Sitting of 29 January 1974

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock.
MR. SPEAKER'S ABSENCE
The House being met, the Clerk at the Table informed the House of the unavoidable absence, through illness, of Mr. SPEAKER from this day's sitting.
Whereupon Sir ROBERT GRANT-FERRIS, The CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS, proceeded to the Table, and, after Prayers, took the Chair as DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to the Standing Order.

PRIVATE BUSINESS

  HARWICH HARBOUR BILL [Lords]
  [Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.]
  Read the Third time and passed, with amendments.

  ASHDOWN FOREST BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time tomorrow.

  BRITISH RAILWAYS BILL
  Order for Second Reading Read.
  To be read a Second time tomorrow.

  BRITISH TRANSPORT DOCKS BILL
  Read a Second time and committed.
  BRITISH WATERWAYS BILL
  Read a Second time and committed.

  BURMAH-TOTAL REFINERIES TRUST BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time tomorrow.

  CLIFTON SUSPENSION BRIDGE BILL
  Order for Second Reading read. To be read a Second time tomorrow.

  GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time tomorrow.

  LONDON TRANSPORT BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time tomorrow.

  MERSEYSIDE METROPOLITAN RAILWAY BILL
  Read a Second time and committed.
  MORPETH COMMON BILL
  Read a Second time and committed.
  OLD LONDON ROAD, HYTHE BURIAL GROUND BILL
  Read a Second time and committed.

  SPANISH AND PORTUGUESE JEWS' (GOLDERS GREEN) BURIAL GROUND BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time tomorrow.

  THURROCK DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL
  Read a Second time and committed.

  UNIVERSITY OF BRISTOL BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time tomorrow.

  WORKINGTON HARBOUR BILL
  Read a Second time and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
PRAYERS

  Hertfordshire and Essex General Hospital
  Sir D. Walker-Smith: I beg respectfully to submit to the House the petition of the urban district council of the old and honoured town of Bishop's Stortford in Hertfordshire. The petition refers to the decision of the Secretary of State for Social Services to close the maternity unit at the Hertfordshire and Essex General Hospital and to transfer its services to Harlow.
  The petition states in clear and cogent terms the council's apprehensions as to the injurious effect that this may have on hospital services in the locality, for both patients and staff. It goes on to refer to the inadequacy of the statistical information on which the decision was based, the support of medical opinion for the retention of the unit, and the presentation of a petition to the Secretary of State signed by 26,349 people in the locality.
  The petition concludes:
  "Wherefore your Petitioner prays that your honourable House do require the Secretary of State to revoke his decision and allow the matter to be reconsidered by the area health authority for Hertfordshire following the reorganisation of the National Health Service on 1st April 1974.
  And your Petitioner, as in duty bound, will ever pray."
  To lie upon the Table.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

    Teachers (London Allowance)
    Mr. Deakinsasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she will now agree to meet London teachers to discuss the London teachers' allowance.
    The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): I discussed the London area payment with a deputation from the National Union of Teachers on 7th January. My noble Friend met representatives of the London Head Teachers' Association on 16th January.
    Mr. Deakins: In view of the growing deterioration of the education service in Greater London caused by the inadequate London allowance and the recent report from the Family Expenditure Survey showing that the average cost of living for a family in Greater London is at least £7 a week higher than it is in the rest of the country, will the Secretary of State do two things? First, will she urge the Pay Board to speed up its report as a matter of extreme urgency? Secondly, will she emphasise to the board that the new London allowance needs to be at least quadrupled if there is to be a fair deal for London teachers and London children?
    Mrs. Thatcher: My understanding of the position in inner London is that there are more teachers this term than there were last term, although there are, unfortunately, more schools on part time. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment has, I believe, conveyed to the Pay Board that we are anxious to receive its report as quickly as possible, but we recognise that it has been asked to do quite a big job, and we hope that it will do it thoroughly.
    Mr. Molloy: Is the right hon. Lady aware that there is a feeling of desperation in the Greater London area about the exodus of teachers? It has been pointed out that young teachers wishing to buy a house in which to live, in a place from which they can get to school

    221
    to teach the children, have to find £4,000–£5,000 more than they would if they were teaching in the provinces, and the Department's contribution to that sum in London weighting is £118? Will the right hon. Lady examine the problem, treating it with the urgency it requires?
    Mrs. Thatcher: I agree that there is a much higher turnover of teachers in London than is usually found elsewhere, but it is not a straight problem of numbers. There has not been an exodus, because there are more teachers than there were last term. I am particularly aware of the housing problem. We have done a survey in the Department into what separate local authorities are prepared to do to help teachers and other employees in their service. The list is quite impressive.

    Handicapped Persons
    3. Mr. Dormandasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when the inquiry into the education of the handicapped is expected to begin.
    Mrs. Thatcher: After Easter.
    Mr. Dormand: Is the right hon. Lady aware that her acceptance of the need for such an inquiry was long overdue? In the circumstances, will she see that the report is issued and acted upon at the earliest possible moment, and give an assurance that the inquiry will not be used as an excuse for not increasing resources for a special education between now and the issue of the committee's report?
    Mrs. Thatcher: I have steadily increased the resources for special education, and I protected them during the recent cuts. I shall go on doing the best I can for the handicapped, who need that type of education. We have just announced the chairman of the special inquiry, Mrs. Mary Warnock, although other members have not yet been appointed. It is a little early to talk about receiving the report and about action upon it, when work has not yet started.
    Mr. Alfred Morris: To help the committee of inquiry, will the right hon. Lady liaise with the Secretary of State for Social Services to establish the incidence of various kinds of severe disablement among children? Will it not make it very difficult for the inquiry if it has to guesstimate the numbers of children involved?
    Mrs. Thatcher: I think that such an inquiry will ask for any information it needs to enable it to do its job well, and we shall do our best to find the information.
    Mr. Ashley: Is the right hon. Lady aware that, while there is an urgent need to inquire into the education of all disabled children, there are specific categories of disability, such as deafness and blindness, in which the children are particularly discriminated against and find it particularly difficult to catch up? Will she consult the Royal National Institute for the Deaf and the Royal National Institute for the Blind to make sure that their case is carefully considered?
    Mrs. Thatcher: I have already met representatives of the deaf, who put to me the point the hon. Gentleman has put, that those whom they represent, though small in number, should have special consideration, often because their disability is not obvious. I have taken that point, and hope to take it into account in the choice of those whom I appoint to the inquiry.

    School Building
    4. Mr. Boydenasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science which school buildings have been deleted from the 1974–75 and 1975–76 building programmes of the Durham County Council in South-West Durham as a result of the Government's economy measures.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Timothy Raison): One project in the 1974–75 programme, the replacement of All Saints Church of England Primary School at Shildon.
    Mr. Boyden: That reply will be received with great regret. As Ministers yesterday put so much stress on the cuts not being financial but being to save fuel and energy, will the Secretary of State consult the building industry and ascertain that building uses very little energy compared with manufacturing? If building is planned over the long days, and if maximum effort is put in, there need be far fewer cuts than the Government have made. Will the Minister consider that point?
    Mr. Raison: I cannot accept that the building of schools and the construction

    223
    of the materials which go into them use very little energy.
    Mr. Roy Hughesasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many representations she has received from local authorities protesting about the Chancellor of the Exchequer's cuts in expenditure and their effect on new school building; what reply she has given; and if she will make a statement.
    Mrs. Thatcher: I have received no such representations.
    Mr. Hughes: Is the right hon. Lady aware that Wales has hundreds of schools which are over a century old and which badly need replacing? Does she agree that deprivation at an early age cannot be rectified later? Does she not further agree that it is not right that children in Newport or elsewhere should pay for the failures of this Government?
    Mrs. Thatcher: Of course there are a number of old schools which still need replacing, as there were during the previous Government and the Government before that. We know that there will continue to be old buildings in education and other areas of the public service for some time. That is why I made this a top priority during the earlier part of my time as Minister. I very much regret that I have had to suspend the programme for the time being.
    Mr. R. C. Mitchell: Is the right hon. Lady aware that some local authorities are ignoring the recommendations of her circular seeking to maintain the nursery school building programme? Is she aware that the Hampshire Education Committee has now decided to eliminate the whole of its 1974–75 nursery school building programme, involving 24 projects which she had already approved? What does the right hon. Lady intend doing about it?
    Mrs. Thatcher: I hope that local authorities will not ignore this. If, however, a local authority does not take up its nursery programme allocation, that allocation is offered elsewhere. That is the usual rule for school building allocations for which there is a discretion. We shall find that the programme is taken up. I realise that that may not be much consolation to the hon. Member in Hampshire but it may well be some consolation
    224
    to other authorities anxious to do more than their allocation permits.

    Authors (Public Lending Rights)
    Mr. Hugh Jenkinsasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she will introduce legislation on public lending rights to provide authors with additional remuneration related to the library use of their books and ensure that the cost does not fall on borrowers or on local government funds.
    The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas): As I said in the reply I gave to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Mr. Jeffrey Archer on 18th January—[Vol. 867, c. 181.]—my right hon. Friend and I are impressed by the arguments for seeking to recompense authors for the use of their works through public libraries, but there are difficult practical problems which we are studying urgently. The Government have no intention of financing any possible scheme by a direct charge on library borrowers.
    Mr. Jenkins: I am grateful to the Minister for the latter point. In his consideration, will he bear in mind the necessity to meet the cost from central Government funds and the desirability that payments should be made on a rate per loan basis, and should be payable to all living authors?
    Mr. St. John-Stevas: I shall bear both those points in mind. The main practical problem I must face is to devise a scheme which will be simple to operate and will not consume in administration most of the resources which might be made available, at a time of severe economic crisis.
    Mr. Faulds: Will the hon. Gentleman ensure that he is not seduced by the arguments of the Society of Authors, which is arguing for what is in fact a purchase right and which has totally abandoned the real intention of a public lending right?
    Mr. St. John-Stevas: I must pay full account to the views of the society. I shall also pay attention to the views of the Writers Action Group. I hope that I shall be seduced by neither.
    Mr. Sydney Chapman: Why has my hon. Friend necessarily ruled out the suggestion that borrowers should pay

    225
    something indirectly towards the authors whose books they borrow?
    Mr. St. John-Stevas: To go from museum charges to library charges would be to go out of the frying pan into the fire.
    Mr. Strauss: Has the Minister yet met the representatives of the Society of Authors and the Writers Action Group, both of which have strong claims to put forward and feel very keenly about them? Has he tried to get them to agree on a workable scheme, and if so, with what result?
    Mr. St. John-Stevas: I have met them, and have had long conversations with both. I have'tried to get them together to agree. I have not yet succeeded, but I live in hope.

    Sixth Form Colleges
    Mr. Dykesasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what study has been made by her Department on the special problems affecting sixth form ("junior") colleges in local reorganisation schemes in England and Wales.
    Mr. Raison: My Department and Her Majesty's inspectors are keeping under review the development of sixth form colleges in England.
    Mr. Dykes: As they are still very new animals, having been going for a year or two in most areas, will my hon. Friend undertake to consider the possibility of a formal study? There are many problems relating to these institutions, not least questions of curricula, preparation for university, their examination successes, and so on.
    Mr. Raison: There are now 31 sixth form colleges, and a further 37 have been approved. My Department and I will follow closely the success or otherwise of the colleges. If a special inquiry should seem to be necessary, we would set one up, but I believe that for the moment we have adequate means of looking at the matter.
    Mr. Cant: As a member of the new Staffordshire County Education Committee and Chairman of the Stoke Education Committee, which built the first sixth form college in this country, may I ask the Minister to ask his right
    226
    hon. Friend to defer a decision on the comprehensive school arrangements for Staffordshire county until the new district of Newcastle-under-Lyme and Kidsgrove has had a full opportunity to give its thoughts on the proposals being put forward for comprehensive education?
    Mr. Raison: I shall bear that point in mind and write to the hon. Gentleman about it.
    Mr. R. C. Mitchell: How many of the secondary colleges to which the hon. Gentleman referred are open-access colleges?
    Mr. Raison: I do not have that figure with me, but I shall write to the hon. Gentleman.

    School Transport
    Mr. Martenasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she will make a statement on school transport, in view of her departmental inquiry.
    Dr. John A. Cunninghamasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what reactions she has received from local authorities on the report of the working party on school transport; when she expects to be able to say what she will be recommending; and if she will make a statement.
    Dr. Marshallasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when she expects to be able to announce her policy in respect of legislation concerning school transport.
    Mr. Madelasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether she can yet announce plans for altering the rules and regulations concerning school transport, following the recent publication on school transport from her department.
    Mrs. Thatcher: As I told my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. John E. B. Hill) on 18th December.—[Vol. 866, c. 289]—I shall be consulting the local authority associations about the working party's report. When I have received and considered its views I will make a statement.
    Mr. Marten: Did not the inquiry consult the local authorities in the first

    227
    place? Am I right in assuming that, because it was a departmental report and, therefore, all the information is within the Department, there will not be much delay in coming to a decision? Does my right hon. Friend recognise that that is important because of the anxiety in rural areas, where people are worried about school transport?
    Mrs. Thatcher: That is not quite right. The fact that some people who are employed by us on a working party happen to be from local education authorities does not mean that the local authorities are bound in any way by what came out in the report. I shall be a little surprised if the proposals in the report meet with universal agreement, because they are so far-reaching.
    Dr. Cunningham: Does the Secretary of State accept that the situation is becoming more urgent almost daily, and that many people in rural areas in my constituency are now paying several pounds a week to send their children to school? That is an intolerable burden on family incomes. Does the right hon. Lady agree that quick action is necessary?
    Mrs. Thatcher: The proposals in the report mean that some people may well pay less for their children to go to school and that some may well pay a good deal more if they avail themselves of public transport. We shall have to have widespread consultation before arriving at a decision about proposals to lay before the House.
    Mr. Madel: As secondary school reorganisation has a bearing on the report, will my right hon. Friend agree to shorten the three-mile limit as an interim measure before we finally decide what to do?
    Mrs. Thatcher: I should prefer not to make any legislative changes of that kind. As my hon. Friend knows, if a local education authority wishes to provide free transport within the three-mile limit it has full discretion to do so. For the time being it would be better to leave that matter to the judgment of local authorities.
    Dr. Marshall: Will the right hon. Lady accept that my constituents in Old Goole, where some children were killed on their
    228
    way to school, regard this subject as extremely urgent? It is now nearly two years since the working party was established. My constituents want new legislation now, without any increase in their financial burden.
    Mrs. Thatcher: I have been very much aware of that case. It was one of the safety cases rather than one of the distance cases. I hope that we shall commence consultation by the end of next week or the week after. That will be consultation on a completely open basis. We shall not have any specific proposals in mind. We shall wish to know what the local authorities think.
    Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: Does my right hon. Friend recall that many children in my constituency have to walk along busy main roads and that they are extremely worried about the problem? Will she consider Chapter 5, paragraph 37 of the report, which deals with the relationship between the walking distance and the safety factor?
    Mrs. Thatcher: I shall look at that paragraph. I think that there is widespread agreement that people would like something to be done, but there is not a great deal of agreement about precisely what they would like to be done. That is why we have to undertake consultation.
    Mr. Beith: Will the right hon. Lady bear in mind school transport implications in terms of the cost and hardship which is caused by the closure of primary schools and some parts of secondary reorganisation which involve long distances from home to school?
    Mrs. Thatcher: Yes. Both those factors are taken into account before we reach decisions on the closure or keeping open of village primary schools.

    Part-time Education
    Mr. Thomas Coxasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the number of schools in the Greater London Council area at which part-time schooling is taking place.
    Mr. Raison: Out of nearly 3,000 schools, I am told by the local education authorities that, at about 22nd January, 122 were offering fewer than their normal school hours.
    Mr. Cox: I note the Minister's deplorable reply. Is he aware that those figures do not give a clear indication of what is taking place? In my constituency several hundred children are now on part-time education. That is something which has been unheard of for many years. It is a direct result of the Minister's policy towards London education. Will the hon. Gentleman or his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State have the courage to come into my constituency to meet the local parents and to explain to them why their children are on part-time education? They will not accept it for much longer.
    Mr. Raison: I urge hon. Members from London constituencies to back the Inner London Education Authority and its education officer in not supporting industrial action by the teachers.
    Mr. Arthur Lewis: Will the Minister state to what extent part-time education is taking place because of the shortage of teachers and the shortage of schools, and to what extent the announced cuts will assist or exacerbate the present situation?
    Mr. Raison: The problem, as I have just said, is that some of the teachers' unions have decided to take industrial action to support their claim for a larger London allowance. Nobody denies that there are serious problems affecting teachers in London. I must reiterate that we do not believe that industrial action is the right way to proceed. The December cuts have not altered the situation.
    Mr. Freeson: Does the Minister agree that his references to strike action by one side or another is a red herring? Is he aware that school closures, or partial closures, were taking place before there was any talk of strike action? Will he bear in mind that it has now reached the stage when handicapped children in my borough are being affected? There is a virtually brand new school under threat of partial closure because of the movement of teachers in and out of the district and the net shortage of teachers for such schools.
    Mr. Raison: I regret the consequences of this action. I must reiterate that it is industrial action. The National Union of Teachers has made that clear.
    Mr. Hattersley: If part-time working in London is a result of industrial action, why is there only part-time education in counties such as Essex, where there is no industrial action?
    Mr. Raison: The damage being done in London is in support of the NUT claim. I recommend Labour hon. Members to look at the NUT's journal. This is a consequence of industrial action which is designed to lead to an increase in the London allowance.

    Student Grants
    Mr. Sydney Chapmanasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she can yet say whether she intends to make any changes in the criteria governing the assessment of grants to students, with particular reference to parental income and students who marry.
    Mr. Dalyellasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she will now make a further statement on the level of student grants.
    Mr. Raison: My right hon. Friend expects to announce the results of the current review of student grants, including any changes in the parental contribution and the married woman's rate of grant, in the spring.
    Mr. Chapman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. Will he ask his right hon. Friend to pay particular attention, before making a statement, to two categories, namely, those students who have been separated from their parents in quite tragic circumstances before starting courses and who are at a disadvantage because their grant would have been based upon their parents' income, and, secondly, women students who are married to low-income non-student husbands who, by any criteria of discrimination, are at a disadvantage compared with their contemporaries?
    Mr. Raison: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will take note of my hon. Friend's point.
    Mr. Elystan Morgan: The Minister has referred to the publication of a report in the spring. In view of the grave hardship suffered by so many students and of the anomalies which exist regarding students' grants, of which those Members who have colleges in their constituencies

    231
    are well aware, will he do everything possible to accelerate the publication of the report?
    Mr. Raison: We are anxious to push ahead but it is a complicated matter. We have received two of the three special reports dealing with the facts of the situation and it is now possible to make some headway with our deliberations.
    Mr. Marten: As the age of 18 is now, for all intents and purposes, the age of majority, why should parental income be considered after a student reaches the age of 18?
    Mr. Raison: That point of view is held by many people. I must point out that substantial sums of money are at stake.
    Mr. George Cunningham: Does the Minister agree that it is grossly unfair that parental income for these purposes should be considered net of mortgage repayments but never net of any rent rebates? I understand the administrative convenience of the arrangement, but will the Minister consider the position which, on the surface, is completely illogical?
    Mr. Raison: I am doubtful whether we can meet the hon. Gentleman, but I shall bear his point in mind.
    Mr. Wintertonasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether she will amend the regulations covering special equipment grants to enable a student following an architecture degree or ARIBA diploma course to be eligible for such a grant.
    Mr. Raison: These students are already eligible for a special equipment grant of up to £20 per annum. The level of this grant is under consideration as part of the general review of student grants.
    Mr. Winterton: Does my hon. Friend agree that although certain students are eligible for the equipment grant other students requiring the same equipment for the courses which they are taking are not eligible for it? This is a very unjust situation. Will my hon. Friend give serious consideration to this point in the review which is taking place?
    Mr. Raison: I assure my hon. Friend that this matter is being considered in the current review.

    School Milk
    Mr. Barry Jonesasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what consideration she has given to the reintroduction of free milk in State primary schools.
    Mrs. Thatcher: Free milk is already provided for all children under the age of 7, all children in special schools, and for any other children of primary school age who are considered by a school medical officer to need it on grounds of health. This safeguards all children who may be at risk nutritionally.
    Mr. Jones: Taking into account last year's massive inflation in food prices and this year's prediction of declining living standards for all of us, do not the Government feel compelled to think again on this issue?
    Mrs. Thatcher: The increase in food prices was very much taken into account when we decided to keep the price of a school meal at 12p instead of increasing it.
    Mr. Carter-Jones: Will the right hon. Lady accept that she has a scheme for monitoring the adverse effects of the withdrawal of milk? Is it not true to say that sometimes when it is found that the withdrawal of milk is having an adverse effect it is too late to remedy the situation?
    Mrs. Thatcher: That is why we arranged that school milk should be given to any child who needs it nutritionally. The hon. Gentleman is right in thinking that the Committee on the Medical Aspects of Food Policy does monitor the effects, if any, of the withdrawal of free school milk.

    Truancy
    Mr. Greville Jannerasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when she expects to be able to publish the results of her survey into truancy.
    Mrs. Thatcher: I hope that the results of our various lines of inquiry will become available about the middle of the year.
    Mr. Janner: Does the right hon. Lady agree that truancy is a massive problem which commences in the primary school?

    233
    Will she please assure the House that the terms of reference of her inquiries will be sufficiently wide to enable her to cover primary as well as secondary schools?
    Mrs. Thatcher: On the statistical exercise we are carrying out—the forms have just gone out to the schools and should have been filled upon a day last week—we have confined the inquiries to middle and secondary schools because we think the problems are much worse there. We did this because it restricts the amount of statistics with which we have to deal and also because it restricts the number of forms with which head teachers have to deal. I think it is right that we deal with the most urgent aspect of the problem first.

    Teacher-Pupil Ratio
    13. Mr. David Steelasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether she will now increase efforts to improve the teacher-pupil ratio in United Kingdom schools.
    Mrs. Thatcher: My right hon. Friends and I are aiming at a continuing steady improvement in the maintained schools.
    Mr. Steel: The right hon. Lady was quoted last night as urging the invitation into schools of retired teachers and other visitors who presumably would help in some non-teaching capacity. Does she agree that some such alternative, although it might be a short-term help, is no substitute for increasing teacher supply?
    Mrs. Thatcher: I also pointed out yesterday that this year we had had an increase of over 22,000 teachers net, which was more than we expected. We had expected a figure of 20,000. I also pointed out that the increase last year was more than the 18,000 that had been calculated. Extra teachers are coming in considerable numbers. The difficulty to which I referred was of children being sent home early. I thought it far better to get in someone to supervise them.
    Mr. Hattersley: Will the right hon. Lady answer one of the questions she would not answer yesterday? What is her opinion of local authorities which are responding to her cuts in the education budget by abandoning plans to recruit extra teachers next year?
    Mrs. Thatcher: I thought I had made it quite clear, by repeating the Chancellor's statement, that the cuts were not meant to go to staffing costs at all. As the hon. Gentleman knows, I have no absolute control over local authorities and cannot override their decisions. I hope that they will employ available teachers.
    Mr. Hattersley: Irrespective of where the local authorities want the cuts to go, is the right hon. Lady aware that we now have a good deal of evidence that they are not going to increase teaching staffs? Is she aware that we have evidence that authorities which would have employed more teachers in September will not do so? What is her advice to them?
    Mrs. Thatcher: I have repeated the Chancellor's statement that cuts should not go to staffing costs. He made that quite clear and I make it clear. I also point out that there have been questions and alarms about either teacher unemployment or teacher shortage for the past four years, including the period of office of the last Labour Government. There are now 80,000 more teachers than there were four years ago.

