Sitting of 29 November 1973

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

  ZETLAND COUNTY COUNCIL BILL (By Order)
  As amended, considered.
  Mr. Speaker: If the House agrees I shall put the Question on all the new clauses together.

  ZETLAND COUNTY COUNCIL BILL (By Order)
    New Clause 1

      POWER TO ACQUIRE LANDS
      29A.—(1) The Council may, by order made by them and submitted to and confirmed by the Secretary of State in accordance with the provisions of Schedule 2 to this Act, be authorised to acquire compulsorily for the purposes of this Act so much of the land in the district of Delting delineated on the deposited plans and described in the deposited book of reference, as is specified in Schedule 3 to this Act.
      (2) The power of the Council to make any order under this section shall cease on 31st December 1978.—[Mr. Grimond.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Grimond: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      These changes curtail the area originally designated as liable to compulsory purchase and ensure that compulsory purchase will not be exercised without the authority of the Secretary of State. I am happy to accept the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Kinsey) which ensures that statutory instruments will be laid in this House.
      The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): I am satisfied that the amendments proposed by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) are in order inasmuch as they do not extend the scope of the Bill as first introduced. They reverse in part
      552
      a decision of the Committee on the Bill but I do not think that fact alone will justify me deferring consideration of the Bill as the situation is not unprecedented.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause 2

      CORRECTION OF ERRORS IN DEPOSITED PLANS AND BOOK OF REFERENCE
      29B.—(1) If the deposited plans or the deposited book of reference are inaccurate in their description of any land or in their statement or description of the ownership or occupation of any land, the Council, after giving ten days' notice to the owner, lessee and occupier of the land in question, may apply to the sheriff for the correction thereof.

      (2) If on any such application it appears to the said sheriff that the misstatement or wrong description arose from mistake, he shall certify the fact accordingly and he shall in his certificate state in what respect any matter is misstated or wrongly described.

      (3) The certificate shall be deposited in the office of the Clerk of the Parliaments and a copy thereof in the Private Bill Office, House of Commons, and with the sheriff-clerk of Zetland, and thereupon the deposited plans and the deposited book of reference shall be deemed to be corrected according to the certificate and it shall be lawful for the Council to take the land and execute the works in accordance with the certificate.

      (4) Any certificate or copy deposited under this section with any person shall be kept by him with the other documents to which it relates.—[Mr. Grimond.]

      Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause 3

      SET-OFF OF BETTERMENT AGAINST COMPENSATION
      29C.—In determining the amount of compensation or purchase money payable to any person in respect of his interest in land acquired under this Act in a case where—

      (a) he has an interest in any other land contiguous with or adjacent to the land so acquired ; and

      (b) the value of his interest in any such contiguous or adjacent land is enhanced by reason of the execution of any works authorised by this Act or any of them ;

      the amount of the enhancement in value shall be set off against the compensation of purchase money :
      Provided that any such enhancement in value of an interest in land shall be estimated on

      553
      the assumption that planning permission in respect of that land would be granted under the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972 for the operations or uses specified in Schedule 6 to that Act but not for any other development.—[Mr. Grimond.]
      Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause 4

      AS TO PRIVATE RIGHTS OF WAY OVER LANDS TAKEN COMPULSORILY
      29D.—All private rights of way over any lands which under the powers of this Act are acquired compulsorily shall as from the date of such acquisition be extinguished :
      Provided that the Council shall make compensation to all parties interest in respect of any such rights and such compensation shall be settled, failing agreement, in the manner provided by the Land Compensation (Scotland) Act 1963 for settling disputed compensation for lands authorised to be acquired compulsorily.—[Mr. Grimond.]
      Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause 5

      POWER TO ENTER, SURVEY, &C, LANDS
      29E.—(1) An authorised officer of the Council may enter, examine and lay open the lands authorised by this Act to be taken and used or any of them for the purpose of surveying, measuring, taking levels, examining works and valuing the said lands or any other purpose ancillary to the powers conferred by this Act :
      Provided that such power shall not be exercised with respect to any lands unless notice of the intention to enter such lands and the nature of the operations to be carried out has been given to the occupier not less than seven days before the first entry and in any case further notice shall not be required in respect of any subsequent entry on the lands for the purpose of carrying out the operations specified in the notice.
      (2) An authorised officer acting in the exercise of the powers conferred by the preceding subsection shall cause as little detriment or inconvenience to any person as the circumstances allow, and the Council shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, make compensation to the owners and occupiers of any lands injuriously affected by the exercise of these powers.—[Mr. Grimond.]
      Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause 6

      FURTHER POWERS OF ENTRY
      29F.—At any time after notice to treat has been served for any land which the Council are authorised by this Act to purchase compulsorily the Council may, after giving to the owner and occupier of the land not less than twenty-eight days' notice, enter on and take possession of the land or such part thereof as is specified in the notice without previous consent or compliance with sections 83 to 89 of the Lands Clauses Consolidation (Scotland) Act 1845 but subject to the payment of the like compensation for the land of which possession is taken and interest on the compensation awarded as would have been payable if those provisions had been complied with.—[Mr. Grimond.]
      Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause 7

      POWER TO ACQUIRE SERVITUDES ONLY
      29G.—(1) In lieu of acquiring any land that may be acquired compulsorily under this Act the Council may acquire compulsorily such servitudes and rights in that land as they may require for the purposes of this Act.
      (2) Accordingly the Council may give notice to treat in respect of any such servitude or right describing the nature thereof and the provisions of the Lands Clauses Acts shall apply in relation to the acquisition of such servitudes and rights as if they were lands within the meaning of those Acts.
      (3) Where the Council have acquired a servitude or right only in any land under this section—

      (a) they shall not be required or (except by agreement) entitled to fence off or sever that land from the adjoining land ; and

      (b) the owner or occupier of the land for the time being shall, subject to the servitude or right, have the same right to use and cultivate the land as if this Act had not been passed.

      (4) If in his particulars of claim the owner of any land in respect of which notice to treat for a servitude or right is given under this section requires the Council to acquire the land, the Council shall not be entitled to acquire the servitude or right unless the tribunal determines that the servitude or right can be granted without material detriment to the land or, in the case of a park or garden belonging to a house, without seriously affecting the amenity or convenience of the house :
      Provided that nothing in this subsection shall apply to land forming part of a street.
      (5) A notice to treat given under this section shall be endorsed with notice of the effect of subsection (4) of this section.—[Mr. Grimond.]
      Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause 8
      COMPENSATION IN CASE OF RECENTLY ALTERED BUILDINGS
      29H. In settling any question of disputed purchase money or compensation payable by the Council in relation to lands acquired under section 29 (Power to acquire lands) of this Act, the tribunal shall not award any sum of money for or in respect of any improve
    New Schedule 1

      PROCEDURE FOR COMPULSORY ACQUISITION
      1.—(1) A compulsory purchase order made under section 29A of this Act—

      (a) shall designate the land to which it relates by reference to a map or maps annexed thereto, either with or without descriptive matter; and

      (b) subject to that, shall be in such form as may be prescribed.

      5

      (2) In the case of any discrepancy between the map or maps and any such descriptive matter, the descriptive matter shall prevail except in so far as may be otherwise provided by the order.

      10

      2.—(1) After submitting the order to the Secretary of Stale, the acquiring authority shall publish a notice in the prescribed form describing the land, stating that an order authorising the compulsory acquisition thereof has been submitted to the Secretary of State, naming a place where a copy of the order and of the map or maps and any descriptive matter annexed thereto may be seen at any reasonable hour, and specifying the time (not being less than 28 days from the first local advertisement) within which, and the manner in which, objections to the order may be made.

      15

      (2) The notice required to be published by sub-paragraph (1)(a) above shall be published in the Edinburgh Gazette and, in each of two successive weeks, in one or more newspapers circulating in the County, and by affixing a copy of the notice, addressed to 'the owners and any occupiers' of the land (describing it), to some conspicuous object or objects on the land.

      20

      (3) Publication in accordance with the foregoing provisions of this paragraph shall be effected as soon as may be after the order has been submitted.

      (4) In this paragraph 'the first local advertisement', in relation to a notice, means the first publication of the notice in a newspaper circulating in the County and includes, in relation to a notice so published once only, the publication thereof.

      25

      3. Subject to the provisions of paragraph 4 below in any case in which these provisions have effect, the Secretary of State may confirm the order with or without modification, but shall not, unless all persons interested consent, so modify it as to extend it to any land which was not designated by the order as submitted.

      30

      4.—(1) If any objection is duly made to the order and is not withdrawn, the following provisions of this paragraph shall have effect.

      For the purposes of this Schedule an objection shall not be treated as duly made unless—

      (a) it is made within the time and in the manner specified in the notice required by paragraph 2 above, and

      35

      (b) a statement in writing of the grounds of the objection is comprised in or submitted with the objection.

      40

      (2) Unless the Secretary of State decides apart from the objection not to confirm the order, or decides to make a modification which is agreed to by the objector as meeting the objection, the Secretary of State shall, before making a final decision, consider the grounds of the objection as set out in the statement, and may, if he thinks fit, require the objector to submit within a specified period a further statement in writing as to any of the matters to which the objection relates.

      (3) In so far as the Secretary of State, after considering the grounds of the objection as set out in the original statement and any such further statement, is satisfied—

      45

      (a) that the objection relates to a matter which can be dealt with by the Lands Tribunal for Scotland in assessing compensation, or

      (b) that the objection is made on the grounds that the acquisition is unnecessary or inexpedient,

      50

      the Secretary of State may treat the objection as irrelevant for the purpose of making a final decision.

      ment, alteration or building made for or in respect of any interest in the lands created after the 20th November 1972, if in the opinion of such tribunal the improvement, alteration or building or the creation of the interest in respect of which the claim is made was not reasonably necessary and was made or created with a view to obtaining or increasing purchase money or compensation under this Act.—[Mr. Grimond.]
      Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill

      (4) If, after considering the grounds of the objection as set out in the original statement, and any such further statement, the Secretary of State is satisfied that, for the purpose of making a final decision, he is sufficiently informed as to the matters to which the objection

      55

      relates, or if, where a further statement has been required, it is not submitted within the specified period the Secretary of State may make a final decision without further investigation as to those matters.

      60

      (5) Subject to sub-paragraphs (3) and (4) above, the Secretary of State, before making a final decision, shall afford to the objector an opportunity of appearing before and being heard by a person appointed for the purpose by the Secretary of State; and if the objector avails himself of that opportunity, the Secretary of State shall afford an opportunity of appearing and being heard on the same occasions to the acquiring authority and to any other persons to whom it appears to the Secretary of State to be expedient to afford it.

      65

      (6) Notwithstanding anything in the foregoing provisions of this paragraph, if it appears to the Secretary of State that the matters to which the objection relates are such as to require investigation by public local inquiry before he makes a final decision, he shall cause such an inquiry to be held : and where he determines to cause such an inquiry to be held, any of the requirements of those provisions to which effect has not been given at the time when he so determines shall be dispensed with.

      70

      (7) In this paragraph any references to making a final decision, in relation to an order, is a reference to deciding whether to confirm the order or what modification, if any, ought to be made.

      75

      5. As soon as may be after the order has been confirmed the acquiring authority shall publish in one or more newspapers circulating in the county a notice in the prescribed form describing the land, stating that the order has been confirmed and naming a place where a copy of the order and of the map or maps and any descriptive matter annexed thereto may be seen at any reasonable hour, and shall serve a like notice on—

      80

      (a) any owner or occupier of any of the land thereby designated who, at any time after the publication of the notice of the order as submitted, has sent to the acquiring authority a request in writing to serve him with the notice required by this paragraph giving an address for service and the prescribed particulars of his interest;

      85

      (b) any person who has duly made an objection to the order and at the time of making it or thereafter has sent to the acquiring authority such a request as aforesaid; and

      (c) such other persons, if any, as the Secretary of State may specify, whether individually or as members of a class of persons.

      90

      6. If any person aggrieved by a compulsory purchase order desires to question the validity thereof, or of any provisions contained therein, on the ground that it is not within the powers of this Act or that any requirement of this Act or any prescribed requirement has not been complied with in relation to the order, he may, within six weeks from the date on which notice of the confirmation or making of the order is first published in accordance with the provisions of this Schedule in that behalf make an application to the Court of Session; and on any such application to the Court—

      95

      (a) may by interim order suspend the operation of the order or any provisions contained therein either generally or in so far as it affects any property of the applicant, until the final determination of the proceedings; and

      100

      (b) if satisfied that the order or any provision contained therein is not within the powers of this Act or that the interests of the applicant have been substantially prejudiced by any requirement of this Act or any prescribed requirement not having been complied with, may quash the order or any provision contained therein either generally or in so far as it affects any property of the applicant.

      105

      7. Subject to the provisions of paragraph 6 above, a compulsory purchase order shall not, either before or after it has been made or confirmed, be questioned in any legal proceedings whatsoever, and shall become operative on the date on which notice is first published as mentioned in the said paragraph 6.

      110

      8. In this Schedule 'prescribed' means prescribed by Regulations made under the New Towns (Scotland) Act 1968 and any such Regulations shall apply to anything authorised or required to be prescribed under this Schedule with the necessary modifications, as they apply to any like thing authorised or required to be prescribed under that Act.—[Mr. Grimond.]

      Brought up, and read the First and Second time.
      Amendment made : In line 103, at end, insert :
      7. An order confirmed by the Secretary of State in accordance with the provisions of
      558
      this Schedule shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament and shall be a statutory instrument subject to annulment in accordance with the provisions of section 5 of the Statutory Instruments Act 1946.—[Mr. Kinsey.]
      Schedule, as amended, added to the Bill.

    New Schedule 2

      DESCRIPTION OF LANDS SUBJECT TO COMPULSORY ACQUISITION (DISTRICT OF DELTING)
      The lands numbered on the deposited plans 8 to 10, 13 to 15, 17 to 22, 26, 28, 30 and 33.
      That portion of the lands numbered 7 on the deposited plans which lies within the area bounded as follows :—
      By a line commencing on the boundary fence between Midfield and Hill of Dale at a point 450 feet on a bearing of 228º 30' from true north where the fence crosses the Burn of Oxnabool ; Thence on a bearing of 3º for 1,650 feet to a point north of the Burn of Laxobigging; Thence on a bearing of 250º for 3,940 feet to a junction with the Burn of Scatsta ; Thence on a bearing of 139º for 1,800 feet to a point 120 feet west of the Burn of Westerbutton ; Thence on a bearing of 80º for 2,630 feet to the point of commencement.
      Those portions of the lands numbered 7, 11, 12, 16, 24, 25 and 27 on the deposited plans which lie within the area bounded as follows :—
      By a line commencing at a point on L.W.M.O.S.T. 540 feet west of the west shore of Otter Loch ; Thence on a bearing of 166º for 3,940 feet to a bend in the fence 50 feet north of the northernmost point of the Loch of Trondavoc ; Thence along that fence on a bearing of 118º for 160 feet; Thence on a bearing of 88º 30' for 1,950 feet; Thence on a bearing of 72º for 5,920 feet passing 5 feet south of the old church building at Scatsta to a point between the Burns of Leegill and Berdigill ; Thence on a bearing of 33º for 670 feet to the boundary fence between Green Hill and the Hill of Graven ; Thence on the same bearing for a distance of 440 feet; Thence on a bearing of 339º 30' for 260 feet to the east-west boundary fence, continuing on the same bearing for 860 feet; Thence on a bearing of 81º 30' for 1,850 feet; Thence on a bearing of 102º for 1,240 feet to the boundary fence on the north side of the Hill of Graven to a point 230 feet north of the bend in that fence ; Thence on a bearing of 136º for 1,000 feet to the boundary fence on the east side of the Hill of Graven ; Thence on the same bearing for 740 feet to a point 250 feet west of the Burn of Laxobigging ; Thence on a bearing of 58º for 1,350 feet on a line running approximately parallel to the Burn of Laxobigging to a point approximately 300 feet south of the Laxobigging Bridge and 100 feet west of the said burn ; Thence on a bearing of 78º for 1,660 feet, partly following the boundary fence along the north side of the public road, to a bend in the fence ; Thence along the fence on a bearing of 51º 30' for 1,000 feet to a point 50 feet west of the intersection of the fence and the Burn of Moorfield ; Thence on a bearing of 88º 30' for 1,520 feet to the north edge of the public road at a point 120 feet west of the point where the road crosses the Stenswall Burn; Thence on a bearing of 49º for 1,100 feet to a point 370 feet from the point where the public road crosses the Sodles Burn and 70 feet west of the public road ; Thence on a
      560
      bearing of 20º for 1,140 feet to the boundary fence crossing the Sodles Burn ; Thence on the same bearing for 630 feet to a point on the Burn of Sandwater 120 feet upstream from its junction with Sodles Burn ; Thence on a bearing of 73º for 1,485 feet to a bend in the public road to Toft immediately north-west of the church of Toft junction ; Thence following the west side of the Toft public road for 2,050 feet in a north-westerly direction to a point where that road begins to bend northwards ; Thence on a bearing of 224º 30' past the south shore of the Loch of Bordigarth for 4,525 feet; Thence on a bearing of 276º for 1,700 feet crossing the North Burn to a point at an old ruin south of that burn ; Thence on a bearing of 293º for 3,070 feet passing through the ruins of Millburn to the footbridge over the North Burn; Thence along the west bank of that burn to L.W.M.O.S.T. and by the line of L.W.M.O.S.T. to the point of commencement.
      That portion of the lands numbered 25 on the deposited plans, which lies within the area bounded as follows :—
      By a line commencing at a point on L.W.M.O.S.T. 1,020 feet south-east of Booth of Calback ; Thence on a bearing of 64º 30' from true north for a distance of 4,170 feet to the north of Hill of Garth ; Thence on a bearing of 24º for 1,050 feet to the Burn of Crook-setter ; Thence on a bearing of 293º 30' for 3,740 feet to L.W.M.O.S.T. at the Vadill at a point 600 feet on a bearing of 334º from the intersection of that burn and H.W.M.O.S.T. ; Thence by the line of L.W.M.O.S.T. commencing in a south-westerly direction and following the line round Calback Ness and Vats Houlland to the point of commencement.—[Mr. Grimond.]
      Brought up, and read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

    Preamble
    Amendment made : In page 2, line 5, at end insert—
    '(2A) Plans showing the lines and situations of the aforesaid lands and a book of reference to the plans showing the names of the owners or reputed owners, and of the occupiers, of the lands which may be acquired or used compulsorily for the purposes or under the powers of this Act were duly deposited in the office of the Clerk of the Parliaments and in the Private Bill Office of the House of Commons and with the sheriff-clerk of the county of Zetland, which plans and book of reference are in this Act referred to respectively as the deposited plans and the deposited book of reference'.—[Mr. Grimond.]
    Bill to be read the Third time.

PETITION

  Campaign against sex discrimination
  Mr. Raphael Tuck: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I wish to present a petition

  561
  on behalf of the members of the Campaign Against Sex Discrimination which is sponsored by the Women's Liberation Movement. This petition is signed by 25,000 persons from all over the country including men. These signatories are concerned at the discrimination on the the grounds of sex which is practised in all walks of life and they maintain that the Government's proposals do not go far enough.
  The petition sheweth
  That there is great concern at the widespread and continuing discrimination practised against people solely on grounds of their sex, much of which discrimination is still enshrined in statutory provisions and in administrative institutions and practices.
  Wherefore your petitioners pray that this House enact legislation making illegal all such discrimination against people because of their sex and providing legal machinery in the form of an Anti-Discrimination Board to prevent its continuance.
  And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
  To lie upon the Table.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  NATIONAL FINANCE

    Industrial Investment
    Mr. Dykesasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what rate of growth in net fixed domestic capital formation by industrial companies he expects for 1973–74 and 1974–75.
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Terence Higgins): Information about the investment intentions of industrial companies is available only in respect of their gross domestic fixed capital formation. On this basis the most recent investment intentions survey by the Department of Trade and Industry, taken in August/September, predicted a rise in the volume of manufacturing investment of 6 per cent. in 1973 and some 15 per cent. in 1974. No prediction is available for 1975, but the prospect of sustained growth should ensure that the rise in industrial investment will continue.
    Mr. Dykes: Since these figures were and are most encouraging, will my hon. Friend say to what extent he feels they may have been dented by the oil crisis and the miners' overtime ban? If they have been so dented, does he, in conjunction with the Department of Trade and Industry, intend to have discussions with industry and the CBI about maintaining confidence and investment intentions?
    Mr. Higgins: No, Sir. The latest figures which are available—and there have been recent events and particular factors of the kind mentioned by my hon. Friend—give no ground to suppose, taking the overall picture, that the level of investment will not increase. That is of vital importance if we are to raise the level of productive potential in this country.
    Mr. Sheldon: But it was only last week that the Prime Minister said that the high interest rates would not discourage industrial investment. Will the Minister say what categories of investment high interest rates are likely to discourage?
    Mr. Higgins: I understand that there is a later Question on the Order Paper

    563
    on that point. The hon. Gentleman will know from his experience, as I do from mine, that a crucial factor affecting the level of industrial investment is the prospect of expanding markets. That prospect has been in the forefront of the Government's policy, and the measures we have taken have led to that objective. I see no reason to suppose that the kind of measures the hon. Gentleman mentioned in regard to monetary policy will have a significant effect on the level of investment.

    Gold
    Mr. Dalyellasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on decision to abolish the two-tier pricing system for gold.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Anthony Barber): The Central Bank Governor signatories to the 1968 Washington Agreement decided at their November meeting that the agreement should be terminated. This is clearly right since the agreement had for some time outlived its usefulness.
    Mr. Dalyell: Why did the Chancellor agree to a decision which, at least in its timing, will give yet one more nudge to the inflationary upsurge throughout the world?
    Mr. Barber: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. The decision was entirely consistent with all the possibilities for future treatment of official monetary gold which had figured in the discussions on international reform which we have been having for a long time. It has been common to everyone concerned in those discussions that the rôle of gold should be gradually reduced and that monetary authorities should be permitted to sell gold on the free market.
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Does my right hon. Friend agree, in the light of that decision, that the foreign exchange value of the United Kingdom's reserves would have been many times what it is today if we had retained the proportion of gold in our reserves that we had 10 years ago? What purpose has been served by the running down by the Bank of England of that proportion over the years?
    Mr. Barber: At the end of June 1970 the dollar value of the gold component of the reserve was £1,469 million. In June
    564
    this year it was £901 million. We inherited considerable repayment obligations in June 1970, and that inheritance, broadly speaking, accounts for the difference between the two figures. It is certainly true that on the free market the price of gold has gone up ; that is a fact of life.
    Dr. Gilbert: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the central bank agreement relates only to sales of gold from central banks' stocks and not to purchases of gold at anything other than the official price? Will he undertake to resist any proposal that intra-EEC settlements be made at the commodity rather than the official price for gold?
    Mr. Barber: The position is quite clear. Under Article IV of the IMF Agreement, monetary authorities are not permitted to buy gold at above the official price. That is the legal position, and we shall abide by it. Under the same article, sales have always been permitted in the free market above the official price.

    Building Societies
    Mr. Charles R. Morrisasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make further financial support available to building societies, in view of increases in lending rates ; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Higgins: No, Sir.
    Mr. Morris: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that thousands of owner-occupiers burdened by ever-increasing mortgage interest rates fail to understand why the Government were able to find £15 million to keep mortgage interest rates down to 10 per cent. but seem to remain completely impervious to the fact that interest rates are rising to 11–11½ per cent. and even higher? Will the non. Gentleman consider imposing a levy on bank profits to stabilise or lower mortgage interest payments?
    Mr. Higgins: The £15 million temporary bridging grant was described as such right from the start. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has made clear, it has never been the Government's purpose to embark upon long-term subsidisation of mortgage rates. Other proposals have been put forward more recently. The second part of the hon. Gentleman's question raises much broader matters of

    565
    economic management which are not directly related to the Question.
    Mr. William Clark: Will my hon. Friend ask my right hon. Friend the Chancellor to consider changing the fiscal regulations affecting building societies so that pension funds may be encouraged to invest in building societies? The trouble is that the societies are borrowing short and lending long. If we could get them into the pension funds, they would borrow long and lend long.
    Mr. Higgins: That raises much broader questions, but I take careful note of what my hon. Friend has said.
    Mr. Loughlin: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it is now authentically stated that one must earn £4,350 a year to afford a £10,000 mortgage? As £10,000 is quickly becoming the average price of a new house, does not the hon. Gentleman think that it would be better for the Government to give financial assistance to the building societies so that people could afford to buy houses?
    Mr. Higgins: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman's figures, but I cannot helpfully add to what I have already said.
    Mr. Farr: Will my hon. Friend try to recognise that there is a great deal of hardship for home buyers? Will he consider trying in some way to insulate the rate for first-time home buyers from world lending rates?
    Mr. Higgins: There is great difficulty in isolating mortgage rates from the effect of interest rates in general, including world interest rates. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister referred to the position of first-time home buyers in a recent debate.
    Mr. Joel Barnett: Does the hon. Gentleman think that the £15 million the Chancellor spent at the time of the council elections was money well invested? Does the Chancellor still intend to pursue the policy which the Prime Minister suggested, and which the building societies and young married couples do not like, of allowing those couples to pay less now and more just at the time when they want to pay less?
    Mr. Higgins: I had some difficulty in following the hon. Gentleman's last
    566
    sentence, and therefore I have difficulty in answering it precisely. It was made clear on what basis the original temporary bridging grant was made. There have been further discussions about measures which, I hope, will stabilise the flow of mortgage funds. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister set out the proposal concerning first-time home buyers in a speech some time ago.

    Borrowing Requirement
    Mr. Horamasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the present level of the Government's borrowing requirement.
    Mr. Barber: The central Government's borrowing requirement in the first seven months of this financial year was about £1,000 million. Details are published in Financial Statistics.
    Mr. Horam: How does that figure which is still running at an annual rate of well over £2,000 million, and more like £3,000 million, square with the commitment to fight inflation?
    Mr. Barber: As I have pointed out before, the Government are running a substantial surplus on our current account. I do not believe that it is right as a principle or in present circumstances that all capital expenditure as well as current expenditure should be covered by taxation. In fact, nearly half of public expenditure capital expenditure is covered not by borrowing but by taxation.
    Mr. Healey: Can the Chancellor confirm that the reason why the borrowing requirement appears to be running below the level he predicted in his Budget Statement this year is, first, that people who have enjoyed no increase in their real earnings have been compelled by inflation to pay at least £800 million more in tax and, secondly, that the Government's policies have led to shortages of manpower, materials and money, which have meant the collapse of the public building programme?
    Mr. Barber: I am not sure whether the right hon. Gentleman is referring to the central Government's borrowing requirement, with which the Question is concerned, or to the public sector borrowing requirement. As to the

    567
    financing of the borrowing requirement, so far this year we have had considerable success in selling debt outside the banking system.

    Balance of Payments
    Mr. Douglasasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the balance of payments deficit per head of the United Kingdom population for the years 1964 to 1973.
    The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Patrick Jenkin): With permission, I will circulthe figures in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Douglas: Is the Minister aware that it is likely that the deficit per head in 1973 will be about £25 compared with a surplus of £25 in 1970, so that the Government have bequeathed to the nation an indebtedness of £50 per head?
    Mr. Jenkin: As I am sure the hon. Gentleman recognises, it is not usual to give forecasts of balance of payments figures for the full year. I can tell him that the current balance is a £945 million deficit.
    Mr. Adam Butler: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the pound is currently undervalued and that much of the present deficit is due to that? Further, does he agree that exports would not be lost if sterling prices were to increase? Will he consider using the reserves to improve rather than to maintain, as has been done in the past, the exchange value of the pound?
    Mr. Jenkin: I take note of my hon. Friend's last remark. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has indicated on a number of occasions that in the Government's opinion sterling is at present undervalued. For those who seem to take such a delight—I refer to the Labour Party—in the difficulties

    CURRENT ACCOUNT SURPLUS (+) OR DEFICIT (—) PER HEAD OF UNITED KINGDOM POPULATION

    1964

    1965

    1966

    1967

    1968

    1969

    1970

    1971

    1972

    1973 (January-October)

    £

    £

    £

    £

    £

    £

    £

    £

    £

    £

    −7·1

    −0·9

    + 1·5

    −5·7

    −5·1

    + 8·0

    + 12·4

    + 19·0

    + 1·5

    −17·0

    which confront the Government, I must say that for the first time since the war the volume of our exports this year has grown faster than the volume of world trade.
    Mr. Healey: Is it not the case that the volume of our imports has increased very much faster than the volume of our exports? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that we have a balance of trade deficit in Europe which is almost equivalent to the whole of our balance of payments deficit on current account? Does he accept that if the pound is undervalued it is because of the Government's total failure to control our balance of trade and because we have now by far the largest deficit in our balance of payments that has ever been imagined in British history?
    Mr. Jenkin: The right hon. Gentleman is wrong about the volumes of exports and imports. Let me give the House the percentage change from January to September 1973 over the second half of 1972. During that time the import volume went up by 11½ per cent. and the export volume by 13 per cent. The right hon. Gentleman has made in debate the statement which he has made today, and perhaps he will now withdraw it.
    Mr. Healey: The figures which the right hon. Gentleman has given were carefully chosen to refer to a period nine months earlier, for a period relating to the 18 months before January 1973.
    Mr. Jenkin: The right hon. Gentleman is wrong again. I made it clear that the figures which I gave are the latest volume figures for January to September 1973, compared with the second half of last year. The right hon. Gentleman persists in error. I hope he will learn to get it right.
    Following is the information :
    Mr. Ashtonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest estimate of the balance of payments deficit for the current financial year.
    Mr. Patrick Jenkin: It is not the practice to give forward estimates of the current account balance.
    Mr. Ashton: Is that because the figure will be so astronomical that the Minister cannot yet add it up? Has he seen the speech made by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) in which he says that he fears for the Government's and the Prime Minister's mental stability and comments on the way they transmute their disasters into success and then transfer the blame to their enemies? Does the Minister agree with that? If not, why will he not give the figures?
    Mr. Jenkin: Without wanting to bore the House, I must tell the hon. Gentleman that it has never been the practice of any Government to give forward estimates of current account deficits. The reasons he has adduced have nothing whatever to do with it.
    Mr. Pardoe: Without making a forward estimate, will the Minister say whether he agrees with Mr. Murray, the General Secretary of the TUC, that we need only to increase exports by 3 per cent. to 4 per cent. to solve our problems? Will the deficit this year at 1964 values be bigger or smaller than the 1964 deficit?
    Mr. Jenkin: I agree with Mr. Len Murray when he said that he thoroughly supported the strategy of growth and with it the growth of exports. The General Secretary was talking sound sense.

    Aviation Fuel
    Mr. Tebbitasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the rates of duty imposed on aviation turbine fuel and aviation gasoline.
    Mr. Higgins: Aviation turbine fuel is charged at lp per gallon and aviation gasoline at 22½p per gallon when used on internal flights in the United Kingdom. Both are free of duty when used on international flights.
    Mr. Tebbit: Is that fair to the operators of small aircraft and to the relatively
    570
    lightly used services? Does my hon. Friend agree that the aircraft used for such services are inevitably pistonengined? Why should the operators pay 22 times as much duty for their fuel than the duty paid for the thirstier paraffinburning jet aircraft?
    Mr. Higgins: I understand the point my hon. Friend is making. The matter cannot be considered in isolation. Relief from duty must be considered in relation to other claims for relief for light oil. Relief would have to be given to all users and would involve a significant loss of revenue. There are also real problems concerned with control regarding revenue matters.

    Republic of Ireland Currency
    Mr. David Jamesasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will take steps to make Republic of Ireland currency legal tender in the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Higgins: No, Sir.
    Mr. James: As British currency circulates freely throughout the Republic of Ireland and in Northern Ireland, would not it be a matter of convenience to have a mutual arrangement?
    Mr. Higgins: I understand my hon. Friend's interest in the matter, but I am bound to say that a change of the kind which he suggests would create problems much more troublesome than the relatively minor inconveniences which now occasionally arise. If we were to consider arrangements regarding legal tender, very broad questions would be involved. Therefore, I cannot accept the argument which my hon. Friend puts forward.
    Mr. Douglas: In reconsidering the matter, does the hon. Gentleman concede that we should consider making the currency of the joint stock banks of Scotland legal tender in the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Higgins: That is a matter which has been raised on previous occasions. Again, there are real problems.

    Foreign Loans
    Mr. O'Halloranasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many London boroughs, including the Greater London Council, are participating in the Treasury

    571
    scheme to obtain foreign currency loans ; and what amount he estimates will be borrowed by them over the net two years.
    Mr. Patrick Jenkin: Most London boroughs participate in the arrangements whereby the GLC borrows on behalf of London as a whole and offers part of the proceeds to individual boroughs. It is not possible to forecast how much will be borrowed in future.
    Mr. O'Halloran: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his reply. In view of the large capital programme of the Greater London Council and the London boroughs, especially relating to housing, will he give an undertaking that he will extend the scheme further?
    Mr. Jenkin: My right hon. Friend feels that the present arrangements, whereby the GLC borrows and then passes on some of the proceeds to the boroughs, is working fairly well. It is primarily a matter of negotiation between the boroughs and the GLC.
    Mr. Marten: What is the total sum borrowed by the public corporations and the local authorities overseas under the scheme? Has it yet reached £1,000 million?
    Mr. Jenkin: Yes, it is of that order of magnitude
    Mr. George Cunningham: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the borough of Islington is grateful for the new capacity to borrow abroad at interest rates ½ per cent. below those which would otherwise apply? It will be of great assistance. Is he aware that this facility conceals the even worse balance of payments situation which would have existed under the old arrangement?
    Mr. Jenkin: I am aware that an application has been received from Islington for borrowing. The application is being considered in the normal way. On the hon. Gentleman's second point, I disagree with him entirely. The scheme offers a sensible way of financing a temporary balance of payments deficit. I explained during the debate last week that we are borrowing in this way through the public sector on normal commercial terms and that the repayment schedule stretches over a good many years ahead. It is, in the circumstances, a sensible thing to do.
    Mr. Ridleyasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the total amount borrowed by public industries and public and local authorities overseas since June 1970.
    Mr. Patrick Jenkin: The total amount borrowed in foreign currencies by nationalised industries and local authorities for domestic purposes between June 1970 and 31st October 1973 amounted to approximately £1,100 million at current rates of exchange.
    Mr. Ridley: Will my right hon. Friend say what is the point in borrowing long in currencies which are appreciating steadily against us when we have a floating exchange rate and could perfectly well attract the necessary funds in our own currency on short term?
    Mr. Jenkin: With respect to my hon. Friend, I think it is a reasonable and proper way to finance a temporary deficit. If one can borrow on these terms in the Eurodollar and other markets at favourable rates compared with rates for borrowing from domestic sources, it is thoroughly sensible for the industries to do so. I hope that my hon. Friend might be able to agree with that.
    Mr. Dalyell: Is it not true that, whereas the figure was about £1.100 million, it is now nearer £2,000 million?
    Mr. Jenkin: There is some confusion between pounds and dollars. I have been quoting figures in pounds, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) in an earlier supplementary question. The figure is something over 2,000 million dollars.
    Sir Harmar Nicholls: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that he is receiving full co-operation from local authorities in restraining their spending during this time of stringency?
    Mr. Jenkin: I hope that the local authorities will take note of what I said last Thursday to the Society of County Treasurers. It is of the utmost importance that all parts of the public sector should contribute to the slowing-down of the rate of public expenditure if we are to be able to steer our resources into the balance of payments and the investment that we need.
    Mr. Healey: If the right hon. Gentleman really believes that, would it not be

    573
    much more sensible for him to borrow direct from the IMF short-term at interest rates only one-third of those at which local authorities and others are borrowing from the Euro currency market? By smothering our balance of payments deficit, is he not inflicting a loss of £70 million a year by his own account on our balance of payments?
    Mr. Jenkin: Nobody is trying to smother anything. What we are doing, and doing successfully, by borrowing on normal commercial terms through the public sector, through the Euro market and other overseas markets, is obtaining enough to finance our deficit. That is a sensible thing to do. In the meantime rights with IMF remain intact and can be drawn upon if occasion arises.

    Value Added Tax (Medical Research)
    Mr. Astorasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what he estimates will be the amount of VAT payable in an average year by charitable organisations in respect of equipment purchased specifically for the purposes of medical research ; and how this figure compares with their liability to tax in respect of such purchases before the introduction of VAT.
    Mr. Higgins: No estimates have been made.
    Mr. Astor: While my hon. Friend cannot make an estimate, does he agree that the liability to VAT on medical research equipment can be substantial? For instance, an electron microscope would be about £4,500. Will he confirm that it is not the Government's intention to impose the tax on medical research equipment? Will he consider the matter again before the next Budget?
    Mr. Higgins: I understand my hon. Friend's feelings. This is a matter which we debated at considerable length in the context of charities during the passage of the 1972 Finance Bill. I do not believe that discriminatory relief from VAT is a suitable means of promoting my hon. Friend's aims, no matter how desirable they may be in their own right. It is important, when considering the position of charities, to take into account not only the changeover from purchase tax and SET to VAT but the substantial changes which my right hon. Friend
    574
    made in the treatment of charities in 1972 and 1973, at a cost to the Exchequer which is estimated to be of the order of £20 million for 1973–74. We must consider the overall picture and we must not single out individual items or the effect of individual fiscal measures.
    Mr. Carter-Jones: Will the hon. Gentleman take it from me that that is a most unsatisfactory answer? Is he saying that the Treasury cannot find a way of giving tax relief to charitable organisations which are financing research? Is he aware that I sit on research committees which lack funds because the Treasury is so miserly? Will he reconsider this matter and apply a bit of common sense and practicality?
    Mr. Higgins: The hon. Gentleman does not appear to have listened to what I said. I said that the Chancellor has already made very substantial concessions towards charities, amounting to £20 million in 1973–74.
    Mr. Selwyn Gummer: In our debates on this subject, were there not considerable misgivings that the Government had not been able to make exactly the kind of estimates for which my hon. Friend asked? Is it not possible to look again at the whole question of VAT and charities, as many people feel that the Government have been a little unyielding when they could have been more helpful?
    Mr. Higgins: We debated this subject at considerable length. Discriminatory relief of the kind suggested would have the effect of reproducing many of the anomalies and distortions which occurred with purchase tax. Therefore, my right hon. Friend thought it appropriate to give help to charities in other ways on a very substantial scale.
    Mr. Joel Barnett: Will the Minister re consider what he has said? He has effectively misled the House by saying that the Chancellor gave concessions to charities. Those are concessions on the tax that he himself first imposed—
    Mr. Barber.
    Mr. Barnett: We on this side did not introduce VAT.
    Hon. Members: Selective employment tax.
    Mr. Barnett: The Minister spoke of not being discriminatory, but he has been discriminatory in giving help for hearing aids. Surely he can reconsider this matter in the light of giving increased assistance to medical research.
    Mr. Higgins: The expression of support which the hon. Gentleman is getting from behind him is more an expression of sympathy than of encouragement. If he is seriously suggesting that the overall tax record and the concessions given by the Labour Government are better than those of the Conservative Government, no one could have more disregard for the facts. I repeat that it is important to look at the picture as a whole. The Chancellor has made considerable concessions in other ways which will have a dynamic effect inasmuch as they will encourage contributions to charitable bodies in the future.

    Money Supply
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyneasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the increase in the money supply, at an annual rate, in the latest quarter for which figures are available, according to the M3 definition, and according to the Government's preferred definition, respectively ; and if, in the light of these figures, he will redefine the objectives of monetary policy for the remainder 18. Mr. William Hamilton asked f the current financial year.
    Mr. Barber: As to the first part of the Question, figures for the third calendar quarter of this year are not yet available. On a seasonally-adjusted basis, in the three months to mid-October M3 rose by 6½ per cent., or an annual rate of 28·5 per cent., whereas Ml fell by 2¼ per cent. The figures for M3 are inflated by special factors, such as the changeover to VAT and the arbitraging activities of some of the banks' large customers, while the Ml figures have probably been reduced by switching from current accounts to interest-bearing deposits at the banks. As to the second part, the objective is to secure rates of growth of money and credit compatible with the sustainable growth in the economy and our counter-inflation policies.
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply. Will he confirm that it remains the Gov
    576
    ernments' view that to suspend competition and credit control would have highly undesirable side effects without in any way contributing to the solution of the problem of financing perhaps a very large borrowing requirement in a non-inflationary manner?
    Mr. Barber: I have already expressed my views at some length on the Bank of England's competition and credit control arrangements. If there is any way in which those arrangements—which are new ones—can be improved, I shall be happy to consider it.
    Mr. Stonehouse: Does the Chancellor intend to take steps to limit the activities of the large industrial companies which take money on loan from banks and re-lend it, in view of the point he made in his statement that those activities had contributed to the growth of M3?
    Mr. Barber: In view of the later steps which the Government took about a fortnight ago, I think I am right in saying, although I should, naturally, like to check it, that those arbitraging activities are not now occurring.
    Mr. Healey: Will the Chancellor assure the House that he will abandon competition and credit control before January?
    Mr. Barber: No, Sir.
    Mr. Hordern: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a great distinction, and has been for many months past, between the figures for Ml and M3? Is he prepared to look again at the definitions of Ml and M3 to see whether there might not be a more reliable method of tracing monetary progression? Perhaps he might think of devising M2.
    Mr. Barber: As I explained in my answer, M3 is inflated by certain special factors, and the Ml figures have been reduced by the switching to which I referred. Neither measure of money supply by itself gives a good indication of the recent underlying trend. Obviously both should be taken into account, but together with other indicators, in assessing monetary conditions. I have a great deal of sympathy with my hon. Friend—I am not alone in this—in doubting these definitions and the

    577
    conclusions which are often drawn from them.

    Foreign Currency Reserves
    Mr. Denzil Daviesasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will take steps to reduce and eliminate the amount by which the United Kingdom's foreign currency obligations exceed its foreign currency reserves.
    Mr. Patrick Jenkin: No. The two are not related in the way which the hon. Member implies.
    Mr. Davies: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that, taking account of our obligations in terms of sterling balances, our foreign obligations exceed our so-called reserves by at least £4,000 million? Does he not agree that if any commercial organisation were to try to operate in that way, its directors would be put behind bars?
    Mr. Jenkin: If a commercial organisation left assets out of the balance sheet, its directors would deserve to go to gaol. The hon. Gentleman takes no account of long-term assets. If we take the total value of external assets of £50·2 billion and deduct the total value of external liabilities of £44·3 billion in 1972, it will be seen that we have a healthy surplus of £5·9 billion.
    Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it makes exceedingly good sense to borrow now in the certain knowledge that we shall have large amounts of revenue coming in from the North Sea resources from 1978 onwards?
    Mr. Jenkin: My hon. Friend makes a very sound point indeed.
    Mr. Skinner: Does not the Chief Secretary agree that we also need to take account of the fact that, in terms of sterling guarantees, the dollar rate in terms of the pound is running at a figure of 2·43 and that the pound in relation to the dollar is being floated at a rate of 2·34? Does he not agree that we are now in debt in relation to sterling guarantees to the tune of around £100 million? Should not this matter be taken into account along with our liabilities?
    Mr. Jenkin: I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows the terms on which the
    578
    guarantees to the overseas sterling area were renewed. It would be wrong to draw any conclusion at this point in time. The time for this to be judged is next March.
    Mr. Ronald Bell: Does my right hon. Friend agree that a credit balance of about 10 per cent. on overseas commitments and liabilities is a narrow one, which may easily disappear if we continue to borrow overseas as we have been borrowing? Is he not afraid of a general relaxation of discipline in both central and local government following the habit of overseas borrowing? Is he not also afraid that a dangerous precedent will be created if the Government establish a new distinction between current and capital expenditure—a distinction which British Governments have never observed in the past?
    Mr. Jenkin: No, Sir, I have none of those fears. I believe that the policy we are pursuing in borrowing overseas is entirely justified in present circumstances.

    National Savings
    Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a further statement on the Page Report on National Savings.
    Mr. Barber: I have nothing further to add to my reply to the hon. Member for Gateshead, West (Mr. Horam) on 25th October.—[Vol. 861, c. 1459.]
    Mr. Hamilton: Is the Chancellor aware that that is a disgracefully complacent reply? Why has this report been swept under the carpet when the small, unsophisticated investor is being swindled week by week and the Government are doing nothing about it? Is he also aware that the Government are doing nothing about the property speculator who can make millions in a day simply by purchasing property with one hand and selling it with the other?
    Mr. Barber: The hon. Gentleman will realise that major questions are involved in the report's recommendations. We are at present consulting with the Trustee Savings Banks Association, the national savings movement and others concerned. The hon. Gentleman will recognise that the terms of all national savings facilities have been improved by the Government, and in the last three years, in money terms and real terms, national savings

    579
    have increased by about six times the amount raised in the six years of the Labour Government.

  CONSUMER PROTECTION
  Mrs. Sally Oppenheimasked the Prime Minister if he will consider transferring departmental responsibility with regard to the safety of consumer products from the Home Office to the Department of Trade and Industry.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Edward Heath): The allocation of departmental responsibilities is constantly under review and I shall keep this suggestion in mind.
  Mrs. Oppenheim: Does my right hon. Friend agree, without implying any disparagement of Ministers in the Home Office, that it would be more practicable if the Department of Trade and Industry were to assume this responsibility since the Director General of Fair Trading, who has certain obligations in this respect, has a much more direct link with the Minister for Trade and Consumer Affairs? Furthermore, will not the Department of Trade and Industry be implementing secondary legislation which will ensue as a result of some welcome EEC directives on consumer products and their safety?
  The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right that the Director General of Fair Trading will be able to help in dealing with the safety of consumer products. But the question we have to bear in mind is whether we should try to put responsibility for all this on one Minister or go on using the specialised knowledge in individual Departments in relation to particular dangers. At the moment my general judgment is that we should use the specialised knowledge of Departments as far as we possibly can.
  Mr. Pavitt: Will the Prime Minister look at the problem that arises from the fact that, although medicines have to be approved by a committee which has to be satisfied about their safety, other consumer products—whether they come under the Home Office or the Department of Trade and Industry—are not the subject of safety precautions? Will the right hon. Gentleman look at the Food and Drugs Act in the United States which covers medicines for thera
  580
  peutic purposes and also goods consumed for other purposes?
  The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir, I am prepared to examine that point, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services has specific responsibility for medicines. I shall see whether there is a gap in terms of the products that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned.

  EALING
  Mr. Molloyasked the Prime Minister if he will pay an official visit to the London borough of Ealing.
  The Prime Minister: I have at present no plans to do so, Sir.
  Mr. Molloy: When the Prime Minister makes plans to visit Ealing, will he arrange to tour the borough by bus and discuss with ordinary folk how they are making ends meet in face of increased food prices and mortgage rates? Will he explain to them what further sacrifices they should make to send their children to the public schools, as advocated by the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science?
  The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State was defending freedom of choice for parents. We are sorry that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on the Labour benches propose to deny them that freedom.
  Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: If my right hon. Friend goes to Ealing and travels by bus, he may find there, as in other parts of London, a restricted service. Will he give a welcome to the belated decision of the Transport and General Workers Union allowing women bus drivers to operate in London?
  The Prime Minister: I will indeed.

  PRIME MINISTER (BROADCASTS)
  Mr. Tebbitasked the Prime Minister how many radio and television broadcasts he has made during the present Session of Parliament.
  The Prime Minister: Two, Sir.
  Mr. Tebbit: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I would not want him to get

  581
  into a position where he might be accused of emotionalism in discussing possible political bias, as seems to be the case with the Leader of the Opposition? Will he discuss with members of the staff of both the BBC and ITN the difference in the extent of the coverage of the unhappy case of Mr. Niesewand and of the equally unhappy case of Mr. Cleaver, since one seems to have been given a great deal more coverage than the other?
  The Prime Minister: I have noted my hon. Friend's point. This matter is the responsibility of the Governors of the BBC.
  Mr. John Morris: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider making a television broadcast to defend and explain his current policy of exporting helicopters to South Africa from the so-called closed-down Westland production line? Will he say whether he approves of the proposed increase in the number of joint exercises with the South African Navy? Will he also ask that his broadcast be relayed to the Commonwealth?
  The Prime Minister: Such facilities are not required because the Government's policy on this matter has been constantly stated in the House and is well known.
  Mr. Carterasked the Prime Minister how many official broadcasts he has made in 1973.
  The Prime Minister: Seventeen, Sir.
  Mr. Carter: Would the right hon. Gentleman care to make one more broadcast and explain how it is that we now face a strife-torn winter over a prices and incomes policy which he said when in Opposition would come about only over his dead body?
  The Prime Minister: I have not yet met any commentator, or anyone in this House, who has denied that the arrangements for stage 3 are the maximum which the economy can stand. If the hon. Gentleman is therefore suggesting that we should go wider, he can only be supporting the extension of inflation.
  Mr. Tapsell: When my right hon. Friend next broadcasts to the country, will he try to explain to our people how it is that during the recent difficult days for our economy the only contribution the
  582
  Opposition have been able to make is to have a well-publicised squabble within the Shadow Cabinet?

  ISLE OF ELY
  Mr. Freudasked the Prime Minister if he will pay an official visit to the Isle of Ely.
  The Prime Minister: I have at present no plans to do so, Sir.
  Mr. Freud: In view of the severe depletion of public transport, may I ask the Prime Minister whether he is aware of the growing concern of my constituents in the Isle of Ely regarding fuel rationing?
  Mr. Biggs-Davison: Go by boat.
  Mr. Freud: Will he issue a clear and immediate statement to allay the fears of my constituents who have to live 25 miles or more from their work and who are concerned about their ability to continue in employment?
  The Prime Minister: I recognise the seriousness of this matter. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has issued a very clear statement about the arrangements which will be made, particularly for travel to work. Naturally we shall deal with this if we get to the point at which petrol rationing has to be instituted.
  Mr. John Wells: Will my right hon. Friend change his mind and pay an official visit to the Isle of Ely, and will he, on his way there, stop off at No. 7 Boundary Road NW8 and explain to the inhabitant there some of the home truths about British horticulture so that he will not make such silly remarks in his constituency in future?
  The Prime Minister: Naturally I am prepared to consider my hon. Friend's suggestion, were I to receive an invitation from the occupant. I must confess that I am not at the moment fully aware what horticultural facilities the occupant has at 7 Boundary Road.
  Mr. Thorpe: In view of the statement made by the hon. Member for Maid-stone (Mr. John Wells), will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that his hon. Friend was an unsuccessful applicant for a Liberal candidature? He was

  583
  turned down. Will the Prime Minister and the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the hon. Gentleman cannot be allowed to colour the questions asked of Liberals who have been successful?
  The Prime Minister: As a result my hon. Friend has been in the House far longer than he otherwise would have been.

  INSTITUTE OF DIRECTORS (SPEECH)
  Mr. Ashtonasked the Prime Minister whether he will place in the Library a copy of his public speech to the Institute of Directors on 8th November on economic policies.
  The Prime Minister: I did so on 8th November, Sir.
  Mr. Ashton: Does the right hon. Gentleman remember saying in that speech :
  "I can tell you from personal experience that explaining what it is all about is a very testing business"?
  Has the right hon. Gentleman read the speech of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) this morning in which the right hon. Member, whom I see entering the Chamber, fears for the Prime Minister's mental health and emotional stability? Has he any method of denying this? Can he give us the reassurance that the Government have not gone barmy?
  The Prime Minister: I would have thought that the words of my right hon. Friend were belied by the three-and-a-half hours' valuable discussion I had with the miners yesterday.
  Sir Harmar Nicholls: Was not the copyright for questioning the mental capacity of their leaders claimed by the Opposition last week, and ought they not to object to others infringing it?
  The Prime Minister: It is rather difficult to disentangle who has disfranchised whom.

  COUNTER-INFLATION POLICY
  Mr. Radiceasked the Prime Minister if he is satisfied with the co
  584
  ordination between the Departments of Employment and Trade and Industry on the application of phase 3 policies to the public sector.
  The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.
  Mr. Radice: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that many thousands of public sector workers are leaving every week because they can get higher wages elsewhere? Will the Government have the sense to modify their counter-inflation policies so that the earnings of miners, gas workers, transport workers and local authority workers, among others, become more attractive, or is it his intention to preside over the decline of the nation's vital services?
  The Prime Minister: There is scope within phase 3 arrangements for the public services to have negotiations about their particular requirements. These are being carried out at the moment.
  Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Will my right hon. Friend give urgent attention to the application of the counter-inflation policy to one element in the public sector, namely, the British Steel Corporation and the intervention to control its pricing, which is having the effect of driving into the export markets steel supplies urgently needed at home?
  The Prime Minister: This is a matter for the British Steel Corporation to handle.

  CENTRAL POLICY REVIEW STAFF
  Mr. Ewingasked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the future of the Central Policy Review body.
  The Prime Minister: The Central Policy Review Staff will continue to carry out the functions outlined for it in Cmnd 4506, "The Reorganisation of Central Government".
  Mr. Ewing: If the Central Policy Review body, because of the advice it is giving the Prime Minister and his right hon. and hon. Friends, is responsible for the economic state of the country, ought it not to go? If that organisation is not responsible and, therefore, the Government are responsible, is not the Prime

  585
  Minister guilty of the grossest incompetence we have ever seen from a Prime Minister, and ought he not to go?
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir.

  MINISTERIAL BROADCASTS
  Mr. Skinnerasked the Prime Minister what plans he has for further ministerial broadcasts.
  The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Goole (Dr. Marshall) on 22nd November.—[Vol. 864, c. 1545–6.]
  Mr. Skinner: If the Prime Minister decides to make a further ministerial broadcast in the near future on the energy crisis, will he explain to the nation, and in particular to the miners, since he failed to do this yesterday, why company directors can take up shares in lieu of dividends to avoid paying surtax at a possible rate of 90 per cent. and avoid capital gains tax to some degree, while an ordinary surface worker at a colliery can have only £2·30 a week, less tax, which probably comes to about £1·50?
  The Prime Minister: As for share ownership, we are endeavouring, through the Chancellor's last measures, to make it possible for those who work in industry to take part in owning shares in their firms. This we believe to be valuable.
  Mr. Adley: Will my right hon. Friend consider making a series of ministerial broadcasts so that the Leader of the Opposition may have the right of reply, on the basis that the more broadcasts the right hon. Gentleman makes the better it is for the Conservative Party?
  Mr. Eadie: Since the Prime Minister has just told us on the authority of the miners—a rather unusual situation—that they will vouch for his mental stability following a three-and-a-half hour meeting yesterday—and incidentally I have not heard any miner question his mental stability, which may give some comfort to him—[AN HON. MEMBER : "Cheap."] Yes, it is cheap. Can the right hon. Gentleman explain why he had a three-and-a-half-hour meeting with the miners' leaders? Was it to give them a lecture? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that
  586
  he is plunging the country into a very serious crisis by refusing to move in order to try to solve the very serious situation that the country is in at present?
  The Prime Minister: Yesterday's discussion was to deal not only with the arrangements for stage 3 but with the general economic considerations affecting the country at the moment. From this point of view it was a valuable exchange.

