Sitting of 26 June 1973

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS
  PRIVATE BUSINESS
    BRITISH TRANSPORT DOCKS BILL
    Lords Amendment considered and agreed to.
    GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL
    Read the Third time and passed.
    QUEEN MARY COLLEGE BILL [Lords]
    Read a Second time and committed.

    ASHDOWN FOREST BILL [Lords] (By Order)
    Order for Second Reading read.
    To be read a Second time upon Thursday next.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

    Art Education
    Miss Fookesasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she will ask Her Majesty's Inspectorate to prepare a report on the structure of art education.
    Mr. Guy Barnettasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she will ask the Inspectorate to prepare a report on the structure of art education.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas): No, Sir. A major review of the whole field was carried out by the Coldstream Committee which published its report on the structure of art and design in 1970. Action is continuing.
    Miss Fookes: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is widespread alarm and despondency in art education, particularly about the suggestion that two A-levels should be the prerequisite for entering to study for the diploma of art and design? Will my hon. Friend reconsider this?
    Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am aware that there are some widespread misconceptions about the recommendations and status of the report, which is advisory. It is not the intention of the National Council for Diplomas in Art and Design to confine entry to its courses after 1976 to holders of two A-levels but to admit also alternative qualifications some of which it intends to settle in consultation with my right hon. Friend.
    Mr. Grimond: Is the Under-Secretary aware that there is widespread agreement with what the hon. Lady the Member for Merton and Morden (Miss Fookes) said about the concern in the art world? It is not only about the question of two A-levels, which I am glad to hear are not to be compulsory, but also about cutting down on part-time teachers who are absolutely essential to art education and could be used a great deal more in other forms of education. Will the hon. Gentleman ensure that no action is taken to cut the number of part-time teachers?
    Mr. St. John-Stevas: As far as I know, there is no recommendation to cut the number of part-time teachers. There is another Question on this subject on the Order Paper. Perhaps we can discuss the matter more fully then.

    School Building Standards
    Mr. Spearingasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what deputations she has recently received to discuss the adequacy of the standards laid down in the current school building regulations.
    The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): None, Sir.
    Mr. Spearing: Is the right hon. Lady aware that within the last six months both her Under Secretaries—the one sitting next to her and the noble Lord, Lord Belstead—have refused to give me an interview to discuss very important matters concerning standards of school building?

    1295
    In view of recent events, and as the pressure on architects to skimp on maintenance, on standards, and on the standards laid down about the numbers of pupils, are quite unrelated to educational needs, should not her hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and the right hon. Lady herself see me about this subject?
    Mrs. Thatcher: My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has just indicated that he is unaware that he has ever refused the hon. Gentleman an interview.
    Mr. Spearing: Quite wrong—he has.
    Mrs. Thatcher: There may be some misunderstanding. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would care to come and see me.
    Mr. Sydney Chapman: As regards the school building programme, will my right hon. Friend look closely at the facilities being provided for teachers and staff in schools? Does she recognise that many of these facilities are hopelessly inadequate in many schools, such as Hands-worth Grammar School? Although I agree that the provisions of the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act do not apply to educational establishments, should not those minimum requirements apply?
    Mrs. Thatcher: Those minimum requirements are for different circumstances from those prevailing in schools. I am aware of the circumstances at Handsworth Grammar School, which my hon. Friend raised with me before. Hitherto the standards have been well above minimum standards, but I know that some difficulty arises and this was pointed out in the debate we had on the cost limits. I hope that the recent increase of 22 per cent. will help to overcome the difficulty.
    Mr. Stallard: Is the right hon. Lady aware that there is widespread alarm and despondency in my constituency following last week's disaster at Camden School for Girls? Is she aware that the technical study she has promised to institute will leave many questions unanswered? Will she reconsider her decision and have a full-scale public inquiry in view of the repercussions of that accident on many similar structures?
    Mrs. Thatcher: As the hon. Member knows from a reply he has received, we thought it best to set up as a matter of urgency an inquiry conducted by the Building Research Establishment into the technical reasons for the failure. We expect that to take about two months. I have undertaken to publish the report. When it is published and we know what it says, I shall decide whether further action is required.

    Special Schools
    Mr. Barry Jonesasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many schools for the mentally handicapped she has visited in 1972 and 1973.
    Mrs. Thatcher: My Ministers and I have visited 12 special schools in this period. Among those visited by myself were two concerned with mentally handicapped children and two with educationally subnormal children.
    Mr. Jones: Is it not alarming that in hospital schools as many as 75 per cent. of the teaching staff can be unqualified, a great deal of the equipment often unsuitable and dozens of children totally ignored educationally? What urgent and special measures will the Secretary of State make to improve education for the mentally handicapped? Is it not shameful that the Government can build their Concordes and allow the Lonrho directors to get away with murder while these luckless kids are pushed into dark corners?
    Mrs. Thatcher: The whole building programme for special schools has been increased substantially. The building programme that I have approved for the next three years is 45 per cent. greater than that for the last three years, which is a great achievement. We have just moved the capital programme for hospital schools from the regional hospital boards to the Department of Education and Science and a circular about hospital schools is to be sent out comparatively shortly.
    Mr. R. C. Mitchell: Is the Secretary of State aware of the grave shortage of speech therapists in many of the schools for handicapped children? Will she comment on it?
    Mrs. Thatcher: We have just accepted some of the recommendations of the special report on speech therapy, namely,

    1297
    to have a unified service operating under the area health authorities. Another suggestion was to increase the number, but I believe that would be the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services.
    Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the standard of hospital teaching in my constituency is exceptionally high and that many children who are severely subnormal are getting as far as fractions in their maths and are able to read with great facility?
    Mrs. Thatcher: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her comments. The hospital school that I saw comparatively recently was excellent and I confirm what she said about the teaching. It may be that some of the teachers have not got the special qualifications for teaching these handicapped children, but they are nevertheless very good, devoted and dedicated teachers.

    Wooden Hut Classrooms (Derbyshire)
    Mr. Skinnerasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps are being taken to assist Derbyshire County Council in its proposals for the replacement of 40-year-old wooden huts used by schoolchildren as classrooms in the county of Derbyshire.
    Mr. St. John-Stevas: My right hon. Friend has recently announced projects for the improvement or replacement of primary schools in Derbyshire to the value of over £1¾ million for the 1975–76 school major building programme.
    Mr. Skinner: Perhaps the Minister would like to know that 27 out of those 28 schools are in Tory-held constituencies and were approved by a Tory county council. Is he aware that now that his right hon. Friend has set up this technical study into the various structures of schools he should look into the question of half-inch thick plywood that is used in these 40-year-old temporary wooden sheds? Is he aware that 150 of these were in existence three years ago when the Tory Government came to power and that at the latest count there were still 150?
    Mr. Loughlin: I do not think that my hon. Friend likes the Tories.
    Mr. St. John-Stevas: Whoever was responsible for putting up these buildings 40
    1298
    years ago, it was neither myself nor the Government. The important point is whether they are being replaced. Replacements which are already programmed will provide new school places for nearly half the Derbyshire children. [Interruption.] The hon. Member must wait to hear the answer to his question before rejecting it. Nearly half the Derbyshire children who are now being taught in these old wooden huts will be relocated when these programmes come into operation.
    Mr. Rost: The majority of parents in Derbyshire are well pleased with what the Government have done to provide new building. However, they object to the lack of consultation concerning the arbitrary zoning in some areas, particularly in the Kirkhallam area.
    Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am grateful to hear that the parents in Derbyshire are satisfied with the Government. I am sure that they are also satisfied with the representation of my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Rost). I assure him that neither my right hon. Friend nor myself act in an arbitrary manner.

    Teachers (Recruitment and Training)
    Mr. Duffyasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether she will seek powers to make herself responsible for the recruitment and training of teachers.
    Mrs. Thatcher: No, Sir. Under Section 62 of the Education Act 1944 I have a duty to secure that sufficient facilities are available for the training of teachers. Recruitment and deployment in the schools is essentially a matter for the local education authorities.
    Mr. Duffy: Does the Secretary of State recall her Folkestone speech last month in which she argued for a more economic deployment of the present teaching force? This is simply not borne out by the experience of Sheffield where the teacher/pupil ratio in sixth forms is half the national average. Is she aware that it has been revealed that the teacher/ pupil ratio in the primary schools for the coming year will be considerably higher than was originally planned and that this seems entirely to falsify her Folkestone argument?
    Mrs. Thatcher: I do not think so. That argument was put as a result of a number of surveys in the schools by Her Majesty's Inspectorate when it was revealed that the increase in the number of teachers in schools was not wholly reflected in the reduction in the size of classes. Of course, arrangements made by different education authorities vary. Where good practice exists we naturally wish to see that it is maintained and that difficulties are drawn to the attention of the authorities.
    Mr. Hattersley: Does the Secretary of State's speech to the AEC last week mean that she is prepared to revise upwards the teacher training figure which appeared in her White Paper?
    Mrs. Thatcher: The speech pointed out that we have taken an initial step to reduce the numbers going into the colleges of education in view of the forecasts of 10 years ahead. It also pointed out that after two or three years we may need to have another look.

    Expenditure
    Mr. Carterasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she will publish her estimate of the percentage of the gross national product to be devoted to education during each of the next 10 years.
    Mrs. Thatcher: Figures are not available for 10 years ahead. However, in 1971–72 public expenditure on education was 6·5 per cent. of the gross national product. Over the subsequent five years expenditure on education is projected to grow at 5·0 per cent. a year in cost terms. This may be compared with the illustrative growth rates for the economy as a whole over the same period of 3·5 per cent. and 5·0 per cent. referred to in Cmnd. 5178.
    Mr. Carter: Is that not an evasive reply? Are not the Government intending to cut the percentage of GNP devoted to education? Following the proposals for adult and nursery education, should we not be thinking in terms of expanding this percentage?
    Mrs. Thatcher: Far from being evasive the reply I gave was a full one, bearing in mind that Governments do not publish forecasts of growth of the economy. They make assumptions about it and
    1300
    we have made two sets of assumptions, one of 3·5 per cent. and one of 5 per cent., for hon. Members to compare with the growth rate of education. The expected growth rate of education expenditure is 5 per cent. and that is compared to a 5 per cent. increase assumed for the GNP.
    Mr. Marten: Was it not the previous Government which set the pattern for looking five years ahead and not 10 years ahead on these matters?
    Mrs. Thatcher: Indeed, and it was also the previous Government which left me with plans for spending very much less on education than I am now spending.
    Mr. Ellis: Will the Secretary of State give equivalent figures for adult education?
    Mrs. Thatcher: I cannot give those figures at the moment.

    Secondary Reorganisation (Newcastle-under-Lyme)
    Mr. Goldingasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether she is yet able to approve the proposals for the reorganisation of secondary education in Newcastle-under-Lyme.
    Mr. St. John-Stevas: My right hon. Friend will give her decision as soon as possible on these proposals. The LEA withdrew two of its previous proposals in February of this year. The authority was informed of certain difficulties on 30th May and we are still awaiting a reply.
    Mr. Golding: Is the Minister aware that there is grave anxiety in Newcastle-under-Lyme because of the delay, and is he further aware that this anxiety is particularly marked in respect of the Wolstanton-Watlands project which I understand was to have started this year and to have been completed by 1975? Is he also aware that £300,000 has been approved for the project and that if work does not get under way very quickly the unsatisfactory conditions in which teaching is taking place and has taken place for 20 years will have to continue?
    Mr. St. John-Stevas: As the hon. Gentleman will know, there has been considerable local difficulty and conflict over the proposals. Owing to the withdrawal

    1301
    which I have mentioned, we have faced particular difficulties. But I am aware that the hon. Gentleman and the local authority are particularly anxious for a decision on the proposals affecting Wolstanton Grammar School, and if it is possible to consider those proposals separately my right hon. Friend will give her decision very soon.

    Colleges of Art
    Mr. Barnesasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what further representations she has received following the recommendations of the Pooling Committee on staff/student ratios in colleges of art.
    Mr. St. John-Stevas: A further 55 letters have been received, more than half through hon. Members, since the reply to the hon. Member on 13th March. This was also a topic raised with my right hon. Friend by a deputation brought by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond).
    Mr. Barnes: With reference to the question asked earlier by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) about the position of practising artists teaching part-time in art colleges, is the Minister aware that some of the assumptions on which the recommendations of the Pooling Committee are based are not valid for the art colleges because of the much longer hours of contact between students and teachers in them than in other subjects? Does not the Minister think that he should advise local education authorities to treat those recommendations of the Pooling Committee with some caution?
    Mr. St. John-Stevas: I should like to stress to the hon. Gentleman, who I know takes a keen interest in the subject, that the implementation of the Pooling Committee's recommendations on student/staff ratios rests with the local education authorities. The recommendations are purely advisory. The report said that in no case should teachers be made redundant. It is certainly my view that the employment of practising artists as part-time teachers is a great gain to art education.
    Mr. Grimond: But does not the Minister agree, when he recommends that no teacher should be made redundant, that, if the local authorities have to come down
    1302
    to anything near the ratio, it of course means that they will retain their whole-time teachers, most of whom are on long-term contract, and get rid of their part-time practising artists?
    Mr. St. John-Stevas: It is not my recommendation; it is the recommendation of the committee. [Interruption.] That is an important distinction. With regard to the right hon. Gentleman's prognostications, there are other means of getting to the recommended ratios—by normal wastage and retirement, for example.
    Mr. Moyle: Would the Minister care to give an undertaking that he will use the offices of his Department to ensure that, before even any part-time art teachers are declared redundant, there will be consultation between the local education authority and the appropriate associations representing the art teachers? Will he bear in mind that the artist has always required a patron? If one form of patronage is to go, will he take the initiative and make sure that another form to replace it is under consideration?
    Mr. St. John-Stevas: I cannot give undertakings on behalf of local education authorities, but I think I have made it quite clear that I regard the use of artists in a part-time capacity as very valuable, and I am sure that local education authorities will take note of those remarks.

    Student Grants (Married Women)
    Mr. Juddasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether she will make a statement on the latest developments in her correspondence with student bodies concerning the ending of discretionary grants and improving grants for married women.
    Mr. St. John-Stevas: My right hon. Friend has told the National Union of Students that discretionary awards are now the subject of consultation between the Department and the local authority associations; and that the whole basis of the married women's grant will be examined in the forthcoming triennial review.
    Mr. Judd: I thank the Minister for that reply. Is he aware of the very deep feeling in the student community about

    1303
    the problems surrounding discretionary grants? Can he assure the House that as he goes into consultations with the local authorities about discretionary grants the Government have a completely open mind on the issue?
    Mr. St. John-Stevas: In spite of the guidance that has already been given by the Department, I am aware of variations in practice, which do not always appear to be justified. In accordance with a recommendation of the Expenditure Committee on further and higher education, I am exploring with the local authority associations whether stronger and more detailed guidance should be given.
    Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Does my hon. Friend agree that this is a very difficult subject which is causing a great deal of disquiet among students? Is it not time for the abolition of discretionary grants?
    Mr. St. John-Stevas: Their total abolition would involve an astronomical sum, running into hundreds of millions of pounds. But I am willing to discuss the whole question of discretionary grants with representatives of the National Union of Students if they agree to discussions opening on the triennial review, as I hope they will.
    Mrs. Castle: How can the right hon. Lady possibly justify penalising women students just because they marry? Will the hon. Gentleman tell his right hon. Friend that women totally reject the concept of dependency and demand to be treated as individuals in their own right on an equal basis, whether they are married or single?
    Mr. St. John-Stevas: With the complete support of my right hon. Friend, I have already said in the House that when the next review opens we shall consider the anomalous position of the married women's grant. Perhaps it is fair to point out that the anomaly was created in 1968 by the Labour Government when they pegged this rate of women's grant at the 1965 rate and other rates of grant were allowed to go up. The right hon. Lady must accept her share of responsibility for this anomalous situation.

    Deaf Children
    Mr. Ashleyasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she is satisfied with the educational provisions for deaf children.
    Mrs. Thatcher: Much good work is being done but there are also some problems to overcome. As I said in reply to a question by the hon. Gentleman on 3rd April, these are being studied in the Department. Following this, I shall decide on any action to be taken.—[Vol. 854, c. 60.]
    Mr. Ashley: Is the right hon. Lady aware that there is an acute shortage of qualified teachers for the deaf, and that a daft Burnham award has deprived qualified teachers of a special award, thereby exacerbating the shortage? As deaf children suffer enough from educational deprivation, will she do all she can to take urgent action to ensure that there are enough teachers for deaf children?
    Mrs. Thatcher: I cannot comment on the Burnham aspect of the hon. Gentleman's question, but I agree that there is a shortage of teachers for deaf children. The working party to which I have referred, which has a number of Her Majesty's inspectors on it, is especially considering new diploma courses and part-time courses for this purpose.
    Mr. Money: Will my right hon. Friend consider approaching the Independent Broadcasting Authority to see whether some of the off-peak time on the new local radio stations could be used to try out pilot programmes for the parents of deaf children to give them some training in some of the educational needs their children may have?
    Mrs. Thatcher: I at least undertake to draw the attention of the authority to my hon. Friend's suggestion. What it wishes to do about the suggestion is of course a matter for it.

    Mentally Handicapped Children
    Mr. Haselhurstasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether she is satisfied that local authorities have the most complete information about the numbers and needs of

    1305
    mentally handicapped children living in their areas; and if she will make a statement.
    Mrs. Thatcher: Local authorities, through their medical, educational and social services, and through the hospitals, normally identify mentally handicapped children at an early age. I believe that local education authorities are giving a high priority to meeting the educational needs of these children.
    Mr. Haselhurst: But is it not true that as information on the subject increases, more and more different classifications of mental handicap are being discovered, and that local authorities may not have within their area sufficient of a particular type to be providing the most appropriate form of attention? Therefore, will my right hon. Friend consider holding an inquiry into the matter?
    Mrs. Thatcher: We are not encouraging multiplication of classification of handicap, because it is not thought wise. I know that there is still a shortage of places for many children suffering from mental handicap, which is why we have raised the special building programme. Of the bids we have received for 1973–74, one-third were for projects for the educationally subnormal. I hope that the extensive action on which we are embarked will do more, quickly, than a full-scale inquiry could do.

    Energy Requirements (Research)
    Mr. Douglasasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she will make a statement on the number of universities in the United Kingdom undertaking research into the United Kingdom's energy requirements.
    Mrs. Thatcher: I understand there are at least seven university institutions doing research of this kind.
    Mr. Douglas: I thank the right hon. Lady for that reply. Will she address her attention to two matters? First, does she agree that the urgency of developing our offshore industry requires a great deal more resources of a university character to be devoted to research? Secondly, can she say whether the reviews of the central policy of the review unit,
    1306
    which has examined energy policy, will be transmitted to the universities?
    Mrs. Thatcher: The universities are not normally slow to take up any views of that kind. I do not think that we need transmit them through the University Grants Committee. I am inclined to agree with the hon. Gentleman on the first part of his supplementary question.
    Mr. Dalyell: Does not the right hon. Lady recognise that there is a problem and that, because of the nature of the quinquennium, universities are unwilling to finance comparatively new projects out of funds which many people in the universities think are allocated? Is there not a case, because of the importance of North Sea oil, for some special Government grant?
    Mrs. Thatcher: No. It is reasonable to expect that from the quinquennial funds, which provide for a considerable expansion, the universities should put high priorities on those projects which can help commerce and industry.

    Consumer Education
    Mrs. Sally Oppenheimasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether she will make a statement in the light of the Right to Consumer Education put forward in the Consumer Protection Charter adopted on 28th May by the Council of Europe.
    Mrs. Thatcher: This proposal of the Consultative Assembly of the Council of Europe is currently under consideration by the Council's Committee of Ministers and it is not yet clear to what extent member States can implement it. My hon. Friend knows that responsibility for the curriculum in the county schools in England and Wales is in the hands of local education authorities.
    Mrs. Oppenheim: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the inclusion of consumer education in secondary school curricula would be extremely valuable? Does she agree that if that were done we might have a new generation of consumers emerging which will have some idea of their rights and obligations? While I accept that my right hon. Friend has no powers to direct curricula, will she consider sending an advisory circular from her Department informing local

    1307
    education authorities that the Council of Europe is recommending that children should be trained in consumer affairs?
    Mrs. Thatcher: The recommendation has not yet gone through the Council's Committee of Ministers and, therefore, it is still being considered by them. I agree that it is advisable to have some education on consumer protection. I think my hon. Friend will agree that it need not necessarily be taught as a distinct subject. It will often come into home economics, craft courses and general study. A good deal is already being done in those subjects.
    Mr. William Hamilton: Will the right hon. Lady say how far mathematics teachers are teaching children about the percentage rate of increase in food prices over the last two or three years? The right hon. Lady talked about mentally retarded children being taught fractions. Perhaps they can be taught how to read the cost of living increase.
    Mrs. Thatcher: I expect so. I hope that teachers are also teaching them about increased production.

    Disabled Children (Integration)
    Mr. Greville Jannerasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether she will provide funds to encourage and enable local education authorities to integrate physically disabled childen into ordinary schools.
    Mr. St. John-Stevas: It has long been the policy of the Department that handicapped children should not be placed in special schools if they can be satisfactorily educated in ordinary schools. Most of the special facilities required for them in new or existing school buildings can be provided within normal cost limits, but additional allocations have been made in some cases.
    Mr. Janner: The Minister happily accepts that wherever possible disabled children should be absorbed into the normal atmosphere of normal schools. Does he accept that schools which do that successfully, including many in my constituency, perform a public service? Does he agree that more schools should be encouraged to do so? Further, does he accept that there is a heavy burden of care and of finance resting on the
    1308
    schools that perform this public service? Will he encourage schools to do more and will he provide more finance for the purpose?
    Mr. St. John-Stevas: A letter was sent to local education authorities which have the responsibility in this matter in July 1966 about the need for buildings to be accessible to the physically handicapped so as to make it possible for more of them to be educated in ordinary schools. We encourage authorities to improve access to existing buildings as well as new ones. When plans are submitted for new special schools, our experience is that with a little encouragement here and there the authorities respond. Of course, we have no power to enforce directly our wishes.
    Sir R. Thompson: Will my hon. Friend consider giving even further publicity to what he has just said? Does he not agree that one of the most useful things he can do is to encourage the people who are handicapped, who form a substantial part of the population, by ensuring that they do not face from the outset a separate career and a separate existence? Does he accept that anything which he can say publicly to encourage local authorities to do their duty in this respect will be most gratefully received by these unfortunate people?
    Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for those remarks. This is not a sphere of the education service which falls directly within my responsibility. I shall pass on my hon. Friend's remarks to my noble Friend. I concur entirely with his remarks.

    Student Grants
    Mr. Molloyasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what recent representations she has received on the level of grants to students.
    Mr. St. John-Stevas: Since the interim settlement announced by my right hon. Friend on 15th May, she has received about 50 letters from hon. Members, members of the public, students' associations and other interested bodies.
    Mr. Molloy: I am sure the hon. Gentleman will agree that they all condemn that paltry award. Is he aware

    1309
    that the current situation in our universities, including the student body and the staff, is now very serious? Can he tell us whether he has plans for trying to assuage the serious situation regarding student grants?
    Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am sorry to have to correct the hon. Gentleman. While it is true that the majority of the replies suggested that more should be done for students, other replies, including letters from vice-chancellors and students, indicated that they thought the award was about right. I regret to say that others thought it was too high.
    We are concerned to review the position of student grants. The interim settlement of £10 million extra was, in the circumstances, a remarkable achievement. My right hon. Friend intended it to be an interim settlement. I hope that we shall have a full and frank exchange of views with the representatives of the National Union of Students in the near future.
    Mr. Grieve: Might there not be more money available in the form of grants for serious students if the university authorities were more particular in sending down those who forfeited the education which they are receiving by misconduct and by aggression against people who are going to exercise the right of free speech in the universities?
    Mr. St. John-Stevas: The vice-chancellors, whose responsibility the universities are, have made it clear how strongly they condemn the recent incidents interfering with freedom of speech which have been perpetrated by a small minority. While we accept that the university authorities must be firm with the minority of trouble-makers, we must always be sure that we are utterly and completely fair to the majority who also condemn these incidents.
    Mr. Moyle: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that he must be out of touch with feeling in higher education if he thinks that the award has been accepted with good cheer by the authorities or the students? Does it not now appear, as a result of the discussions which have been taking place, that the idea of the parental contribution causes more hardship to students than any other aspect of student grants? Will he undertake that that aspect
    1310
    of grants will be considered in the near future?
    Mr. St. John-Stevas: In the interim settlement we raised the threshold so that parental contributions start from £1,500 residual income. That was a great relief to a number of students. Some students will receive as much as an extra £60 because of that. The hon. Gentleman suggested that I am out of touch with university opinion. I have indicated the contents of the letters which we have received. My experience—and I have been recently to more than a dozen universities and colleges—is that many students are quite happy with the increase they have received.

    Metropolitan Architectural Consortium
    Mr. Thomas Coxasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when she last met the Chairman of the Metropolitan Architectural Consortium for Education.
    Mrs. Thatcher: I have not met the chairman in that capacity.
    Mr. Cox: Is the right hon. Lady aware of the very deep concern which the chairman has expressed over the cuts in the school cost limits? As something has to suffer when forcible costs are cut, does not the right hon. Lady agree that she has some obligation to say what she thinks should be cut? For example, does she think that classroom space, staff facilities and the quality of materials ought to be cut? Surely she has some obligation and it is her duty to give a lead in such a matter.
    Mrs. Thatcher: Not merely have I given a lead, but I have increased the cost limits by 22 per cent., making an increase in total since I took office of some 58 per cent. Even before the latest increase in the cost limits, 97·6 per cent. of the projects last year were actually started.
    Mr. Hattersley: The right hon. Lady has received a letter from the chairman, written after the 22 per cent. cost increase was announced, which is described as inadequate. How did the right hon. Lady reply?
    Mrs. Thatcher: The letter was acknowledged. The chairman sent me a

    1311
    copy letter which I understand she had sent to other people, and naturally I acknowledged it.
    Mr. Spearing: Will the right hon. Lady confirm that in her letter she stated that she had nothing to add to what she had said in the debate? In view of my earlier question, will the right hon. Lady now agree to see a deputation from the Metropolitan Architectural Consortium for Education to discuss this matter?
    Mrs. Thatcher: No. I agreed earlier to receive the hon. Gentleman, and that I will do. I think that he will have plenty to say.

    Art Teachers
    Mr. R. C. Mitchellasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many full-time and part-time art teachers are at present employed in colleges of art in England and Wales.
    Mr. St. John-Stevas: The provisional total of full-time teachers in art establishments was 2,381 in March 1971. In addition, a number of teachers of art are employed in the art departments of polytechnics and certain other education establishments but separate figures for these, and for part-time teachers, are not available.
    Mr. Mitchell: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that reports are coming in from all over the country that there is to be a considerable reduction in the number of art teachers in the term starting next September, particularly because many local authorities seem to be dismissing or declaring redundant large numbers of part-time teachers? What is the hon. Gentleman going to do about it?
    Mr. St. John-Stevas: If local authorities are declaring teachers redundant, they are acting contrary to the recommendations of the committee set up to consider the matter. They are free to do it, but I cannot answer such vague accusations. I am willing to look into any particular case which the hon. Gentleman cares to bring to my attention.
    Mr. Moyle: Can the hon. Gentleman now give an answer to my earlier question? I did not ask him to give undertakings on behalf of local education authorities but asked him to use the good offices of his Department to secure, if
    1312
    possible, undertakings by local education authorities that they would not regard part-time art teachers as available for redundancy without consulting the appropriate associations representing them. Will he now undertake to use the good offices of his Department both in that and on the patronage point?
    Mr. St. John-Stevas: Whom local education authorities consult must be a matter for them. I can only repeat that it would be a great tragedy for art education if distinguished artists no longer gave their services part-time in art schools.

    Nature Conservancy
    Mr. Dalyellasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what recent discussions she has had with representatives of environmental organisations about the future of the Nature Conservancy.
    Mrs. Thatcher: Recently, officers of my Department and of that of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment have consulted the Natural Environment Research Council, the Nature Conservancy Committee and the staff interests concerned about the detailed arrangements for implementing the Government's decision concerning the future of the Nature Conservancy.
    Mr. Dalyell: Now that the complex arguments have been fully deployed, is not this one occasion in politics when a Government could honourably change their minds?
    Mrs. Thatcher: I do not think at the moment that there is any question of the Government changing their minds. I believe that the Bill has just passed through the other place and will be coming before this House.

    Medical School Places (Women Students)
    Mr. Edwin Wainwrightasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many applications were received from women students for places in medical schools during each of the past four years; and how many were accepted.
    Mr. St. John-Stevas: Within the scheme run by the Universities Central Council of Admissions, the numbers of

    1313
    women applying to read medicine for the four years from 1969–70 to 1972–73 were 1,805, 2,091, 2,642 and 3,192 respectively; the corresponding acceptances were 660, 731, 880 and 909. The total numbers of women accepted to read medicine in the United Kingdom in these years were 778, 861, 1,019 and 1,030 respectively.
    Mr. Wainwright: I am delighted by the speed with which the hon. Gentleman read out that answer. Does he not agree that it is deplorable that in this country, when we are so short of doctors, we cannot even find more places for women in our medical schools? When will the Government do something about providing more places to ensure that more women can take up medical courses which they are willing to take but cannot do so because of the attitude of the Government against women doctors?
    Mr. St. John-Stevas: The whole question of women in medical schools is being examined and I do not wish to anticipate the advice of the Select Committee or the Green Paper which the Government intend to publish. But I would point out to the hon. Gentleman that women formed 26 per cent. of the applicants in 1969–70 and 28·6 per cent. in 1972–73 in UCCA terms, while for admissions, the proportions were 27·4 per cent. and 30·8 per cent. In terms of United Kingdom totals, the admissions were 28·3 per cent. and 31·3 per cent. The point is that a higher proportion of women applicants were admitted than in the case of men applicants.

    GREECE, PORTUGAL AND SPAIN
    Mr. John Fraserasked the Prime Minister if he will seek a meeting with the Heads of Government of the members of the European Economic Community to discuss their policies towards Greece, Portugal and Spain.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Edward Heath): No, Sir.
    Mr Fraser: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that is a disappointing reply? While not condoning the nature of the regimes of Eastern Europe, I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he does
    1314
    not agree that in Western Europe, where our influence is greater, we should work for the elimination of dictatorships which are an affront to the name of democracy and that we should not take actions which could be taken as an endorsement of dictatorship, like sending troops to Greece, recognising the new Greek regime, and embarking on the ridiculous junketings now taking place between this country and Portugal.
    The Prime Minister: The arrangements between the EEC and the three countries mentioned are clearly defined and they concern economic relationships.
    Sir F. Bennett: Among the criticisms of possible ventures, could not the visit of the Leader of the Opposition to Czechoslovakia be included?
    The Prime Minister: Czechoslovakia is not one of the countries listed in the Question.
    Mr. Michael Foot: Since the right hon. Gentleman has often made speeches about Europe speaking with one voice, what objection has he to trying to get Western Europe to speak with one voice on the question of the imprisonments and projected trials in Spain, where many people are charged with no other crime apparently than that of engaging in trade union activities? Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that it would be a good idea if he could get people who respect freedom in Europe to speak out on this matter?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. The Heads of Government at the summit meeting last September spoke with one voice and said that full membership of the EEC must depend on democratic institutions. That is one voice of the Community, and it is clear.

    CHINESE FOREIGN MINISTER (TALKS)
    Mr. Dalyellasked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his official talks with the Chinese Foreign Minister.
    The Prime Minister: As I told the hon. Gentleman on 12th June, my conversation with the Chinese Foreign Minister, which took place on Friday 8th June,

    1315
    covered a wide range of subjects of common concern. The details are confidential. I have accepted an invitation from the Chinese Prime Minister to visit China. The exact dates remain to be settled.—[Vol. 857, c. 294.]
    Mr. Dalyell: In dealing with the Chinese, is not candour the best approach? Did the right hon. Gentleman take the opportunity to make it clear that the British dislike of China's atmospheric nuclear testing was as great as the British dislike of French nuclear testing?
    The Prime Minister: The question of nuclear armaments for testing was not raised in the talks either by my right hon. Friend or by me.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: Would it not rather embarrass talks by my right hon. Friend if the advice of the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser) were followed and the policy of the Government was the elimination of dictatorship?
    The Prime Minister: I think my hon. Friend has touched upon a very important point which perhaps right hon. and hon. Members opposite ought at some time, not necessarily urgently, to make up their minds about. If we are to have nothing to do with any Government in the world when we disapprove of some of their actions, there would be precious few countries with which we had any relations at all.

  AUSTRALIAN STATE PRIME MINISTERS (MEETINGS)
  Mr. Robert Taylorasked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement following his meetings with the Prime Ministers of the Australian States.
  The Prime Minister: I was host at a lunch at 10 Downing Street on 7th of June for the Premiers of New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland and Western Australia and other leading representatives of the Australian States. Representations on constitutional matters have been made on behalf of the Australian States at both ministerial and official level and my colleagues and I have undertaken to give these representations full consideration.
  Mr. Taylor: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I am naturally very pleased
  1316
  to hear of the detailed discussions which he had with these distinguished visitors? Can he confirm that, while we in this House are always prepared to admire and respect the legitimate aspirations of any nation to control its own highest judiciary, we in this House or Her Majesty's Government are not able to influence what appeals are or are not heard by Her Majesty's Privy Council?
  The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is quite right. There are constitutional implications in the representations which have been made by the Premiers or their representatives of all the Australian States. The view of Her Majesty's Government, and I hope it will be the general view of the House, is that we have no desire to cling to any powers on the statute book which may still be there nor have we any desire, either as a Government or as a Parliament, to become involved in internal differences of opinion in Australia. I hope that this will govern our actions.
  Mr. Russell Kerr: Is the Prime Minister aware that the present Australian Government are more than capable of dealing with these anachronistic State bodies?
  The Prime Minister: I do not think that many Australians would share the view of the hon. Gentleman about the nature of the States. It is a fundamental part of the constitution of Australia to have the Commonwealth Government and the State Governments. The view which we have expressed is that, where differences arise on the constitutional level, we would hope that they can be sorted out between Canberra and the State capitals.
  Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Would my right hon Friend consider—if these complicated constitutional matters have to be referred to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council—recommending that the Judicial Committee sits in Australia and not in Whitehall?
  The Prime Minister: That is certainly a proposal which could be considered and on which I would take the advice of the Lord Chancellor and of the legal advisers to the Government. I would also take into account any representations made by the Australian Government and the

  1317
  State Governments. This is something to which we should certainly give full consideration if the final decision was that the Privy Council should be consulted.
  Mr. Heffer: Would not the Prime Minister agree that the answer he gave was correct in the sense that, if Britain can join the Common Market and give away some of our constitutional rights to the EEC, it is obvious that the question of the future constitutional rights of the States in Australia must be a matter to be settled by the Australian people?
  The Prime Minister: I admire the hon. Gentleman's ingenuity in bringing the European situation into any question. I can assure him that our European policy and membership of the Community has absolutely nothing whatever to do with the question of the relationship between the Australian States and the Commonwealth Government. Anyone who has been in Australia for any time knows how deep are the feelings in some, perhaps all, States, because all States, whatever their political complexion, have made the same representations. There are strong feelings indeed about this.

  PRIME MINISTER OF ICELAND
  Mr. Ewingasked the Prime Minister if he will seek an official meeting with the Prime Minister of Iceland.
  The Prime Minister: I have at present no plans to seek such a meeting.
  Mr. Ewing: May I ask the Prime Minister to reconsider that answer seriously? Is he not aware that there is a great danger of relationships between two nations that have been friendly over many years being damaged almost beyond repair unless the Heads of the two States take action and meet each other? May I further ask the Prime Minister to comment on the decision of the Foreign Ministers in Luxembourg yesterday to delay the tariff reductions on Icelandic fish products until 15th November unless Iceland settles her dispute with Britain and West Germany? Would not the right hon. Gentleman describe this as some form of blackmail?
  The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is standing the whole matter on its head. No one has deplored the strain
  1318
  in relations between the two countries more than this Government, the whole of the House of Commons and the British people. It is through no fault of our own. We have followed completely the proper constitutional processes. The original agreement with Iceland allowed that if there was any difference we should go to the International Court. We took the dispute to the Court and we got a decision from it. It is Iceland which has refused to carry it out. We cannot be accused of blackmailing anyone. It is understandable that the Community should not make special arrangements for Iceland at a time when this dispute continues because of the Icelandic view.
  Mr. Laurance Reed: Is the Prime Minister aware that the intensity of life in the sea has declined by 50 per cent. in the last 20 years and that, if this overkill continues, there will be very little left for countries like Iceland and Britain to squabble about? Will he reflect upon the fact that, while the Duke of Edinburgh is supporting a campaign to prevent the destruction of the whale, the Foreign Secretary is promoting a policy which inevitably means a free-for-all plunder of marine life?
  The Prime Minister: I cannot in any way accept that interpretation of Her Majesty's Government's policy. We as a Government have been foremost in leading meetings and making arrangements concerning conservation in the seas. The International Court, having considered this matter, put a limit on catches from the area. We have agreed to abide by that limit. Indeed we have gone further in negotiations and said that we would abide by a lower limit. I do not see that there is any reason for criticism of Her Majesty's Government.
  Mr. James Johnson: Is the Prime Minister aware that, since the Navy went in on 19th May, not a single warp has been cut on any British vessel, be it from Hull, Fleetwood, Grimsby or anywhere else? Does he agree that it would be unnatural to expect this lull to continue until after the Santiago conference in 1973–74? Will he consider whether we should search diligently once more to get talks going? Does he agree that it is most important that we should meet Icelandic Ministers or that the respective

  1319
  Prime Ministers should meet to get down to talks on a proper limitation of the catches in this area?
  The Prime Minister: I know that there has been no stronger supporter of the fishermen's case than the hon. Gentleman, and I would have thought that he would support Her Majesty's Government in the actions we have taken on the many occasions we have tried to carry through successful negotiations and failed, not because of any lack of will on the part of this Government. As for the resumption of talks, the question is not about the level at which they should be resumed but whether they should be resumed at all. We are prepared to resume but the Icelanders will do so only on the basis that the Navy is withdrawn from the area. The area is the high seas and the Navy has every right to be there. We are prepared to withdraw if the Icelandic Government will say that British fisherman will not be harassed by their gunboats. The Icelandic Government will not give that undertaking. If they would do so the Navy could be withdrawn and we could go to the negotiations straight away.

  WANDSWORTH
  Mr. Hugh Jenkinsasked the Prime Minister if he has any plans to visit the London borough of Wandsworth.
  The Prime Minister: I have at present no plans to do so, Sir.
  Mr. Jenkins: If the Prime Minister changes his mind and makes plans to visit Wandsworth, may I ask him whether he is aware that he could be taken, in many parts of the borough and particularly Putney, to flats where the rents have been quadrupled in the last few years? Since the Prime Minister no longer shares the laissez-faire political philosophy of his right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), is it not possible to make a change? Could he not take effective action to protect people in these flats, many of whom are his own supporters?
  The Prime Minister: Since the rents have been raised in the last few years, it must have been under the Labour Government just as much as under this one. If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that
  1320
  there are owners or landlords who are breaking the laws of both this and the former Government, he has a duty to report this so that action can be taken.

  SECURITY (DIPLOCK REPORT)
  Mr. Gorstasked the Prime Minister when he expects to receive the report on security from the Diplock Commission.
  The Prime Minister: I assume that my hon. Friend's Question relates to the reference which I announced on 7th June. The Security Commission is already engaged on this and it will submit its report as soon as it can.
  Mr. Gorst: While I appreciate that the Prime Minister will not wish to make any comments about the matters under consideration by the Diplock Commission, may I ask him whether he can nevertheless give an assurance that there will be no prior collusion between either the security forces or the police on the one hand and the newspapers on the other if it involves methods such as we have been told were used by the News of the World to obtain information in this case?
  The Prime Minister: I must confess to my hon. Friend that I am not entirely clear about the purport of his question. Matters of collusion between the police and so on would in themselves be a breach of the law, and if he has any evidence of this it ought to be brought to public notice so that the Director of Public Prosecutions can take action. I have told the House that all the evidence in the possession of the security forces or the police will be made available. If there is other evidence or matters on which the commission wishes to ask questions or endeavour to obtain evidence or information, it will be given every assistance.
  Mr. Lipton: Is the Prime Minister aware that the Diplock inquiry is unlikely to achieve any useful result until and unless the police authorities secure the return to this country of Colin Levy and Norma Levy? What action is being taken to effect their return?
  The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman knows, warrants have been issued for their arrest. It is not for the

  1321
  Government but for the police authorities to act in an endeavour to get these people back to the country. Scotland Yard has already denied reports which appeared in the Press over the weekend that these people have been interviewed by the security service abroad. That is not the case.

  RHODESIA
  Mr. Callaghan: On a point of order. I understand that a number of Members, including myself, submitted questions to you, Mr. Speaker, this morning on the important matter of the reason for the recall of Sir Denis Greenhill from Rhodesia. You, Sir, in your discretion, very properly disallowed them.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I must remind the right hon. Gentleman that it is the convention of the House that no reference is made to a Private Notice Question which has been refused.
  Mr. Callaghan: I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker; I was not aware of that. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] We all live and learn, Mr. Speaker.
  What I wished to ask was whether, in view of the importance of this matter and the fact that the House would not apparently have known of the visit if it had not been for the "leak" from Rhodesia, the Leader of the House or the Prime Minister would convey to the Foreign Secretary the fact that we should like a full explanation of what took place and why the House was not informed before the debate takes place tomorrow so that we may see in what circumstances discussions had been going on.
  The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. James Prior): Perhaps I may help the House. A two-day foreign affairs debate will begin tomorrow. It is the intention of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary to open the debate—in other words, to speak first—and it will be his intention during his speech to deal fully with the matter which the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) has mentioned. I think that that would be for the convenience of the House, and I hope that hon. Members will accept it.
  Mr. Harold Wilson: While no one may question your ruling, Mr. Speaker, and although we know that in all these matters you are concerned with the other business of the House as well as the time taken on statements, nevertheless, as the Leader of the House has made a quasi-business statement, would it not be more convenient if we had a statement from the Foreign Secretary tomorrow before the debate begins, instead of during the debate, which will range widely over important issues of foreign and commonwealth affairs? We know why the right hon. Gentleman cannot do it today—he is not in the country. If necessary, I might seek to ask a Private Notice Question on business tomorrow, a practice which I think is normally accepted. We might well have gone through the two-day debate without knowing about the Rhodesian visit but for the "leak".
  Sir Harmar Nicholls: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for the two Front Benches to twist the rules of the House in this way? Permission to ask a Private Notice Question was apparently refused but in fact the question is being asked and answered in a twisted way, which has done harm—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a matter for me. It is the convention, I think, that on points of order questions may be asked about business. That is all that has happened today, and it is all I shall permit. The House has a great deal to do today.

  WELSH AFFAIRS
  Ordered,
  That the matter of the Steel Industry in Wales, being a matter relating exclusively to Wales and Monmouthshire, be referred to the Welsh Grand Committee for their consideration.—[Mr. Prior.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, at this day's Sitting, Proceedings on the North Wales Hydro Electric Power Bill, set down for consideration at Seven o'clock by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means, shall, instead of being considered at that hour, be considered at the conclusion of the Business of Supply; and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted Business) shall apply

1323
to the Proceedings on the Consideration of the Bill for a period of three hours from the conclusion of the Business of Supply or, if the Business of Supply is concluded before Ten o'clock, for a period equal to the time elapsing between Seven o'clock and the completion of the Business of Supply.—[Mr. Kenneth Clarke.]
3.37 p.m.
Mr. Wellbeloved: I know that it is unusual for procedure motions of this sort to be debates, but I believe that a strong principle is involved and therefore I intend to make a short speech. I recognise the importance of the business which is to follow, but, because of the importance of the principle in protecting the opportunity of Members to raise matters on the Floor of the House which affect the interests of their constituents, I make no apology for causing slight delay in proceeding with the other business.
The House will be aware that, under the Standing Orders, private business set down by the Chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means, when opposed by individual Members, is normally dealt with at 7 p.m. The sort of private business to which the relevant Standing Order applies is business promoted by public corporations, local authorities and other public bodies. Often the business contained in such private Bills is of little consequence, but now and again they involve matters of great public importance and of public policy.
Recently such a measure was the Mersey Docks and Harbours Bill. The United Reform Church Measure also was of national importance. Other examples are the Thames Barrier and Flood Prevention Bill and the British Railways Bill. At 7 o'clock today we should have dealt with the North Wales Hydro Electric Power Bill, which contains matters of considerable public importance. It is a matter of principle that a protest should be made when the Standing Orders are put aside in this manner because it affects the rights, duties and responsibilities of Members, and they should not be swept aside in this fashion.
The normal practice with Private Bills set down by the Chairman of Ways and Means is to take them on alternate days —Government days and Opposition Supply Days. Today happens to be an Opposition Supply Day and under the
1324
Standing Order the 7 o'clock business was down for today. Last year there was no shortage of Supply Days. In fact, we were able to lend the Government two-and-a-half days. It cannot therefore be argued that we are short of opportunities to discuss this business.
The motion is the sort of motion that was considered by the Select Committee on Procedure in the Session 1971–72. The Select Committee considered whether it was right to defer opposed private business until after 10 o'clock at night so as not to interrupt the business of the Government or the business of Supply. The Select Committee—a distinguished body of hon. and right hon. Members—considered the evidence and, in paragraph 8 of its report, came to the conclusion that:
"The loss of opportunities to debate delgated lgislation has led to a breakdown in that part of the process of legislation, and Your Committee are accordingly concerned to safeguard proceedings on private legislation. They recommend that there should be no change in the time at which the House has at present an opportunity to debate business which although on occasion of apparently minor importance, is often of national significance."
That report has never been debated by the House, but the Leader of the House, in answer to a Written Question, said that he accepted the report and went on to say:
"There may, however, be occasions when it would be appropriate to continue to follow the recent precedents of deferring opposed private business by motion until after Government business has been disposed of."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th November 1972; Vol. 847, c. 43.]
That has occurred on several occasions. The House, unwisely in my view, agreed to a timetable motion to get through the Industrial Relations Bill and the European Community legislation. I do not believe that it can be justified as a normal method of interfering with the rights of individual Members.
I hope that the Leader of the House will give an assurance that the procedure of putting down motions of this nature will not be used frequently. There may be occasions of urgency when we want to have a full debate without the business being interrupted—such as on Rhodesia —but those occasions must be rare. I hope that we shall be given an absolute assurance that this procedure will not be followed except in matters of such importance.

1325
The right of individual Members to oppose private legislation is important. Most of its goes through undebated on the Floor of the House at any stage. Some private legislation deals with vital matters of public importance, and we must be careful that we do not take away the opportunities for the individual Member —in the exercise of his duty to protect the interests of his constiutents—to debate private legislation at a reasonable time, at 7 o'clock, and not in the late evening when it is virtually impossible to maintain a quorum for such a debate.
Sir Robin Turton: There is a great deal of good sense in what has been said by the hon. Member for Erith and Cray-ford (Mr. Wellbeloved), but I appreciate that there are special reasons why this course is being taken on this Opposition Supply Day.
I remind the House that the Government Chief Whip and the Opposition Chief Whip made a combined approach to the Select Committee on Procedure to change the rule. Having taken evidence, we came to the conclusion that it would be wrong for that change to be made. The Society of Parliamentary Agents said that the change would be against the interests of promoters of Bills.
I hope that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will give us the assurance that the hon. Gentleman has requested and also the opportunity at some time to debate the recommendations of the Select Committee on this matter so that the views of the whole House may be obtained.
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. James Prior): The House should be grateful to the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) for raising this subject and to my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Sir Robin Turton). Although the hon. Gentleman may be causing a degree of inconvenience to hon. Members on both sides of the House—perhaps more so to those on the Opposition side—he has raised an important issue, and it is right to spend a little time discussing it.
The hon. Gentleman asked for the assurance that this motion did not detract from the Government's acceptance of the Report of the Select Committee on Procedure. I willingly give him that assur-
1326
ance. I always find it difficult to assess the balance between the rights of private Members to discuss these matters and the rights of the Opposition to have their maximum time. It is difficult for the Leader of the House to balance these considerations.
I had thought that today was an occasion when we could take the private business at 10 o'clock. I am in no way detracting from the importance of the business, which affects several hon. Members' constituencies and has a wide constituency interest for a good many people throughout the country.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman and my right hon. Friend will accept my assurance that the Government are prepared to honour the undertaking that I gave in answer to a Written Question from my right hon. Friend last November. It is the general rule that we should take private business at 7 o'clock and not put it off until 10 o'clock. There will be exceptions to this rule and today happens to be one of them. This is a busy time in the House and there is important business in front of us which I hope we shall get through in good time.
I hope that no one will feel that the Government do not consider this to be an important matter both on the procedure side and also from the point of view of those who are concerned with the North Wales Hydro Electric Power Bill. I hope that with that assurance the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members will allow the debate to continue.
Mr. Skinner: Would the Leader of the House explain why he and other hon. and right hon. Members from time to time get terribly pompous about the sovereignty of this place when concern is expressed about private business coming on at a late hour, whereas, since we joined the European Community, we have been subject to countless regulations, orders and directives, some of which have come before the House at 2 o'clock in the morning? Why is there this contradiction in the importance attached to private business and the unimportance attached to matters of national sovereignty?
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That, at this day's Sitting, Proceedings on the North Wales Hydro Electric Power Bill, set

1327
down for consideration at Seven o'clock by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means, shall, instead of being considered at that hour, be considered at the conclusion of the Business of Supply; and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted Business) shall apply to the Proceedings on the Consideration of the Bill for a period of three hours from the conclusion of the Business of Supply or, if the Business of Supply is concluded before Ten o'clock, for a period equal to the time elapsing between Seven o'clock and the completion of the Business of Supply.

DIRECTORS OF INSOLVENT COMPANIES BILL
Mr. Greville Janner: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the law relating to directors of insolvent companies.
The Bill requires disclosure by certain company directors of their part in depriving the company's creditors of their money. I shall speak briefly, but this is a matter of importance to many millions of people who are owed money by companies or who are employed by companies which go into liquidation not necessarily as a result of fraud but as a result of the failure of the directors of the company properly to conduct the company's affairs. As the law stands, these directors in most cases can immediately set up the same business under another company name, with the same limited liability, and incur further debts from the same people without full disclosure of their part in the previous disaster.
The number of liquidations concerned in the last 10 years is just over 10,000. The number of directors concerned we do not know, because the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry says that he regrets that the information cannot be ascertained without undue expenditure of time and effort. When I asked how many directors had been required to pay out of their own resources deficiencies of companies put into compulsory liquidation during each of the last five years he regretted that the information was not readily available but said that inquiries would be made of official receivers and he would write to me when the information was to hand. Unfortunately that time has not yet arrived.
The object of the Bill is simple. At present company notepaper and certain other documents must contain the names of directors. I am asking in the Bill that
1328
in addition it should be stated on such documents the number of times each director has held office in companies put into compulsory liquidation during the previous five-year period. This would not penalise the innocent because they could apply for exemption, but it would mean that those who use the present system of limited liability to take away the money of others would at least be held in the limelight and would, I hope, be inspired to indulge in such action far less.
I wrote to the appropriate Minister on this subject and I received in reply a letter from the noble Lord, Lord Limerick who said that he disagreed with my proposal but hoped that some way could be found
"of improving disclosure in this area, because I agree that adequate disclosure to shareholders has a vital role to play in improving the efficiency of company management."
The noble Lord, with respect, totally missed the point. It is important that shareholders should be protected and that companies should be efficiently managed. It is of even greater importance that the jobs of my constituents should be protected and, in addition, that those ordinary people who buy goods from companies which then go into liquidation and who cannot obtain spare parts or service in respect of those goods should be protected in their very much greater numbers.
The range of companies which the Bill seeks to encompass runs from the small builder who takes money from an individual and then goes into liquidation in the middle of a job, to companies such as Rolls-Royce, the liquidation of which left many small companies which supplied Rolls-Royce with spare parts in dire straits and consequently left many thousands of people in my constituency and others without jobs.
The Bill will make life more difficult for the man who seeks to put his limited liability before the welfare of those who are owed money by the company.
The CBI recently commented on this—and unfortunately that comment has not been given the airing it should have been given. The report of Lord Watkinson's Committee said:
"It appears to be too easy for directors of a company which has failed to meet its liabilities. financially or otherwise, or which is

1329
under investigation by the Department of Trade and Industry, to set up a new company or to be appointed to directorships in other companies. Consideration should be given to the introduction of a provision in the next revision of the Companies Act which would prohibit the appointment of any such individual to the board of another company except with the approval of the Department of Trade and Industry."
I agree with that comment, but there is a much simpler and more immediate step which can be taken by a simple addition to one section of the Companies Act which would require fuller disclosure.
The matter was set in proper perspective a long time ago by W. S. Gilbert in "Utopia Limited". In concluding this brief submission to the House, I hope I may be permitted to read three verses which I think set the matter on a proper footing and with a relevance which has not changed over the years
"Some seven men form an Association
(If possible, all Peers and Baronets),
They start off with a public declaration
To what extent they mean to pay their debts.
That's called their Capital: if they are wary
They will not quote it at a sum immense.
The figure's immaterial—it may wary
From eighteen million down to eighteenpence.
I should put it rather low;
The good sense of doing so
Will be evident at once to any debtor.
When it's left to you to say
What amount you mean to pay,
Why the lower you can put it at, the better.…
They then proceed to trade with all who'll trust 'em,
Quite irrespective of their capital
(It's shady, but it's sanctified by custom); Bank, Railway, Loan, or Panama Canal.
You can't embark on trading too tremendous—
It's strictly fair, and based on common sense—
If you succeed, your profits are stupendous—
And if you fail, pop goes your eighteen-pence.
Make the money-spinner spin!
For you only stand to win,
And you'll never with dishonesty be twitted,
1330
For nobody can know,
To a million or so,
To what extent your capital's committed!"
Then comes the final verse:
"If you come to grief, and creditors are craving
(For nothing that is planned by mortal head
Is certain in this Vale of Sorrow—saving
That one's Liability is Limited),—
Do you suppose that signifies perdition?
If so you're but a monetary dunce—
You merely file a Winding-Up Petition,
And start another Company at once!"
Several Hon. Members: Encore!
Mr. Janner: The encores have been given through the centuries. They have brought no result whatever. Therefore, I hope that my Bill will bring some results for it will remove the cosmetics from the unacceptable and ugly face of capitalism. It will let directors of defaulting companies stand in the limelight and will make their position infinitely more uncomfortable. It will protect people and therefore I hope that this brief and admirable measure will be passed in due course on the nod. In the meantime I hope that I shall be given leave to introduce it.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Greville Janner, Mr. Stanley Orme, Mr. Tom Driberg, Mr. Clinton Davis, Mr. Donald Stewart, Mr. Peter Archer, Miss Betty Boothroyd, Mr. J. D. Concannon, Mr. Gerald Kaufman, Mr. Kevin McNamara, Mr. John Prescott.

DIRECTORS OF INSOLVENT COMPANIES
Bill to amend the law relating to directors of insolvent companies, presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 20th July and to be printed. [Bill 165.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY
  SUPPLY
  [22ND ALLOTTED DAY],—considered.

REGIONAL POLICY
Mr. Speaker: Before I call the right hon. Member for Stepney (Mr. Shore) to move the motion, I must inform the House that I have selected the amendment in the names of the Prime Minister and his right hon. Friends, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and add instead thereof
"acknowledges the declared intention of the European Communities to ensure the harmonious development of the economies of Member States by reducing the differences existing between the various regions, welcomes the progress made by the EEC Commission towards a Regional Development Fund, and recognises that this House will wish to debate these issues."
3.58 p.m.
Mr. Peter Shore: I beg to move
That this House calls upon Her Majesty's Government not to accept any decision of the EEC Commission affecting the regional policies of the United Kingdom until this House has debated and approved it.
It will be noted, not only from the words in the motion but from the way in which we have entitled it, that this debate is about United Kingdom regional policy and the EEC. This is to make clear from the start that what we are discussing is not the emergence, uncertain, even hypothetical as it is, of a Common Market regional policy, which is what the Government's amendment addresses itself to. We are talking about something much more immediate, more certain and more depressing, and that is the control of our own regional policy by the EEC.
Our motion deals with the Community rules which will affect the prosperity and the jobs of a very large area of Britain. It affects the development and special development areas in Scotland, Wales, the North, Merseyside and the far South-West and also the intermediate areas which embrace a larger part of Yorkshire, Lancashire, the Erewash Valley and other smaller areas in South Wales, in Scotland and in Devon. It is a matter of the utmost importance to millions of
1332
our fellow countrymen and to hon. Members on both sides of the House.
The problem arises because under Article 154 of the Treaty of Accession the Government have accepted that the Commission's rules on regional policy as formulated and agreed between the Six on 23rd June 1971
"shall apply to the new Member States on 1st July 1973 at the latest".
In other words, in five days' time, on 1st July, the British Government will cease to be self-determining in regional policy and can conduct only such regional policies as the Commission in Brussels is prepared to allow. We are faced not only with an imminent and practical decision of the utmost importance, but with yet another deplorable example of the folly of those who allowed the transfer of democratic decision-making which the Treaty entailed. No wonder Ministers concerned have said and wished to say so little about what these new Brussels restraints involve. No wonder that, despite insistent and tenacious questioning from the Opposition it has been left to Her Majesty's Opposition to provide in their own Supply time an opportunity to debate this matter only a few days before the new Community rules apply here in have tabled an amendment which they know is not relevant to the subject under debate.
Let no one think that the Opposition are unwilling to debate the Community's regional policy, with which the Government's amendment deals. We are eager to do so. But the Government know, as we know, that we shall be able to do this much better and before very long—certainly long before the recess—and in the light of the proposals, as distinct from the broad principles, which Mr. Thomson, the responsible Commissioner, is shortly to present to the Council of Ministers. We shall have the full text and draft of those proposals within a fortnight. That te—and we shall have it—will probably turn out to be one of great embarrassment for the Government—one as embarrassing as any that their supporters have had to endure.
The myth of a strong Community regional policy assisted by Community

1333
funds and operating to the clear benefit of the United Kingdom, helping to offset the burdens upon us of the CAP, as Mr. Thomson knows, will then and quite soon be exploded. We all read about last week's conference on this subject, and we know the views of Mr. Jerome Monod, the French regional planner, that the regional development fund should be, in his words, "relatively modest in size". We all know that as a new Community policy the common regional policy will require the unanimous consent of all the member States. If anyone imagines that we shall get a large and helpful regional policy financed in a way which will be helpful to Britain, he is in for a severe disappointment, and very soon.
We shall have time—and that I promise the Government because we have some Supply days—to return to these matters of the common regional policy. We shall have time to discuss them fully, and we shall do so. But for the Government to try to switch this debate to this quite separate matter is a transparent manoeuvre.
Let me turn to the matter that we seek to debate, the matter which is now so pressing and so important. It is the matter of the decision to be taken by the Commission by the end of this month, a matter affecting the whole future of Britain's own regional policy.
The Community's rules will affect our regional policy in three separate ways. First, they will decide which parts of the United Kingdom in future are to be called "peripheral" areas or so-called "central" areas. Our present system of special development areas, development areas and intermediate areas will be made to fit into this new European classification.
Secondly, in the central areas as defined by the Community new maxima as to the quantity of aid to be received by industry will be imposed. A 20 per cent. ceiling is to be laid down and we shall have to desist, unless we obtain a specific Commission waiv from making payments in excess at limit.
Thirdly, the type of aid will have to be changed so that what the Community calls "opaque" forms of aid—those which are not directly measurable or assessable—are phased out and disallowed.
1334
The Commission's policy will affect our regions in these three ways. But by how much and which regions we have yet to know. We have not had the benefit of a single statement on this matter by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. The questions that we have put to him again and again have been stonewalled or blocked.
When the right hon. Gentleman made his last post-EEC Council meeting statement on 23rd May I pressed him specifically on this point. He replied:
"The right hon. Gentleman asked whether the recent outcome of the discussions by the Commission would penalise the whole arrangements we have for helping our assisted areas. I can reassure him. It seems exceedingly unlikely. As I have said in the statement, it is our determined intention to see that we are not put in a position when we are obliged to reduce the incentives we currently make available for the regions."
I was not satisfied then and I pressed him further about what would happen if the Commission's policies clashed with those of Her Majesty's Government. The right hon. Gentleman refused to be drawn and contented himself with this sibylline utterance:
"I have resisted hitherto, and propose to go on resisting, outlining what course of action might be necessary if there were to be the hypothetical dispute to which the right hon. Gentleman refers. I can only say that I do not believe that we are without recourse, but beyond that I will not go."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd May, 1973; Vol. 857, c. 477–89.]
That is the most recent statement—indeed the only statement of any protracted length—that we have had from the Minister responsible on this important matter about which a decision is to be made affecting half the area geographically of the country and nearly one-third of its population within a very few days —[Interruption.] If the Minister for Industrial Development thinks that that is a matter on which the Government are to be congratulated, I can only say that he has little understanding of what is wanted in the House and in the country on regional policy.
The time for evasion and for the short statement is now over. We must now know how Article 154 of the Treaty of Accession is to be applied in the United Kingdom regions. So I ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster direct: will any or all of the intermediate areas of the United Kingdom be brought within

1335
the Community's definition of central areas and thus made subject to the 20 per cent. ceiling on regional aid laid down for those central areas? Are any of the development areas of Britain to be brought within the Community's classification of central areas? Specifically, can the right hon. Gentleman deny reports that significant parts of Cornwall and Devon in our present South-West Development Area are in future to be deemed central areas? Will the right hon. Gentleman also deny that neither the Northern Region nor the Merseyside Region are brought, in whole or in part, within the central area classification of the EEC?
Will the right hon. Gentleman also tell us which, if any, of our types of aid have been ruled as opaque or insufficiently transparent and thus requiring to be changed? Will he assure us that the regional employment premium is not to be disallowed and that the free depreciation and initial allowances now available to British industry on what is a generous scale are not to be ruled out on the same score?
Those are serious questions. I do not know what the right hon. Gentleman's answers will be, although I hope devoutly that he will be able to give the assurances that the House and the country require. We shall not be content on this occasion, so near to the moment of decision, with generalities.
It will not do for the right hon. Gentleman to tell us, as he told the conference arranged by the Glasgow Herald in Brussels last Tuesday, that present levels of assistance in the United Kingdom should be maintained and that this requirement could be met even if Britain's present development areas were classified as central. That will not do. Quite apart from the question of depreciation and initial allowances and how they are considered in terms of counting towards the 20 per cent. ceiling, it will not do for the additional reason that in the Government's own Industry Act provision is made for the percentage of aid permitted for the assisted areas of Britain, which includes 20 per cent. on all equipment and on all buildings throughout the intermediate areas and development areas and 22 per cent. for the special development areas.
1336
In addition, in Section 8 of the same Act, we have special aids with a monetary total of £250 million to spend, in the first instance, covering a whole range of additional forms of assistance other than direct grants for buildings and new equipment. This applies to the intermediate areas, and it is well in excess of the 20 per cent. limit which would be imposed upon us if our intermediate areas, let alone any development areas, were brought within the definition of a central area.
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: Has my right hon. Friend noted the further point that the rulings of the Commission, if they go ahead as we expect, will rule out the uprating of intermediate areas to development area level if they are in the central area and that the North-West, of which the Chancellor of the Duchy should have special knowledge, has persistently and over a long period under the present Government had a higher male unemployment rate than the Welsh development area?
Mr. Shore: I fully understand my hon. Friend's point. In a sense, this is the heart of the whole matter. He and I and others may argue about which of the various regions and sub-regions of Britain over particular periods are most in need of aid. We could argue amongst ourselves which should have priority at a particular time. But all that debate is over after this decision. It will not be a decision for the British Government; it will be a decision to be taken after consultation and ultimately on the authority of the Commission in Brussels. So we are entering an entirely new era of regional policy.
I told the right hon. Gentleman that we should not be satisfied with general replies or statements of the kind that he has given before. It will not do for him to tell the House that the Commission—again, I refer to his recent speech—is rethinking its present classifications of peripheral and central areas and that it might in time, but not before we have been forced to make changes in Britain, be persuaded to add a third category. Nor will we take it from him that the Commission's restraints are good for us because they stop competitive bidding for the favours of multi-national companies. We have heard that too

1337
often, as though the only matter about which we were concerned in the creation of jobs and the movements of firms was vast international companies. On the contrary, we are greatly concerned with the movements of firms within this country as well.
First, we shall not be satisfied because, as we all know, the present 20 per cent. ceiling in the central areas is only the first step towards a tight control over the regional policies of member States. The Commission has clearly stated its intention to lower such ceilings in future: the 20 per cent. will come down. Secondly, we shall not be satisfied because the next step after disciplining the central areas is to bring the peripheral areas under Community regional control.
Thirdly, we shall not be satisfied because we believe that the dominant force at work in deciding State aids for the regions is not the puny infant of a Community regional policy that Mr. George Thomson is now nursing, but the fully grown and adult competition policy of M. Borschette, and behind him lies not only 14 years of free market policies in the EEC, but the precise provisions of the Treaty of Rome dealing with the subject of State aids. In other words, this whole matter, the subject of our motion, is not even within the area of Community regional policy; it is part of Community competition policy for which M. Borschette is responsible, and his views on these matters inevitably prevail. [An HON. MEMBER: "They do not."] They certainly prevail on the matter of State aid. If my hon. Friend, who takes a different view on the whole question, is thinking in terms of future Community regional policy, well and good. That, indeed, comes under the competence of Mr. Thomson. But do not let us confuse the matter. The Government have an interest in confusing it.
Mr. John Brewis: Would it not be right to round off the right hon. Gentleman's review by mentioning the social policy which has put forward proposals for employment premiums in rundown areas?
Mr. Shore: I am willing to discuss the common social policy so far as it has emerged in discussing the common
1338
regional policy. I hope that long before the House recesses, when these matters have advanced to a stage beyond general principles and reached some clarity in their policy profiles, there will be time to debate that matter and that it will be soon.
What matters to us, above all, is that unless the House can intervene from 1st July—I take up the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Arwick (Mr. Kaufman)—the British Government will have abandoned the power to decide regional policy in the United Kingdom and transferred it to agencies outside this country and not responsible to this Parliament and to the people of this land. The reins of this control may now be very slack, but the bit will be in our mouths; and it will be for others, not the British Parliament, to decide which way and how hard the bit will be pulled in the years ahead.
I can understand those who say that in some matters—defence and the environment are examples—some pooling of sovereignty is necessary in the modern world. But what I cannot understand is how anyone in this House could bring himself to accept that in a matter so sensitive to his constituents, to their hopes of employment and prosperity, the British Parliament and Government should give up the power to make decisions in future and accept the proposition that the gentlemen in Brussels know best.
Let us be clear that on this matter of deciding what State regional aids are to be permitted, it is not even the Council of Ministers that has the power of decision, but the Commission itself under Articles 92 to 94 of the Treaty of Rome.
I hope that the House will turn down this deliberately irrelevant Government amendment.
Mr. Christopher Mayhew: Would my right hon. Friend clarify a statement? He came close to saying that we should vote against the principle of surrendering our sovereignty in the matter of regional planning. Did he go as far as that?
Mr. Shore: Yes, I did, and I shall do so again rather more strongly. I hope that hon. Members will assert themselves today in support of our motion, in support of their constituents, and in support of the continuing authority of the House

1339
of Commons. Whatever happens today in the Lobbies, let there be no doubt in the country or in Europe that the next Labour Government will take back those powers over regional policy which the Treaty of Accession and the present Government have so wantonly transferred.
4.18 p.m.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. John Davies): I beg to move as an amendment, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof
"acknowledges the declared intention of the European Communities to ensure the harmonious development of the economies of Member States by reducing the differences existing between the various regions, welcomes the progress made by the EEC Commission towards a Regional Development Fund, and recognises that this House will wish to debate these issues."
The Opposition motion introduced by the right hon. Member for Stepney (Mr. Shore), not untypically, seeks to imply that the Community is wholly indifferent to our type of regional problems. It seeks to imply thereby that the Community will restrain us from giving nationally the kind of assistance that we deem necessary, will not develop any arrangements to help us from Community resources, and will reach conclusions on both these steps without taking into account the wishes of Parliament and the Government. In those terms, the motion is wrong on every count.
Therefore, my right hon. Friends and I have put down an amendment which seeks to put the facts as they really are—first, that, from the inception of the Community, and, indeed, embedded in the Treaty of Rome, there has been a firm provision showing the concern that the original Community countries have had to eliminate regional disparities, and, second, to provide to the new Community countries realisation of the fact that our regional problems are not the same as those of the original Six and that they therefore require new initiatives to deal with them.
Our amendment therefore implies, correctly, that, both at the Summit meeting of Heads of Government and Heads of rently topical one and I propose to deal with it, as I propose also, however to deal with the whole issue of the Regional Development Fund.
1340
Third, our amendment seeks to underline the fact that Parliament has had and continues to have the fullest access to every move in this debate, that it profoundly influences the Ministers concerned and that the method of work of the Community itself ensures our ability to contribute to the formulation of policies and prevents conclusions from being reached which are against our major national interests.
Mr. Neil Marten: In that case, can my right hon. Friend now add to our amendment the words, from the Opposition motion, "and approve the policy"? This is the essence of the matter, certainly from my point of view —that Parliament must approve this most important proposition. Will he say that Parliament should approve it?
Mr. Davies: I will deal with the specific matter that my hon. Friend mentions in the course of my speech. On the first point that I have mentioned—the concern shown in the Community for regional policies generally—I can do no better than to quote from the Preamble to the Treaty of Rome, which said that the partners stated their anxieties:
"…to strengthen the unity of their economies and to ensure their harmonious development by reducing the differences existing between the various regions and the backwardness of the less favoured regions …."
That in its turn was supplemented in the Summit conclusions of last October:
"The Heads of State or of Government agreed that a high priority should be given to the aim of correcting in the Community, the structural and regional imbalances …".
These are clear evidences which cannot be overturned by mere generalised statements of the kind used by the right hon. Member for Stepney (Mr. Shore) of the Community's concern and its preparedness to deal with the problems involved.
Second, referring to what I said about the Community's knowledge of our own particular problem, I should like to turn in some detail to the two facets of regional policies as they arise at present. There was certainly no intention within the amendment to evade the question of Article 154. On the contrary, I think that the so-called Article 154 aspect is a cur-State and within the Commission since the enlargement of the Community on 1st January, there have been these initiatives to try to deal with our problem.