    Library Services (Avon County)
    Mr. Michael Cocksasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she will instruct Avon County to carry out its obligations under the Local Government Act in relation to library services.
    Mr. St. John-Stevas: My right hon. Friend has no reason to suppose that Avon County Council is unlikely to carry out its duties as a statutory library authority.
    Mr. Cocks: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that that is an unsatisfactory reply? Is he aware that Bristol District Council is reported as saying that there has been no true consultation, in the proper sense of the word? Surely this is not the way to build up good will between new authorities. Will he invite Dr. Kersley, the chairman, to his Department to go through with him the provision of Circular 5/73, so that Bristol may have an agency for a library service which it has operated since the 1600s?
    Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am afraid that I cannot do that because, in accordance with

    235
    my Department's Circular 5/73, Avon County Council has been asked to submit its observation on the application within 21 days. The matter is now sub judice. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that this application will be carefully considered, and a decision will be announced within the statutory period.

    School Leaving Regulations
    Mr. Huntasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether she will introduce an element of flexibility into the school leaving regulations so that, where a head teacher is satisfied that a pupil's continued attendance at school is prejudicial to discipline, such pupil shall be allowed to leave school prior to attending the age of 16 years.
    Mrs. Thatcher: No, Sir, but I am consulting teachers and local authority interests to see what support there is for introducing an earlier leaving date for pupils who would reach the upper limit of compulsory schooling at the end of the summer term.
    Mr. Hunt: Whatever our views may be about the raising of the school leaving age, is it not clear that this decision has led to the creation of a small but disruptive minority in many of our secondary schools, with the result that teaching resources, already strained to the limit, have to be diverted from those who genuinely want to learn to deal with those groups of troublemakers? While my right hon. Friend's suggestion will go some way to meet this difficulty, would not the suggestion contained in my Question help much more substantially?
    Mrs. Thatcher: I do not think that raising the school leaving age has led to this problem because, on the whole, children do not suddenly become difficult at the age of 15. It may have aggravated it in some schools, and the teachers are no doubt having difficulty in dealing with the problem. My hon. Friend will appreciate that if we say to a young person, "Look, if you are really difficult you can leave school," we might have even more difficult children being sent out into society. Different local education authorities are finding different ways of tackling this problem, and I would rather pursue those ways before considering any alternative.
    Mr. Marks: Is the right hon. Lady aware that the suggestion by her hon. Friend would be a recipe for ill-discipline in the schools and crime outside it? Does she agree that this problem is a social one, not only for those in the fifth forms but throughout secondary schools, which ought to be tackled by giving additional help to the local authorities?
    Mrs. Thatcher: It is a problem. We shall tackle it in time by several different methods, but I believe that the general policy is right.

    Arts Council (Grant)
    Mr. David Clarkasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she can now state what increase she proposes to grant to the Arts Council in 1974–75.
    Mr. St. John-Stevas: I hope shortly to give the Arts Council the details of its grant, subject to parliamentary approval at the appropriate time.
    Mr. Clark: Does the Minister know whether the Arts Council intends to spend any of next year's grant on any sector of the brass band movement?
    Mr. St. John-Stevas: As the hon. Member knows, I have great sympathy with the brass band movement as a cultural manifestation, but this is a matter for the Arts Council. It is, I understand, having conversations with the National Youth Brass Band. It has asked for information from the National Youth Brass Band and is waiting for that information in support of its claim. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can encourage his friends to get a move on.
    Mr. Faulds: Will the hon. Gentleman consider the possibility of making a special grant in view of the Arts Council's intention—which is a departure from its practice heretofore—to foster amateur activities in the arts? Does he realise that it is probable that in future community arts in the regions will depend to an increasing extent on eager and talented amateurs?
    Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am very sympathetic to that point of view and I shall pass the hon. Gentleman's observations to the Arts Council.
    Mr. Hugh Jenkins: In making his calculations, will the hon. Gentleman take

    237
    full account of the present enormous inflation? Will he recognise that unless he gives the Arts Council a substantial increase compared with the amount which it has received in previous years it will not be able to support its existing commitments, let alone take on fresh ones?
    Mr. St. John-Stevas: The current Arts Council grant is £17.388 million—the largest grant, in absolute and real terms, ever paid to the council. I cannot anticipate what the next grant will be, but its amount will be communicated to the council shortly and we shall take into account the rise in prices.

    Direct Grant Schools
    Mr. Armstrongasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what will be the reduction in the grants by the Department and local education authorities to direct grant schools as a result of the cuts in spending now being imposed on the education service.
    Mr. Raison: Local education authorities do not pay grant to these schools and my right hon. Friend has no plans to reduce the Department's grant.
    Mr. Armstrong: Can the Minister confirm that local education authorities, together with the Department of Education and Science, pay £17 million from public funds in a total income of £27 million which goes to direct grant schools? There is no suggestion that any sacrifice will be made by these already privileged schools. How does the hon. Gentleman reconcile that with the fact that children already disadvantaged are having to do without necessary resources, equipment, books and even school buildings? How can he justify that state of affairs?
    Mr. Raison: Local authorities are free to take up places at direct grant schools as they desire, but I made it clear in yesterday's debate that proposals to increase grant and fees are scrutinised rigorously and that schools will be expected to make economies comparable with those being required of maintained schools in present circumstances. The level of grant will reflect this.
    Mr. Armstrong: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that £17 million of public money out of £27 million is going to the
    238
    direct grant schools? How can he justify retaining that figure when cuts are being made in the public sector?
    Mr. Raison: I cannot confirm the exact figure off the cuff, but there is no doubt that substantial sums of public money go to the direct grant schools; that is not in dispute. But the direct grant schools provide very good education for a wide cross-section of the community.

  HONOURS LISTS
  Ql. Mr. Dormandasked the Prime Minister what recent representations have been made to him on his responsibility for honours lists; and what replies he has sent.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Edward Heath): As I explained to the hon. Gentleman last year, I have many suggestions of candidates for inclusion in honours lists. In general, I reply that these will be carefully considered. I receive very few representations about my responsibilities for recommending honours to the Queen; and those which I do receive mostly take the form of comments on individual recommendations, to which I reply as seems appropriate in each case.
  Mr. Dormand: I ask the Prime Minister to accept that I believe that many worthy people are included in honours lists, but is it not a fact that many hundreds more no less worthy are never considered for inclusion? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that certain aspects of the system—such as semi-automatic awards to senior civil servants and the Queen's being able to honour Prince Richard—bring the system into disrepute? On that basis, should not scores of miners be included in every honours list? For these and other reasons, is not the whole system a farce, and should it not be abolished?
  The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman put forward the same thesis on rather different grounds last year, when I found myself unable to accept his proposal that the lists should be abolished. I still find myself in that position today. Undoubtedly there are many worthy citizens who do a great deal of voluntary work of one kind and another, whom one would like to recognise, but my predecessors and I have done our best to ensure

  239
  that the recommendations come from as wide a field as possible. I, personally, will continue to do that.
  Mr. Tebbit: When my right hon. Friend is considering the next dissolution honours list, in view of the likely trend of events in Bristol will he consider reviving the title of Lord Stansgate so that we do not entirely lose the services of the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) at Westminster?
  The Prime Minister: Precedent shows that it is unnecessary to have a dissolution honours list after being returned to power.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Mr. Hamilton—next Question.
  Mr. William Hamilton: When will the Prime Minister take his own earldom?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have called the next Question.

  NORTH SEA OIL
  Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the rôle of the Secretary of State for Energy in relation to North Sea oil.
  The Prime Minister: My right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State for Energy has assumed the responsibilities for North Sea oil matters which were previously exercised by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.
  Mr. Hamilton: As Lord Carrington has been appointed as the energy supremo, does the Prime Minister think that Lord Polwarth would be missed if he were sacked?
  The Prime Minister: As certain responsibilities for the planning of the environment, and so on, in respect of North Sea oil fall to the Scottish Office, I should have thought that Scottish Members of Parliament would have wished to see a Scottish Minister handling them.
  Mr. Grimond: Does not the Prime Minister agree that there is, to say the least, some confusion over Lord Pol-warth's present position vis-à-vis the Secretary of State for Energy? For instance, who is responsible for such matters as planning the line on which
  240
  pipelines are laid to the mainland, or for sea works connected with oil exploration?
  The Prime Minister: The responsibilities remain the same as before. As I have just said, the Scottish Office is responsible for such matters as planning in Scotland. Lord Polwarth was given the specific duty of looking after all aspects of development in Scotland, and that, I believe. is a valuable function to perform.

  NATIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL
  Mr. Dykesasked the Prime Minister what plans he has to take the chair at any forthcoming meeting of the National Economic Development Council.
  The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) on 17th January.—[Vol. 867, c. 909.]
  Mr. Dykes: If the miners refuse to accept the reasonable NCB offer, the three-day working week will have to continue for some time. Will my right hon. Friend, therefore, discuss with the Chancellor of the Exchequer the possibility of including on the agenda in forthcoming meetings the serious question of many industrial companies and small companies literally facing bankruptcy in the future unless there is a change?
  The Prime Minister: I am sure that the NEDC will wish to discuss, as it has done very frequently in the past, the industrial as well as the general economic situation. I discussed this matter with the CBI yesterday and with the TUC a week ago.
  Mr. McBride: Will the Prime Minister tell his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment that regardless of phase 3 he is empowered to act within legislation to settle this dispute, or has he so circumscribed his powers that the Secretary of State for Employment is now as obsequious as is Mr. Robin Day?
  The Prime Minister: That is not the general view expressed in the Press today, but that is Mr. Day's affair. The Secretary of State for Employment carries out his full responsibilities in the context of the counter-inflation policy approved by Parliament.

  CBI AND TLC (MEETINGS)
  Mr. Molloyasked the Prime Minister when he next expects to meet the CBI and TUC.
  Mr. Clinton Davisasked the Prime Minister what further plans he has for meetings with the TUC and CBI.
  Mr. Adleyasked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement following his recent talks with the TUC.
  Mr. Meacherasked the Prime Minister what further plans he has to meet the TUC and CBI.
  Mr. Norman Lamontasked the Prime Minister when he next plans to meet the TUC.
  Mr. Greville Jannerasked the Prime Minister what further consultations he proposes to have with the TUC.
  Mr. Ashleyasked the Prime Minister what plans he has to have further discussions with the TUC.
  Mr. Wyn Robertsasked the Prime Minister when he next plans to meet the TUC and CBI.
  The Prime Minister: I met representatives of the TUC on 21st January and representatives of the CBI yesterday.
  We agree that the Government should continue to keep closely in touch with both the CBI and the TUC, and further meetings will be arranged as necessary.
  Mr. Molloy: Is the Prime Minister aware that it now appears that the National Coal Board, which sees the justice of the miners' claim, believes that if it can have conversations with the Pay Board apropos the Pay Board's relativity report it can find an answer to the impasse, that it could well be supported by the TUC and the CBI, the miners' just claim could be met and there would be triumph for no one except the sanity of the principle of British compromise? Will the Prime Minister this afternoon give encouragement to the NCB?
  The Prime Minister: I have not seen such a proposal from the NCB, but the Government have welcomed the report of the Pay Board on relativities. We published
  242
  the report as soon as we could get it printed and sent it immediately to the TUC and the CBI. I explained at the TUC meeting that I was not in a position to discuss the report with the TUC on that date because of parliamentary privilege but that we would be prepared to discuss it as soon as the TUC was ready, at the earliest opportunity. I said the same yesterday to the CBI. The Government therefore stand ready to discuss this report with the two other bodies mainly concerned.
  When stage 2 began we asked the Pay Board to report on the question of anomalies. There was a lot of scepticism at the time, but that report has enabled us to deal satisfactorily, without any industrial disputes, with 90 per cent. of the anomalies that arose out of the freeze and stage 2. We deliberately asked the Pay Board to report on relativities so that we could deal with the deeper problems that exist in the wage structure in British industry. I do not believe that there should be scepticism about the report. If the TUC is prepared to accept a system based on the board's report for the implementation of relativities it will be for the good of British industry in the future.
  Mr. Adley: When does my right hon. Friend feel that the nation can expect non-Conservative democrats to repudiate Mr. McGahey and his alien creed?
  The Prime Minister: I hope that all democrats will do so.
  Mr. Davis: Does not the Prime Minister think that it is high time that he expressed to the CBI and indeed to others the view that it is utterly nauseating for people who have to risk their lives and limbs every day of their working life to be lectured, blackmailed and insulted by Tory politicians, many of whom are on five-figure salaries? Will he at the same time repudiate the statements that have been made by several of his back benchers, including the hon. Members for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) and Truro (Mr. Dixon), that the miners are the enemies of the nation—statements that are as mendacious as they are irresponsible?
  The Prime Minister: I cannot be responsible for statements that are made

  243
  by the CBI, the TUC or any other organisation. I have expressed my view on these matters very frequently in the House, and I did so again last night on the "Panorama" programme.
  Mr. Lamont: Has the Prime Minister noticed the speech made by the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) on Sunday, in which he said that the Shadow Cabinet was agreed that it was not for others to tell the miners how they should vote in their strike ballot? Should not the Leader of the Opposition tell the country whether that is the position of the Shadow Cabinet, and is not the country entitled to expect the former Prime Minister to use all his influence to dissuade the miners from a course that will be disastrous for our country?
  The Prime Minister: I would hope that the former Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, would take the earliest opportunity of expressing the view that for the miners to choose a national strike cannot be in the national interest.
  Mr. Meacher: When will the Prime Minister acknowledge that whilst, as everyone now knows, the three-day week was a gross overkill measure against the overtime ban, in the event of a miners' strike no amount of three-day weeks or two-and-a-half-day weeks will save him from having to settle with the miners? When will he stop playing electoral politics with the nation's livelihood?
  The Prime Minister: The published figures show absolutely that the Government were right to take the measures when they did. It was because we did so that a week ago, after consulting the TUC and the CBI, we were in a position to move to a five-day week on 80 per cent. of electricity power. The nation could have done that in safety. There is only one reason why we were unable to do it, and that the House knows.
  Mr. Roberts: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that if the miners accept the NCB offer they will have had an increase of 68 per cent. since June 1970? Is it not becoming abundantly clear that the action proposed by the NUM executive is politically motivated, and will my right hon. Friend call on the Leader of the Opposition yet again to repudiate this action?
  The Prime Minister: The figures are that if the miners were to accept this offer the increase since 1970 would be 68 per cent., the increase in pensions is 55 per cent., the increase in average earnings is 48 per cent. and the increase in prices is 34 per cent. The miners' increase, therefore, would be double the increase in prices.
  Mr. Janner: Is the Prime Minister prepared to admit that the emergency powers contained in the Industrial Relations Act are totally useless in time of emergency?
  The Prime Minister: It depends entirely on the situation in the individual unions. The NUM has always been able to have its own ballot. I wish that this time the miners had followed the procedure they followed in 1973, when the offer which was being made to the miners appeared on the ballot paper. The ballot paper also stated that the executive rejected the offer. Despite that, the miners voted for the offer. In a ballot of this kind it is right that the offer should be included in the ballot paper so that each miner knows what it is.
  Mr. Ashley: Is the Prime Minister aware that a few months ago in Stoke-on-Trent thousands of moderate miners were talking about a reasonable, honourable settlement by the National Coal Board, but that I have now seen their mood gradually change until, a few days ago, they told me that they would never fly the white flag of surrender? Does not the Prime Minister realise that by his insensitive handling of this sensitive issue he is directly and personally responsible for driving thousands of moderate miners into a bitter battle which can give aid and comfort only to the men who fly the red flag?
  The Prime Minister: There is no question of asking the miners to fly either a white flag or the red flag. Every commentator I have read—and most of the industrial correspondents agree and said so at the time—takes the view that if, when the offer was made by the National Coal Board to the miners three months ago, the matter had been put to the miners on a ballot, it would have been accepted at once—in exactly the same way as 5 million other trade unionists have accepted stage 3. What those who have been handling these negotiations have seen over these weeks is the way in

  245
  which moderate miners who wished to put this matter to the ballot were prevented from doing so in an attempt to spin the matter out. As a result of overtime bans they believed that the miners would suffer and finally would come to the point where they hoped they would go for a strike. This is the history of the past few weeks and we have seen it at close quarters.
  Mr. Harold Wilson: I have been asked to reply. I would refer the Prime Minister to the statement issued last Thursday afternoon with the authority of the Shadow Cabinet, which said in particular that the country does not want a strike, the miners do not want a strike; the country and the miners want a settlement. If the Prime Minister, having rejected every initiative for nearly three months, now refuses to intervene actively to secure the necessary settlement, then any worsening of the situation will be the Prime Minister's responsibility.
  The Prime Minister: I have rejected no initiatives. I have also seen the statement put out today by the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), Chairman of the Labour Party, and the General Secretary of the Labour Party. It is quite clearly equivocal. It gives no indication at all that to go for a national strike would not be in the national interest. I now give the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition the opportunity to tell Parliament and the country that it would be against the national interest for the miners to vote for a strike.
  Mr. Wilson: The right hon. Gentleman claims to have read the statement by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) and no doubt has also seen the motion in my name on the Order Paper on this subject. Is he aware that, far from being equivocal, they make clear that the extremists in the situation are the Vice-President of the National Union of Mineworkers and the Prime Minister? Is he further aware that the one right hon. Member of this House who has not got the right to speak as he was trying to speak just now was the man who tried to order the TUC to reject the Labour Government's policy and to back the doctors against the Government? Does the right hon. Gentleman
  246
  appreciate that last Thursday we agreed that it was not for any particular leader to give a lead to the miners in this matter? Is he aware that that would become counter-productive, but not as counter-productive as was the Prime Minister's provocation on television last night?
  The Prime Minister: Will the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition now give the nation the answer to my question?
  Sir Gilbert Longden: Arising from the Prime Minister's last but one answer, will he make clear to the House and the nation who is responsible for organising the strike ballot and who frames the questions to be answered—and will he say whether it will be a postal ballot?
  The Prime Minister: As I understand the situation, the union is responsible for everything up to the point where the ballot boxes are delivered in London and are counted by the Electoral Reform Society.
  Mrs. Castle: But is it not a fact that the Deputy Chairman of the Pay Board, who is the author of the report on relativities, is on record as saying that the report could be operated quickly to secure a solution of the miners' dispute? In view of the fact that the Chairman of the National Coal Board has written to the Secretary of State for Employment asking the Government to do just that, will the Government face up to their responsibilities, take the initiative and take the necessary steps to secure a settlement on the report—or is the nation to be sacrificed to the Prime Minister's blind bigotry?
  The Prime Minister: The deputy chairman said that this was possible if the will was there. The will of the Government is there, and we have told the CBI and the TUC in sending them the report that we shall deal with it at the earliest time that they are ready. If the TUC and CBI are prepared to accept the report and to say that they will accept the settlement of differentials in industry by the machinery proposed in the report, they, too, will have the will, and it can be operated.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS
Mr. Lipton: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My point of order relates to Question No. 39, which was placed on the Order Paper several days ago for answer by the Prime Minister. Yesterday I received a note from No. 10 Downing Street saying that the Question had been transferred to the Home Secretary. I have no desire whatever to ask the Home Secretary what reply he has sent to various letters. I wanted to know what reply the Prime Minister had sent to certain letters which had been addressed to him on the subject of hare-coursing. Unless there has been some arrangement under which the Home Secretary is now responsible for the Prime Minister's correspondence, I cannot understand why this tampering with the Order Paper by the executive should be tolerated. This reduces the Order Paper to a meaningless piece of tomfoolery and to that extent back benchers' rights are seriously prejudiced.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): The hon. Gentleman will realise that this point has cropped up frequently in the past and is not a matter for the Chair. Ministers arrange between themselves how they will answer Questions and it is their responsibility. I am afraid that I cannot deal with this matter on a point of order.
Mr. Lipton: I accept your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is well established that Ministers can transfer Questions from one Minister to another. I am objecting to being made to ask of a Minister, in whom I am not at the moment interested, a Question to which I do not want an answer. To that extent if the action of Ministers makes the Order Paper a farce, then ordinary back benchers are entitled to protest without querying the right of transfer to which you, Sir, have referred.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have never found back benchers reticent in protesting in these circumstances. Now that the hon. Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton) has made his protest, I shall call Mr. Frank Allaun for the next business.
The Prime Minister: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am not aware of the case mentioned by
248
the hon. Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton), but I will have it looked into, and I will write to him at once about it.

PUBLIC ACQUISITION OF LAND BILL
3.40 p.m.
Mr. Frank Allaun: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the acquisition by local authorities of land to be used for housing. for other building and for other purposes.
It so happens that 50 years ago in March 1923 a Labour Member of Parliament introduced a similar Bill into this House. If it had been accepted by the Government 50 years ago, our people would not be suffering the housing tragedy that exists today and Britain would be a far happier, healthier and more beautiful place in which to live.
The object of my Bill is twofold. First it is to halt and reverse the rocketing land prices which are driving the cost of new houses beyond the reach of most ordinary families and increasing to exorbitant levels the rents which they have to pay for houses to let.
The second aim is good planning, so that the growth of population in an area, the bringing forward of sites and the provision of essential services can be phased to go hand in hand.
The House should consider what is happening today. Let us suppose that an area of land, perhaps the size of Wembley Stadium, eight or 10 miles outside one of our great cities such as London, Manchester, Birmingham, Leeds, Newcastle, Sheffield or Glasgow, is at present used for growing potatoes. Then the council builds a road to the area and essential services, such as sewers, electricity, water, gas and telephones are provided. Then a factory is built nearby and all around the population grows. One day planning permission is given to build on that land. Overnight the potato field turns into a gold mine and the value of the land can increase one hundredfold or more in that short time.
I ask the House to consider two examples of that. To use the language of Arthur Conan Doyle, they might be referred to as "The Case of the Two Viscounts". I refer to Lords Wimborne and Carrington.