NATIONAL UNION OF MINEWORKERS (TALKS)
The Prime Minister: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement.
I invited the National Executive of the National Union of Mineworkers to meet me at 10 Downing Street yesterday. My right hon. Friends the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Secretary of Stale for Employment, and my hon. Friend the Minister for Industry were also present.
I explained to the national executive the economic background to the Government's counter-inflation policy. I said that if the country was to maintain growth and a high level of employment and to take advantage of the opportunities which were open to us in export markets, we needed all the production we could get, and particularly in present circumstances the maximum production of coal.
I reminded the national executive that the Government had demonstrated their confidence in the future of the industry by committing to it over £1,100 million of public money : £450 million to write off capital debt and accumulated deficit, and nearly £700 million to bring it up to date and improve the contribution which it could make to our prosperity.
I pointed out to them that, if one compared average weekly earnings in coalmining with average weekly earnings in manufacturing industry on the basis adopted by the Wilberforce Report, the NCB's full offer would more than restore the relative position of the coal miners established as a result of the Wilberforce recommendation.
I also pointed out that a settlement under stage 3 would not only restore the relative position of the coal miners and give them an improvement in their real standards of living but would also ensure

587
that these advantages were not subsequently eroded; whereas a settlement which went beyond stage 3 would inevitably lead to a free-for-all which would erode their gains as surely as the free-for-all after Wilberforce eroded the gains they secured from that.
Thus a settlement under stage 3 could be expected to help the coal industry to recruit and retain manpower—the need for which was strongly argued by the NUM executive.
I made it clear that there is no question of a settlement outside the terms of the Pay Code for stage, 3, which has been approved by Parliament.
Following our meeting, the national executive held a private meeting at 10 Downing Street and decided to maintain their overtime ban. I hope none the less that they and their members will give serious consideration to the points which I put to them. In the meantime the Government will continue to take whatever action is necessary to conserve the nation's energy supplies.
Mr. Harold Wilson: The nation will be saddened that the meeting at No. 10 led to no progress yesterday on the coal industry dispute. Will the right hon. Gentleman give the House an assurance that he will try to keep some degree of momentum going and authorise fresh negotiations to take place under his aegis? Failing that, since he has admitted that the Pay Board alone and not he himself has all the power that there is to decide these matters, will he encourage the National Coal Board and the National Union of Mineworkers to reach what they consider to be a realistic and responsible settlement and to submit it to the Pay Board so that if the Pay Board, which is unaccountable to Parliament, rejects it the country will then know who is responsible and why there is no settlement?
Arising out of the right hon. Gentleman's attitude yesterday as he has just described it, will he say what proposals he has not only to maintain manpower in the industry which is now falling at an annual rate of one-eighth of the total but to increase the manpower which is so essential if coal is to play a part in the future?
588
Finally, will the right hon. Gentleman say whether in his view the miners are breaking the law?
The Prime Minister: It is open to the miners to negotiate with the National Coal Board any changes that they wish to make within stage 3. The board has made this plain to them, and I explained it again to them yesterday. Within stage 3 they are free to negotiate. If they want to change any of the arrangements made so far in the offer, they are free to do that.
I am not prepared to urge the National Coal Board and the National Union of Mineworkers themselves to reach a settlement which would be outside stage 3. If I may say so, I hope that on further reflection the right hon. Gentleman will withdraw any suggestion that two responsible bodies should deliberately make a settlement which they believe to be outside stage 3 in order that the Pay Board might point out that it is outside the code and then that the Pay Board should be blamed for it. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will withdraw any such suggestion.
As for manpower, the recruiting figures are remaining steady, and they include a number of people who, I am glad to say, are returning to mining. As for those leaving the industry, the numbers have been fluctuating over past weeks. I have studied the figures carefully and, as I said in the debate, there is no doubt that one factor causing men to leave the pits is that they do not wish to lose overtime earnings, let alone the loss of earnings resulting from complete stoppages. They are interested in the security of the industry, and that has been assured by the commitment of money that the Government have made with parliamentary support. It is the taxpayers' money—£1,100 million of it—and it is there to show that the country has faith in the future of the coal industry.
The last part of the right hon. Gentleman's question raises a legal matter dealing with contracts of service about overtime which is used for maintenance. Here there is an important point, because I am advised that the overtime which is used for maintenance is part of the contract of service and is different from ordinary overtime.
Mr. Adam Butler: While I welcome the improvement in the relative position

589
of the miners which these proposals will give, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he considers seriously that any commitment can be given for the future to hold that relative position and preferably to improve it?
The Prime Minister: I discussed this yesterday with the miners' leaders, and it is what I described as an orderly improvement in incomes within the framework of stage 3 which will ensure this. It is the only way of ensuring that they maintain their position under stage 3. They are able to take advantage of many aspects which other groups of workers will not get, and the offer is already 13 per cent. If an efficiency agreement is negotiated, that will add another 3½ per cent. That will be self-balancing from the point of view of the national economy. This is a high figure. The only way of maintaining and, as my hon. Friend says, improving it is to carry on with the orderly improvement of incomes in this country.
Incidentally, in reply to the Leader of the Opposition, I believe that I referred to "overtime for maintenance "It is overtime for safety and maintenance which is involved.
Mr. Thorpe: Is the Prime Minister aware that the latest National Coal Board figures show that the net manpower losses in the last three quarters have been respectively 2,000, 5,000 and 7,000 miners? Do not those figures give the Prime Minister cause for concern? Has the right hon. Gentleman suggested to the union the possibility of an inquiry into future recruitment and security in the industry, possibly coupled with a moratorium on future closures for at least five to seven years? Is not the Prime Minister more likely to get an immediate settlement under stage 3 now if he gives some indication that the Government are giving consideration to the future security of those currently employed in the industry?
The Prime Minister: The offer made by the Coal Board puts miners not only back to the Wilberforce position compared with those in manufacturing industry but to a better-than-Wilberforce position. If the right hon. Gentleman is suggesting that the board should go even further and break stage 3, my reply is that he must indicate how we are to pre-
590
vent the leap-frogging that happened after Wilberforce.
Mr. Thorpe Mr. Thorpe indicated dissent.
The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman indicates that that is not his suggestion. If he wishes to keep stage 3, well and good. I am in entire agreement.
I told the miners' leaders yesterday that the National Coal Board is fully prepared to discuss with them the future of investment and manning in the coal industry. They discussed the arrangements which were made at the beginning of this year in which the Government accepted responsibility for finance. The NCB will discuss with them the future investment and manning in the coal industry. That means that stage 3 will not be broken, but the board will discuss the future.
Sir John Hall: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the problems in the coal industry is an outdated pay structure? Did he suggest to the NUM that there might be an opportunity now for a thorough-going review of the whole pay structure and career opportunities within the industry?
The Prime Minister: In referring to an outdated pay structure one is referring to a number of individual anomalies in the structure of the mining industry at the moment. In the negotiations between the NCB and the NUM, the union took advantage of the opportunity to remove some of those anomalies. The NUM is using its flexibility allowance to remove one of the holiday anomalies. It is also using the unsocial hours arrangement to put emphasis on higher pay for those on night shifts, an anomaly which it had previously said it wished to have removed. Therefore, already in stage 3 we are making progress in dealing with some aspects of the structure to which my hon. Friend referred.
If it is a question of the lower paid relative to the higher paid, within the total a different balance can be negotiated. The National Coal Board has told the NUM this already. Some unions are already doing it. It was done under stage 2 when the civil service unions involved deliberately accepted a lower proportion for the higher paid than for the lower paid. If the miners wish to do that, they are free to do so under stage 3.
Mr. Ogden: Will the Prime Minister bear in mind that the annual earnings of a coal miner are much less than might be thought from consideration of only his weekly earnings? That is because of accidents, injury and disease. Will he keep in mind the date, Monday, 10th December, which ought to be the beginning of the Christmas "bull" week? After that there will be a period until some time in January when it will be much less easy to get any settlement. Will he resist with all his power any pressure to order a compulsory ballot? The miners have their own way of telling their leaders when they want a ballot. Any ballot imposed from outside would be strongly resented.
The Prime Minister: I told the miners' leaders yesterday at the beginning of our discussions that they had their machinery for dealing with their own affairs and that it was for them to handle their own machinery. I did not propose to indicate to them in any way what they should do or how they should handle the situation. It was entirely a matter for them.
Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the present pay agreement with the NUM does not expire until March 1974? If so, does he agree that the people of this country should be forgiven for believing that this dispute is as much about politics as about remuneration for miners?
The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is correct; the present agreement does not expire until March 1974. The negotiation with the NCB is about what takes the place of stage 2 under stage 3 beginning in March 1974. My hon. Friend is absolutely right about this matter. I think that most people will agree that there is time ahead for negotiations without anybody trying to bring pressure on the National Coal Board.
Mr. Kelley: The right hon. Gentleman has made it clear to the House that he had no proposals whatever to make to the NUM yesterday. Will he take this opportunity to explain why the exercise was entered into in that case? Will he further give the House an opportunity to understand why, if he thinks a ballot is necessary to consult the miners about the future of this dispute, he should not take
592
the powers with which the law provides him to conduct a ballot?
The Prime Minister: I have already made plain that in my discussions with the miners' leaders yesterday I said it was for them to decide how they handled their own internal affairs. This they accepted absolutely and completely.
The miners' leaders and I agreed that the talks had been valuable because they enabled us to go over the whole ground. I much prefer that those who are concerned with matters of this kind, who represent an important element in our community, should understand fully the Government's views about this country's economic position and the counter-inflation policy.
Mr. Walters: Does my right hon. Friend accept that there is genuine concern and sympathy for the miners but that there is also deep concern about combating inflation without control of which the economic future of this country, including -hat of the miners, cannot be saved? Once the fairness of the offer is indicated I am sure that the country will support the Government's stand, and it is to be hoped that that will also influence the miners' decision.
The Prime Minister: In my statement I said that I hoped that the miners would give further consideration to the points which I made to them yesterday and to the answers which I gave to the varied questions which they put directly to me. I was glad to have the chance of giving them the answers to the questions which were in their minds.
Mr. McGuire: Is the Prime Minister aware that he has distorted the figures for wastage in the industry—a wastage which he suggests has been taking place since the prospect of an overtime ban was on the horizon? Men had been leaving the industry at a great pace long before that and will continue to do so. Does he agree that one of the most dangerous things to come out of this conflict is the proposition which has been floated, who governs the country? The right hon. Gentleman should ask himself the question : who will dig the coal that we shall need in future?
The Prime Minister: The lion. Gentleman is right that the wastage in the coal

593
industry did not begin recently. I said that according to figures for recent weeks this rise had taken place at this particular point. In the 5½ years of the Labour Government, 185,000 miners left the pits.
Mr. Burden: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the attitude of the Opposition regarding the 15 per cent. to the miners, who received a big increase early last year, is extraordinary when, during the period of the Labour Government, their wages and the wages of all workers were frozen for a considerable period and at no time increases of more than 4½ per cent. in a year were allowed until their last six months in office and they had not the powers to debar any particular group from getting increases whatsoever during their period of office?
The Prime Minister: As a matter of fact, looking at the comparison between miners and manufacturing industry, the miners reached their lowest point in the middle of 1970 just before this Government came into office. Taking the figures for 1960, for the Wilberforce award and for what is now offered under stage 3, the miners are in a better position under stage 3 than they were under Wilberforce or in 1960.
Mr. Skinner: Is the Prime Minister aware that, on the question of the five-day week agreement and maintaining safety, if the miners are breaking that agreement, it follows that as Head of the Government he should see to it that appropriate action is taken under the Industrial Relations Act, which provides certain measures which he can take? Why is he not doing that? Why does he not order the ballot? Is it like the situation that we had over the Common Market when he was quite happy to rely on full-hearted consent? Does that apply to Joe Gormley as well?
On the question of wastage, would not a reasonable Prime Minister look at his Department's statistics of a few days ago in HANSARD which showed that the work force in the mining industry had fallen from 267,000 to 250,000—not in the last few months but over the whole of the year?
Hon. Members: Too long.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I would point out to the hon. Gentleman that if he continues he will be simply cutting out some of his hon. Friends because there will not be time for them to ask supplementary questions.
Mr. Skinner: Finally, why is it that the Prime Minister was unable to tell the NUM executive yesterday why the NCB allows the Cementation Company and other private developers in the mining industry to pay £15 a day to men doing similar jobs to miners who receive £7 a day?
The Prime Minister: I am glad to say that this was not the manner in which the discussion yesterday was continued with the miners' leaders. Regarding action with the staff, it is a matter for the NCB to decide how best to deal with this situation. It is entirely in the hands of the NCB, and rightly so.
On the hon. Gentleman's last point, that matter was discussed at the meeting. It was pointed out to the miners' leaders, when discussing the particular case that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned several times in the House, that these are specialists employed by the NCB from time to time to do particular jobs. They work extremely long hours. They have none of the security or fringe benefits of those permanently employed in the mines. In no way is their position comparable. That was explained to the miners' leaders yesterday, and they accepted it.
Sir Harmar Nicholls: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the mood of the nation is in no way reflected by the excited partisan questions which have just been put to him? What the nation recognises is that there is a clear difference of view between the mineworkers and the Government and the NCB. They hope that the door is still left open for sense to prevail by continuing the talks which the Prime Minister had yesterday.
The Prime Minister: The NCB is perfectly ready to discuss with the NUM any negotiations that it wishes to discuss, within stage 3. It is perfectly prepared to discuss further with the NUM any particular points which the NUM wants to raise. I hope that if the NUM wishes to raise particular points, it will not hesitate to do so.
Mr. Ewing: Is the Prime Minister aware that there is a growing public feeling that the Government, and particularly the right hon. Gentleman, are not aware of the serious situation which is developing? Is the Prime Minister aware that the miners can take what is on offer at present and that because no one can make a person work overtime, the miners need not work overtime and, therefore, the fuel situation will be no better than it is at present in this state of emergency? Is the Prime Minister so determined to have a confrontation that he will carry on in this way?
The Prime Minister: There is no question of the Government or myself wanting any confrontation. The hon. Gentleman is distorting the truth if he is so suggesting. What is more, it is evident that the whole country realises that the Government have done everything possible to avoid any sort of confrontation. What the House and the country have to make up their minds about is whether stage 3, as approved by the House, is to be maintained—and the Government will maintain it.
Mr. Farr: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the resolute attitude which the Government have adopted so far in relation to this pay claim? I hope that this resolution will continue without qualification as these negotiations drag on in the future. Will my right hon. Friend give the House some indication whether he thought that the miners' leaders may possibly be agreeable, at an early date, to a voluntary ballot on their initiative?
The Prime Minister: Mr. Gormley, who presided at yesterday's meeting for the miners' leaders, has said publicly that he believes that the time has come when miners should ballot on the offer made to them by the NCB. Following the meeting held after my meeting with them at No. 10—which I was glad to offer them for this purpose—they announced that discussions took place in which the proposal for a ballot was made, but that the proposal was defeated.
Mr. John Mendelson: With regard to the suggestion made by one of the Prime Minister's hon. Friends that this is regarded as a political conflict, would not the Prime Minister be making a great
596
mistake if he ignored the opinion of many rank-and-file members of the NUM, who are profoundly convinced that this is not a political conflict but that the Government have allowed inflation to run ahead and are now using the majesty of the law and hiding behind the pay code to escape their responsibilities? Is it not, therefore, the Prime Minister's duty to allow the two sides to have further negotiations without let or hindrance from him, to see where the two sides can get? As a former Minister of Labour, does not the right hon. Gentleman see some wisdom in this position, instead of rigidly saying, "You cannot negotiate further because I say so"?
The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is completely misrepresenting the whole situation. The NCB and the NUM are free to negotiate any arrangement within the code for stage 3. If the hon. Gentleman is saying that there should be no code and no stage 3, he is entitled to argue that, as he was entitled to argue in the House previously. But Parliament has now approved it. It is the law of the land and it is the stage in which negotiations now take place. That is the situation, and it is quite clear.
Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Is the Prime Minister aware that when I was a young man I lived in as close a proximity to miners as many hon. Members on the Opposition benches who are as old as I am? I can remember the time when miners were badly paid and badly treated, and when large numbers of them were out of work. The people of this country now understand, appreciate and accept that the miners should now be among the best paid people in the community and that they should be properly treated and give a reasonable pay in crease. [HON. MEMBERS : "Too long."] The people also understand—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is getting very near to making a speech.
Mr. Lewis: I apologise, Mr. Speaker. The Government's offer to the miners is recognised by the people of this country to be reasonable.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must ask a question.
Mr. Dormand Mr. Dormand rose—
Mr. Speaker: Is the hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Dormand) seeking to ask a supplementary question?
Mr. Dormand: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Is not the central issue of this dispute that by the very nature of the dangerous and disagreeable work that miners have to do, apart from our dire need for coal at present, they should for the foreseeable future be at the top of the industrial wages scale? Will the Prime Minister cut out the verbiage and turn his attention to ensuring that they are?
The Prime Minister: It is not for me to decide who should be at the top of the range of industrial earnings in this country. What I have said is that under the offer made by the NCB the miners will be put, comparably, in a better position than they were after the Wilberforce award. That is the position on the figures that have been offered.
Mr. Benn: Will the Prime Minister confirm that the only law passed by Parliament which is involved in this matter is not the pay and price code, which does not have the force of law, but the powers given to the Pay Board to make an order in the event of a settlement exceeding phase 3? As no order has been made, the miners are not in breach of the law. Secondly, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that, with regard to the safety overtime, this could be in breach of the law only if the NCB brought a complaint under the Industrial Relations Act?
Thirdly, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that under the legislation which Parliament has passed Ministers have the power to override the Pay Board at any time they choose? As the Fuel and Electricity (Control) Bill, which we shall be debating today, takes away the power from the Price Commission by controlling the price of oil, would not it be sensible for Ministers now to assume direct responsibility, on the same basis, for the pay of miners, and to settle on a fair basis?
The Prime Minister: No, Sir, it would not. If the right hon. Gentleman is asking for a fair basis, the offer which has been made by the NCB is by any criterion not only fair but generous. If the right hon. Gentleman is suggesting that, in an economy which has an expansion rate of 4 per cent.—one of the highest rates of
598
expansion for a decade—there can be wage increases of 16 per cent. right across the economy, then he is quite wrong. I was asked about Ministers taking powers to exempt coal miners from the law. [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman explained the position as regards Ministers' powers and asked whether miners should be exempt, to which I reply, "No", because it would be impossible in this situation, with an offer of this size, to maintain a counter-inflationary policy if they were exempt. That is the justification for not making the change which he suggested.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Harold Wilson: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will state the business for next week?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr James Prior): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows :
MONDAY 3RD DECEMBER—Supply (3rd Allotted Day): Debate on a motion to take note of the eight reports from the Committee of Public Accounts in Session 1972–73, and the related departmental reports. Proceedings on the International Sugar Organisation Bill.
TUESDAY 4TH DECEMBER—Supply (4th Allotted Day): Opposition motion on the INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS Act 1971 and its damaging consequences. Motion on the Grenada Termination of Association Order.
WEDNESDAY 5TH DECEMBER—Second Reading of the Channel Tunnel Bill. Motion on the Companies (Fees) Regulations.
THURSDAY 6TH DECEMBERD—Debate on immigration and race relations, which will arise on a motion for the Adjournment of the House. Motions on the Northern Ireland Orders relating to Local Government Reorganisation, Emergency Provisions, and Appropriation (No. 3).
FRIDAY 7TH DECEMBER—Private Members' Motions.
MONDAY 10TH DECEMBER—Until Seven o'clock. Private Members' Motions. Afterwards, motion to approve the Sixth Report of the House of Commons (Services) Committee, 1972–73, on the landscaping of NEW PALACE YARD.
Mr. Wilson: Now that the Government have published at £4.15 this volume, Import Duties (General) (No. 8) Order 1973, which is really a manual of inflation setting out the harmonisation of British tariffs with the EEC and will have a serious effect on food prices and inflation generally, will the right hon. Gentleman undertake that we shall have a full debate in Government time of these very far-reaching changes in taxation which will affect every household in the land?
Mr. Prior: Without accepting the preamble to what the right hon. Gentleman said I would say that some tariffs are up and some are down under this order. No Prayer has so far been tabled on this order, but if one is tabled perhaps we can then consider how best to proceed.
Mr. Wilson: I did not understand the last words of the right hon. Gentleman. Clearly, it would not be good enough to have a debate on a Prayer lasting one-and-a-half hours at the end of the day. Am I to understand the right hon. Gentleman's last words to mean that if a Prayer is tabled he will be prepared to have talks through the usual channels to see whether a longer debate in Government time can be provided? Is that what he meant?
Mr. Prior: I must tell the right hon. Gentleman that in the immediate future the opportunities for a debate during the course of the day are very strictly limited. There is at the moment some free time after 10 o'clock, and we shall have to consider how best to use the time that we have available.
Mr. Wilson: This really is not good enough. This is a very voluminous and important document affecting the cost of living of every family in the land. Surely the right hon. Gentleman does not really think that he can sneak it through after 10 o'clock at night without a full debate. If he has got his timetable into a mess, that is no responsibility of the House or of those who will suffer under this volume.
Mr. Prior: I do not accept in any way what the right hon. Gentleman has said. But, as regards a debate, no Prayer relating to this order has so far been tabled. We can discuss this matter
600
through the usual channels, but I must warn the House that the time between now and the Christmas Recess is very limited.
Dame Irene Ward: May I ask my right hon. Friend, as he was so kind in saying last Thursday that he would look at the matter of the future of the Kielder Dam, when we might expect an order? I am very grateful to him, and I shall be glad to know whether he can now tell me when an order will be laid.
Mr. Prior: No, I cannot yet tell my hon. Friend when an order will be laid, because my inquiries are not complete. But I can assure her that I have made inquiries and am continuing to make inquiries, and am pressing the matter very strongly.
Mr. Spearing: Is the Leader of the House aware that between now and the end of the month the generalised scheme of preferences for the EEC has to be agreed? Will he now undertake that there will be time between now and the end of this sitting to debate that matter in this House, in view of the fact that he has kindly given us three hours on Monday to debate the landscaping of New Palace Yard?
Mr. Prior: I will consider what the hon. Gentleman has said. Is he asking for more time for what his right hon. Friend has already asked me about this afternoon? If so, I must give him the same reply.
Mr. Spearing: No.
Mr. David Mitchell: Can my right hon. Friend give me an assurance that there will be adequate time for a Prayer on the Local Government (Successor Parishes) Order?
Mr. Prior: Yes, Sir. I have promised that there will be time for a Prayer on this important order. I hope that it may be possible to have it the week after next.
Mr. Marks: May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to the proceedings of Standing Committee A on the Local Government Bill? The presentation of this Bill has been greatly delayed by the Government, and, apparently, the Government now expect the Committee to get through its work in three-and-a-half weeks, although local

601
authorities and hon. Members have not had sufficient time to consider it. Will he see to it that the Committee gets adequate time, and that there will be at least a two-day Report stage on this Bill?
Mr. Prior: I am certain that the Committee will have all the time it requires. I think it is a little unfair to say that there has not been consultation on this Bill with local authorities, because consultation has been going on for a very long while.
Mr. Ronald Bell: The Import Duties (General) (No. 8) Order clearly cannot be debated in one-and-a-half hours but it should be debated before 1st January. So can my right hon. Friend say whether his reference to a shortage of time during the day between now and Christmas relates also to Opposition Supply Days, or whether a Supply Day could be used for that purpose before the Christmas Recess? If so, will he use his influence with the Opposition, which is very great, to ensure that that happens?
Mr. Prior: Without in any way wishing to comment on the latter part of what my hon. and learned Friend has said, there are Supply Days and, of course, they are available for any subject which the Opposition like to put down.
Mr. Maclennan: Can the Leader of the House say in what form, and when, the Government will make known their preliminary thinking upon the Kilbrandon Report? Also, shall we have a statement on this report prior to a general debate in the House?
Mr. Prior: I should like to consider what the hon. Gentleman has said, but, at the moment, we think we should give a period for quiet consultation and discussion of the Kilbrandon Report before the Government make any statement to the House and before we consider having a debate.
Mr. Michael Shaw: While welcoming the preservation and development of existing railway lines, certainly in my own constituency, may I ask whether my right hon. Friend realises that there are worrying implications with regard to the development of certain very necessary roads in the north of Yorkshire? In particular, there ought to be a statement as early as
602
possible giving a firm date for the much-delayed and very vital Malton bypass.
Mr. Prior: This is a matter which I will bring to the notice of my right hon. Friend. All I can tell my hon. Friend is that I notice that everyone is much in favour of cutting Government expenditure in general, until it relates to something in their own constituency.
Mr. Orme: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the early day motion on the conduct of Sir John Donaldson and requesting a Select Committee?
[That a Select Committee be appointed to consider the presentation of an humble Address to the Crown praying for the dismissal of Sir John Donaldson, High Court judge and President of the National Industrial Relations Court, by reason of his Court's action in sequestrating £75,000 from the political fund of the engineering section of the Amalgamated Union of Engineering Workers, which is the fund as laid down by section 3, subsection (3) of the Trade Union Act 1913, and not the fund used for the day-to-day operation of the Union, and thereby ensuring that the punishment was solely inflicted on the Union's political activities, namely, support given to the Labour Party and financial assistance rendered to the constituency parties of the Members of Parliament who are also members of that union for their election campaigns and routine organisation, because, if Sir John Donaldson was not aware of this action, he is guilty of gross negligence and incompetence and if he was aware then it was an act of political prejudice and partiality.]
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it has now attracted 180 signatures and, with the amendment, a total of 314—virtually 50 per cent. of the elected Members? Because of this pressure and interest within the House and in the country, does he not feel that the Government are obliged to give him time so that this matter may be fully debated and resolved by the House?
Mr. Prior: No, Sir ; I do not think that the Government are obliged to give time for this motion.
Mr. Biggs-Davison: You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that yesterday—I make no criticism of your decision—you ruled that we should not discuss the new security situation in Northern Ireland. Is the Leader of the House aware that yesterday the Secretary of State was discussing this matter with politicians in Northern Ireland, who are not now, unfortunately, responsible for security, whereas no Northern Ireland Minister—although one was present on the

603
Treasury Bench—made any statement to this House? Will my right hon. Friend make a statement next week on the improvement of the means by which this House may be kept informed of the security of Northern Ireland, for which it is responsible?
Mr. Prior: I think that there will be certain opportunities for debates on Northern Ireland matters in the near future. I will convey what my hon. Friend has said to my right hon. Friend.
Mr. Jay: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the import duties order involves a whole budget of tax changes, including a number of food taxes? Would it not be outrageous to have less than at least one day's debate on this matter?
Mr. Prior: This is a matter which could be debated as a Prayer, or other time could be found for it. All that I am telling the House is that I can see no early prospect of a debate in Government time. I would refer the right hon. Gentleman to the suggestion of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell).
Mr. Farr: May I remind my right hon. Friend that it is nearly four years since the House had a general debate on agriculture, which we used to debate annually, a month or two before the price review? Could he make arrangements for an early general debate on this subject? Second, in view of the transport difficulties, can he yet give the House some idea when the Christmas Recess is likely to begin?
Mr. Prior: I will try to make an announcement about the date of the recess in my business statement next week. I see no chance of a debate on agriculture in Government time in the near future. If my recollection serves me aright, debates on agriculture have nearly always been in Supply time.
Mr. Freeson: May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that it is now one and a half years since the Secretary of State for the Environment announced to the House the Government's intention to introduce legislation within a matter of months to deal with the scandal of office blocks being left empty in London—
604
such as Centre Point—to gain massive capital values? When can we expect a statement from the Government on what action they intend to take, bearing in mind that the capital values have now become an incredible and obscene scandal—having risen from £25 million to £48 million during the period that we have been waiting?
Mr. Prior: Some of these matters are relevant to the Committee stage of a Bill which is now in Standing Committee. As regards the other matters the hon. Member has raised, I will report them to my right hon. Friend.
Mr. Adam Butler: While one recognises the pressure of business on the House between now and the recess, could my right hon. Friend nevertheless fit in a debate on energy policy? If not, can he assure us that he will allow an opportunity for a debate before the final decision on nuclear reactors is taken?
Mr. Prior: I think that my right hon. Friend has given an assurance to the House that he would like there to be a debate before a final decision is reached, and I will certainly look at that question again. I must warn the House that the time between now and the Christmas Recess is very fully booked. We have already had a number of general debates this Session, with more to come. But, unless we are to leave breaking up for the recess until Christmas Day itself, we shall have to make some sacrifices.
Mr. C. Pannell: If the right hon. Gentleman cannot find time for the motion on the question of the President of the National Industrial Relations Court, will he represent to the Lord Chancellor that it is undesirable that the president of that court should make proclamations outside the court on matters which might be subject to appeal, in the way that he commented on his findings in the court to a meeting of accountants in Glasgow last week? This is most extraordinary, and The Guardian has referred to it as "bending the law". Will he look into that matter?
Mr. Prior: I must say that it is undesirable that this House, unless on a substantive motion that it wishes to debate—[AN HON. MEMBER : "You have one"]—should enter into this sort of controversy with regard to the law, which

605
we have always tried to keep separate from operations of this House.
Mr. John Wells: Can my right hon. Friend see to it that the motion on the day when we are discussing the grass patch in New Palace Yard is drawn sufficiently widely so that all domestic matters of the House can be discussed—for instance, the absurdity by which, at great public expense, a lot of curtains have been put up in the last few days in the HANSARD cubicles on the North Bridge and the young ladies who work there, arriving for the first time this morning, have removed them all?
Mr. Prior: No, Sir ; if we did allow debate to range that wide, we should get into the most ridiculous state of affairs discussing all these things on the Floor of the House. But I will note what my hon. Friend has said and see whether the Services Committee has any views on this point.
Mr. Ashton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are more than 300 signatures to Early Day Motion No. 49 regarding Sir John Donaldson? Is it not a dangerous state of affairs that a judge's character should be impugned in this way without his having a chance to defend himself before a Select Committe? Should not the right hon. Gentleman set up a Select Committee to look at the motion?
Mr. Prior: No, Sir. As I said last week, I think there is a lot to be said for the motion being taken off the Order Paper.
Mr. Faulds: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that, on a previous Thursday afternoon, he seemed to promise to expedite publication of the archaeological findings on the excavations in New Palace Yard? May we have these before Monday?
Mr. Prior: I will certainly see whether I can obtain that information for the hon. Gentleman. I know that an undertaking was given that we would try to obtain the necessary information, and I will try to follow it up. We have a few days before the debate takes place—it docs not take place until Monday week—so I will see what I can do.
Mr. S. C. Silkin: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the motion debatable tomorrow week calling on the Government to renew the right of individual
606
petition to the European Commission on Human Rights?
[To call attention to Her Majesty's Government's failure up to the present time to renew the right of individual petition to the European Commission on Human Rights; and to move, That this House, mindful of the importance of safeguarding the rights and fundamental freedoms of the citizen, and conscious that the right of individual petition under Article 25 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms is an essential part of the machinery for safeguarding those rights and freedoms, calls upon Her Majesty's Government forthwith to declare that the United Kingdom recognises, without limitation as to period, the competence of the European Commission to receive individual petitions against the United Kingdom under Article 25.]
Will a statement be made as to the Government's intentions this coming week? If not, when?
Mr. Prior: I must confess that I have not seen that motion. I will look into it and either write to the hon. and learned Gentleman or see that a statement is made.
Mr. Moate: Is it the Government's intention, ever, to seek approval of their White Paper on metrication?
Mr. Prior: We had a debate on metrication in the last Session. We have also since then had one or two orders on metrication which seemed to me to meet with the approval of the House. I therefore presume that my hon. Friend is reasonably satisfied.
Mr. Michael Foot: When does the right hon. Gentleman propose to fulfil his promise that we should have an early debate on the report of the Select Committee examining European legislation? Does he not appreciate that the necessity for that debate is made all the greater by his extraordinary answers about the possibility of a debate on the import duties order? On consideration, will he not agree that it would be impossible for this House to agree to depart for Christmas if we had not had a full debate on the wide range of new food taxes which are to be introduced on 1st January, and that it would be utterly impossible for the House—certainly, I

607
am sure that the Opposition would refuse—to deal with this matter in the trivial amount of time that he has suggested? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in making such a suggestion he merely appears to indicate that he has not understood at all what was the unanimous recommendation of the Select Committee on this subject? Will he, therefore, give us an assurance now that we shall have an early debate on the Select Committee's report and a full debate on the order which the Government—not the Opposition—are presenting to the House?
Mr. Prior: The hon. Gentleman is at fault here. The Prayer which we have discussed and the matters to which he has just alluded about the increase and reduction of tariffs are consequent upon our joining the EEC and are not, strictly speaking, European secondary legislation, which was the purpose of the considerations upstairs of the Select Committee. I have given an undertaking that the report of the Select Committee will be debated fully before Christmas. I think it would be for the convenience of the House if all the evidence were available before we had that debate. I understand that some of the evidence will not be printed and available until next week, and after that we can consider a suitable time for debate.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS
Dame Irene Ward: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would it be in order for the last few words of my Question No. 34 to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to be reprinted in accordance with what I originally requested? The words I wanted in the Question were "not borne by the individuals concerned". Is it necessary for me to say how the Question would read, or can I take it that it will be properly transcribed in HANSARD.
Mr. Speaker: I am obliged to the hon. Lady for having given me notice of her point of order. I understand that it arose from a misunderstanding of the Question at the Table Office, which is regretted. No doubt Ministers will be glad to hear that it is not the hon. Lady's intention to surcharge them per-
608
sonally and I will have regard to the point she has made.

PRIME MINISTER
Mr. Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. These are alarming times, and sometimes alarming situations require alarming actions, and the request I am making to you is, to some extent, a matter for you and one in which you ought personally to involve yourself.
You will no doubt have read or heard today, certainly in the exchanges which took place at Question Time, about the alarming statement made by a Privy Councillor and an ex-Minister of Health about the Prime Minister's so-called "emotional instability", etc. [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Skinner: I have not finished yet.
Mr. Speaker: Order. May I try to help the hon. Gentleman? If he is dealing with a speech made outside the House, it is nothing to do with me.
Mr. Skinner: But it is, Mr. Speaker. If you will bear with me, I will now draw your attention not to any further comments or references in the speech by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), but to Section 137 of the Mental Health Act 1959, which deals with the question of a Member of Parliament's mental instability and his right to sit in this House.
Under Section 137, you have the power to appoint through the Royal College of Physicians, two specialists in mental disorder to decide upon the mental stability of any Member of this House, and I suggest that in view of the allegations which have been made by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, who is a Privy Councillor and an ex-Minister of Health, about the mental instability of the Prime Minister, it might well be an occasion for you to take notice of that section and to act on the matter.
Mr. Speaker: I think the hon. Gentleman is trying to coax me on to very dangerous ground. I have frequently heard remarks by hon. Members about

609
the mental health of other hon. Members. Once I start getting involved in that sort of thing, I am getting into trouble-However, I will read Section 137 of the Mental Health Act 1959.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  MERCHANT SHIPPING BILL
  Order for Second Reading read
  4.25 p.m.
  The Minister for Aerospace and Shipping (Mr. Michael Heseltine): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The Bill deals with a number of separate matters with little in common except that they are of immense concern to our merchant shipping industry. I want to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the industry. Snipping is not a common feature of our debates, and opportunities such as this are all too rare. Nevertheless, shipping is one of our largest industries. Its contribution to our balance of payments is of vital importance, amounting, depending on how one does the calculation, to between £300 million and £440 million a year.
  Profitability in shipping has tended to be somewhat patchy in recent years compared with other industries, but I know that the industry itself is very conscious of this fact and is seeking remedies. British shipowners have equipped themselves with one of the most modern and competitive fleets in the world, and it is still growing steadily in overall tonnage. Much of the growth of our merchant marine and that of other countries represents an enlargement of the tanker fleet and with that enlargement has come increased concern about marine oil pollution.
  The industry has closely co-operated with the Government concerning the means to reduce the pollution risks that are inherent in this growth. It has therefore played its part in the development of the oil pollution provisions which form the first two parts of the Bill.
  Part I gives power to the International Convention on the Establishment of an International Fund for Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage 1971. Hon. Members will recall that the grounding in 1967 of the giant tanker "Torrey Canyon" caused severe oil pollution damage to our coastline and very heavy clean-up costs, which fell upon the Government at the time. Certainly, as a West Country Member I recall all too clearly the threat inherent in this event. The total cost of this

  611
  incident alone to the United Kingdom far exceeded the amount to which the owner of the ship might have been able to limit his liability under the prevailing international convention. It was clear—the need was dramatically revealed—that a change in international law was therefore overdue.
  As a first step, the International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage was drawn up in 1969. It raised the limit of the shipowner's liability and introduced compulsory insurance for oil tankers. But the new limit of the shipowner's liability, although higher than that in the previous convention, was still not high enough to ensure full compensation in every case, while the exemptions from liability could cause some injured parties to receive no compensation at all.
  As a result, the Fund Convention to which this Bill gives effect was negotiated in 1971. This convention would require persons receiving crude or fuel oil by sea to make payments proportionate to the amount of oil received into an international fund. The fund would be available to provide compensation for oil pollution damage to claimants, who of course would usually be States, in contracting countries in three cases—first, where the shipowner was not liable ; second, where the shipowner and his guarantor had failed to meet their liability ; and third, where the damage exceeded the limit of the shipowner's liability.
  The fund would have the secondary function of relieving shipowners of part of the additional liability imposed by the 1969 convention, subject to conditions designed to ensure compliance with international safety standards. The fund would pay compensation up to a maximum of £14 million in respect of any one incident but the Assembly of the fund could agree to raise this ceiling of £14 million to £28 million in respect of any one incident.
  The Liability and Fund Conventions thus provide an interlocking system of shipowner liability, compulsory insurance and an international compensation fund which will provide comprehensive cover for victims of oil pollution arising from identified ships. In the event of a major
  612
  oil pollution incident which might exceed the limit of a shipowner's liability, compensation by the fund would have the effect of relieving the Exchequer in full of the cost of clean-up operations, subject to the limit which I have mentioned of £14 million in respect of any one incident.
  The conventions are understood to be welcomed generally by Governments, and in some countries legislation has already been introduced to give effect to them. It is expected that both conventions will come into force in late 1974, provided that sufficient States, together receiving 750 million tons of oil, have ratified them.
  Part II is similarly concerned with pollution of the sea by oil but its purpose is to limit the extent of pollution in the event of a casualty of a tanker by collision or stranding. Over the last few years the size of tankers has increased enormously so that ships of a quarter of a million tons deadweight, unheard of five years ago, are now almost commonplace and there are ships of almost half a million tons deadweight. As the size of the ships has increased so has the volume of the tanks in which they carried their cargo of oil. It has become increasingly manifest that unless some limitation is placed on the size of individual tanks a large ship suffering a collision or running aground could produce a pollution incident of catastrophic proportions.
  Largely on the initiative of the United Kingdom, discussions were therefore opened in the Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative Organisation as to how this potential spillage could be controlled. A balance had to be achieved between elimination of the pollution risk and the economies of tanker operation. The conclusions reached were adopted by the Seventh Assembly of IMCO in October 1971 as amendments to the International Convention for the Prevention of the Pollution of the Sea by Oil 1954. They represent a major step forward in the war against oil pollution.
  Bearing in mind the often lengthy period which elapses between conventions being ratified and coming into force, the amendments obviously could take a considerable time. However, Governments were urged to apply these new constructional requirements to their own merchant fleets at the earliest possible date.

  613
  They were to be applied in general to new ships, that is to say ships for which a contract was placed after 1st January 1972, or, in the absence of a building contract, whose construction was commenced after 30th June 1972, and to all ships delivered after 1st January 1977. My Department warned the United Kingdom shipping industry before the end of 1971 of the Government's intention to implement the proposals as soon as an opportunity could be found for the necessary legislation.
  A further feature of the IMCO resolution was that Governments should take powers to deny the entry into their ports of any oil tanker which ought to comply with the new requirements but was believed not to do so. Whilst the unilateral exercise of such a power could work to the detriment of the State concerned, concerted action by the major maritime nations would mean that a ship not constructed in accordance with the requirements would have such a limited scope for operation as not to present a viable proposition.
  Hon. Members may be aware of the International Conference on Marine Pollution, whose four weeks of concentrated work culminated earlier this month in the conclusion of a new convention covering pollution not only by oil, but by other noxious substances carried in ships, and also sewage and garbage. I know that the whole House will join me in welcoming the success of this important IMCO Conference in which the United Kingdom delegation played a notable part. There is a growing concern everywhere about the problem of controlling discharges from ships, whether of oil or chemicals or even the plastic cups which are thrown overboard from cross-Channel ferries.
  The new convention, which was arrived at at Church House earlier this month, marks a major step forward and it will in due course replace the 1954 convention. While the United Kingdom will sign the new convention shortly, it will inevitably be some years before it is ratified and it will at that point be necessary to bring before this House further legislation to implement it fully.
  In one respect, however, the Bill now before the House will be bringing pro-
  614
  visions in the new convention into force because the requirements as to tank sizes and arrangements have been embodied in the new convention in substantially the same forms which were adopted in the 1971 amendments. The provisions in this Part of the Bill are of an enabling nature and the timing of their coming into force will need careful thought. It is the Government's intention that they shall be brought into force soon, but we shall need to be satisfied that in doing so we shall not be placing the United Kingdom marine fleets at a competitive disadvantage.
  I turn now to Part III of the Bill dealing with the protection of British shipping and trading interests. In recent years a number of foreign Governments have resorted to the economic regulation of international shipping trading to their countries through a variety of measures designed either to promote the carriage of goods in their own ships—commonly referred to as flag discrimination—or to influence freight rates in the interests of their own exports.
  We continue to believe that the common interest of all countries in the efficient carriage of world sea-borne trade is best served where exporters have the freedom to choose the service which suits them best and are not compelled by law to support a particular flag. Where such matters as the level of freight rates and the frequency of services are left to the commercial interests, that we believe is likely to produce the most beneficial long-term results. We think this is as true for countries just beginning to develop their merchant marines as it is for us.
  However, these views are not generally accepted throughout the world and unilateral intervention by Governments is increasing. Naturally when one Government intervenes to regulate some aspect of an international shipping service it does so in pursuit of its own national interest which is unlikely to coincide with that of other countries equally involved in the trade concerned. As a result our shipping lines tend to suffer, as they have done through flag discrimination, or our trading interests may be penalised because an artificially low freight rate for someone else's exports will mean that a higher rate will have to be charged for our own exports if the service is not to deteriorate.

  615
  We do not wish to engage in the economic regulation of international shipping services ; and indeed if many Governments resorted to it, a chaotic situation of conflicting controls would quickly ensue. But as long as we do not regulate ourselves and cannot offset the pre-emptive actions of others, our shipping lines and traders are vulnerable to unilateral regulation of this kind.
  We feel that the time has come to provide some protection to these interests, and this is what Part III of the Bill would enable us to provide. Many other maritime countries have contingency powers of this sort, and we have discussed with other Governments of Western Europe and Japan the various powers which are now contained in this Bill. The Chamber of Shipping and the British Shippers' Council fully endorse the need for powers of this kind. It is our hope that knowledge of their existence will provide us or our shipowners with valuable background support during negotiations or consultations with another Government whose intervention is harmful to our interests. We expect, and indeed hope, that the powers in this part of the Bill will rarely be used, and certainly not without an attempt to reach a solution through commercial and diplomatic channels. We shall, however, not hesitate to use them if necessary in the last resort.
  I should like to emphasise that these powers are essentially defensive. They will normally come into play only when we are in some way attacked and our national interests suffer. Moreover, the foreign Governments' measures must affect the carriage of goods by sea. We are not concerned here to deal with difficulties in trade caused by dumping of goods or quota restrictions or matters generally of the kind covered by GATT.
  Mr. Simon Wingfield Digby: Has there been any consultation with our partners in the European Communities about the matter?
  Mr. Heseltine: We have had wide consultations with overseas Governments. The policies of the EEC do not regulate shipping, so consultation within the Community as a Community has not been carried out, but countries within the
  616
  EEC which have shipping interests have certainly been involved in discussions with us.
  As I have said, we are not concerned here to deal with difficulties in trade caused by dumping of goods or quota restrictions or matters generally of the kind covered by GATT. They are dealt with by other legislation. But it is also provided in Clause 14(1)(b) that the powers may be used even when our own interests are not directly affected, to fulfil an international obligation to another country whose shipping or trading interests are being damaged. We are not party to any such international agreement at present, but the clause recognises the value of co-ordinated action against flag discrimination and other similar practices and makes provision for giving effect to any such agreement should we enter into one in the future.
  Part IV deals, in addition to supplemental provisions, with three distinct matters, all of them involving amendment of the Merchant Shipping Acts.
  Clause 16 enables the Secretary of State to delegate certain statutory functions as to the survey and certification of merchant ships now carried out by the Department's marine surveyors. I am sure the whole House recognises the excellent way in which the Department's surveyors carry out important survey and inspection functions which play an important part in ensuring the high standards of safety of our merchant fleet.
  The Report of the Rochdale Committee of Inquiry into Shipping proposed the setting up of a marine authority independent of Government, which would have undertaken, among other things, the statutory survey functions now carried out by the Department's surveyors. The Government decided against adopting this recommendation : they were convinced that the Government should continue to take direct responsibility for marine safety and to play their full part, both in the formulation of standards internationally and nationally, and in ensuring that these standards were maintained.
  However, it was felt that it would be desirable to review the various functions carried out by the Department's marine surveyors to see whether there were some which could be entrusted to the surveyors

  617
  who are employed by Lloyd's Register of Shipping. There is ample precedent for this. The assignment of load lines—better known colloquially as the Plimsoll line—has for many years been entrusted to classification societies such as Lloyd's Register, and they also deal with statutory surveys for the issue of cargo ship safety construction certificates.
  Accordingly, a comprehensive review was carried out of the possibility of further delegation. It required detailed technical discussion, and for practical reasons and to ensure the maintenance of safety standards, it was decided to limit the discussions and the actual delegation resulting from them to one classification society only, Lloyd's Register of Shipping, which is responsible for the classification of by far the greater number of ships registered in the United Kingdom. It operates worldwide and has a deservedly high reputation. However, when the new arrangements have been in operation for some time, it is proposed to review them and to consider whether similar delegations might be made to other approved societies.
  Some seven areas have been identified as suitable for a measure of delegation : first, the measurement of tonnage ; secondly, the survey of certain parts of passenger ships which experience has shown to be relatively trouble free ; thirdly, the survey of the safety equipment of cargo ships; fourthly, the approval of stability information ; fifthly, the approval of grain stowage arrangements ; sixthly, the testing of materials intended for boilers, pressure vessels and other machinery, and the proving of testing machines ; seventhly, the approval of welding electrodes.
  Mr. James Johnson: Is not the Minister skipping over all this in too facile a fashion? A few minutes ago he quoted the Chamber of Shipping on his side of the argument. Is it not a fact that the Chamber of Shipping also wished to have a statutory, independent body? Why did he ignore it in that respect, as he has ignored many other institutions?
  Mr. Heseltine: I tried to explain that the decision about the establishment of an independent authority was carefully considered after the Rochdale inquiry, but the Government felt that safety in
  618
  this field should remain their direct responsibility, and they therefore rejected the idea that the whole of that work should be hived off. Other people may have had different views. It has always been our intention to consult where appropriate, and at the right time, people involved in the industry, and we have always done so. That does not mean that one can always agree with the people whom one consults and with whom one enjoys a close relationship, as many Governments have found.
  In some of the seven areas in which delegation is proposed, existing powers are adequate to permit functions to be exercised by organisations other than the Department, but in the case of passenger ships and the safety equipment of cargo ships, amendment of the Merchant Shipping Acts is necessary. This is what Clause 16 seeks to do. I would emphasise, however, that complete delegation is not envisaged in these two areas. In the case of passenger ships, the intention of the Department is to delegate only a part of the survey to Lloyd's Register. The Department itself will continue to play a major part in these surveys, which occur at annual intervals, and will always be responsible for the issue of the passenger and safety certificate which follows the survey. Part of the purpose is to eliminate an area of duplication in the examination and approval of plans, and a further part is to facilitate the practice of inspecting certain items of machinery and equipment on an opportunity basis during the 12-month period between consecutive surveys.
  As to the safety equipment of cargo ships, the intention is that the equipment of any one ship should be surveyed alternately by the Department and Lloyd's Register. The Department would always be responsible for the first survey when the ship comes into service, or first enters service on the United Kingdom register, so as to ensure that she is fully and properly equipped before she enters service. Details of the whole of the proposals for delegation to Lloyd's Register have been made known to the interested organisations in the shipping industry, and have recently been announced both in the House and to the Press.
  All these proposals have been formulated with great care. They were first discussed over a period of six months

  619
  between the Department and Lloyd's Register, in which there were ample opportunities for exchanges of views between the senior professional staff of both organisations. There was participation in the later meetings of the Steering Committee by the Chamber of Shipping, and once I had personally considered the proposals and discussed them with members of the Committee, they were communicated to all the seafarers' unions concerned last summer.
  I am convinced that the proposals will not have any adverse effect on our first-class maritime safety record. The scale of the delegation should not be over-exaggerated. The saving of effort for my Department's surveyors is the equivalent of about 20 men compared with a total force of just under 300. The time made available from delegation will be directed to other pressing requirements, including the survey of fishing vessels, and additional activities aimed at the prevention of marine pollution, including functions connected with the provisions in Part II. In this way I believe that the new provisions will in fact contribute to improving safety at sea and to protecting the marine environment
  Mr. A. P. Costain: Whose responsibility will be the safety of pilot ladders, on which I have had so much correspondence with my hon. Friend's Department? Will it be covered by the clause?
  Mr. Heseltine: I shall ask my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) to give my hon. Friend a detailed reply.
  My last point concerns submersibles. I need not remind hon. Members of the harrowing days which followed the sinking of the miniature submarine "Pisces III", before the two men trapped in it could be rescued. The report of the joint Department of Trade and Industry and Vickers' inquiry is about to be submitted. Whilst it may not prove necessary to introduce statutory rules for the safety of these craft forthwith, we are aware that the use of submersible apparatus of many different kinds is on the increase. In the light of the knowledge and experience we have gained since the "Pisces" incident, we feel it would be wise to take powers to make rules going beyond those which we
  620
  make for conventional shipping. We may also wish to bring within their scope submersible apparatus which, unlike the "Pisces", does not fall within the statutory definition of a ship. The Government have it in mind to introduce legislation which will enable the Secretary of State to make such rules. There will be an opportunity later to discuss the matter more fully. I do not think that it is appropriate for me to say anything further than that.
  I hope that the House will feel that the Bill is a valuable step forward in the support which we give to our merchant shipping fleet and in the ever-present battle which the House is anxious to wage against pollution at sea. I have great pleasure in asking the House to give the Bill a Second Reading.
  4.50 p.m.
  Mr. Roy Mason: At the outset I echo the tribute which the Minister paid to our shipping industry and to the seamen who man the vessels. I pay tribute in particular to the part that they are playing in the expansion of our trade and exports, and the fine record which they have achieved over many years.
  The Bill is divided into four parts. The first two parts are urgently necessary. I congratulate the Government on taking steps to ratify the 1971 Convention on the Establishment of an International Fund for Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage. I gather that that will allow the Government to ratify simultaneously the Civil Liability Convention and the Fund Convention during 1974. We have always been proud of giving a lead to international conventions concerning safety at sea and oil pollution. We hope that this part of the Bill will act as a spur to other maritime nations to follow suit quickly.
  The second part of the Bill deals with proposed changes in oil tanker design, especially the size, design and positioning of tanks in oil tankers. That is welcome on the grounds of safety and the prevention of oil pollution.
  The third part represents an unusual step for a British Government to take. The Government are taking the necessary legislative powers to step in and to act to protect our trade and shipping interests if they have reason to believe that they are being endangered. That is strange

  621
  because it implies that we are shifting from our long-held belief in trade liberalisation and our desire for the maximum freedom for shipping. There must be some frightening trends away from the traditional freedom of the seas and concern about continuing collaboration of the major merchant maritime nations for the Chamber of Shipping as well as the Government to agree to take such a step. The matter is worthy of some analysis. The Minister has given briefly some of his reasoning behind this legislative request. I will return to that matter later.
  The fourth part of the Bill smacks of Conservative political philosophy entering the arena of shipping and safety at sea. That is not welcomed on this side of the House. It is because of our fundamental disagreement with that part of the Bill that we shall be dividing the House.
  The Bill proposes the establishment of an international fund for compensation for oil pollution damage. That has arisen, it is suggested, because of the numerous major oil spillages caused by tanker accidents, collisions, bad navigation and explosions among the many oil tanker fleets of the world. We see the frightening growth of super-tankers. They are now being built up to 500,000 tons. Tankers of 200,000 tons are becoming commonplace. The major oil spillage caused by the "Torrey Canyon" gave some impetus to the establishment of an international compensation fund. It gave IMCO the necessary backing and evidence which it required to move maritime nations along that path.
  There has been a step by step or evolutionary process concerning, first, TOVALOP, the Tanker Owners Voluntary Agreement concerning Liability for Oil Pollution, and CRISTAL, the Contract Regarding an Interim Supplement to Tanker Liability for Oil Pollution. Perhaps the Minister will indicate how the prospective international fund will cater for or embody these agreements.
  The necessity for the fund and for Britain to be covered in such a way is shown by our annual total imports of more than 125 million tons of oil valued at £1,168 million. The oil is brought into ports such as London, Milford, Southampton, Liverpool, Immingham, Middles-
  622
  brough and Greenock. We receive the major portion of that tonnage at those ports. Therefore, all our coastline is vulnerable in the event of a major oil tanker spillage. That is why there is still some concern at the increasing size of tankers, their vulnerability in collision and the vast tonnages of oil which may be released into the seas or harbours and threaten enormous stretches of coastline.
  The second part of the Bill deals with the limitation of tank size in oil tankers. It is a sensible technical change to lessen the danger of oil spillages if tankers are involved in groundings or collisions. Such a step is urgently necessary. I know that the Chamber of Shipping not only would welcome early implementation of the internationally agreed tank size regulations but would be pleased if the Governments concerned would apply the regulations simultaneously so that the timing of each maritime nation's legislation does not give any nation's ships an unfair advantage. I hope that there will be consultation between the principal maritime nations to agree upon a common date for the introduction of the regulations. Many United Kingdom tanker owners, in anticipation of the legislation, are designing their new ships accordingly. I notice that all tankers visiting our ports will have to conform to the new requirements. That, too, is welcome.
  What of Part III? The legislation to meet flag discrimination and most other acts by foreign Governments which adversely affect our trade or shipping interests would give the Minister general and sweeping powers. He has described them as contingency powers, but I understand that specific orders will be subject to further consultation with trade and shipping interests—I hope the Minister will ensure that trade unions are involved—and will be contained in a statutory instrument, subject to approval by the House.
  We must recognise that there are major changes taking place in shipping practice in the use of the high seas and the sea bed. Many of these practices flout the international law of the sea. The trends must be recognised. There is the growth of small coastal States with their own shipping laws, the alarming rise of flag of convenience fleets and the growing strength of the Soviet merchant marine. There is the super-tanker monopoly of the

  623
  Japanese, and the unilateral acts of many coastal States to extend their territorial limits and to establish economic or resource zones. There is the threat to free movement through hitherto internationally recognised sea lanes and narrow straits. There is the undersea mineral war waged by those who are trying rapidly to exploit the resources of the sea bed. The shipping conferences traditionally have tried with the major maritime nations to regulate freight rates. The rates are becoming increasingly ignored. Chaos is growing on the high seas. The slow, cumbersome machinery responsible for agreed legal change is being shattered as each State goes its own way to strengthen its trade, economic or shipping interests.
  The growth of the flag of convenience fleets disturbs me and most of the established maritime nations. In the last decade they have grown at more than twice the rate of the world fleet. Almost 20 per cent. of the world fleet is now registered under flags of conveniece. In 1958 there were four main States—namely, Panama, Liberia, Costa Rica and Honduras. There are now eight main States. There has been the addition of Lebanon, Cyprus, Singapore and Somalia, plus the growth of tax havens such as Bermuda and the Bahamas. The flag of convenience fleets are mushrooming as a result of transfers of tonnage.
  Flag of convenience fleets are growing for fiscal reasons. They can easily get on the register, and taxes on the income from ships are either not levied or are very low. The fleets have guarantees of freedom from taxation, and often it is unnecessary to them to submit tax returns. That is the attraction of the flag of convenience.
  The Cyprus flag fleet grew by nearly 1 million tons during last year and now ranks above the fleets of such traditional maritime States as India and Australia. The Singapore fleet has more than doubled, from 900,000 tons to 2 million tons. The Somalia Republic—never before a maritime State—has 1,613,000 tons and added 740,000 tons last year. Liberia now has 50 million tons and has recently added 5½ million tons. Panama has a total fleet of 9·6 million tons and has recently added another 1·8 million tons. As an example of the switch of tonnage, the flag fleet of West Germany dropped last year by more than 600,000 tons, although at the same
  624
  time the leading fleets of the world were growing.
  The construction trend is also disturbing. Of a total of more than 22 million gross tons, nearly 20 per cent. is for registration in Liberia, Panama, Singapore and Somalia. That is a serious and dangerous trend.
  The principal advantage for shipowners of using flags of convenience lies in the saving in crew costs. To take America as an example—although this applies also to the British merchant marine—America has to pay the American agreed rates. The labour costs of a United States-manned ship are two-and-a-half times those of an Italian-manned ship, and the labour costs of an Italian vessel are 30 per cent. higher than those of some flag of convenience countries. From this it can be seen that it is advantageous to switch tonnage in order to compete.
  Then there is the problem of lower manning scales. These are kept high by the traditional maritime nations by agreement with the trade unions. That is exactly our position. The lower manning scales in the flag of convenience fleets often threaten the safety of the men and the vessels. Between 1950 and 1970 Liberian losses were twice as high in proportion to the size of fleet as those of the Western nations. The losses of the Panamanian fleet were three times as high and those of the Cypriot fleet much worse.
  Another major danger is that flag of convenience owners are in the forefront of super-tanker and bulk carrier development—naturally so, when their operations are made so much easier and cheaper by ignoring safety and manning scales. Consequently, a growing percentage of shipping, especially large tankers, is becoming a safety hazard. These fleets are increasingly threatening the safety of seafarers and their ships and others on the high seas, and the countries and the shores they frequent and pass.
  Invariably, the flag of convenience States like Liberia, Panama and Cyprus either fail to ratify or delay ratification of the international conventions that are approved by IMCO and most traditional snipping nations. Many individual countries are trying to discourage the growth of these relatively unsafe, low-tax fleets

  625
  by legislation which forbids the transference of tonnage. Because flag of convenience fleets are giving rise to unfair competition resulting from unfair trading and their special economic advantage, and because they constitute a threat to the maritime community as a whole through inadequate safety standards, Part III of the Bill is regrettably necessary.
  In Part IV, the hiving-off provisions represent another and more subtle and sophisticated example of the Government's desire to pander to the private sector by delegating or hiving off to it another part of the Government's traditional operations. This is serious. It concerns safety at sea. The Government intend to hive off the Department of Trade and Industry surveyors and a portion of their work to Lloyd's Register, a private company made up of shipowners, insurers and shipbuilders and the likely providers of the equipment which is to be the subject of their own safety surveys.
  I am disturbed about the history of this change. The Government kept all the unions in complete ignorance of the change although it concerned the safety of their members and their seamen. The unions were just informed, never consulted. The Government seem to think that the conveying of information is consultation. No wonder the Government bludered into their version of the Industrial Relations Act. No wonder that all the trade unions hate the Government's presence and interference in trade union affairs if on legislation affecting the unions and their membership they work in this way.
  The British Seafarers' Joint Council, which includes the Mercantile Marine Service Association, the Amalgamated Engineering Unions Federation, the Boilermakers' Union, the Merchant Navy and Airline Officers' Association, the Radio and Electronic Officers' Union and the National Union of Seamen, bitterly complains about this proposed measure.
  Mr. Michael Heseltine: The right hon. Gentleman might perhaps explain how long it took all the organisations to which he has referred to complain after they had received a letter from me explaining the outline of what I had in mind.
  Mr. Mason: I do not know what was the time lag.
  Mr. Heseltine: May I help the right hon. Gentleman? The unions received my letter on 28th June and I received their complaint on 29th October.
  Mr. Mason: Their reaction would be partly of frustration and anger. It is easy for the Minister to draw together the Chamber of Shipping interests and others in his office at his whim or command at any time he wishes. Most of these major trade unions have operations abroad and on the high seas, and it takes time for the British Seafarers' Joint Council and all the trade unions I have mentioned to get together to formulate a reply to the Minister. No doubt that was the reason for the delay.
  Mr. Heseltine: The right hon. Gentleman would agree, I think, that if the matter is as serious as he has described it to be it is inconceivable that I should have received two acknowledgments to my letter which contained no reference to the severity of the problem he mentions, no acknowldegment from the three other unions and then, some months later, a joint protest.
  Mr. Mason: I am sorry that the Minister does not seem to understand. Instead of acting separately, it was better for the trade unions to come together in the British Seafarers' Joint Council, to consult, to come to an agreed view and to present a proper memorandum to the Minister explaining why they objected.
  Mr. Heseltine: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman might give me one other example of a major piece of hiving-off being proposed when it took four months to react to the proposal?
  Mr. Mason: I have tried to explain, but the hon. Gentleman does not understand. He should know that so many unions are involved whose leaders go out on International Transport Federation work that it takes time before they can come together jointly to make recommendations to him. This is not a laughing matter ; it involves safety at sea.
  Mr. Heseltine: Synthetic rubbish.
  Mr. Mason: I will tell the Minister why it is not "synthetic". All the maritime unions are internationally proud of

  627
  the Department's independent professional marine surveyors. They feel that they have set a standard of safety at sea unparalleled by any other nation. The surveyors are free from commercial pressure, and enjoy the full confidence of all seafarers. The unions feel—and the Minister knows this because he has been sent documentation on it—that all this is now in jeopardy.
  I do not want to denigrate Lloyd's Register of Shipping. It has a fine record in all its operations, but what is feared by all seafarers' leaders is that because Lloyd's Register could be subject to commercial pressures the high standards of safety at sea set by the Department's marine surveyors may be endangered. We all know that the surveyors have been carrying out these surveys for nearly 80 years under the Department of Trade and Industry, and earlier under the old Board of Trade and the Ministry of Transport. We have led the world in our safety regulations and their enforcement for the protection of life at sea.
  The present team of surveyors and the existing arrangements enjoy the confidence of the whole seafaring community. Why should the Minister wreck that set-up now? Why should he take action to try to stop the good will and co-operation which has grown up over the years? His action will mean hiving off tonnage measurements, alternate surveys of equipment by the Department of Trade and Industry and Lloyd's Register, the surveys of hull structures of ships under construction, and the approval of stability designs of vessels. What reason is there to change now? There is none on the grounds of safety, expedience or cost, because we have the best safety record in the world. It must be said that to all those in the industry—to the unions and to officers and men on the ships—this appears to be a political decision and nothing else.
  Concern is also felt over the possible delegation of marine surveyors' work to other classification societies. Apparently this is being deferred only for the time being until experience has been gained in working with Lloyd's Register. No doubt the four other main classification societies will apply pressure on the Government for some work to be hived off to them.
  628
  All the unions feel that this is the thin end of the wedge, and that, once it is established, there is no telling where it will end. The marine surveyors themselves are raising their voices in public. This feeling is being expressed not only by the unions but by the Minister's own workers in his Department. In The Times today certain comments are made by the marine surveyors, who say that
  "If the Bill is enacted it is feared it could upset the established system of controlling the safety of the British merchant fleet."
  That is the general view of the marine surveyors whose work will be hived off.
  I must also point out that the Rochdale Committee condemned this private classification practice where it concerns safety at sea, particularly when a private commercial organisation, such as Lloyd's List, can be subject to undesirable internal conflicts of interest and can also take decisions concerning the work force of the shipping industry. The trade unions have no voice or representation on the Lloyd's governing body.
  There is no necessity at all for this change, for we fear that it may jeopardise safety at sea. It has caused deep concern in unions representing seafarers and certainly among union members. We think that this is a bad move by the Government, and we can only assume that it is being done for purely political reasons. This provision has been tacked on to what otherwise would have been a favourable Bill. It is a shady piece of work, and for these reasons we cannot give the Bill a fair wind tonight.
  5.15 p.m.
  Mr. Simon Wingfield Digby: The right hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) generated a good deal of heat at the end of his speech, and I could not agree with all he said. I am a little mystified about how this misunderstanding—if that is what it is—has arisen I shall return to that topic a little later in my remarks.
  I was glad that the right hon. Gentleman dealt with the broader issues of the effects on merchant shipping of modern conditions, which is a most important aspect to be considered. I was also glad that the right hon. Gentleman dealt with flags of convenience, which are a great anxiety to all of us. However, I am thankful that the British merchant fleet has

  629
  increased by 50 per cent. in five years despite the trend to flags of convenience. Long may that continue.
  We do not have many opportunities in this House to discuss merchant shipping, and I am glad that we have the opportunity to do so today—although within the framework of a rag-tag kind of Bill which deals with four completely different subjects. At this moment in time it is important for us to remember the debt we owe to merchant shipping and the men who serve in the merchant ships. This industry is particularly in our minds because of our balance of payments problems and also because of the oil situation. These considerations lead us to pay special attention to a subject which we are much too apt to take for granted. I am sorry that there are not more hon. Members in the House today when we are turning our minds to the shipping industry.
  I am sure that many hon. Members noted in the October balance of trade figures a large figure for the import of ships—a figure amounting to £53,433,000. This highlights the way in which we are going abroad to order our ships. These ships include the largest ship in the world, the "Globtik London", a vessel of nearly 500,000 tons. I am glad that she will ply under a British flag and will earn a great deal of foreign currency for Great Britain. Another large tanker included in that figure is one of 226,000 tons. Those ships will be earners for Britain in the days to come.
  I am glad to see in the earnings figures of British shipping that in the second quarter of 1973 there were credits of £475 million gross or £23 million net. If we go back to last year we see that the credits earned by British shipping amounted to no less than £1,645 million and that the net earnings of United Kingdom-owned ships carrying exports amounted to £441 million, or minus £54 million overall, but to that we should add the figure of imports carried in British ships which totals £463 million. These figures emphasise the importance of sniping to our earnings in regard to the carriage both of imports and of exports. However, it is unsatisfactory that more of our imports are carried in foreign ships as a proportionate figure compared with the carriage of exports.
  630
  In this time of oil crisis I was hoping that my hon. Friend the Minister would say something about the problem of bunkering. Our shipping cannot go on earning money if ships are not bunkered and this may also hold up our exports. A ship called the "Australian Bridge" was immobilised in the Persian Gulf only the other day because it could not be bunkered. I am not sure whether the 10 per cent. cut-back applies to the bunkering of British ships, but I certainly hope that it does not. I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to give some assurance about bunkering of British ships so that our ships can go on with this splendid task of producing for this country so much money in foreign exchange.
  Another matter on which I should like to comment, and which impinges on the remarks of the right hon. Member for Barnsley, relates to the forthcoming law of the sea conference. That conference was to be held in Santiago but now, for obvious reasons, will be held in Caracas. I was glad to see from a parliamentary answer only this morning that Sir Roger Jackling is to lead the British delegation there. The matters discussed will be of enormous importance to this country. There has been an haphazard attempt to extend territorial limits of coastal States. Those actions must be a great danger to the freedom of the seas. As a leading maritime power, Britain must be prepared to resist such developments.
  I am alarmed at indications that, at official level, more of our people do not feel as strongly about these dangers as they should. It will be important also to distinguish between territorial limits and the economic zones. Just as we have enormous interests in the freedom of the seas, so will the big Atlantic Shelf with which nature has endowed us be increasingly important in the exploitation of our mineral wealth. It is important that we should maintain a distinction between territorial waters and the economic influence and rights over the seabed.
  I am delighted that the provisions for oil pollution are being brought into effect. I am the only Member in the Chamber at present who sat on the small Select Committee on the "Torrey Canyon" disaster. After a year of work I was left with the impression that the risks from

  631
  collisions and strandings remain enormous and that they will get worse because of the increasing size of tankers. No one can say when we shall be presented with fresh problems. Therefore, I am glad that these powers have been taken.
  Clause 1(3) seems to define pollution damage satisfactorily, although the problem will always remain, in the smaller cases, of identifying the ship which was guilty of causing the leak. Clause 9 deals with reducing liability. Some of us remember how the liability was extended before at the last moment.
  Part II concerns tanker construction, and I take it that this is almost entirely to do with the size of tanks, but we have not been told whether the regulations will also deal with other matters. Three recent large tanker explosions have still not been fully explained. Two of the incidents happened in the Indian Ocean. Was the cause of the explosions discovered? Was it finally proved that the tanks within the tankers were too large?
  There is a controversy about survey work. It is a pity that the Seafarers' Joint Council could not have been satisfied about this matter. I do not fully understand the problems that have arisen. I should have thought that it was not a terribly important matter on which to disagree. I am not sure why the Rochdale Committee's recommendation for a statutory maritime authority has not been adopted.
  I regret that it has not been possible for everybody in the industry to speak as one on this topic. I gather that 80 per cent. of all Lloyd's receipts come from abroad, and it may be that the issue has been blown up out of proportion.
  I come to what I regard as the most important part of the Bill—Part III dealing with protection against flag discrimination. It is a development I have wanted for a long time. As the right hon. Member for Barnsley rightly pointed out, it is a departure and an indication of the extent to which flag discrimination has developed. There are many offenders. The nationalistic threats come not only from new countries but from the old as well.
  Recently the United States Commission on American Shipbuilding reported and advocated a massive grant to help the American shipping industry. There has
  632
  also been a 35 per cent. subsidy for shipbuilding.
  It is unfortunate that the developing countries, which seek our assistance in other ways, should have been guilty of so many of these practices. In America the Federal Maritime Commission has this fiction about "Government cargoes". Many South American States imitate what I regard as the United States' bad example. The worst example of all is Brazil. The organisation known as SUNAMAM hogs all the good cargoes and gets the advantage for its own traders. Further, India wants 40 per cent. of the export carriage of its own trade. The reputation of Ceylon is not much better. Then there are the Socialist States which want to sell cif and buy fob. The result is that imports, some of which we can barely afford, are being shipped to Britain too often in foreign ships. More imports could come in British vessels.
  Because those practices have become so widespread, it is essential that we should adopt the powers in question now. I hope that the powers may not have to be used, because they are wide powers. However, there will first be consultation with the shipping interests, and that is one safeguard. In addition, an affirmative resolution of this House will be required before such powers could be used. But, having these powers will, at last, serve to improve the bargaining position of our shipping interests in the future. In that way some of the practices which are so detrimental to our trade can be controlled.
  I hope that the EEC will eventually give some help in this matter. The EEC, for example, is presently negotiating a trade treaty with Brazil. I believe that non-tariff barriers to trade and shipping discrimination should be increasingly included in bargains of this kind.
  I regard the Bill as useful. The Long Title is wide enough to enable us to table useful amendments in Committee. We should never forget, particularly at a time like the present, the tremendous debt that this island owes to British shipping.
  5.27 p.m.
  Mr. J. Grimond: I have a double interest in the Bill.