1341
The background to Article 154 of the Treaty of Accession is that, in 1971, with the agreement of the six then member States, the Commission decided certain principles governing the co-ordination of regional aids throughout the then Community. Both parties also agreed on certain methods by which those principles would be applied. It is the application of those principles which involved the definition for the old member countries, the former Six, of "central" areas in which the limit of 20 per cent. net susidy equivalent was applied to regional assistance for individual projects.
I would underline the fact that the 20 per cent. is by no means an ungenerous limit. Could I put it in context? Currently, within our intermediate areas, for instance, our standard aids, measured according to the Community's form of computation, would be the equivalent of approximately 4 per cent. in the same terms. So let us not imagine that the 20 per cent., which is the restraining maximum, is a tight one that will severely inhibit us in any respect.
Mr. Shore: Could the right hon. Gentleman elucidate a little more on how 20 per cent. becomes 4 per cent. through the mathematics that take place?
Mr. Davies: The right hon. Gentleman's command of mathematics is perhaps less than his command of invective. The 4 per cent. to which I referred is the effective level of aid which we apply by standard methods in the intermediate areas, measured in accordance with the Community's terms, and it compares with the 20 per cent. limit. When the right hon. Gentleman seeks to steam up the whole issue of what this restraint means, he entirely fails to realise what the true effect is.
It is worth stressing that neither the actual territorial division agreed by the Six nor the initial division into only two types of area within the meaning of the 1971 agreement is a "principle" of co-ordination. They are simply the methods chosen to apply the principles agreed to the Six. The same consideration also applies to the 20 per cent. limit itself. It is not an inherent principle of these arrangements but a method agreed between the parties for the implementation of the principles.
Mr. Edward Taylor: Is my right hon. Friend then saying—this is very important and will be reassuring to the intermediate areas—that, if those areas were classified as central, there would be no need to alter the existing aids that they receive?
Mr. Davies: I would say that that is certainly the broad inference of what I say precisely. In the answer that I gave the right hon. Gentleman the other day, to which he referred, I clearly said that the Government's intent was to ensure that we were not obliged, through any of these arrangements, to reduce the level of aids that we are currently giving to our assisted areas.
I should now like to draw attention to the terms of Article 154 of the Treaty of Accession. This provides that the principles to which I have referred, adopted by the Six in 1971, should apply to the new member States at the latest by 1st July next. For Article 154 to be carried into effect, two things have to happen. The Commission has to supplement its original communication in a manner which both takes account of the fact that the Community of Nine is a different animal from that of the Six, with a different range and intensity of regional problems, and gives a result which puts all the member States in the same situation in respect both of the principles and of the methods of application of those principles.
So the effect of the action to be taken by 1st July is not simply to deal with the three new members, entirely exterior to the situation of the existing Six, but to reach a conformity in the Nine in relation to those principles. The member States must supplement their original resolution in a similar manner, because this was a twofold operation—the Commission and the member States working together—and it must again be the same.
The significance of the supplementation of the Commission's communication by a resolution by representatives of the member States was that it represented the conclusion of an understanding between them. The Commission formally stated its policy on the application of State aids in regional policy and the resolution in effect embodies the concurrence in that policy of other member States.

1343
The right hon. Gentleman asks, what if that concurrence were not forthcoming in response to a supplementation by the Commission in respect of its 1971 principles? He was asking what happens if we do not find ourselves able to agree. If I felt that such an outcome were likely, I should have very seriously to contemplate —indeed, it is naturally part of one's reserve thinking to have done so—what steps are available. But the matter does not need to be considered. I do not consider there to be the least likelihood that there would not be the concurrence to which I have referred.
Mr. Ted Leadbitter: To what extent does the right hon. Gentleman expect the House to be assured on the matters to which he is now referring? I am a member of the Select Committee on Science and Technology. The Common Market's headquarters will not allow a Select Committee of the House of Commons to go there to discuss formally matters of major importance to the House. Secondly, it will not allow the normal rules of procedure to apply in taking evidence. Thirdly, it will allow us to go there only if we give an undertaking that we shall not even take a shorthand writer with us.
Mr. Davies: I can only sympathise with the hon. Gentleman's problems, but they have nothing to do with the question of regional policy in the Community. I entirely appreciate the problems, but it would be difficult to assert that the Commission has not been extremely willing to accept Select Committees. This is not germane to this question.
I consider it highly unlikely that there would be a case of failure to concur between the member States and the Commission in this matter. Secondly, if there were a disagreement between the member States and the Commission, broadly speaking we should have all the very many recourses which have been discussed very frequently in the House. But I do not think it practical or useful today to consider them, because the situation simply does not arise. The House will realise, therefore, that the effect of the rather complex system of the supplementation and concurrence, to which I have referred, is to ensure that we have a very full voice ourselves in
1344
the settlement of the situation arising out of Article 154.
The right hon. Gentleman then asked about Articles 92, 93 and 94 of the Community Treaty which deal with the question of the rules of competition. The right hon. Gentleman is right. These articles provide mechanisms whereby the Commission may seek to impose its views on a member State without the agreement of that State. But the fact is that the Commission does not do so. It invariably consults the member States concerned, and in reaching its conclusions takes account of their fundamental interests. The issue is entirely without base. The fact is that the Commission does not do so.
As far as regional aids were concerned, it was not until 1971 that, in the process of consultation, the Commission was even able to reach a frame of reference in relation to the restraint to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred. Now it has to be decided what the extension will be in the enlarged Community.
The Summit decision should coordinate regional policies throughout the Community and the Commission's own report on regional policy in the enlarged Community points to the need to work for a more sophisticated and effective system than the tentative first steps embodied in the 1971 documents. This is work which Her Majesty's Government fully support, for the very reason that the right hon. Gentleman stated. It does restrain excessive bidding up for mobile projects, and they are not only mobile projects emanating from international combines but mobile projects emanating from a very wide range of sources throughout the Community and elsewhere. On the other hand, let there be no belief that this is simply a device of one kind or another to try to stop international combines from enjoying some benefit that we would contribute. It is inherent in the whole question of industrial development in the Community.
Mr. Shore: The right hon. Gentleman has made the point that no great conflict has emerged between the Commission and the Government in discussing with them the future of British regional policy. As it is only fair that he should answer this question, there being only three days

1345
before the whole matter is to be announced and decided, surely he can tell the House whether or not any of the existing intermediate or development areas of this country are to be changed in the kind of aid that they receive, and which of them will be classified as peripheral areas and which as central areas?
Mr. Davies: The right hon. Gentleman's quite understandable interest in this matter will be very shortly satisfied. This matter has been and is the subject of discussion, and I certainly do not propose to breach those discussions at present. The fact is that the arrangements of a more sophisticated kind, to which I have referred, seem to us to be very much of interest to us as a country. I hope that it will prove possible to bring this more sophisticated system to fruition during the course of next year, at the time when we have the result of the work which is being carried out by Mr. George Thomson in relation to the Regional Development Fund. This is germane.
In the interim what we need is some arrangement which will carry the Community over the intervening period without disruption and without prejudice to the future.
In the talks in Brussels and elsewhere in recent months we have made it plain that we could not agree to arrangements which involve the enforced cutting-back of aids and the coverage of aids which we at present make available to our regions. We have made it plain that it would, in our view, be wrong to prejudge the outcome of a proper and deep-seated review of regional aids in the Community which cannot, inevitably, take place for some time yet. The first formal step is, of course, for the Commission to take and it is possible that the Commission will very soon come to a collective view. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to be under the mistaken impression that individual Commissioners could, independently of their colleagues, take decisions which had nothing in common with the normal consultative processes of the Commission. He is wrong. There is a normal process which operates within the Commission.
Assuming that that view meets our basic requirements as I have outlined
1346
them—and which I confidently believe to be so and which I believe to be views shared by both sides of the House as to the desirable outcome—there will be no difficulty about the acceptability of the conclusion. There would certainly be nothing in the arrangements of this kind which cuts across decisions taken by this House in the past, either.
In the immediate the two issues—that is, the Article 154 issues and the Regional Development Fund issues—are separate, so that no identification of areas as central areas carries any implication of availability or non-availability of aid from the Regional Development Fund. Approach to the latter has been, on this side, independent of this activity, on lines which are entirely consonant with our own views on regional policy. The Commission paper, to which reference has been made, carefully analysed the facts of regional imbalance in the Community. It has reached a conclusion which identifies, as we would have done to a large degree, structural unemployment, low regional income per head and outward migration—
Mr. Edward Milne: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Can anything be done to protect the House from a Minister of the Crown reporting on an important matter of this kind by not referring to either the amendment or the motion before the House?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): Order. That is not a matter for the Chair.
Mr. Davies: Clearly the hon. Gentleman has not been listening. I am sorry about that.
The Commission paper, which has been the work of the section of the Commission under Mr. Thomson, has identified structural unemployment, low regional income per head and outward migration as being the prime indicators of regional deficiencies. Indeed, this broad analysis would compare with our own, and has been discussed within the Council of Ministers and has enjoyed the broad support of the Council.
Mr. Geoffrey Rhodes (Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East): Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Davies: The hon. Gentleman should let me get on with my speech,

1347
because time is slipping away. The reasons for Community support are seen not in terms of simply the remedying of regional deterioration which might or might not be created by industrial factors but as a Community interest to overcome imbalance in order to attain the maximum use of the resources in the interests of the Community itself—human resources and natural resources, and investment resources, clearly.
The next step is to be concerned with criteria for the selection of areas and projects which would enjoy support from the Regional Development Fund. The method of support would be either direct from the Community or indirect through the national efforts of national regional policies. There is a need, obviously, for an early definition of the size of the effort through the RDF to be considered.
It is probable that when that next phase is agreed, as it will be in the course of the year, the criteria to which I have been referring for regional selection will also serve as the basis for the restraint mechanisms to which I have been addressing myself under Article 154. At that point the two will tend to converge. It is also envisaged to have a Community committee which is permanently concerned with keeping both sides of the policy under consideration.
As to the last point which is implied in the Motion—that Parliament or government is being disregarded—the Opposition's contention is utterly unrealistic and springs from an inadequate understanding reinforced by the Opposition's deliberate non-involvement in the problem.
The fact is that with regard to executive decisions made in the European context Parliament has just as much influence as it does on Her Majesty's Government in relation to domestic policies. [Laughter.] Is the House really saying that it believes that it has no effect on policies—in which case what is the right hon. Gentleman raising so much trouble about? Surely what I say is correct, that the House has as much access to put pressure and emphasis on Ministers in these matters as it does in domestic affairs.
The right hon. Gentleman will know, because he is a member of the Select Committee, that a Select Committee has
1348
itself come up with interim proposals which have to a large degree been accepted by the Government. The fact that we have not yet got a final report is due largely, as the right hon. Gentleman must know, to the late arrival into that committee of the Labour Party. I can only welcome the early arrival of a final report in that matter and the acceptance of any reasonable proposals which can be made.
I think that on all scores the Motion is entirely out of tune with the realities of the case. I consider that on the whole we have to look forward to benefit, not damage, from the Community in relation to our regional efforts. I am convinced that that is so. I ask the House to support the Government amendment and to reject the Motion.
Mr. Marten: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I apologise for raising a point of order in this short debate. Before you arrived in the Chair, I intervened to ask my right hon. Friend why the Government amendment could not also include the words "and approved the policy". My right hon. Friend has not answered that question. I should be grateful if you would allow him time, in case he forgot to answer it, to answer it right now.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. As the hon. Gentleman knows very well, that is not a point of order.
4.42 p.m.
Mr. J. Grimond: I regret that the shortness of the debate prevents the Minister from expanding a little on his statement that Parliament has as much effect on Brussels as it does on the Government at Westminster. As the House realises, that statement is open to several constructions.
No one who has been to Brussels or studied the documents can doubt that the European Economic Community is deeply concerned about regional policies. On 3rd May this year the Community produced a large report which, as the Secretary of State pointed out, quotes the communiqué of the Heads of State saying that high priority should be given to these matters.
I shall address myself to the principles and methods by which the Community

1349
intends to carry out its regional policy. I am not wholly satisfied with the results of our own regional policy. It has had successes, but I do not think that it is by any means a complete success. I am not sure what the Secretary of State meant when he said that the Community's policy would be more sophisticated. I believe that certain changes are needed in the whole approach to regional policies, but I do not think that sophistication is what is necessary.
We have now had considerable experience of trying to improve conditions in certain areas, whether those areas be under-developed areas at home, or underdeveloped countries abroad. This experience has gone on for some time. A most interesting book has just been published about the efforts made to develop the Highlands after the Forty-Five. Those efforts were similar to the efforts being made today. Apparently, they were successful in some ways and in many ways not successful. And they failed partly because they did not take into account the way of life of the Highlands. The failure of regional policy has sometimes been due to the failure to define our aims. The aims of the Common Market regional policy are to right the imbalance between the regions and, in the words of the amendment, to reduce
"the differences existing between the various regions".
These imbalances or differences are chiefly the differences—
Mr. Ted Leadbitter: Would the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that in debating the amendment we are not talking about regional policies? Does he intend to say whether he accepts that we should debate proposals and approve them?
Mr. Grimond: The amendment is about regional policies. It has been moved. Therefore, it is in order and I intend to make a speech about it.
The imbalances are largely the difference between income per head in Hamburg, at one end of the scale, at 4,700 dollars on the average and in Calabria, on the other, at 756 dollars per head. They are to some extent about unemployment.
1350
The aim to close this difference is an important aim, but it is only one of the aims that should be in the forefront of regional policy. One feature that these figures do not take into account is the differences of life in these places. They are founded on statistics which are open to grave suspicion. For instance, our own statistics are founded on leaving out women's work entirely and counting in such things as the production of drugs: thalidomide comes into our statistics, but not women's work. As for unemployment statistics, those for my constituency are even more suspect. Further, there is the element of depopulation, which is important.
Finally and most important, one of the aims of regional policy should be to foster the distinctive character of the regions and give them more control over their own affairs and enable them to retain their cleverest and most enterprising people instead of losing them to all the conurbations and also to enable the different regions of Europe to make their contribution to the whole. Therefore, it is not sufficient to establish work of any sort on some central policy, work which may have no roots in the region concerned, which may be given entirely through branch factories which may be liable to be closed if there is anything in the nature of a slump.
Secondly, the failure of regional policy is frequently a failure to decentralise decision making. This is relevant to our entry into the Common Market. Population and wealth follow on decisions and where they are made. For instance, if the capital of Great Britain were transferred to Sunderland or Inverness, there would be an enormous access of wealth and employment in those areas. So long as decision making, whether governmental, economic, or social, is concentrated in certain great conurbations, the other areas will suffer, because they will lose their best people and much of their wealth.
Thirdly, we must deliberately try to improve the environment in the regions which we wish to promote through investment, investment for physical and social and economic purposes. This is exactly what we are not doing. We shall have an enormous investment in Maplin and in the Channel Tunnel—these projects are going to the South-East of England,

1351
not to the development areas—and great investment in the House of Commons. We have already spent more than £1,000 million on Concorde. Of what benefit is that to any regional policy? Absolutely none.
I know that these are British policies, but I suspect that they will be continued in the Common Market. I am not satisfied with them and I see no reason to suppose that our entry into the Common Market will by itself reverse them. We are heavily subsidising London, particularly over transport. It is not true that we are subsidising only the outlying parts of the country.
The European regional policy should begin with the question of where the decisions are to be made. If everything is to be concentrated on Brussels and the Golden Triangle, the policy is doomed to fail from the start. All of history shows that. There is also a realisation in many regions that they do not want capital-intensive industries. They wish to retain their people and to have labour-intensive industries.
Are the Government pushing these considerations in Brussels? If so, can they say what they are telling the Community about the establishment of regional offices? How are they to administer the Community policies? Will it be entirely through Governments, through Brussels, or how else? I see the great danger of the Regional Development Fund being regarded as a quid pro quo for the CAP, and that is not what it is all about.
There are many questions still to be answered about what benefits we may expect from certain other aspects of the Community institutions. The Social Fund was mentioned, but we have not been told by the Government if it is available for regional development. There is also the European Investment Bank. How far is the European Coal and Steel Community interested in regional development? These are questions which we have the right to put to the Government and which the Government should put to Brussels.
We should get some sort of report back from Brussels about what the policies will be. There is the possibility that the status of certain areas, such as parts of the South-West of England, might be changed. That would be disastrous. There is also
1352
the question whether we should be allowed to continue help to transport and retain the regional employment premium. These are legitimate matters to raise in a debate of this sort, even though we may not be debating the whole impact of regional policy. We must press the Government not simply to be allowed to maintain their existing policies, which are only partially successful and are open to criticism, but to go for a departure in regional development which will be based on some devolution of decision making and take into account the various potentialities of the different regions.
This is a good but highly bureaucratic report. It seems to assume that the Europeans are essentially all of one type: they are not. They are culturally, historically and economically entirely different. I press the Government not only to maintain our rights to continue with what is good in our policies, but to take fresh initiatives in Brussels so that we may have a more successful policy than we have had in the past.
4.54 p.m.
Mr. John Brewis: The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) touched on many uncertainties of European regional policy and I hope that I shall be able to mention some of them. We should welcome the statement by Mr. George Thomson, the Commissioner responsible for regional development. Until now any footloose international industry or national firm has been able to shop around to see in which European country the highest inducements can be obtained. On many occasions, countries were prepared to outbid each other to get a desirable project and if that is so it merely means that more inducements are being given than are necessary to persuade industry to establish itself in new locations.
When the new regional policy comes into force the more glaring inequalities between the various inducements offered will be ironed out and I am sure that in improving the conditions of the Highlands or Calabria a free-for-all on inducements is not necessary. For many years Britain has operated a disincentive policy in the congested areas by withholding industrial development certificates. It has been impossible, however, to enforce that policy too rigidly. Even during the years

1353
of the Labour Government the major part of new factory building was in the non-development areas. If a multi-national company says that it will expand at Dagenham or go abroad, it is extremely difficult to argue with it and in the many years that we were out of the European Community we lost a great many jobs and much investment through our companies setting up abroad.
Mr. John Biffen: Does my hon. Friend therefore think that with subsequent United Kingdom membership of the Community the rate of investment by United Kingdom firms in the Community will diminish rather than increase?
Mr. Brewis: I have today received a paper on what is going on which shows that a German electronics firm is to set up in Scotland, so that the investment is obviously going both ways.
I wanted to discuss the proposal in the regional policy to tackle congestion. It has much to recommend it. So far, we have no details of how congestion in the big conurbations is proposed to be tackled. It might be by a tax, and that seems most probable. It will take the strain off the need for vast expenditure on infrastructure such as hospitals, housing and motorways in a great megalopolis like London. In time, a congestion disincentive policy would improve the environment as is happening in Glasgow now with the policy of overspill to attractive new towns.
Another advantage of a congestion tax is that it would cost the Exchequer nothing. Such a tax could have been counter-productive when Britain was not in the Community. But if it is at a harmonised rate and is levied in the 20 or so largest conurbations in the Community it might be a most invaluable weapon in regional policy. Such a tax could well help with the solution of the problem of the intermediate areas. I would envisage that the IDC system will continue and will be quite acceptable to the European Commission. But if we try to include all the assisted areas in Britain in the European regional policy, we shall be seeking to cover 65 per cent. of the land surface of the British Isles and 55 per cent. of the people.
1354
There are even deeper disparities of income on the Continent. In my part of South-West Scotland in 1972 the unemployment rate was 5·8 per cent. That was the fourth highest in Britain after Northern Ireland, the Highlands and North-West Wales. But in Belgium, there were seven regions worse off and in Italy more than 40. If 3·5 per cent. were to be regarded as the threshold for help in the European regional policy a large part of the land area could be covered and there would be a danger of spreading the jam much too thinly. Our experience has been that regional policy is more effective if it is concentrated on growth points. I am concerned not so much for the intermediate areas which would be helped by the proposals for discouraging congestion, but more for the special development areas, Northern Ireland and the Highlands. Their competitive edge must be maintained, though I agree with what the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland said about the distinctive character of certain regions in Europe. Here again, we can be comforted that many areas in Europe have higher migration rates, not only in Italy but also in parts of France, Belgium and Denmark, to name just a few.
During the speech of the right hon. Member for Stepney (Mr. Shore) I referred to the European Social Fund. We must take it into account when we talk about regional policies and competition policies. The social policy is concerned with full and better employment. It inludes such items as grants for retraining, help for school-leavers to obtain their first job, and helping prematurely retired workers. In addition, there is a proposal to pay employment premiums, aimed at creating new jobs in undeveloped and declining regions. I hope that the Government will have in mind the many representations made by the regions about regional employment premium. It has been a valuable weapon, and its withdrawal might well mean the loss of many jobs. I hope that my right hon. Friend who replies will be able to tell me whether it can be tied up with the proposals in the social policy.
I think that the regional policy proposed by Mr. Thomson is a very promising start towards ironing out some of the disparities which have already been mentioned in the debate and improving

1355
the quality of life in the new Europe we are creating.
5.1 p.m.
Mr. David Marquand: As this is a very brief debate, and as I promised Mr. Speaker when I told him that I wanted to take part that I would be as brief as possible, I hope that the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Brewis) will forgive me if I do not comment on what he said.
I agreed with a great deal of what my right hon. Friend the Member for Stepney (Mr. Shore) said in opening the debate. I hope that he does not think that that statement is a kiss of death, coming from me. But I strongly disagreed with one thing that he said. In reply to an intervention from one of my hon. Friends, he said that we were voting against any transfer of sovereignty from this House to Brussels. That is not what is in the motion, and it is not Labour Party policy. I have no intention of voting against any transfer of sovereignty of any kind from this House to Brussels. That should be stated quite clearly at this stage.
I thought that the Minister was unduly complacent in what he said about the distinction between central and peripheral areas. He is right that the level of grants available in so-called central areas would certainly make my constituency, which is in an intermediate area, very happy. But he was unduly complacent in accepting that ludicrously anachronistic, crude and artificial distinction in the first place. It is part of the Old Testament of the Commission. It is a distinction which is utterly unhelpful in trying to decide which are the problem regions where help is needed, and it should be abandoned as quickly as possible. The criteria suggested in Mr. Thomson's Green Paper are totally incompatible with the distinction between central and peripheral areas. It is unfortunate that the Minister, speaking for Her Majesty's Government, did not give a clearer indication that the Government will press as rapidly as possible for the abandonment of the central-peripheral distinction and press instead for the adoption of the George Thomson distinction, which is much more helpful.
My right hon. Friend emphasised that we were talking about British regional
1356
policies, not about Common Market regional policies, but I thought that both he and the Minister were unduly complacent about the success of regional British policies and about the success of national regional policies in any member State of the Community. The enlarged Community will rapidly face a major crisis unless it quickly adopts a much more stringent and effective Community policy than anything we have seen in the past to supplement the national policies, whose inadequacy has been proved by the experience of the past 15 or 20 years.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Stepney shakes his head, but every member State of the EEC, ourselves included, has adopted regional policies over the past 15–20 years, and none of them can remotely pretend to have solved the problem of regional imbalance and inequality, certainly not this country. Italy has probably made the greatest progress, but although the gap between North and South has narrowed to some extent the South still has a long way to go before it reaches the point of self-sustaining economic growth.
The experience of the past 15–20 years has demonstrated that reliance on national policies alone is doomed to failure. We can grapple effectively with the stubborn problem of regional imbalance only if national policies are supplemented by supra-national policies at the Community level.
In the few minutes that I have I should like to concentrate on the nature of the pan-European strategy which I should like to see evolve. First, it is essential that the Community should now recognise openly and explicitly that the ideology set out in the Rome Treaty is not only irrelevant to the needs of the weaker regions but is positively detrimental to them. The fundamental assumption running through the Rome Treaty is that the road to prosperity lies through freer competition. Member States are allowed to temper the wind to the shorn lamb of regional weakness in various ways, and have done so, but the essential assumption is that the road to prosperity is freer competition.
That approach is fundamentally detrimental to the needs of the weaker regions. The Commission must therefore recognise explicitly and openly what

1357
it has already tacitly recognised, that the ideology is no longer adequate.
Secondly, it is necessary to stress that if we are to solve the problem of regional imbalances in the enlarged Community it is useless to adopt a Gaullist approach. The problem can be tackled effectively only by achieving massive transfers of resources from the wealthier regions of Europe to the poorer regions. These transfers must take place across national frontiers as well as across regional frontiers. It is ludicrous to imagine that this can be done by a Community of nine separate States, each fighting jealously for what share of the cake it can get, and each refusing to give up any part of its national sovereignty. The weaker regions above all stand to benefit from greater integration and stronger Community institutions.
Mr. Edward Taylor rose—
Mr. Marquand: I would rather not give way, because this is a very brief debate, and many other hon. Members wish to speak.
My next points concern the specific elements in the regional strategy that I should like to see developed. First, there is the question of the fund. Nobody in the debate has yet given a figure of what he thinks the fund should be. I believe that we should aim, not in the immediate future, but in the medium term, at a regional development fund of approximately 1 per cent. of the combined gross national products of all the member States of the enlarged Community.
That would come at present to approximately 7,000 million dollars a year. That is much larger than any figure which has yet been mentioned. I should like to see the Government aim at that figure.
Mr. Edward Taylor: Why?
Mr. Marquand: The hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Brewis) mentioned—and he is absolutely right—that in most of the Common Market countries, apart from Great Britain and Italy, far too little emphasis has been placed on employment subsidies and too much emphasis has been placed on incentives to capital investment. The Community itself and not just the member States of the Com-
1358
munity, should evolve something similar to a regional employment premium covering the whole of the enlarged Community. Experience of the recent past shows clearly that if we rely exclusively on capital incentives we shall spend more and more money to less and less effect.
An effective Community strategy will also necessitate giving a much larger role to public enterprise than any member State, ourselves included, has given it so far. Italy has used its public sector actively to develop the south of Italy, but no other member State of the enlarged Community has used the public sector as part of a co-ordinated strategy. Some time ago the Commission proposed setting up a holding company which would have the power to take minority holdings in firms operating in the more backward regions of the enlarged Community. I do not know what has happened to that proposal. It does not seem to figure in the latest Green Paper. That proposal should be resuscitated and pressed vigorously.
I agree with the hon. Member for Galloway when he said that we need to have a Community-wide congestion policy. In Britain the stick of the IDC has been an essential part of our regional policy. In France there have been the rather less effective controls over building in the Paris region. A congestion tax, as suggested in the Green Paper, should play a major part of in the Community's regional development policy.
We are facing a vast problem, which can be solved only over a long time, and only by international action. If national Governments continue to rely solely on their own small-scale policies, dealing only with the aspects of the problem of direct concern to them, all the poorer regions of Europe will suffer. We must work together to create a Europe from which all the citizens and not simply the favoured few in the golden triangle can benefit.
5.14 p.m.
Mr. Robert Hicks: It is necessary to emphasise at the beginning of my remarks that I believe that to obtain the maximum return from any regional policy it is essential to have an expanding domestic economy. That must be stated because in the past we have tended to put far too much emphasis on the belief

1359
that regional policies in themselves will alleviate many of the problems facing the regions. In fact, there must be a combination of the two approaches.
The hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Marquand) was right when he said that no country, and particularly our own, over the past decade has been successful in solving the problems facing the difficult regions. In the past we have tended to believe that by putting more money into regional policies we shall automatically succeed in the end. Of course, events have proved that unfortunately this is not the position.
We have at present an expanding economy. I hope that we shall be able to sustain the present rate of economic growth because that will give the nation, and the regions themselves, the opportunity to alleviate some of the real problems with which they are faced.
As I have said, regional aids do not in themselves basically create growth and wealth. They are primarily instruments for influencing the distribution of our centres of economic and social activity. We now have as good an opportunity of ameliorating regional disparities as we have had at any sime since the early 1930s when Governments first accepted the obligation to involve themselves with the problems of the regions. We have a good opportunity because we have the combination of an expanding economy backed by a detailed yet flexible fabric of regional aids which are the consequence of the Industry Act 1972.
Against that favourable background it is vital that there should be no weakening of resolve and, what is more, no lessening of the quantity or quality of regional assistance. In the context of regional policies there are two aspects which have confronted us this afternoon. The first is concerned with the evolution of a Community regional policy. The second concerns our own national regional policy and in particular the designation of peripheral and central areas. It is on the latter aspect that I shall concern my remarks.
Concern about national regional policy arises from the implementation of Article 154 of the Treaty of Accession. Immediate attention is focused on that because we must make a decision by 1st July 1973. I have a constituency interest because 75 per cent. of the Bodmin division is
1360
located within the South-West development area. The remainder falls within the Plymouth intermediate area. At present within the South-West development area unemployment is below the national average. Thus, there is a danger that it might appear that the area is not in need of selective assistance. I must remind right hon. and hon. Members that less than 18 months ago I made a speech in which I drew attention to the fact that unemployment in the South-West development area was the second highest of all the United Kingdom development areas.
At present average incomes in the area, according to Inland Revenue statistics, are still the second lowest of all the United Kingdom development areas. Although we have now satisfied the job quantity problem there is still a real need to improve job quality opportunities. That is why it is essential that there is no reduction in the level of incentives to attract the type of suitable economic activity which the South-West urgently requires.
I shall digress for one moment. Other Government activities, such as using the technique of the Hardman Report to alleviate our job quality problems, may well help.
The House will appreciate that the problems facing the South-West differ somewhat from those facing other development areas.
We are not an old industrial region requiring rejuvenating in both economic and social terms. We are largely a rural area, dependent on agriculture, horticulture, inland fishing and tourism, with only scattered light industry. But because we do not have the number of people involved or the scale of industrial development or the scale of industrial decline prevalent in other development areas this does not mean that our problems are any less than those of, say, Scotland or Wales.
I welcome the assurance given by my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Minister for Industrial Development that there will no reduction in the level of aid to the assisted areas. As I understand it, the level of aid given by the Exchequer to our development and intermediate areas does not exceed the 20 per cent. ceiling figure which differentiates a peripheral region from a central area.

1361
What worries me, however, is what will be the situation at the end of the transitional period. I understand, having served on the Standing Committee which considered the Industry Act last session, that the various regional development aids we have made available for the assisted areas terminate on 1st January 1978. I should welcome clarification on this point.
In addition, what will be the position if the Community, or the Commission in particular, wishes to reduce the figure of 20 per cent. to a level lower than that which our own development areas are currently in receipt of, particularly if what is now a British development area is not granted peripheral region status as a result of the decision which must be made within the next week? I ask this question since there have been Press reports in the last month or so that the South-West development area is in the most vulnerable situation of all United Kingdom development areas. These are the worries which I have not only in my capacity as Member for Bodmin but also as one very concerned that there should be no loss in the economic momentum which the South-West development area is gaining.
Mr. Marten: I understand my hon. Friend's worries and he has a great reputation for always speaking up for his constituency and his area in this House. However, when all this is over and the issue is brought back to the House, and he is dissatisfied with it on behalf of his constituents, will he want to take a proper decision on it or just let it go by on the nod?
Mr. Hicks: I shall meet the problem when I have to face it.
I support the point made by the hon. Member for Ashfield that the two-class definition between peripheral and central areas is much too restrictive. Within the United Kingdom at the moment, we have four types of assisted area. France has five. I hope, therefore, that the Government will use their influence to grade the system of selective assistance to take into account the individual needs of particular areas and in doing so give greater flexibility to the system.
I believe that it is highly desirable that the South-West development area
1362
should be classified as a peripheral region in order to maintain the momentum which has been generated in the last 12 months or so. We have made progress. but, on the other hand, if we are to put right the pockets of unemployment which still exist and particular problems such as lack of job quality opportunity, it is necessary that we sustain the present level of assistance and I hope that the Government have taken that message on board.
5.25 p.m.
Mr. Geoffrey Rhodes (Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East): A year or so ago, Members of both parties, divided between themselves as they were, waded into a debate on regional policies within the European Economic Community—some with enthusiasm rather than information—and wondered what would be the consequences to the regions of our country of entering the EEC. A mass of statistics —and as a former statistician I am aware that statistics can be used to prove anything—were thrown about. I argued that those of us on the periphery of the EEC, in Britain's development areas, would have very grave problems subsequent to British entry.
I was never one of those who fought against the Common Market in principle. I spent a great deal of time studying the subject and I did not reach my conclusions about the regions, as some people did, on preconceived theories of being pro or anti-Common Market in the first place. More recently, at Whit-sun, I spent some time again in the periphery of the Community, with the good fortune also of having several hours privately in the company of George Thomson, an old and trusted friend, who is now responsible for the EEC's regional policies.
Of one thing I have been completely certain for many years, and still am. Our entry into the EEC does not in itself help to solve our regional problems but could—and I use the term carefully—make them considerably worse. The House need not take my word for it. I was scoffed at last year by some of my hon. Friends, but now I point out to them that shortly before Albert Borschette left the job of Regional Commissioner, he became a little more forthright about the lack of success of European regional policies than he had been

1363
in earlier years. According to the European Communities Press Department, he stated towards the end of 1971:
"Economic disparities between the E.E.C. regions are in many cases great and in some cases are increasing … left entirely to itself industrial centralisation may easily feed on itself. …Changes and improvements in the transport network are conferring new privileges on the areas near the growth points. New industries establish themselves for preference near the big centres of large scale consumption."
This is what I called at the time the centripetal pull.
At that time, my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Marquand) and some other of my hon. Friends, who are sitting together at the present time, were decrying strongly words used by me which were subsequently in effect used by Mr. Borschette and the words which my hon. Friend has himself been using today. There has been a change of tune and a realisation on the part of those who have begun to study the problem more closely that some of us were right a year ago, when we said that there was a great deal to worry about in EEC regional policy.
I am not attacking my hon. Friend. He was not even the main person who decried these warnings, but many of those who voted against the party whip at the time argued that we were talking rot, that all the things we had already done for the regions we could do in future, and that in any case the Europeans in the EEC had solved their own regional problems better than we had. Later, Mr. Borschette let the cat out of the bag. It had been seen by many hon. Members already but not by all!
People will not easily give up their national sovereignty whatever we do in this House. It is inevitable and we must be realistic.
European regional aid will be only a supplement to existing national aid or it could be some kind of deterrent to existing national aid. The size of European regional aid could be of crucial significance. Where it goes could be even more important. Figures have been bandied around. The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) who is not here now, seemed to know what the figures are. Some speak of £50 million a year for the European regional aid fund, which is peanuts. George Thomson has
1364
told me that he would like £500 million a year, which is barely sufficient.
We have to put our point, which is that we have put a great deal of money into the Community and will continue to do so through the common agricultural policy. We shall have to fight hard, not to obtain quid pro quo, but to get regional funds from the Community for this country. Mr. Monod has been spoken of already. He is the Director-General of France's Regional Development Committee. He is on record recently as saying that the European regional fund should be "modest". When he spoke, he seemed to be almost proud of the fact that the French—and they have great problems in the South-West and West—spend only £45 million a year on their regional programme compared with our £450 million a year. He seemed to think that this was something of which he ought to be proud, that he was saving his Government's money.
What he did not tell us, and he is a very astute young man, was that France has gained an enormous amount of European money through the common agricultural policy and that that amount is a form of regional aid going to the weaker parts of France. We ought to tell the French this in no uncertain terms in our negotiations. I hope that our Ministers will do so. The Chancellor of the Duchy has already said something about this recently in his speech in Scotland.
It is still true that Europe has not fully realised that the regional problems of the United Kingdom are essentially different from those of practically every other member of the Community.
Our regional aid has always been mainly directed towards the declining areas in the centres of the old industrial revolution, whereas European national regional aid has tended to go to the poorer agricultural regional areas. The rural population, particularly in France and Italy, forms a much larger proportion of the total electorate than it does here, to strike a cynical note. I have spent a lot of time in these parts of France and Italy. Regional aid in these areas is a matter of politics just as much as it is in this country. To date, the regional policies of the Community have been failures and in effect Mr. Borschette admitted this. If they have not all been failures, then they have been of negligible

1365
importance. They have been restrictive so that the Commission has tried to impede out-bidding subsidies, to harmonise competition between member States, or they have been selective, trying to pin down aid into certain areas.
The pressures have always been basically political pressures exerted by politicians through Ministers upon the Commission. Those who know how the machine works know that this is true. I suspect that when we see what comes out after 1st July, we will see that the new Commissioner for Competition, Mr. Borschette, gets what Mr. Borschette wants. It is he who will determine what will be done, rather than George Thomson. This is true in terms of personalities and power politics within the Community and the European Economic Commission.
George Thomson told me, and has subsequently publicly announced, that there are three basic criteria for determining European regional aid. The first is the outward migration of population, the second is the current per capita income in the region, and the third is the current level of unemployment.
When the Chancellor of the Duchy mentioned this, some of his hon. Friends said that it was a jolly good basis. It is not. What worries me is that the old agricultural areas nearly always score more heavily for aid on that combination than do the declining industrial areas. To put it simply, although the North-East of England has terrible problems, it compares more favourably—in terms of its non-qualification for aid on these criteria —than does Mezzo-Giorno or the South-West of France or Eire. If we use that kind of yardstick it will be found that many parts of the United Kingdom, even development areas, at present receiving aid would not do so. They receive it now because of the long political traditions and the industrial history of this country, which many of our European friends do not understand.
When the Commission declares on 1st July what it would like the central areas to be within which national governments should give only up to 20 per cent. investment aid for new buildings, and when it defines the peripheral areas, I suspect that on these criteria it will in-
1366
evitably be the South of Italy and the South-West of France and Eire, and just possibly Scotland and Wales which will gain. There is a threat to every development area and every "grey area" in England on the basis of these criteria.
I have been through these figures with economists who are far more competent to deal with them than I am. Everyone has seen the maps. George Thomson showed them to me. He went through the figures and said, "On those figures it is possibly just true perhaps that the North-East would not qualify. In the end it is power politics that decides these things." So it is.
My worry is that this Government have so little to lose politically in the old Victorian industrial revolution areas, that the political pressures may not be as powerful as I would like them to be—let alone the power of Britain to negotiate effectively within the Community. What worries me most of all is that these decisions will not be taken here, but in Brussels. In the long run that is the biggest tragedy of this debate.
5.38 p.m.
Mr. Anthony Fell: I have promised you, Mr. Speaker, that I shall be brief because I have decided that I shall vote for the motion. Perhaps I may be allowed to explain why. If this debate has proved one thing beyond a peradventure it is that this House wants to debate the subject upon which every hon. Member has so far concentrated his remarks. It is interesting to note that Labour Members have spoken on the supposition that the motion will be lost. So they have tried to make their speeches knowing that they will not be able to make them later.
Conversely, most of my hon. Friends have spoken simply on the question of the development areas knowing jolly well that their weak wishy-washy amendment would succeed and that there would not therefore be an opportunity to discuss these matters before decisions are taken in Brussels.
I remember very well on previous occasions that many of my hon. and right hon. Friends, including my right hon. Friends the Members for Thirsk and Malton (Sir Robin Turton), Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), my right hon. and

1367
learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith), my hon. Friends the Members for Banbury (Mr. Marten) and Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) took a very strong view that we might lose some of the power of this House over decisions taken to guide the affairs of the nation and shape our future. This was called sovereignty. Everyone now sniffs at sovereignty and says that it does not matter if we lose a bit of it, that we lose a bit of our sovereignty in international affairs every time we make an agreement.
Suppose that my right hon. Friend forgot that the motion had been tabled by the Conservative Party's enemies on the other side of the House. Surely he could not have had much to grumble about. He may have had a hand in framing the amendment, although I cannot believe that he is so wishy-washy and inaccurate as to have had much of a hand in it. Let me read the motion to my right hon. Friend:
"That this House calls upon Her Majesty's Government not to accept any decision of the EEC Commission affecting the regional policies of the United Kingdom until this House has debated and approved it."
Has he very much against that? Is he so little a parliamentarian? I have the greatest admiration for my right hon. Friend, because, unlike some people, I thought that he became an important parliamentarian more quickly than it was possible to believe. I thought great things of him. Is it possible that he can disagree fundamentally with the motion?
Mr. Marten: May we have an answer now?
Mr. Fell: Does my right hon. Friend think that matters which affect all the regions of this country should not be debated by the House? Does he think that this miserable, three-hour charade of a debate is sufficient?
If my right hon. Friend thinks that the motion is too strong, why could not most of it stand, and why could not a sensible amendment be tabled, adding one or two matters which might have made it more acceptable to the Government? Why is it necessary to table an amendment which crosses out the whole of the Opposition's very good motion? It does not matter whose motion it is. I
1368
should have thought that the Opposition's motion would be acceptable to the vast majority of hon. Members. Yet, what do my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Government do? They cross out the whole motion and then propose the weakest amendment one has ever seen.
Mr. Marten: My hon. Friend is making the same point that I made. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster promised to answer it in his speech and he forgot to do so. I know that these things happen. I was a Minister and occasionally I forgot to deal with points. Would not this be a good moment for my right hon. Friend to intervene to answer my hon. Friend's point so that he might continue his speech?
Mr. Fell: Hon. Members know that if anyone wishes to intervene I give way. However, I hope that hon. Members will not interrupt me too much because otherwise I shall not fulfil my promise to Mr. Speaker. If my right hon. Friend would like, on the prompting of my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten), to answer the point, I should be delighted to give way.
The motion requests that the House should debate and approve matters which might affect the regions of this country. I still cannot think why the Government could not stomach it. Instead they have tabled an amendment which
"acknowledges the declared intention of the European Communities to ensure the harmonious development of the economies of Member States by reducing the differences existing between the various regions. …"
Marvellous. It is weak, but it is nice and pretty and everybody is happy. The amendment goes on to say that the House
"welcomes the progress made by the EEC Commission towards a Regional Development Fund …".
My right hon. Friend told us some of the progress made. It was a bit unintelligible and would not mean much to specific areas, but it was all right as far as it went. If he is happy about the matter, as he said, why not accept the motion and have a debate on it? The situation is beyond craziness.
The amendment ends by recognising
"that this House will wish to debate these issues".

1369
It is surprising to me that the people responsible for the amendment did not put "some time" after
"will wish to debate these issues".
That would have been as intelligible as this miserable, weak-kneed amendment.
I beg my hon. Friends to think twice before going into the Lobby against the motion, which advocates doing what every Member who has spoken has tried to do, namely, to debate these issues properly and not in a three-hour skimped and rushed affair.
5.46 p.m.
Mr. Neil McBride: I support the proposition advanced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Stepney (Mr. Shore) and I share the view of the hon. Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell) that it is important that the House should debate and approve any decision of the EEC Commission affecting the regional policies of the United Kingdom. The House still has some dominion over our affairs and I am grateful for the fact that Britain is not as yet, in all completeness, a province of Europe.
There is great concern in Wales over the nature of the EEC's regional policy and its effects on the Principality. That concern is heightened by the decisions which will be made by the EEC Commission on 1st July. Those decisions will be made as a result of an agreement which this country had to accept—and I accuse the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster of knowing that—and which was framed in 1971. It is because of the directive limiting aid to regions that we are debating this matter today.
Wales asks for peripheral status. It is literally on the periphery of the Common Market as presently constituted. The proposals drawn up by Mr. Borschette confirm the worst fears of those of us who oppose the Common Market and condemn the Ministers, including the Secretary of State for Wales, who declared that Wales would benefit substantially and that the Principality would be all right on the day. I have news for the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster: it will not. The hoped-for financial assistance from the regional fund for Wales will be less than was expected and with the waygoing of the euphoric period of post-treaty accession joy now long
1370
departed Wales is faced with the realities of the situation which we predicted. I accuse the Minister of being aware of that.
On 19th June Mr. Jerome Monod, France's leading expert on regional policy, said that the proposed EEC regional development fund should be relatively modest in size. That is a most interesting observation, coming from the representative of France, the senior member of the European Community.
It is equally interesting to note that there is a political battle going on because France and West Germany are not keen to make vast contributions to the proposed regional development fund. I was in Brussels on 15th and 16th of this month—that is where I got the information, right in the building. When I went to Brussels I was a confirmed anti-marketeer, deeply apprehensive. I returned confirmed in my opposition and with a serious sense of alarm. Mr. Monod declared that there was no point in establishing a regional development fund in the EEC if it is to be regarded as an account to compensate States which are receiving little from other funds as Mr. Monod said certain partners seemed desirous of doing. The right honourable Gentleman is engaged in a fierce scramble for money to offset our heavy contribution to the common agricultural policy. He is on the defensive, and Wales is apprehensive. That is a deliberate slap in the face for the United Kingdom Tory Government.
During my visit to Brussels nowhere did I find anyone willing to declare even tentatively how Wales would benefit from the proposed development fund. All inquiries were met with a blank wall of silence. I was there with six of my honourable Friends, and we are all entitled to be considered people of probity. We were astounded.
It is common knowledge that if the proposed regional fund is to be of any material assistance to nations such as Wales, the minimal aid given to the regions should be not £50 million but at least £150 million to £250 million, and if the aid is to be adequate it should be £500 million. Will France and Germany agree to that? Let the Minister say so. He cannot. According

1371
to the present intentions of France and Germany — particularly France — adequate regional assistance cannot be contemplated.
On 1st July, according to Mr. Borschette's proposals, Wales will be classed as a central area and will receive only 20 per cent. of the cost of any given investment project.
Fierce infighting is going on between the six original members of the EEC to secure the best possible deal for themselves. Will they allow Wales to become more attractive to investors? The EEC Commissioners have pointed out that France and Italy have had reduced aid because of EEC regulations. Will Southern Belgium and Italy allow Wales to be accorded generous treatment when they wish to be considered as peripheral partners? In parts of Southern Italy there is neither work or hope. Now everything is coming home to roost. Despite the lack of information and reports, the possible effect on Wales of the development fund is abundantly clear. I regret that the Secretary of State for Wales is not here. I have the moral courage to tell him what I think. Time and again across the Floor of the House I have asked him to give Wales the facts. In 1971 I asked the right honourable and learned Gentleman to give Wales the facts and figures, but he either could not or would not—I suspect, would not. I therefore ask, in face of the proposals announced by Mr. Borschette, backed up by the French view as expressed by Mr. Monod, how will the EEC proposals deal more effectively with regional development in Wales?
My hon. Friend the Member for Ash-field (Mr. Marquand) spoke about capital subsidies. Will not the Government be compelled by the EEC to phase out the regional employment premium because it is not in conformity with the rules of the Common Market?
Will Wales appreciate the opportunities of sharing with EEC nations the present 2·5 per cent. unemployment rate in the Community? Will Wales appreciate sharing with the EEC nations the position of school leavers who are finding that the period between leaving school and securing work is becoming longer? It is all very well to paint a picture in roseate hues but the
1372
grim, sombre undertones of reality come into it. The ghosts are walking.
The facts and figures relating to Wales have never been given to the House. I accuse the Secretary of State for Wales of dereliction of duty. He is the political shadow boxer supreme. There will be no grants from the regional development fund at least until the turn of the year. No consideration has been given by the EEC Commissioner—or perhaps by the Minister—to the massive redundancies that are threatened in the steel industry and the problem that they present to the Principality. The EEC is saying, "We do not wish to share this with you, we will not help and we do not want to know." We are frightened of this attitude and frightened of the Government.
Central regional status will not help to correct the state of imbalance in the Welsh economy. I challenge the Minister to controvert that. The ceiling of 25 per cent. for the national subsidy in central areas such as Wales is a ceiling that is also valid in central areas where Common Market aid is added to national aid. According to the rules of the Common Market, there will be no derogation from this principle.
Wales is getting the rough end of the Common Market stick in the regional policies outlined, and the aid proposed to be given is less than minimal. I seriously doubt the ability of the EEC to improve conditions in Wales, and I seriously doubt the ability of this incompetent Government to work to that end I support the motion.
5.58 p.m.
Sir Anthony Meyer: The hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. McBride) talked even more nonsense than usual. He knows perfectly well that the European social fund is available to help redundant steel workers. What he said about the effect of the EEC on the British steel industry is utter nonsense from begining to end—as was everything else he said.
I do not want to lay down the law any further in this debate. I have come here primarily to listen and to ponder what is said. It is deplored on both sides of the House that the effect of British entry to the European Community could be to inhibit British regional policy up to date. Although there are times when I

1373
believe that any kind of regional policy is a process of trying to push water uphill, I none the less believe, that an effort has to be made. Representing, as I do, a North Wales constituency, I am bound to be highly sceptical of the processes by which our present regional policy is formed.
All too often regional policy under successive Governments fluctuates and modulates in accordance with the amount of political pressure generated in this House by well-organised lobbies of Members pushing their own particular regional interests. I say this with some bitterness because we in North Wales are a weak and ineffectual lobby if only because we are not so numerous as others. Therefore, I would be the last to deplore a further internationalisation of regional policies.
Mr. Biffen: Would my hon. Friend reflect on what he said? Does he recollect that when he was quite properly and understandably lobbying on behalf of his constituency, he referred in this House to the intermediate development area status of Oswestry. Does he not agree that any measure which seeks to alter that status should be properly debated and approved by this House?
Sir A. Meyer: I would be the last person to wish to accuse my hon. Friend of lobbying intensively for intermediate area status for his own area. However, I must acknowledge a certain feeling of frustration about the ability in this House by using methods which have been so extolled by hon. Members on both sides of the House to arrive at the best decision in the course of such a process. This is the same sort of argument that arises over reform of local government, in relation to which most of us would concede that the arrangements finally concluded were not necessarily the best but in a great many cases reflected combinations of lobbies which happen to prevail at any particular moment. I am not convinced that this is the best way of operating.
It is not on those grounds that I wish to question the concept of our innate superiority of methods used to achieve a regional policy. There are times when I consider that it is not merely the methods we evolve to apply to the regions which
1374
should be questioned but the very aims themselves which should be thought out anew. My hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin (Mr. Hicks) and the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) raised this point and emphasised that we should not only take into account the level of unemployment. We must also consider the level of wages, the number of women who go out to work, and similar considerations.
Until I have more confidence than I have at present that our policy takes such considerations into account as fully as it should, I should not be unduly upset if I found that our national policy was being influenced more and more by considerations of our membership of the European Community. Even the best thought out national policy is inevitably somewhat parochial in approach and is bound to be influenced more by considerations of what influence can be exerted over footloose industry within the country than it is by considerations of what influence can be exerted on potential investors from outside the country and the Community. We need to take a less parochial look at the aims of regional policy than we do at present.
In my view by far the most effective forms of regional aid are not incentives or subsidies or even a congestion tax—much as I am attracted to the idea. Far more effective in their results are Government investment decisions about roads, ports, railways and airports. I voted—quite wrongly I now think—in favour of the decision on Maplin. I am convinced that the decision will have a powerful effect in sucking away Government resources from the areas where those resources are most badly needed for investment.
I have hammered out the argument week in and week out for more and better road communications in North Wales. If Wrexham and North Wales in general could be connected to the British motorway system I believe it would have a far greater effect in bringing about a higher rate of economic activity in North Wales than would incentives or special bribes to attract industry to the area.
It is for these reasons and because these decisions cannot possibly be affected by British membership of the EEC or by directives from Brussels that I am convinced that it is still open to the

1375
Government to pursue a regional policy every bit as effective as that which has been pursued to date. I believe that the Opposition motion is misconceived and I shall have no hesitation in supporting the amendment.
6.5 p.m.
Mr. John P. Mackintosh: I agree with many of the remarks of the hon. Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer). In these debates, as in most EEC-type debates, we experience curious inversions of position compared with the normal straightforward political issues. For example, I represent a constituency in a developing or under-developed area and we need as much regional aid as we can get and as much as we have been able to squeeze out of successive Governments.
I have been dissatisfied with the regional policy of the present Government. In my constituency we have struggled to obtain more regional assistance. We have agricultural and fishing industries, we are a diminishing industrial area, and we need support. Therefore, I was surprised to find my right hon. Friend the Member for Stepney (Mr. Shore) suggesting that in this country we had a good regional policy which was in danger of being smashed by some demons from Brussels. I take the reverse view. I believe that we have had an inadequate regional policy. I am not sure whether it will be improved, but whatever help comes out of the Common Market I welcome as a supplement to our own regional aid policy. It is to this matter that we should be directing our energies.
A significant point was made by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in pointing out that the regional percentage of aid to intermediate development areas in this country was 4 per cent. After hearing a figure like that, who is worried about an EEC ceiling for the central area of 20 per cent.?
Up to the middle of last year, hon. Members on this side of the House representing constituencies similar to mine pressed the Conservative Government to tell the House the net percentage of aid which they were giving to industry coming to Scotland. The Government were coy about the matter. They twisted in and out, they talked of discounted profits
1376
and all the rest of it. Eventually, with great assistance from the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) we got out of the Government a percentage figure in respect of Scotland. The figure amounted to 6 per cent. to 7 per cent. net aid in the area—that was the percentage of aid to Scotland under a Tory Government.
I was interested to know why the Government in their Industry Act pushed up the aid figure to 20 per cent. Why was there a sudden change of heart by the Tory Government in August 1972, a Government which had dragged their feet on regional policy for the first two and a half years of their existence? Why were my friends in the Regional Development Division of the Scottish Office suddenly tickled pink that all their arguments about raising age levels had been suddenly accepted? The answer is clear: the Government wanted to go to Brussels and say that the peripheral areas were receiving higher aid than Brussels might agree to.
They would have found it difficult to argue that the essential areas were being given less aid than the maximum suggested by Mr. Borschette. Therefore, they had to pitch British aid much higher than the level which the Community said was the proper level. In this way, they thought, they would have a credible argument for saying that other areas should get more. If the harmonisation is to be an upward process, I am absolutely behind it.
If Mr. Borschette was contemplating this level of grant in Brussels, why did he choose 20 per cent. in the Community in terms of regional development policy? The answer is that he had to go for the highest figure which was then being canvassed. It was politically impracticable to ask any country to cut its regional aid and it had to be pitched at the maximum. Our Government had to match the Six and to say that our aid was at least as good as that in the Community which we were joining. I am behind any aspect of regional policy if it works and politically one hopes that it will work. No country will see a major cut in this aspect of its policy to please the European Community.
We have the chance, if we want to go higher than 20 per cent., or to have some

1377
new development, to go to the next summit meeting of Prime Ministers, the next heavy pressure bargaining meeting, and to make a political demand of this kind. If we can push up the level, we shall benefit ourselves and other countries with regional problems. I see no suggestions that the total amount of aid available for our developing areas will decline under the application of Community harmonisation rules.
One matter which worries me deeply was touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Rhodes). It concerns what will happen when the regional policy comes from the Community. I am frightened that the British Treasury is taking the view that it is spending as much as it ought to spend on regional policy and that there is no economic case, as I suspect many Tories believe, for spending more. As a result, I fear that any money for regional development that we get from Brussels will be regarded as meaning that we need spend that much less. We do not want that. We want to ensure that any aid from Brussels is a supplement to what we spend and not a substitute for it.
For this reason, the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East, that the object of going for a regional policy in Europe is to get a quid pro quo for the CAP across the exchanges, is disastrous and misconceived. It is disastrous for several reasons, chiefly that the worse way of selling a policy in Europe is to put it forward simply as a method of getting money back from another policy which is disliked. We should press for a sound regional policy and insist that it is a supplement for the policies that we have developed in this country.
I was surprised by the attack made by my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. McBride) on the idea of a Community regional policy. It may be smaller than we should like to see. But, surely, we want to get anything extra that we can. We have already had this push-up to 20 per cent. under the Industry Act, which I welcome. If we can get a supplement from the Community on top of that, my only complaint will be that it is not big enough. Let us fight to get it higher.
Let us give up this paranoid approach of sheltering Britain's allegedly good
1378
regional policy from Continental lambasting. We ought to adopt quite a different approach. We ought to go in to get harmonisation upwards and the maximum benefit that we can out of regional development aid.
The official policy of the Labour Party in this matter is clear. It is that we accept at least the free trading area—the economic union of the Common Market. We may dislike the CAP and the sovereignty aspects, but we accept the EFTA content in the Common Market as a free trading area. If we accept that, we accept that the pull to the South-East will continue and we accept that the pull across the Channel into the northern industrial complex of Europe, which includes the South-East of England, will continue and become stronger. If we accept those points, it is in our interests to get a Community regional policy to offset the pull.
Hon. Members must realise that it will not be satisfactory to say that there is a European pull away from this country and that we must meet it solely by pushing British industry north and west into our regions. We must do it by getting in European capital as well as purely British capital. If that is the argument that we make, we have to plead for more integration with Europe and not less. We shall have politically to ask people in Hamburg, Paris, Dortmund and Essen to shed resources so that people in Scotland, Wales, Southern Italy and Western France may benefit. We shall not get the rich areas to shed resources to the poor areas if we say that Britain must stand out, that we are Gaullists and inward-looking.
I wanted to explain to the House the kind of regional policy I hope to see coming out of the Community. I shall not do that, because my right hon. Friend the Member for Stepney tells us that we shall have a chance to debate this in full at a later date. We in this country have learned a great deal about regional policies. We know what we want a Community regional policy to do. We want it to be big and effective because, whatever happens, we shall feel this economic, integrationist, pull.
We should not be saying that we must let the British Parliament hold on to its own. We should go to Brussels and make

1379
a case for a stronger and more effective policy. Our Members of Parliament should be in the European Parliament making these points. We should be there demanding that the regional policy is not just an offset for the CAP and that there should be no diminution by a Tory Government of what we are allowed to pay out because we get an EEC supplement. We should make a case for harmonisation upwards, for the maximum regional policy in this country, and for the largest supplement possible out of European regional funds.
6.15 p.m.
Mr. Neil Marten: I was intrigued by the argument of the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh), who said that it was unsound to consider the regional policy in terms of anything that we might get from it being a quid pro quo for the CAP. I agree with the hon. Gentleman. That is an unsound way of looking at it. But why was this not said before the great debate last year? The argument was used then that one of the main benefits was that we should get back through the regional policy what we had paid out through the CAP. In the same way, before the vote was taken, we were told constantly that we could not increase our growth rate or our standard of living unless we got into the Common Market. However, in 1972, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer was claiming a 5 per cent. growth rate when that of the Common Market was 3½ per cent. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister claimed an 8 per cent. increase in the standard of living in 1972.
Have we been misled? Those of us who opposed British entry were saying that we could increase our growth rate and our standard of living without going into the Common Market, and we have been proved right.
The hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Rhodes) made much the same point when he reminded the House that the arguments that he had put forward against the Common Market had been derided by some of his hon. Friends, who had now changed their tune and accepted what he said. All this deserves a deep examination of the way that the country has been misled time and time again about the Common Market. It has
1380
been thoroughly bad for the ethics of politics.
This has been a debate about fringe matters, relatively speaking. We do not know what the Common Market's regional policy will be. We do not know what sum we shall receive. Figures are bandied about because they are convenient. But we have heard that kind of convenient argument before. When it actually comes about it is not the same at all.
The debate is really about the one little word "approved". Is there any Government supporter in this House calling himself a Member of the British Parliament who could wish the Common Market's regional policy to be decided in Brussels and not to be approved by this Parliament? Anyone who says that this Parliament should not approve it ought to resign his seat. We were not elected to do that sort of thing.
It is extraordinary that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has not intervened to answer the question that I put to him when he was good enough to give way to me. That is one reason why I shall not support the Government tonight. My right hon. Friend apparently cannot or will not answer a vital question that affects the sovereignty of this Parliament.
My hon. Friend the Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell), in an excellent speech straight from the heart, made much the same point—that Parliament must decide these matters, not the bureaucrats in Brussels. Admittedly the Government's amendment states that we can discuss and debate the matter, but it is significant that it leaves out the fact that Parliament will decide. This is the issue on which I have been fighting the Common Market the whole time. So if we get no answer to this direct question from my right hon. Friend the Minister for Industrial Development or from my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in an intervention, the whole House will have every right to be deeply suspicious that Parliament is being misled on this one issue. I make no bones about it.
In the same way, we are really dealing in this debate with the whole question of the way in which the Common Market is moving towards a federal State.

