friend wishes to prevent expenditure on a few rich people he will, I think, agree with me when I say that the right sort of expenditure to cancel under such circumstances is expenditure on Concorde, not Maplin.
      Mr. Roy Jenkins: My hon. Friend probably knows that I have long held sceptical views about Concorde. He is also probably aware that we are not debating Concorde this afternoon. If he is not aware of that, I am sure that you are, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am not sure that it would be appropriate to reply to that at any point in my speech, whether when my hon. Friend first wanted to intervene or at this stage. I will leave the matter there.
      I also think it is quite wrong for the Government to ask us to reach a final decision on this matter within, as I understand it, two and a half to three weeks of the publication of what is the proposed line for the motorway and rail links to Maplin Airport. This is an absolutely essential part of judging the total environmental aspect of the new scheme. To ask us to reach a final decision within a few weeks of this being published, without having the information in our possession, is getting a little close to sharp practice.
      There has, I regret to say, been a slight feeling throughout the controversy that the Government and the Ministers responsible have been a good deal less forthcoming with clear objective information than is their duty to this House and the country. It is quite wrong that we should be asked to do this without being able to see the scheme as a whole. I believe that we could, without question and without danger, postpone this decision for several years, almost certainly for five years. I doubt whether, if we postponed it for five years, with the intervening developments it would ever be necessary to proceed with the project. Even if it were we would have gained as a nation and not lost by postponement. I believe

      1537
      that the Government, too, would have gained.
      There are certain circumstances in which there is a lot to be said for strong Government pressing on determinedly with major policies. This is not a major policy. It is not a party matter unless the Government make it so. It is a matter of great concern for people throughout the country and for hon. Members. The Minister for Aerospace whom I heard answering questions, I thought with great competence, on this issue when he made his statement the other day—although I thought he was quite wrong—will make a great mistake if he insists on proceeding today without at least accepting one or both of these new clauses.
      There was a previous Minister of Aviation, not of Aerospace, my predecessor in that post and now the Minister of State at the Foreign Office, who, I think, in some of his decisions believed that he could show his strength by the stubbornness with which he persisted in his irrationality. I do not think that the career c f that right hon. Gentleman, whom I have liked for a long time, has prospered as a result of his determination to behave in that way. I am sure he left some extremely expensive legacies for the country.
      I ask the present Minister and the Under-Secretary not to commit the same sort of mistake today but to listen to what is clearly the overwhelming feeling of the House and to what I believe is the widespread feeling outside and at the least to give themselves some pause for consideration before committing a gross act of misapplication of limited public funds.
      Mr. Jessel: As this debate proceeds it becomes clearer that the supporters of the new clauses and the amendment are content to cram more and more aircraft into Heathrow and Gatwick. When they are told that this is likely to increase the suffering from noise nuisance in the area they tend to reply that this is perfectly all right because the aircraft will become so much quieter that the increased number of flights will not matter. I believe that argument to be fallacious and will return to it later.
      I want now to go to something which the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) said at the
      1538
      beginning of his speech when he remarked that Maplin would cost about £100 million a year. He went on to say that the purpose of public spending, if I understood him correctly should be to deal with unfairnesses as between one part of our national community and another. In the South-East of England taxpayers have for years paid substantial sums so that industry and employment in the regions could be built up. They have done so on the whole willingly, to prevent unemployment.
      Now there is a situation where there is suffering on a substantial scale from aircraft noise in the South-East. It is time that the country as a whole was willing to spend considerable sums to alleviate that suffering and that unfairness. I do not think it can be said that £100 million per year, which comes down to £2 per head of population per year, is an exorbitant sum in this context, in view of the amount of suffering that aircraft noise causes. My constituency is from three to seven miles from London Airport and the suffering there is often acute.
      People feel it mostly in their gardens, and in their houses in the summer time when the windows are open. Aircraft noise interferes with the workings of schools, hospitals, churches and offices. It interferes with people's privacy in their homes; it interrupts their telephone calls, their television viewing and their listening to records. It is not so much the inconvenience that I wish to stress as the medical aspect. An article published in the Lancet recently showed conclusively that the incidence of mental illness around airports was higher than the average for the country as a whole to a significant extent.
      At the National Physical Laboratory at Teddington in my constituency it is being shown that the incidence of deafness around airports is higher than the national average. I have had letters from constituents saying that they, their wives or husbands or friends, have become ill with worry because of aircraft noise. I hope that hon. Members on either side of the House will not attempt to belittle the extent of this suffering. I would invite anyone who might do so to come and spend two or three days in my constituency when aircraft are taking off from Heathrow to the east. The danger is

      1539
      that this will be insufficiently appreciated because there is too much reliance upon a form of statistic which is defective—the Noise Number Index.
      Here I want to quote from a document sent out yesterday by the Heathrow Association for the Control of Aircraft Noise. It says:
      "The Noise Number Index used to measure noise nuisance has serious shortcomings which are admitted by leading authorities in the field e.g. Doctor E. J. Richards. The Index…attributes a greater value to peak noise levels than to the number of aircraft movements, e.g. in a representative area, it required an increase in daily movements from 100 to 400—a quadrupling—to raise the Noise Number Index from 50 to 59—only an 18 per cent. increase. This discredited scale therefore shows an illusionary decrease for a small reduction of peak noise levels, at a time when the number of aircraft movements may be increasing. It is on this basis that the Civil Aviation Authority, and many journalists, have argued that the situation at Heathrow will improve. It will not."
      It will not, and that applies to all the newspaper articles referred to today by supporters of the new clauses. It applies to Mr. Flowerdew's articles. They are all based on false foundations and contain false deductions because they assume that people do not much mind about an increase in the number of flights as long as each flight becomes quieter.
      Mr. Adley: Does my hon. Friend include in the false analyses the document of last April issued by the Department of the Environment?
      6.0 p.m.
      Mr. Jessel: I believe that the Department of the Environment is taking another look at the concept of the Noise Number Index because it is coming to attribute more weight to the argument that it is misleading as a representation of what people suffer from aircraft noise. In my consituency, what people mind, fear and dread most is not one, three or 10 particularly loud aircraft but aircraft coming over every two, three, five or seven minutes hour after hour, day after day. In that context, the situation has become intolerable, as my hon. Friend the Member for Esher (Mr. Mather) said, and people cannot bear the prospect of the number of flights increasing, even if each flight is slightly quieter.
      I hope that in future we shall impose a ceiling on the total number of flights
      1540
      allowed through Heathrow and Gatwick and that it will be strictly applied. That implies having a third London airport unless the volume of aircraft movements is to be sharply curtailed. I therefore hope that hon. Members will support the Maplin project.
      Mr. R. C. Mitchell: New Clause 3, to which hardly anybody has referred, deals with the subject which I wish to raise. I want to discuss not the airport but the seaport at Maplin.
      The casual way in which the Maplin scheme has developed is interesting. It started with an argument about whether we wanted a third London airport. It was decided that we did, so we started looking round for a place where it could be sited. We began with Cublington. However, a vocal and strong pressure group won the day at Cublington and that idea was abandoned. Eventually it was decided that it should go to Foulness. Somebody thought that an airport at Foulness might be lonely on its own and, therefore, we should perhaps build a seaport to accompany it.
      No one seems to have done any detailed research into whether we need a new port or whether we have enough ports already to deal with the traffic. It has generally been held for a long time that we have enough ports and that if anything we want fewer, not more. However, to make Maplin an attractive and, I suppose, economically viable proposition, it was decided to have a new port at Maplin.
      Mr. Eldon Griffiths: No decision to have a new port at Maplin has yet been taken. The National Ports Council is being consulted, and the Port of London Authority has been asked to make proposals which will need to be judged, first, by the National Ports Council and, secondly, by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, who would wish to make a statement to the House.
      Mr. Mitchell: I am very grateful for that information. I assume, therefore, that the Minister will accept new Clause 3, because that is exactly what it says. The assumption in the Bill is that there is likely to be a seaport at Maplin. On what economic basis is it justified? Has

      1541
      a survey been done of all the British ports to see whether they have spare capacity? I do not think it has.
      The question then was: if we have a port, what kind of port should it be? Somebody thought we should have an oil terminal. It could be argued that Milford Haven was capable of extension to cope with the increased traffic. Then it was thought that perhaps oil on its own would not be a viable proposition, and so the question of containers was introduced.
      I wish to discuss the container aspect from the point of view of my constituency. I am sure that the Minister will have seen an account of the Press conference given this week by the Chairman of the British Transport Docks Board at which he was cross-examined on the question of Maplin. He was very reasonable about it. He indicated that he had made no judgment on Maplin. He was asked whether the development of container facilities could be done cheaper and better elsewhere, and he was forced to say that container traffic could be developed at Southampton at a much cheaper rate than at Maplin. He pointed out that his authority could build two container berths at Southampton at a cost of under £10 million. We already have the land available at Southampton. We have room for four new deep-water container berths.
      During the last Parliament there was an argument about Portbury, in Bristol, and the relative merits of developing Portbury and Southampton. The big advantage which Southampton had over Portbury and which Southampton has over Maplin is that it does not need tremendous initial capital expenditure. The land is available and it can be developed as the trade develops. It is important for any new port to develop as the trade develops and not in advance of trade. The Chairman of the British Transport Docks Board has pointed out that container traffic at Southampton can be gradually built up as trade increases. In addition, there are several hundred acres on the other side of the River Test in the ownership of the British Transport Docks Board which could, if necessary, be developed at much less cost than Maplin.
      The economics of developing a seaport at Maplin seem to be very dubious. I have mentioned Southampton because I
      1542
      know it best, but other ports could be developed to take any extra trade which might go to Maplin.
      If a large seaport develops at Maplin, one of two things will happen: either it will be a complete and utter white elephant, or if it attracts large quantities of trade it will make other ports, and possibly some of those in the development areas, redundant and white elephants. There is not, and there is not likely to be in the near future, need for a new seaport.
      I do not wish to go into the arguments about the airport and aircraft noise. wished to concentrate on the question of a seaport because, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) said, we should go very carefully into the matter before we commit ourselves to the massive public expenditure involved in this project.
      Mr. David Crouch: I was most interested in the reference by the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. R. C. Mitchell) to the seaport aspect of Maplin. It will not have escaped his notice that I have tabled five amendments to cancel the seaport from the Bill. I will not speak to them, but I think I am entitled to speak to the seaport aspect because new Clause 3 mentions it.
      I have done my homework. Last week I went to Antwerp to see what has happened there since the war. On Second Reading I argued that if we were to have an airport and a seaport at Maplin we must expect in time, as a matter of course, a full-scale, modern industrial development at Maplin unless the Government ordered that there should be no industrial development. The hon. Member for Itchen asked whether the development was to be a white elephant or a great success. It will be a white elephant as a port if the Government decree that there is to be no industrial development there, and it will be a great industrial success, to the detriment of every other industrial development in our regions, if the Government allow industrial development there. To allow that to happen would be the most disastrous mistake in the face of the activities of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, who, with his regional policies and his Industry Act, is trying to revive the

      1543
      regions—the North-West, the North-East and Scotland.
      My homework in Antwerp showed what can happen if we allow a port to develop. Before the war Antwerp had a large port by European standards with 250 acres of industrial development. Today, as a result of the growth of the European Economic Community, there are 10,500 acres of industrial development going full blast in Antwerp. There is one of the biggest petro-chemical developments in Europe, with two large oil refineries, with all the fall-out that goes with oil refineries and the modern development of chemical and petrochemical industries. The development is on a scale equivalent to the ICI operation in Teesside. I used to be in ICI, so I know what I am talking about.
      Furthermore, the container port development at Antwerp will be bigger than the development at Rotterdam. The container port at Antwerp has attracted full-scale development from General Motors and Ford of America. They have built some of the biggest motor car and tractor assembly lines in Europe, which assemble parts made in Britain, Germany and the United States. They do not necessarily want to do that in Europe but they want to do it alongside a port. Anyone who says that it is possible to have a seaport without industrial development is not talking sense about the modern industrial process and progress of a seaport.
      I am not saying—and I did not say on Second Reading—that we should not have a port at Maplin. I asked my constituents whether they were prepared to see a new Teesside development on Thameside. I told them that it would completely alter the environment, it might make them much richer but it would change the nature of that part of England.
      I want to say something about my views on Maplin as the third London airport. The Bill is a very permissive Bill and a very expensive one. It permits the establishment of a statutory authority—the Maplin Development Authority—to go ahead and build an airport and a seaport.
      Mr. Eldon Griffiths: The Maplin Development Authority has no power to build an airport and has no power to
      1544
      build a seaport. It simply has a duty to provide land if the statutory authorities—the British Airports Authority and the Port of London Authority—are permitted by Ministers, who control their investment programmes, to proceed with the schemes for those buildings.
      6.15 p.m.
      Mr. Crouch: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for correcting me on this slight but important detail. It means that a large amount of work will be engaged upon by the statutory authorities which will cost a great deal of the taxpayers' money. To excavate and reclaim 10,000 to 15,000 acres in the Thames Estuary is an expensive process.
      I will speak to new Clause 2 and refer to new Clause 1. The Bill does not appear to require this new authority to consult the Ministers concerned, of whom there are two. The Under-Secretaries of State in both those Departments are here today and I am glad to see them. The Bill does not require the authority to consult the Secretaries of State or other experts. Neither does it require changes which might affect their decision to be taken into account.
      At one stage in my career I was in the Army, where I was taught that one had to take into account factors which might affect a decision. Those factors change in war and change in peace. The arguments being deployed this afternoon are that factors have changed and that they must be taken into account, in wartime by generals and in peacetime by Ministers, and all the time in the House of Commons.
      The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins), rightly using the House of Commons as a place for the exchange of argument and for the production of an answer to an argument, in a remarkable intervention spoke of the need for strong Government. I go further and say that today, above all, there is need for a strong House of Commons. The public are looking to Parliament to show strength, even if this is the first time in the history of this Parliament that the House of Commons has determined to be strong.
      I was determined to be strong, up to a point, when I made my Second Reading

      1545
      speech, but I was not strong enough. I abstained on that occasion, and have let the Bill run its course. It has been said that it has been thoroughly examined in Select Committee. I have read the proceedings of the Standing Committee and it was thoroughly examined there.
      My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment has always shown the greatest courtesy to me and my colleagues in Kent and Essex in carrying us along with his problems and explaining to us what he was doing, but today I have a duty as a Member of Parliament to my constituents which transcends my duty to support my Government. We are being asked to support a proposal the argument for which has not been properly based and properly developed, and has been shown to have great gaps in it. I will not say that the argument is entirely wrong, because I do not know all the facts, but from all the facts that I have been able to find and have heard in debate I am not convinced that the Government have taken into account the changes that are happening and could happen if the Government were to devote more energy to making further interventions in aviation and aerospace developments towards the quieter engine.
      My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State has spoken of this airport as the first environmental airport. That is an attractive phrase. People in aviation, and others, would like to think that this was also an economic airport, but the airlines, the British Airports Authority, many other advisers and most of the serious Press have questioned whether it ever can be an economic airport. We have a duty in this place not only to preserve the environment but to balance the preservation of the environment with the achievement of economic progress. We cannot forget either one or the other.
      The Government seem to be intent on proceeding with their plans to build an airport at Maplin. For some years there has been considerable debate on and extensive study of the third London airport. We know that Roskill did not recommend that the third London airport should be at Maplin. We know that the airlines and the British Airports Authority advised against it. But the Government have
      1546
      decided to build at Maplin this environmental, if not economic, airport.
      The Government have given as their reason the fact that Maplin is intended to relieve the population around Heathrow and Gatwick of the terrible problem of noise. I would not be making a plea this afternoon, as one who will be living within 12 miles of Maplin, if I did not recognise the problem—a problem which I shall be taking over perhaps from other hon. Members and their constituents who suffer today around the other London Airports. I cannot say more than that I recognise that they have a very strong case to be heard and to be registered in the Lobby. Maplin is a colossally expensive substitute for Heathrow and Gatwick, and we must ask whether it is well to spend money in this way.
      We must not stop the Government doing what is right if it will relieve the 2·1 million people around Heathrow who are affected by the 35 NNI line. If my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) doubts the accuracy of the NNI measurement, I remind him it is the one that is used to show the footprint of noise made by an aircraft and throws up the alarming figure around Heathrow of over 2 million people affected in 1973. I say that it is a colossal expense to go to Maplin; we must therefore ask whether it is justified.
      We know that the Maplin site is wrong from an aviation point of view. It is 55 miles away from the centre of London and is disliked by all the airlines in the world—particularly by our two nationalised airlines which have invested several hundred million pounds in engineering installations at Heathrow and Gatwick. Those airlines will be coming to this House and saying to the Minister "If we go to Maplin we shall want to be subsidised". This House will one day be asked to provide several hundred million pounds extra to move BEA and BOAC to Maplin. Mr. Nicholson, the Chairman of the British Airways Board, told me that there can be no question of operating the major airlines with two engineering bases; there can be only one.
      We know that experts have condemned Maplin, but in the fashionable name of "the environment" we shall give the new authority to be created by this Bill the power to spend £1,000 million, and some have said that the figure will he as

      1547
      much as £2,000 million. There will be no constraints on that authority, no duty to consult or to take advice. There will be no power to stay its hand should we find that the expenditure is not justified. There will be no duty upon the authority to consult Ministers. There will be no opportunity for the House of Commons to say "Wait a moment—things have changed."
      It is quite possible that the Minister for Aerospace and Shipping may come to the House in future, perhaps even within a year, and tell the House in some excitement of a major new development. Only last week I read in the Daily Telegraph of such a development. The development involved a prototype jet engine to cut noise by half. That project was based on the Rolls-Royce M45 engine and is tagged the "ultra-quiet" unit development programme. I shall not bore the House with all the details, and I am sure my hon. Friend will know all about that project, but it envisages an entirely new development involving a quieter jet engine produced by a new process which makes it possible for the jet roar to be reduced considerably on both landing and take-off. Such an engine—which, I am told, can be developed in large engines—could make completely old-fashioned the idea of reverse thrust. Therefore, we seem to be on the verge of a breakthrough without any pressure so far from the Government, or indeed much pressure from the House of Commons.
      What does my hon. Friend the Minister for Aerospace and Shipping think about these developments? I think he owes it to the House of Commons to give us his view. What does my hon. Friend and his colleagues know about what is on the stocks for the next five, 10 or 15 years ahead? Is there anything exciting to which we may look forward? The RB 211 has already caused some excitement because of its quietness. Is there something even quieter to come?
      These factors must affect our decisions today. The right hon. Member for Stechford believes that we should not throw out this idea altogether, but he believes that it is wise to delay matters for at least five years. If we do so we should not lose anything, and hon. Members and their constituents who live
      1548
      around Heathrow and Gatwick will lose nothing at all if that happens.
      The Department of Trade and Industry has published figures about the effect of noise from aircraft in the years ahead to 1985. Admittedly, the announcement was made with the quietness of a modern jet engine, and we have seen very little and heard very little about it, but the figures which have been issued predict a reduction in the average noise per aircraft of about 9·8 perceived noise decibels, which is the standard measurement used in NNI work. This is a considerable reduction in terms of the number of people affected by noise. I am referring to aircraft which will be in use in 1985, not the 707s or the earlier Tridents, which, by then would be out of use and redundant.
      Mr. Allason: No.
      Mr. Crouch: I would tell my hon. Friend that it is estimated by most aviation people that in 1985 the earlier Tridents and 707s will have had their day and we shall be dealing with aircraft such the 747s—the jumbo—jet-and the new TriStar.
      Mr. Allason: The information I have is that at least 42 per cent. of the air movements at Heathrow in 1986 will consist of older types of aircraft, such as Tridents, DC9s and 747s, of which my hon. Friend has spoken as being quiet.
      Mr. Crouch: I shall not labour the point about one or two degrees in the number of perceived noise decibels and all the rest of it. I think I have made my point. The figures issued by the Department of Trade and Industry show that by 1985 the quietness of aircraft operating at Heathrow and Gatwick will be about half what the figure is today. These are based only on conservative figures, assuming that there is no new development in aircraft engines for the next 12 or 13 years. If those figures envisage a reduction of half, we must remember that the population round Heathrow and Gatwick seriously affected by noise at the moment amounts to over two million. The figures show that in 1985 the population affected to some degree would be reduced by one-sixth—in other words, by around 350,000 people. That is a dramatic reduction of the overall problem. It is a factor which must

      1549
      give us pause today. It would give us some years to take these factors into account, and would give the Minister an opportunity to consult the authorities.
      To sum up my argument, I maintain—calling in aid the Department of Trade and Industry figures—that there will be sufficient runway space at Heathrow and Gatwick to meet all the demands in 1985 for aircraft movements. This is shown in the Civil Aviation Authority's report I am also saying that in 1985 the noise would be half that which is experienced today. There is no case now for a third London airport, there is no case for Maplin, and there is no case for spending £1,000 million or even £2,000 million so recklessly. There only remains a case for this adventure to get into the Guinness Book of Records as the biggest airport in the world, perhaps the biggest white elephant or perhaps the preservation of the most ridiculous sacred cow ever dreamt of by any Government.
      6.30 p.m.
      Mr. Hugh Jenkins: This debate has bean taking place in the House ever since I first came here in 1964. Until now the argument has not been whether there should be a third London airport but where it should be. Today, for the first time, its opponents are beginning to come out in their true colours. They are saying that they do not care because they do not want a third London airport at all. This is a new position for my right hon. and hon. Friends. Over the years I have been telling my constituents with the full authority of my own Front Bench that their relief would come when we got the third London airport, and that the only question in doubt was where it was to be.
      My constituents have always asked me whether nothing else could be done, and, to be fair, successive Ministers first at the Board of Trade and now at the Department of Trade and Industry have done their best. They have tried to change the form of landing, shifting it from one runway to another. They have tried to invent minimum noise routes. But they have not been able to get over the fundamental difficulty that all the time they are trying to pour a quart into a pint pot.
      Heathrow is the only airport in the world where more than 2 million people
      1550
      are overflown every day. The trivial arguments which have been put forward to suggest that a third London airport is not necessary are fundamentally fallacious. Of course it is necessary.
      Simply because we do not like the proposed site for the new London airport, we appear to be arriving at a position where my own Front Bench are saying that we do not need a third London airport. That seems to overturn everything that they have said in the past. The basis upon which they say that we no longer need a third London airport seems to be a pretty shallow one.
      Like the argument put forward by Professor Alan Day and by Flowerdew, the present argument against a third London airport rests upon the Noise and Number Index, which is a completely subjective measurement. It has no mathematical basis, although a huge mathematical structure is erected upon it. However, if the basis is fallacious the mathematics can be of no value. That is the falsity of the Day and Flowerdew argument.
      I believe that it has been gat right by Professor Richardson. The Noise and Number Index underestimates the importance of numbers. The Government are beginning to look into this NNI figure and shortly, I believe, they will come out with more refined figures placing more emphasis on numbers. However, every personal experience and psychological examination shows that it is the frequency factor which upsets people and gets under their skin. It is not a case of a noise two or three times a day. It is every minute of the day. It is that factor which is not overridden by these arguments.
      My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) said that we should not go into this substantial public expenditure at this time on the basis of that argument. However, that was the argument when my right hon. Friend was in favour of a third London airport. It would always have been an expensive project. It could not have been done for peanuts even at Cublington. At any time it would have required substantial national resources. For my constituents it has always been right to do it, and it is not possible for me now to go to them saying that we

      1551
      do not need a third London airport at Maplin or anywhere else.
      There are only two airports serving London now. It is said that the aircraft operators will not want to go to Maplin. However, it is said in the next breath that all will be well if the operators are sent to the Midlands or somewhere else. Of course it will be possible to price landings so as to make one airport more attractive than another. Furthermore, those arguments do not overcome the fact that the country is badly under-airported. We need and must have a third airport within reasonable range of the capital city.
      Mr. Wilkinson: The hon. Gentleman has said that there are only two airports serving the London region. However, he is doing his own argument a disservice when he excludes the BAA airport at Stansted, which in passenger terms has had the greatest percentage growth of any airport in the south-eastern region.
      Mr. Jenkins: Of course it is possible to get a very heavy percentage on a small base. Stansted's total contribution in itself is relatively small. I think that the two major airports are the main consideration. Furthermore, I do not deny that for charter flights in the summer a contribution is also made by Luton. However, that does not defeat my general argument.
      I differ from those who question whether this is the right way to spend public money and the right time to do it. There is an argument that we have been over-generous, almost profligate, in the expenditure of public money in the past. It is questionable to spend huge sums on a project which is likely to need continuous subsidy if it is to operate. I refer, of course, to the Concorde. However, when we examine whether the expenditure at present under discussion is justified it is relevant to compare one with another. That is precisely what we are doing all the time. We have to consider the huge public expense involved and its justification in terms of the relief which will be given to people at present incommoded by noise. I think that it must be justified because it is a reasonable thing to do in itself. We have been saying so for eight years. Only now do we ask whether it is necessary.
      1552
      Since the Bill was given a Second Reading, I have searched anxiously to see whether there was some way in which I could find a means of not getting myself into a position of total opposition to my right hon. and hon. Friends. It is uncomfortable to fine oneself in isolation. The hon. and learned Member for Lincoln (Mr. Taverne) probably knows that feeling better than anyone.
      I have been studying the three new clauses. New Clause 1 makes it a duty of the Maplin Development Authority to consult the Civil Aviation Authority and the British Airports Authority about the likely future levels of aircraft noise. I question whether the CAA and the BAA are likely to come up with statements about aircraft noise such as we might get from the Noise Advisory Council. I rather doubt it. I do not believe that those bodies have the necessary degree of impartiality on the subject.
      The second part of new Clause 1 imposes a duty on the authority to consult the National Ports Council about the likely effect of the seaport development. I am wholly in favour of that proposition. For that reason, I cannot vote against the new clause. It means that I shall have to abstain.
      New Clause 2 concerns a project which I think can be supported. It reads:
      "It shall be the duty of the Civil Aviation Authority…to keep under constant review technical developments",
      and so on. There is no harm in that.
      New Clause 3,
      "to consult with the National Ports Council and the appropriate Minister on the implications for Great Britain's ports of the development of a major seaport ",
      can also be supported.
      I have never subscribed to the view that there is an urgent and overriding necessity for a new seaport in the South-East, but if it is done incidentally there may be something to be said for it. However, there is an absolute necessity for a third London airport. This necessity has in no way been disproved by anything that has been said in this or any other debate about the best place for it being Maplin. I have no doubt whatsoever about this proposition.
      Mr. Burden: I was somewhat surprised to hear the right hon. Member for

      1553
      Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) refer to this as an aviation debate, but I think he was justified as there has been little mention of what the Bill really provides. It clearly states that it is
      "To provide for the reclamation from the sea of certain land for the purpose of the establishment of an airport and a seaport in south-east Essex".
      Therefore, despite the intervention of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, the assumption must be that we are debating not only an airport but a seaport, and I have been surprised at the concentration upon the airport aspect of the Bill to the exclusion of the seaport.
      We have heard a tremendous amount of discussion about noise. I have been greatly surprised at the remarks made by some hon. Members who have gone to great lengths to point out that in a short time, certainly before Maplin could become operative, there will be almost no noise problem and, therefore, there is no need for a third London airport to ease the problems of people living near Heathrow.
      I thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) absolutely boxed the compass in this matter. Early in his speech he stated that he was living only 12 miles from where it was suggested that the new Maplin airport should be placed and that if it were placed there the noise would become intolerable. My hon. Friend ended his speech by saying that the noise element is being dissipated by the fact that Rolls-Royce has just introduced a new engine which, to quote his words, "would cut noise by a half". If so, he should have no objection based on noise to the construction of an airport at Maplin.
      Mr. Crouch: The point that I was endeavouring to make was whether we were justified in spending £1,000 million to relieve us of noise when it was being relieved by the development of quieter engines.
      Mr. Burden: I quoted my hon. Friend's words. He is wriggling now. I quoted him accurately as he began and finished his speech.
      6.45 p.m.
      Is it necessary to have a third London airport? I suggest that the Labour
      1554
      Government set up the Roskill Commission because, on all the advice available to them, it was necessary to have a third London airport. They set up Roskill to determine where that airport should be sited. It was not so long ago that Roskill was set up—1968—and it reported in 1971. The commission must have taken into serious consideration during its deliberation and investigations what was likely to happen in the next 10, 15 or 20 years. We cannot assume otherwise. Therefore, we are justified in assuming that at that time and until it reported the Roskill Commission had every reason to believe that a third London airport was necessary. Indeed, the Labour Government were of the same opinion because they set up the commission and asked it to determine where that airport should be placed.
      I find it difficult to believe that suddenly, within two years, circumstances have changed so dramatically that we in this House can override all the investigations and the knowledge set out in the Roskill Report. Therefore, I must assume that a third London airport is still necessary.
      We heard from hon. Members who are bitterly opposed to Maplin because of noise say that the great noise nuisance will disappear before the airport comes into operation. Therefore, I suggest that these are wrecking clauses.
      We come to another point which believe is extremely important. If we have a third London airport inland, it will require many acres of agricultural or other land that is already in use and involve the development of extensive communications to that area. According to the Bill, the 16,000 acres of land for the airport at Maplin will be reclaimed entirely from the sea, as will the land for the seaport. That means the conservation of an enormous amount of land already in use somewhere in this country which can still be used for the purposes for which it is now being used—agriculture, housing, villages. But if a third London airport were created inland it would disturb more areas than will be the case if the land for the airport at Maplin is reclaimed from the sea.
      Mr. Jay: Is the hon. Gentleman allowing for the land which will be needed for the new town to be built for Maplin?
      Mr. Burden: I will deal with that point in a moment. The right hon. Gentleman said that we could probably do away with Southend, Luton and Stanstead and that so much of the land that is now being used for airports in those places could be used for housing, agriculture and other purposes and there would, therefore, be a considerable saving.
      Mr. Ronald Bell: Is it not also true that if we build a new town at Maplin we can accommodate people there who would otherwise have to be accommodated in other areas?
      Mr. Burden: I am sure that I shall be covering the points in which interest is being shown.
      We have heard—this is an extraordinary situation in view of what was decided in the past—that people will want to use only Heathrow. We all want to use our cars everywhere in London. We all want to leave them on yellow lines. In future the airlines will have to conform to the pattern that is required by the economy in the national interest. We have heard a lot about passenger aircraft but little about air freighting. There will be an enormous growth in air freighting in the future, and growth there, in my view, will certainly make the third London airport absolutely necessary.
      I want to turn for a moment to the complex which will include the seaport. I do so deliberately because I attended a symposium put on by the Port of London Authority and it was made perfectly clear to me that the present Port of London is rapidly becoming obsolescent because of the complete change in the standards and the nature of world shipping. It is evident to me that if London is to retain any measure of shipping whatsoever we must have a deep-water port, and Maplin is the right and proper place for it. But it is not only a matter of London retaining shipping; if we are to retain it in the national interest we must have that new deep-water port to preserve what we have and create growth. The seaport is inevitably part of this complex. The Government have made it perfectly clear that they will not allow the major industrial growth, which so many of my hon. and right hon. Friends fear.
      I went to Rotterdam and talked to people there and they are very concerned
      1556
      that we should have a new deep-water port at Maplin because they consider it would encroach upon the trade they are rapidly taking from us through handling the big container ships that cannot come to London. At the same time they are amazed at the apparent reluctance of the people of this country to reclaim land from the sea. They look upon doing that not as folly but as great wisdom. They have been doing it for a long time, and I believe that we are rapidly approaching an era in which we shall look at land reclamation in the same way.
      I would also point out that if it is essential for us to have a new airport and also a new deepwater port, it is common sense that they should be close together. Are we to have two swathes cut in the land to create road and rail communications in two different areas? Is it not common sense from the point of view of cost, from the point of view of conserving land, and from the point of view of the environment that those communications should serve both the seaport and the airport? I believe that both the airport and the seaport are necessary and that time will show that Foulness is the right project, and I hope that the Government will go ahead with it.
      Mr. Nigel Spearing: I think, with great respect, that too many of the speeches we have heard this afternoon have been Second Reading speeches again. I do not intend to make one of those, and I hope my contribution will be short. I wish to address my remarks to new Clause 2.
      I lived and worked under the Heathrow flight path for some 13 years before joining this House, mainly in the constituency of the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins). I agree with a limited development at Maplin, which would relieve the noise problem at the London airports, but the Bill, and the Government's scheme, is not a limited scheme for that purpose but something which is very different as I shall seek to show when we discuss Amendment No. 2.
      The argued necessity has two classifications. One is the necessity for noise relief, with which I go along, and the second is the necessity for coping with air traffic overflow. In the speeches we have heard today there has not been sufficient distinction between the two criteria.

      1557
      The first point I would make is on the question of noise relief. It is assumed that if we have the new airport there will be noise relief at Heathrow and Gatwick, but the CAA report published in May gives us no hope that that will necessarily follow at all because it points out that airlines, if left to their own devices, will use Maplin only at times when the other runways are already full. Meantime, the CAA prophesies, in off-peak periods, which are far the longest, the runways at Heathrow and Gatwick will continue to to be used to a greater extent than now. So the noise nuisance in those areas will be greater and not less than at the moment, even were Maplin opened.
      That problem could be solved by diversion to Maplin by the Government but there is nothing in the Bill to say that will happen and no bankable assurance or undertaking has been given to that effect. Therefore there is nothing in this Bill that will give relief to the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jesse) and his constituents, or the hon. Member for Putney and his constituents, or my constituents. I submit that the question of the necessity for Maplin on noise grounds is not proven because the Government have not given any assurance that Maplin would necessarily mean less noise elsewhere.
      I come to the other question, the need for Maplin because of air traffic. The CAA report shows that by 1981 one runway will be necessary and by 1985 two runways will he required. Table 7.16 of the report refers to this. It depends on other factors, the main one being the forecast which the CAA makes that the number of people per aircraft in 1985 will average 175. Civil aviation circles generally feel that that is a very low figure indeed; it has even been described as an unrealistically low figure. What if that number goes up? The calculations have, I understand, been made, and if the Government do not know what they are I hope the Minister will tell us. I understand that if loadings went up only by 25 per aircraft, up to 200, there would be no need for Maplin on the overflow basis by 1985 at all. If the number went up to 225 per aircraft I understand it would mean that not only could the existing airfields cope with the traffic but Luton could be closed and the others could still cope. I challenge the Minister on this point, and to tell me, if he
      1558
      has the figures, whether that is correct or whether it is wrong. He should be able to tell us because it is the bounden duly of the Government to find out these things and whether Maplin would be necessary if the occupancy of aircraft went up as I have suggested.
      Another factor under new Clause 2 is the proportion of people using the London area airports who do not reside there and are not going to areas outside South-East England. These figures have never been properly published. I understand that the Roskill figures were determined on people reaching the London airports—that is, Luton, Stansted, Southend, Gatwick, Heathrow—by surface means, but that no proper survey has yet been undertaken of people reaching the London airports by air and transferring, principally at Heathrow. I understand that the present traffic at Heathrow and the other London airports is no less than one-third from outside London and the South-East area. If that is so it means that there are a considerable number of people who could go to provincial airports.
      Why do they not at the moment? There is one factor which undermines the whole of the Roskill findings. I have been told by people who should know that it is cheaper for a travel agent, particularly one concerned with bulk charter travel—which is a growth area of the business—to put people in coaches in Birmingham, Newcastle or Manchester and send them down to the existing airports than to fly them down from Manchester, Newcastle or Birmingham. That means that a considerable proportion not only of the present but of the projected traffic for the London airports is being sent to London in that way because of the simple economic fact that it is cheaper.
      Mr. Tebbit: I think that the hon. Gentleman knows my feelings about the Maplin project and he will not feel that I am trying to shoot him down if I suggest that he should not overdo this argument, since it applies almost exclusively to traffic at Luton, as opposed to Heathrow and Gatwick.
      7.0 p.m.
      Mr. Spearing: I would concede that Luton is very much a case in point, but we are talking about the next 10, 15 or 20 years, when the charter business is

      1559
      likely to be the larger growth sector in absolute terms—in particular, the part-charter traffic, when these new large aircraft flying scheduled services will have half or a third of their capacity reserved for charter work. This will mean that the proportion of charter work at Heathrow will go up considerably. So the hon. Gentleman's argument as it relates to Heathrow, is turned on its head.
      The points that I have raised are important and relevant factors which so far the Government, and, indeed, all concerned in this argument—even the media—have ignored. I believe that there are others that we shall consider in the debate, but these factors alone should demand the support of every hon. Member for new Clauses 1 and 2 and, if they think fit, for new Clause 3.
      Mr. Kenneth Warren: I believe that Roskill proved the need for a third London airport and I believe that that need is still sustained. I have heard nothing today to make me change my mind on that basic fact. But I am disturbed by the general secrecy which seems gradually to be enveloping the Maplin project. There is a need for information, and we do not seem to be able to get the information we want.
      New Clauses 1 and 2 in their detail illustrate the expectation of hon. Members that more information will be forthcoming in this debate from the Minister. None of us would want to vote for expenditure on an airport anywhere which is not justified, or to vote and find later that we have not been given all the information which is available in the offices of various Ministries and which should be deployed in the House. I would illustrate this by posing three questions which have not been answered at any time when Maplin has been considered.
      First, what are the facts about the cost of this project? On what figures has the Treasury been working? There seems a vast range of figures of millions of pounds, none of which has been agreed to by any two hon. Members.
      Second, what does the Department of Trade and Industry really know about the ability of London Airport and other airports around London to handle the prospective traffic in the 1980s? It is reported that the Civil Aviation Authority
      1560
      has a plan to double the number of flights going into London Airport. It says that it has new methods of doing this. Is it the Governments policy to try to help the CAA to do this? This has a fundamental effect on Maplin and its timing.
      Third, what does the Department of the Environment intend about the overland routes to Maplin, not only from London but those connecting Maplin with the Midlands and the Channel Tunnel, and about the whole problem of orbital roads around London? What are its proposals for these routes? It has been very coy about whether there will be only roads or rail as well. Will there be some other special form of highspeed transportation? The DOE will not tell us. The DTI has cancelled a project in this direction in the last few months.
      I thought until today that this development would include a seaport. I believed this because the Long Title of the Bill said that it concerned, among other things,
      "the granting of planning permission required for the construction and operation of the airport and the seaport; and for purposes connected with those matters."
      So it was not unfair to assume that we were talking about an integrated system of transportation between air, land and sea. To find that there is now some doubt at this late stage is a revelation to me, as it may also be to other hon. Members.
      I had believed all along that one of the merits of Maplin, as opposed to the other sites where we could have had a third London airport, was that it could provide the interfaces which had been so difficult to get at Heathrow between air freight and sea freight coming into the Port of London.
      Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I am anxious to help my hon. Friend. What we are discussing is a Bill to create an authority whose purpose will be the reclamation of land. It will be for the responsible Ministers to determine, subject to the advice and consultation that they must take, when the seaport or airport should go ahead on that land.
      My hon. Friend mentioned planning permission. What he says is true, but if he gets planning permission for a new house it does not necessarily follow that

      1561
      he goes ahead immediately. He would judge the time for going ahead in the light of his circumstances.
      Mr. Warren: I am grateful for that intervention. It has helped me a lot in detail but, unfortunately, not in general. My problem is that I had thought we were talking about a total project of airport and seaport. I agree that the timing may be a matter for later debate and can be modified, but this has a fundamental effect on the merit of Maplin as a site.
      Sir Bernard Braine: Would not my hon. Friend agree that what the Minister has just said is the most astonishing statement that has been made on this subject so far? It now leaves in some doubt the question whether land to be reclaimed is to be used not merely for the airport but also for a seaport. This begs the question that my constituents will ask: for what other purposes could that land be used? If it is industrial, this is something to which we are utterly and completely opposed.
      Mr. Warren rose—
      Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Would my hon. Friend allow me? I am sorry to intervene in an intervention in his speech. This is all spelled out very clearly in the Bill.
      Mr. Warren rose—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): Before the hon. Gentleman resumes his speech, perhaps I might draw attention to the fact that what we are discussing are the new clauses.
      Mr. Warren: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker; I am most grateful. It is indeed in these new clauses that I see the need for more information of a kind that has not yet been given in the House.
      However, having challenged my own Front Bench colleagues to produce information, I also have reason to defend them against some of the science-fiction technology which has been showered upon them today. There seems to be a general belief abroad in the House that, if we talk about aircraft noise, it will go away. This problem will remain with us. I criticise the Government for not having taken much of the action they should have taken some years ago in order to get a planned system for noise reduction in the operation of British airports,
      1562
      to the general benefit of tile community, particularly in the London area.
      For instance, the aircraft which will fly into Maplin are flying today. All the improvements that can be made to the existing engines of those aircraft will not bring down the noise they make to anything like the levels that many hon. Members appear to believe are technically possible.
      I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Adley) is no longer here, because I can illustrate this by means of the example he gave of the improvement in the length of runway needed by two aircraft. He said that the DC8 needed 11,000 ft. to get off the ground safely and that the 707 needed only 9,700 ft. But my hon. Friend failed to quote the fact that, in that development, the amount of noise of those two aircraft types had gone up. For instance, on the approach, two miles out from touchdown at London Airport, something which comes into a consideration of the new clause, these two aircraft would turn in levels of 117 and 121 decibels respectively. Even if one were able to cut their noise by half by the use of hush kits, that is a reduction of only five or six decibels, not the 60 decibels that many people believe, and that gets us nowhere near the expectation of many people about noise levels.
      Mr. Tebbit: Our hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Wilkinson) referred not to the 707 but to the 747. If my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings (Mr. Warren) thinks that the aircraft which will be operating into Maplin when it opens somewhere in the 1980s will be all the same aircraft that are operating today, he has singularly little faith in either the Boeing project or the Hawker Siddeley project, or the new BAC project which will actually be flying in 10 years' time.
      Mr. Warren: I am grateful for that intervention. I do not believe that I misheard my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-East—not one of the Bradford constituencies—and even the 747 is still above the noise levels that people believe are tolerable. People should not be led astray into the qualitative feeling that science can do something to reduce aircraft noise to tolerable levels. At the

      1563
      moment we do not know how to do it, and we should not be misled or mislead the public on the matter.
      I believe that the sponsors of the new clauses are looking for a lead from the Government to overcome the scientific fact that, if we cannot reduce noise, we must do something else to make it go away. The hon. and learned Member for Lincoln (Mr. Taverne) made the sensible suggestion of introducing differential landing charges to take account of the way in which noise could be modulated. The Government should go beyond this and set noise limits, not in the future but now. We cannot await Maplin. The whole problem of living in London is already quite intolerable. Noisy aircraft could easily be routed away, and not only from the London area, to more remote areas from big towns and cities.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-East, quoted from a Canadian newspaper another piece of science fiction which must be commented upon. He said that in the newspaper the statement was made that revolutionary new aircraft and quieter engines were just around the corner. I do not know where that corner is, but I think it is a long way off.
      This afternoon we have had references to the Europlane and the HS146. We hope that there will be Government backing, but at the moment these projects are only on drawing boards and in brochures. If the Government are to give the impression that these aircraft will come along just because they are talked of, they will be misleading the public and, I fear, sometimes ourselves.
      More and more, when people talk about the Europlane and the HS146, they are talking of aircraft which are not of the type one would expect to find operating out of Maplin. They are not intercontinental or transatlantic aircraft, and they are incapable of operating economically over ranges of more than a few hundred miles. So when we talk about the 707, the 747, the DC8 or the Concorde, we are talking of quite different kinds of transportation, and we must not mislead ourselves in this way.
      On the general subject of what can be done about the noise, I challenge the
      1564
      Government to do something more than simply say that they are investing a lot of money in the RB211, which is a quiet engine, and so on, and generally funding investigation of quieter flight. The hon. and learned Member for Lincoln is too optimistic. Somewhere or other he has read a salesman's brochure saying that hush kits are available and will reduce the noise. There is not enough Government-sponsored research and development going on to bring about this reality in the hardware. Further, the Government ought to recognise that they they have a duty to introduce legislation to make sure that aircraft are fitted with these kits, even if the passengers eventually have to pay for flying in quieter aircraft.
      7.15 p.m.
      The feeling seems to be that if only we talk about these things the passengers will go away—perhaps they will; someone suggested that they will go to Paris instead of to London—the idea being that if the passengers go away the aircraft will go with them. This country should not set itself up as being something totally different from other European countries. Every other European country is making tremendous strides towards recognising the growth of air transportation. We cannot exempt ourselves from that growth: it will arrive on our doorstep. The growth of air transportation is increasing by 14 per cent. per annum, an absolutely startling rate of growth. It cannot be any consolation to the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Spearing) to know this.
      In its first 10 years of operation Maplin will be subjected to the general world growth quoted by the International Air Transport Association, that growth, moving up from 900 million passengers being flown in the world in 1980 to an estimated 2,000 million passengers in 1990. Maplin will be right in the middle of this difficult type of growth, and it would be misleading to accept the advice of the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) that one could spend some £15 million or £20 million to ease the problem at the existing London airports. There is not the space or the capability to accept those passengers.
      I therefore come to the conclusion that the passengers will be with us in ever-increasing numbers. The general public

      1565
      will demand to fly, and if the general public have to travel a long way in order to fly from Maplin it is not an unfair penalty to impose upon them. I see nothing wrong in that. If members of the general public want to fly at any time of day or night, they must accept regulation as to where or how they will travel.
      It is up to the Government not to find solace in what seems to be just one back bencher so far speaking in their support but to rush into the trenches themselves and fire over the parapet the information which I and others desperately need.
      Mr. David Steel: The closing words of the hon. Member for Hastings (Mr. Warren) were most significant. He is indeed the only uninterested back-bench speaker on the Government side to support the Government, yet his speech from beginning to send was replete with questions, doubts and queries.
      The House should consider the change that has taken place in our debates on this subject over the last three years, because it reflects public opinion. When we debated the issue in 1971 it was a very hot debate but it was mainly about where the airport should go. Different hon. Members advocated different sites, but very few hon. Members on that occasion, and I was one, queried whether we needed a third airport at all. In February of this year there was a significant shift of opinion and tonight that shift has gone further with the new evidence monthly coming before the House and the public, and more and more Members attending the debate though not necessarily taking part in it, but with furrowed brows, wondering whether we are doing the right thing. That is a significant political development.
      For that reason, the Government would be very wise to accept all or some of these new clauses because they state that it is right that there should be statutory consultation which would echo the growing fear and anxiety which the House and the public have about the basic merits of the project. That is the strength of the case behind the new clauses. It is right that the Maplin Development Authority should consult precisely because of the doubts we have had throughout, and the doubts which have grown
      1566
      over the years about the need for a third London airport at all.
      It is significant that the Civil Aviation Authority has said that it would be perfectly possible to extend the capacity of the existing London airports for all foreseeable needs beyond 1985. It is significant also that its report concluded that the one runway envisaged at Maplin by 1980 would make little difference to the total airport capacity for London.
      What is more, taking into account the studies of Mr. Flowerdew and Professor Alan Day on the dramatic decrease which will inevitably be achieved in noise levels at Heathrow and Gatwick, we can see that all the argument advanced to us over the years in support of the case for a third London airport—in other words, the case for Maplin—has virtually been eroded.
      I agree with the comments of the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Sir Bernard Braine) when he referred to the Minister's remarks about the seaport being in doubt. I admit that that is new to me, too. If it is in doubt, if there is no decision about the seaport, presumably all the arithmetic and financial figures about which we have been talking relate only to the airport. Presumably, therefore, we must add to all the figures given for the airport figures for the seaport as well, figures which we have not been given, as well as all the figures for road and rail communications. In the circumstances, it seems that those who have bandied about a figure of £2,000 million, which I at first thought must be a gross exaggeration, may well be right, and that may indeed be the total scale of public expenditure to which we are asked to commit ourselves.
      I was glad that the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. R. C. Mitchell) mentioned the views of the British Transport Docks Board, which has indicated that already, for less than £10 million, it could develop container berths which, in the words of the chairman of the board, would be but a drop in the bucket compared with the Maplin development. We understand from the board that most of the land has already been reclaimed, the bridges are built, and the access roads are already there.
      Thus, from every standpoint, from the airport angle and the seaport angle, it

      1567
      seems that the Maplin project is coming increasingly into doubt. The new clauses, therefore, are highly relevant.
      In passing, I repeat the view which I put in 1971, that the biggest single objection—I speak as a Scottish Member from a development area—can be put in this way. How on earth are we to go to the European Community and ask for a big slice for our backward regions from the regional fund which it is setting up if we propose at the same time to spend this vast sum of money in what is already an overheated part of our national economy, and, what is more, at a time when the Government themselves appear ready to back a Channel Tunnel project which will have its own consequences on the movement of both people and freight in and out of this country?
      The Government must stand or fall on an examination of their stewardship of public expenditure. Fundamentally, that is what we are here in the House for. This is what makes this series of debates so interesting, for now the House of Commons is becoming more and more anxious about the wisdom of the decision to make this vast public expenditure. We are aware that small elements of public expenditure on the development of hush kits and on research and development into aircraft noise could bring more and more relief to those hard pressed areas referred to by the hon. Members who represent them.
      The Government should note that the friends of Maplin in the House are a rapidly dwindling body, largely composed now only of Members who represent constituencies under the flight paths of the existing airports and are motivated—most of them, not all—by a wholly understandable but, I believe, mistaken belief that the only way to relieve the suffering of their constituents is to spend this vast sum at Maplin. That case has not been proved by the Government.
      Since the environmental grounds have shifted, since the development of less noisy aircraft and less noisy engines is now upon us, since the aviation grounds for the original decision have shifted with the development both of the wide-bodied aircraft and of the view among the airlines that they do not want to go to Maplin anyway, and since the economic
      1568
      grounds also have shifted, with greater emphasis now on regional development, and the Government's attitude towards the Channel Tunnel, the Government must reflect again on the basic wisdom of their decision.
      I end on one note of disagreement with the hon. Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Adley), who remarked that this was not a political issue, echoed, somewhat surprisingly, by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins).
      Mr. Adley: Not a party-political issue.
      Mr. Steel: Not a party-political issue. I agree that that has been so until now, but I think that hon. Members on the Government side should be aware that if the Government tonight steam-roller through their decision by a majority in spite of the intelligent contributions made in the debate by their back benchers, not just Ministers on the Front Bench today but the entire Conservative Party will have to answer for the decision at the next election.
      Mr. Allason: I welcome the opportunity which the debate gives for a discussion of aircraft noise, since the problem of aircraft noise has formed the background and the reason for the development of Maplin airport. In the search for a third London airport, Cublington was considered. I assure those of my hon. Friends who may doubt it that the opposition to Cublington as the site did not come only from a few wealthy people who did not want interference with their amenities. There was a strong genuine popular feeling among everyone in my constituency and constituencies even closer to Cublington that it was quite unacceptable to have more—
      Sir Stephen McAdden: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Does the question of Cublington come within the new clauses under debate?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I understand that the debate has already gone very wide. While it is undoubtedly the wish of the House to remain within the ambit of the new clauses, I think that hon. Members may wish to make rather special points, of which this may be one.
      Mr. Allason: I believe that this question is directly related to the Maplin