  633
  Many of my constituents join the Merchant Navy, and Orkney and Shetland are parts of this country most adjacent to these enormous new finds of oil.
  It is, indeed, frightening to think of the quantities of oil which will be moved through the seas around my constituency's coastline. The seas in that area are exceptionally rough. There are areas of extremely difficult navigation—the Pent-land Firth, The Roost, Yell Sound and Bluemull Sound. I am not sure that even now the House realises the size of these oil operations. There are estimates which show that about half of the oil that this country will use by the '80s will be moved in or around Orkney and Shetland. It will be moved under or through the most prolific fishing grounds in the world, or at least in the northern hemisphere. It involves not only British fleets but those of Russia, East Germany, Norway, Iceland and the Faroese.
  The first matter I wish to raise is that of compensation for damage. I should like to ask the Government a series of questions. As I understand it, the first remedy of anyone injured by pollution would lie not under this Act but under the Merchant Shipping (Oil Pollution) Act 1971. We must put ourselves in the place of the sort of people who may be affected. In my constituency there will be small local authorities, fishermen, crofters and so forth. How will they proceed? It is unrealistic to suppose that they will chase these huge international consortia, either shipping or oil businesses, through the courts. As I read the Bill, their first remedy will still lie in the courts, under the 1971 Act. Until they have exhausted that right this measure may be irrelevant. I ask the Government to look at this because it is unrealistic to suppose that my constituents could possibly take on that type of litigation.
  The Bill does not deal either with oil pipelines or with spillages from buoys. Both of these are important. I would like the Government at some point to look at this because, as I understand it, the law relating to oil pipelines and possibly mooring buoys, some of which may be outside the three-mile limit, is extremely vague and to a large extent non-existent. If this measure is enacted, it says in Clause 6 that the Government are to proceed against the compensation fund through the British courts. As I
  634
  read it, the fund will not automatically pay out if it considers a claim is good, that it does not operate—I would like to be told if I am wrong—as an insurance company might operate, accepting claims so long as it regards them as falling within the policy and as bona fide claims. The Government should give some explanation to ordinary people as to what their rights are with respect to pollution and how they can enforce them, first of all under the 1971 Act and then under this fund.
  There are several points which seem to lead to great difficulty. For instance, Clause 4(6) says :
  "The Fund shall incur no obligation … if (b) the claimant cannot prove that the damage resulted from an occurrence involving a ship identified by him".
  Is this realistic? Supposing in my constituency at Sullum Voe or Scapa Flow, both of which still have large oil installations, there is severe pollution by oil. How are people to know from which ship it came? If they cannot identify the ship they will get no remedy under the Bill. I also do not understand subsection (5) of Clause 4. Perhaps the Minister can say a word about that later.
  My first set of questions relates to how the Government see this Bill working from the point of view of claimants whose livelihood or property may have been heavily damaged by oil. This is a real danger. It is not so much a danger to white fishing, although it is certainly a danger, but it is a serious danger to shell fishing.
  The next series of questions relate to who provides the compensation fund and on what basis. As I understand it, it is provided by a levy on importers only. I do not understand, since under the 1971 Act it is, naturally, the owner of a ship who is liable, why the importers have to finance this fund. Why should the importers supply the fund which may be called into operation because of errors by the owners of the ships? No doubt there is some explanation, but on the face of it I cannot understand it. Nor do I understand why the importers should indemnify the owners, to some extent, against claimants. I would like to know why the whole of the support of this fund falls upon importers and not upon carriers.

  635
  I am not clear whether the fund applies to oil which is not imported or not being re-exported. Does the fund apply to a tanker loading oil, for instance at Flotta, in my constituency, and taking it on from there either elsewhere in Britain or to the Continent? I am not absolutely clear on this. Does this fund apply to pollution caused by ships which are not oil tankers ; that is, to ships which burn oil and which frequently cause spillage?
  I would like to take up the point raised by the hon. Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Wingfield Digby), who rightly pressed that adequate supplies of fuel should be made available for bunkering. I want to put in a special plea for the shipping and air services in the islands. I have raised this point before. If we are to get oil from the North Sea we must supply the oil to fuel the aircraft and ships which get it. At the moment the 10 per cent. reduction on last year's figures may prove most constricting to aircraft and shipping companies.
  I agree with all that has been said about flags of convenience. The matter has been fully argued, and I adopt what has been said. It is certainly a serious matter, and we are glad to see the Government taking steps, if necessary, to interfere. I am unconvinced that it is necessary to hand over inspection to Lloyd's Register. I do not think that the Minister's reasons for doing this were at all convincing. We have all received representations against this move. As a general principle, it seems right that the Government and public authorities should carry on such activities as inspections rather than that they should be handed over to private institutions, however admirable, and even if they are non-profit-making. It seems, in view of the strong protest made by the British Seafarers' Joint Council, that there would need to be stronger reasons for this than have so far been advanced.
  Clause 18 has not so far been mentioned. This deals with the Commissioners of Northern Lighthouses. I would like to know why this clause is in the Bill. I am sure that there is a good reason for it. I know that the commissioners deal with the Isle of Man, but I would like to know why their circumstances are altered. They operate
  636
  in my constituency, and we are glad to have them.
  There is one small point. As lighthouses go over to automatic operation there are a certain number of houses which used to be used by the lighthouse-keepers and have become vacant. The commissioners, I regret to say, have a tendency to pull these houses down. We are extremely short of houses, and this activity of demolishing lighthouse-keepers' housing is something which I would like to see stopped.
  I confess that I am puzzled as to why the weight of compensation is thrown on to importers. I am not clear how the ordinary person will take advantage of this fund. For one thing, in the North of Scotland there are practically no lawyers available. [HON. MEMBERS : "Shame."] It has its advantages. On the other hand, if we continue to pass legislation which requires more lawyers in every direction things can get difficult. One can hardly move now without a lawyer and an accountant.
  What is really needed is an insurance fund against pollution, financed by a levy on the oil companies of all sorts and not merely upon tanker companies or importers. It should be a fund under the control of the Government to which an ordinary person could go and, if he clearly had an obvious claim and had suffered damage, could receive compensation speedily. It is quite out of this world to suggest that he should pursue these companies. The consortium which is opening up on the island of Flotta in my constituency is an international one, and the idea of crofters pursuing it in the courts is quite absurd. We need a fund not only to pay compensation against the effect of pollution but also to rehabilitate the place and to build up industries again when the oil has gone.
  5.40 p.m.
  Mr. S. James A. Hill: Naturally enough, I have a constituency interest in this matter. After all, Southampton is the second major port in the United Kingdom, and we have many seafarers there. One cannot think of the name Southampton without thinking of salt water and hot, steaming seaboot stockings. I feel that hon. Members representing port constituencies have a great part to play in a debate of this kind, and

  637
  I know that the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. R. C. Mitchell) will support me in saying that.
  We have heard one or two churlish remarks about the Bill. In my view the Government have made extremely good progress in their efforts to protect the environment, and this Bill is but one further step forward. It is perhaps the greatest step forward. In common with other hon. Members I have received many letters from constituents about oil pollution and the effect of oil on our beaches—not only holiday beaches but other beaches along which people like to stroll. I have also received letters from small traders who, during the summer months, have ice cream stalls and deckchair concessions and who have never been considered eligible for any form of compensation.
  This Bill will cover everyone from the smallest to the biggest. Consequently, the Government must make plain what the public can expect in the way of compensation, who is eligible and who can put forward a claim. Do claims have to go through local authorities? Can an individual make his own claim? What is the smallest amount of compensation which will be granted? These are matters which the Minister must make clear. To my mind it is not right to set up a fund without those who are to benefit from it knowing how to apply and who will be eligible.
  I welcome the fund because it will ease the burden of local authorities and of all those who suffer from pollution including perhaps the small yacht owner and, in an area such as mine, those who use the beaches.
  I come, then, to that part of the Bill which deals with pollution of the sea by oil. Does this refer simply to oil carriers, or does it include other ships which spill diesel oil and cause pollution?
  We have already heard a considerable amount of talk about flag discrimination, and I want to add my few comments because, as hon. Members will know, I am a member of the European Parliament and my Committee in Brussels has been discussing this very issue. A document has been published on the subject and it will be discussed by representatives of the 22 major ports of Europe on 18th and 19th December. The document is entitled
  638
  "Sea Transport Charges", but one section of it is given over to flag discrimination. It seems to me that in the future there must be a concerted effort by the Community to solve this major problem, much as I appreciate the United Kingdom's taking this step forward almost on its own, although there have been discussions with other countries. I hope that the Minister will tell us what form those discussions have taken, with whom they have been held, and what progress has been made.
  As regards the proposed penalties, once again we are taken back to the preceding legislation where, to my mind, the penalties were far too low. We shall not deter any shipowner or bulk carrier by putting forward an unrealistic sum like £5,000. Probably this is something like the daily rate for running one of these huge oil carriers, and it will not deter anyone from trying to slide round the outside of this legislation.
  Then I come to that part of the Bill dealing with surveys. My own feelings are that there must have been difficulties for the various unions concerned to get together in what might seem to be a long time but in what in shipping terms is a very short time. There must be further consultation. It is not too late to consult the unions. It is never too late to amend a Bill such as this. I feel sure that my right hon. and hon. Friends will want to correct the anomaly which has arisen over there not having been full discussions, and I am sure that Lloyd's Register will be more severe than it might have been knowing that the eyes of this House are on it and that in future there must be fuller consultations with the unions.
  Mr. R. C. Mitchell: As the hon. Gentleman has rightly said, we have a great many seamen in our constituencies. Can the hon. Gentleman say whether he has had consultations with the National Union of Seamen on this matter, bearing in mind that its headquarters are in his constituency?
  Mr. Hill: I am afraid that the union has not approached me. I would have been delighted to have been brought into this matter at an earlier stage, certainly before the Bill was presented to the House. However, it is never too late. I

  639
  feel that these consultations must continue and that this anomaly must be cleared up. Only then, I believe, will the Opposition welcome the Bill as much as I do.
  5.47 p.m.
  Mr. Roger Stott: I, too, wish to add my congratulations to the Government on including in the Bill proposals for the setting up of an international oil pollution compensation fund. It is greatly to be welcomed. I imagine that by the middle of next year the United Kingdom will be in a position to ratify the Civil Liability Fund and the Fund Convention. I am sure that we all hope that the example which the United Kingdom is now showing will encourage other countries to follow suit in this very important matter.
  Part II of the Bill deals with tanker tank size regulations. I am sure that everyone concerned with shipping will welcome these proposals. It is about time that we gave serious thought to some internationally agreed tank size regulations, and it is a source of considerable comfort to know that the Secretary of State has power to prohibit oil tankers from proceeding unless they have the appropriate certification.
  I do not intend to discuss Part III of the Bill. My right hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) has very ably spelt out the position of the Labour Party with regard to it, and I am sure that the Government and their supporters will agree with him.
  I intend to devote the remainder of my remarks to the highly contenious Clause 16. I have before me a cutting from the Trade and Industry Journal of 8th November 1973 which spells out roughly what it does. It says :
  "The Secretary of State shall delegate certain of his statutory powers as to the survey of passenger ships and the survey and certification of the safety equipment of cargo ships. These are two of the areas in which the Secretary of State proposes to make certain authorisations to Lloyd's Register."
  It seems clear that the Government intend to hive off the certification of safety equipment of cargo ships to the classification society known as Lloyd's Register of Shipping. However, subsection (3) of the clause says :
  640
  "Subsection (2) above shall not apply to the first survey of a ship when it becomes a ship registered in the United Kingdom …".
  In other words the Department of Trade and Industry will still carry out the first survey, and that means that subsequent surveys will be hived off to Lloyd's Register.
  Is the Minister implying that private firms are not to be relied upon to carry out the first survey? If not, why not, and why are they allowed to carry out the subsequent surveys?
  The Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Cranley Onslow)The Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Cranley Onslow)rose—
  Mr. Stott: I should like to develop this point before giving way. Most of us are convinced that this is a device of the Government to hive off a profitable section of their functions. They try to justify it at some length by saying that it will result in a saving, albeit small, in manpower. The Government have shown themselves to be willing to impose massive bureaucratic controls in stages 1, 2 and 3 of their anti-inflation policy. Why this sudden concern to achieve such a small saving in manpower in the public service? This surprises me.
  I am sure that the Government are aware of the concern now being expressed by the unions involved. My right hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) mentioned that the Joint Seafarers' Council has already issued a statement. My union—the Post Office Engineering Union—has members employed on the Post Office cable ships. In The Times today we find that 300 surveyors employed by the Department of Trade and Industry are very concerned about the proposals in Clause 16.
  Mr. Onslow: The hon. Gentleman referred to his union. It would help me if he would clarify what he means by saying that it has made representations or issued a statement. Will he be more precise? It is news to me.
  Mr. Stott: We are making our representations now in what I am saying this afternoon. We are not members of the Joint Seafarers' Council, although we have members serving on Post Office cable ships. Therefore, their interests are my interests.

  641
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley quoted The Times as reporting that the Department's inspectorate says that if the Bill is enacted it could upset the established system of controlling the safety of British merchant fleets. I do not think that anybody would argue against the reputation of Lloyd's. It is an old established firm and greatly respected, but it must be subject to some commercial pressures from shipbuilding and shipping interests. If so, serious doubts must be raised about the future of safety at sea.
  I should like to draw the Minister's attention to a Bill that was before the House 100 years ago, dealing with the same subject. That Bill proposed that the Lloyd's and Liverpool registers of surveyors should be given statutory powers. In other words, they were being given the powers which your Department now in tends to give Lloyd's.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): Order. I do not want to interrupt the hon. Gentleman's oratory, but he should not refer to "your". It is not the Chair's Department.
  Mr. Stott: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall try to avoid that mistake in future.
  Fortunately, that legislation was defeated on the arguments which were then put forward—namely, that individual societies would be bidding against each other and that commercial pressure would apply. I contend that the same arguments are valid today, 100 years later.
  Other proposals also raise grave doubts in the minds of many hon. Members. It is suggested that pressure could come from the European Economic Community's classification societies to extend delegation powers to them. In such a situation the safety of British merchant ships could be passed to a non-British organisation. That is a distinct possibility, but I am sure that my right hon. and hon. Friends would totally reject any move in that direction.
  Perhaps I may mention my own experience as a former merchant seaman. There is, without doubt, a feeling of confidence in the merchant service that British ships are the safest and most seaworthy. The standards of safety and the inspections carried out by inspectors of the Department of Trade and Industry are probably the finest in the world and are an example
  642
  to other maritime organisations. A general standard of seamanship has to be attained by passing various examinations—affectionately referred to as Board of Trade tickets. The seafaring community enjoys an extremely good relationship with the inspectorate and has confidence in it. If the Clause 16 remains in the Bill as it is I am sure that safety at sea will be put in great jeopardy.
  There is little doubt that under the proposed changes State service would lose most of its fee-earning capacity. The taxpayer would have to foot the bill for half the safety work carried out in the public interest and would be saddled with an increased bill for the subsidisation of Lloyd's Register. If Clause 16 is agreed to and enacted the Government will have gravely endangered the safety of those who sail in ships. In its place they will have substituted commercial profiteering. The Minister would be well advised to listen to the voices of moderation which are now counselling him from this side of the House on Clause 16, which it is proposed should remain in the Bill.
  5.57 p.m.
  Mr. David James: I shared the experience of the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Stott) by serving in the merchant service.
  I have no interest to declare in the Bill. I am almost ashamed to say that I am probably the only Member from an inland constituency who is taking part in the debate.
  I join issue with right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite on their criticisms of the provisions relating to Lloyd's Register. Lloyd's Register started in that well-known coffee house where banking and insurance also started, though it has nothing to do with either. It has grown, like Topsy, over the last 213 years, from small beginnings. It is an unincorporated association, so there is no question of its making or losing money at the taxpayer's expense. It makes its own rules and fixes its own rates for doing a job, and these must be commercial or it could not compete. Like the rest of us, it also pays taxes.
  In view of what has been said, it is important to make clear that Lloyd's Register is not a child of the shipowners. Lloyd's Bank, or, indeed, Lloyd's insurance. It is an independent incorporated

  643
  association run by a group of shipowners, shipbuilders, engine makers and underwriters.
  A number of the fears that have been expressed can be allayed by the fact that underwriters are involved. Whatever pressures shipowners and shipbuilders might want to exert on such a corporation, nothing is more certain than that underwriters will seek to do the opposite. Others may want to skate on thin ice, but underwriters want the ice double thick. That is absolutely certain.
  There are 33 classification societies in the world, nine of which are recognised by Lloyd's underwriters. Our own Lloyd's Register is by far the oldest and biggest of these institutions, but it suffers from one peculiar disadvantage ; it is the only one of the unincorporated bodies engaged on this work which is not recognised by its own Government. It is an international body. But very often, if a ship runs into trouble and has to be repaired abroad—in Brazil, for example—someone who would otherwise regularly expect to be cleared by Lloyd's has to go to a small local society which has far less experience than Lloyd's.
  I see part of the object of the Bill as being to underpin our British institution in these matters. At least, I hope that it is part of the object. The British institution has a very long and honourable history and a very high reputation. It should be put into a situation where it is not at a disadvantage with any other concern. I do not know whether I am right, but I suspect that, after the first survey is done in this country, the reason why Lloyd's is asked to do subsequent surveys is that it is an international organisation which can do follow-ups in other places, whereas anything run by the Department of Trade and Industry is of necessity confined to this country. No doubt the Minister will tell me whether I am right in that matter.
  It is worth noting that Lloyd's made £10 million worth of foreign exchange in 1972 and received the Queen's Award for Exports. Lloyd's is a wholly admirable institution, which has come under a quite unworthy attack—an attack which in many respects is unnecessary. Its main function is in tonnage register. It works for 100 Governments in registering
  644
  tonnage and employs 3,000 people, all over the world. It has a magnificent technical service extending world wide, and the latest computers engaged in shipbuilding and kindred operations. So, far from disagreeing, I welcome the fact that Lloyd's has, at long last and 100 years late, obtained recognition from the British Government.
  6.2 p.m.
  Mr. Albert Booth: The first part of the Bill places on the importers of oil a considerable part of the cost of compensating those who suffer from oil pollution of our seas. In the context of experience of recent years, of great difficulties in tracing those responsible for oil pollution, perhaps it is understandable that the international convention has concluded that this step is necessary. However, we should not lightly agree to it without realising that it carries with it certain dangers. Among those dangers is the possibility that because compensation will be available in cases where it has not been available previously, rather less emphasis will be placed in future on preventing oil pollution and tracing those most directly responsible for it.
  If we had been able to devise a system whereby we could be certain of detecting those ships which spill oil, and ensuring that claims were successfully prosecuted against them in order fully to compensate those who suffer, such a provision as this would not have been necessary. In any case, compensation for oil pollution is a very inferior course to that of preventing it. In many cases in which we compensate, we do not get rid of the damage which the pollution has caused. We compensate people in a way which enables them to clean up and to remove the most offensive aspects of it; but we do not clean the polluted sea by compensating for pollution.
  Oil pollution of the seas is now reaching the stage at which it is questionable whether we can reverse the serious damage which has taken place, and a stage at which, in certain areas, we may have destroyed for ever a potential source of food, of which the world may have great need in a few years' time.
  We cannot take lightly the course proposed in Part I. We must regard it as an immediate fall-back position, from

  645
  which we should advance rapidly towards preventing oil pollution, and finding better methods of doing that, rather than setting as our aim compensation for pollution.
  The Minister could have been more explicit about the way in which it is intended to use Part II. He indicated that it will be used mainly to ensure that tankers using British ports and tankers constructed in this country are subject to a limitation on the size of the individual tanks within them. If that is so, it is a part of the Bill addressed to a very small part of the problem of designing and constructing a ship in a way which will minimise the chances of its being involved in oil spillage or a collision. No one with a knowledge of the sea would contend, for example, that good manning and good navigational equipment are not every bit as necessary to minimising the chances of oil spillage and collision as the method of construction of tanks.
  Mention has been made—lightly, I think—of the dangers of explosion in tanks. To some extent, the explosions are still a mystery. If a Minister is to take seriously the powers contained in Clauses 11, 12 and 13, to make regulations about the design and construction of oil tankers, he will need some technical back-up and information, such as has not yet been produced, from some of the best marine research and development centres. As part of the Bill applies to an international convention, there is a case for saying there could usefully be more international cooperation on research and design in terms of ensuring that tanker collisions and spillages are minimised.
  Part IV deals with the delegation of survey work to classified societies. Although all the discussion up to now has understandably been on handing over the powers of inspection from the Department's inspectors to those of Lloyd's, the Bill says nothing about Lloyd's. It mentions classification societies. There is power in the Bill to hand over the job of inspection to classification societies. If the Minister wanted power to hand over that job only to Lloyd's, that could have been expressed in the Bill. But the Minister has not done that. Let us discuss not a narrow aspect or a reasonable anticipation but what is the power in the Bill. Let us see whether the House considers it appropriate that a power which has for
  646
  long been very successfully vested in officers, first of the Board of Trade and now of the Department of Trade and Industry, should be able to be placed by a ministerial decision in the hands of classification societies.
  Classification societies make their own rules, as they are perfectly entitled to do, and take into consideration the interests of the shipping companies, the shipbuilders and the underwriters. Therefore, it cannot be held that they are free from any form of commercial pressure. Nor can it be held, in the light of the massive amount of evidence, that these societies do not influence the design of ships—because, of course, they do. Before any shipbuilder in this country begins to build a ship he knows full well, in the overwhelming majority of cases, the classification that is required. Therefore, to a very large extent, the type of ship he builds will reflect the requirements of the classification society which will later approve the ship for insurance purposes.
  The other factor which influences the design of a ship is the requirements of the Board of Trade inspectorate. If those two factors are mixed together and the classification society is made the major external factor in the design of a ship—as there is a danger of doing under the Bill—then I suggest that that will militate very much against the aim of Part II of the Bill; unless the Government are saying that they will take powers to give the necessary instructions about design, leaving other aspects of design to the classification society.
  Mr. Onslow: I am trying to follow the drift of the hon. Gentleman's argument. Is he suggesting that the classification societies formulate standards?
  Mr. Booth: Yes, I am suggesting that classification societies formulate standards. They issue sets of rules which determine sizes, stresses and strains, and the physical requirements of ships. A draftsman working in a shipbuilding or marine engineering drawing office will design components with one eye on the specification book and the other on a publication of the classification society, whether it be the US Bureau of Shipping, Des Norsk Veritas, or Lloyd's. If such a body is also given the right to inspect, we are putting into the hands of one

  647
  organisation functions which should properly be split between two. It is very important, where the safety of a vessel and those who man it is concerned, to have a Board of Trade inspectorate which acts not as a long stop, but as a very important second check upon safety requirements. But this Bill proposes to remove a very important safeguard for the vessels of this nation and for those who sail in them.
  Part III takes powers to meet the problems of flag discrimination and, to a very large extent, I sympathise with the motives behind it. One of my biggest objections to flag discrimination is the effect that it has upon manning standards, with a subsequent effect upon safety. It is undeniable that a good standard of manning can influence safety to an enormous extent, and unless the best vessels in the world, with the finest navigational equipment, are properly manned there is danger of collision and stranding. If there is one international issue which we should try to settle it is flag discrimination, and I hope that it will not be very long before we see before this House a Merchant Shipping Bill which is the other way round ; which has as its first aim the implementation of a convention to solve the major problems of flag discrimination. Occupying a very minor part of that Bill, I hope there will be a provision covering oil pollution, because I trust that by then the major problems caused through the spillage of oil will have been solved and we shall not be trying to compensate for it after it has taken place.
  6.15 p.m.
  Mr. A. P. Costain: Representing as I do a constituency which faces one of the busiest shipping channels in the world, I naturally welcome the Bill as one that will help my constituents. I have listened with great interest to what hon. Members opposite have said about surveyors other than those on Government surveying vessels. The hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Stott) seemed to be attacking Lloyd's, which I thought was quite unfair, but the hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) pointed out that the Bill does not specify Lloyd's. The Bill states that the first survey must be carried out by the
  648
  Department of the Trade and Industry's surveyors, and I find it difficult to follow the argument that a ship will be designed to standards other than Government standards if, in the first instance, it has to be passed by a Government surveyor. How can hon. Members opposite say that the whole safety of a ship will be affected if surveyors other than Government surveyors inspect it? As the Government will be surveying it in the first instance, that argument is surely quite false. It indicates prejudice against private enterprise. It is the sort of argument which hon. Members opposite put around to try to prove that black is white, but they fail to do so.
  I am interested in the Bill because of the effect that it will have upon my constituents, who are always terrified of oil spillage in the English Channel and the North Sea. We live where all the tides meet and we get the refuse and the oil from other parts of the coast. We recently had an explosion which caused some damage to the town, but it is fairly easy to identify which ship has caused an explosion. I find Clause 4(6) difficult to follow. Subsection (6) lays down that the fund shall incur no obligation if
  "(b) the claimant cannot prove that the damage resulted from an occurrence involving a ship identified by him, or involving two or more ships one of which is identified by him."
  I do not see how a resident in a beach hut at Dungeness, or on the beach at Folkestone, can possibly identify a ship which has had a collision around the corner in the North Sea. Can the Minister state in what circumstances there will be an obligation? This part of the Bill seems so absurd that I must have misunderstood it. But if I have understood it correctly, I hope my hon. Friend can assure me that it will be put right.
  When the Minister was moving the Second Reading, I intervened on the question of pilots. One of the headquarters of the pilots is at Folkestone. I am in constant touch with them and from time to time go out to see their work. They are becoming very worried about the design of ships, particularly larger ships, because there is no provision for pilots to board them. An unfortunate accident occurred, which caused death, because of insecure ladders. Fortunately, a Bill with which I had something to do has

  649
  tightened up the situation, but the introduction of a new Merchant Shipping Bill is an excellent opportunity to make the legislation clear and concise.
  I have had representations from pilots about the condition of some of the ships which come up the Channel after long voyages with navigational equipment which has not been properly maintained—particularly ships under flags of convenience. One does not want to exaggerate this, but it is a fact. Once again, could not the introduction of the Bill allow us to give more powers to examine and overhaul such equipment? I am told that any ship going to Australia, where there is not much competition between ports, is properly inspected and that if any lifesaving or navigational equipment is not up to standard the ship is not allowed to sail.
  Under our regulations, relating particularly to lifesaving equipment for passengers, there is very little power over a ship with a foreign flag. Our inspectors may find things wrong, but they do not seem to have enough power. We would not wish to take unnecessary powers, but surely it is sensible to safeguard those who travel on ships leaving our ports—passengers as well as seamen. Before the Bill comes out of Committee, I hope that more consideration will be given to tightening up the regulations.
  6.21 p.m.
  Mr. James Johnson: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Dorset, North (Mr. Wingfield Digby), who has left the Chamber, should wish to go back to the seventeenth century, when Lloyd's conducted its business in coffee houses. When I go to West Africa—to Lagos, Port Harcourt or any other port—I find that the phrase "A1 at Lloyd's" still stands for what it stood for when I was a schoolboy. There was no need for the hon. Member to say what he did.
  Safety is absolutely vital to an hon. Member like myself, with constituents in the deep-sea fishing fleet, who go to the Arctic—particularly remembering what happened in January 1968. The "Torrey Canyon" incident is also vivid in our minds. This Government does not do somersaults so much as U-turns ; if they behaved like this in the Channel they would be a menace to shipping off the
  650
  constituency of the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain).
  When the Merchant Shipping Bill of a year or two ago was in Committee we had a job persuading the Minister—the same Minister who is now on the Front Bench, I think—to raise the fine for anyone polluting the high seas with oil. We succeeded only with the help of some Government malcontents. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) and I have equally vividly in our minds the episode involving the "Conoco Britannia" off Immingham. The BBC and other media played this up too much and our pilots in the Humber were not too pleased about that exaggeration.
  Basically, this is a good Bill. We welcome these measures, particularly since, next year, at the law of the sea conference in Caracas, such matters as pollution and the health of those who work at sea will be discussed.
  I accept what my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) said about flags of convenience, but we must look behind the Bill at the difficulties of some of these developing nations, like Somalia and Liberia. I agree that flags of convenience stand for dubious activities, not least of course the scandalously low wages that are paid—far below the standards of Lloyd's, never mind the Department of Trade and Industry. But these developing nations want money badly.
  I know that with these practices they have been squeezing out this country from the fetching and carrying of cargoes. I would not use as a direct analogy the difference in wages paid in Hong Kong and this country in the textile industry, but I would say that some of these young nations use the flags of convenience system much as they issue new stamps—to make money for their hard-up exchequers. Although I am a former State employee of Liberia in another field—education—I do not support what was done by the Ministers of President Tubman nor what is happening in other parts of Africa. I remember years ago talking to Mr. Vasey—now Sir Ernest Vasey, a white man—when he was Minister of Finance for Kenya. He said, "We are also thinking of adopting what have been stigmatised as the nefarious activities of the Panamanians and Liberians." But, in

  651
  a difficult world of inflation and famine, these developing countries need to get money.
  I never like to talk about a man behind his back, but I am sure that the Under-Secretary will pass on my remarks. The Minister, who has left the Chamber, is a somewhat flippant colleague of ours. He tossed off facile allegations about our objections to the switching of this work from the DTI to bodies like Lloyd's. I object to this action, not only for itself but because of the way in which it was done.
  My hon. Friends and I have been sent a document by the British Seafarers' Joint Council. If we believe in democracy, and in the Government working together with the labour force, particularly in these difficult days, it is incomprehensible that the Minister should have indulged earlier in these exchanges about whether one week, one month or four months was spent in exchanging views and invoking the aid and the wise advice of the trade unions in our fleets overseas.
  This lack of consultation is incredible. If this Government have not learned their lesson since 18th June 1970, they never will. They cannot hope to get co-operation and understanding from workers unless they behave in a more civilised fashion. These colleagues of ours in the industrial movement say :
  "It is a matter of the greatest concern to the Seafarers' organisations that they were not consulted or even informed at the formative stages by DTI of these important considerations. The Chamber of Shipping is a deeply interested party and is known to welcome the change."
  Does it, or did it? My information is that the Chamber of Shipping did not find this change as palatable at the beginning as the trade unions did, or do. One can compare its attitude with that which those of us in the fishing industry took upon the Icelandic fisheries question. Although the Chamber has now found this change acceptable, it did not find it palatable at the beginning—similar to our experience over the Icelandic fisheries agreement.
  6.30 p.m.
  Mr. Nicholas Edwards: I apologise for having missed the beginning of the debate, but I was detained outside. I welcome the Bill, which deals
  652
  with certain aspects of the oil pollution problem and enables us to ratify the 1971 convention. I understand that it also deals with the amendments to the 1954 Convention on Oil Pollution in the Sea and contains enabling powers to deal with some matters introduced in the 1973 convention, signed earlier this month.
  But does it cover one matter dealt with in that convention—the discharge of sewage, ships' refuse and dry rubbish, which is to be prohibited within specified areas around the coast, ranging from three miles in the case of food waste to 25 miles in the case of floating materials? I understand that the discharge of plastic materials is prohibited in all sea areas. This is an important point. On the beaches in my constituency we find that pollution by plastic materials is now almost more of a menace than pollution by oil, and we should be taking action about it.
  We may be missing an opportunity in the Bill to fill certain gaps in this legislation. I join my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain) on this point. He referred to the important matter of accidents arising as pilots and others with necessary duties to perform go on board ships as they enter our ports. I have corresponded with my hon. Friend the Minister for Aerospace and Shipping following accidents in the Port of Milford Haven, and I hope that in due course it will be possible to introduce legislation. I should have thought, however, that this Bill gave such an opportunity.
  The Bill means the chance to deal with a number of important matters. As Member for Pembroke, I speak as representative of the country's greatest oil port. We handle 44 million tons of oil a year, three very large crude carriers a week and about 3,500 oil shipments in 12 months. We have five major terminals. We also have a good deal of experience in respect of problems of oil pollution and things that can go wrong, even in a port recognised to be amongst the cleanest in the world.
  Our experience has shown that we need urgently to tackle the inter-related problem of wreck removal and oil pollution. Basically, the problem is that whereas the harbour master in most ports is provided with very wide powers to deal with vessels which have sunk, or been

  653
  stranded or abandoned, and is able to give directions for the prevention of interference with navigation, to take action in default of compliance with those directions, and to charge the owners with the costs of this action, he has no power whatever to give orders for the prevention or avoidance of oil pollution.
  For example, if the harbour master on the bridge of a 250,000-ton tanker gives an instruction with the object of stopping the release of a large quantity of oil, and the master declines to carry it out, there is nothing that the harbour master can do about it.
  This summer, the "Dona Marika" went ashore inside Milford Haven, loaded with high octane petroleum spirit, much of which spilled out on the Haven and polluted the atmosphere. The authorities found that they were powerless to do anything. Under the Oil in Navigable Waters Act they can sign an order, but that takes 48 hours. So, for 48 hours, the harbour master, the Board of Trade Surveyor and the Receiver of Wrecks could not even get permission to go on board the "Dona Marika" to assess the position. If it had been crude oil spilling out instead of high octane spirit, which evaporates, the sea would have been heavily polluted, and without the owner's permission nothing could have been done about it.
  In 1971, the tanker "Thuntank" went ashore on Thorn Island at the mouth of the Haven, and more recently the "World Splendour" grounded. Here I agree with the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. James Johnson) that publicity is sometimes exaggerated in these cases. We have had similar incidents in the port of Milford.
  In both cases—the "Thuntank" going ashore and the "World Splendour" grounding—the harbour master was in reality giving instructions with the prime objective of preventing pollution, since the removal of the ship itself was in each case no problem. Both floated off within 24 hours. But in each case the master of the ship could have refused to carry out the instructions given.
  Furthermore, if it was held in such a case that the harbour master had misused his powers for the prevention of interference with navigation by ensuring
  654
  that the ship was manoeuvred in order to prevent pollution, he could, if anything went wrong, land the authority in vast potential liability.
  I think it probable that most port authorities would be reluctant to have imposed on them the statutory duty to take steps for the prevention of pollution. What I am sure of is that they should have powers to act when they deem it necessary, otherwise we shall find that under the Bill we have set up a fund which has to be used quite unnecessarily.
  We have learnt another lesson from the "Dona Marika" incident, namely, that the existence of single-ship companies imposes another grave restraint on action to obtain wreck removal or, indeed, on instruction to prevent pollution. It is one thing to give the harbour authority power to remove a wreck, but quite another to recover the costs from the owner of, say, a Greek ship registered in Liberia.
  We require national legislation—the Bill provides a splendid opportunity—of the kind which exists in the United States and elsewhere, to make it possible to levy on any property or ship in common ownership or on the ship's insurers. I understand that in the United States one can proceed against another single-ship company if one establishes association or a common financial holding. The same position, or something even stronger, applies in Singapore, which is why the Labour Government were able to recover the costs involved in the "Torrey Canyon" incident, or some of them, by proceeding against a sister ship in Singapore harbour. Again, the Bill gives us the opportunity to take action which is long overdue.
  The final lesson that we learnt from the "Dona Marika" affair is that there should be powers to remove a wreck on amenity grounds. Our existing laws were designed for the age of the wooden ship which, after a wreck, broke up and washed away. In these days if a ship goes ashore, unless the salvage value is greater than the recovery costs or it is a hazard to navigation, it stays there, a massive blot on the environment and a hazard to life and limb. If it is a hazard to navigation, there are powers to remove it. If not, I understand that we are almost powerless.

  655
  I support the Bill, but I suggest that it gives us an opportunity to take some additional measures. I shall support it more enthusiastically if, in due course, amendments are made to deal with the points that I have raised.
  6.39 p.m.
  Dr. John Gilbert: I apologise to my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) and to the Minister for Aerospace and Shipping for being unable to be present to hear their speeches.
  I am concerned solely with Clause 14 and its implications, particularly with reference to the powers the Secretary of State is seeking in relation to one individual take-over situation—namely, that involving Shipping Industrial Holdings. I am not suggesting that the powers under Clause 14 are directly relevant to that situation, but there is an inference to be drawn from the presence of Clause 14 in the Bill, stating that freight operations under the influence of or in the control of foreign Governments can in certain circumstances be
  "… damaging … to … the … shipping or trading interests of the United Kingdom".
  I am quoting directly from Clause 14.
  That being so, presumably we can take it that the Government will look particularly closely at stock market operations which lead to the take-over of a British shipping company by interests under the influence of a foreign Government. It seems to me on the face of the matter that the current bid for Shipping Industrial Holdings is just such a case. I see the Minister looking puzzled. I would have hoped that he was informed about that background to this situation.
  Shipping Industrial Holdings is an important British company. It has, I am informed, about 1½ million deadweight tonnage. Its balance sheet in 1972 showed total assets of around £70 million, in addition to which it contributes 42 per cent. of the tonnage of the Seabridge consortium, which I understand is also a very well run shipping consortium. A bid has been made for this company, the market value of which is around £85 million. The company has valued the fleet at over £120 million. I accept, of course, that the valuation of shipping fleets is a very tricky and volatile matter, particularly in the present
  656
  circumstances. I emphasise also that I am in no way concerned at the valuation that has been set on this by the bidder. I am in no way competent to judge whether that is an adequate bid or not, and it is not part of my purpose today to let consideration of that influence what I have to say.
  However, there seems to be a danger in this situation of asset stripping. I say that for two reasons. First, this is because of the large discrepancy between the bid price and the valuation price. The valuation that the company set on the fleet took no account of the value of the shipbroking interests, the insurance interests and the charter operations of SIH. Even more important, however, is that I consider there is an inherently unstable situation here because the bid has been made by a consortium in which two groups of interests are represented 50–50. I need not spell out that situations of that sort can be very unstable.
  The bid has come basically from a shipping group based in Monte Carlo.
  Mr. Onslow: The hon. Member said that I was looking puzzled. He got the signs right but the reasons wrong. What puzzles me is how what he is saying has anything to do with the Bill. The details of the bid seem to me utterly irrelevant to the purposes of the Bill.
  Dr. Gilbert: If the Minister will be patient he will see that I consider that this is relevant because of foreign-Government interest is involved. That is the whole purpose of my raising the matter this afternoon.
  I shall read the Minister a letter which came from the Chairman of the Drayton Corporation to the Secretary of Shipping Industrial Holdings. It went :
  "Dear Sir, On behalf of Capitalfin International Limited of … Nassau, Bahamas, Alvada Investment Company … Hamilton, Bermuda, Alvion Holding and Investment Corporation … Monrovia, Liberia and Mr. Boris Vlasov of … Monte Carlo".
  The Minister will see that these are all overseas addresses. In other words, the entire control of this important British company would fall overseas. Perhaps a certain amount of enlightenment has now dawned on the Minister. If not, I hope to enlighten him further with the rest of my remarks.

  657
  We therefore have a situation in which a bid has come from foreign interests for an important and well-run British shipping company. I say nothing which would in any way reflect on the commercial integrity or competence of the Vlasov group which for many years, as I understand it, has very successfully operated United Kingdom flag vessels. However, it seems clear to me that if this matter is not referred to the Monopolies Commission, which I hope it will be, more definite assurances are needed. I refer the Minister in particular to the November 1973 issue of Seatrade magazine. On page 5 are certain figures about the relative sizes of the Vlasov fleet and the SIH fleet. The article reads in part :
  "Of Mr. Vlasov's overall fleet of l&·5m dwt, just over 1m dwt sails under the U.K. flag (65%). If the SIH fleet of another 1·5m dwt is added in, that will make 75% of the new combined total tonnage U.K. registered, assuming no changes are made in the existing registration of any of the ships—which is expressly not on the cards, according to Mr. De Paolis."
  Mr. De Paolis is, according to the same article, United Kingdom representative of Mr. Vlasov. The article goes on to say :
  "This in itself is interesting in as much as Mr. Vlasov is also well known for keeping his eggs in rather more than one basket."
  So I suggest again that there are elements in this situation which need attention.
  I go further than that. It is not just a question of foreign interests taking over an important British fleet. If the Minister were informed as to the make-up of the one half of the consortium not owned by Mr. Vlasov—namely, that called Capitalfin International—he would know that the Italian Government have very considerable interests in that half of the consortium from which the bid is being made. I believe the actual company making the bid is Navcot, owned 50–50 by Alvada and Capitalfin International Limited. In Capitalfin there are five elements, three of which own 25 per cent. and the other two between them sharing 25 per cent. The first 25 per cent. is owned by the Banca Nazionale del Lavoro of Rome. That is not a State-owned bank in the sense that its shares are traded publicly and are owned by private citizens. But, although there is no direct State holding, the senior man
  658
  agement—the chairman and the general manager—are appointed by the State.
  A further 25 per cent. of the Capitalfin consortium is owned by Ente Nazionale Idrocarburi, which is already State-owned. So we find that 50 per cent. of the Capitalfin consortium is owned or controlled by the Italian Government. Another 25 per cent. is owned by Montecatini Edison. This is a public company but the State owns 11 per cent. of it through ENI, and, as the Minister will be aware, a public company where 11 per cent. of the shares are in one hand is liable to be controlled by that one hand. The remaining holdings in Capitalfin are in the hands of the Agnelli family, either directly or through Fiat.
  I see that I am losing the Minister. The Government Front Bench is totally deserted.
  Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: The hon. Member is losing not only the Minister's attention.
  Dr. Gilbert: We shall simply have to pass the time of day until we have the Minister's attention again.
  It is quite clear from all this that the Italian Government have a very considerable stake, directly or indirectly, in the Capitalfin consortium. If its interests were to act in concert, which may be an unlikely occurrence, the Italian Government would be in a position to influence one half of the 50–50 consortium, and by definition a 50–50 consortium has no controlling interests. Therefore, the Italian Government would be in a powerful position to control the affairs, if the bid were allowed to go through, of a very important British shipping company.
  I understand that the Secretary of State has asked the Director General of Fair Trading for advice as to whether the bid should be referred to the Monopolies Commission. I shall say nothing tonight about the thoroughly disreputable activities of Hambros Bank in this takeover situation, which has led to the Minister's being presented with a fait accompli. But certain other things need to be emphasised. A great deal of public money from the British taxpayer has gone into both SIH and the Seabridge Group. Bearing in mind that it is an important, well-run British company, it is an extremely serious case.

  659
  I hope that the Minister will bear those matters in mind and will have no hesitation in seeing that a reference is made to the Monopolies Commission, which it is in his power to do, in the light of the size of the assets involved.
  6.51 p.m.
  Dame Irene Ward: I did not mean to take part in the debate, because it is so technical that although I do all I can to help both the shipping and shipbuilding industries I cannot pretend to make any useful observations on the Bill. But when we have such a useful debate as this I like to listen to all those who have technical knowledge.
  Ministers often lose an opportunity when introducing a major policy. I congratulate the Government on the Bill, but it involves larger questions of Government policy, and many small matters which are equally important to the Chamber of Shipping, the shipbuilding industry and the trade unions, have been left out. That is probably because Ministers have not had long enough in their Department to discover all the details which have been so admirably stated by many of my hon. Friends.
  I hope that the detailed points advanced by people who know a great deal about the subject will be accepted in Committee. If they are, that should make it easy for my hon. Friend the Minister to conclude the debate, because all he needs to say is that by the time the Bill reaches Committee he will have dug out all the details which might have been put in the Bill if those concerned in his Department had thought a little more about it—details which experts in the matter have advanced tonight.
  I should also like to know about any matters raised by the Chamber of Shipping or the shipbuilding industry which may have been left out of the Bill. It is very difficult for back-bench Members to discover all the details that have been omitted from an important Bill of the kind we are discussing. When the Government have the great good fortune to hear such details from experts, they should take the opportunity to say how welcome they are, however tiresome they may think them to be at the bottom of their hearts.
  I should like to make a brief comment on the controversial point made by Op-
  660
  position Members. I support what my Government have decided to do, but I am a believer in consultation. However, it should work both ways. When I, a representative of a port, try to get in touch with trade union representatives, they cannot all be in various places all over the world. They are sometimes jolly bad at answering my letters.
  I am not sure that the points made by Opposition Members about consultation were adequately answered by my hon. Friend the Minister. He has to make the Government's case, but back-benchers do not always agree with the Government's defence. If I support the Bill, I support it, but there should always be proper consultations. Then the Government can say "We do not agree with one word you say, but at any rate you have been consulted." A great deal depends on a sound relationship between the trade unions and the Government of the day. Although I am delighted that in the main the trade unions think we have produced a jolly good Bill, I should feel happier if I could hear a better answer about consultation.
  I have enjoyed listening to the debate. I hope that in Committee my hon. Friend the Minister will say to my hon. Friends who know so much about the matter "Well done. I shall see that the details about which you have told us are embodied in the Bill. They will make the Bill very much better."
  6.57 p.m.
  Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: I am happy to follow my hon. and fair Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward). I congratulate her on bringing the discussion back to the Bill.
  I am glad that we have a chance today to debate a subject concerning the Merchant Navy. Considering its importance—past, present and future—I believe that the Merchant Navy receives all too little attention in the House. Since I was first a midshipman it has been drummed into me that the prime task of the Royal Navy has always been to protect our overseas trade. In my experience I have gained immense affection, respect and admiration for those who sail under the Red Ensign. Therefore, I welcome the Bill, which seems to me to clear up several outstanding problems.

  661
  I refer first to Part I. At the time of the "Torrey Canyon" disaster we were presented with the extremely difficult practical problem of how to clear up the mess. But it was probably even more difficult to see how to bring about international action on such disasters in a reasonable time. The Government have done well to achieve a degree of international co-operation.
  I turn to Part II, concerning the design and construction of tankers. I hope that the Miniser can assure us that the regulations will not be unduly complicated or cause expensive variations in design. There is sometimes a danger of exaggerating the extent of pollution. Of course, it is a big problem—one that we ignore at our peril. But I am a yachtsman, and when I get even a little way out to sea I am always surprised how delightfully clean it seems to be, and free of the pollution which the pollution lobby drums up. I hope that reasonable time will be allowed for modifications to the design and construction of tankers. I hope, too, that there will be international agreement, so that there will be no detriment to British shipowners having to work under more stringent regulations than other shipowners.
  Explosions have not received enough attention. I saw the giant tanker "Matra" in Durban harbour a few years ago, following an explosion. The hole in her upper deck seemed to be nearly as large as this Chamber. The Government should do all they can to assist and encourage research and development so as to remove such danger from ships and those who serve in them.
  I hope that the design and construction regulations will not only concern the prevention of spillage after a disaster has occurred but will be directed towards trying to ensure that disasters do not occur. The giant tankers have huge turning circles. They take a long time to lose way once they are going at speed. They are, of course, cumbersome to handle. There is an old sailing-ship adage which says. "It is only the edge of the sea that is dangerous." That is no longer true. At the speeds at which the large tankers proceed, collision seems to be the greatest risk. There are modern devices, such as active rudders, which have a bearing on the safety of
  662
  tankers. They should be encouraged by the Government. Handling characteristics and navigational equipment should be included in the regulations covered by Part II.
  Clause 12 provides that ships will not be permitted to sail without a clearance certificate from the Secretary of State. Clearly the Government must ensure that these certificates are forthcoming promptly. It is unnecessary to point out the tremendous sums which are involved in demurrage if there is any delay in sailing. These large ships nowadays frequently come in on one tide to be discharged and go out again on the next.
  Part III refers to the protection of shipping interests and trading interests. It is a sign of the times that the Government should seek powers to deal with the overall problem of flags of convenience. I agreed with some of the matters put forward by the right hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason). I, too, deplore the extent of tonnage which now registers under flags of convenience. I accept the right hon. Member's point about the inferior standards of manning which may sometimes arise.
  I am not sure that the right hon. Gentleman would go all the way with my submission that the only radical cure for the problem is to make it more financially attractive for British shipowners to register at home. If they earn large profits they should be able to keep them. That would enlarge the industry and enable it to employ British seamen and pay them whacking good wages. It is the over-taxation of British shipowners by successive Governments over a long time which has produced the flag of convenience problem.
  I believe that the Government must now consider oil rig legislation. Collision is not the only matter that is involved. The manning, construction, lighting and defence of oil rigs need a great deal of attention.
  Clause 16 deals with devolution to a certification society. From the Opposiltion benches we have had unfair criticism of Lloyd's. There seems to be a complete misunderstanding of the function and composition of Lloyd's Register. Some time ago I received a news sheet

  663
  from Lloyd's Register of Shipping which said :
  "Lloyd's Register of Shipping is not a commercial organisation having no owners or shareholders and distributing no profits. It is governed by a General Committee on which are represented underwriters, shipowners, shipbuilders and marine engine builders. No member or group of members has any financial interest in the Society."
  The news sheet then dealt with Lloyd's Register's reputation for integrity and impartiality. That point has been well made by several hon. Members and I shall not repeat what they have said. I think that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. James Johnson), who has now left the Chamber, summed it up well when he spoke about the wide understanding of the expression "A1 at Lloyd's".
  Safety at sea is paramount, but I am entirely confident that devolution to Lloyd's will not in any way reduce the safety standards. Obviously, no Government in their right senses would do what the Government are doing if they thought that the standard of safety would be reduced.
  It seemed that the indignation expressed by the right hon. Member for Barnsley was at one stage entirely synthetic. British seamen are reasonable, fair-minded and generous. They would not spontaneously react as the right hon. Gentleman did. The Minister put his finger on the point when he referred to delay. The dates which he mentioned were from 28th June to 29th October. The greater part of that period comprises the parliamentary recess. That is the point.
  7.7 p.m.
  Mr. John Prescott: I take this opportunity to refer to the statement which the Minister slipped into his speech about "Pisces". I welcome the fact that there are to be statutory regulations. I have been asking the Government both by parliamentary Questions and by letters to introduce regulations. The replies have not been too favourable. I am glad that the Department has now recognised that regulations are necessary. I am sure that they will be welcomed. We look forward to such legislation.
  It has been clear from the speeches of all hon. Members that the main body
  664
  of the Bill is welcomed. It is an advance on oil pollution legislation, but there are other things which must be done.
  Part III concerns the protection of British interests. That is more questionable. Part IV deals with the hiving off to Lloyd's Register. The Opposition are strongly opposed to such a course. I shall attempt to give one or two reasons to support that view which will supplement those which have been given.
  I am rather sorry that the Government did not see fit to support the idea concerning the construction of vessels with double bottoms. The "Conoco Britannia" would not have caused a pollution in the Humber if the ship had been constructed with a double bottom. The ship sat on its own anchor due to the failure of its engine.
  I welcome the limit placed on tank size. That is an important step forward. If I read the Bill correctly, I understand that there is to be a 12-month limit applying to those who do not sign the convention. Those who do not sign within 12 months may be removed from the overall convention. That would contribute to solving the difficult problem which faces international conventions. I refer particularly to flag of convenience countries which take a long time to ratify conventions.
  I welcome the certification control. Although it is concerned directly with the construction of the vessels, many of the pollution incidents which have been referred to—the "Torrey Canyon" is perhaps the most famous—were not necessarily caused by faulty equipment. Often the operating qualities of the operators have been responsible. The captain of the "Torrey Canyon" had not had a day off for 12 months and was consequently tired and made wrong decisions. Such incidents have led to pollution on a wide scale. Considerable attention has been paid by Parliament and international conventions to the vehicle. Perhaps, instead we should give more attention to the driver and try to improve the quality of the crew and the manning of the vessels.
  We have formulated a Channel safety charter, with which myself and my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) have been associated. The charter is concerned with preventing flag of convenience vessels coming into our ports. The Government opposed this suggestion

  665
  on the ground that it was an interference with free trade. That interference is happening now, although it relates only to the construction of vessels. To that extent the Bill is a step forward and is welcomed.
  Part III deals with the protection of shipping and trading interests. It contains a countervailing power that will be used by the Government. It is perhaps somewhat provocative in view of the UNCTAD and Liner conferences and the clash between the developed and underdeveloped countries. The underdeveloped countries own only 8 per cent. of the shipping, yet 66 per cent. of the traffic originates in the underdeveloped countries. OECD countries control more than 61 per cent. of the tonnage. If one adds to that the flag of convenience fleets, many of which are American-owned, the total is 83 per cent. Therefore, a large proportion of the shipping which is engaged in the interests of free trade belongs to European and developed rich countries.
  Should we be using this countervailing power to defend British interests when there is such a disparity in the distribution of tonnage between the underdeveloped and developed countries? Will reductions in British tonnage be considered against our national interest? If the underdeveloped countries try to build up their shipping lines in an attempt to improve their economies and to obtain foreign currency, British interests will be affected. We, as a rich, developed country, cannot funk the main issue of helping underdeveloped countries. These provisions may, therefore, be provocative, especially in view of the international conferences. It is also a double standard, as the British shipping industry uses a considerable amount of cheap labour.
  I am referring not to the wages paid to British seamen—although they are low enough—but to Asian labour, which constitutes one third of the labour used on British ships. The ILO to which Britain is a signatory nation recommended a minimum rate of £48. When I asked the Minister to make the shipowners pay the minimum rate he admitted that he had the power to do so but refused to take any legislative or other action to make them observe this international obligation. On the one hand, as soon as our economic interests are threatened, legislation to protect those interests is introduced but, on the other hand, the Government take no
  666
  action on the exploitation of cheap labour. That is a reflection of the Government's priorities.
  Our national interests are apparently to be defined as business interests. Several shipowners have said that the interests of the shipowners and the Government are indivisible. The identification of interests between the shipowners and the Government has caused considerable alarm in the maritime industry, especially among the trade unions.
  The Minister may argue about the time available for consultation, but he cannot deny that when he first started on his labours he did not consult the trade unions. He consulted bodies which he thought had an interest in the matter but omitted to consult the trade unions. Only when he had come to his conclusions did he present them to the trade unions. The period of delay which he mentioned might have coincided with the parliamentary recess, but it was also the period in which holidays occurred within the trade union movement, and this led to difficulty in getting co-ordinated action. It is not a question of whether there was delay by the trade unions in replying but rather whether the Government thought it necessary to consult the trade unions about matters which the Government admit concern safety.
  The owners and the Government are at one in wishing to preserve seamen's lives and prevent accidents by the use of the same policies. The hiving-off proposals in Part IV create concern. They are an indication of the Government's priorities and represent a reduction in the Government's rôle of guaranteeing marine safety. For almost a century—even before Samuel Plimsoll—the House has played an honourable part in accepting responsibility for marine safety.
  We seek the reason for the Government taking this step. No justification for it has come from the Government Front Bench. The Rochdale inquiry gave reasons for the hiving-off of the surveyors' functions. One was that the Department of Trade and Industry was too inflexible and too cautious about safety matters. Another was that there was a considerable duplication of work. Lord Rochdale's inquiry did not necessarily accept those reasons but suggested that this subject should be considered further by a marine authority. The Opposition are in favour

  667
  of a statutory marine authority. The Minister said that it was not Government policy to set up such an authority because the responsibility should remain with the House. The proposed marine authority we envisage would not take away responsibility from either the Minister or the House, and we would not want that. There clearly is an argument for a statutory marine authority to control the many matters relating to safety nationally and internationally.
  Lord Rochdale recommended laws governing safety on board on similar lines to the Factories Acts. No such laws exist for seamen—only recommendations—and the Government have not introduced legislation on those lines.
  Lord Rochdale also recommended a study of the cost-effectiveness of the survey services. The Government's policy seems to be to reject the setting up of a marine authority and to continue with ad hoc legislation, like this Bill, which merely makes marginal adjustments rather than dealing with the subject comprehensively, as with the proposals for lighthouses in this Bill. The Government have not set up the overall control body which is essential, and have rejected the introduction of the statutory safety laws for seamen which have been called for by all the unions, the Rochdale Report and the Pearson Inquiry.
  The maritime industry feels unhappy about these matters being dealt with by Lloyd's Register. If the Government feel that Lloyd's Register can deal with the issue of safety certificates for cargo ships, why cannot it also deal with safety certificates for passenger ships? The same seamen sail the cargo ships as sail the passenger ship. The trade unions cannot accept that differentiation.
  I have inquired through parliamentary Questions as to the cost effectiveness of studies done on the work of surveyors, recommended by Lord Rochdale. The Government's reply was to the effect that only one piece of work had been published by the Department and that was concerning life boats and life rafts, published in the Naval Architect There was a debate on the fees for marine services, introduced in May 1971, in which we discovered that the proposed fees had
  668
  been cut by the Government by as much as half. In a debate on 28th June 1971 we heard that the Government levied such fees at 50 per cent. less than what they considered to be the true economic cost figure. Only the last Labour Government took steps to see that the full cost of this service was implemented. However, we now have a Conservative Government in power and they have reduced the fees by half again. I understand that the Department made a loss of £1,200,000 in 1971 on marine service surveys. If only 50 per cent. of the fees are charged, perhaps that loss is understandable. It would surely be better to introduce fees which reflect the new costs. The Government have already done this in respect of health and welfare services, and I do not know why they do not do this in respect of the shipping industry. After all, if they are a "businessman's Government" they should take a businesslike view of the matter or admit to a further subsidy to the shipping industry.
  My Questions to the Department have since revealed that the Minister is now prepared to review these charges when these services are being undertaken by Lloyd's. It must be remembered that Lloyd's already controls 85 per cent. of shipping, and the extra services and charges will mean an increase in its revenue of over £1 million, which is a considerable amount of money. More information is required.
  The Government do not seem to have taken into account the fact that there are 33 classification societies in this country, five of which are major ones though with different national parent backgrounds. They all help the Government to understand new types of technology and to assist them to produce regulations for North Sea oil rigs, new type ships and under sea work. The organisations concerned use their fees to finance advanced research, making them more than just classification societies. Therefore, by concentrating this all in one organisation the Government will create a kind of monopoly situation, possibly reducing other societies and thereby denying themselves the very advice which can be provided by these classification societies—and it is advice which the Government sorely need when making regulations. Furthermore, specialisation by different