1381
Action after action being taken in the Common Market seems to be moving in that way. Yet, when we ask the Prime Minister at Question Time whether he approves or disapproves of any move towards federalism, we are brushed off with the remark, "This question does not arise", and so on. But it is arising, and arising daily.
In this connection I should like to remind the House of that paragraph in the White Paper sponsoring our entry into the Common Market which stated that there would be no loss of essential national sovereignty. Surely, if Parliament cannot throw out the Common Market proposals on regional policy, we have lost an essential part of our national sovereignty.
A serious matter is being decided tonight—more serious than most people realise. The regrettable fact is that the Government benches are virtually empty and these serious arguments have not been heard by those who will later be coming in to vote on this matter. I know that it always happens, but it hurts when, on an important matter, the sovereignty of this Parliament is at stake.
Mr. Fell: If we are in a position constitutionally to decide on this kind of issue, why has my right hon. Friend put down this amendment at all?
Mr. Marten: I agree with my hon. Friend. This is a mystery to me. This is why I am deeply suspicious about it. It is no use my hon. Friends grinning, as though I am conjuring up some terrible bogy. It is terribly real.
I should like to draw the attention of the House to the speech by President Pompidou in April. I think it is called the Message to Parliament at the opening of Parliament after the elections and the new Parliament has assembled. I ask hon. Members to read it—copies can be obtained from the French Embassy—because in that speech President Pompidou makes one thing absolutely clear. Unfortunately, I have not got a copy of the speech with me, because when I came into the Chamber I had not intended to speak. However, President Pompidou makes it absolutely clear that the French Parliament must ensure the right of France to take independent
1382
decisions. This point comes out time and again in his speech. I wish that the British Government would have a word with President Pompidou about his attitude towards these matters.
I should like to ask one question about Mr. Borschette's visit to the Prime Minister some time ago to discuss these matters. I understand that an undertaking was given by Mr. Borschette that existing United Kingdom regional policies would be allowed to remain. I understand that subsequently an emissary was sent to this country by the Commission with the instruction: "The Commission does not agree with what Mr. Borschette said". Therefore, the undertaking given to the Prime Minister was invalidated. Is there any truth in that story?
I have made a speech that is not anti-Common Market but is essentially pro-British Parliament. I should not like it to be thought that my speech is anti-Common Market. I was elected to this Parliament to represent the people in my constituency. This debate is about the question whether this Parliament will have the right to throw out these Common Market proposals on regional policy if they are not satisfactory to our constituents. We must retain that right.
6.25 p.m.
Mr. Robert Maclennan: I am glad to have the opportunity of intervening briefly towards the end of this debate because I have tried for the last five weeks to raise this matter on the Adjournment. There will not be time for me to advance a positive argument about the Community's regional development policies. However, I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Member for Stepney (Mr. Shore) has indicated that the Opposition intend to raise this wider question on another occasion. I believe that there has been a certain artificiality in the attempt to disjoin questions of State aids to industry from the wider question of regional policy generally, and I cannot altogether follow my right hon. Friend in his attempt to do that.
Those who are concerned about regional aid—all who come from development districts; and none comes from a more peripheral region than myself—must take the view that national efforts to overcome the imbalances in

1383
our economy have been wholly inadequate. This is true not only of this country but of all the member States of the Community. It is because there is a need for a massive transfer of resources across national frontiers that we recognise that we must consider this matter in an international framework.
I take the view that there are severe limitations in our national tools to steer investment to the appropriate regions. Those limitations were demonstrated clearly in the lifetime of the Labour Government. In my view, we failed to do all that we hoped by way of steering mobile investment to the development areas. I do not think that my right hon. Friend will dissent from that view. The weaknesses of our policies made it essential that we should project our efforts on a wider international framework.
In the short time at my disposal I do not want to concentrate on differences with my right hon. Friend. I want to deal with my criticisms of the Government's approach to this matter. Like many hon. Members who have spoken, including my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Marquand), I take the view that the Government have not demonstrated a sufficiently clear understanding of the inadequacy of the Old Testament dispensation, as it was put by an earlier speaker, of the problem of State aids.
The division between the peripheral and central areas is highly artificial and has been recognised as such by spokesmen from the Commission, including Mr. George Thomson. Indeed, we are in a transitional phase of Community thinking and it would be helpful to the development of Community thinking on these problems if the Government would come out openly and say that this is an unacceptable system of division of aid.
I criticise the Government even more in other respects for their essentially Gaullist approach to the problems of regional development. They seem to give some substance to the French complaints about our approach and the view that we are seeking compensatory payments from Community funds for the cash that we are paying into the Common Agricultural Fund. So long as the Government adhere to this policy or give the impression that this is their reason for
1384
going for Community aid to the regions, they will have no success in creating Community resources which are adequate to deal with the tasks that face us.
We have had no positive thinking from the Government on the new tools which are necessary at Community level to develop regional policies. We heard nothing of it in the speech by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. We have heard nothing about the need to use public investment to steer industry to the regions. We have heard nothing in support of the Commission's proposals for location control through congestion tax. We had a rather sterile repetition of what we have had in a number of earlier debates on this subject.
The greatest weakness of all in the Gaullist approach of the Government is the failure to recognise that this is a Community problem and one which the Community institutions themselves must be empowered to tackle. We cannot go on with old-fashioned nationalism in seeking to deal with this difficulty. The Community institutions must be the instruments for bringing about the change that we seek.
A number of hon. Members have spoken in terms of the Community supplementing national efforts. This is not good enough. The Community itself must shoulder these problems and must be the principal tool for tackling them if we are to convince people, particularly in the peripheral areas of the Community, that there is something in it for them, that the Community itself cares about the gross imbalances that exist.
There is much to be welcomed in the development of Community thinking as expressed in the Green Paper of Mr. Thomson. There is, first, the recognition that this regional development is central to the Community's target of achieving EMU by 1980. There is the recognition of the moral, political and social case for strengthening regional policy and the recognition of the inadequacy of past techniques, the analytical tools that have been applied, the economics and the statistics for the comparability of problems between the member States of the Community. There is also the recognition that an adequate fund must be set up for the purpose, although no figure has been put on it. Adequacy is the most

1385
important test of all. I would go along with what my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield said about the scale of target that we should be looking at.
We must also welcome the willingness of the Community to look at disincentives to congestion and, finally, its willingness, expressed originally in the Committee on medium-term economic planning, to contemplate a publicly-owned Community venture such as the IRI in the South of Italy, as if it were a Community-based international enterprise board to steer industry to the regions most needing it.
This challenge is the largest challenge that the Community and this country face. If this country fails to meet the challenge, we can write off any prospect of European unity by 1980.
6.33 p.m.
Mr. Shore: With leave of the House, may I briefly comment on some of the points raised in this interesting, important and worthwhile debate? I would say to my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) and others of my hon. Friends that I am glad to hear their strong support for my proposal that before the recess we must have a major debate on the Community's emerging regional policy, when we will have the opportunity to look very carefully at the proposals that Mr. Thomson and others are making in Brussels.
It is a good common sense to counsel a little caution about what those proposals will contain. It is all very well for my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Marquand) to say that, in his judgment, sums like 7,000 million dollars a year will be necessary to operate a really successful Community regional policy. He knows, as we all know, that sums of that magnitude are not easily raised, particularly if the principal beneficiaries are not the countries of the Continent of Europe but those which lie off the Continental coast—particularly Britain and Ireland.
I know that there are other areas in the Continent as well that would have a claim, but we must recognise that the Community has not had a regional policy in the 12 years of its development because that was not a priority objective for most of the countries that made up the
1386
original member States. They were much more concerned with competition policy and the world of Mr. Borschette than with the new world—we do not yet know its dimensions—of Mr. George Thomson, our old colleague here.
I agree that we cannot easily separate the control of national aids for the regions from the wider subject of what may or may not come from a new Community regional policy. It would be helpful if these two matters could be brought together. But I put it again to my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland that if these two matters are disjointed, they are disjointed because of the time scale involved.
The decision that I am inviting my hon. Friend to do his utmost to prevent is a decision which is to be taken by others affecting the British regions and British regional policy on 1st July this year. I believe that that decision will have a considerable impact on the British regions and British regional policy. The matter which my hon. Friend asks me to put in the scale against that, as I am willing, at the proper time, to do, is the matter which may not even come up for decision or operation at whatever minimal level under the Community Regional Fund until 1st January next year. So what we are talking about is something that is in existence and that we are being asked to balance against something that comes later and that is still entirely hypothetical, uncertain and unagreed. That is the nature of the problem.
Having said that, I should like to return to the main subject of the debate. I understand why the Minister sought to reassure us by saying that we must not get worried because the Commission and the Government would agree on the matters which they were discussing—the future definition of British regions for central or peripheral area classification under the Community's rules. I think that we would agree on the quality, the intensity, and the nature of the regional assistance which would be available to these different regions. That is what the Minister told us, but he did not go further than that.
One can reach agreement in two, or perhaps three, different ways. I can reach agreement with any hon. Members if I am prepared to agree with him. Any

1387
hon. Member can reach agreement with me if he is prepared to agree with me. Alternatively—this may be the truth—the Government may be talking about agreement that is arrived at through some compromise between the positions taken up by the Commission and the Six so far and the Government's own regional policies, which were evolved by a British Parliament and not by the European authorities at all. Which of these is it? All of these are covered by the information that agreements are being reached, but clearly only one is satisfactory to the people of this country. The other two are entirely unsatisfactory.
The right hon. Gentleman knows that he deliberately did not answer my questions. I and others put one specific question to him. We all know what our own intermediate areas are. Will they or will they not be included in the central areas of the Community? I asked him also—this is even more important, and relevant, and was reinforced by my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. McBride), speaking for Wales—whether any existing development area of Britain will be subject to the lower ceilings of Community aid by being reclassified as a central area. I asked that question, and the Minister has not answered it.
This is not the first time in the history of debates in this House that Ministers have not answered questions put specifically to them. Indeed, some Ministers develop as a fine art the ability of not answering questions. They take great pride in their ability not to answer. But this is a special question. I want to explain why it is very special and why we feel a deep sense of outrage that the Minister has not answered it. The Minister obviously has not thought this matter through as he should have done. This is the first time in my experience in the House—as it is in the experience of most hon. Members, on both sides of the House —that I have ever had to discuss a matter on which I know that unless the House expresses its opinion now it will not have power to make a decision in four days' time. That is the truth.
In four days' time the Minister will announce what I suspect he already knows is the answer to this question. If he does not, someone will have to do an awful lot of overtime in the next few
1388
days, and time is running out. Why will he not tell us the answers? He will not do so because if he told us the answers we might say "No" to him, whereas when he tells us on 1st July or 3rd July we cannot, under the treaty, influence the decision then taken. That is why this is a unique occasion. It is a great outrage to Parliament that the Minister has treated us so.
Before I read the motion again, I must make another point to the right hon. Gentleman to drive home my very strong feelings on this matter. There are other kinds of Community decisions in which the power of this House is greatly affected, greatly diminished and very much weakened. These are proposals which take the form of regulations or directives that are made by the Council of Ministers on a proposal of the Commission. But at least it can be said that when proposals of that kind come forward, although we lose the power to legislate there is still the possibility of interjecting the views and purpose of the House—as we did on the motion concerning juggernaut lorries—between the point when the Commission makes its proposal and the point, often a few weeks later, when the Council finally makes its decision. So we are not wholly wronged in that process and not wholly disarmed as a democratic assembly. But on this matter, above all, there is no second chance, because this is not a matter of dealing with a proposal made by the Commission to the Council of Ministers. Under the treaties this is a matter for decision by the Commission alone. That is why we feel such a deep sense of outrage at the way we have been treated.
The hon. Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell) read to the House what we are inviting the House to do. I am glad that he did that. We are calling upon the Government
"not to accept any decision of the EEC Commission affecting the regional policies of the United Kingdom until this House has debated and approved it."
Is there a Member of the House, on either side, who in all conscience can vote against the motion?
6.44 p.m.
The Minister for Industrial Development (Mr. Christopher Chataway): We have had in the past three hours an

1389
extremely interesting and wholly forward-looking debate about the British regions and the Community. I am not entirely sure that it was the kind of debate that the right hon. Member for Stepney (Mr. Shore) would have wished, because it was a debate in which many hon. Members on both sides of the House expressed their belief in a Community regional policy and talked about the importance of developing that policy.
It should be recognised at the outset that we are already feeling the impact of the Common Market in the regions in a major way. The progress being made at present in the regions is faster than the progress that has been made for many years. Not only have we seen large falls in unemployment in every region of the country and vacancies in every region rising to levels that they have not attained for eight or nine years, but the attractions of the regions for investors have clearly been substantially enhanced by the Common Market.
My hon. Friend the Member for Galloway (Mr. Brewis) made that point and was challenged by my hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen). The hon. Member for Oswestry will be interested at least to note that the American Embassy, in contrast to some previous advice, is now advising American investors, in view of the growth rate and of membership of the Common Market, to invest in this country.
Mr. Biffen: The question that I put to my hon. Friend the Member for Galloway (Mr. Brewis) was whether it was his view that investment by British companies in Continental Europe would increase or diminish following membership of the Community. Perhaps my right hon. Friend will tell me what he thinks is the answer.
Mr. Chataway: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am sorry that I misunderstood him. With the development of the Community, I would expect an increase in investment from Europe into this country and probably from this country into Europe. But what is unquestionable—and the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) cannot get away from it—is that at present we are seeing a massive investment in the
1390
regions of this country and that our membership of the Common Market is clearly playing a major part in that.
Mr. Marten: That is foreign investment from Europe.
Mr. Chataway: That is foreign investment. My hon. Friend may be interested in the careful, detailed work of Professor Dunning about American investment in Britain. He estimates that had we been in the Common Market from the outset we should have enjoyed some 2½ million dollars more investment during that period. But I leave that point.
The House will recognise that the major advantage to the regions of this country and to Scotland and Wales of membership of the Community is already showing. An indication of that is the fact that we have managed, simply by selective assistance, to approve already some 250 projects involving 22,000 jobs and we have under consideration 600 projects involving another 53,000 jobs, in addition to the falls in unemployment that have taken place in past months.
Mr. Shore: It is obviously too early to assess the impact of membership of the Common Market on regional policy, but surely the right hon. Gentleman must recognise that a fall in the jobless in Scotland has more to do with the fact that the Government are running a £4,000 million deficit on the Budget than with money coming from abroad.
Mr. Chataway: The sustained national growth is fundamental to regional policy. Again, I would argue—although the right hon. Gentleman would disagree—that our prospects for sustaining a much faster rate of economic growth are enormously enhanced by membership of the Community. In many parts of the House the benefit of the Common Market to our regions and to Scotland and Wales will already be recognised.
Mr. Rayond Fletcher: What about the motion?
Mr. Chataway: The hon. Gentleman has not been present for the whole of the debate.
Mr. Fletcher: Yes I have.
Mr. Chataway: The debate has been about the regions and about the EEC.
Mr. Raphael Tuck: What about the motion?
Mr. Chataway: I shall come to matters on which a number of hon. Members of the Opposition will be disappointed. They have made forecasts for a long time that the result of entry to the Common Market would be devastating to the regions. They have said that the level of our aids would be reduced. They will be disappointed.
Mr. Raphael Tuck: That is not the point.
Mr. Chataway: The debate has ranged wider than that. My hon. Friend the Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer) and the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh) and a number of other hon. Members have referred to the Regional Development Fund and have expressed their belief that the regional problems of any individual country in Europe cannot be solved wholly on the basis of the nation State. An impressive set of arguments has been deployed to that effect by a number of hon. Members on both sides of the House.
The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) urged that there should not be too much centralisation in the working out of the European regional policy. I am with him there. One of the major advantages of the changes in regional policy introduced in April last year is that they involve a substantial devolution of decision making. It will be clear from the Green Paper of Mr. George Thomson that he, too, is anxious to ensure that the European regional policy shall not be too centralised an affair. I take that to be one of the reasons why the Green Paper stressed that the Community's regional policy—the Regional Development Fund —should be a supplement to the efforts of national Governments and why the suggestion is inserted that as to a large part at least the fund should be administered through national Government. There has been today a useful exchange of ideas on the more important aspect of European regional policy, on the longterm future, on the broader implications.
I come to a much narrower matter which the right hon. Member for Stepney has raised and which has given rise to the debate. I do not think that I should give an unfair account of what the right
1392
hon. Gentleman said if I suggested that his argument is based to a large extent upon the belief that the outcome of the discussions that we are having about Article 154 will be a reduction in either the level or the coverage of aids given to our regions.
This is not the first time that the right hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members have made this suggestion, but the right hon. Gentleman has sought to raise anxieties in the regions that the effect of membership of the Community will be to reduce the effectiveness of our regional policy. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has once again assured the House that the Government do not intend to enter into any arrangement or accept arrangements which would involve such a reduction, either in coverage or in the level of the aids that have been given.
Mr. Arthur Lewis: What about the motion?
Mr. Chataway: This is exactly what the motion is about. The right hon. Gentleman bases his whole argument upon the familiar vision of European bureaucrats—foreigners to boot—grinding our regions into the dust. That is the picture that he portrayed to the House. He does not have to look in any depth at the arguments that there are for a co-ordination of regional policy throughout the Community. Other hon. Members did so in the debate and recognised—
Mr. Tuck rose—
Mr. Chataway: No, I will not give way. I must reply to those who have spoken and who have attended.
Mr. Tuck: The right hon. Gentleman cannot answer. I therefore leave.
Mr. Chataway: I greatly regret that that appearance was so brief.
I turn to answer the points raised in the debate. The plain fact is that there is an advantage to us, as to other regions in the Community, in ensuring that there is a measure of co-ordination. That is what Article 154 of the Treaty of Accession is about. That is the purpose of the exercise. We are not talking about a conspiracy on the part of other European countries or of officials in Brussels

1393
to harm our regional policy. We are talking about the process of arriving at a common régime.
What are the advantages? First, it will reduce the possibilities which at present exist for the different regions of the Community to bid against each other for mobile investment. Secondly, it will enable regional policy to have an effect because, by limiting the amount of aid that is given in the more prosperous parts of the Community, it will be more possible for a regional policy at a reasonable cost to have an effect and give an importance and advantage to those who are investing in the regions. That is what it is about.
Mr. Shore: The House wants to know. If the right hon. Gentleman is trying to be reassuring, like the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, surely he can answer the specific questions put to him and then we can be a little happier.
Mr. Chataway: The right hon. Gentleman has put to my right hon. Friend and myself a number of questions which he knows cannot be answered at this moment. He asks which areas of the country are to be central and which are to be peripheral. He knows very well that we are in discussion at this moment. He knows very well that the final form of the settlement has not been arrived at. If it had been arrived at, as my right hon. Friend made clear, he would have told the House today. My right hon. Friend has given the assurance that matters—that neither the coverage nor the level of our aids will, in our view, be affected.
My hon. Friends the Members for Banbury (Mr. Marten) and for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell) have been consistently opposed to membership of the Community, opposed to the procedures that are involved.
Mr. Fell: Would my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Chataway: I must get on.
Mr. Fell rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu): Order. The right hon. Gentleman is not giving way. Therefore, the hon. Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell) must resume his seat.
Mr. Chataway: My hon. Friend put to me a question several times over. I hope that he will allow me to try to reply to it. My hon. Friend asked, "Why do you not accept the motion?" He is opposed to the procedures which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster outlined to the House in considerable detail and which safeguard the interests of individual nations, but which yet make it possible for us to arrive at common decisions with the rest of the Community, because that is what is involved.
The motion is based in effect upon the forecast that the regions will suffer from the outcome of Article 154. If there is no change in our regional policies, I imagine that the motion will be recognised to have been unnecessary. We believe not only that the Regional Development Fund will be of value to the Community and that industry and our regions are already benefiting from membership of the Community, but that the discussions that we have had about Article 154 will result in a settlement which is entirely satisfactory to the regions of England, to Scotland and to Wales.
We recognise that on the more important regional questions within the Community which have been interestingly debated today the House will want to have further time for debate. On that basis, I hope that the House will support our amendment.
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The House divided: Ayes 274, Noes 252.

Division No. 174.]

AYES

[7.0 p.m.

Adley, Robert

Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord

Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

Boscawen, Hn. Robert

Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

Batsford, Brian

Bossom, Sir Clive

Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian

Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

Bowden, Andrew

Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

Braine, Sir Bernard

Astor, John

Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

Bray, Ronald

Atkins, Humphrey

Benyon, W.

Brewis, John

Awdry, Daniel

Berry, Hn. Anthony

Brinton, Sir Tatton

Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

Biggs-Davison, John

Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

Blaker, Peter

Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

Bruce-Gardyne, J.

Hicks, Robert

Pink, R. Bonner

Bryan, Sir Paul

Higgins, Terence L.

Pounder, Rafton

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

Hiley, Joseph

Price, David (Eastleigh)

Bullus, Sir Eric

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

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

Burden, F. A.

Holland, Philip

Proudfoot, Wilfred

Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

Holt, Miss Mary

Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

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

Hornby, Richard

Quennell, Miss J. M.

Carlisle, Mark

Hornsby-Smith.Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia

Raison, Timothy

Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

Howe, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Relgate)

Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

Cary, Sir Robert

Howell, David (Guildford)

Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

Chapman, Sydney

Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

Redmond, Robert

Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

Hunt, John

Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

Chichester-Clark, R.

Hutchison, Michael Clark

Rees, Peter (Dover)

Churchill, W. S.

Iremonger, T. L.

Rees-Davies, W. R.

Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

James, David

Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

Cooke, Robert

Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

Ridsdale, Julian

Coombs, Derek

Jessel, Toby

Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey

Cooper, A. E.

Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

Cordle, John

Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

Corfieid, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick

Jopling, Michael

Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

Cormack, Patrick

Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

Costain, A. P.

Kaberry, Sir Donald

Rost, Peter

Critchley, Julian

Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine

Royle, Anthony

Crouch, David

Kershaw, Anthony

Russell, Sir Ronald

Dalkeith, Earl of

Kimball, Marcus

St. John-Stevas, Norman

Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)

King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.

d'Avlgdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

King, Tom (Bridgwater)

Scott, Nicholas

d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj-Gen. Jack

Knight, Mrs. Jill

Scott-Hopkins, James

Dean, Paul

Knox, David

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

Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

Lamont, Norman

Shelton, William (Clapham)

Digby, Simon Wingfield

Lane, David

Shersby, Michael

Dixon, Piers

Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

Simeons, Charles

Dodds-Parker, Douglas

Lloyd,Rt.Hn.Geoffrey (Sut n C'field)

Sinclair, Sir George

Drayson, G. B.

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

Skeet, T. H. H.

du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

Longden, Sir Gilbert

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

Dykes, Hugh

Loveridge, John

Soref, Harold

Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir John

Luce, R. N.

Speed, Keith

Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

McAdden, Sir Stephen

Spence, John

Elliot, Capt.Walter (Carshalton)

MacArthur, Ian

Sprcat, Iain

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

McCrindle, R. A.

Stainton, Keith

Emery, Peter

McLaren, Martin

Stanbrook, Ivor

Eyre, Reginald

Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)

Farr, John

Macmilian,Rt.Hn.Maurice (Farnham)

Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

McNair-Wilson, Michael

Stokes, John

Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)

Sutcliffe, John

Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

Maddan, Martin

Tapsell, Peter

Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

Madel, David

Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

Fookes, Miss Janet

Mather, Carol

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

Fortescue, Tim

Maude, Angus

Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

Foster, Sir John

Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

Tebbit, Norman

Fowler, Norman

Mawby, Ray

Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

Fox, Marcus

Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

Galbraith, Hn. T. G. D.

Meyer, Sir Anthony

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

Gardner, Edward

Miscampbell, Norman

Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

Gibson-Watt, David

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

Tilney, John

Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

Money, Ernie

Trew, Peter

Glyn, Dr. Alan

Monks, Mrs. Connie

Tugendhat, Christopher

Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

Monro, Hector

Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin

Gorst, John

Montgomery, Fergus

van Straubenzee, W. R.

Gower, Raymond

More, Jasper

Waddington, David

Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

Walder, David (Clitheroe)

Gray, Hamish

Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

Green, Alan

Morrison, Charles

Wall, Patrick

Grieve, Percy

Mudd, David

Walters, Dennis

Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

Murton, Oscar

Ward, Dame Irene

Grylls, Michael

Nabarro, Sir Gerald

Wells, John (Maidstone)

Gummer, J. Selwyn

Neave, Airey

White, Roger (Gravesend)

Gurden, Harold

Nicholls, Sir Harmar

Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

Wiggin, Jerry

Hall, John (Wycombe)

Normanton, Tom

Wilkinson, John

Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

Onslow, Cranley

Winterton, Nicholas

Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

Hannam, John (Exeter)

Osborn, John

Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

Woodnutt, Mark

Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)

Worsley, Marcus

Haselhurst, Alan

Page, John (Harrow, W.)

Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

Hastings, Stephen

Parkinson, Cecil

Younger, Hn. George

Havers, Sir Michael

Peel, Sir John

Hawkins, Paul

Percival, Ian

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Hayhoe, Barney

Peyton, Rt. Hn. John

Mr. Bernard Weatherill and Mr. Walter Clegg.

Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward

Pike, Miss Mervyn

Heseltine, Michael

1396

1397

NOES

Abse, Leo

Freeson, Reginald

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

Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

Galpern, Sir Myer

Molloy, William

Allen, Scholefield

Garrett, W. E.

Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

Gilbert, Dr. John

Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

Armstrong, Ernest

Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)

Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

Ashley, Jack

Golding, John

Moyle, Roland

Ashton, Joe

Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

Atkinson, Norman

Gourlay, Harry

Murray, Ronald King

Bagler, Gordon A. T.

Grant, George (Morpeth)

Ogden, Eric

Barnes, Michael

Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

O'Halloran, Michael

Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

O'Malley, Brian

Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)

Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.

Oram, Bert

Baxter, William

Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

Orme, Stanley

Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

Oswald, Thomas

Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

Hamling, William

Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

Bidwell, Sydney

Hardy, Peter

Padley, Walter

Bishop, E. S.

Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

Paget, R. T.

Blenkinsop, Arthur

Hattersley, Roy

Palmer, Arthur

Boardman, H. (Leigh)

Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

Body, Richard

Heffer, Eric S.

Pardoe, John

Booth, Albert

Hilton, W. S.

Parker, John (Dagenham)

Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

Hooson, Emlyn

Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)

Horam, John

Perry, Ernest G.

Bradley, Tom

Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

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

Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

Brown, Ronald (Shoredltch & F'bury)

Huckfield, Leslie

Price, William (Rugby)

Buchan, Norman

Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

Probert, Arthur

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

Hughes, Mark (Durham)

Radice, Giles

Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

Hughes, Roy (Newport)

Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

Hunter, Adam

Rhodes, Geoffrey

Cant, R. B.

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

Richard, Ivor

Carmichael, Neil

Janner, Greville

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)

Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

Roberts,Rt.Hn.Goronwy (Caernarvon)

Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

Robertson, John (Paisley)

Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

John, Brynmor

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

Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

Concannon, J. D.

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

Roper, John

Corbet, Mrs. Freda

Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

Rose, Paul B.

Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

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

Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

Crawshaw, Richard

Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

Rowlands, Ted

Cronin, John

Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

Sandelson, Neville

Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

Judd, Frank

Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

Kaufman, Gerald

Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

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

Kelley, Richard

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

Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)

Kerr, Russell

Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

Dalyell, Tam

Kinnock, Neil

Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

Darling, Rt. Hn. George

Lambie, David

Sillars, James

Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

Latham, Arthur

Silverman, Julius

Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

Lawson, George

Skinner, Dennis

Davies, Ifor (Gower)

Leadbitter, Ted

Small, William

Oavis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick

Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)

Leonard, Dick

Spearing, Nigel

Deakins, Eric

Lestor, Miss Joan

Stallard, A. W.

de Freltas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

Lewis, Arthur (W, Ham, N.)

Steel, David

Delargy, Hugh

Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)

Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

Lipton, Marcus

Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

Dempsey, James

Lomas, Kenneth

Stoddart, David (Swindon)

Dolg, Peter

Loughlin, Charles

Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

Dormand, J. D.

Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

Douglas-Mann, Bruce

Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

Swain, Thomas

Driberg, Tom

McBride, Neil

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

Duffy, A. E. P.

McCartney, Hugh

Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

Dunnett, Jack

McElhone, Frank

Tinn, James

Edelman, Maurice

Machin, George

Tomney, Frank

Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

Mackenzie, Gregor

Torney, Tom

Edwards, William (Merioneth)

Mackie, John

Tuck, Raphael

Ellis, Tom

Mackintosh, John P.

Urwin, T. W.

English, Michael

Maclennan, Robert

Varley, Eric G.

Evans, Fred

McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

Wainwright, Edwin

Ewing, Harry

McNamara, J. Kevin

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

Faulds, Andrew

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

Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

Fell, Anthony

Marquand, David

Wallace, George

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

Marten, Neil

Watkins, David

Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

Weitzman, David

Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

Meacher, Michael

Wellbeloved, James

Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

Foot, Michael

Mendelson, John

White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

Ford, Ben

Mikardo, Ian

Whitlock, William

Forrester, John

Millan, Bruce

Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

Fraser, John (Norwood)

Milne, Edward

Williams. Alan (Swansea. W.)

1398

1399

Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES

Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

Mr. Donald Coleman and Mr. Joseph Harper.

Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

Woot, Robert

Question accordingly agreed to.
Main Question, as amended, put:—
The House divided: Ayes 275, Noes 250.

Division No. 175.]

AYES

[7.16 p.m.

Adley, Robert

Eyre, Reglnald

Lane, David

Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

Farr, John

Langford-Holt, Sir John

Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian

Flnsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

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

Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

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

Astor, John

Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

Longden, Sir Gilbert

Atkins, Humphrey

Fookes, Miss Janet

Loveridge, John

Awdry, Daniel

Fortescue, Tim

Luce, R. N.

Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

Foster, Sir John

McAdden, Sir Stephen

Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

Fowler, Norman

MacArthur, Ian

Balniel, Rt. Hn Lord

Fox, Marcus

McCrindle, R. A.

Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

Galbraith, Hn. T. G. D.

McLaren, Martin

Batsford, Brian

Gardner, Edward

Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

Gibson-Watt, David

Macmillan, Rt.Hn.Maurice (Farnham)

Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

McNair-Wilson, Michael

Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

Glyn, Dr. Alan

McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)

Benyon, W.

Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

Maddan, Martin

Berry, Hn. Anthony

Gorst, John

Madel, David

Biggs-Davison. John

Gower, Raymond

Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

Blaker, Peter

Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

Mather, Carol

Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

Gray, Hamish

Maude, Angus

Boscawen, Hn. Robert

Green, Alan

Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

Bossom, Sir Clive

Grieve, Percy

Mawby, Ray

Bowden, Andrew

Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

Braine, Sir Bernard

Grylls, Michael

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Bray, Ronald

Gummer, J. Selwyn

Miscampbell, Norman

Brewis, John

Gurden, Harold

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

Brinton, Sir Tatton

Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

Money, Ernie

Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

Hall, John (Wycombe)

Monks, Mrs. Connie

Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

Monro, Hector

Bruce-Gardyne, J.

Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

Montgomery, Fergus

Bryan, Sir Paul

Hannam, John (Exeter)

More, Jasper

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

Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

Bullus, Sir Eric

Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

Burden, F. A.

Haselhurst, Alan

Morrison, Charles

Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

Hastings, Stephen

Mudd, David

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

Havers, Sir Michael

Murton, Oscar

Carlisle, Mark

Hawkins, Paul

Nabarro, Sir Gerald

Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

Hayhoe, Barney

Neave, Airey

Cary, Sir Robert

Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward

Nicholls, Sir Harmar

Chapman, Sydney

Heseltine, Michael

Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

Hicks, Robert

Normanton, Tom

Chichester-Clark, R.

Higgins, Terence L.

Onslow, Cranley

Churchill, W. S.

Hiley, Joseph

Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

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

Osborn, John

Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Holland, Philip

Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

Cooke, Robert

Holt, Miss Mary

Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)

Coombs, Derek

Hornby, Richard

Page, John (Harrow, W.) Parkinson, Cecil

Cooper, A. E.

Hornsby-Smith.Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia

Peel, Sir John

Cordis, John

Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

Percival, Ian

Corfield, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick

Howell, David (Guildford)

Peyton, Rt. Hn. John

Cormack, Patrick

Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

Pike, Miss Mervyn

Costain, A. P.

Hunt, John

Pink, R. Bonner

Critchley, Julian

Hutchison, Michael Clark

Pounder, Rafton

Crouch, David

Iremonger, T. L.

Price, David (Eastleigh)

Dalkeith, Earl of

Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

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

Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)

James, David

Proudfoot, Wilfred

d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

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

Jessel, Toby

Quennell, Miss J. M.

Dean, Paul

Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

Ralson, Timothy

Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

Digby, Simon Wingfield

Jopling, Michael

Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

Dixon, Piers

Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

Redmond, Robert

Dodds-Parker, Douglas

Kaberry, Sir Donald

Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

Drayson, G. B.

Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine

Rees, Peter (Dover)

du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

Kershaw, Anthony

Rees-Davies, W. R.

Dykes, Hugh

Kimball, Marcus

Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir John

King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

King, Tom (Bridgwater)

Ridsdale, Julian

Elliott, Capt. Waller (Carshalton)

Knight, Mrs. Jill

Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey

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

Knox, David

Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

Emery, Peter

Lamont, Norman

Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)

Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

Rost, Peter

Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

Wall, Patrick

Royle, Anthony

Stokes, John

Walters, Dennis

Russell, Sir Ronald

Sutcliffe, John

Ward, Dame Irene

St. John-Stevas, Norman

Tapsell, Peter

Wells, John (Maidstone)

Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.

Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

White, Roger (Gravesend)

Scott, Nicholas

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

Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

Scott-Hopkins, James

Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

Wiggin, Jerry

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

Tebbit, Norman

Wilkinson, John

Shelton, William (Clapham)

Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

Winterton, Nicholas

Shersby, Michael

Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

Simeons, Charles

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

Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

Sinclair, Sir George

Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

Woodnutt, Mark

Skeet, T. H. H.

Tilney, John

Worsley, Marcus

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

Trew, Peter

Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

Soref, Harold

Tugendhat, Christopher

Younger, Hn. George

Speed, Keith

Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin

Spence, John

van Straubenzee, W. R.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Sproat, Iain

Waddington, David

Mr. Bernard Weatberill and Mr. Walter Clegg.

Stainton, Keith

Walder, David (Clitheroe)

Stanbrook, Ivor

NOES

Abse, Leo

Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

Douglas-Mann, Bruce

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

Allen, Scholefield

Driberg, Tom

Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

Duffy, A. E. P.

Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

Armstrong, Ernest

Dunnett, Jack

Judd, Frank

Ashley, Jack

Edeiman, Maurice

Kaufman, Gerald

Ashton, Joe

Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

Kelley, Richard

Atkinson, Norman

Edwards, William (Merioneth)

Kerr, Russell

Bagier, Gordon A. T.

Ellis, Tom

Kinnock, Neil

Barnes, Michael

English, Michael

Lambie, David

Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

Evans, Fred

Latham, Arthur

Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)

Ewing, Harry

Lawson, George

Baxter, William

Faulds, Andrew

Leadbitter, Ted

Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony (Wedgwood)

Fell, Anthony

Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick

Bennett, James(Glasgow, Bridgeton)

Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham,Lady wood)

Leonard, Dick

Bidwell, Sydney

Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

Lestor, Miss Joan

Bishop, E. S.

Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

Blenkinsop, Arthur

Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

Boardman, H. (Leigh)

Foot, Michael

Lipton, Marcus

Body, Richard

Ford, Ben

Lomas, Kenneth

Booth, Albert

Forrester, John

Loughlin, Charles

Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

Fraser, John (Norwood)

Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

Boyden, James(Bishop Auckland)

Freeson, Reginald

Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

Bradley, Tom

Galpern, Sir Myer

Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

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

Garrett, W. E.

McBride, Neil

Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

Gilbert, Dr. John

McCartney, Hugh

Buchan, Norman

Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)

McElhone, Frank

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

Golding, John

Machin, George

Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

Mackenzie, Gregor

Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

Gourlay, Harry

Mackie, John

Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

Grant, George (Morpeth)

Mackintosh, John P.

Cant, R. B.

Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

Maclennan, Robert

Carmichael, Neil

Griffiths, Eddie (Brightslde)

McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)

Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.

McNamara, J. Kevin

Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

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

Castle, Rt. Hon. Barbara

Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

Marquand, David

Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

Hamling, William

Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

Concannon, J. D.

Hardy, Peter

Meacher, Michael

Corbet, Mrs. Freda

Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

Hattersley, Roy

Mendelson, John

Crawshaw, Richard

Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

Mikardo, Ian

Cronin, John

Heffer, Eric S.

Millan, Bruce

Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

Hilton, W. S.

Milne, Edward

Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

Hooson, Emlyn

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

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

Horam, John

Molloy, William

Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)

Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

Dalyell, Tam

Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

Darling, Rt. Hn. George

Huckfield, Leslie

Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

Davies, Denzll (Llanelly)

Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

Moyle, Roland

Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

Hughes, Mark (Durham)

Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

Davies, Ifor (Gower)

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

Murray, Ronald King

Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

Hughes, Roy (Newport)

Ogden, Eric

Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)

Hunter, Adam

O'Halloran, Michael

Deakins, Eric

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

O'Malley, Brian

de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

Janner, Greville

Oram, Bert

Delargy, Hugh

Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

Orme, Stanley

Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

Oswald, Thomas

Dempsey, James

John, Brynmor

Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

Dolg, Peter

Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

Padley, Walter

Dormand, J D.

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

Paget, R. T.

Palmer, Arthur

Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

1402

1403

Pardoe, John

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

Urwin, T. W.

Farker, John (Dagenham)

Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

Varley, Eric G.

Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

Silkln, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

Wainwrlght, Edwin

Perry, Ernest G.

Sillars, James

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

Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

Silverman, Julius

Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

Price, William (Rugby)

Skinner, Dennis

Wallace, George

Probert, Arthur

Small, William

Watkins. David

Radice, Giles

Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

Weltzman, David

Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

Spearing, Nigel

Wellbeloved, James

Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

Stallard, A. W.

Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

Rhodes, Geoffrey

Steel, David

White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

Richard, Ivor

Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)

Whitlock, William

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

Roberts, Rt.Hn.Goronwy (Caernarvon)

Stoddart, David (Swindon)

Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

Robertson, John (Paisley)

Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

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

Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

Roper, John

Swain, Thomas

Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

Rose, Paul B.

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

Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

Woof, Robert

Rowlands, Ted

Tinn, James

Sandelson, Neville

Tomney, Frank

TELLERS FOR THE NOES

Sheldon, Robert (Ashlon-under-Lyne)

Torney, Tom

Mr. Donald Coleman and Mr. Joseph Harper.

Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

Tuck, Raphael

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House acknowledges the declared intention of the European Communities to ensure the harmonious development of the
1404
economies of Member States by reducing the differences existing between the various regions, welcomes the progress made by the EEC Commission towards a Regional Development Fund, and recognises that this House will wish to debate these issues.

ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS
7.24 p.m.
Mrs. Shirley Williams: I beg to move,
That this House, while supporting stringent penalties against the inhuman trade in illegal immigrants, believes that the House of Lords' decision, confirming the retrospective effect of the Immigration Act 1971, has created profound uncertainty and fear of blackmail in the immigrant community; believes that retrospective penal legislation is contrary to democratic traditions; and urges the Government therefore not to expel immigrants guilty of no other offence who were settled here six months or more before the 1971 Act received the Royal Assent.
There will be those who say that this is a debate about illegal immigration, and there will be some truth in that. The motion—and it is a motion which we recognise to be in some ways difficult to express, because it involves highly complicated matters—does not attempt in any way to condone illegal immigration. The Opposition recognise that illegal immigration can have a serious effect on the trust between the host community and the immigrant communities.
We would ask the immigrant communities not to protect those who engage in what is as inhumane a trade as the drug trade and one which has little concern for the future and for the status of those with whom it deals. We recognise the tragedy by which many people in India and Pakistan are persuaded to sell up all that they have to pay those who are engaged in this trade. They often find themselves later deported from this country—and, of course, they should be—and returned to their own country with no means of livelihood.
It is not the Opposition's case to condone that kind of operation, but it is part of our case to refer to the ways in which penalties have been made retrospective on those who came to this country between 1968 and the passage of the Immigration Act 1971, and the ways in which confidential information has been supplied by certain Government Departments. Further, if the effect on the relations between the police and the immigrant community is not cleared up and cleared up soon, the result will be so grave that it would be an abdication of the Opposition's responsibility if we were
1406
not to bring these matters before the House.
The offence is not to be condoned, but the treatment of the offender is a matter which the House must consider. The 1971 Act has been interpreted by another place as making retrospective penalties against illegal immigrants. It has abolished the status of irremovability, which existed under the Immigration Act 1968. That Act provided that if a person had nit been prosecuted within six months, he became irremovable and could not be prosecuted. That was borne out by the number of illegal immigrants who had been here for more than six months who were seen subsequently by the police and informed that they were not open to prosecution and could make their lives in this country.
I do not say that that was not an anomaly. I do not say that the House was necessarily wise to allow that anomaly to continue. But I do say that that was the position as understood by those who came to this country illegally between 1968 and 1971.
In some ways, perhaps the most disturbing aspect of the imposition of retrospective penalties is not the effect on perhaps 1 per cent. of the immigrant community who arrived illegally. The highest estimate which I have seen is that about 10,000 persons arrived illegally. That is considerably less than 1 per cent. of the immigrant community legally settled in this country. It is the danger that the relationship of the host community with the 99 per cent. of the immigrant community who are legally here will deteriorate to a stage when the House will regret that it never properly debated the effects of retrospective penalties which is perhaps the most serious aspect.
It is our fear that already the sense of security of the immigrant community has been seriously undermined. In that context I shall quote from a letter which has been sent to me and, I think, to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department by the Dean of Liverpool. The Dean is also Chairman of the Liverpool Community Relations Council. The Dean says:
"Without entering here into a discussion on the merits or demerits of the Act itself, we are deeply concerned that the implementation of retrospective legislation against these immigrants …may have serious repercussions on

1407
the already delicately balanced state of race relations in this country."
That is echoed by the Chairman of the Community Relations Commission established by the Government. He said:
"We are now seeing the consequences we feared. I said that the Bill's effect"—
he is referring to the Immigration Act 1971—
"must be to increase acutely the sense of insecurity already felt by minority groups living here and that it would do incalculable harm to community relations; and so it has."
I shall refer to one example to show how complex these matters can be. They are perhaps more complex than a simple black and white statement about legality or illegality.
I have a constituent, Mr. Shah Mohammed, a British citizen who came here about seven years ago. Since he was entitled to do so, he applied for naturalisation. He came as a legal immigrant. In 1967 he applied for his family to join him—three daughters and a son. On 5th May 1967, I received a letter from the then Minister of State, Home Office, Mr. David Ennals, in which he said:
"I understand from correspondence we have had that Mr. Mohammed's 17½-year-old boy is in fact his stepson but he also will be admissible if he comes with Mr. Shah Mohammed's wife."
The mills of the Home Office may grind surely but they grind exceedingly slow.
Many dozens of letters later, several interviews later and, indeed, three years later, Mr. Mohammed's dependants had still not joined him in Britain. His son was no longer within the age of dependency and we were told, therefore, that he could no longer join his family, despite the letter from which I have quoted indicating that he was entitled to do so.
The son, in desperation, arrived illegally at the end of 1970. He did not inform his father of his arrival and in 1971 he was picked up by the police. He had been here more than six months and was told by the police that he could stay. But his father, who is a law-abiding citizen, was extremely shocked by the manner of his son's arrival. He questioned him about how he had managed to arrive illegally and informed
1408
the police of those responsible. One of those responsible is today serving three years' imprisonment as a direct result of my constituent's information. I ask the House how likely it is that such a man would act in the way Mr. Mohammed did had he known what he now knows—that his son would on 15th February 1973 be taken into Pentonville without being allowed to contact his relatives and without legal representation. He has been there ever since.
I am not sure whether this was what Parliament intended. I have enough respect and trust in my colleagues to believe that Parliament could not have intended this kind of case. There are many other cases in Gravesend, Southall, Leyton, and elsewhere, and I am sure my hon. Friends from such areas will, if called, be able to give the House similar details. I mention only nine cases—I shall not say more about them—in all of which the police were informed and told the immigrants that they would not be pursued or prosecuted, but in which the immigrants have subsequently been arrested, some at their place of work and many without anybody further being informed. Again I am bound to ask whether this was what Parliament intended.
The Home Secretary replying to a Question on 12th June said that this was
"…what we believed the law to be and what we intended it to be."—[OFFIICIAL REPORT, 12th June, 1973; Vol. 857, c. 1207.]
I respect the right hon. Gentleman's loyalty to his predecessor, but I find it difficult completely to accept what he said.
If that was the intention of the Government, it was never either explained or debated during the long course of the passage of the Immigration Act through the House. Indeed, it is open to question whether the matter was ever made clear. The hon. Member for Torquay (Sir F. Bennett) has said that it was, but I quote two other people who have at least equal expertise. In the Lords' judgment, Lord Wilberforce said:
"The machinery which has been used in order to effect the detention of the appellants is set out in a complicated series of provisions in the Act of 1971. I regret that in a matter which affects directly so many individuals so labyrinthine a path requires to be followed."

1409
Lord Salmon said:
"I feel bound to express concern that the draftsmen of this Act should have chosen to achieve its retrospective effect through a labyrinth of verbiage which may well have been as perplexing to many of those who had to consider it in Parliament as it was to many of those it has deprived of their constitutional rights."
One is bound to ask whether there was not a duty on Ministers where the liberty of individuals was concerned—and in this case the liberty of individuals was indeed concerned—to explain to Parliament exactly what the consequences of the Act would be.
It may be, of course, that Ministers themselves did not understand the Act. I think some might not have understood at least some parts of that extremely complicated legislation. What I am sure about is that, because the expression of retrospective penalties was so vague, many immigrants understood of the Act what they were told much more clearly—that it would not have retrospective effect. On 8th March 1971, the then Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) said:
"…it is enormously important to reassure the immigrants already here as part of our community that they will have no loss or status under the Bill, that in this country there will be no first and second-class citizens." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th March 1971; Vol. 813, c. 44.]
Further questioned on 17th June 1971, on Third Reading, the right hon. Gentleman said:
"I said at an earlier stage that I did not intend in any way to prejudice the position of people already here."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th June 1971; Vol. 819, c. 569.]
Again, it is of course true that immigrants failed to understand that these words of the Home Secretary were subject to that complicated set of schedules which, taken together, indicated that illegal immigrants were not covered by this statement. But again one is bound to say that that was never made clear.
So the Act as we now know operates retrospectively in a way which has been described by the Committee of Justice in its annual report as follows:
"… with the result that those who entered illegally before the Act was passed are now condemned to live the rest of their lives in England under the fear of detection, harassment or even blackmail, however long they have resided here."
1410
It is a terrible phrase, "the rest of their lives", and again one wonders whether that was what Parliament intended. Was it really Parliament's intention to put these people—and, as I will come to show, many thousands more—in fear and under threat of blackmail for the rest of their lives?
Mr. David Steel: Perhaps the right hon. Lady will include in her quotations an exchange which took place in another place on 19th July 1971 during the Committee stage of the measure. On an amendment moved by my noble Friend Lord Wade, the then Minister of State, given an opportunity to talk about the effect of the Bill on those already settled here, said:
"Some changes in the position of people already settled here are inevitable. It would he quite wrong to overstate them and we should have some thought of the dangers in breeding quite unnecessary insecurity in the minds of immigrants already established here." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 19th July, 1971; Vol. 322, c. 675.]
That was the view of the Government on the possibilities of alteration of status.
Mrs. Williams: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, which underlines my point. The question is whether it was Parliament's intention to create what has unquestionably now been created—a most profound rift between the immigrant community and the host community. Already one important Asian body, the Indian Workers Association, one of the most representative bodies, has withdrawn from all Government bodies concerned with race relations. Others have threatened to do so.
There are particularly sensitive areas which the House must consider. One of these is the relations between the immigrants and the police. The relations between the police and in particular the Asian community have, by and large, been good. The police have said on more than one occasion that most of the Asian community are law-abiding and that the police do not find it difficult to work with them. But what has happened now of course is the development of a widespread fear that when anyone is picked up for a minor offence —I have already had reported to me

1411
many traffic offences involving immigrants, some of them even parking offences—inquiries are made and in some cases people are being taken to the police station for questioning about their status in this country. Only two days ago in my constituency two Asians were taken in for questioning on minor matters. Both were released because they were legally in this country. In one case, however, there was a detention of several hours. This is hardly the way to establish good relations in this highly sensitive area.
The first question I want to ask the Home Secretary is whether he can give us an assurance that the police will be guided not to ask for passports in minor cases when they have no suspicion whatever that the person involved may be guilty of an offence in this respect. This is exceedingly important, because we must not escalate strain between the police and the great majority of legal immigrants. Secondly, there is the whole area of social security. We know that over the past three years it has been possible for immigrants applying for social benefits or national insurance cards to be asked to show their passports. We further know that if the passport or the information given creates any suspicion in the minds of the social security officer, this information is handed on to the Home Office.
The Government would be most unwise to shake public confidence in the confidentiality of Government records of this kind in a desperate pursuit of a tiny minority of illegal immigrants. Indeed, I always understood that under the Civil Service code personal information was kept confidential and although I admit that the Secretary of State for Social Services, in an answer on 7th November 1970, said that in certain rare cases this might happen, I do not believe that the House realised until recently the extent to which this breach of confidentiality had gone. Indeed, it is now clear that the trade union most concerned, the Civil and Public Services Association, had not appreciated this position and it has now called upon its 55,000 members in social security officers not to co-operate with the Government in this regard.
Mr. Norman Fowler: Would the hon. Lady not agree that it is slightly anomalous, if these
1412
immigrants, irrespective of how many there are, entered this country illegally, that there should be no check upon a national insurance card being given to them? If that is the case, it would be an incentive to illegal immigration. Once that incentive was taken away, perhaps some of the incentive which is responsible for illegal immigration would be lost.
Mrs. Williams: Under previous legislation, when the immigrant was already in this country and had not been prosecuted for six months he was entitled to a national insurance card. The position about which we are concerned, and one which I would still regard as being not wholly intended, relates to the retrospection issue. People who gained national insurance cards after six months with total legality are now to be questioned about that. I am not in any way suggesting that information should not be available about illegal immigrants following the passage of the 1971 Act. Even then my view is that any breach of confidentiality of a Government Department's records should be fully debated in the House and it should be set out precisely in what cases—and such cases should be laid down in Parliament—such breaches of confidentiality would be permitted.
The only answer to this question, and it is one to which the intervention by the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Fowler) has pointed, is the declaration of an amnesty for those who have been here for more than six months and who were therefore not subject to prosecution between 1968 and the passage of the 1971 Immigration Act. In other words, Parliament should restore the position to what it was understood to be before the passage of the 1971 Act.
Again I can quote a powerful advocate of this view in the shape of the Chairman of the Race Relations Board, Sir Geoffrey Wilson. He said:
"The best way of restoring confidence would be for the House of Lords to pass Lord Avebury's Bill which would remove the threat of summary expulsion from those people who, until a recent court ruling, had every reason to assume that they were secure."
It may be that the Home Secretary will say that he cannot concede an amnesty. I feel that the damage being done to race relations among the legal majority who

1413
are here is such that in time he will come to believe that this is the best thing to do.
If he feels unable to concede that, I would ask him at the least to put in as clear terms as possible the executive discretion that he has now taken upon himself. He has told the House that he will operate the removal process with compassion and firmness. That process is not subject to any appeal; it cannot be raised in the courts and, as we know, in many cases there has been no way in which the immigrant can put his case.
I ask the Home Secretary to consider the possibility of allowing those who are about to be removed, who have been apprehended by the police and who have been here for more than six months and are not therefore subject to prosecution, to be allowed to put their case, not to him, because I do not believe that this should be a matter of executive discretion, but to the Immigration Appeals Tribunal.
I would also ask him to lay down as precisely as he can the criteria which in his view should be taken into account in deciding whether someone should be removed. This involves such things as their family responsibilities, because the right hon. Gentleman will know that it was quite legal for families to come in when they were dependants of those no longer able to be prosecuted. There is an almost desperate anomaly in the circumstances.
Civil liberties do not erode at the top: they erode at the bottom, among the most under-privileged, the most poor, the least popular. If the House cares—and I believe that it has always cared—about civil liberties, it must tonight take the not wholly popular but deeply important step of satisfying itself that the constitutional rights and civil rights of these people have been adequately protected by us.
7.48 p.m.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Robert Carr): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof
'endorses Her Majesty's Government's determination to halt illegal immigration; declines to give priority for settlement to those who came here knowing their entry to be illegal; has confidence that individual cases will be dealt with with firmness tempered by com-
1414
passion; and believes that this policy is in the best interests of community relations and of those who entered legally or are waiting to do so.'
Before beginning my argument may I say that I hope that the House will forgive me if this evening I do not give way as I am usually prepared to do? We have a short debate and, as the House knows, interruptions and explanations take up a lot of time. It is better that as many people as possible should be able to speak, and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will do his best to reply to the points that have been raised.
This debate is essentially about good community relations. I will start with a few basic facts and principles of policy to set this important although relatively narrow subject in its proper perspective.
It is easy to concentrate all our remarks and all the publicity outside the House on the failures in good race relations and on examples of troubles and cases of discrimination, real or alleged. Of course there are failures and of course, unfortunately, there is prejudice and discrimination, and we have a very long way to travel before we can be satisfied. It may be right to draw attention to and take notice of our failures; indeed, I am sure that it is. It is natural that those who represent the immigrant communities particularly, and also those whose job it is to help to foster and maintain good race relations, should be sensitive about any difficulties or failures and make sure that they are noted.
But there is another duty which we all have, and that is to draw attention to the overall success of community relations in this country, because success rather than failure is the keynote of race relations in Britain. There can be few countries which would have so cheerfully and in such a short time received with overall friendliness so many people from other lands. There can be few countries which could have absorbed this great mixture of nationalities with so much tolerance and so little friction, and there can be few countries in which those who come here are treated as first-class citizens from the day they arrive.
It does no service to community relations to underplay the tremendous achievement of the British people in accepting so many people with so much tolerance and so little friction. It is the

1415
people of this country who will determine whether we have good community relations through the extent of their natural tolerance. Laws can help and support, institutions can help and support, but in the end what matters is the natural sense of tolerance of the British people.
The Government and Parliament have a duty to lead and support and therefore to try to increase the mood of tolerance, but I do not believe that the British people react well to being constantly lectured and sometimes hectored and criticised over some admitted failures when their record of tolerance and friendliness is basically so good. If our community relations in Britain are to remain remarkably good—still more if they are to be further improved, as it is our passionate hope that they shall be—my job and the Government's job, whatever party is in government, is to ensure that immigration is strictly controlled and that the rules are observed. That is the compact which we have with the British people and it is a compact which I intend to honour.
There are, therefore, four basic principles of policy to which the Government adhere. The first is that there should be no second-class citizens in Britain. Everyone who was born here or who has come here legally should be equal before the law and treated equally in the practices of daily life. We do not live up to that perfectly, but that is our commitment and that is what my colleagues and I will do our best to achieve.
Secondly, because we are a very heavily populated country with, in general, a labour force adequate to our needs, and because over the last 20 years we have absorbed an exceptionally large number of immigrants into our midst, our principle is that new permanent immigration should be reduced to an inescapable minimum.
The third basic principle of policy on which the Government base themselves is that our small capacity to accept new permanent immigrants must be almost wholly reserved for the two categories of people to whom we have special responsibilities as a country, namely, first, the close dependent relatives of heads of households already lawfully settled here; and, secondly, those people who, as a result of our imperial past, are citizens of this country and of no other.
1416
The fourth principle is that, if we are to honour in practice and not just in words the first three principles, we must do all in our power to halt the evil trade of illegal immigration and not grant easily or automatically to those who have deliberately come here illegally the rights and privileges which attach to those who have been born our citizens or to those who have been properly and lawfully accepted for settlement.
It is mainly about the fourth principle that we are arguing tonight, but I do not believe that one can separate that principle from the other three.
Although I fully accept the intentions and spirit behind much of what the hon. Member for Hitchin (Mrs. Shirley Williams) said, I genuinely believe that the Opposition are wholly wrong in seeking to break the fourth principle—wrong in their judgment of the effect of the proposals in their motion on race relations in the longer run in this country; wrong in their judgment of their duty towards immigrants already legally settled here and towards those who still have a proper right to come here and are awaiting their lawful turn to do so; and wrong in their judgment—and this is most important of all—of what will increase rather than decrease the prevailing mood of tolerance among the British people on which good relations must depend.
That, basically, is why I ask the House to reject the motion and to accept our amendment. That is why, the other week, I told the House that the House of Lords judgment had confirmed what we thought the law to be and what we intended it to be.
There is no excuse at this late stage for the Opposition, or, indeed, anyone else involved in this subject, to complain that the law is particularly, let alone deliberately, unclear or that the Government deliberately obscured their intentions during the passage of the Immigration Act 1971.
As to the clarity of the Act, no substantial Bill that comes before the House is exactly easy reading. Both the language and the structure proposed by the draftsman to meet the requirements of legal precision make understanding a matter of hard work for the layman, even experienced parliamentary laymen. But

1417
the Act does not fail in clarity, at least compared with most other Acts covering substantial subjects. Those who have sought to claim that they were unaware of the effect of the law, before the decision of the House of Lords earlier this month, have ignored the unambiguous definition of "illegal immigrant" contained in the Act and the care with which the Act was drafted so as to avoid giving protection to illegal immigrants.
Thus, in Section 33(1) of the Act an illegal entrant is defined as a person
"unlawfully entering or seeking to enter in breach of a deportation order or of the immigration laws, and includes also a person who has so entered."
Paragraph 9 of Schedule 2 provides for the giving of directions for the removal of an illegal entrant so defined. Again, the provisions affording protection to those who have been accepted for settlement are in Section 1(2) of the Act and they state that
"indefinite leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom shall …be treated as having been given …to those"
here at its coming into force if they were then settled here. The word "settled" is of the greatest importance. Section 33 is a definition clause, so it is the place where anyone concerned with this matter should first look to see what we are talking about. Section 33(1) provides that it is to be construed in accordance with Section 2(3)(d) of the Act and that section provides that the references to a person being settled are references to his being ordinarily resident here
"without being subject under the immigration laws to any restriction on the period for which he may remain."
Section 33 (2) provides quite specifically that a person is not to be treated as ordinarily resident here at a time when he is here in breach of the immigration laws. All right, that is complicated but, if we are honest, we all know that every one of our Acts of Parliament is complicated. Again and again hon. Members of all parties and none have asked why we cannot draw up our Bills in more easily readable language. That is something that I have said, and I have sympathy with that view. All I am saying is that this Act is no more labyrinthine or complicated than is any other Act.
1418
Anyone experienced in dealing with the passage of Bills through Parliament should have been able to see for himself, without any prompting, what we were doing, namely, that in the terms of the Act we were fulfilling our undertaking to ensure that all those settled here on or before 1st January this year should have all their existing rights protected.
Mr. Clinton Davis: Where was it spelled out?
Mr. Carr: My right hon. Friend the then Home Secretary—as did other Home Office Ministers at the time—repeatedly used the phrase "accepted for settlement", not just the plain words "settled here". My right hon. Friend did that much earlier, namely, on 17th June 1971, as will be seen from the report of the proceedings in HANSARD in column 771. So we used this phrase "accepted for settlement".
Mr. Davis: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Carr: I said that I would not give way, and I explained why, and it was generally accepted by the House.
While we did that, we also made clear that we did not, and did not mean to, give this protection to those who came here before that date illegally and who were therefore not settled here as defined in the Act. As I say, I believe that any hon. Member should have been able to see for himself what we were doing without any prompting, but, in fact, this important matter was not left just to be understood by reading the Bill without prompting. It was raised in debate, and I say to the hon. Member for Hitchin (Mrs. Shirley Williams) and her colleagues that some people have not done their homework.
Mr. Davis: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Carr: No. Thus, in Committee on 13th May 1971, in column 769, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) raised the question of an amnesty for illegal immigrants. He realised the point and drew the Committee's attention to it in that speech.
Again, in Committee on 25th May the late Sir Richard Sharples who was then Minister of State at the Home Office,

1419
speaking on an amendment to Clause 35 dealing with liability to prosecution said that
"it does not of course mean to say that the removal of the person who has come here illegally cannot be ordered. There is a provision under Paragraph 9 of Schedule 2 for the removal of a person who has come here illegally, irrespective of time."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee B. 25th May 1971; c. 1460.]
Mr. Bruce Douglas-Mann: In the future.
Mr. Carr: No, irrespective of time.
Mr. Davis: It is out of context.
Mr. Carr: It is not out of context. Hon. Members on both sides of the Committee were talking about the need for an amnesty. Why were they doing that if this was not realised? There was no need to talk about an amnesty if this was not meant—as we said it was meant—to operate as we intended.
If further evidence is wanted to show that the House was well aware that the Immigration Bill did not safeguard the position of illegal entrants, it is provided by the debate which took place on Report on the Floor of the House on the question whether there should be an amnesty. The reference is to columns 472–476 of the OFFICIAL REPORT for 16th June 1971.
The matter arose on amendments moved by my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling), the then Home Secretary, with a view to clarifying the meaning of ordinary residence in the United Kingdom. In moving the amendments my right hon. Friend said that they made it clear that a person was not to be treated as ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom while he was here in breach of the immigration laws.
For the Opposition, the hon. and learned Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. Peter Archer) accepted the amendments without much comment.
Mr. Peter Archer: Does the Home Secretary agree that that amendment related to members of a family? It was the children who were in question on that occasion.
Mr. Carr: I am not putting words into the hon. and learned Gentleman's mouth. Will he listen to what happened next? As I said, the hon. and learned Gentleman accepted the amendments without much
1420
comment, but the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) put forward the argument that after a long period in this country those who had entered illegally ought to be allowed to stay. He asked what would be the Home Secretary's view in the case of a person who had been here illegally for 20 years.
For the Liberal Party, the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) raised the same point and asked what would be the position after the Bill became law of those who had in the past entered illegally. The House must admit that both those questions were absolutely specific and on the point. This is how my right hon. Friend the then Home Secretary replied:
"This is a matter of discretion. If a man has been here for a very long time, it is within our discretion to say that he can stay." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th June 1971; Vol. 819, c. 476.]
That answer in reply to those specific questions coupled with what my late hon. Friend the then Minister of State said, which I quoted earlier, made absolutely clear what the Government intended as well as what they believed the Bill provided.
It may be argued whether what we were proposing was right or wrong, but it cannot be argued that we hid it or did not intend it. We believed that we were right then, and we believe that we are right now, although that of course must be a matter for judgment.
I can put the reasons no better than they were put by Lord Denning, the Master of the Rolls, in his judgment in the Court of Appeal—a judgment which was of course upheld by the House of Lords. These are Lord Denning's words and I should like the House to pay attention to them:
"These men, if once here by leave, will seek to bring their wives and children over. Two of them have already applied to do so. If the men are allowed to remain, it will be difficult to refuse the wives and children. If this were allowed, the number of immigrants would be increased so greatly that there would not be room for everybody. Again, if an amnesty were granted, it would be an encouragement to others to follow their example: and that simply cannot be permitted. By sending back illegal entrants, it will help to deter others from trying to do the same. In the circumstances Parliament, as I read the Act, has decided that illegal entrants can be sent back. It has entrusted this decision to the Home Secretary, and not to the courts. It

1421
has left it to his discretion. It is better left there because, after all, the matter is one of policy which the courts cannot handle. The Home Secretary can take into account all the circumstances. He has to weigh in the balance on the one hand the length of time the man has been here, and his conduct while here: and, on the other hand, the effect on our society if he and others like him are allowed to stay. This is not a justiciable matter for the courts. It is an administrative matter for the Secretary of State. It is very like his discretion to remove aliens, which has never been questioned in all our long history. Illegal entrants cannot be expected to be treated better than aliens. Even though they are Commonwealth citizens, they have come into this country in flagrant defiance of our laws. They cannot pray in aid those very laws to enable them to remain here."
Those were the words of Lord Denning, the Master of the Rolls, in giving his judgment on these cases—a judgment which was upheld by the House of Lords. So the matter is as we meant it to be, and as we believe it should be, one for my discretion as Home Secretary.
In conclusion, I want to turn to what we shall do in what we recognise to be a most difficult human problem. I have no intention of asking the police to take any new special measures to seek out those who came to this country illegally before the beginning of this year, although I am certainly asking them to do everything in their power to bring to an end this loathsome trade in illegal immigrants—and that at least, I know, is common ground on all sides of the House.
The police will have to deal with cases involving pre-1973 illegal entrants which come to their notice. I was glad to hear that the Chief Constable of the West Midlands Police Force had denied a report than an instruction had been issued to West Midlands policemen to check the passports of immigrants stopped for minor traffic offences. I gladly draw the attention of the House to that statement, and I am sure that I join with the whole House in applauding that view by the Chief Constable. I emphasise that the police will have to deal with cases that come to their notice, but in all cases where an illegal immigrant is immune from prosecution and came here after 9th March, 1968, the case will have to be reported to the Home Office.
I repeat what I said the other week, namely, that every such case will be considered not only by officials but also
1422
personally by a Minister. We shall consider carefully, and with understanding, all relevant factors. We shall take into account the length of time the man has been in this country. We shall take into account the strength of his connections here, together with his personal history, including employment record and the like. We shall also take account of his family circumstances and give full weight to them. Age and medical condition will also be considered as will any other compassionate circumstances. We shall also be ready to consider representations which may be made by the immigrant or on his behalf by hon. Members or by anyone else who may be in a position to make representations on his behalf—and that goes for the particular case mentioned by the hon. Member for Hitchin and the other nine cases to which she referred. I give the hon. Lady and the House that absolute assurance. We believe that this is the right way to deal with this difficult question, taking the sum total of factors into account, rather than laying down rigid rules which are a direct invitation to evasion and exploitation. We are not unaware of the difficulties and sometimes the suffering that lies behind these cases. We shall temper the firmness which we believe is necessary in the interests of our community as a whole with real compassion in individual cases.
I do not think that we shall be found wanting in sympathetic consideration, but I could not consistently with what I conceive to be my duty give a blanket assurance that everyone who came here illegally before a particular date should not be removed. This is not, in our view, the way to deal with the matter. It must remain the normal practice when somebody is found to be in this country illegally, to send him away.
Are the Opposition saying to the country that men who knew they were coming illegally, who paid money to be smuggled in, who are without wives and children here, should not only be allowed to stay but later to bring in their wives and children and thus gain a wholly unfair advantage over those who have a legal right to come and are properly awaiting their turn to come and to whom we have a real obligation? That is what the motion says, and that is why I ask the House to reject the motion and to support the amendment.
8.18 p.m.
Mr. Peter Archer: This debate is about a number of specific individuals. It is about those who entered the United Kingdom without permission between 9th March 1968 and what my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin (Mrs. Shirley Williams) has called the passing of this Bill. We on this side accept that it is the passing of the Bill, when it reached the Statute Book and when everybody was in a position to know its contents and to know their position, which was in question, and not necessarily the date when it became activated.
The debate also relates to a small number of people who entered before 9th March 1968, having been specifically refused permission to land. It does not apply to any future entrants. There is no question of encouraging would-be entrants in the future to come here illegally. They know that if they enter illegally they are caught by this provision. It does not apply to anybody who has entered since the passing of the Bill or to anybody who at the date of the passing of the Bill had not been here for a period of six months. It relates to specific people who could be ascertained, although in view of the Home Secretary's attitude it is not likely that they will come forward and announce themselves. Furthermore, they are people who have been in this country for some time. They are people who at the date of the passing of the Bill had acquired a status. It may be pointless to enter into any semantic argument about whether it should be called a right. They appear to have been given to understand, quite reasonably, that they were here as members of the community and were in no danger of being removed.
The Home Secretary said that the British people are normally basically tolerant. I believe that they are normally basically fair and in this respect they are on the side of my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin. How these illegal immigrants arrived is not something we seek to condone, but the facts are that now many of them have put down roots, have obtained steady work, and have established a position in the community, keeping a family and making a contribution. They face the possibility of losing all that and of being returned to a country where they may not be gladly received,
1424
and where they may have few economic prospects, and indeed they may possibly be reduced to a condition of statelessness.
This is a grave penalty to pay for their original offence, particularly when we remember that their offence may simply have been that they succumbed to a temptation to enter a land where they saw the promise of a new beginning. We do not condone what they did, but they are entitled to justice—and justice consists of tempering the penalty to the gravity of the offence. If a court were to consider the matter it might take a lenient view.
It may be that the right hon. Gentleman will weigh all the appropriate factors when he considers the matter. But he does not inspire a great deal of confidence in those concerned, because in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, Central, (Mr. Clinton Davis) on 12th June he said that the normal practice for anyone in this position would be to remove him. The normal practice would be to impose a penalty quite disproportionate in some cases to the nature of the offence.
It may be that this is the effect of the Act and that it was there in the Act for us all to spell out. If some of us were less than clear about the point, we were not entirely alone. May I, too, offer a quotation? In the course of the Report stage the then Home Secretary said:
"I said at an earlier stage that I did not intend in any way to prejudice the position of people already here."—[OFFIGAL REPORT, 16th June 1971; Vol. 819, c. 550.]
There was no mention there of the word "settled". There was no suggestion that the right hon. Gentleman was using some technical formula. If there was a confusion, it was a confusion which the right hon. Gentleman himself shared.
The Home Secretary apparently does not agree. However, if one reads the whole passage one sees that the then Home Secretary began with a reference to "the particular question of people already resident here". There was no reservation in what he told the House.
Mr. R. Carr: I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman knows that there were many prior occasions when Home Office Ministers used the phrase "accepted for settlement". But the use

1425
of the word "here" ought not to be taken out of context.
Mr. Archer: That is my precise point. There were occasions when Ministers gave what appeared to be a sweeping promise in what later transpired to be guarded terms. They point out now that if we read the small print it can be interpreted differently. But occasionally they said it without reservation. So either they were deliberately misleading the House, which I do not believe, or they missed the point themselves.
If there are people who are liable to pay so heavy a penalty for that kind of offence there will be a large number of people at the mercy of every snooper who stumbles across their secret and of every blackmailer who picks up their skeleton. It cannot be healthy for any community to create a class of blackmail fodder.
The feeling of anxiety has been expressed by a large number of people who cannot be said to have any personal axe to grind. It was expressed in a letter to The Times on 12th June by a large number of people concerned with the Campaign for Racial Justice, including a number of members of the Church who on no showing can be said to have any specific axe to grind. It has been expressed by a number of trade unionists. It has been expressed by the Government's own authoritative advisers in the Community Relations Council and the Race Relations Board. It has been expressed by Justice, again an all-party organisation whose objectivity is not in question.
Those who break the law should obviously be brought to justice. But it is justice to which they are entitled. The penalty should be proportionate to the offence. Surely it is common sense to encourage any offender to believe that if he behaves honestly for a substantial period, works hard, seeks to pay his debt and purges his offence, there comes a time when the past is forgotten. That is the purpose of another piece of legislation going through Parliament at the moment. The Rehabilitation of Offenders Bill has already received its full passage in another place, although we are told that the Government do not propose to give sufficient time for it to be
1426
debated fully in this House. But the principle there is precisely the same.
It does not make sense to cause people to believe that however hard they work, whatever their record of honesty and whatever part they play in the community, their past will never be forgotten.
It is not just we on the Opposition side who say that. It was said in the course of Third Reading by the hon. Member who at that time was Minister of State at the Home Office. He said:
"The enemy of good community relations—and, after all, this is a Bill which to a large extent is about community relations—is fear." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th June 1971; Vol. 819, c. 732.]
That is what this motion is about, and I do not seek to improve upon the way it was expressed by the Minister of State.
8.25 p.m.
Sir Derek Walker-Smith: This is a short debate, and I shall be as brief as the complexities of the subject matter allow.
The decision in the case of these illegal immigrants was reached by the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords, the supreme court of appeal in this country, having received careful consideration there following equally careful consideration in the courts below. At each stage the appellants' case was presented by eminent counsel. At each stage the human background to the legal problems was clearly and sympathetically in the minds of experienced judges. All this constitutes a situation of which we should be proud. We may well ask in how many countries we could envisage an equal care, a corresponding thoroughness and a parallel equity.
As a result, a conclusion has been reached that illegal immigrants arriving here before 1st January 1973 shall not have a legal and automatic right to remain. However, the conclusion does not involve a blanket or automatic expulsion. The appellants still have the right to apply for leave to remain. They still have the right for their individual cases to be considered on their merits, including the fact of illegal entry, but including also family, personal and compassionate circumstances, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said on 12th June and

1427
confirmed today. This, again, is a situation of which we may well feel proud and an approach which might well be emulated in certain other countries.
It is not for us to seek to re-try the issues of law after these thorough judicial processes. Hon. Members can and should read the speeches of the Lords of Appeal for themselves. I content myself therefore with drawing attention to some significant points.
In this matter there were two issues to be decided: first, were the appellants illegal immigrants; and, secondly, if so, were they settled in the United Kingdom within the meaning of the Immigration Act 1971—that is to say, without being in breach of the immigration laws, were they so settled as to obtain the right to remain here indefinitely?
On the first of those two questions there was unanimity that all three appellants were illegal immigrants. Few points of law are unarguable, and counsel very properly make the best use of what material they have; but in this case, as the attempt to show that the appellants were not illegal immigrants involved arguing that there was a distinction fundamental for this purpose between landing and entry into the United Kingdom, the House will see that it was, on the face of it, hardly a promising line of argument. In respect of one of the three appellants there was indeed unanimity on the second issue also—that he could not be considered to be settled in the United Kingdom because he was clearly in breach of the immigration laws and therefore excluded by the statutory definition.
If the other two appellants are to be regarded as not being in breach of the immigration laws and therefore entitled to be regarded as settled in the United Kingdom, a curious distinction arises from a technical difference between Section 4 of the 1962 Act and the later Section 4A added in 1968. Whereas Section 4 provided that entry after refusal should be a continuing offence, Section 4A did not make it a continuing offence to gain entry by evading examination by an immigration officer. It made it a summary offence subject to the ordinary six months' limit for prosecution.
1428
So, in effect, looking at these cases, one appellant was clearly in breach of the immigration laws on any view, because he had originally been refused entry, whereas it could be argued that the other two were not in breach because they had never been refused entry. The reason that they had not been refused entry was that they had never asked for entry.
Looking at the merits of the matter, is it necessarily worse to give legal methods a chance and enter clandestinely only when refused entry than to disregard the law from the outset and to enter clandestinely without making any effort to comply with the legal requisites for entry? I do not think that many people would give an automatic or unhesitating affirmative to the proposition that it is.
But let us consider the dilemma in which Parliament and the Executive are placed if they are to take any course other than that recommended by my right hon. Friend. They must either give a wholesale, comprehensive amnesty, including those who have at all times been in continuing and incontestable breach of the immigration laws by having entered clandestinely after refusal, or discriminate against those who at least gave legal methods a try in favour of those who did not even do that.
It is said that the Act is not clear—at any rate, not as clear as it should be—having regard to its retroactive element. I accept that the draftsmanship of this, as of other statutes, may be subject to legitimate criticism. Indeed, it was criticised by Lords Wilberforce and Salmon in the terms quoted by the hon. Member for Hitchin (Mrs. Shirley Williams). Unfortunately, it is far from unique in this. Perfect draftsmanship is not easy to achieve in the over-burdened state of our Statute Book.
Mr. Bruce Douglas-Mann: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
Sir D. Walker Smith: No. This is a short debate, and it would not be right to give way.
I recall a case of my own in the House of Lords 20 years ago on the construction of a statute far older than this Act in which we succeeded by three Lords of Appeal to two, having had three

1429
judges of the Court of Appeal unanimously against us and before that three judges of the Divisional Court unanimously in our favour. That was a six to five head count 20 years ago, and still those provisions remain on the Statute Book unamended.
I do not accept that the drafting of the 1971 Act is imprecise. It may be difficult, but it is not imprecise. In a practical sense, the meaning and effect are not too difficult to arrive at. It is the contrary argument that requires a somewhat sophisticated approach.
Lord Wilberforce, giving his judgment in the House of Lords, put it in this way:
"To say, as the appellants must that a man may be an illegal entrant, because he entered the United Kingdom in breach of the immigration laws, and yet may not be there in breach of the immigration laws is too subtle an argument for me to accept."
Those who know Lord Wilberforce know that he has as subtle and distinguished a mind as probably anybody in the country. Earlier he said:
"For myself, I would be prepared to go further and if there was real doubt to give the two appellants the benefit of it. … But, in my opinion, section 33(2) admits of no doubt."
The House must consider this.
Our method of interpretation of the law in this country is to look at the words of a statute and to distil from them in their context their natural meaning. On that basis, by a four-to-one majority, the highest court in the land has found the meaning clear. But let us suppose that we adopt the alternative Continental approach, the approach of looking at les travaux préparatoires, that we allow evidence of what the statute was intended to mean.
What evidence is most material? Obviously, the evidence of those who drafted and formulated the law. Their evidence is clear. My right hon. Friend has said, clearly and unequivocally, that that is what the Act was intended to mean, and he has today supported his assertion by impressive citations from the passage of the Bill through Parliament which must have convinced every objective and receptive person.
I do not speak in any spirit of complacency about the immigration laws or about our nationality laws as such—I am on the record as to that. The pattern,
1430
at any rate until 1971, was piecemeal, inchoate, and unsatisfactory. The original Act left a conspicuous void in 1962, what is known as the Bhagwan gap from the case of the Queen against Bhagwan. The 1962 Act made everything—refusal of admission, directions for removal, all the work of the immigration officer—dependent on the taking of the first statutory step, that is, the examination by an immigration officer within 24 hours of landing. If that first step could be evaded, nothing could be done thereafter.
Of course, subsequent events make that statutory gap seem incredible, but that is the advantage of hindsight. The 1962 law was obviously devised to deal with an anticipated pattern of lawful entry through the ports of this country. What was not foreseen was the ingenuity with which the gap could be identified and the vigour with which it would be exploited. It was not until the 1971 Act that the gap was effectively closed, by which time many illegal immigrants had landed on deserted stretches of beach, avoiding the 24-hour examination on which slender base the whole structure of our immigration control rested.
We have to see the situation now against that background. Lord Diplock said in the Bhagwan case, quoted in 1962 Appeal Cases:
"The inference from this is that the method of control enacted was intended to be experimental. Parliament was to have an opportunity of seeing how it worked."
We have seen how the control has worked. We have seen the respects in which it has not worked and we have seen the reasons why. It is against this background and in this context that my right hon. Friend, a humane as well as a wise and experienced Minister, has made his decision and asks us today to approve it.
I think that we should do so. Almost inevitably—this is supported by the great authority of Lord Denning, whose judgment my right hon. Friend cited—any reversal now would weaken the respect for the law of those determined to break it and make harder the task of those who have to enforce it.
The position is admirably stated in Lord Wilberforce's speech giving the majority decision in the House of Lords:
"It must not be overlooked what the character of this legislation is. It is concerned

1431
with the control of immigration into an overcrowded island; persons who have slipped in outside the controls may well make it more difficult for others to come in. So it is not unreasonable that persons who came in illegally in this way should be denied an automatic right to remain indefinitely and should have the opportunity of applying for leave to remain, and in the final resort should have to have their cases considered on a balance of merits and in relation to other cases by the Secretary of State."
In the idiom of the courts, I concur and have nothing to add.
8.40 p.m.
Mr. Cyril Smith: I shall not follow the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) into the realms of the law on this matter; first, because I am not a lawyer, but, secondly, because I believe that the argument is about people and human relationships rather than about the law. The question whether these people are illegal immigrants has apparently been settled by the law. It seems, therefore, that the issue before the House is not whether the immigrants referred to are illegal immigrants but what should happen to them as a consequence of their being illegal.
In my short speech I shall simply appeal to the Home Secretary on behalf of my hon. Friends in the Liberal Party. We shall support the Opposition in the Lobby tonight in an appeal for compassion for the people involved.
Like many hon. Members, I have large numbers of immigrants in my constituency. A proportion of them—I hope a small proportion—are illegal immigrants. Like many hon. Members, I am concerned with the issue of good race relations in my constituency. Bodies such as the Community Relations Council have pleaded for a general amnesty in this situation. They have pleaded for a general level of compassion not on the basis of viewing cases on their merits and trusting to the Government's compassion but on the basis of a definite assurance to these people that if they come forward and are identified they are likely to be allowed to remain in Britain, provided that it can be clearly demonstrated by them that they have abided by the law and have established their roots in this country during the time that they have been here illegally.
1432
I have already heard stories from my constituency of things such as blackmail having occurred during the last 14 days. I know of the great concern that this is causing to many immigrants in my constituency. Although we, as English people, are perhaps not given to blackmail as freely and as frequently as may be evident in some other races, blackmail is taking place among immigrants in this country as a consequence of the ruling of the House of Lords.
If the Home Secretary made a definite assertive statement encouraging people to come forward and admit that they came into this country illegally, couched in such a way that they would feel that as a consequence of doing that the odds were on their side rather than, in a sense, on the Home Secretary's side, the whole matter could be much more easily dealt with.
I shall go into the Lobby tonight with the Opposition, as will my hon. Friends. I hope that the Home Secretary will take that as an indication, albeit from the smallest party in the House, the third party, that we none the less feel as deeply, sincerely and anxiously about this matter as the official Opposition.
8.43 p.m.
Mr. Percy Grieve: Both the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Cyril Smith) and the hon. and learned Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. Peter Archer) made one of their strongest points when they said that the debate was about people. That is so, but it is also about principle. In our compassion for the individual who may find himself in a situation of considerable personal difficulty and even of misery, and who may find himself liable to blackmail—that is obvious—we ought not to mitigate the principle. The compassion is for my right hon. Friend. He has promised that compassion, mercy and clemency which in his judgment is right in the individual cases brought before him. But if we were to mitigate the principle which is enshrined in the Act of 1971, we should be playing into the hands of future illegal immigrants and of those who batten upon them.
I shall explain why I say that, because I have made an assertion which I must justify. At the end of 1970, before the Act came into force, I was concerned.