      1569
      question, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In the first place, Luton Airport is the alternative to Cublington. The Government and the nation having decided that Cublington was unacceptable, we now have Luton Airport doing as much environmental damage as Cublington would ever have done, and the alternative to Cublington is Maplin.
      There is definite need for a sea site, because the real damage caused by an airport occurs in take-off and landing. We are not asking for take-off and landing to be over the land. We are asking for them to be over the sea. This is the essential factor, for it is at that stage that the damage is done.
      I suggest that those who claim to know about aircraft noise should consider their qualifications. They should spend at least a month living under the flight paths at either Luton or Gatwick, by day and by night, and understand how ghastly it is to have shattering noise overhead hour after hour. The people who know about that are much more entitled to speak.
      Mr. Adley: We understand that, of course. I lived for nearly 10 years at Sunningdale, which, I believe, is more than 10 miles to the west of Heathrow Airport, where the aircraft accelerate after they leave their noise abatement procedures. Realising that, realising what the problem was 10 miles away, and realising what it could mean for the people of Kent and Essex, I was led to the conclusion that the only way to tackle it is at source by removing the noise.
      Mr. Allason: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for that, but he will realise that the take-off and landing will be out over the sea at Maplin. Once an aircraft is at about 8,000 feet, it ceases to have the devastating effect which the low-flying aircraft creates. Any aircraft over Essex or Kent will, I guess, be at 8,000 feet at least. Perhaps we could have some information about that.
      Sir Bernard Braine: Will my hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Allason: I do not think that I should, in view of the time.
      Sir Bernard Braine: Then my hon. Friend should not talk about something he does not understand
      Mr. Allason: I believe that I understand this a great deal better than my hon. Friend does. I live under the flight path of Luton Airport, and my hon. Friend does not have that unhappy experience.
      We have heard a great deal about quiet engines. The aircraft industry itself talks of quiet engines. We have heard hon. Members suggesting this afternoon that engines will be only half as noisy and that this will solve the problem. It does not solve the problem at all.
      Mr. Wilkinson: Of course it does.
      Mr. Allason: It does not. In my constituency noise measurement is taken about 10 miles from Luton Airport. For a BAC 1–11 the average noise level by night is 106 PNdB. That is above the noise limit which was tolerable even at the edge of the airfield when night flying was permitted from Heathrow. A half reduction in noise brings this down to 96 PNdB, which is still appalling. While 106 PNdB may not be ear shattering, the half reduction makes the level merely shattering. It is still an appalling noise. A level of about 60 PNdB is acceptable to the human ear, and in excess of 90 PNdB is awful, and that is what people are leading us to believe will be acceptable if the noise level of existing engines is halved.
      7.30 p.m.
      Mr. Roger Moate: My hon. Friend is describing virtually the constituency which will lie in the flight paths of the proposed Maplin airport. Aircraft leaving Maplin touch the Kent coast at the Isle of Sheppey with an estimated noise level of 97 PNdB, which is higher than the figure that my hon. Friend described as intolerable. At that stage the aircraft will be 3,000 ft to 4,000 ft off the ground. What he is suggesting is the transference of the Luton noise to Kent. Is that what he wants?
      Mr. Allason: What I am suggesting is that this is not necessary. It is possible for the vast majority of aircraft flights to take off over the sea. I do not accept that it is necessary to cross the Kent coast at 3,000 ft. At Luton, however, aircraft are not allowed to climb because of the air traffic from Heathrow. They have to keep below a certain ceiling and have to fly low for a long distance.
      Mr. Wilkinson: Will my hon. Friend agree that the best remedy for the Luton problem would be a hush kit for the Spey engine of the BAC 1–11 and of the Tridents for which the Government have not yet approved funding? The short and medium range aircraft constitute about 70 per cent. of movements from United Kingdom airports, particularly in the London area, and the approach that I suggest would benefit Luton and other airports.
      Mr. Allason: I fully support the idea of hush-kitting the Spey. Hawker Siddeley has done something about noise reduction for the Trident with the Spey engine but BAC has failed to make any noise reduction in the 1–11, which produces a horrible beat. I am informed that the reduction in noise resulting from the hush kit is only 5 decibels, which would be only a quarter reduction in noise level for a considerable expense.
      That solution would still leave us with intolerable noise levels. We therefore have to decide two things—what happens by day and what happens by night. It is unacceptable to have night flights over land but it is acceptable to have them over the sea. We must therefore have a sea site airport for all night flying so that there is no night flying at inland airports at all. For day flights we want to see quieter aircraft but I warn the House that these promised exciting reductions by one half in the noise level of aircraft still mean that the noise will be unacceptable and should therefore also be over the sea. That is what Maplin offers which is not offered by the other London airports.
      Mr. Crouch: My hon. Friend keeps referring to noise over the sea but the information given to me by the Department of the Environment is, unfortunately, that with the runway so planned at Maplin 80 per cent. of the take-offs and landings will be in the direction of Kent.
      Mr. Allason: That may be so but the aircraft will have quite a few miles in which to climb. At Heathrow, Gatwick, Luton and Stansted are wretched people living right under the take-off paths, and they are entitled to some consideration. One of my hon. Friends brushed aside
      1572
      the number of people living at Luton. He said that there were 2½ million people living around Heathrow but only 125,000 people were affected by noise at Luton. He seems to suggest that they could be put to one side, that they need not be considered. It is most necessary to consider transferring aircraft to the sea site but it is no longer tolerable to have flying to the extent which now persists over land from the present London airports. We must not therefore be diverted by illusory beliefs in quiet engines.
      Mr. S. James A. Hill: The arguments in the debate so far have been mainly on the aviation side, which I suppose is only right. It is on this subject that constituents harass and break down the morale of hon. Members. It is an emotive issue. I shall therefore deal briefly with the aviation aspect. I have said, and I have been consistent in this, that Heathrow and Gatwick were capable of expansion. I suppose, therefore, that the first question is to ask whether the Civil Aviation Authority, the British Airways Board and any of the other technical organisations that have a say in this matter feel that Heathrow and Gatwick are capable of expansion, certainly into the 1980s and even later.
      I believe that those bodies have stated quite firmly that expansion is possible. If it can take place at Heathrow and Gatwick, we have to ask whether we are capable of improving our air traffic control services sufficiently to be able to clear the air as quickly as possible. Most of us, particularly hon. Members who go to the European Parliament, know of the delays which can occur as a result of something going wrong at the French or German air traffic control, or even the United Kingdom air traffic control, so that aircraft are kept circling or are bunched up on the ground. Therefore, if we are looking for increased traffic for those two major airports, this is an important consideration
      Another aspect is whether there is any likelihood of quieter engines or VSTOL aircraft in the immediate future. Everyone today has agreed that there is some doubt about this. We are naturally prone to advise our constituents that there are possibilities in this direction, but everything is still at the drawing board stage

      1573
      and very little is in the air. We are subject at times perhaps to the cowardly impulse of giving the wrong impression to our constituents and perhaps hastening for them the day when they can expect quieter engines, but I am afraid it may be at least a decade before this will produce results and I believe that people connected with these technical matters agree with me.
      Mr. Oakes: Will the hon. Member take into account that everyone in the debate who has referred to reduced engine noise has been talking about existing aeroplanes which are now in service—everyone, that is, except the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch), who made an excellent contribution and referred also to an engine? We are talking not about drawing boards but about aeroplanes which are flying now.
      Mr. Hill: I am talking about the aircraft of the future and I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings (Mr. Warren), who says that hush kits which will naturally reduce power are not so successful. The only hope of creating an environment within the noise footprint of the airport in which people can live lies with the engines and the aircraft of the future.
      If the answer to the three queries is "Yes", Maplin is not needed. Nor is it needed if we can make do with what we have, if we can clear traffic as quickly as possible—I am thinking of the supersonic aircraft as well—and if there is a likelihood of quieter engines. However, if the answer to any of them is "No", Maplin is a necessity.
      The project has created a great deal of discussion today. I emphasise the proviso in new Clause 2. There must be a great deal of consultation and at times pauses for reflection. The technological age may make an airfield such as Maplin superfluous within a short time or restrict it to an acceptable size.
      I turn to the aspect of the matter which affects my constituency, where there is particular concern about the new deep-water port envisaged at Maplin. We do not wish to restrict or contain in any way the plans of the British Transport Docks Board or the Maplin Authority as against other ports, but in Southampton
      1574
      there is an extremely peculiar position in that we have already done what is proposed for Maplin. In Southampton there are 600 acres of reclaimed seashore. A bridge is being built to facilitate the use of this land. We have one of the best deep-water ports in the United Kingdom and a double tide, and we have made great strides in containerisation.
      To build a deep-water port on what I would term the wrong side of the United Kingdom, with all the navigational hazards which would be experienced by tankers of 500,000 or 1 million tons in very narrow straits, would not be the right way to approach the matter at a time when Rotterdam, Hamburg and several other big European ports will be expanding. Traffic in the Channel would be of such a volume that it would be far better to develop a West Coast port and possibly a South Coast port such as Southampton. I would support that, as did the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. R. C. Mitchell).
      The Chairman of the British Transport Docks Board asked in London this week, "Why not build a port in Southampton, where the berths are cheaper?" We should use the facilities which exist. They are an asset which can be utilised. The 600 acres of land to which I have referred can be developed.
      I fear that there will be a limited budget, which will have to be spread thinly. It may have to be spread far too thinly for those ports which are ready to go ahead now rather than in five years' time.
      If Ministers can reassure me that the established ports, such as Southampton, will not be neglected, that land which is available will be redeveloped, that no undue pressures will be applied to them to sell off their land and that there will be consultation with the British Transport Docks Board so that development in Southampton will be allowed to go ahead at the phased pace, I can support them. However, if my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary is adamant and cannot see that there can be further progression in ports like Southampton, I will be reluctantly forced to go into the opposing Lobby.
      7.45 p.m.
      Sir Stephen McAdden: I can conceive that my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Sir Bernard Braine) and I could be wrong although it is unlikely. We have consistently opposed the idea of development at Maplin. We made our recommendations to the Roskill Commission, and those wise men accepted our views. We have consistently opposed development at Maplin ever since. So even if we are proved wrong we have at least been consistent.
      The Government, on the other hand, will not even admit the possibility of being wrong. That is unfortunate. What is worse, however, is that they will not give us an opportunity to find out whether they are right. To try to discover this we ought at least to know more detail than we do about the projected development of Maplin. We should know something of the cost of the access roads, and their routing, as well as the cost of construction of an airport, if there is to be an airport. We must have this information before the House gives a decision.
      The House must not be asked to give a decision in blind faith on the basis that everything will be all right. Some hon. Members have said that they are worried about the seaport. What seaport? No one knows anything about it [AN HON. MEMBER: "It is on the back of the Bill."] The matter is mentioned in the preamble, which states that the Bill
      "provides for the reclamation from the sea of land … for the purpose of the establishment of the Third London Airport and a seaport."
      Sir Bernard Braine: It may not now materialise.
      Sir S. McAdden: We are led to believe that the Government are all set to go. That is not strictly true. All that is proposed is to reclaim land. If someone else wishes to provide an airport and a seaport, the Government will be prepared to talk about it and consider it. This sort of approach is not the way to treat the House of Commons. We should have much more detail. We should not be asked to commit ourselves to the possible expenditure of millions of pounds.
      If the British Airports Authority decided to build an airport at Maplin, it
      1576
      would have no money for the project. It would have to come to Parliament for the money. The authority may present the idea for a magnificent airport, but Parliament has to provide the cash. The same applies to the provision of a port.
      We have been kidded all along the line over the proposal to develop Maplin. Opinion in favour of the development of Maplin was originally engendered by a strange notion that some rich City gentlemen would build it all for nothing. There was a great wave of public opinion that that would be a wonderful idea. The idea has since been dissipated. People now know that it is not true.
      But we are still being kidded. Supporters of the project—at least, those supporters who suffer under the flight paths of Heathrow and Gatwick—are being kidded that the building of an airport at Maplin will solve all their troubles. It will not. It will not even begin to solve their problems until 1981, which is a long way ahead. Even then, my hon. Friend the Minister will readily admit, the relevance of Maplin will be very small. It is likely to be 1985 at the earliest, if the airport is ever built, before there will be any substantial operational flying from Maplin. People who believe that development of an airport at Maplin will reduce the burden of flight paths around other airports are being kidded.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason) has said that he envisages that when Maplin is built there will be no flying from any inland site at night. He must be living in a dream world. He does not mind if there is noise during the day as long as there is no noise at night. I thought that the general complaint was that life was unbearable day and night. It appears that my hon. Friend has shifted his ground. I do not object to that. Many people have shifted their ground since the argument started.
      The idea that Heathrow and Gatwick will close down when Maplin is fully operational is ludicrous. Of course, they will still operate. They will continue to present a noise nuisance unless and until the basic problem of tackling aircraft noise is dealt with. That is why I am so glad to hear many of my hon. Friends refer to tackling the problem of aircraft engine noise at source. We must not

      1577
      rely upon diverting all the traffic to Maplin. That will not solve the problem.
      I am conscious of the fact that the debate has gone on too long. We have had a Second Reading debate. I do not wish to make a Second Reading speech. I have made one Second Reading speech and I do not want to repeat it. I remind the Government that many hon. Members are genuinely worried about the vast expenditure of public money which is envisaged in the Maplin development. It is felt—there is a growing tide of public opinion which is supported by responsible and authoritative documentation—by many hon. Members that this is not the right approach.
      All we are asking for in the new clauses and the amendments—I hope I may be forgiven for referring to them—which we are supposed to have been discussing during the last three hours is that the Government should think again or give themselves time to draw back. That seems to be a reasonable proposition. We are not trying to smash Maplin. We are trying to pause a little and to think a little. I ask the Government not to try to rush the Bill through and not to kid the House any further than it has already been kidded.
      Mr. Mather: Hon. Members with Maplin interests have become rather frightened about stories of noise which is heard around London Airport, Luton and Gatwick. I do not blame them. It is only right that these stories should be told if they are true. It is not as if the whole problem of noise is to be transferred lock, stock and barrel from these airports in the centre of the country to Maplin. Only a small proportion of the noise will be transferred. I do not believe that the noise clement is a strong one when considering Maplin.
      I represent a constituency which is near London Airport. It suffers much from the noise problem. It is basically a residential area. It has one main industry—namely, the aircraft industry which is located at Weybridge. Therefore, my constituency does not take an entirely unbalanced view about the problem. Last summer my constituents suffered a pasting from aircraft noise. There is a main minimum noise route which cuts right through the centre of my constituency. Last summer the people who live under
      1578
      that route bore a heavy burden. It is my duty—and I am sure that other hon. Members whose constituencies are near London Airport feel the same—to ensure that we do whatever we can to relieve that burden.
      As a result of the representations which were made last summer—my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Dr. Glyn) and other of my hon. Friends in the neighbourhood made strong representations—the policy of minimum noise routes is now being reconsidered in a major inquiry. Of course, some things can be done by altering the routes but I fear that not much can be done. To transfer the problem from one set of people to the next is not a solution.
      We have heard a lot of talk about quiet engines. I hope that the BAC will build an aeroplane with quiet engines. I strongly support the Europlane project. Quiet engines will make a big difference. Of course, it is not conclusive that such engines will entirely solve the problem. I recently received from my hon. Friend the Minister for Aerospace and Shipping a letter which contained some important information about reducing the noice of aircraft. He said:
      "But I am afraid it is a myth that huge modern aeroplanes can travel through the air and make little noise. The latest information available to my Department indicates that the noise from one of the widebodied types of aircraft, with all its engines switched off, would still be very great, because of the noise generated by the passage of the air frame and fuselage through the air."
      Mr. Wilkinson: Surely my hon. Friend must be referring to the bang when the aircraft hits the ground if all its engines are switched off.
      Mr. Mather: Perhaps if my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Wilkinson) waits to hear what the Minister has to say he will be slightly more enlightened.
      The noise element, although an important reason, is not the only reason for going ahead with the Maplin project. It is a fact that it will be impossible to expand at Heathrow, Gatwick and Luton to the degree which we are told will be necessary by 1985. We are told that the number of extra passengers will generate approximately 60,000 new jobs for workers in the neighbourhood of London Airport alone. How will those people

      1579
      be accommodated in that area? If we accept that the aircraft industry is important to the country and that it must be expanded we must accept that we shall not be able to expand it at the existing airports even with the quieter engines for which we all hope.
      Certain expectations have been raised amongst the people who live around London Airport. By accepting the new Clauses those expectations will be dashed. The hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. Oakes) must accept that if the new clauses are accepted dire social trouble and consequences will follow in such neighbourhoods. It is inconceivable that we can consider expanding the existing inland airports and not going ahead with a major airport on a coastal site.
      Dr. Glyn: It is only right to tell the House that I have a considerable constituency interest in the noise problem. Maidenhead, Windsor and the country districts within my constituency are subjected, and have been subjected for a long time, to an almost unbearable level of noise. Tuition in many schools has to stop during the frequent passage of aircraft. I need not enlarge on the considerable difficulties. I pay tribute to the help which has been given to Maidenhead. Difficulty still arises at Windsor because of low flying on approach landings.
      The effect of the new clauses and the amendments would be to delay the construction or the implementation of the Maplin plan. The Government must have already taken into consideration all the factors which are set out in the new clause before coming to the decision to proceed with the project.
      Hon. Members have stressed that there are already 2 million people under the flight paths who are living an almost unbearable life not only by day but in some cases by night. A great deal has been said about quieter aircraft. We want quieter aircraft but I do not believe that in the foreseeable future the hush kits, or whatever we like to call them, will be able to decrease sufficiently the noise level, because aircraft have to fly over the town and the castle of Windsor at a low level in order to land. With whatever type of hush kit aircraft were equipped, there would still be very considerable
      1580
      noise and great inconvenience to those who live directly under the flight path unless a curved or turn-segment landing was adopted.
      8.0 p.m.
      The alterations in routes which have been given have been a help. But I still think that Maplin is the right site. It will be using land which is at present not in use and land will be reclaimed. We are saving agricultural land. From what I have seen of it, it would be a better site to have than any inland site because on balance far fewer people would be affected by noise. I cannot believe that 2 million people would be affected by Maplin. Probably thousands rather than millions would be affected. I welcome the idea of a seaport, which, given that there are fast links to London, could provide a very great complex air/sea port which could, in the long term, be of great value to this country.
      Meanwhile, my hon. Friend the Minister and the public must realise that Maplin, as my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir S. McAdden) said, is not the immediate solution for those living under present flight paths. It is a long-term solution which will help in the end. If we divert noisy aircraft to Maplin in the future, this is something to which the people being subjected to this unbearable noise have to look forward, and the sooner we get on with this project the better.
      I am glad that the Government have been steadfast and firm. Once having embarked upon it they have never turned aside.
      I thank my lion. Friends on the Front Bench for the co-operation they have given to back-benchers in their pursuit to help their constituents in the diminution of noise. I ask them to continue to maintain this help so that we are able to give our constituents increased relief from what is an unbearable level of noise.
      Mr. Tam Dalyell: I should like to ask three artless and concise questions, in ascending order of importance.
      First, what has been done on the projection of future traffic on the domestic Scottish routes? This may be of marginal numerical importance, but it

      1581
      is of some importance. When a train, as it will do by the time Maplin comes into operation, and as it does, takes three, three and a half or four hours to travel between Edinburgh and London and between Glasgow and London, there are many of us who would prefer a train journey to air travel. Therefore, what consideration, looking at the figures, has been given to the nature of the change in rail travel between Scotland and London and to the effect that it will have on the requirement of domestic routes?
      My second question is this. I understand that the Government are determined, probably rightly if the project goes ahead, that much of the shale and coal bing material will not be taken across East Anglia by lorry but will be brought in by ship. I also understand from Mr. David Broadbent, the director of special projects in coal, that for this to be undertaken it will probably be necessary to design a new type of ship, the kind of ship that would load on material at Blyth, Grangemouth or Immingham and go to Maplin, open its bottom and dump the material where needed. I think that I am right in that so far. What are the costs of these ships? If one has to design a new type of ship, it is certainly a costly business. Would I be wrong in saying that each of the ships, of which two or three may be necessary, would cost between £15 million and £20 million?
      Lastly, I ask another kind of question because this is the month when in the United States there has been introduced for the first time flight rationing, the rationing of flights because of the shortage of aero-engine fuel. If it is true that the Americans had to get out of Vietnam because of the shortage of fuel for B52s—this is asserted time and again now and not denied—in a project that goes into the next decade, what serious study has been done on the shortage of aero-engine oil? It will be no news to Ministers that last night on the BBC there was a very powerful programme which showed that the shortage of aero-engine fuel would reach crisis proportions by the mid-1980s. Those of us who have been briefed by Dr. Pearce, the Chairman of Esso, by several people at the top of Shell and by the management of BP can be under no illusion that neither the motor industry nor the aviation industry
      1582
      has prepared itself for a shortage of engine fuel that will take place in the 1980s, if not before.
      Therefore, that American experience makes the question at least relevant. Can we be certain that the assumption that there will be a rapid expansion in air travel is the kind of assumption that we should be making? I have put it as shortly and as concisely as I can. What sort of study have the Government undertaken of the likely effect of a shortage of aero-engine fuel at the time when Maplin comes into operation? If we are told that no serious study has been done, I for one would be very disturbed at the planning mechanisms of the British Government.
      Mr. Moate: My hon. Friend the Member for Esher (Mr. Mather) said that if the Maplin project were not proceeded with or were deferred, the expectations of the people living around Heathrow would be shattered. If that is so, I suggest that they have been labouring under an illusion for so long that it is time that it was shattered.
      Although my hon. Friend was not as extreme as some in suggesting that the construction of Maplin would bring great relief to those around Heathrow, nevertheless it is clear from what we have heard recently that it will not do so. Indeed, it is clear that there is still unused capacity at Heathrow, even allowing for present restrictions on flying, and that capacity will be used up. So what we and the people around Heathrow must expect is an increase on the present number of aircraft movements even when Maplin is built.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason) might have hope for more constraint at Luton. That is possible. But for those around Heathrow there can be no such hope. Their only hope does not lie in the early construction of Maplin. It lies in quieter engines. I do not know whether we shall have quieter engines. Day in and day out over the last few weeks we have been reading newspaper articles and have received articles in the post from eminent people saying that we probably will get quieter engines. I hope that we shall. There is ample evidence to suggest that it may be so. The Government do not appear to be taking much heed of this.

      1583
      Obviously they hope that it is true, but they are not prepared to consider the Maplin proposals in the light of this.
      I should have thought that even if the Government were not prepared to accept the evidence—there have been enough studies and there is enough experience—enough doubts have been sown to prove that there is no need to rush into the Maplin project, and surely the Government have reason to defer the project for several years.
      My first and immediate interest is a constituency interest. My constituency would lie on the opposite side of the estuary to the Maplin airport, directly in line with the runways some 10 miles away. That is roughly the same distance as central London is from Heathrow.
      Hon. Members may well be aware that when out in the sunshine in Westminster sometimes they will find that aircraft if using a particular runway can be a serious noise nuisance indeed.
      My constituency is faced with a noise problem. Although it has been called an environmental airport we should not run away with the idea that no one will suffer. I maintain that the noise shadow over Essex and Kent will be very much more serious than the Government have been making out. My hon. Friend the Minister for Aerospace was quoted in a newspaper article this morning as saying:
      "At Maplin only 465 homes will actually be disturbed by the noise at the estimated worst noise situation in 1990."
      What he was referring to was the fore-cast—
      Mr. Brian Harrison: Did the Minister make any reference to the number of houses which will be demolished to build the corridor and so on?
      Mr. Moate: I was coming to that. My hon. Friend was referring to the 35 NNI line and the forecast of those who would be seriously disturbed by the site C selection. There is a vast difference between those who are seriously disturbed, within the 35 NNI line, and vast numbers of people who would also be disturbed. My hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Sir Bernard Braine) said that there could be between 65,000 and 125,000 people who would suffer from aircraft noise. It does not need any
      1584
      elaboration to make the point that in the quieter surroundings of a rural area aircraft noise is that much more intrusive. It is logical to take a 25 NNI line in the country and compare it with the noise nuisance of a 35 NNI line in central London.
      I urge the House to recognise that there will be serious noise damage to the people living in Essex and Kent. To those hon. Members whose constituents live around Heathrow I say that they must recognise that they will not get the relief they expect and will inflict noise on others. Let us be rid of this illusion. I urge hon. Members to recognise the damage which this will inflict on our county.
      The other overwhelming factor which I would have thought would have persuaded the Government to say this for a year or two is the public expenditure factor. We have just had public expenditure cuts affecting such things as road maintenance which many people would think is a fairly short-term false economy. I asked what the Maplin expenditure was likely to be over the next year. The Treasury did not give an answer, as might be expected. The Department of the Environment says that the reclamations are likely to cost between about £15 million and £20 million a year, plus defence expenditure. That means that next year we could save £20 million immediately on public spending if we deferred Maplin and reinstated some other, more worthwhile items of expenditure.
      If this Bill goes through unamended, even though there may in theory be some safeguard clauses, this House will be setting on a course that it will not be able to stop. It will be approving one of the largest items of public expenditure that it has ever approved. In theory it is just £250 million for this Bill. Then the airport will follow, then the seaport, then the new town or city, then the motorways and rail links. We are talking about £1,000 million to £2,000 million in total commitment to the region, some of which might be spent elsewhere. In regional terms, thousands of millions of pounds will be directed into south-east Essex which I should have thought made nonsense of nearly all the regional policies we have been talking about.
      If we pass the Bill unamended this House will effectively lose control of this

      1585
      vast project. We have had only a fraction of the information that we ought to have had. We have had no debate about the seaport. If the seaport had been a project on its own, such as the Channel Tunnel, we would have had a Green Paper and public inquiries and we would have decided on the merits for or against the project. That has not happened. I accept that my hon. and right hon. Friends believe in the principle of public participation to the full but, frankly, it has not occurred over the question of the seaport. I do not believe it has occurred properly with the airport either.
      We have had the Roskill inquiry, the results of which were rejected. I urge my hon. and right hon. Friends to cancel or postpone the project. The public expenditure considerations are so overwhelming and the environmental considerations so damning. The technical advances are there as a possibility. The Government ought to defer this project for at least two or three years so that the country and the House can have a second look at whether we need an airport and, if so, decide where it should be sited.
      8.15 p.m.
      Mr. Ronald Bell: Three new clauses are being considered together and they are all about consultation. I do not believe that people are particularly interested in consultation. The idea that, if these new clauses are not added to the Bill, the Government will not continue to consult the British Airports Authority or the Civil Aviation Authority or whatever other appropriate authority exists, is fanciful. Consultation is automatic. If at some point someone were to say to the Government "This has ceased to be necessary", obviously the project would not proceed. [Laughter.] I should perhaps have said someone whose opinion carried weight.
      The real purpose of the new clauses is to prevent the project going ahead at all. When people say that we should wait for five years, they know perfectly well that we have been looking round for a third London airport for some time.
      Mr. Adley: The difference between new Clause 1 and new Clause 2 is that the former seeks to stop anything happening before reclamation while new
      1586
      Clause 2 allows reclamation to start and then sets up the monitoring process. There is a difference.
      Mr. Bell: It is a fascinating difference. The purpose of these new clauses is to stop the project. Whether or not consultation is asked for is not all that important. It is said "Wait for five years", but just look how many years we have been searching for a third London airport. The need for it has never been doubted until now.
      The reason why those opposing it have shifted their weight and are no longer saying that it must not go to Stansted or Cublington but instead are saying that we do not need one at all is because even they realise that they cannot go on moving from one place to another saying "It cannot be there because of this, it cannot be here because of that." Having reached Maplin and this state of the game, they are now saying the only thing that they can plausibly say—that we do not need a third London airport at all.
      I ask myself why hon. Members representing constituencies only vaguely in the neighbourhood of this project should be putting up so vigorous an opposition if in the next 15 years aircraft will become so silent that no one should be bothered about them. I represent a constituency the southern part of which lies under the path to and from runways at Heathrow. Many of my hon. Friends and some Opposition Members represent constituencies directly affected. When we are told that we should accept a 30 per cent. increase in traffic movements at Heathrow and should not be concerned because technical developments will make the noise quite bearable for our constituents, and when we are told this by hon. Members whose constituencies are fairly well removed from Maplin but who are putting up such a feverish opposition, it is not surprising that we are a little sceptical.
      I am told that movements at Heathrow have increased by no less than 10 per cent. in the last few months. That is a very much higher rate of increase than that upon which the CAA report, so heavily relied upon today, was based. Heathrow is already so crowded that as an airport it has become virtually a slum. The traffic movements from it are so intensive that a couple of million people—the number is more than that really

      1587
      because the NNI line is not the perimeter of serious disturbance—are living in neighbourhoods which have not become slums but which are on the way to becoming slums.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Esher (Mr. Mather), who is a constituent of mine, could tell the House, if he has not already done so, that four-engined jets fly over his house every two minutes at about 400 ft. People say "Why not knock it down from every two minutes to every 90 seconds? You know that as the years pass there will be a slight diminution in the noise by so many perceived noise decibels. What are you worrying about?" This matter does not affect me personally, but I represent people who are affected by the noise and I speak for them.
      We are talking about people. Let us be honest and admit, as I know from experience, that since the advent of the pure jet the conditions in which many people live around London Airport have become absolutely intolerable. When we hear one of the old aircraft—for example, a Viscount or a Britannia—the noise is like that of an electric fan compared with the noise from a pure jet. It is no answer to say that people went to live there knowing there was an airport there. When most of them went to live there, the noise from aeroplanes was not comparable with the present-day noise. In any case, the housing situation does not give people a great deal of choice
      The airlines have drummed up all the opposition they can against this project. They do not want the airport to go to Maplin, and that is what the fuss is about. They wanted it to go to Stansted. They were pushed off that. Then they preferred Cublington, and they were pushed off that—quite rightly in both cases.
      From the point of view of people, Maplin is right. The airlines, looking at the matter commercially, do not want to go there and they have marshalled support for their case. They have put out optimistic stories about declining noise levels, just as a company faced with a takeover bid puts out rosy estimates of its future profits.
      The Department of the Environment and the Department of Trade and Industry
      1588
      support the Bill because they know that we cannot hope for the next 15 years, for any change in the magnitude of the noise which is of any human significance to people who have to put up with the frequency of aircraft movements from which people around Heathrow are suffering. There is no getting away from that point.
      I ask those who have been rather taken in by the airlines—some of my hon. Friends who represent constituencies in Essex have been most sensible and moderate about this; it is the airlines which are fighting this battle—[HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] There are other interests, but I shall not go into that matter.
      Mr. Adley: Taxpayers' interests.
      Mr. Bell: I am content merely to refer to the airlines, which no doubt are fighting a cause which they consider to be legitimate. The other side of the argument concerns millions of people. If we care for our environment, we must do something about building another London airport.
      Let me put it in practical terms. The passenger traffic will increase, and do not let us pretend that it will not. Putting passengers in jumbo jets will not make all that much difference to the number of passenger movements. But freight traffic will increase enormously, and it is sheer pretence to say that it will not. It does not matter to a person in a house whether the aeroplane flying overhead is carrying freight or people.
      A third London airport is an operational necessity. The particular advantage of it is that when the first runway comes into service a good deal of the night traffic can use it as once and in large measure the older and noisy types of aircraft, such as the Tridents and VC10s, can be and will be required to go to Maplin—and so they should. Nobody should be asked to live under the flight path of a continual flow of Boeing 707s. One has to live under the flight path to know what it means.
      Anyone who thinks that we do not need a new seaport as well at Maplin surely has gone to sleep. London is not dead as a port, but we all know that with the increase in the size of ships we shall not maintain the importance of the Port of London, with ships coming all

      1589
      the way up the river from the estuary. Let us be sensible. We must have a deep water port at the estuary if we are to recover the maritime position which we have most damagingly lost to the countries on the west coast of Europe. If we must have a new seaport, as we must, just as in the west we had to have Milford Haven, it makes sense to have it near the third London airport, which we also need—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] For pretty obvious reasons. The land is to be reclaimed and sea gravel dredged up to make concrete. It has everything.
      It is sheer obscurantism to stand against this obvious proposition. It is obscurantism of recent date. I do not have to go back many months to recall when the Opposition were in favour of the third London airport. The hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) knows how true that is; indeed, he mentioned it in his speech. I did not hear the same voices raised on my side of the House in criticism of Maplin until a short time ago.
      I hope we shall not again put off for years the search for a third London airport. That would be a body blow to the aeronautical and maritime interests of this country.
      Sir George Sinclair: I wish to speak shortly in defence of the interests of a constituency that suffers from aircraft noise both from Heathrow and Gatwick. The effect of passing any of the clauses we are debating will be to delay the start of work on London's third airport. The Government's announcement of their choice of Maplin as the third London airport and the accompanying promises to limit between now and the period when Maplin comes into operation the nuisance of aircraft noise round Heathrow and Gatwick have brought relief to countless families in my area and far beyond in the West Sussex area.
      For many years people have been concerned that the intensity of air traffic becomes greater each year whether because of larger planes or greater frequency. For many years ahead aircraft noise will increase because many of the planes now in operation will be in operation for many years to come even though quieter ones come along in
      1590
      parallel. The Government's announcement was the vision of relief from continuing worsening conditions.
      All the people who are affected by aircraft noise in both the east and the west of my constituency would be horrified to hear that the Government were contemplating any delay in starting on the building of Maplin. I believe the airport is an operational necessity, and it is an urgent necessity that the noise burden be lifted from the people who live in heavily populated areas. I hope that the Government will be firm and will carry the day.
      8.30 p.m.
      Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I am sure that the House will agree that this has been a somewhat unusual and wide debate on new clauses on Report, and I have therefore abandoned the speech which I intended to make.
      I begin by thanking all the members of the Select Committee under the Chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Maddan) who dealt with the detailed private objections to the Bill, listened carefully to all the petitioners, considered their arguments and made a substantial number of amendments which have improved the Bill and are acceptable to the Government. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend and his colleagues from both sides of the House for the care with which they dealt with the private hearings and looked after the difficulties of individual private people.
      We had a most agreeable Standing Committee. Although there was a strong divergence of opinion between the two sides, the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. Oakes) handled admirably his side of the debate. I pay tribute to him, to his colleagues and to my hon. Friends for their work in Committee.
      We are technically dealing with three new clauses. So that there shall be no doubt in anyone's mind, I say at the outset that the Government accept the spirit but not the precise language of new Clause 1. We accept the spirit of a large part, though not the whole, of new Clause 2. I can meet the anxieties straight away of my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol North-East (Mr. Adley), who tabled new Clause 3, by assuring

      1591
      him that there is no question of any development of a port at Maplin without, first, the most careful examination of the economic case for it by the National Ports Council and, secondly, a thorough examination by both the council and my Department of the implications of any such development for all other British ports, including Southampton, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. S. James A. Hill). This is not simply a matter of an assurance given from the Dispatch Box; it is the law. The Secretary of State is required by the 1964 Act to consult the National Ports Council before committing public funds for these purposes, and this he will do.
      I undertake that this consultation in respect of the port will take place with the National Ports Council and with other ports as need be, and that a statement will be made to the House so that hon. Members on both sides may put questions to my right hon. and learned Friend before any authority is given to the Maplin Development Authority or to anybody else to start reclamation for the purpose of providing a new port. I believe that meets the point raised in new Clause 3.
      The debate has ranged widely, but it has centred primarily on three main questions. The first is whether we need the new airport; secondly, what is the cost and is it justified; and thirdly, how can we in Government, in Parliament or those in statutory undertakings keep track of the technical and scientific changes which are happening all the time and which are leading to new judgments having to be made about aircraft noise and all the other features involved. I know that hon. Members on both sides of the House have been concerned about monitoring the changes that take place so that we may make sure that decisions are taken and resources deployed against a background of the best available information at any one time.
      I shall seek to deal with these three points, but at the outset I wish to deal with one misunderstanding. This Bill is a limited Bill. It is a machinery Bill more than a policy Bill. It is a Bill which sets up an organisation which will be able to reclaim land. That land is intended for two purposes—for an airport
      1592
      and for a seaport. In so far as the reclamation may produce some surplus land, that will have its related purposes. But what the Bill does not do is to authorise an airport to be built at Maplin. [Laughter.] I can only repeat that the Bill does not authorise an airport to be built at Maplin, nor does it authorise a port. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I hope that hon. Members will listen because these are the facts. What the Bill also does not do is to authorise any dredging to commence.
      Mr. Brian Harrison: Can my hon. Friend say, then, what is the point of the Bill?
      Mr. Griffiths: The Bill creates the machinery and the organisation capable of reclaiming land from the sea for these purposes. The House will appreciate that before an airport can be built my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry must allow the British Airports Authority to spend the money. Before he gives authorisation for that expenditure, he will have to be satisfied that that airport is in all the circumstances needed. Secondly, in respect of the seaport my right hon. and learned Friend will require to be satisfied before he can permit those funds to be spent. Even more important, the Secretary of State for the Environment will control the funds and may give directions to the Maplin Development Authority.
      I give the assurance to the House that my right hon. and learned Friend will not give authority to the Maplin Development Authority to commence any reclamation unless he has carried out the spirit embodied in new Clauses 1 and 2; namely, to consult the statutory bodies in question and to look in particular at the questions raised in new Clause 2, embracing the retrofit, the new type of aircraft and all the rest of it. I repeat that he will do that, consulting the appropriate statutory bodies, and not authorise reclamation to take place until he has completed those consultations and made a statement to the House.
      Mr. Rost: In order that we may have complete clarification, as I am still a little confused, will my hon. Friend confirm that that means that there will have to be further authorisation in this House

      1593
      before the expenditure actually commences?
      Mr. Griffiths: My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State will carry out the purposes of new Clauses 1 and 2 by consulting in respect of the authorisation requirements set out there. When he has done so he will report to this House. He may well lay a parliamentary paper. The form of that can be considered. But no reclamation will commence until he has done that.
      Hon. Members ask, reasonably, in that case why not accept the new clause? [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Perhaps I may give the answer. Put shortly, it is that new Clause 1 lays the obligation to consult on the Maplin Development Authority. That authority is not a body which in any sense can carry out the wishes of the House in this matter. For one thing it is not accountable to the House. For another it is a dredging and land moving organisation. I suggest that it is the very last organisation on which this House would wish to confer the responsibility for determining, as it were, with the Civil Aviation Authority, the British Airports Authority and the National Ports Council whether the country should have a third London airport. That is a matter to be decided by the Government and Ministers responsible to the House.
      These amendments are defective in that they lay the obligation to consult upon the wrong body. In the case of new Clause 1 it would be light that the obligation to consult should be laid upon my right hon. and learned Friend. I further undertake in his presence that he will, having done that, consult this House before any reclamation for either the airport or the seaport is enabled to commence.
      Mr. Crouch: Will my hon. Friend make it clear what he means when he says that the Secretary of State will consult the House about expenditure which may be £1,000 million? Is it intended one afternoon at half-past three to say that we are to spend £1,000 million, and then to go on to other business?
      Mr. Griffiths: Perhaps my hon. Friend will allow me to come to the expenditure in a moment, when I shall answer his question.
      1594
      My eight hon. and learned Friend, having carried out the consultations in question—
      Hon. Members: How?
      Mr. Griffiths: —that must be a matter for him to determine—it will be the intention of the Government, having listened to the debate in which some powerful arguments have been made, to draft a suitable amendment carrying out the purposes which I have just set out to meet the purposes of new Clause 1 and of most of new Clause 2. Such an amendment can be moved in another place.
      I have said already that the existing law covers the point in new Clause 3—
      Sir Bernard Braine: My hon. Friend has made no reference to my arguments in connection with new Clause 3. Is he aware that nothing that he has said so far encourages me to believe that at any time safeguards will be written into the law to protect the environment of my constituents which is already savagely under assault by my right hon. and learned Friend at the other end of my constituency? Will my hon. Friend comment on the need to write into the law proper safeguards for my constituents?
      8.45 p.m.
      Mr. Griffiths: My hon. Friend knows that the whole problem of writing environmental standards into legislation, whether on noise, pollution or anything else, is complex. Knowing his feelings about recent developments and decisions in Essex, I can assure him that the Government will most certainly have regard in the organisation of any future airport or seaport in Essex to the minimising of environmental pollution in that area.
      Sir Bernard Braine rose—
      Mr. Griffiths: I will try to deal with my hon. Friend's point later.
      Sir Bernard Braine: It is not merely pollution, but safety.
      Mr. Griffiths: One of the most impressive speeches to my mind was that by my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch), who was particularly concerned that, where technological change is taking place, we should be aware of it and monitor it before making decisions. I hope he will appreciate that we have

      1595
      to make a decision somewhere. We have to go hard at some particular point in any programme. Inevitably after that point further discoveries and scientific developments will take place. All sensible organisations seek to monitor those changes as they take place. It is our intention to do that.
      The kinds of change about which my right hon and learned Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Minister for Aerospace and Shipping will consult the statutory bodies are as follows: first, changes in the composition and character of air traffic; secondly, changes in the destinations of air passengers; thirdly, changes in the types and characteristics of aircraft—the new ones like Concorde or the wide-bodied jets, the RTOL, VTOL, and so on—fourthly, the development of engines where they are pressing ahead—the Government are pressing ahead—with the RB 211 and the demonstration programme for the Dowty Rotol—fifthly, retrofits and hush kits; and, lastly, the whole question of regional airports. Having done that, my right hon. and learned Friend will seek to report to the House. But none of this will allow us to be put off, the decisions require to be made. It is the duty of the Government not to fudge the issue. That is the inevitable responsibility that falls to my right hon. Friend.
      Mr. Adley: Regarding regional airports, may I ask my hon. Friend how he accounts for the fact that we have the CAA at this moment working on the production of a national plan for airports whilst he insists on pressing ahead with a decision which knocks into a cocked hat any national plan because the major decision is now being taken in the South-East?
      Mr. Griffiths: The Bill does not itself authorise an airport to be built. That decision remains to be taken by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.
      Mr. Churchill rose—
      Mr. Griffiths: It is only fair to seek to deal with—
      Mr. Churchill: Will my hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. R. C. Mitchell rose—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu): Order. The Minister is obviously not giving way.
      Mr. Griffiths: I turn now to the thee main questions: the need for the airport, the cost, and the question of monitoring change.
      Several hon. Members have said that the CAA report invalidates previous forecasts and throws doubt on the necessity for a third London airport. Let us look at what it says. The CAA forecasts that by 1980 passenger demand arising at the London airports would be 58 million. Roskill said 57 million. Their estimates were almost the same.
      Air transport movements by 1980 are put by the CAA at 488,000. Roskill put the figure at 482,000. Again, the CAA report endorses the Roskill recommendations and the Government's acceptance of them.
      Looking further ahead to 1985, the CAA forecast for air passenger demand is precisely the same as Roskill—84 million. Air transport movements are marginally down from 555,000 to 534,000, but overall there is little deviation between the Roskill forecast and that of the CAA. Its report makes it clear that the CAA made full allowance for the growth in the size of aircraft, for the potential effects of the Channel Tunnel and for the possible diversion of traffic to the regions. So I really hope that no one will repeat the rather stale and inaccurate criticism that neither the Roskill Commission nor the Government have taken account of these changing factors. Of course we have.
      There always have been and there always will be arguments about the weight which should be given to these factors, and about the extent to which they need to be taken into account in forecasts for the even more distant future, but let me put one point to the House, a point which was stressed in the CAA Report, by Roskill and by, I think, some seven independent committees and interdepartmental inquiries which have considered this matter since the late 1950s, and that is the uncertainties and the margins of error which must attend any forecast, particularly of air traffic, when we are looking many years ahead. An example of this is

      1597
      quoted in the CAA Report where it is said that if the annual average rate of increase were 1 per cent. higher than estimated, this marginal error would result in an increase of 10 million in passenger demand by 1985 in the London area. That is to say, there would be 94 million passengers to cope with rather than the forecast 84 million.
      In this context of the CAA forecast of an annual traffic growth rate of 10 per cent. in the period 1972 to 1980, it is relevant that the Director-General of the International Air Transport Association estimates a worldwide annual average growth of 11 per cent. in the seventies. That is 1 per cent. above the CAA figure. I really see no reason to suppose that United Kingdom traffic will grow at less than the average rate.
      I mention these figures simply to show the inevitable hazards in air traffic forecasting. Of course there are hazards. It is right to monitor as well as we can, and to consult on changing standards of technology, but decisions remain to be taken and I hope the House will accept that the fact that it is difficult to make accurate projections ahead is not of itself a reason for taking no decision at all, because if we were wrong by 1 per cent. in the other direction we could bring about a situation of congestion, pollution and noise which would be utterly intolerable. But in all these circumstances a judgment has to be made.
      The Government have made their judgment in the light of all the circumstances on the basis of the best evidence we can acquire about changes in engines and aeroplanes, demand and the rest. We believe that one new runway will be required by 1980 and that a second new runway will be required by 1985. We take the view on all the evidence that something like three and a half times as many people will need to get into and out of aeroplanes in London in 1980–85 than today, and that they will be carried by something like twice as many larger aircraft. There is the problem and there is the Government's judgment, backed up by the best available expert advice—that one new runway is required by 1980 and a second by 1985.
      Mr. Jay: The Minister spoke of the CAA revised forecast of passenger demand but said nothing about its revised forecast of the capacity of the existing
      1598
      aircraft. Does he deny that on the CAA forecast it would be perfectly possible in 1980 for Gatwick and Heathrow to provide for very nearly all the traffic and that with one extra runway at Gatwick it would be possible to provide for it—on the CAA figures—in 1985?
      Mr. Griffiths: The right hon. Gentleman anticipates my next point. I have said what is the best judgment we can make. I would say to my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir S. McAdden), for whom I have great affection, that of course we can all be wrong. He admits that he can be wrong, and Governments too can be wrong. But we must nevertheless make the best judgment we can, taking into account all the evidence and all the factors.
      The right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) does not dissent, I understand, from the proposition that one runway more is required by roughly 1980 and a second by 1985, and that about three and a half times as many people and many times more air freight will be carried in about twice or two and a half times as many somewhat larger aeroplanes. So the question is, where shall we put them? The right hon. Gentleman's solution and that of his hon. Friends appears to be that they shall all be put in the existing London airports.
      Let us be absolutely clear what this means. It means, first, that we must keep open Stansted, Southend and Luton. The Government propose to close all three, although Luton may be closed only over a considerable period. Second, it would mean, on the estimation of Labour Members themselves, that Heathrow would be developed to its absolute maximum.
      But this means not simply that the number of aircraft will increase to about 400,000 flights per year of larger aircraft. It means also that about three and a half times as many people will need to be got through and handled there at the ground terminal facilities. I must agree with the CAA that, whatever the argument about using the runways for a little longer or a little more intensively, it is not civilised to herd three and a half times as many people as we do today into Heathrow.
      The other difference is that Labour Members, in order to meet their strategy,

      1599
      would need to develop Gatwick to the full. This, of course, would mean a second runway. We have decided that we will not have a second runway at Gatwick because the impact on the local population is already quite sufficient. Moreover, the projections require that, at Gatwick, there were no fewer than five times as many passengers and that the airport would need to be used to capacity during parts of the night as well as during the day.
      So the first choice that we have in this matter is to retain Stansted, Luton and Southend and cram them to capacity, to double the number of aircraft and treble the number of people at Heathrow, and to keep open Gatwick longer hours with a second runway, with about five times more passengers going through it.
      The other choice is to provide one runway at Maplin by 1980 and a second by 1985, so that all the flights from that airport can take place over the sea on landing and take-off, to close Stansted and Southend, to run down Luton and to reduce the noise at Heathrow and Gatwick. My right hon. and learned Friend tells me that on this strategy it will be possible, and the Government so intend, to start to move away from Heathrow some of the surplus as soon as Maplin enables us to do so.
      I believe that this will produce a genuine reduction in the noise nuisance for about 700,000 people in that area, compared with a number in the area of Maplin, for whose sensitivities I have the greatest respect, running only into thousands.
      9.0 p.m.
      Mr. Wilkinson: My hon. Friend said that in 1985, to quote the CAA survey, some 84 million passengers will come from the London airports. Is he aware that with the full terminal facilities for Gatwick and Heathrow alone, and not including any potential development at Stansted, Luton, Castle Donington, Northolt or anywhere else, the potential figure is 1 million in excess of that survey figure—85 million? From the passenger handling point of view, therefore, is there not a margin and scope to provide the necessary facilities without having to buy an extra runway or two extra runways at £1,000 million extra cost?
      Mr. Griffiths: I am advised that this would not be possible by 1985. In any case, I want now to turn to the question of the £1,000 million. I say at once that this price tag is quite misleading and inaccurate.
      It is misleading because it assumes that the whole cost of Maplin is an extra cost to the nation which would somehow all be saved if Maplin were to be abandoned, but this is not true. The Government have never claimed that we could win all the environmental advantages of a coastal site without extra cost, but it may help the House if I set out the balance sheet so that we can be clear about the extent of the extra cost and the costs of alternatives which also need to be faced.
      For the total cost of the project, including reclamation, construction of the seaport, airport terminals and extra routes, we estimate, though we are bound only to be able to estimate at this stage, an overall expenditure to 1990 of £825 million at 1972 prices. This admittedly large sum will be spread over 17 years, but it may be kept in perspective if I say that the total sum spread over those 17 years is just about 11 months of our current expenditure on roads or, to take another comparison, the equivalent of just under two years of my Department's capital expenditure on the water services. This is still a substantial sum, but it is important to keep it in perspective.
      To break down that figure I turn first to reclamation. The estimate for this on the face of the bill is £175 million but I see no reason for any major escalation because the building of sea walls and the dredging of gravels is a perfectly conventional civil engineering job which British as well as Dutch engineers have been doing all over the world for a very long time. We are not on the frontiers of advanced technology in this respect.
      But this £140 million for reclamation is only the expenditure side of the balance sheet. Let us look at the credits.
      Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu:: Is the figure £175 million or £140 million?
      Mr. Griffiths: I beg pardon. £175 million is the total figure, and in stage 1 to 1980 we estimate the amount to be £140 million.

      1601
      From that figure, on the credit side of the ledger we should have gained the following. First, we should have gained 2,500 acres of flat and well-drained land for a modern oil terminal and seaport. We should have 8,200 acres for a two-runway airport and all ancillary services, and there would be a surplus of just over 3,400 acres available for commercial and recreational development. [Laughter.] Essex County Council has agreed with my Department that the amenity and recreational uses of this surplus land are important, and I doubt that any hon. Member would disagree with that. This land has a high value. I am advised that at present-day prices industrial and commercial land with planning permission in South-East Essex is valued within very high ranges.
      The Maplin Development Authority's costs of reclaiming are estimated to be approximately £10,000 per acre, a figure which will reduce as the size of the reclamation increases. Thus, given the present values placed on land of that character in South-East Essex, which, I am advised by the district valuers, are between £20,000 and £40,000 per acre, it is just not true that the public—for it will be public sector land—will be losing on the reclamation. There is a gain as well as an expenditure, and it is only fair that one should balance both sides of the ledger.
      If the 2,500 acres needed for the new port had to be found at Tilbury or some other South-East town, does any hon. Member imagine that that amount of land could be acquired at £10,000 per acre? What would it cost to acquire, even by compulsory purchase, 10,000 acres for a new airport and all its ancillary services at, for example, Stansted or Cublington? There are two sides to the equation.
      Mr. R. C. Mitchell: We have already got the land.
      Mr. Griffiths: The point I am making is that it is not all expenditure. When one spends money on reclaiming land, one gains a real asset, real estate, which is one of the most precious things in this country, and in such desperately short supply.
      Mr. Dalyell: I asked earlier about the special ships which would be needed for
      1602
      dumping bing material. Is it right to assume that special ships will have to be built? If so, what would be their cost, and is that included in the calculation?
      Mr. Griffiths: There will be dredgers. So far as I am aware, no special ships will need to be designed or built. But, once again, this is a matter for the Maplin Development Authority when my right hon and learned Friend gives it authority to commence the reclamation work.
      I turn now to the seaport. Of the overall £825 million, £50 million is accounted for by the seaport. But, as the House knows, the seaport will be built only if the National Ports Council and my right hon. and learned Friend are satisfied that there is a proper commercial demand for it. If there is this commercial demand, as the Port of London Authority believes, the new port and new facilities will have to be provided somewhere in any case—if not at Maplin, then by expansion at Tilbury, or at Southampton or somewhere else. So let it not be suggested that the £50 million estimated for the new port is all expenditure, without return. There will be a new port which is needed and that is part of the return.
      Mr. Churchill: My hon. Friend says that we must keep the figure of £825 million in perspective with other expenditure. He must be aware that that figure represents double the British Government's investment up to this point in the Concorde project.
      Mr. Griffiths: My hon. Friend will draw his own conclusions and make his own comparisons. I have said that that figure over 17 years is somewhat less than the total which my Department will spend in just under 24 months on water and sewerage services.
      I come now to the airport itself. Of the overall £825 million, about £480 million—obviously, the lion's share—is scheduled for the construction of the airport itself as and when my right hon. and learned Friend and the House are agreed that it should go forward. But of this very large figure only 10 per cent. would be spent on runways, taxiways and navigational aids—that is, on the sort of facilities which are inherent in the decision to have a brand new airport.