249
I have checked carefully with Poole Borough councillors the facts of the case of Lord Wimborne. He inherited a vast area of land in Dorset and seven years ago 350 acres of it which was heathland was estimated to be worth £120,000. Recently that acreage has been sold to Poole Borough Council for £7·5 million.
The second case is that of Lord Carrington, the Secretary of State for Energy, not to mention a number of other offices that he holds. He is now in negotiation with the High Wycombe Council for the sale of 140 acres of land. The price has not yet been decided, but it is highly likely that the sum realised will not be very far short of that attained by Lord Wimborne.
I ask the House to think of the effects of this on the house buyer and the house renter. I was informed last week by Greater London Council officials that the average price of a site for a council house in London is now £5,000 before a single brick is laid. As the GLC is now paying interest at 11 per cent. on its borrowing, it means £550 a year or £11 a week merely to cover the cost of the land alone. Sites for private houses in London are even more expensive. In the provinces, where I come from, as anyone can tell from my accent, the cost is not as great. But it is rising even more sharply than it is in London. Such a situation needs a radical solution because the effects on house buyers and house renters are so staggering.
My Bill is based on the essential principle that where the value of land increases, not through the efforts of the owner but through the efforts and needs of the community, that increase in the value of land must go back to the community which created it. I think that will seem eminently fair to most people.
The Bill has three basic feature. The first is that land will be compensated at its existing use value—that is to say as potato fields, as derelict land or as disused dock land. My opinion about disused dockland is that its value is practically nil. In London there are nine square miles of this disused dockland which could be made available for housing. It would help solve London's tragic housing situation. There are further square miles to the east of that area which could also be taken over. Owing to the
250
contraction in docking because of rationalisation, in Manchester and Sal-ford, in Liverpool and in other great ports there are similar areas of land which could be taken over for the purpose of housing our people. There are many thousands of young couples who have left the East End of London who could be attracted back in this way.
The second basic feature is that there should be compulsory purchase, because that will be necessary. There is nothing wrong in that. There are compulsory purchase orders today for dealing with slum clearance.
The third feature is that there should be a 10-year land bank with yearly additions available to all local authorities for them to be able to plan ahead and use their land in the best possible way.
I stress that, contrary to one or two reports, owner-occupiers have nothing to fear, as they will not be affected. Indeed the Bill will benefit owner-occupiers and tenants alike.
This is an eminently practicable proposal. It is already in operation in certain countries of Western Europe. In Sweden 75 per cent., of all building and development land, and in Holland 83 per cent. of all such land, is municipally owned. It is working highly successfully.
The cost to the community would be nil because more than was paid out for the land would be received back out of development values—money which otherwise would have gone to private. developers.
The Bill follows closely the proposals of the national executive of the Labour Party in which leading town planners have engaged. The working party has been chaired by my right hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Mr. John Silkin) whose father did a great service in his Town and Country Planning Act. Unfortunately later Acts unscrambled the legislation. The racket in land prices would not have come about if his Bill had not been virtually repealed by subsequent Governments. A fortnight ago this item was given prominence and priority in the election manifesto which the Labour Party published and on which it will fight the election. Although there may be differences among members of the national executive on other questions, on the public ownership of land,

251
Left, Right, and Centre are completely agreed that it will take place. Indeed, the list of sponsors to my Bill demonstrates this to be the case.
This will be a key issue at the General Election. I do not expect the Conservative Government to allow the Bill to go through. They may do what has been done with previous Housing Bills, introduced by private Members—namely, let it go through its first stage knowing full well that they will kill it subsequently by failing to provide parliamentary time. I suspect that there may be such ideological objections to this kind of measure that some hon. Gentlemen opposite will oppose it this afternoon. Whatever happens, if this Government do not allow it, a Labour Government will.
When we talk of acquiring land we touch the very heart of the ruling class. This issue of who owns the land reveals the real conflict of interest between the people and the great vested interests.
I believe that this Bill is both right and popular. It is a vote winner. Far from public ownership being irrelevant, most people recognise that to deal with the land speculators it has never been more relevant than at this moment. Indeed, I believe that such a Bill could become a Young People's Charter.
I ask that leave be given to bring in the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Frank Allaun, Mr. John Silkin, Mr. Reginald Freeson, Mr. Frederick Willey, Mr. Arthur Latham, Mr. Michael Stewart, Mr. Norman Atkinson, Mr. Arthur Blenkinsop, Mr. Charles Loughlin, Mr. Julius Silverman, Mrs. Renée Short and Mr. Stanley Orme.

PUBLIC ACQUISITION OF LAND BILL
  PUBLIC ACQUISITION OF LAND
  Bill to provide for the acquisition by local authorities of land to be used for housing, for other building and for other purposes, presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 12th July and to be printed. [Bill 79.]

PUBLIC EXPENDITURE
3.43 p.m.
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Tom Boardman): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of the White Paper on Public Expenditure to 1977–78 (Command Paper No. 5519).
This is the fifth White Paper in the annual series on public expenditure which was inaugurated by the Labour Government in 1969.
The Opposition's amendment to the motion that I have just moved condemns this year's White Paper, and I shall have something to say on this a little later. But I hope we shall all agree that the practice of having a White Paper in some form once a year which provides the opportunity to take a fresh look at the development of spending policies has proved valuable. Certainly the Select Committee on Expenditure appears to regard it as a useful document, judging from the careful attention that it devotes to it each year.
In this connection I should like to pay tribute to the work of the Committee as a whole under the distinguished Chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Sir H. d'Avigdor-Goldsmid). His widespread experience contributes much to this work, and for that I, and, I am sure, the whole House are grateful.
I also wish to pay tribute to the helpful and constructive suggestions which have been made by the General Sub-Committee, under its hard-working chairman, the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), for improving the content and form of these annual White Papers.
The numbers of suggestions which have been adopted on this occasion are too many to mention in detail, but there are three which I should mention because they affect the format and size of this year's White Paper and explain why it is 40 pages longer than that published in December 1972.
First, this White Paper includes, for the first time, tables for all programmes giving expenditure at constant prices over a period of 10 years. This follows an Expenditure Committee recommendation that we should build up a record of

253
material which could provide a comparison over a period of five years past as well as five years forward. A start was made in the 1971 White Paper, and the current White Paper completes the process started then.
Secondly, in his speech last year my predecessor mentioned the Eighth Report of the Expenditure Committee, in which the Committee had suggested that the next White Paper should include tables showing the relationships between expenditure and output. Last year my right hon. Friend referred to the problem of finding figures which really illuminate these questions, but undertook to see what could be done to provide that sort of information for some of the programmes.
We have made a start this year covering a number of programmes, though not all and I hope that those who study these new tables will find that they are interesting and a valuable addition.
For example, the table on page 51 shows the increases in natural gas consumption that have resulted from the investment made over previous years. On the following page is the forecast of the future expansion of gas consumption in the main markets looking forward to 1977–78. I give that as an illustration. But it would be wrong to assume that the evidence of success or failure of particular policies can normally be as clearly illustrated.
The tables that have been added to the White Paper do not obviate the necessity for political judgments when difficult decisions have to be made about the choice of options for the future. But, subject to that cautionary note, it is our intention to continue to extend the provision of such non-financial information to other programmes wherever this is suitable.
The third set of changes for which we are indebted to the Expenditure Committee will, I think, be universally accepted and approved as improvements.
For the first time the White Paper includes a glossary—on pages 153 to 155—so that readers can find a ready and, I hope, readily comprehensible explanation of some of the technical terms used without having to turn to the more comprehensive Handbook on Methodology
254
which was published in 1972—at the same time as the 1972 White Paper.
We have also taken account of the Committee's suggestion that more attention should be drawn to the changes in expenditure which have taken place since the previous White Paper by concentrating explanations of programme changes uniformly towards the end of each chapter of Part 2 and by expanding the analyses of changes provided in Part 3.
Table 3.11—on pages 147 and 148—gives in more detail the changes set out in summary form in Part 1, and Table 3.12—on pages 149 to 152—brings together the information about changes shown in the programme chapters.
I believe that the improvements which I have mentioned as stemming from the Government's willing acceptance of Expenditure Committee proposals will help to increase Parliament's, and indeed, the public's understanding of public expenditure matters. Coming new to this debate, I appreciate, perhaps as much as anyone, and probably more, the fruits of the labours of the Expenditure Committee.
There is one further major change in the format of the White Paper which my predecessor foreshadowed in his speech last year. He spoke about proposals for reforming the presentation of the Supply Estimates. These proposals were submitted to the Expenditure Committee and the Public Accounts Committee last year, and they generally endorsed them. The main change affecting the White Paper is in the functional classification, involving a reduction of the number of main programmes from 21 to 15. These programmes will in future be matched by 15 Classes of Supply Estimates.
The House will see the full significance for the Estimates when the main 1974–75 Estimates are presented in the next month or two; but the major benefit from this reform, which I should like to mention now, will be the greater ease with which it will be possible to relate provision in the Estimates to the relevant programme headings in the White Paper.
Before moving on to more controversial matters, I should comment on the status of the White Paper now before us. Hon. Members are familiar with the usual rôle that these White Papers play, setting out figures of expenditure at constant prices

255
for a period of years ahead, reflecting the existing policies of the Government of the day. Command 5519 was prepared on this basis, and it represents the position as the Government saw it up to the late autumn.
At that point events—to which I shall refer in a moment—took place which led to the announcement by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor on 17th December. As he explained on that occasion, this White Paper does not take account of the 1974–75 reductions then announced, although it provides a baseline from which those reductions will be made.
Criticisms of reductions of this kind tend to fall into two mutually incompatible classifications—either they are bad and should not have been made, or they are bogus and will have no effect. Those are the criticisms normally made. We can debate the first proposition; the White Paper will provide the basis for refuting the second. But I must make it clear that the figures for 1975–76 and later years must also be regarded as subject to reconsideration.
As the White Paper itself stressed, our economic prospects and particularly our balance of payments are now subject to much uncertainty over the next few years from the effect of enormously increased oil prices and energy costs. This makes it essential to reassess the share of total available resources which we can devote to the public sector. This is not to say that the White Paper was not worth publishing. [Hon Members: "Oh."] I hope that the hon. Member for Heywood and Royton (Mr. Joel Barnett) will agree that it provides a considerable amount of detailed information on the content of individual programmes.
The White Paper provides essential material for those concerned with performance in the expenditure field, including the effects of the changes which the Government have found it necessary to make during the last year.
Mr. Edmund Dell: I thought it was the Government's policy not to attempt to balance the oil deficit. But from something that the hon. Gentleman has just said, it appeared that it was the policy to balance the oil deficit. I thought that the reason that the Government
256
had to reallocate resources was to balance the non-oil deficit.
Mr. Boardman: The right hon. Gentleman has read into what I have said something which is not there. I shall be coming to that point a little later.
The White Paper shows how the savings announced by my right hon. Friend on 21st May last were made. It sets out the effect of the phasing forward of construction contracts in the last quarter of 1973, which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced on 8th October.
It demonstrates also that public expenditure as a whole was very much under control: planned expenditure in 1974–75, 1975–76 and 1976–77, in real terms and before the reductions made on 17th December, was not being allowed to rise at a faster rate than before, but was being held slightly below the levels for those years given in the 1972 White Paper.
In addition, the White Paper lays out for all to see and comment on the relative priorities between different programmes to which the Government's policies have so far been geared. It is not, therefore, without value, even if some hon. Members find unacceptable the particular mix of policies which it reflects.
Mr. Reginald Freeson: Are we to take it, from what the hon. Gentleman has just said about priorities and Government control being shown to have been affected by the information given in the White Paper, that it is Government policy to have a reduction of about £350 million over the next few years in housing investment, a reduction of 4·3 per cent., whereas elsewhere and on other occasions the Government are saying that they will step up priorities for housing and will put more money into housing investment? Will the hon. Gentleman explain the contradictions?
Mr. Boardman: I shall not comment at this stage on particular programmes. What I said was that public expenditure was under control. I clearly said that the rate at which it was growing was under control. I made that comparison. The hon. Gentleman no doubt will wish to raise the question of individual programmes at a later stage.

257
I turn now to the economic events which led up to the Chancellor's statement on 17th December in which he announced the reductions of £1,200 million in 1974–75 expenditure which are condemned in the amendment standing in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition.
The first point is that the Government did not create the difficulties which led to the Chancellor's action. In the later part of last year—but before the oil crisis and before the disastrous miners' dispute began—the Government's economic strategy was working out well. The independent National Institute of Economic and Social Research described it as an almost complete success.
The strategy was for aggregate output to level off to a sustainable growth and for the rise in consumer expenditure and public expenditure to slow down, thereby leaving room for private industrial investment and exports to continue growing rapidly. The facts show that this was working out as planned. The facts are there for all to see. The volume of manufacturing investment rose by nearly 12 per cent. between the second half of 1972 and the third quarter of 1973, and exports of goods and services rose by 10½ per cent. Domestic consumption, on the other hand, rose by only 2¾ per cent. I remind hon. Members that the TUC and the CBI were fully in support of the growth policies being applied, and said so on a number of occasions.
Mr. Robert C. Brown: The hon. Gentleman is implying that up to last October the Government's strategy was working out very well and that everything in the garden was lovely. But how does he account for the fact that the Governor of the Bank of England seemed to let the cat out of the bag when he said a fortnight ago that before October last year the balance of payments was running at a deficit of £2,500 million? Either the hon. Gentleman is talking codswollop or it is time the Prime Minister sacked the Governor of the Bank of England for telling lies.
Mr. Boardman: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman reads in full what the Governor of the Bank of England said. I ask the hon. Gentleman to look at the different time scales for the situation as I have described it in the late autumn of
258
last year and the situation which resulted from the energy crisis, and the various factors that have arisen between then and the time of the Governor's speech.
Mr. Douglas Jay: But was the current account balance of payments deficit incurred in the year 1973 also exactly as planned by the Government?
Mr. Boardman: The growth rate of imports and the slowness of the growth rate of exports gave rise to a larger adverse balance than one would have liked. But the Chancellor made clear what would happen, and the situation was working out in accordance with his plans.
Mr. Dick Taverne: Is it not true that what happened was clearly foreseen. The evidence to the General Sub-Committee of the Expenditure Committee early in 1972 forecast that, if the Government's policies were maintained, by the end of 1973 there would be an imbalance in the balance of payments of over £2,000 million? Therefore, although the Chief Secretary says that the balance of payments deficit was larger than one would have liked, was not this exactly what was foreseeable in the light of forecasts made early in 1972, and was not it something that the Government should have avoided?
Mr. Boardman: It was always accepted that there would be a large adverse balance during 1973. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) had listened to what I said on the different time scales, he would perhaps have followed my point.
The current trade account, however, had been moving progressively into deficit. The prinicipal reason for this has been the deterioration in the terms of trade. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said last week:
"without the increase in world prices since the middle of 1972 this country would not have been in deficit last year."—[OFFICIAL REPORT,. 22nd January 1974; Vol. 867, c. 1463–64]
In the year to November last, import prices rose 38 per cent. and export prices 16½ per cent. Nevertheless, the prospects seemed good for recovery; the underlying volume movements were not unfavourable, and because of our exchange rate

259
advantage, exports were highly competitive. On this basis the Government felt able at that time to support the deficit by borrowing over the period of recovery, without making any major policy adjustments at home.
Mr. Nicholas Ridley: There was a time early last year when the Government thought that commodity prices would turn down, which would clearly have justified borrowing to cover this period. Now that it is clear that commodity prices, far from turning down, seem to be rising, particularly the price of oil, is the strategy to be changed in relation to financing the deficit in the future?
Mr. Boardman: My hon. Friend must separate the price of oil from other commodity prices. It was the commodity prices remaining at a higher level than had been expected that obviously was a feature in the other balance, as I have said. It would not be appropriate for me to speculate here today about the future of commodity prices. As my hon. Friend knows, there are signs which are more favourable than indications which have appeared in the past.
Commercial borrowings abroad to finance investment programmes in nationalised industries and local authorities were successfully undertaken on a large scale, and offset almost the whole of the 1973 deficit.
It is thus my contention that the Government had sound and effective demand management policies well suited to the particular conditions and problems which prevailed in the late summer and early autumn period.
Of course, there were some critics. To these my reply is this. Those who complained of general over-heating in the economy failed to realise that the shortages reported were not general and were to a considerable degree a reflection of the acceleration in output earlier in the year and to the very large build-up of order books. They were not a sign that in general the margin of spare capacity had disappeared.
The National Institute of Economic and Social Research, in a comprehensive study, could find no sound evidence of demand pressure at levels as great as in
260
previous boom years. Nevertheless, my right hon. Friend had thought it necessary, and subsequent events have shown how prudent and, indeed, far-sighted he was, to take action in May to reduce public spending, affecting mainly 1974–75, while in October the moratorium on construction contracts was imposed to deal with a particular pressure on the supply position and prices in the building industry.
Those who complained of price inflation should take note of the Economist's calculations published in mid-November which showed the United Kingdom to be succeeding much better than other countries in controlling domestically generated inflation at home.
Mr. Denis Healey: Quite untrue.
Mr. Boardman: The right hon. Gentleman may say "Quite untrue," but the calculations by the Economist are conclusively in support of what I have said.
Stages 1 and 2 were proving remarkably successful, despite the huge pressure from world prices beyond the Government's power to control. How did it happen, then, that public expenditure cuts and other severe measures were needed by mid-December? There is no doubt that the Middle East war and its aftermath have worked a huge and spectacular change which will require a fundamental re-appraisal of our whole economic strategy.
Mr. Robert Sheldon: The Chief Secretary referred to the lack of supply constraints over the period in question. If there were no supply constraints, why is it that, particularly on matters concerning construction, there was a shortfall of expenditure amounting to several hundreds of millions of pounds between each of the reports of the General Sub-Committee?
Mr. Boardman: I said in regard to supply constraints that the shortages were not general, that there were areas where, due to the accelerating demand and large order books, pressures were building up, but there was no general over-heating within the economy.
I was referring to the measures which became necessary in mid-December and to the fact that the Middle East war had required huge and spectacular changes to

261
be made to our whole economic strategy. I was going on to say that this does not mean that our earlier policies were wrong. It means that there had to be new policies to adjust to the new situation. But we were not alone in this situation. It was one which was common to all oil-consuming nations and our position should be relatively better than most of our competitors.
We have large indigenous reserves of coal. I will perhaps have an opportunity to come to that point a little later. We have the good fortune of gas now coming from the North Sea in increasing quantities and oil will be arriving from there later in this decade. We have a nuclear generating capacity which now provides 10 per cent. of the electricity that we consume. We have reorganised the nuclear industry so that the great technical skills that we possess here can be most effectively used to provide the further energy we need from this source. Some of these projects will take time, but over all in the short, medium and longer term these reserves give us great economic strength.
Yet at the very time when our main indigenous fuel—coal—could come into its own and justify its advantages as a secure source of supply, the miners decide to remove that security and take the action that they have done in opposition to stage 3.
I need not catalogue the circumstances of this domestic dispute, nor indeed the history of oil developments on the worldwide scene. I am sure that hon. Members have them well in mind. It is the effects of these events on public expenditure in the United Kingdom which concern me now.
By December it was already clear that shortages of oil, greatly exacerbated by the industrial action then launched, and still unhappily continuing, could force a serious cut-back in national output, in contrast to the 3½ per cent. target previously aimed at. The effect of this would be excess demand, since aggregate incomes would not, in the short run, be affected as adversely as output.
Equally, it was certain, even then, before the news of the second huge price increase, that the price of oil, whatever happened to supply, would seriously aggravate the trade deficit, which was already large. Clearly, a substantial cut in domestic demand was urgently necessary
262
if further inflationary pressure and further serious threat to our external position were to be averted.
Although it was apparent that the oil part of the deficit would require separate financing under international arrangements, there was a clear necessity to steer even more resources into exports and away from domestic expenditure.
My right hon. Friend the Chancellor decided that in such circumstances, with a widespread threat to employment and incomes, it would not be right to impose the added burdens of either direct or indirect taxation, except for the surcharge on surtax payers. A large reduction in public expenditure demand on resources coupled with restraints on consumer spending were a better and a fairer course.
Mr. J. Bruce-Gardyne: As to the effect of the cuts on the demand on resources, can my hon. Friend elaborate why it was that in his statement of 17th December the Chancellor insisted that the cuts must be so phased as not to affect public sector employment, given that the cuts were designed, apparently, to affect private sector employment? Why should not that have been shared evenly between the public and private sectors?
Mr. Boardman: I shall be touching on that point, if my hon. Friend will bear with me for a moment. My right hon. Friend decided on a large reduction in public expenditure, coupled with restraints on consumer spending, because he felt that that would be a better and fairer course.
I would emphasise that it is not part of the intention in 1974–75 to add directly to unemployment by deliberately cutting public sector staffs, because that would benefit no one in the immediate crisis. Nor have any reductions been made in transfer payments to the private sector, which means, among other things, that the whole of our social security arrangements are left unchanged. With these exceptions, positive action is now being taken to modify programmes and policies in all the areas concerned.
The House had the opportunity yesterday to discuss the way in which the reductions in health and education expenditure would be made and the consequent effects on those programmes. A

263
good deal of information has been provided on other programmes in replies to Questions tabled by my hon. Friends the Members for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) and South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) and by other hon. Members.
No one can seriously doubt the reality of the changes in our plans. The December cuts were made deliberately to bring about an adjustment of demand in the economy to match more closely the supply likely to be available.
No one should be in any doubt that real reductions in spending plans are having to be made—in central Government and local authority spending, and in the investment of the nationalised industries. Of course, given the shortages that we now face in the supply of basic materials, the planned public expenditure programmes would, in any case, have been frustrated to some extent. But without action to cut expenditure the results would have been unplanned and haphazard.
I understand that that point arose in discussion at yesterday afternoon's meeting of the General Sub-Committee of the Expenditure Committee and that its significance was recognised both by the Sub-Committee and by the official Treasury witnesses. Unfortunately, it was completely misunderstood by The Times reporter. His suggestion, in this morning's Times, that cuts would be cancelled out by the rephasing of programmes brought forward from 1973–74, is quite wrong.
The nationalised industries' capital investment programmes are, of course, part of public expenditure. They represent a major claim on scarce investment resources. Ministers are finally answerable for them. They cannot be totally insulated from economic forces that affect the rest of the nation. The size of their programmes must in the long run depend on the demand they have to meet. To this extent economic and commercial considerations set the level of investment.
But successive Governments have recognised the need to modify the scale and pace of these programmes in the short term, as a contribution to demand management, and the boards have cooperated in doing so in ways least damaging to longer-term plans. The argument is not over whether to cut, but by how
264
much, and where. One of our priorities must be to make ourselves as independent as possible of imported oil. So we exempted the investment programmes of nationalised fuel industries from the reductions which we felt obliged to make elsewhere. The remaining nationalised industries have been asked to make the same general cuts in their programmes as we have imposed on all other big capital programmes.
Substantial shortages of investment, goods and materials are likely in 1974, which will affect all the big investment programmes. If these specific reductions had not been made, all the nationalised industries would have been competing for scare resources with other urgent needs for productive investment in the economy. By making the reductions in the way that we have, we hope to make it easier for the vital fuel industries to go ahead, as far as supply constraints allow, with their original proposals and programmes.
I refer now to fuel prices and the statement on 17th December when my right hon. Friend the Chancellor told the House that at a time of most acute energy shortage and financial stringency it made no sense to subsidise coal and electricity prices at a mounting rate. The Government have, therefore, begun talks with the nationalised fuel industries about increases in their prices within the limits of stage 3 where these apply. Price increases for these commodities will help stabilise and reduce the burden of public expenditure, in addition to promoting fuel economy. The talks are not yet complete.
I cannot add anything today to what the Minister of State, Treasury told the House last week—that we shall make a full statement at the earliest opportunity.
Turning again to the general position, hon. Members will have noted that the forward rates of growth in public expenditure as a whole—even before the present crisis—were modest. The average annual rate of growth over the period 1973–74 to 1977–78 was 2·5 per cent. The increase in 1974–75 had been planned at 1.8 per cent. But that position is now overtaken by the changes of 17th December, and, compared with 1973–74, there will be a fall. As I have already said, for later years the position will need to be reconsidered.