1433
as have been other hon. Members, in a case involving illegal immigration on a very large scale. During the course of that case I learned a great deal about the way in which it is conducted and about the way in which, by their blandishments, those who batten on the immigrants are able to assure them that when they come to this country they may get away with it.
We know only the tip of the iceberg. There is a vast international organisation bringing immigrants illegally into this country. It existed then and it still exists, and I join with my right hon. Friend in hoping that the police will not mitigate for one moment their own struggle against this illegal immigration, which is akin and even possibly related to that other form of smuggling which is so serious to our society today, the smuggling of drugs. The tourist officers—if such they may be called—of this organisation in India and Pakistan say to the would-be immigrants, "We will get you to Britain." They ferry them across Europe for large sums of money. They have centres in Frankfurt, Paris, Brussels, Ostend. There they lie low till it is time for them to slip across the Channel or the North Sea in small boats. They are even, as in the case with which I was concerned, put on boards slung under buses brazenly transported on the Channel ferry.
Those responsible for this trade were able to say to those desiring to come here, "Lie low". Originally it was for 24 hours but subsequently it was for six months. "If you succeed in lying low when we get you into Britain, you will get away with it."
If we were to mitigate the principle enshrined in the Act of 1971 we should be playing into the hands of those people because they would then be able to say to would-be emigrants from the Indian sub-continent and elsewhere, "It is quite true that you are subject to deportation but you can see that the Government of Great Britain do not really mean what they say. They passed an Act to deal with those who went in illegally in the past and who may go in illegally in the future, but you can see that you have only to be there long enough and a soft-hearted legislature will let you get away with it."
1434
This falls squarely within the fourth principle to which my right hon. Friend referred. We have got to be firm about the principle. If we are not firm on the principle we are failing in our duty to the community.
Frankly, I do not understand the point which was made by the hon. Member for Hitchin (Mrs. Shirley Williams) who spoke from her heart but overstated her case when she said—I am paraphrasing —this would ruin race relations in this country, race relations would be damaged, people would go in fear. The great bulk of immigrants into this country can go around holding their heads high; they are here legally and they are entitled to remain here. How can it affect relations with them if those who came here illegally, those who by their presence prejudice the future of legal immigrants into this country and prejudice those who came after them, are returned home? How can it affect relations with the whole immigrant community, unless the whole immigrant community identifies itself with those who are here illegally? I do not for one moment believe that they will do that. They are much too sensible.
I have made my point quickly and, I hope, precisely. For the reasons I have given I support wholeheartedly the stand which the Government are taking in this matter and the amendment which they have proposed to the motion before the House.
One final word. It has been said—again, it was said by the hon. Member for Hitchin—that the retroactivity in this Act of Parliament was not clear. It is quite true that the Act of Parliament is labyrinthine, in the word of Lord Wilberforce, but as to the clarity of the retroactive aspect of the Act, let me cite what Lord Wilberforce said:
"But it is necessary to be clear as to this at the outset. This is not one of those cases where the courts are able to refuse to attribute retroactive effect to legislation Parliament can, if it uses sufficiently clear words, give legislation retroactive effect and there is no doubt that it has done so here. The definition of 'illegal entrant' (Section 33(1)) is expressed to include a person who has entered the United Kingdom"—
I emphasise, as my right hon. Friend emphasised, "has entered"—
"in breach of the immigration laws: and if there is any doubt whether the words 'has [so] entered' relate to entry before the coming

1435
into force of the Act (and not merely to entry before a question as to his entry arises), that is removed by the definition of 'immigration laws' which includes any law which 'has (before or after the passing of this Act) been in force'. So if the appellants are otherwise within the description 'illegal entrant' the Act must apply to them notwithstanding that they entered illegally before the Act of 1971 came into force) was not argued in this House and has not been held by any court."
It is true that those who came here before the coming into force of this Act were led to believe by those who secured their passage here that if they lay low long enough they might be secure. But they knew full well that they were coming here to seek the hospitality of this country in breach of our laws. Though I hope that my right hon. Friend will exercise mercy and compassion where necessary, I am not abashed by the principle that those who came here illegally must, if necessary, be returned home.
8.51 p.m.
Mr. Norman Atkinson: I shall not follow the hon. and learned Member for Solihull (Mr. Grieve) into devious arguments of law. He is the third Queen's Counsel to take part in the debate. This debate is not about the law but about political morality.
The right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) used Wilberforce to support his case. I remind him of the comments that he and others on that side of the House made when Wilberforce led an inquiry into the electricity industry. They then called Wilberforce "too bad to burn". They now call him in aid to substantiate their case because it suits the lawyers to do so.
The second Queen's Counsel from the other side advanced what I believe was a pseudo-legal argument when this is basically a question of political morality. Incidentally, I believe that the hon. and learned Gentleman is one of the few privileged people in the House to be paid by the Government in addition to his salary as Member of Parliament. I believe that is unfair. It is wrong that he should support the Government in an argument of this kind when he is almost a Government employee. It was unfair of him to make some of the comments he did.
1436
The hon. and learned Gentleman talked about the size of the problem. I support the arguments advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin (Mrs. Shirley Williams) and congratulate her on the case she presented, but I disagree on the question of numbers. I do not accept—nor will anyone else—that there are 10,000 people involved. No one has any knowledge of how many are involved, but I do not think that it can be 10,000. I cannot imagine hordes of people coming here in rowing boats in the dead of night in the period mentioned by the Home Secretary.
As there is doubt about numbers, doubt is cast on the Home Secretary's argument that he is concerned about dependants—wives and children—and not about the number to whom he would have to offer an amnesty.
Mrs. Shirley Williams: Will my hon Friend accept from me that I merely gave the highest estimate published to indicate that even on the basis of the highest estimate we are talking about less than 1 per cent. of the total immigrant community?
Mr. Atkinson: I accept the point that my hon. Friend makes. I want to broaden the argument to deal with morality and to talk about the people in addition to those 10,000 that my hon. Friend mentioned because they form part of the case which the House must decide upon. The Home Secretary is, therefore, more concerned about dependants—the wives and children—than he is about an amnesty. However, we welcome his comments about compassion and a review—a different kind of review of cases from now on. That would be a new experience for myself and some of my hon. Friends but we welcome, and say so sincerely, that compassion is being given to those cases where men folk have been taken away from their families in this country.
On the question of the witch hunt we welcome the right hon. Gentleman's remarks, but all of us on the Opposition side, and certainly some Conservative Members, will have evidence of policemen making inquiries about passports in a casual conversation, evidence where they have knocked on doors about some matter or another and because a coloured face has appeared have immediately

1437
inquired about passports and their legality. I have evidence of this, as has the Home Secretary. He knows what has gone on. Some policemen will even inquire about passports when stopping someone about a possible driving offence. It is good to hear of one chief constable giving assurances to the immigrant population in the way that he has.
I support the motion and also the comments of Lord Salmon. I have one or two comments about the quirk in the law which has been presented to us and also about the fact mentioned in the debate of the difference between people who come in the night by illegal means and those who have come here legally but have overstayed the time allotted to them. There is a similarity between both these cases. By and large the immigrant groups in this country will not be able to distinguish between the fine points of these two categories and community relationships will therefore be worsened as a result of the judgment. People to whom the judgment is not directed—at least in the technical sense—will be afraid and relationships will be therefore weakened.
We are discussing a motion which asks for an amnesty for all people who came here before June 1971, or were alleged to have done so. That must also include, however, people who have come here illegally but have overstayed their permitted time. That is vital, because the Government cannot distinguish between the two. If they are to do as the Opposition wish and grant an amnesty to people who came here illegally they cannot differentiate between those who came here legally and overstayed their time and therefore became illegal residents and the others with whom we are concerned. If they are to offer an amnesty to one they must offer it to both.
The Government must also reconsider the position of the 600 Commonwealth folk who have been deported from this country over the last two years. They also have a right for their cases to be considered, even though some of them have returned to this country. Many are still outside and it is urgently necessary for the Home Office to reconsider their cases, particularly where they are
1438
separated from their families who are in this country. The whole process of deportation is most unfair. It does not work with equality anywhere. It depends whether the Home Office has taken the initiative, whether the police are insisting upon deportation or whether, as is quite correct, in the case of a criminal offence a person is automatically deported. That we accept.
But the unfairness of deportation applies where it is not to do with criminal acts—where a person has committed only a technical offence and has been deported as a result. That is the aspect about which the Opposition are deeply concerned. We have tried to impress upon the Home Secretary and his predecessors time and time again the dreadful cruelty that it inflicts upon decent people, people who have been accepted for some years as part of our community, who have paid their taxes, have paid for their insurance stamps, have done a good job and have contributed to the wealth of the country by working jolly hard. They have had a dreadful cruelty inflicted upon them because of a technical offence. That is the situation that we want the Home Secretary to reconsider.
Mr. Kenneth Lewis rose—
Mr. Atkinson: I will not give way. It is apparently the rule in this debate, set by one of the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends, that we do not give way under any circumstances. I take a lead from my betters in the matter.
What is the background to the argument that it is not possible to make the concession that we seek, despite the dreadful unfairness that has been enacted? The numbers of vouchers are now discussed quite openly. We are concerned about the A vouchers. Last year, there was a negligible number—a total of 50 or 60 people at the most—from the West Indies and Cyprus, yet there were thousands from elsewhere in the world. In the first three months of this year no Cypriots were allowed in on A vouchers, and there were only eight from the West Indies.
Those numbers must be seen against the background of our being a free house to about 200 million people from the European Community. There is an open

1439
door for white people from Europe, but the door is closed to Commonwealth people applying for A vouchers.
I turn to the disgrace of the B vouchers. I shall not go into it in detail, but it is a blot on our record. It is an absolute disgrace when a country with the wealth of ours, a country of the sophistication of Britain, is enticing the best people from the Commonwealth countries to come here, people who have been trained at enormous cost in those countries. They come here on B vouchers which are given ad lib, without any restriction. Graduates are not restricted. Doctors and qualified people, including teachers, can come here from the Commonwealth if they wish.
It is a disgrace that we are draining such people away from those countries, which are suffering difficulties because of a shortage of skilled and qualified people. It is a disgrace that we tell such people that there is an open door to them, yet we are saying to other people who would be on A vouchers that they cannot come.
We are asking for an amnesty against the background of Britain's being an open house for 200 million people in Europe, while hardly any A vouchers are being issued. There is a complete stop to immigrants coming from the Commonwealth and an open door to every white nation in the world. In the first three months of this year over 13,000 people have been allowed in for permanent settlement, and last year the figure was 14,250. It is not a numbers game. It is not the case, as the Home Secretary and other members of the Government have suggested, that they cannot concede an amnesty because of the numbers involved. That cannot be so, because they have an open door to thousands upon thousands of people who are at liberty to come if they wish. It is not a question of numbers. The Home Secretary says that he wants to use the Act as a deterrent to people coming from various parts of the Commonwealth into this country.
The point remains that the case of my right hon. and hon. Friends is one of compassion. We are asking for mercy for those people who are suffering dreadful cruelties. They are people with families. There are those who married British girls and who have children. There are those who married in this country and who have been taken away by the Govern-
1440
ment. In North London there are 29 cases of fatherless families, of young girls and young kiddies, who are now being supported by social security, supplementary benefits and other payments because the Home Office has decided to take the breadwinners away.
The poor kiddies have no idea when their father will be able to return to them. Young men who have good and honourable records apart from some technical offence committed long ago, who have lived here years and married our girls or girls who have come from overseas and who have been here many years, have been taken away from their families. My God, has this country come to the stage when it is not big enough to be able to say to these young families that there is no necessity to take away their menfolk? Cannot we allow them to remain here and to keep their families decently? If we cannot do that, there is no end to it.
My God, we are breaking up families. Is there no objection in the Home Office to this sort of thing taking place? My God, if hon. Members could only see them and the way they exist. What stories have the kiddies to tell? If we talked to them many could tell us how their fathers had been taken away at the airport, perhaps never to come back again. My God, it breaks my heart!
The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Lane): There is feeling in the Home Office about the cases which the hon. Gentleman has described. However, the Home Office is normally acting on the recommendations of the courts. It is for that reason that in every case we provide the possibility for the wives and families to go back overseas with the husband who has been deported if they wish to do so. A number of them take advantage of that offer. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not distort the position in developing his argument.
Mr. Atkinson: I shall not distort the position. I think that the hon. Gentleman has made my case more ably than I could ever make it.
9.8 p.m.
Mr. William Deedes: I fully appreciate the feelings of the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson).

1441
However, if he is to talk about the cruelty which we inflict on these people, he should bear in mind the people who instigate the cruelty by organising the racket, which is basically what we are discussing tonight.
It seems that there are two separate arguments which have been blurred by two speeches by Opposition Members. The first is whether, knowingly or otherwise, the 1971 Act was made retroactive against immigrants who entered this country illegally since 1968 by extending in respect of one category the fixed period of immunity to an indefinite period.
The second issue is whether the illegal immigrant, with or without committing an offence, should be allowed to reach the haven of immunity and should not be sent back in six months, three years, or an indefinite period.
I am tempted to observe that there is a certain irony in the situation to which my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) referred. The 1962 Act turned out, partly because of the work of the Opposition at that time, to be less effective than we supposed it might be. Until the Labour Government produced the White Paper of August 1965, the 1962 Act had fallen far short of the results which we expected from it. That gave rise to a great deal of the trouble which we now have.
The charge being made against the 1971 Act, on the other hand, is that it is more effective than those who passed it supposed at the time. I have no doubt that those involved in the passage of that Act knew what they were doing. Further, I suspect from conversations which I have had with members of the immigrant community at the time that at least some of them knew what was happening.
My right hon. Friend has quoted from the context of the debate to illustrate the fact that at least those who took part in the Committee proceedings could not have been in ignorance of what was happening. That, as he said, was why I at one stage rehearsed the possibility of an amnesty. I am not persuaded that the charge of bad faith or inadvertence really lies.
Further, we did not create a new offence which made a penalty retro-
1442
active. The word "retrospective", which has been bandied about a great deal on this issue, is falsely used. What we altered was the period of immunity, for which a fixed period certainly of six months had always seemed, at least to some of us, totally absurd. If we have a reproach to make to ourselves, it is, in my view, for countenancing and accepting such an absurd condition. We have every cause to reproach ourselves for the transition from 24 hours to six months. One is saying in effect that it is illegal to evade control, but that if a person can manage to remain undetected for six months, he will be all right.
Thus, the agents—of whom there are many, arranging these things—must amend their terms of trade and devise ways of keeping the immigrant who enters in defiance of control under cover for a certain period. These things are arranged and they are paid for. Did we weigh the incalculable evil which springs from the situation—forgery, fraud, multiple occupation, a whole range of things some of us have had the opportunity to see?
I view with dismay, from the point of view of the immigrant community as well as of ourselves, the tendency to view the illegal immigrant as a competitor who has a right to enter the game under certain rules. Whether seen from this end or that—and some of us have seen it from both—the illegal immigrant is an unmitigated evil, not least to the community to which he belongs.
The situation is highly prejudicial to the community who are here and here lawfully. It is highly injurious to the illegal immigrant himself, probably the victim of an agent, and still more injurious to members of his family. It is an established industry on the sub-continent which causes as much anxiety to the Governments of India and Pakistan as it does to our own Government. Let us not suppose that they will be looking for soft options.
The situation also causes great confusion and hardship to those in our posts overseas already struggling with difficulties enough. I give one example. Dependent wives of those who have entered illegally here will often apply to join not the lawful husband, but another man who

1443
has entered here legally. In the confusion which follows, the separation of the family is prolonged and our own posts are enmeshed in complicated matters which prevent them from getting on with the work they have to do. The situation also adds enormously to the currency difficulties. The Indian Government could tell us a great deal about the black market dealing in currency by illegal immigrants. The Indian Government are deeply anxious about it.
All this is likely to get worse as our controls tighten under the 1971 Act. We are making the work of the agents more profitable. The evil we are talking about tonight is more widespread than we suppose. The idea that we are chasing only a few thousand people is a delusion. If we are honest about this, we must admit that the fault lies as much with our laxity of control as with anything else. I am not speaking of the present period but of the long period in which we took a great deal of time to come to the reality of the situation. So serious did I think the situation when the Act was going through the House that I said that I believed that the extent of illegal immigration ran into tens of thousands. For that reason I suggested that an amnesty ought to be considered.
I did not then and I hesitate now to give the total which I then got and which I still retain. I will only say that the hon. Member for Hitchin (Mrs. Shirley Williams) was a long way out when she said that 10,000 was the highest figure brought to her notice. I will not say more than that. In Committee I said "tens of thousands" and I repeat that. That was why I advanced the idea of an amnesty. I admit at once that I have totally changed my mind.
In practice the idea that we can wipe the slate clean and then crack down does not work. In effect we change the nature of the offence. We cannot say to X thousands of people who are guilty of an offence, "Henceforth you are forgiven but henceforth we will be more ruthless". It sounds all right in theory, but in practice it does not work. Moreover, it would be misunderstood on the sub-continent and simply encourage arrangements for illegal immigration.
It would be resented by many immigrants here, and that is something of
1444
which hon. Members should take account. Many immigrants lawfully here deeply resent the actions and the reputation of the illegal immigrants. Equally, I do not believe that we can chase up anything like the number involved. In that respect, I was glad to hear what my right hon. Friend said tonight. Those who are returned will indeed be a small fraction of the whole. To that extent my right hon. Friend and those working for him are bound to be selective—whimsical, perhaps. There seems to be no alternative.
If my right hon. Friend is to exercise clemency, a relatively small number of people will be caught and returned. Our objective is not simply to intimidate those who are here—and there is no reason why lawful immigrants should be intimidated—but to discourage those on the sub-continent who make a big racket out of this wretched traffic. Only if we show that the risks here are not worth the candle shall we begin to have any effect on the way in which they work. Undoubtedly some will suffer. I accept what the hon. Member for Tottenham said about that. It seems that they must suffer so that others in future shall be saved from the temptation of falling victim to this racket which is the basis of the cruelty of which the hon. Member spoke.
9.18 p.m.
Mr. Bruce Douglas-Mann: The right hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) has told us that in his view—and he has great experience—the numbers of those who are at risk as a result of the decision in another place is probably tens of thousands rather than the 10,000 mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin (Mrs. Shirley Williams). What I waited to hear from the Home Secretary in this debate and the debate on the Pakistan Bill was any justification or evidence that the rest of the community would benefit in any way by the measures being taken against this small group.
What has happened in this case is that a section of the Home Office which has racialist inclinations—I say this with some hesitation but nevertheless I believe it is true—has been responsible for the steps taken against certain individuals. The Home Secretary has probably

1445
been largely taken by surprise by the decisions of the courts resulting from the actions of his officials.
Now he certainly lacks the courage to say to the racialist section of his party that this is not what the Government intended and it should be repealed.
Mr. Lane: The hon. Member has mentioned a racialist section in the Home Office. Will he take it from me that that is totally untrue and unjustified? I hope he will have the grace to withdraw.
Mr. Douglas-Mann: I accept that from the hon. Gentleman. Perhaps I could make more clear what I mean. I know from my experience that there are many people who would resent the label "racialist" but who nevertheless feel that the race problem is much more acute than it is, and that there are far more of them in Bromley than in Brixton. Civil servants mostly do not live in racially mixed areas. There is a feeling in certain sections of government that the racial problem is acute. That feeling is stronger where there is least known about it.
There is evidence—we have had it in briefs read out by the Home Secretary, and we have had it from Home Office Ministers in the last few days—that sections of the Home Office regard it as being positively desirable in terms of race relations to exacerbate the situation in which a substantial number of black people in this country live. As a result of the House of Lords decision and the Pakistan Bill, in the cause of possibly reducing the number of black or coloured people entitled to remain in Britain, an entire community is placed in a situation of risk or of apprehension.
I believe that the effect of the House of Lords decision and of the very restrictive measures in the Pakistan Bill will be to make relations between the entire legal black community and the host community much more difficult.
Mr. John Wilkinson: The hon. Gentleman will agree that it is wrong to mislead the House by suggesting that the Pakistan Bill has anything to do with immigration. It is a citizenship measure, and to suggest that Pakistan people will be subject to a new form
1446
of control is totally to mislead the House and to make discussion of that Bill in Committee more difficult.
Mr. Douglas-Mann: I entirely agree that the Pakistan Bill is a citizenship measure. But what we are concerned with tonight is a measure concerning the rights of citizens in this country, people who have established rights to remain here. What the House of Lords has done is to take away an established immunity from prosecution.
I wish to deal not with legal issues but with social and community issues. As a result of the House of Lords decision and, I believe, of the Home Secretary's unwillingness to face up to the section of his party which is willing to upset race relations for a large number in order to reduce the number of immigrants living here by a very small proportion, we have exacerbated race relations for the entire community. The matter has been presented by hon. Members opposite as being one of principle. If it is a matter of such clear principle, they have failed to explain why Lord Justice Salmon should have found himself in such strong disagreement with their views. If it is a matter of law, it is one on which he entirely disagrees with the viewpoint presented by the Home Secretary.
We are debating whether, of the possibly 10,000 or perhaps tens of thousands of people who have come to this country, whether illegally across the beaches or by overstaying their leave, the 10 per cent., perhaps, who will be found shall be at risk of being deported. Ninety per cent. of the remainder who will not be found will be living in fear of this. The Home Secretary has indicated that he will treat with compassion those people who are caught. That is very welcome.
However, I urge the right hon. Gentleman to adopt what has been proposed, namely, that he should state tonight clear basic criteria so that those who have been living here, have been keeping within the law, have been honourably working and have been fulfilling their responsibilities as members of the community can approach the Home Office knowing that they fulfil those criteria and that they will be accepted.
I urge the Home Secretary, even now, to accept the motion. If he will not accept

1447
it, will he please, for the benefit not just of any section of illegal immigrants but of the entire community of black people who live in Britain and to free them from the risk of blackmail, the risk of harassment, and the risk of having to live the rest of their lives in fear, give them the opportunity of knowing they can approach the Home Office because they fulfil certain defined criteria which the Home Secretary has clearly spelt out? I hope he will do that, but it would be far better if he accepted the motion.
9.25 p.m.
Mr. John Stokes: In the remaining few minutes I wish to refer principally to the effect of the motion upon the people of this country outside the Chamber. I consider the Opposition motion to be astounding in view of the state of public opinion about immigration. The motion speaks of—
"profound uncertainty … in the immigrant community."
How can the Opposition ignore the profound uncertainty among our own English people about when legal immigration will end, let alone illegal immigration?
For the Opposition to demand, in effect, special terms for illegal immigrants is just adding insult to injury to ordinary English people. Surely, the prime duty of the Government is to uphold the laws of the country and to protect our own nation and people, particularly working-class people and those unable to speak for themselves who live in the areas which contain the greatest concentration of immigrants.
The motion speaks also of "democratic traditions," but when were English people asked to vote on the issue of immigration? It is nothing less than mockery to call in democratic traditions to support a policy which will lay further burdens on our own people.
I look upon the motion as sentimentality of the worst order. Paraphrasing Dr. Johnson's famous phrase, if England were fairly polled today on the Oppositiion motion, that motion would be overwhelmingly defeated. I am sure that a number of hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition benches who are in close touch with their constituients will share my views.
Illegal immigration must be halted. It is growing like a cancer in our society.
1448
No other nation in the world would put up with this state of affairs. Who drafted the motion? Was it drafted by hon. Members who represent immigrant areas, or by intellectuals of the Labour Party who are out of touch with the real feelings of the people? I am glad that the Government are taking this strong line and they have my complete support.
9.29 p.m.
Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: All the previous speakers have started by disclaiming any intention of giving way, and I must do the same, because I have much to say in a short time.
The subject of coloured immigration raises strong emotions on both sides of the argument. Although I feel strongly about it, I hope to contain my feelings, because I believe that there is here a case for giving an amnesty to illegal immigrants who entered the country between 1968 and 1971. The case rests not on emotion or compassion, but on their rights as citizens of the Commonwealth who have attained a legal status which we took away from them retrospectively without full discussion in the House. That is the case I want to advance.
As with all these other arguments about immigration, we must go back to the situation in 1962. In 1962, we all shared two types of citizenship. We were citizens both of the Commonwealth and of the independent countries in which we lived. We in this country were citizens of the United Kingdom and colonies and because we shared that Commonwealth citizenship with other independent Commonwealth countries, it has tended to be devalued over the years, but, none the less it was a citizenship which had a status and which gave certain rights. One of those rights was unrestricted entry into this country and the right to settle here, to bring in families without let or hindrance, and to apply after five years' residence here for citizenship of the United Kingdom and colonies and to have that request. honoured without any kind of hindrance. That was the mark of a Commonwealth citizen.
In 1962, we took away one facet of that status. We said that before anybody could come through the door, he had to have a key in the form of a job voucher

1449
or one of the other elements in the immigration control. But because this was a temporary measure introduced to staunch the flow of illegal immigrants at that stage, we did not go to the limit of saying that those who avoided control by not presenting themselves to immigration officers within 24 hours were guilty of a criminal offence. It was not any misadventure or any lapse by the House that led to that situation. It was precisely stated in paragraph 2 of the first schedule of the Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1962. That provision said:
"A person shall not be required to submit to examination under this paragraph after the expiration of the period of twenty-four hours from the time when he lands in the United Kingdom. …"
That point was made specifically because—and I submit that this was the case—we recognised that in altering the rights of citizens to come here we were taking a serious step and did not want to go to the point of saying that that should be a continuing offence that would go on after 24 hours. Therefore, we said, "If you come and remain here for 24 hours, you are then in the same position as if you had entered legally."
That was confirmed by the House of Lords in its recent judgment. Anybody who entered the country between 1962 and 1968 without presenting himself at immigration control or who was not committing any offence was in exactly the same position as anyone who entered legally. He could stay here as long as he liked; he could apply for citizenship of the United Kingdom after five years and could bring in his family without let or hindrance.
If all the arguments about people evading control being a cancer on our society are correct, why is it that at no stage during the course of the Immigration Bill 1971 did the Government suggest that we should retrospectively take away the rights of those who came in that period? It was for the simple reason that they had acquired a legal status, and to take away a legal status is a serious thing to do anyway—but to take away a legal status retrospectively is something which the House abhors.
The situation was worse, because in 1968 the then Government said that an offence would be committed if somebody
1450
came to this country and did not present himself to immigration control within 28 days. But the offence was a magistrates' court offence, a summary offence. There was no peculiar tenderness in terms of illegal immigrants, but people gained immunity if they were not prosecuted within six months of their appearance in the magistrates' court.
The same would apply to anyone who committed an act of careless driving on our roads. If he was not brought before a court within six months, it might be that he had committed an act of careless driving, but he would not have committed a criminal offence which was prosecutable, and he could then say honestly and without fear of a comeback on any application for insurance that he had not committed an offence which was punishable in the courts. Equally, he could not be subject to the totting up procedure allowing him to be disqualified if he committed three offences within two years.
No one can say that careless driving is not a serious matter. But we do not regard it as being so serious as to be indictable. Therefore, we say, as with all summary offences, that anyone who is not brought before a court within six months should not have his offence hanging over him. It should lapse. He should gain immunity. We say that because the gravity of the offence is not regarded as being so serious that, as in the case of an indictable offence, it should be prosecuted at any time.
In 1968, by a conscious decision, the House made the offence of not appearing before immigration control in 28 days a summary offence. It was not indictable. Therefore, after six months a person got that immunity. That immunity is no legal technicality. As Lord Salmon pointed out in his judgment, anyone who had gained that immunity could not be arrested. If he was arrested he could not be brought before a court. If he was brought before a court, he could apply for habeas corpus and be released.
But it was more. It was not simply an immunity from prosecution which was gained after six months. It was the right to remain here in the same way as anyone who had come in legally. A person in that position had the right to stay as long as he liked, the right to bring in his

1451
wife and children if he wanted to, and the right to apply after five years for citizenship of the United Kingdom and colonies. In every respect a person in that position had a status.
I regard it and Lord Salmon regards it as a legal status. The other Law Lords regard it as a de facto status. I do not care which it is. For all practicable purposes, it is the same as if the person concerned had come here legally.
The Government claim that because illegal immigration is so detrimental to race relations in Britain it is necessary to put a stop to it. That is what we did in 1971. In relation to future illegal immigration, no one had any doubt about it. We knew what we were doing. What we did was to say not that this would become an indictable offence or a continuing offence prosecutable at any time and for which a person could be deported on conviction. We said that the period for prosecution would be extended from six months to three years, but that after that there would still be immunity from prosecution and that those who stayed here longer than three years, even in the future, would not be capable of being prosecuted and could not be deported.
In 1971 we said that anyone could be removed by the immigration official who dealt with a case when it came to his attention. This power to remove was totally new. We knew that that would happen. We knew that it would happen in relation to those who came in the future. Our argument was that we did no realise that it would happen to those who came between 1968 and 1971, and I do not believe that the Government realised that that was the effect of the legislation. My reason for saying that is that the Home Secretary went through five different sections of the Act today to spell out some of the powers. In order to assert this power, it is necessary to spell it out of seven different sections of the Act.
If we had intended to withdraw this immunity and to take away this status from these immigrants, we would have said so in clear language in a section of the Act. It could be said quite simply. All this guff that we have heard tonight about the difficulty of putting it in intelligible English in the statute does not apply in this case. It could and
1452
would have been put clearly if that had been intended.
The first time that anybody at any stage suggested that that was the effect of the Act was in the text book which came out in 1972 in which the learned editor submitted, because he had no authority from debates in the House to show, that it was right that this was the effect of it. I suspect that some people in the Home Department read the book and realised that they could make use of this power, and that the Home Secretary has had to come to the House and say, "Yes, that is what we intended all along."
I have looked through all the references to which the Home Secretary referred today. None of them unequivocally points to the past. I submit that they all point to what would happen in future. I refer only to one because I am running out of time. This one is crucial because in the end it was what defeated the three appellants who went to the House of Lords. Lord Wilberforce said that the issue before the Lords turned upon the last 13 words which were that they were here
"at a time when he is there in breach of the Immigration laws".
That provision was put in on Report in this House. Introducing it the Home Secretary said:
"The amendments provide that a person is not to be treated as ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom while he is here in breach of the immigration laws. In other words, if he is here in breach he cannot claim that period as residence for the purpose of acquiring a right."
So far so good. The next phrase is:
"For the future it is sufficient to say that it people want to claim a right by virtue of residence here they must be lawfully residing here."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th June 1973; Vol. 819, cc. 473–4.]
I submit that "For the future" was what the right hon. Gentleman intended and that that was the effect.
To take the other line which the Home Secretary is arguing—that they knew and always intended that that should be the case—indicates a turpitude on the part of the Government of which I should want to acquit them. They never at any stage, no matter what the Home Secretary said tonight, spelled it out clearly. They never got up on their hind legs and said, "We are intending to take away the status of those illegal immigrants who came in

1453
between 1968 and 1971 and we are going to do it retrospectively." Retrospection is the nub of the argument.
When the Labour Government retrospectively took away certain property rights from Burmah Oil there was an outcry from the then Opposition. That outcry was taken to the House of Lords where there was an attempt to defeat that retrospective action.
When, in the case of an American art dealer only a couple of years ago, the question of rigging an auction sale for an expensive painting arose and the painting was subsequently sold to the National Gallery for a colossal sum of money, the Government accepted that they had run out of time for prosecution in the magistrates' court and they then changed the law to make that offence indictable in future so that it could be taken before a Crown court after six months, but they did not suggest that the American art dealer should be prosecuted retrospectively. They did not suggest that he should lose in money the value of the property because he had acted illegally. No—that was property.
But these are people, human beings, men and women, who came to this country, who acted illegally when they came, but who gained an immunity which gave them status. On that immunity they were assured by the Home Office, by the police, by all the authorities, because that was the law, that they could stay as long as they liked. So, acting to their detriment, they brought their families across, they obtained work, and they worked and served this country well.
Now we have taken away that status from them retrospectively without adequate discussion in this House. If the House does not pass the Opposition motion tonight, it ought to be ashamed of itself. I think that it will be.
9.45 p.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Lane): I ask the House to vote decisively for our amendment and to reject the ill-judged motion from the Opposition. If I may start on a personal note, controlling people is a distasteful responsibility for anyone, but it has to be done. Nobody could sit at my desk for even a few days
1454
without realising, from the individual cases with which we have to deal, how strong are the pressures on would-be immigrants and how great, alas, is the degree of deception and the ingenuity of subterfuge to which some will resort in their efforts to enter Britain. So our control has to be firm and even tough, but I hope that it will never be arbitrary, rigid or heartless.
We have had a very wide debate in a short time, and obviously I cannot cover every individual point, but as we deal with the situation that flows from the Act and the House of Lords judgment, we shall keep in mind what has been said tonight on both sides of the House.
I followed the hon. and learned Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon), whose sincerity I do not question, through the history of the various Acts, but I do not share his conclusion. I am sorry that he should have exaggerated the situation and I totally reject his charge of turpitude against the Government. What I will try to do is pick out two or three of the main themes of the debate and then remind the House how we intend to proceed from here on.
Again, I reject immediately, as did my right hon. Friend, the charge that there was any deliberate mystery when the Bill was going through the House. Since my right hon. Friend's speech, it has been made perfectly clear that, in Committee, the then Minister of State mentioned specifically the provision under Schedule 2(9). It has also been made clear that, on Report, the then Home Secretary again dealt with the general position clearly when answering a debate about the position of people who had been here illegally for a long time.
The hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) said:
"The right hon. Member for Ashford suggested that there might be some kind of amnesty for these people at the time that the Bill was going through Parliament. I should be interested to hear the Home Secretary's views."
The then Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) replied:
"This is a matter for discretion. If a man has been here for a very long time, it is within our discretion to say that he can stay. However, the Amendment is concerned with

1455
a different point—the acquisition of a legal right to stay or of a legal right against deportation."
I want to finish this quotation, of which my right hon. Friend gave only part. The Home Secretary went on:
"We are saying that, as a matter of interpretation, the acquisition of a legal right to stay must be a period of legal residence. After that, if a man claims, 'I have no legal right, but it would be unfair to throw me out because I have been here for a very long time,' it would be a matter for the fair exercise of discretion."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th June 1971; Vol. 819, c. 476.]
So, from this and other quotations that my right hon. Friend mentioned, I maintain that it is clear that this House was not then under the impression that the Bill that it was discussing involved an automatic amnesty. And all this was before the Bill moved on to further lengthy consideration in another place.
It has also been alleged—[An HON. MEMBER: "Misleading."] I am not misleading the House in any way. My right hon. Friend and I have been completely frank in reminding the House of specific things said on both sides of the House and of the clear implication from those debates, which is as I have just stated it to the House. I totally reject the charge—
Mr. Clinton Davis: The Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary have quoted snippets here and there. Where was the challenging assertion, for which my hon. and learned Friend has asked, that retrospective legislation was being applied to these people?
Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Before my hon. Friend replies, will he indicate whether the mere discussion of the question whether there should be an amnesty would be totally meaningless unless the effect was retrospective, otherwise there could be no discussion of amnesty?
Mr. Lane: That is precisely the point that was made by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary in his opening speech for the Government, which hon. Members of the Opposition will not accept. I cannot put it more plainly than I have that that was the position.
We are dealing now with the situation as it is today. The Opposition have argued that we ought now, whatever may have been the intention of the House, to
1456
introduce a kind of amnesty. My right hon. Friend has explained why we do not believe that anything in the nature of a general amnesty is the right policy at present. It would not be consistent with our intentions of maintaining a firm control over immigration, particularly at a time when that control is threatened by determined efforts to evade it, if we were to declare an amnesty for an unspecified number of offenders.
We believe that it is far better to proceed in the way that my right hon. Friend has described, to which I shall return shortly.
It has also been said that this situation has caused a great deal of uncertainty and has opened the door to blackmail. I acknowledge that there has been and still is a great deal of uncertainty. I hope that what has been said in the debate, particularly from the Government Front Bench, will help to remove the uncertainty. I repeat that no one who has come here legally has anything to fear. The only people who may be affected by this power are people who entered illegally, that is, those who have come without leave since 9th March 1968 or those who entered before that date after they had been specifically refused permission by an immigration officer. There is no question whatever of any special action being directed at present against the immigrant community as a whole.
On the related matter of blackmail, which my right hon. Friend dealt with, blackmail and the fear of blackmail existed, alas, before the House of Lords decision. It is a risk that exists for anyone who may come in illegally at any time or, for that matter, people who may break the law in respects other than the respect which we are discussing.
I can only repeat what my right hon. Friend has said on an earlier occasion. The police will deal very firmly indeed with any case of blackmail that may come to their notice, because this is an evil practice which we are determined to do everything possible to stamp out.
I turn from the main points which have been made in the debate, and which underlay the Opposition motion, to remind the House of the amendment which we are commending. The Government's amendment is in four parts. First, we are asking the House to endorse the

1457
Government's determination to halt illegal immigration. This is a pathetic trade. It is also an evil trade. It must be tackled vigorously because it undermines the effectiveness of our whole immigration control, and on that a great deal else depends in the wider sense of community relations.
In the second part of the amendment we are asking the House to decline to give priority for settlement to those people who came here knowing that their entry was illegal. This surely is a matter of fairness. That is certainly how we see it. The people about whom we are talking, this limited category which I defined a few moments ago, are people who came here deliberately and illegally and have stayed here knowingly illegally, despite what has been said by the hon. and learned Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon) about status.
Surely, if we were to do what the Opposition are urging us to do, it would mean not only allowing them a kind of blanket licence to stay here but opening the door, for all we know, to several thousands of their dependants. The Opposition seem to argue, if I have understood them aright, as the normal case that we should allow to stay here men who have been here on their own, who may then be able to bring in their wives and other dependants.
I ask the House to reflect on the makeup of the 13 people who have already been sent away in the exercise of this power in the early weeks of this year, and of the 36 who have now been detained and whose cases we shall soon be considering. In the majority of these cases, these are men who have always been here on their own and who, again in almost every case—there are some exceptions—have wives and families still overseas, and I ask the House to reflect that that may be the typical make up of the section of the people that we are talking about.
Mr. Sydney Bidwell: Will the hon. Member give way?
Mr. Lane: No. I have only a little time and I have one or two things I want to say, if the hon. Member will excuse me.
The third part of the amendment is to ask the House to have
1458
"confidence that individual cases will be dealt with with firmness tempered with compassion."
We shall do our best to do this case by case, and, as my right hon. Friend has said, all the decisions affecting this category of illegal entrants will be made by a Minister. We shall look, for example, at the length of time they have been here, at the strength of their connections here, at their domestic circumstances, and their health records; we shall look at any special compassionate features there may be; and we shall look particularly at any representations that may be received from Members of this House.
Of course, it must be the normal practice, when someone has been found here illegally, to send him away, but in deciding when, and what exceptions to make, we shall look thoroughly at all the circumstances. I repeat what was said about one or two individual cases which have been mentioned in the debate, that these are the kinds of circumstance which we will certainly look at.
The fourth and last part of our amendment is asking the House to accept that our policy
"is in the best interests of community relations and of those who entered legally or are waiting to do so."
I put it to the House that this is basically a matter of fairness, a matter of fairness to those who have observed the rules in coming or applying to come.
I would particularly remind some of the hon. Members opposite that the question of community relations applies to the host community as much as to the immigrant community, and both are entitled tonight to reassurance. We assure the host comunity that our control of immigration is firm and effective and that we are doing our utmost to prevent those who have come to Britain illegally from establishing themselves here and getting an unfair advantage over people who have the legal right to come and are awaiting their turn.
We assure the immigrant community that the security of all those who are legally in Britain is absolutely safeguarded, that there will be no harassment, and that they have nothing to fear. They make an essential contribution to our national effort in such ways as manufacturing industry, in transport, in hospitals,

1459
and elsewhere, and we want them to take a full part in our civil life and particularly to continue serving where they are doing so on community relations councils and bodies of that sort. I hope very much that those threatening to walk out will think again. The Government will give their full support to constructive work for community relations to give equal rights and opportunities to everyone.
We shall maintain strict control over immigration because we believe that it is the essential precondition for the
development of good community relations, for the sake of the one nation to which we are dedicated. We shall temper firmness with compassion in dealing with individual cases but we keep in mind our obligations to the whole community.
This is a difficult task. We are determined to discharge it. We ask for the support of the House.
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The House divided: Ayes 290, Noes 251.

Division No. 176]

AYES

[10.0 p.m.

Adley, Robert

Dalkeith, Earl of

Higgins, Terence L.

Alison, Michael (Barkslon Ash)

Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)

Hiley, Joseph

Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

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

Amery, Rt. Hn. Juian

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

Holland, Philip

Arrher, Jeffrey (Louth)

Dean, Paul

Holt, Miss Mary

Astor, John

Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

Hornby, Richard

Atkins, Humphrey

Digby, Simon Wingfield

Hornsby-Smith.Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia

Awdry, Daniel

Dixon, Piers

Howe, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

Dodds-Parker, Sir Douglas

Howell, David (Guildford)

Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

Drayson, G. B.

Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord

du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

Hunt, John

Barber Rt. Hn. Anthony

Dykes, Hugh

Hutchison, Michael Clark

Batsford, Brian

Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir John

Iremonger, T. L.

Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

Bell, Ronald

Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

James, David

Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

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

Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

Emery, Peter

Jessel, Toby

Benyon, W.

Eyre, Reginald

Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

Berry, Hn. Anthony

Farr, John

Jones, Arthur (Northanta, S.)

Biffen, John

Fell, Anthony

Jopling, Michael

Biggs-Davison, John

Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

Blaker, Peter

Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

Kaberry, Sir Donald

Boardman, Tom (Leicester. S.W.)

Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine

Body. Richard

Flelcher-Cooke, Charles

Kershaw, Anthony

Boscawen, Hn. Robert

Fookes, Miss Janet

Kimball, Marcus

Bossom, Sir Clive

Fortescue, Tim

King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

Bowden, Andrew

Foster, Sir John

King, Tom (Bridgwater)

Braine, Sir Bernard

Fowler, Norman

Kitson, Timothy

Bray, Ronald

Fox, Marcus

Knight, Mrs. Jill

Brewis, John

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

Knox, David

Brinton, Sir Tatton

Galbraith, Hn. T. G. D.

Lamont, Norman

Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

Gardner, Edward

Lane, David

Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

Gibson-Watt, David

Langford-Holt, Sir John

Bruce-Gardyne, J.

Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

Bryan, Sir Paul

Glyn, Dr. Alan

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

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

Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

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

Bullus, Sir Eric

Gorst, John

Longden, Sir Gilbert

Burden, F. A.

Gower, Raymond

Loveridge, John

Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

Luce, R. N.

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

Gray, Hamish

McAdden, Sir Stephen

Carlisle, Mark

Green, Alan

MacArthur, Ian

Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

Grieve, Percy

McCrindle, R. A.

Cary, Sir Robert

Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

McLaren, Martin

Channon, Paul

Grylis, Michael

Maclean, Sir Fltzroy

Chapman, Sydney

Gummer, J. Selwyn

Macmillan.Rt.Hn.Maurice (Farnham)

Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

Gurden, Harold

McNair-Wilson, Michael

Chichester-Clark, R.

Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)

Churchill, W. S.

Hall, John (Wycombe)

Maddan, Martin

Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

Madel, David

Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

Cockeram, Eric

Hannam, John (Exeter)

Marten, Neil

Cooke, Robert

Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

Mather, Carol

Coombs, Derek

Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

Maude, Angus

Cooper, A. E.

Haselhurst, Alan

Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

Cordle, John

Hastings, Stephen

Mawby, Ray

Corfield, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick

Havers, Sir Michael

Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

Cormack, Patrick

Hawkins, Paul

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Costain, A. P.

Hayhoe, Barney

Miscampbell, Norman

Critchley, Julian

Heseltine, Michael

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

Crouch, David

Hicks, Robert

Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

Moate, Roger

Money, Ernie

Rees, Peter (Dover)

Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

Monks, Mrs. Connie

Rees-Davies, W. R.

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

Monro, Hector

Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

Montgomery, Fergus

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Tebbit, Norman

More, Jesper

Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

Ridsdale, Julian

Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey

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

Morrison, Charles

Roberts, Michael (Cardiff. N.)

Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

Mudd, David

Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

Tilney, John

Murton, Oscar

Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

Trew, Peter

Nabarro, Sir Gerald

Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

Tugendhat, Christopher

Neave, Airey

Rost, Peter

Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin

Nicholls, Sir Harmar

Royle, Anthony

van Straubenzee, W. R.

Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

Russell, Sir Ronald

Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

Normanton, Tom

St. John-Stevas, Norman

Waddington, David

Nott, John

Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.

Walder, David (Clitheroe)

Onslow, Cranley

Scott, Nicholas

Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

Scott-Hopkins, James

Wall, Patrick

Osborn, John

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

Walters, Dennis

Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

Shelton, William (Clapham)

Ward, Dame Irene

Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)

Shersby, Michael

Wells, John (Maidstone)

Parkinson, Cecil

Simeons, Charles

White, Roger (Gravesend)

Peel, Sir John

Sinclair, Sir George

Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

Percival, Ian

Skeet, T. H. H.

Wiggin, Jerry

Peyton, Rt. Hn. John

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

Wilkinson, John

Pike, Miss Mervyn

Soref, Harold

Winterton, Nicholas

Pink, R. Bonner

Speed, Keith

Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

Pounder, Rafton

Spence, John

Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

Sproat, Iain

Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

Price, David (Eastleigh)

Stanbrook, Ivor

Woodnutt, Mark

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

Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)

Worsley, Marcus

Proudfoot, Wilfred

Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)

Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh W.)

Younger, Hn. George

Quennell, Miss J. M.

Stokes, John

Raison, Timothy

Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

TELLERS FOR THE AYES

Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

Sutcliffe, John

Mr. Walter Clegg and Mr. Bernard Weatherill

Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

Tapseil, Peter

Redmond, Robert

Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

NOES

Abse, Leo

Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)

Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

Golding, John

Allen, Scholefield

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

Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

Cunningham, Dr. J. A (Whitehaven)

Gourlay, Harry

Armstrong, Ernest

Dalyell, Tam

Grant, George (Morpeth)

Ashley, Jack

Darling, Rt. Hn. George

Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

Ashton, Joe

Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

Atkinson, Norman

Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.

Bagier, Gordon A. T.

Davies, Ifor (Gower)

Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

Barnes, Michael

Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)

Hamling, William

Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)

Deakins, Eric

Hardy, Peter

Baxter, William

de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

Delargy, Hugh

Hattersley, Roy

Bidwell, Sydney

Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

Bishop, E. S.

Dempsey, James

Heffer, Eric S.

Blenkinsop, Arthur

Doig, Peter

Hilton, W. S.

Boardman, H. (Leigh)

Dormand, J. D.

Hooson, Emlyn

Booth, Albert

Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

Horam, John

Boothroyd, Miss B. (West Brom.)

Douglas-Mann, Bruce

Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

Driberg, Tom

Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

Boyden, James(Bishop Auckland)

Duffy, A. E. P.

Huckfield, Leslie

Bradley, Tom

Dunnett, Jack

Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

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

Eadie, Alex

Hughes, Mark (Durham)

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

Edelman, Maurice

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen. N.)

Brown, Ronald(Shoreditch & F'bury)

Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

Hughes, Roy (Newport)

Buchan, Norman

Edwards, William (Merioneth)

Hunter, Adam

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

Ellis, Tom

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

Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

English, Michael

Janner, Greville

Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

Evans, Fred

Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

Ewing, Harry

Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

Cant, R. B.

Faulds, Andrew

John, Brynmor

Carmichael, Neil

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

Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)

Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

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

Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

Foot, Michael

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

Clark, David (Colne Valley)

Ford, Ben

Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

Coleman, Donald

Forrester, John

Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

Concannon, J. D.

Fraser, John (Norwood)

Judd, Frank

Corbet, Mrs. Freda

Freeson, Reginald

Kaufman, Gerald

Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

Galpern, Sir Myer

Kelley, Richard

Crawshaw, Richard

Garrett, W. E.

Kerr, Russell

Cronin, John

Gilbert, Dr. John

Kinnock, Neil

1462

1463

Lambie, David

O'Halloran, Michael

Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

Latham, Arthur

O'Malley, Brian

Spearing, Nigel

Lawson, George

Oram, Bert

Stallard, A. W.

Leadbitter, Ted

Orme, Stanley

Steel, David

Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick

Oswald, Thomas

Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

Leonard, Dick

Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

Stoddart, David (Swindon)

Lestor, Miss Joan

Padley, Walter

Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

Paget, R. T.

Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

Lipton, Marcus

Palmer, Arthur

Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

Lomas, Kenneth

Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

Swain, Thomas

Loughlin, Charles

Parker, John (Dagenham)

Taverne, Dick

Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

Pavitt, Laurie

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

Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

Perry, Ernest G.

Tinn, James

McBrlde, Neil

Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

Tomney, Frank

McElhone, Frank

Price, William (Rugby)

Torney, Tom

Machin, George

Probert, Arthur

Tuck, Raphael

Mackenzie, Gregor

Radice, Giles

Urwin, T. W.

Mackie, John

Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

Varley, Eric G.

Mackintosh, John P.

Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

Wainwright, Edwin

Maclennan, Robert

Rhodes, Geoffrey

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

McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

Richard, Ivor

Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

McNamara, J. Kevin

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

Wallace, George

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

Roberts, Rt.Hn.Goronwy (Caernarvon)

Watkins, David

Marquand, David

Robertson, John (Paisley)

Weitzman, David

Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

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

Wellbeloved, James

Mayhew, Christopher

Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

Meacher, Michael

Roper, John

White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

Rose, Paul B.

Whitehead, Phillip

Mendelson, John

Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

Whitlock, William

Mikardo, Ian

Rowlands, Ted

Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

Millan, Bruce

Sandelson, Neville

Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

Miller, Dr. M. S.

Sheldon, Robert (Ashlon-under-Lyne)

Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

Milne, Edward

Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

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

Short,Rt.Hn,Edward (N'cl'le-u-Tyne)

Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

Molloy, William

Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

Woof, Robert

Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

Sillars, James

Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

Silverman, Julius

TELLERS FOR THE NOES

Moyle, Roland

Skinner, Dennis

Michael Cocks and Mr. Joseph Harper.

Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

Small, William

Murray, Ronald King

Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

Ogden, Eric

Question accordingly agreed to.
Mr. Speaker: The Question is the original Question, as amended. As many as are of that opinion say "Aye"—
Hon. Members: Aye.
Mr. Speaker: To the contrary, "No"—
Hon. Members: Aye.
Mr. Speaker: To the contrary, "No". The Ayes—
Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: On a point of order. There were hon. Members on the Opposition benches who shouted "No" on each occasion when the Question was put. I would ask that the House divide.
Mr. Speaker: I did put the Question twice. I did wait. I did not hear a "No". But I will allow a Division.
Sir Harmar Nicholls: On a point of order—
Mr. Speaker: Order. This is one of those matters which is in the discretion of the Chair. I put the Question twice. I did not detect any audible "Noes". But I do not think that it is in the interests of the House that hon. Members should feel that they have been taken by surprise and have not been allowed to vote. Clear the Lobby.
The House divided: Ayes 291, Noes, 251.

Division No. 177.]

AYES

[10.15 p.m.

Adley, Robert

Batsford, Brian

Boscawen, Hn. Robert

Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

Bossom, Sir Clive

Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

Bell, Ronald

Bowden, Andrew

Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian

Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

Braine, Sir Bernard

Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

Bray, Ronald

Astor, John

Benyon, W.

Brawis, John

Atkins, Humphrey

Berry, Hn. Anthony

Brinton, Sir Tatton

Awdry, Daniel

Biffen, John

Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

Biggs-Davison, John

Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

Blaker, Peter

Bruce-Gardyne, J.

Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord

Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

Bryan, Sir Paul

Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

Body, Richard

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

Bullus, Sir Eric

Hicks, Robert

Peel, John

Burden, F. A.

Higgins, Terence L.

Percival, Ian

Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

Hiley, Joseph

Peyton, Rt. Hn. John

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

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

Pike, Miss Mervyn

Carlisle, Mark

Holland, Philip

Pink, R. Bonner

Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

Holt, Miss Mary

Pounder, Rafton

Cary, Sir Robert

Hornby, Richard

Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

Channon, Paul

Hornsby-Smith.Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia

Price, David (Eastleigh)

Chapman, Sydney

Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

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

Chataway, Rl. Hn. Chriatopher

Howell, David (Guildford)

Proudfoot, Wilfred

Chichester-Clark, R.

Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

Churchill, W. S.

Hunt, John

Guennell, Miss J. M.

Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

Hutchison, Michael Clark

Raison, Timothy

Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Iremonger, T. L.

Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

Cockeram, Eric

Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

Cooke, Robert

James, David

Redmond, Robert

Coombs, Derek

Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

Cooper, A. E.

Jessel, Toby

Rees, Peter (Dover)

Cordle, John

Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

Rees-Davies, W. R.

Corfield, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick

Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

Cormack, Patrick

Jopling, Michael

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Costain, A. P.

Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

Critchley, Julian

Kaberry, Sir Donald

Ridsdale, Julian

Crouch, David

Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine

Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey

Dalkeith, Earl of

Kershaw, Anthony

Roberts, Michael (Cardiff. N.)

Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knulsford)

Kimball, Marcus

Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

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

King, Tom (Bridgwater)

Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

Dean, Paul

Kitson, Timothy

Rost, Peter

Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

Knight, Mrs. Jill

Royle, Anthony

Digby, Simon Wingfield

Knox, David

Russell, Sir Ronald

Dixon, Piers

Lamont, Norman

St. John-Stevas, Norman

Dodds-Parker Douglas

Lane, David

Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.

Drayson, G. B.

Langford-Holt, Sir John

Scott, Nicholas

du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

Scott-Hopkins, James

Dykes, Hugh

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

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

Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir John

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

Shelton, William (Clapham)

Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Longden, Sir Gilbert

Shersby, Michael

Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

Loveridge, John

Simeons, Charles

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

Luce, R. N.

Sinclair, Sir George

Emery, Peter

McAddon, Sir Stephen

Skeet, T. H. H.

Eyre, Reginald

MacArthur, Ian

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

Farr, John

McCrindle, R. A.

Soref, Harold

Fell, Anthony

McLaren, Martin

Speed, Keith

Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

Spence, John

Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

Macmillan.Rt.Hn.Maurice (Farnham)

Sproat, Iain

Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

McNair-Wilson, Michael

Stainton, Keith

Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

McNair-Wilson,Patrick (New Forest)

Stanbrook, Ivor

Fookes, Miss Janet

Maddan, Martin

Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)

Fortescue, Tim

Madel, David

Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)

Foster, Sir John

Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh. W.)

Fowler, Norman

Marther, Neil

Stokes, John

Fox, Marcus

Mather, Carol

Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

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

Maude, Angus

Sutcliffe, John

Galbraith, Hn. T. G. D.

Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

Tapsell, Peter

Gardner, Edward

Mawby, Ray

Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

Gibson-Watt, David

Maxwel-Hyslop, R. J.

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

Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

Glyn, Dr. Alan

Miscampbell, Norman

Tebbit, Norman

Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

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

Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

Gorst, John

Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

Gower, Raymond

Moate, Roger

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

Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

Money, Ernie

Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

Gray, Hamish

Monks, Mrs. Connie

Tilney, John

Green, Alan

Monro, Hector

Trew, Peter

Grieve, Percy

Montgomery, Fergus

Tugendhat, Christopher

Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

More, Jasper

Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin

Grylls, Michael

Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

van Straubenzee, W. R.

Gummer, J. Selwyn

Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

Gurden, Harold

Morrison, Charles

Waddington, David

Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

Mudd, David

Walder, David (Clitheroe)

Hall, John (Wycombe)

Murton, Oscar

Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

Nabarro, Sir Gerald

Wall, Patrick

Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

Neave, Airey

Walters, Dennis

Hannam, John (Exeter)

Nicholls, Sir Harmar

Ward, Dame Irene

Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

Wells, John (Maidstone)

Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

Normanton, Tom

White, Roger (Gravesend)

Haselhurst, Alan

Nott, John

Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

Hastings, Stephen

Onslow, Cranley

Wiggin, Jerry

Havers, Michael

Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

Wilkinson, John

Hawkins, Paul

Osborn, John

Winterton, Nicholas

Hayhoe, Barney

Owen, idris (Stockport, N.)

Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

Heseitine, Michael

Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)

Parkinson, Cecil

1466

1467

Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

Worsley, Marcus

TELLERS FOR THE AYES

Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

Mr. Walter Clegg and Mr. Bernard Weatherill

Woodnutt, Mark

Younger, Hn. George

NOES

Abse, Leo

Foot, Michael

Meacher, Michael

Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

Ford, Ben

Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

Allen, Scholefield

Forrester, John

Mendelson, John

Archer, Peier (Rowley Regis)

Fraaer, John (Norwood)

Mikardo, Ian

Armstrong, Ernest

Freeson, Reginald

Millan, Bruce

Ashley, Jack

Galpern, Sir Myer

Miller, Dr. M. S.

Ashton, Joe

Garrett, W. E.

Milne, Edward

Atkinson, Norman

Gilbert, Dr. John

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

Bagier, Gordon A. T.

Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)

Molloy, William

Barnes, Michael

Golding, John

Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)

Gourlay, Harry

Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

Baxter, William

Grant, George (Morpeth)

Moyle, Roland

Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

Bidwell, Sydney

Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

Murray, Ronald King

Bishop, E. S.

Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.

Ogden, Eric

Blenkinsop, Arthur

Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

O'Halloran, Michael

Boardman, H. (Leigh)

Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

O'Malley, Brian

Booth, Albert

Hamling, William

Oram, Bert

Boothroyd, Miss B. (West Brom.)

Hardy, Peter

Orme, Stanley

Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

Oswald, Thomas

Boyden, James(Bishop Auckland)

Hattersley, Roy

Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

Bradley, Tom

Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

Padley, Walter

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

Heffer, Eric S.

Paget, R. T.

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

Hooson, Emlyn

Palmer, Arthur

Brown, Ronald(Shoreditch & F'bury)

Horam, John

Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

Buchan, Norman

Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

Parker, John (Dagenham)

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

Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

Pavitt, Laurie

Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

Huckfield, Leslie

Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

Perry, Ernest G.

Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

Hughes, Mark (Durham)

Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

Cant, R. B.

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

Price, William (Rugby)

Carmichael, Neil

Hughes, Roy (Newport)

Probert, Arthur

Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)

Hunter, Adam

Radice, Giles

Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

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

Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

Janner, Greville

Rees, Meriyn (Leeds, S.)

Clark, David (Colne Valley)

Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

Rhodes, Geoffrey

Coleman, Donald

Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

Richard, Ivor

Concannon, J. D.

John, Brynmor

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

Corbet, Mrs. Freda

Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

Roberts,Rt.Hn.Goronwy (Caernarvon)

Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

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

Robertson, John (Paisley)

Crawshaw, Richard

Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

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

Cronin, John

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

Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

Roper, John

Grossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

Rose, Paul B.

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

Judd, Frank

Ross, Rt.Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

Cunningham, Dr J. A. (Whitehaven)

Kaufman, Gerald

Rowlands, Ted

Dalyell, Tam

Kelley, Richard

Sandelson, Neville

Darling, Ht. Hn. George

Kerr, Russell

Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

Kinnock, Neil

Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

Lambie, David

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

Davies, Ifor (Gower)

Latham, Arthur

Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

Lawson, George

Silkln, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)

Leadbitter, Ted

Sillars, James

Deakins, Eric

Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick

Silverman, Julius

de Freitas, Rt Hn. Sir Geoffrey

Leonard, Dick

Skinner, Dennis

Delargy, Hugh

Lestor, Miss Joan

Small, William

Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

Dempsey, James

Lipton, Marcus

Smith, John (Lanarkshire N.)

Doig, Peter

Lomas, Kenneth

Spearing, Nigel

Dormand, J. D.

Loughlin, Charles

Stallard, A. W.

Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

Steel, David

Douglas-Mann Bruce

Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

Driberg, Tom

Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

Stoddart, David (Swindon)

Duffy, A. E. P.

McBride, Neil

Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

Dunnett, Jack

McCartney, Hugh

Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

Eadie, Alex

McElhone, Frank

Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

Edelman, Maurice

Machin, George

Swain, Thomas

Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

Mackenzie, Gregor

Taverne, Dick

Edwards, William (Merioneth)

Mackie, John

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

Ellis, Tom

Mackintosh, John P.

Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

English, Michael

Maclennan, Robert

Tinn, James

Evans, Fred

McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

Tomney, Frank

Ewing, Harry

McNamara, J. Kevin

Torney, Tom

Faulds, Andrew

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

Tuck, Rephael

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

Merquand, David

Urwin, T. W.

Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

Varley, Eric G.

Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

Mayhew, Christopher

Wainwright, Edwin

1468

1469

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

Whitehead, Phillip

Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

Whitlock, William

Wilson, William (Coventry S.)

Wallace, George

Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

Woof, Robert

Watkins, David

Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

Weitzman, David

Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES

Wellbeloved, James

Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

Mr. Michael Cocks and Mr. Joseph Harper.

Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House endorses Her Majesty's Government's determination to halt illegal immigration; declines to give priority for settlement
1470
to those who came here knowing their entry to be illegal; has confidence that individual cases will be dealt with with firmness tempered by compassion; and believes that this policy is in the best interests of community relations and of those who entered legally or are waiting to do so.

NORTH WALES HYDRO ELECTRIC POWER BILL (By Order)
Order for consideration, as amended, read.
10.25 p.m.
Mr. Goronwy Roberts: I beg to move, That the Bill, as amended, be now considered.
This Bill authorises the Central Electricity Generating Board to construct a pumped storage works at Dinorwic in my constituency of Caernarvonshire. This works will use off-peak surplus energy from other power stations to pump water to an existing reservoir called Marchllyn Mawr. Supplies of electricity can then be produced when needed by releasing the water and discharging it through an underground power station to a low-level existing reservoir located 1,650 feet below at Llyn Penis. All full power the station will produce not less than 1,500 megawatts. At March 1972 prices the works authorised by the Bill will cost about £75 million. The associated works provided by the Bill include an alternative water supply in agreement with the river authority and the water board, considerable improvements in the public road system in the area, one river diversion and by-passes to take construction traffic around the principal villages.
Under the Electricity Act 1957 the board has a statutory duty to:
"develop and maintain an efficient, coordinated and economical supply of electricity in bulk for all parts of England and Wales."
Under the same Act it has a statutory duty to take into account any effect that its proposals would have on the natural beauty of the countryside and on buildings of architectural or historic interest.
I invite the House to examine with me how the project enables the board to discharge these two statutory duties. Let us consider the first, that of maintaining supplies. To do that it must plan forward and anticipate the growth of demand for electricity. This demand tends to double in about every 10 years. The rate of increase in this country is similar to that in other European countries. We are by no means within sight of the end of this trend of increase.
1472
The United States consumes twice as much electricity per head as we do in England and Wales. That is the kind of horizon of demand that we must anticipate and the board must satisfy.
Consumption must not only increase, it must be maintained. This takes us to the need to provide what is called the "spinning reserve". This is available to meet sudden or exceptionally heavy demands from time to time or to replace power losses because of some failure in a plant in the large and varied system operated by the board. It is here that the advantages of the pumped storage system are most marked. It can produce electricity within seconds of being started up. No other plant can match it for speed in regulating the balance between production and consumption.
The board has an existing pump storage plant at Ffestiniog in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Merioneth (Mr. William Edwards), about 20 miles away from Dinorwic, and since that plant started in 1963 it has proved invaluable for the reasons and purposes I have given. Moreover the pumped storage system is cheaper to build and operate than any other method. This came out clearly in the protracted examination of the Bill in Committee.
I turn to the second of the duties laid on the board, that it should have effective regard for amenity in locating its works. The fact that a pumped storage scheme requires a difference in levels between the upper and lower reservoirs means that consideration must be given to sites in hill and mountain areas.
These are almost invariably areas of high amenity value. Before deciding on Dinorwic, the board engaged in a prolonged and exhaustive search for a suitable site, and Dinorwic emerged as not only the most suitable but also the one where the minimum of damage to amenity would be done. Indeed, in some respects the scheme will improve the amenities of the area.
Some hon. Members who are not perhaps familiar with Snowdonia may not know that the mountains around Llanberis, Bethesda, Ffestiniog and the Nantlle Valley have been the scene for centuries of large-scale slate quarrying, with the result that the area, indeed the national park, abounds in massive and

1473
unsightly slate tips. When the boundaries of the Snowdonia National Park were drawn up by the National Parks Committee in 1947, it deliberately excluded these areas, including the site and the area I am talking about, from the national park. Indeed, the entire belt of slate bed areas, including Dinorwic, were excluded from the national park.
For reasons which I shall state later, these massive opencast slate quarries have now almost all ceased to operate, but the debris and dereliction remain. This project, among other things, will result in the clearance of a substantial part of that unsightly dereliction with which the national park is scarred. In meeting a national necessity, the Bill will improve local amenity.
Plainly a project of this magnitude must have some impact on amenity, and I say at once that my hon. Friends and I who represent the four constituencies of Snowdonia and who support the Bill deeply respect the concern of our colleagues on both sides of the House, of the amenity societies and of individuals who are concerned about the question of amenity. Indeed, we more than share that concern: we have a vested interest in maintaining the amenity of the area. We live there, as do 218,000 people who have to earn their livelihood in the area. We are not visitors; we are residents. When projects of this sort are proposed for Snowdonia, we are the first to examine them meticulously to ensure that they do no serious damage to the amenities among which we live and from which we derive a great part of our livelihood in the matter of tourism. In our area tourism has increased, and we expect that it will increase further as a result of the creation of the power station in the district.
Usually in schemes of this kind a principal and proper objection has been to the construction of obtrusive buildings and pylons. In this case the power station and the transmission lines will be entirely underground. Moreover, existing obtrusive electricity poles are to be removed in creating the new station. This is a bonus, and as one who supports amenity I much welcome it. A great deal of dereliction is to be cleared away for the first time and at some cost to the board but
1474
with great benefit to the district and the country as a whole.
Furthermore, schemes of this kind involving the use of water often involve the inundation of valleys and the displacement of communities in order to create reservoirs. That is not the case here. Two existing lakes are to be used. The only above-ground features will be two embankments—one 29½ feet high, and the other, replacing a most unsightly existing dam and creating a new dam completely landscaped from the natural stone and flora of the area, which will be 130 feet. They will not be bald concrete constructions and, finally, there will be absolutely no pollution as a result of the scheme.
The board has an excellent record in having regard to amenity. It has won awards in North-West Wales for this aspect of its work from the Wales Tourist Board and the Civic Trust, and some of its works in North Wales are major tourist attractions. My hon. Friend the Member for Merioneth will confirm that 40,000 people visit annually the pumped storage scheme in Ffestiniog in his constituency. Half a million pounds will be spent on improving the roads for the district, making access to the threshold of the national park easier for the people we welcome every year. No climb or ramble will be lost, and that has been clearly brought out in evidence.
This brings me to the question of employment. We are discussing an area that, however beautiful, has suffered for years some of the highest percentage unemployment in the country. It ranges in high summer from 6 to 8 per cent. and in winter it reaches between 12 and 15 per cent. Construction on this site will take about seven years, and at peak about 1,000 workers will be employed. Of these we confidently expect that 70 per cent. will be locally recruited, for that has been the level of local recruitment at other similar undertakings in North Wales, so we speak from experience.
To those who say that this is temporary employment I can only reply that seven years of well-paid work is a very long time for a man who has been unemployed for seven years and more, and we have many such in Snowdonia. Some of them have been out of work for 17

1475
years. It is an area where it is very difficult for men to uproot themselves and to move with their families to other districts where even the language is strange to them. This kind of project is a godsend to an area like mine.
There is, of course, the argument—advanced in particular in the study which the objectors, the Protection Society, commissioned and to which I pay my respect —that construction schemes like this often leave more unemployment when they are completed than existed in the district before they began. With all respect, I and my hon. Friends who have had to study and grapple with this problem for so long must point out that the fundamental reason for the strong trend to unemployment in North-West Wales is that for some centuries a substantial population has been sustained almost entirely by two big labour-intensive industries—agriculture and slate quarrying—both of which over the past decades have declined at an alarming rate for reasons which I will not go into tonight—automation in agriculture and changing markets and cost in slate. Today we have only 300 or 400 quarrymen whereas a few decades ago we had 16,000.
In an area like mine which is so far away from the main centres of industry it is extremely difficult to attract new industry, but we have succeeded to a certain extent, and that has helped to keep the levels of unemployment from being much higher than they are even now.
The second factor in keeping the levels of unemployment as low as they are—and they are high enough, in all conscience—is that for the past 20 years we have had an almost unbroken series of large-scale civil engineering works of which this proposed works is the latest. Therefore the argument that such works create more unemployment than they displace is fundamentally fallacious. If we look closely at the trends, we see that it is this kind of civil engineering work which has helped keep the levels where they are.
The people of the area concerned—I believe the people of the whole of North Wales—strongly support the Bill. It will be of benefit to us and to the whole country. The Caernarvonshire County Council, the Caernarvonshire Planning Committee and the Gwyrfai Rural Dis-
1476
trict Council all support it. There are no objections from the Department of the Environment, the Department of Trade and Industry or the Welsh Office, as I am sure Ministers present can confirm if they intervene in the debate. Nor does the Countryside Commission oppose it, although naturally it would prefer to have works of this kind outside the national park area.
These proposals have been examined by a Committee of this House in a total of nine sittings. At the will of the House, the Committee actually visited the site—a somewhat unusual procedure. I pay a warm tribute to the chairman and members of the Committee for the meticulous manner in which they examined the technical, economic and amenity aspects of this large and complicated measure. No Bill has been given Committee approval after a more conscientious examination.
It is a Bill greatly welcomed in North Wales. Its benefits will be felt by millions of consumers throughout the country in homes, factories, offices and farms. It will only minimally impair amenity, and in many more respects will improve it. I hope that it will be allowed its passage through this House to go on to become a statute.
10.43 p.m.
Mr. Wyn Roberts: I rise to participate in this debate primarily because some of the works involved in it are located in my constituency. They are the upper reservoir of Marchlyn Mawr and the CEGB substation at Pentir to which the transmission lines from the underground generating station will lead, and various water works necessitated by the change of use proposed for the Marchlyn Mawr reservoir at present being utilised by the Eryri Water Board for water storage and supply. Incidentally, these sections of the scheme are the only ones within the Snowdonia National Park.
Even if I did not have this significant constituency interest, I should seek to participate in the debate because, having been born and bred in Anglesey, I have lived with these mountains as my south-westerly horizon for a quarter of my life, and I can claim a fairly intimate knowledge of the area and its people. But, as an insular onlooker, I am bound to defer

1477
in this matter of local knowledge to the right hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Goronwy Roberts), who has his roots among the very people whose locality we are discussing.
I do not propose to question the national need for the Bill. That was accepted by the Select Committee, and I add my tribute to it. But I cannot imagine the board involving itself in expenditure of this magnitude if it is not totally convinced of the necessity for the scheme. If there is any doubt about the need for it, I hope that a Minister will set our minds at rest fairly early in the debate.
Assuming that the scheme is necessary, why should not it be located in the Dinorwic-Llanberis area? We know that the board considered three other sites in Snowdonia. One was at Dolwyddelan, in the heart of my constituency. That would have involved the desecration of an unscarred valley of quite exceptional beauty and the erection of a dam overlooking and dangerously near a village community. Very wisely, the board rejected that proposal, and on present knowledge I should have resisted such a proposal had it been made to this House, although the local inhabitants were largely in favour of it.
We, in Wales, are very sensitive to the danger factor in this type of development as a result of the Dolgarrog dam disaster in the early 1920s and subsequent scares. There is no hint of danger in the Bill's proposals. Dinorwic is a safe location, and that is a very important point indeed.
Secondly, the area is already deeply scarred by quarry workings. Some people like to think of the whole of North Wales as being totally beautiful and unspoilt, and they wish that it should be totally preserved, rather like New York Central Park. All I can say is that they must wander about there in blinkers. We have many areas that could and should be improved visually.
Let us consider, for example, the upper reservoir of Marchlyn Mawr, within the Snowdonia National Park, which is currently used by the Eryri Water Board. It already has a dam across it, and a pretty unsightly one, too, at close quarters, with a very rough and obtrusive
1478
access road, constructed, I believe, within the last four years as a result of one of our periodic dam break scares. It is far from being a much-frequented spot, but development under the Bill could change that situation.
In time, if the Bill goes through, I would hope to see a new grass and heather dam which tones in with the landscape better than the concrete Stwlan Dam in Merionethshire, a good access road, much less obtrusive from a distance than the present jeep track, and the half-dozen cottages and farmsteads now seen on the way up to the lake made habitable again. There is no reason why this should not happen. I am not alone in taking this view. The Countryside Commission takes a similar view.
I must say at this point that I have been impressed by the board's willingness to meet the visual amenity objections. It has agreed to the undergrounding of transmission lines to the Pentir substation, at an extra cost of £44¼ million. I hope that this wise decision will be the cue to other organisations, such as the Merseyside and North Wales Electricity Board and the Post Office, to tidy up the litter of poles and wires in the Pentir area. I understand that some low-power transmission lines are to be under-grounded.
In short, I see in the Bill an opportunity to clear up some existing eyesores and to open up, with improved roads, some comparatively neglected but potentially very beautiful spots.
In this connection one is bound to recall how the road network in the Trawsfynydd area has improved considerably since the opening of the nuclear power station there and how the Stwlan Dam at Blaenau Ffestiniog has become a tourist attraction visited by about 40,000 people a year. We have every reason to believe that the development under consideration will have similar effects in the Llanberis area.
I have referred to the board's willingness to meet objections. The Eryri Water Board petitioned against the Bill for the very proper reason that it had to be absolutely certain of an alternative source of water supply to Marchlyn Mawr, at the expense of the CEGB, in the event of the Bill being passed. Ffynon Lugwy was proposed as an alternative source with the

1479
attendant works, and between them the two boards and the river authority have worked out a mutually satisfactory scheme, which has also met the Bethesda objection to some tree felling envisaged at one time at Coed Bryn Meurig, which is of high amenity value to the town. I received a letter of assurance on these points from the Chairman of the Generating Board last February.
The new water supply system will be rather better than the present. The 12-inch pipe from Lugwy to the board's new Douglas Hill reservoir will be under-grounded all the way and there will be no detriment to the environment.
Finally, the right hon. Member for Caernarvon has stressed the employment value of the proposed scheme, as did the county council in its petition. I join them in this. In May, we still had 1,167 people unemployed in the Caernarvon, Bangor, Bethesda and Penygroes area, despite a very welcome reduction of 350 in a single month. Of that total, 988 were men—a percentage male unemployment of 9·5 per cent.
Here, I must take a very heavy sideswipe at the county authority which has a very heavy responsibility for employment in North-West Wales. On two occasions in recent weeks, I have been faced with small businessmen in the Bangor area, one employing a dozen men and the other between 20 and 30, who are threatened with expulsion from their existing premises and who cannot, despite every effort on their part, find suitable alternative sites. This is a ridiculous state of affairs; we are in danger of missing the benefits of the present economic boom through lack of space for indigenous industries.
I am bound to tell those who oppose the Bill on visual amenity grounds that we cannot in North-West Wales live on the scenery alone. Until we have adequate space for light industry and small business development and have more employment, amenity arguments will cut no ice with our electors. I dearly wish that this argument could be conducted against a background of full employment in the area, but that is not the case. There is consequently great expectation, not only of employment but of other incidental benefits, from the board's investment of £80 million.
1480
This scheme is clearly justified in terms of the national interest. There is no viable alternative. I much prefer Llanberis to the other sites which were under consideration. I warn the board now that, if it still has its eyes on Dolwyddelan, it will find it impossible to justify because of the environmental objections. It has largely met the objections to the Dinorwic scheme, which is extensively located in a heavily scarred area, parts of which will be improved by the scheme.
There is a tendency for conservationists in name to become preservationists in fact, to oppose blindly any modern development and to do so ruthlessly because they tend to play on imaginary fears in an effort to arouse the public. There is little justification for that kind of attitude in this instance. This is a safe scheme.
Nationally, we clearly need the scheme; locally we need the employment and the ancillary benefits of a vast investment—the trade, the roads and the other improvements. If the board is wise it will pay close attention to these things and make absolutely sure that its scheme will be something we can be proud of.
I support the Bill because this scheme is the last step in completing the North Wales generation and transmission complex of the CEGB. But I am bound to tell the board that it should look elsewhere for its future development, because the board, too, has aroused fears that before long we shall have another set of power stations and pump storage schemes and a new line of overhead cables stringing our skyline. That cannot be right. It cannot be. The board must seek other alternatives.
10.55 p.m.
Mr. Carol Johnson: I should begin by declaring an interest, for the Commons Society, of which I am chairman, was one of the joint petitioners against the Bill, and I am also a member of the Standing Committee on National Parks and the Ramblers Association, both of which are constituent members of the North Wales Hydro-Electricity Protection Committee, which was the other joint petitioner.
What I need not do, however, is to apologise for joining with other hon. Members in all parts of the House in

1481
forcing tonight's debate, for if ever an issue of national importance were raised by a Private Bill it is this issue—the construction of what, if allowed, would be the largest pump-storage hydro-electricity complex in Europe, and that partly within one of our most precious national possessions, the Snowdonia National Park. I would suggest that the ordinary Private Bill procedure is in these days inappropriate for legislation which raises such broad and important matters of national interest and, indeed, of national need, to which previous speakers have referred.
I would only add, without pursuing the point, that it is ironical, and quite archaic and unjustifiable, that it should be left to small amenity groups and other public-minded bodies and persons, who have limited resources and meagre funds, to act as public defenders of what they consider to be the public interest, and that against public bodies with unlimited public funds and expertise at their disposal. I am glad to note that some right hon. and hon. Members are seeking to bring this particular problem to the attention of this House.
I do not intend to make a long speech because I know that many hon. Members wish to take part in the debate and there is nothing to be gained by an unnecessarily prolonged debate.
I must take up some of the amenity matters which have been referred to somewhat brusquely by the previous speakers. Before doing so, however, I should like to record the fact that I appreciate and understand the natural bias that exists with the board in favour of generating electricity by water power. It is cleaner and in many ways more attractive than coal or coke burning and is often thought to be much less environmentally harmful than conventionally powered stations. But it cannot be disputed that hydro-electric schemes have a very substantial impact on the environment, and the Bill proposes considerable works in Snowdonia, works on such a scale that they challenge and undermine the purposes for which Snowdonia National Park was designated.
That area is undoubtedly one of outstanding beauty and importance. It cannot be better described than in words used by the promoters' own landscape consultant, Sir Frederick Gibberd, when he appeared before the Committee. I
1482
hope that the hon. Member for Conway (Mr. Wyn Roberts) will listen carefully to this.
This is what the consultant said:
"I say that most of it, and certainly the sites of these reservoirs, is largely wild and untamed landscape. It is an area of exceptional scenic importance".
A little later, when talking of the Llanberis Pass, which is affected by the scheme, he said:
"The views through the valley pass towards the Snowdon range are absolutely magnificent and unique. To most people they typify Welsh landscape. Any interference with them would be critical.…"
Those quotations from a distinguished architect, planner and landscape consultant express succinctly and demonstrate forcefully that there is no valid argument against the proposition that this Bill inevitably threatens the natural beauty of the Snowdon area.
Mr. Wyn Roberts: Would the hon. Member not accept that Sir Frederick Gibberd, in giving evidence before the Select Committee, was giving evidence in toto for the Bill rather than against it?
Mr. Johnson: Of course. He was called as consultant on behalf of the Bill. What I was trying to say was that being called as an expert he expressed in language much better than I can use the vital amenity aspects of this scheme.
Scenery such as that found in Snowdonia is not merely something that pleases people's aesthetic sense or renews their links with nature: it has a monetary value to the nation as a whole. In this case I need not rely on the generalisation that tourism has become an important currency earner, because the Committee was told that the three North Wales counties of Merioneth, Caernarvon and Denbigh earned from the tourist trade in 1971 no less than £51½ million, and the Llanberis Valley is one of the key attractions for visitors to Snowdonia. Indeed, it has been estimated that 80 per cent. of all visitors to North Wales will pass through the valley during their stay.
Their enjoyment and those rising revenues which they provide would inevitably be disturbed by the works set out in the Bill, which will last at least seven years. It is significant, therefore, in considering the Welsh attitude to the Bill to keep in mind that

1483
the Welsh Tourist Board is opposed to it. Despite the fact, which my right hon. Friend has pointed out, that awards have been made to the board, the Welsh Tourist Board is opposed to it, and for the obvious reason that the thousands of people who go there to see that beautiful valley do not go there to see pump storage.
We have to ask ourselves, is this scheme essential? I understand that the pro-motors of the Bill accept that the roles to be performed by pump storage can be performed by other means. It is true that, at a price, if they were forced to it, they would have to utilise other forms of electricity generation—for example, gas turbines. As a layman I do not feel competent to comment profitably on them, but it is not disputed, I believe, that a pumped storage scheme is only one of a number of alternatives, and that there is technical evidence available on the feasibility of alternative schemes. If this is so, should not the board be asked to pursue these alternatives rather than that Parliament should sanction permanent damage to an area which is admittedly unique?
I should say a few words about the arguments which have been put forward about employment. I am rather surprised that both the previous speakers in the debate dealt so cursorily with the report of the Economist unit on this matter. This is a commercial concern which was dealing effectively with the matter and which took previous experience into account. If they study the report they should ask themselves whether they are completely satisfied that the project will provide steady local employment for their constituents for the future. There is strong evidence in the report that other major projects such as Trawsfynydd and Wylfa nuclear power stations and the Ffestiniog pumped storage scheme where similar claims were made have led to few permanent opportunities for local people. There is a risk, I am informed, that the situation will get worse if the building labourers attracted to the area for the construction work stay on in the area after they have been laid off, thereby adding to the local employment pool.
I hope that I have said enough to make the House hesitate before granting these new powers which seem to over-ride a broad national interest which it is the
1484
duty of Parliament to protect. Our stock of wild mountainous areas like Snowdonia is coming under increasing pressure and we should remember that it was designated as a national park for the enhancement of its natural beauty and the promotion of its enjoyment by the public.
The Bill is undoubtedly a major threat to such purposes. The bias of successive Parliaments has been against sanctioning such development unless there is an overriding case for it and unless the House is so satisfied it should respect the principle laid down many years ago by Mr. Harold Macmillan, then Minister of Housing and Local Government, who said that, subject to indisputable evidence about an over-riding national interest, in national parks amenity must be paramount.
In one of the illuminating phrases Sir Frederick Gibberd used before the Committee he said of areas such as Snow-donia—
"they are of more and more concern to the nation to protect them from the hands of man."
I ask the House tonight to give Snowdonia that protection.
11.7 p.m.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I declare immediately that I have no vested interest in this subject. I was not born with my feet on Welsh soil or in Anglesey within sight of the Snowdonia mountains. I was born in Staffordshire.
Not many months ago a group of hon. Members from both sides argued a case—not successfully, I regret to say—to prevent the establishment of a single mooring buoy oil terminal in Anglesey. The hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) presented a superbly documented case against the terminal which went virtually unanswered by those who supported that Bill and also by Government spokesmen.
The case which the hon. Gentleman presented missed being brilliant only because of the unnecessary bias it displayed as part of his argument against private enterprise industry. This evening the monster we are arguing against is not private enterprise industry but a faceless public board.
Just as the construction of the oil terminal in Anglesey will be a vicious and disastrous scar upon the outstandingly beautiful coastline of North Wales—this view was to some degree shared by

1485
my hon. Friend the Member for Conway (Mr. Wyn Roberts), who spoke in that debate—so the construction of a 1,500 megawatt electricity pumped storage scheme at Dinorwic, and partly within the Snowdonia National Park, will be an unnecessary and savage invasion of an area of great natural and untamed beauty causing extensive damage to what can only be described as an area of unrivalled majestic mountain scenery irrespective of what hon. Members who support the Bill have said about the problems created by the slate quarries which have existed in that area for many years.
The construction work proposed by the Central Electricity Generating Board will radically alter the natural formation of the Llanberis Pass and the mountainous surrounds of the Marchleyn Mawr, irreparably damaging their natural beauty and reducing public enjoyment of the area. The proposals as they affect Snowdonia would, I believe, be inconsistent with the maintenance of the area as a national park which should be enjoyed by thousands of people coming from the large conurbations.
My opposition to and interest in the Bill fall under four headings. First I represent Macclesfield which is situated in the North-West and many of my constituents visit North Wales at the weekend and holiday there, bringing much employment to the area. They visit the area because of its scenic beauty and in spite of the crowds, they are able to enjoy the peace and quiet. They do not go to view the technological advances which were referred to by the right hon. Member for Caernarvon. Secondly, the environment in this country has been neglected for too long by successive Governments and much of our greatest natural heritage has been eaten away by the cancerous growth of gigantic technological and commercial projects of steel, concrete, glass and tar-macadam. Always these projects are explained away on the grounds that they will cost less than a similar project located elsewhere, or that they meet the national need.
Those catchphrases of "cost" and "national need" have hidden until too late a multitude of sins and it is vital that the closest scrutiny should be given to any proposals in the future which would be detrimental to the few remain-
1486
ing unspoilt areas of the United Kingdom. My third reason is that part of my constituency lies in the Peak National Park and we are continually having to fight there, albeit at time unsuccessfully, against unfortunate intrusions of motorways or of industry. All those things reduce the attraction of the Peak National Park for the many thousands of visitors who go there.
Fourthly, I remain unconvinced that the CEGB has made out an overwhelmingly proven case for the scheme. During the Select Committee stage the board accepted most readily that all the rôles to be performed by pumped storage could be performed by other means, but many of the alternative means did not appear in the board's comparison of costs. The estimated financial saving forms a significant part of the board's case but if the project goes ahead the saving will be less than 1½p per year for 30 years for each individual in the country. Does that saving justify the desecration of this area of outstanding beauty? I do not believe that it does.
There is no evidence either to indicate that the scheme would bring long-term economic benefits to the area, but rather that it would tend to aggravate the unemployment situation. That fact can be substantiated by studying the effects of recent large construction works on the economy of North Wales. The Welsh Tourist Board opposes the proposals because it feels that substantial revenue from the tourist trade might be jeopardised by the spoliation of the area and the increased industrialisation which a project like this would bring. The economic disadvantages of the scheme could well be considerable.
However, my main objection to the proposals is basically environmental, particularly as there is a blatant lack of evidence of any absolute need for the Dinorwic scheme to justify over-riding the purposes of the Snowdonia National Park. The hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. Carol Johnson) read out part of the evidence given by Sir Frederick Gibberd, the landscape consultant to the promoters, the CEGB, in cross-examination. When questioned on the general character of the Snowdonia Park, Sir Frederick said:
"I say that most of it—and certainly the sites of these reservoirs—is largely a wild untamed landscape. It is an area of exceptional

1487
scenic importance. I am of the opinion that as areas of wild and untamed landscape are becoming increasingly scarce they are of more and more concern to the nation to protect them from the hand of man. My view is that any landscape architect would regret the intrusion of engineering works into a National Park. It does not matter how well these works might be designed."
That was said by a respected man, working for the promoters, in the full knowledge of the sort of camouflage that the CEGB and the construction workers will add to the face of the dam and other construction works. He continued:
"On the other hand, I am bound to say that it was not the intention of the National Parks Act that it should determine land use until Doomsday."
He added that very sensibly. I acknowledge the reason for, and validity of, the last sentence. Sir Frederick has said what needs to be said, and he says it as an eminent and acknowledged expert.
In the glaring absence of a proven need for the scheme, I hope that the House will very carefully consider the pros and cons before reaching a decision.
11.18 p.m.
Mr. Thomas Oswald: It is a rare occasion for me to address this august House. As a Scotsman, I make no apology for taking part in a purely Welsh debate. We may pronounce the word "Celt" differently, but there is an affinity between us.
I am forced to my feet because I was selected to be the chairman of the Committee whose duty it was to hear the evidence for and against the proposal to create a hydro-electric complex in North Wales.
It is with deep regret that I record that Sir Malcom Stoddar-Scott, who was the hon. and gallant Member for Ripon and a member of my Committee, has passed away. I consider it my duty tonight to pay my deepest respects to him for his advice and for his submissions on the matter before the House, and to convey our deepest sympathy to his bereaved family in this, their hour of sorrow.
I am more than surprised at the hon. Members who have the temerity to oppose the consideration of the Bill. I say that advisedly, because every consideration was taken into account in the submissions made by the promoters and the petitioners.
1488
The three other members of my Committee, besides myself, were deeply interested in the Bill and were at all times open to be convinced by evidence from either side.
I am personally interested in the subject and I claim to have more knowledge of hydro-electric projects than any hon. Member. I was involved in the North British Aluminium projects at Kinlochleven, Fort William—that is Ben Nevis—and at Foyers at the outbreak of the last world war. I have more than a passing knowledge of the subject, which I hope I showed in no uncertain fashion when I was cross-examining the witnesses before the Committee.
It is a well-known fact that a chairman is required to be neutral and to listen to every word which is said and to any submission which is made. I claim that I was more than fair and more than generous to both sides of the Committee. No one can say that I was unfair to either side. I can publicly state that I gave the petitioners every opportunity to progress their case. Hon. Members may laugh, but if they look at the minutes it will be seen that I stopped the Committee's proceedings to give the Queen's Counsel representing the petitioners the opportunity to consult with the promoters. That is something which has never happened during the proceedings of a Select Committee in the past.
Apparently the main point in this short debate is what damage is likely to accrue to the landscape in the region in which the project is planned. That is laughable in the extreme. It must be appreciated that the promoters have gone out of their way to appease the objectors. It is passing strange that the petitioners accepted the promoters' evidence that more generating plant must be constructed in the late 1970s.
In the course of the petitioners' evidence the Committee was asked to consider an alternative to hydro-electricity. It was suggested that a gas turbine installation would be preferable to hydro-electricity. There was no actual objection to the site at that stage.
A further alternative was that we should introduce a compressed air storage system. The Committee then learned that the compressed air storage system was purely theoretical. Two days

1489
out of the nine days which the Committee sat were lost as a result of discussing that theoretical proposal. It was proposed that the system should be brought about by finding caves in Cheshire where there are some salt mines. The proposal was that there should be sealed off any porous system of rock salt and then by installing a pipe we should pump compressed air into the cave and thereby use the compressed air for the purpose of propelling the turbines to drive the dynamos to make electricity.
I asked the expert, who was brought all the way from Sweden, whether he could tell me where the Committee could inspect such an installation. He had to confess that it was purely theoretical and that there was no such installation anywhere in the wide world.
It was important to consider this theoretical proposition, but the Committee also appreciated that the cost of the proposed installation would be about £75 million and that the project would give employment in the first two years for some 1,000 persons and that on completion some 40 to 50 local people would have permanent employment, mostly from North Wales.
One has to visit the site. I want to put it on record that this was only the second occasion upon which a Select Committee by permission of the House has been enabled to leave this august building to view a site. The first occasion was in dealing with the Thames barrier system not so many weeks ago. I took the opportunity, because of the conflicting arguments, to decide that my Committee should visit the site in Wales, which we did. We saw at first hand what was being proposed by the promoters and by the objectors.
We had had written evidence which was very convincing but on site it was found wanting. We found that to be the case in no uncertain fashion. I will give an instance. A colleague of mine on this side of the House will confirm it. I remind hon. Members that on the Committee were two Members from each side of the House.
In the written evidence it had been pointed out that there was a very interesting hand-made wall which contained some very interesting specimens of
1490
the flora in the area, and that there was also a rowan tree in this individual's garden.
When we arrived at the site, my hon. Friend, who was in the first car, immediately asked the individual concerned, who had been riding in my car, to show us this magnificent specimen of lovely hand-made wall containing these magnificent specimes of flora. The person showed us. It was what is called in Scotland a "dry stane dyke". It was explained that the deposit was blown up from time to time and that birds could carry the seeds on the breeze of the day and the evening and deposit them on the "dry stane dyke".
My hon. Friend pointed out that he had noticed all these flora on his way to the village. He was tremendously interested in the rowan tree. By this time the objector's wife had entered the cottage and my hon. Friend went into the so-called garden to inspect the rowan tree.
May I never leave this Chamber if I am exaggerating—my hon. Friend can bear me out—when I say that the rowan tree was no more than 20 inches high, with two tiny splinters of leaf on one side and three tiny leaves on the other side.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): Order. Whether rowan trees grow as time goes on, we should try to keep more closely to the terms of the Bill.
Mr. Oswald: I am keeping close to it, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I have the evidence submitted to the Select Committee. I want to show in no uncertain fashion that the Committee had to make a determination. I apologise if I am boring you.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I assure the hon. Gentleman that that is the last thing he is doing.
Mr. Oswald: Thank you. I could enlarge on this aspect, but suffice to say that my colleagues and I were not impressed after visiting the site.
The promoters have in my opinion gone out of their way to tidy up the area. The area certainly requires tidying up. It is only necessary to view it. The waste from the slate quarries is an eyesore for the ordinary citizen. To talk

1491
gliby about tourists coming in is visionary talk. It is disgusting in the extreme at present. It is worse than the slate quarries at Ballachulish in Argyllshire—although I concede that beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
The promoters have given an undertaking that there will be no pylons to desecrate the view. All the cables will be underground. The scheme is not unique. In Scotland we have pumped storage schemes. The power-house is built inside the mountain, not at all visible until one enters the portals. At off-peak hours the turbines are thrown into reverse and the water is pumped back to the higher reservoir instead of being allowed to flow out to the sea.
The desecration point has been overstated by the objectors. We have only to look at the obsolete slate quarries, the slate waste and the derelict buildings, to appreciate the man-made desolation of the area. The proposals in this Bill will mean that this area will be improved by the removal of the waste and the buildings, and by the production of electricity for the region for at least the next 50 years.
I have no desire to prolong the night's sitting, although with a captive audience it is a great temptation. I am sorely tempted to rebut the submissions of my hon. Friends who are against the Bill. We must consider the evidence, weigh it and be convinced for or against the scheme. Having sat for nine long days listening to all the evidence, and having visited the site and questioned all the witnesses, we must come to a verdict. I trust that the House will approve this Bill.
11.33 p.m.
Mr. Ronald Bray: It was my pleasure to sit on the Committee which examined this Bill with the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Oswald) and I endorse every word he has spoken. I also ask the leave of the House to raise certain points which he mentioned. I will deal first with the compressed air storage scheme, the so-called alternative. This was an unproved project which it was proposed should use industrial turbines of a size as yet unknown. It would be located at Winsford, Cheshire. The whole of the caverns would be leached out hydraulically. No
1492
suggestions were made as to how the brine should be disposed of or what would be the ecological effects of this substance. Further the Committee was not really told that it would also involve a tank farm, an almost conventional power station plus railway sidings and other things—all to be wished on the county of Cheshire by the petitioners. That was just one issue.
Great play was also made of the effect on the flora and fauna and of how contractor's plant would damage the soil and the general terrain. During the consideration of that Bill I travelled up to the area in Westmorland on the M6 between Tebay and Orton where the conditions are somewhat similar. At that point the M6 had been constructed for only about three years, but it had already been integrated into the landscape.
If one looks beyond the M6 to where tanks had run during and after the Second World War, one sees that the damage is still evident. I suggest that that supports the claims of the promoters that they could landscape the land, clean up the damage which may have been caused and, in effect, produce a better environment, and I agree entirely with them.
There was also presented to the Committee a petition which was claimed to have the best part of 5,000 signatures appended to it. These had been collected by the petitioners over a period of about 12 months. Some interesting things come out of that. Only 544 local people, that is those resident in the whole of North Wales, bothered to sign the petition, and that out of a population of 218,000. In other wards, this petition was not worth the paper on which it was written, particularly when one views the sentiments given to those who had been asked to sign it. They were emotive—I nearly said erotic—and they were definitely misleading.
A number of signatures have been added to the early-day motion against the Bill. As far as I can recollect—and I took careful note of this in Committee —only one of those petitioners sat in for a few minutes on the consideration of the Bill. In other words, whilst the petitioners may make emotive noises tonight, the fact is that only one was present at the hearing. I suggest that the petitioners could have learned more if

1493
they had spent more time in the Committee
This is the sixth or seventh Private Bill Committee on which I have served. The petitions offered against the Bill are, without reservation, the weakest that I have heard to date.
11.38 p.m.
Mr. Arthur Blenkinsop: I propose to intervene only briefly, but I believe that, both on the grounds of cost of the proposal involved and the significance of the area concerned, an issue of such importance as this should be brought to the Chamber for debate. I should not like there to be any suggestion that it was in some way improper to put down a motion to ensure that there was a right to debate a matter of this significance in this Chamber. Indeed, we should not have heard the delightful speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Oswald) had we not done so.
The other matter that concerns me is that, knowing this area very well, and knowing the slate quarries of Ballachulish, I am far from convinced that this is the last inroad that the CEGB intends to make in this area. I ask my Welsh friends to realise that we are concerned not only about this proposal by itself but also about the other proposals which I am certain will come forward, whatever the CEGB may say now. I say that bearing in mind the other developments that have taken place in the mountain area of North Wales.
I should like the House to make it clear that, whatever decision we take tonight, we are saying to the CEGB that it shall not bring forward further proposals of this character to ruin permanently that great heritage of the whole mountain area of North Wales. That is what would happen if further proposals which are in its pigeon holes were brought forward.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill, as amended, considered accordingly; to be read the Third time.

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

RATING AND VALUATION
11.40 p.m.
Mr. Charles Loughlin: The issue I raise affects every ratepayer in the country. It is a national problem, though I shall try to spotlight it by illustrations from my constituency. Incidentally, in answer to a Question from me, the Minister has said that the rateable values of domestic properties in the greater part of my constituency show an average increase of 215 per cent. as against an increase of 154 per cent. in the South-West Region. However that could happen when the region includes such places as Cheltenham, Bath, Bristol and Gloucester, goodness only knows.
I am not allowed to ask for new legislation in this debate. Therefore, I wish to spotlight the fallacy of the national rent basis of the present system and the injustice of nonsensical anomalies of the revaluation which has recently taken place and the stupidity of having a revaluation at all. There was no need for a revaluation, particularly at a time of rising inflation and escalating property values. Revaluation is merely a device to hide rate increases. It makes the poundage rate smaller, but the total rates paid are higher. If one takes the gross rateable values of all domestic properties, even with the revaluation they never relate to the notional rent on which the system is supposed to be based.
To the vast majority of people, higher property values are paper values. Those who are affected are those who have to sell or those who have to buy, and this is important in the context of the rates system. Youngsters who have to buy in an escalating market not only have to pay high mortgage outgoings, but increased rates increase their monthly outgoings and place an additional burden on them.
Rates must be taken into account in people's weekly budgets. I am told on good authority that, because many councils this year have drawn on their balances, we can expect a substantial increase in rates next year, irrespective of any rising costs which may occur in the next 12 months. An official of a small local authority in my area tells me that its rates must rise by 10p in the pound for that reason alone.

1495
I have examined the valuation lists of one of my local authorities and discussed them with a council official. Neither of us can find a common pattern. There were variations in valuations even in streets where properties were identical and adjacent. I have discussed this with hon. Members who have said that the same is true both in London and elsewhere.
In one street, six identical properties alongside each other were previously rated at £61 and now range between £196 and £206. Heaven only knows how such variations arise. I can only assume that one or two houses have beetles. I could quote scores of properties previously carrying the same rateable value which have been revalued and now differ by between £2 and £20 for no obvious reason. On this ground alone, revaluation is a nonsense.
We discovered two strands in our examination of the rating lists. First, private properties previously valued at up to £90 were increased in value proportionately more than properties previously valued above £100. Some values went up by four, five or six times, whereas the higher valued properties went up by two, two and a half or three times. So the average man—the young professionals and executives—are now being called upon to pay substantially more in rates while those who can afford it are being asked to pay proportionately less. That is barmy when we remember that the rating system was deliberately designed to have the opposite effect.
The other strand was that council houses were revalued at a higher level than were comparative properties in the private sector. That is a social injustice that cannot be justified.
Perhaps the most remarkable injustice relates to almshouses which had previously been valued at £17 and went up to £77 and £84; and the valuation was increased by seven times, and nearly eight times in one instance. Fortunately for the tenants the local authority was fairly generous.
Even with higher value properties there is the same nonsense. In one village, property A is valued at £340, property B at £280 and property C at £250, yet property B and property C are far more valuable in every particular on a rental basis than property A.
1496
It is no good the Minister claiming that rates have not gone up substantially because of revaluation. I have yet to discover a domestic rateable value that has been reduced. I will quote two cases. The rates paid in the first case were £22·20 last year. This year they are £30·09. If no revaluation had taken place, the rates payable—on official information—would have been £26·42. That is an example of a small property with a previous rateable value of £30 which has gone up by almost four times.
The other case is referred to in a letter which I received this morning in which my constituent says:
"My bungalow was originally rated at £86, now I have been informed that this has been increased to £244, an increase of 182 per cent. over the original, but it is 2·8 times. This is quite painless until the rates to be paid are calculated, but I am now called upon to pay £86·46 instead of £71·05, an increase of £13·41 or 18·88 per cent."
The figures which I have used may appear small to some in London and the larger cities. I believe that their problems are far greater, and the Minister should bear them in mind in his reply. I should like to know what comfort he can give Londoners with, I am told, rateable values for normal properties in the region of £500 and £600 a year.
I ask the Minister how these valuations were arrived at. How many inspections of properties took place? How does he account for the wide variations? Is there enough staff in the areas to do anything like a spot check on inspections? How can the Government expect ordinary people to cope in paying increased rates on top of all the other increases in the cost of living which have been imposed upon them during the lifetime of this Government? Revaluation, with its consequent increases in rates, was a deliberate act on the part of the Government. It was an act calculated to increase the cost of living at a time when Ministers throughout the land were stopping people from getting further increases in their incomes.
I do not want to hear too much about the subvention of the Government meeting half the cost of any increase over 10 per cent. That seems to be very much like offering someone a £1 note in exchange for £2. I think that it is a fiddle, and I think that the Minister knows it. But he might tell us whether this is

1497
automatically applied or whether ratepayers have to make application. If it is calculated automatically, perhaps he will tell me what I should say to my constituent, whose letter I have quoted, who still has an increase in rates payable of 18·88 per cent. What is more, taking the country as a whole, that is by no means an excessive increase in rates caused by this revaluation.
The ratepayers have again been conned. They face further burdens which they cannot afford to bear. Before the next half-year's payments become due, the Government must take action to ease the burden. Will they take from the rates items which should be borne centrally, especially items such as education and health and welfare—services which impose a great strain in the localities?
I do not think that people wish to go cap in hand to the local authorities for rate rebates. This is not an age of Poor Law relief, and the poor take-up in most of the selective benefits which the Government have introduced has exposed their attitude to selectivity as being more of the eighteenth than of the twentieth century. People are independent. They are entitled to be, and they have a right to dignity.
I want the Government to say quite clearly why, when even gross rateable values do not relate in any way to the rental values of properties, it is necessary to have any revaluation and why it is necessary to continue with this system—though I am well aware, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that if I proceed with that argument for too long, I shall incur your displeasure.
11.53 p.m.
The Minister for Local Government and Development (Mr. R. Graham Page): I apologise to the House and to the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr Loughlin) for not being in my place to hear the hon. Gentleman's first few words. But I was in time to catch the gist of his opening of the debate, namely, that there was no need for revaluation.
So long as rates are based on the rental value of property, we should endeavour to keep pace with the change in rental values. Revaluation is only a
1498
matter of fairness and justice between individual ratepayers and their districts.
Although statutorily the intention we have a quinquennial revaluation, the Labour Government postponed the last one so that, when we reached this year, the rental values in use were those which prevailed 10 years ago. There have been changes in those rental values during that period of 10 years. There has been not only a general increase affecting all properties but also relative changes between one property and another. It is only fair and just that there should have been that revaluation. Of course, having been left for 10 years, there are bound to be substantial changes.
The hon. Gentleman has drawn attention to what he called a number of anomalies within his own knowledge, variations in the valuations of properties which appear to be similar. It is not for me to comment upon individual cases.
The valuations have been carried out by professional valuers employed by the Inland Revenue on principles which apply throughout the country, not on the basis of directives by central or local government. Indeed, the whole purpose of changing from valuation by local authority employees to valuation by the central Government was so that the same principles might be applied throughout the whole country.
The hon. Gentleman made the comment that the lower the capital value of a house, the higher appeared to be its increase in rateable value as a result of this revaluation. I think there is an explanation for that, since we still base rateable value on rental value. It is a question of demand when considering rental value. There may not be such a great demand for the larger house as there is for the smaller house. Therefore, the tenant is prepared to pay a comparatively higher rent. Whether it is right to base rateable value on rental value is debatable. Perhaps we ought to change to capital rather than to rental values. This is not the time to debate that point, because it involves legislation. But, while we are still basing rateable value on rental value, the value will depend to some extent on demand as well as on the amenities of the house itself.
The hon. Gentleman drew attention to differences between the valuations of

1499
council houses and owner-occupied houses in the same area. He said that as a rule council houses were valued at a higher level than owner-occupied houses in that area. I have a similar problem in my constituency where it works the other way round. I am assured that owner-occupied houses have a better amenity value than council houses, although perhaps in outward appearance they appear the same, and therefore they have been valued at a slightly higher rate.
We must have faith in the professional valuers. Of course there is human error, and for that purpose there is provision for appeal against valuations.
Mr. Loughlin: How many valuers are there?
Mr. Page: The valuers were hard pressed during the period of valuation for perhaps three or four years before completion last year, but not so overpressed that they had to neglect their duties. They carried out the valuation thoroughly. They did not, of course, inspect every property in the land. In normal valuation work one takes a value over an area. However, I think that the work was carried out thoroughly and that, on the whole, the valuations are correct and in accordance with the rents that those properties would command.
The hon. Gentleman went on from that to consider the burden of rates, the rate bill. There is nothing extraordinary in the fact that rate bills have increased this year. They have increased each year for many years past. If rate bills did not increase, it would mean either that the local government services were being cut or that further general taxation was being imposed in order to increase the amount by which the taxpayer subsidises the local government services.
Each year, local government services are increased and improved—the public demands that—each year local government servants are better paid, and each year the central Government increase their contribution to the cost of local government services. But no Government, and no Opposition, have ever proposed that the taxpayer should meet all the increase in local government costs. It would be very unhealthy for local government if
1500
local authorities were to be wholly cushioned against rises in local government expenditure.
Nevertheless, this year the Government have provided a bigger cushion than ever before for domestic ratepayers. The 60 per cent. of local government expenditure that will be paid by the taxpayer and will not go on the rates at all is a greater subvention than ever before, and totals over £3,000 million.
Whatever rate poundage is fixed by the local authority, it will be reduced for the domestic ratepayer by the domestic element of 6p in the pound. In addition, the Government will refund to every ratepayer half of any increase in his rate bill over 10 per cent. in so far as the increase is due to revaluation. I would deny that that is in any way a fiddle, as the hon. Member described it. From a calculation of this, it is clear that the Government are contributing about £10 million in this assistance to prevent a large jump in rateable values and therefore in rate burden on certain properties by reason of the fact that they have been left unrevalued for 10 years.
This brings me to the impact of revaluation on the rate bills this year. So far as the impact of revaluation on the amount that the householder pays in rates, it has been a very small element. The hon. Member asked whether, when a householder's rates have gone up and he believes that this is the result of revaluation, he has to make a claim on the £10 million subvention. No, it is automatically applied. The local authorities will be under an obligation either to make the refund or, if they charging half-yearly to take it into account as credit on the second half year's bill. So there will be no need for the individual householder to claim.
The hon. Member's own constituency is a very good example of the variations in rates in one area as compared with the region within which it is situate. I answered a Written Question of his recently and gave figures which showed that, over the region as a whole, they had increased by 154 per cent. and in his own constituency by 215 per cent. Indeed, when I saw those figures I looked to see whether I could find the reason for that. The reason is obvious. The houses in the hon. Gentleman's

1501
constituency have become more desirable over the past 10 years by reason of the access to that area. In that time we have had the Severn Bridge and the M4 and M5 on the other side of the Severn. Altogether, I imagine that those who are working at a distance, perhaps in Bristol, are more prepared to pay substantial rentals for houses in the hon. Gentleman's area than they were 10 years ago.
Mr. Loughlin: The region includes places such as Cheltenham, Bath, Bristol and Gloucester, which are all highly desirable areas. How is it that my constituency has such large increases when those places are part and parcel of the region?
Mr. Page: The region also includes a development area in the south-west and some much lower rateable value areas in the area of Cornwall and Somerset, which brings down the average to that figure. But I do not think from the fact that the hon. Gentleman's average increase in rateable values is up by 215 per cent. that there is anything wrong in the valuation, or, indeed, that as a result his constituents will have to pay more on their rate bills. The average rate bill in England and Wales before revaluation was £60. After revaluation it is £65·39. Those are the figures for the whole country.
Of the areas in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, perhaps East Dean and West Dean have come out worst in the revaluation. Before revaluation they had an average of £28 to £30 per household. They have risen by about one-third. They are now still only in the region of £39 to £40, as against the national average of £65. Lydney has risen by about 14 per cent. or 15 per cent., but it is still only £44·51 as compared with the national average of £65. Newent has risen by only 5·5 per cent., and Gloucester rural by 7·7 per cent. Compared with the national average, the hon. Gentleman's constituency as a whole is still well below that average and is not, to that extent, overburdened in the payment of rates.
1502
Should the Government go further to stop any increases in rates, further than the £10 million for part of the increase due to revaluation? The answer to that is that the Government do not have the power to do so. They can only persuade local authorities to take all matters into consideration and see whether they can keep the rates down substantially this year, and particularly this year, during the period of price and pay restrictions.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the fact this year that many of them had responded to that by resorting to reserves. But that is a common practice of local authorities in managing their financial affairs. One year they can put money to reserve; the next year they can keep their rate poundage down by resorting to that reserve. This is a common practice in local government finance. I am not pessimistic about next year in that, because the reserves have been eaten up this year, the rate poundage will have to rise enormously next year. I do not believe that that is so from the monitoring which I have had the opportunity of doing over the past few weeks.
From that monitoring of the rates—I say it is only persuasive; we cannot force any local authority to reduce its rates—we find that a very great number of the local authorities, some 1,000 out of the 1,400 rating authorities, had paid attention to the percentage increases which were agreed in the rate support grant negotiations last year and had increased their rate poundage only on the same basis as those increases which were negotiated with the local authority associations last year. Others had gone beyond that.
Again I take the hon. Member's constituency as an example. Of the five rural district councils within his constituency, with which he is concerned, four had kept—
The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock, 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.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  School Transport (Working Party)
  School Transport (Working Party)
  Departmental Staff (Recruitment)
  Departmental Staff (Recruitment)
  Teachers (Pay)
  Teachers (Pay)
  Special Education
  Special Education
  Nursery Schools
  Nursery Schools
  Early Leaving
  Early Leaving
  Secondary Education (Harrow)
  Secondary Education (Harrow)
  Further Education
  Further Education
  Comprehensive Schools
  Comprehensive Schools
  Student Grants
  Student Grants
  University Education (Scotland)
  University Education (Scotland)
  Burnham Panel
  Burnham Panel
  Welfare Officers
  Welfare Officers
  Degrees and Qualifications
  Degrees and Qualifications
  Ugandan Educationists' Visits
  Ugandan Educationists' Visits
  University of Wales
  University of Wales
  Universities (Discipline)
  Universities (Discipline)
  Secondary Education (Birmingham)
  Secondary Education (Birmingham)
  Northern Region (Expenditure)
  Northern Region (Expenditure)
DEFENCE
  Icelandic Fisheries
  Icelandic Fisheries
  United Kingdom, Federal Republic of Germany and France
  United Kingdom, Federal Republic of Germany and France
EMPLOYMENT
  Employment Advisory Committees
  Employment Advisory Committees
  Loggerheads Sanatorium
  Loggerheads Sanatorium
  Leek
  Leek
  Brighton
  Brighton
  Hotel and Catering Industry
  Hotel and Catering Industry
  Factory Inspectors
  Factory Inspectors
  Family Expenditure (Food)
  Family Expenditure (Food)
  Cardiganshire
  Cardiganshire
  Farming Industry
  Farming Industry
  Rocksil
  Rocksil
  EEC Nationals
  EEC Nationals
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Victoria Memorial Jewish Hospital, Manchester
  Victoria Memorial Jewish Hospital, Manchester
  Supplementary Benefit (Disregards)
  Supplementary Benefit (Disregards)
  Seaford (Medical Facilities)
  Seaford (Medical Facilities)
  St. Margaret's Hospital, Great Barr (Security)
  St. Margaret's Hospital, Great Barr (Security)
  Hypodermic Needles
  Hypodermic Needles
  Attendance Allowance
  Attendance Allowance
  Medical Conference (Expenses)
  Medical Conference (Expenses)
  Industrial Disputes (Benefit)
  Industrial Disputes (Benefit)
  Disabled Persons (Register)
  Disabled Persons (Register)
  Elderly Persons (Remote Areas)
  Elderly Persons (Remote Areas)
  Farmer's Lung
  Farmer's Lung
  Community Hospitals
  Community Hospitals
  Asbestosis
  Asbestosis
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Australia and New Zealand
  Australia and New Zealand
  Home Helps (East Suffolk)
  Home Helps (East Suffolk)
  Rhodesia
  Rhodesia
  Upper Volta (Aid)
  Upper Volta (Aid)
  African States (British Investment)
  African States (British Investment)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Public Expenditure
  Public Expenditure
  £ Sterling (Value)
  £ Sterling (Value)
  Banks and Finance Houses (Profit Margins)
  Banks and Finance Houses (Profit Margins)
  EALING
  EALING
  CBI AND TUC (MEETINGS)
  CBI AND TUC (MEETINGS)
  REGIONAL EMPLOYMENT PREMIUM
  REGIONAL EMPLOYMENT PREMIUM
  MINERS AND MINERS' WIDOWS (PENSIONS)
  MINERS AND MINERS' WIDOWS (PENSIONS)
  PAKISTAN (BANGALEE DETAINEES)
  PAKISTAN (BANGALEE DETAINEES)
  CENTRAL POLICY REVIEW STAFF
  CENTRAL POLICY REVIEW STAFF
  BRUSSELS
  BRUSSELS
  BANKING AND INSURANCE (MINISTER'S SPEECH)
  BANKING AND INSURANCE (MINISTER'S SPEECH)
  PARLIAMENTARY QUESTIONS
  PARLIAMENTARY QUESTIONS
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  International Sugar Agreement
  International Sugar Agreement
  Fishing Limits
  Fishing Limits
ENVIRONMENT
  Sun Arch, Romsey (Road Traffic)
  Sun Arch, Romsey (Road Traffic)
  M5 (Avonmouth Bridge)
  M5 (Avonmouth Bridge)
  A46 (Newark)
  A46 (Newark)
  Rail Services
  Rail Services
  Disabled Persons (Safety in Buildings)
  Disabled Persons (Safety in Buildings)
  Operation Eyesore
  Operation Eyesore
  Sewage Effluents
  Sewage Effluents
  Alkali Inspectorate
  Alkali Inspectorate
  Traffic Census
  Traffic Census
  "Park and Drive" Scheme
  "Park and Drive" Scheme
  Fences (Damage by Motor Vehicles)
  Fences (Damage by Motor Vehicles)
  Tamar Bridge, Plymouth (Trunk Road)
  Tamar Bridge, Plymouth (Trunk Road)
  Plymouth Ring Road
  Plymouth Ring Road
  Driving Tests
  Driving Tests
  Driving Test Examiners
  Driving Test Examiners
  Redhill Driving Test Centre
  Redhill Driving Test Centre
  Derby—Matlock Railway Line (Subsidy)
  Derby—Matlock Railway Line (Subsidy)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Race Relations Act 1968 (Religious Discrimination)
  Race Relations Act 1968 (Religious Discrimination)
  Mrs. Victoria Bowling
  Mrs. Victoria Bowling
  Motor Cycles (Noise)
  Motor Cycles (Noise)
  Universities (Disturbances)
  Universities (Disturbances)
  Long-Sentence Offenders
  Long-Sentence Offenders
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Autistic Children
  Autistic Children
  Community Relations Commission
  Community Relations Commission
  Hospitals (Overnight Accommodation)
  Hospitals (Overnight Accommodation)
POSTS AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS
  European Postal Rates
  European Postal Rates
  ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
  ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
  NEW ZEALAND
  NEW ZEALAND
SCOTLAND
  School Building Expenditure
  School Building Expenditure
  Battered Wives
  Battered Wives
  House Prices
  House Prices
  Education Expenditure
  Education Expenditure
  Oil Industry (Shetland)
  Oil Industry (Shetland)
  Sheriff Courts (Shorthand Writers)
  Sheriff Courts (Shorthand Writers)
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  London Airports (Terminal Facilities)
  London Airports (Terminal Facilities)
  Air Passengers (Replica Firearms)
  Air Passengers (Replica Firearms)
  Computerised Company Records
  Computerised Company Records
  Mining Subsidence
  Mining Subsidence
  Polystyrene (Medical Equipment)
  Polystyrene (Medical Equipment)
  Pergamon Press
  Pergamon Press
  Central Scottish Airport
  Central Scottish Airport
  Air Shows (Safety)
  Air Shows (Safety)
  Motor Car Production
  Motor Car Production
  Protection of Depositors Act 1963
  Protection of Depositors Act 1963
  Merchant Shipping (Safety Standards)
  Merchant Shipping (Safety Standards)
  Imports
  Imports
  African States (United Kingdom Exports)
  African States (United Kingdom Exports)

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

FAMILY ALLOWANCES
BARONESS STOCKS: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will give the House an assurance that the family allowance will continue, as established in 1945, to be paid direct to the mother in her own right and without reference to the husband's income or taxable status.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SECURITY (LORD ABERDARE): Yes, my Lords. If the noble Baroness has the tax credit scheme in mind, I would repeat the assurance given by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer that,
"the Government will not adopt any arrangement which leaves mothers being paid less than they are at present."
BARONESS STOCKS: My Lords, that is not the Question. The Question is this. Will family allowance continue to be paid to the mother unconditionally by virtue of her service?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, family allowance will continue to be paid to the mother so long as family allowance continues.
BARONESS STOCKS: My Lords, to whom will that be paid?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, to the mother.
BARONESS STOCKS: My Lords, can we assume that from now on there will be no question of family allowance being
1834
paid to the mother by virtue of her husband's tax position or by virtue of anything but her own right to that allowance for her services as a mother?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, if the noble Baroness is talking about the family allowance as it exists at present, there is no change contemplated. If, on the other hand, she is talking about tax credits then I repeat the assurance given by my right honourable friend.
BARONESS STOCKS: My Lords, can I rest assured that the battle which Eleanor Rathbone fought and wan in 1945 is now not to be fought again and that the family allowance, or whatever it may be called, will be paid to the mother unconditionally in her own right?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I can only repeat what I have already said, which means that mothers will not receive less in cash from child credits than they get from family allowances and that any child credits paid to the mother would go to all mothers, including the wives of the self-employed and those separated or divorced from their husbands.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: My Lords, I do not think the noble Lord got the Question right. We wish to know—and I support my noble friend in this one hundred per cent.—whether the money, the family allowance, is going to be paid to the mother in cash (and not by tax credits to her husband) to be collected at the Post Office?—because at present if she allows it to accumulate for more than three months she usually loses it.
Lord ABERDARE: My Lords, I would quote what my right honourable friend has said in this connection to a Conservative women's conference on May 23: that every mother who gets family allowance can look forward to drawing it weekly from the Post Office under the new scheme, just as at present.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the noble Lord might have saved the House a good deal of time if he had answered the original Question as he has now answered this supplementary.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I think that I answered the original Question absolutely straightforwardly.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, having regard to the noble Lord's interest in the financial position of the housewife and the fact that wages are increasing every day, could the noble Lord give an undertaking that not only will the housewife receive this comparatively miserable small family allowance but that the Government are considering giving her a legal right to a share of the family income?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, that, I may say, is quite a different question. I could not answer that.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, is it a different question because what I am asking for is fair, and this miserable small amount that she now is to get is quite inequitable?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, it is a different question because it is not the Question on the Order Paper.

HILL SAMUEL/SLATER WALKER MERGER UNDERTAKINGS
2.35 p.m.
LORD HALE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what was the nature of the undertakings required by the Department of Trade and Industry from, and given by, Hill Samuel in the course of the discussions on the proposed merger with Slater Walker Securities; and whether those undertakings related solely to operations within the United Kingdom.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND INDUSTRY (THE EARL OF LIMERICK): My Lords, the two companies indicated in the course of discussions and subsequently informed my Department in their letter of May 22, which was published in full in the offer document of May 30, that their main aim was to create a banking group with sufficient resources in terms of assets and skills to be able to compete effectively in Europe and other overseas markets, and that they hoped to establish significant presences in the major financial centres
1836
of the world, particularly in Europe, North America and the Far East.
They indicated also, in relation to any substantial shareholdings in other United Kingdom quoted companies, first that the new group would seek to develop along the lines of a European banque d'affaires and that their policy would be related to the long-term improvement of profitability, with due regard to the interests of employees, rather than to the realisation of short-term gains; second that they would consult with my Department before entering into any transactions which might directly or indirectly put them in a position to control, or materially influence, particularly United Kingdom industrial companies; and, third, that they would be prepared to divulge more information about company holdings than is required under the Companies Act (to include shareholdings of investment trusts and unit trusts managed by the Group, and of full discretionary investment clients, as well as direct holdings).
LORD HALE: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that extremely helpful Answer, which corresponds with what was seen in the Sunday Times of June 3, may I ask whether it occurred to the Department, when they made that extraordinary circuit of this immense financial and international labyrinth, that it is very difficult for this organisation to transact purely the business of a banque d'affaires? And did it occur to the Department that the proposed merger quite clearly contravenes the spirit of the decision of the Monopolies Commission in the case of the Rank Organisation and the De la Rue Company and that many experts say it contravenes the spirit of the E.E.C. Treaty and, particularly, not merely the spirit but the words of Articles 85 and 86? Moreover, is it not in contravention of the decision of the Brussels Commission in 1971 in the case of New York Continental Cam Incoporated? Had not the Department then before them the decision of the Court at Luxembourg in February last which affirmed the spirit of all the observations I am making, while revoking the Commission's decision on purely technical grounds?
THE EARL OF LIMERICK: My Lords, I fail to see why a decision not to refer can have contravened all these matters,

1837
decisions and statutes to which the noble Lord has referred. As my right honourable friend announced in declaring the decision not to refer this merger, he took into account that the merger would not result in any monopoly or near-monopoly situation in any interest or industry in which the company group would be involved, and he took account of the likelihood that the move would lead to expansion of merchant banking activities overseas.
LORD HALE: Yes, my Lords, but may I say that this Question has been carefully framed to make no reflection on the probity or conduct as regards the complex of companies concerned—in one of which I have a miniscule life insurance in loan stock. Does it not occur to the noble Lord, that whether we like it or not, we are members of the European Community? If, by giving their consent to a merger of this magnitude they leave it to be the subject of an Order of the Brussels Commission, and 16 months of appeal to the Court of Luxembourg, then to be sent back to the Brussels Commission and then go to an appeal to the Court of Luxembourg, who is going to unravel this tangled skein in the end and how can it be done? In view of the anxiety in the City—with which I do not normally sympathise—surely the Government ought to take an advisory opinion for the future from the Brussels Commission or from the Court of Luxembourg.
THE EARL OF LIMERICK: My Lords, my right honourable friend took account of all the relevant facts known to him in arriving at his decision. But I think it should be clear that the decision he arrived at was that it was not necessarily in the public interest to refer the merger. That is not the same thing as giving approval to the merger.

MORECAMBE BAY BARRAGE PROJECT
2.41 p.m.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have yet made a decision
1838
to proceed with the Morecambe Bay Barrage, and, if so, with what form of barrage, as a contribution to the fresh water supplies in the North-West of England.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, no decision on the Morecambe Bay Barrage Scheme can be taken until the water storage aspects can be evaluated in the light of the Water Res ources Board's report on national water strategies, which it is hoped will be published in the early autumn.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether he will represent to the water authorities, present and shortly to be, that if you need to get water for the great conurbations it is better to get it from the sea end of a river than from the river itself or the lakes above it, because thereby you allow the water to contribute to amenities and farming and everything else, and you catch the water just before it becomes salinated instead of robbing the land of it?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, I take the noble Lord's point and I think that the Government are well aware of this. The Water Resources Board will advise what is possible and what they recommend. In any case the environmental considerations will be taken into account.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, have the Government received a report yet upon the practicability of this Morecambe Bay project? In particular, are they aware of the fact that there is a considerable risk of silting in the harbours adjacent to Morecambe Bay if this project is carried out?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, the report has been published, as the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, is probably aware; and we are well aware of the problems at Heysham.

KYLE OF LOCHALSH RAIL PASSENGER SERVICE
LORD FERRIER: 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, as it seems more than possible that the Kyle of Lochalsh line may be reprieved, whether the observation car, which went to the U.S.A. with the "Flying Scotsman" enterprise (now suspended), can be repatriated for use on this line and, if not, whether British Railways propose to replace it by a new one for use during the tourist season in view of the magnificent scenery in that part of the Highlands.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment consented to the withdrawal of the Inverness-Kyle of Lochalsh rail passenger service, subject to the condition that it should not he withdrawn before January 1, 1974, and that certain specified replacement bus services should be provided. An urgent and thorough study of the implications for the passenger service of future oil industry development and exploration off the West Coast of Scotland is now being carried out. The provision of observation cars is entirely a matter of management for the British Railways Board.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his reply. If, as I believe is possible, there will be observation cars on that line, and the one in America cannot be recovered, would he ask his right honourable friend whether, in contemplating the design, they will provide for refreshment for passengers in order to augment the service?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, I think the noble Lord made the statement that there would be observation cars. My information is that the British Railways Board have no intention of restoring them because they are uneconomic. As regards a restaurant car, I will see that his observations are passed on to the Railways Board.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. Would he ask his right honourable friend whether it might be possible that an observation car combined with a refreshment car would be economic?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, it is up to the British
1840
Railways Board, as I have said, to investigate this matter.