      1603
      The rest of the £480 million—90 per cent. of the expenditure—will go on passenger terminals and other facilities of the kind which are directly tied to the numbers of people and aircraft that have to be handled. But those people and those aircraft would have to be handled and the appropriate facilities provided wherever we chose to locate the increase in traffic—whether at Cublington, Stansted, Manchester or Yorkshire, or, indeed, at Heathrow or Gatwick. I am advised that as far as the passenger terminals and the other handling facilities are concerned—representing some 90 per cent. of the cost of the construction of the airport—it would be cheaper to build these components of the airport on a clear and unencumbered site at Maplin rather than in the congested conditions of any of our existing airports where it cannot be so easily done and where aircraft are landing and taking off.
      Perhaps I could now go on to deal with the new town. Hon. Members have complained—
      Mr. Roy Jenkins: Was the conclusion of the Minister's last argument, which I have been trying to follow very closely, that to provide the additional terminal facilities within the perimeter of Heathrow or Gatwick would cost 90 per cent. of £480 million—in other words £450 million?
      Mr. Griffiths: I cannot give the right hon. Gentleman the answer about the cost at Heathrow and Gatwick. I do not have it available. I can say only that I am advised that the cost of providing the necessary additional passenger and aircraft handling facilities arising from the growth of both would be less at Maplin than at any of the existing congested airports. However, I shall attempt to get the answer for the right hon. Gentleman.
      A number of hon. Members have sought information about the roads and the new town, and I agree that this would be helpful. But the Bill does not deal with these matters. As soon as the Government can do so we will publish the consultation documents relating to decisions about the roads and the new towns.
      Mr. Dick Leonard (Ramford)rose—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Minister is not giving way.
      Mr. Griffiths: I am advised that the cost of housing people in a new town in South Essex will be no different from the cost of housing them anywhere else. [HON. MEMBERS: "They already live there."] It is plain that to manage additional aircraft and passengers large numbers of additional airport staff will be required, and on the basis of present staffing ratios at Heathrow and Gatwick, and bearing in mind improvements in productivity, the estimate is that about 40,000 additional airport workers of all kinds would be required.
      These people who will need to be housed and provided with schools and with all the other infrastructure would either need to be housed in the travel-to-work area of Heathrow or Gatwick, or they would need to be housed in and around the new town we are proposing for South Essex. The numbers, however, are no different. The requirements for homes and other social infrastructure are the same, and once again I am advised that it will not be more expensive, but less, to build these new communities in the greenfield sites of Essex rather than in that area around Heathrow and Gatwick where there is already pressure on housing and matters would simply be made more difficult.
      I have tried to deal with some of the points raised in the debate. I return at last to the new clauses, which constitute the subject that the House is being asked to deal with.
      9.15 p.m.
      Mr. Neil Marten: Before my hon. Friend deals with that, may I be helpful? I do not want my hon. Friend, whom I greatly admire—[Laughter.]—I do; I play tennis with him—to commit himself before making his peroration on the new clause. We have all listened with great interest to what he said and to his undertakings to produce new clauses in another place. I am sure that he is aware of the feeling in the Chamber behind him. I am reminded of the night when the Government were defeated on the immigration rules, and of how pleased they were to bring them back properly

      1605
      amended. Therefore, may I suggest that before my hon. Friend winds up he accepts new Clause 2 on the undertaking that it is amended in another place? I think that we should feel much happier if he did. Will he consider that while the Opposition Front Bench spokesman is replying?
      Mr. Griffiths: I must thank my hon. Friend for his usual desire to assist, but I should make quite clear what I have proposed. I suggest that between now and the consideration of the Bill in another place the Government will draft an amendment achieving the spirit of new Clause 1 but requiring that it be the Secretary of State, responsible to this House, who shall do the consulting, not the Maplin Development Authority, which does not have the capability or the background to carry out that task.
      We shall certainly do our utmost to ensure that all the factors identified in new Clause 2—new aircraft types and so on—are matters on which my right hon. and learned Friend will undertake to consult and report to the House before authority is given for reclamation to begin. I shall be happy to follow the language of the clause.
      Mr. Anthony Crosland: We should all start by thanking you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and your predecessors in the Chair for allowing on the two new clauses what has effectively been a Third Reading debate. To make the Government Chief Whip rather happier, I can assure him on behalf of the Opposition that we have no intention of repeating all those general speeches on Third Reading.
      The first thing the House should be sure about is that we are all discussing the same Bill. From at least the first half of the Under-Secretary's speech we had the impression that the Bill had little to do with a new airport or a new seaport. We had the impression that it was simply a Bill for some nice reclamation of land, and that it would be a matter for decision in a few years' time whether we used the land for hockey pitches or a new airport. Therefore, I take the precaution of reading out the Long Title, which says:
      "Maplin Development A BILL
      [AS AMENDED BY THE SELECT COMMITTEE]
      To provide for the reclamation from the sea of certain land for the purpose of the establishment of an airport and a seaport in south-east Essex."
      We are discussing reclamation of the land for the purpose of building an airport and a seaport.
      Anyone who has attended all our previous debates on Maplin will have been struck, as the spokesman for the Liberal Party, the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) remarked earlier, by the extraordinary change in atmosphere between today and our debates a year or two years ago. Those of us who opposed Maplin from the start were a very small band then. It has been quite striking how informed opinion both inside and outside the House has swung continuously and steadily, for a variety of reasons, against the Maplin project.
      Even since Second Reading much has changed, and we now have to consider the proposal in the light of the changes. I want briefly to concentrate upon three—the report of the Civil Aviation Authority, the new evidence that we have on noise, and new facts that have come to light about the seaport.
      I am not sure that the Under-Secretary summed up the Civil Aviation Authority's report very accurately. Certainly that will be the opinion of hon. Members who have read it. He suggested that there was little difference between the forecasts in the report and those in Roskill. That is not the case. The forecasts in the report about air traffic movements are markedly different from Roskill. They lead the CAA to conclude—I quote, as I shall throughout my speech, from official publications—
      "that the pressure of demand capacity … (measured in terms of runway capacity) will be less severe in the early 1980s than had been expected previously".
      It is fair to say that almost every informed commentator who has studied the report has come to the same conclusion—namely, that no additional runway capacity will be needed by 1985. After that time we cannot speculate because new aircraft technologies not merely may but almost certainly will have altered the

      1607
      whole picture. That conclusion was virtually conceded in the famous or notorious letter from Lord Boyd-Carpenter to the Minister for Aerospace and Shipping. The critical sentence was quoted by the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Wilkinson). In the opinion of the Chairman of the CAA no additional runway capacity was needed in the South-East by 1985.
      I stress, even though there may be some disagreement among my right hon. and hon. Friends, that that is the situation without an additional runway at Gatwick, with Luton heavily restricted to 20,000 movements a year, with Stansted and Southend carrying no more traffic than they do today and without any provision of any kind for a deliberate diversion of traffic to regional airports.
      The Under-Secretary of State, unintentionally I am sure, misled the House. He gave the impression that the CAA report had fully allowed for all possible diversion to regional airports. On the contrary, it made it clear in the first page of its report that it made no allowance for that. That is a matter on which, as the CAA says,
      "Further work needs to be done. … "
      I am surprised that the Under-Secretary of State did not mention that a cost-benefit study has been presented to the Department of the Environment on the Channel Tunnel. That shows a very much lower forecast of the increase in air traffic over the next 10 years than had previously been supposed. Hon. Members, when they have had time to consider the study in detail, will find that it weakens still further the case for Maplin. Incidentally, the Under-Secretary talked about the relative costs of expanding ground and terminal facilities at Maplin on the one hand and at existing airports on the other. He quoted a lot of figures today for the first time. I should have thought that a similar cost-benefit study on that matter would greatly aid our discussions on Friday.
      I now turn to the terminal capacity facilities. There is no dispute that there is a shortage of such facilities and that further investment will be needed. It is fully within the Government's power to authorise the British Airports Authority to undertake that investment. It could
      1608
      do so at a fraction of the cost of a similar investment at Maplin and it could be done within the existing airport perimeters. That is not challenged by the Government because the Minister for Aerospace and Shipping made it clear—I do not think I am misinterpreting him—on 8th May that he accepted that such an investment was possible and that it could be undertaken within the perimeters of the existing airports.
      There is little disagreement—I accept that there is still some—that the increase in traffic in the South-East could physically be accommodated at the existing London airports without Maplin and without any additional runway capacity. Therefore, the case for Maplin must rest—the Minister has constantly said this—fundamentally on the environmental argument and particularly on the noise argument. That is, the argument that Maplin is the only way of reducing the appalling noise suffered by the millions of people who are living around Heathrow, and to a lesser extent around the other London airports.
      If Ministers could demonstrate that only in such a way could we relieve that suffering, they would have an extremely strong case. However, the noise argument—this is the second one—has changed since Second Reading. A number of new facts and figures have been produced. It is not that the nature of the problem has changed. Some hon. Members representing constituencies around Heathrow and Gatwick have given the impression that only they are concerned with the problem of aircraft noise. That is not so in the slightest degree. Every hon. Member is profoundly concerned with this problem and wishes, as the Government rightly wish, to give an exceptionally high priority to solving it. The question is: what is the best way of solving it?
      It has always been clear that Maplin, quite apart from its prodigious cost, would offer only a very long-term and marginal alleviation of the noise problem. After all, with the best will in the world, we cannot have the first runway for seven or eight years; and even when we get it, the extent of the diversion of traffic will be extremely limited and extremely partial because of the airlines' reluctance to go to Maplin.
      One of the shrewdest anecdotes told today was that told by the hon. Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Adley), who related the true story of the negotiations with Turkey over landing rights. Today that story is duplicated again and again. It is not practical beyond a certain point to attempt to bully foreign airlines into using an airport that they will not use, because their capacity for retaliation is as strong as is ours in the initial bullying.
      But even so, if this were the only way of reducing the noise menace, we might have accepted this extremely limited contribution, even at this enormous cost. But I should have thought that it is now clear to everyone in the House that there is an infinitely quicker and more effective solution to the noise problem, and certainly a cheaper method of solving it, and that is surely the development of quieter engines.
      Mr. Burden: I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that on 4th March 1971 he said:
      "I therefore believe that we cannot accept the no third London airport solution, which threatens more noise than would otherwise be the case at existing airports. We must stick to a solution which brings the earliest practicable relief."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th March, 1971; Vol. 812, c. 1926.]
      Mr. Crosland: Certainly. That was in our first debate after the publication of Roskill. I then accepted the Roskill forecast, which has now been superseded by the CAA forecast. My position has been perfectly clear the whole way through. I thought that one additional runway might be needed, as a bolt-hole for charter flights in the South-East by 1985. I said in that debate that Maplin was the wrong place and that one could find a better site. The Roskill forecasts have now been rendered out of date. I do not now believe that we need an additional runway in the South-East by 1985.
      I want to emphasise, in reply to the hon. Member for Hastings (Mr. Warren) and one or two others, that when we are discussing these noise figures we are not discussing them in airy-fairy terms of totally unknown developments. Almost all the calculations of the noise difference between now and 1985 have been made on the basis of official DTI and DOE figures, and none of these calculations contains an element of guesswork or is
      1610
      optimistic in the slightest. These figures show that the present generation of aircraft engines is significanty quiter than the generation now being superseded. It has been calculated that we would bring more relief to Heathrow by replacing all Tridents with TriStars and all 707s with 747s than we would by moving three quarters of the aircraft movements away from Heathrow.
      This process will go much further. I stick wholly to the forecast implied in the April 1972 document of the DOE, "Maplin Airport—choice of sites for runways." I shall not weary the House with a lot of figures. I simply draw the attention of the House to recent writings of the two people who, I suppose, have studied this subject most: Dr. Flowerdew, the Deputy Director of Research on the Roskill Commission, and Professor Alan Day, who has circulated a document in the last few days. Both these studies, with forecasts on a number of different assumptions basing themselves solely on Government statistics, show in effect that we could get 10 times the reduction in noise from the introduction of quieter engines than we could ever get from building another runway at Maplin.
      Hon. Members: Nonsense.
      9.30 p.m.
      Mr. Crosland: It is not nonsense and it is no good hon. Members saying it is. These figures have not been challenged, and, in my view, they cannot be challenged. They are all based on known technology and they make very little allowance for what the Government could do, which is to produce a faster rate of production of quieter engines if they were to devote half the money due to be spent on Maplin to a positive anti-noise strategy, a strategy that would embrace stricter regulations and certification, pricing incentives, a stronger insistence on retrofits, more pressure on the manufacturers, more research and development. There will be a dramatic reduction in noise by the mid-1980s, and the contribution of Maplin to this reduction is trivial.
      It is possible that the contribution of Maplin could be negative in that it takes away scarce funds that could be far more effectively spent in the development of quieter engines. I must say to those who have spoken for the residents around

      1611
      Gatwick and Heathrow that, with respect, their residents are being conned into a false belief that Maplin is the only effect-time way of dealing with the problem. It is nothing of the sort.
      Mr. Eldon Griffiths: It is important to state that all the advice available from my Department and the Department of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry does not support the suggestions that the right hon. Gentleman has made.
      Mr. Crosland: The suggestions I have just made relate to calculations based on projections of aircraft noise in the Department of Environment study on Maplin. Not one of the figures that has been quoted in the debate is based on any other source but the Department's calculations.
      Mr. Hugh Jenkins: As I understand it, my right hon. Friend has gone over to the position of saying that no third London airport is necessary. In other words, he is agreeing with the diktat of Transport House and the Labour Party programme, saying that there is no need for a third London airport. Is that the position of my right hon. Friend? Is he saying that the Labour Party pronouncement from Transport House is right?
      Mr. Crosland: I fear my hon. Friend has struck on one of my weak points, which is my appalling temptation to succumb to the diktats of Transport House. At any rate I can tell my hon. Friend, who I am sure is a strong supporter of the 25 companies motion, that, while I have recently had occasion to say that certain Transport House diktats were half-baked, on this occasion I think it has produced a policy of the greatest shrewdness, subtlety, common sense, what I can only call an essentially Socialist policy.
      The Minister for Aerospace and Shipping (Mr. Michael Heseltine): The right hon. Gentleman made the serious suggestion that in the most recently published document, which is the document published in support of the various sites at Maplin, it would be able to be demonstrated, on the figures he is now claiming to have available, that there would
      1612
      be no noise addition if this traffic were taken not to Maplin but to Heathrow. What I find difficult to square with that statement is the evidence in that document which says that there would be a noise footprint covering 100 square miles within the 35 NNI contour.
      Mr. Crosland: I was claiming that it is possible to demonstrate from the figures given in that document, and from the application of those figures, not to Maplin, which is the purpose of the document, but to Heathrow and Gatwick, that even without diversion on a massive scale there will by 1985 be a large reduction in noise round those two airports. The hon. Gentleman must argue this out with Dr. Flowerdew, Professor Day and others. I have a mass of figures demonstrating this, as do other hon. Members. Perhaps this could be taken up later in the debate.
      Mr. Heseltine: It is perhaps important to establish that it is not the right hon. Gentleman who is claiming that this noise will not exist; it is his advisers. He must take up the matter with his advisers, as opposed to anything which he claims himself.
      Mr. Crosland: It is the hon. Gentleman's advisers who are making these statements. One of the two people I have mentioned is an ex-civil servant and a deputy director of research, and the other is the present adviser to the Civil Aviation Authority. If the hon. Gentleman is challenging the figures which have been much quoted today, then before we finish our debates he should give alternative figures which disprove them.
      Mr. Griffiths rose—
      Mr. Crosland: No.
      Mr. Griffiths: The right hon. Gentleman is asking to be challenged.
      Mr. Crosland: If the figures are challenged, let us have a careful presentation of alternative figures and reasons why the other figures are wrong. The House will have to make up its mind about them.
      The environmental argument cannot be seen solely in terms of the noise question. Even if there were to be a noise improvement as a result of building Maplin, which I profoundly doubt, there

      1613
      would still be severe environmental costs involved in building Maplin. I shall not speak of the threat to the coastline or to wild life; those are matters for Essex Members. I shall not speak of the new city or industrial complex, which again are mainly matters for Essex Members. I shall not even speak of what may turn out to be the critical environmental factor—the effect of the rail and motorway links and of an eight-lane motorway ploughing through the East End and rural Essex.
      It has been rumoured in the Press—I hope that it is not true—that the Department has already decided the routes of the access road and rail links.
      The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Geoffrey Rippon): Not so.
      Mr. Crosland: I am delighted to hear it. It would be a piece of gross deception if the Government had decided them and had not announced them today.
      Nevertheless, it will be relevant to our debate later to know, for example, how many homes are to be destroyed in building the motorway. What degree of additional congestion will occur when the new eight-lane motorway meets Ring-way 3, since it is not due to go beyond that? What is the total environmental effect?
      I wish to say a few words about the seaport. We heard some very strange things about the seaport from the Under-Secretary today. I thought that at some points he was even giving the impression that no decision in principle had been made about the seaport and that no decision would be made until after further consultation. However, in Committee, he said:
      "When the Port of London Authority submits its detailed application for authority to proceed, it will be the duty of the National Ports Council to consider in great detail not whether there should in principle be a port there—the Government have already indicated that they think this is a good idea—"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D, 17th May 1973; c. 211.]
      That suggests that a firm decision in principle has already been taken by the Government on the seaport.
      Mr. Eldon Griffiths indicated assent.
      Mr. Crosland: We have had it cleared up and a decision has been taken in principle in favour of the seaport.
      That is a remarkable decision. We have had no argument in favour of a seaport. We have had no Green Paper of the kind that we have had on the Channel Tunnel. We have had nothing equivalent to the cost-benefit studies and other studies which we have had on the Channel Tunnel. We have had no equivalent of the civil aviation report on air traffic movements for the ports. We have had no facts and figures, no study of the facts about other ports, no hint of how a port at Maplin fits in, if it does, to a national ports policy.
      Mr. David Steel: The right hon. Gentleman has touched on an important point. He has had a nod from the Under-Secretary of State to the proposition that the Government have decided in principle on the seaport, but the Minister clearly told the House this afternoon that they have not.
      Mr. Crosland: I confess that it was my firm impression that the Minister had told the House this afternoon that the Government were not committed, but, because the Minister nodded, I was willing to accept his word. My impression is entirely the same as that of the hon. Member for Roxburgh Selkirk and Peebles.
      Mr. Griffiths: The right hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland) is being somewhat unfair. He knows, because he has been in government, that it is the duty of my right hon. and learned Friend and the Minister for Transport Industries to indicate to the National Ports Council that the Government think it appropriate that there should be a port here or there. It is then for the National Ports Council under the 1964 Act to consider the matter in detail and to advise my right hon and learned Friend whether or not he should allow the necessary funds. That is the process that is now going on. We have been advised that there is a need for more capacity in the Thames area, and the National Ports Council is now considering that decision in principle to see whether it should advise us to go forward in detail.
      Mr. Crosland: The hon. Gentleman is not clarifying matters. I take it that the House can accept that a decision has

      1615
      been made in principle by the Government that a seaport will be built at Maplin, and the National Ports Council is to be asked simply for detailed advice on the size, scale and so on. [Interruption.] It is a bit late to ask whether the port is commercially viable if the decision has been taken.
      I have three queries in relation to this decision of principle in favour of a Maplin port. The first relates to regional policy and what effect this port investment will have on prospective port development on Clydeside, Humberside, Merseyside, Southampton and elsewhere, and what possible justification there can be in the light of regional policy for this new port investment and associated industrial investment in the South-East.
      Secondly, there is the environmental effect. We know that the port will take 2,500 acres of land, even if that land is reclaimed. It will engender still more traffic and congestion in this part of Essex. If the Port of London Authority has its way, it will encourage the building of still more oil refineries in Essex. Is this what the people of Essex want?
      Sir Bernard Braine: They do not.
      Mr. Crosland: They do not. If one is to judge by the almost venomous reaction to the Canvey Island proposals, there will be violent reaction in Essex on environmental grounds.
      My third question is whether this bears any relation to anything that can possibly be called a national ports policy. The answer is that it does not. There clearly is no such thing as a collective national ports policy, and we learned from the newspapers yesterday that even the Chairman of the British Transport Docks Board had not been consulted about this
      proposal and thought that Southampton was a better site for a container terminal.
      I conclude that no rational case can be made out for going ahead. We do not need further airport capacity in the South-East by 1985 and we shall possibly never need it. There are far more effective ways of combating the noise nuisance than this. The case for the seaport has not been made out. We have no information about the number of houses that will be affected and the damage to the environment that will be created by the building of access roads.
      I hope that the Minister will be prepared to demonstrate his willingness to change his mind. I accept, as did my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins), what an extremely difficult and disagreeable thing that is for a Minister to do, but I hope he will do it. It is an occasion when public duty points to a willingly conceded change of mind in the light of obviously altered circumstances. I assure him that, if he does it, there will be no gloating or exultation from myself or any person on the Opposition benches.
      If the Minister is not willing to change his mind, in spite of what he said we shall press our new clause to a vote. If new Clause 2 is pressed to a vote, we shall support that provision because it would at least give some opportunity for second thoughts and would contain some element of an insurance policy on what still—perhaps even more after this debate than before—promises to be the most disastrous investment decision of a generation.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 255, Noes 258.

      Division No. 153.]

      AYES

      [9.45 p.m.

      Abse, Leo

      Boothroyd, Miss B. (West Brom.)

      Concannon, J. D.

      Allaun, Frank (Salford. E.)

      Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)

      Corbet, Mrs. Freda

      Allen, Scholefield

      Braine, Sir Bernard

      Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

      Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

      Broughton, Sir Alfred

      Crawshaw, Richard

      Ashley, Jack

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

      Cronin, John

      Ashton, Joe

      Buchan, Norman

      Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

      Atkinson, Norman

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

      Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

      Bagier, Gordon A. T.

      Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

      Crouch, David

      Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)

      Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

      Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)

      Beaney, Alan

      Cant, R. B.

      Dalyell, Tam

      Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

      Carmichael, Neil

      Darling, Rt. Hn. George

      Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

      Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)

      Davidson, Arthur

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

      Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

      Bishop, E. S.

      Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

      Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

      Blenkinsop, Arthur

      Clark, David (Colne Valley)

      Davies, Ifor (Gower)

      Boardman, H. (Leigh)

      Cohen, Stanley

      Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

      Booth, Albert

      Coleman, Donald

      Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)

      Deakins, Eric

      Kaufman, Gerald

      Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg

      de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

      Kelley, Richard

      Prescott, John

      Delargy, Hugh

      Kinnock, Neil

      Price, William (Rugby)

      Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

      Lambie, David

      Probert, Arthur

      Dempsey, James

      Lamborn, Harry

      Radice, Giles

      Doig, Peter

      Lamond, James

      Rankin, John

      Dormand, J. D.

      Latham, Arthur

      Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

      Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

      Lawson, George

      Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

      Douglas-Mann, Bruce

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Rhodes, Geoffrey

      Driberg, Tom

      Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick

      Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Leonard, Dick

      Roberts, Rt.Hn.Goronwy (Caernarvon)

      Dunn, James A.

      Lestor, Miss Joan

      Robertson, John (Paisley)

      Dunnett, Jack

      Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

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

      Edelman, Maurice

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

      Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

      Lipton, Marcus

      Roper, John

      Edwards, William (Merioneth)

      Lomas, Kenneth

      Rose, Paul B.

      Ellis, Tom

      Loughlin, Charles

      Ross. Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

      English, Michael

      Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

      Rowlands, Ted

      Evans, Fred

      Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

      Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne

      Ewing, Henry

      McAdden, Sir Stephen

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

      Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.

      McBride, Neil

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

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

      McCartney, Hugh

      Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

      Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

      McElhone, Frank

      Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      McGuire, Michael

      Sillars, James

      Foot, Michael

      Machin, George

      Silverman, Julius

      Ford, Ben

      Mackenzie, Gregor

      Skinner Dennis

      Forrester, John

      Mackie, John

      Small William

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

      McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

      Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

      Fraser, John (Norwood)

      McNamara, J. Kevin

      Spearing, Nigel

      Freeson, Reginald

      Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

      Springs, Leslie

      Galpern, Sir Myer

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

      Stallard A. W.

      Garrett, W. E.

      Marquand, David

      Steel David

      Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)

      Marsden, F.

      Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

      Golding, John

      Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

      Stoddart, David (Swindon)

      Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

      Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

      Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

      Gourlay, Harry

      Mayhew, Christopher

      Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

      Grant, George (Morpeth)

      Meacher, Michael

      Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

      Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

      Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

      Swain, Thomas

      Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

      Mendelson, John

      Taverne, Dick

      Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.

      Mikardo, Ian

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

      Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

      Millan, Bruce

      Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

      Hamling, William

      Miller, Dr. M. S.

      Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy

      Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

      Milne, Edward

      Tinn, James

      Hardy, Peter

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

      Tomney, Frank

      Harper, Joseph

      Moate, Roger

      Tope, Graham

      Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

      Molloy, William

      Torney, Tom

      Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

      Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

      Tuck, Raphael

      Hattersley, Roy

      Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

      Urwin, T. W.

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

      Varley, Eric G.

      Hooson, Emlyn

      Moyle, Roland

      Wainwright, Edwin

      Horam, John

      Murray, Ronald King

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

      Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

      Nabarro, Sir Gerald

      Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

      Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

      Oakes, Gordon

      Wallace, George

      Huckfield, Leslie

      Ogden, Eric

      Watkins, David

      Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

      O'Halloran, Michael

      Weitzman, David

      Hughes, Mark (Durham)

      O'Malley, Brian

      Wellbeloved, James

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

      Oram, Bert

      Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Orbach, Maurice

      White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

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

      Orme, Stanley

      Whitehead, Phillip

      Janner, Greville

      Oswald, Thomas

      Whitlock, William

      Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

      Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

      Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

      Jeger, Mrs. Lena

      Padley, Walter

      Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

      Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

      Paget, R. T.

      Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

      John, Brynmor

      Palmer, Arthur

      Woof, Robert

      Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

      Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

      Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

      Pardoe, John

      Jones, Dan (Burnley)

      Parker, John (Dagenham)

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

      Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

      Mr. Ernest Armstrong and

      Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

      Pavitt, Laurie

      Mr. Michael Cocks.

      Judd, Frank

      Perry, Ernest G.

      NOES

      Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

      Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

      Bowden, Andrew

      Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

      Bell, Ronald

      Bray, Ronald

      Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian

      Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

      Brewis, John

      Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

      Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

      Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

      Astor, John

      Benyon, W.

      Bryan, Sir Paul

      Atkins, Humphrey

      Berry, Hn. Anthony

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

      Awdry, Daniel

      Biffen, John

      Buck, Anthony

      Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

      Biggs-Davison, John

      Bullus, Sir Eric

      Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

      Blaker, Peter

      Burden, F. A.

      Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord

      Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

      Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

      Batsford, Brian

      Boscawen, Hn. Robert

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

      1618

      1619

      Carlisle, Mark

      Holt, Miss Mary

      Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

      Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

      Hordern, Peter

      Quennell, Miss J. M.

      Cary, Sir Robert

      Hornby, Richard

      Raison, Timothy

      Chapman, Sydney

      Hornsby-Smith, Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia

      Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

      Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

      Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

      Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

      Chichester-Clark, R.

      Howell, David (Guildford)

      Redmond, Robert

      Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

      Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

      Reed, Laurance (Bolton. E.)

      Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Hunt, John

      Rees, Peter (Dover)

      Cockeram, Eric

      Hutchison, Michael Clark

      Rees-Davies, W. R.

      Cooke, Robert

      Iremonger, T. L.

      Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

      Coombs, Derek

      James, David

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

      Cooper, A. E.

      Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

      Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey

      Cormack, Patrick

      Jessel, Toby

      Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

      Costain, A. P.

      Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

      Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

      Critchley, Julian

      Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

      Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

      Crowder, F. P.

      Jopling, Michael

      Russell, Sir Ronald

      Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)

      Joseph, Rt. Kn. Sir Keith

      St. John-Stevas, Norman

      d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

      Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine

      Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.

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

      Kershaw, Anthony

      Scott, Nicholas

      Dean, Paul

      Kimball, Marcus

      Scott-Hopkins, James

      Digby, Simon Wingfield

      King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

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

      Dixon, piers

      King, Tom (Bridgwater)

      Shelton, William (Clapham)

      Dodds-Parker, Douglas

      Kirk, Peter

      Shersby, Michael

      Drayson, G. B.

      Kitson, Timothy

      Simeons, Charles

      du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

      Knight, Mrs. Jill

      Sinclair, Sir George

      Dykes, Hugh

      Knox, David

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Eden, Sir John

      Lamont, Norman

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

      Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Lane, David

      Soref, Harold

      Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

      Langford-Holt, Sir John

      Speed, Keith

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

      Le Marchant, Spencer

      Spence, John

      Emery, Peter

      Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

      Sproat, Iain

      Eyre, Reginald

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

      Stainton, Keith

      Farr, John

      Loveridge, John

      Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)

      Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

      MacArthur, Ian

      Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

      Fidler, Michael

      McCrindle, R. A.

      Stokes John

      Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

      McLaren, Martin

      Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

      Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

      Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

      Sutcliffe John

      Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

      Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

      Tapsell, Peter

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      McNair-Wilson, Michael

      Taylor Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

      Fortescue, Tim

      McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)

      Taylor Edward M. (G'gow,Cathcart)

      Foster, Sir John

      Maddan, Martin

      Taylor Frank (Moss Side)

      Fowler, Norman

      Madel, David

      Temple, John M.

      Fox, Marcus

      Maginnis, John E.

      Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

      Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

      Galbraith, Hn. T. G. D.

      Marples, Rt. Hn, Ernest

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

      Gardner, Edward

      Marten, Neil

      Thompson Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

      Gibson-Walt, David

      Mather, Carol

      Tilney, John

      Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

      Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

      Trafford, Dr. Anthony

      Glyn, Dr. Alan

      Mawby, Ray

      Trew, Peter

      Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin

      Goodhart, Philip

      Mills, Peter (Torrington)

      Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

      Gorst, John

      Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

      Vickers, Dame Joan

      Gower, Raymond

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Waddington, David

      Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

      Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

      Walder, David (Clitheroe)

      Gray, Hamish

      Money, Ernie

      Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

      Green, Alan

      Monks, Mrs. Connie

      Wall, Patrick

      Grieve, Percy

      Monro, Hector

      Walters, Dennis

      Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Ward, Dame Irene

      Grylls, Michael

      More, Jasper

      Warren, Kenneth

      Gummer, J. Selwyn

      Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

      Weatherill, Bernard

      Gurden, Harold

      Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

      Wells, John (Maidstone)

      Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

      Neave, Airey

      Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

      Hall, John (Wycombe)

      Nicholls, Sir Harmar

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

      Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      Normanton, Tom

      Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

      Hannam, John (Exeter)

      Nott, John

      Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

      Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

      Onslow, Cranley

      Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

      Woodnutt, Mark

      Hastings, Stephen

      Page, Graham (Crosby)

      Worsley, Marcus

      Havers, Michael

      Page, John (Harrow, W.)

      Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

      Hawkins, Paul

      Parkinson, Cecil

      Younger, Hn. George

      Hay, John

      Percival, Ian

      Heseltine, Michael

      Pike, Miss Mervyn

      Hicks, Robert

      Pink, R. Bonner

      Higgins, Terence L.

      Pounder, Rafton

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES

      Hiley, Joseph

      Price, David (Eastleigh)

      Mr. Walter Clegg and Mr. Oscar Murton.

      Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

      Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L

      Holland, Philip

      Proudfoot, Wilfred

      Question accordingly negatived.

    New Clause 2

      DUTY TO CONSULT ON AEROSPACE DEVELOPMENTS
      It shall be the duty of the Civil Aviation Authority, in consultation with the Maplin Development Authority and appropriate Minister, to keep under constant review technical developments of new, quieter aero-engines, short take-off capability or other relevant factors affecting the operations of civil aircraft
      and it shall take such action as may be appropriate to delay, vary or desist from the construction of an airport on land to be reclaimed as a result of the passage of this Act.—[Mr. Adley.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Motion made, and Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 267, Noes 250.

      Division No. 154.]

      AYES

      [9.57 p.m.

      Abse, Leo

      Dunnett, Jack

      Lawson, George

      Adley, Robert

      Edelman, Maurice

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

      Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

      Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick

      Allen, Scholefield

      Edwards, William (Merioneth)

      Leonard, Dick

      Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

      Ellis, Tom

      Lestor, Miss Joan

      Armstrong, Ernest

      English, Michael

      Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

      Ashley, Jack

      Evans, Fred

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Ashton, Joe

      Ewing, Harry

      Lipton, Marcus

      Atkinson, Norman

      Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.

      Lomas, Kenneth

      Bagier, Gordon A. T.

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

      Loughlin, Charles

      Barnett. Joel (Heywood and Royton)

      Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

      Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

      Baxter, William

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

      Beaney, Alan

      Foot, Michael

      McAdden, Sir Stephen

      Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

      Ford, Ben

      McBride, Neil

      Bennett, James(Glasgow, Bridgeton)

      Forrester, John

      McCartney, Hugh

      Bidwell, Sydney

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

      McCrindle, R. A.

      Bishop, E. S.

      Fraser, John (Norwood)

      McElhone, Frank

      Blenkinsop, Arthur

      Freeson, Reginald

      McGuire, Michael

      Boardman, H. (Leigh)

      Galpern, Sir Myer

      Machin, George

      Booth, Albert

      Garrett, W. E.

      Mackenzie, Gregor

      Boothroyd, Miss B. (West Brom.)

      Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)

      Mackie, John

      Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)

      Golding, John

      McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

      Braine, Sir Bernard

      Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C

      McNamara, J. Kevin

      Broughton, Sir Alfred

      Gourlay, Harry

      Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

      Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow Provan)

      Grant, George (Morpeth)

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

      Buchan, Norman

      Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

      Marquand, David

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

      Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

      Marsden, F.

      Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

      Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.

      Marten, Neil

      Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

      Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

      Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

      Cant, R. B.

      Hamling, William

      Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

      Carmichael, Neil

      Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

      Mayhew, Christopher

      Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)

      Hardy, Peter

      Meacher, Michael

      Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

      Harper, Joseph

      Mellish Rt Hn. Robert

      Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

      Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

      Mendelson, John

      Churchill, W. S.

      Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

      Mikardo, Ian

      Clark, David (Colne Valley)

      Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

      Millan Bruce

      Cocks, Michael (Bristol S.)

      Hattersley, Roy

      Miller Dr. M. S

      Cohen, Stanley

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Milne Edward

      Coleman. Donald

      Hooson, Emlyn

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

      Concannon, J. D.

      Horam, John

      Molloy, William

      Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

      Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

      Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

      Crawshaw, Richard

      Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

      Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

      Cronin, John

      Huckfield, Leslie

      Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

      Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

      Hughes, Rt. Hn.Cledwyn (Anglesey)

      Moyle, Roland

      Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

      Hughes, Mark (Durham)

      Murray, Ronald King

      Crouch, David

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

      Nabarro, Sir Gerald

      Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Oakes, Gordon

      Dalyell, Tam

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

      Ogden, Eric

      Darling, Rt. Hn. George

      Janner, Greville

      O'Halloran, Michael

      Davidson, Arthur

      Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

      O'Malley, Brian

      Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

      Jeger, Mrs. Lena

      Oram, Bert

      Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

      Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

      Orbach, Maurice

      Davies, Ifor (Gower)

      Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

      Orme, Stanley

      Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

      John, Brynmor

      Oswald, Thomas

      Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)

      Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

      Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

      Deakins, Eric

      Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

      Padley, Walter

      de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

      Jones, Dan (Burnley)

      Paget, R.T.

      Delargy, Hugh

      Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

      Palmer, Arthur

      Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

      Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

      Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

      Dempsey, James

      Judd, Frank

      Pardoe, John

      Doig, Peter

      Kaufman, Gerald

      Parker, John (Dagenham)

      Dormand, J. D.

      Kelley, Richard

      Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

      Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

      Kinnock, Neil

      Pavitt, Laurie

      Douglas Mann, Bruce

      Lambie, David

      Perry, Ernest G.

      Driberg, Tom

      Lamborn, Harry

      Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Lamond, James

      Prescott, John

      Dunn, James A.

      Latham, Arthur

      Price, William (Rugby)

      Probert, Arthur

      Radice, Charles

      Silverman, Julius

      Tuck, Raphael

      Rankin, John

      Skinner, Dennis

      Urwin, T. W.

      Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

      Small, William

      Varley, Eric G.

      Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

      Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

      Wainwright, Edwin

      Rhodes, Geoffrey

      Spearing, Nigel

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

      Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

      Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

      Stallard, A. W.

      Wallace, George

      Roberts, Rt.Hn.Goronwy (Caernarvon)

      Steel, David

      Watkins, David

      Robertson, John (Paisley)

      Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

      Weitzman, David

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

      Stoddart, David (Swindon)

      Wellbeloved, James

      Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

      Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

      Wells, John (Maidstone)

      Roper, John

      Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

      Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

      Rose, Paul B.

      Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

      White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

      Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

      Swain, Thomas

      Whitehead, Phillip

      Rost, Peter

      Taverne, Dick

      Whitlock, William

      Rowlands, Ted

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

      Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

      Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

      Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

      Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

      Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

      Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy

      Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

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

      Tilney, John

      Woof, Robert

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

      Tinn, James

      Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

      Tomney, Frank

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

      Tope, Graham

      Mr. Roger Moate and

      Sillars, James

      Torney, Tom

      Mr. John Wilkinson.

      NOES

      Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

      Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Iremonger, T. L.

      Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

      Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

      James, David

      Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian

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

      Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

      Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

      Emery, Peter

      Jessel, Toby

      Astor, John

      Eyre, Reginald

      Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

      Atkins, Humphrey

      Farr, John

      Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

      Awdry, Daniel

      Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

      Jopling, Michael

      Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

      Fidler, Michael

      Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

      Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

      Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

      Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine

      Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord

      Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

      Kershaw, Anthony

      Batsford, Brian

      Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

      Kimball, Marcus

      Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

      Bell, Ronald

      Fortescue, Tim

      King, Tom (Bridgwater)

      Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

      Foster, Sir John

      Kirk, Peter

      Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

      Fowler, Norman

      Kitson, Timothy

      Benyon, W.

      Fox, Marcus

      Knight, Mrs. Jill

      Berry, Hn. Anthony

      Galbraith, Hn. T. G. D.

      Knox, David

      Biggs-Davison, John

      Gardner, Edward

      Lamont, Norman

      Blaker, Peter

      Gibson-Watt, David

      Lane, David

      Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

      Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

      Langford-Holt, Sir John

      Boscawen, Hn. Robert

      Glyn, Dr. Alan

      Le Marchant, Spencer

      Bowden, Andrew

      Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

      Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

      Bray, Ronald

      Goodhart, Philip

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

      Brewis, John

      Gorst, John

      Loveridge, John

      Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

      Gower, Raymond

      MacArthur, Ian

      Bryan, Sir Paul

      Grant Anthony (Harrow, C.)

      McLaren, Martin

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

      Gray, Hamish

      Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

      Buck, Antony

      Green, Alan

      Macmillan,Rt.Hn.Maurice(Farnham)

      Bullus, Sir Eric

      Grieve, Percy

      McNair-Wilson, Michael

      Burden, F. A.

      Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

      McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)

      Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

      Grylls, Michael

      Maddan, Martin

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

      Gummer, J. Selwyn

      Madel, David

      Carlisle, Mark

      Gurden, Harold

      Maginnis, John E.

      Carr, Rt. Hon. Robert

      Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

      Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

      Cary, Sir Robert

      Hall, Sir John (Wycombe)

      Mather, Carol

      Chapman, Sydney

      Hall-Davis A. G. F.

      Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

      Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      Mawby, Ray

      Chichester-Clark, R.

      Hannam, John (Exeter)

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

      Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

      Mills, Peter (Torrington)

      Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

      Cockeram, Eric

      Hastings, Stephen

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Cooke, Robert

      Havers, Sir Michael

      Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

      Coombs, Derek

      Hawkins, Paul

      Money, Ernie

      Cooper, A. E.

      Hay, John

      Monks, Mrs. Connie

      Cormack, Patrick

      Heseltine, Michael

      Monro, Hector

      Costain, A. P.

      Higgins, Terence L.

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Critchley, Julian

      Hiley, Joseph

      More, Jasper

      Crowder, F. P.

      Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

      Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

      Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)

      Holland, Philip

      Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

      d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

      Holt, Miss Mary

      Neave, Airey

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

      Hordern, Peter

      Nicholls, Sir Harmar

      Dean, Paul

      Hornby, Richard

      Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

      Digby, Simon (Wingfield)

      Hornsby-Smith, Rt.Hn. Dame Patricia

      Normanton, Tom

      Dodds-Parker, Sir Douglas

      Howe, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

      Nott, John

      Drayson, G. B.

      Howell, David (Guildford)

      Onslow, Cranley

      du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

      Hunt, John

      Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

      Dykes, Hugh

      Hutchison, Michael Clark

      Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)

      Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir John

      Page, John (Harrow, W.)

      1624

      1625

      Parkinson, Cecil

      Scott-Hopkins James

      Trafford, Dr. Anthony

      Percival, Ian

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

      Trew, Peter

      Pike, Miss Mervyn

      Shelton, William (Clapham)

      Turton, Rt. Hn Sir Robin

      Pink, R. Bonner

      Shersby, Michael

      Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

      Pounder, Rafton

      Simeons, Charles

      Vickers, Dame Joan

      Price, David (Eastleigh)

      Sinclair, Sir George

      Waddington, David

      Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Walder, David (Clitheroe)

      Proudfoot, Wilfred

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

      Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

      Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

      Soref, Harold

      Wall, Patrick

      Quennell, Miss J. M.

      Speed, Keith

      Walters, Dennis

      Raison, Timothy

      Spence, John

      Ward, Dame Irene

      Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

      Sproat, Iain

      Warren, Kenneth

      Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

      Stainton, Keith

      Weatherill, Bernard

      Redmond, Robert

      Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)

      Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

      Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

      Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Rees, Peter (Dover)

      Stokes, John

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Rees-Davies, W. R.

      Sutcliffe, John

      Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

      Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

      Tapsell, Peter

      Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

      Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

      Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

      Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey

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

      Woodnutt, Mark

      Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

      Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

      Worsley, Marcus

      Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

      Tebbit, Norman

      Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

      Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

      Temple, John M.

      Younger, Hn. George

      Russell, Sir Ronald

      Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

      St. John-Stevas, Norman

      Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

      TELLERS FOR THF NOES:

      Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.

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

      Mr. Walter Clegg and

      Scott, Nicholas

      Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

      Mr. Oscar Murton.

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time.
      Mr. Crosland rose—
      Mr. Speaker: Order. It is necessary for me to put the further Question "That the clause be added to the Bill", but before doing so I must put the Ten o'clock motion.
      It being after Ten o'clock, further consideration of the Bill, as amended, stood adjourned.

    BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
    Ordered,
    That the Maplin Development Bill and the National Health Service Reorganisation Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with at this day's Sitting, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. John Stradling Thomas.]

  MAPLIN DEVELOPMENT BILL
  Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee and on re-committal) further considered.
  Clause added to the Bill.
  Mr. Crosland: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As the Government have just been defeated on a major new clause—[Hon Members: "Oh."] by a cross-party vote, a clause on which I believe both sides had a three-line Whip, and one made more important by the fact that you in your wisdom allowed us to have in effect a Third Reading debate, may I ask the Secretary of State what his intentions now are? May I suggest to him in the
  1626
  light of his defeat, which in effect is a defeat on the principle of the Bill, that he should not now proceed any further with the Bill tonight but should come back to the House with a statement tomorrow announcing his intention in the light of the vote.
  The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Geoffrey Rippon): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland) has asked me what our intentions are. They would, of course, be to proceed with the Bill. The House will recall that my hon. Friend, in what I thought was a very fair speech, made a reasonable offer in regard to the new clauses. He sad that we were not in difficulty about the spirit of new Clause 1, and we have dealt with that clause. On new Clause 2 my hon. Friend said that he understood the feeling of the House and could go a long way with the spirit of this new clause which the House has just accepted.
  There are certain difficulties about it, which my hon. Friend explained. It may be that on reflection, when we consider these matters, the House will be a little concerned about transferring the responsibilities of Ministers answerable to this House to bodies which are not answerable to this House, but this is a matter to which we can give consideration. Since we are answerable to the House and the House has expressed a view at this stage of the consideration of the Bill, it seems right that we should take the point and move on.
  Mr. Edward Short (Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker, this is a Bill to authorise construction of an airport at Maplin. The clause we have just added to the Bill lays upon the Civil Aviation Authority the duty to
  "… take such action as may be appropriate to delay, vary or desist from the construction of an airport on land to be reclaimed as a result of the passage of this Act"
  This seems to me to remove the whole principle of the Act. Is it in order, Mr. Speaker, to continue with the remaining stages tonight when the principle of the that point of order, Mr. Speaker, it is Bill has been deleted?
  1628
  But, whatever your reply may be to surely highly inappropriate for the Government to continue further with the Bill tonight, and I ask you to give a ruling on that point of order. If you wish me to do so, I will quote a precedent where the principle of a Bill was deleted and it was decided not to proceed with the Bill.
  Mr. Speaker: I have considered what the right hon. Gentleman has said. In fact, I see no reason why the Bill should not be proceeded with. There may, of course, be very germane arguments on Third Reading arising out of the right hon. Gentleman's argument.

  MAPLIN DEVELOPMENT BILL
    Clause 2

      RECLAMATION AND DISPOSAL OF LAND IN MAPLIN AREA
      10.15 p.m.
      Mr. Spearing: I beg to move Amendment No. 2, in page 2, line 11, at end insert:
      "up to a maximum of 5,000 acres".
      This amendment would reduce the amount of land made available to the British Airports Authority to a maximum of 5,000 acres. In his speech on the new clauses, the Under-Secretary of State, for the first time, told us of the large areas of land which will be reclaimed under the Bill, but what he did not tell us—this has not been made clear either in Committee or in the House today—is why such large areas of land are needed even for a two-runway airport.
      Plainly, even if the Government wish to have an airport at Maplin, it is possible to do so on a much smaller area of land than is provided for in the Bill. I move the amendment, therefore, to allow the Government to explain why it is necessary to reclaim about 70 square kilometres of land, or about 17,000 acres, when two runways could be put on a much smaller area, perhaps 2,000 acres or less.
      Mr. Speaker: The Question is, That the amendment be made. As many as are of that opinion say "Aye". To the contrary—
      Mr. Eldon Griffiths rose—
      Hon. Members: The Question has been put.
      Mr. Speaker: Order. Until the voices have been collected, the hon. Member has a perfect right to rise. The voices had not been collected.
      Mr. Walter Harrison: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You started to collect the voices, and you had turned to the Government side. I am certain that the voices, if dealt with in the correct manner, would have been collected. We called "Aye", and we should have been having a Division, but there was a delay in the calling of the
      1630
      "Noes". I feel that there should have been a Division.
      Mr. Speaker: This is a matter to which I have given careful consideration and on which I have taken guidance, because it has arisen from time to time. I am advised, and I believe the position to be, that until the voices have finally been collected, the Minister or any other hon. Member is entitled to intervene. I so rule, on advice.
      Mr. Eldon Griffiths rose—
      Mr. Edward Short: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Does that mean that even in the course of a Division any hon. Member may be called and make a speech?
      Mr. Speaker: If I begin to say, "The Question is …" such-and-such, and I am in course of collecting the voices, until I have come to the final point any hon. Member may rise. I have considered this matter very carefully, not in relation to this particular occasion, because it happens from time to time, and I believe that my ruling is correct in accordance with the precedents in the matter.
      Mr. Short: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is an important point of order. You called a Division.[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] You have always ruled that even points of order may not be raised in the first stage of a Division.
      Mr. Speaker: Not in relation to this particular occasion. As I say, I have gone carefully into the question whether an hon. Member may rise in the middle of the calling of a Division, and I am told that the precedent and the rule is as I have stated it. I so rule now. Until I have completed the collecting of the voices, an hon. Member is entitled to rise and be called to speak.
      Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Far be it from me to deprive the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Spearing) of his Division. For the convenience of my hon. Friends, perhaps I may say that the amendment, not, apparently, in the name of the official Opposition, is not acceptable to the Government, and I advise my hon. Friends not to support it.
      Amendment negatived.