265
Although the figures in the published White Paper will need further consideration, it will remain the Government's aim to achieve as many of the policy objectives there set out as economic conditions will allow. I have already explained—my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary will no doubt have more to say on the point when he winds up—that the present crisis conditions were not of the Government's making. But given these conditions, the Government judged it necessary and right to take the action which they have done.
The variation of public expenditure in the short term is not inconsistent with the maintenance of medium-term aims, and hon. Members will remember that since we took office we have adjusted it up as well as down in response to changing economic conditions. But, while adjusting in this way, we shall continue to relate the longer-term trend to broader movements in the economy.
To be able to achieve all the policies we wish to achieve—including those for social services—the first prerequisite is sufficient resources. For this reason the resumption of economic growth and the safeguarding of the balance of payments position will continue to be the Government's first priorities.
I said that I would return to the amendment to the motion. I shall be brief, as my hon. Friend will no doubt have more stringent comments to make if he should catch your eye at the end of this debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker. But the amendment seeks to criticise the Government for failing to meet the needs of the serious economic crisis facing the nation.
I have referred to the way in which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has adjusted our policies to meet those needs in the fairest and most effective way. It has meant painful decisions. No one regrets more than the Government the need to postpone the nation's getting the full benefits that were flowing from the policies that we have pursued. But we have, as the amendment acknowledges, a serious economic crisis.
In part, this is due to the world oil supply, over which we have little control. But the most immediate cause, and that which puts us at such a grave disadvantage against the rest of the developed
266
nations, is the industrial action in this country. I hope that the Opposition will now speak out against the forces that seek to disrupt our economy. Whilst I welcome the statement of the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), I hope that they will go further and add their voices to all who believe that the laws passed and the codes approved by Parliament should be upheld.
It is not a case of being against the miners. We on this side of the House are not against the miners—the support we have given the industry speaks for itself as clear evidence of our attitude. But it is a case of being for the great mass of the British public who will suffer by this industrial action and from increased inflation if stage 3 is breached.
Mr. Elystan Morgan Mr. Elystan Morgan (Cardigan) rose——
Mr. Boardman: No. I will not give way again.
It is a case of being for the millions of wage earners who have already accepted the offers put to them under stage 3. It is a case of being for a united national approach to tackle the world oil problem and its consequences, of maximising the benefits of our indigenous resources and of our traditional skills. Then we can again move forward and achieve those objectives that hon. Members on both sides of the House rightly seek.
4.31 p.m.
Mr. Joel Barnett: I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof,
"pays tribute to the work of the Expenditure Committee and its Sub-committees, but condemns the White Paper on Public Expenditure to 1977–78 (Command Paper No. 5519) in conjunction with the statement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 17th December 1973 for failing to meet the needs of the serious economic crisis facing the nation; and particularly deplores the concentration on cuts in public services whilst failing to reverse the taxation and industrial policies that have done so much to create the present emergency".
I begin by congratulating the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on his new appointment. I am sure we shall await with interest to see whether he will make as many gaffes as his predecessor did.

267
That hon. Gentleman started well by telling us that the Chancellor of the Exchequer's economic strategy was going marvellously and was always planned. I doubt whether the hon. Gentleman can do much better than that by way of gaffe. He said, in effect, "If we do this and if we do that, everything will turn out wonderful." It reminds me of a saying we have in Lancashire—if my cat only had wings. That is virtually what the hon. Gentleman is saying—that everything would be marvellous again were it not for the fact that….
I want to pay my customary but none the less deserved tribute to the work of the members of the Expenditure Committee and of its chairman, the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Sir H. d'Avigdor-Goldsmid) and of the chairman of the General Sub-Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon).
There was an interesting debate recently on the way in which the subcommittees are doing their job, and it would be wrong to repeat what was said then on a day when, I hope, we shall be debating what should be the Government's policy in the central part of economic strategy—expenditure. One cannot help feeling sorry that we do not have from the Select Committee a specific report which would help the House and the Government to make up their minds on the advantages or disadvantages of public as against private expenditure and, as the current in-phrase has it, the relativities or resource costs of one item of public expenditure against another, or the cost effectiveness of particular cuts.
As far as I can see, there is only one sub-committee which could do the job—the General Sub-Committee—unless we set up a sub-committee with a representative of each of the others. But one fears that that is not practicable in the present situation. Another course might be for the main Committee to consider doing the job itself.
The Chief Secretary mentioned presentation. It has become customary for us to discuss it in these debates. I hope the hon. Gentleman will not object if I say that I think that it is better left to debate in the main Committee, leaving those other hon. Members who are interested to read about
268
it in the Committee's report. Indeed, if sufficient other Members were interested, a separate debate should be arranged. The fact that these debates have in the past dwelt to a considerable extent on technical jargon has been one of the reasons why other hon. Members have been driven away from the Chamber. The hon. Gentleman's predecessor put it very well last year, when he said:
"… there has been a tendency in the management and scrutiny of public expenditure to be regarded increasingly as an esoteric exercise understood and participated in by relatively few experts."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th February 1973; Vol. 850, c. 463.]
The last thing we want to do is to leave it to the experts. I hope that the experts will forgive me, therefore, if I do not get too involved in jargon and technical statistical arguments. There is one issue which might perhaps be called "semi-technical". It is under-spending the forecasts of public expenditure. This clearly is of some importance to us, especially when we debate at length the fine points of whether we can afford, for example, an extra £7 million for school milk and then rule it out on ground of economy, only to find that the forecasts of public expenditure, whose rigid limits are defended to the hilt by all Goverments, are underspent by hundreds of millions of pounds.
In this part of my speech at least I am not making a party point. We all know that the figures themselves are not extracted by Ministers, and certainly not by the Chief Secretary, but they, poor devils. have to make the best of them. For 1973–74 the specialist adviser to the General Sub-Committee in a memorandum has calculated that expenditure on goods and services will be some £1,400 million under-spent, £1,271 million of that due to estimating reasons. Although there may be some acceleration in the second half of the year, as we all accept, this makes no allowance for the fuel crisis.
Lest anyone thinks that there is a lot more to spare, I would point out that the under-spending, it appears, will be balanced by a very similar amount of debt interest and subsidies. The serious lesson to be learned is surely that politicians' policies must not be rigidly based on experts' estimates. If we can get it so wrong for the first year, we must surely have very big problems in calculating for five years. as we try to do in White Papers.

269
The Chief Secretary's predecessor last year, even before his more recent hard lessons on such matters as statistics, told us:
"In the Treasury we talk about ' the medium-term assessment '. What it is in fact, as I told the Expenditure Committee last year, is a statistical construction based on hypotheses."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th February 1973; Vol. 850, c. 473.]
What he meant was, "Guessing".
I am reminded of a story of a man working as a civil servant during the war in an outlying ministry. Every month he had to send figures to Whitehall. He wondered what happened to them. One month he decided to add a nought to the figures. Nothing happened. The following month he added two noughts. Indeed, he carried on adding noughts throughout the rest of the war and still nothing happened. I hope that no one is doing that to the figures at the moment, but one cannot help wondering.
The guessing, I imagine, will not prevent academics, financial journalists and other commentators from writing learned articles on which they will base firm conclusions. I envy them the degree of certainty they have in their conclusions. The rest of us, less dogmatic, I hope, in our assertions, will, I trust, recognise the wide margin of perfectly understandable error there is in this science and plan our policies with a sufficient amount of flexibility to take it into account.
Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: The hon. Gentleman says that politicians' policies should not be based on experts' estimates. But surely the lesson to be drawn from what he has been saying about our experience of the shortfall and the rest is that all fine tuning is a dubious proposition and that fine tuning in the public sector is more dubious than any other fine tuning.
Mr. Barnett: I would go along with a great deal of what the hon. Gentleman said. I was saying, in effect, that one can make too much of the fine tuning, based, as it must be, on experts' estimates. We have nothing else to base it on, except hunches, which, for example, the former Governor of the Bank of England used when he was brought in to counter the present Governor.
I make no apologies for the fact that the amendment in effect turns the debate away from the sort we have had in the past, because we are today discussing
270
something which is right at the centre of economic strategy followed by any Government. It is, indeed, one half of what the Government do—expenditure. In our amendment we condemn the White Paper in conjunction with the cuts of 17th December for failing to deal with the serious economic crisis facing the nation.
Let me first list some, if not all, of the serious economic problems facing the nation. We might at least all agree on the problems if we do not agree on the cure. On the balance of payments no one can doubt we are faced with a serious problem. Even if the Chief Secretary is right and it was all planned it is still a serious problem when in the last quarter of 1973 the visible trade deficit was running at an annual rate of £3,000 million with very little to do with the oil crisis. Maybe it was all planned. The Chief Secretary tried to tell us that it was planned, or at least partially planned, but that it was blown off course by the various factors he mentioned.
The second urgent problem is that inflation in 1974 will certainly be in double figures and very likely up to as high as 15 per cent. or more. We have seen totally inadequate industrial investment which is still not as high as it was in 1970. The pound is floating lower and lower against the dollar, even though it is doing slightly better against some of the other currencies. Nevertheless, few will deny the seriousness of the situation. I do not know whether the Chief Secretary is right that it proves the foresight of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but I doubt whether many will agree with him even from his own side of the House.
These then are the serious problems. The Chancellor's answer was to rely almost entirely on public expenditure cuts and, as he put it last month
"there will be some automatic fall in private demand as incomes fall because of the short-time working and temporary unemployment".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th December 1973; Vol. 866, c. 963.]
We also know from what the Chief Secretary said today and from what had been said previously that one of the other measures the Chancellor has in mind is to increase the price of gas and electricity by reducing the size of the subsidies. The Chancellor therefore intends to make use of both inflation and short-time working.

271
First, let me deal with the three-day working week. The trouble with that of course is that while it will reduce private demand it will also reduce production at a time when we need a switch from personal consumption to exports. It is tragic that export demand exists because of the highly competitive position inadvertently created by the Chancellor's devaluation and yet our manufacturers cannot meet that demand substantially because their production is going to satisfy personal consumption at home.
No one can like cuts in personal consumption but the great advantage of them over cuts in public expenditure in current circumstances is that they make more room available for exports. More important, however, they reduce imports at a much faster rate, and rising imports are one of our main troubles, as the monthly trade figures indicate. According to the Central Statistical Office the import content of public expenditure is 11·6 per cent. while the import content of consumer expenditure is 15·9 per cent.—over 35 per cent. higher.
Mr. Ridley: If the hon. Member for Heywood and Royton (Mr. Joel Barnett) believes we should reduce personal consumption—and I agree with him—does he agree that the correct way to do it is to increase the standard rate of income tax and is that what the Labour Party is publicly advocating?
Mr. Barnett: That may be one of the ways but we shall be able to discuss how it should be done in dealing with the incomes side of the matter when we discuss the Budget. I would naturally prefer to reverse some of the more harshly unfair tax measures taken by the Chancellor over the last three and a half years, but maybe the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) will not necessarily agree with me in that.
There is clearly a much greater benefit to be derived by reducing the level of imports than by following the course set by the Chancellor. But the only other case made by many commentators at the moment is that, taken together with oil price increases, the Chancellor now needs to borrow until North Sea oil comes on flow. In other words the Conservative slogan will now presumably be "Conservatives will borrow bigger". Even if
272
it were possible—and the cost would be very high and some borrowing will obviously be essential—it does not remove the need to switch from personal consumption to exports. Indeed, it makes that course all the more necessary. Oil will certainly remove the need to borrow after, say, 1980, but it will not of itself repay the debts we shall have to build up between now and 1980. So I hope we do not place too much reliance on this new golden era that will arrive with North Sea oil.
The cuts in public expenditure alone will certainly not stop the level of inflation rising to as much as perhaps 15 per cent. in 1974. Those cuts alone will not stop the pound sinking in 1974. Both these problems will require a reduction in personal consumption and demand at home. That will itself help in the fight against inflation and above all it will strengthen exports, the balance of payments and the economy. That way only shall we stop the pound sinking and because of the export demand it would not lead to such heavy unemployment as would otherwise be created. To pretend that the problem can be solved in another way, as the Chancellor seems to be doing, is to give people a false impression of the urgency of the problem. Our charge is that the Chancellor is simply putting off the evil day by concentrating all his cuts on public expenditure.
I should now like to turn to precisely that concentration and pose the question that forms the latter part of our amendment. Assuming, for the sake of argument, that £1,200 million was about the right amount to cut in public expenditure, should it have been taken wholly from public expenditure or should some have been derived from private consumption? If it were correct to take it all from public expenditure, was it right to spread the cuts in the way that the Chancellor has done?
Let me make it clear that we accept in the present economic circumstances that all options are off and that many of the vitally important increases in public expenditure that my hon. and right hon. Friends and I want to see will regrettably have to wait. That does not mean that existing levels in every field should be chosen for cuts rather than tampering with the Chancellor's sacred cow of tax reliefs, which he has boasted so frequently

273
of handing out over the last three and a half years. If there is little room for expansion in public expenditure in the present crisis, across-the-board cuts could be both dangerous and costly. Sharing cuts between all spending Ministers is a practice which has grown up amongst successive Governments on both sides of the House. That may be fairer as between Ministers in Cabinet, but it often does the maximum harm to the country.
Perhaps I may give a few examples of what I mean. Capital expenditure on goods and services in law, order and protective services will be cut by £32 million. That saving could very well have been more than balanced by the cost of undetected crime and fires. Then there is to be a cut in the capital expenditure of the British Steel Corporation of £67 million. I should imagine that that will prove a very expensive cut if, as we hope in the not-too-distant future, we revert to economic growth. Yet I imagine that once again we shall probably find ourselves short of steel.
I wish to examine the arguments for cuts exclusively in public expenditure rather than in a mixture of public and private expenditure. First, there is the matter of fairness. It was audacious of the Chief Secretary to suggest that what the Chancellor of the Exchequer had ever done was fair. I doubt that even the Chancellor, in his fairer moments, would have claimed that. An increase in direct taxes would fall hardest, where it should at such a time of national crisis, on those most able to bear the burden. That is what the Chancellor should have done. Cuts in many areas of public expenditure will hardly affect the wealthier members of the community. Take, for example, community services. On page 85 of the White Paper we were told—before the most recent cuts—that increased expenditure:
"… reflects the Government's policy of providing additional help to areas of urban deprivation."
One knows that the Department concerned will try to protect community services, yet they will inevitably be hit by the cuts. One can only assume that the cuts announced on 17th December reflect the fact that the Chancellor of the Exchequer's concern for higher-rate taxpayers in 1974–75 is greater than his concern for areas of urban deprivation. The policy will almost certainly be
274
counter-productive, for it will increase admissions to hospitals, thus costing the State more than the amount of the cut announced on 17th December.
Regarding personal social services, it is stated in paragraph 8 of page 100 of the White Paper:
"Capital expenditure by local authorities is largely devoted to the provision of additional or replacement residential accommodation or day facilities for the elderly, the physically or mentally handicapped, the mentally ill and children in care, and to the improvement of existing facilities."
I know that the Department involved will try to differentiate in favour of these areas, but some cuts will be unavoidable.
We are bound again to come to the conclusion that the Chancellor of the Exchequer appears to prefer cuts or delays in this type of expenditure to increasing taxes, and again this policy will be counter-productive.
I turn to one of the most urgent needs of today, council housing, a need with which we all constantly come into contact. Rented accommodation is becoming more and more difficult to find in all our constituencies because fewer and fewer people are moving from council houses into owner-occupied houses. It is possible for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to boast that there are no cuts in housing expenditure, yet his policy has led to the cuts which have been made in recent years.
There is an incredible statement in paragraph 8 on page 70 of the White Paper:
"The assessment of local needs for rented accommodation is a matter for the local authorities and no limit is currently placed on the numbers of houses they may build to meet those needs."
As we all know, there is a considerable limit—a financial limit. Thus we find in Table 3.12, as my hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, East (Mr. Free-son) pointed out—the Chief Secretary promised to deal with the matter but did not—a forecast of a tragic net reduction of net investment of £190 million a year over four years in new building. That is a shocking cut at a time when the housing situation in local authority areas—particularly in heavily built-up industrial areas—is becoming explosive. Pressures on councils, especially in the north, regarding housing and other services is such that the councils need increased assistance—not a reduction. The

275
councils are now faced with an appalling choice between cuts in vital services or increases in the worst tax of all, local rates.
Another cut which will have serious consequences—but again not for the wealthier people in the community—is that affecting public transport. We know from an Answer to a Question on 21st December that there will be a cut of £178 million in roads and transport on the Department of the Environment Vote and a cut of £6·7 million on the Department of Trade and Industry Vote. Roads are an obvious choice for cuts—I do not quibble about that—but cuts in public transport would not only fall most harshly on an already long-suffering travelling public, but would also prove to be very costly if they forced more and more people away from public transport and on to the roads, at a time when the reverse should be happening.
Among the worst cuts will be those in education, amounting to £150·7 million. These cuts will not affect those who do not use State schools. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) gave some examples of the effect of cuts in education during yesterday's debate. He spoke about cuts in the number of under fives who are to be admitted to schools. Such a move will not affect people who do not use State schools. In Essex there are to be capital and revenue cuts of £626,000 in nursery programmes. In addition, the education authority in that area, and almost certainly many other education authorities, will not now be able to improve the teacher-pupil ratio, an improvement which is needed if we are to make improvements in our education system.
The Secretary of State for Education and Science said in yesterday's debate:
"I recognise that the cuts are serious, but they are not disastrous."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th January 1974; Vol. 868, c. 49.]
Those cuts will not be disastrous for the section of the nation which the right hon. Lady and her hon. Friends have divided from the rest, but they will be disastrous for that section which uses State schools.
In parts of Lancashire, including my own area, there are still primary schools over 100 years old where in high winds pupils who have to go to disgraceful outdoor
276
toilets have to carry a bucket weighed down with books to prevent them being lifted off their feet. That situation is likely to continue unless funds are found to deal with such matters. [Interruption.] It is not very funny. I invite the hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough (Mr. Proudfoot) to visit the areas where what I have mentioned is being experienced. The people there are not laughing.
Mr. Wilfred Proudfoot: The hon. Gentleman missed out a couple of words. He surely meant that the wind would take the pupils off their feet as they walked across the open area.
Mr. Barnett: If the hon. Gentleman finds it amusing because he thought that I had missed out a couple of words, it is typical of his attitude. I do not think that I made a mistake in describing that situation, but if I did, I apologise. It is surprising if it is found to be amusing.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer still prefers the sanctity of his tax cuts rather than to take action on the matters I have mentioned. We were told yesterday about more cuts in the National Health Service. Those cuts will not affect people who have had substantial tax relief and who do not use the Health Service. In yesterday's debate on health and welfare expenditure my right hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Mr. John Silkin) quoted an article in the Nursing Times for 24th January, which stated:
"The hospital supply situation, which has been gradually deteriorating in the past few months, is now near crisis point. Surgical dressings, disposables, cotton and plastic items of all kinds are in increasingly short supply."
It seems that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, rather than improve that situation, prefers to be able to leave his office—for the country's sake I hope it will be soon—able to boast that while the rest of his policies are in ruins his tax cuts are intact. Many other examples were given yesterday of how cuts will not only bring social hardship but are likely to end up costing the State more.
My hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones) spoke in yesterday's debate about a development unit at the Royal Manchester Hospital where 300 young people are helping to play a part in community life rather than be a

277
burden. Cuts to be made in that scheme will be a double disaster.
The more the Chancellor of the Exchequer's policy of almost total dependence on cuts in public expenditure is examined, the more it is exposed as being unfair to the less-well-off sections of the community, and as being inadequately costed in relation to its effectiveness. At a time when the country wanted to be told the truth, the Chancellor once again hid it from the public by choosing to make cuts in public expenditure which will take some time to be felt. When they are, he will no doubt be gone from his office, still seeking to claim credit for his tax cuts, which have done so much to create the present industrial climate. There can be no doubt that, as the amendment says, these policies have failed to meet the needs of the nation. I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to support the amendment in the Lobby tonight.
5.1 p.m.
Mr. Nicholas Ridley: I first congratulate my hon. Friend the Chief Secretary on his new position. As one of the worst offenders in a previous incarnation in subsidising nationalised industries, he will, I hope, now that he has turned from poacher to gamekeeper, know all the possible ways of stopping those subsidies in the future. I hope that he will carry them out. I wish him all success in his important new position.
I also pay tribute to the speech of the hon. Member for Heywood and Royton (Mr. Joel Barnett). He came a long way towards realising the gravity of the economic situation and towards proposing measures which, though unpopular, are necessary. That has not been the case in all speeches from the Opposition side. If we can agree at least on the seriousness of our economic problem, we are making progress.
But I take the hon. Gentleman to task on one point. Opposition spokesmen say over and over again that the answer to the problem is to increase taxation of the rich. Whether or not one is an egalitarian—and I am not—that totally bemuses and befuddles those following the argument. The implication is that if the Government's so-called concessions were reversed that would in some way provide enough money to close the gap in the
278
Government's finances. Everybody knows that that is not so, and to suggest that it is so is misleading.
I know that the hon. Gentleman suggests that in some way the climate will not be right for sacrifices unless that is done, but I think that he is aware that that has a misleading effect, because people believe that it is the reversal of those tax policies which will make the difference and bring in the money.
Mr. Joel Barnett: I did not say that increased taxation should be only at the higher end of the income scale, but that is essential if we are to provide the right sort of climate.
Mr. Ridley: I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman's honesty in that matter. I want only to make it clear that even if £100 million were raised from industry, commerce and the better off, which in my opinion would have a serious effect upon the invisible account, one of the main earners on overseas account, it would go nowhere to meet the gap in the Government's accounts which must be closed.
I welcome the cuts made in December by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I believe that he had no alternative, for a very good reason. There was a less good reason which can now, I hope, be disposed of—that the Government clearly wanted to keep an election option. The reason which is impressive is that any increases in taxation, particularly direct taxation, could not have been made in one week before Christmas. They would have required a great deal of preparation and then legislation, and clearly would not be possible until a Budget. Therefore, I think that my right hon. Friend had little alternative but to make a fairly strong gesture towards reducing the Government's deficit without precluding tax increases, which I believe will certainly be necessary as soon as they can be prepared. Therefore, I do not think that the Government are to be blamed for making the cuts.
But we must acknowledge that postponing programmes and postponing the purchase of stores will in due course have to be put right, because those programmes will have to be completed and those stores will have to be purchased.