MAPLIN DEVELOPMENT BILL
2.45 p.m.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD DRUMALBYN): My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lady Young I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time. The Bill we are debating to-day is one part of a many-sided project. At the heart of the project stands the need to provide London with a first-class modern airport. The reclamation of the land needed to provide a site for this airport could readily be extended to include a seaport, which would represent a logical progression of the historic movement of the Port of London downstream from the congested City itself and nearer to the deep water channel. In addition, the reclamation site could provide land for other development. All these facilities will need good communications with London and the rest of the country and this will mean new road and rail links. Finally, a new town will be needed to provide for the increase in population associated with the development of the reclaimed land, and will thus link with the designation of South Essex as a major growth area in the South East Strategic Plan.
The Bill is an essential part of the machinery needed for the implementation of the Maplin project as a whole. It does not provide the whole of that machinery. The airport will be constructed by the British Airports Authority and the seaport by the Port of London Authority, each using their own statutory powers. The access routes and the new town will be dealt with under other legislation. Our debate to-day is on the Bill, and I shall do my best to explain its provisions; but I recognise that it gives an opportunity to look at the project as a whole and I have no doubt that the main concern of many noble Lords who wish to speak will be about the need for a third London Airport.
First, I should deal with the main purpose behind the Bill. Before I do so I must make one general point about the Bill. It is a hybrid Bill, which means that those whose interests are affected in

1841
a particular way may petition against it. Some have already done so, when the Bill was before the other place; Amendments have already been made to the Bill in the course of the examination by a Select Committee there and I shall mention some of them. So far as this House is concerned. the period for petitioning ends on June 28. If there are Petitions the Bill will go to a Select Committee of this House.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord so early, but there are a number of prospective Petitioners who are concerned with the access to the airport by road or rail, and they point out that they are unable to lodge their Petitions because they do not know the routes along which the road and rail may go. In the case of those Petitioners, will there be a further opportunity to petition after June 28?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I will ask my noble friend to reply to that question. It is a procedural one to which I do not know the answer. The first object of the Bill is to set up a Maplin Development Authority to carry out the reclamation of Maplin, some 28 square miles, at a cost of £175 million at 1972 prices. The Maplin Development Authority will have a duty to make available to the British Airport Authority the land needed for the airport and to the Port of London Authority for the seaport. If by any chance your Lordships were now to be of opinion that a third London Airport was no longer necessary, or alternatively, was necessary but ought not to be at Maplin, it would be pointless to proceed with the Bill. Both Houses received favourably the Government's announcement on April 26, 1971, of the intention to go ahead with the project and it is therefore logical for me to consider first whether the circumstances have so changed since that date as to vitiate the grounds on which the Government reached their conclusion that a third London Airport at Maplin should be provided by 1980. I should add that since then the necessary planning and preparation has been going ahead without intermission.
Of course, my Lords, the need for a third London Airport was recognised long before that date. It had become apparent that the congestion and the noise
1842
nuisance at and around the two existing London airports were already excessive and were becoming intolerable. It is fair to say that on the previous occasions when your Lordships discussed the question of a third London Airport—the Stansted debate, in 1967. and the Roskill Report debate in 1971—there was general, though not unanimous, acceptance of the need for it. What emerged from those debates was a general view that a new airport should not he located at an inland site; and that the Government should act with al possible speed to reduce the noise and inconvenience imposed on the people living around the existing airports and under the approaches to them, notwithstanding the fact that greater cost would be involved and that a coastal airport would be further removed from London. The only way to reduce the source of suffering would be so to site an airport that aircraft would approach it over the sea and would take off from it over the sea. If in addition the airport could be established by reclaiming land from the sea, that would be a further advantage. It was for these reasons that Parliament, on environmental grounds, preferred a seaside location to one such as Cublington, despite the operational and cost advantages of an inland site.
Of course there is bound to be opposition to the provision of a new airport, wherever it is sited. The most effective way of uniting such opposition as exists is to seek to prove that no new airport is needed yet or is needed at all. Some say that for various reasons the traffic forecasts on which the Roskill Commission based their recommendation for a 1980 opening, which the Government endorsed, were hopelessly out of date. They also prayed in aid the recent Report of the Civil Aviation Authority entitled Forecasts of Air Traffic and Capacity at Airports in the London Area.
Let us consider that Report, taking first the passenger demand arising at London airports. For 1980 the Civil Aviation Authority forecast passenger traffic at the London airports at 58 million compared with Roskill's 57 million; and they forecast air transport movements at 488,000 compared with Roskill's 482,000. To that extent, the Civil Aviation Authority's Report completely endorses the Roskill recommendation and the Government's acceptance of it. Looking

1843
a little further ahead to 1985, we find that the Civil Aviation Authority's forecast for air passenger demand is precisely the same as Roskill's at 84 million; while for air transport movements their forecast is slightly less—534,000 instead of 555,000. There is thus very little deviation from the Roskill forecast up to 1985. The Civil Aviation Authority made no forecast beyond 1985. The Civil Aviation Authority make clear in their Report that they have taken into account the growth in size of aircraft, the effect of the Channel Tunnel and some possible diversion of traffic to the regions. There is, and always will be, argument about the possible effects of these factors, but in taking them into account the Civil Aviation Authority have arrived at roughly the same conclusions as Roskill.
One thing that the Civil Aviation Authority's Report brought out strongly was that any forecasts must involve uncertainties and margins of error, particularly in the air traffic field when you are looking many years ahead. For example, the Report states that if the estimate of annual average rate of increase of passenger demand were only 2 per cent. out, the effect on the level of air transport movement would be the equivalent of four years' growth; that is to say, capacity would be completely filled four years earlier than if the estimate had been proved to be correct. We cannot rule out in our planning that the Civil Aviation Authority's estimates may be too low. The French, who are now constructing the third Paris airport at Roissy, estimate that passenger traffic through the Paris airports will rise from the 1972 figure of 16 million by 2·75 times to 44 million by 1980. The Civil Aviation Authority estimate that London's traffic will rise from 27 million by 2·15 times to 58 million over the same period. If we do have an increase on the Paris scale, there will be not 56 million but 74 million passengers at London's airports in 1980. As regards air transport movements, the International Air Transport Association has calculated that aircraft movements in the London area will increase by 2·18 times by 1985 compared with 1970; the Civil Aviation Authority's forecast for the London area is a growth of only 1½ times over the same period. An increase on the IATA scale would mean
1844
that all the London airports would be full to overflowing, even including Maplin.
I have given these various figures to show the hazards of air traffic forecasting and the differences that exist among experts. The Government, however, carry the responsibility for ensuring that capacity meets demand. So the Government cannot ignore the possibility that the Civil Aviation Authority's forecasts will prove to have been too low. For the present, we are content to proceed with the traffic forecasts which we have already been using, but of course we must be watchful for any trend towards a more rapid increase. For, as we all know, it is easier to slow down planning than to accelerate it.
Let me say a word or two about runway capacity. Since the Roskill traffic forecasts are substantiated by the Civil Aviation Authority's Report, one may ask what basis can there be for the renewed criticism of the need for Maplin. The answer lies in the section on runway capacity in the Civil Aviation Authority's Report. The main departure from previous calculations lies in the Civil Aviation Authority's estimate that Gatwick Airport could accommodate 168,000 air transport movements a year. This is an increase of more than 50 per cent. over the figure of 110,000 used by the Roskill Commission on the advice then available. The new capacity figure represents an increase of 130 per cent. over the number of air transport movements recorded at Gatwick in 1972. The increase in the Heathrow capacity estimate is more modest—from 327,000 air transport movements to 338,000, a 30 per cent. increase over 1972. Since people affected are looking for a decrease in air transport movements at Heathrow, an increase of 30 per cent. is not unimportant. It is almost entirely due to these increases in the theoretical capacity of the runways at the two airports that the Civil Aviation Authority's Report concludes that there will be a surplus of runway capacity in 1980, and also in 1985—but with one runway at Maplin. The main reason given for these radically revised capacity figures is an assumed more even spreading of demand throughout the day, the week and the year; that is to say, the levelling out of the peaks of traffic and the filling up of the troughs.

1845
In a letter to The Times on June 1 the General Manager of Scandinavian Airlines warned that habitual traffic movements had shown themselves to be unyielding. How far, they asked, can traffic schedules be bent to conform with the theories of economists without completely losing their basic purpose, which is speed and convenience? In real life, peaks are always likely to be with us, as in the daily commuter rush and the seasonal August holiday trek. The letter also ventured the opinion that there was already a shortage of runway capacity, because no suitable time slot could be found at Heathrow for additional flights between 06.00 hours and 13.00 hours in the summer. In an article in Flight in March, the Operations Director of Britannia Airways said that they would like to use Gatwick, but that they could not, because there was insufficient capacity. The point is that from an airline's or an air passenger's point of view an airport is full if they cannot fly at or near the time they want to fly. In addition, we have the views of the British Airports Authority, who have the task of operating London's main airports. In spite of the Civil Aviation Authority's Report, they have confirmed their view that Maplin Airport will be needed by about 1980. I think, therefore, we must be very cautious about accepting these new runway capacity estimates before obtaining further confirmation of the way the trends develop; and this depends partly on passenger reaction and partly on the rate of introduction of larger aircraft.
On the size of aircraft, the impression is sometimes given, though not in the Civil Aviation Authority's Report, that there will be nothing but Jumbos and supersonic aircraft flying in the 1980s. The Civil Aviation Authority's forecasts assume that there will be some 1,000-seater aircraft flying in 1985. This might be so, but no manufacturer is actively considering building one at the moment. The largest aircraft now in service—the Boeing 747—can carry about 500 passengers. Aircraft subsequently brought into service—the Lockheed 1011 and the DC110—can hold about 350, and the European A 300B airbus rather fewer than this. The next generation of aircraft which manufacturers are actively discussing with airlines—the Europlane and Boeing 787 are examples—will
1846
accommodate about 200 passengers, while the Hawker Siddeley HS146, for which financial support is being sought, will hold about 100. And then there are the supersonics which will hold not many more than 100 passengers. So it would be wrong to assume that there will be a trend to bigger and bigger aircraft only. As Mr. Ian Colvin dryly remarked in the Daily Telegraph,
"the public may not care to travel in 1.000 seater aircraft".
However, even if the runway capacity figures were accepted, we would come up against another real physical restraint. According to the forecasts in the Civil Aviation Authority Report, London's airports will be required to handle 84 million passengers in 1985, more than three times the 1972 figures of 27 million. The present and planned developments at Heathrow and Gatwick just could not cater for this amount of traffic. New terminal buildings, car parks, service roads and all the additional allied airport infra-structure over and above that now planned would be required. This would mean an expansion of the airport area, for the existing sites were never designed with this amount of traffic in mind. Noble Lords who use the airports regularly know the congestion that already exists at the airports and on the approaches to them at peak periods Your Lordships will not relish the thought of this congestion being increased and lasting for longer periods each day. There would he very little margin for contingencies. and any delay due to technical or other hitches would result in prodigious log-jams, with all the frustration and irritation that they cause.
It was on account of the shortage of ground area capacity at the existing airports that the Civil Aviation Authority Report concluded that in order to allow the total system to function effectively a second runway at Maplin might be needed by 1985. Given the need for airport capacity, we had to choose between the greater operational advantages which led all but one of the Roskill Commission to recommend Cublington and the planning and environmental advantages on which Sir Colin Buchanan based his Minority Report in favour of Maplin.
There have been suggestions in the Press and in Parliament recently that

1847
there are no longer pressing environmental reasons for easing the noise burden which has lain on millions of people living or working near existing airports for many years, because larger 'and quieter aircraft are being introduced into service more rapidly than was envisaged at the time of the Roskill Commission. The Government are well aware of that. Indeed, in the consultation document Maplin Airport: Choice of sites for runways, published by the Department of the Environment in April, 1972, it was stated quite explicity that we expected a substantial improvement in aircraft noise reduction over that envisaged by Roskill. Noise contours were drawn up and compared with those prepared by the Roskill Commission at Maplin. The 1972 35 N.N.I. contour covered an area only half of that covered by the Roskill 35 N.N.I. contour. Even more dramatically, the number of houses within the 35 N.N.I. contour fell from 20,300 to 1,360. When we produced these calculations last year the opponents of Maplin protested in chorus that we were deliberately under-playing the effect Maplin would have; we were virtually accused of "cooking the books". Now the opponents of Maplin are using the very calculations we made in the consultation document in an attempt to demonstrate that noise is no longer a serious problem.
Let us look at the facts. Even on the revised lower noise levels the Maplin 35 N.N.I. contour calculated for 1990 covered an area well over 100 square miles in extent—24 miles long from one end to the other—from Windsor to Westminster in the Heathrow context. Fortunately, at Maplin 90 per cent. of the 35 N.N.I. area is over the sea; this is the great advantage of the site. If these 100 square miles-plus were superimposed over the existing noise levels at inland airports, the benefit of making a corresponding improvement in the noise situation at those airports would be lost. We all realise it is not much consolation to someone living in a house within an area of noise nuisance to know that his is only one of 2,000 or even 50 houses affected, but whenever a new airport is located—or even if there is no new airport and the noise levels at existing airports increase—some people are bound to be affected. The aim must be to
1848
ensure that the numbers of people affected are kept as low as possible. For those who are affected there is a new entitlement to compensation for depreciation in the value of their property under Part I of the Land Compensation Act. There is also a discretionary power to acquire property from owner-occupiers where the noise is greater than they could reasonably be expected to live with, though I doubt whether there are many (if any) such places likely to arise at Maplin. And of course the Secretary of State has power under Section 15 of the Airports Authority Act to introduce a sound insulation scheme.
I have various comments to make on recent articles written and speeches delivered on the environmental aspect in the last few months. First, although one newspaper article mentioned that the Civil Aviation Authority figures envisage a 30 per cent. growth in air transport movements over and above present levels at Heathrow, nowhere did 1 see any mention that the growth envisaged at Gatwick was 130 per cent. I find it very difficult to believe that any improvement could be effected at this level of growth for the many thousands adversely affected at Gatwick, even with quieter aircraft. No mention was made of the fact that closure of Stansted and Southend and the closure or severe restriction of Luton would mean an end to the noise problem for many thousands of people around those airports. Nor was any mention made of the fact that the opening of Maplin would enable us to consider further night restrictions at Heathrow and Gatwick. N.N.I. contours are used to measure daytime noise disturbance only, because there is as yet no generally accepted method of measuring night-time disturbance. Yet it is at night that disturbance is most upsetting; this is the reason why we impose limits on the number of movements at night at Heathrow and Gatwick. Nevertheless, there are many thousands of movements a year, and a great number of people around Heathrow and Gatwick could be Liven greater relief once Maplin is in operation. In addition, the "night" period for movement restrictions is generally taken to be 11.30 p.m. to 6 a.m. More relief still could be given by spreading the restriction period over more hours so as to cover the evening

1849
period when children are being put to bed and the morning when many people like to sleep on beyond 6 a.m.
Finally, I must emphasise that while there are at the moment no planned restrictions for the operation of Heathrow and Gatwick post-Maplin, the then Minister for Trade stated in the House on July 27, 1971, that the advent of Maplin would enable the Government to impose stricter limits on air traffic movements at Heathrow and Gatwick and to apply other restraints at those airports to reduce the impact of noise. It is certainly the Government's intention so to use the resources of Maplin as to make a distinct improvement in the environment of millions living around Heathrow and Gatwick.
None of the improvements at Heathrow and Gatwick to which I have referred would be possible without Maplin. Indeed, if the estimated runway capacities at these two airports were to be fully utilised on the basis of the Civil Aviation Authority's calculations, the people affected by noise from these airports would have to endure the noise of some additional 480 aircraft every day, on average, above what they experience at present. One point more on the noise aspect. The Wilson Committee on Noise which reported in 1963 stated, on the basis of a social survey carried out for the Com? mittee in 1961, that there was an acute noise problem around Heathrow. Since 1961 aircraft movements at Heathrow have just about doubled. People who live in the area are not therefore looking for a marginal improvement in the noise disturbance they are now experiencing. They want, quite justifiably, to go back to the pre-1961 levels. This can only be achieved through the introduction of quieter aircraft and the advent of Maplin. Governments have been saying for some years that real progress in the battle against aircraft noise can be made only through the twin aims of quieter aircraft and the correct siting of airports. The quieter aircraft are now coming, and at Maplin we have the opportunity of creating the United Kingdom's first environmental airport. Now is the time not to draw back but to press on with the second of our twin aims.
In his statement on May 8 the Minister for Aerospace and Shipping said that there was nothing in the Civil Aviation
1850
Authority's Report to change our view that Maplin Airport was needed as soon as possible. What I have said amplifies the reasons he gave in his statement. Whatever the actual timing of the need on runway capacity grounds—and there is obviously scope for argument here—there still remain other factors such as noise, congestion and ground area capacity which argue strongly in favour of an opening date at the earliest practicable time. Moreover, the forecasts which have been made by the Civil Aviation Authority only go up to 1985. Nobody has suggested that the expansion of air traffic is suddenly going to come to an end at that date.
What happens when our patched-up London airports finally burst at the seams? Panic measures would be required to deal with a situation which would, in reality, have been intolerable for some years, and the Government would be castigated for not planning ahead. The critics of the Maplin scheme seem to be in the situation of hoping that something will turn up. VTOL, STOL, RTOL, diversion to regional airports have all been quoted from time to time as possible solutions. The Government do not think that any of these affect the reality of the situation, which is that we must have additional airport capacity to serve the London area for the rest of the; century and that this can only be sensibly provided at Maplin.
This is our judgment of the situation on the best information at present available to us. We shall clearly want to review all the factors again before finally committing ourselves to major expenditure on the project, even though it is unlikely that this review will produce new evidence to change the general picture that I have outlined. Parliament will have a further opportunity to consider before the committing of expenditure on the reclamation project. It is not until a contract for a major stage of reclamation is let that any substantial part of the £175 million will be committed.
Your Lordships will be aware that a clause was added to the Bill against the Government's advice in another place. That is Clause 25, which lays a duty on the Civil Aviation Authority in consultation with the Maplin Development Authority and the appropriate Minister,

1851
to keep under review the developments of new quieter aero-engines, short takeoff capability or other relevant factors affecting the operations of civil aircraft, and 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 the Act.
As Government spokesmen made clear in the debates in another place, the Government accept the spirit of the clause and also of the other clauses which were debated with it. We agree that before there is any substantial commitment of public money to this project we ought to look again at all the factors affecting the need for the project and to make up our minds then whether and when it is right in the light of the very latest information to make a start on the project.
What we cannot accept is the implication in Clause 25—I say implication because the drafting is defective—that the Civil Aviation Authority should be given the executive role in deciding whether and at what pace the project should go ahead. As the Secretary of State made clear in another place, it cannot be right to take away from Ministers who are answerable to Parliament the responsibility for making decisions of this kind and to give it to a body like the C.A.A. which are not answerable to Parliament. We cannot therefore accept Clause 25 as it stands. In our view the right course is to put the responsibility for carrying out a review on Ministers. Some may say that it is not necessary to give Ministers a statutory duty to carry out a review, since that is what any prudent Government would have done anyway before finally committing themselves to major expenditure on the project.
Let me make it quite clear that this proposed Amendment does not mean that we are in any way resiling from our present judgment that the project will need to go ahead, and that it will need to do so in time for the airport to he opened to traffic in the early 1980s. But in view of the concern that has been expressed, and of the fact that issues have been raised on which it will not be possible to take a definitive view before the Bill reaches its final stages, the Government
1852
believe that it would be right, for a project of this magnitude, to provide in the Bill for a further opportunity for Parliament to debate the scheme before a major contract is let. We shall therefore be bringing forward an Amendment which will provide that the Maplin Development Authority are not to exercise the powers conferred on them by Clause 2 until authorised to do so by the Secretary of State; and that the Secretary of State's authoriation is to be given in an Order which will be subject to Parliamentary procedure and which will be preceded by a detailed report to Parliament.
I turn now to the provisions of the Bill. Clause 1 and Schedule 1 to the Bill deal with the Maplin Development Authority. The Secretary of State has already announced that the first Chairman of the Authority will be Sir Frank Marshall. The main function of the Authority will be to reclaim and maintain land using the powers conferred on them by Clauses 2 and 3 of the Bill. In exercising their functions the Authority will have to comply with any directions given to them by the Secretary of State under Clause 4 of the Bill.
It will be the duty of the Authority to make available to the British Airports Authority the land needed for the airport, to the C.A.A. the land they need for navigational facilities and to the Port of London Authority the land needed for a seaport. In addition, the reclamation is expected to produce some 3,000 to 4,000 acres of additional land which has to be included within the seawall in order to achieve a satisfactory hydraulic shape. The Authority will be responsible for the management and disposal of this land. So far as the development of the "remainder" land is concerned, while the Bill grants planning permission for the airport and the seaport (and also for the M.D.A.'s own reclamation works), it does not confer any special planning status on the remainder land. The development of this land will be subject to the policy laid down in the Essex County Council structure plan; planning permission from the local planning authority will be required for individual development proposals; proposals for industrial development will need to be supported, in the usual way, by an industrial development certificate; and, in

1853
addition, Clause 2(5) of the Bill provides that the uses to which this land is to be put are to be subject to the Secretary of State's approval.
The Government have already made it plain that they do not think that it would be right to allow on this land industries like oil refining, petro-chemicals or steel manufacture. Following discussion in another place the Under-Secretary of State undertook to write these restrictions into the Bill, and an Amendment will be moved accordingly at an appropriate stage. The financial structure of the M.D.A. is dealt with in Clauses 13 to 16 of the Bill. The Authority's borrowings and their investment programme will be under the control of the Secretary of State. The Bill puts a limit on the Authority's outstanding borrowings of £200 million—a limit which may be raised by Order to £250 million. Clause 2(1) of the Bill authorises the M.D.A. to carry out specific reclamation works. The plan and section deposited with the Bill are an integral part of this clause, and I have arranged for reduced scale copies of these to be made available in the Printed Paper Office. I can make available the full scale copy in the Library.
The total area of the reclamation site shown on the deposited plan is some 18,000 acres. This is a large area, but the reclamation does not present any serious technical problems, or involve the application of advanced technology. We can therefore predict fairly confidently the cost of the reclamation; which, as I have said, is estimated to be £175 million at 1972 prices. This figure is based on the assumption that most of the material for the seawall and all the reclamation fill will be dredged from the sea. May I say in passing that to produce good, flat, well-drained land in the South-East of England to-day at a cost of around £10,000 an acre is by no means out of the way.
We do not intend that the whole of this reclamation will be undertaken at once. Although we think it is right to choose a site which can accommodate four runways, we expect that the first stage of the project will be for a two-runway airport, with additional runways being added if and when the traffic so demands. So we expect the initial reclamation to extend to some 14,000 acres, of which some 6,500 acres would
1854
be for the airport and some 2,500 acres for the seaport.
Reclamation on the scale proposed may be expected to have some effect on the tidal régime in the surrounding area. All the proposals for reclamation will therefore be thoroughly tested on the large-scale hydraulic model which has already been constructed at the Hydraulics Research Station at Wallingford, to enable the M.D.A. to plan the works in such a way as to minimise the hydraulic effects. I may say that the Hydraulics Research Station are reasonably confident on the basis of their general knowledge of this area, that the shape shown on the plan would have no serious adverse effects.
If, however, the reclamation does have any adverse effects, the Bill contains special provisions for compensation. Clause 21 deals with the liability of the M.D.A. for damage arising from the hydraulic effects of the reclamation works—siltation, scouring, or alteration of tidal flow. Clause 23 is a wholly exceptional provision in that it provides for payments to be made to people who suffer loss because the reclamation interferes with their exercise of public rights. There are a number of people who at present get their livelihood wholly or partly by fishing or gathering shell fish or white weed over the Maplin Sands; and as the nature of the Sands will be completely changed by the reclamation, the Government have thought it right in the special circumstances to provide a remedy for these people.
While dealing with reclamation I would draw the attention of the House to the four clauses, Clauses 9 to 12, which were inserted into the Bill by the Select Committee in another place. These all deal with the protection of amenities—the protection of fauna and flora at present found on the reclamation site; the preservation of navigation in Havengore Creek; measures to prevent the reclamation leading to interference with recreational sailing in the Crouch and Roach waterways, where this is reasonably practicable; and restrictions on the carriage by road to the site of certain materials and goods until a satisfactory new road access has been provided.

1855
I come now to the seaport. The reclaimed land will provide an excellent site for one. Planning permission is granted for it by Clause 7(2) of the Bill, but is limited to 2,500 acres. This limit was written into the Bill by the Select Committee in another place; and on this basis, and on the basis of their discussions with the Port of London Authority, the local authorities concerned are, I understand, content. But although the Government have accepted in principle the idea of a seaport at Maplin there is at present no firm Ministerial commitment to it. The Port of London Authority have been informed that there is no objection in principle to their proposals for an oil terminal and a unit load terminal. The P.L.A. are now working upon their proposals, and are consulting potential customers, with a view to making a formal submission to the Secretary of State under Section 9 of the Harbours Act 1964. Before coming to a decision on the P.L.A.'s proposals, the Secretary of State must seek the views of the National Ports Council who have to be convinced that there is clearly a consumer demand. The National Ports Council will advise them on the effects they foresee for other ports and on the situation of the ports nationally.
As I have said, the access routes to Maplin, and the new town, will be dealt with under statutory provisions. I have not received a message from the Box, but as these matters are dealt with by other statutory provisions I imagine that the procedure there will be governed by other statutory provisions. The House will, however, be aware that routes for a new motorway and railway to Maplin have been under study for some time, and so has the location of the proposed new town. The Secretary of State has promised full public consultation before decisions are reached on these matters. Ideally, the Government would have wished to make the Consultation Documents available before this debate took place. This has not proved possible; but I understand that they will be published quite soon. After that there will be full opportunity for comment by all concerned, and the Secretary of State will consider all the representations carefully before announcing his decision and activating the statutory procedures. All
1856
these procedures will take time, and I can assure the House that there is no question of expenditure on these aspects of the project being committed before the laying of an Order authorising the commencement of the reclamation work, which Parliament will have an opportunity to consider.
My Lords, I want to say a brief word on costs—and I apologise for having kept the House for so long. The estimated cost up to 1990 is £825 million at 1972 prices. This covers reclamation, the construction of the airport, the provision of the access links and the construction of the seaport, but it does not cover the new town because this represents investment that would have to be undertaken anyway. I have already made the point that the reclamation of land represents good value for money in terms of the value of the end product. The seaport also represents expenditure that will be undertaken only if it presents the prospect of a good return. One is left, therefore, with a figure of some £640 million for the airport and its access links. Those will be used also by the seaport and, of course, represent a contribution to improving transport facilities in an area where improvement is needed anyway. Supposing Maplin is not constructed, all the air traffic growth will then have to be dealt with at existing airports serving London. By 1990 these airports would have to handle probably 50 million to 60 million more passengers each year than in 1980. This is about the order of throughput on which our estimate of the cost of a fully developed two-runway Maplin Airports is based. My Lords, I say this merely to make it quite clear that a very great deal of this expenditure would in any case have to be incurred and it is sheer nonsense to talk about an expenditure of £1,000 million for Maplin that could be saved and need not be incurred in some way or another.
My Lords, may I just conclude in this way? We need the legislation so that the Maplin Development Authority can be set up and can start to plan in detail for the reclamation. We shall then be able, subject to the judgment of Parliament on the outcome of our review, to make an early start on the project if, as we believe, the review shows that there is still a need for the Maplin Airport

1857
to come into operation as early as possible. But if we did not now set up the machinery needed for implementing the Maplin project we should be closing the option of going to this site—which the Roskill Commission considered to be the best site on planning and environmental terms—for many years, and possibly for all time. It has taken successive Governments 12 years to arrive at this point; and I think we should be deluding ourselves if we assumed that, once having gone back on our decision to go to Maplin, we should be able either to find another site or to reactivate the Maplin project without a very substantial delay.
To sum up, a decision to-day to go ahead with this Bill is not a final one, because we intend to provide an opportunity for a further vote by Parliament before the Maplin Development Authority are authorised to go ahead with the reclamation. By contrast, a decision to drop the Bill would close an option which we should all surely wish to retain—the option to provide a major new airport for London on an unrestricted site where noise nuisance can be confined almost entirely to areas over the sea. In effect, it would mean that we were saying that, come what may, we would handle all London's airport growth in the foreseeable future—no matter how great it might be—at the existing airports. The weight of evidence is that air traffic, passenger and freight will continue to increase, and that whatever developments there may be in quieter or larger aircraft, and taking account of the Channel Tunnel, of the possibility of some diversion to airports outside the London area, a third London Airport in the early 1980's is needed and that Maplin is by far the best place for it.
My Lords, I should like to mention one point before I sit down, which I am afraid I omitted, and that is to take this opportunity of amplifying the statement made by the Under-Secretary at a meeting at Burnham-on-Crouch yesterday evening. He said—and I can confirm—that there is no intention of building a bridge across the river Crouch at Burnham or lower down the estuary, and that there is therefore no reason to fear that yachts will be prevented from sailing up the Crouch and making the turn into the Roach. This is not of course to say that, among the options that might be
1858
considered for roads from London to Maplin, one out of several possibilities might be a route that could involve the crossing of the Crouch a good deal higher upstream. But I emphasise, as did the Under-Secretary, that no decision will be made on any of these possible routes until everyone concerned has had the opportunity of commenting on these options. My Lords, as the Under-Secretary, as I understand it, had to face a rather more noisy meeting than I am facing to-day, I think it is best to put that on the Record now.
LORD WOLVERTON: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down can he tell the House whether the expenditure of £825 million includes the road and rail communications which will have to be made, or is it exclusive of road and rail?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, as I see it, it includes the cost of reclamation, the construction of the airport, the provision of the access links and the construction of the seaport. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a. —(Lord Drumalbyn.)
3.29 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, for the exposition that he has made, and with the clarity we associate with him. And even though I hope to speak for a little shorter time than he did, I do not complain at all about the length of time that he took; indeed, I am most grateful for the way in which he has deployed some of the figures. He has deployed them, I must say, rather more usefully than his right honourable and honourable friends in another place. And if this Government were capable of producing a Hansard, let alone a new airport, we should undertake to study the figures carefully—because I believe that they need to be studied.
First, I must declare my interest. As is known, I work in the aerospace industry. The British Aircraft Corporation, as partners in Jaguar, M.R.C.A. and space, has no particular axe to grind so far as the siting of Maplin is concerned. Nevertheless, it remains my own personal view that the future of the civil side of Britain's construction industry and of civil air transport, and indeed of this country as a commercial centre, will be

1859
significantly affected by the choice we make. I also declare an interest as one who lives under the approach path to Heathrow. I know that those who complain about noise do not exaggerate. We have created a nuisance for all those who live along that line which is quite incompatible with truly civilised living. I am, therefore, intimately concerned with the solution of this problem, either by dealing with the nuisance at source or by the Maplin attempt to transfer it elsewhere. It is the means, not the end, which is at issue. I also have a personal interest as a taxpayer. The cost, said to be £1,000 million by some, put at £825 by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, exclusive of the most expensive access routes which will he necessary and which he put at 1972 prices, which are already of course of out date, will have to be met by the taxpayer or by increasing the already inflationary Budget deficit.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, the noble Lord said "exclusive of the most expensive routes". Which does he mean by "the most expensive routes"? I made it plain that the access routes would be covered.
LORD BESWICK: Then, my Lords, I misunderstood. I thought the noble Lord said, in answer to the question from behind him, that it did not include the access routes; and I am much obliged to him. Nevertheless, we are talking about a figure which, as I say, is £825 million expressed in terms of currency which is already irrelevant to the present day.
I was going on to say that it was only three weeks ago at that Box that a Minister was compelled to confess that the strain of this Budget deficit was so dangerous that some economies have to be made. Moreover, it was stated specifically that it was the construction industry which was so overloaded. Probably there is no more inflationary sector in the whole of our economy than the construction industry, and this is so especially in the South-East. The Channel Tunnel Green Paper claimed that Maplin and the Tunnel together will take up only 5 per cent. of our construction resources in the South-East. Many will think that a conservative estimate. But more will also recall that it was the last straw that broke the camel's back, and if that straw weighs
1860
5 per cent. of the total load then collapse is almost certain.
Of course, work will not start at once, but to contemplate spending £825 million with each and every pound inflationary, when inflation is our worst national enemy, when the construction industry is distorted, if not corrupted, by its present load, and when this applies most to the South-East, is surely displaying a considerable measure of financial imprudence—and I use that word "corrupted" with some care. I had in mind particularly the kind of thing that I read in this week's Economist, about what is described as the "lump". I say just this much more about the figure of £825 million. The noble Lord makes a great deal of the point that in any case it would have to spend elsewhere. His right honourable friend in another place emphasised this, too. But does he really mean that the kind of improvements that will he required in other existing airports would come up to anything like this figure of £825 million? I have the figure, for example, of the new airport at Roissy in France. The total building costs of that great new, fine airport will be £272 million. How then can he say—
LORD ORR-EWING: My Lords, I also was in touch with the French Embassy and I was given a corrected figure last night of £600 million, which is a very different state of affairs, for the Roissy Airport.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I quote from an official publication. Maybe here again we are including access costs and roads in one case and not in another. But the noble Lord here is talking about the cost of building airport facilities, buildings and so on, and I am suggesting that the figure for airport buildings is of the order of £272 million at Roissy. I suspect that the figure which the noble Lord is quoting is for the overall cost including the access roads and everything.
What are the arguments for this financial sacrifice? If it has to be made, then we must make it; but what are the arguments eor it? The Times leader of June 15 had this to say:
" The ground on which the argument for it is placed has shifted too often too quickly for the project to command full confidence ".
It goes on to say that first the argument was the impending exhaustion of runway

1861
capacity, then the lack of passenger handling facilities, then the noise relief for people—like myself—living in the flight path to Heathrow and Gatwick; and now the argument which the noble Lord has just put is that the enormous cost of Maplin would be equalled by alternative provision at other airports.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I do not want to exaggerate. I did not say "equalled". I said that this expenditure of £1,000 million would have to take into account the fact that a great deal would have to be spent, including all the passenger facilities and handling facilities and aircraft handling facilities which would have to be provided anyway.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, of course they would have to he provided. I am interested that the noble Lord has now slipped back to the figure of £1,000 million, which must have some significance somewhere. Of course money would have to be spent elsewhere. The question is whether it is of this order, and I am venturing to suggest that, on the basis of Roissy and other cases—there is a new Stewart Airport in the United States, for example—the indications are that this figure is grossly overestimating the expenditure that would be needed for the improvement of the terminal and runway capacity at Heathrow, Gatwick, Stanstead—
LORD DRUMALBYN: And the access route?
LORD BESWICK: —and including any new roadway around the sludgeworks at Heathrow, if the noble Lord wants me to go into any detail. But I am saying that the first argument about runway capacity as originally deployed has been demolished by the officially assisted study of the Civil Aviation Authority; and although the noble Lord himself quotes figures in slightly different ways this afternoon, the fact of the matter is that that Report by the Civil Aviation Authority was assisted by the D.T.I. and by the B.A.A. and has hitherto not been challenged at all. I find it somewhat disturbing that the noble Lord now should suggest that this Report is in some way not to be relied upon.
However, let me say that I am not disposed to gloat over the reversal of
1862
Government forecasts, for I recall very clearly in December, 1967, speaking from the Front Bench opposite, when I said that the capacity at Heathrow—the noble Lord, Lord Macpherson, is smiling; he will recall it—would be exhausted by December, 1973. I said that in 1967. Of course there have been mistakes, but they have all been mistakes of overestimating the strain that would be put upon the Airports, not the other way round. It is not simply that everyone is going to travel in the Jumbo-jets. The noble Lord made considerable play about 1,000-seater aircraft. I myself have my doubts about that, too. I am not at all sure that anything over 300 or 400 is going to be entirely acceptable. But the fact is that it is not simply the Jumbo-jets that are carrying the additional people. When one remembers the work horses of the short and medium haul—the DC3s and the Viscounts and the rest of them—and how they have gradually increased in size, we see the importance of the trend. The figures given by the C.A.A. report suggest that the average per aircraft will be 175 (I think is the figure) instead of 162. If the passenger traffic is marginally increased it will simply mean that the load factors of these larger aircraft are increased. So there is a bigger margin built into some of these assumptions than the noble Lord led us to believe.
Moreover, one other important consideration to which the noble Lord has not paid much regard is that this is not simply a matter of the increase in size of the aircraft which are carrying more passengers per aircraft; it is the fact that the air traffic controllers, with new equipment, have become so much more skilful. The C.A.A. report makes a special point of this when it says that much of the increase of runway capacity will be due to the more rapid clearance of runways, better marshalling of aircraft before takeoff, better control of separation, computer-assisted approach sequencing and accumulation of operating experience. This is a factor which the noble Lord really has to take into account. Moreover, let me say this to him: when he tends to suggest that we are not relying upon a sufficient margin of capacity, all the assumptions which the C.A.A. report makes are based upon Government policy which requires —as they put it: Stansted

1863
and Southend to be closed after 1980; severe restrictions at Luton from 1980 to 1985. But if we did not go ahead with Maplin the fact is that Stansted and Southend would still be in operation, and therefore there is this additional margin of capacity to which the noble Lord really should pay rather more attention.
There is one other point I should like to make because I feel rather keenly about it myself; I am interested and enthusiastic about it. I have sometimes said that one of the most important pieces of technological advancement made in the last year or two is the bag which one can carry on to the airport and put under the aircraft seat. One can cut one's journey time to Paris down by something like 10 or 20 minutes if one is not compelled to wait for the baggage coming through the other method. I am informed that B.E.A., with their new TriStars, will have a proper luggage compartment and that a passenger can carry on his own baggage. The effect of all this is going to be that the movement of passengers through an air terminal will be much speeded up. If the Common Marketeers will properly exploit the economic advantages of the Market and do away with all the Customs and passport procedures at airports for intra-Market passengers, how many more people could we get through the terminal without the congestion that some of us experience when we try to travel abroad? So I suggest that the capacity problem, in the air or on the ground, is not decisive. More serious now, I think, is the nuisance factor. It is in this area that the really radical possibilities have not been fully appraised.
The Roskill Commission were criticised for not taking sufficiently into account the significance of aircraft development. I think much of the criticism was unfair, and for two reasons, Firstly, their terms of reference should have placed greater emphasis on this aspect—they were terms of reference given by a Labour Government and I am not making any Party point about that. Secondly, I think at the time (looking back) the technology champions put the emphasis too much on the possibilities of VTOL and STOL. To a large extent they were wrong, or at any rate they were over-optimistic. But their mistake
1864
lay in the fact that even three years ago it was not fully appreciated what a difference would be made by the high by-pass ratio engine; and we have too, the possibilities of the Dowty Rotol fan engine, which is still to be fully developed. With these engines the noise reductions can be obtained without the economic penalties which went with the very short takeoff. Moreover, we now know that noise shielding can lessen the nuisance of this reduced engine noise even further.
If to all this we add the fact that these aircraft will be more manœuvrable and can climb away much more quickly, and with more sophisticated means of control and navigation can be kept further away from noise-sensitive areas, it will, I hope, be accepted that we have moved into a quite new area of possibilities. I am suggesting that it would be folly to press on with the Maplin project, precipitately adopted in the first place, without taking into account the results of recent intensive work and studies, both by private industry and by Government establishments.
I have no doubt that others will elaborate on this theme and I will restrict myself to some indication of what is possible. Current aircraft—as the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, also indicated—are causing a noiseprint of 18 square miles. By 1978 or 1979, with aircraft then operating, that degree of noise could with certainty be cut down to the order of 1·5 square miles. Further development could restrict the 90 P.N.dB. noise from this type of aircraft within the Heathrow boundary altogether. When Mr. Rippon said in another place on May 16 that these new quiet aircraft will still cause suffering to many people equivalent to 40-ton lorries outside their houses, he was, I suggest, simply casting doubt upon his objective judgment in these matters.
I am well aware, as the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, himself indicated, that there are other factors which have to be taken into account; for example, the time taken for phasing out the old aircraft, or modifying them. I know that there are complexities which ask for a total reassessment. The much quoted Mr. Flowerdew, who was deputy research director of the Roskill Commission, says this:
" Maplin will, on the most favourable case (the C.A.A. assumptions) save about 200,000

1865
people from exposure to aircraft noise in their homes and about 22,000 people from exposure to relatively severe aircraft noise. In contrast, expected technological developments will remove over one and three-quarter million people from the noise affected areas and over a quarter of a million from the more severely affected areas. In other words, improving engine design is about 10 times as effective in reducing the impact of noise as Maplin."
One could go on to say that Mr. Flowerdew's claim is too conservative for, of course, if we put our effort into cutting noise at source the resulting benefit will be shared by all those around the provincial airports as well.
There is one other aspect of this noise problem. The ambient noise around London is higher than for the underdeveloped countryside. On my hillside in Cornwall I can hear them calling in the cattle for milking in the early morning over a mile away; I am told that a B.B.C. team which went down to Maplin recently in order to take some measurements of noise were only able to measure the flapping in the breeze of a marker flag some quarter of a mile away. This is an entirely different situation from that which we now experience around the big cities. It will be possible, a few miles from Heathrow, to keep engine noise levels below the background effect. But the effect down on the coast of Essex and on the Essex countryside would be very different indeed. I suggest that the natural qualities and values to be found along that coast have gone from London anyhow, probably for ever. We should pause especially when the C.A.A. now says that a long pause is possible without penalty, before we begin to destroy that special peace along that coast.
There is another category of persons whose interests, as my noble friend Lady Burton of Coventry often emphasises, who should be more fully considered; namely, the air passengers. We now talk of 50 million and more a year. Their needs should be taken into account. According to a University of Southampton study, the centre point of origin of these passengers is some two kilometres West of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's garden in Downing Street. The majority of them will have almost as far to travel, in terms of time, to Kings Cross as they do now to Heathrow; and when they get to Kings Cross they then start on the expedition down to Foulness. There are no potential passengers to the East of
1866
this proposed new airport. To the South they are cut off by the Thames Estuary. It was largely this quite bizarre geographical fact that led the Roskill Commission, after the most thorough research ever undertaken in this field, or probably any other field, to conclude:
" Neither direction of airlines nor subsidy of surface passenger movements is the answer to an inaccessibly sited airport."
And that went on to say in the course of a most deeply reasoned exposition:
"The nation cannot afford to decide the site for this airport on the basis of a serious misallocation of scarce resources."
I have no time to deal in detail with the road and rail access routes although the cost of them and the environmental damage done by them is of extreme importance. I asked last week whether we could expect a Government statement about that aspect of the problem, and the noble Baroness, Lady Young, said that they were quite separate issues. I am very happy to hear her noble friend say to-day that they are all bound up in one complex, but we are still without the necessary information. We do not yet know where these road and rail routes will run and I am suggesting that it would be quite intolerable if those who are affected by this plan are not able to lodge appeals before the Select Committee after June 28, if it is not until after that date that they get this necessary information.
My Lords, there is one other point I should like to make. I asked another question —
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, before the noble Lord leaves that point, may I say that if he will examine this Bill itself, I think he will see that it is not really appropriate that petitions should be made about matters that are external to this Bill. We are dealing with the Maplin Development Authority and what they do with this Bill.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, if we can at some other stage make the necessary arrangements for an amendment, then I accept what the noble Lord says, but he knows full well that once we have made this decision with this Bill, we have also made, in principle, the decision about road and rail access routes. It is not good enough to suggest that because there is no reference in this Bill to those

1867
routes that those who are affected by them should not have the same rights of appeal.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
LORD BESWICK: I asked another question about the possibility of restraining residential development in the area previously protected for a second runway at Gatwick. The noble Baroness on that occasion said that if the Labour Opposition were pressing for a second runway I should say so. I can well see that at election time in a village hall that she would have got a nice polite round of applause for that kind of repartee, but it is not a serious answer to a matter which I think her noble friend introduced as a serious one. I was not even asking for a second runway. I was suggestiong that we should keep our options open and not allow the residential tide to come in. This particular problem reminds me of the famous remark made by Sir Winston Churchill of the late John Foster Dulles when he said that he was the only bull he knew who carried around his own china shop. And here we have a creator of nuisance which also at the same time encourages people to come in and be affected. I hope that we can get another look at what is happening around Gatwick so that we do not allow the area hitherto protected to be covered by potential complainants.
I say, therefore, that I am not looking at this matter in a Party way. The Government themselves ought not to think that it is a political Party dispute. Certainly the responsible journals do not take it in that way. A Guardian article said recently,
" that the Government should be disbelieved is neither surprising nor unfair. … What we saw on Wednesday night was the culmination of a process which has been going on all this year …"—
that was the Wednesday night in the Commons—
" a genuinely free vote would have disposed of Maplin for good and all."
The Times, besides the other doubts I have quoted, says in a leader:
" The Maplin project needs to be comprehensively reappraised before resources (and reputations are committed to the point of no return."
The Times never gave wiser advice than that. The Financial Times says in their leader that the Government
1868
" should now be taking out options … this means keeping the Maplin planners at their desks at a compartively low cost: it also means postponing the land purchasing and reclamation works … until the last possible moment … for the airport's opening—if it proves to be needed."
The Economist, of course, was much more certain. It said:
"It is an airport that nobody in aviation wants or considers necessary. It is not a substitute for Heathrow …".
They say of this Bill,
" It is a sorry and tattered Bill. the Lords should now throw it out."
My Lords, despite the robust certainty of the Economist, we do not intend from this side to vote against the Second Reading. The noble Lord has indicated that the Government propose to amend the new clause which was inserted against the Government wishes in another place, and I agree with him about the nature of those proposed Amendments. Of course, it should be Her Majesty's Government and not the C.A.A. which should take responsibility for the necessary decision. But on Committee stage I hope that there will he all-Party support for an Amendment which will put teeth into that new clause and will ensure, by Statute and not by Ministerial undertaking. that no work is done and no money spent until Parliament has seen the results of what The Times calls a comprehensive reappraisal. To do less than that would be shirking our duty. To do that. I suggest. would be to the credit of this House.
3.59 p.m.
LORD ORR-EWING: My Lords, I am sure that all will agree that seldom has one been so deluged with comprehensive briefs on any issue as on this. I have endeavoured to bring half of them into your Lordships' House, at risk of rupturing myself, but I could have doubled or trebled that number, so great is the interest outside in the matter we are discussing, and the fact that there are 26 speakers in this afternoon's debate reflects the interest in your Lordships' Chamber. As the noble Lord has indicated, it has been brought home to me very forcibly how grateful we normally are for the supply of Hansard. Trying to read the debate in another place in the photostat copies of corrected speeches makes one realise very forcibly how good Hansard is when it is available.

1869
I have several reservations, some of which have been lessened by the speech from my noble friend from the Front Bench. I think my greatest anxiety is: will the airlines ever willingly go and operate from Maplin? Will they move willingly from Heathrow or, in some instances, from Gatwick? They will have to move their personnel. Their personnel will have to move their children. Houses will have to be sold in one area and found in another. Schools will have to be changed. Redundancy payments will have to be made. Spare engines. spare equipment and workshops will have to be transferred, with all the complicated test equipment. Is this something which will willingly be undertaken? know that the unstinted supporters of Maplin will say—and I think that, on balance. I believe that it ought to go ahead—that a new airport will attract airlines, because in the 1980s Heathrow will begin to look overcrowded and perhaps slightly run down; it will be old-fashioned, despite the changes, so mat the new up-to-date facilities available at Maplin may well attract airlines. But I have yet to he convinced of that argument. I think this is salient. Will airlines willingly set up a new base 55 miles from London, and will passengers be willing to travel that distance when they wish to catch their aircraft?
I am reminded of an instance which was reported in the House of Commons debate two years ago. when Turkish Airlines made a notification that they wanted to start a service from London Airport. They were told by the Authority that they could not operate from Heathrow but that they could operate from Gatwick. After considerable correspondence Turkish Airlines refused to give way, and the Authority went on pressing their case. The Airline then said. "With effect from 10 days' time no B.E.A. aircraft will be allowed to land anywhere in Turkey"; and immediately, of course, the knot was untied and they were allowed to go in and operate from Heathrow. I think we have to remember that we are dealing with international airlines who have possible sanctions against our own airlines if we try to encourage them to do something which they do not wish to do in their customers' or their economic interest.
1870
One point on the cost: one has to remember that the £640 million, which was the figure that has come out in today's debate, for the first time, as the cost of the airport, and access, is to be spread over 17 years. The £600 million figure for Boissy that I have—which is comparing like with like, because it includes also. I suspect, the access road—is spread over only 8½ years. So in terms of load it is a greater load on the French economy than Maplin will be on our economy. But I concede that Maplin is a concentrated project which will take a lot of construction effort.
The latest forecasts suggest that by taking the runways at Heathrow and Gatwick, and to a limited extent at Luton, and by going ahead with the Channel Tunnel, we can meet, in terms of runway capacity, our present commitments up to the year 1980, and just about manage up to the year 1985, provided that the British Airports Authority go ahead with their ambitious plans for improving the ground-handling capacity at London airport. But these figures assume, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, said, a growth; and the C.A.A. may be wrong in estimating that growth. They put it at 9·1 per cent. per annum from now until 1985. If this figure is only 1 per cent. wrong—and there are a great many variables in the equation—it will mean that not 84 million passengers will have to be handled at London Airport but 94 million—an extra 10 million persons. I therefore believe that, as an insurance in case we may be wrong, we should go ahead, carefully monitored, to a limited extent, with the Maplin project.
I should have been happier if the Government had put the arguments in the reverse order and had put a strong case, after proper consideration, for Maplin as a seaport and also secondly as an airport. I cannot help believing that London's port does now need total modernisation, and total modernisation of the roads and rails which feed that port. I can think of no better place to put a deep-water port than Maplin. I was sorry that the Government to-day gave way to pressure in another place and said they would so amend the Bill that, although Maplin might be used as an oil terminal, we are not to be allowed oil refineries or chemical plants there. I

1871
should prefer to see that option remain open, and if there were good economic reasons for those going there, they should be allowed to go there. I should have preferred to see a modern port put first; and I should have thought—and I concede this fully—that this can be done only after the National Ports Council and the Port of London Authority have undertaken a very careful consideration of the whole ports policy for Great Britain. We also have to remember that a new major port, even without an airport, would require very substantial road facilities; 90 per cent. of our merchandise in this country travels by lorry, and therefore any port must have very good road facilities. This is what I think is so archaic, trying to get in and out of London Docks through very old property and on very old roads. I was sorry to hear that the limits of primary industrial development are going to be firmly fixed and written into the Bill.
Of course, if you have a port and an industrial complex, even limited, you must have a new town to support and man these facilities. I would say that, while you have these three, it is quite logical to have another airport. I would look on these four airports as complementary: Heathrow, to the West of London; Gatwick, to the South of London; Luton, although restricted, to the North of London, and Maplin to the East of London. And increasingly I think we have to remember that not only goods but people are driving to their; aircraft. It is inconvenient for people in, shall we say, Chatham to have to drive across country to Gatwick, or, even more, across country to London Airport. It might well be that we should have the whole North Kent series of towns—Rochester, Chatham, Maidstone, and right up to Dartford—joined by a causeway and bridge further down the Thames than Ringway 3, so that all of them, those goods and those people, could travel to Maplin as their nearest airport for international travel. I would also draw attention to the fact that it would probably from the South draw its support from the areas I have defined, and to the North we have the whole of East Anglia, where people have to travel a very long way to get to an international airport. I think again they might well
1872
choose to travel from Maplin if they had the choice. And certainly Maplin would be in competition with Felixstowe as a container port.
Much planning is needed—and here I concede the criticisms of the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, from the Opposition Front Bench—and also, I would think, much costing. We have been given a few figures up till now, but they are global figures and not in any way detailed.
Public inquiries need to be held on the road sitings. We are told that there is to be an eight-lane road but it will start only at Ringway 3 around Epping. How are we, therefore, to drive the feeder roads to this eight-lane road? Are they to go through the built-up area of East London? At the moment it is very difficult indeed to drive a car or a lorry through the East End and to connect up with the Southend bypass, or in that direction. Secondly, we need a survey and public inquiries on the railway sitings for the Advanced Passenger Trains. Thirdly, we need a public inquiry on the siting of the new town. I would urge my noble friend to get on with these, because all these public inquiries take an immeasurable amount of time, not months but years, before all the objections are heard and a final solution is arrived at. There is one advantage of a public inquiry: that it does not use any other resources than brain-power. Therefore you may in the end economise by making the right decision, so long as there is careful consideration of that decision.
I believe that in many ways the best investment this country could make is not in concrete but in the technology of quieter engines. We cannot export concrete runways—though I concede that they earn some invisibles—but we can export aircraft. More and more the world is going to demand, if it buys aircraft from us, that they must be an example in quietness and economic viability. If we cannot produce quieter engines we shall throw the whole world market for civil aircraft to the United States and thereafter we shall also have to buy all our aircraft from that place.
I wonder how we are going to persuade airlines to fit retrospectively, what are called "hush kits" to make their

1873
aircraft quieter. There is no incentive at the moment to do so. I wonder whether my noble friend would examine the Industry Bill. It was not a Bill that many of us on this side liked very much when it was introduced, but it is very widely drawn and allows the Minister to use public money for all sorts of purposes, so long as they are in the public interest. I should have thought that perhaps the provision of, and the modification of existing noisy aircraft to, quieter operations is a public interest of paramount importance to literally millions of people in this country. This is not a terribly costly operation. The latest figure I have for the modification of the 707 series, which are so widely used all over the world, is that it would cost £300,000 to modify all four engines. The B.A.C. 1–11, which is also somewhat noisy, would cost £140,000 for the two engines. There is admittedly some penalty, but if you are thereby able to operate your aircraft, perhaps at nights and at hours when they would otherwise be penalised, there might also be an asset in gaining more public custom and support.
I should also like to press the question: why is it that so many who complain have not thought it worth while to fit "hush kits" to their houses? The grant has been raised from £100 to £150. Perhaps the building costs are outstripping that allowance. I think that my noble friend should see why this is not being done, because now, with good sound insulation, you can make a considerable ameloriation to the tiresomeness of aircraft noise.
I wonder also whether we could not encourage a steeper glide path. Owing to Westerly winds at London Airport the majority of the time aircraft approach over the West of London, and many speakers in another place from Twickenham, Richmond, Esher, and other places have objected very strongly because of their constituents' letters. I wonder whether we could not change the three degree glide path, which has been long sacrosanct in ICAO circles, and make it four and a half degrees, because this would enormously lessen the amount of noise on the ground. I concede that when you come to flatten out you would probably have to go back to the three
1874
degrees close in. But clearly the trouble would be reduced.
Obviously, whether we go ahead with Maplin as fast as we can or not, the most tremendous progress will have to be made in the development of London Airport itself. The C.A.A. say that 27 million people passed through our three airports in 1972, and that the number will be 58 million in 1980, which is the earliest date at which one runway can be available at Maplin; so an extra 29 million people have to be accommodated at existing airports between now and 1980.
The Piccadilly tube-line is being extended, and I think my noble friend should also consider a British rail extension from Victoria. In the long run it may be necessary to remove the sewage works, though I am not convinced that we are using the central area at London Airport as economically and as efficiently as we can. I wonder whether it is essential to have multi-tier car parks there, and whether off airport parking could not be made more convenient and simpler and the space there used for passenger facilities where those are so badly needed. There are other areas than the sewage works. When driving down the Staines Road, should your Lordships still use it, you will find on the North side quite large areas of London Airport not developed. You will find also on the East side, the London side, some areas not developed. There are some ingenious planners available to the British Airways Authority, and I hope they will examine these other alternatives, because if they go ahead with moving the sewage works, first there will be a public inquiry, and people dislike sewage works being parked on their doorsteps as much as they dislike aircraft noise over their heads. This will take time.
Ought not the airport authorities to be examining every conceivable method of ironing out the peak loads, because this is where the bottle-necks appear? Increasingly people are travelling out of London on the commuter early morning planes and back in the evening on the commuter planes. This is happening at every international airport in every part of the world, and something must be done to try and reduce that peak.know that there are financial incentives; perhaps they should be even stronger.

1875
I wonder, finally, whether we should not do everything to urge the development of regional airports, to spread this load away. I had occasion to travel with the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee from Luton airport. I know it is to be phased Out but it only took us 45 minutes from New Palace Yard to Luton. It is a very good straight road up the M.1 through my old constituency, and I wonder whether we are right to limit that airport, because it can also attract traffic and it is only about 1¼ hours drive from the Birmingham area. There you have an airport right in the country. I know that Luton itself is disturbed, and perhaps to some extent Bedford, but there are many worse places to have an airport than at Luton.
To summarise, I ask the Government to hasten forward with the examination of Maplin as a seaport. I ask them to look again at the way in which they are going to limit the industrial complex. I concede that it may not be suitable for oil refineries, because they like to be close to their markets, but I would not wish to see a sanction written into the Bill to forbid them. I urge the Government to press ahead with the public inquiries about the site for the new residential town. I urge them to press ahead with the public inquiries on the roads, and the routes these roads will take. I urge them to press ahead with the public inquiry on the rail and the route that that will take. I would endorse, as did the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, that it is a wise and sensible provision that not the C.A.A. hut the Minister should have overriding responsibility. Provided we can get careful control—and we have been assured that it is going to come back to Parliament again—then I hope that my noble friends can support this Bill with these very special and important exceptions and reservations.
4.18 p.m.
BARONESS STOCKS: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, has made constructive suggestions which provoke deep thought but which alas I have no time to comment on. I regret that I cannot accept the optimism of my noble friend Lord Beswick, or reject the pessimism of the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, in regard to the future congestion
1876
of our existing airports. I think that in the last ten years, or certainly twenty years, the whole world has come to realise the relevance of the Malthusian law of population, that in the absence of preventive checks the population of the world tends to press upon and exceed the sources available for its sustenance and its food. It is true that this is a mathematical formula that has been somewhat blown upon, and his idea of preventive checks are other than those we operate to-day. But I would suggest that that same law applies to motor traffic. Motor traffic in this country tends to press upon and exceed the roads available for its mobility, and I would extend that law further to air travel. I think that the noble Lord. Lord Drumalbyn, would agree that the demand for airport facilities by increasing passenger traffic tends to press upon and exceed the facilities available for the comfort of passengers. It needs of course more passage through the customs, it needs more lounge accommodation, it needs more facilities for moving luggage about and it needs more taxis and cars to be available for getting passengers to West London and the Home Counties. I do not think that the decrease in the number of aeroplanes, because of their larger size and with their more silent engines, will correct those developments.
I think it is true that events move very fast—faster than ideas. Events move at a canter while ideas move at a jog trot and sometimes do not move at all. Since we debated this whole question more than two years ago, events can be seen to have moved very fast indeed in one direction; that is, in the development of hotels around Heathrow Airport and in West and Central London. My own borough of Kensington has done its best to stem the tide, but, alas!, it began too late, as anyone emerging from the air terminal into Cromwell Road can see with the naked eye. There is the development at Shepherds Bush and the development in the neighbourhood of Heathrow, where the servicing problem has become almost insoluble. There are also the developments in Central London at Hyde Park Corner and in Knightsbridge. But I am told that, at the peak period of last year, American tourists who were willing to pay large sums of money for accommodation in the sort

1877
of hotels to which they were accustomed were unable to find such accommodation. So much for events.
There is one idea which has not moved at all, and that is the idea adumbrated by Profesor Buchanan in his Minority Report of the Roskill Commission. I spoke earlier about that idea, and indeed I quoted from the Buchanan Report. I shall not re-quote the whole of what I read but only the relevant passages. Professor Buchanan said:
"… the location of the airport at Foulness could … make a powerful contribution to one of the biggest social problems in the country, namely that of east London."
He then referred to the imbalance of development between East London and West London. He went on:
" One of the reasons … why so little has been done for the eastern side of London has been the difficulty of persuading entrepreneurs to move in that direction. But the third London airport, in a sense a captive industry, seems to me to provide a unique opportunity to introduce a new type of activity into the area."
He summed the matter up later by referring to
"… a major new influence at the end of the corridor which will initiate a regenerative process reaching right back to the heart of London where the East End butts against the City."
I think that that idea remains relevant to-day, and I hope that it may still he cherished by many of those who are thinking in terms of a Foulness and Maplin Sands airport.
But events have altered since that Report was discussed in this House, because it is obvious that that regenerative process indicated by Professor Buchanan has, in fact, started. If you look East from Tower Bridge you will see an enormous hotel, which is not yet complete, capable of accommodating goodness knows how many businessmen and tourists. The businessmen will be within easy reach of the City of London, because they will be on the edge of it, and the tourists will have Tower Hill, the City churches, the Temple and the Inns of Court as their playground. I have no doubt that if the businessmen require facilities of the type provided in Soho, such as striptease clubs, they will soon appear in the area. Meanwhile, there are blocks of working-class flats which are capable, one presumes, of supplying the services for hotel development which are lacking around Heathrow. One also has
1878
the transformation of some of the old dock basins into a very fine marina and gardens. That development is beginning and it could, and should, continue. I think it will continue if we develop London to the East and set about that regenerative process which Professor Buchanan adumbrated. Of course it will need more and bigger roads through the East London suburbs and the small towns to the East of London. I hope it will also need a better railway service. These developments are not impossible and I think they were mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn. That is beginning to happen and it must happen.
But there is a price to be paid which is very clearly set forth in a paper, which other noble Lords have doubtless received, produced by the Defenders of Essex Association. They state:
"To carry on this development would destroy an area of very great value."
They are referring, of course, to the island of Foulness.
" 1. Destruction of an area of greater productive capacity for high protein food than any area of agricultural land of comparable size."
That is indeed true. Foulness is beautiful arable farming land and it is very well farmed by the 220 or 225 persons who live on it, who are mostly farmers, but there are a few who service the village shops. It is true that that would be destroyed.
"2. Destruction of an area of special scientific interest which would have been included as an invoilable area at the Stockholm Conference, had it not been for its choice as an airport site."
I cannot comment on that, because I do not have sufficient scientific knowledge.
The paper goes on:
" 3.Destruction of an area of unique ornithological importance."
Doubtless, there are many birds on Foulness Island in addition to the geese which we are told are unique.
" 4. Destruction of an area of great value to the defence of this country and of NATO."
That is an assessment which only the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, can make, but I find it very difficult to believe that there are not large unpopulated or underpopulated areas on the Yorkshire/ Lancashire moors North of Rochdale and possibly in Scotland, although I do now know Scotland. But if military tests were conducted on the Yorkshire/Lancashire

1879
moors, more than 225 people would be displaced because there are a number of strange, bleak, grey stone villages and a number of scattered farms, some of which appear to be in decay. But I cannot believe that it would not be possible to find an alternative site for the military tests which may be regarded as necessary for our military salvation. That is the price to be paid and, on balance, I think we must pay it.
The Defenders of Essex end by stating:
"To give a zero value to such an area is monstrous."
It would be monstrous if anybody gave a zero value to it, but the difference between a zero value and a comparative value is considerable. I am thinking in terms of the greatest happiness of the greatest number, and what conduces to human happiness appears to be full employment, housing accommodation, facilities for recreation and sufficiently high wages to enable people to go on package tours to Southern Europe when they find it tedious living on the muddy estuary of the Thames. That is the price that we have to pay, and the question at issue is: is it worth paying? I submit that it is.
Of course it is very sad to dream of the beauty of Foulness Island if you have seen it and know it, especially at the height of summer when it is very green, very luxuriant and very lonely. One is conscious of the sky and nothing else, except being only 50 miles away from London and yet right away from any urban civilisation that it is possible to know in this country. There it is, my Lords. Fortunately, one of the benefits of old age is that you can go on dreaming of beauties that you have known and that exist only in the memory, and those of us who have seen Foulness Island at the height of its beauty will go on dreaming about it even when it is not there.
4.30 p.m.
LORD ALDINGTON: My Lords, I must first declare an interest in that I am chairman of the Port of London Authority, which is concerned with this Bill. Before I come on to what I have to say, may I say to the noble Baroness that I always find her words moving, particularly when she is talking about the beauty of the country; and I like
1880
the guidance she gives me as to what I shall feel like as I move towards old age. I hope I shall be as effective as she is.
This Bill is to me a very exciting one—and not only because I am chairman of the Port of London Authority. The object of providing the land for as exciting and imaginative a British project as any in our history must capture the imagination of all of us. If the scheme goes through, it will add 28 square miles to our crowded island, while at the same time deepening the approach channels to our principal river estuary so that we can, at the right time, add a new modern airport and a new modern seaport, each with unrivalled land communications. Of course there is a high cost in the use of human resources and in money, but this cost will be spread over a number of years and is surely well within our national resources. I take account of what the noble Lord opposite said about the inflationary danger of the civil engineering industry being overloaded, but perhaps he will remember that at least part of the effort here is dredging, and it will not be inflationary in that way.
Certainly, as with all great ventures, there are risks, but the risks here are not technological risks as, for example, the risks in Concorde, in nuclear power (about which I happen to have some knowledge) or in space travel. Because we know how to dredge, we know how to reclaim land, we know how to build an airport and we know how to build a seaport. We also know how to construct the land communications. The risk is different. It is that, having created an airport and a seaport at quite considerable cost, one or other of them, or both, will not be wanted, they will therefore not be fully used and there will not be a proper return on the large investment of resources. That is the risk, I believe, which has been worrying many people since the great debate began; and I must declare to your Lordships that, after consideration, I believe that risk to be very small.
But there is another risk if we do not take the decision now to make the investment—and when I say "now", I mean now on the basis that my noble friend has announced to the House—and that is the risk that we shall not have the necessary airport facilities or that other

1881
airports and those who live around them will be overstrained, and intolerably overstrained; or, in the case of the seaport, that we shall not have the facilities for dealing in a modern way with modern ships. Of course it is right to debate the timing, which is indeed powerfully argued in The Times to-day, as it has been argued by some of your Lordships; but there is another side to even that debate, for if we delay there is the risk that we shall not have the airport or the seaport at the time when they are needed —and that is what concerns me.
I must refer to the basic facility that is being created by the Bill; that is, additional land. Surely there can be little doubt that Britain needs every bit of additional land that can be economically created. The cost of this new land has been estimated by my noble friend at £10,000 an acre or thereabouts, and that is not very high in the South-East of England. Let me tell your Lordships that as a result of inquiries we have carried out at the Port of London Authority we believe that over the next century, or perhaps more, it is possible to add 350 square miles of land on the banks of the Thames Estuary, part of it in Essex and part of it in Kent, by straightening out the banks of the River Thames and making the navigation and the conservancy easier. The reclamation at Maplin may well be viewed as a first step in this. Later generations may find it easier than we have found it to keep Green Belts unviolated and to maintain more of our agricultural land.
Other noble Lords have spoken about the airport. Two of your Lordships, who opened the debate, spent much of their time on that; and I should like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing on his speech, and to say that I agree with much of what he said. If I may say so to the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, I do not join with him in finding, as The Times has found, that it is odd to have a number of good grounds with which to back a project. If, every time we have more than one reason for something, or we adduce more than one reason, or we place emphasis on different reasons each day, we are to be accused by the editor of The Times of shifting, I think many of us are going to be in difficulties—and the better the project the more we shall be shifting.
1882
Let me say just this about airports. It seems to me that there is no risk at all that in the 1980s we shall not want a new coastal airport well away from heavily populated areas and residential centres. I thought we decided that 18 months ago, and I am sure we were right. Indeed, do we not wish we had one now? One has only to think of those hundreds of thousands of people who live within ten miles of Heathrow along the flight paths. What right have we to subject them to a large increase in aircraft movements in the 1980s which we can avoid? For is there really any doubt but that more large aircraft will be landing in the South-East of England in ten years' time as the standards of living all over the world, including in Britain, continue to rise? It is not conceivable, my Lords, that large, fast aircraft taking off will not make an horrific noise whatever we do to quieten the engines. At best we can make them quieter, but we cannot eliminate the nasty noise. Of course I know that others of your Lordships may make different judgments about the importance of environmental considerations and of timing, and I know that my knowledge of airport considerations is substantially less than that of many of your Lordships. In my remarks today I want to concentrate, if I may, on the seaport, about which I have greater knowledge and very close and good advice, so at least to ensure that wrong arguments against the seaport, as they seem to me, do not distort the judgment on the airport.
The Times published a middle-page article to-day headed,
"All at sea over the Maplin Port".
The heading is apt for the article and, I believe, for the author, too, who I know very well. The author, if he will not mind my saying so, has an enviable record of consistency in misunderstanding the Port of London. In speaking so about the Port of London, I am conscious that some of your Lordships may think that, as chairman of the Port of London Authority, who is, like the chairmen of other public authorities, bound by the Addison Rules, I ought not to speak in the House about our affairs. But that is not what the Addison Rules provide; and after fully considering my duty under them, and taking some advice, I have

1883
concluded that to-day it is my duty to give your Lordships first-hand evidence of what is proposed for the sea-port, and why. I shall be careful not to usurp in any way the functions of Ministers or to invade the area for which they are responsible, and I hope they will be good enough to pull me up if I do encroach on their territory. The seaport project is, I believe, of great importance in its own right. Maplin Seaport seems to us in the Port of London Authority a logical and timely development of the Port of London, converting the Port of London into the Port of Thames; and it seems to us not only of national but also of European importance. There is, in my view, no risk at all that, once established, it will not he wanted and fully used.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I wonder whether I could ask the noble Lord to help us. I personally am grateful that he should choose to speak. It is entirely in accordance with the rules he referred to. If these conclusions had been reached, is there any reason why we should not have the benefit of the Report from the National Ports Council?
LORD ALDINGTON: My Lords, this is difficult. The noble Lord can ask me any number of things; but I am not the Chairman of the National Ports Council or even a member of it. As my noble friend said, the matter has been submitted to the Government and approval has been given in principle—or rather it would be right to say that in principle there was no opposition to the scheme. In due course a full and detailed proposal for both oil terminal and seaport will be put to the National Ports Council. Whether it is right that we, from the Port of London, should make public the full results of the very full studies that we have done I will naturally consider; and I will see whether that is in accordance with my duty or whether I should ask the National Ports Council or the Minister to do it for me. I hope that the noble Lord will bear with me for a few more moments and then he will have a better insight into our aims and problems than he has at the moment.
In the past ten years the port industry has been passing through a period of massive change which has brought about a technological revolution in two respects. First, there is the container revolution
1884
which has transformed cargo handling methods; and second, the tremendous increase in the size of ships, particularly oil tankers but also other ships. This increase has called for deep-water ports and also a saving in time in access to the ports as well as in handling the ship when in the port. I think your Lordships know about the container revolution. The increase in productivity and reduction in manpower is often quoted as tenfold. One container berth replaces 10 conventional berths. One-tenth of the number of men are required to handle the same tonnage of cargo as when handled in the conventional way.
Terminals are highly capital intensive; the throughput on each berth is about ten times that on the conventional ones. The Port of London container port operates for 24 hours a day for 365 days a year. Since the throughput is so much greater, the berth needs a much greater area of land for stacking the boxes. The operation of loading and unloading ships is carried out much more quickly in containers, and since the deep-sea vessels are larger and of greater draught than the conventional cargo vessels, deeper water ports are required and, I repeat, a saving of time is important for ships during access as well as at the berth itself—in other words, down at the end of the estuary so that they do not require to steam up the river.
About ten years ago arrangements were put in hand for making Tilbury a first-class container port. As a result, Tilbury is now the largest container port in Britain and the second largest in Europe. But we estimate that by 1976 the facilities available at Tilbury will be fully used. In one sense, Tilbury is already out of date, for it cannot take the larger container ships that are already in service. It is true that we could construct at Tilbury a riverside berth capable of taking a 900-ft. container ship, but Tilbury is not the best place for large container ships and there is not sufficient back-up land there for further expansion. So much for containers.
I ought to explain now the need for a deep-water oil port in the Thames. There will be plenty of oil coming to the Thames for many years, whatever your Lordships may have seen written by some people in newspapers. Only 23 years

1885
ago the largest tanker afloat carried not more than 30,000 tons of crude oil. Now a 477,000 dead-weight-ton vessel has just completed trials and 532,000-ton vessels are on order for Shell. These large vessels are needed to reduce the cost, and quite substantially so, of transporting crude petroleum. There are but few ports in Europe and in the United Kingdom where the channel depths can be provided for these very large tankers. The Thames is one of those places. Moreover, the depth can be provided more certainly and more economically in the Thames than in several competing Continental ports.
I need not remind your Lordships that the Thames is within an area of very high energy demand, with a number of refineries already there and a number planned to go there. At present, the limiting draught in the Thames is 48 feet, which is about the same as that for a 100,000-ton tanker or a 210,000-ton tanker carrying over half full. It is simply not practicable to deepen the Estuary channel in the narrower part of the Thames above Southend and between there and Thameshaven sufficiently to take fully laden very large tankers. One of the advantages of the Maplin site is that natural deep-water channels come quite close to the sands, and the reclamations plans include the removal of material from those parts of the channels which require deepening.
My noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing mentioned the desirability of having an oil refinery nearer the oil terminals. We had considered that; but it would be contrary to airport safety rules and therefore we ruled it out; and it is quite unnecessary to the economics of the oil terminal. The proposal is that the oil terminal shall be linked by pipeline to the present and planned refineries on each side of the Thames and Medway. Once the new oil terminal is functioning, it will be possible severely to restrict the movements of large tankers in the River Thames above Maplin, thus protecting the river from oil spillage and from some navigational hazards. That is a significant benefit.
During the last five years studies have been in progress for the Maplin project including the hydrography both in the Thames Estuary and in the approaches to it, including the Channel as far as the Channel Islands. These
1886
studies confirm that for London and the near Continental ports, such as Antwerp and Rotterdam, the only deep-sea approach for vessels with draughts greater than about 70 feet is the English Channel, and the limiting draught for this route is 85 to 90 feet at low water. That equates with a vessel of about halfa-million dead-weight tons. Because the deep water in the Southern North Sea lies on the Western side quite close to the United Kingdom shore and because of certain problems attaching to the sea approaches to Rotterham, the Thames has considerable natural advantages in providing approaches for vessels of draughts greater than 72 feet.
I come now to what is proposed. I go back first to containers. We propose to construct two berths on an area of about 200 acres in the first phase: a deep-sea contained berth in one and a short-sea container and roll-on/roll-off berth in the other. Both can be in operation by 1977, on my judgment of probabilities, if this Bill is passed. The deep-sea facility will be able at all states of the tide to take the largest container vessels likely to be built during the present century. Additional berths can be added as required. Maplin is much better equipped even than Southampton for large vessels. But even if I am wrong in this and Southampton could still fulfil the probable container-port needs of South-East England this century, it would not be right to ban Maplin. Competition between ports is good and so is choice for the shipowners. "All eggs in one basket" is not good for shipowners or for anyone else. I fear that The Times advocate of a national ports policy would disagree with what I have just said. When fully developed, we envisage that the port would provide employment for about 3,000 people, of whom about half would be directly involved in cargo handling. The cargo capacity of the port which, excluding the oil terminal, would occupy 1,500 acres could be expected to reach 25 to 30 million tons by the end of the century.
On the oil side, where we have to cater for deep draught ships, the approach channel from the North Sea to the terminal is about 34 miles long and about half of this would be dredged. The remaining half is already deep enough.