    Clause 10

      HAVENGORE CREEK
      Sir Bernard Braine: I beg to move Amendment No. 12, in page 5, line 24. leave out '4' and insert 13'.
      Mr. Speaker: Selected for discussion with this amendment is Amendment No. 13, in page 5, line 24, leave out '4' and insert '14'.
      Sir Bernard Braine: I am conscious that many hon. Members want to get on with the business but unfortunately so far in the debate the essential interests of my constituents have not been ventilated. The purpose of my amendment is to test the sincerity of the Government when they assure us that Maplin will be developed in accordance with the highest environmental standards. The House will recall that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State said on Second Reading:
      "I emphasise for the benefit especially of those hon. Members who I know have constituency interests"—
      this was directed at myself, my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir S. McAdden) and my hon. Friends from Kent constituencies—
      "and have represented them very strongly, that all this development—the airport, seaport, new town and the access—will take place with the highest priority given to its effect upon local people and the local environment."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th February 1973; Vol. 850, c. 674.]
      Within a few weeks of giving that assurance my right hon. and learned Friend severely damaged the amenities at the western end of my constituency by giving planning permission for an oil refinery to be sited next door to a residential area. The only real amenity enjoyed by my constituents at the eastern end of my constituency, which is the area adjacent to Maplin, is sailing in the creeks which lie between the Thames and the Crouch. The Bill originally threatened the closure of the safe passage through what is called Havengore Creek. Our fears on this were conveyed to Ministers and expressed on Second Reading. At the end of the debate we were given a bland assurance by my hon. Friend the Minister for Aerospace and Shipping when he said to my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East:
      "I can also assure him that Havengore Creek should now he able to remain open as
      1632
      a result of a decision to increase the height of the bridge".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th February 1973; Vol. 850, c. 779.]
      There is no doubt that this assurance influenced the vote on that occasion. The House will be able to judge its value from what followed. When the matter was raised in the Select Committee it emerged that the Government were proposing a bridge over Havengore Creek which would give only four metres clearance. If that provision goes through unchallenged it means that the majority of boats using Havengore Creek will be excluded and their owners will be forced to sail in the open seas round the Maplin development. While the distance from Shoeburyness at the mouth of the Thames to the Crouch is about nine nautical miles the outward journey is nearer 28 miles and is accompanied by much greater hazards. Thus if the Bill is unamended it means the virtual destruction of the one established amenity in the area prized by countless numbers of my constituents and by sailing enthusiasts from an even wider area.
      Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I do not wish to interrupt my hon. Friend, but he would want the House to know that the average number of sailing boats which has passed through the creek over the past seven years is three a week, and that, as he knows, the creek is entirely dry for the larger part of the day.
      Sir Bernard Braine: That is the most extraordinary statement I have heard. I dispute it at once. I and my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East have received letters from every yacht club and sailing club in the area. I refuse to accept the figures my hon. Friend has just given.
      Mr. Griffiths: The figures are those kept by the bridgekeeper on behalf of the Defence Department, which checks every single vessel that goes through that creek. I repeat that the total of sailing craft that have gone through the Havengore Creek in the past seven years that records have been kept is 1,284, an average of just over three a week.
      Sir Bernard Braine: Did my hon. Friend give that information to the Select Committee and the Standing Committee?
      Mr. Griffiths: I believe that the Select Committee had the information, which is

      1633
      precisely why, having considered the matter, it agreed that the limits should be set as in the Bill, and the petitioners agreed to it as well.
      Sir Bernard Braine: All I am prepared to say at this stage is that I am advised completely to the contrary by sailing interests in the area. In any event, what is involved here is not the numbers involved but the principle. If a Minister promises in the House that the bridge will be kept open in order to preserve an amenity, and then a provision is put into the Bill which denies that amenity, I am not sure that the numbers matter very much. [Interruption.] I will explain to my hon. Friend something that he does not seem to understand. Evidence was given to the Select Committee by the Royal Yachting Association, which completely misled the Select Committee. When that was drawn to my hon. Friend's attention, he did nothing about it but swept it completely aside. [Interruption.]
      If I may interrupt my hon. Friend's conversation, I will take a little time over the matter, because what is involved here is just one more example of the contempt which has been shown for the interests of my constituents by the Department of the Environment in several instances over recent months. If my hon. Friend does not understand that, he will hear a great deal more from me, so he might as well listen with patience and a little forbearance.
      I repeat that evidence given to the Select Committee by the Royal Yachting Association was misleading. I choose my words very carefully. The association represented itself as the voice of all sailing interests, of all sailing folk in the area. My information is that it did not consult a single local yachting or sailing club. It did not consult those that use the creeks. It certainly did not consult the clubs on either side of the creek. That led to evidence being given that bore no relation to the true interests of the people who sail in those waters.
      The evidence also suggested that small boat users could lower their masts and that a bridge with a clearance of four metres was adequate. That is dangerous nonsense and I shall tell the House why. First, there is the practical point that many of the boats, whatever the number may be, which use Havengore Creek have
      1634
      considerably higher masts than four metres; some have masts of 10 to 12 metres. Had the Royal Yachting Association consulted the local yachting clubs it would have been told that.
      10.30 p.m.
      Secondly, it is extremely rare for any small British yacht to be fitted with mast-lowering gear. Thirdly, even if it were possible to lower masts it would be dangerous to attempt to do so at Havengore with its strong winds and tides. No less a person than the Chairman of the Essex County Planning Authority, Alderman Curtis, who presumably has access to the figures of the number of boats using the creek, was reported as saying only recently:
      "Instead of the Government providing the facilities which could give freedom of navigation between the Thames and Havengore and the Roach and Crouch, the suggested height of the bridge would make the link useless for the majority of boat users in the area."
      It is interesting that the Chairman of the County Planning Authority should take the trouble to make a statement of that kind if the creek is used by only a handful of people.
      It can now be seen why so many people in South-East Essex are up in arms. They are going to be inconvenienced by the Maplin project anyway but those who have enjoyed the sport of yachting for many years are going to have that amenity ruthlessly destroyed.
      There is the further consideration—this is why I have been concerned with trying to focus attention upon safety considerations—that if the Havengore passage is closed sailing enthusiasts will take the outer passage. That must mean that they will cross the approach lines to the port—that is, if the port ever materialises. That will hardly be welcomed by the P.L.A. or by the masters of vessels using the port.
      My amendment would make it safe for practically all sailing craft to continue to use the Havengore passage in safety. What is more—this is a matter which I particularly want to ram home to my hon. Friend—it would ensure that the pledge to the House that the Havengore Creek would be left open would be honoured.
      This is only one instance of the many fears and anxieties which some of us

      1635
      feel. I trust that the House will support the amendment.
      Sir S. McAdden: I support my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Sir Bernard Braine) in the representations which he is making. I do so with perhaps not quite so much heat as seems to have been engendered by the long-drawn-out procedures which we have endured so far.
      It is true that when we last discussed the matter a specific assurance was given by my hon. Friend the Minister for Aerospace and Shipping that Havengore Creek would remain open for navigation by small boats so as to preserve—for the benefit of those who do not know what the Havengore Creek is and could not care less—what is known amongst yachtsmen as the inshore route to Burnham. It enables yachtsmen to go by an inshore route into the Crouch, thus avoiding going out to rougher waters which otherwise they have to traverse.
      My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary made some play of the fact that only three yachts a week use the passage.
      Hon. Members: Over seven years.
      Sir S. McAdden: It may not have been brought to my hon. Friend's attention—perhaps the Department of the Environment will catch up with these things—that people do not go sailing every day of the year. The Department must catch up with the fact that the numbers which have been counted by the guardian of the bridge on behalf of the Ministry of Defence must be divided not by 52 but by the smaller number of weeks during which it is possible to sail. I am glad to see that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles) is present. He will be able to confirm that it is a very much smaller number. I am able to bring expert knowledge to this matter. I was the commodore of one of the yachting clubs in Thorpe Bay. I am not now. Hon. Members will be interested to know that I am probably the only ex-commodore of a yacht club who has never been sailing in his life. It was thought that it would give some dignity to the club's proceedings if I became commodore. I attended a number of sailing functions at which people indulged in technical jargon that I did not understand. It was only fairly recently that I learned that a spinnaker was not a vegetable. All these problems
      1636
      have now been put right. The yacht club now has a proper commodore and the problems are resolved.
      I mentioned that to restore the even temperature, which seemed to be slipping away.
      I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary can give a satisfactory explanation why the specific pledge to keep Havengore Creek open to sailors will not be maintained. It will not be maintained by the provision of a bridge only 4 metres in height. It is no use saying that the creek will be kept open for sailors if it is to be made impossible to sail through. It is an empty promise.
      The Royal Yachting Association did not preserve the interests of local yachtsmen in its attitude before the Select Committee. I echo what my hon. Friend said in an earlier speech, which I should like to confirm today:
      "I was never so impressed by my colleagues in the House of Commons as I was when I attended the proceedings of the Select Committee and saw the diligence and care with which my colleagues were applying their minds to the subject under discussion. Over a field which is probably quite new to them they asked searching and intelligent questions and made recommendations to the Government as to how they should proceed which I am sure have improved the Bill—if, in fact, it ever goes any further, which I doubt. But they did their best to improve it in order to help it on its way."
      I support my hon. Friend's amendment. I hope that we have an explanation at some stage why the promise has not been maintained.
      Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: I disagree with the amendment. Of my two hon. Friends who have spoken on the amendment, one is too angry and one is too ignorant. My hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Sir Bernard Braine), although not exactly coherent in his rage, tried to make a point about the Royal Yachting Association. I declare an interest. I am a member of the association. My hon. Friend said that the association was not consulting the local yachtsmen about their interests. The association has a detailed technical knowledge of what yachtsmen throughout the country require and it understands the situation.
      I have had a brief, although I do not have it with me. The association has agreed to the height of the bridge being

      1637
      4 metres. As that is so, I nail my colours to the mast, because the association is not wrong.
      Sir Bernard Braine: Can my hon. and gallant Friend recall whether the brief, which he does not have with him, said whether the Royal Yachting Association had consulted all the yachting and sailing clubs on the Southend shore, or whether it merely consulted the large yacht clubs in the area which never use Haven gore Creek?
      Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: That is not germane. The Royal Yachting Association's opinion is the best opinion one can get on yachting matters at all levels.
      On a further practical point, I ask my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to consider what sort of craft would need a clearance of 13 metres. Its mast would he too high and its keel too big to get through the blasted creek anyway. A height of 4 metres is admirably suited to the type of boat which could reasonably use Havengore Creek. My hon. Friend shakes his head, but how can there be a great mast without a big keel to balance it. That is fundamental. Even an angry man can understand that. If a bridge over Havengore Creek were to have a clearance of 13 metres it would not only be vastly expensive—again my missing brief has a huge figure in millions as to what it would cost—but it would be a complete eyesore and I am sure that would be contrary to the interests of my hon. Friend's constituents.
      Mr. Brian Harrison: My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Sir Morgan-Giles) said that my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Sir Bernard Braille) was inarticulate and my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir S. McAdden) was ignorant. I wish to cross swords with him and say that I do not think that he knows very much what he is talking about.
      I took the opportunity over the recess of looking at Havengore Creek, partly because I had been advised by certain people who took the trouble to attend the Committee debates and follow this matter in the House and who sail in the Creek, and partly to find out for myself what the situation was.
      Neither the amendment nor some of the things that have been said about it
      1638
      are quite accurate. Regrettably the Royal Yachting Association did not consult the small local clubs. This was possibly due to the shortage of time which it had to make the consultations. Certainly it did not call on the small clubs which use this creek. Its evidence to the Select Committee was possibly not quite what it would have been had it been in consultation with the people who actually use the creek.
      However, I must say that my hon. and gallant Friend is quite right in saying that if we had a bridge 13 metres above sea level we would need to dredge the creek considerably to take yachts of the size envisaged. It seems that there is room for a slight increase, possibly to six metres, which would enable most of the yachts which use this creek to get under the bridge when there was a reasonable amount of water in the creek.
      I am sure my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will remember the assurance he gave in Committee about seeing whether it would be possible to have a shallow tunnel under the creek to enable the corridor to be put through so that, irrespective of the height of the masts, vessels would not be affected by any corridor necessary to carry any of the communications equipment from the airport. I hope my hon. Friend will look again to see if he could not marginally increase the height of the bridge, after consultation with the owners of the smaller craft which use the creek. I hope, too, that he will look at the possibility of using a tunnel.
      Mr. Eldon Griffiths: It might be helpful if I set out some of the facts about Havengore Creek which are not in dispute. Throughout most of the time the creek is entirely dry. It is impossible to sail or to have any water in it because of the sand bar across which the water cannot pass. It is only navigable for a short period of time—about half an hour on either side of high water—and then only by very small craft drawing four feet or less of water. For the rest of the time it is not navigable and for much of the time it is dry.
      I will now deal with the traffic through the creek. At present craft wishing to make the passage must apply to the Ministry of Defence for the bridge to be lifted. The bridgekeeper keeps a

      1639
      record of all the liftings. That is why we know precisely how many vessels going along the creek with sails require the bascule bridge, which is very low, to be raised. During 1966 149 sailing craft used it and 144 motor craft. In following years the number fell. There was an increase in sailing in 1972, but it is surprising that the number of motor craft is up to 271 for the whole year and there are 261 sailing craft. Over the seven years that the bridgekeeper has kept, on behalf of the Ministry of Defence, the record, the average number of sailing vessels has been three a week, and it may have reached in the last year of frenzied activity nearly five a week.
      10.45 p.m.
      I consider that the concession which my hon. Friend the Minister for Aerospace and Shipping made on Second Reading that, in spite of these very low figures, we would nevertheless ensure that the creek was kept open was, in all the circumstances, very generous. I remind my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Sir Bernard Braine) that the cost of providing a bridge of sufficient height to meet the requirements of the Select Committee may be as high as £1 million. But if we accept his amendment and go up to the much greater height proposed, without the extra depth of water which would be required to get the keels through, I am advised that the cost of providing the bridge would go up to a minimum of over £6 million and might well be £9 million.
      But there is another disadvantage, namely, that in raising the bridge to the proposed height, the road and railway would have to be run over that portion of Essex and perhaps over the Crouch and other rivers at a height which would be a gross visual intrusion on the environment of the area, and the Essex local authorities are rightly opposed to any such thing being done.
      My hon. Friends on the Select Committee gave the greatest attention to what is a small, though not unimportant, matter. I have read the evidence and I have read the report. They came to the conclusion that it was a reasonable arrangement that the creek should be kept open at the suggested height. I understand that the Royal Yachting
      1640
      Association, the Southend Borough Council—which has an interest, for it keeps a boat yard in the area—and the Rochford Rural District Council were perfectly content with the amendments made by the Select Committee.
      I accept from my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr. Brian Harrison) that it may be better to have a shallow tunnel, and I give him the assurance that, following my promise to him in Committee, my Department has started technical studies to see whether it is possible. I am not in a position to say now whether it is possible or what it would cost, but we are looking into the question.
      Mr. Brian Harrison: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for what he has said. He has kindly said that he will meet some of the yachtsmen in my constituency at a date to be arranged. That was mostly for people on the north side of the Crouch. Will he be willing to meet representatives of the smaller clubs on the other side of the Crouch who use Havengore Creek?
      Mr. Griffiths: I shall be glad to meet anyone to whom my hon. Friend introduces me, but I cannot go beyond what I have said. It would be an unrealistic use of public money to increase by such magnitude the expenditure to meet the point of an interested and significant group of people who will in fact end up with better arrangements than they have now because of the agreement of the Port of London Authority that, in the event of the port being built, it will provide better haven and shelter for boats seeking to go to the Crouch.
      Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: Now that the temperature has been lowered, will my hon. Friend assure the House that the Government plan to incorporate in the seaport a sheltered basin for yachts in passage that can be used at all states of the tide? From a practical point of view that is what is wanted rather than an expensive bridge.
      Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Yes. That is precisely what the Select Committee recommended, and the Port of London Authority accepts that this should be done.
      Sir Bernard Braine: My hon. Friend has used exactly the same argument tonight as he used in Standing Committee

      1641
      when discussing figures. The House may be very impressed to learn that the cost of preserving this amenity by raising the bridge may run into millions of pounds. Will my hon. Friend say to which bridge he is referring? I am on sure ground when I say he is talking about two bridges. He refers to the cost of about £1 million for raising one bridge from 4 metres to 10 metres, and his other high figure referred to the bridge carrying the proposed motorway, the line of which has not yet been decided. My hon. Friend has given the Standing Committee and the House a figure in respect of a road the line of which he does not yet know. Does he know where the motorway will run?
      Amendment negatived

    Clause 12

      RESTRICTIONS ON ROAD TRAFFIC
      Amendments made: No. 14, in page 7, line 19, leave out from 'State' to end of line 20.
      No. 15, in page 7, line 23, at end insert:
      '(6) Any order under this section shall be made by statutory instrument except an order under subsection (4) applying only to specified vehicles or to vehicles of specified persons.
      (7) Any power to make an order under this section includes power to vary or revoke the order by a subsequent order'.—[Mr. Eldon Griffiths.]

    Clause 21

      LIABILITY FOR DAMAGE, ETC. CAUSED BY RECLAMATION OR MAINTENANCE WORKS
      Amendments made: No. 16, in page 12, line 18, leave out from 'damage' to end of line and insert 'or loss is'.
      No. 17, in page 12, line 23, at end insert 'that person'.
      No. 18, in page 12, line 24, leave out 'person or'.—[Mr. Eldon Griffiths.]

    Schedule 1

      THE MAPLIN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
      Mr. Brian Harrison: I beg to move Amendment No. 20, in page 15, line 9, after 'matters', insert:
      'or of safeguarding the interests of the environment'.
      My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State has throughout the debate referred
      1642
      to this as an environmental airport. While he and I may have differences of opinion, I know that he has an interest in preserving certain of the unique attributes of the environment in this area.
      During the recess I had the opportunity to visit Foulness Island and to walk out on the Maplin sands. It is important that the membership of the Maplin Development Authority should include a person who is an authority on the environment and who can safeguard the interests of the environment.
      I press my hon. Friend strongly to accept this slightly wider category of membership so that if we have to have an airport at Maplin the minimum amount of damage is done and the environment is preserved.
      Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. It is essential that someone on the Maplin Development Authority Board should be able to speak with knowledge and sensitivity on matters relating to the environment and amenity, the wild life, the flora and fauna, and the rest. I am very glad, therefore, that my hon. Friend has moved this amendment which, in effect, provides that in the list of qualities to which my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State should have regard in appointing members of the MDAB he should have special regard to the desirability of securing the services of persons with knowledge and experience of safeguarding the interests of the environment. I am sure that that is right.
      I hope that my hon. Friend will be glad to hear that the Government accept his amendment as it stands.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Schedule 3

      EXCLUSION OR MODIFICATION OF CERTAIN PROVISIONS
      Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I beg to move Amendment No. 22, in page 19, leave out lines 12 to 21 and insert:
      '2.—(1) Paragraphs 3 and 4 of this Schedule shall apply in relation to reclamation or maintenance works and, subject to sub-paragraph (3) below:—
      (a) the provisions mentioned in sub-paragraph (2) below shall not apply to such works carried out within the limits of deviation; and

      1643
      (b) a licence under section 73 of the Port of London Act 1968 shall not be required for any reclamation or maintenance works carried out within that part of the Port of London Authority area which lies seawards of a line drawn from Garrison Pier on Shoeburyness to Garrison Point on the Isle of Sheppey.
      (2) The provisions referred to in sub-paragraph (1)(a) above are'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu): With this amendment, it will be convenient to discuss Government Amendments Nos. 23, 24 and 25, and also Amendment No. 5, in Clause 2, page 2, line 21, at end insert
      'provided that at every stage of reclamation and attendant dredging operations there is consultation and agreement with the authorities, including Trinity House, responsible for the safety of navigation and flood control in the River Thames, River Crouch and River Roach'.
      Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Amendments Nos. 22 to 25 seek to clarify and generally to tidy up certain arrangements in Schedule 3 which deal with the exclusion or modification of statutory controls. They make a number of changes in respect of the statutory controls of the Port of London Authority, and so on. Trinity House has been consulted on the matter of the pilotage requirements. These are generally formal amendments.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendments made: No. 23, in page 19, line 29, at end insert:
      '(3) In relation to works carried out outside the Port of London Authority area after such date as may be certified by the Secretary of State as the date on which reclamation under this Act has been completed, sub-paragraph (2) above shall have effect as if the reference to section 34 of the Coast Protection Act 1949 were omitted'.
      No. 24, in line 30, leave out lines 30 to 41 and insert:
      '3.—(1) If it appears to the Secretary of State that any reclamation or maintenance works within the limits of deviation but outside the Port of London Authority area are likely to cause obstruction or danger to navigation the Maplin Development Authority shall during their construction and after their completion take such steps for the prevention of danger to navigation as he may direct.
      (2) If it appears to the Port of London Authority that any reclamation or maintenance works within the Port of London Authority area are likely to cause obstruction or danger to navigation or to prejudice the conservancy of the River Thames the Maplin Development Authority shall during their construction and
      1644
      after their completion take such steps for the prevention of the danger or for the conservancy of the river as the Port of London Authority may direct.
      (3) Where a direction is given to the Maplin Development Authority under subparagraph (2) above, the Authority may within fourteen days or such longer period as the Secretary of State may allow appeal against the direction to the Secretary of State; and on any such appeal the Secretary of State may confirm, vary or cancel the direction.
      (4) Where the Maplin Development Authority fails to comply—

      (a) with a direction given under sub-paragraph (1) above, or

      (b) with a direction given under sub-paragraph (2) above against which it can no longer appeal;

      the Secretary of State or, as the case may be, the Port of London Authority may take the steps specified in the direction and recover the costs reasonably incurred in doing so from the Maplin Development Authority; and if that Authority disputes that costs so incurred by the Port of London Authority were reasonably incurred the question shall be determined by the Secretary of State.
      (5) Section 76 of the Port of London Act 1968 shall not apply in relation to anything done by the Maplin Development Authority in compliance with a direction given by the Port of London Authority under this paragraph'.
      No. 25, in line 41, at end insert:
      '4. The provisions of the Pilotage Act 1913 with respect to compulsory pilotage shall not apply to tugs, dredgers, sludge-vessels, barges and similar craft whilst employed by the Maplin Development Authority in the exercise of its functions under this Act'.—[Mr. Eldon Griffiths.]
      Order for Third Reading read.
      Queen's recommendation signified.
      10.58 p.m.
      Mr. Michael Heseltine: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the third time.
      We have had an extremely full and detailed debate on the first two new clauses which were selected for discussion. Perhaps, therefore, it is not appropriate to cover all the ground again at this stage. However, I am sure that I carry the House with me in saying how grateful we are for the work of the Select Committee under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Maddan). The Committee held sittings lastnig more than 50 hours and heard 16 witnesses. Its Report and Minutes of Evidence are a great tribute to it and contain a wealth of information on the subject.

      1645
      I must also pay tribute to the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. Oakes), who led for the Opposition. I was not a member of the Standing Committee, but I have heard of the extreme courtesy and patience with which he performed his task, and I know that my hon. Friends were grateful for his help.
      I am sure, too, that it is appropriate to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, who piloted the Bill through what was without doubt a very difficult Committee stage. Many hon. Members have been involved in the process of selecting a site for an airport, and it is a decision that is not easy to get right, and certainly it is a testing experience to carry a hybrid Bill through Committee. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State and to other hon. Members who carried out that process—
      Mr. Arthur Lewis: Why don't you tear up the rest of the speech, Michael?
      Mr. Heseltine: I am torn between taking the hon. Gentleman's advice and the feeling that I must not be discourteous to the House. We have covered an immense amount of ground. If I detect the mood of the House aright, I am happy to suggest that, in view of the long discussion of this matter which we have already had, the House should now proceed without more ado to give the Bill its Third Reading.
      11.1 p.m.
      Mr. Crouch: I shall not detain the House for long. I have already spoken at length on other provisions. I voted as I did on earlier provisions because I believed, as I still believe, that the case for the Bill has not been proved. Much as I respect the skill and good humour with which my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State presented his case, I am afraid that he did not convince me, and I do not think he has convinced many other hon. Members. The arguments put forward by the Government for the Bill will not have convinced the country that this great expenditure is justified. For these reasons I must advise the House and all my hon. Friends to vote against the Third Reading.
      11.2 p.m.
      Mr. Crosland: I join other hon. Members in congratulating the Minister on his brevity, which fits in with the mood of the House. I have already made my Third Reading speech. I merely wish to endorse the advice given to the House by the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch). I think we have already thrashed out this matter on two new clauses which were considered by the House a little earlier this evening, and the sooner we settle the matter on Third Reading the better
      11.3 p.m.
      Sir Bernard Braine: I, too, wish to be brief. Leaving aside all the uncertainties about airport policy, the House is being asked to pass a Bill which would enable works to proceed for establishing an airport and seaport before we know what the effect of dredging in the estuary will be on the tidal and surge behaviour of the Thames, the Crouch, the Roach and the Medway and before we know where the new road and rail communications are to run.
      If I had not made up my mind before about how to vote on Third Reading, certainly the way in which my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State fudged the whole question of the costs of the roads and bridges—I recommend hon. Members to study carefully what was said in the Standing Committee and in the Select Committee on this subject—made up my mind for me. We are being asked to pass the Bill before we know the full implications of the proposed new scheme for the whole of the Thames Estuary.
      My constituency is already very gravely affected by a bad decision taken by the Department of the Environment. We have no reason to believe that assurances given about safeguarding our environment will be honoured unless safeguards are written into the Bill. This is my sole reason for intervening in this debate.
      For these reasons I shall not vote for the Third Reading of the Bill, and I urge as many of my hon. Friends as possible who care about the interests of people in an area which Parliament has willed shall become the site of the third London airport to support me in the Lobby.
      11.5 p.m.
      Mr. Brian Harrison: I shall not detain the House for long. I want first to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for the good-tempered way he took us through Committee. He is a difficult man to oppose because he is so good-tempered but his charm and so on have not succeeded in convincing me that we should support the Bill. I must vote against the Bill tonight because until I know where are the corridors which will affect so many of my constituents, and which will affect more people than any of the other alternatives put up by Roskill, I do not feel that I can support the Bill.
      Finally, on the financial side, I do not think we can complete this operation of massive public expenditure in the next decade or two decades, and for that reason I intend to vote against the Bill.
      11.6 p.m.
      Dame Patricia Hornsby-Smith: I did not intend to impose myself on this debate, but, having heard some of my hon. Friends, I do not think I have listened to more parochial speeches discussing one of the most imaginative and important projects proposed by any Government to safeguard the future of our air traffic and the extension and regaining of our great port facilities in the South-East.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Sir Bernard Braine) talked about caring about people, but the minority of people who take five boats a week through, half an hour either side of the tide, and who have flooded protests on members of the Committee about birds, bees, boats, fauna and everything else, do not seem to care about the quarter million who live round Heathrow, about children who have to be in schools—[Interruption]. My hon. Friend has had his say, and we are entitled to speak for the densely populated areas in the complex of Greater London.
      Either we shall lose our supremacy in the increasing international air traffic at Heathrow, or we shall make things infinitely worse for the quarter million to half million people who cannot open windows in an office because one cannot hear to dictate or to answer the telephone, and for those in schools where they have to have double glazing because
      1648
      children cannot hear what the teachers say.
      We are asked to maintain the enormously valuable international transocean traffic which comes by air to this country, and it must be done either by extending Heathrow, which I adamantly oppose for the benefit of the enormous number of people who already suffer the burden of the noise in a highly congested area, or we must build imaginatively enough on reclaimed land to dissipate the noise across the sea. With it will be built a joint complex with a port. However, the Bill deals exclusively with the airport, but reclamation, imaginatively used, will provide both. No London Member has been without representations as ports up the estuary to London have been closed.
      We have the greatest skills in London but nobody has told us how much money has been lost by the unloading of imports at Rotterdam, where they are off-loaded into boats. We have an opportunity of regaining for London and the South-East an important port. It is no use the North or the West grousing about this matter. About 25 million people can be served from ports within range of London. We must have a good London port, and this Bill can provide it.
      Some of my hon. Friends have been far too parochial. We must see this measure through, unless we want to give the lot to France and M. Pompidou, who will rub his hands with glee. France is ready to build a port to take the biggest ships. Anybody in London docks knows the amount of shipping that we have lost to Rotterdam. Any hon. Member who has been to Rotterdam will have seen it for himself. Do we want Britain to regain its supremacy, or are we prepared to throw it away for five boats a week going up the creek?
      11.11 p.m.
      Mr. Michael Shersby: My constituency includes within its boundaries Heathrow Airport. Tonight I should like to declare my support for Third Reading of the Bill.
      I believe that in the interests not only of my constituents but of all those who use air transportation a third major airport is necessary. I have listened with great care to those of my hon. Friends and hon. Gentlemen opposite who have argued persuasively that Maplin is not,

      1649
      for one reason or another, the best site for this airport. However, I am not convinced by those arguments. Therefore, I support the choice of Maplin. I believe that it will be as satisfactory a site as any.
      For many years my constituents have had to tolerate aircraft noise. They have had to accept major changes in their environment in terms of new roads, new hotels, and the growth of all the necessary supporting services for modern civil aviation. They have borne these changes cheerfully and proudly. They have made a major contribution to the success of London Airport in the labour that they have provided. They are proud of all the changes that have taken place in the last 20 years or so. However, they are deeply concerned about the possibility of near misses. They know that these near misses are avoided only by virtue of the sophisticated nature of modern air traffic control equipment. Many people in Uxbridge believe that the air traffic at Heathrow has now reached saturation point and that the time has come for the Government and this House to do their duty to those who live around Heathrow Airport by providing a third London airport for all who use civil aviation.
      To hon. Members who have spoken so eloquently against a third London airport, which, let us face it, no part of the country wants, and to the residents of South-East Essex I say: be proud that your area has been chosen as the site for this airport—[Interruption.] Be proud as my constituents have been, have the guts that my constituents have displayed, and have the privilege of serving civil aviation and your fellow countrymen by providing a decent third London airport for this country.
      To the Government and the House I say: let us get on with the job that we were elected to do. Let us provide a decent third airport for London.
      For those reasons, I am pleased and proud to support the Third Reading of the Bill.
      11.14 p.m.
      Mr. Wilkinson: I shall not keep the House long. From the aviation point of view, I fear that the decision that we are about to take will decide whether we are to have on our hands at the
      1650
      beginning of the next century a redundant monument to the technology of the 1960s. If we do not support the Bill I believe that we can escape from this very real risk. It could be a kind of Maginot Line of aviation strategy and technology of the middle of this century, and become a great reproach and reminder of the decision we take tonight.
      There are one or two things about the cost which have not yet been explained in full. If the move to Maplin is made in the way suggested, all the engineering and base facilities will have to be transferred as well, and the social cost in terms of housing, schooling and technical facilities, will be astronomic. The Chairman of the British Airports Authority, who will have the responsibility of running this airport, said, in minutes taken before the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries, that we would not get our investment on this project back until 2002. That is a horrifying thought. Every operator and most of the aviation advice has been against this project.
      As for surface access, we have cancelled developments in magnetic levitation, hovertrains and the kind of high-speed surface access which will be so crucial to this project. The attitude of the GLC, whose complexion has changed, will be vital to motorway access.
      This evening has been characterised by 1984 language. It is Newspeak which has predominated. When people talk about "environmental consideration" we should not forget that a valuable and beautiful part of the south-east corner of England will be irremediably changed. I do not believe, for technical reasons, that this is necessary. I recall the words of the Under-Secretary of State on the motion to take note of the Roskill Report, when he said that the Foulness project was "daftness". I do not believe that that has changed.
      11.17 p.m.
      Mr. Stephen Hastings (Mid-Bedfordshire): I should like to take the House back to the time of the Roskill Report, when a number of us struggled very hard to affect a decision on Roskill with regard to the inland sites. I do not blame those of my hon. Friends who have taken a position this evening about the

      1651
      siting at Maplin on constituency grounds, although I agree that the debate has been marred by the parochial attitude generally. The overall benefits have not really come across.
      During the time of Roskill we were dealing not just with inland sites but with the effect on airports around London. The Select Committee concerned comprised as many Labour as Conservative Members, and deliberated week after week. Immediately after the Roskill decision, 220 right hon. and hon Members signed a motion condemning any decision to place the airport at an inland site and equally any decision likely to increase noise and disturbance around existing London airports, and urging the Government to put it at Maplin or any other suitable coastal site.
      That motion was signed by about 100 right hon. and hon. Members from the Labour Party. Where are they now? Toeing the line on a solution which, if they defeat the Bill, will incontestably result in steadily increasing misery for the people who live around the existing airports. Anyone who attended the meetings of the Select Committee, as I did, as its Chairman, during that period and listened to people from Heathrow, Gatwick, Luton and Stansted cannot conceivably deny what I am saying. If the Labour Party opposes this Bill, let it admit, as any reasonable person who has followed this business over the years must, that that is the direct implication of its decision. If it will not support the Government, what is its alternative?
      11.19 p.m.
      Mr. Tebbit: I think the House knows my feeling about Maplin, and it has been fairly consistent—[AN HON. MEMBER: "Sit down then."] The hon. Member has had his chance. Perhaps he would allow me to have mine.
      In essence, my feeling is that aircraft noise has become the heart of this problem, and that that problem is better dealt with at its source than by transferring it around the countryside. I do not believe that I am privy to information which my right hon. Friends on the Front Bench do not have, and I do not think that I am particularly cleverer than they or I would probably be where they are and they where I am.
      1652
      A few weeks ago my hon. Friend the Minister for Aerospace and Shipping was most emphatic in saying to me in the House that the Government were intent on pressing forward with this airport. He gave me the impression that decisions were taken in his mind at least. What we have had this evening is an undertaking from my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment that there has been a shift from that position and that the situation will be kept continuously under review. That is what I understood was said.
      If that is what was meant, I intend to keep my hon. Friends to that pledge. I shall be most assiduous in drawing to their attention, week by week, day by day—if necessary, year by year—those factors which have caused me to change my mind since the late 'sixties, and which have caused many of my hon. and right hon. Friends to change their minds, about the desirability of coastal sites. We shall watch our hon. and right hon. Friends to ensure that they live up to that undertaking given this evening.
      11.23 p.m.
      Mr. Eldon Griffiths: No one on either side disputes that more airport capacity is needed in South-East England. No one disputes that very many more aircraft and very many more people will have to be handled at new airport capacity somewhere. We have, therefore, come to the point of a choice. This Bill, as I have said, does not of itself authorise either the airport or the seaport, but it is clear to all of us here that we are now making a decision.
      I can put it very plainly. On the airport, with Maplin we can and we will close down Southend and Stansted. We shall run down Luton, and probably close that, too. We shall abolish, save in emergencies, night noise at Heathrow and Gatwick, and we shall restrict the growth of both of those airports and, as time goes on, begin transferring traffic from them to Maplin.
      Without Maplin, we shall need by the early 'eighties to step up very greatly air traffic and noise, first, by extending Southend to its ultimate capacity, by extending Stansted to its ultimate capacity and by extending Luton to its ultimate capacity. We shall need—and this is the choice the House is making—to cram

      1653
      three-and-a-half times as many people and twice as many aircraft into Heathrow. We shall need to build a second runway and increase the number of passengers by at least five times at Gatwick, and we shall still face the prospect, with the increased numbers pressing against ceiling capacity, of the need to build a new London airport for the future. That is the position as regards airports.
      Mr. Crosland: I have no objection to the Minister making these statements so long as he makes absolutely clear that his statements—for example, about the need for a second runway at Gatwick—are without any support in the evidence provided by his own Government. They are totally unsupported statements.
      Mr. Griffiths: The statement I am making is made on behalf of the Government, on the best information which is available to my Department and the Department of Trade and Industry. That is the choice on airports.
      There are other choices. With Maplin, we gain up to 18,000 acres of development land from the sea. Without Maplin, we shall need to build some of the new runway capacity and all the new passenger capacity on some of the most expensive land in the country, in the vicinity of Heathrow and Gatwick, and in the areas of Stansted and Luton.
      Next, there is the housing for the workers who will work in the new airports. Either that must be provided for some 40,000 new workers in the travel-to-work area of Heathrow and Gatwick, or it can he provided in a green-field site in Essex.
      Next, safety. With Maplin, almost all the growth in aeroplane movements in this country after 1980 will take place
      over the sea. Without Maplin, all of that growth, plus all the existing traffic—a total of at least 400,000, and probably 500,000 aircraft each year—will take place over people's homes.
      Last, what of the environment? Today 700.000 households in the Heathrow area alone are afflicted by noise within the 35 NNI contour. At Maplin the equivalent number, on the best estimates we can make, is likely to be less than 500. Even if engines get quieter, as all of us wish, and as I believe will happen—we shall do our part in making it happen—the sheer increase nevertheless in the number of aircraft movements makes it certain that the noise shadow, at least for the foreseeable future, will not become any less.
      Taking all these considerations together—I have said nothing of the port—the saving of land, the greater ease of building homes for the airport workers, the greater safety—I hope that no hon. Member will say that it is safer to put these aircraft over the great city of London rather than over the sea—the reduced noise—
      Mr. Wilkinson: What about the birds?
      Mr. Griffiths: I hope that the House will pay rather more attention to the safety of people than to the safety of birds. Taking all these things together, it is right that we should make this decision to go forward in the future with an imaginative concept which will meet the country's needs instead of funking it as hon. Members opposite and one or two of my hon. Friends are recommending we should do.
      Question put:—
      The House divided: Ayes, 255, Noes 246.

      Division No. 155.]

      AYES

      [11.29 p.m.

      Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

      Biffen, John

      Carlisle, Mark

      Allason. James (Hemel Hempstead)

      Biggs-Davison, John

      Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

      Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian

      Blaker, Peter

      Chapman, Sydney

      Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

      Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

      Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

      Astor, John

      Boscawen, Hn. Robert

      Chichester-Clark, R.

      Atkins, Humphrey

      Bowden, Andrew

      Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

      Awdry, Daniel

      Bray, Ronald

      Clegg, Walter

      Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

      Brewis, John

      Cockeram, Eric

      Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

      Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

      Cooke, Robert

      Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord

      Bruce-Gardyne, J.

      Coombs, Derek

      Batsford, Brian

      Bryan, Sir Paul

      Cooper, A. E.

      Bell, Ronald

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

      Cormack, Patrick

      Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

      Buck, Antony

      Costain, A. P.

      Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

      Burden, F. A.

      Critchley, Julian

      Benyon, W.

      Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

      Crowder, F. P.

      Berry, Hn. Anthony

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

      Davies. Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)

      d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

      Jessel, Toby

      Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

      d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj -Gen. Jack

      Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

      Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

      Dean, Paul

      Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

      Redmond, Robert

      Digby, Simon Wingfield

      Jopling, Michael

      Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

      Dixon, Piers

      Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

      Rees, Peter (Dover)

      Dodds-Parker, 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

      Kershaw, Anthony

      Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

      Dykes, Hugh

      Kimball, Marcus

      Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey

      Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir John

      King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

      Roberts, Wyn (Coway)

      Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      King, Tom (Bridgwater)

      Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

      Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

      Kirk, Peter

      Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

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

      Kitson, Timothy

      Rost, Peter

      Emery, Peter

      Knight, Mrs. Jill

      Russell, Sir Ronald

      Eyre, Reginald

      Knox, David

      St. John-Stevas, Norman

      Farr John

      Lamont, Norman

      Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.

      Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

      Lane, David

      Scott, Nicholas

      Fidler, Michael

      Langford-Holt, Sir John

      Scott-Hopkins, James

      Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

      Le Marchant, Spencer

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

      Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

      Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

      Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

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

      Shelton, William (Clapham)

      Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

      Loveridge, John

      Shersby Michael

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      MacArthur, Ian

      Simeons, Charles

      Fortescue, Tim

      McLaren, Martin

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Foster, Sir John

      Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

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

      Fowler, Norman

      McMaster, Stanley

      Soref, Harold

      Galbraith, Hn. T. G. D.

      Macmillan,Rt.Hn. Maurice (Farnham)

      Speed, Keith

      Gardner, Edward

      McNair-Wilson, Michael

      Spence, John

      Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk. C.)

      McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)

      Sproat, Iain

      Glyn, Dr. Alan

      Maddan, Martin

      Stainton, Keith

      Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B

      Madel, David

      Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)

      Goodhart, Philip

      Maginnis, John E.

      Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

      Gorst, John

      Marples Rt. Hn. Ernest

      Stokes, John

      Gower, Raymond

      Mather, Carol

      Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

      Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

      Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

      Sutcliffe, John

      Gray, Hamish

      Mawby, Ray

      Tapsell, Peter

      Green, Alan

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

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

      Grieve, Percy

      Mills, Peter (Torrington)

      Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

      Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

      Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

      Temple, John M.

      Grylls, Michael

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

      Gummer, J. Selwyn

      Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

      Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

      Gurden, Harold

      Money, Ernie

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

      Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

      Monks, Mrs. Connie

      Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

      Hall, John (Wycombe)

      Monro, Hector

      Tilney, John

      Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Trafford, Dr. Anthony

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      More, Jasper

      Trew, Peter

      Hannam, John (Exeter)

      Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

      Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin

      Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

      Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

      Vickers, Dame Joan

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Murton, Oscar

      Waddington, David

      Hastings, Stephen

      Nabarro, Sir Gerald

      Walder, David (Clitheroe)

      Havers, Michael

      Neave, Airey

      Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

      Hawkins, Paul

      Nicholls, Sir Harmar

      Wall, Patrick

      Heseltine, Michael

      Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

      Walters, Dennis

      Hicks, Robert

      Normanton Tom

      Ward, Dame Irene

      Higgins, Terence L.

      Nott, John

      Warren, Kenneth

      Hiley, Joseph

      Onslow, Cranley

      Weatherill, Bernard

      Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

      Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

      Wells, John (Maidstone)

      Holland, Philip

      Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)

      Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

      Holt, Miss Mary

      Page, John (Harrow, W.)

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Hordern, Pet

      Parkinson, Cecil

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Hornby, Richard

      Percival, Ian

      Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

      Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia

      Pike, Miss Mervyn

      Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

      Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

      Pink, R. Bonner

      Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

      Howell, David (Guildford)

      Pounder, Rafton

      Woodnutt, Mark

      Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

      Price, David (Eastleigh)

      Worsley, Marcus

      Hunt, John

      Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

      Hutchison, Michael Clark

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

      Younger, Hn. George

      Iremonger, T. L.

      Proudfoot, Wilfred

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      James, David

      Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

      Mr. Marcus Fox and

      Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

      Quennell, Miss J. M.

      Mr. Kenneth Clarke

      Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

      Raison, Timothy

      NOES

      Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

      Bidwell, Sydney

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

      Allen, Scholefield

      Bishop, E. S.

      Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

      Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

      Blenkinsop, Arthur

      Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

      Armstrong, Ernest

      Boardman, H. (Leigh)

      Cant, R. B.

      Ashley, Jack

      Booth, Albert

      Carmichael, Neil

      Ashton, Joe

      Boothroyd, Miss Betty

      Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)

      Atkinson, Norman

      Boyden, James(Bishop Auckland)

      Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

      Bagier, Gordon A. T.

      Braine, Sir Bernard

      Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

      Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)

      Broughton, Sir Alfred

      Clark, David (Colne Valley)

      Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

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

      Cohen, Stanley

      Bennett, James(Glasgow, Bridgeton)

      Buchan, Norman

      Concannon, J. D.

      1656

      1657

      Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

      Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

      Palmer, Arthur

      Crawshaw, Richard

      Jeger, Mrs. Lena

      Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

      Cronin, John

      Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

      Pardoe, John

      Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

      John, Brynmor

      Parker, John (Dagenham)

      Grossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

      Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

      Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

      Crouch, David

      Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

      Pavitt, Laurie

      Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)

      Jones, Dan (Burnley)

      Perry, Ernest G.

      Dalyell, Tam

      Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

      Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

      Davidson, Arthur

      Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

      Prescott, John

      Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

      Judd, Frank

      Price, William (Rugby)

      Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

      Kaufman, Gerald

      Probert, Arthur

      Davies, Ifor (Gower)

      Kinnock, Neil

      Radice, Giles

      Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

      Lambie, David

      Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

      Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)

      Lamborn, Harry

      Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

      Deakins. Eric

      Lamond, James

      Rhodes, Geoffrey

      de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

      Latham, Arthur

      Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

      Delargy, Hugh

      Lawson, George

      Roberts, Rt.Hn.Goronwy (Caernarvon)

      Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Robertson, John (Paisley)

      Doig, Peter

      Leonard, Dick

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

      Dormand, J. D.

      Lestor, Miss Joan

      Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

      Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

      Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

      Roper, John

      Douglas-Mann, Bruce

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Rose, Paul B.

      Driberg, Tom

      Lipton, Marcus

      Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Lomas, Kenneth

      Rowlands, Ted

      Dunn, James A.

      Loughlin, Charles

      Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

      Dunnett, Jack

      Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

      Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

      Edelman, Maurice

      Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

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

      Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

      McAdden, Sir Stephen

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

      Edwards, William (Merioneth)

      McBride, Neil

      Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

      Ellis, Torn

      McCartney, Hugh

      Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

      English, Michael

      McElhone, Frank

      Sillars, James

      Evans, Fred

      McGuire, Michael

      Silverman, Julius

      Ewing, Harry

      Machin, George

      Skinner, Dennis

      Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.

      Mackenzie, Gregor

      Small, William

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

      Mackie, John

      Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

      Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

      Mackintosh. John P.

      Spearing, Nigel

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Foot, Michael

      McNamara, J. Kevin

      Stallard, A. W.

      Ford, Ben

      Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

      Steel, David

      Forrester, John

      Malla eu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)

      Stoddart, David (Swindon)

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

      Marquand, David

      Stonehouse, Rt Hn. G. R.

      Fraser, John (Norwood)

      Marsden F.

      Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

      Freeson, Reginald

      Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

      Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

      Galpern, Sir Myer

      Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J

      Swain, Thomas

      Garrett, W. E.

      Mayhew, Christopher

      Taverne, Dick

      Gilbert, Dr. John

      Meacher, Michael

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

      Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)

      Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

      Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

      Golding, John

      Mendelson, John

      Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy

      Gourlay, Harry

      Mikardo, Ian

      Tinn, James

      Grant, George (Morpeth)

      Millan, Bruce

      Tope, Graham

      Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

      Miller, Dr. M. S.

      Torney, Tom

      Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

      Milne, Edward

      Tuck, Raphael

      Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

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

      Urwin, T. W.

      Hamling, William

      Moate, Roger

      Varley, Eric G.

      Hardy, Peter

      Molloy, William

      Wainwright, Edwin

      Harper, Joseph

      Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

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

      Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

      Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

      Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

      Harrison, Waller (Wakefield)

      Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

      Wallace, George

      Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

      Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

      Watkins, David

      Hattersley, Roy

      Moyle, Roland

      Weitzman, David

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Murray, Ronald King

      Wellbeloved, James

      Hooson, Emlyn

      Oakes, Gordon

      Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

      Horam, John

      Ogden, Eric

      White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

      Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

      O'Halloran, Michael

      Whitehead, Phillip

      Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

      O'Malley, Brian

      Whitelock, William

      Huckfield, Leslie

      Oram, Bert

      Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

      Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

      Orbach, Maurice

      Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

      Hughes, Mark (Durham)

      Orme, Stanley

      Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

      Oswald, Thomas

      Woof, Robert

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

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

      Padley, Walter

      Mr. Donald Coleman and

      Janner, Greville

      Paget, R. T.

      Mr. Michael Cocks

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Bill read the Third time and passed.

    NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE REORGANISATION BILL [Lords]
    Order for Third Reading read.
    Bill to be read the Third time tomorrow.

    EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question put (pursuant to Standing Order No. 67 (Public Bills relating exclusively to Scotland)),
    That the Bill be committed to a Scottish Standing Committee.—[Mr. Kenneth Clarke.]
    Question agreed to.
    Bill (deemed to have been read a Second time) committed to a Scottish Standing Committee.

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

  MORLEY HALL
  11.40 p.m.
  Sir Alfred Broughton rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. E. L. Mallieu): Order. Will hon. Members leaving the House please do so as quickly and as quietly as possible.
  Sir A. Broughton: After the House has been considering the building of a large new airport at the cost of some thousands of millions of pounds, I now turn attention to a problem which by comparison is much smaller. Nevertheless, I make no apology for raising this matter because it is one that is causing considerable concern to my constituents in Morley. It relates to the future of Morley Hall.
  First, I must say a word or two about the history of this piece of property. Morley Hall is probably the oldest surviving building in a town where old buildings are extremely scarce. It was built nearly 300 years ago, in 1683 to be precise, by a Thomas Dawson. He and some of his descendants were pioneers of the Industrial Revolution. They took
  1660
  a prominent part in turning Morley into an industrial town and thereby were responsible to some extent for the conversion of England into a rich and prosperous industrial country.
  After the Dawsons, the house was occupied in turn by several other famous Morley families. I shall not weary the House with an account of them. Sufficient be it to say that they have added to the interest of the place. It is not a large and imposing house. I would describe it as a modest building standing in pleasant grounds near the centre of the town, but I am sure it will be readily understood that Morley Hall is of considerable historical interest.
  So important was this place to Morley that, in order to preserve this small treasure, Sir Charles Scarth bought it in 1917 and gave it to the town, on the understanding that it was to be used for the benefit of Morley people. At that time Morley was in need of a maternity home, and it was decided that this building should be used to meet that need. Thus Morley Hall came to be used as Morley's maternity home. To what better use could it have possibly been put for the benefit of Morley people? Throughout more than half a century thousands of Morley people have been born there, the mothers and babies receiving efficient and tender care in that building.
  In 1948, when the National Health Service came into operation, the then Ministry of Health took over the management of this maternity home. The local people raised no objection and asked for no compensation, because Morley Hall continued to be used to the best advantage for the benefit of Morley people.
  With the advance of medical science, however, the time came when the Department of Health regarded the premises as out of date for modern obstetrics. A large new maternity hospital has been built in a nearby town and Morley Hall closed its doors as a maternity home a few months ago.
  When it became known that the Department of Health had no further use for the hall the local people began discussing other possible uses for it. Since it was given to them in 1917 by Sir Charles Scarth they have regarded it as theirs. Many people have suggested that it should be used as a cultural centre.