279
The amount of the cuts is probably inadequate, at £1,200 million. To do in simple terms the arithmetic of the trade balance, we know that we are running a £2,500 million non-oil trade deficit. When we add £2,000 million for oil, we have a figure of £4,500 million. Against that, though it is seldom done, we must set the profit on invisibles, which may be £1,500 million, giving us a net gap of about £3,000 million. Much of that can no doubt be covered by long-term or short-term capital, but it does not seem wise to cover the bulk of it by capital borrowings. I very much hope that that deficit can be as to two-thirds reduced by tightening up the domestic economic situation.
What has happened is that the terms of trade have turned against us dramatically and in an important way. Although the Government said that they were prepared to let the balance of trade go wrong last year, because they expected an improvement in the terms of trade, that improvement has not occurred. Indeed, the terms have become worse, owing to the oil crisis. That must force us to accept a major change in our domestic economic circumstances to improve the position.
In relation to the details of the White Paper and the programmes, the responsibility of the State remains, once it has accepted the responsibility to discharge a programme, whether in education, pensions or whatever. By making cuts one can only put off the day when one must spend the money.
Although I support what the Government did, and believe that it was the only thing they could do in the circumstances, I think that there are only two ways in which Government expenditure can truthfully be reduced. The first is by greater efficiency in the public sector, by less use of men and materials. The second is by taking programmes out of the public sector and putting them back into the private sector. I want to talk briefly about those two possibilities in relation to the White Paper.
My right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench have been very careful and rigorous in looking at Estimates and cutting out waste, in so far as it is possible for Ministers to do that when the papers finally reach them. But before the papers reach them there are many opportunities
280
for improving efficiency in many services that the Government provide. I should like to see a much more rigorous attitude to measuring the performance of output of whole areas of Government activity, comparing it with similar figures abroad and, where possible, with similar figures in the private sector, and appointing people whose sole task it is to manage certain pseudo-industrial and pseudo-administrative parts of the machine more efficiently.
I cannot believe it right that big public companies such as ICI or Shell should spend large sums of money and employ many people on management efficiency and bonus schemes, and make endless checks into the efficiency of their organisations, whereas in the public sector practically half of our gross national product goes unmonitored and unsupervised. I hope, without being critical of the Government, that they will press on with plans to ensure, as has been done successfully in America, that higher standards of public efficiency are achieved.
We have had striking tax cuts from the Government, which are essential if in future the economy is to thrive and prosper. A much lower rate of taxation than the present rate is required in the decades ahead. I do not believe that we can achieve even the present level of tax cuts, let alone more, without compensating real cuts in public sector expenditure. We must consider the services which we deem necessary to be performed by the State as opposed to those which we can leave to individuals to pay for themselves.
The figures have now become quite interesting. The total of public sector spending in the White Paper is £32,000 million. I take off £1·2 million, which is the amount of the reductions made on 17th December. I am talking about a rough figure of £31,000 million after cuts have been made. That works out at £622 per inhabitant per year or £1,711 per household. Although it can be seen that a great deal of public expenditure is justified in terms of the conditions of 30 years ago when few people had an income of £1,711, let alone being able to afford to give that amount of money to the State to spend on their behalf, we now have a society with a higher standard of living, a higher standard of education and a higher standard of responsibility. Could not the

281
public now be trusted with some of that expenditure rather than for all control to be with the State?
I recognise that there are many social services which the individual cannot provide for himself. For instance, the individual cannot provide defence, overseas services, law and order or roads. However, I believe that the individual can be trusted more to provide for his own health and part of his own education. Greater parts of the social security system could be insured for rather than provided by the State.
In future, with the terms of trade swinging so heavily against us, no Government of either party can afford not to look at the possibility of giving back responsibility for at least some parts of the welfare services to the citizen. At present State expenditure on the nationalised industries is £175 million. That is not the capital but the subsidies which are given to those industries. The State provides £590 million for agriculture, £1,965 million for trade and industry and £2,169 million for housing. They are all areas where definitely more and more of the responsibility could be put back into the private sector.
I recognise that all the areas which I have mentioned are areas of Government expenditure which the Government intend to reduce.
Mr, Robert C. Brown: When will the hon. Gentleman learn that if Governments interfere with the price mechanism of the nationalised industries, as they have done for years, they must accept that deficiency payments are created by their policies? They are not subsidies.
Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman fortifies my contention that the Government should not interfere with the pricing arrangements for the nationalised industries. There is no point in kicking out the bill when the goods have been ordered. Therefore, we must accept the £175 million. I am saying that in future the Government should not seek to subsidise the nationalised industries or food or agriculture.
I know that much has been said about subsidies since we joined the Common Market. Labour Members have been clamouring for food subsidies yet in next year's expenditure £590 million will be
282
used for domestic food subsidies. That figure should be cut rather than increased. I do not see why people should not be asked to pay the true economic cost both of food and of housing with the present level of wages and social security payments. If that means that there must be increased pensions, increased supplementary pensions or increased benefits to provide a decent standard of living for the poorest people in the land, I shall vote happily for such increases. I do not see why the nation, threatened as it is by dire economic trouble, should continue to subsidise so many things, thereby distorting the price mechanism.
It is no coincidence that the total of the suggested cuts in the areas which I have suggested is about the same as the Government's deficit on revenue account last year or the year which we are now in. If the subsidies had not been paid during fiscal 1973–74 we would not have had inflation resulting from the money supply which that expenditure has generated. That is the order of the action which the Government must take.
In the first instance, the Government will probably have to increase taxation. To reduce expenditure along the lines which I have suggested must take time and must not be done too sharply. As a long-term objective, I welcome the declining share of public expenditure which is going to the four items which I have mentioned. I hope that the decline will be accelerated and that it will be major. Economic events have forced upon this country a major reappraisal of the economy. We can no longer continue with the old assumption of a rising standard of living with rising public expenditure. We must now choose from unpopular options. Although in the short term taxation must be increased, in the long term I should prefer to see subsidies reduced for goods and services which people can properly provide for themselves as a contribution to solving our problems.
5.19 p.m.
Mr. Robert Sheldon: Historically one of the most important matters to come before the House, and on which the House has been divided, has been public expenditure versus personal consumption. We all know that a great deal of that division was more apparent than real. What has

283
been said by the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) suggests, as we know well for other reasons, that the division between the House might become once more more important than in the immediate past.
It is unfortunate that we were not able to have a report from the General Sub-Committee in time for the debate. As we know, the broad shape of the annual arrangements for the debate was that each November, and possibly December, a White Paper would be produced and that there would be a debate of a general character on the White Paper before Christmas. At that stage the General Sub-Committee of the Expenditure Committee would get down to work. The comments by the specialist adviser would be used in obtaining evidence from the Treasury and other witnesses. This would culminate in a report to be debated in the Budget debate.
Unfortunately the late arrival of the White Paper has thrown this timetable astray. It is important that we have a debate better than a number of disparate speeches forming something like a Consolidated Fund Bill debate. This is a problem which many others see. I do not think we will see this debate on the Public Expenditure White Paper settle down for some time.
I should like to see the sub-committees of the Expenditure Committee represented in the Chamber rather more in future. I have always felt that if we have a debate in which it is being said that more expenditure should be committed in one area as opposed to another, it will be taken as representing a serious commitment only if interests outside the House use those sub-committees in a way in which they have not so far been used.
It would be a sign of success, for example, if the road lobby—an active and vigorous lobby—tried to influence members of the sub-committee concerned with the environment even to the extent of offering them trips or taking them out to lunch at the Savoy. It would be a sign that it regarded that sub-committee as a body to which it would be making representations and trying to persuade. Unfortunately lobbying is all too infrequently made because it is not throught advantageous. The sub-committees are generally ignored because they are not
284
sufficiently covering their job. They will do their job only when they find themselves the recipients of representations of a kind that have not so far been made to them.
I hope that, following our debates the Education Sub-Committee, for example, will investigate why education has been remarkably free from the ups and downs represented by cuts and by further expenditure. I hope that it will be seen that the roads programme has been going consistently down for a long time, that capital expenditure on the nationalised industries has been something of a switchback. There ought to be some comments by the sub-committees on these matters. This is a vital rôle of the Expenditure Committee which it is denying to itself.
I thank our specialist advisers on the sub-committee, Mr. Wynne Godley and Mr. Terry Ward, for their excellent work in producing memoranda for our subcommittee in such incredibly short periods of time. We are now becoming used to being able to obtain valuable information within a week or two. This helps us enormously. I thank the Treasury, too, for the help which it gives. I know that on many of these matters we tend to act in some ways as adversaries. Yet we know that as long as we are finding out useful information the Treasury respects the work of the General Sub-Committee. The greater frankness with which these matters are being discussed and investigated will be valuable not only to the sub-committee and to the House but ultimately to the Treasury.
I turn to the White Paper "Public Expenditure to 1977–78". We know that it is nothing of the sort. Because of the expenditure cuts of 21st December we know that this White Paper applies only to the period 1974–75. This cannot be a proper discussion of public expenditure beyond the year 1974–75. Also because nothing is known in detail about the £1,200 million cut we are dealing in detail only with public expenditure in the year 1973–74.
Whether the figure turns out to be £1,200 million or, as suggested £800 million, will be a matter for the General Sub-Committee, the Expenditure Committee and the House. What is quite remarkable is that two months after the

285
publication of the December cut we do not know what type of cut this is.
It could be one of three things. It could be a moratorium, in which the cut would be imposed and expenditure which was to be undertaken for a certain period of time would be suspended but would continue unchanged after that period of time. It could mean that the cut is imposed but that subsequently there would be a catching-up process so that in future the position would be as if it had never taken place. The third method is that the expenditure could be spread out and afterwards could be phased in. In other words, the expenditure would be stretched out and brought back in.
We do not know which of these is to apply. It is nonsense to talk about expenditure after this year because we do not know what it is to represent. Even the Minister may not have made up his mind. These uncertainties lead to great problems for the Government and the Treasury in the management of the economy by means of public expenditure. Having earned his reputation as the Chancellor who cut taxation, the right hon. Gentleman is reluctant to bring in taxation. It is tempting to him, above all—although I suspect it is tempting to all Chancellors—to try to use the expenditure side to manage the economy. It is just as attractive to this side of the House and we must note all the dangers.
One of the main dangers is the lack of exactness in using expenditure to manage the economy. For example, in the Financial Statement to the 1970 Budget, taxation and miscellaneous receipts were estimated to be capable of producing in the following 12 months the sum of £15,008 million. A year later the provisional out-turn was £15,260 million. That is the kind of situation which occurs year after year—£16,100 million as against £15,800 million, £16,700 million as against £16,800 million, £16,800 million as against £17,100 million. That is the measure of accuracy obtained through taxation.
As a means of managing the economy it has the enormous merit of exactitude. Compared with that we have to look at the performance of public expenditure. Has public expenditure been able to provide the same precision in estimating? We can look at the estimates of public
286
expenditure and compare them with the out-turn. It may come as a surprise to the House, but not to the General Sub-Committee, to know that until that sub-committee started work these figures were nowhere available. No one in the Treasury or outside was able to identify the out-turn of public expenditure as against the estimates of public expenditure. There was no discipline which said, "You are not accurate and therefore improvements need to be made" in the way that taxation discipline between estimate and outturn had existed for years. There was no impetus to produce the sort of accuracy on which fundamentally any use of public expenditure to manage the economy must depend. Only the recent somewhat laborious work of the General Sub-Committee made that possible.
Our earliest estimates cover the period 1972 to 1973. We are able to compare the estimate of public expenditure with the out-turn. Here we must exclude certain policy changes because the Government will make certain changes to increase expenditure here or to reduce it there to take account of the matters with which they are concerned. Excluding those, and taking only those estimates for the amount of goods, services or anything else for which they intended to provide, we find from Command Paper No. 4829 that we were dealing with the 1972–73 estimates in the White Paper. In the period from then until the final out-turn, the estimates were £1,150 million out. What is particularly significant is that by December 1973—within a few months of the end of the financial year—on the position as it was thought to be then compared with the position as it finally appeared three months later, the estimates were £900 million out.
The importance of that point is that the accuracy of public expenditure estimating is in no way comparable to the accuracy of revenue estimating. There are fundamental differences between the accuracy of the one and the accuracy of the other. There are many things which I would wish to do in using public expenditure as a tool for economic management. What is sad is that much information has only recently come to light despite the fact that the Government have tended to use it more and more. What is even more important

287
is that what was almost a Budget statement on 21st December used public expenditure almost entirely as a demand management tool. It is very seductive, but difficult, to use it as such.
Paragraph 12 of the Fifth Report from the Expenditure Committee, which was the General Sub-Committee's Report, published on 15th February 1973, states:
"Our major conclusion is that the public expenditure decisions taken during the past year. unless they are now modified, will make it essential to constrain the growth of real personal disposable income and consumption to a rate significantly below that of total output …"
That was a comment on the economy which was based on the use of public expenditure as a demand management tool. A month later, the then Chief Secretary, now the Minister for Energy, said in col. 912 of HANSARD for 12th March about our conclusion, "It just is not true".
I do not wish to dwell on the fact that the General Sub-Committee got it right and the Treasury got it wrong. It is not that kind of argument. What we have sought to do, and what we must seek to do, is to have a dialogue. Our conclusion that unless there was a modification in Government planning
"real personal disposable income and consumption"
was proceeding at a rate
"significantly below that of total output"
was true, as was shown by the 21st May cuts, by the October cuts and by the 21st December cuts. It was abundantly true.
I do not wish to bring to an end the kind of outspokenness which was demonstrated on that occasion, because I do not see this as a contest, but a certain amount of humility in Ministers is desirable if we are to get a dialogue going. No one in the House knows the answers. What worries me is that all too rarely has the Treasury been able to conduct the kind of open discussion which is becoming accepted as more general and useful to the information which the public acquires.
One matter is clear in the present situation: a significant movement of resources into exports will be needed. Ever since the days of Empire—I suppose that we can say since 1960 when our preferential tariffs came to an end—we have bad to
288
earn our way in the world. A shift of resources into exports to compensate for the markets which were irrevocably lost had to take place. Ten or 15 years later that shift has still not occurred.
How do we raise the level of exports and yet maintain a minimum increase in the standard of living? The answer to that question depends fundamentally on the growth of output. When the Chief Secretary referred to the 3 per cent. growth which we were enjoying in the autumn, he did not fail to take account of the 5 per cent. predicted at the time of the Budget. This was the time when the Prime Minister was saying that what Europe could do this country could do and that increases in growth obtainable there were also obtainable here. He was talking, not about a 3 per cent. growth, but a 5 per cent. growth which was modified during the year to 3 per cent. and which, because of supply constraints, might have been even less.
My answer on these matters, as it is on many others, is that the art of government must be, not to strive for the impossible, but to do that which is attainable. When Ministers go off to ski resorts to do oil deals, it is a thousand pities that they cannot make the much shorter journey to do coal deals. If coal had freshly been discovered, we would be treating it as one of the greatest bonanzas we had ever had. Money would be pouring into the miners' pockets so that we might be able to utilise that asset.
What frightens me most is that there may be something in the Government's incomes policy which I cannot see. Perhaps the Government have a wisdom which cannot permeate the minds of some of my hon. Friends. What is much more obvious to us is the bringing of this country industrially to its knees. That is certain; there is no possibility about that.
If we are to get our balance of payments into acceptable proportions output will have to grow faster. If we fail to achieve greater output we shall have to choose between borrowing excessive amounts and raising the level of unemployment. Any chance of removing the pressure on personal consumption will come only through growth, and after the experience of last year we cannot fail to be pessimistic about progress in the growth rate.

289
The General Sub-Committee took evidence from the Treasury yesterday and it will deal with possible ways of coping with some of the technical problems. The Treasury in future will need to justify more frequently than it has done the crucial actions it takes. Cabinet government is not wholly fitted for an examination of this kind. The personal position of the Prime Minister might make him suitably fitted to question some of these decisions, but there is no other organ apart from the sub-committee that does it effectively. Neither the Treasury nor anyone else can long continue to do the best for the country unless it is made to justify its actions more than it has in the past. I am not saying that the dialogue between the Treasury and the sub-committee is ideal or comprehensive, or that it does what we want. It is an attempt to get the process moving. It plays a useful rôle from which the House and the country can benefit.
5.42 p.m.
Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: The speeches we have heard have reflected much of the anxiety that is felt in the House about the direction of Government expenditure and its control. Each year we feel a sense of disappointment with these debates; we virtually empty the Press Gallery and our own benches. There are two reasons for that. One is the fundamental reason that the power to control Government expenditure is sliding out of the hands of the House of Commons. Senior Treasury officials make no secret of the fact that they find it tedious to listen to the opinions of back benchers. Consciously or unconciously we know that what we say carries little weight with them.
Secondly the document before us, although it contains small improvements each year, is intensely artificial. It starts from the premise that as things have been, they remain. If we are trying to gain an inkling of Government policy in big areas of expenditure of great importance to the nation, we do not find it here.
I sometimes have the feeling that trying to offer a fresh idea to the British Civil Service is like offering corn to a stuffed bird. Only a madman would persist in the attempt. But I recently came across a quotation from Disraeli which gave me heart. The great man once said:
290
"I have begun several things many times and have often succeeded at last."
One of my maxims is that if one wants to achieve anything one has to be prepared to make the same speech 100 times; it is futile to stop at 90 or even 98. I trust that I shall be forgiven this afternoon if I say one or two things that I have said on previous occasions. I still think them valid—perhaps with the passage of time even more valid—and I hope that my colleagues may feel the same.
What I always look for in this document is some evidence of the trend of official thinking on social policy and, in particular, the way in which the Government intend to intervene in the distribution of income. Once again this year one learns little from the document. One might have hoped to learn something about the effect of Community membership on the evolution of British social policy, but I have not been successful in finding a reference to that.
I have often said that taxation has to be considered as being of two completely different kinds. One kind of taxation is required by the Government to raise funds for their own activities. The other kind of taxation is redistributive. The Government raise money, for instance, to pay back in the form of pensions, or they may raise money not to pay back to the population simultaneously in the form of cash but in the form of services which the population would have to provide for themselves by cash expenditure if the State did not make provision. Education and health are obvious examples of that. In one kind of taxation the Government are arrogating revenue from the public for their own purposes; in the other they are engaged simply in redistribution or recirculation. In the latter case the Government are not the consumers but are merely acting as the impeller.
The pattern I should like to see has already begun to establish itself. We have a spring Budget in which we look at the whole pattern of intervention by the Government in the nation's economy. Then in the autumn we consider the up-rating of national insurance benefits, how much the Government are to spend in higher benefits—in increasing their rôle in the redistribution of income; and what they will do to find the resources to make that possible. I should like to see the autumn Budget become much more important.