1887
The present plans are that the dredging in the first phase should provide channels for vessels up to 73 feet draught, which equates to tankers of about 380.000 deadweight tons. The oil terminal would be sited on reclaimed land occupying a thousand acres, of which only 250 acres will be required in the first phase. On these 250 acres there will be storage tanks with a capacity of about one million tons. There will be significant benefits as a result of this new deep-water oil terminal. The present tonnage of oil imported into the Thames amounts to about 25 million tons a year, and on average one tanker comes into the Thames each day of the year. At Maplin the number of tankers will be reduced from seven a week to two a week. Since all the crude oil tankers for London pass through the English Channel and the Dover Strait, there would be the same reduction in the number of tankers on this crowded route. And if the tonnage of oil coming into Thames refineries were to double, as is forecast, the number of tankers, with Maplin, would still be less than it is to-day.
I now turn for a moment to the cost. The first phase, comprising the oil terminal and unit load berths, as I have outlined, is expected to cost the Port of London Authority about £50 million. We intend that, so far as the oil terminal is concerned, contracts made with the oil companies will be such as to back the raising of the necessary finance. So far as the container terminal is concerned, the capital works will be financed in the normal way for the Port of London, and the cost will be covered by the earnings of the new container terminal. I would remind your Lordships that the Port of London Authority is at the moment not running at a loss. I should confirm that none of this expenditure could be incurred by us without the approval of the Minister for Transport Industries under the Harbours Act 1964. The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has already stated accurately to your Lordships the situation about the outlying proposals and I have referred to them.
There have been extensive discussion between the Port of London Authority, oil companies and other potential port users in many parts of the world, as well as with Her Majesty's Government.
1888
These discussions will of course continue and there will be discussions with the National Ports Council; in fact, there was a meeting to-day between the Director General, the chief officers of the Port of London Authority and the National Ports Council. In addition, there have been extensive discussions with the local authorities, particularly the Essex County Council; and there have also been discussions with the planning officers of the Kent County Council. There is a particular problem in Essex about road approaches in the interim period between the time when the first phase of the port becomes operational in 1977 and the completion of the motorway for the airport.
The container terminal will not be in operation until after a rail link has been provided, but some seaport operational traffic will need to go by road. It is reckoned that normally about half the containers arriving in the Maplin port will be transported on by rail and half by road. Your Lordships will know that I am as sensitive as anyone about heavy traffic passing through villages or towns, or nearby historic places and so on, and interfering with normal life. I recognise the problems in parts of route A.127. I understand that improvements have been planned and that urgent attention is being given to the possibility of a loop road or a by-pass being built for part of the A.127 where it passes through Southend. So that we may get the effect of the new container port on the traffic along this route in proper perspective, I can say to your Lordships that during the period between 1977 and the expected completion of the motorway it is not anticipated that more than about seven vehicles each hour each way will be going to or from the container port; and these seven vehicles each hour each way compare with about 3,000 vehicles each hour each way on that road during peak periods to-day.
My Lords, I have mentioned the road and rail access. The port is only one part of a comprehensive transport concept. It is impossible to start operating a port without road access, even with the best of railways, and the certainty of that road access is of course a vital factor in marketing the facilities of the port to potential customers and therefore satisfying ourselves again that

1889
there are sound commercial grounds behind this container port. Further detailed information may be made available to your Lordships during later proceedings on the Bill. On behalf of the Authority I have given important assurances to the Chairman of the Essex County Council which can be set out in detail. But one of these may be important to your Lordships at this stage. It relates to the establishment of industry in the port area. Because a number of large Continental ports have based their development on large industrial areas in their immediate neighbourhood, it has been thought that it was an essential condition for the viability of the new Maplin seaport that there should be a large industrial area alongside. This may be desirable at Le Havre, Dunkirk, Rotterdam, Antwerp and other places, but it is not essential at Maplin, and I have assured the Chairman of the Essex County Council that the Port of London Authority will not encourage any industrial development—which would in any event, of course, need planning approval—contrary to the wishes and plans of the Essex County Council. I am satisfied that as a result of the discussions with the Essex County Council, and the assurances which we have been able to give, we shall receive the fullest co-operation from them in everything that is necessary for the port.
My Lords, I apologise for the time I have taken, but this is the first opportunity we have had of explaining what is behind these proposals. I would end as I began, by stressing to your Lordships that in my view this is an exciting and imaginative British project. It has its risks, but there are greater risks in delay; and I think it would be a disaster to abandon it. There are many good men involved in the planning of the Maplin development area, of the airport and of the seaport, and it seems to me that after we have heard all the evidence and the arguments, and the proof that environmental requirements have been fully met, we shall want to let them get on with their work, relieved from the fear that their work will come too late. Now is the time not to draw back, as my noble friend said in his excellent introductory speech.
4.56 p.m.
LORD THOMAS: My Lords, like my noble friend Lord Aldington, I have to declare an interest, in that in my capacity as Chairman of Britannia Airways I have frequently been asked, "Are you pro- or anti-Maplin?". I have managed to evade giving a straight reply to that question. I am neither pro nor anti. I am delighted to have this opportunity to listen to the debate, because it is ventilating a very important project in an atmosphere that is low in emotional "pollen" so to speak; and I am sure that we are all learning a very great deal as we go along.
My Lords, I wish to make one particular point. It is that it would be wrong to regard the Maplin project as a panacea for all our transportation problems. Just by saying that it is on does not mean that we can sterilise and stop all development at other airports. I take it that the time estimate of ten years to get Maplin operational is very likely to be exceeded. These estimates always are exceeded. During that ten years or more there will be changes in traffic patterns and aircraft types. I put it to your Lordships that it is for the wellbeing of British aviation and transportation that such improvements as are needed at London Heathrow, Gatwick, Luton, Stansted and anywhere else should go on. Otherwise we shall have the worst of both worlds—a big project which has not been developed, because there has not been the time, and a running down, or an overrunning, of the capabilities at the existing airports where traffic has to be handled. say this because I know that Maplin—or Foulness, to give it its more properly descriptive title—is a God-forsaken place as it stands; beautiful in its loneliness would grant, but not a good place for contractual development, and we shall find that the ten-year period needed before it is anywhere near completion will soon be exhausted. Only yesterday one of our Ministers nearly got lost while exploring the site—which gives credence to the fact that it is a little complicated—and he was late for a meeting at which he unsuccessfully tried to tell some of the local inhabitants of the benefits of the Maplin project. Obviously we must have time and we

1891
must exercise patience. Please do not let us imagine that by giving the green light to Maplin we have waved a magic wand that immediately warrants our freezing increasing the capacity at the other London airports, and the Provincial ones, too.
I would plead also for a more rational outlook on the subject of aircraft noise. It is a nuisance; it is irritating and annoying. It also seems to create all kinds of uninhibited comments both in the spoken and in the written word. When I became Chairman of B.O.A.C. I deliberately bought a house at Virginia Water, right in the flight path, so that I could have first hand experience of the noise problem. I also moved the headquarters of the airline from the West End of London down to Heathrow Airport for the self-same reason. Noise is a great nuisance, but it is tolerable. I think the tendency to extravagant oratory and highly excitable prose is awkward. As the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, said, there are hush-kits available for hushing the engines of shed aircraft; and double glazing of houses is good. One of the cheapest hush-kits that I know is to stuff the chimneys of hardly-used bedroom fireplaces with crumpled paper or sacks of wood shavings. It is surprising how much noise comes down chimneys from aircraft going overhead, and a little do-it-yourself can make a great deal of difference.
Equally, I deliberately spent last Sunday at Gatwick. It was a perfect summer day, and there was no cloud to form anything like a sound barrier. I was very much impressed by the fact that at least two four-engine jets were circling and making, a repetitive noise, presumably because there was not enough runway capacity to enable them to get down. That immediately negatives any suggestion that you can necessarily improve the noise situation by restricting runway capacity. If these aircraft had had an opportunity to get down, they would not have made so much noise. That again is an argument for not restricting airport facilities during the interim period between the time when, as I hope we shall, we say "Go" to the Maplin project and the time when it becomes operational.
1892
My Lords, there are all kinds of problems which must be studied. There are the types of road and rail connections—we do not as yet know where they are going. The investigation into bird strikes is a very serious undertaking. These quieter engines, like the RB 211 Rolls-Royce, have air intakes at least seven feet across and a very high speed rather delicate fan revolving in that diameter. Those discs, as they are called, are already rather sensitive to ordinary usage, and a bird strike in the third engine, the one at the back over the middle of the fuselage, could be most serious, because if the fan broke up and severed any of the controls, it could create an extremely difficult situation. So I think the matter of the birds at Maplin needs extremely careful consideration.
While we are engaged on Maplin, I think a good deal of attention ought to be given to the question of making air engines quieter. For a tithe of the sum we are proposing to spend on Maplin. we could let the various engineers, Rolls-Royce, Dowty and others, develop quieter engines, which will be needed not only for their quietness, but also to give controllable thrust and braking for short take-off operations.
There is one final reason why I hope the Maplin development will go ahead, and it may seem a little unusual. There is the possibility in the immediate future of seaplanes coming back. Already a leading manufacturer in the States is talking about building a seaplane. Everybody who remembers the old days—and the noble Lord. Lord Beswick, will remember this—will recall how popular with passengers were the old flying boats. Well, Maplin would be an ideal place for a flying boat base; and that would soon lead to the development of other flying boat bases, because there is a lot more water than there is concrete in the world.
So, my Lords, let us carry on with this Bill; push on with the paper-work and send it to a Committee stage so that the Amendments the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has outlined can be considered. By this consideration, I hope we shall prevent the Maplin plan doing a stall turn on take-off and creating an awkward situation. I tun all in favour of progress in this matter.
5.7 p.m.
LORD HENLEY: My Lords, I was one of those who at the time of the Roskill Report felt, on environmental and planning grounds, that if we were going to have a third London Airport it ought not to be at an inland site, but should be at what we then called Foulness; and the various amenity bodies and other bodies on whose councils I sit gave evidence to that effect to the Roskill Committee. Eventually, the Government rejected the main proposals of Roskill and came to the same conclusion. Even then there was a great deal of talk as to whether the premise on which the Government had accepted this proposal was true or not; that is to say, whether there should be a third London Airport at all. Since then there has been a great deal more talk. In fact, if one reads the newspapers to-day, one comes to the conclusion that the case against having a third London Airport has been incontrovertibly made out. The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, does not agree. On the other hand, the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, does agree. So I find myself once again in a position that will not be unknown to other noble Lords, in that it is extremely difficult on the evidence before one to make up one's mind as to whether or not there should be a third London Airport.
But if we do not have a third London Airport at Maplin, what is going to happen to those people who at the moment are suffering so badly from the noise at all the four airports that have been mentioned—Heathrow, Stansted, Luton and Gatwick'? The noble Lord, Lord Thomas, feels that we must not get too emotional about noise. But people who live under the menace of this noise, so far from being merely emotional, are nearly driven out of their minds. This is not merely a question of areojet aeroplanes; the same can happen if you live near a small Provincial aerodrome with little trainer aircraft buzzing around for 16 hours a day at about 500 feet. All this induces in one's mind a feeling that violence is the only answer. We must do something about this—and I will come to that later—because it has now reached a point at which it is almost intolerable. There are, I know, such things as hush kits. There is improved compensation under the Land Compensa
1894
tion Act. There are discretionary powers that local authorities can enter into with regard to sound proofing people's houses and making them less susceptible to noise. But none of these will get us very far. What is going to get us a great deal further is the question of whether aircraft can or cannot be made quieter.
Here again, I am in exactly the same position as I described to yourLordships a few moments ago: that the evidence put before me, not only during our debate to-day but in the newspapers and so on, is contradictory. On the one hand, we have the words of Mr. Flowerdew, which were quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Beswick. I am inclined to believe that he is right in saying that in fact we can and shall be doing someing about the noise of aircraft engines in the very near future.
On the other hand, the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, while admitting that if we were to spend more money on reducing the noise of aircraft engines we should get somewhere, said that whatever is done there will still be pretty noisy aircraft, and that we cannot get away from that fact. So here we have two directly opposing views: one to the effect that, do what you will, there will always be noise from aircraft up to a nearly intolerable degree; and, on the other hand, what 1 might call the Flowerdew view, which is that we shall indeed put this matter right in the very near future. This is really one of the central points of the debate, because the question of what we are going to do about noise must in part influence our feelings about Maplin.
I should not like to see something of the order of £1,000 million spent on developing Maplin if, for a variety of reasons, it is going to be useless. A great many of those various reasons have been touched upon this afternoon. One of them, however, has not so far been touched upon; that is, the energy crisis. I had hoped that one of my noble friends would say something about this. It is no use spending an enormous amount of money on a new airport to be ready in the 1980s if, by the 1980s, there will not be enough aviation fuel to have the number of aeroplanes we have all been talking about. There is also the question of the seaport and to what extent we shall be able to rival Rotterdam. I was very

1895
interested in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, because he made what I thought was a very strong case for the kind of seaport in the Thames Estuary that this bold and imaginative scheme would produce. That is as may be; but I do not believe it is going to rival Rotterdam in quite the way he thinks.
There is also the question of industrial development. Here again I am not quite sure how much the Government have in mind with regard to industrial development. There seems to be some difference of opinion as to what kind of development, if any, there is to be. There are also difficulties over transport. Do people, particularly foreign airline operators, really want to come to a place with difficulties over access to London'? What damage are we going to do the environment of London and South-East Essex by providing the kind of access that will be necessary? Nor do I really care for the argument that we shall be producing a lot of good new land at £10,000 an acre. As against that, we have to set the loss of something which is becoming increasignly rare in this country—something almost unknown in South-East England —and that is land which is not part of a concrete jungle. Such things as this will be done at our peril.
If all these difficulties are going to make Maplin useless in the long term, that would indeed be too high a price to pay for taking the pressure off the other airports in the London area. In any case, such pressure will not be taken off for something like eight to ten years, and during that immediate period the noise which people now find intolerable at those other aerodromes is going to be mitigated, not by the advent of Maplin, but by more money, more effort and ingenuity being expended on reducing aircraft noise. I am convinced—and this is why I accept the Flowerdew view—that we shall in fact reduce this noise. Indeed, the noble Lord. Lord Thomas, said that if we spend money on trying to get over the noise problem of the aero-jet, we shall do it very quickly. Supposing, for example, it had not been merely desirable but essential to do away with noise; supposing it had been a kind of wartime operation. I am convinced that we should have had virtually silent aircraft already. If we had devoted the amount of money that we
1896
have spent on Concorde in trying to produce a silent aero-engine, I am sure that we should now be leaders of the aircraft engine industry and not tagging on behind with an aircraft which is not only the most expensive on fuel, but the most noisy of all and which nobdy wants.
However, having said about Maplin, I want to make it absolutely clear that the amenity arguments do not all point the same way. I want to rebut any suggestion that opposition to Maplin is necessarily the proper course for anyone who has the protection of the environment at heart; because that is not so. I wish I knew the answer myself. As I have said, I originally supported Maplin. My faith is slightly shaken by the arguments that I have heard against it and, like many of your Lordships, I simply do not know the answer. Therefore I think it right that the Government should be made to look at this project again. Governments, like other people, very often adopt attitudes which they then defend to the last, regardless of anything else. The forceful way in which the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, made his speech earlier to-day made me feel that the Government have already made up their minds on the question and are determined at all costs to push the project through. I feel there is evidence that successive Governments did the same thing over Concorde—and look where we have got to there! I believe there is evidence that the Government are doing the same thing over the Channel Tunnel.
Each of these investments is to cost something of the order of £1,000 million pounds. I take what has been said about over-heating the economy, and £1,000 million pounds is not very much if what you have decided to do is right; but if what you have decided to do is wrong then it is a great deal of money to waste. It is still not all that much; but if what you have decided to do is not only wrong but is something which takes you altogether in the wrong direction, then not only is your £1,000 million lost but you have promoted something that is wrong and irretrievable. That, my Lords, would be a disaster from which it would be extremely difficult to recover.
For those reasons, I hope that the Government will accept the sort of amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, suggested would give teeth to

1897
Parliament, to make sure that the Government are in fact not taking up a stance from which they cannot withdraw but rather looking at the situation in the light of the very rapidly changing evidence which is before us every day.
5.20 p.m.
VISCOUNT AMORY: My Lords, I should like to start by saying that I am sure your Lordships enjoyed as much as I did the very able and informative speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Aldington. It seemed to me a shining example of the advantage that comes to this House through the membership of it of many men and women who carry the sort of wide responsibilities that are carried by the noble Lord, Lord Aldington.
I suppose that my speech is likely to be about as great a contrast as can be imagined, to his because I speak wholly as a layman. My only first-hand experience of air navigation in the vicinity of London was derived from an occasion during the war when I flew a small aircraft into the balloon barrage. On emerging therefrom and returning to my airfield I received a severe reprimand from the Air Commodore, not for having flown into the balloon barrage but for having flown out again without losing my life. Those of us who are laymen cannot hope hope to master all the technical arguments on which the experts themselves do not seem in agreement. Nevertheless, because the experts are not all in agreement, we laymen, at the risk of oversimplifying some of the problems, must come in and share the responsibility for a decision. That is my only excuse for speaking briefly this afternoon, because there may be others who are in exactly the same position as myself.
My Lords, this is the moment for your Lordships to produce your "hush kits" —an article of equipment of which I did not know the existence until this afternoon. I have read and listened to, as opportunity has offered, the rival arguments, and as a result the following impressions have been left on my mind. May I give them to you in rather telegraphic form? My noble friend Lord Drumalbyn reminded us that Governments have been applying their minds to this problem for 12 years. With a nationally essential industry like air transport, which is growing at the present
1898
rate, and with the prospective growth rate, it does not make sense to postpone a decision much longer. Secondly, the vertical take-off, short-run aircraft, and even the noiseless aircraft, seem to be a long time coming. Thirdly, until they do, and perhaps after, airports should be kept away from densely populated areas if possible, even at the price of somewhat longer ground communication links. The distance of ground communication (I think it is 55 miles) seems to be a defect, but fast and frequent communications are feasible which would go far to compensate for the longer distance between airport and city centres. I was interested in the typically forward-looking speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Stocks, with her interesting idea for the regeneration of the Eastern portions of London. I hope that will come about.
The next point that is left on my mind is that the charts of estimated future growth of air transport do not seem to indicate any less sharply rising curve. Almost too much emphasis has been put on the adequacy or inadequacy of Heathrow and the other London airports in the year 1985, and not enough emphasis on the probable expansion of the volume of traffic after 1985. It seemed to me that that was a defect in the letter of Sir Peter Masefield which recently appeared in The Times. Then there must surely he a maximum tolerable size for one airport. Already these huge airports in which passengers suffer inconvenience by the distances they have to walk, the areas in which they have to mill around and the degree of centralised organisation involved, are becoming nearly intolerable in some places. Even at their present size, airports are becoming inhuman establishments. This is one of the reasons why industrial relations at them are not better than they are at the present time. Therefore, so far as I am concerned a solution by major expansion of existing airports to the extent—I think I am right in saying after listening to the speeches to-day—of three or four times is likely to be intolerable to passengers and is a prospect that terrifies me.
My next point is that in selecting investment priorities, provision for air travel, which shows no signs of ceasing to expand, must take precedence over a new venture such as the building of

1899
the Channel Tunnel, even though the Channel Tunnel, if finance was available, would probably be a sound scheme. The estimated costs have been mentioned. Huge as they are, they do not seem to be impossible when spread over a period such as 15 years. If they were to come on sharply, particularly on the construction industry, clearly they would be most damaging from the inflationary angle.
Lastly, on environmental grounds Maplin seems to me to be easily the least damaging solution suggested. The sea reclamation project is positively an attractive element-14,000 acres of land reclaimed at an estimated 1972 cost of £10,000 an acre is, as my noble friend Lord Aldington has said, surely not an unreasonable price. I believe that we are going to have to look at some major land reclamation schemes from the sea, apart from this area, on their own merits in the years to come. The views expressed by my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing, who is an expert, I found very convincing.
These, my Lords, are the reasons why my vote as a layman, as a man in the street, comes down in favour of proceeding with the preparatory work authorised by this Bill, and with the numerous studies which, as my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing said, will stem from it.
5.28 p.m.
LORD MOLSON: My Lords, I have in no way modified the views that I expressed some three or four years ago about the undesirability of having the Third London Airport on any inland site. On that occasion, some of your Lordships may remember, I initiated a debate upon the subject; and the fact that not a single one of your Lordships was in favour of the adoption of the Roskill recommendations may have had a good deal to do with the Government's rejection of the recommendations of the Roskill Commission and their decision in favour of Maplin. If a Third London Airport is needed, there is an unanswerable case in favour of siting it at Maplin. I am bound to say, however, that the further researches and studies which have been made in the past few years make me wonder whether in fact it will
1900
be necessary to have a Third London Airport. In any case, it seems fairly clear that it is not a matter of as much urgency as we had supposed.
The Civil Aviation Authority's Report to the Government, Forecasts of Air Traffic and Capacity at Airports in the London Area, undoubtedly throws a new light upon the likely outlook up to the year 1985. Their conclusion, at paragraph 10.10, is:
"… in 1980 there would be about 14 per cent. surplus passenger-handling capacity with a Tunnel and 9 per cent. with no Tunnel."
What is also very striking is that at paragraph 2.3 the C.A.A. indicate that a number of official studies have been made which are still unpublished. My Lords, before any decision is taken on a matter of this great importance it is of the utmost importance that there should be the fullest disclosure of the latest studies upon this matter. At paragraph 2.3 they say:
"Subsequently, there have been a number of unpublished studies of major elements of this calculation."
It is true that in arriving at the conclusions which I have quoted the Civil Aviation Authority have taken those exercises into account, but the fact that they have had access to these studies and have taken them into account in arriving at the conclusion that in any case there will be surplus capacity in the London area in 1980, does not in any way alter the fact that Parliament and the public should have access to these studies before any decision is taken upon the matter.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, would my noble friend forgive me? He said that in any case there would be a surplus capacity, but the Report says specifically that the middle figure suggested would be surplus capacity but the upper limit forecast suggested that available handling capacity at Heathrow and Gatwick may be fully used by 1980.
LORD MOLSON: My Lords, the middle figure, yes. I assume that there is no need to take the maximum figure as being the basis upon which the calculation is to be made. And it has also to be remembered in making this calculation that they are leaving entirely out of account short take-off and landing aircraft and reduced take-off and landing aircraft. It may well be that anything

1901
in the way of vertical aircraft are not likely to be in operation by 1980, but I should have thought it extremely probable—and the other papers which have been circulated to noble Lords indicate this—that before then the use of existing runways will be very much more scientific and intensive than it is at the present time. Anyway, it seems to me to be quite clear that there is no need for such urgent hurry as to preclude sufficient time for the studies to be made. It must be remembered, too, that aviation and the design of aircraft and their performance are probably now changing more rapidly that at any time in the past and in my view it would be most unwise to jump to any premature conclusion upon this matter.
My Lords, to-morrow I am asking a Question of the Government as to the precise reasons why they consider it necessary that decisions should be taken with regard to the Channel Tunnel at such extremely short notice, by July 31, when at the present time—or certainly up to last week—a number of the studies to which they were referring are still unpublished. There can be no justification, in my view, for two such great and important decisions being taken without the fullest information being available. I entirely agree with my noble friend Lord Amory that there is a very much stronger case for Maplin than there is for the Channel Tunnel. But one thing I do feel very strongly is that there is no justification for undertaking both of them at the same time.
I found myself in complete agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, when he gave warning against this country's undertaking excessive capital expenditure at the present time. We were reminded by my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing. in a debate on the Channel Tunnel, of the vast sums which it is likely to be necessary to invest in a whole lot of our nationalised and other industries. There is a figure of something like £3,000 million, I believe, planned over the next 10 or 12 years for the reconstruction of the steel industry; the railways are asking, I think, for £1,700 million; and now, on top of that, we have a proposal for Maplin, at £825 million, and the Channel Tunnel, at something like £750 million, without, as I understand it, any estimate of the cost of widening and
1902
modernising British Railways in order to make the fullest use of the Channel Tunnel when it is built.
As the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, said —and it certainly is a view with which noble Lords on this side of the House will agree—inflation is the greatest menace which this country is facing at the present time, and unless we are prepared to save out of our income the total amount that is necessary for these vast capital expenditures over the next 10 or 12 years, this capital expenditure must inevitably result in further inflation. I therefore hope that the Government will bear in mind that these projects, desirable and attractive as they may be, must been seen in the general ambit of the economic future of the country; and that to arrest the inflation which has been the bane, and almost the downfall, of successive Governments in this country is surely the first and most important thing they have to bear in mind.
This is a hybrid Bill and the private interests which may consider themselves adversely affected by it will be able to present their cases upstairs. Being a Hybrid Bill, it also is in part a Public Bill, and it is for Parliament to take a view of the national interest. I thought that the leading article in The Times to-day set out cogent reasons for taking a slightly prudent view, and I hope that that view will commend itself to Parliament. It was significant that a revolt of Conservative Members in the House of Commons resulted in the addition of Clause 25 in order that there should be an opportunity for further consideration. I believe that there is need not only for further consideration but also for further inquiry and time to see more clearly than we can at the present time what justification there is for those aviation experts who say that there will not by 1980 be any need for a third London Airport. I gladly welcome what my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn said: that the Government are prepared, as a result of the successful revolt in the House of Commons, to insert a provision that work upon Maplin is not to he undertaken until Parliament has had a further opportunity of considering the matter. I do not quite know what form the provision will take, but I hope very much that it will be a requirement for an Affirmative Resolution in each House of Parliament.

1903
My Lords, I deeply regret that I may not be able to remain for the end of this debate. I therefore apologise to the House for intervening to make these few remarks.
5.40 p.m.
LORD DONALDSON OF KINGSBRIDGE: My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Molson, particularly remembering the valiant and effective lead he gave to this House when we rejected Cublington, which in my opinion is about the best thing this House has done since I have been here. It is also a great pleasure to follow my noble friend and Chief Whip, Lord Beswick, not in my case a routine posture but none the less agreeable for that. I should like to adopt the same attitude, though from a much lower level, that the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, adopted. I am a pure layman. I know nothing about any of the technicalities, and emphatically do not want to. I feel that this is one of the biggest decisions this Government and this country have to make and it is feeble for Back-Benchers not to express a view briefly, however wrong it may be, particularly when, as in my case, they have no special axe to grind, which so many people by location or constituency inevitably have. I live near Primrose Hill and I am much more worried by Lord Zuckerman's hyenas than I am by aircraft noise; it is a happy place from that point of view. But I am acutely conscious of the misery caused to my fellow citizens around Heathrow, Gatwick, Luton and Stansted, and I believe that relief for them is of the very highest priority.
It seems to me that the issue to-day is a simple one, and so far as my personal value judgments are concerned it is a question first of amenities and only secondarily of economics. There are times when the quality of life must be put before profit and even convenience. I felt this with passion over the plans for an inland solution of the third London Airport, and I opposed both Stansted and Cublington with all my might. I even asked my noble friend the then Leader, Lord Longford, whether I might make my maiden speech on the Stansted issue. He begged me not to and I refrained; I have always felt that was rather a pity.
1904
I thought, and think still, that it would be better for us as a nation to lose some hypothetical business in the future than presently to ruin such a large acreage of our homeland. An uncertain economic calculation of what is likely to happen in the 'eighties is not a strong enough argument to balance certain ruination of large areas in the 'seventies. If there had to be a third London Airport, and we were then told there had to be, then I was perfectly clear it must be Foulness and not Cublington. But at the end of the months of discussion some informed critics began saying that we could manage without a third airport at all. That formidable figure Sir Peter Mascfield three years ago was quite content to ruin a large part of England to provide a third London Airport. He told us in The Times that we have enough capacity now to deal with anticipated traffic up to 1985, and his case is based on calculations, which have been referred to several times this afternoon, in the Civil Aviation Authority's Report. This gives us five additional years we had not got before, before Maplin or a third airport, on present figures, is necessary.
The aviation lobby, which was the most telling protagonist for a third London Airport in the Cublington days, has changed course and now says we do not need one—at any rate not yet. Doubtless if they were offered Cublington instead of Maplin they might switch back again, but their change of heart is extremely significant. I think they feel —and the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, made the point—that Maplin simply will not do, but that things are changing so fast that something will turn up in the way of technical progress to offer a solution not yet contemplated. They remind me of the American electronics industry where things are changing so fast now that they say, "If it works, it's obsolete!".
We can now state the issue crudely in these terms. The economic argument, which was the main argument in favour of Cublington, is now at half-cock and certainly cannot be used to justify such a huge and speculative investment without much more study. So the question turns on the relief of the sufferers around the existing airports. I think myself, if

1905
I could be assured that Heathrow, Gatwick, Luton and Stansted would be completely relieved of noise within a few years, I should be tempted to go ahead. But this does not seem to be the case. There is no question, it seems, of closing Heathrow or Gatwick, whatever may happen to the smaller fields. Until Maplin becomes operative, it is clear that the intensity of the nuisance is certain to increase, not diminish, between now and 1980, whatever anybody does. It is agreed, on the authority of the Department of the Environment, that a significant reduction in noise levels may be counted on between now and 1985 due to technical progress. The weakness of this case is that frequency of noise is a greater nuisance than volume, and frequency is bound to increase until an alternative airport is operative. So, even with the prospect of Maplin, I believe the sufferers arc deluding themselves if they look for any relief other than from technical progress in the next ten years.
It seems to me, therefore, painfully obvious that it must be better to concentrate spending on hastening technical progress, which is already showing some results, and to postpone any decision on this vast expenditure, which will have such certain and violent effects on such a large area, for a period of further examination. My right honourable friend Mr. Roy Jenkins suggested in another place a postponement for five years. I think that is about right. Within that time we should be able to see whether intensive research was succeeding in reducing noise significantly. It would still be not too late economically to carry on with the alternative plan if the research failed to come up to scratch.
May I make it clear that my conclusions are a result of looking at the wood and not the trees. I am quite incapable of assessing all the technical arguments involved; nor have I the slightest ambition to try. Those who are capable, as the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, said, come constantly to opposing conclusions, based perhaps on where they or their constituents live, and in the end we—ordinary men—have to choose. My fear is that the sufferers around the existing airports have no hope of relief from Maplin before 1980, even if it goes ahead now; and as for Heathrow and Gatwick, both of which will continue
1906
operative and represent far the greater proportion of sufferers—in my opinion they have no hope at all. We know from building motorways that traffic increases with capacity, and the same thing will happen here. Surely, £1 spent on technical research against noise is worth much more than £1 spent in moving it away to annoy other people. If we were to spend £10 million, £20 million or even £50 million for a year or two on pushing the research, we are much more likely to relieve the sufferers than by any other course open to us.
My Lords, I have touched on one side of this question only. I have not referred to the problems of the seaport, on which I found the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, consoling because up to the moment he spoke we had no idea whether or not the plan fitted into a national plan for ports. I have said nothing about the road question, which involves enormous destruction of homes and countryside. I have said nothing about the extraordinary reversal of normal planning in producing an enormous conurbation or industrial area in the South-East of England when the North-West and undeveloped areas are crying out for labour. This is exactly opposite to all we wanted to do. I have said nothing about conservation, or the Brent geese which I feel sure I can leave safely in the hands of the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook.
But I do not think one wants to speak with certainty on this subject. I do not feel that one can reject Maplin out of hand. I feel that we are being offered a solution which is at this present moment not properly worked out; that an expenditure of the kind of figure that is referred to, without far greater detailed estimates, is quite unreasonable. Therefore all I am asking for really is what I think the noble Lord. Lord Orr-Ewing, asked for: that the work should be carefully monitored and carried on to a limited extent. I want to see five years' grace before we are totally committed to this vast enterprise. I believe this is reasonable. It is not hostile to the enterprise: it is just a question of whether in fact it makes sense, and I hope very much that in Committee we shall be able to persuade the Government to take this view.
5.51 p.m.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, if ever there was a case of one's becoming wholly confused over a subject, I believe it would be difficult to equal the example of Maplin. It is hard to recall an issue where so many experts have devoted so much time to arriving at so many different conclusions. Of one thing I am sure, as evidenced by a number of speakers to-day, which is that the House will examine and discuss all the complexities of Maplin, not in the spirit perhaps expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, in his somewhat pessimistic letter to The Times last week, which, with respect to the noble Lord, seemed to give little credit to the intelligence of Members of this House. Indeed, if the noble Lord will recall the Stansted debate, when the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, with his usual persuasive argument, destroyed Stansted, I think he will agree that the House has a good record —or perhaps a bad record. If the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, had not been so persuasive on that occasion it is unlikely that we should be debating Maplin to-day.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I accept the strictures of the noble Earl, but I hope he will recall that in the Stansted case the essential difference was that in those days there was a Labour Government which did not command a majority of votes in this House.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, I do recall that, of course, but in fact I do not think the House was divided on Party lines.
The last occasion on which we discussed this issue of a third London Airport was a debate on the Report of the Roskill Commission. At that time my own view was that the Roskill Commission had suffered, as the noble Lord, Lord Beswick has said, from the handicap of being strapped, early on, into a straitjacket by the terms of their reference. The consequence of that limitation was for the Commission to offer only one possible coastal site in the last four sites it recommended. Along with other noble Lords I was delighted with the Government's decision not to accept the Roskill Commission's first choice of Cublington—a choice which seemed to smack right against the trend of protect
1908
ing our environmental heritage.The Government's decision to choose Maplin was, I believe, the only logical option open to them if they were not to abandon completely the Roskill recommendations. When one considers the pressures on the Government at that time by many of the leading aviation bodies, deeply concerned with the potential lack of airport capacity in the 1980s, it seems an odd quirk of fate that so many experts now are condemning the Government for pressing ahead with Maplin. I am quite convinced that if the Government had decided not to proceed with any of the Roskill sites they would to-day be faced with an even greater storm of abuse for adding to the damaging uncertainty of the issue and for neglecting the future of civil aviation.
To show best how confused one can become over the technical information, which seems to be constantly changing, I would quote, as others have quoted, from a recent letter in The Times by Sir Peter Masefield. Sir Peter, of course, is well known to the House as being one of the most respected aviationists in the country. His letter, which seemed to be singularly well timed for this debate, advocated that, taking the latest figures on air traffic forecasts, runway capacities, ground area capacities and noise forecasts, the need for Maplin as another international airport has been put back to 1985. I hope it would not be breaking Sir Peter's friendship if one were to recall that in 1970 when he was Chairman of the British Airports Authority, he was one of the foremost advocates of the need for urgency for the Government to reach a decision. I well remember that he put forward then very convincing figures to support his attitude. Sir Peter's letter emphasises again that the whole question of Maplin, and indeed of the planning of the future of our airports, is one of continual change and the forecast to-day will be as out of date (as indeed no doubt the cost) in three years' time as the forecast on certain figures given to Roskill in 1970 appear to-day. For that reason I, for one, find it difficult to attach great importance to some of these forecasts.
Since the publication of the Maplin Bill there have seemed to me to be two crucial questions that go to the centre of all the controversy. The first is just what

1909
degree of benefit would Maplin eventually give to our environment, and the second is what chance has it of becoming the monument of all monuments to a white aviation elephant. As to environment, one has a natural sympathy with the Defenders of Essex in their claim that what with new motorways, new rail links and new cities a great deal of Essex will be ruined and a great deal of their environment will be spoilt.
Set against this is the aircraft noise argument, which, as we have already heard from my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn, concerns millions of people in the London area. At the time of the Roskill Commission I was personally not convinced that this hardship could not be corrected even before Maplin was built, by the new generation of quieter engines and even by hush kits for the existing aircraft. Since then I have personally witnessed on many occasions, and have seen in such journals as the Lancet, the medical effects of noise levels—the effects of deafness, mental illness, the disturbance in schools, hospitals and offices, all of which, in my view, add up to the unacceptable face of our technological progress. I accept that nothing the Maplin Bill can do now will relieve the noise problem for the next seven years, and residents will have to rely on quieter and less frequent aircraft movements for comfort. But I have also come to accept that this argument in itself is no good reason to delay a Maplin decision for another five years, just because the capacity of existing airports can he increased.
The other aspect in favour of the environment argument—and I believe it is a very important one, particularly around Heathrow—is the danger of accidents. I foresee that the "Do nothing for five years brigade would be silenced at a stroke if by one appalling chance of fate a Jumbo—or perhaps even two Jumbos —crashed on their approach to London Airport. The enormity of such an accident and the possible scale of loss of life on the ground could be horrific. The cry then for an urgent coastal airport would be deafening. As to Maplin, or, for that matter, any other coastal airport, becoming a white elephant, ignored by airlines and underutilised for years, this is clearly a matter for the Government to plan against and to overcome. Governments are not wholly impotent in
1910
these matters, even if the threat of a B.E.A./Turkey situation should arise. Indeed, I think we have here a good forerunner in the case of the French new international airport at Roissy, due to be opened next year.
I would expect that a great deal of the charter operations could operate very successfully from Maplin, and one would naturally hope that the Government would, as a first step, request British Airways Airtours Division to move to Maplin. I would also expect and hope that a number of foreign charter groups and American supplementary carriers would move to Maplin. This is one aspect on which my noble friend might perhaps comment later. What happens between now and the opening date of Maplin? Has the Government already set up study groups to consider and plan what will go where?
Turning to the Brent geese at Maplin, I should also like to ask my noble friend whether, as a precaution against the geese not being persuaded to move from the airport surrounds, thought has been given to having no grass at all on the airport but only gravel and concrete. The conflict between the Brent geese and the Government is an intriguing one and I hope that, for the sake of the geese and for the future safety of aircraft and passengers, mutual agreement will be reached. A further specific point that I should like to put to my noble friend is what progress is being made with the clearance of the Ministry of Defence bombing range alongside Maplin? Is there any question of the highly difficult task of clearance taking a good deal longer than was at first anticipated, so possibly holding up the progress of the airport?
My Lords, my own view on the whole vexed question of Maplin is that despite the latest forecasts, and the report of the C.A.A., there is a clear need for the concept of airport planning which a case such as Maplin offers. There is a need for a new, international, 24-hour, coastal airport; there is a need to reduce the disturbance from inland airports; and there is a need to make use of regional airports to suit the particular regional requirements. Whether or not Maplin was the best choice of a coastal site is a matter that could be argued, no doubt

1911
indefinitely, but to examine it thoroughly would mean another Roskill Commission, a further delay of perhaps five years, and then little hope of agreement. The Government have taken the decision, and, assuming that that decision is practical—practical as to construction, practical on the safety angles, and practical on the operational use—it is a decision that I would support; it is a decision that I believe offers tangible environmental benefits in the next decade and tangible benefits for aviation.
I came to-day, like other noble Lords perhaps, with certain reservations on the Bill. A number of those reservations have already been dispelled by the announcement of my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn, in his excellent and comprehensive speech at the beginning of the debate. I particularly wish this Bill every success now during its passage through the House, and I hope in the interests of civil aviation that this new airport will prove the best far-sighted investment any Government have made since the clays of Suez.
6.3 p.m.
THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, like several other noble Lords, I must declare an interest, for the Crown Estates of which I have the honour to be First Commissioner own much or all of the seabed around Maplin, and some of the foreshore, and will benefit greatly if an area is to be filled in with sand, and so forth, from the seabed. However, the role of the Crown Estates is a passive one in this connection, as it will do as it is told; and so I feel that it is in order for me to speak. I do not want to follow many of your Lordships, who have shown what experts they are on the aviation question, on the pros and cons of it from the overall aviation point of view. Rather I want to look at it from a broader point of view which I feel is appropriate in a Second Reading debate.
I recall that three or four years ago in this House we had a debate on the development of the South-Eastern part of Great Britain, and almost all of your Lordships at that time were very anxious at what prospect there was of a drift of population from other parts of the country, with millions coming into that area. That was a time when the Channel
1912
Tunnel was a cloud in the sky which we had had for decades and did not care very much about. Maplin was not even in the sky. Now the Channel Tunnel iooms ominously, and Maplin, I fear, even more so. The Channel Tunnel will lead—if the project goes through—to an investment of perhaps £1,000 million or more, and with it will go every type of industrial development, and transport development, whatever the planning authorities at this time may say about it. Maplin is even worse. Not only are we going to have about £1,000 million spent on the airport, but we are also going to have a great new town. We are going to have a great port for containers and monster tankers. Whatever may be said about Essex County and the Ministers having to agree, an inevitable sequel will be another great industrial development.
I have been fascinated at the way the "pro-Maplinites" (if I may use the term) develop their arguments and how, if one thing does not work, they go to another. To-day the port becomes a must. We heard the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, outline what was in mind and I must say that as he outlined it I became more and more worried and fearful. We have to compete with Rotterdam or with the French; we have to be able to take huge tankers for the next decade. My Lords, is there not something called the North Sea oil discoveries, which in 1980 are expected to provide 50 per cent. of the oil requirements of this country? Have we not got others ports all over the different parts of the country—Southampton, parts of Wales, and Scotland—which are deep harbour and surely could handle what was necessary? It is that kind of thing which is so worryin. Over the last 50 years successive Governments, whatever their colour, have manfully striven to deal with the problem of what used to be known as the "depressed areas" and what are now called "development areas". Tens of millions, hundreds of millions, have been spent to try to hel the industrial development of Northern England, Wales and Scotland. That is surely right. But is it right at this moment that we should spend several billion pounds on developing the South-Eastern part of the country? If we must have Maplin, let us stop at the airport and at all costs do not let us go into such questions as ports, industrial developments and new towns.

1913
The noble Lord, Lord Molson, made a very good point when he said that there is a real problem of inflation. We must face up to that and cut down on what may be attractive from an individual point of view but not from the nation's point of view in the way of expenditure. I beg the Government to consider the picture once again from the point of view of the country as a whole. I am fearful that the Government, in their efforts to win the battle of Maplin and the battle of the Channel Tunnel, will lose the war on something which is far more important; namely, a balanced economy for the nation, with industry well spread geographically and its workpeople content and equally well spread throughout the nation.
6.10 p.m.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, I propose in the few minutes I should like to take of the time of this noble House to say a word about planning. I would only make this observation on the very interesting speech by the noble Earl, that as far as the location of a third London Airport goes, about 80 per cent. of this increasing air transport traffic is connected with the South-East region, and therefore for better or worse some extra capacity has got to be found, whether it is to he at Heathrow and Gatwick, as noble Lords opposite are advocating, or whether in some new airport. The question of the seaport is obviously what might be called an optional extra but if it is good for the trade of this country clearly it is something that cannot be ignored. But let me say immediately that I entirely sympathise with the noble Earl's general point, that always in all these regional development plans we need to keep in perspective what we are trying to do nationally in our policy to boost flagging developments in other areas of the country, and, so far as we can, to try to restain the dynamic tendencies in the South-East. Perhaps I might deal with this in a little more detail later in my speech.
I should like to say as a start, picking up a point made by my noble friend Lord Amory, that we have been discussing this question for 12 years, and when the noble Lord, Lord Peswick, says we must not jump to any premature conclusion, I feel that 12 years' con
1914
sideration by the nation could hardly put us in a position where we are to be blamed for that. And when he asks the Government to set up yet another inquiry, I very much wonder what will happen at the end of that—whether we shall be told that things have changed since they started and a new set of considerations have come along. My feeling is that the Government are right in asking the nation to make up its mind and take a decision.
For myself I should like to welcome this project. I think it is an imaginative one. It appeals to me very much to reclaim 14,000 acres from the sea, and I agree with my noble friend Lord Aldington that land ready for development in the South-East at £10,000 an acre is by no means a high figure. I should also like to congratulate my noble friends on the Front Bench on something on which nobody has congratulated them yet, that they have freed this area of the Shoeburyness Range, or are about to, from present use as artillery and other kinds of range for approved purposes, in order to bring it into general civilian use, and to that extent this area, which has been largely denied to the public, will be used very much for their benefit.
There are two general points I should like to deal with before I come to the planning point. The first is on the substance of the case of the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, that the C.A.A. Report of forecast capacity shows a greater capacity in Heathrow and Gatwick than the Roskill Commission predicted. Indeed it does, as we all agree. My noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing, I thought, made a good point here, that a I per cent. per annum error here could completely throw out all these forecasts and leave us in a terrible jam by 1985. But if you take the middle figure, as my noble friend Lord Molson was suggesting, that shows that there is extra capacity there up to 1985.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I was not quite certain about this 1 per cent. The noble Lord will recall that the C.A.A. give as the least favourable consideration a 9 per cent, surplus capacity.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: Yes, my Lords. I do not want to detain the House. This is very fully discussed in the Report and it is there for everybody to see. I simply make the point

1915
that because of the, anyway, rapidly increasing rate of demand for air transport a small error would have a very serious effect, and we certainly would not have spare capacity by 1985. But the general point I want to make here is that made very cogently by my noble friend Lord Amory, that the world does not end in 1985. During the 1980s, the C.A.A. Report predicts, the rate of increase of passenger transport will still be at the rate of some 7 or 8 per cent. Perhaps the figure for freight is lower, but the trend is there as well. This will continue without any doubt right through the 1980s into the 1990s, and it may even be going faster by then. Everybody in the world seems to want to travel more and more. If that is so, by 1995 the passenger demand on these London airports will not be 84 million but 160 million. Can anyone possibly imagine, whatever is done to Heathrow and Gatwick, that you could possibly accommodate those figures? In other words, this necessity for a third London airport is coming along eventually some time in the '80s, whatever happens.
Dealing very briefly with the noise point, I feel very strongly about noise. The noble Lord said that he lived in the flight path at Heathrow. I live only on the very corner of the noise shadow from Gatwick, but it is enough to know what noise is about. To-day, there is no doubt that millions of people are suffering very much indeed from noise. There has been a good deal of reference to Peter Masefield's letter in The Times yesterday. But let me refer to the other letter in The Times yesterday, from the spokesman of all the various residents' societies who suffer from these noise troubles. Those people are expecting action by the Government long before the 1980s; they are expecting action jolly quickly, as fast as possible. They are expecting the Government to do something positive, and in that context they see Maplin as something which can bring positive relief. I should like to quote one figure on Maplin. I certainly pick up the point that 90 per cent. of the air movements from Maplin will be over the sea. What a relief that is, instead of being over people's houses! The figure that I have is that there are only 500 houses—I think the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, said 1,360 houses
1916
within the 35 N.N.I. contour at Maplin—compared with 700,000 at Heathrow. That gives one some idea of the relief from noise to be obtained by going to Maplin.
Let me now deal with the planning point, which I think has not been dealt with before, and indeed has not entered into this general discussion; although let me say immediately that of course it was examined very closely by the Roskill Commission. I wish to deal with the regional planning considerations that affect the locations of these airports and how they operate. Here I should declare an interest in that I am Chairman of the Standing Conference for London and South East Region Planning, and therefore in contact with planning authorities throughout the region. Let me give the employment figures at Heathrow and Gatwick to start with, because these will give noble Lords broadly the picture of what we are dealing with.
At the present time Heathrow, with two runways, directly employs about 50,000 people. In addition, employed immediately outside, in hotels and such places directly connected with the airport, are another 9,000. The employment in services and social facilities for airport workers in the general surroundings and throughout Surrey and adjoining counties is some 45,000 to 50,000 people. The families of all these workers number about 150,000 to 200,000. That gives us a population base for existing employment at Heathrow of 250,000 to 300,000 people. These figures are to a certain extent estimates, but they are reasonably reliable, having been compiled by theSurrey County Council. I should, of course, mention that Heathrow is growing all the time and will have another 10,000 in employment by 1980. So there will be a population base then for employment on the airport of 300,000 to 350,000.
Gatwick at present employs about 10,000 people, with a population base of probably about 50,000 or 60,000, and by 1980 that will have gone up to something like 17,000 employed and a population base of 85,000 to 100,000. But these figures give us a measure of the amount of employment that is involved in operating an airport. If there is to be no third London Airport at Maplin, and the future

1917
growth of air transport is to be contained at Heathrow and Gatwick, the growth of employment at Heathrow and Gatwick would be roughly equivalent by the end of the 1980s, or let us say by 1985 or certainly by the end of the 1980s, to Rosk ill's figure for a third London Airport with two runways; namely, an additional 45,000 employees. This would be roughly the number of directly employed people on a two-runway airport, supposing it to he made at Maplin. I would concede to the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, to assist his argument, that there would be some reduction in employment due to a reduction in the number of flights. A resultant reduction in flight crews would, of course, make some saving.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I wonder whether I could clarify this point. I am not sure whether the noble Lord said that this was his personal estimate, or an estimate of the Committee of which he is chairman. Surely he is not saying that if there are 45,000 people wanted to operate a new two-runway airport, an additional 45,000 would be required at London Airport for an additional number of movements? The fact of the matter is that you would be using more intensively people who are already working there.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: No, my Lords; the noble Lord is using a fallacious argument. There are two aspects of this question. One is Heathrow, where the noble Lord's proposal is that that should be stretched using the two existing runways and using them more intensively, and the other is that Gatwick should have a second runway. It is by using the second runway that there might be a prospect of containing the traffic which he is suggesting up to 1985. The noble Lord shakes his head. If he thinks that he could really do this on one runway at Gatwick, I think that he had better get up and say so.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, for a start may I make it clear that I have not said categorically one thing or the other. What I have suggested is that we have the benefit of the studies the Government can offer to us. I have never said that a second runway at Gatwick would be essential, although I think that a short runway would add to the total London capacity.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, I am not quite sure how the noble Lord's answer will look when it is studied in print. In my judgment, any prospect of his proposition succeeding would depend on a second runway at Gatwick as well. The broad proposition that I am putting to your Lordships is that if these suggested 84 million passengers transported through the London airports by 1985 are to be carried at Heathrow and Gatwick—and continue to be carried after 1985 to the 1990s when of course the numbers are still increasing, because the airports have to continue after 1985—by the time you have reached 1990 we shall require the equivalent of the capacity which would have been given by a new airport with two runways, and the employment involved in that would be of the order of 45,000. If you knock off, say, 5,000 for the reduced number of crews because the number of aircraft movements is smaller, most of the rest of the employment on the airport—and I put this point quite cogently to the noble Lord, Lord Beswick—the handling of passengers, personnel generally, the handling of baggage, the handling of freight, all the supporting services, will go up directly in proportion to the number of people and the amount of freight going through. Therefore, there will be a massive increase in employment both at Heathrow and at Gatwick, and certainly by 1990 that will be of the order of an extra 40,000 people employed at those two airports. I am leaving out Luton and Stansted. Heaven knows what will happen to them or what the local people will have to say about the matter! Taking a figure of 40,000, that has to be multiplied by a figure of five to six, so that we are up to an extra population of about 200,000 who have to be located in areas adjoining those two airports.
Broadly, the position now is that at both those airports—and at Heathrow in particular—while there is an acute labour shortage, wages are very high in order to attract the existing number of employees, and any additional employees could only be employed there by some major development of housing and all the supporting social services. The same applies to Gatwick. This would be directly contrary, first of all, to the strategic plan for the South-East region, which was adopted both by the Government and by local authorities, and it is

1919
entirely contrary to the development planning of the county councils concerned. On the other hand, if a third London Airport were put down at Maplin, with these implications that by the end of the 1980s there would be two runways there and employment of an additional 45,000 on the airports, Essex development planning is quite prepared to accept this development in South-East Essex. This very much agrees with the sort of view that the noble Baroness, Lady Stocks, was taking, that this idea would be entirely advantageous to East London. Certainly it is acceptable to Essex.
When the Maplin scheme was put to the Standing Conference, except for some reservations in Kent it was generally acceptable to all the planning authorities in the South-East in terms of the regional plan and the development of the regional strategy as a whole. I would urge that here is a factor that the noble Lord did not deal with, that none of the protagonists for this solution of stretching Heathrow and Gatwick has dealt with, and that at both airports a very large amount of new employment would be created, yet there is no capacity within good development planning to cater for that at the present time. It would be strongly opposed by the local planning authorities concerned.
I would urge that this point should be put into the scales along with the other factors that we have been considering. It was certainly considered by the Roskill Commission, and it is a very important factor. Just as the noble Earl, Lord Perth, made a good point about the national policy for regional planning, I am making the further point of good regional planning within the South-East region, and Lord Beswick's suggestions would certainly conflict with that. I hope that this point will be taken into account, and that this Bill will get a Second Reading.
6.29 p.m.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, the words:
"A measure will be introduced to facilitate the building of a Third London Airport at Maplin."
were contained in Her Majesty's gracious Speech which she made in this Chamber on October 31 last, at column 4. I men
1920
tion the date because it is only eight months ago. It shows that the Government have acted with commendable promptness on their plans; it also shows how deep are the complexities which have gathered even since that date. Listening to what my noble friend Lord Molson said about the fact that this is a hybrid Bill and of course will lead to further inquiries, I think that developments seem to show how prudent some measure of hesitation has been. For this reason I believe that the Bill should be pushed onwards, and of course it will leave this House amended in many important respects.
I shall now "shoot a line" which I have shot before and which I believe is a real contribution to our considerations, though it may be a little out of proportion. What I want to ask is: does this Bill go far enough and is the timing right? I ask whether it goes far enough because I feel that the whole conception might well be extended, which would mean an extension of the timing. Why do the Explanatory Memorandum and Clause 2 of the Bill omit the word "agriculture"? It is because that word is omitted that I feel that the Bill does not go far enough. Why not reclaim several hundred square miles of potential agricultural land, as the Dutch have done, which is within the bounds of possibility? I say that we should reclaim the land, get it under crops and wait until it is clear beyond peradventure that a third airport is necessary. But we would have to begin with an area designated for the use of an airport, which is bound to be built at some later stage. It is as well to bear in mind that agricultural land reclaimed from the sea has certain outstanding financial advantages.
The objection to the present scheme, from the points of view of the airways and of the travelling public, must be the remoteness of Maplin from the existing airports at Heathrow and Gatwick. The present proposal to channel road and rail transport from any new airport into London seems to me to be quite unacceptable, especially if the rail route is to terminate at Kings Cross, of all places. I cannot picture myself flying from Edinburgh to Gatwick, getting a train to Victoria and travelling across London to Kings Cross, in order to go to Maplin to

1921
catch another plane. Furthermore, the large and complex road systems, which anyone can see in the plans, would bring about serious environmental damage.
If a really massive reclamation were undertaken to embrace the whole area from, say, Clacton to the Herne Bay-Ramsgate area, two desiderata would be achieved. First, the channels of the Thames would be restricted so that the mechanical barrage at Gravesend or Greenwich might no longer be required. I think your Lordships will agree with me that we heard a most interesting and influential speech from my noble friend Lord Aldington, but I was tempted to ask him what he thought was the answer to the barrage which might be necessary. I believe that the danger from high tides might be largely mitigated by massive reclamation and by a narrowing of the channels from the North Sea and the English Channel—the Downs—to the new Maplin port which my noble friend described. Secondly, such a reclamation would provide an opportunity for a road and rail link from Essex to Kent; and a fast monorail, or a high-speed non-stop system, could connect the third airport with Gatwick and Heathrow and, I hope, with Victoria. I am one of those people who believe, as does another noble Lord who spoke to-day, that the day cannot be far off when there is a rail link between Victoria and Heathrow. It should be remembered—and I was impressed by the speech of my noble friend Lord Nugent, who mentioned the problem of staffing—that a great deal of money could be saved in the housing of staff for a third airport if there were really rapid transit between it and the other air centres where accommodation for staff exists to-day.
An eastern orbital highway to London could connect the Midlands with the Channel ports. In saying that, I should point out that I am one of those who believe that the Channel Tunnel is a nonstarter, because it would be so inflexible. If a fraction of the money that it is contemplated will have to be spent on the Channel Tunnel were applied to research into vehicle-carrying hovercraft it would serve a much more important purpose, and such craft, together with modern, fast steamers, would provide a flexibility which was greatly aided by an orbital highway. What is more, such an orbital highway would provide road connections
1922
for the Thames port which my noble friend Lord Aldington pictured and which he admitted would mean an injection of heavy traffic into the existing system in London.
In passing, I would say that I was most interested in the speech of my noble friend ford Molson, which was a contribution to our thinking, and I agree with him about pushing ahead. Turning to the plan for a seaport, I agreed very much with my noble friend Lord Perth when he said we should remember that there are other ports in Britain and that North Sea oil is introducing complexities which are only just being appreciated. I know that in the North and in central Britain it is felt that more use should be made of our two deep-water prospects—Hunterston and Milford Haven—and that more money should be spent on them. I should like to ask whether the Scottish Council's Oceanspan proposal is still a runner. I doubt whether it is in its entirety, but some adaptation of it may well lit into a port development such as might spring from the careful examination which is bound to be made of the Thames port where, I admit I was surprised to learn from my noble friend Lord Aldington, 45,000 tonners will be able to manage the new docks.
Another point is the flexibility of air services. I have no doubt that this is a problem which the C.A.A. have examined closely, but one aspect is practically impossible to forecast. As traffic between Scotland and the Continent grows, many transit passengers will not be travelling to London. This is a point which we must bear in mind, and some element of financial encouragement of more direct services from Ringway, Glasgow and Turnhouse, and now, with the oil developments, from Dyce, to the Continent might be deserved. I can sum up my views in this way. First, is there not a middle course before us, to examine a scheme for agriculturally developing a large area in some return for the thousands of acres which have been turned into concrete jungles by transport developments of recent years and which would at the same time provide a location for a third airport, if and when it is needed? Secondly, should we not provide an eastern orbital highway for the whole London area and a direct connection by rail, certainly using the same river

1923
crossings, whether by tunnel or by bridge, between existing airports and the new proposal? Finally, I feel, particularly after hearing the speech by my noble Wend Lord Aldington, that it is clear that we should push on with the Thames container port development in the terms which he indicated, but always bearing in mind the advantages of the far cheaper deep-water ports on the Western coast.
6.41 p.m.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: My Lords, I have followed the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, more than once and it is always a pleasure to listen to his fluent speech so late in a long debate. By contrast, I always feel that my ideas are in bits and pieces, and that, so late in a debate, they are difficult to deliver with any effect. It seems to me that we are to-day taking part in one of the later stages of a 20-year rise to power of the environment. From a position of practically no power at all, it now operates on a great many fronts, and there have been many successes; for example, in the de-pollution of rivers, where of course the Thames points the way to the whole world; in the de-pollution of London's air and the departure of smog; in the de-pollution of the land, and the dismissal of that awful morning silence in spring, indicating that the birds are back. Even to-day, the least of the birds, the Jenny Wren, flew out of their nest near my house—and they have been absent for many years. Now we are onto something equally great and perhaps greater: de-polluting our neighbourhood of a hideous neighbour—and that is what the international airport is. I am not in the least against airports. Indeed, many people of minor affluence (as, for example, myself; up to the age of 60 I never could afford a journey abroad by air) enjoy charter flights at off-peak and inconvenient periods at night. Why should they not? Surely Maplin is the place where, whether in silence or in thunder, they can do it all round the clock without making life hideous for everybody else.
I noticed that in the debate in 1967 on the Third London Airport the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, said that the airport had been under consideration since 1953 and that Stansted was the earliest choice. So we have had twenty years of the
1924
Third London Airport, and not 12. The debate in 1967, when Stansted was hotly defended by the Government of the day, was many years after 1953, and it is now many years behind us. The contest has throughout been a contest between experts and the environment—and so it has been to-day. As a kind of adjunct to this debate we have had information about plans for the port. It was put by the Government speaker, the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, as an adjunct to the main idea of a third London airport. It was so interesting that I join with others in wondering whether if Hansard does not appear before long, we could have a copy of what he said, because in his speech the noble Lord poured out new material which I had not heard before and which is of the greatest interest. Perhaps before long we can have a debate on ports—that means freight—and include in it the freight aspect of London's airport, which I understand is the third in terms of value of all our ports, coming third after London and Liverpool.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomas, I thought spoke with the authentic, honest voice of the expert in airways management. He told us bluntly what others are trying to conceal: that not only do we need Maplin but we need expansion at all the other four airports as well, making a total of five. He said it plainly for us all to hear; and, with the weight of his authority, surely the experts are not so very confused. They do not want to go to Maplin, but they know jolly well that extra runway capacity is urgently required. We have had it straight from the horse's mouth in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas.
As regards the noble Lord's remarks on noise, I have taken my own customary imperfect census of opinion outside, consulting the clerks of the county councils of Surrey, East Sussex, West Sussex, Kent and Essex. These are people I have consulted and asked for their opinion. The opinions of other elected representatives of the people have poured in without being asked for; and whereas the last time we debated Foulness there was only one "Yes" in favour of one site—and that was from Essex—to-day the people outside Parliament are saying with one voice, "Maplin must come! Put the hideous neighbour out to sea,

1925
and do not delay." In fact, many have written expressing dismay at the clause which was inserted for the purpose of achieving delay. The Government ought to be delighted at the massive affirmative behind Maplin after the immense negative, "No", to every single site everywhere that we had only such a short time ago.
I feel that after 20 years of this discussion the Government have reached a point where, like a general in war, they have to take their decisions. As Napoleon said, the general who wins is not the one who makes no mistakes but the one who makes fewest. Mistakes will be made, but those who champion the environment (that is, the people) against the experts (that is, the exponents of mechanisation and machines) are the people whose victory we look for, and I am sure it is looked for by all the people who live in the shadow of these noises.
It is not only the noise that I think is intolerable. Many people say that if the noise was only half as great it would be twice what they would wish to hear. Again, there is the danger—a very great danger in the built-up area of West London—of aircraft ploughing through built-up areas. Lastly, there is the congestion and the noise of the surface traffic which exasperates and irritates everybody. For these three reasons, if we go back on Maplin we shall have a violent resistance, and it is more than likely that the people who cannot tolerate these things any more will sabotage the machines which render their lives such a misery. Maplin has been held out as a hope; and we cannot go back.
As a last remark on what I have to say, I would quote the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, at the end of the debate in 1967. He said:
" It would be wrong to ignore what has been said today, but it would be equally wrong to suggest that Her Majesty's Government after all these inquiries and studies with the best professional advice available to them should attempt to dodge their duty of making the decision simply by the easy expedient of appointing another Committee of Inquiry."
I am thinking in this connection not so much of any particular inquiry suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, to-day but of something like seven or eight suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Orr
1926
Ewing. This recommendation seems to me the only appropriate action to take at the present time. There is nothing new in the so-called quiet, vertical, short take-off and landing aircraft that is not known to all the people who have communicated with me and who have told me that they have studied them and are not satisfied that in any case there are other factors besides noise, and that Maplin is a "must".
6.51 p.m.
LORD O'NEILL OF THE MAINE: My Lords, at this hour in any debate it is usually the fact that whatever one had in mind to say has already been said by somebody else. One is reduced to repeating what other people have already said. I am going to do something even more boring, I am afraid, and that is to repeat something which I once said: namely, when we had the debate so ably initiated by the noble Lord who sits just in front of me which had the effect of killing Cublington—and an excellent debate it was. Curiously enough, on the first day of that debate most speakers confined themselves to killing Cublington.
On the second day, quite a number of speakers raised the question of what in those days we referred to as Foulness and whether it was necessary to have the airport or not. I myself took some slight objection to the tendency there was on the Front Bench on that particular day to state that it was necessary to get on with a third London airport somewhere in order that the volume of noise which was being suffered by people living in the vicinity of Heathrow and Gatwick should be lessened as soon as possible. I spoke on that occasion with regard to the noise at Heathrow. I asked the question whether it was unacceptable and several noble Lords said that it was. I then said that if it were unacceptable, then all that I could say was that it is going to be very much worse by the time the first runway on this new airport—assuming we had one—is laid down and ready for use. In my humble opinion it is misleading to suggest that the noise will lessen. It will increase during the next ten years and certainly until the first runway of the third airport opens. I would go so far as to say that the noise at Heathrow will continue to increase over the next two Elections.