  1661
  I know that Morley Historical Society and Morley Civic Society would like to be able to use it.
  Whatever its further use, it is important that control now passes from the Department into the capable hands of the local council. For that reason the town clerk communicated with the Department. He received an astonishing reply. It said that Morley Council could have Morley Hall provided that it was bought from the Department at its present-day value as assessed by the district valuer. To say that Morley people found the reply disappointing is barely correct. It was infuriating.
  The members of the town council and all the people of Morley are unanimous in their opinion that the Department's policy is wrong. Morley Hall was given to them. It is theirs and they want it handed back to them.
  The town clerk corresponded further with Department officials. That was all to no avail. I was then asked to support Morley's plea. I wrote to the Minister and received a reply from the Under-Secretary of State who is here to reply. I thank him for the courtesy of his reply but I cannot thank him for the contents of his letter. After putting forward arguments which I do not accept he concluded by saying:
  "While the council's view is understandable, I am afraid that, if they wish to reacquire this property, a sale by the Department can only be negotiated on the basis of current market value as assessed by the district valuer."
  I was amazed. I could not believe it to be true that Morley people were expected to buy at present-day inflated prices the property which had been given to them in 1917.
  I wrote again to the Department and requested that Morley Council's scheme be considered by the Secretary of Slate. The right hon. Gentleman's reply was similar. In his final paragraph he wrote:
  "I understand the feelings of the council having regard to the particular circumstances of this case, but I am afraid that these are not considerations which would enable the hall to be treated exceptionally under the rules applicable to the disposal of Government land."
  I was extremely displeased with that unsatisfactory answer. It may be asked "What do others think of the demand that is being made by the Department?
  1662
  The Yorkshire Evening Post on 6th April 1973 said:
  "Morley Council may have to pay thousands of pounds to regain Morley Hall, the oldest house in the borough. But the hall should be theirs anyway, so I am told. The hall was built in 1683, was given to Morley by Sir Charles Scarth in 1917. From that time it was used as the local maternity hospital, and many of Morley's sons and daughters were born there. In 1948 at the inception of the NHS the Ministry of Health took the hall, and paid nothing for it. Eventually a new maternity unit and group training school opened at Staincliffe, Desbury, rendering the Morley unit obsolete. Now Morley Corporation is offered it back again by Whitehall, but at the District Valuer's price. Morley wants to make the hall a cultural centre, a splendid idea for a town which is not overendowed in this respect. They say the Whitehall move is legally right but morally wrong. But if this is legally right, then Morley's MP, Sir Alfred Broughton, wants to nip down the House of Common's corridor and ask advice on how to get this particular law changed."
  I shall not ask for a change in law because, as I shall explain, that is unnecessary. I concede at once that when the National Health Service took over management of the maternity service at Morley Hall Section 6 of the National Health Service Act 1946 made it necessary for the ownership of the premises to be transferred to and vested in the Ministry of Health. But the Act does not say that if the premises are no longer needed by the Minister and are returned to the local authority from whence taken the Minister must demand a price of current market value.
  It will be of considerable interest to know that when the National Health Service came into operation in 1948 the Ministry of Health took over not only Morley Hall but also Grange Hospital, Churwell, and Bruntcliffe Isolation Hospital, both of which are in Morley. When in the early 1950s these two hospitals became surplus to the requirements of the National Health Service, did the Minister demand payment at current market value? No, he did not. Morley Council was offered these two properties at a price of £1 each. Clearly, there was no law which demanded current market value to be paid.
  I have waded through the outpourings of correspondence relating to this problem. I find that the policy which the Minister describes as "the established procedure" and which he has insisted

  1663
  on following is set out in some detail in Ministry of Housing and Local Govern Circular 57/66. I have a copy of that in my hand. First, this circular is no more than a letter sent by a Government Department to clerks of local authorities in England and Wales advocating a policy for dealing with surplus land, including buildings. It has not been laid before Parliament and does not carry with it the weight of law. This circular expresses the hope that there will be a spirit of co-operation in working a policy whereby property surplus to Government requirements will be offered to the local authority in whose area the property is situated, and local authorities will offer reciprocal opportunities to Government Departments. It is stated that the price will be a matter for negotiation and that local authorities will not be expected to pay more than the district valuer is prepared to certify.
  I believe that this policy is probably a good one in 99 cases out of 100. I would not question it if the building had been built or bought by the Department. But not one penny was paid for Morley Hall, and now the Minister wants to cash in on present-day exorbitant prices. Nor am I impressed with the Minister's argument that he should be recompensed for maintaining the building while it has been in his ownership.
  I think I have said enough to show that the Minister's decision is morally wrong and legally unnecessary. Lest the Minister should still have doubts about local feeling, I shall conclude by quoting from local newspapers. I quote first from a leading article in the Morley Observer of 17th May:
  "We learned this week that Sir Keith Joseph has decided not to give back Morley Hall to the Council. This is an outrageous ruling, whether or not, as Sir Keith implies, property acquired under the 1946 Act was free of any existing trust. The Act merely legalised the robbery. For robbery it is. The Hall was a gift to the town. When it was taken over under the Act, no compensation was paid for it. Having admitted these facts Sir Keith goes on to excuse his present parsimony on the grounds that the Health Service has spent, on maintaining the building, money which, in other purely hypothetical circumstances, might have come from the local authority. This is the sort of tortuous evasion that only an absent Minister is capable of making on the advice of civil servants even more distant from the realities of
  1664
  life to justify actions for which he can have little real taste. Quit the airy realms of high policy, Sir Keith, and listen to the people speaking. 'Morley Hall belongs to Morley,' they are saying. 'You pinched it without paying a penny. Now you want 115 to grease the Government's palm for the privilege of getting it back? You must be joking!' The fact is that, as Minister of a Government not averse to ladling out talk of 'moral obligations' Sir Keith is NOT joking. We find that very hard indeed to stomach."
  I quote also from the Morley Advertiser of last Friday:
  "Local people will be delighted to know that a preservation order has been made in respect of Morley Hall, preventing any alterations being made to the structure of the building. This news was conveyed to members of the Morley Civic Society on Tuesday night by Mr. George Atkinson, president of the local History Society, and one who has fought to keep the Hall as it is and restore it to its rightful owners, the Morley Corporation. The Chairman of the Civic Society echoes the thoughts of everyone when he says that the preservation order is a step in the right direction."
  I implore the Minister to change his mind. I hope he will rise and announce that Morley Hall will be given back to Morley people. If he cannot do that I trust that in view of what I have said he will say that he will report back to his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and that the case will be looked at again.
  11.56 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Michael Alison): The hon. Member for Batley and Morley (Sir A. Broughton) has, as he said, written to me about Morley Hall and he is pressing the case on behalf of his constituents most eloquently and forcefully, as one would expect from him. I certainly make no complaint about the strong line he is taking. This debate will, I hope, enable me to deal with the general question of what happens to buildings taken over under the National Health Service Act 1946 when they are no longer needed for the service, as is the position here. It will help to put the relevant facts on the record because there is obviously a lot of strong feeling in the hon. Gentleman's constituency.
  Morley Hall Maternity Hospital was one of the many hospitals formerly run by local authorities or by voluntary bodies which were transferred to the National Health Service in 1948. Section 6 of the National Health Service Act 1946 provided that these hospitals

  1665
  should be transferred to, and vest in, the Minister, now the Secretary of State, and that they should vest in him free of any trust existing immediately before the appointed day. No special exceptions were made in respect of hospitals which, like Morley Hall, had been donated by a local benefactor—Sir Charles Scarth in this case—or had been bought with moneys raised by local public subscription.
  Hospital properties statutorily acquired in this way were transferred to the National Health Service without payment of compensation. It is, of course, the usual practice for reasons generally understood and accepted, that when central Government assumes responsibility for services hitherto administered by local government property held for the purpose of these services is transferred without payment. This took into account that from 1948 the National Health Service would take over the responsibility for the running and maintenance of the hospital, and for the provision of a free hospital service to all persons needing hospital treatment.
  In taking over the hospitals with their liabilities and future costs of maintenance, the Government relieved the local authorities of a very heavy financial burden. This cannot be disputed. Large sums of money are concerned here, and it may be relevant to note that expenditure on the provision of hospital services which now falls on my right hon. Friend, excluding capital expenditure, was running at nearly £1,122 million in 1971–72.
  Expenditure on capital building and land had to be faced to the extent of an increase from about £18,500,000 in 1949–50, at constant prices, to about £155 million in 1971–72 on a comparable price basis. This is the sort of scale of expenditure my right hon. Friend is faced with in discharging his obligations to finance the National Health Service.
  In October 1972 a new £1 million maternity unit of 120 beds was opened at the Staincliffe General Hospital, about seven miles from Morley, to replace the maternity units at Crossley Maternity Home, Mirfield, Ravensleigh Annexe, Dewsbury, Moorlands Hall Maternity Home, Dewsbury, and Batley Maternity Home, and Morley Hall. This was in accordance with the regional hospital
  1666
  board's policy of providing improved maternity hospital facilities in the area. Morley Hall was a small general practitioner maternity unit and as such could not be expected to offer the full range of support services which are available at a modern purpose-built unit such as the one to be opened at the Staincliffe General Hospital.
  It is worth emphasising the improvement in the services now available to the mothers in this area as a result of this outlay of £1 million. In the new unit beds are arranged in six, four and single bedded bays where mothers can rest in a high degree of privacy, yet under full supervision, in a bright cheerful atmosphere. Delivery and operating theatre suites, special care and isolation rooms and an ante-natal clinic are also provided. The unit contains 120 maternity beds, 18 more than provided collectively by the five smaller units to which I have already referred, and effectively meets the maternity needs of the area. Nobody is better able to judge the increase in standards than the hon. Gentleman, with his professional background.
  In the light of the opening of the new unit at Staincliffe Hospital, my right hon. Friend, on the advice of the regional hospital board, agreed to the closure of Morley Hall, but only after full and detailed consultations with the local authorities and other interested bodies had revealed no objections to this course of action. The property was subsequently declared surplus to the requirements of the National Health Service, and arrangements were put in hand for its disposal. This is where we come to the dispute.
  I appreciate that Morley Borough Council wishes to acquire—or re-acquire, to be more precise—Morley Hall now that it is no longer needed for hospital purposes and has in mind to use it as an arts centre. I agree that this is a very worthwhile purpose and one which will make good use of this historic building. But it is not, unfortunately, the kind of need for which we could recommend any concession on price. If Morley Borough Council should decide to go ahead with the acquisition of the hall, this would have to be at the current market value as assessed by the district valuer, and I hope the council will now feel able to accept this.

  1667
  When Government land is declared surplus to requirements, Departments do not have a free hand to go ahead with disposal in such manner and on such terms as they may think fit, but are required to follow an agreed and established procedure. This procedure applies equally to surplus hospital land and buildings which are vested in the Secretary of State, and requires that the property is offered first to other Government Departments, then to the local authorities—that is, the county and district councils—and only if these authorities do not wish to acquire it is the property offered for sale on the open market.
  Sales to local authorities are required to be at current market value as assessed by the district valuer, who advises Government Departments on matters affecting value in all property transactions. Only very exceptionally may a property be offered to a local authority at less than the current market value where a special case can be made for a sale at a concessionary price or for offering the property as a gift. The kind of case I have in mind here would be, for example, where a former hospital was needed by the local authority for a closely related and essential purpose such as a residential home for mentally handicapped people, or some similar and urgent purpose. But in such a case the rule about gifts would apply and appropriate action would have to be taken.
  I know that Morley Borough Council feels very strongly that the hall should be transferred to it, as the former owner, on nominal terms, and that it seems to it unfair to have to pay the current market value. But it is really only by looking at Morley Hall as a case on its own and disregarding its place in the totality of land held for hospital purposes that one has a feeling of unfairness. I hope that through this debate here today the council will be better able to view the matter in this wider context and to accept that transfer on other than current market value terms is really out of the question. It will be in the same position as others which have contributed to, or been served by, some hospital building financed by public subscription, or given to the National Health Service in some cases after the NHS had been established. Many hospitals large and small throughout the
  1668
  country, especially the former voluntary hospitals, including the teaching hospitals derived from gifts, benefactions or subscriptions. No one would dispute that these are now part of the assets of the NHS.
  For a while a building serves the original purpose, but there may come a time when it is no longer needed and then its last service to the NHS is its value as a capital asset, realisation of which provides funds for further improvements to the NHS. It is not possible to treat NHS assets in anything less than a uniform manner and we cannot afford not to make full use of them. Of course, it is fully accepted that the NHS pays current market value for all or any land taken over from a local authority in the normal course of business between Government and local authorities. We are grateful to local authorities generally for their assistance to the NHS by helping us to acquire sites needed for NHS development, but no doubt if they were not getting a fair price for the help they were giving it would not be so readily forthcoming.
  In support of the council's claim for special consideration over price, reference has been made by the hon. Gentleman to two other properties, the former Bruntcliffe Isolation Hospital and the Grange Hospital, which were transferred to the council as former owner, on concessionary terms, in the early 1950s. The council has felt that these were "precedents" which might be extended to Morley Hall.
  I should perhaps explain here that at the inception of the National Health Service in 1948, certain hospitals which were not needed for health service purposes were disclaimed and left with their existing owning authorities. Some other hospitals, mainly isolation hospitals, were statutorily acquired under the 1946 Act, but within a very short time were found not to be needed for hospital purposes.
  The hon. Gentleman will recall the early post-war revolution of health needs and conditions, which resulted in many such hospitals—particularly some of the early tuberculosis hospitals—being irrelevant to the needs of the National Health Service. In these cases, the hospitals were offered back to their former owning authorities on nominal terms, provided

  1669
  they had an urgent and statutory use for them. The two hospitals referred to here were in this category. However, this special arrangement for the return of certain hospitals to former owning authorities remained in force for a period of only five years following the appointed day, and was terminated on 5th July 1953—almost 20 years ago. It was, of course, only intended as an interim arrangement to meet the particular set of circumstances which applied in the early days of the National Health Service. We could not agree that similar circumstances apply today in the case of hospital properties which, like Morley Hall, have been integrated into the health service and have been in service use and making substantial demands upon NHS resources by way of maintenance and administration for almost 25 years. In such cases, hospitals which have become redundant fall to be dealt with in accordance with the normal procedures for the disposal of surplus Government land which I have already outlined.
  Should the Morley Borough Council decide to acquire the Hall at current market value, we shall ask the district valuer to enter into discussions with the council immediately, with a view to arranging a sale. As I said earlier, we understand that it is the council's intention to use the Hall as an arts centre, and this seems an excellent choice of use for a building which is listed as being of special architectural or historic interest, and will enable the people of Morley to continue to use and enjoy the building, whilst preserving an important part of their heritage for posterity. But we offer the property to the local authority without strings. It is for it to decide whether it
  1670
  has powers or funds to purchase, and after that the use to which it puts the property is its business.
  I have touched earlier on the costs of running the hospital and specialist services. Yet, despite the large sums which are currently being spent on the service, it is common ground that potentially a great deal more needs to be spent before modernisation is complete, and there are many more improvements which we would wish to make, or planned development which we would like to bring forward, if more money were available. Obviously, however, in money matters we have to take our turn with other claims on public expenditure, and all Governments have accepted that modernisation of the NHS is a long-term commitment. It is here that the proceeds from the sale of surplus hospital land and buildings will be of help, to some degree, in being ploughed back into the hospital regions' building programmes to enable additional building schemes or "shelved" schemes to be brought forward in some cases.
  In a Written Answer in the House on 15th March my right hon. Friend announced the introduction of new financial arrangements by which the proceeds of additional sales of hospital land would be made available to the hospital capital programme—
  The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock on Wednesday evening, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at ten minutes past Twelve o'clock.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Gibraltar
  Gibraltar
  World Population Year
  World Population Year
  Diplomatic Service (Widows' Pensions)
  Diplomatic Service (Widows' Pensions)
  Disasters (Contingency Planning)
  Disasters (Contingency Planning)
  India (Drought)
  India (Drought)
  West Africa (Drought Areas)
  West Africa (Drought Areas)
  Vietnam (Diplomatic Relations)
  Vietnam (Diplomatic Relations)
  IRA Arms Shipment
  IRA Arms Shipment
  Rhodesia
  Rhodesia
ENVIRONMENT
  Car Seat Belts
  Car Seat Belts
  Planning Decisions and Appeals
  Planning Decisions and Appeals
  M40/M42/M5 Motorway Complex
  M40/M42/M5 Motorway Complex
  Maplin
  Maplin
  Poisonous Wastes (Dumping)
  Poisonous Wastes (Dumping)
  Housing Starts
  Housing Starts
  Motorways (Road Work Warnings)
  Motorways (Road Work Warnings)
  Agar House, Strand
  Agar House, Strand
  Buildings (Compensation for Soundproofing)
  Buildings (Compensation for Soundproofing)
  Caravan Sites (Coventry)
  Caravan Sites (Coventry)
  Smoke Control Regulations (Improvement Costs)
  Smoke Control Regulations (Improvement Costs)
  Somerset House
  Somerset House
  A57 (Aston-cum-Aughton)
  A57 (Aston-cum-Aughton)
  Epping Forest
  Epping Forest
  Coastal Pollution
  Coastal Pollution
  Building Society Borrowers (Subsidy)
  Building Society Borrowers (Subsidy)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Mr. Said Hamami (Passport)
  Mr. Said Hamami (Passport)
  Firearms Control (Green Paper)
  Firearms Control (Green Paper)
  Romanian Cyclists
  Romanian Cyclists
  Police Officers (Complaints)
  Police Officers (Complaints)
  Police Federation Fund Rules
  Police Federation Fund Rules
  Police Regulations
  Police Regulations
  Immigrant Visitors
  Immigrant Visitors
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Adult Education (Russell Report)
  Adult Education (Russell Report)
  Old Hall Manuscript
  Old Hall Manuscript
  Watts Frescoes
  Watts Frescoes
  Council for Educational Technology
  Council for Educational Technology
  GOVERNMENT OFFICES (DISPERSAL)
  GOVERNMENT OFFICES (DISPERSAL)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Milk Production Grant (Marginal Areas)
  Milk Production Grant (Marginal Areas)
  Horses (Export for Slaughter)
  Horses (Export for Slaughter)
  LIBEL CASES (REPORTING)
  LIBEL CASES (REPORTING)
DEFENCE
  Naval Ratings (Alcohol)
  Naval Ratings (Alcohol)
  HMS "Bulwark"
  HMS "Bulwark"
  Riot Control Gas
  Riot Control Gas
  Rubber Bullets
  Rubber Bullets
  Land
  Land
  RAF, Brawdy
  RAF, Brawdy
  >Illegal Fishing (South Coast)
  >Illegal Fishing (South Coast)
  Multi-Role Combat Aircraft
  Multi-Role Combat Aircraft
  Adour Jet Engine
  Adour Jet Engine
  Libya (Naval Co-operation)
  Libya (Naval Co-operation)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  International Monetary Fund (Managing Director's Salary)
  International Monetary Fund (Managing Director's Salary)
  Schedule E Income
  Schedule E Income
  Personal Incomes
  Personal Incomes
  Inland Revenue Statistics
  Inland Revenue Statistics
NORTHERN IRELAND
  EEC Commissioner (Visit)
  EEC Commissioner (Visit)
SCOTLAND
  District General Hospital (Airdrie)
  District General Hospital (Airdrie)
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Family Income Supplement
  Family Income Supplement
  Deafness (Research)
  Deafness (Research)
  Prisoners' Wives (Visits)
  Prisoners' Wives (Visits)
  Telephones
  Telephones
  Disabled Persons' Vehicles
  Disabled Persons' Vehicles
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Graphite Supplies
  Graphite Supplies
  Concorde
  Concorde
  Gas Boards (Reports and Accounts)
  Gas Boards (Reports and Accounts)
WALES
  European Regional Development
  European Regional Development
  Public Expenditure
  Public Expenditure
  Mid-Wales
  Mid-Wales

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock: THE LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Truro.

LORD O'BRIEN OF LOTHBURY
The Right Honourable Sir Leslie Kenneth O'Brien, G.B.E., having been created Baron O'Brien of Lothbury, of Lothbury in the City of London, for life —Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Shawcross and the Lord Cobbold.

THE MIDDLE EAST: SECURITY COUNCIL MEETING
2.47 p.m.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what conclusions were reached by the Security Council of the United Nations on action to contribute to peace in the Middle East, following the reports by Dr. Waldheim and Dr. Jarring.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, the Security Council meeting on the Middle East is still in session. We hope that it will lead to progress towards a peaceful settlement in the Middle East based on Security Council Resolution 242 of November, 1967.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, while thanking the Minister may I ask whether he would agree that the discussions so far have encouraged some hope; that both sides have said they are prepared to talk without prior conditions? Do Her Majesty's Government think that a new visit from Dr. Jarring, who alienated Israel, is the best way of dealing with this problem? Might not the other suggestion of a group of members of the Security Council beginning initiatives and negotiations be a better method?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I would agree that so far the atmosphere in the Security Council has been a good deal more friendly and helpful to the solution of this very difficult problem. It would be perhaps difficult for me to say to-day whether Dr. Jarring's mission is the best way, or not, of trying to reach an agreement. I should like to say, of course, that Her Majesty's Government are always willing to do their best to help in whatever may come out of the Security Council in the way of trying to find a solution to this difficult problem.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, does the Minister appreciate that it was not my intention to be critical of Dr. Jarring?—he has with quite extraordinary persistence sought peace there. But might I suggest to him that in the new situation—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: No!
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, might I ask him whether he would consider the suggestion that in the new situation it might be better to have a group representing the Security Council taking the initiative with the ultimate idea of renewing the Geneva Conference at which both sides could be present—in different rooms at first if they liked, but meeting together on the Rhodes model ultimately?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I think we would all agree that if there is to be a lasting settlement of this problem there must in the end be negotiations, in one form or another, between the two parties. As I have said, if there is anything that Her Majesty's Government can do towards this end, we shall certainly do it.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, would not the noble Marquess agree that the best approach to a solution of the problem—I am not suggesting that there would be a solution—would be for the Arab countries to meet the Israeli Government across the conference table? Is it not obvious by now that no resolution passed by the Security Council will have the slightest effect? And if it is suggested —as it has been suggested—that the Israeli Government rejects Resolution 242, is the noble Marquess not aware (as the Foreign Office should be aware)

689
that this is not the first time that a resolution of the Security Council has been rejected? Will the noble Marquess recall the year 1947, when the Security Council resolution on partition was unanimously rejected by the Arab States?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I think we must all hope that Resolution 242 will be adhered to by all the parties involved. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, that in the end, as I think I said before, there must be a negotiation, presumably across the table in the final analysis; but of course it must depend upon the willingness of both sides to do this.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, can the noble Marquess explain how Israel can ever be assured of having secure frontiers if insistance is made upon the word "withdrawal"?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I think this is very much a matter which will have to be negotiated between the two parties concerned.

NIGERIA: IBO POPULATION
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper, and to be allowed to add a word of welcome to our distinguished visitor, General Gowon, who has rendered great services to his country at a very critical period in her history.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have any information about the fall in the Ibo population of Nigeria since the commencement of the Biafran war.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, reverting to the Question, Her Majesty's Government do not have this information. As noble Lords are aware, it is not the practice of Her Majesty's Government to comment on the internal affairs of another State. But I am glad to take this opportunity to say that after the end of the Nigerian civil war General Gowon and the Federal Military Government showed the utmost magnanimity towards the defeated side and to pay tribute to the policies of reconciliation which they have pursued.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, is the noble Marquess aware that the Ibo population of Nigeria have had to endure great suffering and hardship since the end of the Biafran war and that their numbers have been reduced from 14 million to 4 million? And can Her Majesty's Government use their influence upon the Government of Nigeria to further the work of reconciliation and the avoidance of discrimination against the Ibo people?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, as I have said, it is not the practice of Her Majesty's Government to comment on the internal affairs of another country. Obviously any war, civil or otherwise, leaves great horrors in its wake. I should like to confine myself to repeating that General Gowon and his Government have done their very best in this way to try to pursue a policy of reconciliation with the Ibo race, and I hope and feel happy to think that they will continue to do so.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, can Her Majesty's Government urge the Government of Nigeria to allow a resumption of missionary activities and free access for foreign journalists to the Ibo territories in Eastern Nigeria, so that the outside world may be given the fullest opportunity of rendering every possible help?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I will certainly take note of what the noble Lord has said.

WAR PENSIONS
2.55 p.m.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, when the annual review of war pensions take place in the autumn, in implementation of the undertaking to maintain and if possible improve the position of the war pensioner and his dependants, they will consider adjusting the wife's allowance from 50p per week—which has remained unaltered for over 53 years—to a figure which bears a more reasonable relation to the present value of money.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SECURITY (LORD ABERDARE): No, my Lords. The increase of 50p for a wife paid with 100 per cent. disablement pension, and pro rata for lower assessments, dates from an era before modern social security provisions were introduced, and has long been regarded as obsolete. The unemployable war pensioner receives increases for his wife and children at the rates equivalent to invalidity pension under the social security scheme, and war pensioners who receive social security benefits such as sickness benefit are entitled to the appropriate dependency increases. These rates go up substantially in October, as of course will the war pensions themselves and all the supplementary allowances associated with disablement which are paid under the war pensions scheme.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, while the net take-home money which the severely disabled men receive at the end of a week is not ungenerous, and all Governments are to be thanked for this, does my noble friend realise that his opening words, "No, my Lords," will be grievously disappointing? These women cannot be left with 50p after;70 years. They have looked after their severely disabled men all this time, and as widows or as wives are worth very much more than that. Will my noble friend ask the Ministers concerned in another place to think again when they review this matter in the autumn?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I think I am right in saying that most of the ex-Servicemen's organisations have accepted that in the context of modern social security these allowances are obsolescent and it is the more important dependancy allowances which are made under the social security scheme, where, for example, a wife would receive a dependency allowance increase of £4·15 and £2·10 for the first child. These are the important things which help a war pensioner when he is retired, sick or unemployed.
I might also mention to my noble friend that the ex-Servicemen's organisations have wholeheartedly welcomed the decision which we made, that from October next this special allowance will be paid in full with National Insurance
692
dependancy benefits, so there will be no set-off of the one against the other.
LORD MAYBRAY-KING: My Lords, while supporting all that the noble Lord, Lord Fraser of Lonsdale, has said, and congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, and his Government on what they are doing for the ex-Servicemen, may I ask whether the noble Lord is aware that all the ex-Servicemen's associations give a very high place to the need to improve the pensions of the widows of ex-Servicemen, and will he bear that in mind when the review takes place?
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, answers that question, he says that the allowance of 50p allotted 50 years ago is obsolete: but these women are not obsolete; they are still looking after the disabled men. Will he ask the Ministers in another place to think about this iniquitously low sum? Is he also aware that that does not in the least mean that I am denigrating what Governments of all Parties have tried to do for ex-Servicemen? On the whole, they have done well.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that tribute to all Governments. We certainly believe that our record is very good in that respect. But so far as his point about the wife is concerned, I can only explain to him that this 50p is a relic of the past and that we prefer to spend the money that is available on the much more effective allowance, which is that which the pensioner receives for his wife when he is out of work, sick or retired. That allowance will be going up in October and that will bring benefit to the war pensioner. I shall certainly take note of what the noble Lord said about widows. It is another question, but shall draw it to the attention of my right honourable friend.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY AND FINLAND
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what explanation Finland has given to the European Community of the fact

693
that the agreement between them which was initialled on July 22 last year is still unsigned, whereas the agreement between Finland and the Council of Mutual Economic Assistance (formerly COMECON), which was initialled on March 13 this year, was signed only two months later.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: None, my Lords. We continue to hope that Finland will, in the course of this year, sign and ratify her trading agreement with the E.E.C.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, has the Government noticed that the Soviet Union is now praising its own recent bilateral treaty with Finland as a model for new style relations between the States of Europe, especially in the context of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe which is taking place in Helsinki itself; and that it is disquieting that the evident first results of this new relationship between the Soviet Union and Finland should be that the Soviet Union has apparently forbidden Finland to sign a treaty which they initialled as long ago as twelve months?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I do not think that I would dissent from the noble Lord in saying that there is obviously a special relationship between Finland and the Soviet Union. I hope myself that that will not interfere with Finland's signing the agreement with the E.E.C. In fact we have no indication to suppose that it is going to interfere with that in any way. And, of course, as the noble Lord is probably aware, the latest date for signature of this agreement is November 30, 1973, so they have a little time yet.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, the noble Marquess has said that there is no indication of any interference, but is the Government not aware that there has been the gravest constitutional and political crisis in Finland's history since the Second World War? And will he allow me to send him some newspaper cuttings?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I shall be glad to read them.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords,
694
would my noble friend not agree that the two agreements are not comparable in any way what ever? Is not the agreement between Finland and the Council of Mutual Economic Assistance—formerly COMECOM—of a very limited nature and not comparable at all with the agreement which Finland and the E.E.C. initialled on July 22 last year? Secondly, would he not agree that any delay there may have been could have been owing, as the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, probably knows very well, to pressure brought by the Communist Party within Finland itself?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I would not dissent at all from what my noble friend has said on this point, and, as I say, we continue to hope that the Finnish Government will sign the agreement during the course of this year.

CAPITALISM AND SOCIALISM
3.3 p.m.
LORD BROCKWAYrose to call attention to the evidence of increasing contradictions and unacceptable immorality of the capitalist economic system and to the need for the democracies of the world to advance consciously and progressively towards Socialism, if their democracy is to be sustained; and to move, That this House urges Her Majesty's Government to give a lead in that direction. The noble Lord said: My Lords, in opening this debate one is tempted to illustrate the unacceptable immorality of the capitalist economic system by recent events. I do not propose to do so, though I shall be referring in principle to one of those matters later. I do not propose to do so because I do not look upon these as merely the unpleasant and unacceptable face of capitalism but I regard the whole body of the capitalist economic system as unacceptable and immoral. I shall seek to prove that, and I shall seek to prove it in fundamental terms. I have learnt since I have been in this House that Members can discuss important issues in depth, and it is my desire that this very basic issue should be discussed in that spirit this afternoon.
May I begin by concrete definitions? What do we mean by the capitalist economic system? It is surely a system in which the economy is owned by a section

695
of the community and administered by managements for the profit of that section. Socialism on the other hand is a system where the economy is owned by the whole community and administered democratically for service to the community. [Interruption.] Perhaps noble Lords will allow me to develop my argument in the usual spirit of this House. In a system which is geared to the profit of sectional owners, gross inequalities in wealth are inevitable. I think it would now broadly be accepted that a wage of £25 a week is a minimum living wage in our society. Yet it is a fact that according to the latest figures for April, 1972, the number of adult male workers earning less than £25 a week was 2·9 million, a 41·4 percentage of the total male workers of this country. That is bad enough, but the number of adult male workers in our community earning less than £20 a week, which is beneath the living standard, was one million, or 14·3 per cent. of our working population. Those figures exclude women workers, and many women workers have to maintain not only themselves but also others.
With that illustration of the poverty of our present system on the one side, may I look at the other side of the picture? We have recently had a case where a consultant to an important industry was paid £50,000 a year for that service and when he was to become chairman of the company he was given £130,000 in compensation, because as chairman he would receive only £38.000 a year. I want to recognise at once that he returned £44,000 of that amount. But, my Lords, in a society which has the poverty population which I have described, can anyone suggest that those vast amounts are justifiable? I am not surprised that the Prime Minister has described them as unpleasant and unacceptable. In my view, when someone is receiving from society those vast amounts when he is not giving comparable service to society, he is guilty of legalistic theft. He is not a criminal, because our law expressing the system of capitalism permits that kind of extortion, but nevertheless it is an immoral conception of society. In view of recent events, I would add that while I abhor the commercialisation of sex, it is far more anti-social, and therefore immoral, for
696
someone to be taking without essential service to the community sums of that character than it is to pay a visit to a call girl. This is not an isolated case of the unacceptable face of capitalism, of personal incomes which bear no relation to the service of people to the community. In a system geared to profit it is inevitable that at its peak there should be colossal salaries paid which are morally repugnant because of the poverty which exists in the same community.
My Lords, the Labour Research Department published last week a statement that 36 chairmen of large British companies are paid over £30,000 a year. One chairman, of Sedgwick Forbes Holdings, is paid £68,000 a year; three chairmen, of British Petroleum, I.C.I. and C. T. Bowring, are paid over £60,000 a year. Of the rest, five others are paid more than £50,000 a year and 11 are paid more than £40,000 a year. I say that to the sense of justice in this House it is utterly immoral that certain individuals should be receiving that personal income in a society which will not pay thousands—a million—of its workers even £20 a week for the service it is given.
LORD HARVEY OF PRESTBURY: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord for allowing me to intervene. With regard to the noble Lord's figures, which are undoubtedly accurate, would he say how much those individuals keep net out of those incomes?
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I was going on to that very point. I would ask Members of the House to accept that I am trying to be fair in my statement. I accept at once that there is heavy taxation upon those incomes, but even after taxation we have to look at what is left; and what is left is not comparable with the wages which are paid to millions of workers in this country upon whose services we all depend for our food, our clothing, our housing and our necessities.
These are instances, and perhaps extreme, of the inequality of wealth distribution. I have been very interested in the figures given about wealth which is represented in this House. They were given by Mr. Andrew Roth in his book Lord on the Board, and so far as I know his figures have not been challenged. He estimates that in this House there are

697
60 millionaires and that Members of this House have an ownership of 5,655,096 acres of land. Is there any Member of this House who will say that we justify that by our service to the community? It is the consequence of our capitalist economic system, and that capitalist economic system is immoral in those results. When one takes a broader picture, 1 per cent. of the adults of this country own 31 per cent. of the personal incomes of this country; 10 per cent. of our population actually own 72 per cent. of the personal incomes of our society.
My Lords, I want to look at the case which is put for our present society by the Prime Minister. Addressing the Women's Conservative Conference on May 23, he said that every child born in Britain, of whatever background, sex or colour,
"should have the chance to travel as far towards the goal which they set themselves as their own talents and their own energy allow."
That is a principle which I imagine we should all accept. But it assumes that we are still living in the old age of individual opportunity. That is not happening. Most opportunity now becomes for the mass of our people mere automata in vast economic machines. It is great combines now which dominate our economy. When we are thinking of individualism, the philosophy of laissez-faire of the last century, let us remember that 100 companies are now responsible for 50 per cent. of the total production of this country.
We then pass to the multi-national companies, and, quite honestly, they are now becoming more powerful in the world than Governments themselves. I have a list in my hand of 15 multi-national companies which are owned in the United Kingdom. Their total value is £85,000 million; their profits last year were £1,338 million. These multi-national companies situated in Britain have no loyalty to Britain. A quarter of our exports are covered by transactions between multi-national companies situated here with their partners abroad. The multi-national companies now—in America to a greater extent, and I have the list—in Western European countries, West Germany, and in Japan, are dominating the whole of the world. They are dominating world governments,
698
peoples, all of us. We are now becoming the subjects not of governments but of these great capitalist international firms. This is the modern capitalist economic system.
I turn to socialism as the alternative. It is often represented as a centralised governmental power, tyrannical, crushing the individual within a great State monopoly. In essence it is exactly the opposite. Socialism is the application of democratic participation in every social, communal sphere of life, including economic democracy. Socialism is widely thought of in terms of nationalization. Nationalisation is not socialism, but it is a means towards socialism. Public ownership represents half of socialism. The other half is industrial democracy—participation by the workers, the staff, in running industry, not only with a voice controlling working conditions but in every aspect of its administration and development. Industry, under socialism, would become a co-operation between the public, the consumer, and the workers (themselves consumers); industrial self-government within the framework of the public need. Because of the absence of worker participation, or because of limited participation, workers in nationalised industry to-day have little sense of belonging to it. It is only by a conscious workers' share and voice that the feeling will be developed in publicly-owned industries, "This is ours".
It should be emphasised that we are not thinking of distant, centralised representation but of regional, local, and shop floor participation. We are not thinking only of nationalisation. Public ownership may take varied forms—sometimes cooperative societies, housing associations, which are often localised. Socialism means a democratic, participating economy by the public and by the workers alike. In such a society there would be a sense of identification, there would be pride, there would be eagerness to produce not only to gain a higher standard of life but because the people would know that the accruing wealth would be fairly distributed in the population.
I want to recognise that what is necessary is not only a new economy but a new ethic. The motive under socialism would not be self-aggrandisement, as it is to-day, but service to the community. One of the most distressing features of

699
our existing society, reflecting its inherent motives, is personal aggrandisement. When I visited America 20 years ago I was shocked by the way in which personal success was measured in terms of dollars. We have now largely become Americanised. I think that this is inevitable in a society where the dynamism is that of money making.
I recognise that this has gone very deep into our society. It is not only a matter of company chairmen. Sportsmen, pop singers, T.V. prizes, even differentials among workers themselves, reflect this urge for personal wealth rather than service and, beyond, the value to society. It is argued that the motive of self-aggrandisement is inherent in human nature, that it preceded capitalism, and that it cannot be eradicated. It will certainly take a long time before personal aggrandisement is sublimated to service and egalitarianism. But I believe it call grow with the realisation that one is living in a fair society, and that cooperation brings greater happiness than competition. Human nature is not limited to selfishness; it includes compassion, a sense of justice, delight in companionship, the joys of human fellowship, a sense of belonging to the community, and satisfaction in service to the community. Our task is to establish a society which, because it is based on justice and democratic participation, encourages these human characteristics. My Lords, I beg to move.
LORD CONE SFORD: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I wonder whether he can make one thing clear. He has been good enough to include some definitions, but would he make clear the meaning of his words in the Motion, "democracies of the world "? Do those words include Russia?
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I do not think that they would include Russia by definition. I am seeking for the free democracies, where there is freedom of speech and movement, to advance towards socialism. I would only add to that that I would very much hope that, as there is education in the communist countries, they would advance also to libertarian ideas.
Moved, That in view of the evidence of increasing contradictions and unaccept-
700
able immorality of the capitalist economic system and to the need for the democracies of the world to advance consciously and progressively towards socialism, if their democracy is to be sustained, this House urges Her Majesty's Government to give a lead in that direction.—(Lord Brockway.)
3.30 p.m.
THE EARL OF COWRIE: My Lords, I think it could only be in your Lordships' House that we would hear a Motion such as this one on the same day as a former Governor of the Bank of England is introduced: and your Lordships' House is surely all the more commendable for that. The noble Lord, Lord Brockway, is the leader of the Left—with a capital "L"—in your Lordships' House. This dignity by its nature allows him relatively few allies. It is—and I hope he will not take this as impertient from me—a very special tribute to him that commanding so few allies he has so very many friends. There is no more courteous Member of your Lordships' House, and, I would say, no more stubborn. I know about the few allies because in the distant days of the previous Administration the noble Lord and I once found ourselves in agreement about the iniquity and ill-advisedness respectively of a particular piece of foreign policy. As I remember it, the whole House was against us. The noble Lord was ticked off by his Leader—the present Leader of the Opposition—and I received that most feared chastisement of aspiring young Tories—what I must politely call "noises of dissent" from my noble friend Lord Carrington. So I have always looked upon the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, as a model of Parliamentary and political courage. In this context I must hope that he will think very carefully indeed before asking the House to divide on such a Motion.
My Lords, I believe that if the noble Lord will give capitalism another ten or twenty years. even if he persists in hounding it as vigorously and, I must say, misguidedly as he has this afternoon as well as over the last six or seven decades, I believe he will find that there is great life in the old capitalist dog yet, forced as it must be to wear its muzzle from time to time. I must say one other thing to the noble Lord directly. My noble friends on the Front and Back

701
Benches of this side of the House have a lot of time for—indeed, they spend a lot of time on—social policies and the ways in which vigorous national and supranational economies can be harnessed to drive them. We have little time for Socialism—with a capital "S"—as well as for much else that hides its vacancy behind capital letters. Yet I believe that we also agree in finding that Socialism is wonderfully advertised by the noble Lord's person if not by his arguments. Ministers who have to answer Starred Questions may not exactly pray to be "given this day their daily Brockway", but I am sure that they would miss them if ever the noble Lord decides (and this is surely inconceivable) twenty years after the national average to retire. Of course the truth is that it is the noble Lord's general approach to life that provides the lesson, not his political philosophy. I do not suppose he has spent more than five minutes a day thinking about the subject of himself for many more years than I have lived. The theme of my short speech is that unselfishness—a "social" orientation if you like—is as necessary to the working of a modern capitalist economy in practice as it is to socialism in theory. Here at least the theme steals a leaf from the noble Lord's book.
Before I illustrate it, I must address myself to one or two points which the noble Lord made. It would, I think, be quite wrong for me, in this most Wednesdayish of all Wednesday debates, to comment on the specific warts on the face of our economic system to which the noble Lord, rather lovingly I thought, drew our attention. Noble Lords on this side of the House were not born yesterday. There exists, as I must say there also exists opposite, very great experience of contemporary politics, finance and industry. I am sure my noble friends could produce every bit as hair-raising an anthology of malpractice and greed as the noble Lord ever dreamed of. The difference is that we believe that the drive towards wealth is itself a fund of human energy and creativity, and that this energy is utterly necessary to a wellbeing of a society and to the fulfilment of social as well as individual potential. We believe that the bedrock egalitarianism of socialists—to which, like Prometheus, is bound Stansgate man—utterly stands in the way of individual
702
psychology, which is to say the facts of life as we know them, and in the way of the individual will. And we believe that the individual will (and, my Lords, look at the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, as an exemplar of it!) is a kind of spiritual grace, the great asset, the capital if you like, of mankind generally.
My Lords, attendant on such a belief are two ideas, two qualifications. We are fallen angels—I am speaking of mankind, not Tories—and we know with Shakespeare that "lilies that fester smell far worse than weeds." Creativity can land one in jail as well as in the Institute of Directors or Millionaires' Row—or even, dare I say? in your Lordships' House. And, incidentally, on the subject of millionaires, the noble Lord singled out some recent examples of what he felt was disproportionate wealth, some of them quite close to home. He condemned in the same breath instances of great wealth associated with popular culture. I think he should do so up and down the country to his supporters. I do not think the performing, if not consulting, fees commanded by pop stars, sports and television performers and the like would be greatly condemned by his supporters. The individual will that I have mentioned and the ingenuity must be subject to constraint and to the system of checks and balances which is as flexible and shifting as the legal principle behind it is rock hard.
The second idea is this: poverty, deprivation, a polluted or a squalid environment are the great enemies of capitalism. To the socialists they offer a cause, a banner, but to the capitalist they are a sight of the three-headed Cerberus and Death. One, because of the great chorus of indignation and rightful, not righteous, indignation which they create and all the hostility and desire for vengeance; two, because they are the pit in which the individual creative energy which is so crucial to the system can lie still-born; and, three, because they deprive the entrepreneur of both his challenge and his discipline; that is to say a free, lively and intelligent market pursuing its liberty, making its choice.
My Lords, I do not believe that the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, is an enemy of creativity, but I do think his ideas are. At best they are highly conservative,

703
which is to say fashioned and conditioned by a previous time. This is nothing to do with the noble Lord's years, as his activities in your Lordships' House demonstrate. After all, there are still many young members of the Old Left—even if most of them when I was at Oxford had, like the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, been connected with Eton. I can understand why this is so. In general terms, socialism was a response to the undeniable social evils and exploitations of the first phase of the Industrial Revolution; and in places in the world, in places even in this country, this phase, or something approximate to it, still obtains. As such, we can honour socialism and we can honour its functioning army, the trades unions of this country, even as we insist that they are in law, in interest and in responsibility, part of the great "us" of our industrial society and no longer part of the "them". In particular terms, the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, came to manhood at the turn of the century in the golden age of Edwardian materialism, where fantastic aristocratic and mercantile wealth walked hand in hand with prosperous middle class complacency. The noble Lord witnessed, as many others here have done, two attempts by the developed world to destroy itself, and one was almost successful. It is more than understandable that with such experience the noble Lord is radical; after such experience it is almost mandatory to be radical.
Western capitalism is itself at this very moment engaged in a root and branch reform of the ground rules, the assumptions on which it will continue to function. Yet this same system since 1945, when I was five years old and the noble Lord was nearly 60, has increased the life span all over the world, not only in the developed countries, by about 20 years; and has, in the words of the economist, Norman McCrae, approximately trebled the world's living standards, adding twice as much to daily production in this tiny instant of time as had been added in all the previous æons of mankind. That is what these great faceless capitalist firms have helped to do.
LORD BALOGH: My Lords, will the noble Earl forgive me for interrupting? This encomium on the capitalist system
704
leaves out of account the fact that the population has also increased. Therefore the increase in wealth per capita was very slight indeed.
THE EARL or GOWRIE: My Lords, I must say to the noble Lord that I am not engaged in giving an encomium of the capitalist system. I am giving a small and personal speech in a Wednesday debate. I have said, and I say to him again, that this is what these great capitalist institutions have helped to do. Other factors have of course played a large part. I know that we do not live by living standards alone. But we cannot release all over the world the energies we need to solve problems, to share prosperities, without continuing such improvement. I think even the noble Lord, Lord Balogh, would agree with that. Capitalism must adapt, is adapting, to these social purposes for the, if you like, essentially self-interested reasons that I have given, and in ways which I shall end by attempting to show. In rough patches and on tricky ground the horse must be reined in, and it must be a well-trained and disciplined horse. No one who works in this country and for this Administration could fail to recognise that. But, unlike the Left, unlike noble Lords opposite generally even, we know that when the going is good the horse must be given its head. It is my conviction, as much as my hope, that in the next few years the going will be very good indeed.
I have used a metaphor of training and disciplining capitalism for the way ahead. I am not speaking to a Government brief but, as must be painfully obvious, to my own, but I wish to give chapter and verse and show that the metaphor is not simply a form of words, more matter for a May morning, or rather for a June Wednesday afternoon. That very model of a modern democratic capitalist, my right honourable friend Mr. Peter Walker, while riding the wave of our new prosperity, has yet devoted much time to the removal of some of those warts which we mentioned earlier. Already he has introduced the Fair Trading Bill—the most radical piece of legislation concerning consumer affairs that has ever been introduced in this country. Legislation for a Supply of Goods Act will ensure that the rights of the consumer cannot be undermined

705
by "small print" techniques. A major Insurance Companies Bill, giving the maximum protection to the policy holder, is now before Parliament. A major Bill on Consumer Credit will be introduced in the next Session of Parliament. Legislative proposals are being announced to deal with pyramid selling. Above all, there is legislation ahead to reform company law because, as my right honourable friend has said, and I quote him:
"I cannot over-emphasise the importance for the working of capitalism that it should be open, free and based on integrity. If it is not open and free, wrong decisions will be made but, more important, it will forfeit public confidence. That is why I want to tighten up laws in a number of spheres or company legislation".
My right honourable friend said that in January this year. Here, surely, is no opportunist or political response to Lonrho or whatever, but a considered part of a coherent programme.
My right honourable friend talked there about the importance of being open. My experience as an ex-teacher is that as a nation we are extremely ill-educated, not only in our democratic system, which is honoured throughout the world, but in our economic system as well. This is not only a pity; it is a great danger. More than two-thirds of the students whom I used to teach—in art subjects, admittedly —had hardly the most rudimentary knowledge of the workings of capitalism, not even enough to criticise, let alone defend it. The Opposition Parliamentary Party in another place is manned with teachers, which may have something to do with this. But, more seriously, it is of the first importance that the way we work at work is known about and discussed and, allowing of course for criticism, in the end justified for the amount it has done, and for the very great amount more it can do not only for our own people but for the world. I do not think noble Lords opposite will substantially disagree with me there. But I think that the ambivalence of the other great political Party in this country towards capitalism—and it is far from a fruitful ambivalence—helps to generate a vague hostility to the system; hostility which is neither creative, nor critical nor improving, just because it is so vague. Many trade unions of this country share this ambivalence.
706
Political apologists of a kind of monolithic socialism—if that is not tautological—which they have grounds to believe from experience does not work well, nevertheless, and rightly, know quite enough about the deployment of large investment funds to help instruct their members in reaping, as against claiming, greater rewards. I do not say this in any sour spirit. My departmental boss—since Whips in your Lordships' House are assigned to Departments my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Employment, is the founder chairman of the Wider Share Ownership Movement. These are lines along which Europe is thinking, and I fervently hope that the trade unions, in conjunction with their useful current work in participation on boards, will give realistic thought to share ownership as well. A financial as well as a personal stake in industry is a vital part of the educational process that I have talked about. I must say that I sometimes think that as a nation we provide too few incentives towards putting money to work in the financial industrial market place, and too many incentives towards taking it in part out of the system and into real estate, real goods and the like. Finally, I believe that the same financial industrial market place has been sluggish in promoting information about itself. The Prime Minister told a group of key directors recently that trade union leaders are always ready and willing to state their case, but only one industrialist in a thousand will go on television—and half of those who do go on do it badly.
I greatly look forward to the debate ahead, and in that spirit I must thank the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, for having introduced it. Your Lordships are always geiger counters of prevailing moods—I hestitate to call you trendy—as the debate last week on privacy indicated. I believe that the debate this week coincides with, is indeed a part of, a major and deliberate change in the capitalist sensibility. Events, inflation particularly, may have forced this change a little, but so has our greater knowledge—knowledge which must be propogated and shared—about the ways in which man responds to his individuality and to his society. As your Lordships have heard, a Tory faced with an "ism" is in deep, not to say hot, water. In spite of this, I am grateful to have been given the chance to take part

707
in a debate which is, in its own way, a move towards the democratisation of capitalism. I do not believe that any other set of economic procedures offers the flexibility and choice which mankind's creative energy requires. Nor do I believe that there is any better set of political procedures than our kind of democracy offers for remedying, or putting limits to, the defects of that same creative nature. Hand in hand, imitated or abused, these two will continue to give shape to our world.
3.94 p.m.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER:
My Lords, I should like to put the very important theme which my noble friend Lord Brockway has chosen for this afternoon's debate into a rather wider, historical context. As the noble Earl who has just sat down said, a number of noble Lords were not born yesterday—and these include myself. Those of us who go back far enough can remember the time when discussions about a fully collectivised economy, about the nationalisation of the means of production, distribution and exchange (as we used then to say), were entirely theoretical because there was no example of that particular aspect of the socialist programme in existence. It is that part of socialism, which I agree with my noble friend is not the whole, to which I want in the first instance to direct my remarks.
Then came the Russian Revolution, and the reactions of the rest of the world were something like this. Those who were horrified said, as they always do, that it could not last; those who were enchanted regarded it as Utopia; and those doughty social investigators, the late Beatrice and Sidney Webb, took it as a sign that, thanks to what was then known as the inevitability of gradualness, the same thing might happen here after a considerable interval. Of course, my Lords, they were all wrong. It did last. As to the inevitability of gradualness, the one thing that we have established is that it has nothing to do with the destination to which it leads hut that it is simply an exhibition of its gradual nature.
In the years that have followed, collection has not only lasted but has increased and multiplied in a very remarkable degree; and I think we forget this. I
708
should like to remind your Lordships that there are now about 1,000 million people, representing not very far short of a third of the world's population, who earn their living and get their living in a fully collectivised economy with only a very narrow margin of free private enterprise. I would for a moment pass forward into the future and say that if the spread of collectivism, either in the communist or the socialist version, is as rapid in the next half century as it has been in the last, then it is likely that the majority of the children of the present teenage generation will find themselves living in a fully collectivised economy. When we look at it in that way, it makes us think. We must make some kind of a balance between alternative ways of running the business of earning and getting a living—and it is only to that side of it that I want to look at the moment.
Obviously, the collectivist system as it now exists is viable. Obviously, it has some merits. It appears to escape some of the perils that afflict our capitalism. It appears to escape the current periods of widespread and devastating unemployment. Its Finance Ministers, perhaps because the communist societies are not very fully integrated into the international community as a whole, do not take to aeroplanes every few months in order to attend panic-stricken conferences about monetary crises, from which they invariably return with firm promises of a more stable system in future. It avoids—and this, I think, is fundamental—a number of the conflicts with which we are disturbed. No communist country has an Industrial Relations Act, and most Communist countries do not have industrial relations. They do not have prices and incomes policies, or discuss them with the Trades Union Congress or the C.B.I., because these organisations do not exist with which to discuss them.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, would the noble Baroness like to comment on the number of lives lost in the installation of these collective systems in Russia and China?
BARONESS WOOTTON of ABINGER: My Lords, I shall come to that point. I am taking the pro arguments first, and the anti are following. I know that many noble Lords will say that they avoid these conflicts because their populations are

709
virtually slaves. I can only say that it is not I think true in all collectivised communities that a very high proportion of the population regard themselves as slaves. The difference—and this is the fundamental difference—is that in a collectivised economy the public authorities organise and run the whole business of production, distribution and exchange, and that they deal with matters of prices and incomes. In our kind of economy we have an autonomous system which does these things subject to such controls as the public authorities like to impose upon them. I find that, in principle, a system which does not keep going by imposing controls on an autonomous, alternative system has much to commend it; and I have thought for many years that if we could work out, as my noble friend Lord Brockway hopes we may, a collectivist system which is also politically and socially democratic and liberal, then we shall have a much better way of feeding, clothing and entertaining ourselves than we have under our system of capitalism. Viewed as a means simply of delivering the goods, I remain convinced that there is a great deal to be said for collectivism.
Now the collectivist countries of the world are also Communist, with a capital "C". They have, as the noble Earl opposite was about to say, all arrived at their present position by violent revolutions involving a great deal of bloodshed. This is not the road which I am proposing to advocate. It is a road from which I would recoil with horror, and so would my noble friend Lord Brockway. Let me say also that they do not allow wide freedom of speech or criticism of the public authorities. They do not allow you to blaspheme in a way in which you may blaspheme in this country. You may not blaspheme even the most liberal of them by saying that the late Karl Marx and the late Friedrich Engels have been dead a long time, and that although they must have been great men in their day many of their prophecies have not been fulfilled, and that they have not got any very important message for the communities of to-day. These collectivist countries have not produced, let me say, any average standard of living comparable to that which has come from the capitalist communities. I hope your Lordships will accept that that
710
is, for a short period and in rather compressed terms, a balance of the pros and cons of the collectivist societies that we know. As to their lack of civil liberties and their low standard of living, it is fair to say that they have not lost much because they never had, any of them, a very high standard of either, with the possible exception of the East Germans.
When we turn to look at our own system it is, of course, blessed with the opposite virtues and vices. It has in the main evolved through riots, very often, and civil stresses, but it has evolved without formidable wholesale revolutions. It has produced for some people—for a very large number of people—the highest standard of living ever seen in the world; and it allows very considerable freedom (not absolute freedom, but very considerable freedom) of both speech and criticism. As my noble friend Lord Brockway has said, it also has its blemishes—recognised, I willingly accept, by many noble Lords opposite, and by their Government. It has its ugly face. It is disfigured by constant unemployment; by leaving its citizens without occupation and, in consequence, without a sense that they are of value to the community. Nearly everywhere—I think one should perhaps make some exceptions for the Scandinavian countries, which are endowed with smaller populations, but nearly everywhere—it has areas of appalling poverty. I myself find it terribly difficult to understand why very rich countries should contain millions of very poor people, and still contain them in spite of the efforts, in the case of this country, of Governments on both sides of this House. Our system has been unable recently to cope with its inflationary problems; and it is corrupted. as my noble friend Lord Brockway said with great eloquence, by an insatiable greed for money—a greed for money which seems to grow by what it feeds on and to be no less ravenous among those who already have a great deal (indeed, more ravenous, very often, among those who already have a great deal) than among those who, like many of our contemporary pensioners, have pathetically little.
The real question of the future is: can we civilise our system and can they civilise theirs? The one that does will win; there is not much doubt about that.