291
Normally on these occasions the announcements are made to a virtually empty House. The House should be just as full as it is on Budget Day in March or April, because every man, woman and child in the country will eventually be affected by what the Government announce to give effect to their redistributive policy.
The redistribution of income is an essential index of Government policy, not only of their thinking about the relationship between young and old, the redistribution of resources between single people and families, between the fit and the sick, but also the male and female elements in the population, the North and South, the town and the country. What the Government do through intervention in the cash system is enormously important. It may be constructive or it may be wasteful or destructive. But it is increasingly difficult for Members of Parliament to discern exactly what is going on or what the Government are trying to do.
We are holding this debate in the context of intense industrial strife, social anxiety and unrest, some of which is due to the work of extremists or agitators no doubt. But if a large part of our industrial population is deeply discontented, there are real reasons for that. We should examine why tens of thousands—perhaps hundreds of thousands—of people are determined to achieve social change even by challenging the accepted democratic system. Partly they are right. The existing pattern of income, of family spending power in particular, is unsatisfactory and offends social justice. The Government must pay attention to that. One direct cause of discontent is the total lack of transparency in Government documents on this subject.
The questions may well be asked "Who is paying what, to whom and why?", but the answers are not available. Therefore, there is natural anxiety and discontent.
Surely everybody in the House would agree that pensions should be increased. It is unacceptable that this country, with a national wage of £40 a week or more, should provide a basic pension of little more than one-quarter of that amount. This relationship is not satisfactory. We all know this, but year after year nothing seems to happen. We have 3 million
292
pensioners who are obliged to turn to means-tested assistance to maintain the minimum standard which our society regards as acceptable. The pensioner should be paying income tax; but he should not be subjected to means tests. The money must be found by society to rectify the balance. But we find no evidence of this sort of thinking in this policy document.
On the question of disability, the conscience of the House has been stirred partly by the activities of the Disablement Income Group, but perhaps even more by the publication of the figures illustrating the extent of the disability problem. The Government under pressure have promised to produce a Green Paper on this subject in October. I hope that that Green Paper will give us a firm promise of a national disability income. If it does, it will only follow the pattern of our democratic neighbours on the Continent. This will require redistribution of resources between the fit and the sick. Once again one finds in the document no indication whatever on these lines: yet we know that a statement from the Government has been promised this year. There is no indication in the figures of what it might mean. Apparently no account has been taken of it.
I have often made speeches about family allowances. I am delighted that the Government have committed themselves to introduce legislation in this Parliament on the tax credit scheme. The first stage of the implementation of such a scheme will, I hope, provide for extension of family allowances to the first child and payment to the mother of a tax-free figure of £2 per week per child. These were the estimates envisaged in the Government's Green Paper on the tax credit scheme. But when one looks at the public expenditure document to see what effects the scheme might have, one learns nothing. This is disappointing.
There is a reference to the tax credit scheme on page 106 of the public expenditure publication as follows:
"Although the Government has accepted the report of the Select Committee on Tax-Credit and has announced its intention to legislate to give effect to the tax credit scheme, the precise timing of its introduction and the levels of credit have still to be settled. It is not yet possible therefore to take the scheme into account in the projections of social security expenditure

293
and the tables above do not reflect the important effects to be expected from the scheme in reducing the numbers relying on supplementary benefit and family income supplement."
It is obvious why I say that this is an artificial document—it takes no account of decisions already announced by the Government. The pressure of public opinion will force changes in the published figures and I hope that it will happen very soon.
I personally believe that the case for an increase in family allowances, tax credits or no tax credits, is unanswerable. Inflation is the main reason why this is necessary.
I am afraid that the retail prices index is being obliged to bear much more weight than this fragile indicator can carry. It is neutral as to family size. When that index changes because of a rise in some personal essential such as bread or clothing, the index takes no notice of the fact that a large family may suffer more from a change in the price of those goods than a smaller family. If the price of bread goes up by 1p, a family which buys only one loaf in half a week will not feel very much difference from the price rise, but a family that buys two or three loaves a day will be very much worse off. The retail price index takes no account of such considerations.
If wage increases are allowed to compensate wage earners in accordance with the retail price index, we are achieving a redistribution of income from families to single people. Single people are over-compensated and the larger families do not get compensated enough. This effect is particularly marked in the type of family which has two earners in full-time work. They get their compensation twice over in terms of the index, yet by definition that almost certainly will be the type of family which will not contain large numbers of children to be looked after.
The case for looking outside wages to compensate the population for inflation seems to be unanswerable. The social services are thought by many people who have not given much study to the subject to be largely concerned to give help to people who for one reason or another are not able to earn because they are sick, too young or retired, or indeed unemployed. But this is a superficial analysis.
294
Large elements of our social services in the passage of time have been introduced to give support to the man who is in full-time work but who for various reasons cannot manage on his wage. This is why the redistribution of income is such an intensely important aspect of social policy and of wages and industrial policy too. What some Labour spokesmen refer to as the "social wage" is of the greatest possible significance. But this document tells us nothing about this important area.
Obviously family allowances are the most direct form of intervention in the spending power of a family which has a breadwinner in full-time work. The family income supplement is important also. But the amount of Government expenditure on housing is of greater value to the man with a great many people to house than it is to a single person. The same goes for education, health and food subsidies. And it has often been pointed out—this was well understood by the Select Committee on Tax Credit—that the structure of taxation also provides a form of negative subsidy to the family man in full-time work.
Continuing inflation, which I am afraid we are not going to be able to defeat in the coming months—indeed, we may suffer from its effects for longer than that—makes the question of family income support from sources other than wages of obsessive public interest. The document devotes six pages to this subject, yet what the Government do by way of redistribution of income constitutes about half of total Government expenditure, if "redistribution of income" can be called "expenditure". Parliament still has big decisions to make in this direction. The Treasury must listen to what Members of Parliament on both sides of the House are saying about the redistribution of income.
It might be said that net Government expenditure on the redistribution of income is nil because it is only taking money from one source and giving it back to the recipients, who may well be the same people as the subscribers. With the passage of time the average man puts nothing into the redistribution of income and draws nothing back. But we must achieve a better distribution. There must be plain speaking on where the money will come from to achieve this better distribution. Much of it could

295
be found from the elimination of waste and over-coverage of objectives and misdirection of resources and also fiddling. I do not think anybody in the House would pretend that there is not a great deal of waste from all those causes.
But we have to find the money also from higher contributions. We cannot possibly raise family allowances and pensions and deal with the problem of disability unless we are prepared to bear the burden of higher contributions. But I repeat that, with a national average wage now running at £40 per week and perhaps more, the money is there from which people can make this contribution provided that the Government will give the lead. It must be explained why the Government are asking for a larger contribution from wages. If a man knows that when he comes to retire his resources will not fall to one-quarter of what they were while he was at work, he will know that the money is well spent.
If the Government encouraged people to insure their lives or to take out private pension endowments through insurance funds, it would not be thought that they were inducing people to bear higher taxation: it would be said that prudent provision was being made. Therefore, if the Government raise pensions by a compulsory contribution, they are simply asking our citizens to do what every one of us knows would be well advised if he did it for himself.
If we want to have redistribution of income systems on the scale and generosity of those of our Common Market partners such as Germany and France, the ultimate solution must come in the form of greater productivity. Until then we have to achieve a balance of forces between the contributions which people are expected to make, giving rise to the natural pressure of contributors not to have more money taken from them than is strictly necessary and, on the other hand, the pressure from the beneficiaries for more relief. If there was transparency in the Government's figures and they were handled in a way which made them universally comprehensible, those claims and attitudes would be more easily balanced and we should achieve a more democratic system for the redistribution of income.
296
In the meantime the pressure of public opinion will prove these estimates of Government intervention administratively obsolete, timid in conception and inadequate in scale. I hope that the Government will bear in mind the remarks I have offered and that they will not, as they have so often in the past, fall on empty ears.
6.1 p.m.
Mr. Elystan Morgan: I appreciate that considerable latitude is traditionally given to right hon. and hon. Members who take part in a debate such as this. I crave the indulgence of the House in exercising that latitude on this occasion. I intervene briefly to raise a specific matter, but one which I am sure the House will agree is of considerable public importance. I refer to the rapidly worsening situation affecting many hundreds of thousands of higher education students in Britain at this moment.
I speak as one who has two university colleges and other higher education colleges in his constituency. I speak also as a Welsh Member who revels in the high value that the Welsh people have for so long placed upon education and the part which education has played in forming the character of Wales and the comparatively classless society of which we are so proud.
I have also the honour to represent a constituency which has a unique record in higher education. Cardiganshire has the accolade of being the county which sends the highest number of its sons and daughters on to higher education. When one appreciates the scant resources of my community, such an achievement is all the more wonderful.
Like other right hon. and hon. Members who have higher education colleges in their constituencies, I have been receiving of late voluminous evidence of the considerable hardships suffered by students. Like other, I have made detailed investigations, and I am convinced of the accuracy and the genuineness of the claims which are made.
I am not talking about inconveniences, difficulties and inspired improvisations which students traditionally face cheerfully and which have been the experience of many of us in our own student days. I refer to something quite different—to

297
the bitterness and the agonising frustration which is the lot of scores of thousands of students whose grants are pitiably inadequate to support even the basic necessities of life. I am referring to the cruel struggle to supplement an inadequate grant which places upon so many students a burden of worry and of misery which is of such dimensions as to jeopardise the prospects of academic success which otherwise would be the experience of so many of them.
Speaking in this House yesterday afternoon, the Secretary of State for Education and Science made a brief passing reference in her usual cold and detached way to the smaller number of students receiving higher education this year and the expected further decline in the number in years to come. She said:
"Meanwhile, it is clear that even by 1976 student numbers will be running appreciably below the levels, explicit and implicit, in the White Paper. Already in this present academic year, the number of university students is 6.500 short of the number assumed in the quinquennial settlement. In the polytechnics and other further education colleges, recruitment is less buoyant than we expected."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th January 1974; Vol. 868, c. 47.]
In the same debate, the Under-Secretary sought to argue what I regard as an impossible case, that there was no evidence of any causal connection between that phenomenon and the situation of hardship in relation to grants which I am seeking to place before the House.
It is clear to anyone of intelligence—the Under-Secretary is a person of high intelligence, and what he said yesterday was unworthy of his standards—that these facts speak eloquently for themselves and that there is the clearest, the most direct and intimate connection between the fall in the number of students and the grave hardship which so many scores of thousands of them suffer at present. I am sure that every hon. Member who has a higher education establishment in his constituency will corroborate that assertion.
The problem is four-fold. There is the level of mandatory grants. The triennial award made in 1971 was a modest one by any standards. The runaway inflation of the past three years, which seems to have been in direct proportion to the intensity of the Government's anti-inflation policy, has however brought
298
about such a change in the situation as to make nonsense of that triennial award. The situation that we have reached is that the level of the mandatory award must be raised, otherwise many tens of thousands of students will be deprived of the basic human right of a college education.
This is a view which is supported by the Committee of Vice-Principals and Chancellors. The claim that is made by the National Union of Students for a radical raising of the level of the mandatory grant is such as only to bring the level of that grant back to where it was in 1968 and it should be conceded.
Then there are the parental means tests. One could say a great deal about these but I do not intend to belabour the point. I say merely that the philosophy of the test is completely untenable. There is no obligation in law upon a person to subsidise his son or daughter at the age of 18. There is such an obligation of financial responsibility up to the age of 16, but not beyond. It is completely unrealistic in the economic and social conditions of today, and it is a fact that in practice the level of parental subsidisation has been falling steadily over the past four or five years and will continue to do so with the worsening economic position of millions of workers. Clearly this is a factor which in itself is undoubtedly responsible for many thousands of persons who are completely adequate and otherwise properly qualified for a university or other higher education course failing to proceed with such a course.
The whole principle rests upon a central fallacy—namely, that a person who is an adult in law should be regarded as a minor for the purposes of the calculation of the education grant. The parental means test is wrong in principle and unreal in practice, and should be abolished forthwith.
Thirdly, there is the grave discrimination against married women students. The system seems to be designed to cause the maximum hardship. The grant to married women students—I am speaking of female students who are married to persons who are not students—was set at the unmunificent figure of £275 per annum as long ago as 1965. Since then there has been a reduction in the travelling allowance. Therefore, apart from

299
the completely devouring effect of inflation, we have the situation that the nominal level of grant is actually lower than it was nine years ago.
Again, the female married student is means-tested not only on her husband's income but, in many circumstances—for example, if she has married and commenced her course before the age of 21 or has married during her course and under the age of 25—on the income of her father as well. Is it not perverse in this age of emancipation that a married woman should be regarded at one and the same time as being the property of her husband and also within the potestas and tutelage of her father? There is the musty smell of mediaevalism in such a principle and it must be removed.
The Secretary of State for Education and Science a few months ago said:
"Married women students in comparison with other students are generously treated"
If the right hon. Lady were here at this moment I am sure that the House would like to know with which group of students they were being compared.
This is not just an issue of justice. I believe it to be relevant to the whole question of teacher supply. The White Paper on Education, published a few months ago, envisaged the need for substantial increases to be made in the number of women teachers entering or retuning to the profession. But there can be no question of attracting such people in substantial numbers, necessary though they be, unless this discrimination is brought to an end.
Lastly there is the question of discretionary grants. The House will be aware that only courses designated by the Department of Education and Science—those being degree courses or broadly their equivalent—qualify for the mandatory award. Other higher education courses are entirely at the whim or caprice of an education authority whether any grant is paid or, if so, what its level should be.
It used to be said of the development of equity in the fourteenth century that it "varied from case to case as did the length of the Lord Chancellor's foot". One could say that many of these discretionary grants vary from case to case with the depth of the purse or of the
300
compassion of the county treasurer. It is clear that a system which breeds so much bitterness and gives rise to such feelings of suspicion must be replaced immediately by a system of nationally agreed grant regulations which ensure an adequate standard of living for every student in higher education.
I submit that any compassionate and fair-minded person who has knowledge of the matters of which I speak and of the position generally would agree that it is an extremely grave situation that causes massive hardship, denies education to thousands of students, and makes the careers of others an abject misery.
The Robbins Report espoused a progressive and noble ideal. It sets its standards in this way:
"Courses of higher education should be available for all those who are qualified by ability and attainment to pursue them and wish to do so."
That fine principle is now being spurned. Harsh conditions of poverty are responsible for depriving many thousands of the higher education which is their basic human right.
If we passed an Act of Parliament that specifically stated that persons who came from a certain background, who had already suffered general deprivation on account of poverty, and whose parents were of modest means were by law debarred from entering universities and other institutions of higher education in Britain, we would earn the ridicule, the scandal and the contempt of the whole world.
The law of poverty is as harsh in its operation and as certain in its sanctions as the law of the land. My plea is that the report compiled by the working party should be accelerated as far as is humanly possible. This afternoon the Under-Secretary of State said that major parts of it had already been completed. Time is of the essence if the injustices and anomalies which threaten to strangle the whole of our higher education system are to be removed.
6.18 p.m.
Mr. John Loveridge: The hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Elystan Morgan) has spoken movingly about the needs of education. I think we all share his wish that the progress of education in this country should go forward as fast and as well as possible. But

301
that progress must depend to a great degree on the economic progress of the nation as a whole, and that is directly related to the growth forecasts in the White Paper. It is these forecasts about which I wish mainly to speak this afternoon.
Before reaching the forecasts, I want briefly to refer to the cuts of 17th December. They will have a profound effect upon the whole of the White Paper. Part of them must come from real cuts. By "real cuts" I mean, for example, that if there were a class of frigates and one frigate were not to be built, that would be a real and specific cut out of the programme. But if, instead of cutting the programme in that way, there were to be a delay in spending, that would be another kind of cut. I would cut the cash going out, but it would not be of the same nature. It could be due to a bottleneck in industry because the goods could not be supplied in time.
Then there is a third aspect by which cuts could arise. They could come from deliberate delays, actually postponing contracts, on the part of the Departments. I understand from evidence given to the General Purposes Sub-Committee of the Expenditure Committee yesterday that the cuts of about £1,200 million are to come on top of any shortfall in spending anticipated on the White Paper figures. It is good to learn that much, but it would be an even greater help to understanding the effects of the cuts if a supplement to the White Paper could be issued later showing which cuts were of which kind, from among those that I have described—the real cuts, the cuts due to shortages and the cuts due to delays. They all cut the cash flowing out from Government spending, and that is the object of the exercise. I appreciate that there would be difficulties in providing figures such as I should like to see, but I hope that my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary will examine the prospect of giving such detailed figures in case it may be possible.
It is also clear that short-term considerations must overwhelm the accuracy of the White Paper figures for the coming year, particularly over the growth rate to which I referred. The figures shown on page 10 for 1972–78 are of two kinds. Evidence was given to the Sub-Committee that a fairly high rate of growth—perhaps
302
4 per cent.—would be needed over the remainder of the five years ahead after the immediate crisis has passed if unemployment was to be kept from reaching quite unacceptable levels. This is of the greatest importance. Hardly anyone in the House would disagree about that. But this aspect could be affected by new factors and especially by the growth of debt which we see ominously looming on the horizon—and not a very distant horizon.
I believe that the long-term outlook for Britain is good, but the oil crisis has undoubtedly hit our country hard. Our debts abroad could grow to much more than £10,000 million before the North Sea oil flows in. Already, as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor told us on 22nd January, we are estimating extra oil costs alone as about £2,000 million this year. That is a very heavy burden of debt and, however it may be offset by bilateral arrangements, must remain a debt to be paid one day.
We do not know and cannot know what will happen to the price of oil. It may fall or rise. But what we do know is that world liquidity has grown by 62 per cent. in the past two years alone, far more than the growth in world trade, and that such a growth in world liquidity can hardly be a prescription for low world prices, unless there is a world slump in trade on a quite unexpected and horrific scale.
At the same time we know that there is no stable base for world currencies. We may expect, therefore, to suffer more from volatile markets and from crises over our currency than we have done hitherto. Indeed, if we look at the unadjusted balance of payments figures we will see that over the past two years the violence of the upward and downward movement has been much greater than it has been in former years. These larger swings in the unadjusted figures all point to much greater uncertainties from month to month as we go along. Although we expect from the seasonally-adjusted figures that there may be an improvement due to the lower value of the pound, it all points to the growing need for a settlement of world currency problems before we can adequately plan our figures on a realistic basis for page 10 of the White Paper.

303
We wish the Chancellor luck in getting a world settlement. But can he get such a settlement when the Europeans themselves find it hard to agree? Whatever the settlement, we know that this counry has to borrow abroad. We hope for long-term loans on fair terms. We hope that we will not have to pay them back until the late 1970s or the 1980s. Indeed, we suspect that we should not be able to pay them back before then. But even in those years the debts must be repaid.
In these circumstances, what further steps can the Government take, in addition to the surtax increases and the cuts of about £1,200 million from public spending announced on 17th December? First, the Government could raise taxation and further cut demand. But one cannot help suspect that the cuts already made have done enough in reducing home demand and that a greater cut might lead to an unexpected, even savage, downward spiral of internally-generated slump, especially after the effects of the present coal and oil shortages are taken into account. Perhaps we might add at least a limited amount of taxation on some commodities, such as petrol or cigarettes. But to add greatly to taxation would seem unreasonable in the circumstances.
Second, the Government could cut public spending more than they have done; but the £1,180 million or thereabouts will already hurt. The hon. Member for Cardigan complained about part of that hurt. Perhaps the Government have done enough in that respect; but what they have done I commend.
Third, the Government could let the pound fall further. But the pound is already undervalued in real terms and there would be little point in allowing the value to fall so far that we were giving away our exports for less than the price of raw materials; and the stronger dollar is pressing the pound downwards quite hard enough.
What remains? What else could the Government do to save us from too great a burden of foreign debt, even though that debt is phased forward to the late 1970s and even the 1980s? Few things could affect the White Paper gross domestic product forecasts more than the size to which the debt grows. We must
304
try to keep it within our capacity to repay within reasonable time.
It is therefore worth looking at unfashionable ideas. I should like to make four suggestions. They have not been fashionable for some time. They may not be the answer, but I believe that they deserve detailed examination.
The first suggestion arises from a thought worth recalling: that it is over 20 years since we were faced with world prices rising so severely against us. When the former Mr. R. A. Butler was newly appointed Chancellor of the Exchequer in November 1951, in the face of an expected severe foreign payments deficit he cut imports and, in his own words, "cut them good and hard" in November 1951, and more cuts followed in January and March of the following year. As he himself said:
"Our balance of payments position justified these exceptional actions, but we were acutely aware that import cuts limited expansion, carried the danger of reprisals, and could not for both these reasons be regarded as more than temporary."
However, writing 20 years after the event, he said:
"I was the last Chancellor to use such import controls and must testify to their efficiency."
Conditions have changed. The Government are no longer such a large purchaser themselves of foreign goods as they were in those days. The old wartime structure for administrative control has gone. We had not at that time the obligations we now have to our European colleagues.
But in some ways even now we are applying quantitative restrictions to imports by voluntary arrangements, so called. For example, on 16th February of last year it was announced in the House that Japanese industry had agreed to limit its exports of roller bearings to this country to 2,805 tons this year. The imports are monitored. Why cannot we extend this process? The old wisdom of R. A. Butler in 1951 and 1952 may still be helpful.
However, even then there was a comeback. Churchill apparently told Butler that Daladier was very worried that he might lose his seat in the French parliamentary Chamber. His district apparently exported glacé cherries whose entry had been stopped here. But the next year all was well. The restrictions were gone

305
and the cherries could come in. Today the restrictions might not have to be applied for longer. They could simply be applied through the Department of Trade and Industry by limiting the licences to importers—I again stress this—on a purely temporary basis.
It could even perhaps be argued that such checks on the imports of manufactured goods might be to the benefit of our European partners themselves. After all, they can see only too plainly that we cannot go on buying so much in manufactures without achieving such potential debts that we might hardly be able to buy at all. It may therefore even be in their interests to co-operate in helping us in such a form of restraint.
The second aspect affecting the growth figures for the White Paper is the value of our currency. The floating pound has helped, though it should be noted that not all the pound is really floating because some of it is guaranteed at higher levels than the current exchange rates, and I believe that our obligations to meet the differences will soon have to be met.
Now, unless the Americans are willing and able to underwrite the value of the pound, surely it is time to consider fixing it—and fixing it at a fairly low level in relation to the value of the goods and services it represents; not fixing it for all time, but fixing it for as long as is necessary and convenient. At the same time as we do that, to prevent runs of hot money by speculative dealings, we would have to put firm controls upon dealings on the foreign exchange markets—that is, upon dealings not needed for normal trading purposes.
We might in those circumstances even be able, in part at any rate, to segregate some of our own internal interest rates from the need to draw hot money and keep it in this kingdom. We might even be able to bring down some internal interest rates, which in itself would be beneficial.
The third suggestion relates to the greater encouragement of our exporters. It is not enough to say "Exporting is fun". The men who work at it, like the men who promote it, should benefit directly. Why not, therefore, consider harmonising our top marginal rates of taxation down to those of our neighbours? The degree of discouragement for people to enter risky and difficult overseas
306
markets is quite underestimated in our present taxation policy. If it were possible to relate the tax cut to the percentage of exports in a firm's accounts, that would be even more direct and salutary in its incentive effect. I can see that such taxation would inevitably give rise to anomalies, but what taxes do not have those?
The fourth and last suggestion relates to import savings. It is obvious to most of us that we have to go about our business of import-saving over oil. We are very glad to develop our own oil in order effectively to save imports. But the need to grow more of our own food, for example, has not been so obvious to most. That need may become as self-evident as the need to develop our own oil supplies if world food prices are sustained or increase. The old argument that the returns from maximum output of home agriculture are inadequate will hardly bear up any longer if food prices go on rising.
However that may be, one way or another it is certain that Britain ought to do all in its power to keep its foreign debts down to a reasonable proportion of our wealth and capacity for repayment.
Some of the suggestions I have made come quite painfully from me, because I have always been a believer in the freeing of trade, the removal of barriers to trade. I accept that what successive British Governments have done to remove barriers to trade has been the best thing for us. It is only now in these new conditions, in this threat of vast indebtedness, that I draw attention to these unfashionable ideas and ask the Government not necessarily to act upon all of them but to give them their careful thought.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): Order. I should point out to the House that we have had only five backbench speeches, averaging more than 19 minutes each. I shall not accommodate half the number of those who wish to speak if speeches of that length continue. I ask hon. Members, so that other hon. Members may get a chance to be heard, to restrict their remarks.
6.41 p.m.
Mr. John Pardoe: I must say that I went a long way with the analysis of the problem as presented by the