  669
  societies will deny the chance of the Government making comparisons.
  It has been said that Lloyd's Register is a non-profit-making body. I do not seek to argue to the contrary, but I would merely point out that in terms of safety regulations Lloyd's acts as agent for some 80 countries. Cyprus and Liberia are two of the countries involved. I should like to tell the House of an incident that happened in the Humber over a year ago involving a vessel registered in Cyprus called the "Blue Calypso". That ship had just been given a safety certificate by Lloyd's Register, as agent for the Cyprus Government. When we maritime unions protested about its safety, we discovered that when the ship went to Sweden and was examined by a Swedish Government surveyor it was found that certain parts of the vessel were held together by Elastoplast. This is a fact and is what was found by the Swedish authorities. It was also discovered that lifeboat davits failed when lifeboats were lowered, the lifeboat hull could be pushed through by hand, the life jackets were rotten and many other things were wrong with the safety of the vessel.
  I put forward this example to show that, although we are all aware of the possibility of human error in any sphere of activity, we must not necessarily take the view that all these matters will pass into the hands of a perfect organisation. Lloyd's is an organisation which works on an agency basis with Cyprus 85 per cent. of whose ships are over 15 years old, and whose tonnage increases rapidly, especially with transferred German tonnage. The unions complain constantly about safety matters on board these ships, with letters to the Minister—as they are Commonwealth ships, therefore. British—and to no avail.
  The Board of Lloyd's Register contains a considerable number of shipowners. I realise that it does not make a profit, but it certainly charges premiums and fees ; and the people who are charged those fees are shipowners and shipbuilders, a number of who constitute the board. I do not say that is the predominant interest for being on the board, but there is a certain amount of self-interest, and I believe that the same sort of considerations would not arise if
  670
  these matters were in the hands of the Government.
  Since we are looking at matters involving hiving-off of profitable sectors and are discussing sums like £1 million in fees, perhaps the Minister will be able to give firm figures of the amount of money involved. The figures I have put forward are calculated from the number of inspections by surveyors given in a Parliamentary Questions have shown that average fee figure. I hope that we shall be given a little more information in the Minister's reply.
  The Opposition and the unions representing seamen have constantly pressed the Government on the question of safety at sea, and it must be said that because of their action the Government's credibility in the maritime world on safety is highly suspect and their record. When we talk of a high safety record, we do measure this not by the amount of ship tonnage lost compared with what happens in other countries, but by the number of accidents in the industry, many of which are fatal. The fatal accident figure over the past few years has run at an average of 70 per year and up to August of this year there were 42 deaths. There is no legal requirement to provide accident figures, as under the Factory Acts, and the fatal accident figures for seamen are twice as high as the figure in the docks industry and in the mining industry, and four times as high as the figure in the construction industry. Those other industries are all considered to be highly dangerous. Certainly the merchant shipping industry in Great Britain ranks high in the accident league table and the figures are certainly higher than those in other maritime countries. There is only one other industry where the accident figures are worse, and that is the fishing industry.
  It is a strange and notable fact that in both the fishing and the merchant shipping industries the Government do not lay down statutory safety regulations for seamen. The Government argue that the M-notice system operates in the industry—in other words, that if a recommendation is sent to the companies, it is expected that those concerned will observe it. But the realities of the situation are very different. Experience will show that the M-notice system is not very

  671
  strictly observed, and it is not illegal to ignore it. There is one curious anomaly which I should like to mention. When a docker goes on board a ship he is by law provided with a gangway, under the Docks Regulations, and a pilot is provided with a pilot ladder, under Pilot Regulations. Both these matters are laid down by law. But no such law applies to a seaman who eat, sleeps and works a ship and, therefore, he is being given inadequate protection and the Government refuse to pass legislation to correct this, bearing in mind that a lot of the deaths are caused by falling from gangways.
  The Rochdale Report, and also the Pearson Report, agreed that there should be a statutory law in this respect. But the Government have refused to do anything about the situation. They have done nothing about safety. Therefore, we consider their action to be somewhat suspect. Although the Government seem quite content with the M-notice system, we are not satisfied with it since it has led to the highest accident rates in almost any industry.
  I should like to give the House a few examples of the consequence of this. A recent Board of Trade Marine Inquiry report dealt with a ship called the "Esso Cambria", in which clearly, not sufficient attention was given to the question of manning which constituted to its loss. Then there was an inquiry on a ship called "Nicolaw", in which there were two deaths. It was reported that the superintendent had not been notified about the signing on of the crew of uncertificated men. This the inquiry deplored as able to happen. Then there was a ship called the "Burtonia" in the Humber, in which there were four deaths and where again there was a breach of recommendation about loading. Yet another vessel, the "Surry Brook", had capsization problems in which the recommendations had not been observed about manning of able seamen and un-secure deck timber cargo. I have written to the Minister today about it.
  In regard to another vessel the "Festivity", into which there was a Government inquiry, after I called for prosecution of the owners we await the the report. This vessel had been abandoned by its crew of three, uncertificated,
  672
  and one man with five weeks' sea service. The owner, Mr. Frederick Everard, who owns considerable British tonnage, said in Lloyd's List, referring to the "Festivity",
  "If these ships had to sail with more men or better qualified men, they would be put under another flag."
  That is how they blackmail Governments into not bringing in safety measures.
  What has been the Government's response to all this? Despite various courts of inquiry, there has been very little in the way of Government action. Parliamentary questions have shown that the number of surveyors has been reduced by more than 100—in other words, they can carry out inspections only once a fortnight in 21 port areas.
  What is the situation in regard to marine superintendents who inspect ships to see whether there are competent men on board? If the Government are content to rely only on the M-notice system rather than look to more stringent surveillance techniques, then cases of this sort are bound to arise. The number of superintendents has been reduced since 1968. There were 102. The number is now 55, and 35 per cent. of the reduction was in the past 12 months. The Government talk about high safety standards, but their actions have reduced the surveillance powers which guarantee safety. There has been a reduction of staff, for reasons of cost, and a reduction of civil servants as Government policy. What costs are involved? It is not possible to get the right return if the fee charged is only 50 per cent. Consequently, greater losses are incurred. More information is needed on costs.
  Cost studies, referred to earlier, are taking place into the question whether ships should have life boats or life rafts, and the cost of surveyor time involved. These studies concern safety calculations and what costs may be saved. The study done by Mr. Goss and Mr. Gardner in the Department has stated that it all depends on the value put on a seaman's life. The value of a seaman's life is calculated to be £23,600—rounded to the nearest £100—a neat, horrifying statistical statement. This was calculated as being £17,855 at November 1970 prices, while the uneconomic cost of a seaman's life was estimated at £5,750.
  If the Government continue with these studies they will be violently resisted by

  673
  the trade union movement and those concerned with safety in the industry.
  We cannot and will not put a price on life. When the "Pisces" submarine sank no one suggested that the two members of the crew were each worth £23,000. Society did not think in those terms, but was concerned with saving the men. Therefore, the Government must not carry out studies to estimate the cost of men's lives, as an exercise to justify cutting down on civil servants whose job is to maintain safety standards in the industry. Such studies cannot be accepted in our civilised society, for these reasons, and make the Government priorities on safety highly suspect.
  The Government, despite the evidence of the inquiries, as well as the recommendations of the Rochdale and Pearson committees—
  Mr. Michael Heseltine: It is being suggested that the Government have introduced a novel method of costing human life which is therefore to be deplored. The subject may be difficult and embarrassing, but calculations of that sort were made, certainly regarding road improvements, throughout the period of the last Government.
  Mr. Prescott: That may have been the case, but the Rochdale Committee has argued about cost-effectiveness of surveyors. Parliamentary answers have indicated that cost-effectiveness studies were set up primarily for that reason.
  There was also a mention of the cost of surveyors. I hope that the Minister will not continue with these studies.
  The Government have ignored the evidence of their own Board of Trade marine inquiries and the recommendations of those bodies set up to study marine safety—the Rochdale and Pearson committees set up by the Labour Government to improve safety at sea. They have ignored the major recommendations of their own marine safety committee, and the opposition of trade unions and the Department's own surveyors. There is a high accidental death and accident rate in the industry, but still this does not move them to act.
  What marine unions and we fear most of all is that this represents a foot in the door. Will it be the Royal Yacht Association tomorrow? Will the trawler
  674
  industry be asking for the same facilities? Despite what Holland Martin said about the terrible safety procedures in the industry, an answer is required from the Government.
  Clause 19 refers to colonial power. I believe that the Minister is leading the negotiations in Hong Kong. Hong Kong wants to reduce safety standards so that ships can leave flag of convenience countries and use the British flag. Standards of manning and safety are requested to be reduced for them on a separate Hong Kong register. They wish to issue separate Hong Kong certificates of competence for these British ships.
  Can the Government seriously consider handing over such control to the acknowledged corrupt administration in Hong Kong? [Interruption.] The evidence is clear about Hong Kong, in this respect. A few dollars will buy anything. The Bill would give Hong Kong the opportunity of issuing regulations and contributing to further use of British flag ships as flag of convenience vessels.
  We welcome what is proposed in the Bill regarding pollution, but there are serious safety arguments involved. I have tried to highlight some of the matters and I hope that the Minister will reconsider the death and accident rates involved. Seamen in this country, maritime organisations and the Department's surveyors, demand that the Government do more than merely take the advice of civil servants. Safety and seamen's lives are at stake, and for these reasons we shall oppose this Bill as a further step in reducing the Government's responsibility in the field of maritime safety.
  7.33 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry ((Mr. Cranley Onslow): I should be happy to hear no more of the type of argument on which the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) chose to end his speech. There is no difference between the Government and the Opposition on the value of a man's life or in regard to the need for safety.
  The hon. Gentleman sits there muttering about the record, but it is time for him to replace emotion with reason and to speak softly and deal with the points, when he is a Front Bench spokesman. I

  675
  hope that when the Bill goes to Committee the hon. Gentleman will take up my suggestion, and that we shall now hear no more of that nonsense.
  I shall endeavour to deal with points raised in the debate. I cannot deal with all the points. My hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) gave an invitation, to which I warm, that all the matters raised were Committee points and should be dealt with in that way. I should be popular if I took up that suggestion, but I cannot follow my hon. Friend's advice to that extent.
  The question of bunkering was raised. This is of topical importance. The present position is that shipping, like every other industry except public service transport, is subject to a 10 per cent. cut applied to deliveries of petroleum products in the United Kingdom. Coastal shipping is already on the priority list, and I hope that this will provide a solution to a matter raised by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond).
  My hon. Friend the Minister has been asked by the Chamber of Shipping to put all shipping, irespective of flag, which loads and discharges at United Kingdom ports in the same category. In reply, we have asked the chamber to co-operate with us in identifying the list of "priority trades". These discussions are continuing. It is easier to identify some categories of ships which should go to the end of the queue, such as cruise liners, or those calling at United Kingdom ports only to bunker.
  The Chamber of Shipping has emphasised that it does not want priority to be given to United Kingdom ships in United Kingdom ports. Such discrimination would be infectious, and would damage the chance of United Kingdom ships getting bunkers in foreign ports, particularly when engaged on cross-trades.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain) referred to pilot ladders. These are regulated by the Merchant Shipping (Pilot Ladders) Rules 1965, as twice amended, in 1971 and 1972. The rules implement internationally agreed requirements, contained in the Safety of Life at Sea Convention 1960. There are at present no matters particularly under discussion between the Department and
  676
  the Pilots' Association, but I know my hon. Friend's interest in the matter and I am sure that he will keep us up to the mark.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Nicholas Edwards) referred to the dumping of plastic cups and chemicals at sea. This matter is covered internationally for the first time in the Marine Pollution Convention 1973, which was concluded at Church House earlier this month. This convention is not yet open to signing, and it will take some years to ratify. In the interval his ingenuity may well enable him to find a hole in the Dumping at Sea Bill when it reaches here from another place.
  The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland raised several questions which amounted to a request for a do-it-yourself suing kit for his constituents, which would enable them to make up for the shortage of lawyers in that area. If this is to be a matter of legal advice, we shall have to spell it out, and I will write to him.
  With regard to the right hon. Member's specific question, the Bill does not apply to compensation for oil spilled from a dry cargo ship. It has a limited objective. The most serious oil pollution derives from tankers, and that is what is dealt with in the Bill.
  The right hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) made the point about those delightful sisters, CRISTAL and TOVALOP. The fund would supersede CRISTAL. It is probable that the TOVALOP scheme will continue. This is a matter being considered by the fund sponsors at the moment. On the important point about tanker accidents, the best thing I can do is to offer to write to my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Mr. Wingfield Digby), who raised it.
  Turning to Clause 18 and the Northern Lights, I tell the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland that the reason for bringing this in is that the Isle of Man has not, so far, had any representation on the Commissioners of Northern Lighthouses, and this is what we are trying to put right.
  I know that those are not all the questions I was asked, but I will take the advice of my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth and say that I will regard them as Committee points in the

  677
  hope that the House will forgive me. What I want to do now is to turn to the substance of the Opposition charge against the Bill.
  They tell us that they welcome Parts I and II and regard Part III, if the right hon. Member for Barnsley is the authority on this subject, as regrettable but necessary. This is the line we would generally take. There have been trends which we cannot ignore. There is no departure on our part from a desire to see the freedom of the seas maintained in trade as much as possible. But it would be foolish and self-denying of us not to recognise that we are in danger of being isolated if we do not act in our own defence and take contingency powers. This is what we intend to do, and, like any deterrent, we hope that the situation will not arise when we have to use them.
  A number of hon. Members criticised Part IV. I think they have got this quite wrong. This is a logical process and in no way extraordinary. It does not represent on our part any desire to yield to a rush of political dogma. All this talk about hiving-off could scarcely be further from an accurate description of events. To suggest that there is some sinister gambling here, some desire to subordinate safety to profit, is a grave distortion, and I hope that I can persuade the House that I am not exaggerating in so describing it.
  The proposals to delegate certain further statutory marine survey functions to Lloyd's Register have their origin in the Rochdale Report, advocating as it did the setting up of a statutory marine authority, a course which the Government decided they did not wish to follow. In taking a decision on this the Minister agreed instead to carry out a review of the whole area of survey work to see whether there could be advantage in a further measure of delegation without detriment to safety and, incidentally, to deal with the point about duplication which the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East raised.
  Throughout the discussions the Department's representatives have had safety uppermost in their minds. The proposals contain a number of built-in safeguards to ensure the upholding of present standards. A fundamental one is the maintaining of a Department of Trade and
  678
  Industry presence aboard all United Kingdom registered ships, including those which seldom call at United Kingdom ports. In this and a number of other ways this legislation represents a significant advance and is certainly a response to modern conditions.
  The hon. Gentleman made much of not having heard about the additional work which was to be handed over to the surveyors who would be released from duties to be taken over by Lloyd's Register. He ought to be able to see what kind of work this is and how important it is that the Government should take it up.
  One of the vital matters to which we want to turn these resources is the regulations affecting fishing vessels. On the hon. Member's own statement, we are evidently right in giving them the highest priority, and I am grateful for his support. There is also the question of dangerous cargoes and there is work in the North Sea, on submersibles, and tanker certification. As my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain) pointed out, we also have extensive powers to inspect foreign ships in our ports. The hon. Gentleman wants us to use these powers. We shall have resources released, as a result of handing over this work, which can be put to more essential purposes.
  I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we have a finite number of competent surveyors at our disposal. If the work load increases the right course must be to see how it can be re-arranged to adjust to changing circumstances. We shall have plenty of time in Committee to take up such points. About 15 per cent. of the present effort is being switched in character. The unions were told about this in June. There was a response from two of them. The only other response came from the Seafarers' Joint Council in the form of a document which reached hon. Members at about the same time as it reached the Government, in October. It came to us, incidentally, under a compliments slip, not under any formal notification at all.
  In the intervening period there was total silence. There was no effort on the part of the unions, collectively or individually, to make representations to us, to seek clarification, to ask whether

  679
  there was scope for consultation. No effort was made at all, as my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. S. James A. Hill) has said, by the unions to get in touch with individual Members of Parliament. I believe that the House can see that the whole thing was a figment of the imagination of a fevered few, among them obviously the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East.
  Mr. Prescott: It is up to the Department to consult the unions.
  Mr. Onslow: The hon. Gentleman made a point about the Hong Kong Register. The unions have not been slow to let us know their views on that. I find it extraordinary that they should have sat back and said "We wonder when the Government will get in touch with us."
  Mr. Prescott Mr. Prescott rose—
  Mr. Onslow: Here is a letter which says a lot of interesting things. If the hon. Gentleman has seen the letter which went to the unions—has he?
  Mr. Prescott: Yes.
  Mr. Onslow: Then I would be grateful if he would go away and re-read it.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): Order. If the Minister does not intend to give way to the hon. Gentleman he should not be too provocative.
  Mr. Prescott: There is a difference here. I expect that the Minister has looked at this before making that statement. The difference is that there were no negotiations with the unions concerning Lloyd's Register. The unions were told what the decision was. On the Hong Kong Register, the Minister has informed the unions of what he is proposing or considering. I understand he is still having discussions. One subject is in the consultation process, no decisions having been taken, while in the other case a decision has been taken and the unions were told what has to be done.
  Mr. Onslow: It is a distinction without a difference. I will take the hon. Gentleman up on a particular point. He made much play of this difference between cargo and passenger ships.
  680
  There was a great song and dance about it, and there is in this document sent to us by the Seafarers' Joint Council under cover of a compliments slip with no other communication. If the hon. Gentleman does not agree that the Government can distinguish between ships carrying passengers not used to going to sea and ships which do not carry passengers then he might have thought "We'll write to these chaps and ask them". There has been nothing at all.
  In this document sent to us, without any attempt to get clarification or to open communications, there are a whole series of inaccurate statements, many of them based on complete misconceptions, some of them based, frankly, on a failure to read the papers sent out, which I would be delighted to read. Unfortunately there is not enough time. I will read them to the Committee and no doubt we can have fun going through them together.
  Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: Before my hon. Friend leaves this point of safety, will he confirm that the Government do not agree with the strictures made by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prestcott) about the firm of Everards? Is he aware that all people who go to sea in the Channel know that this firm has a splendid reputation and a particularly fine reputation for looking after its own men?
  Mr. Prestcott: Rubbish.
  Mr. Onslow: If there was any way in which a British company was defaulting on its safety standards the appropriate action would be taken by those charged with the responsibility of maintaining safety. If the hon. Gentleman has any evidence which he would like to make available I hope that he will do so. It is no good bandying accusations about on the Floor of the House if he is not prepared to back them up with evidence. I look forward with pleasure to prolonged exchanges on this subject in Committee.
  I want to get this matter in perspective. For reasons I do not understand, perhaps prejudice or ignorance, some people acting in the name of the Seafarers' Joint Council took it upon themselves to stir things up, as we can see from this document. Significantly, no effort has been made to take into account the fair points which Lloyd's Register has put across.

  681
  I know that the hon. Gentleman has had a letter from the chairman, because he kindly sent a copy to me. I will be happy to read it to the Committee. If he has read it, and I dare say he has not, he will know that he ought to be careful about repeating in his speech some of the old and baseless remarks which form so much of the foundation of the case which Labour Members have sought to deploy against the Bill.
  If there was any substance in their arguments, which I do not believe, it would have been a good case for a reasoned amendment to the effect that this House, while it welcomes Parts I, II and III, nevertheless declines to give a Second Reading to the Bill because of its objections to Part IV. Instead, we have the usual over-hasty reaction which we have come to expect from the right hon. Member for Barnsley, and he invites his right hon. and hon. Friends, who if they had all the information would not be so gullible, to troop into the Division lobby behind him.
  I wish I had more time to go over all these matters tonight. But, frankly, the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East have made themselves look a little foolish, and I shall give them a moment in which to reflect on the position in which they have put themselves, because I have one more point that I wish to make.
  In these matters, consultation between the sides is the norm. There is mutual confidence, there is respect, and there should be mutual esteem. No one wants to see that maintained more than my hon. Friend the Minister for Aerospace and Shipping and I do. Anyone who seeks to disturb the present good relations in all matters having to do with the maritime industries should think carefully before embarking on such a course, whatever his motives may be.
  I make two points to the right hon. Member for Barnsley to illustrate the importance that we attach to consultation. He will remember that in the debate on the regulations under the 1970 Act on 30th January of this year I reiterated the Government's undertaking to start in 1973 on a review of Sections 28 to 31 concerning offences by seamen. I am glad to say that a first consultative document in this review is being sent today to representative organisations in the shipping and fishing industries and that we intend to begin consultations with the representative organisations in the New Year. This review gives us a welcome opportunity to consider any other provisions of the Act which are proposed for amendment.
  I am glad also to tell the House that the suggestion made in the Pearson Report to the effect that the moneys received by the Government from fines imposed on seamen by their masters should be made available to the seamen's charities is a matter to which we have given further consideration. We are prepared in principle to make a grant-in-aid to the Merchant Navy Welfare Board of an amount equivalent to the fines received in the previous financial year. On both those points I hope that I can give the right hon. Gentleman an earnest of our desire that there should be consultation in these matters.
  There was consultation in this case. I hope that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite have had time to reflect and that they will reconsider their hasty decision to divide the House against the Second Reading. If not, I can only invite my right hon. and hon. Friends to treat the attitude of the Opposition with the contempt that it deserves.
  Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time :—
  The House divided : Ayes 125, Noes 100.

  Division No. 15.]

  AYES

  [7.50 p.m.

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

  Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

  Costain, A. P,

  Archer, Jeffre (Louth)

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Burden, F. A.

  Drayson, G. B.

  Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

  Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

  Chapman, Sydney

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Benyon, W.

  Chichester-Clark, R

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

  Biffen, John

  Churchill, W. S.

  Emery, Peter

  Biggs-Davison. John

  Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

  Eyre, Reginald

  Boardman Tom (Leicester. S.W.)

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Farr, John

  Boscawen, Hn. Robert

  Clegg, Walter

  Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

  Bowden, Andrew

  Cooper, A. E

  Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

  Bray. Ronald

  Corfield, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick

  Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Kinsey, J. R.

  Sainsbury, Tim

  Fowler, Norman

  Knox, David

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

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

  Lamont, Norman

  Shersby, Michael

  Galbraith, Hn. T. G. D.

  Le Marchant, Spencer

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Goodhart, Philip

  Longden, Sir Gilbert

  Soref, Harold

  Goodhew, Victor

  Loveridge, John

  Speed, Keith

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

  McMaster, Stanley

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Gray, Hamish

  McNair-Wilson, Michael

  Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

  Green, Alan

  Madel, David

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

  Mawby, Ray

  Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

  Grylls, Michael

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Tebbit, Norman

  Gummer, J. Selwyn

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

  Temple, John M.

  Gurden, Harold

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

  Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

  Moate, Roger

  Tugendhat, Christopher

  Hall, Sir John (Wycombe)

  Monks, Mrs. Connie

  Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin

  Hannam, John (Exeter)

  Morgan-Giles, Rear Adm.

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Harvie Anderson, Miss

  Neave, Airey

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Heseltine, Michael

  Onslow, Cranley

  Wall, Patrick

  Hicks, Robert

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Ward, Dame Irene

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

  Osborn, John

  Warren, Kenneth

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

  Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Holland, Philip

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

  White, Roger (Gravesend)

  Hornsby-Smith. Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia

  Peel, Sir John

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  James, David

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

  Jessel, Toby

  Raison, Timothy

  Younger, Hn. George

  Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

  Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

  Jopling, Michael

  Redmond, Robert

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES :

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Mr. Paul Hawkins and

  Kimball, Marcus

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Mr. A. G. F. Hall-Davis.

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  NOES

  Atkinson, Norman

  Horam, John

  Palmer, Arthur

  Austick, David

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

  Pardoe, John

  Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

  Janner, Greville

  Parker, John (Dagenham)

  Bishop, E. S.

  Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Booth, Albert

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Perry, Ernest G.

  Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

  Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

  Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

  Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

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

  Prescott, John

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

  Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

  Radice, Giles

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

  Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)

  Carter, Ray (Birmingh' m, Northfield)

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Roper, John

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

  Kelley, Richard

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

  Concannon, J. D.

  Lamborn, Harry

  Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

  Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

  Loughlin, Charles

  Silverman, Julius

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

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Dalyell, Tam

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Small, William

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

  Maclennan, Robert

  Spearing, Nigel

  Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)

  McMillan, Torn (Glasgow, C.)

  Stallard, A. W.

  Deakins, Eric

  McNamara, J. Kevin

  Stoddart, David (Swindon)

  de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

  Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

  Stott, Roger

  Delargy, Hugh

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

  Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

  Eadie, Alex

  Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

  Tinn, James

  Edelman, Maurice

  Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Varley, Eric G.

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  Mendelson, John

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Edwards, William (Merioneth)

  Mikardo, Ian

  Wallace, George

  Forrester, John

  Millan, Bruce

  Watkins, David

  Freud, Clement

  Miller, Dr. M. S.

  Wellbeloved, James

  Galpern, Sir Myer

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

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Garrett, W. E.

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Whitlock, William

  Gilbert, Dr. John

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

  Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)

  Moyle, Roland

  Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

  Golding, John

  Ogden, Eric

  Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

  O'Halloran, Michael

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES :

  Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.

  Oram, Bert

  Hamling, William

  Orme, Stanley

  Mr. James A. Dunn and

  Harrison, Waller (Wakefield)

  Oswald, Thomas

  Mr. Joseph Harper

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Bill read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

WAYS AND MEANS

  MERCHANT SHIPPING
  Resolved,
  That for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make further provision concerning oil pollution by ships and other matters
  684
  relating to merchant shipping it is expedient to authorise—

  (a) the imposition on importers of oil and others of obligations to contribute to an international fund for compensation for oil pollution damage,

  (b) the imposition of charges (payable into the Consolidated Fund) in respect of ships entering the United Kingdom where the shipping or trading interests of the United Kingdom are damaged or threatened, or in fulfilment of any international obligation.

  (c) the payment of any sum into the Consolidated Fund.—[Mr. Onslow.]

FUEL AND ELECTRICITY (CONTROL) BILL
Considered in Committee.
[Sir ROBERT GRANT-FERRIS in the Chair]

FUEL AND ELECTRICITY (CONTROL) BILL
  Clause 1

    APPLICATION OF ACT
    8.3 p.m.
    Mr. Arthur Palmer: I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in Clause 1, page 1, line 12, leave out subsection (2).
    The purpose of the amendment is to exempt electricity supply from the sweeping ministerial control which is proposed to be imposed upon it by this legislation. That these are sweeping powers the Committee need have no doubt.
    The purpose of the Bill is to enable the Secretary of State to control the production, supply, and acquisition of petroleum and other fuels.
    Electricity is referred to in the second part of Clause 1, and the proposal is to control its "production, supply and use". I notice with interest that the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum uses the words that I have just mentioned. In the electricity supply industry one normally talks about the generation, distribution and utilisation of electricity. But the wording of the proposed legislation refers to the control of its "production, supply and use". No doubt the Minister will confirm, one way or the other, when he replies that the meaning is the same. The intention appears to be for the Minister to have control over the whole process of electricity supply from the terminals of the generator through to the terminals of the ultimate consumer.
    This great industry, which is basic to our economy, the greatest single user of capital in British industry ; an industry nationalised for many years now and for which Parliament has established 16 public corporations in Great Britain and one in Northern Ireland—because the scope of the Bill extends to Northern Ireland—and made elaborate provisions for its organisation and management, is
    686
    to be handed over to the virtual dictatorship of the Secretary of State until 30th November 1974, and perhaps beyond, because certain reserve powers are included in the Bill. The Secretary of State may decide where and how much electricity may be produced and to whom it may be supplied. Therefore, in one stroke, all the detailed legislative safeguards for domestic, commercial and industrial consumers, and the quality and continuity of supply, are to be set aside.
    The Committee will be aware that the technical staff in electricity supply have been much criticised, certainly by Ministers, for their industrial action and for deciding themselves what duties they will perform out of normal working hours. They are in conflict with the Government over a claim for certain agreed out-of-hours payments which they argue should be honoured, but on which the Government argue otherwise. Therefore, the technical staff, organised by the Electrical Power Engineers' Association are determining the conditions and priorities of supply and they are now in control of the situation. This had and is bound to have the effect of occasionally resulting in the cessation of supplies.
    I suggest, however, that under the terms of the Bill consumers of electricity are now at much greater risk from the Secretary of State than from the technical staff because the right hon. Gentleman, through this measure, proposes to take away from the electricity supply industry its normal obligation to maintain continuity of supply. If consumers of electricity lose their supply, and it is not reconnected it will be very hard for them to decide who is responsible—the technical staffs or the Secretary of State. Under these powers the Minister may also, apparently, instruct an engineer or other employee to discontinue a supply if he wishes. He will become a virtual dictator. If such a situation occurs, I hope that the Minister will make it clear that it is he who is doing it and not the Electrical Power Engineers' Association. Once this measure has been passed, which will probably be quite soon, the electricity boards will be relieved of any obligation to maintain continuity of supply

    687
    and the Minister can determine whether consumers receive electricity or otherwise.
    I object to these powers. For all my political life I have advocated the public ownership of utilities and, in general, the basic industries. But I have never believed that those industries should be controlled and run by Ministers and civil servants. I do not know whether that view is fully shared by all of my hon. Friends, but that has consistently been my view. I believe that publicly-owned industries, at every level, should be run by those with the knowledge, training and experience which make them the best qualified to do that. No longer will that be so, apparently, for a year.
    What can happen when Ministers attempt, through officials, to run complicated and advanced technology industries of this kind was illustrated, as the Minister knows very well, only a couple of weeks ago. Under the emergency powers which the Government took to themselves, the Department of Trade and Industry drew up an order which they placed before the House. That was an order for the control of electric space heating in all its forms. I confess that I gasped when I read that order. It seemed to be completely impracticable. It banned all electric heating as it was at first drafted, both on-peak and off-peak heating. Anyone with the slightest knowledge of the operation of power stations would know that such a ban was more likely to waste fuel than to save it. Great power stations cannot be placed on and off like kettles on the hob. That was not understood in the Department, apparently. I raised the matter when the Home Secretary was introducing these powers. I asked him whether there had been consultation with the electricity supply industry, and he said that he was sure that there had been consultation. He just did not know, but he gave that answer. Later on in the same debate we had the sequel. The Minister for Industry had to confess that there had been no consultation and that the order as drafted was a nonsense. The order had to be substantially revised.
    This does not augur well for the powers which the Minister is now taking to himself. Apparently in the future he is to run the industry, rather than those who were appointed under the statute to operate it. Therefore, what guarantee does the Com-
    688
    mittee or the electricity supply industry have that more blunders of this kind will not be made in the future, either out of sheer ignorance, which appears to have been the case on the previous occasion, or out of a conviction of right hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench that they always know best?
    8.15 p.m.
    I do not wish to argue that circumstances do not arise in which Ministers must take special powers to deal with special situations. But if such powers are taken they should be limited in duration and should be subject, at every stage, to the closest parliamentary scrutiny. When we discuss the other amendments, we shall be arguing the matter of duration and for just how long this business is to continue, whether it can be modified and changed, and whether it can be indefinitely extended. But apart from the question of duration in the matter of powers of this kind, the powers should also be limited in scope and extent. The Secretary of State should not say to himself "I will take in everything, because that is the easiest thing to do." He should exercise some economy in his thoughts on these matters and take in only as much as is necessary, and nothing beyond that.
    Therefore, the case for not including electricity supply is strong. After all, subsections 1(a) and (b) of the clause control the primary resources from which electricity is devised. As I understand it—no doubt the Minister will confirm this later—subsection 1(a) and (b) give ministerial control over coal, which is the greatest single source in the making of electricity, over oil and over uranium. It gives control in fact over all the primary resources. We get a little electricity in the United Kingdom from hydro power. I think that this also is controlled by the Bill, although I have not given a lot of thought to that. As I read then the Bill, the Minister has control over the primary resources from which electricity is derived—coal, oil and uranium. Electricity, as such, although hardly a substance—it cannot be seen, but under some circumstances it can certainly be felt—is a secondary energy source. It is as a secondary energy source that it transfers the primary energy to the point of use.
    Therefore, why is there this desire on the part of the Secretary of State to rule everything by a virtual decree? Why

    689
    does he want such an enormous empire of control? What is the real intention behind it? Are there any precedents for it? I cannot remember precedents. Has the Secretary of State brought in electricity with coal because he brackets the miners' perfectly proper refusal to work overtime with the power engineers' equally proper decision to decide their out-of-hours working? Does the Secretary of State automatically bracket the two? Does he feel that he must have control of electricity because of the labour situation? I hope that that is an unworthy assertion on my part. But these are sweeping powers and the Minister can decide what he will direct, which must include individuals.
    Is it the intention that, if there were further industrial action in the electricity supply industry, he will take power to introduce outside labour or contract labour? The Secretary of the State, or the Minister for Industrial Development who will speak for him, will probably say that nothing could be farther from their minds. But they should clear up this issue because they could have all the control they needed, if they were content with the primary sources, without moving on to the universal secondary source. The more I study this Bill the more I think the Opposition should have divided against it. As it was, we let it go through, but it is a most objectionable Bill and it needs a tremendous amount of justification. The Minister should put up a very powerful case on the Government's behalf to the Committee for including electricity supply in the present Clause.
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: Before we give these enormous powers—as my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Palmer) called them—may I ask two questions, the first of relatively minor importance and the second of critical importance?
    The relatively minor question is ; after all that has happened in the last few weeks, is it not possible to publish the report of the committee which sat under the chairmanship of Peter Vinter, setting out the various options on atomic energy? I make no bones about the fact that I have always thought it should be published but, in a normal commercial setup, I can see reasons why the Vinter report should not have been made public.
    690
    But we now have a completely different situation, where the whole world is in search of every form of energy that it can lay its hands on, and in these circumstances it would be sensible to publish such information as the Vinter Committee gave the Government on which they could base their options. But I do not make too much of that point.
    On the second issue, I hope that before the evening is out we can get some kind of undertaking that before the House goes into the Christmas Recess there will be a statement, albeit an interim statement, on precisely the kind of decisions that will be taken in relation to nuclear policy. It is very easy to ask questions of the Government. I should like to say what I think they ought to do, and what the Minister ought to choose to do. As a first step, the Minister should get into his office all the experts who may have anything to contribute, and probe as deeply as possible whether the advanced gas-cooled reactor is, or is not, a starter on the information that will come from Dungeness B and Hinckley B, and all other available information.
    This may be the most important decision which the Secretary of State will take in his political career, wherever that may lead him. It is of great importance, because we could sink thousands of millions of pounds into it. If there is anything approaching certainty, and the gas-cooled reactor looks like working and being completed within a 7 or 8-year period, then perhaps the Government would be right to take the risk and go ahead and have a whole programme of AGRs. This would be the best solution. But I have grave doubts, based on the views of those who know far more about the matter than I ever shall do, whether any Government would be justified in taking such a risk, because, at the end of the day, we might find that the corrosion problems were too considerable and this country really would be left in the proverbial cart.
    There are two less attractive but more realistic propositions. One of them is to say "All right, let us go back to the British reactor system, the old hat Magnox, because at least we know that it will work." My information is that the Magnox reactor could be built within a 4 to 5-year period, and, if it were done on the basis of replication, a pattern of

    691
    Magnox reactors could be created throughout this country. The costs would not be unreasonable by present-day standards, the engineering problems have been more or less overcome and this would give us the certainty of major nuclear production by 1978–79. That would be one option. It would be the safe course. It may not be on the frontiers of technology, but at least it is a serious option.
    The second option is to go ahead with the country which has perhaps had the most successful nuclear power programme of any of the past 20 years, and I refer to Canada. The question is whether we should accept negotiations with the Canadians, to put our eggs in the one basket of the CANDU duterium reactor. I mention this because Lorne Gray has been in London this week and I think he has met the Minister ; at any rate, he has met senior officials. I should like to ask—it may be too early ; I have a Parliamentary Question down to ask for a full Government statement on discussions that are very new—whether we can have a statement on what the Canadian offer is, because those of us who have been to Chalk River, as I think my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, Central, has, to the centre of the Canadian nuclear energy programme, know how extremely impressive it is. They would provide expertise and a market and, perhaps most enticingly of all from our point of view, by going ahead on the basis of CANDU much of the technology of the steam-generated heavy water reactor—as my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, Central, and I know from Win-frith—could be used in a joint British-Canadian programme. Also, we know that the CANDU nuclear reactor actually works.
    As I said, there are these two options, and I hope that the Minister will be able tonight to give the House an undertaking that before the Christmas Recess we shall have a statement—at any rate, an interim statement, about something which deserves the most senior and urgent ministerial attention.
    Mr. Kenneth Warren: I cannot agree with the hon. Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Palmer) in his attempt to exclude electricity, but I have
    692
    some sympathy with him about the wording of the Preamble, because it is not really clear, as it ought to be, that what is sought is temporary provisions for controlling the production, supply, acquisition and use of fuel of all kinds. The fact that electricity has been added as an apparent afterthought is perhaps the reason for his amendment. I do not believe that one can separate the items along the chain of fuel production, whether the output happens to be gas, oil or electricity to the consumer. What one has to define is the primary point of production about which we are concerned—and that is the point at which something becomes usable by a consumer in the home or in industry.
    It is interesting to find that we have a debate developing in which the Opposition appear to desire freedom and on this side there is a desire for control. No doubt the Minister will be able to help me out of that pitfall, into which I would not wish to fall without his aid.
    I have some sympathy with the point of the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) about civil nuclear energy. I received on 12th November a most useful reply from the Minister about the amount of money put into civil nuclear research over the last 10 years. At first sight, it seems that the expenditure has been stable, but if one looks at the figures one sees that in 1963–64 £53 million was spent, which dropped to a low of £41 million in 1968–69, representing in real terms a drop to £33 million. In 1972–73, the last complete year for which we have figures, the expenditure was £49 million, which in 1963 terms represents £30 million. So we are down to just over half what we were spending 10 years ago. This is very serious, when we should be considering every possible alternative source of fuel.
    8.30 p.m.
    I wonder whether we should not examine the Canadian project very carefully before committing ourselves to a doubtful American reactor whose safety standards have yet to be proved to our satisfaction. We should consider this carefully perhaps, not only in the context of United Kngdom usage but in terms of European usage. As a member of the Select Committee on Science and Technology and of the Council of Europe,

    693
    I shall be one of those who go to Canada next year to see their progress. I hope that we shall have a statement before the recess in the terms for which the hon. Member asked.
    The Minister for Industry (Mr. Tom Boardman): I am grateful for the opportunity to explain more fully the reason for including electricity in this clause. It was not included in the 1967 Act, but it is believed to be right to include it now because the supply of electricity in the event of shortage of coal or oil might be included to eke out those supplies. The powers might also be used if there were a shortage of generating capacity, which could arise through unwillingness to work out of work hours and a number of other circumstances, including plant failure and lack of plant availability.
    In the recent fuel supply difficulties, without this Bill—indeed, this was the situation before the Bill existed—it would be necessary to operate electricity restrictions by use of the emergency regulations. We had prohibited the use of electricity for space heating in non-domestic premises, and for advertising, display lighting and floodlighting. This will be re-imposed if necessary, as I fear it will be, under the powers conferred by the Bill.
    The hon. Member for Bristol Central (Mr. Palmer) criticised the way in which those powers were introduced and the lack of consultation. I told him when we debated this before that there had not been consultation on the precise orders which were brought in. I added that there had been consultation on broadly similar orders although alterations had been made—
    Mr. Palmer: Why was there not consultation? Was it an oversight or was it deliberate? The Minister will agree that the order as first drafted was an absolute nonsense.
    Mr. Boardman: I do not accept that it was an absolute nonsense. After further consultation, I thought it desirable to make changes in it. I explained the situation to the hon. Gentleman, and I can assure him that we are having careful consultations with this industry and with other industries on such measures as it may be necessary to take.
    694
    As a result of that order, coupled with the public response to appeals to economise on electricity, there was a reduction in demand of about 5 per cent. This will vary with the weather and there is not a constant temperature against which to take an accurate measurement. But as we get further into winter and the demand rate rises—and the margin between generating capacity and demand will remain slim—it may be necessary to retain the powers we have and also to make such further restrictions as circumstances may demand. The saving so far has been of significant help in the operational control of generating and of the distribution system.
    I must emphasise that there is continuing need for economy and if the public, as I hope it will, continues to play its part by switching off unnecessary lights and other electrical apparatus, particularly in the late afternoon and early evening between 3.30 p.m. and 6.30 p.m., when demand is heavy, it will make an important contribution to the efforts of the industry to meet the load demand.
    The hon. Member referred to the wide powers, asking whether it was necessary to go right through from generation to the consumption of electricity. I find that difficult to follow because, in the case of a shortage of fuel or of any shortages affecting operation or bringing restrictions on the system, it is necessary to ensure that one has complete control at demand level so that it is, as far as possible, brought down to match the supply available.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Hastings (Mr. Warren) suggested that the primary point with which we are all concerned is where supply really reaches the consumer. That is in contrast with the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that the only control needed is at the point where the fuel is supplied.
    Mr. Palmer: I am sure I am right about this. After all, if there is a shortage of primary supplies, then the electricity boards have their own load-shedding arrangements and they would automatically reduce the supply of electricity in the secondary sense. It is not necessary for a Minister to give an instruction on it.
    Mr. Boardman: I am surprised to hear the hon. Gentleman suggesting that it

    695
    should be left entirely to the discretion of the electricity boards, for whose responsible attitude I have as high a respect as he has, to decide the priorities that should apply across the nation. Indeed, wide discretion may have to be and is given on a number of occasions, but it must be the responsibility of the Government, when there is shortage, to take the decisions on the constraints which must be placed on demand and on which consumers or potential consumers shall be constrained or restricted and which shall be placed under less severe handicaps.
    The hon. Gentleman said that this would hand over virtually dictatorial power to the Secretary of State to decide by whom supply was produced, when it was produced and to whom it was supplied. I remind him that this matter needs an order which is, of course, subject to the negative resolution procedure.
    The hon. Gentleman also referred to the Electrical Power Engineers' Association. I shall not go into that matter except to correct his statement that it is in conflict with the Government. I remind him again that the difference is between the EPEA and the Electricity Council and the provisions in the code. The council and the association are collectively seeing whether there is a case which they can jointly put forward for consideration by the Pay Board.
    Mr. Palmer Mr. Palmer rose—
    Mr. Boardman: I hope the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not give way to him on this point. I suggest that the conflict is between what the EPEA wishes to happen and what the code provides. Perhaps we can leave it at that.
    The hon. Gentleman suggested that an order under the Bill would enable the Secretary of State to instruct an engineer to disconnect supply. That would not be so. It would enable the Secretary of State to give directions as to who should have supply, but the management of the industry must remain with those who are the capable and only people able to deal with it.
    The hon. Member referred to the need to have control over primary fuels as being something he would accept, but said there was no need to go beyond
    696
    that. I find it difficult to accept this, since there is a variety of ways in which fuel can be most effectively used to meet national needs. Not to have control would be to fall far short of the responsibility which my right hon. Friend will have to discharge.
    The hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) raised a number of points on the nuclear programme. They went somewhat wide of the amendment, but I would assure him, in relation to the various systems, including Candu, no less than the other systems which are canvassed, including Magnox, the advanced gas cooler reactor, the heavy water reactor, the pressurised boiling water reactor, the American reactors with their advantages and disadvantages, and the safety factors, that they are all being very carefully and fully reviewed by the Nuclear Power Advisory Board, which contains many of the most brilliant brains which we in this country have on the subject. They will give my right hon. Friend most skilled and able advice.
    Mr. Alex Eadie: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. This is a very important point. According to the Press the South of Scotland Electricity Board has had consultations with the Canadians about their type of reactor because the board has planning proposals in relation to a power station in Scotland. Can the Minister confirm that those discussions are taking place between the board and representatives from Canada?
    Mr. Boardman: The representatives of the Canadian Government have seen a great number of people in the industry and rightly are putting forward their merits and achievements. Mr. Tombs is a member of that board and of the Nuclear Power Advisory Board, as the hon. Member will know. I accept what the hon. Member said about their achievements in Pickering, which has been a remarkably successful project. This is one of the systems which will be considered by the Advisory Board. It would be quite inappropriate for me to express now any view on which way the Advisory Board's opinion may go, or the time when that decision will be made, or, indeed, to say at this stage more than already has been said by my right hon. Friend.

    697
    The hon. Member also asked about the Vinter Report. I have nothing to add to what has been said in the House and in the Select Committee on a number of occasions about the reasons why it was considered inappropriate that that report should be published.
    My final comment is that the position of the hon. Member for Bristol, Central seems somewhat anomalous. I think he must find himself in an anomalous position in urging an amendment to say that the powers should be retained by the industry when on all other occasions, particularly with reference to the nuclear industry, he has been critical of industry being given powers which, he has said, should be assumed by the Government.
    I must advise my hon. Friends that we are unable to accept the amendment. Retention of this power to take control over the supply of electricity is, or may be, essential to a proper preservation of supplies and the safeguarding purposes for which the Bill is introduced.
    Amendment negatived.
    Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  Clause 2

    POWERS OF CONTROL
    8.45 p.m.
    Mr. S. C. Silkin: I beg to move Amendment No. 2, in Clause 2, page 1, line 18, after 'applies', insert :—
    'Provided that any such order which enables disabled persons to claim a Business Ration of petroleum shall include among the disabled persons so entitled such disabled persons as, by reason of physical disability, require a vehicle to take them to and from their place of work and are the holders of a local authority's disabled drivers' badge'.
    This is a probing amendment which I hope will not detain the Committee for long. As I understand the Bill, it is under this clause that petrol rationing, if it comes in, will be introduced. Press notices have already appeared in the newspapers explaining how to claim and who can claim what. I am not altogether sure whether at the moment these notices have any statutory authority, but no doubt in due course it is intended that they should have the authority of this clause.
    The point that I wish to make is limited but important for a number of disabled drivers. The Press notices that have been
    698
    put out show that the business ration for vital and priority drivers may be claimed by a number of people about whom one would not wish to quarrel. At the end of the list come the disabled who in the course of their work use three specific categories of vehicle. The first is a DHSS vehicle, no doubt the Invacar. The second vehicle is one for which a DHSS grant or maintenance allowance is payable. The third is a vehicle exempt from excise duty. The problem which arises and which this amendment seeks to deal with is in the case of a disabled driver who needs his vehicle to get to and from work but does not qualify under any of the categories unless the second category has a wider meaning than is at first apparent.
    A constituent of mine who is a member of the legal profession is compelled to drive from my constituency to central London and back every day, and he cannot do without his vehicle. It is because of his problem and, no doubt, that of many others in the same situation that I raise this case. He does not have a DHSS vehicle. He had an ordinary car. It is not exempt from excise duty, and so under the terms as they appear in the Press notice he would be confined to the second category if that were the category under which he could claim his business ration. The second category is
    "b. a vehicle for which a DHSS grant or maintenance allowance is payable".
    My constituent, being a man of relatively affluent means, has no need for a DHSS grant or maintenance allowance and is certainly under the impression that his means are such that if he asked for one he would not get it. Quite clearly, however, the question of whether he should be entitled to a ration of petrol to enable him to get to work and home again can hardly depend on whether or not he is poor enough to be entitled to a grant or maintenance from the DHSS for his vehicle.
    It seems to follow that there is an anomaly which could have grave effects for people in the position of my constituent, unless paragraph b. is to be read as meaning "a vehicle for which a DHSS grant or maintenance allowance is payable, or would but for his means have been payable ". I appreciate that we are not construing a statute, but if that is what is intended it would be a good idea if it were put not in legal terms but in

    699
    plain terms so that people in my constituent's position would know that they could claim.
    It may be said that my constituent could claim a supplementary allowance on a hardship basis, but it would be most unsatisfactory that he and others like him should have to resort to that, when logic seems to suggest that they should be able to claim the ordinary business ration under the provisions applicable to disabled persons. They can hardly be separated on a hardship basis from people who will be able to claim under those provisions.
    As the amendment suggests, my constituent has a local authority's disabled driver's badge. He must have his car, and he has to park it as near his office as he can. His disabled driver's badge helps him in that respect.
    I hope that the Minister can promise to revise the wording so that everyone knows the position. If he cannot do that, I hope that he will at least give an appropriate assurance that I can take back to my constituents and other people in the same position.
    Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: I heard today from the divisional officer of the Red Cross in the Camden division, whose premises are situated in Hampstead about a problem concerning one of its semi-geriatric clubs. Red Cross members, who are all volunteers, take the old people in their cars. Those members are giving up their time and the use of their cars. They want to be reassured that they will be entitled to claim a supplementary petrol ration so that they are not carrying the old people around at the expense of their own allocation.
    1 appreciate that my hon. Friend the Minister may not be able to answer straight away, although I know that he is very good at fielding fast balls. If he cannot answer now, I shall be grateful if he can let me know the answer later or if something can be said when the Bill goes to another place.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Peter Emery): Sir Myer, good evening.
    The Temporary Chairman (Sir Myer Galpera): A most unusual greeting..
    Mr. Emery: Good manners never hurt anyone, Sir Myer, as you and I know only too well from other places.
    I thank the hon. and learned Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin) for using the case of a constituent to bring forward a matter which must affect a number of people, not only in London but in many other cities where disabled drivers' badges are used. The Government fully understand the concern of the people involved, and I entirely agree in principle with what underlies the amendment. The problem is that we must temper logic with administrative possibilities. That is always a difficulty. From a legal point of view the amendment is not acceptable to the Government because the Bill is not bringing forward the administrative factors of any rationing scheme. I appreciate that the hon. and learned Gentleman has said that it is a probing amendment.
    Whilst recognising that priority must be given to disabled drivers, it has only been possible in the business rationing scheme to give a higher allocation to those who use vehicles in the course of their work which are readily identifiable as related to the disabled, namely, DHSS vehicles, vehicles in respect of which a DHSS grant is payable and vehicles exempted from excise duty. The arrangements cover many but not all disabled employees. There are, of course, some who drive normal vehicles and not vehicles for the disabled which one associates with such categorisation.
    It would be impossible for Post Office counter clerks who are issuing the business ration on the production of a number of simple and standard documents to use and discern a number of other pieces of documentation which are not standard throughout the country. As I think the hon. and learned Gentleman will realise, in trying to ease the burden which the Post Office will have to bear we have had to draw lines in a number of areas. We have had extensive negotiations with Post Office officials. We have attempted to make matters as simple as possible for Post Office staff so that there are no complications which need further reference.
    We are having to do something which is unparalleled in peacetime. We are having to stimulate 15 million or 15½ million people within a short time to go to a Post Office with their registration book

    701
    and their licence disc to claim something on a given day. To do that we have put forward an enormous amount of advertising. The papers and the television and radio authorities have been as co-operative as it is possible for them to be in trying to ensure that the information is brought home to the ordinary people.
    Mr. S. C. Silkin: Will the Minister tell us how the counter clerk in the Post Office will satisfy himself that an applicant is, for example, an undertaker or a home nurse?
    Mr. Emery: The situation is stated clearly on the form. The use of the local authorities' disabled drivers' badges would, for this purpose, be introducing an additional complication in what is as streamlined an arrangement as we have been able to make so as to get the business ration issued quickly by Post Offices to millions of business users. We are using a new method. It was not used on the last issuing of coupons. It will save a tremendous amount of supplementary allocations to the regional petroleum officers.
    I can give the hon. and learned Gentleman an absolute assurance that we shall cater fully, as the whole scheme is to cater, for the needs of all disabled drivers in the supplementary allowance scheme, including those who own vehicles other than those which I and the hon. and learned Gentleman have listed. I am sorry that I cannot give him the assurance which I know that he would like. The employer of a person who has a disabled driver's badge as the only indication of disablement and who uses his vehicles for business purposes, including travel to work, will be able to claim a supplementary allowance on his behalf. If he is self-employed he may make an application for a supplementary allowance in the knowledge that it will be dealt with as if it were an application for a business allowance for which he qualified in one of the ways I have outlined. These people will obtain exactly the same allowance as those who are in the other categories of disablement.
    9.0 p.m.
    Although coupons are being distributed, there is still a major need for fuel economy. We shall be keeping up the campaign that if we all save a little we all save a lot. That motto, "Save a
    702
    little, save a lot" will be seen a great deal more throughout the land. A major voluntary saving of all fuels will benefit people financially and benefit the whole nation at a time of considerable shortage of fuel generally.
    I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will accept my assurance that the type of person about whom he is concerned will be able to obtain exactly the same amount of petrol as he would have obtained had he applied for the normal business allocation.
    Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: Will my hon. Friend reply to my question?
    Mr. Emery: Seldom do I forget my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg). I give him my assurance that the supplementary allowance scheme will provide specifically for those engaged in geriatric work, helping the blind and multiple sclerosis patients—indeed, for all who are doing essential work to help the least fortunate people in society.
    Mr. S. C. Silkin: I am grateful, as I am sure my constituent will be, to the Minister for the assurance he has given. I cannot say that I am wholly satisfied. If it is simply a matter of administrative convenience, perhaps the Minister and his Department will consider whether there is a better way of doing what we plainly both intend than by way of the supplementary allowance system.
    I note that according to the Press notice the supplementary allowance is granted only if rationing is introduced, which I presume means that the coupons will be sent only if rationing is introduced.
    I also note that in relation to a number of categories entitled to claim supplementary allowance, there is an asterisk in the printed notice which indicates that these forms will already have been completed by an applicant for business rationing and handed back with the coupon. That applies to business users who are not agricultural or horticultural.
    The difficulty which my constituent will face is that, as matters stand, he will not be able to claim a supplementary allowance until rationing is introduced. If he were in a position—which evidently, from what the Minister said,

    703
    he is not—to have made an application for a business ration now, knowing that it would be subject to the asterisk procedure in respect of a supplementary allowance, at least his application form would have gone into the Department and between now and the time when rationing is introduced—if it is introduced—it would be open to the Department to make whatever inquiries were necessary as to the genuineness of his claim. But I fear that if rationing is introduced there will be a sudden enormous swamping of the Department by people who think they are entitled to a supplementary allowance, and in those circumstances people who find themselves in the position of my constituent might simply take their place in the queue, and grave hardship might result.
    Mr. Emery: Perhaps I may explain that until rationing begins, nobody will need their coupons. The application would be received from the hon. and learned Gentleman's constituent immediately the announcement was made. The hon. and learned Gentleman's constituent would know from the assurance I have given that he would be entitled to the business ration in this instance, and would have his basic ration, which can run for three months. Therefore, even if he had to wait for two or three weeks before the business ration was made, there would be no hardship whatever to him in not having the petrol for the purposes for which he was carrying out his business.
    Mr. S. C. Silkin: I am again grateful to the Minister, particularly if what he says is to be taken as an assurance that two or three weeks will be the limit of the period during which the Department will be able to deal with all these cases. I do not want to hold him precisely to that, but I am glad to know that, broadly speaking, that is the period which the Department has in mind.
    I have made my point and the Minister has given me an immediate answer. I ask only that the report of this short debate will be read in his Department, and if it is felt that an improvement on what he has told the Committee can be made, he can be sure that many people will be extremely grateful. In view of the undertaking which has been given, I
    704
    beg to ask leave to withdraw my amendment. In conclusion, I echo what the Minister said, and say "Sir Myer, good night".
    The Temporary Chairman: Thank you, but I am not leaving yet.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Question proposed, That Clause 2 stand part of the Bill.
    Mr. Warren: I was tempted to table an amendment on this clause, but I thought that it might be better to try to explore the Minister's intentions in regard to subsection (2)(c) where there is an opportunity given to him to give directions
    "to any person carrying on a business involving the use of such a substance "—
    namely, fuel. Will he give an assurance that his Department will consult with other Government Departments which have the right and duty to regulate traffic and transportation procedure? I have in mind particularly the Ministry of Defence and its effect on air traffic control procedures in this country. I shall illustrate the size of the problem to give the Minister an idea why there should be coordination in the matter.
    I have statistics from August to October inclusive for the three London Airports—Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted. They show that in the London area we are now experiencing aircraft movements of civilian air traffic alone of the order of 500,000 per annum. One airline—British Caledonian—has provided certain hon. Members with information about its fuel usage. Fuel economy could be improved by co-ordination with Government Departments.
    British Caledonian, with only 42,000 movements per annum—less than 9 per cent. of the total—has quoted five areas of improvement where the Government, particularly the Ministry of Defence and its agencies, like the Civil Aviation Authority, could help. The five areas in the whole year would give economies of 2 million gallons of fuel used by British Caledonian. The five areas would apply to all airlines. They are : air traffic control delays absorbed on the ground, with aircraft engines running—305,000 imperial gallons a year ; delayed climbs between take-off and cruising altitude,

    705
    principally out of Gatwick, 840,000 imperial gallons ; holding at a radio beacon near Gatwick, 160,000 imperial gallons; certain radar problems at Gatwick, 45,000 imperial gallons ; and one direct routeing from Midhurst to Alderney would save 600,000 imperial gallons—a total for one airline of 2 million imperial gallons a year. That is the scale of saving that could be made by the Secretary of State and his colleagues in other Departments by ensuring that the Government do all they can in playing their part in helping this vital economy.
    The five areas of improvement mean, therefore, that on the basis of one airline—British Caledonian—there could be a probable saving of 25 million to 30 million imperial gallons of fuel by all the airlines operating into this country. In addition, airlines operating over this country should be considered and there may be need for co-ordination with Western Europe. The Government called on us to save a little so that we would save a lot. But the Government have a principal part to play in saving a lot.
    9.15 p.m.
    Mr. Eadie: My hon. Friend for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) tabled an amendment which was not accepted. I do not criticise that but he would have liked to speak on the Question "That the clause stand part of the Bill." Unfortunately, he is ill. The House will understand that the amendment is the kind of issue which my hon. Friend has pursued for a long time.
    The hon. Member for Hastings (Mr. Warren) said "If we each save a little, we'll all save a lot." I suspect he was really plagiarising a Scots phrase which you and I, Sir Myer, know well :
    "Many a mickle mak's a muckle."
    It sounds better that way.
    We will require some explanations before approving Clause 2. We are vesting such wide powers in the Secretary of State that, as a democratic Parliament, we must satisfy ourselves that an emergency could exist or does exist. I ask for clarification of the Secretary of State's Second Reading speech when he said :
    "Our energy situation has already been transformed when it comes to gas. It is
    706
    remarkable that in the North Sea we already have five fields in the southern basin and one in the northern basin. We have negotiated with the Norwegian Government to purchase their interests in gas in the Frigg field, and by the mid-1970s we shall be obtaining five times as much gas from these sources as we were using in the pre-natural gas era. This has been a remarkable achievement by the gas industry, and it certainly relieves our immediate problems."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th November 1973 ; Vol. 865, c. 35–36.]
    The House will be aware that before the Middle East war and the consequential energy crisis, doubts were being expressed about the ability of the gas industry to meet the demands of consumers if the annual appetite for North Sea gas increased at the current rate. It was said that there could be problems for industrial consumers in the Midlands, for instance.
    We will attach importance to the replies we receive on this question. Was it the Minister's intention to encourage consumers' appetites for North Sea gas? Are we now to encourage more gas sales? Does the statement mean that new finds or agreements have overcome our anxieties about meeting fuel demands if the annual consumption trend continues?
    The clause deals with powers to control all fuels and electricity, and the Minister owes the House some further explanation about how he intends to act. Are we to take it that in the interests of the country the security of supplies will override more than ever before questions of price? If the Government accept that principle, what steps have been taken to look at indigenous sources which are a potential source of energy?
    It is appropriate when we are discussing the powers in a Bill which will last for a year or more to insist that the Government cannot be allowed to bask in whatever sunshine they may get from them. Are there plans afoot to explore the possibilities of shale deposits in places like Midlothian and West Lothian? The hon. Gentleman knows that the cost argument is fast disappearing. Reports have appeared in today's Press on this matter. Therefore this House is entitled to some positive thinking from the Government.
    Then there is the possibility of getting oil from coal. I have raised this before on many occasions, and the hon. Gentleman knows that even if we were to use 1950 technology—and surely we have