711
Let us look at our problems. What we have to do is to keep the capitalists and the workers happy, and to keep them in order; and I have no doubt that that is what the Government are trying to do. My growing fear, if I may depart from the equestrian metaphor and substitute a medical one, is that this is going to be another case where the surgical operation was successful but unfortunately the patient died. I fear increasingly that in our efforts to civilise capitalism we are going to strangle it. I say this when I myself am engaged in doing some work in an attempt to civilise it, particularly involving a prices and incomes policy which might commend itself in some respects even to noble Lords opposite. We are now having to impose an enormous number of restrictions which may keep the capitalists and the workers under control but do not make them happy; and if they are not happy they just do not let the thing run. We are now having to tell them that there are wages they must not have, that there are profits they must not make, prices they must not charge and places where they must not build their factories. It seems that these negative prohibitions amount to very many more than Ten Commandments.
We feel, rightly, that even in this economic world we still retain some vital freedoms. We still retain a limited freedom to say that we will work where we want to work or we will not work at all. It is a limited freedom, because great pressures are put on people who are out of work to take jobs that they may think unsuitable; but I sometimes wonder whether the freedom to sit at home without work, doing nothing, is better than sometimes being told by the authorities that there is a job in another part of the country and that you are expected to go to it. We regard that as slavery and direction of labour. But I wonder whether for the young people particularly, and in suitable cases, we are right to say that it is a worse loss of freedom than having no work at all.
So, my Lords, I come to it. It is very important that we should give our minds to finding a road—not the bloody road—towards a collectivised economic system which will be civilised, liberal and free.
712
This is what we are trying to do, and for this reason I welcome enthusiastically the signs that the political Party to which practically all my life I have had the honour to belong is now bringing to the front again the importance of public ownership of industry as a necessary means towards the kind of civilised community that I think many of us on both sides of the House wish to see realised. I think we have a chance of doing that. I should be prepared to say that this is the major task that faces us in the years to come in the race between these two alternative forms of economic and social organisation.
I also think there is some chance that some of the Communist countries might come a little way, perhaps even halfway, to meet us. I admit that I am greatly influenced by having spent a month last year in Mao's China where I think we have a comparatively liberal —and I say "comparatively" designedly—form of Communist organisation. I make this comparison with other Communist countries. Perhaps the very fact that China and Russia are such bitter enemies and that the Chinese so much dislike the Russians may be a strong inducement for them to keep the more liberal elements in their own system. But that is for the future to decide.
My Lords, half of what we used to talk about in the days before there were any collectivised economies — collective ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange—has been realised. The other half, the liberal half, the democratic half, the participation of the community, has not been realised. I feel that in this competition between two forms of economic organisation the real challenge of the future is to show that we can get the benefits of the one half, the benefits of avoidng the bitter conflicts of capitalism, the benefits of avoiding the frictions that run capitalism into the ground; that we can get those benefits from a collectivised economy, without paying the price of loss of freedom. This has never been done. When I grew up and when many of your Lordships were growing up, it had never been done; but there are a great many cases when this country has blazed a trail. This is the trail that I earnestly hope this country will blaze, with all the fervour

713
it can command, in the half-century ahead of us—and that I hope whatever Government may occupy the seat of power.
4.6 p.m.
LORD ORR-EWING: My Lords, may I first apologise for the fact that I shall not be able to remain throughout this debate. I had not appreciated until a few days ago—many of us had not—that an Unstarred Question was going to become a full-scale debate. We all owe the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, a debt of gratitude for raising this matter. I always look on him as a Left-Wing theorist—and I have known him for 25 years—mixed with a great sense of idealism. We had a bit of both in his opening speech to-day. I love his idealism —we all do—hut I am less enamoured of his theories. He has one great attribute—and fortunately to-day's debate did not fall yesterday: he is a great and sincere lover of cricket. That is why I invite him to accompany me to Lord's to see the second Test Match—since we both missed the first.
The first point that emerges in the opening speech was that he said that he believed that the capitalist system was totally unacceptable. He went on to ask what do we mean by capitalism and socialism? He then replied as follows —I quote:
"Socialism is a system where industry is owned by the whole community and administered democratically."
We have had 25 years in which our basic industries have been nationalised; and certainly during this quarter-century there have been many instances where democracy has not worked strongly in our State-owned industries. The noble Lord then went on to cite the Lonrho case and particularly the unfairness of some of the rewards.
Despite the interjection of my noble friend Lord Harvey of Prestbury, the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, did not produce the figures of the extent to which taxation takes away the high rewards from executives in this country. We do not only tax the leading professional and industrial executives more highly than any of our competitor countries do, we continue to do this, in spite of the reductions in taxation in the last three years.
714
The figures are most marked. Lord Brockway said that he was trying to be fair. He would have been fairer if he had quoted how much was taken away from the rewards that he mentioned. The average senior executive's rate of tax in the U.S.A., is 28·9 per cent.; in France it is 23·4 per cent; in Germany, 36·9 per cent. and in this country 51 per cent.—over twice the rate of tax obtaining in France. On earned income the marginal rates have equally marked differences. In Denmark it is 40·95 per cent.; in France it is 43 per cent.; in Belgium, 55 per cent.; in Germany, 59·9 per cent.; in the Netherlands, 71 per cent. and in the United Kingdom 75 per cent. If you combine unearned or savings income, the rate of tax in this country is as high as 88 per cent. No country in the world takes as much away from its leading men as we do. It would have been fairer if the facts had been put in the opening speech.
I think in honesty this debate is motivated by the Lonrho case. Although the noble Lord when introducing it said he was not motivated by the Lonrho case, he used quite a number of examples—and one cannot help feeling that the timing of the debate and some of the phraseology and the words used arise, if indirectly, out of Lonrho. I think this was the exceptional and "unacceptable face of capitalism". It is indeed the exceptional that I would have underlined had I been Prime Minister and had I thought of the phrase as quickly as he did. The point we need to remember is that there are 4,000 public companies and we are considering one. It is therefore very exceptional. I think it is ridiculous to say that capitalism is totally corrupt or wrong and should be replaced because of one black sheep. We do not condemn the medical profession because one doctor transgresses. We do not condemn our police as a whole if one police officer slips from grace. Nor the Church if one churchman does. Nor, incidentally, the trade union movement if one trade union —as the E.T.U. did—fiddles the funds and rigs an election. We did not seek to condemn the whole trade union movement because of one transgressor. So I think it a little unfair to hitch a criticism of capitalism on one incident which in any case is at this moment sub judice.

715
I think also that one should point out, as did my noble friend Lord Gowriein the masterly speech with which he opened the debate from the Government Front Bench that this Government have taken action and are continuing to take action to improve capitalism. We have already had a series of Acts and we are told that more are coming along. The C.B.I., equally, is taking action. In the Government's sphere we are to have a new Companies Bill which will seek to stop abuses where and if they exist. I like the phraseology which the Minister used of capitalism—" open, free and based on integrity". That is what we want of our capitalist system in this country. I commend to your Lordships who are concerned with a better, improving and more modern capitalism the report of the noble Lord, Lord Watkinson, who I know cannot be here to-day, published as, A new look at the responsibilities of the British public company. This is a C.B.I. interim report. The C.B.I. is seeking to find ways of up-dating capitalism and producing a Code of Conduct, because much of this cannot neatly or effectively be put into company law, which would set standards for those who sit on boards and who are concerned with private industry in this country.
I think, therefore, that one says that the action of Her Majesty's Government and of the C.B.I. in this area of improving capitalism, removing the warts from the face of capitalism, are somewhat more effective than the efforts of Her Majesty's Opposition and the T.U.C. in removing some of the difficulties in the trade union sphere, which is equally important to the well-being of our country and the growth of our economy. In this particular week we could not have had more instances of troubles in that area, where three out of our four motor car companies are hit by strikes, some of them deeply damaging to our economy and to our exports. Those of us who travel abroad know the reputation which our cars (this applies to other machinery as well) are earning as a result of strikes and disruption in our industries, and the late deliveries which result, and the failure to meet our commitments.
BARONESS WOOTTON or ABINGER: My Lords, can the noble Lord say at what point this country stands in the
716
table of frequency of strikes and the number of days lost?
LORD ORR-EWING: Yes, my Lords, I can give the noble Baroness figures, though I have not the full table with me at this moment. From January to April, 922 stoppages; 724,000 people involved—
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, I think the noble Lord misunderstood me.
LORD ORR-EWING: My Lords, I said that I had not got the table with me, but I can give the facts about this country which is, after all, what we are concerned with.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: No.
LORD ORR-EWING: Noble Lords opposite are not concerned with this country? Well, my Lords, there are other people here who feel that the wellbeing of our country is of paramount importance, and perhaps therefore I may finish my answer and the point I was making. I am sorry that I cannot carry all the figures with me, but 2·7 million working days were lost in the first four months of this year, and by any standards that is a very damaging record. That is why I said I should hope that just as the Prime Minister condemns the wart on the face of capitalism we should have some condemnation of this other important side of our industry which is so germane to the well-being and expansion of our economy.
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, whether that is entirely attributable to the trade union side? Is it not also a "wart on the face" indicating the way capitalism works?
LORD ORR-EWING: No, my Lords, I do not believe it is that kind of reflection. I had a debate on this issue. I think that really it is a reflection on the majority of people for not being able or willing to stand up to a militant cross-section of the trade union movement which is not representative.
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: No.
LORD ORR-EWING: My Lords, I am sorry, but Mr. Wilson, when he was Prime Minister, drew attention to this and there are many instances. I could quote the instance of the Ford pay strike, where the men did not want to come out on strike, but their shop stewards asked them to and they did in fact follow through. The Gallup Poll showed that they did not en masse wish to. This is why I say that I do not believe that this is representative of the whole of the trade union movement. I feel that some evil men have got into important positions of influence, and the sooner they are got out of them by democratic methods the better for our country.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, would not the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, agree that there are other occasions when the trade union leadership has fought to get the men back to work and when the men felt that the circumstances were such that they ought to go on strike? It is two-sided.
LORD ORR-EWING: Yes, my Lords, I concede that. My whole theme has been on this issue. So often these people are striking against the wishes of the leadership of their union and following people who I do not think are dedicated to their well-being or to the well-being of the country. It is against trade union leadership that so many of these strikes take place. I am only saying that the Government of the day has reacted very quickly with its reference to a wart on the face, but we have not had any reaction or condemnation of the other side from another place or from the T.U.C. in trying to work out new systems so that this important section of industry could operate more efficiently.
Lastly, I turn to the second part of this Motion. We did not hear very much about that. It urges Her Majesty's Government to give a lead in advancing conscientiously and progressively towards socialism". I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, has much hope of this particular Government giving a further lead in this direction, but he can be hopeful. I said that he was an idealist and perhaps a dreamer, but I do not think his dreams are likely to come true.
LORD BALOGH: My Lords, I quite accept what the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing has said, but may I ask him whether it is not going too far to talk about what the Government will or will not accept, seeing that they have accepted almost every single one of their opponent's policies in the last year?
LORD ORR-EWING: My Lords, I acknowledge that some of the noble Lord's original ideas, while he had so much influence in the Treasury, have been accepted. Certainly the Regional Employment Premium was accepted, and I think it wholly admirable. I should have thought it was the growth in the economy and the reduction of taxation which have been the outstanding successes of this Government, and both these were firmly written large in the Government's Manifesto at the time of the General Election.
Now I 'turn to further steps towards socialism. I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, would have the whole of the Labour Party with him in this connection. He certainly has not got the whole of the Labour Press with him in the proposals to nationalise a further 25 companies. This, I think, comes from the "Tony Benn-Judith Hart axis as it is called in our Press, and I know that those M.P.s are not representative. They are on the extreme Left Wing of their Party, as indeed I think the noble Lord would say he is, and probably they are not representative of Labour thinking. I commend to the noble Lord's reading the New Statesman's article on this issue. That is not a paper I read avidly every week, but this particular week it contains an article by Professor Beckerman, three pages long, which shows what absolute nonsense it is for the creation of wealth and the well-being of our country to proceed with this half-baked idea of further socialism. If the noble Lord does not like the New Statesman, in to-day's Guardian—this is always a popular paper—the policy is described as a "half baked red herring." If I may go on, it finishes up:
"If ever there was a recipe for slower growth, industrial mismanagement and poorer workers, the Labour Party has surely hit on it."

719
That is referring to the "giant strides towards socialism", if I may borrow that phrase from Mr. Denis Healey.
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, is the noble Lord referring to the Guardian as the Labour Press?
LORD ORR-EWING: My Lords, I think I must stop giving way quite so often. I did not describe it as the Labour Press; I said that it was widely read. It has the same circulation as The Times. I think it would be equally right to say that it is probably left of centre in its general views—Liberalleft is, I think, a fair comment.
I hope that when this debate comes to be concluded we shall remember that this Government have progressively in their three years, through a series of measures, tried to improve the administration and the standards of capitalism. Because we have had one bad case, that is no reflection on the capitalist system. I am a Tory because I believe that capitalism does create wealth more rapidly than socialism; and from that greater wealth I wish to see our social services, our housing, our roads and all else, improved. I hope that my noble friends on this side of the House will therefore reject this unusual and exceptional Motion.
4.21 p.m.
LORD SOPER: My Lords, I, too, must ask the indulgence of your Lordships' House in that I have a previous engagement which I must keep, and therefore, much as I should like to do so, I cannot stay until the end of the debate. I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Brockway for initiating this exercise in what I hope is fundamental thinking and will not be too detailed in its examination of particular warts on the face of any system. It is an unusual kind of debate, because we are invited to think of the basic principles which activate a political Party and a system. I take some comfort from the recollection that it was the immortal Dr. Oman who, in giving valedictory advice to his students about to enter upon the Presbyterian ministry, said:
"Take large texts, gentlemen, and when they persecute you in one city, flee into the next."
I do not anticipate persecution, I do not smell faggots; but at the same time I
720
believe that one, particularly wearing the sort of collar that I do, should be very careful in a general debate to see that what he has to say has some precise reference and is not an encouragement to wild splashing about on large canvases with very large brushes.
But I would submit, my Lords, that there is a very reasonable case for regarding the capitalist system as unjust, unworkable, undemocratic and unfree—apart from that, I should think there is very little wrong with it. To begin with, it is surely unjust, as every system is: and it is perverse of people to think that of all the systems in which man has been involved this is one which has exceptional virtue. It has, I think, exceptional vice. Under circumstances of previous centuries, there were no possibilities of a truly just system. It is because there is evidence, however tentative, that a just system is within the means of modern man that the iniquities of the capitalist system stand out more clearly. Evidence has already been given this afternoon—and I will not add to it about the dis? proportionate way in which some people are advantaged and others disadvantaged through no fault of their own. Nobody, I think, who has any experience of social activity among those who are the less privileged or the under-privileged could doubt that the capitalist system is unjust, and that if it were possible to provide a better one, then we ought eagerly to seize that chance.
Secondly, my Lords, I am sure that capitalism is increasingly unworkable. The evidence of the way in which governmental participation in areas which before were reserved for a laissez-faire philosophy; the claims of an ordered society; the ever-increasing intervention of those in power because of the inefficiencies of those who exercise it; the increasing complexity of the modern systems under which we live—all these require modifications and, I would think, mutilations of the pure philosophy (if it can be called "pure") of capitalism. It becomes increasingly evident that the kind of changes that will be required in order to make it work will follow exactly the pattern of the most admirable illustration of my noble friend; that capitalism may indeed proceed to very efficient operations, but in the process the patients will die.

721
The capitalist system is also undemocratic, and increasingly so, because that which would be the guideline of its democratic principle is no longer confined within the area of the nation State. Once again it is unnecessary for me to repeat what has already been said, and is particularly illustrative in the motor industry, in the way in which the major decisions are not within the hands and the power of people in these islands, but are probably operable from Detroit. This is an increasing danger, and an increasing threat to the whole principle that a system can be democratically exercised within the (shall I say?) four walls of a nation State.
The capitalist system is certainly unfree. It is unfree increasingly because, in the absence of a simple or an understandable general principle, it becomes increasingly more complex and therefore less intelligible to people who are not idiots, but who have neither the necessary expertise nor the amount of time to spare in order to make judgments which are valid and consequential. If your Lordships will allow me a repetition of something I have said before in this House, for a Wednesday debate I come from a loud and large place where I try to talk to people in the open air, and the cynicism which prevails to-day, and the sense that the capitalist system is wrong in morals, is one that is exacerbated by the fact that in most cases what the politicians are talking about goes far beyond the competence and understanding of most ordinary people. It is true, of course, that in one way the capitalist system presides on the assumption of what is called selfishness, or, if you baptise it, enlightened self-interest. But that enlightened self-interest, though it is a simple thing to comprehend, becomes almost unintelligible within the framework and fabric of the complex society in which we live.
For these reasons, my Lords, I would submit that what we are seeing at the moment is illustrated by the particular report on the schoolboy, which went as follows: "This boy's handwriting has so improved that for the first time we can now see how really bad his work is." It is the increased opportunity of finding out what is going on (and this is the only reference that I will make to contemporary scandals of one sort or
722
another) that brings to light an added sense of distrust and promotes a much increased sense of cynicism.
I believe that socialism is a system that, not having been tried, cannot yet in practice be evaluated, but yet rests upon certain foundations which I firmly accept and has the foundations of a family life. It is of interest that every one of us, whether we are socialists, capitalists or Liberals, practice socialism in our own family life, if that family life is worth calling a family life. If we do not, then we are breaking certain quite simple moral propositions which I believe are inbuilt into the habits and behaviour patterns of even the worst of people and find their expression at the moment in a sense of frustration. It is not without interest that part of the revolution of the youngsters—a revolution which we seek to understand, though I have no intention of endeavouring to delineate it or to claim that I understand it fully—is due to a widespread sense among many young people that the modern savage society in which we live is unworthy of their best endeavours and their hopes. Some of them contract out; some of them run away; some become the most ebullient revolutionaries. But to ignore their sense that the system under which we live basically affronts some of their most central ideas and ambitions, is, I think, a dangerous exercise.
My Lords, every Sitting of your Lordships' House is anticipated by a prayer meeting, and included in the prayers is one in which we refer to God as
"the only ruler of princes",
and say that
"From Him alone comes all good counsel and just works."
Your Lordships will not think it improper or irrelevant, I am sure, if I conclude by giving the evidence, as I see it, for saying that the Christian should become a socialist. It happens that we are meeting to-day in the octave of Pentecost, and the historical Feast of Pentecost is the record of the way in which a number of people were suddenly energised with the power to put into effect a Christian Gospel which they had heard and which they wanted to believe. If we read the second chapter of the Apostles—or the fourth chapter—we learn that what they did was to build a socialist society based on common ownership. There is no

723
doubt about it. Traditionally, the official historians of the Church have said that this was a very admirable effort, but, of course, it was a mistake, and that sooner or later it had to be recognised as such. I find this theologically very difficult. If the first thing that the Christians did on the reception of the Holy Spirit of understanding and power was to make a mistake, then we had better review our theological attitude to the story of the Christian Church. I do not think they made a mistake: I think it is we who have been making the mistake ever since the mistake of failing to see that a search for a society is the best way in the end of securing the virtue of the individual.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD HAILSHAM OF SAINT MARYLEBONE): My Lords, the noble Lord will forgive me for interrupting, but if he had gone on to almost the next chapter he would have learnt that the Church in Jerusalem went bust and that they had to send the hat round to the Church in Antioch!
LORD SOPER: My Lords, if the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor had taken the precaution of reading the intervening passage he would have remembered what happened to Ananias and Sapphira. I have every regard for the noble and learned Lord's competence in law but I think he is a very bad theologian. Whatever may have been the failure of that experiment, it was not because the experiment was ill-judged but because those who were expected to fulfil it failed in heart and mind to give sufficient substance and effort to its perpetuation. I think that the story of the Christian Church ever since has been a story of compromise with a principle which, having been abandoned, has led it into all kinds of difficulties.
I will conclude by saying this. If you provide a selfish man with an environment that promotes selfishness, then he is more likely to be more selfish. If you offer him an environment which encourages him to be less selfish, then I feel he is likely to be less selfish. Therefore it is futile, in my judgment, to assume that man's behaviour patterns are static. Whatever may be said for or against the experiments in Russia or in China, they have by political and collectivist means transformed many of the habits—some
724
for good and some not for good. I believe that those things which are for bad have been prompted by their accession of violence, their continuation of violence and their limitation of freedom. I believe that if we were prepared to make an experiment in democratic socialism we should not only fulfil the hopes of millions of people who would be by no means reluctant to embrace such a system if it were offered to them, but we should also be riding high with the principles which belong to the nature of the world, and which we are increasingly beginning to discover. They are benevolent; but they are rigorous and demand a discipline of the community as a whole.
4.34 p.m.
LORD PLATT: My Lords, if all capitalists had the poetic persuasion of the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, I think that the capitalist system would be very much better than it shows signs of being at the present time. It is not my particular wish either to attack or to defend the capitalist system; rather I want to draw your Lordships' attention to the fact, as I see it, that it is getting out of hand and that it is time for men and women of good faith, of all Parties, to be getting together to see what kind of system could replace the capitalist system, or, alternatively, if we are still trying to keep the best principles of private enterprise, then what curbs must be put on to human greed to make the capitalist system acceptable to ordinary people like myself, whose ethical code is really a quite simple and not particularly demanding one.
When a system of Government relationships or society reaches this stage of greed and corruption, we may be sure that it will net be tolerated indefinitely, but will fall into decay, either from inside or by attack from enemies without. I need not draw the attention of your Lordships to the numerous examples in history where opulence, greed and cruelty have led to the end of an era. You have only to look about you at the present time to see greed, opulence and corruption taking over. We see that vast fortunes can be made by landowners and property speculators by the simple antisocial act of doing nothing at all. The personal touch in ownership has gone from business and from housing, so that

725
people do not know who their landlords are. When people go shopping they do not know to whom the shops belong. British engineering is put into American hands, and vast companies with impersonal names put their clutches on so many different businesses that they have little knowledge of the technology which is essential to those businesses, so that craftsmanship no longer counts and the so-called workers no longer care whether they work or not and will go on strike to get at least some share in the millions which they know are daily changing hands. They do not always know who their masters are; or, if they know to-day, they do not know who they will be tomorrow.
If we look at America we can already see well advanced, and with an already deadly hold, the next stage. That stage is the takeover by organised crime, with the spoils of crime being invested in legitimate businesses, so that the criminals get more and more of a hold on the direction in which the capitalist society will progress. I am certain that I do not exaggerate. The danger to society is very real. We are already seeing the American pattern repeated over here, where people dare not walk in the streets. I am sure that all of us, in all parts of your Lordships' House, know many examples of what is said to be the unacceptable and ugly face of capitalism.
For myself, I would take as my first example the enormous advertising campaign of cigarette manufacturers which is stepped up immediately there is any effort at health education. However, I will not bore your Lordships by talking further on that subject. I will take instead the example, alas! of my own profession in America as an instance of what happens when the aim becomes money and there is no curb on the system. We who visit American hospitals and medical schools see a different side. We mostly meet people like ourselves who very often are working full time for their university hospital; and these people will tell you that they would not join the rat-race of medical practice in America for anything. But we do not see the other side: the average American has no doctor who takes continued care of him or his family. Almost no doctors in American cities will visit patients' homes any longer: the mayor of one city was quite unable to
726
get any doctor to come and see his son, who was seriously ill. So eventually an ambulance is sent for and the patient is brought—often unnecessarily—into hospital where he remains in the reception ward, unattended while the various clerks and people argue with the patient's relatives regarding the fees they can or cannot afford.
The American Medical Association has spent many millions of dollars in trying to prevent any kind of health service from coming into being and has, it is thought, spent millions of dollars in seeing that the right people get elected into the House of Representatives. Medical students in this country, when asked of their motivation, why they originally went in for medicine, will mostly tell you (we have evidence and figures for this) that they had some kind of sense of wishing to do good, and it was a profession in which they could do some good to their fellow men as well as being an extremely interesting occupation. Similar questions put to American medical students gave rise, in the majority, to the answer that they went in for medicine because the money was extremely good. Operations are carried out with a frequency which depends roughly on the financial state of the patient concerned. An enormous amount of unnecessary surgery is done—so much so that one gynaxologist says that it now costs him 2,000 dollars a year to insure against litigation. My own nephew was in New York recently and had been treated for a sort throat for several weeks. He is a young man of less than 30 years old and makes a living as an author. He was getting no better, so he telephoned me. I told him to come back to England straight away and he did so. I put him in the hands of a good general practitioner who immediately stopped all treatment, since when my nephew has never looked back. Not only were the antibiotics which he was being given unsuitable, and in my view dangerous, but they were the ones which were given by injection; and so of course my nephew had to go to his doctor for the injection, whereas if the doctor had given him a prescription I suppose the pharmacist would have received the profit.
These are the things which go on, even in the profession of medicine (which I

727
always thought had fairly high ideals), in a society in which the capitalist system is allowed to go unchecked. I think it is urgently necessary that we should take this matter seriously and see what curbs we can put on this system, or what other system we can devise to take its place.
4.44 p.m.
LORD LINDSAY OF BIRKER: My Lords, I should like to begin by taking up a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Soper, when he said that this is the first time that it has become possible to save a just society. If one looks at the whole problem in historical perspective, one finds that was true up to some time within the past one hundred years; but before that, any society which wished to have a civilisation had to have a division between a privileged minority who could be active in civilisation, and an exploited majority, simply because the margin of productivity was not large enough to enable everyone to participate in civilisation. Previously, if you wanted a proletariat society you could only have a fairly primitive peasant economy.
We are now living in the middle of a period of change in human history when, for the first time, it has become technically possible to have a civilisation in which everyone can participate. The real difference between a Socialist outlook and a Conservative outlook is that people with a Socialist outlook are prepared lo face the extremely difficult challenge of trying to realise that the opportunities presented by this new situation are to try to get a society in which everyone will have the opportunity to participate to the full in society's civilisation and to have a good life. The Conservatives tend to be afraid of those difficulties and to go back to thinking in traditional terms.
One can see this in the case of American Conservatism; it is clearly a nostalgia for Jeffersonian democracy. In early 19th century America you could have rather a nice society consisting of independent small producers. People refuse to face the fact that that has now become impossible in the modern world. In some sense, whether we like it or not, we are living in a socialist society because the whole productivity of the modern industrial State depends on an extremely
728
complicated co-ordination and division of labour. Everyone is independent, and to talk in terms of pure individualism is simply unrealistic. Life is an extremely complicated challenge. People are trying to do things which have never been done before. That will require basic changes in people's ways of thought and their whole habits of behaviour. It is unrealistic to expect that there will be any simple and obvious solution; you have to expect that you will make a good many experiments which will prove to be unsuccessful before you are able to progress in the right direction.
The traditional ideas of socialism have proved to be one of the experiments which have proved unsuccessful. If you go back—it is so in Marx and most of the Socialists of the 19th century —you find the assumption that it is going to be extremely difficult to make the revolution to take the means of production away from the capitalists. But there is also the assumption that once you have made the revolution it is going to be extremely easy to build a wonderful ideal socialist State. This is shown clearly in Lenin's The State and Revolution, where he says that capitalism has so much simplified the operations of business that management can be run by any worker who is literate and able to do arithmetic. Lenin realised the possiblty that the revolution might go wrong. He said that the only real guarantee against that was to have the kind of State envisaged in The State and Revolution where there are no permanent bureaucracy and managerial class, no permanent police force and no permanent army. That proved unworkable.
There is a good deal of evidence that in the last years of his life Lenin began to realise that things were going wrong only in a sense, because he thought of having a State in which there was no permanent bureaucracy. It is going to require big adjustment to face the problem of how to keep a bureaucracy in control when it proves to be necessary. My guess is that if Lenin had lived to the same age of Mao Tse-tung he probably would have led some equivalent of the great proletariat cultural revolution against the Soviet bureaucracy: that means that the traditional socialism—simply taking over the State. If you look at what has happened in the Soviet

729
bloc, you will find that it has not produced an equality of income. There is strong evidence that the inequality ratio between the lower incomes and the higher incomes in the Soviet bloc is very much greater than it is in a number of countries where industry is primarily private enterprise—Australia, New Zealand or the Scandinavian countries. There is also a tremendous difference in status, and feelings of status. People in America told me of a visit by one party of Soviet astronomers where the regular astronomers simply refused to eat at the same table with the members of the party who were merely technicians. If you want a status consciousness, that goes pretty far. So it means you have to write this off. I think that what went wrong with early socialism was that, first, people vastly underestimated the difficulties of running an efficient economic system: it was far more difficult than anyone had thought. The other thing was that they exaggerated the importance of property and failed to look at the cases of societies where power did not depend on property but on status in the apparatus of Government.
Here I am thinking of traditional China, which is a beautiful case of this. There have been some good books by Chinese scholars and you will find that in traditional China a man could not get anywhere unless he had a degree from the Imperial examination system. Property without protection of Government power counted for almost nothing—certainly very little. The 2 per cent. of the population who had degrees got 25 per cent. of the national income. That included a great many people who worked in Government circles. In a unit about the size of a county, the so-called Government officials, roughly corresponding to the district officer in the British Colonial Service, received incomes about a thousand times as large as that of an unskilled labourer, and the income ratio was far greater when it came to the higher levels. So it is perfectly possible to have a society in which power based on property has very little importance, yet there is still a tremendous degree of exploitation and a tremendous degree of inequality. For all these reasons we have to say that the idea that it is possible to get any kind of socialism simply
730
by transferring property rights is an idea which has proved to be a failure.
The other point that has to be brought out is the case for a competitive market system simply as an economic tool. I think one can make this case quite apart from capitalism. It is a question of the rules that are followed. Here again, I think that if you look at the economies of the Communist States you find that they devote an immense amount of effort to only very partially successful attempts to overcome problems which would simply disappear if they allowed a competitive market economy to operate. You find that some of the brighter Soviet economists—people such a Liberman and Cantorowicz—actually say that they ought to introduce a competitive market system as the only way of getting a reasonably efficient allocation of resources.
So I think, having said this, you say that, in so far as it operates a competitive market system, capitalism is an efficient means of getting production and of raising the general standard of living On the other hand, I think it can equally be said that capitalism tends to become distorted. One can draw a pretty clew distinction between desire for profits—getting profits by doing something which is socially useful—and attempts to get profits by trying to get a larger share of an existing national income. In so far as the one thing works, capitalism is effective and improves the standard of living. In so far as people simply try to grab larger shares, it is definitely restrictive and hinders production.
The tragedy, it seems to me, is that we have been developing towards the latter view. To take an obvious case, one might mention advertising. Here is definitely an attempt, not to produce what people want but to persuade people to want the particular product the advertiser produces. It seems to me that in any kind of reasonable society one should simply say that no useful purpose is served by persuading anyone to buy one commodity rather than another on any grounds except superior quality or lower price. If one went on that rule a great deal would be cut out. One might also cut right out the whole business of paying directors large expense allowances simply to maintain the prestige of their

731
firms. It serves no socially useful purpose. If everyone were cut down the country would not lose at all. The whole question of advertising is a very large topic and I should have thought there was a case for very great restrictions, though I have not time to argue them here.
What I want to go on to argue is that what seems to me to have happened in this country is that we have developed what I call a "vested interest society. in which there is a large number of groups, each thinking primarily in terms of, "How can we get a larger share of the cake?" Even though they are squabbling for their share, it reduces the total size of the cake. It seems to me that if we really want to get rid of poverty in this country we must somehow have a Government which will take ruthless action against vested interests. It is only in that way that we shall be able to obtain the rise in productivity that will really remove poverty.
The other point which is important, and which I think no one has so far mentioned, is that one basic problem of modern society is the problem of bureaucracy. How do you control it and how do you keep it in order? As soon as you get really large-scale organisations you get a bureaucracy; you then get Parkinson's law working, and everything starts to go wrong. I know more about American bureaucracy than British, because many of my graduate students are connected with people in the American public service. I can give your Lordships an example. I was speaking about the Cultural Revolution in China and I quoted a case in which they claimed they had reduced the administrative staff of one province by 90 per cent. I said to my students, "How many organisations are there in Washington which could function effectively with 10 per cent. of their present numbers?" I was slightly shocked when a number of them laughed and said: "We can think of quite a number". It seems to me that unless some way can be found of keeping bureaucracy in order, it inevitably gets out of control and produces this highly undesirable bureaucratic State.
Simply having elected bodies does not solve the problem. I should like to quote
732
from my own experience, even on a small-scale matter. The university where I teach, responding to student pressure a few years ago, went in for an elaborate scheme of having everything controlled by elected committees—representative undergraduates, graduates, students and so on. The result has been completely disastrous. First, in this kind of system power is put in the hands of the university people who are much more interested in playing university politics than in academic work. My students who are interested in academic work complain bitterly that they have to waste an appalling amount of time at meetings to prevent other people from wrecking their studies, and as a member of faculty I find that the results are far more arbitrary and tyrannical than anything we ever got from a theoretically despotic dean. You will suddenly be told that you have to teach a course even though you think the title complete nonsense. This is a basic problem. I do not know the answer, but it seems to me to be a problem that we have to face.
The other point which I think has not been brought out enough is that if you want a socialist society, or any kind of workable society, the institutions are really of importance only in so far as they produce attitudes and types of behaviour. What is needed for a good society is to have in it people with public spirit. It must have people who are to a fair extent prepared to identify their own personal interests with the interests of the community. Here is the point where China may really have something to teach us. I am going there next week. and I hope to have opportunities for more observation, but it seems to me that Mao Tse-tung and the Chinese leadership are among the few people in the world who have faced the problem. I do not know how good their answers have been so far, but they have really faced the problem, "How to keep a bureaucracy under control? How do you in fact inspire people with a desire to serve the community?" This is an absolutely essential part of any proper social development. An important point, which is probably extremely relevant, is that one great thing they have done is to decentralise. I agree that it is a bad mistake of all Governments to think that a large organisation is necessarily a good

733
organisation—to identify size with efficiency. If you want to get a spirit of loyalty in an organisation the important thing is to let people feel that their personal interests are attended to. You are much more likely to get that in a small organisation. It is always the presumption that a small unit is better than a large one unless there are compelling technical reasons to the contrary.
One final point on democracy. The key point about it is to have discussion and criticism. Here I think we need a vital change, because a democracy can only really work on the basis of an informed public opinion. There is a remarkable book by the French historian Marc Bloch, in which, speaking of the modern world, he says that the masses no longer obey: they follow, either because they have been hypnotised or because they know. If we consider the proceedings of this House, I feel that there is still far too much the idea of the Government as a superior body of people who expect obedience from the people. This has ceased to work. I shall feel that there has been a real revolution in England when I find a member of the Government Front Bench, when answering a Question, saying "Yes,' on this one we really boobed," or saying, "The official in my Department who dealt with this showed a complete lack of imagination. I have rapped him over the knuckles and it will not happen again". When the Government are willing to admit mistakes instead of trying to keep up the pretence of being omniscient and wonderful I shall really think that there has been a revolution.
I should like to say a great deal more about this but there is not time. However, one final point which I might deal with is that quite a lot of evils which have been deplored do not come from economic institutions but from a breakdown in thought. Perhaps the simplest way of putting it is in something which I think I can quote very well from memory. It is a rather remarkable statement which came out in R. G. Collingwood's autobiography as far back as 1939, about the disastrous influence of the Oxford philosophy of his time, saying that formerly people abroad studied philosophy and other things in order that they could do things better. You then got the positivist development saying that you could
734
describe moral action or you could describe politics, but only a bogus philosopher would pretend that it offered guidance. It goes on to say that the conclusion that any student can draw for himself was that for guidance in the problems of life you could not get from thinkers or thinking, from ideals or principles; you must turn to processes which are not thinking but action; our aims, which are not ideals but caprices, and the rules of conduct which are not principles but rules of expediency. Here I have a strong feeling that the intellectuals of this country have in fact betrayed the working class.
My first job after leaving college was to teach W.E.A. classes in South Wales. I had a high respect for my students. These were people who had a very real working class culture, who knew about modern philosophy. If one talked about Plato most of them had read it, and they had an almost pathetic eagerness to be taught by other people how to apply this knowledge to politics and how to get things done. The tragedy is that instead of encouraging it the professional philosophers and political theorists said, "I can give you a nice description of the Constitution, or an analysis of election results", or something of that kind, "but it is outside my competence to give you any reasonable analysis of how you should act to attain your aims".
This is far too large a subject to go into now, but I feel that many of the evils that we have been deploring are not matters of economic institutions but of a breakdown in philosophy.
5.5 p.m.
LORD BALOGH: My Lords, I have been asked to be brief, and therefore I shall leave the moral aspects of the problem, which are obviously the more important, to more competent hands, or, perhaps better hearts; and I shall concentrate on the economic problems which confront us. For 30 years Governments have fought and lost the battle against increasing prices and inflation. They have been completely unable to deal with it. The Government are now grappling with it in a way, and I must say that the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, made an extraordinarily complacent speech, which I very much hope, for the sake of the country, will be justified by events.It was extraordinarily complacent

735
because he really did not face up to the problems of here and now.
In the remarkable speech which we have just heard from the noble Lord, Lord Lindsay of Birker, there were also one or two points which went on to a horizon beyond mine, and I should like to ask him to consider, when he compares salaries in the Soviet system with ours, that the purchasing power of the Soviet system cannot be derived from property appreciation. One of the most interesting things in this country—
LORD LINDSAY OF BIRKER: My Lords, will the noble Lord forgive me for a moment? This in fact is not quite true. I recently met a Soviet official who was describing how he had bought an apartment in a co-operative in Moscow. Someone asked him whether he could resell it, and he said, "Oh yes, I can." He was then asked "Would you make a profit on it?" and he said, "Yes, almost certainly".
LORD BALOGH: My Lords, I do not think that is really very germane. We cannot say, for instance, that in this country house sales are not subject to capital gains tax because everybody's own house is not subject to capital gains tax. That would be an extraordinary travesty of truth. Property rights of course are extremely important, and I fear that in this country the whole endeavour of both Parties to mitigate poverty and increase equality has been frustrated by this extraordinary property boom, which I think is one of the more dangerous threats, as I shall explain in a moment, against us in trying to get an orderly economic life.
I should like to say one thing to my noble friend Lord Brockway. He predicted an enormously improved system of morals into a new socialist system. I beg of him to remember that we are not all saints, and I think that a reading of Freud beyond Marx is obligatory for any reformer who wants to promote democracy. Having said this—and I agree with the whole tenor of his speech —I only point out that there are these traps and pitfalls between us and Nirvana.
The Marxian case predicting the doom of capitalism was founded on two arguments: first, that there would be an
736
increase in misery among the lower income classes driving them to revolt and, second, that the crises which had become very much more violent in the first part of the 19th century would increase in violence and ultimately would put an end to the system. Of course it must be said that no sooner had that appeared than he, as most scientific economists—and I am an unscientific economist—were immediately proven wrong. He wrote his Communist manifesto when this was laid down in 1846 or 1847.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: 1848.
LORD BALOGH: No, that was when it was published. I may be corrected, and I am willing to take any rebuke from the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack. The crises had became very much worse; there were the hungry 'thirties and 'forties and no sooner was the climax passed—the '48 Revolution—than these crises and the misery were mitigated.
The second prediction was the increase in misery. That was also obviously falsified because wages, on the whole, increased; though poverty remained still enormous, it was decreasing and the steady pressure coming from the extension of the vote to the working class helped in the matter. Nevertheless, the crises stayed with us until the war. One of the great problems with which we have to reckon and come to terms now, is that the crises since the war have modified and abated. Together with this (and I fear that I must again contradict my noble friend Lord Lindsay of Birker) there has become manifest in industry a tendency towards large-scale production which in my humble opinion is not reversible. It cannot be reversed. It would be very nice to have handicraft work in our houses instead of the plastics which I understand are now indestructible; but we can afford plastic goods which can be made by the million and we could not afford to have handicraft work.
LORD LINDSAY OF BIRKER: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord to say that I did not suggest that? I said, except where technically necessary, and I said that, for example, if you have a conglomerate which runs completely different industries the technical matter does not come into it.
LORD BALOGH: I fear that even for the conglomerates there is a good reason. Good management is very scarce and therefore I fear that one of the problems is that we cannot do without a certain amount of "conglomerateness"—perhaps that is a word. That concentration of power and the rise of mass unionism completely changed the nature of the economic system. Instead of having market-tested competition which there might have been under the conditions—and here I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Lindsay of Birker said—of Augustian or Jeffersonian times, we have seen that competition in our day in the highly developed areas of the world is what is called "oligopolistic"; that is to say, competition between the few who take cognisance of what others are doing in order to avoid a clash.
This system is obviously making for very powerful combinations and makes it possible to manage prices. The testing of prices in the market does not mean what we have learnt in our own day, what Marshall meant by testing of the market. A market cannot be tested because people will take into account what their competitors will do. That, together with the political pressure for full employment, has created an extraordinarily disagreeable and very dangerous situation. It has created the situation in which the balancing mechanism, so far as prices and money of the capitalistic economy are concerned, is paralysed and has to be refurbished. In my humble view it is absolutely essential to go steadily towards the extension of the public sector, not so much because the public sector is efficient but because it is essential for restoring the orderly working of the system—though I must confess that the studies of our nationalised industries do not reflect the very adverse views we have heard expressed here. On the contrary, there are some very serious studies which show, on the whole, that the price increases in the nationalised sector were less and, given that price increases were less in a monopolistic situation because of Government pressure, both Tory and Labour, they did not do badly technically or physically speaking.
The great problem is how is this consensus needed for balance to be arrived at? It must be arrived at by what I would call a feeling of just
738
participation by everybody. I may be wrong—I am not dogmatic—but I do not see how the feeling of participation, and of having to be moderate, reasonable, can be expected when the present system is left in its present state. Because it is not true nowadays that most of the wealth has been created by the people by their own saving, which was a very powerful argument in Jefferson's time for the capitalist accumulation. It is not true that it is created now in that way. Take Mr. Hyams's money—I do not like to go into these abuses, because it is not an abuse. He was behaving in a perfectly legitimate way. What he did was not forbidden; it was not a criminal offence. It was not even an act on which financial penalties were imposed. He behaved as anybody sensible would behave in a capitalist society. And if that is not a behaviour which commends itself to some noble Lords on the other side, then we have to change the rules of the game. It is no use telling us that these ugly and unacceptable features can be smoothed out, as a young lady smoothes out her acne by applying powder. This is not an acne and the powder has not yet been invented.
It seems to me that what one will have to have is certainly a very considerable extension of the nationalised or public sector with a certain dominance of it, so far as salaries are concerned, so that we shall not have a situation arising as it arose under the last Labour Government when the revision of the salaries of the Chairmen of the Nationalised Boards was so large that it was used as an excuse for increases in salaries in the private sector. It seems to me that this is inevitable so long as the private sector predominates. That sort of friction which is responsible for a great many of the failings of the nationalised industires in creating a new spirit, can be cured only by an extension of the public sector —which does not mean that I am in favour, for instance, of picking out one or two or even 25 industries—without due consideration of why we are doing it in any specific instance.
It seems to me that obviously one should have a very much more detailed study before proposing concrete steps. I should like to emphasise to your Lordships that if you do not wish to go back to Adam Smith's time—and Adam Smith,

739
after all, was succeeded by the Combination Laws of Pitt, and I do not believe that even the Prime Minister, with his Pittite ambitions, would like to revive the Combination Laws; but maybe the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack in his answer, which will be devastating, will correct me even on that—you cannot get the sort of harmonious balance for which, after ail, we on both sides of the House would like to strive. Therefore, I would commend this Motion to noble Lords on the other side of the House, not so much for their acceptance, which is I think quite impossible (I do not know whether my noble friend is going to withdraw it), but because it is a very timely warning about a very important problem, one that is not merely moral but essentially also a technical problem with which we must cope if England is to resume its due place in the world.
5.22 p.m.
BARONESS ELLES: My Lords, I must begin with an apology that I shall be unable to stay to the end of the debate; I have an important engagement which I cannot cancel. Having heard so many experts on the other side of the House, with so many diagnoses and so many different non-cures for our present system, I think I shall be happy to remain a capitalist on this side of the House, agreeing with those who have actually had to deal with men and management rather than theories. Nevertheless, the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, has done the House a great service by bringing to your Lordships' House the possibility of discussing what is really the most important problem facing the Western democracies to-day; that is, how to live with their prosperity, in dignity and with a clear conscience. This problem is facing all the developed industrial societies, who have acquired a material wealth and prosperity in the space of the last thirty years which would have been inconceivable some years ago. In the search for wellbeing, for a fairer distribution of economic wealth, have we in fact missed out, have we failed to fulfil the basic needs of man, and have we in finding this economic wealth failed to find that happiness which is the basic search of all mankind?
740
There are many who are ready to exploit this dissatisfaction to their own ends, to bring down the world of capitalism, both by word and by deed. I think it is not necessary to repeat what is known to all those who are interested in modern politics, that the long-term aim of the Soviet Union is to destroy capitalism by any means whatsoever. They start off, of course, with the great advantage that we in Western Europe are still a free world, and in the name of freedom we allow for discussion, as we have to-day, and publication of ideas and ideologies, even though they may be incompatible with our own way of life. This insinuation or open attack can be through the mass media, which arc of course now available to all, by deliberate manipulation within the trade unions—-and I emphasise that of course very few people are actually involved in this—to create unrest and cause economic failure, to create such conditions that make it intolerable for the public and ordinary human beings to fulfil their obligations and responsibilities. And it is also clear that they also, through strikes, encourage inflation and disrupt production. There is also weakening of the educational standards, the attack on the morals of the young, whether through easy access to drugs, encouragement to abortion, sale of pornographic literature, exploitation of racial problems, all in order to create a so-called Fascist reaction. These are some of the activities we can identify which we permit in our capitalist system. and, of course, there are others.
We must ask ourselves what are the alternatives to our present system which the noble Lord is offering to us. What do we know of the existing socialist democracies, and is that what he wishes us to have? I will not go into the economic details of socialist democracies, because nobody seems to be in agreement as to what these precise economic standards are, but nevertheless I think we can see some of the symptoms. The kind of scandal we are seeing in the United States would be difficult, since bugging is the order of the day. There are no strikes, but that is because they are illegal. Indeed, if you visit the factories you see lists of those workers who have failed to attend or done bad work,

741
which would be quite unacceptable and intolerable in our Western World. Indeed the Soviet legal code on labour law prohibits strikes in Soviet countries but encourages them in capitalist countries. Of course they have free elections, because there are no Opposition Parties. There is freedom of speech, because those who oppose are silenced either by extermination, trial, deportation or by imprisonment in mental hospitals. They have freedom of movement, but if you try to cross the frontier from East Germany to the West you are shot in the back.
All this is accompanied by total failure to raise the standards of living of the vast majority of the population except for an elitist group. Indeed, Marxism has failed and has proved to have failed, even to the extent, as I understand it, of food rationing, though I have not had evidence of that myself. What I have had evidence of is that the claim for agreement to be reached with the European Economic Community is based on the fact that some of the countries in COMECON claim still to be developing countries and demand treatment as to general preference similar to new African States. That is, I think, an admission that so far the Marxist economy has not been a success. There has also been, of course, elimination of national characteristics and national traditions.
I hope I heard the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton, correctly when she said that very few of the Soviet countries had had freedom or a great deal of liberty, except possibly East Germany. Perhaps she had forgotten Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Rumania and Bulgaria. Indeed, one is inclined to think of Talleyrand's famous remark about liberteé eégalite fraterniteé:
" Liberteé pour faire du mal; eégaliteé pour vivre dans la miseére; fraterniteé pour eétre comme Cain et Abel."
The double standard which applies to all these factors was very clearly seen by Solzhenitsyn when he wrote in his famous speech, which was never delivered because he was not allowed out of Russia to collect the Nobel Prize in 1970:
"Everything which is further afield, which does not directly threaten to roll up to the threshold of the door of our own home today, will he recognised by us as being, in general, quite bearable and of tolerable dimensions—with all its groans, stifled screams and lost
742
lives, even though there be millions of victims".
While we support the capitalist system, there are of course still many things in that system which need correcting and rectifying, and nobody will disagree that our system is indeed far from perfect. But Solzhenitsyn goes on to say:
"The same old primitive urges rend and sunder our world—greed, envy, licence, mutual malevolence—though now they adopt euphemistic pseudonyms as they go, such as 'class struggle', 'racial struggle', 'the struggle of the masses', the struggle of organised labour '".
We must not allow ourselves to be pushed into such a lack of tolerance that we eliminate the freedom of those who attack us, who wish to import their own form of tyranny into our national life.
When we consider some of the elements of capitalism, perhaps one of the words that has now become a dirty word in our language is that of "profits". We have to remember that company profits are now at about 12½ per cent. of the total national income, which is the lowest percentage ever, and more has gone to wages and salaries. Perhaps because I do neither of these things, I cannot see why it is immoral to invest in industry, which might provide work and which helps the nation, when it is considered completely moral to gain hundreds of per cent. on betting on horses and football pools, and even on premium bonds, regularly every week. Here again we have a double standard.
In order to stop the kind of tyranny which comes from the kind of socialist democracies of which we have seen the symptoms, and some of which I have outlined, we must be prepared to look at our own capitalist system in a new light to get better worker participation, to get better management in industry, better understanding of our general economic and industrial life, and more study for the elimination of poverty—which indeed, as many speakers on both sides of the House admit, is a cancer in our society, but is nevertheless a fact that we have to cope with and must be willing to take concrete and effective measures against —in order that we should not be landed with the sort of tyranny to which I would remind your Lordships Aristotle referred when he said:
"The last and worst forms of democracy are all to be found in tyranny."