1927
Therefore it is, as I say, misleading to say that we must get on with a new airport at once and that the unfortunate people at Gatwick and Heathrow will then be relieved. I shall not bore noble Lords any more with what I said then; but I still believe it to be correct—and I was glad to see that the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, for whom I have the greatest admiration, for he has to deal with so many different kinds of things in this House, did not stress that aspect quite so much to-day. If this decision is going to be taken it should not be taken on the assumption that people living round Heathrow and Gatwick are going to be relieved of noise in the fairly near future.
Now, as many other noble Lords have asked to-day, can we afford it? I have no doubt that this estimate—there have been various arguments to-day as to the figure—will be exceeded both in time and money. I have never known of any project which did not end up in that way. Had the Government of the day—I think it was the Macmillan Government of that day—got up at the Dispatch Box in another place and announced the figure which Concorde has now cost the nation, that other place would never have agreed to the building of Concorde. Therefore I have no doubt at all that whatever figures are mentioned—there was some disagreement about the figures to-day—will be exceeded, I do not know by how many times, and that the time will be exceeded too. The first runway will be ready in 1980? Oh, yes! It may not be ready until 1985 or 1990. We must bear those possibilities in mind.
We must also bear in mind that we are not the richest nation in the world. As I think the noble Lord, Lord Molson, asked earlier, can we really afford Concorde, the Channel Tunnel and Maplin all concurrently? We are absolutely committed to Concorde and there is no going back that I can see now. I am in favour of Concorde. I think it is bound to increase our technology. Nevertheless, can we afford this when we remember that we are not the richest nation in the world?
LORD ORR-EWING: My Lords, would my noble friend consider in that context the annual load on our construction industry? We are spending £1,100
1928
million a year on our roads. The peak load of the Channel Tunnel would be £70 million. The peak of the complex at Maplin would appear to be about £150 million, perhaps. It is a small load compared with just the roads alone at £1,100 million.
LORD O'NEILL OF THE MAINE: My Lords, I accent what the noble Lord said. I am asking the question: can we afford all these things at the same time?
LORD MOLSON: My Lords, the road programme has just been cut back by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
LORD O'NEILL OF THE MAINE: My Lords, the noble Lord has put something in my mind which I shall mention later.
Thereby hangs a tale. On this line of argument, that we are not the richest country in the world, perhaps I could be permitted to tell a little story. I flew to America last year, as I often do. We were stacked outside Kennedy for one and a half hours. The captain then told us on the "blower" that he was beginning to run out of fuel and was getting leave to get out of the stack. We went on and tried to get down at Philadelphia, but failed. We came down finally at Dulles International Airport at Washington, where we stayed for two hours, and then were allowed to fly back to Kennedy. All this was highly inefficient, but there were these rich American businessmen putting up with those conditions whereby they got to New York five hours later than they had expected.
As one who uses Heathrow twice a week, once in and once out, I, like everybody, have been in the stack over Bovingdon Beacon—but never for more than 20 minutes or half an hour. Yet the richest nation in the world has to put up with the conditions I have mentioned. That is no good reason for us to put up with them. I fully accept, but this may not be the best way of spending an enormous sum of money when other countries manage with the facilities which they have got. On purpose, I did not go into all the figures mentioned in the Roskill Report, or the ones that I mentioned ip my speech. The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, was good enough to say at the end of the debate that they were correct, so why should I argue with him now? Those figures were set out to prove

1929
that the capacity of the various existing airports was great enough to carry us on further.
Finally, I want to make this point, which I think was made by the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing. It would be so much better, perhaps, to spend large sums of money on research and development, which would keep this country in the forefront of technological development, than it would be to spend them on yards and yards of concrete. I remember being present at the Paris air show eight or nine years ago and watching the crowds gasp as the Short vertical take-off plane, the SC.1 rose from the ground. Where is it to-day? So often in the past we have been in the front of development and we have thrown it all away, and some other country has been allowed to develop it. I do not pretend to be an expert, but I believe that there is a case for what I am saying. If it is a fact that existing capacity, perhaps even without the second runway at Gatwick for which I was arguing 18 months ago, would suffice for the foreseeable future, I should have thought it would be better to spend these vast sums of money on technological development, rather than on yards and yards of concrete. If I were asked where I find myself tonight, I should say that I find myself approximately in the same Lobby as the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, and perhaps a little less "Content" than the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing. I hope that the Government will give serious consideration to the problems with which we are faced. Naturally, we must give the Bill a Second Reading and I shall be delighted to do so, but I hope that the Government will appreciate that in this noble House there is a certain unease about the future, and if some middle way could be found—I am sorry not to be more expressive—I believe it might be for the good of us all.
7.2 p.m.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, we are being asked to approve an enormous amount in public expenditure which has been partly justified in another place by the use of selective quotes. Therefore, not being an expert in aviation and finding difficulty in telling the difference between a Tiger Moth and a Concorde, and having a nasty suspicious mind, I consulted other people and researched into documents. As a result
1930
I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Young, in her reply to the debate can assuage my considerable doubts which have been raised by this research. The Civil Aviation Authority Report suggested that the capacity of London's airports was half a million movements a year. This does not include a second runway at Gatwick. In February last year 17,253 aircraft took off and landed at Heathrow, and in August, 25,412, or as good as a 50 per cent. increase. Before I am accused of selective quoting I would say I admit that those are 28-day and 31-day months. This shows, as everyone knows, that the airline business is very seasonal. Could it be that Maplin would be useful only in the summer months? The C.A.A. Report certainly hinted at that.
These figures, together with the fact that aircraft movements are not increasing even as fast as Roskill forecast, make plain to anyone who can add that airport capacity is not the real issue. Here we are talking about a political problem raised out of a new consciousness, a very welcome consciousness, of the environment and of noise. Let us, for a change, look at the environmental damage which would be caused by Maplin. An unspoiled area of mud will be wrecked. Not many people see it, not many people go there. But this mud is more or less in the state that God made it. Here is one of the very few parts of England of which that can still be said, and we must seriously weigh our responsibility to future generations before we lightly put it under concrete. The approach routes will make a large, rough-sharpened, sabre gash through the East of London and the Essex countryside. All this, my Lords, is quite acceptable provided, and only provided, that it can be shown to be essential.
Now, my Lords, let us look at the noise factor. From figures produced by the Department of Trade and Industry and published by the Department of the Environment it has already been calculated that the N.N.T. contour of 35, that is nuisance value, which now embraces 2¼ million people will, by 1985, be affecting only a quarter of a millon. This noise nuisance index was used as the basis for two Government social surveys carried out in the last decade, and it assumes that a reduction of noise is going

1931
to take place without another penny being spent on jet engine research. It is all based on existing technology.
We must accept that terrific advances have been made in reducing noise. The TriStar carries two and a half times as many passengers as the Trident, and is half as noisy. The proposed Europlane is quieter than the venerable DC3. Then, if we were to develop the restricted take-off and landing aircraft, that is one, as I am sure your Lordships have already been informed, that took off in a 4,000 foot runway and had a 6 degree rate of climb, as opposed to the 6,000 foot runway and 3 degree rate of climb of the jets we now know, then the noise index I was talking about earlier shrinks until it is almost within the present Heathrow boundary. Why have the Government refused to give Rolls-Royce, B.A.C. and Dowty the few millions they asked for to produce hush-kits for their existing Spey engines in the Tridents and F1-11s? These account for one out of every three aircraft using Heathrow. Hush-kits could be installed within two years at a cost of only £70,000 for each engine, bringing an immediate reduction in noise for the people living around Heathrow Airport. Only last week Flight magazine suggested that for the many millions of pounds that the Government are ready to earmark for building Maplin they could buy a staggering amount of research into new, silent engines—even taking into account the money which could be, or should be, spent on improving Heathrow. Could it be that noisy Tridents are an argument for Maplin? Here is my suspicious mind again. My Lords, £20 million is not much compared with all the golden crutches being handed round, quite rightly, to ducks suffering from sprained ankles.
If reducing noise is the Government's over-riding consideration, by how much will the building of Maplin reduce the noise around Heathrow knowing that the gradual introduction of the new jets is going to reduce it substantially anyway? If it cannot, and the life around the capital City is still going to be insufferably mutilated by noise, then surely it is only sensible to close Heathrow as an airport, sell the land for development, build houses on it and, with the money, build a bigger and better Maplin—
1932
perhaps with four runways like the O'Hare at Chicago which handles 560,000 air movements a year. Admittedly that has a VNC method of aircraft control and not an ILS, and my technical friends tell me that there is some difference.
Another argument for Maplin is that the ground handling facilities at Heathrow are not good enough, even though a spokesman at the British Airports Authority has told me that they are now at least as good as those at Orly or Kennedy. If more room is required at Heathrow there is a sewage works in the middle of the airport, and there would be no difficulty about using this land for airport extensions. To raise the ground handling issue as justification for an entire new £1 billion airport is, my Lords, as frivolous as saying that because the roof of your Lordships' House was leaking when we were discussing the Water Bill—as it was—we should build a new House of Lords, possibly on land reclaimed from the Serpentine.
Other parts of the country are applying to expand their airports. Birmingham, from which until recently one could not make a round trip to Paris in a day, has expansion plans. Manchester is applying for a second runway. Leeds is applying for a licence to fly to Paris; you can already fly from there direct to Amsterdam. Half of all the journeys to and from Heathrow are short range, 500 miles and under, and a large proportion of the passengers must be affected by the Channel Tunnel if it is built. All this goes to show that the system of multiple gateways is coming here, as it has already come to the Eastern seaboard of the United States.
My Lords, you have listened to me now too long, but before I sit down I should like to tell your Lordships of a nightmare vision that I had. We, as taxpayers, will have spent thousands of millions of pounds on Maplin, on a new ocean port, on Concorde, and others will have spent millions on super-tankers, bulk carriers and container ships. The vision is of all those expensive toys in a Great Expectations situation—Concorde covered in cobwebs, grass growing between cracks in the runways; doors slamming on the passenger terminals, empty but for the ghosts of Ministers and civil servants of the D.O.E. and the Brent Geese rusting super-tankers, all because we have run

1933
out of oil to propel them. Perhaps, my Lords, that is too fanciful. If my doubts, and those of others, can be settled, let us build Maplin. If the noble Baroness cannot settle them, please let her accept the Amendment which is going to be introduced in Committee. After all, there is no great hurry. Mr. Douglas Jay, in his stubborn insistence on trying to build Stansted, was saying that saturation point was arriving at Heathrow in 1969. After all, my Lords, one of the outstanding abilities of Tory Administrations throughout the ages, from Wellington onwards, whether it was Catholic emancipation, the Corn Laws, the second Reform Bill, or even the floating of the pound, has been their ability to change their minds (there is no need for noble Lords on the opposite side to grin) when presented with reasoned arguments. All these, together with the most recent—the Government's change of heart on incomes policy—have been of great benefit to the country.
My Lords, I say again that I am not anti-Maplin; I have an open mind. But as the great grandson of one of Mr. Balfour's poodles, I will not become a Heath one, to be barked through the Lobby for less than overriding logic.
7.13 p.m.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, I have a slight interest to declare, as the house where spend most of my time is within 22 miles of the proposed airport at Maplin. The Roskill Report puts the noise shadow at some 33 miles for a two-runway airport. I understand now that it is 24 miles, but I shall still be within that limit. The noble Lord, Lord Beswick, spoke about a noise shadow of eventually three miles. I cannot remember what date he said that would come about, but I fear it will be quite a long time ahead.
LORD BESWICK: I said 1·5 square miles, and it would be for the year 1979 or 1980.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: As soon as that; that is very cheering. It is a great pity that my noble friend Lord Amory is not here, because he was dubious as to whether there would be any decrease in aircraft noise. If he had read the Government's Consultative Document
1934
which they published in 1972, he would have seen that they revised their forecast for noisy aircraft. We have the DC.10 and the TriStar coming into operation this summer, and they have much quieter engines. But if the Government's main concern in building Maplin is the noise question, I am quite convinced that by the year 1985 there will have been a great improvement in the noise of aircraft. I am not suggesting that aircraft should side-slip in, but if they approached at a steeper angle, and if one could get what is called in aviation language two segment approaches, that also would be an advantage. For a short time I ran a small airline, but I have only an amateur knowledge about this.
My Lords, I am so confused about this matter. I have been bombarded with papers on it, and the only conclusion I can reach from them is that the only thing the experts are agreed on is that air passenger traffic in the London area will more than double by 1980. As we have heard, aircraft are going to get much larger. I understand that air transport movements will be up by one-third by 1980. On the average, aircraft in 1980 will carry 120 passengers, as compared with 70 to-day. They will carry 140 in 1985, and 200 in 1990. But, of course, that will mean fewer aircraft movements in relation to the number of passengers.
The question I want to ask the Government is this. Allowing for the fact that we must have a third major airport, must it be in the South-East? After all, about 25 per cent. of the passengers flying from the South-East do not come from the South-East. We have British Railways developing trains to run at 150 m.p.h., and in a few years they will have trains running at 200 m.p.h. Why not have this major third airport in the industrial North soon a short train journey to London—or even in the Midlands? I would, of course, prefer it to be in a depressed area, and surely we could have it on the North-East or North-West coast. It would bring tremendous international trade into the area.
I live in the South-East of England, and I know that if you want anything built (even a henhouse, though of course, I would do that myself; but supposing I

1935
could not) you cannot get anyone to do it. The whole of the South-East area is overloaded industrially. You cannot get labour; you cannot get craftsmen; you cannot get anybody to build factories or houses. If we are to have the Channel Tunnel and Maplin Airport, I ask the Government to remember how difficult it is to get the labour and the craftsmen. We are completely overloaded in the South-East; certainly we are in Kent. I hope the Government will take that into consideration.
My Lords, regarding the seaport, I think this is a good site. However, the idea of tankers up to 500,000 tons using the port makes one wonder. I think one has to be careful, because, as we know, the English Channel is already congested, and there have been several accidents there in the last year or two. If the Government decide to build this airport at Maplin, for heaven's sake let them build the roads and railways first. I know the two Southend roads, and even to-day there are traffic jams most of the time. If we try to build the airport and the port before the communications we shall be in a real mess. I therefore hope that the transport system will be built first. I suppose quite a lot of construction material can be taken by sea, but you cannot do the same with a vast labour force. They will have to go by rail or car. On the question of cost, I am not sure that we have had a true figure. I believe my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn first mentioned £825 million, and then I believe he talked of £1,000 million.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, if my noble friend will forgive me, I mentioned £1,000 million as a figure which has been bandied about; it is not one that I bandied about.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: I thank my noble friend. My experience of Civil Service estimates is that they go up each year by about 15 per cent. I imagine that when the airport comes to be built the cost will be more like £2,000 million. But to be fair, we must presume that if we do not have this airport, as my noble friend said, we should have to spend a great deal of money on Heathrow. Gatwick, Luton and Stansted: we might have to spend between £600 million or £700 million on
1936
improving airports. So one has to deduct that from any expense involved at Maplin. I agree with other noble Lords that one has to be very careful about inflation, and if we are going to have the Channel Tunnel as well things will be made even worse, inflation-wise.
I should like to say just a word about Kent. I live there, and this project will affect the county a great deal. I understand that 14,000 acres or so are to be reclaimed from the sea. Obviously, if there is to be large-scale industrial development it will affect coastal areas of North Kent adversely: it will certainly affect the coastal towns and, of course, the Medway area. I believe the Government have undertaken not to have primary industry there, but I remember the old Biblical saying about not putting one's faith in princes. Unfortunately, promises are not always kept by Governments, especially by successor Governments. We are concerned also with the flight path. In this connection I hope that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will ensure that there will be consultation with the Kent County Council. I believe this can be done without any difficulty under the Airports Authority Act 1965. There also arises the question of noise damage to buildings. Clause 22 of the Bill gives discretionary powers to compensate for damage and for reclamation. I should like to ask the Government whether they could extend these powers to cover noise damage. For instance, there is the possibility that this land reclamation in Essex might silt up the Medway. I know that experiments have been conducted with a hydraulic model. They appear to have been satisfactory, but one cannot always go by models. If there is any siltation in the Medway I hope that compensation will be paid.
Referring to the Maplin authority, I believe that North Kent should certainly be strongly represented on its membership. I wonder whether some arrangements might not be made for continuing consultation both with the Kent County Council and the interested parties. I have had some little flying experience. I once started a very small air service on an airstrip beside the sea. On the question of bird strike, I should like to take the opportunity of wishing pilots the best of luck. I have been in a light aeroplane

1937
which hit a small seagull and it was a highly unpleasant experience. So, God knows what would happen if one were to hit a Brent Goose! The noble Lord, Lord Thomas, said that the air intakes on the new aircraft will be seven feet across—so they could probably take in a few Brent Geese and the result could be disastrous. As a naturalist, I am bound to say that I shall be sorry to see Maplin Airport come into existence. It strikes me as rather odd that yesterday we had the Government straining at a gnat over the question of spending £3 million on free contraceptives, and to-day they appear quite prepared to swallow a camel —an £825 million camel.
Finally, may I say that I hope the Government will move very cautiously and will give this project more consideration. I should certainly much prefer to have this airport sited somewhere in the North, in an under-developed area. There would be little transport difficulty with the very fast trains that are coming along, and it would certainly help the underdeveloped areas, and provide a better-balanced economy for the United Kingdom.
7.27 p.m.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: My Lords, I must confess to feeling slightly dazed, having listened to the speeches of two of my noble friends. Perhaps they might happily be persuaded to get togther one day so that my noble friend Lord Onslow may be able to give a rusting aero-engine to my noble friend Lord Massereene for use as a hen house. But that is not likely to happen. I am probably the "odd man out" in this debate because I do not really agree with my noble friend Lord O'Neill of the Maine, who said that he was probably in agreement with most of your Lordships in being against airports. I confess I am against airports—but I do not suppose anyone will take much notice of that when I say that I am also against electric telephones and the internal combustion engine. With those two things we are, of course, pretty well stuck, just as we are stuck with airports—and what are we going to do with them now that we have got them? I believe we shall be faced with the necessity of building the one at Maplin.
The debate, as was quite inevitable, has brought out an enormous number of
1938
facts and figures. So far as I have been able to follow them (probably not very far), the figures have been used to prove almost diametrically opposite things, and so have some of the facts. Into this maelstrom I do not propose to plunge. I must confess to having still a certain feeling of scepticism. A number of estimates have been given as to how much the project will cost and what it will be like in the end, and there is a remarkable unanimity of disagreement—so much so that one might almost think that this debate was taking place in another place. My scepticism stems from the fact that I do not really take much stock of what we are told is likely to happen in the way of technological development and aircraft design. Aeroplanes may get quieter; they may go straight up and come straight down they may get wider and also fewer. All these things may happen; but even if they do, I am certain that they will become more and more of a burden to all of us. Motor cars have got bigger and quieter. However, I find very little comfort in being told that a 40-ton lorry which knocks the corners off the houses in the small Sussex town in which I live would have been much more noisy 20 years ago. It is quieter and bigger, but I do not think it is going to be less numerous, and I do not think aeroplanes are going to be less numerous, either. We have a kind of Parkinson's Law which ensures that as the opportunities for operating aircraft increase with the runway capacity, so will the numbers of aircraft and the nuisance increase.
I look at the whole subject basically from the point of view of nuisance and danger. There is an actuarial statistic which I am afraid I cannot quote exactly, but I have seen it recently. It is roughly to this effect: a major accident at an international airport is to be expected, I think, once in two years. We have been lucky; so far we have not had a Tokyo or a New York type of accident. We had an accident at Staines in open country. Sooner or later we must take it as a certainty that we shall have one aeroplane carrying anything up to 400 people crashing on Kensington—not literally on Kensington, but somewhere of that kind. It will happen. If this is going to happen it should happen over the sea, where the

1939
passengers would have some chance of escape.
Therefore I should like to know whether or not in planning the airport at Maplin thorough consideration has been given to the question of fitting the approach routes to Maplin into the existing pattern of air routes. I do not like to put words into anybody's mouth, or he unduly suspicious, but I have a nasty feeling that I might be told that it had and my fears will be realised. I am quite certain that this must not happen. We cannot take these new over-the-sea approach and take-off routes and fit them in the existing pattern. If this is to be the great, vast project it unquestionably is, affecting the quality of life of the country, it must be part of a new pattern of new routes which will, by some means or other, avoid vast numbers of enormous aircraft flying over the middle of London. This will mean replanning all the air routes probably West of Berlin. This appears to me to he absolutely necessary if we are to make a success out of Maplin.
Now the question of noise and the subsidiary question: What is it? My noble friend Lord Thomas described it as a nuisance, an irritation and very annoying. He introduced those definitions by the injunction, "Let us he rational about noise". It may be all those things, but I think it is something more than that. I do not go along altogether with the noble Lord's description of what we might do with our hush kits. I do not care to think of anybody living in a house in the country or town who has friends to stay for the weekend taking newspapers and blankets to block up the chimney of the spare room. My noble friend suggested we might do this. What sort of a world are we going to live in if we have to block up our chimneys to keep out the noise of aeroplanes? This is the thinking with which we are becoming perfectly familiar.
We are becoming more and more familiar with noise to the extent that we do not notice it. Some people do not notice it, some do; and some people are driven practically "up the wall" by it. Its effect varies on the individual. This brings me to the matter of the Noise and Number Index, by which is
1940
calculated the effect on the hearer on the ground of aeroplanes flying overhead, partly from noise and party from the frequency of their flying. Some will say that the noise is more important; some will say that frequency is more important. We have heard both these statements made this afternoon, and both of them have appeared in the Press. Which is it? Which does one find more annoying: the noise of one aeroplane flying overhead, and then another one, and another one later on at half hour intervals, or the noise of a quieter aeroplane flying over more frequently? That is almost impossible to answer. What would you say about a dripping tap in a room where you were trying to sleep? Few things can be more infuriating. Would you prefer the tap to drip once every five seconds, or once every ten seconds? Some people say once every five seconds because you can get used to it more easily and then ten second interval is intolerable because of the strain of waiting for the next drip. Other people will say the other way round: that the ten second interval will give you time to go to sleep, if you are lucky. If I suggested that the tap should be allowed to run continuously, which will provide the maximum noise, that might turn out to be the best of the lot because you could get used to it and go to sleep.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: My Lords, may I support what the noble Earl has said? Many of my local authority correspondents question the validity of the N.N.I. in itself and the basis of its calculation, and they do not accept it at all.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Earl. Neither he nor I are alone in this. There are large numbers of people, local authorities of one kind and another, who consider that the N.N.I.'s data should be changed. These include experts. I have some small knowledge of this: I am connected with an organisation concerned with the abatement of aircraft nuisance. I will not specify the organisation but it is one which is not unknown to the Government. The N.N.I. has been falling into disrepute for years, but it has come up in this debate over and over again as something which is sacred. I do not

1941
believe it makes a ha'porth of difference which way you take it, if you get aeroplanes flying overhead. The more of them there are, the worse it is; and the noisier they are, the worse it is. It does not matter how you work it out, the interference in our lives by aircraft is increasing and will increase. It should be diminishing. I believe it is dangerous, whether one notices it or not.
It is a kind of occupational hazard to live under an air route, even if it is not very close to London. It seeps into the unconscious mind and does great damage. If one lives near London or a major airport the damage can be intense. My noble friend Lord Kinnaird, in his maiden speech in March (on a debate initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Somers, on noise), quoted a survey carried out in the neighbourhood of Heathrow. I cannot quote directly from the survey, but it reported that in that neighbourhood admissions to mental hospitals were eight times the national average. It would be absurd if you said that was entirely due to noise coming from Heathrow. It would be equally absurd for anybody else to say that that had nothing to do with it. I do not think anybody would say that.
Because of these things I believe we must build the airport at Maplin. I do not like it; I do not want it; I think there are great drawbacks to it, all of which have been mentioned. It has to be done and it ought to be got on with; but I make these provisos: I do not want the existing pattern of air routes to continue. I should like to know whether consideration has been given, or will be given, to re-routing the red and amber routes, for example (which cross almost over my roof, but that is incidental), so that aircraft landing and taking off at Maplin should approach our shores over the water. By some means aircraft should also, so far as possible, be diverted from flying over London. I do not know how it is to be done but I believe it is vital that this should be achieved.
Also, what about the traffic that comes in over the water and is unloaded on the ground? I am not talking about the seaport. Air cargo will be unloaded on the ground and it will then be put on to lorries or railway trains. What consideration has been given to continuing its voyage by water, possibly at a cheaper
1942
rate for slower delivery, of netting it into the inland water transport system, of sending it up the Thames or sending it round by coastal shipping to minor ports? All this, it appears to me, is part of the advantage that can be got from having an airport at sea, and this ought not to be avoided. Finally, the sine qua non, in my opinion, of building an airport at Maplin, the only justification ultimately in the long run, is the running down, and if possible the closing, of Heathrow and Gatwick. If we can achieve those things, the project, which is gigantic in cost, will be gigantic in its effect on the whole life of the country.
7.41 p.m.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, so far as I am concerned this has been a long debate but a very useful exercise. My noble friend Lord Thomas told us—and Lord Cork and Orrery has referred to it as well—that Lord Thomas bought a house under the aircraft flight path and that the noise did not worry him. I respect his judgment, but I must disagree with his estimates of noise. From the people I have spoken to, the noise is quite intolerable. Again, the noble Lord, Lord Henley, said—I think I have his words correctly— that the Government must look at it again. Frankly, my Lords, the Government have never stopped looking at this problem before and following the Roskill Commission Report. In my view the decision is long overdue, and I feel that the time is now quite ripe for it.
In the remarks I am going to make I hope sincerely that I shall not be considered too parochial, but I am deeply concerned for the county in which I live live and the welfare and health of the people in that county. I am supporting this Bill for a third London airport to be sited at Maplin, for the longer we delay over this airport decision the worse the situation will become West of London. It will become worse and worse for those 700,000 householders (I should imagine at a conservative estimate something like four people to a house) who live in south Buckinghamshire and neighbouring districts. Seven hundred thousand is a very large number. Aircraft taking off from Heathrow in increasing numbers make life utterly miserable, with the intolerable shattering noise of aircraft jet engines, especially, of course, for those who live only a short distance from the

1943
airport, and now seriously affecting Datchet, Eton, Slough, Burnham, Taplow and even Beaconsfield and High Wycombe.
I live on the perimeter of this noise zone and can well understand the storm of protests Coming from South Buckinghamshire. As soon as one aircraft is airborne another one is landing and another preparing to take off—all this on top of the almost continual noise, except at night, from low flying helicopters. I know that what I have said is nothing to do with the Maplin airport; the airport I am referring to is Heathrow. The general picture is a very miserable one. It is not unusual to have four or six of these ungainly flying grasshoppers in some kind of loose formation overhead making even telephone conversation impossible. Unfortunately—and I hesitate to say it—they are probably flying towards the Prime Minister's residence at Chequers.
So far as schools are concerned, the noise in the sky is seriously interfering with education. Lecturers and teachers in Buckinghamshire are frequently unable to be heard and there is always the ever present risk of an aircraft crashing in a heavy populated area. The Trident crash at Staines was only just over the border of Buckinghamshire. Those of us who live in Buckinghamshire are entitled as much as anyone else to at least a peaceful weekend after a hard working week. It was with this in mind that the threat of a third huge airport at Cublington was quite abhorrent to most people. In this case, the whole of the county would have suffered; with Cublington in the North and Heathrow in the South, those living in between would have been the meat in the sandwich. But most sensibly this site was turned down by the Government. If you now try to alter the routes or the spread of the noise by air traffic control beacons—and this has been tried and, like so many theories, in practice it does not work—you are only tinkering with the problem and inflicting this noise on one lot of people at the expense of another in close proximity, with aircraft constantly deviating from the agreed route. An obstacle of this kind can be removed only by relieving the pressure.
In July of last year a navigational beacon was installed at Taplow; it helped
1944
to reduce the noise for the heavily populated areas of Slough but it increased the misery for those people living directly under the route. There is only one answer: the introduction of quieter aircraft, possibly shorter take-offs and landings, further extension of sound-proofing grants, which is a very expensive item, and the construction of a new airport at Maplin.
Noise is not Buckinghamshire's only problem; the British Airport Authority forecast a big growth in air transport movement at Heathrow to meet all traffic demands, and by 1980 it is estimated that the total employment at the airport will grow to over 60,000. To meet the growth in traffic, I understand that there are proposals for the widening of taxi-ways, apron development, terminal modifications and other new construction work. If Maplin does not open by 1980 and the growth of traffic, passengers and freight, continues at Heathrow, the noise and traffic congestion will be just about unbearable. But where are all the extra people to be employed?
LORD BESWICK: Has the noble Lord not been told by Ministers or other spokesmen for the Government that if Maplin is opened and Stansted and Southend are closed the traffic at Heathrow will be just as great or greater than it is at the moment?
EARL HOWE: I have never been told that. Where are the extra people employed going to be housed if Heathrow is to be increased in size? Housing land in Slough is hard to come by and adjoining the airport is a regional park and the metropolitan Green Belt. At one time I myself—and I said this when we debated Cublington a year ago—was not convinced of the need for a third London airport of the size envisaged, but I realise that the progress of the air transport industry must continue to grow. If this is so, the burden of noise, traffic congestion and of housing pressures must be shared between East and West without delay—Maplin in the East and Heathrow in the West. Those of us who live in the areas West of London must be given some hope and not left in despair to see more and more capital being invested in a monster Heathrow airport bringing with it all its most unpleasant trappings.

1945
The safety valve is Maplin to relieve pressure and distress. The Eton Rural District Council, the Buckinghamshire County Council and other local authorities in Buckinghamshire, right down to the humble parish council, are all more than alarmed at a possibility of the Maplin project being delayed or even stopped by any amendment to this Bill recently passed in another place. If the Bill does not go through, the mood of the people is such that the Government could well have more than just a mild protest on their hands. The people, my Lords, must be considered; sharing the agony with other neighbouring villages and towns will only spread the net over a wider zone. I ask you on the grounds of equity, common sense and long term planning to give this Maplin Development Bill its Second Reading.
7.49 p.m.
LORD SANDYS: My Lords, having taken part in the earlier debate on the third London airport, I very much agree with what my noble friend Lord Howe has just said, that Maplin is the safety valve. But let us start at the beginning, back in 1963, with the Interdepartmental Committee on the Third London Airport, and the successor document. I brought these with me to-day, in a portable library. I felt that I would not inflict an enormous amount of detail upon your Lordships but would deal with two significant, and to me overriding considerations which I feel we should bear in mind in considering the Second Reading of this Bill. To me aircraft safety is an overriding factor, and therefore I was particularly glad that my noble friend Lord Cork and Orrery mentioned the question of the great statistical likelihood of a serious accident over a major city in this country. We know, of course, of the Trident tragedy at Staines. It is significant that only a few days before the 1967 debate in this House on the Stansted airport. there was a Question before your Lordships on the throttling back of aircraft engines on take-off in order to reduce noise and thereby comply with regulations. This in my speech at that time I felt to be of the greatest significance, and therefore the Maplin solution on that occasion seemed to me to be the right one. I hold to that to-day. On both take-off and landing the Maplin site appears to be a more desirable one
1946
than any of the existing alternatives, and indeed with regard to the overriding consideration of safety of the neighbouring population.
There are other factors to be taken into account. The question of aircraft strike mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, seems to me one which, with careful design and indeed alteration of existing air intakes, could be overcome or at least mitigated. It seems absurd that an unguarded nacell intake should be over seven feet wide without apparently any means of deflecting birds as large as a Brent Goose. Further, on the question of the feeding grounds of the Brent Geese, I feel that, thanks to the great emphasis which was placed upon this matter by the Government, we may have some ornithological solution put forward. But surely birds, as humans, are creatures of habit, and there is going to be a massive destruction of bird life in the area before the birds come to the conclusion that an alternative is desirable. Nevertheless, I feel sure that research in this matter will be greatly accelerated by Government sponsorship, and I hope that early consideration is given to this matter in conjunction with the United States' Air Force which has done so much in this connection, especially relating to the use of predators.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, it may be that as their feeding grounds change the birds will, or may, move on.
LORD SANDYS: My Lords, I feel sure that my noble friend is on to a very important solution here. Nevertheless, it is always a matter of anxiety as the land area of this country diminishes under concrete that there will he sufficient areas of open feeding ground left available for such internationally important geese as the Brent Geese; they of course require remote areas.
One of the principal reasons why I find this Bill so attractive is the winning from the sea of a large area of land, approximately 28 square miles. A further point I would place before your Lordships is that there is a differentiation between the costs. Ten thousand pounds an acre has been quoted as an approximation. I wonder whether this is an average, because it was noted in the Press only a few days ago that the Crown State

1947
Commissioners have won areas from the sea for as little as £800 an acre in the area of the Wash. It is of course obvious that the shallower the water the cheaper it costs. Nevertheless, for a figure of £800 this appears to be nationally very good business indeed, and I would commend the remarks of my noble friend Lord Ferrier, to regard this as part of a great national policy of increasing the land mass of the United Kingdom, indeed of the British Isles as a whole.
The other point about the differentiation between costs is this. I should like to draw the attention of Her Majesty's Government to the site chosen and to the alternative. The site alternative known as "C", which is the one chosen and nominated and set out in the Bill, is the one which the Government in their wisdom came to regard as the most desirable. I would remind Her Majesty's Government that site "D", the more North-Easterly one, the more expensive one, and the more difficult one from a land use and reclamation point of view, has great advantages so far as the noise nuisance zone is concerned. I hope that some further compromise will be reached in that the area concerned, site "D", is given a second thought.
7.55 p.m.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I confess to an awful feeling of deja vu about this subject: it is so many times round we have been on the third London airport in recent years. First of all, the House will remember that twenty years ago the Government carried out certain inquiries, which were not public, and came up with the answer that Stansted was the right place. I still carry the scars of trying to convince this House of the truth of that proposition. The Government were driven off it principally on the ground that the inquiries which led to the conclusion had been in private and this was the wrong way to conduct Government business. There is some force in that view. So the Labour Government then set up a great public inquiry—the biggest public inquiry there had ever been in the history of this country—and that came up with the answer that the third London airport should be at Cublington. So this too was presented to the House. But however public the inquiry had been, it would not do, and the Government
1948
decided, after no inquiry at all, that it should be Maplin. So a private inquiry will not do; a public inquiry will not do. The question that faces the House to-day is: Will a conclusion based on no inquiry do?
It is not automatic that it will not. One may very well get the right answer by guess and by God. But I think there is a certain vagueness—many of my noble friends on this side and noble Lords opposite have spoken of this vagueness. Let us look at some of the phrases that have been used in the House of Commons in presenting this proposal to Parliament. Mr. Rippon spoke of reclaiming "some land which we shall be able to sell." He pointed out that the Strategy for the South-East (that is a planning document) shows South Essex as a growth area. And so indeed it does; but there is a considerable difference between an area being the right one for growth like that and being the right one to accept an enormous airport, an enormous port, an enormous new town and all the infrastructure which goes with that.
The noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, whose expertise in these matters is second to nobody's told the House that the County of Essex was ready to accept this development. My Lords, I should think so. What county would be not? It would mean an immense accretion of wealth to wherever it goes. But our business—the business of the Government and the business of Parliament—is to decide whether we want it there at all; whether Essex is the place for this enormous investment. Airport policy I think has been mainly dealt with, so far as this side of the House is concerned. by my noble friend Lord Beswick in his earlier speech. I want to concentrate on some of the other things.
We have not mentioned—have we?—the question of high-speed trains. When all this is ready, we are supposed to be going to have trains travelling at 200 or 300 miles an hour. What is going to be the impact of this on domestic air traffic; and of course on short-haul traffic to the Continent given a Channel Tunnel? If one can reach there at an average speed of 200 or 300 miles an hour, that in practice is going to beat aeroplanes, city centre to city centre. What will be the effect of that? Most important of

1949
all, what about regional policy—the familiar thread of regional economic policy? Is the South-East the place where we want this colossal development? The noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, spoke eloquently and in a homely manner—and it is my view, too—about the condition of the building industry in the South-East, about the building trade shortages which are known to everybody by direct experience or by the official returns. The South-East with the Green Belt, with the need to keep some nice places near London—compare that with the North-East, the North-West and the other parts of England where ships could come to even if aeroplanes could not—and I expect the aeroplanes could. Unemployment at the moment is going down in those areas; yet we know that if it goes up again it will not be in Essex and it will not be in the South-East that it will be felt; it will be felt in the North where we are not going to get this "goody", this excellent national economic biscuit.
Before passing this Bill I think we should like to know about the farmland. A great deal of land is going to be taken on the shore. Is it good farmland there compared with farmland that would be taken if the port, especially, were to be put somewhere else in the country? We also want to be informed more closely than we have been about how all the stuff that is needed for the building and development during the five or ten year period when it is being built is going to be conveyed there. A statistic was quoted by the Minister concerned, Mr. Eldon Griffiths, in the House of Commons which has not yet been picked up to-day. He said that every possible ton of material would be taken by sea—that is good; that every further possible ton of material would be taken by rail—good. But he also said that that would leave 125,000 tons per year of stuff—fill, goods, God knows what!—to be taken through the little roads of Essex, before any new link is built, to this site. Do we want to face that?
I want to speak first about one or two detailed matters which will arise if the airport is built according to the programme of the Government. The first is the matter of bird strike, which I believe has been very much neglected in the public debate so far. We know
1950
that the incidence—I avoid the word "risk", because it is not always a risk to life—of bird strike at Maplin will be three times over and above what it is at an ordinary inland airport site. Very often we imagine that if an aeroplane hits a bird, the aeroplane falls down and everybody is killed, and that is a rare disaster.
I should like, however, to draw to the attention of the House a report on Bird Hazards to Aircraft which was published by the relevant Minister of the Canadian Government last year, which throws a light that I found startling on this matter of bird strike. It painted a picture of what really happened, and happens quite often. A big aeroplane takes off, one engine is knocked out because a bird gets into it. There is no danger to life and limb. The engine is ruined, the aeroplane has to circle, ditch its fuel in order to reach a safe landing weight, come back, everybody is late and the aircraft is out of service for some days while the engine is changed. This Report quoted a 200,000 dollar cost for changing the engine (that is just the beginning) and it said that one airline—it did not name it, but I think it must be an American airline—had published a figure of £1 million sterling-worth of mechanical damage each year through bird strikes. No loss of life, just a million pounds lost. Comparable figures are reported by several airlines. That is what happens.
How seriously has this economic loss to the airlines been taken into account, losing engine after engine in this way? I know that the airlines have taken it into account and this is one of the reasons why they do not want to go to Maplin. What do the Government think about it? How many C.F.104 fighters—called "the widow-maker" in Germany because more than a hundred of them have been lost by the German Air Force—have fallen down because of bird strikes and because they are particularly vulnerable to it? I should like to have those figures set out at some stage during the passage of this Bill.
Continuing with the details, I should like to know where the Shoeburyness gunnery range is to go to. The Government have been congratulated here today on having succeeded in finding a

1951
way of removing it. But where is it going to? I have seen no announcements. I think we should he told the economics of that. I think also we should be told at the relevant stage what is to he the effect on the Thames flooding risk of putting a lot of land into the water. If you narrow an estuary you bank up the flood surges that go up the estuary. We all know the flood risk to London, and the plan for the barrier. Can we be told at some stage in hard numerical terms what increase in flooding, whether in London or down river, will be affected by the proposed development at Maplin?
Let us be told also what fill is going to be used to reclaim this land from the sea. Are borrow pits going to be opened? Is half Essex going to he despoiled by the digging up of gravel and useful bits of earth to plonk down on Maplin Sands to raise the levels, or is it going to be done by dredging from the sea'? Is the dredging going to affect the flooding situation? Is there any hope of bringing those awful heaps of coal spoil from the beaches of the North-East by sea to do this job? Personally, I should like to know all this before the Bill becomes law.
We heard a remarkable speech from the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, who really got the bit between his teeth about the economic beauties of the port, and I want to speak now about the seaport. He spoke as Chairman of the Port of London Authority and he spoke very clearly to the effect that as regards the Port of London it would be a great improvement. I think we can all accept that, but what we want to know is whether it will be an improvement as regards all the ports of the country. We want the report of the National Ports Council, not on the question of whether this is good policy for London, hut on the question whether this London policy is good for the country as a whole. We have not had that yet, and I do not think we should pass this Bill until we have had it. I hope it will come soon.
The noble Lord, Lord Aldington, echoed what had been said by the Government in the other place about the intrinsic beauty of container ports and very large ships. I shall return to this point in a moment. Of course it is true that if you can use very large crude oil
1952
containers and bulk containers, you get your imports cheaper per ton. That is a cost-benefit analysis in narrow trading terms, but what is the social cost-benefit analysis? It is always taken for granted (is it not?) that it is a good thing to throw people out of work in the docks by having bigger ships, simpler procedures, fewer men employed, more land to pile the boxes on—in the phrase used by the noble Lord, Lord Aldington. This may be true in broad social terms. I should like to see a human social cost-benefit analysis. The Roskill Commission (of blessed memory) of course specifically reported against having a seaport at Maplin if the airport were to be located there. I think that was probably the most thorough planning and social inquiry there has been into the matter yet.
One would like to know also about the question of oil supplies on a large scale over the next thirty years. The whole thing is based on oil in two ways: first, a large new airport pre-supposes cheap fuel for aeroplanes in order for people to be able to afford to fly as opposed to going some other way. A busy seaport is largely based on the presupposition of ever increasing oil imports. It is for the convenience of oil imports that this vast tanker port is proposed. We all know the predictions about the rapidly rising price of oil towards the end of this century, but the seaport and the airport will last for 100 years if they are well built, as no doubt they will be. What inquiries have been made about this? What is the reality of the nightmare experienced by the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, of the whole thing rusting away, not because there is no more oil in the world but because what oil there is is so expensive that nobody can afford to use it, and when the whole power of the country is based on nuclear generated electricity and people are going everywhere in extremely fast electric trains? Is that going to happen? One would like to know.
What about the use of the land? We have been told about the reclaimed land, 2,500 acres: 1,000 acres for the seaport and 1,000 for the airport, and 500 acres for seaport-related development. What is it? We have not been told. May we be given a concrete picture? What sort of industry? We have been told

1953
that it is not to be heavy industry. What is excluded under the phrase "heavy industry"? The noble Lord, Lord Sandford, said in this House only the other day that although the effects of the Channel Tunnel would be calculated in their impact on Maplin, the effects of Maplin have not been calculated on the Channel Tunnel. It would be a pity to build either before the effects of each were calculated on the other. Once again, a lack of preparation.
In presenting the Bill to the House of Commons on Third Reading, Mr. Eldon Griffiths said that the decision in principle on the seaport at Maplin had been taken by the Government; that is to say, that they wanted it, and they were submitting the proposal to Parliament. Perfectly true. The Government have always said that there are many details to come later which we shall settle; but it is clear from the whole presentation of the Bill that we are expected to approve not only the airport but also the seaport. This Bill is the "Yea" or "Nay" moment, and I doubt whether we have enough details to decide that properly.
What are the terms of reference of the National Ports Council's inquiries into this matter? We should like to know that. Are they broad enough really to cover the social realities of the matter? Then again, what is the financial structure of the seaport to be? This is all a bit vague so far. The Government in the House of Commons, when the Bill was going through, insisted that they were giving only planning permission. They said, in effect, "We are giving only planning permission and nobody really ought to want to know what is going there or who is going to pay for it, or what the thing is". But it is very unusual for Parliament to give planning permission. Usually it is the local authority or the Minister who gives planning permission. If Parliament is to give a planning permission by Statute it must be as well informed as the local authority or the Minister would be if the normal procedure were followed. It is not at the moment, and I think that it ought to be.
We want to know also what is the relationship between the Port of London Authority, the Maplin Development
1954
Authority and something called the Thames Estuary Development Company. It was stated in the House of Commons at Committee stage that the Thames Estuary Development Company was a body which included among its members the Port of London Authority, naturally, and also Rio Tinto Zinc, Town & City Properties, Southend Corporation and Shell United Kingdom. What are they all going to do? Who is going to pay money to whom, for what, how much, and when? I confess that I have no idea of the answer to any of these questions. We are told that some land will be reclaimed which we may be able to sell.
Let us look beyond this seaport to its effect on the sea. We all have a picture in our minds of what a seaport is like on the land and in the hinterland. What will happen at sea? We are told that there are to be half-million ton tankers coming into this place. They cannot come now because there is no channel deep enough. So a channel has to be dredged. Where will the channel be? Does the dredging operation present any special difficulties? Will it be ordinary sand and gravel or will there be a problem, as some allege, of dredging mud which is not often done or London clay—which I see alleged is some of the stuff that has to be got from the sea? Does it mean that new types of dredgers will be needed to do that? I have seen that alleged, but I do not know with what truth.
Then comes the question of what happens to the sea when you get half-million ton tankers attracted into the estuary—because it is still an estuary, the Thames estuary. It has recently been stated with precision and eloquence, in my view, by a Ministry of Defence spokesman that what used to be called inshore waters are now, in this day of the half-million ton tanker, called pilotage waters. These mammoths have to get down by narrow pilotage through channels. It does not need stating that the bigger the ships you have then the fewer you have, and therefore the less, we hope, will be the incidence of collisions between ships. But, of course, for every collision that happens the greater will be the disaster in terms of pollution, loss of money and loss of life. I think myself that that is swings

1955
and roundabouts—fewer collisions but much worse damage when you do get them. The Channel and the Thames approaches in the Southern part of the North Sea are the most crowded seas in the world. The Government have recently, to their great credit, begun to institute a rather loose and easy-going form of traffic control, but are they prepared to make that really firm and to make that bite when they are by a deliberate act of investment policy bringing in these half-million ton mammoths? I think we should know before the Bill is passed whether they are.
Do the Government intend to do anything about the scandal of flag-of-convenience tankers? Let us reflect on the fact that last year 29 per cent, of all tanker tonnage above 10,000 tons was sailing under flags of convenience. The point about a flag-of-convenience ship is that the master or owner cannot be disciplined. Have the Government reflected on the fact that the accident and loss rate for flag-of-convenience ships is well above the rate for ships belonging to what we loosely think of as the developed nations, the O.E.C.D. nations? The rate of loss of O.E.C.D. nation ships is X per year—I forget the figure—the rate of loss of Liberian registered ships is 2X and the rate of loss of Panamanian registered ships is 3X. There are other flag-of-convenience States which have achieved an even higher multiplier than that over the rate achieved by the developed countries. What about that? Is it safe to attract the mammoths without seeing to that? I very much doubt it.
We then have this eternal down-river movement in all ports. We do not think about it. It is always taken for granted that if you go down river it will be bigger, and bigger is better. There are hundreds of thousands of dockers up river or living in existing social capital—houses, schools, hospitals—but they are to be thrown out of work. We go down and build a new place at the £1,000 million or £800 million we have been hearing about. People live in the old ports. Do we necessarily rejoice if the port moves? I should like to quote—because I find it psychologically indicative—a remark of Mr. Eldon Griffiths
1956
also in the Committee stage in the House of Commons. He said:
"I say again that I believe that the prospect of providing at the ourskirts of our capital city a modern, efficient port capable of taking the largest foreseeable vessels, is one that the Committee should be seizing with the greatest satisfaction."
I wait to hear why. He goes on to explain why:
"… here we have a prospect of London and South-East England—and the nation as a whole—having an opportunity to berth the kind of vessels which will not be able to go into Rotterdam and the Rhine. We have a national opportunity."
We belong to the European Community. Is it a matter for national rejoicing that we shall be able to take trade from Rotterdam and the Rhine? Would it not be better to have some community planning, with the help of the Commission, to see which ports it would he best to invest in Community-wide and which it would not? Is it not time to abandon at long last the "Ever bigger" battle cry and turn to the battle cry of "Ever more" human arrangements for people who are alive now and who want work?
I think that one can only mistrust the paucity of information which accompanies this Bill in its passage through this House. We are at the beginning of a new age in land economics. This Bill marks the beginning of the time when reclaimed land is going to be nearly as cheap, as cheap, or even cheaper than existing land with full development rights on it. The figure has been quoted to-day of around £10,000 an acre. How is our country going to face this challenge for the first time? What response are the Government going to give? Are they going to respond to this new matter by seeing that the first pieces of economically reclaimed land are disposed of after examination and thought and inquiry, all of a full and public nature? Or are they going to do so by opening the jampot to private grab? I do not say they are; I do not know. We cannot know. I want to know who is going to get the land and the money and what for. Much will depend on what we are told during the later stages of this Bill.
I was rather appalled to learn that in the House of Commons Committee individual Members had to get their own explanatory material from the Port of London Authority who supplied it to

1957
them very courteously, and they had to bring it to the Committee room. These were Backbenchers doing that; the Government did not do it. I hope that nothing as deplorable as that will be repeated in the Select Committee stage of this House. I believe much will depend on the work of our Select Committee, and on the quality of the information which will be laid before it, not only by the Petitioners but also by the Government. I hope that we shall do better than the House of Commons was allowed to do by the Government in that matter. I hope that the Select Committee will be allowed to go beyond merely the height of this bridge or that, or whether a certain waterway is kept open, or a certain field taken in East Essex—important as these are—and to look into broader questions of the real economic viability of this plan over 50 or 100 years, because that will affect the people of Essex. I wanted to get that on the Record because I know that what is said in the full House often affects proceedings in a Select Committee.
Lastly I should like, if I may, though I do not think that it is possible to do so, to reinforce what was said by my noble friend Lord Beswick in starting this debate about the importance of the Amendment which we hope will commend itself to the full House later on. The House of Commons passed an Amendment which said that certain things must not be done until more information is available to Parliament. The Press considered that this was a great change and a victory by the Backbenchers against the Government. I fear that that was an occasion when the Press got it a bit wrong, because the things that the authorities may not do until further information is available are not a very impressive list. I forget what it says, but they certainly may not go to the cinema on Sunday afternoons; they may not climb up the church tower and wave a flag; they may not speak French during working hours. But in that list there is no statement that they may not begin the airport or the seaport. We on this side think it probably should be changed so as to bite, so as to have some effect, and that it should cover not only more information about the airport but also badly needed extra information about the seaport. Having said that, it only
1958
remains for me to confirm that we on this side do not oppose the Second Reading, but we imagine that the later stages of this Bill are going to be exceptionally arduous.
8.20 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT (BARONESS YOUNG): My Lords, we have listened to-day to a very wide-ranging and interesting debate in which a great many people with expert knowledge have taken part. It seems to me that the debate has centred on the question of the need for the airport; and if not the need, then the urgency of it, and the choice of the Maplin site. A great many other issues have been mentioned as well. I will try in conclusion to answer the major points that have been brought up, but I hope the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, will appreciate that I really could not take in all his questions, and as he indicated that he wishes them to be answered in the course of the Bill we will do our best to provide the answers during the Committee stage.
I think the first question raised was that of access routes. The noble Lord, Lord Beswick, asked whether Petitions concerning access routes and the proposed new town could be laid on this Bill. I should like to confirm what my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn said on this point later in his speech: that the Bill does not deal with access routes and that therefore Petitions concerned with those would not be in order. However, as I indicated in answer to a Question which the noble Lord raised last week, there will be this additional consultation document about access routes, and everyone will have the normal statutory rights and safeguards for objections which can be considered.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I am not quite sure what the "normal statutory rights" are so far as consultations are concerned. Does the noble Baroness mean that there will be an Order or some form of Statute laid before the House concerning this, against which Petitions can be laid?
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, what I mean is that there will be the consultation document on which people can make observations and representations,

1959
and then when the road line is agreed there will be opportunity for objections, as is the usual procedure. That is what I meant by the normal statutory procedures.
LORD SHEPHERD: And a public inquiry?
BARONESS YOUNG: And an inquiry. The Government have already made it clear that there will be a motorway link between Maplin and London, to be in operation by the time the airport opens, or sooner if possible. There will be a rail link, operating initially with highspeed conventional trains, between Maplin and Kings Cross. And there will, of course, be this proposal for a new town of some quarter million people by the end of the century. These are very big projects and will affect the lives of a great many people in South Essex. The Government have felt it right, therefore, that there should be an opportunity for public discussion of these matters, and it is for this reason that the consultation document on the road/rail access and corridors will be published shortly.
The next major point which was raised was the question of cost. The estimated expenditure up to 1990 is £825 million at 1972 prices. The breakdown of these costs is approximately this: reclamation of the land, stage 1, £140 million; the airport construction would be £480 million—that is, with its five terminals; the access links £160 million; and the seaport £50 million. The new town area is not included, because it is an investment which probably would have to be undertaken in any event. I hope that this makes clear what the breakdown of these figures is. The point was raised that the building of Roissy Airport was considerably cheaper than this, and that we were getting very bad value for money, but my understanding is that the figures that have been given estimate that the cost of the Roissy Airport is about £130 million to £140 million for providing one runway and one terminal, together with the necessary control tower and various airport facilities, but excluding access costs or anything extraneous to the airport. I think on all these figures the important point to be borne in mind is that if an alternative to Maplin has to be found, all the facilities that would be required
1960
for handling the extra aeroplanes and passengers would have to be found either at Heathrow or Gatwick or alternative airports. So one cannot say that one is going to get a saving of £825 million if Maplin is not built.
I should now like to turn to the question of wild life which a number of noble Lords have raised. They have referred to the effects of the reclamation and the operation of the airport on bird life. My noble friend Lord Drumalbyn referred to the clause in the Bill which deals with consultation with the Nature Conservancy. A substantial study of bird life at Maplin, and other sites in Kent and Essex to which birds displaced from Maplin might go is under way. This covers the problem of the Brent geese and also other birds to which noble Lords have referred, and it will produce information on patterns of migration. This study is due to be completed in 1975, but some results will become available before then and will enable decisions to be reached on the provision of substitute sites, if this is shown to be desirable. But the main aim of the study to which I have referred is to find ways of preserving bird life at Maplin by identifying suitable substitute sites.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, would the noble Baroness tell the House what means of publication corresponding to the London Gazette the Government propose to adopt in order to inform the migratory birds about the substitute sites?
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, that is the sort of question I shall have to think of for a very long time. I think it is really we who need to know about sites, and I apologise for the mistake.
The noble Lords, Lord Thomas and Lord Sandys, referred to the question of bird strike. The Roskill Report accepted that the risk of bird strike at Maplin was somewhat greater than at an inland site, though no airport is entirely free from the risk, but they took the view that this could not be a decisive factor against Maplin and there are countervailing safety advantages in having all landings and take-offs over the sea. I accept that this is an important point.
I turn now to the question of the seaport. I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Aldington, who gave us a

1961
most important and valuable speech explaining the whole of the history of the seaport and the need for it. It was very helpful to have his confirmation that the seaport proposal can proceed without the need of heavy industry, which is often associated with other seaports. It was agreed to in principle by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, who told the Port of London Authority in February, 1972, that he was prepared to consider detailed proposals for an oil terminal and a unit-load terminal: but no final decision has been reached. The Port of London Authority will have to demonstrate the commercial viability of their proposals, and the Secretary of State will have to consider their submissions and the implications of their proposals for other ports in the light of the advice which he receives from the National Ports Council. My understanding of the position is that it will be open to Southampton or any other port which wishes to do so to make out a case for having a terminal there, and their case will also be considered by the National Ports Council and again put to my right honourable friend.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, if the noble Baroness is finishing with that point, may I say that I am grateful to her for putting into its proper perspective the interesting proposals that the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, was outlining. Do we understand now that what he has said will in fact only be done if the Government decide so? May we now be told when the decision of the Government, following consideration of the Report of the National Ports Council, will be given to the House?
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, I do not think that there is any contradiction in what I have said and what my noble friend Lord Aldington said. He has said merely that it is outside the process of the negotiations that have taken place between the Port of London Authority and the National Ports Council. The information will be published when it is available. I am afraid that I cannot give the date now because I do not know quite how far this procedure has gone, but it will eventually be made available.
THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, following up this point, may I ask whether Parliament will have an opportunity to comment on what may be the
1962
decision of the Port of London Authority or the Minister concerned?
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, my understanding is that my right honourable friend said that in principle he had no objection, and that he was prepared to accept a seaport at Maplin. I have no doubt that the reasons that were given were the reasons stated by my noble friend Lord Aldington. There are very good reasons, but that is not to say that the decision has already been agreed, because the Port of London Authority must still make out its case to the National Ports Council, and it must, in turn, be agreed by the Secretary of State before the seaport can go ahead. I hope that that makes the position quite clear.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, with respect, the noble Baroness has not made it clear. She said that the results of the National Ports Council consideration will be given in due course. I am asking her when. Is she seriously saying that we are going to go through the Committee stage without knowing what the Government have decided in this area?
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, the Maplin Development Bill that is before us is a Bill to reclaim land, and it gives planning permission for a seaport and an airport; that is all. I cannot give the exact date, but I cannot see that it will affect the Bill, which does the things that I have enumerated.
LORD ALDINGTON: My Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness whether the procedure is not this? The Port of London Authority in due course has to apply for permission under Section 9 of the Harbours Act, which I mentioned earlier this afternoon, for expenditure on those two proposals, the oil terminal and the container port. In order that it should justify its case, it has to show that the marketing of these projects indicates that there is a need for them and, in particular, that the container port will have people who will definitely want to come to it. This process of marketing has begun already, but it is not possible for the Port of London Authority to submit firm proposals to the Government until after the Bill is law. Then the Port of London people

1963
can say to likely users of these two terminals, "The Bill is law; the Maplin project is going ahead; let us now enter into agreements to do this, this, and this." Until we have done that, I cannot satisfy my right honourable friend that the work that my people have done justifies his approval of the project.
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Aldington for those remarks. While we are on the question of the seaport, I would confirm once again that there is no question of a heavy industrial complex growing up around the port. Indeed, this was confirmed by my noble friend Lord Aldington. The then Secretary of State for the Environment made it quite clear in his statement of February 2 that the Government did not think it appropriate for primary industries, such as steelworks, oil refineries, or petro-chemical works, to be located at Maplin, whether in association with the seaport or separately, both on grounds of regional policy and because development of this kind would create serious problems of incompatibility with a large international airport. This has been repeated by Ministers (notably by the Secretary of State for the Environment on Second Reading of this Bill in another place), and, as a result of discussion in Standing Committee, the Government are exploring the possibility of including restrictions on heavy industry in the Bill itself. The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, said that the Roskill Commission were in fact against the Report, but my understanding is that they were against a major industrial complex, and the Government themselves have rejected this.
I turn now to what has really been the centre of this debate to-day, and that is the question of the need for the airport. In his opening speech my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn restated our views in more detail why, in spite of the Civil Aviation Authority's Report and subsequent newspaper articles, we feel that the third London airport should be opened at Maplin at the earliest practicable date. I agree with what he has said and I do not wish to go over the ground that he has already covered, but I should like to deal with some of the difficulties which have subsequently
1964
arisen. The first argument that has been raised is that really there is no urgency about this at all, and that we could easily wait for another five years and think about it then. To take such a course overlooks the fact that unless the British Airport Authority know that they will have Maplin they will need to put in hand very soon the planning of extra facilities at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted over and above those already planned. We all accept that there is some expansion both at Heathrow and Gatwick planned between now and 1980. Not only is there that consideration, but, as my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford explained very carefully, there are all these other major planning considerations for the new town and the necessary houses and all the other ancillary services that will be needed to service the airport and to provide somewhere for everybody to live. Therefore I do not think that there can be any question of delay for another five years for these very pressing reasons, quite apart from the fact, as has been stated several times, that we have already been discussing this subject for 12 years.
So the argument has gone on, "Well, there is ample capacity at Heathrow and Gatwick and the other airports, and therefore we do not need Maplin at all". On the figures in the Civil Aviation Report, which will remain subject, I am certain, to continuing debate, surplus runway capacity of 9 to 18 per cent. is shown as existing in the London airport system in 1980, and commentators have seized on this to state that Maplin is not necessary and that the additional traffic could be crammed in to fill up this 9 to 18 per cent. One must ask whether this is a very sensible way to plan. It leaves no margin over for any errors. If a runway was out of use for any particular time, if any of the figures of demand were "out" at all, we should find ourselves in very considerable difficulty. It does not seem to me that it is right for a Government to plan on the basis that future statistics indicate that everything is perfectly all right, when I think that it is very difficult to draw that conclusion from the figures that have been given.
The next point is that the airport at Maplin is much too far away and that nobody really wants to use it.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Baroness, but when she insists that this margin of 9 per cent. or 18 per cent. really is not sufficient, is she taking into account the fact that the C.A.A. Report was based on the assumption that the Government would deliberately restrict development at Heathrow and at Gatwick and would be closing down both Stansted and Southend, with restriction also at Luton? If she is wanting a margin, the margin would be there, in the possible reasonable use of those other three London airports.
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, I think that is very much a matter for argument, and I just cannot accept that the C.A.A. have necessarily got the figures right. It may well be that one could use all of this additional capacity, but we do not know whether the other figures which they have produced on the numbers of passengers will prove to be right. To leave oneself without any margin or with only very little, except by the expansion of a number of airports, would not be a sensible way to plan.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, if the noble Baroness is saying that the C.A.A. have not necessarily got it right, and the C.A.A.'s figures were compiled from the Report in conjunction with the British Airways Board, the Department of the Environment and the Department of Trade and Industry, who is to say that they are wrong?
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, when my noble friend is answering that question, will she also explain to us what will happen after 1985?
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, I do not think that anybody—the C.A.A. included—would say that they can be absolutely certain that their figures are right. This is not really something that anybody can argue. They have made the best calculations that they can, but, as my noble friend Lord Nugent has said, they have not explained what is to happen after 1985. We do not know that. All I am saying is that they leave no room to cope with any kind of difficulty at all. The next point that is made about Maplin is that it is too far away. But if we look to see what other countries are doing we discover that in New
1966
York, for instance, they are considering a fourth airport which is 50 or 60 miles away, and in Tokyo they are opening an airport which is 40 miles from the centre. I use those two examples to indicate that other major cities recognise that it is perfectly possible to have a major international airport at this distance.
Having dealt with those two questions, I think the major point of concern has been the question of noise; nearly every noble Lord who has spoken has talked about it. We all hope that there will be new types of aircraft which will be quieter, and we have reason to suppose that they will be. This is a very welcome factor in the future of aircraft. But the point is that existing aircraft will be with us for some time. The Boeing Aircraft Company, for example, which is the largest manufacturer of civil aircraft in the world, is still selling 707s, 727s and 737s, as well as the Jumbo-sized 747s. With the possible exception of the 707, the company plans to carry on producing these aircraft for the rest of the decade. As an aircraft has a life approaching 15 years, it is clear that some of these types will still be flying into the 1990s.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, is it not also true that the Boeing Aircraft Company is producing "hush-kits" for all these aircraft, so that they will he making only half as much noise and will be coming down nearer to the level of the TriStars than they are at the moment?
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, I cannot confirm that fact; but even if it is true there are other aircraft of British make which may not necessarily be so fitted, and the fact is that there will be older aircraft flying on into the 1990s which will be very noisy. Furthermore, I do not think that that is at all the end of the argument, because there is conflicting advice as to how quiet aircraft are going to be. In a Paper submitted to the Civil Aircraft Research Committee of the Aeronautical Research Council last month, the Directorate of Operational Research and Analysis in the Civil Aviation Authority's Chief Scientist's Division said:
"There is thus hope of continuing improvement, with airports eventually becoming only modest noise emitters, but there is little hope of relief in the short term. Such relief as can be given must be sought from alternative

1967
operational procedures, movement limitations and a limited amount of retrofitting. Whilst this may make the environment at some smaller airports fairly tolerable, it will make little impression on the problem area of Heathrow."
Of course we are left with the fact that even if all aircraft are much less noisy than they are now, and even if Heathrow and Gatwick are used to full capacity, there will inevitably be more aircraft, and there is the very great question of whether it is even more intolerable to have a less powerful noise more continuously than we have at the moment. Quite apart from any of these points, I think those noble Lords who have spoken as ordinary members of the public will recognise that what the public are prepared to tolerate in future is likely to be considerably less than is the case to-day, so what we need is both less noisy aircraft and Maplin.
I should now like to turn to the question of putting the new airport into the regions, because that has also been Suggested as an alternative. An airport is not a very desirable neighbour and, although there have been suggestions of developments and increases at Gatwick, Luton, Leeds, Glasgow and Edinburgh, all these proposals have met with very real opposition from local people. It has been suggested that the new technological developments of VTOL and STOL will again meet the need, and this point was made in the debate on the Roskill Commission's Report. We have looked at it again, and my understanding is that the prospects of a breakthrough here seem to he less promising than they were before.
The last point that I should like to make on the need for the airport really concerns the consumer, because we ought to ask ourselves what it will be like for the ordinary passenger to be crammed in with these very large numbers of people who will have to go through Heathrow and Gatwick. We know that there will be some increase up to 1980, but can we seriously face the prospect of a threefold increase? This point was made by the noble Baroness, Lady Stocks; and the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, himself said that of course we do not know whether the consuming, public would tolerate conditions of that sort at airports, or indeed, whether they would
1968
like to fly in these prospective 1,000 seater planes. None of these points is an established fact.
We have had a very long debate and there are innumerable points that I have not answered. I know that they will be raised again during the Committee stage, and I hope that we can give an answer later on. I hope that those noble Lords whose points I have not answered will understand that as time is getting on we should draw this debate to a conclusion, but I should like to say how grateful I have been for the support of my noble friends. I now want to bring the House back to what seems to me to be the central issue of this debate to-day. I ask your Lordships to support the Second Reading, because by voting for this Bill we shall keep the options open. My noble friend Lord Drumalbyn explained clearly the purpose of the Amendment which we shall move at a later stage, and I repeat the assurance that he gave. The Amendment will give us the opportunity to consider again, and to vote in Parliament upon. these highly technical matters, the arguments about which are in dispute by experts. If the Bill does not have a Second Reading, there will be no opportunity at all, in the light of any evidence that may he produced, to have a third airport at Maplin. And may I remind noble Lords why Maplin was chosen? It was chosen entirely for environmental reasons; not because the airlines wanted it, nor because it was cheaper—no one has ever suggested that—but because it was thought, and I believe absolutely rightly, that public opinion would not tolerate another main inland airport in this crowded island.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness to clear up one point, which I think everyone would like to have clarified? The noble Baroness has again said, and rather more clearly than her noble friend, that we shall have an opportunity of voting again. On what should we he voting? Should we be voting on an Order, or in what form would the proposal be put before us?
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, we shall be putting down an Amendment, and I want to give the assurance in general terms now that we shall have this opportunity to consider this matter again.

1969
One of the options which giving this Bill a Second Reading will hold open is the opportunity to close Stansted and Southend, severely restrict Luton, and stop further expansion at Gatwick, together with the opportunity to introduce further restrictions at Heathrow. It does not mean that, by voting for Maplin, we shall still have exactly what we have now. We shall have our problems until Maplin is open, but thereafter all the airports can look for relief. I would ask those who are against Maplin to consider, in the light of the history of both Stansted and Cublington, the difficulties that we should face with any alternative.
My Lords, I have done my best to answer the points raised in this debate, and I hope your Lordships will agree with me that by voting for and supporting the Second Reading of this Bill we are giving ourselves the chance to keep open all these options.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD HAILSHAM OF SAINT MARYLEBONE): My Lords, the Question is that this Bill be now read a second time. As many as are of that opinion will say "Content". To the contrary "Not content". I think the "Contents" have it. Clear the Bar.
My Lords, Tellers for the Not-Contents have not been appointed pursuant to Standing Order No. 51. A Division therefore cannot take place, and I declare that the "Contents" have it.
Bill read 2a.

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.
BRITISH TRANSPORT DOCKS BILL
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.
  INVERNESS AIRPORT
  INVERNESS AIRPORT