    707
    learnt something in 23 years—we could get 100 gallons of petrol and many other derivatives from one ton of coal. Therefore we are entitled to know what is being done by the Government in this connection.
    It is well known that other countries are beginning to adopt this process. We as a nation have the technical know-how and expertise, and the Government should say what they are doing. It may be thought that I am at the moment riding one of my own hobby horses—
    Mr. T. H. H. Skeet: Yes.
    Mr. Eadie: I hope to satisfy the Minister and the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet) to the contrary. I wonder whether their attention has been drawn to an article which appeared on 17th November in the Scotsman under the heading,
    "US Navy try oil from coal."
    It tells how
    "A battle-scarred World War II destroyer, the USS Johnston steamed out of port here today to become the first ship in history to use liquefied coal to power her engines. … For more than a year, the Navy have been working with the Department of the Interior to develop a clean-burning, economical substitute for the petroleum-based fuels the Navy consume at the rate of 42 million gallons a year. … Within a decade the Interior Department hope to have assisted in development of a number of privately-owned and operated coal conversion plants, each capable of producing 250 million cubic feet of gas a day—enough for a city of a half-million people—and 80,000 to 100,000 barrels of synthetic fuel oil a day."
    The Minister knows that I am talking about the art of the possible.
    In case the Opposition are confronted with cost arguments, I have a proposition to make to the Minister. The US Navy has decided to do this to make sure that its ships stay afloat on the seas. We in this country have a "mothball" fleet. We have ships which may be in what is generally called cold storage, but the Navy regards them as the "mothball" fleet. The Under-Secretary should consult the Ministry of Defence on this point. I suggest that a couple of ships should be pulled out of the "mothball" fleet and the Ministry of Defence should start experimenting. In talking about energy we are also talking about defence, so why should not the Ministry of Defence bear the cost of such an experiment? I
    708
    suggest that a couple of ships from the "mothball" fleet should be used for this experiment. If anything is learned from the experiment it can be passed on to industry and put to profitable use for the country as a whole. I think that many people would regard an experiment on the lines that I have suggested as one of the most constructive operations to have been carried out by the Ministry of Defence for a considerable time. Therefore, I put the proposition to the hon. Gentleman and suggest that he discusses it with the Government.
    There are far-reaching powers of control in the clause and, indeed, in the Bill. Therefore, we must put questions to the Government on matters of administration.
    Certain administrative powers are vested by Parliament in the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales. How does the Department propose to liaise with Scotland and Wales on the general administration of the far-reaching and widespread provisions in Clause 2?
    For example, some of my hon. Friends have already received letters from remote areas in Scotland and in Wales. Several queries have been raised. We understand that, although petrol may be taken from the private motorist, public transport will not suffer. Apparently bus services will not be affected. But the hon. Gentleman must know, even with an elementary knowledge of geography, that there are no bus services in the islands. Therefore, if we are to pass legislation that is fair and equitable to everybody, consideration must be given to the people in the islands who, if a strict interpretation of the legislation is applied—I hope that I am wrong about this—will be marooned in their homes.
    I visited the Western Isles this year. I can understand how the people in the islands of Uist and Benbencula, for example, must feel about what is proposed by the Government. Therefore, from a purely administrative point of view, the hon. Gentleman must give some assurances on the implications of Clause 2 and how it will operate. I hope that in terms of administration, with which I prefaced my remarks, he will explain how the provisions of Clause 2 will affect both Scotland and Wales.
    9.30 p.m.
    Although petrol ration coupons have been issued, we are hoping that there

    709
    will be no petrol rationing. Nevertheless, the Government should comment on how they propose to act now, before, and if, petrol rationing comes. For example, there must be new petrol stations in prospect, perhaps half-built or about to be built. Planning permission must have been given by local authorities, and applications must have been received by planning committee. Does the Under-Secretary think that it is wise, in the circumstances, that applications for planning permission should be granted? Are the Government considering whether there should be at least a temporary stoppage of planning permission and the building of new petrol stations?
    I could develop that argument. Various views have been expressed. One view is that we shall not require any rationing of energy supplies if the advice given by the Department is acted upon by the public, if we are careful and cautious, and try to use whatever sources of energy we have as intelligently and as carefully as possible. The Opposition wholeheartedly support that plea by the Government. Nevertheless, the other point of view is that we are in for a long period of great difficulty in the provision of energy; that, indeed, this is not a British crisis, but a world crisis, which is likely to continue for a considerable time.
    Whatever view the Government emphasise tonight, they must make certain policy decisions to give assurance to the country and—I hope that this will not be thought to be conceited—to the Opposition. Do the Government intend to announce a stoppage of the building of new petrol stations and the granting of planning permission for such stations? In addition, the Government have a duty in relation to the design of new power stations. There must be some policy in relation to oil. Whether or not we get the oil resources, one thing is certain : oil will be very expensive to come by. One could probably say in general, to be fair, that there will be no cheap source of energy available from now on. Do the Government consider it wise that the prospect of building oil-fired power stations should still be in train? This decision needs very careful consideration
    What I have said previously about the Middle East crisis may not have been accepted by everyone. But when the
    710
    prospect of a whole series of oil-fired power stations was announced, realising the consequences of this I said that I considered it to be an act of vandalism for the Government to approve of or to encourage the building of power stations to be fired by that type of fuel.
    I wonder whether the Minister can tell the Committee how he proposes to implement some of the controls. I am thinking, in particular, of the Central Electricity Generating Board. He is aware that in the generation of electricity the CEGB work on the principle of what is called "merit rating". I think my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Palmer) will agree that the accent used to be on cost, but there will now have to be a re-appraisal. The board used to say that under the merit rating system it was possible to generate more electricity from coal, but it had to consider the question of cost.
    I have visited various power stations and found them to be wonders of technical efficiency. They calculate how much coal or oil will be burned—there is no option with nuclear power, because nuclear power stations have to be kept burning all the time and the generators cannot be allowed to run down—in order to generate enough electricity to meet the needs of the nation. This is very important, because if there is a shortage of oil but big stocks of coal the whole philosophy of merit rating must be reconsidered. The Minister knows that I have already expressed these views in the House. I am not prepared to leave responsibility with the Chairman of the CEGB. He must now be convinced that we have an energy crisis, but a couple of months ago he told us that the energy crisis was just a propaganda stunt and that there was plenty of energy in the world.
    I know that the Minister is very knowledgeable about this matter, because he has extensively visited the installations of the CEGB and knows how the merit rating system works. He should tell the Committee tonight how the Government propose to exercise the energy controls under Clause 2.
    I have spoken for a little longer than I intended, but I hope the Committee will realise that this is a very important matter, and that it would be very wrong

    711
    of Parliament to skim over Clause 2 and the points which I have made.
    Mr. Marcus Kimball: The hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) seems to think that Wales and Scotland have a monopoly in remote areas. I can take him to parts of my constituency which are every bit as remote, beautiful and sparsely populated as any part of the Western Isles. I hope that the Minister realises the grave hardship which will be caused by petrol rationing and the use of these powers in the remote areas where public transport is non-existent. The Minister has authorised an experiment in the use of postal buses for public services in Lincolnshire. This shows how bad the public transport system is in the remote areas of England.
    I heard my hon. Friend's assurance to my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg) about voluntary workers who use their cars to help the disabled and sick. I should like to mention the meals-on-wheels service in Gainsborough. In the last fuel crisis in 1956, the service, run by the Women's Royal Voluntary Service, was manned entirely by people who lived in Gainsborough and could walk to the centre to do their turn at providing the meals every day of the week. Most of those voluntary workers have now moved out to the surrounding villages and have to come in to do their shift. Presumably, that trip in to do an essential voluntary service is eligible for some supplementary help. I should be grateful for an assurance on that point.
    Do the powers in Clause 2 allow the Minister to put a statutory 50 m.p.h. limit on the whole country? Over the last four days, I have noticed that in many areas the limit is being seriously observed. People are being very conscientious. Going on the Al from my home to my constituency, I see practically no one going at more than 50 m.p.h., and if anyone does he is flashed down by everyone else. The depressing thing is to go on the Ml. Whereas on the Al, between Grantham and Gainsborough, as many as 80 per cent. of the drivers are playing the game, on the Ml the percentage is as low as 60 per cent.
    My hon. Friend knows that astronomical savings can be made at 50 m.p.h. It
    712
    has been most encouraging, in the last few days, to discover how much money can be saved by various forms of fuel saving. There has been an enormous amount of waste in the past. I should prefer these powers to be used to impose a compulsory 50 m.p.h. limit on the whole country rather than have these dreadful ration books. I would rather we were asked to make a 20 per cent. saving than have any system of rationing. I should be grateful for an assurance on those two points.
    Mr. John Farr: I have been approached by a number of people who have studied the proposals tabled so far and who feel that the fair way of introducing petrol rationing, should it have to come about, would be to allow people to accumulate their coupons over a full 12 months. The reason is that if coupons have to be used or exchanged within six months of issue, as I understand is the present proposal, if rationing were imposed in December, people would have to use up their coupons by about May and would not be able to save them for their summer holidays, towing the family caravan or going on a tour of the British Isles, including Scotland and the Western Isles. Please let us have some flexibility. There is nothing wrong, surely, in a man saving his petrol coupons so that he can take his family on a well-deserved holiday in this country and at the same time possibly save some foreign currency.
    9.45 p.m.
    My next point relates to the supply of petrol to mopeds and their two-stroke engines. In many parts of the country for years they have been accustomed to buying petrol and oil separately at a garage, simply because there is not a ready-mixed pump available, and mixing them themselves. The present regulations are causing them considerable concern because in many cases they have to travel long distances to find a ready-mixed pump. I understand that it is permissible now to supply them with their fuel in cans, but more publicity could be given to that fact because many garage owners are not aware of it.
    The problem of collecting fuel in cans also arises for a number of smaller farmers and horticulturists who have for years collected their petrol or fuel in

    713
    several 5-gallon drums at a time and are now having difficulty in getting those drums filled by their normal suppliers. Many of them do not have 200-gallon fuel tanks on the premises. They have to depend on collection in cans. I hope it can be made even clearer than it is now that it is permissible for people in agriculture and horticulture in a small way to get their fuel in cans.
    I want to make strongly a point which I am sure the Government appreciate but which has not been spelt out sufficiently to the country, namely how essential it is that agriculture and horticulture should get their full requirements in all forms of fuel. As hon. Members on both sides of the House realise, it is not a question of making a 10 per cent. cut in farming or horticultural enterprises—they cannot even make an economy of 1 per cent. If they are to be efficient today, farmers cannot afford to waste fuel, and the considerable quantities of fuel they use on the land—more than ever before with increasing mechanisation—are essential to the well-being of agriculture and horticulture.
    I hope that the sort of difficulties which my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet) talked about on Second Reading—he described how a number of farmers in Bedfordshire were having grave difficulties in obtaining supplies of fuel sufficient just to keep their machinery going—will not be repeated, because whether it be to heat and light intensive production units, to dry grain—which will be necessary again next summer—or just to keep the tractors going, no fuel is wasted in the countryside. It is all needed, and needed quickly when required by the farmers.
    I support what my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Kimball) has said about life in the countryside in general, and how different the situation is from the last time our petrol supplies were threatened. In the years which have intervened since the last time we had petrol rationing—that was at the time of Suez—a great deal has happened in the countryside. The most significant thing has been the complete dismantling of the rural railway network. In Leicestershire, in 1959, we had in my own constituency no fewer than 25 railway stations all in use. Three years ago that number was
    714
    reduced to one. We got a second reopened, so we now have two railway stations. The buses which were put on to replace withdrawn railway services were not patronised sufficiently, and they have been withdrawn.
    Thus, today, the motor car is the only means by which people in rural communities, some of them quite large, can keep in touch with one another and get around. My hon. Friend will be interested to know that in Leicestershire there are more than 60 communities, some of more than 3,000 inhabitants, who have no public transport services of any form at all on any day of the week. Many slightly larger communities may have a weekly bus, and some places even one bus a day, but there are certainly more than 60 communities with no form of public transport at all—bus or train, good or bad.
    I hope, therefore, that if the time comes when we have to work on the ration books which are being introduced my right hon. Friend will realise that life in the country is very different today from what it was 20 years ago. To give one or two examples of great significance, I would mention first that the country doctor who lived in a village and served that and a couple of nearby villages has now vanished. Doctors are grouped together in our new health centres, which are in large or fairly large towns, which may be 10 or 15 miles away from the rural communities which the centres also serve. The people in the villages have to go to those centres to see their doctors. One or two village shops keep going in a village, but in the main people have to shop in the big towns or cities. Pensioners find themselves in a still more serious position. In many of our villages the post offices have been closed, so that pensioners, two or three probably travelling together, now have to take lifts in cars to collect their pensions once a week.
    There are many other reasons for which people who live in the country depend upon the motor car to get around. I suppose the most significant change of all is that, whereas 20 years ago most people who lived in the country communities worked in country districts and probably near where they lived, today most people living in the country travel by car to work in the towns and cities and do not live near their work.

    715
    I hope that I can rely upon my hon. Friend's sympathy with and understanding of the points that I have put forward, which are very significant.
    Mr. John Biffen: My hon. Friends the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Kimball) and the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) have given very accurate and eloquent testimony to the social revolution which has overtaken the countryside in the last decade or so and which will make the whole concept of petrol rationing infinitely more complex in execution than that of which we had experience at the time of the Suez crisis. I shall not repeat their argument but merely observe and endorse it in respect of rural Shropshire, no less than in respect of Lincolnshire and Leicestershire.
    The point I would direct my remarks to is that contained in subsection (1)(b). It is perhaps inevitable on a Thursday evening that the Committee should be thinly attended, but this is legislation of considerable implication. To begin with, any Bill which seeks to make temporary provision almost certainly carries implications of permanence judged by all our past experience. In Clause 10 it is proposed that it shall be in force until 30th November 1974, and, of course, there are provisions for its reactivation. I am concerned about the powers of price control that are vested in subsection (1)(b), and my anxiety is that the Government's intentions about this should be spelt out at somewhat greater length than hitherto. As I understand the Bill, there is no relationship of necessity between rationing and price control.
    Subsection (1)(b) could be exercised whether or not rationing was in force. We therefore recognise, as did the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie), that the days of cheap energy are past, and if he were not there to remind us of that fact certainly Sheikh Yamani indicates that the price is upwards, ever upwards.
    Mr. Ted Leadbitter: I, too, am seeking a definition. Will the hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) consider as he develops his argument whether or not this subsection deals with the regulation of price, which might be completely different from the control of price in the market, and whether there
    716
    is any possibility of persuading the Minister as to the meaning of this provision? The control of prices, is distinct from the regulations about prices.
    Mr. Biffen: That is a fascinating point. I should be doing the hon. Member a disservice if I were to try to develop his argument. However, I am grateful for his intervention.
    My anxiety is that we shall try to persuade ourselves that by a tighter form of price control than would be exercised by the Price Commission, and which would operate through the application of subsection (1)(b), we shall have a depressing effect upon profit levels of the oil companies. This has to be said openly. It is not a particularly palatable observation to make but there is a danger in a situation of world oil shortage that the most vigorously regulated market, the market with the most rigorous control over oil prices and profits, will be the market which is bypassed by the great international trading companies that comprise the oil and petroleum world. They will get to the less-regulated and less-controlled markets of, for example, North America and West Germany. I am therefore anxious to establish that the Government do not intend to exercise price control more rigorously under subsection (1)(b) than would be the case if they relied merely on the Price Commission.
    I would go further. I believe—
    It being Ten o'clock, THE CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again
    Committee report Progress.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ordered,
That the Fuel and Electricity (Control) Bill may be proceeded with at this day's Sitting, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Rossi.]

FUEL AND ELECTRICITY (CONTROL) BILL
Again considered in Committee.
Question again proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr. Biffen: Given the existing situation in world oil markets, given the

717
dominant position currently accorded to the Arabian producers, we must look forward and facilitate exploration and development of oil resources outside the Arabian areas. To do that will require substantial cash flows and profits to the oil companies. Without such cash generation, they will not be able to carry out the immensely capital-hungry exploration to reveal the kind of resources we have welcomed in the North Sea, and exploit them. They will increasingly have to take their profits "downstream", to use the jargon of the trade—in other words, near the points of consumption, rather than, as was historically so often the case, near the points of production.
Therefore, we should be exceedingly short-sighted if we were to exercise the price control vested in the Secretary of State in subsection (1)(b) in any way which was detrimental to the healthy profit levels of the international oil companies, whose future exploration I regard as essential in widening the base of energy supplies, not only for this country but for the Western world generally, for we shall find in this matter that the trade is truly international and that we cannot insulate ourselves from the realities of the international energy market, nor should we seek to do so.
On Second Reading my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave the impression that he regarded the powers of control with which he was vested in subsection (1)(b) as a means of keeping prices lower than they might otherwise be, presumably lower than they would be if the companies were subject merely to the disciplines of the Price Commission. If that was his judgment, I view that judgment with apprehension, for, although it might be the one which would receive the most immediate approbation, I think that in the long term and in the not-so-long term it would prove to be the most detrimental, because as a nation we shall have to learn in many ways that the days of cheap energy are behind us.
Mr. Emery: It has been a wide-ranging debate, but we are dealing with a clause which covers probably the widest aspects of the Bill. I shall do my best to deal with as many as possible of the matters which have been raised.
718
My hon. Friend the Member for Hastings (Mr. Warren) rightly drew attention to the need for co-ordination in the control of air traffic at our airports and throughout our air space. He listed six recommendations which have been put to him. The British airlines have, as I recently announced in answer to a Question, voluntarily co-operated with the Government in bringing about the 10 per cent. cut that was asked of them. The suggestions which my hon. Friend made go much further than that. I welcome them and I think that the airlines would do so. There is a saving of not only energy but of money. Subject only to considerations of air safety and, to some extent, the turn-round of aircraft and the time scales involved in running out from the bays to the runway along the ferry track, I am only too willing to draw to the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister for Aerospace and Shipping the suggestions which my hon. Friend has made. They will be taken up most fully if that has not been done already. I know that some of them have been considered by the Civil Aviation Authority and the British Airports Authority.
I now turn to the points which were raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Gainsborough (Mr. Kimball), Harborough (Mr. Farr) and Oswestry (Mr. Biffen). Their point about the countryside I echo. My constituents have many of the problems which are faced by my hon. Friends' constituents. I have only to substitute different names for the stations, and different mileages, to be faced with the same considerations.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and my hon. Friend the Minister for Industry have given asurances that the problems of the countryside will be considered. The supplementary allocation and provision for domestic hardship specifically deal with the matter. I must make it clear, however, that if rationing is to come about it will mean a definite change in the behaviour pattern of many people who live in the country. They will not be able to jump into their car at any moment and dash back into town or into the village. They will have to think carefully about the use of petrol for domestic purposes. They will, I hope, be co-operating much more on a community

719
basis. That applies particularly to the villages where there is no public transport, whether it is a journey into the centre of Leicester, Gainsborough or Lincoln, where I had some connections at one time. It applies to journeys to Oxford and journeys from Budleigh Salterton.
We must act in the knowledge that we will have to ask for the greatest cooperation in fuel economy. I was asked some direct questions about the meals-on-wheels service. I have already had contact with the Women's Royal Voluntary Service and the matter will be dealt with specifically. The action that is taken will probably be through local government sources, but I can give that assurance.
Secondly, the 50 mph speed limit is legal The Bill allows the extension of existing powers under Section 77 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1967 which enables the Secretary of State to impose speed limits for the purposes of safety. The powers in Clause 4(3) enable an Order in Council to be made to extend the powers in the interests of fuel economy rather than in the interests of safety.
The fourth question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough was about the accumulation of fuel. I understand his argument perhaps even more clearly than he does, because I represent a tourist area. The accumulation of petrol may cover three concurrent months. That is the build-up which will be allowed.
For mopeds, petrol or two-stroke diesel fuel may be taken in cans. Publicity to this fact was given yesterday and today, so that garages which were under a misapprehension should understand this. In the same way, fuel may be taken in cans by farmers and horticulturists from their regular suppliers. The definition of a "regular supplier" is one who has three times in the last six months supplied a horticulturist or farmer. I fully understand the great part played by horticulture and agriculture in the economy. The Government have no intention of asking horticulturists or farmers to accept greater burdens than the rest of industry or any other sector of the nation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry asked about the power under
720
Clause 2(1)(b). I shall give one or two examples of the way in which the Government see this power initially being used. Under the mutual aid schemes, supplies to garages or outlets with an outage of a certain form of fuel will be arranged by the Oil Industry Emergency Committee. It may happen—we hope not—that a dispute about the price at which the oil should be supplied by one supplier to another arises. A man might say, "I do not see why I should let my oil go in that direction. I shall let it go only at a massive premium." Although that is the normal competitive attitude, we believe that that should not be allowed in the operation of mutual aid. The Government therefore have the power to direct the supply at a special market price which seems reasonable to them.
Secondly, we are aware that the applications for price increases by the oil companies are dealt with individually by the Price Commission and come forward at different times. The Government may feel that in a time of shortage it would be better if all the oil companies brought in their price increases on the same date so that there shall not be variations at the pumps as between the various oil companies. This is another area of a different sort in which these price powers could be used.
I accept the necessity for the development of every aspect of oil outside the Middle East area. I also accept that any nation which has a harsh or limiting price policy that will massively limit the ability of one of the major international oil companies to obtain a fair return on sales is likely to be at the back of the queue in terms of the distribution of oil available in the world if it is not already allocated. But at present when we look at the price factors it would not appear, as my hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry suggested, that the problem of profits would be a vital factor to be considered. The level of profitability of most of the oil companies in this period would not necessarily lead one to believe that that sort of situation would arise.
Mr. Peter Hordern: My hon. Friend knows that I have an interest in these matters, since I am a director of an oil company. Is it not the case that the price which oil companies can now

721
obtain from the market is already lower than that in any Western European country, with the possible exception of Italy? Are not the points made so ably by the hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) on future exploration even more important in relation to Clause 2(1)(b), in the sense that if prices are not allowed to reach at least an appreciable level, such as they have reached in other countries, the supply of oil delivered to this country will be slowed down instead of increased?
Mr. Emery: I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Hordern) is an expert in these matters. However, I must say that it does not appear that, judging by the situation in the last five or six days, every other nation in Europe has a higher price than that which applies in this country ; that was certainly not the case last week. There are a number of applications before the Price Commission and these are being considered.
1 revert to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry that the profitability of oil companies has not been such as to lead one to believe that there has not been a greater degree of profitability and investment, even discounting the decrease in value in terms of money. I take his argument with a pinch of salt. Since I myself am a poacher turned gamekeeper, I have used that argument myself. I know that there are problems and also fallacies in the argument, as well as some degree of truth.
Mr. Eric G. Varley: This is important. In the Second Reading debate I put it to the Secretary of State that the reason for the modifications and the powers taken to alter the Counter-Inflation Act was so that oil prices could rise rather more quickly than under the counter-inflation procedure. The right hon. Gentleman was quite categoric as to the reason why the powers had been taken and said, of Clause 4 in particular :
"The purpose of Clause 4 is to enable us to be tougher and far more quickly to apply price control to the retail outlets."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th November 1973 ; Vol. 865, c. 59.]
Can the hon. Gentleman confirm that the reason for these powers is certainly
722
not to allow oil prices to go up more quickly, but rather to control them?
Mr. Emery: I do not contradict what my right hon. Friend said about the powers but they operate in both directions.
I come to the interesting speech made by the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie). I understand the point he made about his hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) wishing to move his amendment. The hon. Gentleman has won a major victory in that particular campaign because the licence disc has to be shown before the petrol coupons can be issued.
The hon. Member for Midlothian asked me a number of questions, the first of which dealt with natural gas. He asked whether the remarks of my right hon. Friend were meant to encourage an appetite for gas. I do not think so. We can now say that the prediction in the White Paper of 4,000 million cubic feet a day will be met by 1975. This is a major move forward. He asked whether I had suggested there would be no problems for industrial consumers in the Midlands. I did not say that. The problem may be one of price because some consumers entered into their contracts at the beginning of the North Sea gas enterprise. On the large contracts they will find that there will be some price movement. I can say that the gas situation is encouraging.
The hon. Member went on to ask me about other sources, and I thought he must have been listening to a speech I made after lunch at Eastbourne at the "Fuel and the Environment" conference. I said :
"What this new pricing structure for oil means is that old processes must be reappraised. Tar sands and shale throughout the world are in considerable abundance. Indeed it was the Scot Mr. Pratt"—
from the hon. Gentleman's constituency in Midlothian—
"who by these methods started the first oil industry in Scotland, manufacturing paraffin."
I went on to say that the conference could draw two conclusions. The first was that the days of a cheap fuel policy for Great Britain belonged to the immediate past. We have all got to realise that.

723
I went on to meet one of the other questions which the hon. Member for Midlothian put to me by speaking about the tidal barrage, about windmills and all the other sources. Luckily for me I added :
"… and of course oil conversion of coal".
I must have known what the hon. Gentleman intended to say tonight.
Following that, I said :
"What I would say on any of these concepts is that money, time and research has in the past been put into all these ideas. From a research point of view no funds have been denied for continuing work where it has been able to be seen that there was a possibility of a cost-effectiveness arising from continued research. That is a principle which will continue to apply …".
I also paid tribute to the work done on research and development in the fuel industry.
I shall not comment on the US Navy and the possibilites of oil-firing a mothball fleet from coal. I was an airman, and I prefer not to get myself involved in naval matters. However, I promise the hon. Gentleman that I shall draw his
724
suggestions to the attention of my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State for Defence.
Finally, I come to the problems of domestic hardship for people in the Islands. They come into much the same categories as the constituents of my hon. Friends the Members for Oswestry, Harborough and Gainsborough where there is the possibility of their making application for supplementary allowances. Of course the problem will be coped with only partially by these allowances. No one pretends that they will be dealt with fully.
My Department has been in liaison with my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Wales and for Scotland. That deals with another of the questions raised by the hon. Member for Midlothian.
I have tried to deal briefly with most of the points raised in the debate. I hope that it has been of use to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

FUEL AND ELECTRICITY (CONTROL) BILL
  Clause 3

    DOCUMENTS AND INFORMATION
    Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
    Mr. Palmer: I shall not detain the Committee for too long since no amendments have been tabled to the clause. Nevertheless I do not believe that we should let it go without a little discussion.
    I remember the night in this House when the old Ministry of Power was foully murdered. I regret to say that it was done by my right hon. and hon. Friends, and I was about the only hon. Member to mourn its passing. I thought it was a mistake and I still do, though possibly there may be some resurrection process eventually.
    At present we have a vast organisation known as the Department of Trade and Industry looking after almost everything from packets of tea to reactors. When that happens, it seems to me that we lose a great deal of detail.
    The clause is a very good example of what I mean. It deals with documents and information. With a scheme of control as wide as the one we are discussing, obviously a great many documents and forms will be involved. I feel that the clause is too vaguely drafted and that the Committee is entitled to a little more detail about the directions likely to be given, the documents which will be required to be kept and the information that will be required.
    I assume that these provisions will apply largely to garages and petroleum undertakings of various kinds. But theoretically it could apply to the nationalised industries—to electricity supply, to the Gas Corporation—and presumably it could have some reference to stocks of uranium which are held by the Atomic Energy Authority. One would think that already, under various statutory provisions, ample returns are made. I should like to know whether the Minister for Industry feels that this requirement will be fairly simple or intensely complicated.
    I make my protest. I think that a clause of this kind should not be so widely drawn. No doubt we shall eventually get the information in the
    726
    regulations, if we have the time to study them. However, I believe that the clause should specify far more detail.
    10.30 p.m.
    Mr. Biffen: I should like to add a few remarks to those made by the hon. Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Palmer). I still believe that the clause that we have already adopted regarding the regulating of prices will be applied in such a way that the Price Commission will be rendered obsolete on oil prices and that in reality—at least up to 30th November 1974—the Secretary of State will be directly involved in adjudicating and co-ordinating the permitted price increases. If so, I should like to know whether the documents and information required under Clause 3 will be significantly different from the documentation that has to be supplied currently to the Price Commission.
    I have a feeling that what is at stake is something very much wider than might at first sight seem likely. I suspect that the intention is that the Secretary of State will replace the Price Commission, not for the fairly narrow and restricted instances referred to by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, who was perfectly accurate and most helpful in identifying those instances where Clause 2(1)(b) could be applied, but on a wider basis. It is legitimately open to the Committee to assume that the powers will be used on such a wide basis that the Secretary of State will effectively replace the Price Commission on the co-ordination of permitted price increases. After all, a great many oil price increases relate to the co-ordination of a market structured in such a way. I say this in the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Hordern), who may take a mildly dissenting view, speaking with much more personal knowledge, whereas I speak as someone who looks at the matter, slightly cynically perhaps, from the periphery.
    If so substantial an area of the economy as price control is to be transferred from one agency to the Government, we must know much more about it. We must know what documentation will be provided and, above all, the answerability for it to Parliament. At the moment we cannot even be told the

    727
    number of notifications or volume of intended increases.
    Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: Quite right.
    Mr. Bitten: My hon. Friend says "Quite right". Whether he is saying that it is a matter to be applauded that the House of Commons cannot even know the magnitude of applications or that it is the law being interpreted by the Minister, I know not.
    Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: The former.
    Mr. Biffen: I do not think it is appropriate that such tremendous power should be vested in statutory bodies that subsequently are not answerable to Parliament in a satisfactory fashion. If we are to have a substantial change in the pattern, as I suspect, then the whole question of parliamentary accountability must be considered. What more appropriate circumstances for considering it than on the documents and information as set out in the clause?
    The Committee is indebted to the hon. Member for Bristol, Central for raising this point. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to give some further illumination of the Government's intentions in this direction.
    Mr. Leadbitter: I apologise for the sound of my voice. The Minister, too, has a cold. Perhaps it is the penalty of working in this cold Chamber—our contribution to the national interest.
    The hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) is much nearer the possibilities arising from the clause than the Government are prepared to tell us. I have been surprised at the approach to the process of producing the Bill and the question of rationing. On 24th October the Government announced information about our fuel stocks. The position then appeared to be much better than it was at the same period last year. On 13th November the Government took upon themselves emergency powers. These touched questions of control of display lighting and heating. Lo and behold, within less than a week, on 19th November, they announced 10 per cent. reductions on last year's consumption figures for fuel, for both industrial and private use.
    728
    We have had a kind of creeping approach to this problem. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have had a more realistic view about the matter in that they have asked for more pertinent action.
    I come to the question raised about Clause 2(1)(b), and to what the Minister meant about Clause 4. Both instances are revealing. The Minister said, referring to Clause 2,
    "This provides a more flexible means of controlling oil prices."
    But when referring to Clause 4 the Secretary of State said
    "The purpose of Clause 4 is to enable us to be tougher and far more quickly to apply price control to the retail outlets."
    In two answers, therefore, we have one for the basis of flexibility and the other for control.
    Now we come to Clause 3, where we might have felt a rigidity of documentation and, indeed, a wide area of documentation. I suspect that there is far more to it, with an overall objective of a more positive control, taking over, as it were, in the situation described by the hon. Member for Oswestry. It is for these reasons that the Minister should tell the Committee whether what is meant by Clause 3 is what the Secretary of State said :
    "Clause 3 enables the Secretary of State to require the keeping of records and the furnishing of information by any undertaking relating to the substances covered by the Bill."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th November 1973 ; Vol. 865, c. 45, 59, 46.]
    The Bill may not operate ; there may be no rationing. The first steps have been taken in issuing ration cards, but the Bill will have a life of only one year, when it will have, to be resuscitated by Order in Council. So there is no commitment to rationing, nothing firm has been said about the gravity of the situation, and there may even be some relaxation.
    If the clause is operated, we may have to impose extra documentation on a large number of suppliers and producers, on top of their normal commercial and accounting documentation. The country, already under the stresses and strains of uncertainty, would face the prospect of a situation which might never materialise.
    Does this provision refer only to the Bill and nothing else or has it something

    729
    to do with the fears mentioned by the hon. Member for Oswestry?
    Mr. Tom Boardman: The short answer to the hon. Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Palmer) is that exactly the same provisions as are contained in this Bill appeared in the 1967 Act, which he, along with the rest of the House, supported. It is not unusual, indeed it is essential when the House takes powers to regulate the substances which are covered by the Bill, to require that the necessary information is made available, the necessary documents are kept and the necessary inspection is provided for, so that the provisions can be policed.
    I share the hon. Member's concern about unnecessary form-filling and I would deplore the unnecessary keeping of statistics, but the clause is intended to enable the control of fuel to be properly operated. Without such provision for information, that could not be done, as was recognised in 1967.
    With his usual ingenuity, my hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) raised the same point as he had raised on the previous clause, which was answered by my hon. Friend. He clearly did not appreciate the circumstances in which the control of price would be not only desirable but essential. If the Secretary of State had to direct supplies to go to a particular consumer without the power to attach a price tag, the supplier could agree to supply but only at a price which would defeat the object of the direction.
    10.45 p.m.
    Mr. Biffen: I am sure my hon. Friend is anxious to dispel any anxieties that I may have, and he can do so simply by saying whether in future the oil companies will notify the Price Commission and will then proceed to increase their prices unless they are told otherwise, which is the state of the law at the moment under the Counter-Inflation Act 1973, or whether they are more likely to be moving their prices in a form and pattern and rhythm determined after consultation with the Secretary of State, which seems to be fully implicit in Clause 2(1)(b).
    Mr. Boardman: I remind my hon. Friend of what my right hon. Friend said on Second Reading, referring to flexibility :
    730
    "This provides a more flexible means of controlling oil prices in a scarcity situation than would be possible under the Counter-Inflation Act 1973. I particularly have in mind that it could be used without the waiting periods involved in the Counter-Inflation Act so far as retail outlet prices are concerned."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th November, 1973 ; Vol. 8865, c. 45.]
    No doubt my right hon. Friend had particularly in mind, as I am sure my hon. Friend has, the sort of abuse which could quickly build up in a scarcity situation if prices at retail outlets were allowed to go up under the rather more distant control which would apply to the smaller retail outlets under the Counter-Inflation Act. There may well be circumstances—and it may be necessary to invoke these powers—where it would be just and right and fair to the consumer and to the industry as a whole that power should be taken to impose price control rapidly without waiting for the rather slower processes of the Counter-Inflation Act.
    Mr. Leadbitter: I am in some difficulty. The hon. Gentleman is saying that, in comparison with the counter-inflation processes, both the price review and the realities and practicalities of operation for the oil companies, as described by the hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen), will, under the Bill, be dealt with more quickly and flexibly. I know, and everyone has the feeling, that the likelihood is that the Bill will not become operative—we all hope so. If the object is more flexibility to deal with the matter more rapidly, why cannot the appropriate power be given under the counter-inflation policy to the Price Commission now?
    Mr. Boardman: There is a great distinction between this transaction, in which the supplier has the choice of whether he supplies or does not supply, and the other situation, where the supplier may be directed to supply. In the latter case, if he is to be directed to supply, there must be a price, and it may have to be one of the component parts of the direction.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry approached this from a rather different level—that of the oil companies and the prices which may be allowed and the effect that an artificially low price would have on their investment and, ultimately, on the energy resources of

    731
    the country. That point is well recognised and well understood.
    Mr. Biffen: This is a point of substance. I appreciate that the notification procedures are such that individual garages are not obliged to notify. One could, therefore, get a variety of prices being charged by individual garage retailers, and this might give rise to a situation which my hon. Friend would wish to curb under Clause 2(1)(b). What I am interested in, however, is the potential application of Clause 2(1)(b) to situations where, under the Counter-Inflation Act, there can be no doubt that proposed price increases will be notified. Here I am talking of the producers, not of individual garage retailers. In these circumstances the notification procedure means that after a delay the price increase could proceed unless it was otherwise specified.
    The Secretary of State has taken powers to short-circuit that, we are told, and, far from restraining price increases, that enables them to take place at greater speed. That is a contradiction. Therefore, it is important that the Committee should know whether in future oil price increases from the producer companies, all of which will come under the notification procedure of the counter-inflation legislation, will be dealt with by the Secretary of State, which seems to me a perfectly reasonable interpretation and understanding of Clause 2(1)(b). That is an issue which should be resolved before the Bill finally reaches the statute book.
    Mr. Boardman: The invoking of Clause 2(1)(b) will be a matter for my right hon. Friend but the intention was clearly expressed on Second Reading. It was that it would be invoked if and when necessary to get an effective implementation of the other provisions in the Bill. While it would be wrong for me to attempt to confine the scope of that clause, I should say that its emphasis and main overriding purpose is in the context of fixing prices where a direction on supply, at whatever level, involves requiring supplies to be made, and, therefore, in order that justice may be done, attaching a price tag to those supplies.
    732
    I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry is not suggesting that I should attempt to confine the operation of the clause when it has a wider meaning. It is only right for me to explain the overriding purpose. The hon. Member for the Hartlepools (Mr. Leadbitter) raised a similar point but in a somewhat different context. I believe that what I have already said will adequately answer the point. I hope, therefore, that the clause will be agreed to.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill

  Clause 4

    POWER TO RELAX STATUTORY AND CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS, ETC.
    Mr. Varley: I beg to move Amendment No. 3, in page 3, line 8, leave out subsection (2).
    It seeks to probe the intentions of the Government because we are concerned about the uses to which the subsection may be put. The Secretary of State was not sufficiently forthcoming in his explanation on Second Reading to allay some of our misgivings about what it could be used for. He said :
    "Authority may be given for the relaxation of certain provisions relating to the operation of public service vehicles, thus enabling the most effective use to be made of the vehicles and the crews available."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th November 1973 ; Vol. 865, c. 46.]
    These are extensive powers, and they represent a massive intervention in the working and staffing of public service vehicles. We need some explanation before we can allow the powers to go through.
    I refresh the memory of hon. Members about these powers. The Government seek to take powers for a person to
    "use or cause or permit the use of, any vehicle on a road … without any licence, permit, agreement or consent otherwise required",
    to
    "drive or act as conductor of a public service vehicle without being licensed to do so",
    and to
    "permit a person to act, as the driver of a passenger vehicle without complying with the requirements of subsections (1) to (6) of section 96 of the Transport Act 1968".

    733
    What exactly has the Minister in mind? If he had to use those powers in a semi-emergency situation, would he consult the trade unions involved? If he did not, there might be a great deal of trouble. He knows how sensitive members of trade unions are to the dilution of their work.
    Most of the people who drive vehicles, particularly public service vehicles, have to have certain qualifications, to reach a standard of proficiency. To set aside those qualifications and standards is a matter which should concern us all.
    Some of my hon. Friends have expressed to me the fear that the powers the Government seek in the subsection could be used for strike-breaking. I hope that the Minister can allay that fear. I hope that he can give a specific assurance that he does not have that in mind, and that the powers would not be used in such circumstances. He must know that the subsection is open to that interpretation.
    There are other matters that I do not propose to go into now. One that I must mention is the safety of passengers. Passenger transport is a specialised activity. Those who are suitably qualified are responsible for the safety of many people.
    Before we agree to the subsection, we need an adequate explanation from the Under-Secretary on those matters.
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Keith Speed): I thank the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Varley) for the way in which he has explained his probing amendment. I can give him the assurance straight away that strike breaking was certainly not in our minds.
    We are seeking to enable a more flexible use of public and private road transport, if a certain situation is reached, leading to greater utilisation of road transport. That would be particularly important in some rural areas and even in urban areas if there were petrol rationing and other things which might restrict people's mobility, particularly for getting to work.
    Before my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State took action under the subsection there would certainly be consultation with the appropriate unions.
    734
    The hon. Gentleman has fairly described some of the important powers that can arise under the subsection. In fact, my right hon. and learned Friend would be working through the traffic commissioners, with one exception to which I shall come a little later. The traffic commissioners are statutory authorities throughout the country with great experience in licensing, road safety and the control of public transport.
    11.0 p.m.
    The authority to set aside the PSV requirements would be granted on behalf of my right hon. and learned Friend by the chairmen of the traffic commissioners, the licensing authorities for the appropriate traffic area. The chairmen's staff are already responsible for the enforcement of safety provisions. It would be most unlikely, if there were to be flexibility and if the powers were to be used, that the public would be put at risk by the traffic commissioners.
    If necessary, the relaxation would begin with the road service licensing provisions. That has nothing to do with safety. It would merely make it easier to short-circuit the present fairly complicated system of licensing so that additional services could be put on where they might be required. The technical requirements for vehicles would only be retaxed if it proved otherwise impossible to obtain sufficient vehicles complying with the statutory requirements. Where there is relaxation under the various Acts which have been quoted, it will be possible to use vehicles which may not comply with the standard amenity requirements. I refer, for example, to using school buses for normal stage carriage work.
    It would not be open for anyone to run a bus service. That could be done only with the special authority of the traffic commissioners. Such authority would not be granted lightly. If, for example, there were conditions in which excursions and tours had to be restricted, it would be foolish not to have the power to enable operators of such services to use their surplus vehicles to ease the strain on regular public transport.
    Private motorists would be enabled under the subsection to offer lifts and to charge for them. If this were done there would have to be a clear public warning—perhaps I should start to make

    735
    the warning—that the insurance policies of private motorists do not normally cover carriage for hire or reward. Special provisions would have to be taken in such an event. Such provisions might be important for rural areas if the overall situation became very serious and it became necessary to invoke these powers.
    We do not seek to lower the standard of driver licensing. I am sure that the unions would not want us to do so. We would contemplate such relaxation only as a temporary expedient under conditions of fuel rationing. It would be impossible to bring about a sharp increase in the number of drivers taking PSV tests so as to qualify for a licence. That should not prevent drivers of good record and suitable maturity, and perhaps those with previous suitable experience, such as those who have been under training or are under training in bus undertakings, from driving public service vehicles if their instructors consider them ready. There is no question of lowering the age below 21 years. This is all subject to the approval of the traffic commissioners. There is a safeguard because of the high standards and great experience of the commissioners. The same is true of conductors.
    The approval of the traffic commissioners would be necessary outside the metropolitan area. The approval of the Metropolitan Commissioner of Police would be necessary within the metropolitan area of London. The relaxation of drivers' hours was mentioned by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Gorbals (Mr. McElhone) on Second Reading. The hon. Gentleman was talking about the relaxation of drivers' hours in relation to lorries and freight transport. That does not apply. We are talking only about passenger transport, which would be under the control of the traffic commissioners. The present limits on drivers' hours are a compromise and reflect social and safety considerations. It might well be that exceeding them by a small margin to give extra flexibility so that somebody could drive the last bus home, for example, might be helpful in the circumstances of emergency which we are considering.
    There should be no safety problem. I hope, as do my right hon. and hon.
    736
    Friends, that the existing public transport services would be able to cope with the need without resorting to these powers. However, we think that it is not fair to the public merely to leave the matter to chance. I hope that the Committee will agree that the assurances which I have given make for watertight provisions.
    Mr. Leadbitter: I am not entirely convinced, although the Minister has gone some way towards persuading me of the Government's good intentions. It is a highly sensitive area, and members of the public will want to know why there is a possibility of the relaxation of licensing. The Minister said "If a certain situation were to be reached." That might mean anything.
    In referring to Clause 4 the Secretary of State said :
    "An example of the way in which a statutory obligation might be launched would be if there were a reduction in temperature in work rooms below a minimum level."
    There have always been ways of dealing with falling temperatures in schools and factories, but that has no relevance to the words of the Minister : "If a certain situation were to be reached".
    Mr. Speed: My right hon. and learned Friend was not talking about subsection (2), which deals specifically with the transport implications of the clause. That is why I am answering rather than my hon. Friend. The Secretary of State was dealing with another part of the clause. I did not have in mind the temperature in offices, factories or anywhere else in replying to the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Leadbitter: I can only refer to what the Secretary of State said, and his first words were :
    "Clause 4 empowers me to authorise"
    He went on to say :
    "Authority may be given for the relaxation of certain provisions relating to the operation of public service vehicles and crews available."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th November 1973; Vol. 865, c. 46.]
    At the moment there are available a certain number of crews and transport operators functioning under statutory provisions. What does the provision mean if we are faced with fewer transport facilities because of the short supply of fuel?
    The Secretary of State dwelt too much upon the situation within 24 hours of the

    737
    miners' overtime ban. He did not dwell on coal stocks, because he made that position clear on 24th October. The Bill states in Clause 4 that, acting under the authority of the Secretary of State, a person may use or cause or permit the use of
    "a contract carriage without any licence, permit, agreement or consent otherwise required."
    Subsection (2)(b) says that such a person may :
    "drive or act as conductor of a public service vehicle without being licensed to do so".
    Subsection (2)(c) says that such a person may :
    "act, or cause or permit a person to act, as the driver of a passenger vehicle without complying with the requirements of subsections (1) to (6) of section 96 of the Transport Act 1968."
    These are exclusions from statutory provisions enacted for the safety of the general public. People suddenly become qualified "if a certain situation is reached."
    I am not persuaded by the cooing and wooing of the Saudi Arabian Petroleum Minister, nor the promises of the Libyan President, that we can at this stage readily agree to such people being so qualified unless the Minister gives an assurance, without equivocation, that such persons will not be used to combat legitimate strike action. If he can say so now our fears will be put aside. There should not be a suspicion of this when the Government are being charged with a national confrontation. Those who are important in providing us with fuel should not feel that there is something here which could beat them further into the ground.
    If the Minister can give this assurance we shall be satisfied. If he can give a clearer assurance about the use of this clause than did the Secretary of State we shall be happier still.
    11.15 p.m.
    Mr. Speed: Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman. I thought I had dealt already with strikes. We seem to be in danger of getting ourselves into a paranoic state—
    Mr. Leadbitter: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that it is a little unfair to accuse the Opposition of paranoia. We are anxious to help get this Bill through, if possible without
    738
    amendment. The hon. Gentleman knows that.
    Mr. Speed: I accept that. As I say, I thought that I had dealt with the strike situation. I assured the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Varley) that there would be consultations with the trade unions before these provisions were introduced. I emphasised that there was no question of using these powers for strike breaking.
    The Bill is designed to deal with the fuel situation that we face. It goes without saying that in that situation buses are on the whole more efficient users of oil fuel than a great many individual motor cars. One can see a situation developing—though we all hope that it will not—in which we face very severe fuel shortages. In such a situation it might be very much better to put buses on routes to take people about in both urban and rural areas because there might not be enough fuel for their private motor cars.
    That being so, there is a shortage of bus and lorry drivers. But there are people who are skilled at driving vehicles of this sort. For example, many school buses are not driven by PSV licensed drivers. They do not have to be under our law. People driving works buses do not necessarily have to be PSV licensed. No one would claim that our schoolchildren are necessarily at risk thereby. The situation shows that they are not.
    Facing a situation of severe stringency in fuel, the bus which is used to take children to school might thereafter be driven by the same driver to take people into nearby towns to do their shopping.
    Another possibility is that in rural areas especially, where people have to drive 20 or 30 miles to work, motorists could club together on a regular basis to share the cost of one car instead of using four separate cars. They cannot do this at the moment under the law.
    I assure the hon. Gentleman that there is no intention to have strike breaking or to dilute or lower standards. We hope that these powers will not be used. But, faced with a situation where the private motorist might be up against it, we should be extremely foolish not have the flexibility to be able to use public and private transport to the full. That is the sole purpose of the subsection. There is no ulterior motive behind it.
    Mr. Varley: I am grateful for those assurances. In the light of them, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: I beg to move Amendment No. 4, in page 3, line 32, at end insert :
    '(d) permit the relaxation of regulations presently in force which have the effect of restricting certain activities of taxi cabs under the several Hackney Carriage Acts'.
    The amendment arises from representations made to me by the Licensed Taxi Drivers' Association, which is the largest organisation of independent taxi drivers, mainly in London, with a membership of more than 3,000. Its members have some ideas which they believe could contribute to fuel saving both now and if rationing should come.
    The adoption of their suggestions, however, would mean relaxing some of the Hackney Carriage Acts before the introduction of rationing. I will put the suggestions to my hon. Friend in the hope that they fall upon receptive ears.
    First, there should be a relaxation of the present prohibition on a taxi driver drawing up at, say, King's Cross station, where there is usually a long queue of passengers waiting for taxis, and, on being hailed by someone who says "Waterloo", calling out "Anyone else wanting Waterloo?" If there are two or three more persons waiting in the queue who wish to go to Waterloo, it would be much more economic in fuel terms that the taxi driver should be allowed to call out "Any more for Waterloo?", that those people should enter the taxi, and that the fare payable should be the fare shown on the meter plus the 3p per person extra charge. In order to allay suspicions, it would be necessary to have displayed on the window next to the meter a notice indicating that in a taxi so hired the only fare legally payable is that shown on the meter.
    In tonight's Evening Standard this letter appears :
    "I am a London cab driver and very often pick up one passenger who has become tired of waiting at a bus stop. Many others are left standing there. The Hackney Carriage laws prohibit us asking others to share the cab, though an individual may offer to do so. It would certainly be a neighbourly gesture. Perhaps many do not know how inexpensive it is for four persons to share a cab."
    740
    My second suggestion leads on to the third. Drivers should be permitted to affix a notice to their cab in a position where it is visible to a potential hirer showing the area in which the cab's garage is situated. At present, that is not legal.
    My third suggestion is that taxi drivers returning to their garages—under my previous suggestion a notice indicating the area of the garage would be displayed, and people would know that the taxi was going to Hackney, Cricklewood or Peckham, for example—should have the right to refuse to accept any hi rings not in the general direction of the garage, particularly during the hours of 4 p.m. and 7 p.m., which is the shift changeover period, and from 1 a.m. to 6 a.m., which again may be the end of a shift which finishes at about midnight. At present, again in certain circumstances, taxi drivers are unable to refuse to carry potential hirers. At a time when there is a need to conserve fuel, provided that the notice shows where the garage is and provided that the other conditions are fulfilled, it would make sense that taxi drivers should be able to say, particularly during those periods, that they can accept fares only if they are going in the direction of the taxi's garage.
    The legislation affecting taxicabs, particularly in the Metropolitan Police District, is antiquated and cumbersome. I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment has the responsibility of answering on a point which is really a Home Office matter. If the Home Office had not been so dilatory, we might have had new legislation arising out of the Maxwell Stamp Report. The Home Office has not been more speedy. Perhaps I can enlist my hon. Friend's aid so that he will say to the Home Secretary that had certain legislation been enacted he would have been saved the necessity of trying to deal with this by emergency powers.
    Mr. Speed: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg) for his remarks. I am sure that he will not expect me to follow too closely the suggestion in his concluding sentences, but I agree that the hackney carriage laws are a veritable maze, lost in the mists of antiquity, and that does not make anybody's life much easier.

    741
    I add my thanks to the association and the taxi drivers who have written to my hon. Friend, because their action shows a constructive public-spirited approach to the problem that faces the country and, indeed, the Committee.
    I, too, read the letter and saw the photograph in tonight's Evening Standard. I think that they highlight the point. I am advised that nothing in the present law prevents passengers from agreeing to share a taxi and paying separate fares, provided that it is not a regular arrangement. I have no doubt that that will often be done by voluntary agreement. It is true that a driver may not insist upon passengers sharing his taxi for separate fares, and my hon. Friend is on the point that he would like it to be the fare on the meter and get away from the separate fare provision.
    I am advised that subsection (2)(a) will enable the Secretary of State to authorise a taxi to be used as a stage carriage in the same way as he will be able to authorise the use of private cars. That will meet my hon. Friend's first and fairly important point, and taxis will be able to carry up to four passengers for seperate fares or full fares.
    I have to tell my hon. Friend that two other important points that he raised are not covered by the Bill as drafted, and I am advised that it would be difficult to deal with them in regulations issued by the Home Department. I can give my hon. Friend no firm assurance about this, as I am speaking for a Department in absentia. I shall have discussions with my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Home Department. That is something which the Government would wish to consider very seriously, and I hope that it can be dealt with sympathetically.
    With the assurance that perhaps the matter can be dealt with by an amendment in another place, I hope that my hon. Friend will withdraw the amendment.
    Mr. Finsberg: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he has said, but there is one matter about which I should like to be clear before I accede to his suggestion.
    I understand that under subsection (2)(a) the Secretary of State—and I assume that this means the Secretary of State for the Home Department—will be entitled
    742
    to make a regulation which would allow taxi drivers to do what I have suggested; namely, if passenger A wants to go to Waterloo, he can ask others whether they, too, want to go there.
    On the assurance that that is so, and on the further assurance that my hon. Friend will consult Ministers in the Home Department to try to fill what appears to be a gap in the Bill and, if possible, deal with the matter in another place, I should wish to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Mr. Speed: The Secretary of State referred to here is my right hon. and learned Friend, but the matter would not be dealt with in the first place by way of a regulation. The subsection would first have to be enacted, and then the Secretary of State would deal with the matter in much the same way as he would deal with private vehicles, and I referred to this on the previous amendment. In other words, passengers would pay fares in private vehicles and taxis which would technically be carriers, without all the licensing procedure, and so on.
    My hon. Friend wishes to go further, and I have said that we shall consider the matter sympathetically with a view to introducing an amendment in another place to meet his point.
    11.30 p.m.
    Mr. Finsberg: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that further clarification. May I ask him one more point? Did he take on board the first thing I said—that I hoped it might not be necessary to wait for rationing to come before the subsection was activated?
    Mr. Speed: I took that on board. My hon. Friend's amendment deals, however, with only a part of the subsection. As I said on the previous amendment, certainly our hope is that on the major aspects—that is, public transport and the private motor car—we would not have to take any action at all and probably a fairly serious situation would need to develop before action had to be taken.
    The point made by my hon. Friend—this is why I want to have discussions with my right hon. and hon. Friends at the Home Office—is whether, even in the present situation, which may not be as dramatic as having to bring the subsection into effect there are ways in which we

    743
    might help to conserve fuel in the taxi trade. This is something that we will discuss. The only point I would make is that the legislative maze might make it more difficult to achieve what either of us wishes to achieve.
    Mr. Finsberg: In view of that extremely handsome assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. Varley: I beg to move Amendment No. 7, in page 4, line 6, leave out from 'to' to end of line 7 and insert :
    'approval by resolution of both Houses of Parliament'.
    The First Deputy Chairman (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu): With this amendment we may discuss Amendment No. 8, in Clause 5, page 4, line 15, at end insert :
    'save that any order made under this Act pursuant to section 7 of that Act shall be subject to approval by resolution of both Houses of Parliament'.
    Mr. Varley: The two amendments seek to change the procedure under which orders will have to be laid under this legislation from the negative to the affirmative procedure. If I can anticipate what the Minister will say in probably wanting to reject these amendments, it will be that it is necessary to maintain the negative procedure under these emergency provisions and in the emergency circumstances which have given rise to the Bill. I do not, however, think that it is an emergency in the sense of a situation in which the emergency laws are at present used. I shall seek to show the reason for this.
    As I have said, the Bill gives the Government enormous powers. Subsection (4) even allows for the Counter-Inflation Act to be modified by order. On Second Reading the Secretary of State gave a formidable list of the powers available under, for example, Clause 5, and I should like to refresh hon. Members' memories on this matter.
    The Secretary of State said :
    "Clause 5 applies for the purposes of this Bill certain provisions of the Emergency Laws (Re-enactment and Repeals) Act 1964 which are necessary to supplement the Bill. These concern the nature of orders or directions made under the Bill ; procedures for notices, authorisations or documents ; the territorial extent of the Bill : and the definition of
    744
    offences involving false documents or false statements. Power is also given for duly authorised officers, if necessary, to obtain documents, if necessary, by obtaining a search warrant. This power may be necessary for the enforcement, for instance of the rationing of petrol."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th November 1973 ; Vol. 865 ; c. 46–7.]
    Those are very formidable powers.
    Some of my hon. Friends have expressed amazement that in the Bill the Government have decided to take powers to modify the Counter-Inflation Act. We have been told again and again that that Act was sacrosanct and inviolable. Certainly, when we debate questions of pay and pay policy under that Act, Ministers repeatedly say that it cannot be changed. The Prime Minister said the same thing this afternoon concerning the current dispute in the mining industry, but I do not want to go into that at this point.
    In the circumstances of the Bill, the Government should allow us to change their proposal and not use the negative procedure but let us have the affirmative procedure. It would be much better if the Government would tell us exactly what they seek to do when it is necessary to lay an order and present it to the House for approval. The negative procedure, which involves inevitable delays, even if Prayers are tabled by the Opposition, is not good enough in these circumstances. The Opposition would certainly be vigilant in the circumstances, but I do not think that vigilance is a substitute for frankness by the Government.
    The Minister would agree that the Opposition have been extremely cooperative by allowing the Bill to go through all its remaining stages in one day and tabling the minimum of amendments, and up to now forcing no Divisions. We have done this in spite of the massive nature of the powers involved, and the least we can expect at this stage in the proceedings is that the Government will be much more forthcoming and accept the amendments. Otherwise, who knows?—there is still the possibility that we shall have to push the matter to the Division.
    The Bill ought to be got through on the basis of a little give and take, and in respect of these amendments it is time for the Government to give a little. Certainly we should have some modifications,

    745
    so that if it becomes necessary for orders to be laid they will be laid on the basis of the affirmative procedure, so that we can scrutinise them to a much greater extent than is possible under the procedure laid down in the Bill.
    Mr. Emery: I say immediately that I thank the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Varley) and his party for what he described—and I immediately accept—as the co-operative spirit in which they have dealt with the Committee stage of the Bill. I in no way took the veiled threat that he was using in his speech other than in the debating manner in which I am certain he was presenting it.
    Of course I understand the conception of any Opposition about regulations of this sort in deciding whether this matter should be dealt with by affirmative or negative resolution of the House. I would point out, however, that in considering these resolutions we have attempted to take into account the fact that the situation in any fuel shortage must change from day to day and will obviously require speedy action—action involving altering the orders—and there is a possibility that a considerable amount of extra work would be laid on the House if we had to proceed purely by way of affirmative resolution.
    I emphasise, however—I think I can give the hon. Member this assurance because it is part of the Bill, although he did not refer to it—that the factors concerning Clause 10, which would mean the resurrection of the Bill, must be dealt with by affirmative resolution. That is where we have tried to integrate the important constitutional side with questions that might be normal, currently running factors of the legislation if it had to be put into operation.
    Mr. Palmer: Why is it necessary to have these powers resurrected? Why not let them run for a period and then come to an end?
    Mr. Emery: The hon. Gentleman will have a chance to make that point in the debate that is yet to come. I do not want to take up time that should be devoted to that debate in answering this amendment.
    Therefore, I come to what seems to me is not necessarily the overpowering argument that I should accept, but might
    746
    be the overpowering argument for the hon. Member for Chesterfield. There is a very good precedent for the Government behaving in this way. The hon. Gentleman and I know it very well. I refer to the Control of Liquid Fuel Act 1967, which did very much what this Bill proposes to do. The 1967 Act, introduced and passed by the Labour Government, had very much the same powers as this Bill. We thought that in this instance their example might be followed.
    I am able to answer the argument for the amendment with that degree of coperation for which the hon. Gentleman asked. Perhaps he will now feel able, and think it right, to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment negatived.
    Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
    Mr. Biffen: I know that I shall never be welcomed in the Highlands and Islands in view of the rate of progress we are making.
    Mr. Donald Stewart: Hear, hear.
    Mr. Biffen: Indeed, I am inspired to make this point by the very presence of the hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Donald Stewart), because he and his party have been wholehearted and consistent in their opposition to British membership of the European Economic Community. Therefore, I should have expected that he, rather than myself, would have risen to inquire whether the power to relax statutory obligations in any way clashed with obligations that arise from regulations made by the European Communities in pursuit of a harmonised transport policy.
    This is no idle and esoteric speculation, because the Bill is required to run until 30th November 1974 and can remain, to the alarm of my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet), in perpetuity thereafter. There can be no doubt that a harmonised transport policy would touch precisely on the range of restrictions, some of which are referred to more specifically in the clause.
    The Committee may reasonably look for an explanation from my hon. Friends, first, whether they think that any of the

    747
    existing regulations under a common transport policy might conceivably clash with the objectives and aspirations set out in Clause 4, and, secondly, whether in the preparatory investigatory work that they must be doing in Brussels, they know of any proposals being formulated or canvassed by the Commission that are likely to result in regulations that will make the putting into effect of the clause that much more difficult.
    What the Committee, the hon. Member for the Western Isles, myself, my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford, and certainly the Opposition Front Bench would like to know is whether, if there is a conflict, national law will be preeminent.
    Mr. Russell Johnston: Hear, hear.
    Mr. Biffen: I am delighted to hear that. I am sure that the hon. Member for the Western Isles will feel almost stirred to his feet to add a few words of endorsement to my remarks and then no doubt the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Russell Johnston) will be able to make his remarks subsequently.
    Mr. Russell Johnston: I intended to intervene, but I had no intention of making a speech. I should like to make two points. First, the hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) was being even more excessively hypothetical than normal because there is no common transport policy.
    Secondly, he was being irrelevant, because the Bill does not deal with the relationship between Britain and the Community and the power of this Parliament to deal with sovereignty or any such matters whatsoever.
    11.45 p.m.
    Mr. Biffen: That was not an entirely appropriate contribution for the hon. Gentleman to make. It fell somewhat below the standard of close reasoning which I have come to expect from him. My point was that the Bill runs specifically, in Clause 8, until 30th November 1974. If we are to deduce from the hon. Gentleman's intervention that there is no prospect of even some embryonic common transport policy by the end of 1974, that is an interesting contribution to our
    748
    increasing knowledge of the shambles that proceeds under the guise of the Common Market and Community institutions.
    But what cannot be discounted is that we are rapidly seeking to set aside law for specific purposes and for identifiable periods because of some intervening emergency of some sort. The whole thing happened with the counter-inflation legislation, which put the first question mark over the supremacy of Community law. One is entitled to ask whether at some stage there will be a common transport policy. I have no views about it, but the hon. Member for Inverness may be right that there will be no such thing as even an embryonic common transport policy by the end of 1974. If there is such a policy, undoubtedly regulations would be made under it. It is feasible and reasonable to assume that those regulations could well have something of the character of the national legislation which is referred to, such as, for example, the Road Traffic Act 1972, the Road Traffic Act 1960 or the Transport Act 1968.
    It is perfectly reasonable to inquire whether, if that situation arises, Clause 4 would override any such regulation.
    Mr. Boardman: I am obliged to my hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) for raising such interesting points. He will forgive me if I do not speculate, on the narrow point which we are debating, on the time scale and content of future proposals that might come from within the Community. It is sufficient to say that the clause, which gives power to the Secretary of State to lay orders under certain circumstances, would, if those circumstances arose, take full account of whatever other factors were relevant, be they proposals, legislation or conditions in the Community or elsewhere.
    But it is convenient, perhaps, my hon. Friend having raised the point, if I tell the Committee that one aspect of the Bill is that it enables us to fulfil requirements of the EEC Council Directive 73/238 of 24th July 1973. That is that member States shall provide for powers to draw on stocks, allot stocks to consumers, allocate supplies, restrict consumption and regulate oil prices. So that is covered, as an incidental, by the Bill.