743
We shall continue to live with our capitalist system and make it a better world.
5.31 p.m.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, I was delighted to hear the charming noble Baroness attack something that we are not talking about. It would be about as wrong and twisted if I were to attack noble Lords opposite, and to say that through their apotheosis of capitalism they were leading us to Fascism. I am sure that 99·99 per cent. of noble Lords opposite believe in the essential framework of democracy. The noble Baroness was speaking about something which is nothing to do with this Motion.
As the noble Baroness was speaking, the hope for capitalism was sinking lower and lower as the evening sun was shining and glittering on her beautiful buttons. Indeed they reflected like the sun off the lid of a coffin. Let us see what we are talking about. We are following my noble friend Lord Brockway in calling attention
"to the evidence of increasing contradictions and unacceptable immorality of the capitalist economic system.
We all agree that there are contradictions, because speaking philosophically every human being is a contradiction. The Motion goes on:
"and to the need for the democracies of the world …"
We are talking about democracies, and not about Spanish fascism or German fascist tyranny, whatever side of the Curtain that may be.
This is dangerous talk for the noble Baroness. The noble Baroness quietly, in a beautiful sotto voce, said that we must beware of tolerance. Now that is the beginning of dictatorship. I have seen it through history. The Motion goes on:
… the need for the democracies of the world to advance consciously and progressively towards Socialism, if their democracy is to be sustained; "
and then to move:
"That this House urges Her Majesty's Government to give a lead in that direction."
We are not asking noble Lords opposite to be socialist; we are asking for a lead in the direction of democracy and morality in world affairs.
744
I was delighted to hear the noble Lord, Lord Lindsay of Birker, because I sat under the seat of a wonderful father, and I did 17 years extramural work in the W.E.A. It was a privilege to sit under that great man Temple, and listen to him speaking to all types (and I will use this horrible phrase that is being used for my people sometimes), miners and working class people in Wales, who struggled to buy their first dictionary or copy of philosophy.
BARONESS ELLES: My Lords, will the noble Lord allow me to interrupt him? I have just checked my speech, and what I said was, "into such a lack of tolerance", so would he kindly accept that?
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, the word "lack" may have dropped out. I would hate to quarrel with that lovely lady. I will accept the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow morning. It will ruin my speech if I accept it now.
Let me get back to this wonderful work done by great men and women of the stature of the great Master of Balliol among young students from all over Britain in encouraging them to believe in something noble, and teaching them the art of thinking and discussion. One of the great things about the charisma of "Britishness" was the development of this art as a result of non-vocational adult training. As one of the persons who, in a small way, had some contribution to make towards the establishment of Keele University with a number of people some thirty years ago when we were urging it. we were grateful when the Master of Balliol offered to be the first Principal of that university. We introduced a four-year course, and the first year was dealing with philosophy. We did not mind what men were thinking provided they allowed for democracy and learned the art of differing without wanting to shoot each other down. In the W.E.A. movement, and the N.C.O.C., too—but particularly the W.EA. in its day—these were non-Socialist lecturers as well. Unfortunately, the London School of Economics went the wrong way at a certain time. I had helped it, but never mind. They made a great contribution to Britain's greatness. We were a haven of toleration at the worst period of Hitlerism. Men and women could

745
come and get the comfort, succour and peace they needed.
If I were to attack noble Lords opposite with suggestions such as the noble Baroness has made to-day because there was the Cliveden set and the others during the war, and a few of them who sneakingly regarded Hitler as the salvation of the world—and were to make the kind of speech that hinted at that to-night, it would be grossly unfair to them. But the noble Baroness's speech was grossly unfair in the sense that she was speaking of our democratic approach to socialism as hinting that we wanted an arid, dynastic Communist system of society and not democracy. I have made my point, and it is unanswerable. I will now leave it to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. I remember him spending half-an-hour about thirty years ago speaking to some of my W.E.A. students when he came with the noble Earl, Lord Longford. They had just left Oxford together and they came up to North Staffordshire for a debate. It was a brilliant debate, and he argued why he should have a pub if he wanted it, but somebody in the audience said that some of them did not have enough money to feed the pub.
I shall be very naughty to-night; I have never done it before. If I go away to-night, my dear Lord Chancellor, it is not because I am afraid of the cut and thrust of your vigorous, logical argument that will ooze with intellectuality but will now and then drop in wisdom; it is because I have a job for which I will get paid, and I need the money.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the noble Lord need not apologise. The last four speakers have explained that they are not going to wait until the end of the debate. I confidently expect to be speaking alone in this House.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, I feel sad because I think that this is the first time that I have done this. How long have I been speaking now? About seven minutes. I have a pamphlet here, The Sickness of an Acquisitive Society, by R. H. Tawney. Your Lordships know it as well as I do. It cost only one shilling, but it would cost about 30 shillings these days. I turn to page 25 where it says:
"When a Cabinet Minister declares that the greatness of this country depends upon the
746
volume of its exports, so that France, which exports comparatively little, and Elizabethan England, which exported next to nothing, are presumably to be pitied as altogether inferior civilisations. that is Industrialism.
"It is the confusion of one minor department of life with the whole of life. When manufacturers cry and cut themselves with knives because it is proposed that boys and girls of fourteen shall attend school for eight hours a week, and the President of the Board of Education is so gravely impressed by their apprehensions that he at once allows the hours to he reduced to seven, that is Industrialism. It is fetish worship. When the Government obtains money for a war which costs £7,000,000 a day, by closing the museums, which cost £20,000 a year, that is Industrialism.
"It is an old-fashioned word, mind you. It is a contempt for all interests which do not contribute obviously to economic activity. When the Press clamours that the one thing needed to make this island an Arcadia is productivity, more productivity, and yet more productivity, that is Industrialism."
That argument is 50 years old and it is bounced out day after day and we have not progressed philosophically, socially, or morally since that period.
I am just beginning and shall have another five minutes I hope to speak of the disease that we are suffering. The entire debate I think has missed the tools with which the twentieth and twenty-first centuries are going to work. We are still talking about socialism, communism, fascism—all the 'isms or 'wasms—we have been talking about them in terms of the 19th and early 20th century. Now we have new tools, new weapons which we have never had before in the history of man. Nearly 400 million people sit at a little box; in medixval times if anybody had said he could see people walking on the moon, he would have been burnt by the Church and they would have been burnt by the non-Church. The stadia of Rome and the circuses had nothing like the effect of world television on the world to-day, and whatever direction man is steering, whatever the ultimate eclectic answer may be, this is the instrument—no matter how wonderful we think we are—that is going to have a dominating influence on the destiny of mankind.
My late friend, the honourable Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme, Swingler, whose uncle was Archbishop of Canterbury, Randall, and I used to get up in the morning—the noble Lord who shook his head and pointed ominously in front will know ultimately, if he looks it up,

747
that I was right. We used to get up in the morning when the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, lived with us, and we both sang hymns—it did not do the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, much good—he was security-minded about the kingdom of Heaven as well in those days! He was not sure whether Swingler and myself had a passage there. But Swingler was brought up a devout churchman: his father was a great rector. I was just a local member of the Welsh choir which could sing Cwm Rhondda in seven parts all at once. We used to enjoy ourselves. I suddenly said to him one morning, "Do you know. Steve, more people sing hymns, more people are listening to religious services now than ever in the history of Britain since the Crucifixion?"—and that is correct.
I am talking of television and radio, and my 64-thousand dollar question is: what great effect has that had? I am sure that underneath somewhere it has had effect. The successes of capitalism have been due to the effect of the pressure of men like my noble friend Lord Brockway, the pressure of the trade union movement and the pressure of men inside the movements of the Conservatives, men like the Cecil family, or that famous book The Philosophy of Conservatism—a completely different concept from the arid concepts of today. The pressure of those movements, the socialist movement, had an effect in helping to build, under the 1945 Government, the Welfare State, and it is accepted now. I will not bore the House, but I took the trouble Ito make a list of nationalised industries before Labour got into power—the B.B.C., the airways, because it was recognised that these instruments of power were too big for any single company to own. In other words, public ownership is not merely a part of the philosophy of the Labour movement, it is part of the philosophy of all moral Governments that are trying to introduce morality into public affairs.
The assumptions of capitalism—Oscar Wilde's famous essay, "The Soul of Man under Socialism"—recognises (I have recognised, and so has the Lord Chancellor) that the emotions of man can be stirred more easily than his intelligence. One of the troubles about the speech we
748
heard a moment or two ago was the emotional approach to the problem of the possibility that if we allow tolerance there might come up from underneath a revolutionary group that would drive us towards arid communism. I do not think that is the distinction. Wilde made the distinction. He said:
"The State has to make what is useful, the individual what is beautiful."
That was my concept. What brought me into the movement was that I wanted equality of opportunity. I do not believe that men and women are equal—no intelligent socialist has ever said that; but what he is asking is equality of ability, mentally or in stature, especially known in Rugby. I am asking for equality of opportunity in the one place that makes a difference, and that is why morality can be achieved only when there can be equality of opportunity for education. Once that is given to a young man or woman, right to the university, if they can do it, then I think they must not be mollycoddled but out on their own. I think it is a concept of socialism that if a man does not work neither should he eat. It is a concept which an intelligent socialism has held for centuries.
The other thing that noble Lords opposite mix up is ochlochracy and democracy. Ochlochracy is government by the mob. When noble Lords are speaking about democracy they are sometimes figuring crowds yelling at a strike or shouting in the street outside the House of Commons. That is oehlochraey. We are thinking of democracy, something worked out by men and women fighting fairly to get representation and building up a framework of change in society. But what we have discovered to-day. since the Government have made a U-turn when we first came in, is that it would be unfair to pillory Ministers who failed. Ministers to-day deserve our sympathy, not justice. When the great Conservative Government came in, with trumpets blowing, and the walls of Labour's Jericho lay crumbling around Harold Wilson's socks, we had a wonderful conception of what society was going to do, what business was going to do. A great man was coming in from the C.B.I. Here was an explosive piece of human dynamite, and "lame ducks" would sink to the bottom of the pond. It was not long before he was making

749
golden legs for them, and they are now all waddling to prosperity on golden crutches. We have discovered a complete new formula in the modern conglomerate society: socialise the losses and privatise the profits. That is the economic axiom of the system of society in which we live to-day.
I listened at a magnificent meeting last night about the Channel Tunnel, and one of the experts who came along said, "All the evidence has been put before the officials which will enable them to come to a conclusion." I nearly flew through the roof and I said, "Look, it is not 'them' "—I was not being ungrammatical—" it is Parliament and the people who must come to the conclusion." It is this danger of bureaucracy, which the noble Lord mentioned, which is represented by the new kind of thinking of very able men. The men who speak like that are not fools and they are not evil, but it is the way their subconscious minds are working. It may be the mercury in the atmosphere that is responsible, but I do not know. Great enterprises have become so big now that the Government have to put money into them. So let us get together and admit that there is a lot of common sense in the Motion which is on the Order Paper. Do not let us have cheap baby arguments. This is not a House full of lumpen back street Tories, and it is not a House full of lumpen back street Labour people. In this House I have been able to listen to some of the finest debates and, as a noble Lord who spoke from the Front Bench rightly said, I cannot imagine this kind of debate going on in any other debating chamber in any country in the world—
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Or other debate.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: The trouble with the Lord Chancellor is that his sotto voce remarks reverberate around me. I am going to finish my speech—
A NOBLE LORD: What a bore!
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: Have I bored noble Lords opposite?
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: No!
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords. K. R. Popper, in his philosophy of the open society said:
750
"There is through history a perennial fight against totalitarianism. This is as old as society itself. What the constructive socialist looks for is democratic social engineering as opposed to Utopian engineering, because democracy is essential as it provides an institutional framework that permits reform without violence."
Whether we believe that or not, I think that the initiation of this debate was worth while in order to reiterate a few of the points which have helped to make Britain great since the days of John Ball, the mad priest of Kent, who said:
"When Adam delved and Eve span, who was then the gentleman?"
I said "gentleman"; Adam was not quite a gentleman. I hope that when the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor brings his very great ability to answering this debate he will pay the same respect to it as he would to any other.
5.54 p.m.
LORD HARVEY OF PRESTBURY: My Lords, having listened to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, whom I followed many times earlier when we represented adjacent constituences in another place, I am not sure whether or not he is in favour of the Motion. I thought he was less than fair to my noble friend Lady Elles, and I think if he reads the report of her speech to-morrow he may take a different view, because I thought it was a very fine speech, and was very much to the point. I have found very little enthusiasm indeed on the Benches opposite for the Motion. which is a rather strange one in itself. As the noble Lord, Lord Davies, said, perhaps only this House would debate such a Motion. The noble Lord, Lord Brockway, referred to the very large wages enjoyed by the chairmen of I.C.I., Courtaulds and the others, and he very courteously gave way to me when I interrupted him to ask whether he would say what was the net income received by those gentleman. He said that he would refer to that in the course of his speech, but he did not do so. It would be a very good thing if, in their annual returns, both large and small companies published against the gross incomes of their executive directors what they actually take home. It would be interesting for the workers to know. After all, the chairmen of the nationalised industries and others are earning very big

751
incomes to-day, and they have all been increased.
I do not know what all the fuss is about. If you compare the top incomes of the leaders of industry in this country with those in other countries, you will see that ours are not very different. Certainly, we are far lower than America, lower than Japan, probably in line with the French, and rather below the Germans. This has been a progressive trend, and I do not find socialists throwing away their big incomes or handing them over to Transport House. They take their money when it comes, and they probably work hard far it and deserve it. The noble Lord, Lord Balogh, said that we have to change the rules of the game, but the rules of the game are always being changed. In the next Session, the Government are to amend the Companies Act, and so it goes on. Each Budget closes up loopholes, and in the autumn we shall probably see radical changes. On the radio on Sunday, Peter Walker talked about amendments to the Companies Act, and the rules are changed by all Governments.
The Conservative Government have gone through a rather difficult time in the last three weeks but, if The Times' opinion poll is any guide they are still doing rather well. Last week they were 2 per cent ahead of the Labour Party, and Mr. Heath's rating as Prime Minister is higher than it has ever been—considerably higher than that of Mr. Wilson. It is significant that on many matters the public take the opposite view to what we think they take. The Motion refers to socialism and, although we have very courteous discussions in this House, I should like to make one or two points about the Socialist Party as such. My experience, sitting on Benches opposite to the Labour Party for nearly 30 years in the two Houses, is that, invariably, they fail to learn from experience. The same mistakes happen every four or five years. We have now had a proposal to nationalise the top 25 leading industrial concerns in Britain, to which great publicity has been given. But the Labour Party tears itself apart—those for and those against—not at conference, not in private, but in letters to the Press, on the Floor of the House and so on.
752
Mr. Anthony Crosland, a very highly respected middle-of-the-road politician an the Labour Front Bench in another place, spoke at Rotherham last Saturday. I have always had a great regard for Mr. Crosland. He said that the nationalisation proposal had damaged the Labour Party in three ways. First, it had distracted public attention from a series of events which should have been disastrous to the Tory Government, secondly, it guaranteed an almost total neglect of the whole of the rest of Labour's new programme; and, thirdly, he said, "We are deceiving the public." He then went on to say that each proposal for public ownership has to be justified to the electors in terms of the actual positive benefits which such ownership would bring. Having spent most of my adult life in industry, and having worked both abroad and in this country, I know something about it. What do your Lordships think the answer would be if you asked the average worker in any of the top 25 companies in Britain, whether he would rather work for I.C.I. and Courtaulds or the Gas Board and the Coal Board? I know the answer perfectly well. He would want to stay as he was. The fringe benefits, the pay and the pensions are infinitely better at I.C.I. and Courtaulds than in any of the nationalised industries.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, will the noble Lord agree that when a company is prosperous it can offer those benefits, but that when it falls—as Rolls-Royce did—the workers would prefer it to be nationalised?
LORD HARVEY OF PRESTBURY: My Lords, the nationalised industries have not performed too well over the years. Let us face it: they have not done nearly as well as those in private hands—I will give your Lordships one reason why I think this is the case. The leaders of the nationalised industries were for many years grossly underpaid, as were the leaders of the trade unions. It may be denied on the Benches opposite, but the fact is that you will not get the required quality of man unless you pay what is the right rate, whether it is at the top or at the medium level.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt again, but the noble Lord is being slightly provocative—and I think he intends to be. Would the noble

753
Lord not agree that as far as the mining industry is concerned the conditions which now prevail in there would not have been achieved under the capitalist free enterprise system which prevailed prior to the war?
LORD HARVEY OF PRESTBURY: My Lords, I am glad to assure the noble Lord that I am not wishing to be or trying to be provocative at all, but this is a rather provocative debate, and I think we are entitled to express our views as we see the position. I quite agree that much has been done for the miners, and very rightly so-and by this Government, even last year. Large sums of money have been put into the mining industry. It is the same with the shipping industry. The conditions in which crews slept in the fo'c'stle of cargo boats a few years ago are unthinkable to-day. This now goes right through the whole breadth of industry, and I welcome it. As for the railways, the railwaymen are very badly paid still to-day. They are probably the worst paid in the country, and I want to see the lowest level brought up considerably.
I think this Government have done a tremendous job of work in looking after the lower-paid people, the sick and the needy, and the Minister who has had very little credit for what has been achieved is Sir Keith Joseph. I think that in the last three years he has done remarkable things for the people who really need help. Much has been corrected in the capitalist system in the last 25 years, and it will go on being corrected. In industry to-day much more thought is being given to people. I know companies where they said at the end of the war, "We must have a public relations officer", and where they took on a retired squadron-leader or a man out of the Army, who went and saw the widow when the husband died and thought his job was done. But to-day that is all changing, fortunately. Industry now has qualified men who are an integral part of the management, looking after the workers. Furthermore, they even look after the welfare of the pensioners, which I think is equally important.
My Lords, in most countries the demand of workers for wage increases are far greater than can be met out of increased efficiency and productivity. I think that
754
is generally accepted to-day. They have forced Governments, whether they like it or not, to intervene in the process of collective bargaining and price determination. It is usually easier for a Government to restrain prices than wages; that is the way it goes. But the cost inflation of recent years has brought some great companies very nearly to bankruptcy, not only in this country but in other countries overseas. They are working on long-term contracts, and frequently have to give fixed prices in advance. This is what happened, of course, in the Upper Clyde shipyard, where successive Governments have put in something like £56 million and have seen most of that money disappear. It appears to be getting right now; we hope it is.
We hear much these days about workers' participation in the boardroom. I have seen it at work on the Continent; and personally I think it will probably happen here in the next ten years. It may be quite a good thing; but I wonder whether Mr. Vic Feather really appreciates what its implications will be when it happens. If you are going to have two workers sitting round the boardroom table accepting their share of responsibility in taking decisions, it is not going to be easy for trade union policy to overrule them. I think there are many benefits to both sides that can come out of this arrangement if it happens—and it probably will. I should also like to see the two-tier system of boards of directors. I think there should be non-executive directors on the board of a company. They have no real axe to grind, they are usually men of considerable experience outside that particular business, and they can say exactly what they feel and what they think in coming to a decision. That is a good thing, and I hope that when the Companies Act is amended we shall see legislation introduced to bring this about.
No, my Lords: free enterprise does not claim to be perfect; it never has. Nobody is perfect. However, rightly used in conjunction with the ideals of the Welfare State, it does claim to make provision for all those who suffer from its imperfections. Being non-doctrinaire, it is accessible to improvement and the demands of changing times. In recent years—the last five years—one can say that industry has been really facing its responsibility in

755
ecology, pollution and the environment generally. Why do we not have fogs now in London or Manchester? This movement is going on, and industry today is applying very large sums to these problems. Finally, my Lords, I have great confidence in competition in all walks of life; I think it is the right answer. But I shall be interested to see whether the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, divides the House on his Motion to-night. I shall be even more interested to see whether the Front Bench of the Party opposite vote with him if he does. If it does, we shall know where they stand in what is involved in the nationalisation of the 25 leading industrial companies.
6.6 p.m.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, I rise definitely to support my noble friend Lord Brockway. I am a firm believer in democratic socialism. I do not believe in dogmatic socialism as practised in Russia and the Communist bloc, about which we have heard something to-day. I do not know enough about China to judge. Democratic socialism, in my definition, is a tolerant socialism. It has a place assured for capitalist enterprise side by side with enterprises under public control. Democratic socialist States are often welfare States. That has been said this afternoon. The first welfare State was actually New Zealand a century ago. Sweden and some of the Scandinavian countries were next, and Britain came later. Other welfare States are developing. For example, Israel has already gone a long way on the road to democratic socialism. I propose to devote most of my remarks to that country, where I have lived for the last 25 years, and before that I lived for another 25 years in its predecessor, Palestine—a total of over half a century. I find life under democratic socialism in Israel so good that I never want to come back and resettle here. I should like to inject a personal note. When I returned to London briefly after my father's death ten years ago to take my seat, everyone expected me to join the Liberal Party in your Lordships' House, but I just could not do it. One cannot live all one's life in a democratic socialist State like Israel and still be satisfied with Liberal programmes. No one who has seen the
756
benefits that have accrued to the common man in Israel, both Jew and Arab, under democratic socialism could possibly think otherwise. That is why I joined the Labour Party in this House—I may say, rather to its surprise.
I know Israel's faults as well as anyone. That country is still the centre of furious controversy, but nothing can obscure certain basic facts. First of all, for the whole of its short existence as a State, 25 years, all its four Prime Ministers and the majority of every Cabinet have been democratic socialists, and that has given a continuity of Left-Wing policies hardly ever found outside the Communist bloc: in Sweden, perhaps, for some time, but never in Britain. Democratic socialism in Israel, as in other welfare States, rests solidly on a powerful trade union movement. Some of your Lordships may have heard its name—the Histadrut. That merely means "the organisation". It could be any organisation, but "the organisation" in Israel is the General Federation of Labour, much as the trade union movement in this country is the T.U.C. But, unlike the T.U.C., the Histadrut itself controls, or shares in the control of, several vast industrial enterprises, particularly in the metal industries. It might seem impossible for a trades union congress to protect the rights of working men and at the same time be a big employer, but in Israel somehow it works. That, I suggest, is democratic socialism at its best.
I should like now to say a few words about the co-operative movement. In Britain, consumer co-operatives no longer play an important role—perhaps they never did; but in Israel they influence the whole economy. For example, the national inter-city bus service is run as a co-operative. Drivers get wages plus a share of the profits. One of the major citrus-exporting firms which supplies you with Jaffa oranges and grapefruit is owned by the major private citrus growers. Even the Israel Philharmonic Orchestra which some of your Lordships may have seen on television last week is a co-operative. All the members receive an equal share of the profits, with large family allowances according to need. Above all, every one of the famous kibbutzim is run as a co-operative, and the co-operative movement in every

757
country, including Britain, is in my opinion the essence of democratic socialism.
I should like to speak a little about the kibbutz, a word which merely means "a collective". The proceeds of all that the members produce and sell are paid into a common purse, and from it every member receives housing, clothes and food; and all the children go on to the local kibbutz high school free of charge. That, again, is real democratic socialism. It differs in several aspects from the Russian kolkhoz. That is compulsory. All peasants in Russia must belong to the kolkhoz unless they work on a State farm as direct Government employees. Private farming in Russia has almost entirely disappeared. In Israel you are free to choose. You can join a kibbutz —as 3 to 4 per cent. of the population do. If you do not like it, you can join a co-operative smallholders' village, with your own plot of land, cowshed and chicken run. But all your produce, all sales and all purchases are dealt with through the co-operative movement. If you do not like that but have some agricultural experience, and you can "rustle up" a little capital, then you can become a wholly independent farmer and buy and sell how you like, as in Britain. All is a matter of personal choice; but few kibbutz members would ever dream of leaving their little Gardens of Eden and going into capitalist farming.
Many of your Lordships have visited Israel and have seen its orange groves along the coast, the source of so much of the wealth. You have seen its booming cities, old and new. The citrus belt and the cities are largely developed by private initiative and private capital. Some cities have perhaps overdone their development, as The Times pointed out this morning. Another great dollar earner is the diamond polishing industry, also run by independent traders marketing the output of dozens of small factories all over the country. The Government and Labour Party in Israel do not oppose these capitalist enterprises; they cherish them and foster them. They have helped to raise literally hundreds of millions of dollars in the U.S.A. and elsewhere as investment capital, both public and private. In other words there is room for everyone—the essense of democratic socialism.
758
I should like now to say a little about land. Nearly all the land, that precious commodity, in Israel is under public ownership. It cannot be bought or sold for development or by speculators as so often happens in this country.
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Viscount. I wonder whether he would agree that "public ownership" is really a rather misleading designation; that it is really Government ownership.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, may I come to that point? Nearly 90 per cent. of the land is publicly owned. Some of it is owned by the Jewish National Fund itself, which was originally financed by the pennies of poor Jews all over the world; some of it is owned by the State. The State of Israel inherited vast desert areas from the British mandatory Administration which inherited them from the former Ottoman Government. That land was thought worthless as it was without water, but water has now been brought to it over long distances. This Government-owned land has become immensely valuable. I trust that that answers the point that was raised. It is leased for farming, but no speculation at all in land outside the cities or the citrus belt is possible. So 90 per cent. of the land is free of this curse. That, I suggest, should be the aim of democratic socialism in every country—even including Britain in the not too distance future.
I should like to go back now to the kibbutzim as a phenomena. Many young people from Britain and elsewhere, not necessarily Jewish, go out every summer to work in the kibbutzim. It is good for the young people and good for the kibbutzim which have a shortage of hands. Some of your Lordships may have children or grandchildren who have gone to Israel for this extraordinary experience. They could have got a healthy tan on the Riviera, playing tennis or sailing in the sun; but to get a healthy tan, and blisters, from productive work at the same time—that is something different. Only 3 per cent. to 4 per cent. of Israelis live in kibbutzim but the kibbutz members, when they do their national service—and all, without exception, do their national service—are so healthy, so self-disciplined and so enthusiastic that nearly all of them inevitably get to the N.C.O. training

759
schools and many to the officers training schools. Although only 3 per cent. to 4 per cent. of the army come from the kibbutzim they provide a quarter of the officer corps. This is rather like the high percentage of -public school boys among the officers of the British Army in earlier generations.
Israel's officer corps is of great interest to the general staffs of Britain and many other countries because the Israeli Army is a rather rare creature—it actually wins wars; so a democratic socialist republic, with one quarter of the officer corps coming from the kibbutz, shows that it is not effete. One of its elite regiments, the Parachute Corps, is regarded in Israel rather as the Guards Division is regarded in Britain. In Israel even the rank and file of the Parachute Corps is largely composed of tall young men from the kibbutzim. Being too tall, I suppose they reach the ground earlier, and this gives them a military advantage. But if your Lordships think that the kibbutz has become militarist, you are wrong. I suggest that you read a paperback which has come out recently, The Seventh Day. It is a careful study of the forthright opinions of young kibbutz soldiers who fought in 1967. It gives their ideas on life and death, on Jews and Arabs, on the morality and the immorality of war. Your Lordships would be surprised at some of the conversations reported.
The kibbutz is the heart and soul of Israel and the pride of the whole country; hence the kibbutz may be taken as one of the factors that has made Israel into an outstanding example of democratic socialism in practice. But what has this to do with democratic socialism in Britain? Some people, not Israelis or even Jews, would like to see kibbutzim started in other countries. There have been collectives in the past: in the United States, in Canada and even, centuries ago, in Paraguay; but mostly they had a religious basis. Few, except perhaps for the Huttterites in Canada, have outlasted the second generation. Some of the kibbutzim in Israel are run by third generations. Their idealistic fervour is undiminished. I have always doubted whether idealistic fervour could be transplanted. I may be wrong. It may well be that some group of English or Danish young people, not Jews, who
760
have worked in the kibbutz in Israel and returned to Britain or to Denmark—from which incidentally, some 7,000 young people go every year to Israel—may be imbued with an immense wave of enthusiasm for a better world based on principles of democratic socialism. And so far as Britain is concerned, perhaps one or two of these groups may be able to establish collectives of their own in the peaceful English countryside. Their neighbours would all be independent British farmers. But if such collectives in Britain did manage to take root and were happy in not having private property of their own, the idea might catch on. Then a further step will have been taken to develop a rare but practical example of democratic socialism in this country, in addition to all other existing forms of public ownership and control.
6.22 p.m.
TIIE EARL OF LYTTON: My Lords, it is with particular pleasure and surprise that I follow the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel. We do not know each other. There was a time, in the War Office, when with much distress Mr. Robert Waley-Cohen used to wander in hoping that I could find him some accommodation for Jewish refugees. So I have particularly enjoyed the way in which, 30 years later, a Member of this House of Peers declared his delight in being on the land in the land of his forefathers. My Lords, between November 9, 1965, and May 23. 1973, the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, has I believe addressed your Lordships 832 times. This includes Questions which, in the noble Lord's hands, or rather in his mouth, are speeches, preceded by the words, "Is the Minister aware … This marathon-like achievement so late in life should, I imagine, presently qualify for the Guinness Book of Records. We can all all admire it. Now that I am advised to wheel only half a wheelbarrow, to refrain from digging and using my axe, I have been wondering whether I too should come in and imitate the noble Lord. I await any intimation from your Lordships.
The capitalist system is a system craved for by all the peoples that I have had anything to do with. It has two forms. There is State capitalism, known as socialism, of which one of the

761
pure examples is the U.S.S.R., and the mixed economy, which has a public sector and a private sector. The private sector sets the tone; the public sector does not display any capacity for solving the greater evils that one finds in the private sector. Therefore it seems to me. and to many others like me, that this argument about whether there should he more of the public sector or less is, at the present time, a very sterile argument. Because what matters is the evils in both forms, the public sector and the private sector. People are becoming disgusted with the dogfight which is taking place in the country and which, in part, has been recapitulated this afternoon.
The craving for capitalism is so all-pervading that I must mention how it develops. Take Africans, in the circumstances in which I have had to look after them, whose only diet is milk and blood, and who have no clothes. Their expectation of life is about 25 years. Their way of life is fascinating and one likes it. They are a kind of living museum of an ideal past. But, on the average, they live only for 25 years. They want capitalism to rescue them; they are clamouring for it. Take the case of the Bahamas that we are "liberating" or whatever it is called—giving them their independence. We debated the matter yesterday. To the best of my belief, they are waiting breathlessly for the arrival of international capitalism on their doorstep as soon as they are independent. Is it not a fact that the oil companies of the Gulf are prepared to construct tanker terminals for super tankers which will supply the Eastern seaboard of the United States, at a moment when America is exceedingly short of fuel and when their projects for Alaska have been thwarted by their own environment enthusiasts? All are thirsting for capitalism whether of the socialist brand or the non-socialist brand. Capitalism is here; it is the character of our age. Socialism and capitalism are not an antithesis, one is a form of the other.
My Lords, there are evils crying out for reform. I join with the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, and others in deploring them and wishing to tackle them. I think we delay and divert our attention by assuming that, without many other things, further public ownership can make the smallest difference to these evils. What
762
about the soul-destroying character of much of the human labour? Mere automatons in the vast economic machine is what the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, said. Are these automatons not to be found in Eastern Europe; in the Soviet Union; wherever industrialism exists? Of course they are. It is that that one wants to humanise—that among other things. Many years ago I was often shocked at the monotony of the conveyor belt in Morris Oxford; the noise, the awful din of those pneumatic drills, and the stink of the stuff they spray on motor cars. In my own walk of life I am a farmer. I have to decide whether to go in for factory farming or not. I am not sure that factory farming is harmful to the animals. It could be. but I am not sure that a lot of it is. What I am certain about is that it is an utterly soul-destroying way to employ a farm labourer, and neither I nor my bailiff will have it. My bailiff would walk out accompanied by his seven sons if I were to take on such a thing, because it is inhuman for the man, the attendant.
There are of course many of these things. There is the unexpected redundancy; soul-destroying employment, followed by soul-destroying unemployment. and many others. Naturally, the State has a great part in this, but I must say that I fail to see that these elaborate systems of taking over an industry make any decisive difference. I wish that attention were diverted to the real evils, whether in public enterprises or not, because I believe that all men are unequal that you must treat them as unequal: and that differentials are natural to society. All my experience of life in teaching and in training people is that they are unequal, that no two are alike. It is one of the great errors of our time that we assume that people are equal, and attempts to force them into artificial equality which is contrary to their nature produce other evils.
Another error of our times, a principle which I have tried to correct in the little departments of life with which I have been concerned, is that all power corrupts. That is what I think Lord Brockway believes of everybody in a position of power, unless he is a State official. It has been my lot to train people to exercise power—a little power of course. I have never been a very big man, but I

763
have had to train people to exercise authority. It is my belief that young men are the better for being entrusted with authority over others when they have the capacity to exercise it. There is a natural striving to excel. If you thwart it, you frustrate people and they do violence and unpleasant things to society. Therefore I think that one has to tackle the industrial situation and see how power can better be distributed. What I feel now is that the harm done by a few people with too much power is nothing like the harm done by a vast number of people with absolutely none. That, I feel, among other things, is the matter to which attention should be given. Therefore I must say I am rather depressed at the recapitulation of the old and sterile antithesis between one form of capitalism and another.
I must conclude by saying that recently I was talking with the Polish Ambassador, and I mentioned to him all the Poles with whom I was at school, most of whom were of aristocratic stock. I said to him:" Are any of them with you now? "He said:" Yes. We have some who work with the regime, and we call them red aristocrats '."I said:" I am blue, and I give my love to my friends the red aristocrats. "He said: "Ah, you are blue." He must have thought that I was a Conservative, because he said: "But Mr. Heath's Government, surely, has the reputation of being the reddest Government that Britain has ever had." I said: "Yes; I dare say you are right. But you will forgive me for saying that I am much too blue for Mr. Heath. I assume that you take great pleasure in him? "To that he was entirely silent.
6.33 p.m.
LORD COLERAINE: My Lords, I do not find myself in agreement with Lord Brockway's Motion, and least of all am I in agreement with the final part:
"That this House urges Her Majesty's Government to give a lead "
progressively towards socialism. I am inclined to agree with the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, that Her Majesty's Government are doing that without any help from the noble Lord, Lord Brockway—or, at any rate, I agree with the Polish Ambassador. Where I really differ from the noble Lord, Lord Brockway—and I would not for one moment question his
764
sincerity—is in the proposition which underlies his Motion, that economic systems are themselves either immoral or moral. I do not think that is true. I think they are either effective or ineffective. Whichever they are, they may be open to abuse. However, the abuse does not arise from the system; it arises from sin or the weakness of human beings.
What do I mean by "effective or ineffective" in terms of an economic system? What I mean by "effective" is that an effective economic system should treat human beings as ends and not as means; it should protect them, so far as possible, from outside disasters and from their own evil impulses; it should give them freedom, and, in particular, freedom to choose between good and evil, without which there can be neither good nor evil, but only a moral vacuum. It seems to me that by this test the capitalist system is self-evidently superior to the Socialist system which the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, advocates.
My noble friend Lord Gowrie, in what I thought, if he will allow me to say so, was a magnificent speech (he said that he could make such a speech only because it was a Wednesday, and I wish that there were more Wednesdays in the week so that we could hear more speeches like it) made an irrefutable case, as I think, for the capitalist system. But I thought that he was perhaps a little apologetic about the past and was looking forward to a revivified capitalist system which would come to its full fruition in 10 or 20 years' time.
My Lords, I think if we look to the past we realise what a tremendous achievement the capitalist system has produced in the 200 or 250 years in which it has been in existence. In these Islands 150 years ago there were 8 million people living for the most part in abject poverty. To-day there are 56 million, of whom only a minority, and a relatively small minority, live in poverty. That is a consequence of the capitalist system. One hundred and fifty years ago, I do not know how many offences there were (possibly 300) which carried capital punishment. There was abominable ill-treatment of children, little chimney sweeps being perhaps one of the worst examples. There was something not very different from slavery. All that is behind us, and it is behind

765
us because the capitalist system has produced an environment in which people have become sensitive to evil and are able to do something about it.
If, on the other hand, we look at the Socialist system, there is nowhere, with one possible exception to which the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, referred—the State of Israel—where it has not produced very great evils indeed. I do not know whether your Lordships read yesterday an article in The Times by Mr. Bernard Levin. I do not know what it means—probably I should go to see a psycho-analyst. But I find myself agreeing more and more with what he says. In the article he described the novel technique adopted by which socialism in Russia manages to suppress dissenting opinions—this they do by sending critics of the system to lunatic asylums. You can have socialism, but invariably I feel it creates tyranny and it does not even achieve material wellbeing. I do not think anyone would pretend for a moment that, except in very specialised fields, Russian socialism is not far and away behind Western capitalism in its achievements.
In support of what I am saying, I should like to quote one short paragraph:
"The housewife whose domestic gadgets provide the equivalent of four maids' work and the husband whose car puts him on the level of the owner of a coach and four, not to mention the coachman, already feel in their own lives that general living standards which were once the privilege of the small property-owning class are being transformed into the legitimate expectations of every reasonably industrious citizen."
That is surely a very remarkable tribute to the capitalist system. It was made in Fabian Tract No. 399, and the author was Mr. Richard Crossman. I do not think he could have said anything that more abundantly justified the achievements of capitalism in the past.
Even though the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, is not here, I should like to say that I thought he made a most remarkable speech. He said that from his own experience socialism worked in Israel, and he produced what I thought was very convincing evidence in support of that statement. But as he spoke there passed through my mind the reflection that there were three considerations which applied in Israel and in no other country in the world. The first is that they were operat
766
ing from an absolutely clean slate. The second is that, as a result of the experience through which their race has passed over the centuries, and particularly in our own lifetime, they are capable of a devotion and a tenacity of which our people no longer seem to be capable. But there is a third consideration, too; that is, that the State of Israel, as I see it, is very largely supported by subventions from Jews all over the world. That does not take away at all from my admiration of the State of Israel, but it is relevant to this argument. I do not believe it could have achieved these results under socialism if it were not for these subventions.
My Lords, I said a few moments ago that the troubles of our economic system did not arise from capitalism. The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, instanced the deadening effect of conveyor belt production in a motor car factory—and it is appalling. I have no doubt that it is responsible in a very great measure for the troubles in that industry to-day. But if you are going to produce motor cars cheaply and competitively to sell all over the world, then whatever system under which you operate, whether it be socialism or capitalism, you are going to have that evil. I sometimes wonder whether the spiritual malaise from which we suffer is not perhaps that we attach too much importance, whether we are Socialists or believers in capitalism, to economic growth per se. That applies not only in this country but all over the Western World.
I wonder also whether we would not do better to consider, as we are beginning to do, the qualitative aspects of life rather than the quantitative ones. I was very much interested by the altercation that took place between my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack and the noble Lord, Lord Soper. Lord Soper, of course, is not here—he never is after he has spoken—but I was interested in particular by something which he said when he was told that at Pentecost the early Church failed after its first impulse and its first enthusiastic joy. He said—and I took down his words—
" … it was not that the experiment was ill-judged but that those who conducted it failed in heart and mind."
That seems to me, if he will allow me to say so, to be what the noble Lord, Lord

767
Brockway, forgets in putting this Motion. We all of us fail in heart and mind, and the question is: does his solution (or ours, on this side of the House) make that failure more likely or less likely and does it make it more disastrous or less disastrous if it happens? I believe that, judged by that test, the capitalist system with all its imperfections—and there are many—survives triumphantly compared with the solution of the noble Lord, Lord Brockway.
6.49 p.m.
LORD MILFORD: My Lords, there has been quite a ripple at Westminster because this House is to discuss socialism. Some might think it would be incongruous; I would not agree. As the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton, has reminded us, over a third of the people in the world today live under socialism. It is a subject which has been discussed and written about by the great thinkers all over the world in the last 100 or 150 years. Therefore, I admit that I was shocked when I saw people giggling and sneering at the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, from the other side of the House when he began his speech this afternoon; and I thought that the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, was far too flippant on such a subject as this. It may have been amusing for him and other people, but this is a very serious subject indeed.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: My Lords, perhaps I might interrupt for just a moment, to say that surely, for flippancy and joy of heart the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, took the prize.
LORD MILFORD: My Lords, to-day millions of people are coming to think that the present state of affairs is frustrating and sterile, and that something has to change. Those who work for change are considered by the Establishment as dangerous, subversive and to be suppressed. Societies have changed. In the past there was slavery, which changed into feudalism when slavery became outdated. Feudalism gave way to capitalism, and now there are many all over the world who think that society is so outdated that we have to move forward to another.
In this country we have respected political philosophers and writers, members of the Establishment who have
768
broken away, criticising society, showing how society must be drastically changed or else stagnate and decay. During the last century we have had Robert Owen, Marx, Shaw, Wells, William Morris, to mention a few, who specifically put forward socialism in one form or another as the next step forward. Who would defend slavery to-day? Who among the most nostalgic of your Lordships, dreaming of the absolute power of your families in the past, would seriously advocate going from capitalism to feudalism? I am absolutely certain that none of the people in the socialist countries want to return to capitalism. Of course, in the upheaval when the old society broke down and the new was struggling to be born, there was confusion, mistakes and violence.
But examine how the violence started in nearly all the big revolutions. Who started the civil war in Britain? Who raised the standard first? Who started it in France? Who started in the civil wars in the Soviet Union and China—the wars of intervention? In Britain we had our civil war; we could not have broken through into capitalism without it, as things turned out. France had her great revolution and Russia hers. In each case a new society had to be won. The difficulties and contradictions of capitalism are coming to a head; there is colossal pressure from all walks of life for a change—youth, women, coloured people and wage earners. The seams are bursting; something has to happen, and it will. As these contradictions are inherent in capitalism itself, if capitalism is being found wanting, is it not inevitable that society must finally move forward into something new, which I hope will be socialism? I am sure all of us in this House would reject the other solution which has been tried—fascism.
I suggest that to-day capitalism is found wanting on three major fronts: economic, democratic and moral. Let us take the economic front. The days of the old flourishing family business have gone; the original capitalism has inevitably developed into monopoly capitalism. We now have the appalling concentration of huge wealth and power in the hands of a few gigantic concerns, so powerful that they influence Government policy at home and abroad and, through

769
their propaganda, aim to control the minds and values of the people. Their interests are not British but stretch across all frontiers; they are international. They can hold up nations to ransom. What is happening to our North Sea oil? Under socialism it could be a completely national asset for Britain.
A large part of the car industry in this country is now foreign; and foreign management is trying to impose foreign discipline on British trade unionists. Small firms are being swallowed up every day without consultation with the workers, who are immediately made redundant. Jobs are hard to find. Highly educated boys and girls cannot find employment in what they have been trained to be qualified for. The Labour Party's new document recognises this nightmarish trend and pledges to do something about it, mentioning more nationalisation. But immediately the Labour Party does this the national Press—itself another monster engrossed in devouring all competition and always on the side of the monopoly millionaires—screams in fury, shouting, "Freedom!". The Times, in a leading article on June 8, pontificated that plans to extend nationalisation were based on class hatred and listed 11 reasons why they would never deliver the goods to the workers and the public as well as to private enterprise. We do not want nationalisation for nationalisation's sake, but for democracy's sake and for efficient national planning. Nationalisation is not in the hands of the people in our present nationalised industries.
To-day we have a form of State capitalism. The fundamental contradiction of capitalism—one which is getting sharper and sharper—is the two opposing classes: employers and workers, profits and wages. One side is interested in production only if good profits are assured, the other has to work in order that he and his family can live. This confrontation can only be resolved when the factories and the means of production are publicly owned, where the workers have a share in planning discussions at all levels and are taken into complete confidence by their management, and when production is not in order to make as fat a profit as possible for a handful, but to benefit the needs of the people. This is the nationalisation that we Socialists want.
770
Under public ownership the economy can be planned for the national good in place of the present anarchy which has been caused because of the profit motive. Shortage of houses and land means great hardship for the homeless and overcrowding, but it also means huge profits for the big landlords and speculators. Land for development should be publicly owned and given to the local authorities as they need it.
Those are some of the black sides of I capitalism, economically. Regarding democracy, the state of democracy that we have reached to-day—and it is a considerable one—has been won by the people struggling through hundreds of years, but it is no longer spreading; on the contrary, it is diminishing. To-day, Parliament can and does talk and talk. But actual decision-making has been taken more and more away from it to the Cabinet, where Ministers have connections with big business. And Parliament can argue and discuss without taking the will of the people into consideration. For example, whatever one may think personally, the people of Britain were never consulted about entry into the Common Market. Local government is more and more side-tracked; parish councils and rural district councils are being pushed aside by bigger organisations more remote from the grass roots.
he Press, which used to represent many different shades of opinion, now consists of one or two huge concerns producing for profit and more profit. Our huge Labour Party has no national Press at all. On the mass media, who decides what radio and television are going to feed into the families of Britain? Concerning reading matter, every year more and more small publishing firms go bankrupt. The Civil Service, the top military personnel, the heads of police, are completely out of touch with the people. Democracy is being stifled by huge monopoly power which brainwashes us into accepting all the Establishment wants us to believe.
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: My Lords, will the noble Lord give way for a minute? He mentioned the police. I do not know whether he saw Sir Robert Marks on television recently, but I do not think he could be described as being out of touch with the people.
LORD MILFORD: To increase democracy, my Lords, surely we ought to draw into activity and planning the people themselves; reverse this increasing concentration of monopoly power. Many of us think it will be done only through socialism. There are vast latent talents in the people of Britain. The crime of modern society is that millions never have the chance to exercise them and die without knowing what they are capable of. To millions of people the great question is: "Hell! What is life about? "
On the morality of capitalism, what has capitalist morality become? Morality is preached to us at school. We who are lucky enough to have a higher education, gone to a university, read the philosophers, the liberal thinkers of the past, histories and literature, and have had a chance to study the highest thoughts of man—what are we doing to live up to that moral knowledge? In the lives around us that morality is not practised. It is just used for the "rat race" that is going on around us, or to gain or maintain power. All the morality we have learnt is absolutely useless today if we want to get on. Everything is for money, more money, profit. What morality has money? My Lords, youth is disgusted to find on leaving school or college that the moral values it has been taught are not practised but scorned cynically. Youth searches for real love, friendship, comradeship, hut finds the "rat race" and racialism.
Art is now a money racket, and the chief concern of the theatre is, "Will it pay?" What is not bought or sold for profit? Profit is extracted from the worker's labour; profit is extracted from the worker's recreation; profit is extracted from the worker's sleep. Society is trapped in the cash nexus. Vast fortunes are made by speculators on necessities of human life: land needed for building houses and houses to sell. But council houses, schools, hospitals, transport, do not bring in profit and are therefore starved of funds. My Lords, all social services should be free. Yet there have been 18 new millionaires from pure speculation in the last 18 months.
Man is not born good or bad, clever or foolish, moral or immoral; he is moulded by society. A rotten, cash, "rat race" society will produce a large
772
crop of unscrupulous, immoral men: Poulson, Lonrho, Bloom, Maxwell, Savundra, are examples. And think of the remarks of Mr. Edward Du Cann, who held office in the Tory Party machine, when he said at the Lonrho meeting, sitting alongside Mr. Duncan Sandys, "I bitterly regret that anyone should have thought it necessary to drag all these matters out into public daylight." What cynicism! What lack of any decency! No shame whatever; no feeling of guilt. And that is what we Socialists want: we want public scrutiny. We see ex-Ministers picking up vast salaries and "perks". We even see new Ministers drawn from ex-tycoons. Increasing crises have exposed the true values of capitalist society. Naturally we now live in a world of violence, fear, insecurity, escapism and cynicism. And the chief of police blames the youth! I am thankful that the new Labour Party document recognises that the seat of power must be changed, and I want it implemented as quickly as possible.
Past thinkers have dreamed of Utopias, of a world of no hunger, no wars, freedom, equality. Must all this always be just a dream? In the past such a world was unobtainable because of lack of technology and science, but today we have sufficient of both and such a world could be grasped. Why do we not try to do it? Because of vested interests in power and profits. Slavery could not do it, neither feudalism; neither will monopoly capitalism. Treatment of monopoly advance in the Labour Party document will be the first step in breaking the stranglehold and will be a big step forward.
While on this question of morality and some of the discussions which arise in this House, I would say there is a small group in this House whose sympathies are obviously with the apartheid Government in South Africa. The same people seem to object to Her Majesty's Government's policy on Rhodesia. Why are we embracing Fascist Portugal and doing nothing in fact to help the Spanish or Greek people in their struggle for democracy? Is not one fundamental reason fear of losing good profits made from cheap labour; to defend capitalism everywhere, when it might be threatened by people of those countries wanting a more just society? One sees the capitalist world hindering President Allende in Chile in all that he

773
is trying to do in his nationalisation programme of foreign firms, which were formerly bleeding the Chilean economy to death. In a socialist world we could have a true internationalism, a true Brotherhood of Man, which would be very different from the supra-nationalist, monopolistic world of the Common Market today. Capitalism is worried when the socialist countries appear to be spreading their influences to the developing world. But socialist countries actually help those countries, while monopoly capitalist countries go on planning to extract more huge profits from them.
In Britain socialism would be built as a continuation of what we have alteady won. In other words, socialism must not only defend all we have won but must also extend it. As a discussion document on suggested ways in which this might be done we Communists have produced The British Road to Socialism. Of course the owners of industry in Britain will not want to renounce their power and position willingly, but pressure for a change is building up in mass struggles every day—trade union rights, wages, rents—and through these struggles the people are becoming aware who the enemy really is and are gaining confidence in their power to change things. Until now successive Tory and Labour Governments have been trying to patch up capitalist societies, but we in this House, whether industrialists, politicians or from other walks of life, if we are really honest with ourselves and look purely objectively at society in Britain today, surely must admit that something has gone very wrong. Is not the very basis of it outdated and uninspiring for the majority of people? Is not the real answer that we have to change things? For me, that change is to socialism.
LORD COLERAINE: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, could he perhaps say something that is not in his brief?
7.12 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, think perhaps I should have got up more quickly. I was not proposing to follow the noble Lord, Lord Milford, very closely, although I must admit that with certain aspects of his final remarks I found myself in agreement. The purpose of this debate, and the purpose of
774
my noble friend Lord Brockway, was to enable us, not to have a Party political wrestling match but to have a discussion in this very crowded and worrying world, to look at some of the fundamental principles, some of which clearly, even though coming from this side of the House have not been wholly unacceptable to many noble Lords on the other side of the House.
First, in addition to thanking my young noble friend Lord Brockway, I should like to express appreciation to Members opposite. I was at one time afraid that this was going to be a teach-in on socialism that we should be debating among ourselves on this side of the House—and let me hasten to add that Members of the Labour Party are well accustomed to debating among themselves. Indeed, it is because we have principles that we have to talk a great deal to decide how to apply them. But I am grateful because we have had a number of good speeches. Indeed, I am not sure that the noble Lord, Lord Harvey of Prestbury—except where he suddenly went off on to the 25 public, or private, enterprises, which I certainly do not propose to discuss tonight because I happen to believe in a mixed economy—was not very nearly in the category of what the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, (and I am always glad to hear from him) called either "Socialist Conservatives"—or was it "Socialist free enterprise"? There was a non-Socialist free enterprise and a Socialist free enterprise, and I think the noble Lord came in the latter category.
Of course, we had a very intelligent speech from the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, and one which, if I may say so, helped to set the tone. It was followed by a series of speeches which make me feel very inadequate when it comes to winding up. I have seldom heard a debate in which there has been such high intellectual calibre from all my noble friends, including, of course, the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger. There has been a considerable academic quality about the debate. We have had a number of ex-Dons, and I think we shall have a Fellow of All Souls to wind up; and even my noble friend Lord Davies of Leek, who always gives us such joy, was of course a very distinguished teacher in the W.E.A. I lay no claim to fame in this field.