307
hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Love-ridge). But I fear that it would be a good thing if the four proposals which he mentioned as being unfashionable remained unfashionable for a considerable length of time, with the exception of his last proposal where he was on ground with which I had considerable agreement, namely. the rôle of food import substitution.
Although the Opposition's amendment could mean that the debate could be about many aspects of economic and industrial affairs, I want to confine myself to some of the fundamental aspects of economic policy, because it is essentially a debate about demand management. It is not my purpose to apportion blame for what has happened or for the present situation in the country.
There are innumerable fashions in demand management. The one thing that is certain is that it is a great deal more difficult than it looks. It is always easy to get it right with hindsight, but at least hindsight may teach us something for the future. If we look for a moment at what has happened to public expenditure and public income in relation to demand management over the past few years, we can see a part of the problem.
In 1967 we had a public sector financing gap which was covered by public borrowing of £1,500 million; in 1970, only three years later, we had a public sector surplus of £1,000 million; in 1973, again only three years later, we had a public sector borrowing requirement of £4,000 million to £4,500 million. Whatever the proper management of demand may be, it cannot conceivably be that. No one seven years ago would have suggested that such a crazy course was the right one for demand to follow. I do not think that anyone seven years ago could possibly have forecast that that was the course it would follow.
Therefore, there must surely be better ways of managing demand. It is hardly surprising that Professor Neild has recently suggested a commission to investigate how we manage our demand and what we can do to improve it. Whether such a commission would come out with sensible suggestions is a moot point. But what is the Government's reaction to his suggestion? Do they consider that recent history indicates that we
308
know how to manage these things and that everything is well under control?
Part of the problem has been that politicians and Treasury knights like to fly by the seat of their pants. They react to moods—politicians more than anyone else other than perhaps the media—and these moods are cyclical. We are about to become submerged in a mood at this moment of time—a mood of doom, gloom and national despondency, best described perhaps by Samuel Brittan the other day in the Financial Times with the words "sado-masochistic doom-mongering".
It is not a mood that is confined to even one or two parties in this House. The thinking behind it goes rather like this: "We are in a hell of a mess and we ought to do something about it, and that something must be deeply unpleasant. If we do not do something deeply unpleasant, no one will believe that we are being truthful about the extent of the mess we are in or that we are serious about our intention to get out of it."
There is doom and gloom by the bucketful—in the national Press, in this House, on television and elsewhere. There are calls for cuts in public expenditure and more cuts on top of those we have already had, calls for increases in taxation, which were implied almost, I thought, by the Opposition's amendment. I hope we may have a denial, but that implication could well be read into the amendment. There are calls for every conceivable form of foul-tasting economic medicine. It is not for nothing that economics has been called the "dismal science". It is indeed that at this time.
An epidemic of national misery will solve none of our economic problems. None of it will get us out of our present mess—that is certain. Indeed, there is far worse to come. We must beware that this national misery does not get us into a much worse mess. Many of the worse things that have been done to the British economy over 10 or 15 years have happened because we have too often tried to deal with yesterday's problems with measures which only served to cause tomorrow's problems.
At present everyone is obsessed with the problem of inflation. It is still a massive problem and will remain so for some time to come. But on the horizon already is the spectre of world deflation

309
and a slump of 1931 proportions all over again.
For once in a debate of this sort we have had no mention of Mr. Wynne Godley from the Opposition Front Bench. I though that was surprising. Mr. Godley can hardly be called the "voice of reckless expansion", yet he wrote in the London and Cambridge Economic Bulletin in The Times on 23rd January:
"… the most probable outcome"—of the present policies—
"is calculated to be an export growth of only 8 per cent. a year. Given the same balance of payments target and Budget deficit, this would only generate output growth of 2 per cent. per year, increasing unemployment to about 800,000 by end-1977 and involving consumption growth at an average of only 1 per cent. a year for four years."
He went on later:
"If no measures are now taken to expand demand, the likelihood is for a rapid adjustment and recession of just this kind."
Those are forbidding words. So it is really back to base, back to the old problems of the British economy which the hon. Member for Hornchurch described just now and back to the question "Is there any way out?" He tried to flourish a few unfashionable suggestions with which I did not wholly agree.
I will spell out briefly what should be the aims of any British economic policy of any Government. Surely they are to procure a rising standard of living in line with the rising aspirations of the citizens, to bring about fair distribution of the available standard of living and wealth. That means all things to all men, but I mean a commitment to equality such as has not been practised by any Government that we have had so far. Another aim must be full employment, another must be stable prices and another, taking one year with another, a balance in our trade and financial transactions with the rest of the world. I do not say a balance of payments surplus or deficit, because one is as useless to us as the other.
Is this impossible? Is it the economist's equivalent of the philosopher's stone? There are plenty around to say "Yes". Much depends on the definition of words like "rising standards of living", "fair distribution", "full employment" and "stable prices". To deny that all these things can be brought into some sort of balance such as the average citizen believes is compatible with his
310
happiness is to admit the futility of our endeavours. If they are to be kept in balance and if the Government are to be held responsible for maintaining that balance, the Government must be given the tools for the job.
I nail my colours to the mast immediately by saying that the long-term problem of the British economy, at least over 25 years, the problem of the debilitating low level of investment and its consequent low productivity, has been brought about by lack of effective demand for the goods that such investment will produce. That is at the base of all our problems today.
Mr. Loveridge: While many of us would agree with much of what the hon. Gentleman has said—that we must not allow demand to fall too low—would he not agree that none of the admirable things he has so well expressed that we need for this country can be achieved unless our debts are kept to a reasonable proportion? Massive debts would prevent what the hon. Gentleman wants.
Mr. Pardoe: Yes, indeed. I shall come to that point.
In earlier years, low demand was brought about by the national habit of clinging to an outdated exchange rate as though it were some piece of imperial driftwood. It caused us to deflate again and again in a vain attempt to stifle home demand and switch goods to the export market. It failed again and again. It failed because exporting, whilst it might or not be fun, was not profitable, and it was not profitable because the rate of exchange which we insisted upon had more to do with a national inferiority complex than with economic realism.
It was that analysis which caused some of us to urge in the mid-1960s that we should abandon the fixed exchange rate and adopt a managed float. A managed float enables the Government to have the best of both worlds. It removes the rigidity of fixed exchange rates yet provides a necessary degree of stability and enables the Government to have an exchange rate policy, which we do not, apparently, now have. It is effective against speculators and it thus has great advantages over a free floating currency, because the free float virtually excludes anything which can be called an exchange rate policy.

311
There can be no doubt that much of the recent deterioration in our balance of payments and a great deal of recent inflation has been due to the somewhat anarchic movements of the exchange rate of the pound. A large part of this problem could have been avoided had we adopted the managed float by means of crawling pegs instead of the free float.
The long-term economic problems of low investment, depreciating currency and a large balance of payments deficit cannot be solved by cutting back demand. The cuts in public expenditure which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has already announced will, I believe, have a considerable effect on business confidence, even without subsequent events of which we yet know nothing. In particular they will have a catastrophic effect on the construction industry.
Why have we been unable to build the houses we need? It is because of lack of confidence in the industry in future demand. We have continually had too short-term an approach to demand management in the building industry, and the crazy ups and downs in the supply of mortgage finance and of loans available to local authorities are the things which have really damaged the building industry in the long term.
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury spoke of the White Paper having been framed in the light of autumn's events. Since October we have had the massive cuts in public expenditure and an equivalent of a massive increase in taxation. I speak not of taxation in the sense that most of us know it but of the increase in oil prices, which will hugely reduce demand and is equivalent to an increase in taxation of about £1,500 million. Taken together with other measures, including the cuts in public expenditure, this means that since the autumn, when the White Paper was framed, we have had cuts in total demand between 1973 and 1974 of about £2,500 million a year.
I do not ask the Government to reflate immediately in the present crisis. I do not ask them to increase demand in the present period of short-term work. What I do ask is what are their plans for increasing demand when the short-term work period is over, because unless they are prepared to reflate the economy
312
then we shall drift into very high unemployment and a 1931 situation.
Mr. Ridley: Is the hon. Gentleman quite right about the extra oil money being highly deflationary? Surely the intention is to borrow the money back from the Arabs, in which case it will have no effect in terms of inflation or deflation because what goes out will come in again. It would be deflationary if, instead of borrowing, we had to deflate in order to enable our balance of payments to bear the extra £2,500 million.
Mr. Pardoe: We do not know what is the intention. As things stand, however, I believe that the hon. Gentleman is wrong when he says that the £1,500 million going out in increased oil expenditure will not be deflationary. I believe that it will end up as deflationary. That view is subscribed to by a large body of financial opinion. It is by no means mine alone. It is rare to find Samuel Brittan and the London and Cambridge Bulletin in agreement on anything, but they happen to be in agreement on this.
It is essential, in dealing with inflation, to distinguish between demand inflation and cost inflation, because demand inflation is yesterday's problem and cost inflation is today's and tomorrow's problem. If we try to deal with it as demand inflation, we shall cause a slump tomorrow. We have to deal with it as cost inflation, which will get worse rather than better. If we try to deal with it by the same means as we have employed in the past to deal with demand inflation, we shall fail miserably. We have tried it before. We tried it in 1970. We had a large excess of Government income over expenditure. Yet we still had inflation. The reason is that we were trying to deal with cost inflation by demand control. We shall fail again if we try that again.
There is an assumption, shared by all sorts and shades of political opinion, that somewhere there must be a point where reduction of demand will bite deep into cost inflation and stop it in its tracks. We have never found that point in the past. We plumbed the depths of unemployment in the early 1970s but we did not find it then and we shall not find it in the future.
What, then, should we do? First, on oil prices, I believe that we should do

313
nothing except to allow the oil prices to work through with their full effect on the economy; to allow the increase to have its free and unfettered effect in reducing demand for oil and oil imports. The balance of trade deficit caused by the increase in oil prices must be covered by borrowing, although I do not necessarily imply that we shall be able to get it from the source of our problem, the Arabs.
There are enormous uncertainties in the near future in relation to oil prices, and it would be mad to ruin our whole economy in order to solve a problem which may be very short term. There is no point in gazing into a crystal ball for the future of oil prices. I judge it as at least as likely that we shall see a considerable fall in world oil prices within the next three years as a continuing shortage and continuing higher prices. In such a situation of uncertainty, it makes no sense to make long-term policy.
The best thing to do, therefore, is to finance the difficulty over the short term. The non-oil deficit was running at about £2.500 million at the end of last year and this, as the Governor of the Bank of England has pointed out, has to be reduced. The only question of policy, therefore, is how fast one goes for reduction. My advice to the Government is to make haste very slowly, because to do it quickly would create massive unemployment of well over a million. How can anyone say that we should solve our economic problems by putting a million people out of work, denying the country their output and paying them into the bargain to produce nothing? That makes absolute nonsense.
Do the Government expect that cost inflation in 1974 will run at a rate of 15 per cent. or more? It would be interesting to know what level they have decided it will reach. Stage 3, as we said when it was first introduced, is grossly inflationary. When do the Government believe that the threshold will be reached? Will it be April or May? What steps do they intend to take to postpone that date, at least until the end of this calendar year? What level are the Government aiming at? Are they aiming to bring inflation down from 15 per cent. to, say, 10 per cent. or 8 per cent. a year? Do they believe that stage 3 will do it? If not, what are they intending to do about that?
314
We must have a new counter-inflation policy to take the sting out of cost inflation. We need temporary subsidies on food and we desperately need increased family allowances because that is one of the things that could take a substantial part of the sting out of price inflation and its pressure on wages. A family with three children takes family allowances which are equivalent to 4·6 per cent. of average industrial earnings. When they were introduced by Beveridge—and they were introduced partly for the impact they would have on wage policy—they were equivalent to 8½ per cent. of average industrial earnings. If we increase them again, that alone would probably be enough to deflect a part of the pressure that is now coming from married men—and that includes married miners.
A selective counter-inflation tax to penalise those who cause inflation by excessive wage or price increases also seems to me the best and fairest way for the Government to control the overall amount which the country can pay itself, and it can do it selectively without the worst ravages of outright deflation through general increases in taxation. I do not see how this House can attempt to control public expenditure unless it is told what the Government's policy is in these key fields: exchange rate policy; counter-inflation policy; growth policy; investment policy; energy policy—particularly in relation to oil and Europe; currency policy—particularly in relation to the pooling of European reserves; and our balance of payments policy.
Exactly what level of deficit are the Government prepared to run with over the next two years, and what is their policy of import substitution? Do the Government have policies on these fundamental matters? If not, how can they make decisions about the level of public expenditure and the control of demand which have the slightest chance of coming right? These questions spring from every page of the White Paper and they must be answered before the House can do its job in controlling public expenditure.
7.3 p.m.
Sir Henry d'Avigdor-Goldsmid: The hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) has achieved at least

315
one unique feat in that he has mustered the support of more than 50 per cent. of his party.
Mr. David Steel: That is not original. We have heard it before.
Sir H. d'Avigdor-Goldsmid: The hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) has been here so long that he knows everything. The hon. Member for Cornwall, North responded to the request from the Chair for short speeches from back benchers with a fairly lengthy oration and I shall not seek to emulate him in that respect.
This is an unfortunate White Paper which ominously appears in a blue cover. It is the most short-lived document any of us has ever had to consider because it came out almost simultaneously with its gravestone, the Government's measures of 17th December. They effectively buried under the weight of facts the forecasts, honourable and well-intentioned as they were, of the Treasury. We are therefore not looking at the White Paper for news of the future. The news of the future is all too painfully clear. We have here a recognition by the Treasury, under the promptings perhaps of the Expenditure Committee and with the support of a compliant Chancellor, that there was a need for the House of Commons to survey expenditure and to project it forward. That is what the White Blue Paper seeks to do.
I do not share the feelings of my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington, South (Sir B. Rhys Williams) that the document is therefore valueless. I think that the habit of seeking to build up a projection is useful and could be carried on from year to year. More than that, as years that are less crisis-ridden appear, the value of these White Papers will grow. In that respect, I am glad that the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr Sheldon) referred to what I think was the major conclusion of our White Paper debate a year ago, namely, that the relevant report of the Expenditure Committee indicated the impossibility of maintaining a growth rate of 5 per cent. without cutting down considerably on personal expenditure. This warning was dismissed by my right hon. Friend who is now the Minister of Energy, and I only hope that
316
his forecasts in his new capacity will not be equally misguided.
However, this is a valuable paper and the study of it has been useful to the General Sub-Committee and, I think, to the House. Yet the debate is taking place under artificial conditions because I do not think that even the Opposition in their desire to score a point believe that the present crisis could have been mitigated by means other than by concentrating on what was immediate. One can take immediate action about commitments for public expenditure on immediate projects, but any other action would need a Budget and would not be of immediate value. It seems inevitable that the action should have been taken.
Although the amendment is good enough to pay
"tribute to the work of the Expenditure Committee and its Sub-committees",
and although I may be thought churlish in not accepting that, I still shall not vote for it. Even if it said
"lauds with the highest praises the work of the Expenditure Committee"
I do not think I should want to tiptoe across to the other Lobby.
This is an imaginary debate in an imaginary situation. Some months ago I referred to the citizens of Pompeii discussing the need to improve the public bathing system while Vesuvius was about to erupt on top of them. I think that the lava is now beginning to come down and that soon we shall be discussing another and grimmer forecast.
If one drives a car too fast for any length of time and has an almighty bang, one does not get back into the driver's seat saying that instead of driving at 70 miles an hour one will in future drive at 50 miles an hour, because it is unlikely that there would be a car to drive. That is the sort of dilemma facing the Government and the spending Departments.
By parliamentary tradition we should have a full day's debate on this matter which should be earnestly studied. With the exception of the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Elystan Morgan), who made an interesting speech about student grants, no hon. Member had made an attempt to argue that the White Paper mirrors in any way the financial measures in store for us in the near, foreseeable future.

317
I congratulate the Treasury upon leaving out the accompanying Yellow Paper which we had last year called "Methodology". It is an unattractive word and an unattractive concept, and I am glad that it is no longer necessary.
I am pleased to see that the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne is back in the Chamber again. His work and the work of the Sub-Committee have provided much useful material and have deservedly gained wide applause, so deservedly in fact that I think it is his ambition that all Sub-Committees of the Expenditure Committee should work in the same way. I take the liberty of departing from that, because not all hon. Members, or even all members of the Expenditure Committee, have a frustrated desire to be a cost accountant or chartered accountant. Sometimes in debates during the Committee stage of the Finance Bill we all think that we are the best of tax lawyers, but experience does not generally bear that out.
Your predecessor in the Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker, advised me and all other speakers to be brief, and I shall do my best to make up for the length of other speeches by bringing down the average time.
There has been a great deal of talk about direct taxation not being altered, but I seem to remember that the measures announced on 17th December included an increase in surtax—what a terrible thing! However, it did not apply to anyone over 65. Therefore, I assume that it is only people over 65 who pay surtax who are liable to support the hon. Gentleman in question.
This is not an occasion when one can be other than mildly irrelevant. I have done my best to keep my irrelevancies to a minimum. I wish the Government well in their awful task.
7.15 p.m.
Mr. Edmund Dell: All Opposition Members regret that the Chairman of the Expenditure Committee is not willing to join us in paying tribute to the work of that Committee. We attribute that to his modesty.
Much mention has been made in the debate of oil, which will rescue us from our present dire situation. About that I make two comments. First, we are still waiting to hear from the Government
318
what they propose to do to repair the serious mistakes which were made in the fourth round of licensing. Unless these mistakes are repaired they will rob the country of large sums of money which would greatly benefit our balance of payments. We have been waiting almost a year to hear what the Government propose to do to repair these errors. We wait and the matter becomes ever more urgent.
My second point is this. To me, as a non-economist, there is some amusement in finding after 25 years of demand management and the practice of demand management that we all now look to oil, to this sudden deus ex machina on our continental shelf, as a solution to our problems.
This goes some way to confirm the speculations of the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) who asked for a Royal Commission on demand management. I am content to rely more on oil than on our experience of demand management so far.
There are two things which everybody is talking about. The first is the prospect of a miners' strike and the second is whether public expenditure, even as amended after the December cuts, has to be matched by vast deflationary tax increases. Associated with those two questions is talk of an early General Election in certain circumstances.
One of the objectives in producing White Papers on public expenditure is, I understand, to improve the quality of government. I do not wish to suggest any close connection between the two, but I have observed no improvement in the quality of government since these White Papers began to emerge.
The great principle of the Government now is to stand firm. They say that it is necessary to stand firm, yet they have done more U-turns than a ballet dancer doing a pirouette. For this Government to consider having a General Election on the principle of standing firm, after making so many U-turns, would be the ultimate irony.
The crisis we face—there is no doubt that we do face a crisis—is a result of a fundamental and damaging illusion, the growth illusion. I do not say that growth is not welcome or desirable. I am not an "eco-doomster". I wish to

319
see the economy of the country growing. The illusion which is damaging us is that Governments in short periods of office can increase the long-term growth rate of the economy by means open to them, apparently, but not, evidently, open to their predecessors. We have the great concept of the dash for growth. We have just been engaged in the Barber dash for growth, built on the analogy of the far more modest and controlled Maudling dash for growth. Public expenditure is allowed to expand, or taxes are cut, or both measures are taken, and the country goes into deficit. But it is said that at some point we shall catch up and that things will come right.
Mr. Peter Hordern: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that his party was also guilty of this folly, and that there was no more damaging document in that respect than the old National Plan?
Mr. Dell: The hon. Gentleman must regard my comments as falling where they lie. At the moment I am concerned with a far more damaging dash for growth than my party was ever involved in. My party left the country in a strong economic position, one in which we would have been far more able to face the crisis which we now have to contemplate than we are now in under the present Government. The Government make political claims. They go to the Dispatch Box and say that under their administration growth has been faster and that they have been spending more than Labour did.
These increases in spending are not achieved by any redistribution of national resources or even by any significant growth but out of inflation plus overseas debt. They build inflation into the system and call it growth. Credit is taken for annual reviews of pensions when inflation makes annual reviews inevitable. Anyone who criticises these manoeuvres is told from the Dispatch Box that he is an enemy of growth. Meanwhile, the balance of payments deficit goes on increasing and we do not begin to catch up. On the contrary, as we have seen on this occasion, things go on getting worse and worse.
In the end the Government use the happenings of October, the Arab increase
320
in oil prices, to create a new stab-in-the-back legend. The Government say that it happened just at the moment when they were going to be successful. They claim that they were stabbed in the back by oil price increases.
On the occasion of this manoeuvre, this Government-inspired cycle of events, there was an additional misjudgment. The Government started by allowing a vast growth in unemployment and then they began to reflate. But they forgot that it takes time before a reflation works through the economy. A new doctrine emerged. Keynes was dead. The old demand management techniques no longer worked. For that we had the estimable authority of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), who told us at that moment of a different crisis, when unemployment was going up despite reflationary measures:
"we are in a new period when the rate of obsolescence, of technological change, of increase in productivity, has, at any rate for a time, outstripped the rate at which we are producing new needs, new demands and new methods of fulfilling them."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd November 1971; Vol. 826, c. 1205.]
It appeared then that he still had some influence on the Government, because, summing up the same debate on unemployment, the present Home Secretary, then Secretary of State for Employment, echoed those words of his right hon. Friend. He said:
"we may be entering a period when the old principles of demand management based on Keynes and the rest may no longer be operating as Governments here of all parties, and Governments in many countries, had come to expect them, with justice, to work hitherto."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd November 1971; Vol. 826, c. 1259.]
The trouble was that the demand was only just around the corner. The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West admittedly did not encourage the Government in the policies which they then followed, but that authoritative confirmation of their own fears led them into a typical panic. It is people who panic most who, having taken up a new position, then most often proclaim that the time has come to stand firm. In that panic the Government decided that they must pile it on, that the reflation so far was not enough.
Mr. J. Bruce-Gardyne: Although I have a great deal of sympathy

321
with the right hon. Gentleman's argument, I think that he has the time scale slightly wrong. There were reports in the Financial Times, a matter of weeks before the debate to which he refers, that the Treasury had reversed its usual role and was begging the spending Departments to spend more money. Therefore, I do not think that faith in Keynesian demand management policies had evaporated to quite the extent the right hon. Gentleman suggests.
Mr. Dell: The hon. Gentleman may be right. But we had it from the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West and then from the Secretary of State for Employment that that thinking was the Government's motivation. After all, what followed suggested that it was the motivation.
It was then that we had what was probably the most painful of all the Government's reversals of policy, the Industry Act 1972, if anything a long-term measure, but introduced in a panic as a short-term device. We heard on "The World at One" today the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry speaking as though he still believed that it was a short-term device. He was telling us about all the wonderful jobs created in the regions by the Act. In fact, it has so far created a trivial number of jobs in the regions. It may create jobs in the future. Figures are offered of the number of jobs it will create, and I do not want to take away from its future credit, but what has changed the position in the regions so far has been the Government's macro-economic policies, and the Act has been insignificant in that context.
The Act may now have some short-term significance, because if the Government are to allow many firms to go to the edge of bankruptcy it may be the Government's interventionist instrument to save the situation from becoming even more desperate than it would otherwise be.
In addition to the Act, there were the further reflationary measures. The balance of payments deficit grew and grew. There was more and more foreign borrowing. The Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, casting aside their belief in market forces, went around the country begging people to invest and to export. Businessmen were invited to Chequers, as though they would
322
suddenly come to the conclusion that a dinner at Chequers was a greater incentive to invest and export than the profitability of exports.
We have lived through a period of complete economic absurdity, which I hope will never be repeated. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has told us that he has been managing a growth policy. He has really been acting like a cowboy out West, riding a bucking bronco. The question has never been whether he could keep his saddle but precisely when he would fall off. Now he has fallen off, and the country, particularly in the regions, has been bruised. For anyone who wants to study the perils of demand management in the hands of a Government without judgment the last three years are a lesson.
Now we are told by hon. Members on both sides of the House that, having had an excess in one direction, we must have an excess in the opposite direction, that we have had excessive reflation and now we must have excessive deflation. This is a current danger.
May I state one political principle. I am against Governments being heroic at the expense of their people. Does anyone realise what the proposed deflationary measures would mean in my constituency, which in any case has benefited nothing like the rest of the country from the reflation that has taken place? Even on existing policies, even with the cuts that have taken place and such deflationary effects as the increased oil prices exert on the economy, the situation is likely to be serious enough in the regions, and there will be increasing unemployment in the country as a whole. If more is done, the situation will be far worse.
I say to the Government "For God's sake do not try to wrench us back into balance". There is a limit to what people in this country can take. We do not want confrontation with the miners, and we do not want confrontation with 2 million unemployed either.
My final reflection about the Government is to wish "If only they had believed more in market forces!" We recently heard an interesting speech by the Secretary of State for Social Services. Replying to a speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot), on 21st January, he accused my