    749
    I am sure that my hon. Friend will understand why I do not speculate further as to possible changes in transport policy that might arise at some future date.
    Question put and agreed to
    Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill
    Clauses 5 to 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill

  Clause 10

    DURATION OF ACT
    Mr. Skeet: I beg to move Amendment No. 9, in page 5, line 27, leave out from 'expire' to end of line 10 on page 6.
    This legislation springs from an emergency but it is in permanent form and runs for perpetuity. The Secretary of State said on Second Reading :
    "As to the long term, the Bill can also be reactivated by Order in Council. After the original term has expired, the Bill will, so to speak, lie dormant on the statute book until the Government of the day find it necessary to invoke its powers to deal with an energy shortage."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th November 1973 ; Vol. 865, c. 45.]
    This could happen at any time—perhaps 10 or 15 years hence.
    Clause 2 says :
    "The Secretary of State may by order provide—

    (a) for regulating or prohibiting the production, supply, acquisition or use of any substance to which this Act applies ;

    (b) for regulating the price at which petroleum or any substance derived from petroleum"—

    that means chemicals—
    "may be supplied."
    These are enormous and broad powers.They may be used when there is no emergency or crisis. When they have been prompted by an emergency, why should we have on the statute book, reactivated whenever the Government desire, powers of this dimension?
    Fortunately, several of us were in the Chamber when the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) said :
    "I come now to the Bill. It takes powers which are permanent—this is not a temporary provisions Bill—and cover all fuels. I welcome the Bill because it will enable a Labour Government to do all they want under Labour's programme for Britain, including 90 per cent. of our policy for the North Sea."
    Later, talking of the oil companies, he said that the Bill would enable a Labour Government
    "to fix their prices and their distribution systems ; and under these powers, every other fuel and its use, including the chemical industry, will be brought within the control of the Government of the day."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th November 1973 ; Vol. 865, c. 141.]
    The Minister may say that future Governments will not do this, but under Clause 2 they can do precisely what they like. While I have every confidence in the Minister's assurances that he and his colleagues would never think of perpetrating such acts, if there were a change of Government that Government could do what they liked. We should not stand aside now and let the oil industry be caught by conditions which it may find very unfavourable, which could lead to their take-over and the usurpation of some of their powers.
    When we last had these difficulties, in 1956–57, the Defence Regulations (No. 3) Order, the Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Act 1945, the Supplies and Services (Extended Powers) Act 1947 and the Supplies and Services (Defence Purposes) Act 1951 were perfectly adequate. If they were adequate then, they should be adequate now.
    Let us see how we have dealt with it on this occasion. The Emergency Regulations No. 1881 of 1973 have been made under the Emergency Powers Act 1920 and the Emergency Powers Act 1964. We therefore have a parent Act, the Act of 1920. Section 2 of that Act says :
    "Where a proclamation of emergency has been made, and so long as the proclamation is in force, it shall be lawful for His Majesty in Council, by Order, to make regulations".
    Therefore it is limited to cases of emergency.
    Altered, subsection (4) of that Section says :
    "The regulations so made shall have effect as if enacted in this Act, but may be added to or altered or revoked by resolution of both Houses of Parliament or by regulations made in like manner and subject to the like provisions as the original regulations ;".
    What distinguishes that Act from this measure is that here there need be no emergency whatever. It may be, when all the clouds of the difficulties in the Middle East have passed, that the Government say that they want to control the pricing

    751
    and distribution of the oil companies. They can do so at will with this measure. Why should we take these powers now? There are several further precedents. Unfortunately, this dangerous form of legislation is becoming increasingly popular. The Counter-Inflation Act 1973 says in Section 4(1):
    "Subject to the provisions of this section, this Part of this Act shall cease to have effect at the expiration of a period of three years".
    It goes on, and we find exactly the same precedent coming up again :
    "(3) If an Order is made under subsection (2) above. Her Majesty may, by Order in Council again bring this Part of this Act into force for a period ending not later than 31st March 1976."
    Fortunately, there is a terminal date in that case. If we look at the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1973 we find under Section 30 (2):
    "The provisions of this Act … shall remain in force until the expiry of one year beginning with its passing and shall then expire unless continued in force by an order under this section … all or any of the said provisions which are for the time being in force … shall continue in force for a period not exceeding one year from the coming into operation of the order."
    That, too, can continue for an indefinite period. But it is dealing with Northern Ireland and it is an emergency.
    For the first time we find, coming out of the blue, this new trend in legislation being utilised by the Government—and I am surprised they are doing it. I wonder whether all hon. Members realise what is going on. The Government are seeking to utilise an emergency such as we have today to saddle on the economy permanent powers which can be used in perpetuity.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) and I have been in the same Lobby when the House has dealt with the Rhodesian situation. The order dealing with that must be renewed annually. We have a number of defence requirements, such as the War Emergency Laws (Continuance) Act, which force us to trundle through the Lobby once a year so that they may be continued. The right way to deal with this is in the way proposed in my amendment, that is to have the measure clarified once a year, to come back to this Chamber and get Parliament's approval for its continuance.
    Another matter which worries me is that Clause 10 does not specify the conditions upon which the House should agree that the powers should be reactivated. It is amazing that Clause 4 should be continued. This deals with the power to interfere with the sanctity of contracts.
    These contracts—apparently at times of an emergency and at other times—can be broken at will. The Minister has had the opportunity of speaking to Sheikh Yamani. He may have it in mind that this emergency may pass within the course of the next year, which I would have thought would be adequate. The Financial Times of 28th November reported that Sheikh Yamani had said that Western European countries like Germany, Belgium and the United Kingdom which were affected by restrictions against Holland could make up lost quantities by lifting oil direct from Algeria and Saudi Arabia. Now that the Minister has had an opportunity of coming face to face with Sheikh Yamani perhaps he will tell us whether he expects the crisis will last for more than one year. I should have thought not. Most of us know the answer, I think.
    12 midnight.
    I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on his contribution to combating the crisis. I read in the Evening Standard that he has replaced his expensive Daimler with a battered Morris Minor.
    Mr. J. D. Concannon: The miners are getting the blame again.
    Mr. Skeet: The miners account for all sorts of things. I do not know who battered this one, but that is what my hon. Friend's wife said. It is a step in the right direction.
    The Government are seeking to shackle the oil, the coal the electricity and the chemical industries with new regulations which will run into perpetuity when they should, because the crisis is temporary, be using temporary provisions. I hope my hon. Friend will explain why the Government are seeking these additional powers.
    Mr. Palmer: I am glad that the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet) has put down the amendment. It covers a point

    753
    I made during the speech by the Under-Secretary. I asked why the powers could not come to an end after a reasonable period, which is normal parliamentary practice. Why have the Government chosen 30th November 1974? Is that the date for the General Election? If that is the explanation and if the powers have to go on, if they can be reactivated by an Order in Council, what are the Government expecting? If no General Election is planned and the Government hope still to be holding on to office do they expect a situation of more or less perpetual crisis?
    I am intensely puzzled by it all. I pay this tribute to the Conservatives. When they take to bureaucracy they do it thoroughly. No Socialist administration could improve on that. The hon. Member for Bedford called in aid of his argument my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn). I am sorry that he is not here. It is asked whether there can be two kings in Brentford. I do not know about that, but there can be two opinions in Bristol. As a democratic Socialist I should greatly favour the oil industry coming into public ownership—and I expressed that view at the time of the Labour Government when it was possible to do it. I should like that to happen, but not by these hidden powers. The proper way to do it in a free country is to bring legislation before the House of Commons for proper discussion. I do not think the Labour Party should consider bringing the oil industry into public ownership by means of scraps of legislation left behind mistakenly by the Conservatives.
    On grounds of normal democratic theory and practice we deserve a fuller explanation.
    I am sorry for the hon. Member for Bedford. Apart from the hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen), who is always very valiant, he sits there alone as the champion of freedom. Where are all the others on the Conservative benches? I join him—it is just a coincidence—in asking why the date of 30th November is necessary. What is the logic about it? Are we to expect perpetual crisis? If that is the explanation, the country should know the worst.
    Mr. Skeet: The Bill says nothing about a crisis. If it were called the Fuel and
    754
    Electricity (Emergency Control) Bill or the Long Title said that it was to do with the crisis, I could understand something about it. But it says nothing like that. Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that it is a pure Bill, which could come up at any time?
    Mr. Palmer: I do not think it is a particularly pure Bill ; it is extremely impure in many ways, because it is confused in so many directions. These powers grow and grow, and I can see no reason for it.
    I do not quite follow why the hon. Gentleman intervened in that way. I was only trying to carry through more logically the argument he started.
    Mr. Biffen: If one discounts the Treasury Bench and the Parliamentary Private Secretary representation, one is left with 100 per cent. freedom-fighting representation on the Government back benches. It is in that spirit that I rise to support my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet) and to say that the Committee owes him gratitude for raising the point he has raised, because it is one of substance, for two reasons.
    First, there are the arguments put with such tantalising enthusiasm by the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn), that there was a form of managerial Toryism which was thoughtlessly fashioning the very weapons that he wished to inherit at a subsequent electoral triumph. I am not sure that that is true. I am not sure what is the significance of the Long Title when it says "make temporary provision". I do not know whether the fact that that is in the Long Title would itself prevent the use of the legislation for the right hon. Gentleman's much wider-ranging ambitions.
    But what we cannot dispute is that energy—fuel and electricity, oil supplies—is one of the most commanding of all the commanding heights of the economy. Therefore, casually to place on record in perpetuity powers which at least could excite the perhaps misguided enthusiasm of the right hon. Gentleman is a mistake. I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will reconsider the dangers that might be implicit in having on the statute book a piece of legislation which could be used for ambitions and objectives

    755
    wholly outside those of a temporary, emergency character.
    Secondly, Parliament has one asset which it can trade with the executive, whether a Conservative or Labour executive. That asset is time. It should not be traded away without careful thought. If this legislation had been passed after the Suez crisis, the powers which are now being sought by the Government would have been automatically employed by such a Bill lying dormant but capable of resuscitation. We would not have been granted the amount of parliamentary time which we have been able to extract by having a Committee stage on the Floor of the House, which enabled my hon. Friends the Members for Harborough (Mr. Farr) and Gainsborough (Mr. Kimball) to demonstrate the tremendous social changes which have occurred in their constituencies which makes rationing on this occasion in prospect wholly different in character and consequence from what it had been some years previous.
    None of us, not even the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Donald Stewart), is so nostalgic and so romantic in our concept of society that we suppose it will be stuck in its current composition. If some emergency arises five or 10 years hence requiring this kind of legislation, our successors will be anxious to demonstrate that the changes in their constituencies are of material and demonstrative consequence, and wholly different in their consequence than those way back in 1973.
    We have obtained the opportunity to have such a discussion and to make such points of the Floor of the House. I remain convinced that the Floor of the House is still the most effective of the available options. We have had to put through the Committee stage speedily. My right hon. and hon. Friends will concede that, when the country is faced with difficulties or an emergency, Parliament does not play the fool. That is the joy of this institution. Whatever may be its occasional absurdities, which may be a useful safety valve, the truth is that it is a deliberative and legislative institution which has an uncanny, immensely helpful and happy sense of reality and proportion. Given the present situation and the legislation before us, perfectly
    756
    legitimate doubts are raised. They are not doubts that merely exercise libertarians on the Government benches ; they exercise libertarians in the Labour Party.
    It may be said by some managerial regime in the future "We had better give them all a day for a debate on the Adjournment" That is not quite the same. That has not the range of refined options which is before us. The hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Varley) made a hopeless gesture because it was not believed that there was the possibility of a vote. One gets a nose for such things after a while. But the hon. Gentleman knows well that all the opportunities for a vote are provided by a Committee stage on the Floor of the House for this type of emergency legislation.
    All too often we learn to experience in this House that the consequences of a good deal of our legislation often outstrip and falsify our expectations. When I trudged through the Lobby faithfully supporting the Industrial Relations Act, I had no concept that I would bring into being a somewhat enhanced rôle for the Official Solicitor. Again, when I did not trudge through the Lobby because I thought it would be such a passing irrelevance, I had no concept that under legislation furthering science and technology literally tens of millions of pounds would be plucked out of the air to support the British computer industry. Such money should not be voted to the British computer industry, but we can have that debate on another occasion. Legislation often bears consequences that are not apparent at the time of its execution.
    12.15 a.m.
    That is why I say that my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford is not raising false fears when he asks whether it is wise for legislation of this character once put on the statute book in a rush to be left there in perpetuity. It is the hallmark of the managerial Government that wants to line up legislation after legislation, perhaps of a temporary character but always there, as one quick button for some future executive to press without the complicating processes of coming to Parliament and being subject to the irksome representations of Members of Parliament who want to plead their constituency cases on the Floor of the House even in the early hours of the morning.

    757
    My hon. Friend may not be able to offer hope that he is not merely aware of and sympathetic to the anxieties that have been expressed but that something will be done. I hope he will say that the Bill is not to be the final creation of parliamentary workmanship and is capable of improvement, perhaps not this evening but in another place. Perhaps when we come to give our final assent he will say that our arguments which are serious, substantial and fundamental will receive recognition.
    Mr. Tom Boardman: I have sympathy with a great deal that my hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) said about the rôle of the House and of Members of Parliament, but I am sorry that I shall have to disappoint him and my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet) in not being able to reach the conclusions to which they would draw me. I understand my hon. Friend's concern about the use that may be made of the powers of the Bill in the long term by less sensible administrations.
    The hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) sounded some alarming notes, but I am happy to assure the Committee that his remarks were, as all too often, ill-founded. He failed to realise that even if the Bill were reactivated under a future Labour administration for reasons unconnected with a fuel emergency its duration would be only for one year. It could be extended at the end of that period, but no administration could act on the assumption that an Order in Council for that purpose would be made. From that it follows that nationalisation of, say, the oil industry could not be accomplished under the Bill. For that a permanent enactment rather than one requiring renewal every year would be necessary. That same argument mitigates against any attempt to impose permanent control over the oil market, as any action taken could not be assumed to have validity after the Bill was due to expire. The whole project would be built on a base of shifting sand.
    We are using the Bill as a temporary measure—as the Short Title implies—to deal with a temporary situation. But, with a view to the long term, we thought it right that powers of this sort should
    758
    lie dormant on the statute book to provide for quick action to remedy any future energy difficulties. I am sure that the House will realise that the size and speed with which energy crises can develop today are far greater and more rapid than has been the case in the past. Whilst it has been possible for successive Governments to invoke emergency powers, the machinery for dealing with a situation like an oil emergency can only be effectively covered by an enactment such as this Bill, which does not have to come up for renewal every 28 days and which, if necessary, can be invoked more quickly than it has been necessary to do even on this occasion.
    The preparation and issue of the rationing coupons as a preparatory measure takes some four weeks. Therefore, to proceed with a programme of petrol rationing—if it should be necessary at some future date—under emergency regulations would be fraught with many complexities and difficulties. That was recognised in 1967 when the Labour Government introduced a measure to serve that purpose. It may be said that the powers of renewal will be exercised and that one should work on that assumption, but I believe that to be a false and unwise premise.
    We have, by, I hope, good stewardship and good stocks, been able to have plenty of warning that a fuel crisis was developing which might lead to rationing. But one can visualise a situation, which I hope will never arise, when action might have to be taken far more quickly, and the only effective way of doing it is by the powers contained in a Bill like this.
    While I recognise the point my hon. Friends have made, that taking wide powers in a permanent renewable Bill is objectionable unless justified—and I believe I have justified it—I remind them that to renew the Bill an Order in Council is required to be approved within 28 days. The House would then have an opportunity to discuss the wide issues involved. My hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry has never been at a loss to find a way to debate any issue which he believes to be of importance to the House. He has done so with considerable eloquence, even if perhaps both sides of the House have not always agreed with the contents of what he has said.

    759
    I hope my hon. Friends will accept the force of this argument for including in the Bill power of extension or reactivation for the future. I cannot speak for the actions of any possible contingent future Labour Government, but I am sure that both my hon. Friends and hon. Members opposite will realise the absurd situation which would arise—I am going beyond the presumption of a change of administration—if it were suggested that a Bill of this type should be used to scale what the right hon. Gentleman called the "commanding heights of the economy" with perhaps a falling-off again in 12 months' time. I must, therefore, ask the House to reject the amendment.
    Mr. Skeet: I am a little disappointed with my hon. Friend's reply. This is an indication of a trend which has now become established in that a similar pro vision has been included in the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1973 and the Counter-Inflation Act 1973. Now we have this Bill. Every power is being taken away from this Chamber, with provisions being reactivated by Orders in Council, and we in this Chamber have very limited powers to deal with them. That is why I must express my disappointment—
    Mr. Boardman: The precedent dates from a good deal before this year. One of the Rhodesian Acts of 1965 contains a similar provision.
    Mr. Skeet: I am aware of that. But when we deal with Rhodesia, we do so annually, and we have an opportunity in this House to review the legislation and to vote against it. While that may be intended to be a helpful contribution, it is a little unfortunate.
    My hon. Friend said that it was useful to have on the statute book an Act which can be brought into operation very quickly. There is one difficulty about that. This Bill received a Second Reading on Monday. Today, only a few days afterwards, we are dealing with the remaining stages. This House knows that if there is an emergency situation, legislation can be got through very quickly. There are a number of precedents. My hon. Friend could very easily introduce a Bill on some future occasion and get it through all its stages very quickly.
    760
    Whatever back-bench hon. Members may say in this House, when it comes to the construction of a statute, one has to look at its terms, and nothing else. I am very impressed by the wide powers conferred by Clause 2. This is what worries me. In fairness to my hon. Friend, it was he who referred to a possible change of Government. Although he would not prosecute these powers for unrealistic purposes, a future Labour administration might have different ideas and, although it would be inappropriate to nationalise an industry under these powers, they could assume extensive control over the oil market and so embarrass that part of the economy that ultimately they might lead to the destruction of companies and their eventual takeover. That is my anxiety.
    I am grateful for what my hon. Friend has said. He has given us some clarification. He says that he wants this provision for speedy action in the future. However, I would welcome an assurance from him that the trend which we find in current legislation will not be proceeded with further except in an emergency. I do not suppose that my hon. Friend can concede that now, but if he can deal with that point I shall be satisfied on this occasion.
    Mr. Boardman: I am sure that my hon. Friend realises that I cannot make any commitment of that kind on future legislation. Equally he will realise that the view that I have expressed about this Bill will be shared by many of my right hon. and hon. Friends who will note with care what my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet) has said.
    Mr. Skeet: I appreciate what my hon. Friend has said. I remain disappointed, and I shall watch future legislation with great care. In the event of any repetition I shall move amendments and try to divide the House on them. However, on this occasion I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn
    Clause 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill
    Clause 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Bill reported, without amendment; read the third time and passed.

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

ISLAND OF RAASAY
12.30 a.m.
Mr. Russell Johnston: Nothing in nine years' experience of representing the constituency of Inverness remotely compares with the bitter frustration I have had in trying to get something achieved in the Island of Raasay, and what I feel can be only a pale shadow of what the islanders themselves feel. I am not in the habit of using exaggerated language for effect, but I have not the slightest hesitation in saying that the way in which the islanders have been treated by Dr. Green—the man who owns, as a result of successive sales by the Department of Agriculture since 1961, the most significant properties in the key area of the island—and by the authorities, local, regional and national, which have the responsibility for acting for the public good is a total, unmitigated, shameful scandal.
I start by making three quotations from the mountain of correspondence which I have with me in the House. On 13th July 1965, Lord Hughes, who was at that time Under-Secretary of State, Scottish Office, wrote to me saying :
"The Department of Agriculture are exploring with Inverness County Council the question of providing suitable shore terminals for a short sea crossing between Raasay and Skye."
On 6th June Lord Hughes again wrote to me saying that his Department had
"investigated the possible sites for the ferry terminals and all are agreed that the most suitable site for the Raasay terminal is at Churchton Bay."
He went on :
"In short, the Raasay terminal has been chosen."
On 31st January of this year the Minister who is present here tonight wrote to me saying :
"Thank you for your letter of 22nd December 1972 about the compulsory purchase orders applied for by the Inverness County Council relating to the proposed ferry terminal at Raasay."
He then dealt with Dr. Green's objections and concluded by saying :
762
"I am arranging that the Inquiry should be held as soon as possible."
Seven and a half years have elapsed between Lord Hughes' decision and today, when the result of the inquiry is still not known. To be more precise, although I wrote in my notes that the inquiry result is still not known, since then I have learned—not from the Scottish Office, not from any Minister, but from the good offices of the Press—that a statement has been issued today to the effect that a decision has been taken and that the county council's compulsory purchase proposals have been accepted.
I welcome this decision, which admittedly was reached extremely slowly, but I wonder at the kind of govermental attitude whereby no attempt was made to inform me of this—if I had not had some friends at court in the Press I would not have known about it—and whereby the announcement was made on the evening when this debate was taking place. I am increasingly concerned about this attitude to Parliament. I think that it is very regrettable.
Nevertheless, the basic facts remain. It has taken 7½ years to decide on a little ferry to a little island which has suffered, as everyone has agreed and agreed and agreed, depopulation, stagnation and neglect.
Let us flick quickly through the years. On 9th December 1968 the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), then the Secretary of State, said, in a Written Answer :
"Sufficient details … have now been supplied to Inverness County Council to enable them to proceed with their plans for the necessary terminals."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th December 1968: Vol. 775, c. 43.]
On 18th June 1969 the then Minister of State, the hon. Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon) said :
"I fully appreciate the feelings of the people of Raasay and it is undeniably true that the proposal for a vehicle ferry service to the Island has been under consideration for a very long time. The primary initiative rests with the County Council, but I understand that they are finding it difficult to reach a decision."
On 26th May 1970, Sir Robert Grieve, then the Chairman of the Highlands and Islands Development Board, wrote :
"We are as anxious as you about the situation and we lose no opportunity of pressing the County Council on the matter."

763
On 19th August 1970, the noble Lady, Lady Tweedsmuir, then the Minister of State at the Scottish Office, said :
"The Scottish Development Department have now received from Inverness County Council proposals for the construction of terminals for this service. A meeting between representatives of the Department, the County Council and the Scottish Transport Group seems necessary. I hope that these discussions may lead to progress being made."
On 12th March 1971 the County Clerk of Inverness wrote :
"I had hoped before now to be able to report about further progress in this matter and indeed the Council have been pressing for some action."
In October 1971, the county council and the Minister's Department reached agreement on the sharing of the costs of building the terminals and operating the ferry, which had been the subject of three years' talking, following the passage of the 1968 Transport Act, which laid some obligations on the local authority.
The time that this took was utterly scandalous, and my first two direct questions to the Minister are : first, how in Heaven's name did it take three years to reach an agreement on a relatively simple matter? The House has just dealt with a complex Bill in two days, yet it took three years to reach that decision.
Secondly, why, over all these years—1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970 and 1971—did no one from the local authority or the Scottish Office think to ask Dr. Green whether he would be willing to agree to the proposed terminals? Because, of course, since he did not, another two years, plus, have gone by, and it was not until this evening—and we still do not know officially—that we knew whether they could be built.
I now turn to Dr. Green and to the Highlands and Islands Development Board. Dr. Green bought Raasay House and its land in 1961, Raasay Home Farm in 1963, and various other houses over a period of years. He had previously owned the Island of Scalpay, off Skye, for six years, and sold it, as he told me, because his wife found it remote. It is not known whether he made a profit.
It seems clear that Dr. Green had the intention of developing Raasay House as an hotel, and he himself claims to have spent, in the early 1960s, about £40,000
764
on renovating it. Certainly his activities in the early 1960s were such as to lead the then Secretary of State for Scotland, the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock, to write to me on 26th July 1966 and say :
"It would seem premature simply to write off Dr. Green's record to date or his potential … I have to bear in mind that in an area such as this it is not a question of picking and choosing between developers."
One can comment, in parenthesis, "changed days".
By 1966, either the will or the money had run out, and though Dr. Green was quoted in an article in the Scottish Sunday Express of 12th June 1966 as saying that the hotel
"will open just as soon as possible" —
an article, incidentally, which also contained a quotation from a spokesman for the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries who said that
"Dr. Green was the only effectual bidder for the land. He bought it. And he can do what he wants with it"—
work had stopped, not even preservation work was being done on the house, and it and other properties were falling into decay.
From that moment on, all Dr. Green's actions were evasive, delaying or downright obstructive of anything proposed for the island's benefit. His own allegation, which he has made personally to me, is that in 1966 the Highlands and Islands Development Board had indicated to him that it intended compulsory purchase of his properties and that he therefore would be foolish to spend any more money on them. Leaving aside the fact that that conflicts with recent proposals which he has put before the Inverness County Council, the inexplicable inactivity of the Highlands and Islands Development Board in the seven years since has somehow to be explained. Equally, because of Dr. Green's record in the past seven years, very proper public interest has been focused on the terms of the original sales to him by the State of his properties.
To take the last point first, will the Minister please list the sales made to Dr. Green and tell us whether they were all by publicly-advertised auction and what was paid? Will he also say for what reason the custodians of public property—to wit, the Department of Agriculture

765
—on an island with so fragile an economic structure embarked on these sales?
I accept that time may prevent the Minister from giving a full reply to these matters, complicated for example by detailed but important questions such as that raised with me only this very evening by Raasay's district councillor, Mr. Alasdair Nicholson, whose efforts for Raasay have been unremitting and whose frustration has been the same as mine, as to why the old pier was sold by the Department to Dr. Green after representations against such a sale were made to the Secretary of State, whose advice, I am told, falsely was that the transaction had already taken place. If there is no time for the Minister to reply fully—I accept that problem—let him institute an inquiry and subsequently write to me, publish the results or take whatever other action he wishes to let it be known.
The Highlands and Islands Development Board was established by Act of Parliament in August 1965 to operate for the social and economic benefit of the Highlands. To ensure that it had the power to fulfil its remit it was given compulsory purchase powers, which, the Minister will remember, were extremely controversial at the time. They have never been used. Nowhere in my opinion was their use more needed than in Raasay. What is the point of having teeth and keeping them on the mantelpiece?
I urged the then chairman of the board, Sir Robert Grieve, to use those powers in 1966 and have continued to urge this over the years since while Green's properties have crumbled. It is my information that a proposal to do so was put to the Scottish Office in 1968 but no action was taken.
Through all these years the sum total of a multitude of letters with the Highlands and Islands Development Board was, first, that it told me "We want to develop Raasay". On 31st October 1969 a Press conference was held at which Mr. Prophet Smith, board member, announced that £110,000 was to be spent on Raasay. He was quoted as saying
"We think that any investment we have on the island will certainly pay off for generations to come".
766
Will the Minister perhaps tell us what happened to that money? Secondly, I was told by the board that it would take no action until the problem of the ferry was resolved.
On 28th March 1972, following a meeting between Raasay representatives, Sir Andrew Gilchrist, chairman of the board, and Lord Burton, chairman of the roads committee of Inverness County Council—a meeting, incidentally, which Sir Andrew denied me the opportunity of attending although I wished to do so—a Press release stated that
"plans had to be put into suspense pending a decision on the ferry".
That was the line equally followed by Sir Robert Grieve. Why?
That view, which spanned two Governments, was to my mind quite indefensible. Surely one either decides to develop or one does not. The board stands condemned in my view for its inaction. Worse still, even if one accepts—which I do not—its approach, I have a letter from the County Clerk of Inverness dated 15th September 1971, following the decision to proceed with the ferry, saying :
"I have advised the Highlands and Islands Development Board of the County Council's decision so that they may make ready their plans for the development of Raasay."
That was more than two years ago, and it has done nothing since. It has done nothing against the background not simply of Dr. Green's obstruction of the ferry terminal construction but also his most recent obstruction of the water board's proposal to replace the antiquated water supply, of which the Minister will know.
I could speak all night about this without any trouble. If the Minister feels that I have given him quotations which are selective or unfair, I assure him that I could multiply them twenty-fold.
I conclude by asking two further questions. Will he, seven years after the then Minister of State for Scotland, Mr. George Willis, agreed to my request to ask the board to look at the economic situation of Raasay, now instruct the board to institute compulsory purchase orders against Dr. Green forthwith, and while the process goes forward produce a plan for the island, in consultation with the islanders?
Secondly, will he himself go to Raasay as soon as he can and explain to the

767
people there why there has been such inexcusable procrastination and delay in dealing with their affairs?
An explanation is the very least they deserve.
12.46 a.m.
Mr. Donald Stewart: I am grateful for the chance to make a very short intervention. In adding to what the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Russell Johnston) said, I want to point out that the question of Raasay has been a source of outrage throughout the Highlands and Islands during the period mentioned. Its people have had great difficulties through the non-activity of this faceless tyrant, Dr. Green, who has opposed even the letting of a small piece of ground to allow people to enjoy a ferry service from the neighbouring island of Skye. The Highlands and Islands Board has not been helpful. My experience of the board since it has been in existence is that whenever there has been a conflict of interests between the establishment—of whatever kind—and the indigenous population it has always come down on the side of the establishment.
The Conservative Government have never dealt with the question of landlordism in the Highlands, and neither have the Labour Government, despite a lot of huffing and puffing about it.
To come to the specific case—it is an appalling thing that these people should suffer because of this man who has purchased the island—land, farms, properties and a jetty—for a derisory sum, and that because of his decision the place is deteriorating and decaying, and all kinds of development are frustrated.
In addition to the questions asked by the hon. Member for Inverness, I ask the Minister, first, to tell us—later, if he cannot do so tonight—why the properties were sold and what other offers were received, and, secondly, to give us the name of the person who took the decision to sell at Dr. Green's price.
12.48 a.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for Development, Scottish Office (Mr. George Younger): All who know anything about this long and sad story will sympathise with the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Russell Johnston) not only in respect of
768
the problem with which he has had to deal all these years but in terms of the frustration that he expressed this evening. I say to him, and, through him, to those on the island of Raasay, that he and they are not alone in feeling tremendous frustration about the time taken over the problem of Raasay. Over the three years in which I have had some responsibility for the matter I have often wished that I had a magic wand which I could wave to get things moving more quickly.
I shall try to explain as quickly as I can some of the problems that have caused this situation to arise, and in doing so I make it clear that I entirely accept the complaints of the hon. Member and his constituents about the long time it has taken—I very much wish that it had been otherwise—for reasons I shall try to make clear.
Secondly, I am sure that the hon. Member—who spent much of his speech in pretty forcefully criticising Dr. Green, who owns these important properties on the island—would not expect me to spend any time in trying to defend Dr. Green. It is Dr. Green's busines to defend himself if he wishes to do so ; it is not my job.
The past history of this island has been one of problems which have certainly not started in recent years but have been carrying on for a considerable time. It is an island of about 18,000 acres. The greater part is State-owned and includes a number of crofts and substantial grazings. In 1922 it became State-owned and was acquired by the then Board of Agriculture for Scotland as a land settlement estate.
After the war the Forestry Commission carried out afforestation both in the north and in the south of the island. The land in question was resumed from the crofters' common grazings.
It is interesting to note that there has been a steady decline in the population of Raasay over the years, despite this activity and the land settlement scheme. A decline in population, serious though it is, is not a new problem. Afforestation and the post-war rationalisation of the crofting settlements did not manage to arrest that trend. The population declined from 368 in 1921 to 354 in 1931, to 290 in 1951, to 260 in 1961, and to 163 in 1971—the latest census figure.

769
Raasay House Hotel, the Home Farm, Borrodale House and certain other smaller properties on Raasay were sold in 1961–62 by the Secretary of State. All the sportings in the Secretary of State's ownership were let to Dr. Green in 1962 on a 50-year lease. The mineral rights were not owned by the Secretary of State, but were subsequently acquired by Dr. Green from a former owner of the estate.
It had been hoped—the hon. Gentleman gave us a quotation from the time of the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) to back it up—that the sale of the hotel and other property to Dr. Green in 1961 and 1965 would lead to developments which would revitalise the island—perhaps, for instance, by increasing the tourist traffic. This has not happened. The local view—I am sure the hon. Gentleman will agree—is that the decline in population has been made worse by the alleged failure of Dr. Green to develop his properties. It is certainly thought by some people that he has even been doing everything that he can to prevent other worthwhile developments. That is the view, of which I have been made aware, of people in the area.
I shall be glad to accede to the hon. Gentleman's request to let him have a list of the sales that have been made to Dr. Green with as much detail as I can attach to them. I shall also write to him about the sale of the old pier about which he asked.
The existing ferry service links Raasay with Kyle, Portree and Mallaig. The former Highland Transport Board suggested Raasay as one of a number of islands where the possibility of improving the transport service by starting a short sea vehicle service should be explored. That has now been done.
When the local authority initiates such a service it will attract grant under Section 34 of the Transport Act 1968, and the county council knows that grant is likely to be offered by the Secretary of State. Approval in principle has also been given by the Secretary of State to grant for the terminals necessary for this service.
It is not for me to defend delays before 1970, when I began to have some responsibility for this matter. I am sure that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen repre
770
senting the party that was then in power—Members who are not present tonight—will defend themselves, if they can, in due course.
As the hon. Gentleman knows, by September 1971—about a year after I had some responsibility—we got the plan fixed for the transport ferry service to the island. From then on we had to get to work to purchase the necessary ground.
It has not been possible, overnight, to produce a decision on the necessary compulsory purchase orders made by Inverness County Council for the acquisition of land on Raasay owned by Dr. Green to provide a terminal for the ferry. The issues raised by the proposal have been very complex and have required very careful consideration at every stage.
I remind the hon. Gentleman—I often wish that these matters could proceed more quickly—that if one tries to hurry these procedures, they often take longer in the end because of the risk of legal action. Indeed, this has happened in some cases, as everyone knows.
There are two orders in this case, which were submitted to the Secretary of State for confirmation in July and October, 1972. Objections were made by Dr. Green, as owner of the land, and after consideration of these it was decided to hold a public local inquiry, which took place in March, 1973. There was a long and purely technical delay in obtaining the transcript of the inquiry, caused in large part by such a simple but human matter as the illness of the shorthand writer involved in it. This, in turn, led to delay in the production of the report of the inquiry. I very much regret that, but it was due to that factor.
A decision on the orders has now been taken by the Secretary of State in the light of the report of the inquiry. I had great difficulty in deciding how best to make this available because, correctly, it must go first to the parties to the inquiry. I therefore arranged, I hoped for the convenience of everyone, that I could carry out that part of it as late as possible today in order to be able to announce this to the hon. Gentleman in the House. As the hon. Gentleman said, this is the right place to announce it tonight. I hope that he will accept that I did this with the best intentions of helping him

771
as well as those concerned, but I could not have announced it without telling the parties officially. I hope that I have succeeded in doing both things.
This decision has been taken and my right hon. Friend has decided to accept the reporter's recommendation that the orders should be confirmed. The letter giving notice of this confirmation was delivered to the parties today. It sets out fully my right hon. Friend's reasons for his decision. The letter is self-explanatory and it would not be proper to elaborate on it at this time. There was evidence at the inquiry of the need for an improvement in the ferry service to the island and the Secretary of State accepts this need. I am sure that this decision will be widely welcomed as a step towards meeting that need.
I do not have time to deal with the question of water supply, except to say very briefly that I wish that I could ride roughshod over procedures in order to get something done on this matter, but I cannot. The procedures to be followed are laid down by the House. All that I can undertake, as the Secretary of State has already undertaken, I think, in a letter to the hon. Gentleman is that they will be gone through as properly but as quickly as possible. As an earnest of our intentions in that matter, as the hon. Gentleman knows from that letter, the board and the objectors have been told that arrangements will be put in hand now for a public inquiry unless the objections are withdrawn by the end of this month.
The Highlands and Islands Development Board has sought to negotiate with Dr. Green for the acquisition by agreement of the whole or part of his property on Raasay to enable it to formulate and carry out plans for the development of the island. Unfortunately, these negotiations have so far been unsuccessful. I know that the board has also tried to help in other ways, for instance, by giving grant and loan assistance to certain of the islanders towards different types of enterprise. But now that the ferry terminal question has been decided the local authority will no doubt seek to progress its ideas for the introduction of a vehicle ferry. Perhaps that, more than anything else, will help.
772
It would now be very opportune for the Highlands and Islands Development Board to make a last effort to bring its negotiations with Dr, Green to an early and successful conclusion. If this proves impossible the board will require to consider what further action it should take to secure the development of Raasay. It is not for me to anticipate what the board may decide. Its powers are, however, very wide, and include, as a last resort, the power of compulsory acquisition of land required for the purposes of exercising any of its powers under the Highlands and Islands Development (Scotland) Act 1965.
Progress on the development of Raasay has been much slower than I would have wished. Throughout these proceedings the Government have been trying to hurry things on and trying to do what they can to help. We have done this by announcing the availability of grants for the proposed ferry terminals, by assenting to the Highlands and Islands Development Board's negotiations with Dr. Green and trying to get them pushed on at all times, and now, today, by approving the compulsory acquisition by Inverness County Council of a ferry terminal on Raasay, thus clearing the way for the board to consider the next steps. I know that the board wants to get on with the job. It must be and is determined to try to reverse the trend of depopulation which has been evident on Raasay over the last several decades. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I shall see, with the board, that we try to press this matter forward in the interests that he has pressed so powerfully for his constituents. I hope that we shall not have to face a further series of delays, and I hope that negotiations will be possible. I hope that Dr. Green and the board will now get down to negotiations to cut out delays.
Mr. Russell Johnston: Before the hon. Gentleman sits down, may I tell him earnestly that if he is suggesting to the board that it makes yet again another attempt to reach agreement with Dr. Green, there is little evidence that this will be any more than a further waste of time.
Mr. Younger: It must be a pretty quick but determined effort. The hon.

773
Gentleman will realise that if that were achieved it would save a great deal of time, because if agreement cannot be reached there are many more procedures to go through. But I accept what he says and we shall do what we can to hurry it up—
The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock on Thursday evening and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order
Adjourned at One o'clock.

NATIONAL FINANCE
  Nationalised Industries (Price Control)
  Nationalised Industries (Price Control)
  Road Fund Licences
  Road Fund Licences
  Sterling Flotation
  Sterling Flotation
  East Kilbride Tax Office
  East Kilbride Tax Office
  Mortgage Interest Relief
  Mortgage Interest Relief
  Minimum Lending Rate
  Minimum Lending Rate
  Economic Growth Rate
  Economic Growth Rate
  Widowers' Pensions
  Widowers' Pensions
  £ Sterling (Value)
  £ Sterling (Value)
  EEC Harmonisation
  EEC Harmonisation
  Standard of Living
  Standard of Living
  Customs and Excise (Form C273)
  Customs and Excise (Form C273)
  Television
  Television
  Value Added Tax
  Value Added Tax
  Pensions
  Pensions
  Dividends
  Dividends
  Computer Errors (Financial Compensation)
  Computer Errors (Financial Compensation)
  Economic and Monetary Union
  Economic and Monetary Union
  Prices and Incomes
  Prices and Incomes
  Tax Rebates
  Tax Rebates
  War Loan
  War Loan
  Overseas Borrowing
  Overseas Borrowing
  Luxury Goods
  Luxury Goods
  Income Tax (Married Couples' Returns)
  Income Tax (Married Couples' Returns)
  Company Profits
  Company Profits
  Land Prices
  Land Prices
  Farmers' Taxation
  Farmers' Taxation
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Michael Hunt
  Michael Hunt
  Electoral Law Reform (Armed Forces)
  Electoral Law Reform (Armed Forces)
  Fuel Saving (Summer Time Extension)
  Fuel Saving (Summer Time Extension)
  Chilean Nationals (Admissions)
  Chilean Nationals (Admissions)
  EEC Legislation and Charges
  EEC Legislation and Charges
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Employment (Dungannon)
  Employment (Dungannon)
  House Searches
  House Searches
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Fisheries (South Atlantic)
  Fisheries (South Atlantic)
  Farmworkers (Pay)
  Farmworkers (Pay)
  State Veterinary Service
  State Veterinary Service
  Wheat (Denaturing)
  Wheat (Denaturing)
  Apples
  Apples
  Game Birds
  Game Birds
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Earnings Rule
  Earnings Rule
  Abortion
  Abortion
  EEC Legislation and Charges
  EEC Legislation and Charges
  Mentally Handicapped Persons
  Mentally Handicapped Persons
  Nurses (Overtime Pay)
  Nurses (Overtime Pay)
  Emergency Powers (Playgroup Premises Heating)
  Emergency Powers (Playgroup Premises Heating)
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Confederation of British Industry (Talks)
  Confederation of British Industry (Talks)
  Exports
  Exports
  Nuclear Power Policy (Report)
  Nuclear Power Policy (Report)
  Petrol Allocation (Disabled Persons)
  Petrol Allocation (Disabled Persons)
  Fuel and Power Policy
  Fuel and Power Policy
  Concorde
  Concorde
  Oil Supplies
  Oil Supplies
  Nuclear Reactor (Dounreay)
  Nuclear Reactor (Dounreay)
  British Airways Board
  British Airways Board
  Monopolies Commission
  Monopolies Commission
  Emergency Powers (Heating of Churches and Chapels)
  Emergency Powers (Heating of Churches and Chapels)
  German Investment (Scotland)
  German Investment (Scotland)
  Powered Boats
  Powered Boats
  Petroleum Products
  Petroleum Products
  Pergamon Press Limited
  Pergamon Press Limited
  NATIONAL UNION OF MINEWORKERS
  NATIONAL UNION OF MINEWORKERS
  PRIME MINISTER (SPEECHES)
  PRIME MINISTER (SPEECHES)
  TRADE BALANCE (MINISTER'S SPEECH)
  TRADE BALANCE (MINISTER'S SPEECH)
  CITY OF LONDON
  CITY OF LONDON
  PENSIONS
  PENSIONS
  MINISTERIAL CARS
  MINISTERIAL CARS
  QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS
  QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS
CIVIL SERVICE
  EEC Legislation and Charges
  EEC Legislation and Charges
  Information Officers
  Information Officers
  Government Offices (Dispersal)
  Government Offices (Dispersal)
DEFENCE
  Combat Suits (Portuguese Contract)
  Combat Suits (Portuguese Contract)
  Air Military Exercises
  Air Military Exercises
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Auditory Training
  Auditory Training
  EEC Legislation and Charges
  EEC Legislation and Charges
  North-East London Polytechnic
  North-East London Polytechnic
  Student Costs
  Student Costs
  Rehabilitation (University Chair)
  Rehabilitation (University Chair)
  Chloromethyl Ether
  Chloromethyl Ether
EMPLOYMENT
  EEC Legislation and Charges
  EEC Legislation and Charges
  Catering Industry
  Catering Industry
  Industrial Relations Act
  Industrial Relations Act
ENVIRONMENT
  Driving Tests
  Driving Tests
  Railways
  Railways
  Hillsborough Corner, Sheffield
  Hillsborough Corner, Sheffield
  Buildings (Thermal Insulation)
  Buildings (Thermal Insulation)
  Tyneside Rapid Transit System
  Tyneside Rapid Transit System
  Unoccupied Office Accommodation
  Unoccupied Office Accommodation
  Successor Parishes
  Successor Parishes
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  Passport Office
  Passport Office
  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
SCOTLAND
  Teachers
  Teachers
  EEC Legislation and Charges
  EEC Legislation and Charges
  Mentally Handicapped Persons (Training Centres)
  Mentally Handicapped Persons (Training Centres)
  Legal Aid
  Legal Aid

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: THE LORD CHANCELLOR Oil the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of St. Albans

BRITISH AIRWAYS BOARD MEMBERSHIP
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government who will be the members of the British Airways Board from January 1 next.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD DRUMALBYN): My Lords, all the present members of the Board will be continuing to serve, with the exception of Mr. Philip Lawton, the Chairman of British European Airways, and Sir Arthur Norman, one of the part-time members, who have both told my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry that they wish to retire at the end of this year. My right honourable friend has announced that he is appointing Mr. Roy Watts to the Board, to serve in the place of Mr. Lawton. I will with permission circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT the names of those who will be members of the British Airways Board on January 1 next.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: No, I am sorry, my Lords. My Question asks who will form the Board, and may we have the names now?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, with the leave of the House, by all means. The names are: Mr. D. L. Nicolson, Chairman; Sir Keith Granville, Deputy Chairman; Mr. Henry Marking, Group Managing Director; Professor Sir Ronald Edwards; Mr. A. W. Fisher; Mr. J. A. Gardiner; Mr. C. A. Herring; Mr. D. H. Glover; Mr. Peter Parker; Mr. H. Phelps; Mr. J. R. Stainton; Mr. W. A. de Vigier; Mr. R. Watts; and Mr. S. F. Wheatcroft.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord. Without obviously being a candidate, may I ask the Minister why there are no women on the Board?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, the reason why there are no women at moment, obviously, is that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has not appointed any.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Oh!
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I am sure that my right honourable friend considers all these appointments in relation to the job that has to be performed in each particular case. I cannot give the noble Baroness the reason why my right honourable friend did not appoint a lady in this case. He must simply have felt that those whom he appointed were the best qualified.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, I think the noble Lord's right honourable friend should be ashamed of himself. Secondly, is the Minister aware that really and truly—on a responsible
level—it is rather degrading when Members (I do not think the Minister did) think this is a humorous remark? I am not on a humorous point. Is the Minister telling the House that a woman has not been found fit to sit on this Board? Further, is he aware that I raised this matter some six months ago, and therefore his right honourable friend, who I believe is supposed to act rather fast, has had plenty of time to consider it; and will he please look into the matter?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I think all noble Lords will agree that a requirement to appoint a woman—what is sometimes known as "the statutory woman"—is not necessarily the best way of dealing with this problem. Many women have been appointed to various Boards, and the Government have been looking at this whole question to see that women are in appropriate cases appointed to Boards. All I can say is that, while in this particular case a woman has not been appointed, the Secretary of State has attempted to appoint the best people for the job.
LORD HARVEY OF PRESTBURY: My Lords, without in any way being personal, may I ask whether my noble

221
friend can say if Mr. de Vigier is a British subject?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I feel sure he is, but I am afraid I cannot give a definite answer to that question without notice.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, on the subject of the best people, would not the noble Lord agree with me that the Member in this House who raises perhaps the most constructive questions on air matters is a woman; namely, my noble friend who put down this Question? Is it not a fact that we all listen to her questions, and to the answers, and fully approve her attitudes? Can the noble Lord tell me to-day, therefore, that only the appropriate people have been chosen and, by sonic coincidence, all these appear to be male?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, the choice was not mine, of course; it was that of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. The noble Baroness will bear in mind that this is a Board that was appointed to run the affairs both of British European Airways and of British Overseas Airways Corporation, and that the appointments to some extent reflect that amalgamation.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, is it not a fact that the two organisations the noble Lord has mentioned employ hundreds of women—or, rather (I never exaggerate), thousands of women? The noble Lord is making the point that only men should represent these male organisations. But they are not male organisations. They probably employ more women than men.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, there are various jobs that have to be performed in these organisations and being a director is one of them. The noble Baroness will know that it is not very easy to find women as directors throughout industry as a whole.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, would not the noble Lord agree that the Board also should reflect, or take an interest in, the consumer? There are many thousands, if not millions, of women who, with children, fly on British aircraft. Would there not be a sense that their interests were being taken into account if a woman was on the Board?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I take note of what the noble Lord has said and I will certainly pass it on to my right honourable friend.
LORD ROYLE: My Lords, would not the noble Lord agree that his Answer is altogether out of line with the Government's own Consultative Document which we debated a fortnight ago, and could not we have anticipated some of the things the Government might be wanting to do?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I must repeat that it all depends on the job to be done. We are appointing women wherever we think it appropriate to do so.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, I fully agree with what the Minister said about the statutory woman. This House is a reasonable House. Does the Minister not see that in public affairs we shall never make any progress so long as the question of women being on Boards is thought to be a question of appointing a statutory woman? Is it quite impossible to get into the heads of people who make these choices that it is not a question of a statutory woman, or a statutory man; it is a question of the best people? Furthermore, if I may trespass on the time of the House, is the noble Lord aware that I once knew an organisation very well (and it is not Courtaulds) which really thought that it was fair and gave women a chance, but so ingrained in their subconscious was the thought that women were not equal to doing the top job that when they thought of candidates they never thought of women? Will the Minister really attend to that attitude?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I certainly will see that my right honourable friend takes the second part of that question into account. With the first part, I must say that I am entirely in agreement and it seems to me that it is exactly what I have been saying.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, although my noble friend knows that I am bitterly anti-"Women's Lib." on almost every occasion, does he realise that quite a number of Members of this House think it regrettable that the noble Baroness herself has not been appointed?

BIRDS OF PREY: CAPTURE AND IMPORTATION
3.13 p.m.
LORD HURCOMB: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in continuation of the figures relating to the numbers of birds of prey licensed to be taken from the wild in Great Britain or imported under the Wild Birds (Importation) Order 1970, which they furnished to the House on April 17 last, they will now furnish similar figures for the year 1972; whether a similar return will be published each year; and whether it is still the practice to issue licences with retrospective effect to cover birds which have been taken or imported without authority.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS): My Lords, in 1972, 169 licences, authorising a total of 173 birds of prey to be taken from the wild in Great Britain, were issued; reports received from the licensees indicated that 111 birds were actually taken. In the same year a total of 506 licences were granted to import birds of prey and owls. Of the 755 birds covered by these licences, 437 were imported. With permission, I shall arrange for the analysis by species to be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT. It is not considered necessary to publish these figures annually, but Her Majesty's Government are ready to supply available information for any year, if requested. Retrospective licences are not issued for birds taken from the wild in this country, but applications for retrospective licences to cover birds already imported are considered on their merits.
Following is the Analysis referred to:

LICENCES TO TAKE BIRDS OF PREY AND OWLS FROM THE WILD IN GREAT BRITAIN IN 1972

Total number of licences issued

169

Total number of birds covered by the licences

173

Total number of birds reported taken

111

11 licensees have failed to report whether they took a bird under then licences.

Species

Number of birds licensed

Number of birds taken

Kestrel

102

66

Buzzard

20

11

Sparrowhawk

44

30

Merlin

3

1

Peregrine

2

2

Golden Eagle

2

1

Owls

Nil

Nil

Totals

173

111

LICENCES TO IMPORT BIRDS OF PREY AXD OWLS IN 1972

Type of licence

Number of licenses

Number of birds licensed

Number of birds imported

(a) Permanent importation

488

720

409

(b) Temporary importation by visitors

11

24

19

(c) Re-importation of birds after visits abroad

7

11

9

Totals

506

755

437

Details of the species covered by the licences at (a) are set out below:—

Species

Number of birds licensed

Number of birds imported

Kestrel

11

7

Lugger or Lagger Falcon

124

71

Lanner Falcon

64

51

Saker Falcon

48

25

Red-headed Falcon

2

Nil

Red-footed Falcon

1

Nil

Red-headed Merlin

18

3

Peregrine Falcon

16

8

Black Shaheen

4

3

Goshawk

229

142

Sparrowhawk

2

1

ShikraHawk

37

22

Cooper's Hawk

5

Nil

Red-tailed Hawk

7

3

Roadside Hawk

1

1

Harris's Hawk

1

Nil

Tengmalm's Owl

2

Nil

Short-eared Owl

2

Nil

Boobook Owl

2

Nil

Tawny Owl

4

2

Brown Fish Owl

1

1

Wood Owl

5

5

Eagle Owl

11

7

Scops Owl

6

Nil

Hawk Owl

2

Nil

Little Owl

1

Nil

Snowy Owl

2

2

Horned Screech Owl

3

3

Hobby

1

1

Caracara

1

1

Red-tailed Buzzard

2

1

Fishing Buzzard

1

1

Crested Goshawk

8

1

Mountain Hawk-eagle

10

7

Changeable or Crested Hawk-eagle

42

20

Blyth's Hawk-eagle

2

Nil

Crested Serpent Eagle

5

3

Species

Number of birds licensed

Number of birds imported

Bonelli's Eagle

9

2

Tawny Eagle

8

5

Bateleur Eagle

2

Nil

African Fish Eagle

4

Nil

Lesser Spotted Eagle

3

3

Imperial Eagle

4

4

King Vulture

4

2

Hooded Vulture

2

1

White-backed Vulture

1

Nil

Totals

720

409

Details of species covered by licences at (b) and (c) are not readily available.
LORD HURCOMB: My Lords, I am much obliged to the Minister for the information, which I should like to examine. On the last point, does the noble Viscount not think that it is a bad procedure to allow people to act unlawfully and then to cover what they have done by giving them a restrospective licence? Does he not agree that that is an absolute invitation to people who ought not to import a bird to do so and then present the Customs with the problem of either giving them cover or dealing with the bird? Is the Department taking this kind of action under pressure?—because I am informed that all the reputable falconers dislike it and think it a thoroughly bad and weak way of trying to protect the diminishing population of the world's falcons. One other point I should like to raise is this: is the Minister satisfied that it is necessary to license the importation of a great many birds which in fact are not brought into the country? Does he not think that again it is an invitation to dealers to try to get birds abroad which they are unable to obtain, and thus are unable to satisfy their customers? And, finally, will he not agree that the policy of the Department ought to be to protect this very much endangered group of birds rather than to make it easy for a trade to be conducted?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I do not think the Home Office makes it easy to conduct an unauthorised or deleterious trade. I will try to remember the noble Lord's questions; he will forgive me if I miss some of them because there were several. I do not think he can possibly say, on the facts, that retrospective licensing is an invitation to loose practice. It is by no means
226
automatic. Last year, for instance, there were ten people who applied for retrospective licences and did not get them. This related to 19 birds. The noble Lord asked whether it is desirable to issue licences which are not taken up. This is a matter of balance. It is a complicated subject. If we issue a licence for a bird of a specific species and the importer cannot get it and therefore it does not come in, we think that is better than requiring the importer actually to get the bird from somewhere overseas and then to import it, possibly without a licence, or to leave it sitting overseas. We think the latter method is likely to result in more unlicensed imports than the system under which we are working at the moment. It is a complicated one, but my scrutiny of it indicates that it is not the subject of widespread abuse. Where there is abuse we are extremely adept at handling it.

AIRLINERS' TAKE-OFF AND FUEL CONSUMPTION
3.18 p.m.
LORD THOMAS: 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 during the emergency they will relax the requirement for civil airliners to make steep full-throttle climb-outs on take-off, which method of operation greatly increases the consumption of fuel.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, there is no requirement for civil airliners to make a steep full throttle climb-out on take-off. Noise abatement procedures with which aircraft must comply do not necessitate a climb rate greater than would be the case if there were no such required procedures.
LORD THOMAS: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that informative reply, but is he aware that we are getting some curious Answers to Questions in this House? Is he aware that yesterday we were told that a lorry travelling at 50 m.p.h. does not use more fuel than one travelling at 40 m.p.h.? Now we are told that an aircraft on a steep climb does not use more fuel than one on a more moderate climb-out?

COAL DISPUTE
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, with the leave of the House, my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn will be making a Statement at a convenient moment after half-past three on the Prime Minister's talks with the National Union of Mineworkers.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Leader of the House. I beg to move the Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That in the event of the Fuel and Electricity (Control) Bill being read a first time on Monday the 3rd of December, Standing Order No. 44 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be dispensed with for the purpose of taking the Second Reading on that day. —(Earl St. Aldwyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

EDINBURGH CORPORATION (No. 2) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Considered on Report.

LAND REGISTRY BILL [H.L.]
3.21 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD HAILSHAM OF SAINT MARYLEBONE): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, that the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[THE EARL OF LISTOWEL in the Chair]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Establishment and constitution of the new registering authority]:
On Question, Whether Clause 2 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD GARDINER: On Clause 2 may I revert to a point raised by the noble
228
and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor during the Second Reading debate on November 20, where at column 912 he referred to the membership of the new governing body of the Land Registry and said:
"… I should like to say something about the membership of the board. The first thing I have to do is to appoint the Chairman who will be the Chief Land Registrar and, in consultation with him, the other members. The Land Registry's business is, of course, highly technical and it seems to me inevitable that the full-time members of the board should be drawn from the senior members of the present management who are civil servants with great experience and knowledge of the system. Whether there is advantage in having outside members in addition is a point on which I have an open mind. I certainly do not rule out part-time members representative of other interests and I shall of course listen to any representations made to me about that."
At column 927 the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said:
"… I am attracted by the suggestion that there should be others on the Board apart from full-time members of the Office … I think that members of the public should also be on the Board in order to represent the consumer interest."
Having had an opportunity to consider this matter since the Second Reading, may I respond to the Lord Chancellor's request for views by saying that I think that there ought to be outside representatives. The first and perhaps main reason is that while I fully join with him in the tribute he paid to the efficiency with which the Registry has always been conducted by the Chief Land Registrar, things may go wrong in the best regulated establishment. At the moment any member of the public or any person interested who considers that there has been a piece of maladministration at the Land Registry is, as I understand it, entitled through his Member of Parliament to have it inquired into by the Parliamentary Commissioner. Schedule 3, paragraph 42, removes that right. It would, I think, be strange if the only people to whom persons interested can complain of a piece of maladministration are the very people against whom he is complaining. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor referred to the consumer being represented. Of course, the consumers are those concerned with transfers of land, but in practice those who really have to deal with the Registry are the solicitors. I do not know how

229
far the Law Society may have been consulted about the contents of this Bill, but I should hope that among outside representatives we should see one, or preferably two, solicitors of considerable conveyancing experience.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, for his contribution. As he said, I would welcome the expression of opinions, and I welcome his above all. I indicated on Second Reading that this was also my provisional view. As I think his is the only outside opinion I have had so far, it confirms me in my professional view. Of course, I shall await other views as well.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 [Further provisions as to the functions of the registering authority]:
3.27 p.m.
LORD GARDINER LORD GARDINER moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 5, line 22, leave out subsections (3), (4) and (5) and insert—
("(3) The registers shall be open to public inspection on the payment of such fees as may he determined by the registering authority.")
The noble and learned Lord said: I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name on the Marshalled List. There have been many systems of recording transfers of land. I am afraid that in the school in which I was educated the world's history began at 1066 and stopped at George I. I managed twice to get into the form that was starting again at William the Conqueror so I never got beyond George I. But I do remember enough to know that the Doomsday Book was compiled as a result of public hearing by jury in every hundred as to who owned what land, and where there were tenants, who the tenants were. For a long time after that the transfer of land was always a public occasion because it was always carried out on the land, and, indeed a piece of land was handed by the vendor to the purchaser in the presence of witnesses who would be able to prove the transfer in question.
From the Middle Ages onwards we had the Manorial Court rolls and the Manorial Courts. Manorial Courts went on until after my time at the Bar, although
230
they are now abolished. But I remember that as Chairman of the Professional Conduct Committee of the Bar Council, where one is apt to be asked awkward questions about conduct at any moment and is required to answer, I was asked whether a barrister should wear wig and robes when sitting as a steward of the Manorial Court. There are three methods in use to-day. There is the private investigation of title which means solicitors having to burrow back, until quite recently, for at least 30 years—expensive, cumbersome and so on. There is the system of registration not of the title, but of the title deeds. That applies in Scotland where, so far as I know, the register is open to public inspection and nothing awful has followed from that practice. In some Continental countries that system still operates. In our pragmatic way we tried it in England, in the Deeds Registries in Middlesex and Yorkshire, but I have, rightly I am sure, gone over to the system of registration of title. That system is now in use in Germany, Austria—I think in Austria it has existed for 100 years, and the register has always been open to inspection by the public—Switzerland, Australia, New Zealand and most of Canada.
On the face of it I cannot see why the register should not be public. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor on Second Reading, in column 906, referred to the Register as a public register. Schedule 2 expressly provides that the Register shall continue to be "public records" within the meaning of the Public Records Act. I do not know whether this has been of vast importance in the past. This is not a reform I have ever contemplated trying to carry through myself; it did not seem to be important in comparison with other reforms required in law. But we are now living in an age of considerable property speculation. Some of your Lordships may have seen in one of our national newspapers this morning a letter commenting on the inactivity of the appropriate Minister in dealing with this. It is a letter sent by four Parliamentary candidates, all Conservative. As your Lordships may know, there is a valuable site in the West End of London with a block of offices on it called Centre Point. I remember Mr. Walker saying that he

231
was writing a strong letter to the owner, and intimating what measures he would empower local authorities to take if people went on leaving such buildings empty.
It is, I suppose, a curious commentary that the justification for using that precious site in such a way is that our industrialists and merchants have insufficient offices in London. But it has stood empty for years and years, and it is, as it were, a question partly of taxation law and partly of rating law that it should be more profitable to keep it empty than to let it. It still seems to me to very odd that a local authority should not be entitled to look at the register to see who are the owners of the properties within their domain, particularly where, in so many cases of property speculators, there is a myriad of subsidiary companies and it is very difficult otherwise to find out. They can know the occupiers, of course, for rating purposes, but not, apparently, the owners. Again there are many tenants who have no idea at all who owns the property which constitutes their home.
On the Second Reading, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor intimated that while he would be glad to consider the subject further, he thought that there might be two objections to this. At col. 926 he said:
"… it does not seem to me that there is a case for making registered titles non-confidential and unregistered titles, which still represent more than half, confidential. Indeed it might impede the principle of the extension of land registration which I want".
With the greatest respect I do not quite follow that. If the first question is whether it is desirable to have compulsory registration of title to land, and the answer is Yes, the second question is whether there is any objection to our doing this all at once, so that for some years some people will have compulsorily to register their title whereas others will not even be allowed to. I say "will not even be allowed to" because one of the reforms carried into the 1966 Land Registration Act was to prevent, in most cases, voluntary registration, for the reason that it was holding up compulsory registration. With compulsory registration you take a county, you build a building, if
232
necessary train the staff; it is in a sense a military operation. But in other places registration at somebody's request, where there is no compulsory system, no local register, takes up the time of a great many staff; special ordnance survey maps have to be made and so forth, and that is why voluntary registration was largely abandoned in the 1966 Act. So I cannot see that there would be any objection.
I do not know whether the noble and learned Lord could tell us how long he now estimates it will take to complete compulsory registration in all the built-up areas of the country. I think it had run for two years until we struck the pledge given at the time of economic crisis. More years have now gone by. I should imagine that it is now about halfway through, and it means only about another four years. I cannot see why, if the registers ought to be open to inspection, it is really any argument that it cannot be done all at once, any more than it is an argument on compulsory registration as a whole.
The other point which the noble and learned Lord raised was this. He said: "I do not think I should like to see it written into the Bill". He said that he did not think the Bill was the proper place for it. His words were:
"I should not like to see it in this particular piece of legislation". [col. 927.]
When I nut down this Amendment on Monday, I was quite unaware until the following day, that the honourable Member for Lambeth, Vauxhall, Mr. George Strauss, who has drawn a place in the ballot for Private Member's Bills in the other place, is himself introducing a Bill the sole object of which, as I understand it, will be to make the registers of the Land Registry public. Obviously I have had a word with him since I discovered that. We are a little anxious that I shall not be told I had better leave it to his Bill, and he will not be told it is obviously a matter for this Bill. On any view, I apprehend that this Bill will become law one way or another before the Second Reading of his Bill, and I should have thought it was perhaps a matter for a Bill of this kind rather than a Private Member's Bill. Indeed, in a sense, as the Land Registry is now being hived off, this is perhaps the last opportunity that we shall have for providing for this.
I add only that I should welcome any views, whether in favour or against those I have expressed, which the House may think fit to give, particularly perhaps from any Scottish Members, who have themselves a system where such records are open to the inspection of the public. There is, in my submission, good reason for doing this now. It may not have mattered very much in the past, but it is a reform which would be desirable now. I beg to move.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I understand that my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn is now ready to repeat a Statement. I have seen two noble Lords ready to speak on this Amendment, so it might be convenient to have the Statement now. If that is the general feeling of the Committee, I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly and, on Question Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

COAL DISPUTE: PRIME MINISTER'S MEETING WITH UNION
3.35 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, if it is convenient to your Lordships, I will now repeat a Statement that is being made by the Prime Minister in another place. It is as follows:
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a Statement.
"I invited the National Executive of the National Union of Mineworkers to meet me at 10 Downing Street yesterday. My right honourable friends the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for Employment, and my honourable friend the Minister for Industry were also present.
"I explained to the National Executive the economic background to the Government's counter-inflation policy. I said that if the country was to maintain growth and a high level of employment and to take advantage of the oportunities which were open to us in export markets, we needed all the production we could get, and particularly in present circumstances the maximum production of coal.
234
"I reminded the National Executive that the Government had demonstrated its confidence in the future of the industry by committing to it over £1,100 million of public money: £450 million to write off capital debt and accumulated deficit, and nearly £700 million to bring it up to date and improve the contribution which it could make to our prosperity.
"I pointed out to them that, if one compared average weekly earnings in coalmining with average weekly earnings in manufacturing industry on the basis adopted by the Wilberforce Report, the National Coal Board's full offer would more than restore the relative position of the coalminers established as a result of the Wilberforce recommendation.
"I also pointed out that a settlement under Stage 3 would not only restore the relative position of the coalminers and give them an improvement in their real standards of living, but would also ensure that these advantages were not subsequently eroded; whereas a settlement which went beyond Stage 3 would inevitably lead to a free-for-all which would erode their gains as surely as the free-for-all after Wilberforce eroded the gains they secured from that.
"Thus a settlement under Stage 3 could be expected to help the coal industry to recruit and retain manpower —the need for which was strongly argued by the National Union of Mineworkers Executive.
"I made it clear that there is no question of a settlement outside the terms of the Pay Code for Stage 3 which has been approved by Parliament.
"Following our meeting, the National Executive held a private meeting at 10 Downing Street and decided to maintain their overtime ban. I hope none the less that they and their members will give serious consideration to the points which I put to them. In the meantime, the Government will continue to take whatever action is necessary to conserve the nation's energy supplies."
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, and since I do not want to initiate a debate, as has happened only too often recently on Statements, I shall make only a short intervention.