775
It has been an interesting debate, and whether or not we vote tonight—and I honestly do not know whether we are going to vote—there has been a degree of exchange of views which have been of interest to all noble Lords. There were times when some noble Lords were a little uncertain as to what we were debating. I do not say this to the noble Lord, Lord Harvey of Prestbury, but certainly the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, thought she was having a debate which would have been relevant in relation to the noble Lord, Lord Milford, but not to the rest of us who were taking part in this debate. I slightly resented it when she said that she preferred to remain with management and practical people, because quite a lot of us on this side of the House have been in management and practice. If I may say so, for many years of my life I have worked for some of the most successful capitalist enterprises in this country and I do not feel ashamed because I do not happen to live in a Socialist society. Therefore I have to earn my living under capitalism and I am not ashamed of the companies for which I have worked. I have met many fine men with many great qualities, but this does not mean—and this is not inconsistent—that I do not wish to see a development in society and a change ultimately to a Socialist society. I believe in some respects we are already progressing in that direction.
At this stage I shall not attempt a definition of socialism. It is unfortunate that in these debates words take on an emotional touch. You say the word "socialism" to certain noble Lords opposite (but not all); you then use the word "Marx" and they feel somehow that you are almost getting into the call-girl racket. They feel that this is something wrong, and I hope that we can be objective about this. Although it is not my intention to enter into a long exposition on Marx, I find, as one who has waded through one of the most boring hooks of al!, Das Kapital, that he is one of the most misunderstood and underrated thinkers, even though his conclusions, like those of Aristotle (who has also caused a certain amount of trouble in the world) are no longer relevant. If the noble and learned Lord wishes to interrupt me in
776
order to make an observation I shall be happy to give way.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I only said that Aristotle had not caused much trouble recently.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I am bound to say that the amount of trouble that Aristotle has caused in this world is probably, as with Marx, proportionate to the size of his world. Of course Marx suffered from the disadvantage of being largely nurtured on the capitalist economists of the 19th century. It was from this that he got his gloomy and pessimistic creed and came up with a solution which at that time might reasonably have been the outcome. But in fact capitalism has been ameliorated. I do not know whether I would say, as I think the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, said he had been told, that Mr. Heath was "that Red Prime Minister". I certainly know that when I go to the City I hear people talking about that Socialist, Heath". It is rather worrying why they should say that to me. Perhaps I have been corrupted by the capitalist system! But none the less we have recognised that there has been a great deal wrong with our society and that the market economy was not, as others earlier thought, some natural God-given device which certainly had the great advantage that somehow, whatever one did naturally. was all right in economics. We find that that is not so, and in the last 50 years under successive Governments, particularly Liberal Governments, but certainly under Conservative and Labour Governments also, capitalism has been changed to a point when some 19th century capitalists—I doubt whether Adam Smith, who was much more concerned generally with the functioning of the market and was an intelligent man, even if he lived rather a long while ago—would not call the present state of affairs "capitalism" at all. But that is not to say that, even though it has been modified and to some extent tamed, we have yet reached the millenium.
I should like to make one further observation about socialism. Noble Lords have been extremely kind, and I would not accept what the noble Lord, Lord Milford said, that for the most part the Party opposite have not listened. Except

777
for an occasional flutter from the noble and learned Lord Chancellor on the Woolsack—he has been in very good form all day—noble Lords opposite have listened with great courtesy and interest; and I should like to say to those who believe, however wisely or misguidedly, that socialism is not the opposite of capitalism, capitalism is based on an economic theory. And whereas I fully agree— and indeed so would Karl Marx for those who have read him—that capitalism led to the great expansion in production and wealth, I happen to think that socialism is not just an economic creed. To me it is not even a question of just grabbing from the "haves" and giving to the "have nots", though when one sees something of what is going on in the property world today, which I am sure is equally deplored by most noble Lords opposite, we may think there could be something in trying to find a way to take it back. Governments have tried to do so, not always successfully.
Socialism is not a self-regarding approach, and I do not believe that there are many people who arc so cynical in this House as not to regard the basic ideals of socialism as worthwhile. The question is, and the argument all along has been, which approach is most likely to add to the sum total of happiness in the world. On that matter it is perfectly possible to take different views. I personally do not take a pessimistic view of mankind. On the contrary, I believe that great improvements have been made. gut when people talk about the improvement in some of the appalling conditions of life of even 50 years ago, the fact is that poverty is a relative term and there is no absolute minimum for poverty. What is essential for people who are more well-to-do and who are able to afford it? Even those who are above the subsistence level still suffer relatively from deprivation. It is important to realise that there are moving standards.
The fact remains that we are in a world which is still exceedingly dangerous; where there are fundamental threats: where there is competition with other types of society—even though I believe that coexistence is becoming more possible; and where, on the whole, in this country I happen to believe that there has been something of a decline, despite my optimism, in the approach
778
of individuals to their neighbours in society. At the end of the war, when we had been fighting together, there existed a great community spirit; people were prepared to make sacrifices. Gradually we have begun to find ourselves corrupted by the opportunities of making money.
I disagree with the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, when he said that the pursuit of wealth is fundamental to the welfare of society. I should say that there are noble Lords opposite who in their lives show this not to be true. I am sure that the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, will have read H. G. Wells' The Work, Wealth and Happiness of Mankind where there is a great tribute to those who have served, particularly those in the Armed Forces; people who have gone into the Armed Forces as officers and who have not sought wealth, but have sought to do their duty. That is the concept which we believe is fundamental and without which the type of socialist society, which must be a free one we believe, cannot work. One can take the view that this is not attainable; but the danger is that if we do not consciously pursue that then other people will go in more violent directions. It is a fact that some of the most energetic and idealistic young are either alienated or drop out. Despite the higher living standards now, there has never been a time when more young people have been dropping out or have moved into violence to pursue aims which may seem to them ideal but which we regard as totally destroyed by the means that they incline to use. That is why they look at us here: they look at the Conservative Party and the Labour Party and see us playing political games; making our splendid institution of Parliament which we all think is so good—and it is—work, and the House of Lords is a very civilised and pleasant place. They do not see either the urgency or the ideal. When they look at the suffering abroad and see the challenge of other systems, then they say that the system is immoral. It is not just part of the capitalist system; it is part of the motivation in society.
I do not propose myself in the few remarks I am going to make to go into the present day scandals. I prefer to look at this matter in a broader framework. It is essential for those of us who are democratic socialists to acknowledge

779
that we cannot hope, in the short run, to achieve the type of society which we envisage, and at the same time in the short run to preserve the freedom of the spirit and avoid the oppression by State institutions which I know have been very much in the minds of noble Lords opposite. Once you accept the ballot box you accept a brake on progress. That is why it is more important than ever that there should be a greater appreciation in society of these ideas, which have net been confined to the Labour Party. The early socialists, even when the Labour Representation Committee was set up, believed that they ought to operate through all Parties. I seem to remember that Bernard Shaw was very reluctant to resign from the Liberal Party at that time. Therefore, we do not think it amiss to seek to put views which we believe to be important.
It might well be, as my noble friend Lady Wootton said, that the Chinese experiment, this tremendous development in China, may succeed in solving one of the great basic weaknesses of communist societies, namely, the bureaucracy; and it is possible that we shall find a degree of advance which may in fact damage our Western pride if we are left behind. I think we would welcome peaceful competition; but noble Lords opposite ought not to accept, because they do not yet see a socialist society to their liking—except Israel, to which we have referred—that this is not attainable. Nor should they dismiss the experiment going on in Chile at the moment. I know very little about it except that they still retain the democratic forms there.
I hope, therefore, that we may from time to time have an opportunity to discuss this sort of matter. It follows typically after some earlier debates, and I believe the House of Lords may have a particular contribution to make in any discussion of these matters. It is the last place where many people would think it possible to do so. Therefore, I believe that we are indebted to my noble friend Lord Brockway for producing a debate which I believe has been of real value and of great interest.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, would the noble Lord not agree that the disillusionment of young people to which he
780
referred stems in great measure from the fact that news of Parliamentary proceedings does not reach them either through the Press or the broadcasting media?
7.32 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this has been a debate about general ideas, and as such I must commend it, because it certainly is my opinion that the people of these islands, and perhaps specifically the English, rather tend to underrate the influence of general ideas upon practical matters. Therefore, I do not complain at all—although I am going to criticise this Motion—that the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, has put forward a subject of general ideas for discussion in this Wednesday debate. It has certainly given rise to a number of very interesting and some excellent speeches. I may be forgiven for partiality if I mention particularly those of my noble friend Lord Gowrie, of my noble friend Lady Elles and of my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing; but there have been splendid speeches from other parts of the House as well. It does not, of course, mean that a debate which gives rise to excellent speeches does so because the Motion is in content of equal quality to the speeches to which it gives rise.
It is because I want to analyse this Motion a little, I hope not unkindly, that I wish to spend some time examining the concepts upon which it is based. One concept is quite clearly socialism. According to Lord Brockway, socialism means the ownership of the whole economy by the whole of society—I do not think I am departing very far from this definition. According to Lord Soper, it has never been tried at all except by apostolic zeal in the early but unsuccessful experiment of the Church of Jerusalem immediately after the reception of the Holy Ghost. On the contrary, Lord Milford and the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton, say that not only has it been tried but that one thousand million people, a third of the world's population, are actually living under some system of this kind.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER:
My Lords, the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack will forgive me if I remind him that I was very careful to say" a fully collectivised economy", and I did not say it was socialist.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I accept the correction of the noble Baroness that she said a fully collectivised economy. I thought she was in fact equating it with socialism; but whether or not she was, the noble Lord, Lord Milford, certainly was. And with all the enthusiasm of Rio-Tinto-Zinc behind him the Leader of the Opposition urges socialism as something quite different. The noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, finds it in Israel, where a considerable place is found for capitalism. The only thing which is settled about this subject is that among all those I have named the various conceptions of socialism which they have are totally different and quite incompatible. Therefore it would be an odd thing if they all went into the same Lobby and voted for their inconsistent conceptions side by side, against those or us on this side of the House.
Speaking for myself, I should just like to say this to the noble Lord, Lord Brockway. If, when I was at Eton, he had come to address the Eton College Political Society, when I was about 17, I should have thought this a roughly contemporary Motion. But by the time I had become an undergraduate of Oxford, somewhere between 1926 and 1930, I think a large number of us would have begun to think it was rather "old hat". The reason we should have thought so was because we had come to realise that what we are faced with in this country is neither socialism nor capitalism but a mixed society in which there are quite different elements which are likely to prove, if not permanent, at least enduring, and which can be ascribed either to one or the other of these alleged alternatives but very largely to neither. We recognise that there are a large number of things which are at the moment being done by the State, some of which at least can as well be done by the State as by any other; there are a large number of things which are being organised for profit, and it may be that a great number of those are best done independently of the State and for profit than in any other way; there are a large number of things which are done voluntarily and not for profit and not by the State, some of which are State aided and some of which are wholly independent. And it seems to me that as long as we are, any one of us, even the youngest of us, likely
782
to be alive, this is a situation that is likely to continue.
Moreover, speaking for myself, I want it to continue. I do not believe in these "-isms", this alleged contrast between capitalism and socialism, as if all we had to do was to apply a fixed set of political ideas and rules to society in order to achieve the nearest approach to Utopia that man can do on earth. I regard that as fundamentally false to the nature of human society. Although a great deal of reference has been made, for instance, to Karl Marx, some to Aristotle—and on one occasion the noble Lord, Lord Balogh, told us that Freud was the essential political reading for all who wished to achieve reforms—no one, I think, has referred to the absolutely revolutionary effect of Darwin's thinking upon political and social philosophy. Because the truth about human society is that there is not going to be a terminus ad quem; there is not going to be a Utopia. The frontiers of human knowledge have advanced, are advancing and are going to continue to advance, and an attempt consciously to break the body of a living society on a fixed set of political, economic or social ideas is certain to lead to tryranny, and far more immorality, in my opinion, than any system which it seeks to supplant. The real contrast, at least in my judgment, is not between the Socialist and the capitalist, each of which, in his turn, believes in a kind of Utopia, but between the open and evolving theory of society and the closed society. whether it be of the Left or of the Right.
LORD GLADWYN: Karl Popper.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, reminds us that the noble Lord. Lord Davies of Leek, took the case of Karl Popper, who has given rise to this theory in recent times, but if you compare this kind of thinking with the kind of thinking which seeks to impose on society a fixed series of ideas, I think you see that the influence of the evolutionary theory of Darwin, who wrote at about the same time as Marx, really has implications for the social and political philosophies on which we work which have not yet been fully absorbed by society.

783
If one turns now from theory to practice, I think that the most startling fact about the modern world—and by the modern world I mean the world which has developed since the 16th century—has been the unique and enormous advance, on a whole wide range of fronts, from a relatively poor society to one which is rich not merely in wealth but in all kinds of ideas. The development of Western European society is something which is quite unique in the history of mankind. It has developed spiritually in religion; it has developed in the fine arts; it has developed in knowledge; it has developed in mathematical science and in applied science. In the end, up to and including the present, it has developed in the production of wealth to a scale which has hitherto been unknown, largely as a result of the application of mechanical power to the processes of production, distribution, exchange and the dissemination of ideas.
I do not wish to speak disrespectfully of Marx. I shall return to Marx in a moment, when one discusses his theory that the poor inevitably grow poorer and the rich richer. I think he made a considerable contribution to 19th century thought by pointing out the close connection between political forms and methods of production. This clearly is an undeniable truth which, in contrast to the romanticism of the time, was something that very badly needed saying. He also said, to the disgust of those who claimed to be more idealistic than they are, that when people start talking about their idealisms it may be time to start counting your spoons; and I think that there is a great deal of truth in that too, so I am far from being disrespectful about him. The fact of the matter is that over this period of 500 years there has been an accelerating process of change in which the human race has consciously developed on a scale, and in a way, that it has never developed before in the history of the species on this planet.
Of course one can develop reasons why that may be so, and obviously different diagnoses may be made, but one part of the diagnosis that I would make is the development of freedom as a conscious political ethic; freedom in thought, freedom in expression, freedom of association, and freedom to trade and to
784
undertake economic activity. I would claim that, whatever else has emerged from this debate, those who have spoken from the Benches on my right have established beyond doubt that, in the total production of wealth, the system if it be a system, and I am going to argue in a sense that it is not—which has been called throughout the debate "capitalism" has in fact done something as an intrinsic part of the movement to freedom which has never been done in the world before.
What it has never claimed—and here I round on the noble Lord, Lord Brockway—is to be able to exist otherwise than in the framework of law; a concept which has hardly been mentioned in this debate but which seems to be to be essential to a discussion of the subject. What is more, this increase in material wealth, be it good or bad, has gone on at an accelerating pace throughout my lifetime no less than in the past five centuries. Therefore, a great deal of the material wealth which has spread across the world today has acutally been created within the lifetime of a flying person. That is something that I think the noble Lord, Lord Milford, ought to take into account in his assessment of capitalism, because since I was a boy the massive unemployment which existed in this island has virtually disappeared, and there has been the enormous development in housing (public and privately owned houses by the worker), the possession by the worker of consumer durables like motor cars, refrigerators and fine furniture, the spreading of culture through the media, the health of the population, the development of education—and even when I was Minister of Education 13 years ago I was considered to be somewhat of an idealist when I said that 5 per cent. of the nation's wealth should be devoted to education, because when I started it was only 3 per cent.—all these things have been going on throughout my lifetime. We are asked to condemn the system which produced this and disseminated it through the population of this island as something which is inherently bad, and something which is progressively getting worse.
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, would not the noble and learned Lord agree that a great deal of the progress in which we all delight is due to the teaching of the

785
Liberal and Socialist people who have helped to educate the noble and learned Lard and his Party opposite?
TIM LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am sure that I shall always be delighted to be educated by the noble Baroness. In fact, I was not seeking to make a Party point of this at all. I was saying that there had been a great number of prophets of gloom on my left throughout the debate, and although I recognise that there is a great deal wrong with human nature and human society, I cannot take the gloomy view that capitalism is getting worse and worse, that something has to be done about it, and we have to change.
The next thing I wanted to say is that Marx made one cardinal error which, it seems to me, has been repeated by the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, in a slightly more sophisticated form this afternoon. That was that under capitalism the poor grow poorer and the rich grow richer, and "it cannot go on", as I think the noble Lord, Lord Milford, said. The fact is that the rich do grow richer and the poor get richer too. That is not altogether a bad thing, because when Marx wrote he wrote in a period of time when not only were the workers not in receipt of a living wage, but there was nothing of the public housing or public education, or the public ownership which I have been seeking to describe. There was no effective co-operative movement, no effective banking and insurance or life insurance, there was no effective public social security, and the fact is that the world has been growing steadily and improving ever since that period of time, especially when there has been neither war nor revolution to retard it. The gloomy picture is not one that I am prepared to accept.
Several prophets of gloom—I think the noble Lords, Lord Brockway and Lord Soper were among them—spoke on the international character of capitalism. To my mind this is an asset. It does not follow of course that the international character of capitalism is devoid of abuse. I will, if I may, return to this in a moment. What is clear is that the nation State itself is something which society and humanity is beginning to outgrow, and the moral about the international character of capitalism is that
786
the social organisations and the political organisations, like the nation State, ought to outgrow the national cell too, and that is why it was particularly disappointing that socialists in the Labour Party should not have supported us in our entry into the Common Market. The fact is that if capitalism is going to move on an international scale and create wealth on an international scale, law on an international scale must surely follow in the wake. As it is, because of the organisation of humanity into national States, all socialism is national socialism; it cannot be anything else. It cannot be anything else because the only organ of society is the nation State. Some Socialists on the Continent are wise enough to regret the fact and to try and create international organisations. Apparently the Labour Party here wants to wallow in its parochialism, but that is something which I can only regret.
The next thing that I want to say is this: we on this side of the House recognise that no form of freedom can exist except in a framework of law. May I conclude what I have to say—and I am afraid I have been speaking longer than I intended—by talking a little about law and a little about freedom, because these seem to me to be much more fundamental to the state of human society devolving on this fact than the subjects which have been proposed for debate this evening. What is freedom? What is this thing which has made this change, as I believe, in the last 500 years? I am not going to attempt an elaborate definition; I am only going to say that in my opinion—and I say it in the presence of one right reverend Prelate—the only freedom which is worth while is the freedom to do wrong. I immediately hasten to correct myself and to say instead that the only freedom which is worth while is the freedom to do something which other people think wrong. I hasten to recorrect myself again and say that because other people are not always wrong about what is wrong, I was right originally when I said that the only freedom of any kind which is worth while is the freedom to do wrong if wish to do so.
LORD GL ADWYN: My Lords, surely the noble and learned Lord agrees that it is not the freedom to do wrong, but the freedom to be wrong.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: If you are wrong you are likely to act in accordance with what you are or what you believe, because the truth is that if you are going to have freedom you are always going to have a certain measure of abuse. That is what freedom is about. And because abuse often becomes intolerable to other people, you then have to set up a framework of law; but if in fact you cannot, by your framework of law, impose on the individual a state of perfection in accordance with the objective values of the lawgiver, you will in effect create something far more evil than the evil that you are trying to constrain, and you will in fact in the process destroy freedom. Freedom does involve a certain measure of abuse. Of course I recognise that freedom of thought involves a certain measure of error; freedom of association involves a certain measure of associating for bad, immoral and evil purposes; freedom to trade will involve frequent examples of exploitation and economic wrongdoing. The purpose of law is to control freedom within the limits which are tolerable when one comes to look at its social effects. I am not at all afraid of this.
Of course capitalism has its defects. Over two centuries now, as my noble friend Lord Coleraine pointed out, we have been constantly attacking the abuses as and when the abuses became intolerable. We have been supplying the defects of the system with forms of collective enterprise with voluntary enterprise, which are necessary to complement it. No one would pretend, for instance, that modern investment in the Channel Tunnel —I think someone mentioned it—could be done without State enterprise of a kind; but equally it does not follow from that that you have to abolish trading for profit.
My Lords, what I have been seeking to convey by this speech is that the series of conceptions mentioned in the Motion really do not correspond to society as we know it today. What we want is an open, evolutionary society, not aiming at some imaginary Utopia, because we have not yet reached the bounds of human knowledge and because society itself, with changes in the methods of production, with changes in types of social and economic organisation, will constantly have to
788
adjust itself to change; and, by a paradox, the only form of society which will prove stable is the society which is perpetually reforming itself and not devoting itself to imaginary ideologies.
7.56 p.m.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I think we have had a quite historic debate today. My own experience, supported by some research, indicates that only twice in the last 70 years has either House of Parliament discussed the fundamental issue of the basis of capitalism and the basis of socialism. Philip Snowdon did it in the 1920s in another place. It is a little extraordinary that it should be the House of Lords that should be doing it today. My Lords, I do not propose to use this opportunity to speak at any length. I should just love to reply to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. I have never heard a speech which was so unconvincing in philosophy and politics and said in such an impressive way as the speech to which we have just listened.
My Lords, we have had two speeches during this debate which have given us great amusement. One was the speech by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek. If the Lord Chancellor will forgive my saying so the other speech which has not fallen under the magic of his words and of his demeanour has been the speech which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has given us tonight. I hope that there may be another occasion when I may be able to comment upon it, because from the time when he was 17 years old at Eton College—and I was the Member of Parliament for Eton and went there often—to the present time I have never heard such an absolute association of contradictory ideas as was uttered in that speech. I take just one example— the suggestion that it has been capitalism which has contributed to liberal ideas and liberal thought. Right through the last century, right through this century, it has been the Chartists, the rebels in society, those who have been martyred, those who have stood for freedoms against the establishment representing the capitalist system of society, who have made all the advances which he now attaches to capitalism. I am astonished.
I want to express one regret about this debate. Though I emphasised very

789
strongly that we were standing for democratic socialism, too often it has been assumed that the system in Communist countries has been the system which we have been urging. Even the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, showing an extraordinary absence of knowledge of economic terms—
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I never suggested it. I suggested that five or six noble Lords were suggesting five or six incompatible systems.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, that intervention was quite irrelevant to the remark which I was going to make. What I was going to say was that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor showed himself so ignorant of even economic terms that when my noble friend Lady Wootton mentioned that in the Soviet Union there is collectivism, he identified that with the socialism which
both my noble friend and I have been urging today.
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, will the noble Lord allow me to interrupt?
LORD BROCKWAY: No, my Lords. The noble Lord and the Liberal Party have absolutely boycotted this debate. He has just come in at the last moment and I am not going to give way to him. I just want to say this to the House, that in view of this debate, and particularly in view of the provocative and absolutely unrepresentative speech which has been made by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, I shall press this Motion to a Division.
8.2 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Motion shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 28: Not-Contents, 72.

CONTENTS

Bacon, B.

Henderson, L.

Phillips, B.

Beswick, L.

Hereford, Bp.

Platt, I..

Blyton, L.

Hoy, L.

Rhodes, L.

Brockway, L. [Teller.]

Janner, L.

Shackleton, L.

Champion, L.

Lindsay of Birker, L.

Shephered, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridee. L.

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

Strabolgi, L.

Energlyn, L.

White, B.

Garnsworthy, L.

Maelor, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Milford, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Hale, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Falkland, V.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.[Teller.]

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Ferrers, E.

Arbuthnott, V.

Ferrier, L.

Northchurch, B.

Atholl, D.

Furness, V.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Auckland, L.

Gainford, L.

Reading, M.

Balfour, E.

Gladwyn, L.

Reigate, L.

Berkeley, B.

Gowrie, L.

Rochdale, V.

Bethell, L.

Greenway, L.

Rockley, L.

Bledisloe, V.

Grenfell, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Hail,ham of Saint Marylebone,L.(L. Chancellor.)

Sandford, L.

Bradford, E.

Selborne, E.

Brecon, L.

Harvey of Prestbury, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Harvey of Tasburgh, L.

Somers, L.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, B.

Hawke, L.

Stamp, L.

Coleraine, I.

Kemsley, V.

Strathcarron, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Killearn, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Cork and Orrey, E.

Kinnoull, E.

Sudeley, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Tenby, V.

Craigavon, V.

Limerick, E.

Vivian, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Lothian, M.

Wakehurst, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Lytton, E.

Windlesham, L. (L. Privy Seal.)

Derwent, I,.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Wolverton, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Wynford, L.

Eccles, V.

Merrivale, L.

Young, B.

Emmet of Amberley, B.

Monck, V.

Resolved in the negative, and Motion disagreed to accordingly.

EXPORT OF MANUSCRIPTS AND HISTORICAL DOCUMENTS
8.9 p.m.
LORD SUDELEY LORD SUDELEY rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they intend to take any further action on the export of manuscripts and historic documents; and if so, what and when. The noble Lord said: My Lords, in his Motion of March 15, the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, originally intended to include the export of manuscripts as well as works of art. Let me begin by saying how grateful I am to the noble Lord for having cut down the scope of his Motion, and for confining it to works of art so as to make room for this debate about manuscripts. The two subjects are really quite distinct and ought never to have been merged. By "works of art", many people mean, in the first instance, paintings, and most of the great pictures in this country were imported. But in manuscripts and historic documents of our own this country is very rich. We have a literature which compares with that of the Ancient Greeks and, on account of the continuity of our institutions, which is unique by European standards, our records are wonderfully preserved. For other reasons, the two subjects-works of art and manuscripts-should be kept distinct. The importance of a manuscript to the historian often has little enough to do with its price. So there is not much sense in thinking of manuscripts in terms of their cash value, even though this may be the thinking behind the present regulations, which allow the holder of a bulk licence never to apply for a specific licence in the case of a manuscript which is worth less than £100. Many of the pieces of paper which an historian is chasing after may he worth no more than about £10 each.
Then, many people assume it is a good thing that there should be a brisk trade in works of art and that London should be a centre of the world art market. But in the case of manuscripts the opposite should obtain. It is better for history that the market in manuscripts which their export does so much to promote should he cut down as much as possible, for in the disposal of manuscripts, the one thing that an historian dreads even more than their export is any infringe
792
ment of the principle of le respect des fonds, by which I mean the removal of a manuscript from the accumulation to which it has always belonged. A manuscript may mean little by itself but everything according to how it has been placed in its group or series. It suits a dealer, on the other hand, more interested in profits than he is in history, to break up an accumulation as, if an accumulation can be sold in parts, then the sums of money obtained by all those parts will come to more than might be fetched by a straightforward sale of the whole. Moreover, a dealer can sell seven-ninths of an accumulation and then keep back the remainder in order to increase its value and rarity.
My Lords, at the time of the Waverley Report, on which all subsequent policy to do with the export of manuscripts has been based, the main question was not the export of manuscripts but their rescue from attics; so we are suffering now from a policy which, in its rudiments, was never intended to deal with export on its present scale. I should like to give one or two details which indicate the size and seriousness of the problem as it is. Many of our manuscripts go over to the United States and, as they do so, access may be refused. On the export of our older manuscripts a few restrictions exist; but on the export of those of our manuscripts less than 70 years old no restrictions are imposed at all. This is particularly damaging to the new study of contemporary history. As the manuscripts of our authors and poets go overseas, so the definitive editions of their works must be brought out overseas. The mechanical labours of Fredson Bowers have shown that no definitive edition can be brought out which is not based on the original manuscript.
For some time the Government have acknowledged the existence of the problem. We have had the De Beer Committee, the Green Paper, the fund managed by the Victoria and Albert Museum for the purchase of manuscripts, and the valuable concessions in the Finance Act 1972 and the Finance Bill of this year. Scholars are grateful for these gestures, but they do not feel that the problem has been tackled at its roots, and a rigid system of protection is needed. There are two methods by which such a system of protection might be

793
imposed. We might draw up a list of the types of manuscript which should not be exported, and then throw the burden of seeing that they are not on the Post Office and on the Customs. Such was the policy envisaged in the Marquand Bill, and such is the policy envisaged still by the British Records Association, which has drawn up a better list than was printed in the Marquand Bill. But such a policy has been criticised, rightly, on the grounds that it would be difficult to enforce, and also it would be infringement of the principle of le respect des fonds.
A second method of rigid protection which might be imposed, and one which I should like to ask Her Majesty's Government to consider, would be the establishment of a registry of the great accumulations in the land which should be forbidden export. For the establishment of such a registry, much of the work has already been done through the listing of private papers by the National Register of Archives, the volumes of Bishops' registers published by the Canterbury and York Society, the survey of economic thought carried out by the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, the survey of scientific papers carried out by the archivist of the Royal Institution, the location of political archives project, and so on.
It may be objected against such a rigid system of protection that those with accumulations yet to be listed would become reluctant to yield them up for investigation. That would indeed be a disadvantage. It may also be objected that those with accumulations already listed would feel that their rights as owners had been infringed; but that, I think, is less of an objection. It is old-fashioned Tory doctrine that property is held in trust, so that the possession of it creates obligations, which could be interpreted to mean in the case of manuscripts that you should not sell what you have to an American institution which then refuses access. It is true that for a long time there have been too many Whigs or Liberals in the Tory Party—cuckoos in the Tory nest, as a friend once put it to me—to whom ownership has been an absolute thing. But as, over the last few months, my Party has abandoned its policy of laissez faire, I am hoping they
794
may also have come round once more to the old-fashioned Tory view on ownership.
Then, there are great advantages in the system of rigid protection which I recommend. Literary manuscripts may not lend themselves to being defined by types so easily as the historical, and it should be easy enough to draw up a list of writers—for instance, those mentioned in the Dictionary of National Biography —whose manuscripts should not be exported. Then, no charge could he brought against the system of protection which I recommend that here the law is being made so rigid that the mere result will be to promote the clandestine export of manuscripts. If a manuscript from an accumulation forbidden export turns up in the United States, it should be easy enough to find the owner in this country. But I know that the rigid system of protection which I recommend may be too strong for Her Majesty's Government. so I should also like to put forward, and ask Her Majesty's Government whether they would consider them, a set of weaker alternatives, which I shall suggest in my survey of this complicated question.
As to public records, the Scottish Record Office possesses a power of recovery without purchase which is not cut off at all by prescription or acquiescence. I should like to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they would consider amending the Limitation Act 1939 so as to put the Public Record Office in Chancery Lane on the same footing as exists up in Scotland; and, if so, whether Her Majesty's Government might not extend the definition of a public record over which such power of recovery might be exercised. This it should be easy enough to do, as the Public Records Act 1958 empowers the Government to widen the definition of a public record merely by laying an Order in Council for the approval of Parliament. Such an extension in the meaning of a public record might be taken to include more politicians' papers; for instance, those dealing with aspects of high policy which a Minister has claimed to be part of his private correspondence. As it is, the suspicion is bound to exist in the public mind that the loophole on the export of manuscripts less than 70 years old has been left open deliberately so that the

795
widows of politicians can sell their papers to the United States.
As to the ecclesiastical records, the deans and chapters of cathedrals have a power of disposal over their manuscripts very much greater than is enjoyed by those in charge of parish records. There is no reason why the records of the deans and chapters of cathedrals should enjoy this preferential treatment; so I am delighted that in the Synod in November a Measure should be enacted whereby the Advisory Committee will be turned into a statutory body to which the deans and chapters must refer if they wish to dispose of their manuscripts. The trade is fond of recommending, as an alternative to imposing more controls on the export of manuscripts of any kind, the expenditure of more public money for their purchase. I am hoping that Her Majesty's Government will consider carefully whether the mere effect of this policy will be to drive up the prices of manuscripts and so induce many owers to sell rather than to give or deposit what they have.
So much for the British supply of manuscripts. I come now to the conditions under which they should pass to the United States. The Waverley criteria by which it is decided whether manuscripts should leave the country are to be criticised on account of the extreme vagueness of their application to any particular case. Being so vague, they can be used as a screen behind which a licence for export is allowed for the more definite reason that not enough public money exists for the purchase of the manuscripts. Under the Waverley criteria a licence may be refused and still manuscripts can leave the country because not enough public money may be forthcoming. To this unsatisfactory position I should like to suggest two alternatives. The first is the Spanish progressive tariff on the export of manuscripts. This would do much to eliminate overseas competitors. An Englishman would be more inclined to sell his manuscripts to a British institution if he knew that by selling overseas he would have to pay a heavy tax. I should like also to ask Her Majesty's Government to consider the French practice: the pre-emption of manuscripts immediately after sale at the auction, regardless of cost. As it is, the mere possibility that a manuscript may
796
go overseas because there will not be enough public money for its purchase must drive up the price of the manuscript at the auction. In an article for the Society of Archivists, Mr. Ellis pointed out that a dealer can pay £10,000 for a manuscript, having bid that sum at auction, and then because the State does not exercise any immediate right of preemption this dealer can go on to sell the manuscript to an American institution for £20,000. It is then £20,000 public money which must be found to save the manuscript.
I come now to the conditions under which once a licence is granted a manuscript should be allowed to leave the country. The trade is fond of quoting the argument of Sir Thomas Phillipps that a market in manuscripts promotes the scrutiny of much material which might otherwise be ignored. That is an argument which the trade do not always put into practice. A manuscript may be brought to the attention of scholars by coming up for sale at an auction, but then, acting on the instructions of an American client, a dealer will refuse to tell the scholars where the manuscript is going. I should like to ask Her Majesty's Government whether the Department of Trade and Industry might be forced to reveal the details of applications for specific licences to all outside parties who are interested; and, if so, whether Her Majesty's Government might not abolish the bulk licences so as to increase the number of specific licences that must be applied for; although I know that Her Majesty's Government may be reluctant to abolish bulk licences as the threat of their withdrawal gives the authorities a good lien on the dealer in a field where the law is hard to enforce.
Once a manuscript leaves the country it is essential that the scholars should have access to it and be given the copies they need. Whether the export of manuscripts should be forbidden without copies represents one of the chief areas of conflict between the scholars and the trade. The University of Texas and the Berg Collection of the New York Public Library and other institutions in America buy manuscripts with bequests specifying that they cannot purchase anything of which a copy already exists. For that and

797
other reasons the trade like to represent that the making of copies diminishes the value of manuscripts. So whereas the Waverley Report recommended the making of copies, we now have a position in which copies are required only in special instances.
I am not going to propose that copies should always be required, but I should like to suggest this compromise. By the Sale of Goods Act 1892 certain conditions are implied by Statute in a contract of sale if both parties are silent. These conditions relate to the state of the goods. In the case of manuscripts there is no prima facie legal reason why invariable conditions should not be imposed on a contract of sale. Such invariable conditions could relate to the use of manuscripts and to the taking of copies of them by scholars. The question is whether any such Statute can be enforced in the U.S.A. Such a situation in which there is a conflict of law has occurred frequently. I wrote to the noble Baroness, Lady Tweedsmuir, asking how in this instance it might be resolved. The noble Baroness did not say whether it would be necessary to consult each of the 51 States of America or to change the U.S. law. This is something which I think might be looked into.
My Lords, I have done with the facts, the suggestions and the arguments and I should like to conclude with a matter of opinion. The trade is fond of saying that it is only a vociferous minority among scholars which objects to the export of manuscripts; the majority is content and silent. But I think that certain reasons, reasons which have nothing to do with the export of manuscripts, exist for that silence. Established scholars can go to the U.S.A.; Ph.D. students often cannot. But the established scholars do not mind; they feel that there are far too many Ph.D. students. Some of the older universities, especially Oxford, induce a strong sense of claustrophobia; so many scholars from these universities welcome the chance of a visit to United States; and they do it merely in order to escape from themselves.
8.28 p.m.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I am sure we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Sudeley, for raising this question
798
and I myself am particularly grateful for his taking on the other half, so to speak. As the noble Lord was kind enough to say, he and I really made an arrangement together because it was thought better in the debate on exports that we had in March to concentrate on the export of works of art, a big subject in itself, and to treat manuscripts in a separate debate. I am grateful to the noble Lord for taking this on. I should like to congratulate him, if I may, on his very clear and reasoned speech and also on the number of important questions that he has raised. He has obviously gone into this subject thoroughly. He has a great interest in the subject and we shall be glad and interested to hear what the Minister has to say in reply to many of the important points raised by the noble Lord.
Of course, the noble Lord is quite right. This is a matter which is causing concern in certain quarters, and I think that there is a need to strike a fair balance between the rights of owners and the legitimate needs of scholars; not only scholars in this country, but scholars on both sides of the Atlantic. Certainly, as the noble Lord, Lord Sudeley, has said, in the last decade we have seen a virtual flood of manuscripts, mainly to the United States. Many of these have gone to universities, as I think he admitted, whose librarians, in their enterprise and enthusiasm—supported of course by considerable financial resources—remind us of that great British collector to whom the noble Lord, Lord Sudeley, referred, Sir Thomas Phillipps, who was doing exactly the same thing in the last century. He bought up almost everything he could lay hands on in Europe and brought them to this country.
My Lords, it is fair to say that in recent years we have seen the Bertrand Russell papers, for example, go to Ontario and the J. L. Garvin papers—very important, too—to Texas. The Humanities Research Centre at Texas University—this is only one example—have acquired, by private treaty, all Evelyn Waugh's papers and manuscripts, as well as his entire library, including the furniture. It is probable that Texas, which was first in the field before our own libraries woke up, has now an unrivalled collection of original 20th century source material, just

799
as Yale is pre-eminent in the 18th century. I think that we need to differentiate between original literary material and historical records, and here I am with the noble Lord, Lord Sudeley. Literature, in my humble view, belongs to the world, and I do not think it much matters where it is lodged, particularly in a shrinking world, provided that it is well looked after and that there is reasonable freedom of access and an efficient microfilm service. Indeed, it is better that the whole corpus of an author's work should be kept together, and I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Cottesloe, who, during the debate on the arts, said that the right place for any further Boswell papers, if these should turn up, would be Yale rather than the British Museum. I therefore regret very much that the British Museum Library was not able to acquire the corrected proofs of George Eliot's novels when they came on the market recently, as the Library already possesses all the manuscripts and it would then have been possible for scholars to study these together.
My Lords, the American bookseller who had acquired them at auction in London shared this view, and he generously offered the proofs to the British Museum for the sum that he had paid, plus 10 per cent., about £25,000 in all. I think we should remember this in the context of one of Lord Sudeley's remarks, that in general, dealers are more interested in profit than in history. The offer was regretfully refused and an export licence was granted. It was not a very large sum to find compared, say, with the Titian, and I think that we should feel absolutely ashamed of ourselves that we did not make more effort to retain these proofs by one of our best novelists. I am glad to say that the Arts Council scheme to acquire manuscripts by living writers in conjunction with libraries seems to be working well and I hope that this will be extended.
I welcome also the news that the Government have recently made available a £30,000 grant to enable provincial libraries and museums to buy manuscripts, documents and photographs. I am very glad that this year's Finance Bill will allow estate duty remissions on important historic documents offered to museums in the same way as works of
800
art. I agree with the recent decision to raise the value for bulk licence holders from £50 to £100 and to reduce the period for which a licence is required from 100 years to 70 years, which will get rather more in the control orbit and go some way to meet some of the fears of the noble Lord.
But, my Lords, are all these measures really enough? Surely what is needed is sufficient funds to enable our libraries to compete on the open market, because I would say quite frankly that I tend to be a free trader in these matters. I think that in future we shall need to consider more precise categories of material and to differentiate between literary work, where I believe that we should have a liberal policy, and historic documents in their widest sense, which are probably best kept here. But how should we do this without impinging on the rights of owners and collectors in other countries?
Various suggestions have been made in recent years. Five years ago the Reviewing Committee recommended that control should be extended to include modern material worth more than £10,000, although the manuscripts of professional authors were to be excluded unless they had held high office or written on current political subjects; and living persons would remain free to dispose of their papers as they wished. I am sure that is right. In fact I believe that some authors, particularly poets, get more for selling their manuscripts than from the sale of their books.
These recommendations were not accepted by my noble friend Lady Lee of Asheridge when she was Minister. Instead she set up an inter-Departmental Working Party. The Working Party's Green Paper, to which the noble Lord referred, took a much more protectionist view. It recommended that control should be extended to all documents over 30 years old and over £25 only in value. A further recommendation was that copies of exported material should be deposited here and made available for public inspection after only seven years, which would, of course, have given rise to many difficulties, because an author might sell some of his youthful work which he did not want published, say to an American library, with an embargo that it should not be published or seen until after his death;

801
and there would be people who would be able to go to the British Museum and see it after only seven years. This would cause great difficulty and obviously the whole scheme is unworkable.
I cite these two examples as two attempts, one by the Reviewing Committee and the other by the Department, to find a formula, the one based on a value of £10,000, the other on a value of £25 and a very short 30 year period; short enough, may I say, to include even a living author's early work. The last two Reports of the Reviewing Committee recommended that control over modern documents should be restricted to those of historical interest. In both Reports the Committee urged the Government to appoint a small independent committee of inquiry to investigate the whole system of control with particular reference to modern historical archives. This recommendation is, I believe, supported by the Reviewing Committee's Advisory Council which is, of course, drawn from all sides, including the antiquarian trade as well as archivists. I should like to ask the Paymaster General whether he intends to follow these recommendations, made now in several Reports, and to set un an independent committee, as I think that it is time to have a fresh look at the problem which clearly is controversial, and I think needs a separate and rather special examination.
8.40 p.m.
LORD COTTESLOE: My Lords, I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Sudeley, has raised this matter in your Lordships' House, and in a notably thoughtful and well-informed speech of great interest. The control over the export of manuscripts is one that presents peculiar difficulty. The Waverley Committee themselves, who more than 20 years ago drew up the framework of the present system of control over the export of works of art of all kinds, including manuscripts, documents and archives, discovered that. Lord Waverley, as I have been told, amended the final draft of his Committee's Report to meet the points raised by the member of his Committee who was an expert on matters of historical documents, in order that the Report should be unanimous, only to find that it was still unacceptable to the scholar and that it had to be accompanied by a Minority Report.
802
At present, the control over manuscripts, documents and archives is operated by the Reviewing Committee, of which I should perhaps say I was the chairman for a good many years, as a part of the general control, and under the same system as that for works of art, with some variations. Until recently, there was an age limit for manuscripts as for works of art generally, of 100 years, below which they could be freely exported. There was, however, no limit of value, and all manuscripts more than a century old were subject to the licensing control; but reputable dealers could obtain a bulk licence which enabled them to export documents at their discretion up to a limit of value of £50 without applying for a licence if they were not of national interest or value. Last year, my noble friend the Paymaster General reduced the age limit to 70 years and increased the bulk licence figure to £100, changes that were generally felt by scholars, on the one hand, and by the trade, on the other, to be steps in the right direction, though steps that did not go very far. He has since also earmarked for manuscripts, documents and archives £30,000 of the annual grant made available for aid to purchases by local collections, and that is a most welcome provision. I hope that when my noble friend comes to reply he may be able to tell us what he envisages as the machinery for its allocation.
In applying the existing control the Reviewing Committee have always been conscious of the importance of distinguishing between the national value of original documents themselves and the value of their contents, and they have very generally felt themselves able to agree to the export of manuscripts on condition that microfilms or other copies were retained in this country available (generally after some period of time) for scholars to work on. Where such things as the only known letter in the handwriting of Richard Burton, the author of The Anatomy of Melancholy, or the only known poem in John Donne's own hand, were concerned, to take two examples, they insisted on the retention of the original manuscript.
There has, however, long been a demand from scholars that more recent archives should be covered by the control, a demand that the reduction in the

803
age limit does not go very far to meet. This raises problems of great difficulty. It is not so much a matter of purely literary material that is involved, though there are scholars who feel strongly that manuscripts of recent English writers (and I do not exclude by that word the Scots, the Irish or the Welsh, but "British" might not be the right word in this context) should never leave this country. After all, the works of the great poets and the great authors (the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, referred to George Eliot) are in a very real sense not so much national as international possessions; and as travel over the earth's surface becomes easier and more rapid, the context in which they can be studied becomes more important than the place. The noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, has referred to the fact that any scholar who is studying Boswell must go to Yale, where the great mass of Boswell manuscrips from Malahide is to be found; and it would be generally agreed that Yale would be the proper repository for any further manuscripts of Boswell papers that might be unexpectedly discovered.
But, my Lords, when it comes to the modern historical archives, in which modern historians are so rightly interested, the matter is different. The Churchill papers are mercifully safe; but there is a great mass of archives of British historical importance that ought to remain within these shores that are in a real sense, even though they may be in private hands, a national possession: just as the Orleans papers, recently disinterred from the vaults of Coutt's Bank, in, if I remember aright, 140-odd boxes, were felt to be a national possession of France, and exported to repose, though still in private ownership, in the French national archives. That was clearly right. As the noble Lord, Lord Sudeley, pointed out, the 70-year limit does not bring in the material that relates to those great and crucial periods of our national history, the two World Wars and the intervening years. The age limit to cover them should be not three-quarters, but one-quarter of a century.
But the impostion of such a limit would create great problems. No one would, I think, wish to control any man's right
804
to the disposal of his own papers during his own lifetime while they are in his own possession. And so short an age limit as 25 years would also create difficulties with the law of copyright—difficulties that might not be insuperable, and it might be right to face them. Unless a high value limit were set on archives covered by the control, with a short age limit, a vast mass of material, most of it of no great value or interest, would be brought under scrutiny and would create quite disproportionate administrative problems. A high value limit could be a quite powerful incentive towards dismemberment of archives, which is one of the things that all scholars, above all, would wish to avoid. Indeed, in my view, the two overriding objectives of any system should properly be, first, the preservation of the sanctity of archives, as opposed to their piecemeal disposal; and secondly, to ensure the ready accessibility of historical material.
There are great difficulties, and no one, I think, really knows the answers to these problems. I do not really believe that the ingenious solution suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Sudeley, would do. I myself would go for an age limit of 25 or 30 years, with a high value limit, not as a perfect solution, but as the least objectionable of alternatives, but of course with an exemption for a man's own papers during his lifetime. In recent years, as the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, has said, a strong committee, under the chairmanship of Dr. Esmond de Beer, put forward a solution that was too limited to be generally acceptable; and subsequently, a strong inter-departmental Working Party propounded a system that was almost universally felt to go much too far the other way. What is quite certain is that no system which is proposed will satisfy everyone—on the one hand, those scholars who maintain that nothing should ever be exported and, on the other hand, those members of the trade who think there should be no control. But between these extremes there is a great body of opinion that some solution is necessary and urgent and that, while no solution can hope to satisfy everyone, it should not be beyond the wit of man to find one that would be generally accepted as reasonable by scholars and the trade alike. I hope profoundly that that may be so.
8.50 p.m.
THE PAYMASTER GENERAL (VISCOUNT ECCLEs): My Lords, I should like to begin by congratulating my noble friend Lord Sudeley on compressing into a comparatively short speech the whole of the protectionist argument for increasing the control over manuscripts and documents in a way which would have done credit to the greatest lawyer in the land. But of course he must realise, if only from the speeches made by the other two noble Lords who have spoken tonight, that there is great controversy here. The reason why. taking this Question at its face value, I shall have to answer "No", is because over many years now the Government and officials have examined this matter and have consulted over and over again the main interested parties. At no time has it been possible to come anywhere near a really agreed reconciliation between the interests of the two sides. For that reason, it seemed to me that we should not go on having inquiry after inquiry and that it would be better to do what I could at once and take a step or two nearer to the position of the protectionists while at the same time not endangering the operation of the whole system. It may be that the new arrangements will be shown to have flaws. If that is so, they could be identified and put right: but only time will tell.
It seemed to me, listening to the three noble Lords who have spoken that it might be of some advantage to the House if I very briefly described what the control now is, because certainly my noble friend Lord Sudeley made one or two quite important omissions. First of all, all documentary and photographic material is subject to export licence if it is over 70 years old. That of course is a reduction from the previous age limit of 100 years. Secondly, specific licences are required for each export of material which is over 70 years old, however low the value, unless the export is made by the small number of dealers who hold bulk licences—there are in fact under 20 of these. Thirdly, bulk licence holders can export items individually not exceeding £100 in value, provided they apply for specific licences for those items which they recognise as being of national importance.
806
Your Lordships will see that we trust the trade in this matter and we have very good reason to think that our trust is justified. Indeed, many of the things which my noble friends behind me said about the trade are, in my opinion, quite unjustified. I will refer further to that point in a moment. Fourthly, the provision of a copy of a document may be required as a condition of export. It is quite clear that we do not want copies of all documents that are exported: indeed, only quite a modest number are involved. Therefore our experts, mainly drawn from the British Museum, tell us when they think a copy should be made. Such copies are then deposited with the British Museum (in future it will be the British Library) and are available to scholars after an interval of seven years.
Naturally, this control does not seem stringent enough to those who want all important manuscripts and documents which are more than 25 or 30 years old to pass a scrutiny before export; but there are certain compelling reasons why a tighter control would be both unfair and unworkable—and it is the unworkable part that really matters. The first point is that we are dealing with very small objects, objects which can be very easily exported. You have only to put such an object in an envelope and post it at the post office, or to put it in your briefcase as you walk on to the aircraft or ship. No one is going to ask you to open it. It is impossible at the point of export to expect Customs officials to make a valuation of a manuscript. It therefore follows that if any control—whether it be the sort of control that my noble friend wants or whether it be what the most liberal-minded person wants—is to be effective we must have the co-operation of the owners and of the trade which deals in these manuscripts.
As I said before, inquiries over at least the last ten years have shown that the interests of the owners and the trade cannot be reconciled with the interests of historians and other users of the documents we have in mind. So clear has this become that it is the reason why I am not going to set up another independent inquiry which. as the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, mentioned, was asked for in the report of the reviewing committee. I have myself talked to both sides on

807
many occasions, and they are irreconcilable. We have struck as good a compromise as we can, knowing that whatever was decided we had to have the goodwill of the trade or else the control would not work.
Your Lordships will realise that if a document which has an international market is declared not to be exportable from the United Kingdom, this prohibition will reduce its value in money terms, because it can then be sold only to a restricted set of buyers: those within this country. No one would prohibit an artist from exporting his work—I have never heard anyone suggest that that should be done however old the artist might be. We consider that the same freedom should be allowed for an author's manuscripts, his private papers, letters, diaries and other modern documents. It is for that reason that I fixed upon the limit of 70 years, because I thought that that was just about right, say, for Bertrand Russell, and even if it is not right for him I think we ought to look after the widow. It is a reasonable limit, because a man's only assets may be his manuscripts; and what right have we to cut their value arbitrarily down? These things represent the fruit of his own genius and his own work.
It has also been suggested that if we allow documents of a lower age to be exported whilst insisting each time that a copy should be taken, to be made available to scholars at once, that would meet the case. But the making of the copy also reduces the value of the manuscript. I have personal experience of this. I can tell your Lordships of a manuscript which was sold at an auction here for £10,000, and later published in America. Three or four years later it was resold at the same auction room here in London for £4,000. That is the effect of publication upon a manuscript, and if we insisted on copies being available to all and sundry, directly they were made available we should be also cutting the value of the particular item.
The noble Lord, Lord Sudeley, said that manuscripts are sometimes not available when they reach the United States. I have not had much time to look into that matter but I asked one or two people about it and, on the whole, American libraries treat our scholars very
808
well. It is rare that one is not allowed to look at their collections. It is certainly true that we allow American scholars to search our libraries in this country; and scholars are very good to one another once you get there. If I am right in thinking that the control itself is so difficult to operate, and if I am equally right in thinking that it is not the business of a Government arbitrarily to reduce the value of a man's property, then of course the way to proceed is to introduce positive incentives to keep the manuscripts and records of importance in this country. It is for that reason that we have taken two steps which we believe are going to secure for our libraries many documents which might otherwise slip out of the country.
Perhaps I may be allowed to describe what we are doing. If Parliament passes the Finance Bill, which is now in another place, the result will be as follows: first, exemptions from estate duty will continue to encourage private owners not to part with their important manuscripts and documents. Secondly, pre-eminent documents and collections of documents—this is new and important—can be accepted by the Treasury in lieu of estate duty and allocated to national, local authority or university collections. We intend to treat documents on exactly the same footing as works of art.
Thirdly, as soon as the Finance Bill is enacted the Treasury will issue a statement giving the details of the valuable new concessions. I have little doubt that we shall soon see a great increase in the flow of offers of all kinds of important objects. I say that with confidence, because even before the details— and certainly they are difficult to understand—have been set before owners, solicitors and others interested, the flow of objects under this new provision is going at something like the rate per month of what it was per year before the concession was first broached. Fourthly, to back up the tax concessions we have set up a fund of £30,000 to which noble Lords have referred. From that fund grants can be given up to 50 per cent. of the cost of manuscripts and documents offered on the market. The library concerned need only find 25 per cent. of the money from its own resources; it can get the other 25 per cent. from charitable

809
foundations, and so on. Photographs are, for the first time, eligible for grants of this kind.
I think the noble Lord, Lord Cottesloe, asked me how the fund was going to operate. We have—and I am sure he would approve of this—asked the Reviewing Committee to set up a sub-committee of experts. There are two sub-committees working. They are giving us advice on how this fund should be operated, because obviously it requires a considerable amount of time and expert knowledge to establish the priorities between what I hope will be a large number of applications. The fund is only a start. I thought it better to get this off the ground and established; but we may find that £30,000, which in effect means £60,000 worth of these records a year, will prove to be too little, in which case I have no doubt a future Government will look at it again.
There is an important point about these funds where I have a feeling I am at variance with by noble friend Lord Sudeley. It seemed to me that he thought that if the Government provided money to buy manuscripts, one obvious result would he that everyone would want to sell and prices would go up on the market. It is our view that in the past, because so many librarians, particularly in local authority institutions, had little or no money to spend, they did not go scouting around to discover what documents and what manuscripts—maybe prints or photographs—were available in private hands that would be of interest to their institution. Many have said to me, as I have been round the country, "Once we know we are going to get this money and we can go to our councillors and say, 'The Government are going to put up 50 per cent.', we shall be encouraged to go and look out for these things." Noble Lords who know the library system in this country will know that there are certain librarians who are extremely good at nosing out material. Liverpool is an obvious example. This material is of real interest to libraries for their city collections. Yet there are others where, I regret to say, it appears that very little is being done.
My noble friend asked whether we could have a national register. Presum
810
ably this would be something which would be published and one would say, "Nothing on this register is ever going to be exported". I assume that would be the case. This is the same situation as arises with the masterpieces of painting that are in private hands. We are always being asked to get the galleries concerned to publish a list. I do not think that would be at all useful. I should not want to see, as it were, a list of prohibited items. My noble friend made an interesting suggestion that we should look into the Scottish practice, where they can, as it were, get hold of public records, and we do not have that in England. There is a difficulty of definition of what a "public record" is, but I will look at that because it has certain interesting possibilities.
My Lords, all I can say in conclusion is that we are as anxious as anyone else as far as we can to see that our historical documents and our documents that are of interest either from the point of view of literature or any other point of view are kept in this country. We think that the main instrument will he better information about where these documents are still in private hands and more money to buy them. I have set out on that road. As for the strictness and effectiveness of the control of licensinterests of owners and trade, on one ing, we cannot ever expect to reconcile the hand, and historians and researchers, on the other; but it is a fact of overwhelming importance that we do have the good will of the trade today. These little objects could not be kept in this country by any other means than having the good will of the trade. Several times when I was being asked to strengthen the control in an attempt to make it watertight, I could not help remembering those remarkable words by the abbess of a Carmelite convent, who said:
Ce n'est pas la règle qui nous garde mais nous qui gardens la règle."

LONDON TRANSPORT BILL
Reported, without amendment.
  DISPERSAL OF GOVERNMENT WORK
  DISPERSAL OF GOVERNMENT WORK
  FIDUCIARY NOTE ISSUE
  FIDUCIARY NOTE ISSUE