235
Clearly, we must view with dismay the fact that it has not been possible to arrive at any settlement. This is clearly an industrial matter which ought to be settled by the National Coal Board and the Union, and a lengthy political discussion at this stage would not further industrial peace, though I am bound to say that the actions of the Government, particularly in regard to the quite disastrous Industrial Relations Act, have immeasurably worsened the atmosphere for negotiations of any kind. But since, clearly, a settlement is necessary if the momentum in relation to the present energy crisis is to be maintained, I should like to ask the Government what further proposals they have for discussions to try to reach a settlement. May I ask the Government, if a settlement can be reached with the National Coal Board, who are the final arbiters, the Pay Board or the Government?
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: My Lords, I too wish to thank the noble Lord for repeating the Statement and to express my distress, and that of my noble friends, that no agreement has been reached. It is, I think, the obvious result of the disastrous Stage 3 which my Party, and particularly my honourable friends in another place, said at the time was too lax in many respects and far too rigid in this particular one. Since then we have had the oil crisis. The problem is not that there is a ban on overtime; the problem is that people are leaving the coal mining industry. There has always been a case for saying that the miners are a very special case; there is now doubly so. Will the Government not realise that their Stage which was bad to begin with is now completely out of date? Will they not rethink it so that they can achieve a settlement?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition and the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, for the way they have received this Statement. The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, said that a settlement is clearly necessary, and he asked what further proposals for discussion there should be to reach a settlement. My Lords, I think that it is really too early to say that yet. There must be a little time for reflection, at any rate, before further steps are taken to convene
236
another meeting. The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, asked who is the final arbiter in a case like this, the Pay Board or the Government. The Pay Board must of course approve any settlement that is made, and to that extent they are the final arbiter. This is the way in which Stage 3 and the previous stages were intended to work.
I agree with him that further political discussion at this moment would not be likely to further the prospects of a settlement and I share with him dismay at the absence of a settlement at the present time. But, my Lords, I think he will agree that the Prime Minister did everything he could to put the issues as he saw them before the miners yesterday and, equally, that he listened to what the miners had to say.
The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, said that he regarded Stage 3 as disastrous. But we are only just entering on to Stage 3 and it can undoubtedly be made to work, if there is the will to work it. Moreover, I must point out that, so far as this particular dispute is concerned, Stage 3 allows the miners to come out of it remarkably well in comparison with others. The noble Lord shakes his head in disapproval of that, and he may even think that the miners ought not to come out well. But surely, with a view to getting a settlement, it was desirable to make certain that the miners should be able to regain their place in the queue; and that is exactly what has been done.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: My Lords, may I just make my position clear? I think the miners should certainly regain their place, but I do not think that the guidelines laid down by the Statement and by Stage 3 are the right ones for the miners, because what we have to stop now is men leaving the industry. That will not be done by destroying their position; it will have to be done by going further.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I think it is dangerous to conclude that the miners who are leaving the industry are leaving purely because of the pay and conditions of work. They are also, I very much suspect, leaving because at the present time the continuity of work is not sufficient. It is noteworthy that they started to leave in September, before these issues arose.
LORD BALOGH: My Lords, does not the noble Minister realise that the Government, by concentrating on wages and salaries and freezing dividends, still have not got an all-round settlement on the basis of which some sense of equity can be established? And when the noble Lord the Minister refers to the Prime Minister's efforts to put the case, does he not realise that the Prime Minister was grievously wrong in putting so much emphasis on wages and other earned income? He has had all these enormous profits in the property market, and the matter goes back now three years. We have been preaching development, pleading with the Government to have a consensus, and the Government said that they did not wish to have any. Now they have made "U"-turns almost like a merrygo-round—it is not a "U"-turn, it is a merry-go-round—yet in the basic social consensus they have not done anything at all.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I think the noble Lord really is beginning to argue this matter on political grounds, which is just what his noble friend suggested should not be done. My Lords, these are to a large extent matters of judgment. but there is no doubt that any settlement must be within the framework of the counter-inflation policy, a policy that has been devised in a way that was intended to be fair all round and indeed is accepted as fair by a very large proportion of the people of this country.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, the Government have asked the Pay Board to produce a report on anomalies, relativities, in a rather wider sense than their report on anomalies already published, and to produce this before the end of the year. Would it not be possible for the Government to press the Pay Board to expedite that report in the hope that it might open the door to a really practical solution?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, it must be subject to full and careful consideration being given to this subject. I shall certainly be glad to convey what the noble Baroness has said, but I think it is important that the Pay Board should be allowed to consider the matter carefully and get the right solution. Subject to that, I for my part would certainly like to see the report appear as soon as possible.
LORD ALPORT: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether he would agree that it is not possible to consider this pay problem with the miners, and perhaps to the same extent with the electricity workers, in the context simply of an inflationary problem and of industrial relations, but that it is part of a very much bigger and longer term problem of the supply of energy for British industry and the maintenance of civilised life in this country? Therefore, a new perspective can be applied to these particular problems, and should be if, in fact, we are going to get what we will require for industry as a whole—the supplies of energy which are necessary to keep our standard of living going in this country in the immediate future.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I think that what my noble friend has said constitutes really a continuing problem. What we have to do first is to get Stage 3 working properly, and the terms of it applied fairly by all.
LORD ALPORT: My Lords, may I follow that observation very shortly with this question? If in fact, as a result of the situation in the Middle East, energy resources are not available to British industry in 1974, will not the whole economic situation here have changed so much that the present basis of wage rewards and employment, and the rest of it, no longer be relevant to the situation that will then exist?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, it is very difficult to cast one's mind forward as far as that, but the plain fact is that unless we apply Stage 3 now we may have a runaway situation, which no one would like to see.
LORD HANKEY: My Lords, is it a fact that the wages agreement with the miners is valid and in force until next April, or the end of March? Is it not in flagrant breach of that agreement that while negotiations are going on for a new agreement they should take action to disrupt the industry, to the great disadvantage of this country? What do the Government propose to do about that?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, the negotiations were taking place in the context of a renewal of the agreement, or a new agreement to take place next March,

239
a year after the previous agreement, and the negotiations to that end could still continue.
LORD HANKEY: My Lords, is the action taken, which is admittedly short of a strike but disruptive of the industry and of the fuel supplies of this country, not in fact contrary to the existing agreement?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, not so far as I know. I do not think that it is contrary to the existing agreement. Certainly the miners would regard it as part of the process of reaching a new agreement. What we are asking is that they should consider the consequences of their actions and the way in which they are prosecuting their case.
LORD ROBBINS: My Lords, could the noble Lord give the House any indication of the rate at which coal stocks will be run down so long as the present deadlock persists?
LORD DRUMALBYN: No, my Lords, I would rather not give that information to the House at the present time.

LAND REGISTRY [H.L.]
3.54 p.m.
House again in Committee on Amendment No. 1.
LORD WADE: I think we are now in calmer waters. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, asked whether any Members of your Lordships' House had any comments to make on the proposal in his Amendment, and I have one brief comment. A good many years ago I had some experience of registering deeds of conveyance at the Yorkshire Land Registry. I must say that in my view it worked very satisfactorily. It was a convenience to have those transfers of land registered by means of the Deeds Registry. This no longer exists because it has gradually been replaced by land registration. I think there are still some who rather regret that the old Deeds Registry no longer exists. It was convenient to be able to inspect that Registry. I do not recall that anyone objected to the right of inspection, and my view is that the proposal of the noble and learned Lord is a sensible one. I hope that in one way or another it will be adopted.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I hesitate to intervene in a debate of this sort between a former and an existing Lord Chancellor, and I know no aspect of law which I find more intimidating than that of conveyancing. I know nothing whatever about English conveyancing, and I did not even know that there was not a public registry in England until I listened to the Second Reading debate the other day. We have had one in Scotland for what is claimed to be about 300 years, though I should guess that it was certainly pretty elementary in the early stages. I have never heard any criticism of this particular system. I have never heard anybody say that there were grave disadvantages to it. We rather pride ourselves—rightly or wrongly, I know not —that this is rather a good system to work.
The advantages which it brings are, first of all, assurance of title, which is very important indeed. This enables the priority of burdens of all kinds to be publicly known, and indeed the priority takes date from the time of registration. That is an advantage in itself. There can be no discussion as to who is, or is not, the prior bond. Secondly, it brings clarity to "servitudes", as we call them in Scotland, or "easements", as they are called in England. I do not see why, in principle, this system should not work exactly the same if, and when, we get to the stage of registration in title instead of registration of deeds, as at the present time. I confess that the registration of deeds is a very complicated matter, and not one which anybody can easily understand without professional and learned advice on the subject. But it is there, and everybody knows what the title is. So far as I know, no serious disadvantages have come from that procedure.
3.57 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am glad to have heard the various views which have been expressed. It is a little depressing, from the point of view of the would-be law reformer, when one puts forward what one believes to be a useful and constructive suggestion for the improvement of the law in one direction, that attempts are made to introduce much more controversial and less well considered reforms as a means of "tacking" to that particular Bill. As I attempted to show on Second Reading, the purpose

241
of this Bill is to alter the structure of the Land Registry; it has basically nothing to do with the system of inspection, or otherwise, of the register. With the one qualification in Clause 4 of a slight easement for the detection of crime, it is not intended to affect the Land Registry one way or the other, except by transferring it to a public body rather than making it a part of the Lord Chancellor's Department.
As I explained, the object of that was to facilitate, and perhaps restore, what I regard as the important necessity of extending compulsory land registration at least to the built-up areas of the country and eventually to the whole country, and about that there was no dispute on Second Reading. I must remind the Committee, because it is directly relevant to the Amendment proposed by the noble and learned Lord, that at the moment I am faced with a situation in which rather less than half the land in this country is registered, if one takes the population basis, which is the usually accepted basis, and rather less than 10 per cent. of the land is registered if one takes an area basis, which is not the usually accepted basis.
What the noble and learned Lord is trying to do is to apply to the rather less than half which is registered a different principle with regard to inspection and knowledge of the true owner from that which is applied to the rest. I still find it wholly unacceptable that that should be so. It cannot depend on whether your land happens to be registered or not which of two quite divergent principles you apply to the publicity attached to the ownership. It is either right that everybody should know who is the true owner of the land, and in what circumstances, or it is right that the other principle should apply to some and, to a specified extent, right across the board. I cannot accept that to do it to registered land and not to unregistered land is to do other than to introduce a purely fortuitous test about a principle which ought to be argued out.
I have always accepted—and the noble and learned Lord mentioned this in Second Reading, and touched on it in the course of his remarks a moment ago—that there is a social need for the tenant to be able to ascertain the true nature of his landlord. This would not
242
be achieved by the present Amendment which would be limited to registered land and would not affect some tenants. But I have always accepted that, and I am happy to tell the Committee that I think the Government have accepted this principle too, and that there is a social need for it. I am not in a position to make a statement, but I am consulting my colleagues at present about the feasibility of introducing the principle of the right of the tenant to ascertain the identity of the landlord, at any rate in regard to residential property, right across the board, in our forthcoming Housing and Planning Bill. If, in fact, that proves possible, as I very much hope it will, that will be the proper vehicle by which to do it, and not the Land Registry Bill.
That leaves only the question of the registration of freehold title and the right of inspection. I wish I could persuade the noble and learned Lord, for whom I have the warmest respect and affection, to take seriously his own precepts about law reform. Since I have been Lord Chancellor I must have heard him make a dozen speeches in which he has criticised various law reform bodies—the Law Reform Committee, the Criminal Law Revision Committee and other bodies—for embarking on schemes of law reform without taking the various steps which he told us the Law Commission, which was his own child, took before they embarked upon a proposal. I cannot help noticing that whenever he has a hobby-horse of his own he asks me to by-pass the Law Commission, to override all his doctrines, many of which are sound, and to try to stampede the House into premature action. I do ask him to be consistent about this matter.
The question in England of publicity being attached to freehold title is a controversial one. Two of the bodies to which the noble and learned Lord usually pays a great deal of attention—indeed, he has sometimes criticised me for overriding their opinion, which I very seldom do—are the Bar Council and the Law Society. Both of them, as a matter of fact, have expressed themselves as strongly opposed to this principle. I am not by any means saying—I do not like to be dogmatic about these things—that they are necessarily right, but I only ask the noble and learned Lord to be consistent in this matter. If he is consistent he will see that it is necessary to consult

243
the various interested bodies fairly widely before embarking upon a change of policy of this kind. The matter is actually before the Law Commission at the present time, and they have issued a working paper. It may have been a report, but I think it was a working paper. The work on that item was postponed, I am afraid largely at my own request, because of greater social priorities. I had to ask them to go into the far more pressing matter at that time of "gazumping", as it is so inelegantly called, and other matters of the same kind. I hope they will now resume it.
The noble and learned Lord went on to suggest that there were scandals in relation to speculation. I do not think it will help in the matter of Centre Point very much. The difficulty with Centre Point was never that one did not know who the landlord was, which is the only point to which the noble and learned Lord is directed at the moment; one knew only too well. The question is why it is left empty. I am prepared to debate that at any time of the day or night and I am sure that I should differ very much from the noble and learned Lord's strictures on the matter. It has nothing whatever to do with this Amendment. I should think—although I do not want, as I said, to dogmatise, and there are arguments both ways—that if you open the Register of Titles to all and sundry on the payment of a fee, which is the purpose of this Amendment, far from discouraging speculation you will encourage it. You may be absolutely sure that if the Register is opened in this way, the persons who will pay the fee will not be merely the inquisitive, desirous of finding out the ultimate truth of the matter; they will include estate agents and surveyors, solicitors negotiating estate duty settlements, and other persons who will pass on the information to speculators very quickly indeed.
I have to consider this proposal also in relation to the Land Registry. The position of the Land Registry, as to which the noble and learned Lord made inquiries, is this. Not only have we been held up from extending the system of compulsory registration ever since 1968, in the unhappy circumstances which I outlined to the House on Second Reading, but also the modest increases in staff I have been able to achieve have been
244
largely taken up with the great number of increases in transactions. If you now impose upon an overworked and understaffed Registry the additional work of giving copies of a title on payment of a fee to anyone who happens to ask for it, the process of extension and expansion, which is the whole purpose of this measure, will, at any rate to some extent —I cannot say to what extent because one cannot estimate the demand—be frustrated. I can only contemplate it with a certain amount of dismay. I am not seeking in any way to be dogmatic about the matter, but it is really outside the purpose of this Bill to introduce a change in the law with regard to inspection, except to the very modest extent which Clause 4 indicates. It will not alter the principles as applicable to the greater part of land in this country—about 92 per cent., if you judge it by area, and over half if you judge it by population density—but it will limit it to registered land. It will, therefore, mean that there is a complete divergence of principle between the two types of land.
If you ask whether this will not perhaps increase the political opposition to land registration, which is never very explicit but is nevertheless real for not being articulate, I can only say that I suspect it will. It is seeking to prejudge a question which is currently before the Law Commission and which is opposed by both branches of the legal profession and is therefore, to say the least, controversial. It is imposing an additional burden on a Registry which I want to expand. I do not want to be unkind about this—I am not saying that in the end, when we have got things as we should like to get them with land registration, we should not, after due discussion with the interested bodies, come down on the noble and learned Lord's side—but I do think I am justified in asking him to apply his own principles of law reform to his own Amendment. If he does so, I hope he will not press it to a Division.
LORD CHORLEY: I find the argument of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor most unconvincing. It seems he has two main points. One is that until all registrations can be made public none should be made public. You might as well say that if some brilliant doctor discovered a cure for a deadly disease, but for the time being the cure

245
could not help everybody who suffered from the disease, until enough of the cure was produced it should not be applied. That seems absurd. The other argument is the familiar one, that it is administratively inconvenient to do it. Ever since I had the honour to be a Member of this House I have heard this argument trotted out in connection with reforms which, after a short time, are admitted to be absolutely essential and are then brought into effect. I hope your Lordships will not be put off in this way any longer.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Lord has completely misrepresented my argument. My argument was not that it was desirable to do it but that you could only do it to some and therefore you must not do it at all; it was that, whether it was desirable or not, it was wholly controversial and that to do it to one type of land, so as to give preference or to put an added disadvantage on one type of land rather than another, was wholly unjust. Nor did I say it was administratively inconvenient. I said law reform, if it is to be effective, must go forward on certain principles, principles which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, has frequently outlined to the House with far greater brilliance than I can achieve. We must proceed according to our own principles if we are to achieve an orderly advance. I only asked him to stick to his own principles.
LORD GARDINER: I do not know whether the noble and learned Lord feels able to reply to my question as to what his present estimate is of the length of time it will take to complete the eight-year plan.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I did not have prior notice of this question, but I think from the time one was able to resume the full operation of the plan it would take between four and five years to extend compulsory registration to the built-up areas of this country. When I say "this country" I mean England and Wales. I am confining my estimate to the built-up areas and not to some of the outlying areas.
LORD GARDINER: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for the consideration he has given to this Amend-
246
ment and I should naturally like to think about what he has said. As to the point about speculation, what makes Centre Point an unusual case is that everybody knows who the owner of it is. In many recent property speculations the case has been otherwise because the owners have often been hidden under an absolute myriad of subsidiary companies; nobody really knows who owns what. While appreciating what he said about tenants, I should have thought the need of local authorities was much greater. It seems to me an astonishing thing to-day, with the reorganisation of local government and with local government responsible for proper planning in their areas, that they cannot find out who owns what. There is a public register available with information in it and they are not allowed to see it. It is not only the local authorities who are affected; bodies like the Friends of the Lake District, who would like to discuss things reasonably with the relevant owners, cannot do so because they cannot find out who they are.
I am a little impressed with the fact that there is not a single member of your Lordships' Committee, apart from the noble and learned Lord, who has said a word against this Amendment. As for it being outside the scope of the Bill, this clause provides for the first time that instead of there being a closed record it is to be open to the inspection of the Director of Public Prosecutions. I am surprised at the noble and learned Lord putting that forward. I would have thought that he would have said that we cannot have a state of affairs in which some people's properties, those registered in the Land Registry, can be inspected with a view to prosecution being brought against them, whereas other people are protected and cannot be prosecuted. It seems exactly the same argument. The very thing this clause is dealing with is to answer the question: ought this register to be open to inspection and, if so, by whom? However, as I have said, I should like to consider further all the matters to which the noble and learned Lord has referred. It may be that I shall wish to return to this point on the Report stage of the Bill.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clauses 5 to 9 agreed to.
Clause 10 [The initial debt]:
4.15 p.m.
LORD GARDINER LORD GARDINER moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 10, line 13, at end insert—
("() The initial debt

(a) shall not include any amount in respect of the value of the Land Registry building in London, and

(b) shall be arrived at after crediting the registering authority with the amount by which the income of the existing Land Registry has, on the vesting date, exceeded its expenditure.")

The noble and learned Lord said: This Amendment is purely exploratory and relates to what is called the initial debt in this clause. I understand that if the State has paid for a Land Registry say, at Bristol or somewhere else, it may be right that the new body should be debited with the cost. This Amendment is put down in order to raise two questions: first, will this apply to the Government Land Registry? At Second Reading, on November 20, at column 923, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said,
"… as a matter of history the Land Registry itself—which must be worth a good many millions; I do not know how many; I am not good at that kind of thing—was originally paid for out of the various fees charged in the past, …"
I am not sure whether that could have been right, but it was done. It cannot possibly be right that the users should have to pay for it twice over, if that is the position under this clause.
The second point is whether, against the initial debt, the Government should give credit to the new Land Registry for the existing surplus which has been paid into the Consolidated Fund. On Second Reading I raised both these points at column 918. I said:
"As I believe I am right in thinking that the London Land Registry was built entirely out of the fees of the people who used it and that the Government of the time never had to pay for it at all, if there are registries elsewhere which belonged to the Government and have been transferred to the Land Registry it might be proper to allow for that fact."
Then I went on to the other matter:
"But may I ask what is to happen to the £11 million (I think that is the figure now) that the Chancellor of the Exchequer owes to the Lord Chancellor at the moment? I am quite clear in my recollection that it was £4 million when I was in office; then, as we see, in the last two years they made a profit of over £8 million, so the figure is something like £12
248
million. Are the Treasury going to give credit for that sum?"
I will not say anything further until I know what the answer is, because although I raised both matters on Second Reading (and this is not a complaint but a statement of fact) I did not receive an answer on either point. I beg to move.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, for raising these points. I am not sure to what extent I can give him satisfaction, nor how much I agree with his statement that the Chancellor of the Exchequer owes me £11 million, or £12 million. It seems to me to be wealth beyond the dreams of avarice which I do not believe I possess.
It is important to understand at the outset that the Government's general policy on fees and charges for public services—and that includes fees for land transfers—is that they should reflect the economic cost of providing the services, including the price of using the assets employed in the business. Whatever else may be said about other types of public service, some of which are clearly social services, this must be right if you think about the cost of transferring land, which is simply a buyer and a seller entering into a commercial transaction and obtaining, in the case of registered land, a service from the public because the title has been retained on the public registry and the service of transfer is conducted by public servants.
Among the costs of the assets engaged on the business are the capital assets involved in the premises employed. It cannot in principle make the smallest difference how the particular premises came into the possession of the Crown. They may in some cases have been part of the ancient demesne of the Crown; they may have been bought a few years ago in Bristol or wherever they may be; or they may have been paid for historically out of the fees in the past. But it is right that those who buy and sell land should pay for the service they receive: and I think that any accountant would tell them that payment for that service must include a charge for the premises involved. I think that all businesses proceed on this basis.
As a matter of historical fact, the building known as the Land Registry Building originally cost about £243,000. It was

249
bought, I believe, between 1900 and 1927 and it was paid for historically out of fees provided by the then buyers and sellers of land. I cannot see in principle why the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, thinks that the present buyers and sellers of land ought to gain because of what the previous buyers and sellers of land in the earlier part of my lifetime, up to 1927, provided. It became part of the property of the Crown and was paid for in that way at that time. I do not see that anyone should get an advantage out of that except the present owners, who are the Government, which is the Consolidated Fund. Owing to the distribution of work which has since taken place into various district registries, and owing to the various other steps that have been taken, the building which is called the Land Registry is in fact occupied only as to about one quarter by the headquarters of the Land Registry itself. The rest is for other public purposes and departments—including, I think, the Public Record Office. So it is only for that part of it which they occupy currently that the Land Registry will be charged under this Bill; and they will be charged what the Government consider an economic rent; that is, about £150,000 a year. The Government are retaining the rest of the building for their own use.
The noble and learned Lord also raised what is a cognate but separate question: what happened to the surpluses of the past. The answer is that they have gone into the Consolidated Fund like all other surpluses on Government activities. The fact that the Land Registry has been making a profit—which it is not intended to do; it is intended to balance its activities taking one year with another—and the fact that for various reasons, including the inflated price of land and including the great rise in the number of individual transactions, it has been making a profit, has enabled me to reduce the fees. I think I reduced them by 20 per cent. this summer. But the profit, when it was made, was paid into the Consolidated Fund; and anybody who believes he is going to get it out now is, I think, optimistic—greatly more optimistic than the sad-faced lawyer who holds for the time being the ancient Office that I hold. But in fact the profit has gone into the Consolidated Fund, and that has enabled me, as I have said,
250
to reduce the charges. In future, of of course, the Land Registry will be within the limits of the directions I am supposed to give under this Bill; it will be the master of its own house, designed not to make a profit but to balance its accounts. It will charged with rent for both the out-stations and the headquarters station and it will so arrange its affairs as to charge as little as possible to the public for the services it renders, consistently with financial prudence. That is how the matter stands.
The noble and learned Lord put his case very reasonably. I am not saying that I have not a good deal of sympathy with it. But the answer is that the Land Registry is going to be charged with what it occupies now, whether by headquarters or district stations; and that the past surpluses have gone into the Consolidated Fund—if that is the question that the noble and learned Lord wanted answered. It does not constitute a debt from the Chancellor of the Exchequer to me. I should be happy if it did.
LORD GARDINER: This was a purely exploratory Amendment, and I am glad to know the position. But it seems to me an extraordinarily unsatisfactory one. Under this Bill, the future financial basis is to be exactly what it has been in the past; namely:
"It shall be the duty of the registering authority so to conduct its affairs as to secure that, taking one year with another, its revenue is not less than sufficient to meet its outgoings properly chargeable to revenue account."
—not to capital account. Something happened in the past which was not quite right. In the earlier part of this century the Land Registry, finding that it had a surplus through over-charging the users, proceeded to spend it on the Land Registry. So the Land Registry, as it has been admitted, was paid for by the users. All I am suggesting is that there should be no debits among the initial balance in respect of the costs of the Land Registry; because if that happens it means that the users will pay for the same building twice over. I still do not see how that can he right.
Secondly, so far as the surpluses are concerned, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, or at least the Chief Land Registrar, has apologised very much for what happened in the last two years—and very properly so: because

251
being under this injunction to break even taking one year with another, when the fees were last put up a most unhappy miscalculation was made as a result of which the profit made in 1971–72 was about £2½ millon and in 1972–73 over £6 million. It cannot be right in this new set-up that that profit, resulting as it does from excessive fees charged to the users of the Land Registry—fees which ought never to have been charged at all—should be pocketed by the Government.
When I say "ought never to have been charged at all" I do not overlook the difficulties of the Registrar, who naturally does not assume that within two years of the election of a Conservative Government the building of houses will practically have stopped and that these enormous profits out of land will have been made. But he himself agrees that it was unwarrantably large and he says, quite rightly:
"We must use our best endeavours to avoid a comparable disparity between revenue and expenditure for the future."
There is no reason why the Government should make a windfall from that when the whole intention of the present Act, as of this Bill, is that, looking at the expenditure and revenue, there should be a balance each year. However, as I have said, I put down this Amendment to explore the situation, and I shall not press it to a Division tonight.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 10 agreed to.
Clauses 11 to 20 agreed to.
Schedule 1 [The new public authority]:
4.30 p.m.
LORD GARDINER LORD GARDINER moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 18, line 21, at end insert—
("() The staff shall be employed on terms and conditions not less favourable than those they enjoyed on the vesting date and the staff shall continue to be employed on terms and conditions not less favourable than those from time to time enjoyed by the Civil Service, including such terms and conditions as are applicable to civil servants desiring to transfer to other posts in the Civil Service.")
The noble and learned Lord said: This is an Amendment for which I hope the whole of the Committee will feel some
252
personal responsibility. I hope the whole Committee has the same admiration for our Civil Service as I have, but here are civil servants who, having chosen that way of life, with every prospect of security of tenure find themselves in a very difficult position when they are suddenly dismissed and are, they hope, to be employed by some new autonomy. On what ought to happen I should have thought we are all agreed and nobody could have given more satisfactory assurances than those given by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. On Second Reading he said:
"… all staff at present serving with the Land Registry will be transferred to the new organisation on the appointed day. They will cease to be civil servants, but we are prepared to guarantee that the terms of employment offered will be the terms on which the staff were serving on the day before the transfer. Moreover, t is the Government's intention that after the change Civil Service terms and conditions should continue to apply to the staff of the new organisation so that there will be freedom of transfer between the Land Registry land Government Departments. The staff of the Land Registry will continue to belong to the Civil Service superannuation scheme. All new conditions of service and pay agreed for the civil service will apply automatically to the staff."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29/11/73; col. 911.]
That is very satisfactory, and the sole difference between us is this. We all know that so long as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is in Office, and I do not doubt so long as this Government are in Office, this undertaking will be honoured. But, of course, the staff will have no guarantee at all in the future because no Government can bind their successors. The question is whether, if we are to do what I would feel to be our duty to the staff, we ought not to ensure that whatever terms the Government may be prepared to accept, these guarantees given to the staff should be incorporated in the Bill.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I was very grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, for the kind things he said about the concordat which we have arrived at with the staff, which I am glad to say he finds satisfactory, and which I hope and believe is satisfactory and will commend itself to the whole Committee. I was also very grateful to him for saying, as I should expect him to do with his usual courtesy, that neither I nor any of my colleagues so long as we remain in Office would willingly

253
depart, or will depart, from that undertaking; and, of course we will not. But I was slightly surprised by what the noble and learned Lord went on to say. It is true, of course, in a legal sense that one does not bind one's successors. But I think that in a matter of this kind it is almost a convention of the Constitution that successor Governments are in honour bound to honour an undertaking of this kind, and I should assume it to be so. Of course, politics is a very uncertain thing, but looking at the Benches opposite, or at the Cross-Benches, or even at the Bishops' Bench, I cannot conceive of any Government composed of any people I know in this country who would he disposed to break an undertaking of this kind, at any rate deliberately.
Therefore one questions the necessity for this Amendment. I also very much question its rightness, because here again I would remind the noble and learned Lord of his own principles. My mind goes back to those long and stormy nights in 1971 when we were debating the Industrial Relations Act. I have managed to make this concordat by negotiation with the unions and I think that is the best way to handle things. What would be the effect of the noble and learned Lord's Amendment? It would make the courts the ultimate arbiter of what is and what is not acceptable if, for any reasons, the conditions of service do change by agreement with the unions. I do not think that they will change in any other way because we have undertaken that they shall be on Civil Service terms. The noble and learned Lord wants to make the courts the arbiter. This is a very rum thing coming from the Opposition Front Bench, in view of all that was said during the discussions on the industrial relations legislation.
We remember the phrase about a "lawyers' paradise". We remember the phrases about "break-away unions". I am bound to point out to the noble and learned Lord that suppose there were a concordat between some future Lord Chancellor and the unions concerned in this registry—and there are several unions—which some dissident minority wanted to challenge. It would undermine the whole authority of the union in negotiating if some dissident minority, perhaps some unsatisfied individual, were
254
able to go to the courts and say "Well, the question is that the terms should be not less favourable"—which is the Amendment just proposed—"and in this respect it is less favourable although you may get advantages in the other way". To substitute for a concordat that the terms will be Civil Service terms, which is what I have agreed, terms " not less favourable than those that were previously enjoyed, is to substitute a phrase which could give abundant source of argument of interpretation in the courts both as to fact and to law about something which ought to be fundamentally a matter for agreement in the ordinary way by negotiation between the management and the staff side.
I find myself in the odd position of preaching Christianity to St. Peter and accusing St. Peter of heresy. I know that, coming from this side of the House, what I say must be treated, and no doubt will be treated, with a grain of salt by noble Lords on the other side. But I think that the noble and learned Lord is undermining the authority of the unions, and undermining the validity of negotiations, by trying to substitute the statutory formula which is not the same as I have agreed in my concordat, because I have said that after the change Civil Service terms and conditions should continue to apply so that there will be freedom of transfer. The noble and learned Lord is saying something else: that they will be "not less favourable", and something which can be determined by the courts and not by negotiation and will therefore allow a dissident minority to undermine the negotiators. So I think that on balance I have the best of this argument.
LORD GARDINER: I shall not pursue this point except to add that I have no objection to any dispute being decided by a court if it goes to an ordinary court and not to the Industrial Relations Court. My objection to the Industrial Relations Court was that I thought there would be many more strikes than there would have been without the Act and it would gravely sour industrial relations. I think that I have been absolutely right about that. I also feared some degree of conflict between Parliament and the Judiciary, and I hope that I shall not be able to say that I was obviously right

255
about that, too. I still feel that, in principle, where staff are being guaranteed, the guarantee ought to be carried into the legislation; and particularly so where perhaps a State body is being hived off, in a sense, to private enterprise. But I do not intend to pursue the matter, and I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Transfer of property, rights and liabilities to the new public authority and other transitional provisions]:
On Question, Whether Schedule 3 shall be a Schedule to the Bill?
4.40 p.m.
LORD GARDINER: On Schedule 3 to the Bill—and this is my last point—I venture to raise something about which I know nothing at all, because it is a point of which barristers have no experience and solicitors have all the experience. I rather sympathise with solicitors in relation to pending legislation, because of course a Bill dealing with a fundamental question like this affects all conveyancing solicitors; and most firms of solicitors do conveyancing work. What happens is that they read in The Times, the Daily Telegraph or the Guardian that there has been a Second Reading of a Land Registry Bill. They could not have read that until, I think, Wednesday of last week. They then try to get the Bill. When the Stationery Office branch was in Kingsway one could of course go there and be served without delay. Now that branch has been closed down, and there is a wretched thing called a Government bookshop in Holborn which is very small. I have been there several times. I have never had to wait for less than half an hour in a queue before I was served; and when you get to the counter the assistant says that what you require is out of print.
I want to call attention to a legal article under the heading "Current Topics" in the Solicitors' Journal of last Friday. I had to get this Amendment put down by Monday, and naturally I had not time to go into this because it is a solicitors' point; but as they acted like lightning, I thought it was at least courteous to them
256
that the point should be raised. What they said was this:
"Land Registry Bill and private documents
One thing that seems to be missing from the Land Registry Bill, as originally drafted, is any general provision for the transitional adaptation of private documents. It is not uncommon for deeds and agreements to refer to the Chief Land Registrar (in his present capacity) or Her Majesty's Land Registry. Two common examples are provisions in mortgages forbidding applications for first registration of title while the security is subsisting and provisions in documents dealing with registered land requiring application for registration or noting of their effect. These references vary in their terminology. Clearly, no change in the substantive effect of private arrangements is intended by this bill, which is largely administrative, but it is important to ensure that this does not happen unintentionally by a side wind. Some documents which refer to the Chief Land Registrar may be suitably worded for the new arrangements; others may not be and some form of blanket adaptation is called for. Provision is made in the bill for the adaptation of agreements and documents which become necessary because of the transfer of property to the new registry. Something similar must be added during its passage through Parliament to deal with the more general transitional problems."
Having given notice to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor on Monday that I proposed to raise this point, I am happy to afford him an opportunity to say whether this is well-founded or not.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I was delighted to learn from the earlier part of the speech of the noble and learned Lord that he had leisure time in the Government bookshop to reflect upon the advantages of nationalisation. I am sure he will convey his experience to his colleagues who want to extend those advantages to so many other things. I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for raising this point. It is, as he rather indicated, a highly esoteric one. The only conclusion I can come to, having thought about it, is that it requires further time for reflection; but I will give the best answer I can at this stage, from which it will appear, I think, that it does require further thought and reflection. I can only undertake that it will receive that, and will either be dealt with here on the Report stage or later, because we must get this point right. I think it is a narrow point, but it is one that has been quite legitimately raised and which must be put right if it needs to be put right.

257
The question relates to the extent of Schedule 3, paragraph 6 of which forms part of the general transitional provisions in the Bill. The effect of Schedule 3(6) is that in certain circumstances references in existing documents to the Crown, the Chief Land Registrar or the Land Registry itself, or to the officers or staff of the Land Registry or to property occupied for the purpose of the existing Land Registry, shall in future be read as references to the registering authority, its staff or property and so on as appropriate.
The question raised in the article is: how far does this provision extend? The provision is expressed to apply, "so far as may be necessary, in consequence of the enactment of Sections 3 and 17 of this Act and paragraph 1 of this Schedule". It is admitted that it applies therefore to documents which relate to property transferred from the Crown to the registering authority by paragraph 1 of Schedule 3. For example, a lease to which the Crown is a party will in future be read as one to which the registering authority is a party after the Crown's interest is transferred to the registering authority under that paragraph. The same will be true of documents which govern rights and liabilities of the Crown which are transferred by that paragraph, and these will cover quite a variety of contractual arrangements.
But the author of the article maintains that this transitional provision does not apply outside the limited area of documents relating to the transfer of property rights and liabilities to the registering authority; and the author maintains that there are other documents affecting, for instance, private transactions which now refer to the Chief Land Registrar or the Land Registry which ought to be covered by the traditional provisions. There is, admittedly, some doubt whether paragraphs 5 and 6 of the Schedule go so far as to provide for all references to the present organisation in existing documents to be converted into references to the new organisation. But, equally, it is uncertain whether, for practical purposes, such a provision is required.
Further thought is therefore needed to see whether the Bill is defective in this respect. The matter can be fully
258
examined, and I hope will be fully examined before the Report stage, but it could not be fully examined in time for to-day's debate. I would therefore ask the Committee to acknowledge that the noble and learned Lord has raised a point, for which we are obliged, which needs further thought and if necessary, at a later stage, the Government will move an Amendment to improve the Bill in the manner required.
Schedule 3 agreed to.
Schedule 4 agreed to.
House resumed.
Bill reported without amendment.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I do not know whether I should be in order in moving, That the Report be now received. We are not trying to do without a Report stage, but my impression is that I should not do this because I do not want to do the noble and learned Lord out of his fun on Report.

ROAD TRAFFIC BILL [H.L.]
4.50 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SECURITY (LORD ABERDARE): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, that the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Aberdate.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The Lord GRENFELL in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Liability of vehicle owner in respect of certain fixed penalty offences]:
LORD FOOT LORD FOOT moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 24, at end insert ("provided that such a notice shall be served within 21 days of the expiration of the period fixed for payment by the relevant fixed penalty notice.")
The noble Lord said: This is a comparatively minor Amendment to subsection (2) of Clause 1, but may I say by way of preface that when we come to the Question, That the clause stand part, shall venture to make some rather more

259
radical criticisms of the whole of Clause 1 and indeed of Clause 2. The three Amendments which I shall submit to Clause 1 are made on the assumption that the Government will not accede to my suggestion, which I shall make later on, that the whole of Clause 1, and indeed Clause 2, should be rewritten. This Amendment, therefore, is submitted on the assumption that the clause will substantially stand at the end of the day, and so it is a comparatively minor Amendment.
Clause 1(2) provides that where the section applies a notice may be served by, or on behalf of, a chief officer of police on a person who is the owner or the presumed owner (in other words the person purporting to be the owner) of the vehicle at the time the fixed penalty notice was issued. So far as I can see, there is no provision in the clause, or indeed in the Bill, requiring that notice to be served upon the presumed owner within any limit of time. The noble Viscount is kind enough to nod at that, and I foresee therefore that he may be prepared to accede to what I am proposing, or something similar—no, I see he is now shaking his head, so I must continue. What I fear is the situation where a fixed penalty notice is either given to an individual driver or affixed to a vehicle and is not complied with during the time limit of 21 days, so that then it is open to the police to issue this notice against the owner. What is to stop them, through idleness, indifference or whatever you like, as the Bill stands at the moment, from issuing that notice, say 12 months later, or at any rate long enough afterwards, so that the owner has little opportunity of remembering what happened at the time?
This would appear to be in rather strange contrast to the requirement placed upon the owner when he receives a notice, because, as I understand it, if the owner or the presumed owner is served with a notice he is then required to comply with it, either by paying the fixed penalty or by putting in a statement, and he is required to do that within so short a period as 14 days. It seems to be in rather striking contrast with the fact that the prosecutor or the police, or whoever the authority may be, can put in their notice to the owner at their leisure, or so
260
it appears, at any time after the time limit, if the fixed penalty notice has not been complied with. I can see no sort of sense in that, and I shall await with interest the noble Viscount's reply. I beg to move.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: The noble Lord, Lord Foot, will be explaining his more radical proposals in due course. May I just say this by way of an advance apology to him, and also to my noble friend Lord Howe (who will no doubt be in his place shortly): that the Amendments standing in the names of those two noble Lords only went down so as to be received this morning. It may therefore be that I have done less than full justice to some of their arguments. That will apply even more so to Amendments which have not been put down at all but the arguments upon which will be introduced on the Motion that the clause stand part. This is by no means a criticism of the noble Lords but it is a fact of life, and if I am therefore less than forthcoming in my reply to the noble Lord later on, I hope he will forgive me, for the reason I have given.
On this Amendment, I think there are several reasonable grounds for objecting to the period of 21 days proposed by the noble Lord. I believe this was a matter which he raised on Second Reading, and the background to it is that the police are constrained by the ordinary time limit of six months for bringing the charge which relates to the fixed penalty. The noble Lord would probably agree that we could discuss that point with Amendment No. 10, which raises the same point on excess charges, though the law is slightly different on that matter. Whenever that offence occurs, the ordinary six months' limitation for summary trial under the Magistrates' Courts Act applies. Since the object of the exercise is to get the person who offended, and if necessary get him through the statutory statement machinery that we are talking about, the prime concern is the six months' limitation which applies anyway, after which one cannot prosecute for a road traffic offence. That is the foundation of the whole thing, as any magistrate (and the noble Lord himself, as a solicitor) will know very well.
The ordinary scene that we are going to have under this procedure is really

261
this: the enforcement authorities are constrained by that six months' limit, so if payment has not been received within the 21 days under Clause 1, or an excess charge within the time specified for payment under the local scheme or enactment, the police or the local authority will go and try to get the name of the registered owner from the registration authority—or, later on, Swansea. As soon as that is received, there is no incentive to delay the issue of the notice —that is, the notice that the clause is all about—because, as the noble Lord says, the more it is delayed the more difficult it will be to identify within the six months the person responsible. Moreover, it is going to be very difficult for the driver or the owner to remember what on earth was happening on the day in question when this occurred. So the longer one goes from the date on which the offence was actually committed or the penalty or charge incurred, the more hopeless it is to try to get people to remember accurately and work the thing out.
Thus, we have not put a time limit into this Bill for the serving of the notice, any more than we have, for instance—and indeed Parliament agreed with this—where, under Section 85 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1967, owners are required to give information identifying drivers for other alleged offences. A similar procedure is used there and a notice is issued with which you have to comply, and you have to say who was driving the car on that occasion. There does not seem to us to be any good reason for preventing enforcement authorities from issuing a notice at any time within the six months when they get the information; but obviously there would be no point in serving it so late in the period that they would not be able to get the matter to prosecution or to serve the notice within the six months. So there is every incentive here to get them to serve the notice as soon as possible.
There is in fact a particular snag about the 21 days which the noble Lord has suggested in his Amendment. If 21 days were to pass without their having got the answer from the registration authority —I know that normally this ought to come through quite quickly, but things do go wrong—then what happens? The police or the local authorities would go back to exactly the situation we are try-
262
ing to avoid by this machinery, whereby an enormous amount of time is wasted trying to find out, by the means open to them now, who was driving on that occasion. It is the mere fact that at the moment the police and the local authorities cannot satisfactorily discover who was driving that has caused the Government to bring forward the whole of this machinery of owner liability. If, therefore, we make the time for serving the notice as short as that—or, really, in practical terms, if we put a limitation on it at all—we are liable to go back to exactly the system which this series of clauses in the Bill is intended to avoid. I therefore suggest to the noble Lord and to the Committee that there are practical reasons for not having a time limit of this sort and also practical reasons why a time limit of this sort is not necessary because of the ordinary underlying rule of six months under Section 104 of the Magistrates' Courts Act.
BARONESS BIRK: I am at an even greater disadvantage than the Minister, because I saw this Amendment for the first time only today, but it seems to me—and I am looking at it now from a magistrate's point of view—to have some sense. I am not saying whether it should be 21 or 28 days, but one thing we have found so often is that even when people have been involved in an accident or an incident which they could not possibly have forgotten the details of, it is awfully difficult, by the time the case comes to court, for them to remember what has happened. Where it is something like a fixed penalty, it seems to me that there is an even greater chance of either a loss of memory or an apparent loss of memory. Further, if people knew that there was a time limit, then it would seem to me that there would be fewer people who would ignore the fixed penalty anyhow. If I find one of these things on my car I am too frightened: I complete it and send it back immediately, by return of post. But I have heard a lot of people say that they just chuck them away and hope for the best.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I am sorry, but I think the noble Baroness, if I may very respectfully say so, would be at an advantage if she were to study the Amendment a little more carefully. The point is not that the owner has to reply within a certain

263
period; that is in the Bill now. The noble Lord, Lord Foot, is suggesting that the notice should be issued by the police or the local authority within a certain period or not at all. I am saying that if, for one reason or another, that time goes by, they will then not be able to issue the notice at all. They will then have to go back to what they do now, which is to write or investigate, and go round to try to find out by personal inquiry and other methods who was driving on that occasion. The whole thesis underlying these clauses is that this has resulted in an immense waste of police manpower and time without in fact getting to the people who were driving the cars at the time that the fixed penalty was incurred or the excess charge went up on the meter. Therefore, to put in a maximum time within which you can serve the notice will, at any rate in a large proportion of the cases, frustrate the whole object of these clauses.
BARONESS BIRK: With great respect, I do not understand. I probably explained it badly. I am saying that there should be a limit shorter than six months. I am not arguing particularly, with the noble Lord, Lord Foot, that it should necessarily be 21 days, or even two months, but I think six months is too long.
LORD AIREDALE: Would it be right to say that, although the police have only six months within which to proceed against the driver, there is no limit to the length of time within which they may proceed against the owner if the driver does not pay?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: No. I think the only thing that they could do would be to proceed against the owner, not for not paying but for not completing the notice. Therefore, the owner would not be required, beyond the six-month period, to pay the fixed penalty or the excess charge; though I concede that if, five and a half years later, they served notice under these clauses which was then not complied with, there would technically be an offence created. But I can also imagine what the magistrates' courts would do in those circumstances.
LORD FOOT: There are really two points here, are there not? There is the
264
point which the noble Viscount was dealing with just now, and perhaps we may take a slightly closer look at that. Suppose you have a case where the fixed penalty notice is issued either by being attached to the vehicle or by being delivered to the person assumed to be the driver. He does not comply with it, and the 21-day period which he is given to comply with it runs out. It is now for the authorities, if they want to make the owner responsible, or attempt to make the owner responsible, to issue a notice. The noble Viscount says that it might be administratively inconvenient to require the authorities to do that within 21 days because that might not give them time enough to make their inquiries of the register to see who the owner was, and they might not have time to get their reply. On that point, I suggest that the convenience of the authorities ought to be balanced against the rights of the individual. It seems to me that it is a greater wrong for an individual to be confronted with a notice months after the event than it is for the authorities to be required to complete their inquiries within a fixed period of time. I do not mind whether it is 21 days or 28 days, but I suggest that there ought to be a limit on the time in which they can issue the notice.
The second point is this—and the noble Viscount almost put his finger upon it just now. Suppose the authorities issue a notice and they choose to issue it, let us say, 12 months after the event. Then the notice which is issued says, "You must either pay this fixed penalty or you must furnish a statutory statement". At that stage, what are the chances of the owner being able to complete that statutory statement satisfactorily, dealing with an event which has occurred perhaps twelve months previously? Does the noble Viscount want to consult with somebody?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: No; all I was—
LORD FOOT: I am sorry; I had not completed my point.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I was going to apologise to the noble Lord. I wanted just one word with my noble friend, but I was going to listen to the noble Lord at the same time.
LORD FOOT: This is the situation, is it not: that the owner may therefore be

265
confronted with a notice twelve months after the event and he may then be unable to comply with the statutory statement which he has to furnish simply because he cannot remember who was using his car on the occasion in question. Of course, the statutory statement is not a statutory statement at all unless it names the driver at the relevant time. In order to comply with the requirements of Schedule 1, you have to name the driver of the car at the relevant time and give his present address, and also get his signature to it; or, if you cannot get his signature, you have to certify why you cannot. This is the obligation which is thrown upon an owner perhaps, as I say, twelve months or even two years after the event. If, therefore, in the event, he cannot comply with the notice and he cannot put in the statutory statement because he simply does not have the information, which has disappeared from his memory, then he can be prosecuted under subsection (4) for failing to comply with the notice. What is more, there is no six-month limitation upon that prosecution, because the offence which is being comitted by failing to comply with the notice is not an offence committed at the time when the fixed penalty notice is put on the vehicle; it is an offence committed within the time limit allowed for him under the notice delivered to the owner; that is, 14 days. At the expiry of the 14 days, if he has not put in the statutory statement, then he has committed an offence, for which he can be prosecuted and fined £100.
I ask the noble Viscount to reconsider this matter. I entirely understand that this Amendment was put down late; and if that is a matter for apology, then I apologise for it. I mentioned it on Second Reading, as the noble Viscount knows. If the noble Viscount will be good enough to say that he will have another look at this matter between now and the next stage, I shall be only too happy to withdraw this Amendment.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I think that there are two points that the noble Lord has raised here. First of all, I am quite sure that one does not want to have a time limit either of 21 days or indeed of two months written in, because if we do that and encumber the Bill with a maximum time of this sort—other than the six months—that is in
266
relation to the actual traffic offence, rather than failure to fill up the form—we are going to make it more complicated than is necessary. What seems to me to be the real issue is the noble Lord's second point, which is that one could come along ages afterwards and, as he said, serve a notice; there would be an offence to fail to comply, to fill in, and nobody would be able to remember because it was so long ago. Where I think I should have liked a little opportunity to do some more research is in regard to what happens about other notices of a similar sort which are now served under Section 85. Although you do not have a liability for anything else at the moment, my recollection is that if you drive your car, or if somebody drives your car, the wrong side of a traffic island, say, this is a minor road traffic offence and the policeman who sees it and fails to catch the driver at the time can find out who is the owner by going to the registration authority, and can then send a notice to the owner saying: "Who was driving the car on Thursday, October 21?"—or whenever it was— "because he went on the wrong side of the island in so-and-so street."
This happens already, and I think it will probably be found that the theoretical disadvantage that the noble Lord, Lord Foot, has spoken about has been in existence in the law for quite a long time. I do not believe that it is that that has caused the trouble; I believe it is the fact that people have either failed to answer it or have answered it wrongly, or have somehow misled the police or the local authorities, or have held on for such a long time that nothing has been able to be done, which has caused the provisions to be put in the Bill that we now seek for owner liability. Therefore, the proof of the second point is the practice of what has happened in the past. But I should like—I think the noble Lord is right—to see how this has worked. I should like to get some more information about the notices that have been going now for some six years at least. Perhaps we could revert to this matter. The noble Lord need not for one moment apologise for putting this Amendment down late. As I said before, it was only for me to apologise if I did not have a full answer to the points that were being made. Therefore, if the noble Lord

267
would like to withdraw this Amendment for the moment, I will pursue my researches along the lines I have just indicated.
LORD FOOT: That is more than good enough for me and I am very happy to leave it there. With the leave of the Committee. I will withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.14 p.m.
LORD STOW HILL LORD STOW HILL moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 34, at end insert—
("() The person on whom a notice under this section is served under the provisions of subsection (2) of this section shall before the expiry of the appropriate period pay the fixed penalty unless either

(a) he was not the owner of the vehicle at the relevant time and in compliance with the notice furnishes a statutory statement of facts to that effect, or

(b) within that period the fixed penalty has been paid by some other person.").

The noble and learned Lord said: Nobody who listened to the discussion on the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Foot, could be under any impression other than that this is a most complex procedure. Ministers on Second Reading explained the object of it and I think we all would support that. This is clearly in principle a most useful and sensible innovation. The only objectives I would seek to achieve in the Amendment which is down in my name and in the names of my noble friends are, first, to introduce a little more clarity in an area in which I think there is perhaps just some room for doubt on the drafting. That is the first objective. Secondly, perhaps to make the clause as it is at present drafted a little more effective still than it would be if it remained unchanged.
May I address myself to the first point. If one looks at subsection (3) one finds what a notice under the clause is to contain. It is to be in the prescribed form; shall give particulars of the alleged offence and of the fixed penalty concerned, and then the provision reads:
"and shall require the persons on whom it is served, before the expiry of the appropriate period,—"
either to pay the penalty or to furnish the statutory notice. If one goes to the next
268
subsection one finds that it is an offence, if the penalty is not paid, not to serve the notice. So if you fail to comply with the second limb of that which is prescribed in subsection (2), a penalty is incurred: you commit an offence. But you do not commit an offence, as I read the clause, if you fail to pay the penalty in any circumstances.
If one goes back to Section 80 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1967 one sees, as I read subsection (2) of Section 80, it clearly is not an offence to fail to pay the fixed penalty. I say that because the relevant part of subsection (2) reads:
"he may give him the prescribed notice in writing offering the opportunity of the discharge of any liability to conviction of that offence by payment of a fixed penalty under this section".
So if one starts with the root of this branch of this legislation one finds that all the fixed penalty notice does is to give you the option of paying the fixed penalty. You are not bound to. You can remain as you please, liable to proceedings in respect of the offence involved, or you can, as it were, purge your guilt, if you wish to exercise the option, by paying the fixed penalty without further question. One then finds, as the Ministers explained to us on Second Reading, that in very large numbers of cases it is impossible to enforce the law with regard to obtaining payment of fines that are imposed, and so this new change, this useful change, is introduced.
I should have thought as a matter of language that people who read subsection (2), and who find that the language of Section 80 has been departed from—that is to say, the language which gives an option has been departed from—and find that this new notice under Clause 1 shall require the person either to pay the penalty or to furnish the statement, would think that the objective is to make failure an offence in both cases. If you are in a position to furnish a statutory defence which exonerates you, well and good; if you are not, well, you must pay the penalty. And one would have thought that the language implied that failure to pay the penalty in those circumstances was an offence.
Therefore, for the sake of clarity, that being my first objective as I have explained, I would submit that the clause should say in terms: Is it, or is it not, an offence to fail to pay the penalty? Is the optional procedure still valid, or has it

269
been superseded by a requirement in the notice to pay a penalty, failure to comply with which requirement itself constitutes an offence? As I read Clause 1, it is not an offence to fail to pay the penalty which is specified in the notice provided for under Clause 1. The only circumstances in which one can render oneself liable to proceedings are those described in subsection (4) or in a later subsection, subsection (7). I think I have analysed it correctly, and the noble Lord nods his head so that leads me to think that my supposition is correct. I submit therefore that in those circumstances it would be desirable to make that clear so as to leave no doubt as to whether it is an offence in any circumstances not to pay the fixed penalty.
I should like to refer to the language of subsection (8)(c) of this clause, which again talks about,
"conviction of the person so served of an offence under subsection (4) above in respect of a failure to comply with the notice …"
The implication seems to be that a failure to comply with the notice may constitute an offence although the reference there is only to an offence under subsection (4). Therefore in the first place I ask the Ministers to be so good as to see whether the language can be made a little more certain in its effect.
The second submission I wish to make, I put forward simply for the purpose of raising with the Ministers the question as to whether the new clause could be made a little more effective. I wonder whether it would not be desirable to make it an offence, if you are the person who committed the original offence and you have had a fixed penalty notice served upon you, and, payment not having been made, you now have a notice under this subsection—that is to say, the authorities have to take a second step against you: they have not yet secured payment—saying in effect: "You have had the option of paying; you have not exercised that option; we now give you this further notice. If you do not pay now it will be an offence."
The machinery here is complex. As I have said, my object is simply to try to get this a little more effective and to raise with the Ministers the question whether it would not be desirable, in the circumstances that I have described, to make it an offence, when the second
270
notice has been served upon you, not to pay the penalty if you are the person who ought to pay it. Those are the grounds of this Amendment. I shall be quite content if the Ministers say that they will look at it, without giving me an answer to-day, and try to clarify the language and possibly to make the clause a little more effective on the lines that I have suggested. I beg to move.
5.24 p.m.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: The noble and learned Lord, Lord Stow Hill, has, as one would expect, correctly analysed the relationship with Section 80 of the 1967 Act. Certainly when one looks at subsection (3) of this clause and sees the words,
"shall require the person … to pay the fixed penalty or to secure its payment …"
I take his point that there is indeed an option, and it may be that the word "require" needs reconsideration; and I should like to think about that.
I am entirely with the noble and learned Lord in trying to get this clause as clear as possible. From the point of view of the ordinary person faced with the application of the machinery that we are now discussing, one ought perhaps to have a look at the first Schedule to the Bill, because not only does that set out rather more clearly what is going to be in the statement the person is required to make under subsection (3)(d) —that is the statutory statement—but one must also bear in mind that there will be, as is often the case, some helpful Notes to explain yet further what we have not set out in detail in the Schedule because it is probably better done by Notes than by setting it out in statutory form in a Schedule to a Bill of this sort. So I think the ordinary person is likely to be more affected by the layout of the form than by the way in which it fulfils the conditions as set out in Schedule 3.
Certainly I am all for clarity, and the noble and learned Lord is quite right when he says that this is, inevitably, I think, rather a complicated piece of language to express what is fairly simple in terms of theory. Unless I have misunderstood his argument I do not think there is anything wrong with subsection (8)(c), because one can indeed be convicted of an offence under subsection (4); that is, the offence of failing to send back the statutory statement of facts.
LORD STOW HILL: If I may say so I entirely agree with what the noble Viscount has just said in regard to subsection (8). My only point on that was that a reference to a requirement in a notice seems by implication to suggest that when the notice "requires" something, failure to comply with that requirement may be an offence. That is the only point.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: The noble and learned Lord's argument is so densely constructed and so condensed that I should like to see it in writing in order to do full justice to it.
But the noble and learned Lord goes on to a further point of substance; namely, the scope of the liability that we are creating. What he is doing here is to make more of an absolute liability the things for which an owner is responsible that happen to his car. I think the noble and learned Lord is trying to increase the area of liability beyond that which we have set out in the Bill. What I want to put to him and to the Committee in this connection is: what is the mischief that we are trying to cure? On the whole, I think most people would agree that those who drive motor cars, park them on yellow lines, leave them at parking meters for longer than they should, so that the yellow flag goes up —or the red one—are those who primarily ought to be responsible for their actions and ought to be the persons who pay the fines. We are really only after a piece of machinery to get over the difficulties that have arisen in practice in trying to get them so to do.
I know that the noble Lord, Lord Champion, said during the Second Reading debate that perhaps we ought to be a little tougher than we are in the Bill. I remember this argument, but I think we ought to be slow to impose upon the owner of a car almost complete liability for what anybody does to it, or with it, without at any rate giving him the chance of trying to give the other person —the driver at the time who committed the offence or incurred the penalty, or whatever it was—the opportunity to pay up instead.
In practice, there is probably very little between the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stow Hill, and what I am suggest-
272
ing because I would expect that if the clause were written in the way this Amendment suggests the owner of the vehicle would pay but he would go round and sort it out with the person who was the driver at the time and he would see that the £2 (or whatever the sum was) was repaid to him. But that of course is exactly what would happen under the clause as it is drafted because the owner of the car, having received the notice, has the option of going round to get the person who was actually driving to pay the fixed penalty; alternatively, the owner can pay it himself, in which case no doubt he will reclaim it. It is only in the last resort, if neither of those two systems works—if neither of those two actions takes place—that we are allowing the police or the local authority, in desperation, to go to the owner himself.
One should remember that this machinery, albeit complicated, is, as it were, a method of stopping up what has become a major loophole whereby drivers escape and nobody can do anything about it in practice. We ought really to leave the liability where it is now, and where it ought to be, on the driver, and just have this fall-back power whereby, if the authorities cannot get the driver in time, they have a chance of going for the owner. I put that to the Committee as the real mischief with which, in this legislation, we are trying to deal. To go quite as far as the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, which is supported by the noble Lord, Lord Champion, and the noble Baroness opposite, might be to go too far in a Draconian sense. There is probably not a great deal in this in practice, but perhaps as a matter of purity, where the liability in the first place should lie, we ought to deal with it in the way in which the Bill is drafted. But that is not to say we cannot express it more clearly, and therefore, I will study what the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, has said to see whether we have got the wording here right. But on the substantive point, I hope he may be persuaded by what I say into thinking that the philosophy of this clause and Clause 2 ought perhaps to stay as it is.
LORD STOW HILL: I am most grateful to the noble Viscount for his answer which, if I may say so, seems to me to

273
carry very considerable weight, particularly on the second point. He had kindly said that he would like to consider the first point, the question of clarity. If my noble friends who are co-signatories and the Committee are in agreement, I will ask leave to withdraw the Amendment. I am much obliged to the noble Viscount.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.33 p.m.
EARL HOWE EARL HOWE moved Amendment No. 3
Page 2, line 38, at end insert ("and the court may accept evidence on oath to this effect without evidence being provided to identify the person in whose possession the vehicle was at the relevant time.").
The noble Earl said: I apologise to the noble Viscount for not being in my place when he mentioned my name just now. I should also like to say that I am sorry I did not table my Amendment sooner, but I had many things to do and no chance of getting to the House in time.
From what I have heard so far, many of the Amendments seem to be on the same lines. I was not sure whether mine was going to be similar to earlier Amendments, but I think it can be taken to be different. I am hoping that if my Amendment has not been carefully studied by the noble Viscount, he will have an opportunity to take it back and look at it—it would be better still if he accepted it. My motivation in what I shall briefly say is that I want to try to satisfy myself that a motorist is not going to be "clobbered" far various offences which I feel are not his responsibility. The Amendment I am moving here is an insertion after subsection (6). It seems to me that there is a possibility of a motorist being held responsible for something that was not his fault, and resulting from what appears to me to be unfair and unjust legislation. For instance, it is possible for a motorist to have his vehicle stolen and dumped anywhere. This happens from time to time, and has happened to my friends. I should like to have some assurance from the noble Viscount that the owner will not be held responsible in court because he cannot produce evidence to show by whom the vehicle was taken. It seems to me equitable that the court should accept evidence from the owner unless there is reason to believe
274
that he is not actually telling the truth. I hope I can get a satisfactory answer on this—one which would please the motorist. I am speaking for many motorists on this particular point. I beg to move.
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: I would have some sympathy with the Amendment put down by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, if he were to qualify it along the lines he mentioned a moment or two ago; that is, if it related to a person who had had his car stolen and therefore had no idea who had taken it. But as the Amendment stands at the moment, it seems to me seriously to hamper the court. If a person chooses to give evidence on oath, he has the right to expect the court to pay some heed to what he says; but it is also the duty of the court, when a person has elected to give evidence on oath, to cross-examine him, or at least elicit from him facts relating to the matter before the court. I should have thought that this was highly desirable if, as the Bill itself says:
"In any such proceedings as are referred to in subsection (5) above it shall be a defence to prove that at the relevant time the vehicle was in the possession of some other person without the consent of the",
owner. I should have thought that some responsibility rested on the court to ascertain who that person was. In many cases they are known. Not every case is a case in which the car has been stolen. In many cases the owner does know who was driving at the time. Subsection (5), says that if the vehicle
"was in the possession of some other person without the consent of the accused".
Well, if the other person was in possession of the car without the consent of the accused, by relieving the defendant of the responsibility of saying who that person was one could almost argue that he is being encouraged to compound a felony. "Felony" might not be the right word; it might be misdemeanour.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE or CULROSS: They are both abolished.
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: They are both abolished, so neither applies; but at least it means that the defendant is in a situation of defending someone who, in the circumstances, he ought not to be defending. I should have thought that on balance it would be unwise to have this Amendment in the Bill.
5.38 p.m.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: The proposition here is simple. If one's car is "pinched", left on a yellow line or a parking meter where an excess charge is then incurred, one does not then get taken up in front of the court for failing to pay the fixed penalty or excess charge. If one is served with one of the notices under this clause, and one says, "I do not know who was driving because the car was stolen", one is protected. Taking a conveyance (as it is now called) without the consent of the owner, is an offence under the Theft Act. It used to be under the Road Traffic Act, but it now comes under the Theft Act. All we intend to do here is to protect people whose cars are, in some people's simple terminology, stolen, but more likely "taken without consent", because the law has to provide for circumstances where one cannot prove an intention permanently to deprive; that is the origin of taking without consent. So that is what we are dealing with.
It then remains to be seen what in practice would happen when the person who owns the car or, indeed, the driver from whom it was taken without consent —who may not be the owner—gets brought up in front of the court. There are of course any number of examples—and those who practise in the magistrates' courts or who sit on the bench, will be familiar with them—where once the prosecution has made out a prima facie case the Statute provides a defence. The Magistrates' Courts Acts say that unless there is something in the Statute about it specially, it is for the defendant to prove that defence. But one does not have to prove it in the same way as the prosecution. One proves it on the balance of probabilities, not beyond any reasonable doubt. Let us just think what happens in most of these cases. If someone's car is stolen, then nine times out of ten he tells the police anyway. All one has to do is to say to the court, "We told the police and told them on suchand-such a day; the car was in fact stolen from outside my house on that particular morning". I should think there would be few courts in the land who would not believe that, particularly if the police, who happen to be there, can corroborate what is said.
Therefore, I think this Amendment would be quite unnecessary in practice,
276
because, in any event, one would never have to prove who stole the car. My noble friend can be entirely reassured on that point. All one would have to establish was that someone took it away without consent. It does not make a hoot of difference if one finds out whether or not a particular person did it—indeed, one may never do so, and the police may never do so—but if one can satisfy the magistrates that the car was removed without consent, and left on a yellow line, or something like that, that should be a perfectly good defence. My noble friend Lord Howe is really going further than is necessary. This point would be covered in any event. It will only muddle things if a specific provision like this is introduced. Not only is it unnecessary but it could call in question many other things the defence might say. I suggest that we should leave it to the general principle, which is familiar to those who practise and sit as magistrates. I feel that my noble friend need not fear, on behalf of his fellow motorists—which probably includes most of us—that there will be any great difficulty about this.
LORD CHAMPION: Is it the case that in practice the police would never serve a notice on a person in the circumstances the noble Viscount has outlined; that is, if it is a case where the police have previously been informed that this car has been stolen? The notice would never be served on the owner, causing him to go to the trouble of preparing a defence, although it is not quite a defence in this case, before some court subsequently?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: What one has to do is to provide for a statutory defence where it would clearly be grossly unfair that somebody should be prosecuted. We have here in subsection (5) a conclusive presumption, and it is really to counteract that that we put in the special provision in subsection (6). I do not imagine that the police are going to act unreasonably on this sort of occasion, but as we have this presumption, I think it is right to have a specific defence.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: One does know of cases where people have had cars stolen and then received a notice saying that a parking offence has been committed. Sometimes they do not know the car has actually been stolen; it has been stolen from outside their home and the

277
offence has been committed very quickly. I know of two cases like that. Such a possibility sets up some alarm as to whether this could extend to something more serious.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE or CULROSS: I am not sure that the noble Baroness is not really underlining what I said, that there ought to be a defence. If a car is stolen on a Friday, the owner having left it for the weekend, and it is then left on a yellow line on Saturday morning, and he comes back on Monday and finds that somebody has put a note through his door to say that the car has been found on a yellow line and is now in the police pound, he is likely to be mystified. I should have thought that at least he could establish that he had left the car outside the house on Friday, and that whoever put it on the yellow line on Saturday did so without his consent. Therefore, if we get to the stage of Clause 1(5) being applied, going 'through the whole of this rigmarole, he would need to be able to go to the court with a statutory defence such as we are providing in subsection (6). I think that what the noble Baroness says is a reinforcement of the need for this provision.
EARL HOWE: I should like to thank my noble friend for his reply. I am not a solicitor am not a lawyer of any kind, only a plain, simple, cloth-cap motorist speaking for the average motorist, who possibly drives a sports car, as I do. I think that in some cases the legal phraseology is such that one cannot fully understand it, and that is one reason why I moved this Amendment. I certainly feel a little happier about the position now, bearing in mind what the noble Viscount has said, and I am prepared to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.45 p.m.
LORD FOOT LORD FOOT moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 2, line 38, at end insert ("or that the accused had a reasonable excuse for failing to comply with the notice.")
The noble Lord said: This is another of the Amendments which I am moving in the hope of being able to improve the wording of this clause as it now stands, although, as I have given warning before, I shall later on make a much more radical
278
criticism of the whole clause. This is a matter that I drew to your Lordships' attention at Second Reading, and it will not come as any surprise to the noble Viscount. May I take the case of an owner who is served with a notice under this clause, fails to comply with the requirement to pay the fixed penalty and does not put in a statutory statement as an alternative? In those circumstances, it seems to me, he opens himself to two types of proceedings. The first proceedings that can be brought against him are proceedings under subsection (4) for failing to comply with the notice. If such proceedings are brought against him under that subsection he is liable to conviction if he has failed to comply with the notice without reasonable excuse.
If one takes the case where a notice has been served upon a presumed owner which he does not in fact receive (and that can very well happen, because, under a later clause, service of this notice can be made by post), if he is then served with notice of proceedings under subsection (4) for failing to comply with the notice, it is open to him to go to the court and offer that as a reasonable excuse for not having complied, and that is all right. But what of the other proceedings to which he may be open if he fails to receive the notice—perhaps because he is away on holiday? In such proceedings can he offer the excuse that he never received the notice?
It seems to me that the other proceedings that can be taken against him, if he wholly fails to comply with the notice, are proceedings under the original Act which creates these fixed penalty offences. If you look at the Road Transport Lighting Act 1957, Section 12(1), you find that it is an offence for any person to cause or permit a vehicle to be on a road in contravention of the provisions of the Act; that is to say, for example, without proper reflectors. Supposing that is the offence which is alleged to have been committed in the first place, leaving the vehicle on a road during the hours of darkness without the proper sort of reflectors, what is to stop the authorities who have issued the notice to the presumed owner from prosecuting him under that subsection; in other words issuing a summons against him saying: "On such and such a day you caused or permitted this vehicle to be on the road

279
in contravention of this Act"? What is his situation if he has never received the notice in the first place? He has no defence at all, because under subsection (5) of this clause it is provided that once he has been served with the notice (and of course service is complete once the posting of the notice has been proved), if he has not paid the fixed penalty—and obviously he has not because he has not received the notice —then unless he is not the owner of the vehicle and has put in a statutory statement to that effect, which of course he has not done because he has not received the notice anyway, it shall be conclusively presumed that he was the driver of the vehicle at the relevant time.
Therefore, if you take the case of a person who has never received the notice and is then issued with proceedings for the original offence under a section of the Lighting Act he cannot come to the court and plead that he has a reasonable excuse for not having complied with the notice, because once it has been proved that the notice has been served and he has not put in a declaration that he is not the owner it has to be conclusively presumed—it cannot be argued about at all—that he was the driver of the car. Thus he is denied the opportunity of putting forward the defence he would have been able to put forward if he had been charged under subsection (4) with failing to comply with the notice.
The noble Viscount may say it is unlikely that in those circumstances, where somebody had failed altogether to comply with the notice, the authorities would prosecute for the original offence. That may be so; but there may be a temptation for the authorities to prosecute the man for the original offence rather than for failing to comply with the notice because they may say to themselves, "He has not complied with this and we can more easily prove this matter than we can by prosecuting for failing to comply with the notice." The authorities may take the view that if they prosecute for failing to comply with the notice he may come forward with some defence whereas if they prosecute for the original offence he will not have any defence and therefore a conviction will be achieved.
I want to prevent the possibility of that sort of thing which the noble Viscount would no doubt regard as a
280
misuse of the Act. It is all very well to say that the authorities do not do these things when it can be avoided because sometimes these things do happen. All I seek to do by this Amendment is to make available to a person, whether he is charged under subsection (4) or with the original offence, the defence that he had a reasonable excuse for not complying with the notice.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I do not want to prevent any other noble Lords from adding to the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Foot, but may I tell the Committee straight away that I think the noble Lord has a point and that we ought to deal with it. However, I think there are other ways of doing it, and perhaps the Committee will allow us to look at the point to see whether we can produce a better form of words at another stage. I do not in the least wish to curtail the debate on the matter, but I think this statement may be helpful to the Committee.
LORD FOOT: I am much obliged to the noble Lord, and in the circumstances I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.54 p.m.
LORD FOOT LORD FOOT had given Notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 5:
Page 2, line 43, at end insert ("or 4 months imprisonment".).
The noble Lord said: This is an Amendment which the noble Viscount will realise at once relates to a matter of principle which we shall be discussing later on in the Bill under Clause 4 and under Schedule 5, and it would be wholly inappropriate I think for me to initiate a debate on a matter of general principle at this stage because a great variety of Amendments have been put down to the penalty clauses. I only put this Amendment forward as a marker, because here, of course, in providing only a financial penalty the Government are acting consistently with what they are doing later on in the Bill. If we should succeed later on—as indeed I hope we shall—in getting the various Amendments about penalties which have been put down by the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition, then we shall have to come back to this and we may have to restore the four months' imprisonment;

281
but at this stage, with the approval of the Leader of the House, I shall not move the Amendment.
5.55 p.m.
LORD FOOT LORD FOOT moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 3, line 9, at end insert ("and")
The noble Lord said: I wonder whether we might take Amendments Nos. 6 and 7 together as they are related. The first is of no importance whatsoever. Clause 1(8) is a difficult one, as I think the noble Viscount would agree, but may I try and see what its effect is? I am suggesting in this Amendment that the whole of this subsection is all right with the exception of the second half of paragraph (b) and the whole of paragrah (c). The subsection reads:
"Without prejudice to section 80(2) of the 1967 Act (payment of fixed penalty before proceedings are begun a bar to conviction) where a notice under this section"—
that is, a notice to the presumed owner—
"has been served on any person—
(a) payment of the fixed penalty by any person before the date on which proceedings are begun against the person so served for an offence under subsection (4) above in respect of a failure to comply with the notice shall discharge any liability of his for that offence;"
If I may say so, that is obviously quite all right. That accords with the general principle that if anybody pays the fixed penalty before proceedings have begun against somebody for failing to comply with the notice then that discharges that person's liability. I suggest that the first part of paragraph (b) is also quite all right. It reads:
"(b) conviction of any person for the offence specified in the notice shall discharge the liability of any other person (under this or any other enactment) for that offence…"
Again it seems to me that that is perfectly all right because if a vehicle is owned by somebody, 'A', and driven by somebody, 'B', and then the driver, B is convicted for the offence specified in the notice—the offence of parking or whatever it may be—that discharges the owner from liability. That is in accordance with the principles of the Bill, but when it goes on to say:
"conviction of any person"
let us take the driver, for example—
"… shall discharge … the liability of any person for an offence under subsection (4)
282
above in respect of a failure to comply with the notice;…"
then we are dealing with a different matter.
If the owner, or the presumed owner, is served with a notice saying to him, "Either you pay the fixed penalty or you put in a statutory declaration within a given period of time", and he fails to do anything about it, why should the subsequent conviction of the driver for the original offence of parking improperly, or whatever it may be, excuse the person who has received this notice from having to comply with it? Why should the person who receives the notice from the authorities requiring him to do something, and who is in fact guilty of an offence against the Government, be absolved from liability simply because the driver or somebody else happens to have paid the penalty for the original offence? Surely the mischief in failing to comply with the notice is the failure to comply with the notice. If you receive a notice from the authorities calling upon you to do something and you do nothing about it, surely you are committing an offence, whether or not somebody in fact pays the fixed penalty.
Then in paragraph (c) the same kind of thing occurs, but rather in reverse. That says:
"conviction of the person so served of an offence under subsection (4) above"—
that is conviction of an owner for failing to comply with a notice—
"in respect of a failure to comply with the notice shall discharge the liability of any person for the offence specified in the notice;"
That is the original offence. Again I ask why, if the owner is served with a notice and fails to comply with it and is then convicted of failing to comply, should that absolve the original driver (if indeed the driver was somebody other than the owner), of the offence which he in fact committed, of parking in an improper place? I do not understand the logic of saying that if the owner is convicted of failing to comply with a notice, then that automatically absolves the person who committed the original offence from all liability for anything.
I can understand that this may be a useful way of tidying up and making an end to things, but it does not seem to me to have much logic or good sense behind it. It may be that the noble

283
Viscount will be better able to explain the matter to me; in the meanwhile, I beg to move the Amendment.
6.2 p.m.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I think I can explain it because I am not trying to pretend that this is the purest classical jurisprudence. I must remind the noble Lord, Lord Foot, of two facts: first, that he has, with impeccable accuracy, analysed subsection (8); and the other fact is that here we are dealing with people who park their cars on double yellow lines and do not pay £2 in fixed penalties. There is of course absolutely nothing wrong with the way that the noble Lord has put this from the point of view of a matter of law, but what I would put to the Committee, and it is really a matter of judgment, is whether it is worth while making the failure to fill in the statutory statement, as it were, a fairly substantial offence all by itself. The idea, as I think everybody in the Committee appreciates, is merely to stop up a fairly substantial loophole. We want to get to the people who commit these minor and tiresome road traffic offences. If we do not get them in one way we wish to get them in the other; or if we do not get one of them in one way, we will get another person in the other way.
I suggest to the Committee that we do not want to get two people for one yellow line offence, and it is that which subsection (8) is drafted to avoid. It is perfectly true that, if the Amendment were accepted, you would have a purist approach, whereby the machinery of the notice and the statutory statement of fact is promoted, as it were, into a criminal situation all by itself. But although technically it is, because you have to be able to enforce this sort of notice, I would suggest to the Committee that we must remember that we are dealing with parking tickets, double yellow lines, with pesky little traffic offences which are an awful nuisance, and which we must prevent, but which are not worth turning into a major issue of this kind. Therefore, what we have done is to say, "There is an offence, and we are going to treat it either as an offence of parking on a double yellow line or as an offence for not filling up the notice, and either of those is going to cancel out the
284
other. It will do, and we will call it a day." That is the way it is drafted. It may not be very good logic, but I think that it is quite good sense.
LORD FOOT: I expected that that was the answer I was going to receive, and I acknowledge that there is a great deal of sense in it. One can make too much of a meal of this question. I agree about that, but I wanted to briefly introduce it because this is going to be part of my argument in a moment about the wholesale provision of this clause, which is extremely difficult to understand, and which is full at any rate of technical anomalies or ambiguities, even though they may not be of much substance. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.5 p.m.
EARL HOWE EARL HOWE moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 3, line 19, at end insert—
("(d) subsequent death of the person alleged in the statutory statement of facts to be the driver of the vehicle at the relevant time shall discharge the liability of any other person for the offence specified in the notice.")
The noble Earl said: As I said just now, I am not a solicitor and I am always baffled by legal science, so I think that I can speak for the average motorist who does look to me from time to time to try to protect him. The only time I have appeared in court was for a technical offence of exceeding the speed limit, and for which I was on the receiving end from a lawyer. I move this Amendment because I am not happy about the way things are going in the Bill on owner liability. When I read the Bill the Amendment seemed to me to be necessary to ensure that, upon the subsequent death of a person who was alleged to have been the driver of a vehicle at the relevant time, the owner of the machine is not held liable for the payment of the fixed penalty. It is not clear to me, nor apparently to others who have studied the Road Traffic Bill, that this is going to be the case. An over-zealous enforcement of the law relating to owner liability is likely to cause considerable dissatisfaction among a large number of people. I personally foresee breakers ahead unless this point is made clear in the Bill. I beg to move.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My noble friend is perfectly right that one does not want to get into such a dreadful situation. However, let us see how it would work in practice, and perhaps my noble friend would follow me. Would my noble friend look at Schedule 1? What would happen would be that you would get a notice saying that you have to say who was driving your car at a given time at a given place, and you have to say who owned it and, if you were not driving it, who was. If one looks at paragraph 2 of Schedule 1, one will find that one fills in the statement. Say I am the owner of the car and I fill in the statement saying that I am the owner and that Mr. X was the person driving it, and I have got Mr. X to sign it and here is his signature. I send it back and the police prosecute X, or they start prosecuting X. Unfortunately, X dies before he actually gets to court. I think that common sense would suggest that in most cases the police would then call it a day. They would not actually go back and prosecute me for X's offence because X had died. Therefore, I think that in practice one does not need to deal with those circumstances.
The other alternative is that I get one of these notices and I start filling it in knowing that X was the person driving it but has died before I can get him to put "X" on the form. In those circumstances, paragraph 2(b) is fairly conclusive, because I then say, "But I could not get X to sign it because, unfortunately, he is dead". That protects me under the Bill. I would suggest that X is automatically protected because he is dead. Therefore, nobody will get prosecuted for that offence, or indeed for having failed properly to fill up the form because I am complying with the terms of the Schedule in being unable to get X to sign it. I hope that satisfies my noble friend.
I am not taking this facetiously. I can quite see that these practical points occur to people when they look at this matter, but I hope that the Committee will be convinced that, one way or the other, the death of the driver is not going to prejudice anybody and have them prosecuted when it would be grossly unfair to do so.
LORD AIREDALE: I was happy with what the noble Viscount said until he said that the police would probably call it a day. I dare say they would, but it is surely better for the police to have it in the Bill where there is a circumstance in which Parliament expects the police to call it a day. I should have thought that was the substance of that Amendment and that it was worth putting into the Bill, so that then the police would know they had to call it a day, and everybody would be satisfied.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: With great respect, I do not think so, because if one looks at my noble friend's next Amendment—and I do not know what his argument will be, but I have some suspicion that he is going to say that it is not only death that causes this sort of thing to happen—what would one do? Supposing the driver, whom I have been describing as X, was posted on the day before yesterday on an eight-month assignment to inspect the interior of New Guinea. He would be completely out of touch with civilisation all that time. That puts the police out of time for prosecuting, because six months has elapsed. Therefore, on Lord Airedale's argument, we have to put "absence in New Guinea for six months" as well as "death" as one of the exemptions. If one starts on that path, one has only to think of all the people who fall into comas or have other dreadful things overcome them. There is really no end to the list of circumstances which one would have to provide for so as to tell the police not to prosecute in those circumstances. If by any chance my noble friend, Lord Howe, is going to suggest that things of this kind should be prescribed under the next Amendment, I shall resist it on those grounds, because you will never come to the end of the list at all or make any sense out of it. The police and other prosecuting bodies, like local authorities, are capable of adopting a sensible approach without having the most tremendous rigmarole written into an Act of Parliament.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: Ordinary citizens are somewhat disturbed by these situations. We must bear in mind that a widow can be asked to pay the tax on her late husband. I have known this

287
to cause great hardship. There is a grave element to this matter if an owner dies and then there is a debate as to whom the car belongs and whether that person is liable. It is not quite so straightforward as the Minister has suggested.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: That may be, but my noble friend's Amendment relates to subsequent death of the person alleged to be the driver. Therefore, unless it was the owner who was the driver, I do not think the question arises. I was really on another point. If the noble Baroness wants to know what is to happen to a statutory instrument served on somebody and he is dead, and so the executors are the people responsible, the answer is that you cannot be accused of an offence after you are dead. You cannot be prosecuted when you are dead, and your executors cannot be prosecuted in your place. Therefore, you are probably all right that way as well. I am subject to correction on that point, but I do not think you can be prosecuted.
EARL HOWE: I am grateful for the support I received from the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, and the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips. The only point that worries me is when solicitors say "I think". With great respect to my noble friend, Lord Colville, I do not like "I think". I should like the police and the Judiciary to be more certain. What worries many of those in my position is that the words "I think" are not what one expects to get. I should like more certainty on this matter. That is what worries the owner. Bearing in mind what has been said, it would be a waste of time to attempt to go further with this Amendment, and I am prepared rather reluctantly to beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.15 p.m.
EARL HOWE EARL HOWE moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 3, leave out lines 20 to 22 and insert—
("() the liability of any person for an offence specified in a notice under this section shall be discharged in such other circumstances as may be prescribed.")
The noble Earl said: This Amendment is to safeguard any other possible circumstances in which in the light of experience it might be considered appropriate to exclude the liability of the
288
owner. When the Bill becomes law, for example, it may make the owner responsible, so far as I can see, for having lent his car to someone who was going abroad. It may be necessary to make provision to cover all possible circumstances not envisaged in the Bill but affecting the liability of the owner.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: see that I guessed right on what the argument was to be. Really I have nothing to say on the majority of it, but there is one point which did not arise on my noble friend's previous Amendment. One of the things I personally very much dislike—and I hope I am speaking on behalf of the Government in this respect—is that there should be either the creation of offences, or indeed the creation of defences to criminal offences, done by Statutory Instrument. That is what is here proposed. It is proposed that further circumstances should be set out by Statutory Instrument which would constitute a defence and which no doubt would be varied and amended. Frankly, I do not like it. I would be with the noble Lord, Lord Airedale. If we are to have some provision which tells the police and the local authorities when not to prosecute, let us have it in the Bill and not in the Statutory Instrument.
I hope in the end, when my noble friend comes to look at my arguments on the last Amendment, he will believe that when a member of the Bar, albeit retired, says "I think", it may not carry very much weight but it is backed by the advice I have had from my officials. They are not without experience in these matters and in what the police do. Therefore, I suggest it is better to leave out all the other circumstances, whether death or other prescribed circumstances. I hope that when he comes to think about it my noble friend and his advisers, who are extremely experienced, will find that the answers I have given in the course of these two short debates are really satisfactory in practice.
LORD GARDINER: I see the difficulties. On the other hand, if everything is left to police practice, one finds that that practice differs enormously all over the country. We ought always to bear in mind that, quite exceptionally, in this country it is the police who prosecute. When Sir Robert Mark says the police are

289
the least powerful police anywhere, that is quite untrue, because we must remember that it is the police who decide whether there is to be a prosecution, who is to be prosecuted and what the charges are and they prosecute. In most countries that is not so; the police do not prosecute. In Scotland the police have never prosecuted anybody. There is the procurator fiscal system, and this Government have now applied that system in Northern Ireland. We go on alone, leaving everything to the police. With so many different police forces, practice must vary very much. We should seriously bear in mind that nobody can really say what the police are going to do, certainly in any particular locality, if the whole thing is left as a matter of discretion to them. Whether people are going to be prosecuted for a criminal offence or not varies so much between different chief constables.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: This is not the first time that I have had short arguments with the noble and learned Lord about whether or not we ought to introduce the procurator fiscal system into England and Wales. When we are talking about parking meters, double yellow lines and minor road traffic offences of that sort, it is not perhaps the most appropriate time to open up this rather wider argument. I can only say this to the noble and learned Lord. Perhaps he will recall the very early days in his distinguished career when occasionally he may have appeared before magistrates. I would appeal also to other members of the Committee who are magistrates. What are the courts actually going to do in the case of a parking ticket offence when the owner is prosecuted because the police have refused to accept the fact that somebody who was named, who they know was driving, is dead and is not there to pay the fine? What is a magistrates' court going to do in practice when the police are so cussed as to insist upon prosecuting the owner in those circumstances? I do not know—the noble Baroness would be very much better qualified than I to say—but it would not altogether surprise me if they were to give an absolute discharge. I should think they would consider that the police were being thoroughly unreasonable.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: If it would assist, I would certainly give him an absolute discharge if he came in front of me at Great Marlborough Street.
EARL HOWE: I hope that when, or if, the Bill becomes an Act I shall not be saying, "I told you so; it should have been included in the Bill." It is probably presumptuous of me even to suggest that. But, having heard what my noble friend feels about it, I am prepared to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?
6.20 p.m.
LORD FOOT: I gave warning that I was going to challenge Clauses Nos. 1 to 5, and may I say by way of two preliminary observations that I regret that the opportunity has not been taken in this Bill of trying to give us a complete code about fixed penalty offences? This is again another example of legislation by reference back to previous legislation. Here in this comparatively limited field of fixed penalty offences it will be necessary, in order to find out what the law is once this Bill becomes an Act, to look not only at this Act but back to Sections 80, 35 and 36 of the 1967 Act. Throughout this Bill there are constant references back to that legislation. Some of the defects in this Bill, and the way it is expressed, could have been avoided if the Government had applied their mind to trying to draw up a complete code of the liability of drivers and owners for these fixed penalty offences. Had they done so, we should not have been in some of the difficulties in which we have already found ourselves in the course of this debate in the interpretation of the words. If the Government had done that we could have looked at the Bill and seen set out the whole code about fixed penalty offences.
I suggest that this debate has already illustrated that, although the object of Clauses 1 to 5 is clear, it appears to have been a matter of great difficulty for the draftsman to put it into clear language. There are still serious defects in the language which has been adopted. So serious is the difficulty in trying to understand what these clauses say that I think the object is already misunderstood, not

291
only by people like myself, but by the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare. He misunderstood it when he was introducing the matter on Second Reading, as did the noble Lord, Lord Champion.
In moving the Second Reading of this Bill the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, dealing with this Part of the Bill, said:
"The Bill preserves the basic liability of a driver. Where an owner is not a driver, it is only in special circumstances that he becomes liable. These are where he cannot persuade a driver to pay, or to sign a statement accepting liability."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15/11/73; col. 820.]
I understand that the noble Lord was speaking with brevity and was compressing the matter. The noble Lord, Lord Champion, seemed to accept that was what the Bill said. He said (col. 829):
"I accept completely the necessity for the purpose behind these clauses, but I wonder whether there is any real need for owners to be relieved of any liability if they are able to furnish the chief officer of the police with the statutory statement of facts as mentioned in the clause."
The suggestion behind both those quotations is that only if an owner who is served with a notice under this clause complies with it by putting in the statuttory statement with all the information which is required in Schedule 1, if he gets the driver to sign it, or certifies that he cannot get the driver to sign it, will he be absolved from all future liability. I suggest that that is not so at all.
The fact of the matter is that an owner can fully comply with the notice requiring him to put in a statutory statement yet still be liable to prosecution. I say that for this reason. First of all, the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, was perfectly right in saying that if the owner and driver are different persons, and the owner who receives the notice can persuade the driver to pay the fixed penalty, that is the end of the matter. I agree about that. But when he suggests that if the owner sends in the requisite statutory declaration filled up as he is asked to do, complying with it in every respect, he is absolved from responsibility, that is far from being the case.
It is not unremarkable that the Minister, in introducing this, should not have understood the effect of Clause 1. If under Clause 5 a person commits, for example, an offence under the Act I was
292
quoting just now, the Road Transport Lighting Act, which prohibits a car being left in certain roads without reflectors, et cetera, and then a fixed penalty notice is served by being attached to that vehicle and it is not complied with, a notice is served under this clause on the owner telling him that he must either pay the fixed penalty, or put in the statutory declaration. Supposing the owner puts in a statutory declaration saying, "I am the owner, so-and-so was the driver, his present address is so-and-so", and he then gets the driver to sign it at the bottom, as required by Schedule 1, he has complied fully with the notice served upon him. But he can still be prosecuted on the following day for the original offence of having caused or committed the vehicle to be left in the road contrary to the provisions of the Lighting Act.
It is provided under subsection (5) that in any proceedings brought against anybody if the defendant has been served with a notice of this kind, and has failed to pay the fixed penalty required, then unless two circumstances are fulfilled there is a conclusive presumption against him that he was the driver of the vehicle on the occasion concerned. The two conditions are that he was not the owner of the vehicle at the time, and he has put in a statutory declaration to that effect. Clearly, if the owner has put in a statutory declaration saying, "I am the owner and somebody else was the driver", he has not complied with those two conditions.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I want to make absolutely certain that I understand the noble Lord's argument. I shall not be able to answer it this evening because I have had no notice of it, and it would be grossly wrong for me to try to tell the Committee the answer without considering it properly. But is the noble Lord taking account of this? The alleged offence specified in the notice is that somebody did leave the car on the double yellow line; not that somebody has caused a car to be left on a double yellow line; that, as I understand it, being a different offence.
LORD FOOT: I am much obliged. If you leave a car on a double yellow line, it becomes an offence in this way: you can be prosecuted under Section 12(1) of the Road Transport Lighting Act 1957

293
for the offence of causing or permitting a vehicle to be left on a road in contravention of the requirements of that Act. When the original notice is served by attaching it to the vehicle, it gives you notice that the offence you have committed, the thing you have done wrong, is to leave the vehicle on a double yellow line. If the authorities later decide to prosecute, they must prosecute under Section 12(1) and they must charge you with allowing the vehicle to be there at that time.
I am sorry that I have been diverted from what I was trying to say. I was trying to show that however well, and however completely, you comply with the requirement for a statutory statement, if you put it in you can still be prosecuted for causing or permitting a vehicle to be left on the double yellow line, and when you come to court on that charge you are conclusively presumed to be the driver of that vehicle although—and this is the absurdity of the thing—the statutory statement that you put in specifically denies that you were the driver of the vehicle. So the law makes an ass of itself under this provision because it asks the court conclusively to presume something which they are told in the statutory statement is not the truth.
The absurdity can be carried further. It is really almost intolerable to ask a court to presume conclusively something to be the fact which they know perfectly well is not the fact at all and is something specifically denied by the person who is being accused. Looking further on in the Bill to Clause 4(4) one finds further difficulties. That clause deals with what can be done with one of these statutory statements where a person is charged with an offence. It provides that where such a statutory statement is put in by an accused person, it shall be presumed, unless there is contrary proof, to have been signed by the accused and—this is important—shall be evidence in the proceedings of any facts stated in it tending to show that the accused was the owner, the hirer or the driver of the vehicle concerned. So in that subsection the court is to have regard to the statutory statement and to accept what it says as evidence; whereas under the other conclusive presumption the court is being asked utterly to disregard and to refuse to accept what the statutory statement says.
294
The final absurdity, I suggest, arises where an owner who is not the driver is charged with the offence of causing or permitting a vehicle to be on the road in contravention of an Act of Parliament and where he wants to challenge it on the facts and to say that no offence was committed at all. If he seeks to bring in support as a witness the actual driver to say, "No; the offence was not committed; I did not leave it there at all", the person who goes into the witness box as the driver and as his witness is a person who cannot go before the court and say, "I was the driver" because the court is required conclusively to presume that it is the owner who was the driver. These are the depths of absurdity into which we have been drawn in these clauses because the Government or the draftsmen have seen fit to resort to this fiction of a conclusive presumption.
What is the basic object of these five clauses? Surely it is quite simple to express it in ordinary language. Surely the object is to ensure that where one of these offences is committed and where the owner and the driver are different persons, if for any reason it is difficult or impossible to catch the driver and to penalise him, then one ought to be able to proceed against the owner. That is a principle to which I have no objection so long as it applies to matters of little moment; to offences of little moment. The principle is then a perfectly reasonable one. But should it be beyond the wit of man and the capacity of the draftsman or the Government to express that general theme in language which does not need to import these absurd conclusive presumptions about things which everybody knows to be manifestly untrue?
I would invite the Government—though this may sound very ambitious—to take these five clauses away to see whether the principle cannot be simply expressed; because the criticism I am making applies to Clause 2, in some measure to Clause 3, and is really a general criticism of all five clauses. Is it too late to ask the Government to take it away to see whether they cannot repeal the provisions of Sections 35, 36 and 80 of the 1967 Act and to bring before us in the first Part of this Bill a complete coverage of the liabilities of owner and driver in fixed penalty offences? Cannot they manage to provide us with words to express what is

295
a very simple intention in English which everybody can understand?
What is required is this. I know it is much easier to outline than to lay down in detail; I understand that. But what is required is merely a statement of the law which says that in certain circumstances—and then one must specify those circumstances and conditions—where normally the penalty would fall upon the driver, the penalty shall in fact be transferred to the owner. That is the principle which we are all endeavouring to incorporate in these clauses. I hope it is not asking too much to ask the noble Viscount to consider that it would be to everybody's benefit to express this more satisfactorily and to incorporate within the compass of the Bill the whole of the code of law relating to fixed penalty offences.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: That is not a plea that is likely to fall on deaf ears on this side of the Committee. I appreciate that this matter is very complicated and when one considers what, at the outset, was a comparatively simple matter and sees what it has turned into, it seems a pity that we have to battle with all these words. I can promise the noble Lord, Lord Foot, that if we can find some method of expressing it more simply we will. We will look very carefully at the way he has put the matter to see whether that can be developed into an alternative method. I am sure that we should like to succeed in this as much as the noble Lord would like us to. I am not sure whether there is an opportunity here to carry out some mini-consolidation. Road traffic Bills spend their lives being consolidated. I think it was done last in 1972, and I think that the Lighting Act was incorporated into that, but I am not quite sure. At any rate, I take the noble Lord's point.
LORD FOOT: I was not suggesting that we should try to go back to the Lighting Act and try to consolidate that at this stage. All I am suggesting should be consolidated are those provisions of the 1967 Act relating to fixed penalty offences and the new provisions incorporated in Clauses 1 to 5 of this Bill.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I was only illustrating the way in which these Road Traffic Acts get consoli-
296
dated. I understood the noble Lord's suggestion. Will the Committee allow me to take this away? Would the noble Lord, Lord Foot, be happy with that? I cannot say, "Yes" or "No" on the basis of what he has said this afternoon. As to his first point, about this or that being absurd or preposterous, again I should like to consider it. I think that the crux of the matter is what is the definition of the offence itself for which there is, first, a fixed penalty provision and, secondly, if you do not pay the penalty, a liability to prosecution. If the offence is leaving a car, say, at a parking meter, I think we are all right. If the only offence is to cause or permit a vehicle to be left at a parking meter, it seems to me that there may be something in what the noble Lord says.
Therefore what I shall have to do is to look at the precise definition of the offences which would be specified in the notice requiring a statement. If they are susceptible only of having been committed by the driver, there is no absurdity. If they are ambiguous, so than the offences could have been committed either by the driver or someone causing or permitting the driver to do so, there is merit in what the noble Lord said. We must look at these to see which is the case. Off the cuff, I do not know. There is a large number of them and I think that we should have to look at each of them. The noble Lord has set me a certain task. If I have not fulfilled it by the next stage of the Bill I shall have to ask to be forgiven. But the noble Lord has done a service by raising these general matters and I am grateful to him.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Hired vehicles]:
6.44 p.m.
LORD STOW HILL LORD STOW HILL moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 7, line 3, leave out from ("prescribed") to ("and") in line 6.
The noble and learned Lord said: This is purely a probing Amendment. Clause 3 relates to the situation in which a car has been hired to a person who

297
wishes to drive it for a vehicle hire firm, and provisions analogous to those contained in the two previous clauses are made applicable to the vehicle hire firm as it is called. When one looks at the definition subsection, namely, subsection (7), one finds a definition of the hiring agreement which is dealt with by the clause. That definition excludes hire-purchase agreements within the Hire-Purchase Act 1965 and the similar Scottish Act from the category of hiring agreements. I should think that the general principles which underlie the reasoning and structure of Clause 3 would be, broadly speaking at any rate, as applicable to the case of a hire purchase agreement as to a simple case of hiring. After all, in the case of the hire purchase agreement the hirer has possession of the vehicle. He drives it and uses it as if it were his own but in law the property in the vehicle remains vested in the hire purchase company until the hirer exercises his option, if he does exercise it, to purchase the vehicle from the hire purchase firm. I should think in those circumstances, if one looks through Clause 3, that the general principles which underlie Clause 3 seem to be applicable also to hire purchase agreements. The object of this Amendment is to ask the Minister why in the definition hire purchase agreements have been excluded. I am not saying that I disagree, but I should like to know the reasoning which underlies the distinction that the Government have made between the two, and for that purpose I have put down this Amendment.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I hope I can explain this to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stow Hill, quite quickly. I think that it is sense. Under a hire purchase agreement it is generally the person who is in the process of buying the vehicle who is registered as the owner and whose name appears on the registration book. In any event, if the noble and learned Lord would be so kind as to look for a moment at Clause 5(2) he will see that there we define the owner of the vehicle as being taken to be the person by whom the vehicle is kept and used. We therefore have the ordinary case of the person who is buying his motor car on hire purchase being, for the purposes of these provisions, the owner. Therefore we want to exclude those circumstances from the special pro-
298
visions which we have agreed for hired cars. Where the hire purchase company is in fact registered as the owner of the vehicle, and where its name appears in the log book, it is almost certainly because it is still in possession of a vehicle for some reason or it has regained the possession of the vehicle. Therefore in those circumstances they would be in the same circumstances as the hire car firm. But in the ordinary case we should have the hirer in the same position as the outright owner of a motor vehicle, and we think it would be right to deal with him as if he were the outright owner of the vehicle under Clauses 1 and 2, and not have the special provision for Clause 3.
We think that the practical aspect of this matter requires us to deal with it in this way. So it would be worth while putting in this express exclusion of the hire purchase Acts under Clause 3, to make quite sure that we do not mean the ordinary hire purchase agreement to be dealt with in this way; and also to make certain that we are not taking powers to prescribe things into hire purchase agreements and into the general hire purchase code. That is why it is there. I hope that, with that explanation, the noble and learned Lord and his noble friends will think that it is right and that the Amendment was a useful probe and extracted the information that was needed.
LORD STOW HILL: I am most grateful to the noble Viscount. His answer has completely satisfied me. With the permission of the Committee I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 [Time for bringing, and evidence in, proceedings for certain offences]:
LORD STOW HILL LORD STOW HILL moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 7, line 11, leave out from ("sufficient") to ("to") in line 12.
The noble and learned Lord said: This Amendment raises more a question of principle than, at any rate, the previous Amendment which I moved. It relates to the wording of subsection (1) of Clause 4 dealing with the period within which prosecutions must be brought.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: If I may interrupt the noble and learned

299
Lord, I think this whole list of Amendments to Clause 4 is really on the same point. Will it be convenient to the Committee if we discuss them together?
LORD STOW HILL: I am obliged to the noble Viscount, and I entirely agree with what he says, although some of the Amendments deal with a slightly different aspect; namely, to leave intact the position relating to Scotland, in which the prosecutor is in effect the Lord Advocate and in consequence can be questioned in Parliament with regard to a decision that he makes on a matter of this sort. The remaining Amendments in this parcel do hang together. My Amendment merely deals with the position in England and Wales where the prosecutor will be either a police officer or a local authority. The relevant wording to which I was referring is wording in subsection (1) which requires that a prosecution by the police or local authority
"may be brought within a period of six months from the date on which evidence sufficient in the opinion of the prosecutor to warrant the proceedings came to his knowledge".
The object of my Amendment is to remove the words which put that matter in the discretion of the prosecutor; in other words, which provide that it is his opinion which is to determine the point of time at which he obtained possession of the necessary information upon which to found proceedings.
When I say that it raises a matter of principle, I really refer to this. Noble Lords in all parts of the Committee will agree, I am sure, that we must always in framing our legislation do everything we can to make it appear to both sides of the fence, as it were, prosecution and defence, that the proceedings are fair. If an accused person, convicted or otherwise, feels that a procedure is an unfair procedure, that does great harm; it brings the law into disrepute, and generates hostility to the administration of the law in general. I am sure I need not emphasise that, because we all agree about it.
Rarely, in my experience, does the question arise as to whether a prosecution of this sort is out of time or not. I can remember only a few cases in which that question has arisen. But
300
now and again, such are human affairs, the issue will arise. Somebody will find that he is being prosecuted nine months after the alleged offence was committed—and I say nine months, but it might be ten, eleven or twelve months. If he complains that the normal period for offences of the type we are considering is a period of six months, he will be told that under the relevant Statute—that is, this Bill when it becomes an Act—it is for the prosecutor to determine when the period of six months is to begin to run. The prosecutor has to ask himself at what point of time does he think, exercising his judgment on the matter, that he had the necessary information to bring proceedings.
Police and local authorities act reasonably, and they use their judgment honestly as best they can. But now and again somebody will make a bad judgment. He will seek to justify that period of nine months from the time of the committing of the offence on grounds which seem to everybody, and in particular to the accused person, utterly unreasonable. But the accused person will have to be told by the court that the court cannot interfere with the opinion of the prosecutor so long as it appears to have been taken bona fide and is not apparently a fraudulent exercise of the discretion; and if the prosecutor thinks he did not get the information until some months after the offence was committed, that is the end of it, and the accused cannot complain. That is the sort of situation which is always bound to engender a great deal of ill-feeling and make the accused person feel that he has been unjustly and unfairly treated. That is the kind of thing that in framing our legislative process we must try to avoid. I know that the noble Viscount feels strongly on these matters, and I am sure he will agree 100 per cent. on that.
It may well be said to me: "Yes; but you really are raising this matter at a very late stage. This language is in the 1972 Act and in the 1967 Act. It is a formula which Parliament has accepted on more than one occasion, and which is, as it were, sanctioned by Parliamentary practice and Parliamentary language. It is now too late to seek to reverse the current and go back to a different form of words." The form of words which I

301
propose instead of those which appear in the Bill is one that would leave it to the court to decide when the prosecutor obtained the necessary information. If the accused person says: "This offence is alleged to have been committed nine months ago", it will be for the court to decide, after hearing an account from the prosecutor, sworn if necessary, at what date it ought to be held by the court, exercising its judicial function, that the prosecutor came into possession of the necessary information. That is, in my opinion, how the Bill should read. If it is said to me: "You are raising this much too late; you should have raised it in 1972 and in previous Acts that you had anything to do with", I would simply say that I plead guilty, but would say in extenuation that this is a very useful tidying-up measure, and the fact that an undesirable form of words —which is the way I would characterise it—has got into our legislation is not a reason why it should stay there permanently and serve as a precedent for further use in subsequent legislation. This is, after all, a tidying-up measure designed to put right a number of things which need to be looked at.
I would respectfully submit that the Committee should consider whether or not we should take this opportunity of getting it right at any rate in this Bill. It would be logical by Amendments to make the necessary changes in the earlier legislation so as to bring earlier legislation into conformity with this Bill. I mentioned the 1972 Act. I should be wholly in favour of that. But at the moment we are dealing with this Bill, and I put this Amendment forward for consideration by the noble Viscount and his colleagues upon the general grounds that it is bad in principle, and this is a good opportunity to put right a form of wording which has gone wrong and which can now and again lead to a feeling of serious injustice which we ought to avoid.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: One thing I can quite confidently say is that the noble and learned Lord could not have taken this point on the 1972 Act, because it was a consolidation Act. I just wonder—and I have not been through the process—whether there was not a period when he was an ornament of the Government of the day, when this
302
formula was used, perhaps in the 1967 Act. But I do not want to press that too far. The truth of the matter is that the noble Lord is quite right in saying that it is now hallowed by a certain amount of good, hard use.
We have to remember what we are dealing with here. We are dealing, with two subsections of earlier clauses which relate to what is in fact dishonesty. I believe that this was a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Foot. We are looking at somebody furnishing a statement as to who was driving the vehicle at the time, knowing the information to be false; and so we are in the general area of dishonesty in filling up forms to do with motor cars. There are many such provisions in the Road Traffic Act and the noble Lord, quite rightly, says that we have got them all in the 1972 Act, in Section 180. It applies to such things as giving false information, forging licences, certificates of insurance or other driving documents, making false statements or withholding information to get such documents issued. That is the kind of general area which is covered by the very same form of words in Section 180 of the 1972 Act, which picks up all these things that have been created over a period of time, and they are put together in that Act.
I entirely agree that one does not want to do anything that is unfair. I would suppose that probably people have been prosecuted for this sort of dishonest offence from time to time, in which case the prosecution would have used their judgment as to whether they had sufficient evidence or not; and one would expect, if they had been doing so unfairly or in some monstrous way that caused great injustice, to have received representations from people or to have had information suggesting that there was here an improper piece of law and one that was being abused by prosecuting authorities which were not so strictly controlled as those in Scotland.
All I can say to the Committee is that this is really a matter of judgment. There are these offences where the prosecution have been entitled to say when they have had sufficient evidence—because it stands to reason that you do not always find out at once when someone has made a false statement or committed a forgery. We have had these things on the Statute

303
Book for a long time, and so far as I know they are not said to have caused very terrible injustice or to have been made the subject of abuse. A very similar application is here being introduced into road traffic legislation, and therefore we have used the same formula. I think it would probably be a mistake —and the noble Lord really covered this in his speech—to have a different formula for these two small offences of dishonesty from that which applies overall elsewhere. That would really cause trouble, and we would have cases in front of the Divisional Court, and all sorts of things like that.
I await to be convinced on other than the theoretical level that we really have got something here which is of genuine concern right across the field in road traffic law and which we ought to change. I do not know that I can do better than that. So far as I know, this seems to have stood the test of time. I am open to be persuaded that it is wrong and that there have been abuses; and I would ask people, if they know about them, to be so kind as to tell me. If any noble Lords have information of this kind I shall be very glad to hear about it and to look into any instances there may be. But as at present advised, I suggest that we ought to stick to the formula which does apply overall to the rest of this kind of offence in the Road Traffic Act. If that is so, then I would prefer the Bill to be left as it is.
LORD STOW HILL: Again, I am very grateful for the answer of the noble Viscount. It is a matter of judgment; it is a matter of balance. As I indicated when moving the Amendment, it is a bit late to 'change it now. I would feel that the Light course, which I shall follow, would be to ask the permission of the Committee to withdraw the Amendment, having raised it with the Government. I know that the noble Viscount, without his having said so, will give thought to it, and while on balance he may not be able to change what he said, nevertheless I should like to leave it like that, with that thought in his mind.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: Before the noble Lord does withdraw his Amendment, might I just repeat that if
304
noble Lords who are themselves magistrates or who have connections with them —such people as my noble friend Lord Howe, for instance, with his connection with motoring authorities—know of cases where this has gone wrong, I hope they will please let me know because I genuinely would like to hear of any such cases.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.5 p.m.
EARL HOWE EARL HOWE moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 8, line 7, at end insert—
("(6) The conviction of a vehicle owner for an offence in respect of which he is presumed to have been the driver of the vehicle at the relevant time shall not be mentioned in any other subsequent court proceedings in respect of other alleged offences.")
The noble Earl said: I think that probably the end of Clause 4 is the proper place to insert this Amendment, and I am hoping that my noble friend will be able to tell me that this is implicit in the Bill. The object of this Amendment is to protect the motor vehicle owner or the fleet owner—or even a husband—from having his record prejudiced because of offences for which he was liable though they may not have been actually committed by him. Clearly it would seem to be unjust to allow an owner's record to be prejudiced by the inclusion of such offences, for which he is in no way responsible. Owners of large fleets of vehicles —and I expect that many of your Lordships have met this kind of thing yourselves—might be extremely vulnerable in this respect. I should like some assurance that this will not happen. I beg to move.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: All I can say is thank goodness the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, does not happen to be in his place at this moment!—because this is the sort of thing we were discussing under his own Bill: to erase the records of previous offences after a certain period. My noble friend has touched upon something which is really very much bigger than the specific issue in the Amendment—in fact, it is so big that we spent a great deal of last summer talking about it. I must frankly tell your Lordships that I do not think the Government would welcome a specific legislative provision of this sort in this Bill. It would really have to be dealt

305
with, if it were to be dealt with in a Statute at all, in a much broader way across a much wider area. My noble friend may not have followed all the discussion that took place on the Bill during last summer, but it was quite a formidable affair in which I was heavily engaged for many a long hour—with great interest, I might add. But the practical side is fairly simple; that is, whether or not it is a good idea, I do not think these kinds of offences get entered on anybody's record. They just do not get put down at all. Therefore there is no need for this in practice, because nobody would have them on his record at all.
EARL HOWE: Again, the word "think" worries me. At any rate, there is some assurance there that this will not go down as a record of past offences. With that assurance, I am prepared to ask leave to withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 4 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD FOOT: May I ask the Minister just one question? This clause deals, among other things, with time limits for prosecution. Subsection (1) deals with that, but only in relation to offences related to false statements. May I ask the Minister this: if a person is prosecuted under subsection (4) of Clause 1 for failing to comply with a notice, what is the time limit for the prosecution of that offence? Is it the ordinary six months? If so, from what date does the six months' period begin to run? I take it that it would begin to run from the date on which the notice to put in a statutory statement expires. I wonder whether the noble Lord could answer that question.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: That is what I understand to be the case. I cannot see anything to the contrary. It is a summary offence with a £100 fine. The ordinary six months would apply; and I cannot see any other date on which it could start other than the date of failing to comply, which is when the time, extended back, expires.
LORD FOOT: I am much obliged to the noble Viscount.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 [Provisions supplementary to sections 1 to 4 and Schedule 1]:
7.20 p.m.
LORD STOW HILL LORD STOW HILL moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 8, line 24, leave out from ("person") to end of line 26 and insert (`who at the relevant time was using or in physical control or in a position to take or exercise physical control over the vehicle in relation to which the alleged offence was committed").
The noble Lord said: This is an Amendment which is designed to suggest, at any rate for consideration, a rather more satisfactory definition of the "driver"—more satisfactory than the two definitions contained in Clause 5. My Amendment is described as an Amendment to line 24, but it is designed to be an Amendment to the two limbs of the definition; and perhaps, if I may shortly do so, the Committee will allow me to speak to both limbs of the definition.
The first limb, in paragraph (a), relates to offences specified in Section 80 of the 1967 Act. They are offences which will largely take place when a vehicle is parked or left unattended. The second limb relates to offences under Sections 35 and 36 of the 1967 Act. Again, those offences will often, and indeed perhaps generally, relate to a situation where a car has been left parked. I shall not read out the two definitions—they are contained in the wording of the Bill, on page 8—buit what I submit will be more satisfactory than those two definitions is a definition which better describes what one is really aiming at. I should have thought that when one is considering a parked car and one is asking who, in relation to the car, committed an offence in so leaving it, or in leaving it in a particular condition or situation, it is the person who is in a position to take charge of it and drive it away. I do not mean drive it away by stealing it, but the person who lawfully can again take control of that car.
If one looks at the second limb of the definition in the Bill, the driver is said to be:
"the person driving the vehicle at the time it was left in the parking place concerned".
A husband might have driven it to the parking place, gone off, and handed the key or control to his wife; she might

307
come back, say, a quarter of an hour or half an hour later, and get into the car. The definition which I have sought to import into the Bill would in that particular situation describe the wife. The husband no longer being in control, the wife would have assumed control, and she would be the person who would be guilty of the offence if an offence was being committed in relation to the parked car. I submit that that is a more satisfactory definition of both limbs of the definition. The first limb has a curious metaphysical quality about it which needs rather an exercise of thought. The definition there relates to,
"the person by whom, assuming the alleged offence to have been committed, it was committed'.
That rather goes back to one's studies of Kant's Critique of Pure Reason in the old days, I think. How one assumes that an offence is committed unless one knows the driver who committed it, I do not know. So I would submit that in any event that is a good bit too abstruse.
We are dealing with a criminal provision here, and we should aim at simple language. I submit for the consideration of the Committee that the language I suggest in the Amendment I am moving is simple and describes what you are trying to describe. It relates to the person who can immediately, or in a period of time, lawfully take control of the vehicle about which one is speaking. That is the person who, in terms of this clause, surely, is contemplated as the driver, and that is the person who in my submission is described in the Amendment which I suggest. I beg to move.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I do not want to tempt the noble Lord, Lord Foot, to intervene in opposition to the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, but I think the effect of this Amendment would be to make the noble Lord, Lord Foot, writhe in agony—at least, it will do when I explain what that effect will be. Because what the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, has done is to suggest to us that we should have two new definitions of the word "driver". It is perfectly true that the word "driver", where it relates to the fixed penalty offences, is used in a context where, of course, the fixed penalty offences are created under
308
another Act; and I must tell the Committee quite honestly that in that context, under the other Act, there is not a very clear definition of the word "driver". But there is one which, if you look at it and construe it, and try to put it into the context of this Bill, comes out looking something like paragraph (a) in Clause 5(1). At any rate, there is no inconsistency with the use of the word "driver" where it relates to fixed penalties in the substantive legislation and the definition we have here, whereas there would be very grave inconsistencies if we adopted the noble Lord's definition.
When we come on to excess charges, in paragraph (b), the definition that we have used is exactly the same as that in, I think, Section 42(2) of the 1967 Act, where the whole question of excess charges is dealt with and "driver" is specifically defined. I do not think that, for the purposes of actually committing an offence in relation to an excess charge offence, we can have a driver defined under Section 42 of the 1967 Act in one way and, when you are dealing with what happens afterwards if he does not pay the fine, have the driver defined in a totally different way under this Bill. Certainly the possibilities of several people being prosecuted for the same thing, quite apart from the owner and driver situation—you might have several drivers being brought in as well—becomes very complicated indeed, and I think it would be wrong to have a contradictory definition in this Bill where we are really tacking something on to the excess charge arrangements under the 1967 Act.
By analogy, I would argue that since we really must define "driver" in this Bill because of the reference to excess charges—and this takes one back to the definition in the 1967 Act—then we have also to define "driver" for the purpose of fixed penalties, even though we have had to do so in a slightly ingenious way, by derivation from the provisions in the other Act, where fixed penalties are dealt with. We must have a definition for this half as well, and therefore we have tried to make one which is consistent with the parent provisions about fixed penalties. That is why we have done it in this way; and I think that to depart from it in any way at all, how ever ingenious and cunning the noble Lord's Amendment might

309
be, would cause such appalling difficulties, and would lead us to have to amend the definitions in the two parent Acts, that it would be better to leave things alone.
I did ask my advisers about husbands and wives, one of whom put the car on the parking meter and the other of whom did not come back in time, and I was told that this was thought of in 1967 and that it was the husband who left the car on the parking meter who was held to be the driver. Somebody, I suppose, has to choose, and that is the way we have it at the moment. It may be very hard on him because it was his wife who was late, but there we are, and that is the way we have continued to handle it under this Bill. I am sorry to disappoint the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, but I think he will see that there is an almost insuperable argument for consistency in dealing with it in this way.
LORD STOW HILL: I am grateful to the noble Viscount. I agree that that is a very serious difficulty, and it would be difficult to have two different definitions relating to what is the same pattern of offence. If I may have the permission of the Committee to withdraw the Amendment, I beg leave to withdraw.
LORD AIREDALE: The noble Lord drew attention to the ungainly words:
310
"the person by whom, assuming the alleged offence to have been committed, it was committed".
Will the Minister consider substituting these words:
"the person whose acts or omissions amount to an alleged offence"?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: Yes; I always consider the suggestions of the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, about better use of the English language. He often gets it better than other people. I am not absolutely certain that he has this time, but I should like to see his suggestion in print.
LORD AIREDALE: I suggest:
"the person whose acts or omissions are alleged to amount to an offence".
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 agreed to.
LORD ABERDARE: As we are now moving on to a quite different section of the Bill this might be a convenient moment to resume the House. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved, That the House do now resume. —(Lord Aberdare.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at twenty-three minutes past seven o'clock.