323
hon. Friend of showing his belief in market forces by calling for increases in miners' wages. The right hon. Gentleman advanced the remarkable proposition that market forces were best, but an incomes policy was inevitable. How something can be best when something else is inevitable, I do not understand. I acknowledge that the right hon. Gentleman is one of the ablest members of the Government, perhaps the only able member, but that is nonsense.
I do not think that market forces are best. I do think that they are inevitable. What is best is an attempt to insert some rationality into the operation of market forces by means of an incomes policy. But any attempt by an incomes policy to impose a greater rationality must be modest in its objectives.
I do not say that there are not times when a Government should stand firm. There are. But at this stage, when everyone acknowledges that market forces must force miners' pay upwards, when the Government themselves acknowledge that more will have to be done for miners after phase 3, it is an absurd strain on an incomes policy to try to cut out those market forces by something called phase 3. That is a way to make an incomes policy either totally impossible or at least a source of continual and damaging confrontation for the indefinite future.
How do the Government expect on that basis ever to achieve a voluntary incomes policy? It would be the ultimate crime to break the nation asunder in a fruitless attempt to resist, to the point of permitting a strike, those very market forces on which the Government were originally pledged to rely.
The nation faces a crisis of unparalleled magnitude. It is time to cool the confrontation. There was a time when Conservative Members, perhaps of greater substance than we see today, would have realised that. I only regret that there are not enough such Members on the Government benches now.
7.30 p.m.
Mr. Wilfred Proudfoot: I am delighted to follow the refreshing speech of the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Dell). It was the first straight political speech in
324
the debate and I compliment him for that reason.
Yesterday the Expenditure Sub-Committee, of which I happen to be a member, took evidence. The evidence started with one of the Treasury knights saying that the White Paper was only of academic interest. I have spoken on the last three occasions when Public Expenditure White Papers have been introduced. Last year I felt that a one-day debate was not sufficient. This year, and perhaps because of the academic quality of the debate, I feel that one day is perhaps too much.
It must be admitted that the oil crisis has changed the outlook of the Western world. I can imagine that Treasuries in Europe and elsewhere are looking at their figures and wondering what will happen to the kind of arithmetic that is in our White Paper. It is not only this country that is in a mess. Every other country has the same mess on its hands.
On Monday, when I was in my constituency, I heard something on radio which made me think about the debate. I heard a quotation from an old philosopher. It was said that the world was made up of pessimists who looked only at the dark side of the clouds and moped; it then said that there were people who looked at both sides of the clouds and that they were the philosophers who shrugged their shoulders. Lastly, there were people who looked only at the bright side of the clouds and that they walked on the clouds all the time. The House often divides itself into the pessimists, who are represented by the Opposition, and the optimists, who are represented by the Government. I suppose that civil servants are the shoulder-shruggers who must get on with the whole thing.
The White Paper is the fifth of a line of similar White Papers. At least it has given the economic journalists something to write about. And they certainly write about it. It has the kind of pep of the theological argument of how many angels one can get on the head of a pin. It does not involve public opinion. It is very much a specialist argument. I heard the Chairman of the Sub-Committee, the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) mention accuracy. He said that we were £1,000 million out here and £500 million out there. That is right.

325
Those are the cash figures which are in the White Paper. However when we start to consider how far out the estimates are in percentage terms the matter takes on a slightly different complexion. When we consider how accurate the figures can be, the thousands of calculations which are made and the many spending Departments throughout the country which provide their figures for the White Paper, it is incredible that the present degree of accuracy can be attained.
For the first year, 1970–71, the figures were out by 4 per cent. For the second year they were out by 2·4 per cent. and for the third year by 2·9 per cent. For the three years together there was a discrepancy of 2·3 per cent. on £85,410 million. When the matter is put in that way, the figures do not sound dreadfully inaccurate.
Yesterday, when the Sub-Committee was taking evidence, it considered shortfall and whether the cuts were real. That was perhaps academic because it is obvious that both cuts and new expenditure can be real. The White Papers identify a Government's intention in a broad way. We have only to look through the White Papers for the last five years to see that the intentions of the last Labour Government were different from those of the present Government.
For those people who are, as it were, inside the figures—for example, the people who are responsible for getting them ready—the position looks very different from the position as seen by those who view them from the outside. The accuracy of the figures will always be debatable. I suppose that we must continue to have the White Papers, but in 25 years' time they may not be as important as we think they are now. They are indications and they may express hopes, but events outside any national Government's control can thrust such matters in any direction, as we have witnessed in the past few weeks.
Housing has been mentioned in the context of the White Paper. It is about time that we considered housing seriously. In the House we shout at each other all the time about a housing shortage. I am not convinced that there is such a shortage. We have a greater number of houses for our population than any other country in Europe. By that standard we are quite well housed. We should now
326
consider our housing stock. It must be realised that we have many houses of the wrong size. The real demand is for smaller, single-bedroomed accommodation for retirees. Many councils have missed the boat in that respect.
In my constituency there are people who have their name on three or four local housing authority lists. It seems that those lists are like the motor car lists shortly after the war which were suddenly obliterated as motor cars became available. There is not a dire housing shortage in my constituency. In three and a half years only two constituents have come to see me about housing. I ask the Government to urge the new local authorities to investigate their housing lists and to revise them. In some areas we run the danger of having too many houses. It can be said that the stock of houses in the Yorkshire and Humberside Region is sufficient. About 100,000 houses in that stock are out of date. Some will have to be knocked down and some will be improved. The real shortage is in single-bedroom accommodation. As elderly people move into new, up-dated single-bedroom accommodation, which requires less looking after and less heating, younger people can move into the council houses which are too large for old people living on their own and which they have vacated.
The problem of big families has been mentioned. The answer has been found by many local authorities. If a local authority has a pair of vacant semidetached houses and it has a big family on the waiting list, it can open up the dividing wall and thereby provide accommodation for large families.
I am pleased that the Government intend to help housing associations. They have a great part to play in housing, and particularly for specialist groups such as the elderly.
Every time I look at the expenditure cuts I decide that one lot of cuts is sacrosanct. This year I would make expenditure on new roads sacrosanct. Greater productivity in every part of the country is derived from new roads. Everybody, except perhaps the environmentalists, wants motorways. That is because it is known that they increase economic efficiency.
Yesterday, when the Sub-Committee was taking evidence, a Treasury witness

327
said that many of the shortages which were noted by the newspapers were purely anecdotal. I like that expression. There are many anecdotes about supposed shortages. All hon. Members can refer to one or two. I came across one a few weeks ago in the retail business. I was told that there was to be a dramatic shortage of paper bags. A person in charge of buying paper bags boastfully said "I have rung up all our suppliers and tripled the order for paper bags." That is how shortages are created. The difference between shortage and surplus is incredibly narrow in any economy and in any market. That applies not only to nations but throughout the world. The shortages which the world has seen this year will, I am sure, evaporate rapidly.
My hon. Friend the Member for Horn-church (Mr. Loveridge) said that if we made oil deals we would upset people in Europe. He seemed to be posing a conundrum, because a few paragraphs later he wanted to have import controls. I cannot imagine anything which would upset the world more than import controls. That would create, perhaps a world slump such as the slump which we had in the 1930s. To me that thought is horrific and abhorrent. I do not want to see mass unemployment.
It seems that the gloom merchants have got at the expenditure cuts. Future expenditure is to be cut, for example, on hospitals and roads. If we stop to take stock, it will be seen that we have more hospitals and schools than ever before. These cuts are not taking anything away from us except our expectations. Some people forget that in the political argument. We must take a rain check on them.
The White Paper talks of the management of the economy. I would love to be able to manage the economy and to operate a fine tuning control of it. It is the ambition of every politician, because then we would have perfection. I do not think that we will see it, either in my lifetime or that of my children. I accept all the electronic miracles that will come along, such as computers that can churn out statistics at an incredible rate, but I still cannot convince myself that we can tinker with the economy and get it exactly right.
328
The length of time between the tinkering and what happens is longer than any of us believe. In serving on the Expenditure Sub-Committee I get the awful feeling that trying to manage the economy is like being on the bridge of a giant tanker and attempting to bring it up the Thames at full speed. I can think of nothing more horrific. This has haunted me as I have heard witnesses dealing with these matters. I do not believe we will ever get much more efficient at it.
Many hon. Members have spoken about what they think should happen in the near future. I know that the Government are taking stock, as is every Western Government, as a result of the energy crisis. So far there have been no panic measures, and there should not be any. It would be bad business to do anything panicky and to try to act before the dust had settled. We ought not to hurl party political points at each other about getting the oil. I am sure that the motorists or the industrialists do not care where it comes from and whether we have to go to Switzerland to see the Shah of Iran as long as we get the oil.
I plead with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor not to increase taxation in the next Budget. There has been enough deflation. If we are not careful there will be far more people on the dole than anyone wants to see. We do not want mass unemployment. I would like to see the Chancellor cut income tax. If he still needs to raise the same amount, I would prefer to see him taking it from direct taxation and putting it on indirect taxation. I want people to be able to walk away from work with money in their hand and a free choice over a range of goods.
In that respect value added tax is excellent because it does not differentiate. It is a flat rate over the lot. All the talk of doom when VAT was introduced has vanished because the public have accepted that it is a fair tax which does not deflect their choice.
Mr. Joseph Harper: Except for the fact that it has been unpopular.
Mr. Proudfoot: I do not think it has been unpopular. Purchase tax has vanished from sight. It was imposed over a whole range of different percentages. It deflected demand and it pushed about

329
manufacturers of certain equipment. That was wrong. About four days ago I was talking to four chaps who work for me. One of them suddenly said "What's all this economic growth you politicians talk about?" I reckon that he had something. I said on Tyne-Tees Television months ago that people did not know what we meant when we spoke about economic growth. The commentator said afterwards "That is the most sensible remark I have heard for a long time". Politicians of all parties talk glibly about economic growth but it does not mean a darned thing to the average man in the street or to our wives. It is a piece of jargon which we have fallen into using, and the quicker we start telling people about the possibilities of our economy and our great reserves of skill within our people, the better.
Gloom is the fashion of the day. We must look at this carefully. I have looked at it and so also have the media. It is full of economic news. I can take all that economic news because I am a business man as well as a politician. A business man accepts that the conditions under which he operates are constantly changing. They change daily and he is used to meeting such changes. Suddenly we have national headlines talking of economic news, stories full of figures and dire warnings by journalists who normally never manage businesses. Those writings are read by doctors, carpenters and bus drivers. What do we expect when people read the kind of headlines we have seen recently?
I approach the whole thing philosophically. If we did not have this situation, we would have another. I have great confidence in the Government's ability to cope with this. I believe that the Government will be seen to have managed events so far incredibly well. Who tonight would think that a few weeks ago we were expecting petrol rationing at any minute? I see the Chief Secretary to the Treasury sitting on the Front Bench. He got into political hot water at that time. Look at the crazy mess the Dutch have got into. They had petrol rationing for four weeks but have had to pack it up as being unmanageable.
So far the Government have come out with flying colours. We have a new bargaining position in oil. I compliment the Government. They have acted with
330
great calm over the so-called confrontation issue. I believe that they will succeed. I sincerely hope that the miners will back off, because I am sure that the Government will not.
7.47 p.m.
Mr. Dick Douglas: It is not my intention to follow the hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough (Mr. Proudfoot) except to comment a little on his view of the oil situation. I do not think that the real impact of this in terms of import costs has been brought home to the people. My calculations are that the import cost of oil in the next few years will account for 25 per cent. of our total import Bill. In terms of goods and services we shall have to export about three times that amount to pay for the same quantity of oil we were importing in 1972. Every aspect of that is inflationary.
This is an important part of demand management in terms of the demand-pull type of inflation. To the best of my knowledge the Government have made no pronouncement upon this. They are scurrying hither and thither trying to patch up barter deals with the Shah of Iran and others in the Middle East. The fact that we have avoided petrol rationing is not something for which the Government can take a great deal of credit. It is due to fortuitous circumstances arising from the split among the OPEC countries.
I take the point made by the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) that there is just as much chance in the long term, not in three or four years, that the oil crisis will recede because the OPEC countries might see the difficulties, in international monetary terms, arising from their inability to make fruitful investments with the funds flowing to them. But that is a long-term matter.
I intend to draw attention to the division between the parties. I am pleased to see the hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) in his place because he pays great attention to public expenditure matters. He asked a Question which was answered on 21st January about the proportion of public expenditure in relation to the gross domestic product. The reply gave the impression that public expenditure accounted for almost £1 in

331
two of the gross domestic product. But that is a fallacious assumption because in the year concerned large transfer payments in social security were involved. I was happy to hear the hon. Member for Kensington, South (Sir B. Rhys Williams) say that such transfer payments should be excluded from public expenditure. If they are excluded, I admit that public expenditure is still substantial.
In 1972, public expenditure as defined by public authorities' current expenditure on goods, services and the public sector component of gross domestic capital formation accounted for £3 in every ten—substantial, but necessary.
Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I wish that the hon. Gentleman would explain why he shares the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington, South (Sir B. Rhys Williams) that transfer payments should be excluded from public expenditure. Public expenditure is that proportion of the nation's resources the distribution of which is pre-empted by the State.
Mr. Douglas: That is not in dispute. I am arguing that these transfer payments would be necessary anyway to ensure that people had an adequate standard of living.
Looked at from the point of view of national income accounting, the transfer payments go into consumer expenditure. It is important to make that distinction. I take it that the hon. Member for South Angus appreciates the distinction. On 17th December the Chancellor of the Exchequer argued that
"It would be quite wrong for the public sector to continue unabated its demands for goods and services and its consumption of energy, leaving the private sector to bear the whole of the brunt of the energy shortage."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th December 1973; Vol. 866, c. 963.]
That indicates what was in the right hon. Gentleman's mind. One might conversely argue that it would be wrong that the private sector, in times of national crisis, should be almost completely exempted from the consequences of direct fiscal cuts while the public sector bore the whole brunt of them. But the Chancellor is willing to accept that in real terms—because the cuts in taxation are at the margin—the public sector should bear the
332
whole brunt in terms, not of the macroeconomics of demand management, but of the people in my constituency and other constituencies in Scotland.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon)—I am sorry that he is not present to intervene if I misunderstood him—indicated that there was very little knowledge about what the cuts meant. There is a great deal of knowledge of what they meant to Scotland. We had the first salvo on 19th December 1973. I quote from the arrogant phraseology released on behalf of the Secretary of State for Scotland:
"With the fall in output resulting from the shortage of energy, it would be quite wrong for the public sector to continue, unabated, its demands for goods and services and its consumption of energy, leaving the private sector to bear the whole of the brunt of the energy shortage."
That was what the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said. The document goes on to indicate what is expected from the cuts in the public sector in Scotland.
We had the second salvo on 21st December when cuts in the school building programme were announced. The primary schools which we need will not be built. Very few people will come to me saying, "We are very worried about increases in taxation and the possibility of other claims being made on us", but many people will argue for primary schools, because such schools are overcrowded, and they are not something which they can produce for themselves. This clearly indicates the difference between the parties.
The next salvo relates to housing. The Secretary of State for Scotland, in accordance with his housing finance policy, has decreed that local authority rents should rise. I shall not go into the merits or demerits of that matter——
Mr. James A. Hill: Quite right.
Mr. Douglas: The hon. Gentleman says "Quite right", but people who are asked to pay rents commensurate with an economic valuation of their houses are entitled to homes which are up to modern standards. Yet the Secretary of State has called a halt to housing improvements. The guillotine has come down on local authorities.

333
Hospital boards in Scotland have been asked to cut their expenditure. The hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough said, "We have all the houses and hospitals we need". Let him come to my constituency where I will show him a hospital—the Bellsdyke Hospital for mentally ill patients—where people are housed in huts. That hospital is not commensurate with the standards that we require now that we are moving into the last quarter of the 20th century.
How are the Government able to get away with this? All Governments fall into this trap. They sever in people's minds the contribution which they make from tax and the benefits that they receive from the nation through public expenditure. During the last election I had time and again to draw to people's attention the fact that if they wanted social benefits in terms of education, roads, housing and hospital provision they had to pay for them through taxation. I have never shirked that. It is more necessary than ever before that the Labour Party should emphasise the close link between the benefits which people receive from public sector spending, particularly on the social services, and the contribution which they must make to them. Governments are able to get away with this because, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer said in his statement:
"In implementing this decision, the Ministers concerned will determine the priorities within their own programmes."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th December 1973; Vol. 866, c. 964.]
What about the people determining the priorities? How about trying to devolve the public expenditure decision a little more away from the ministries? I do not make this argument for the regions of England nor for the nation of Wales, but why cannot we in Scotland have a forward look at public expenditure?
In the majority Kilbrandon Report on page 117, paragraph 583 reads as follows:
"The first constraint is that Parliament must retain legal and effective sovereignty in all matters; the second is that the government of the day must have such control over expenditure and taxation as is necessary to stabilise the economy and to foster its development; the third is that a reasonable degree of equality in public services must be maintained between regions; and the fourth is that the central government must be responsible for minimising regional disparities in general economic conditions."
334
These are constraints on the devolution-ary process which may or may not be acceptable, but I suggest that with the reform of local government in Scotland the massive new regional authorities have to be involved directly in the forward look at public expenditure to make it meaningful and to make them responsible through the electorate for determining priorities.
The Public Expenditure White Paper shows a massive investment in mining, and the Government make great play of what they did in the Coal Industry Act 1973. I was down a pit on Friday and I saw machinery there. The projection is that the machinery will be duplicated, but there is no projection to duplicate the men. The best miners are miners' sons, but man after man I spoke to said that he was not telling his son to go down the mine. If these public expenditure projections in terms of gross domestic capital formation are to be matched to get a viable mining industry, the Government will have to rethink their policy and posture.
I am no political friend of Michael McGahey, I never have been and I am not likely to be in the future. I have opposed the Communist Party throughout the whole of my adult working life. If the Government do not reorient their thinking about long-term possibilities the figures that appear in the document will be even more meaningless. The only way to ensure a viable mining labour force is to recognise that it is unique, it cossets itself, it is a community. Miners who move from pit to pit are looked upon as industrial nomads. The previous Labour Government have as much responsibility for this as have the present Government, but the present Government are in the driving seat and must do something now. They must give us the opportunity to have the balanced fuel policy that can be ours in the 1980s.
Not one drop of North Sea oil is yet ashore. All the efforts of the Government and of the Secretary of State for Energy are devoted to accelerating that process. I only wish that some of the Government's efforts were devoted to ensuring a balanced mining labour force. Otherwise, these projections for public expenditure, not for economic growth but for a better distribution of the national income and wealth, will not be realised.
8.4 p.m.
Mr. J. Bruce-Gardyne: The hon. Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Douglas) at the beginning of his remarks said that the debate highlighted the distinction between the two parties. He clearly identified himself as a high taxation, high public expenditure, man. I recall him putting that prospect before my constituents a few years ago, and they gave him a very dusty answer. However, I will not draw unreasonable conclusions from that.
The hon. Gentleman referred in his closing remarks to Mr. Mick McGahey. I personally believe that one reason why someone like Mr. Mick McGahey has attained his position today is as a reflection of the acute social pressures of inflation.
My argument for showing a low public expenditure, low taxation, preference is that in practice rapid acceleration in levels of public expenditure is inevitably bound to go with rapid and accelerating levels of inflation, either because the public expenditure has not been financed out of taxation, as has arguably been the position in the past three or four years, or because, although it is financed out of taxation, the reaction of the sort of people about whom the hon. Gentleman spoke is to say that they are not prepared to tolerate that their additional earnings should be eroded by higher taxation to pay for all the attractive public expenditure projects to which the hon. Gentleman referred, and therefore they will exercise their power as best they can to achieve higher wage settlements. It was this very argument that set off the inflationary spiral in the last years of the Labour Government.
I am sorry that I was unable to hear the whole speech of the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) who as the Chairman of our General Subcommittee guides us so efficaciously in our studies. I was fascinated by his proposition that the roads lobby and the like should take the respective sub-committees out to dinner. What worries me is who will take the General Sub-Committee out to dinner. Clearly, it must be the think tank, which presumably will take us to Annabel's or at least to the Mirabelle. That is an attractive proposition which I
336
hope the hon. Gentleman will use his considerable influence to achieve.
May I say a brief word about the Opposition amendment and the way in which it was presented by the hon. Member for Heywood and Royton (Mr. Joel Barnett)? He was in some difficulty. He was espousing the proposition that rather than the December public expenditure cuts the emphasis should have been on correcting the excess of demand, if such existed, by means of higher taxation. He was honest enough, in response to an intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), to acknowledge that the whole of that higher taxation should not be on the rich. But he elegantly glossed over what his own colleagues on the Front Bench, including the shadow Chancellor have been advocating, that not merely should there not have been cuts in public expenditure but there should have been, in addition to the existing open-ended subsidies to the nationalised industries, open-ended subsidies on food. The implications of that on public expenditure need only to be contemplated to cause profound alarm. That was an angle which the hon. Gentleman was careful to avoid.
There was one point in his speech which seemed a little odd. He complained that we should not add to taxation rather than curb public expenditure. At the same time he seemed to take the view that the increase in oil prices would not have a major and substantial demand effect. I shall revert to that matter a little later in my remarks.
I should also like to refer to the speech made by my hon. Friend the new Chief Secretary to the Treasury, and I should like to join in welcoming him to our debates. His historical survey was not totally uncontroversial. I was particularly interested by the context in which he put the latest public expenditure White Paper and particularly the adjustments announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 17th December. The Chief Secretary said that the policies announced on that date were new policies to adjust to a new situation. This statement made me a little worried. It implied that the justification for the substantial adjustments to public expenditure levels announced by my right hon. Friend on 17th December was to correct

337
an immediate and emergency situation in the economy. I find it hard to believe that public expenditure cuts can be used in this way.
If my right hon. Friends have any doubt about that proposition, they should study the evidence given by the Department of the Environment to the Select Committee on Expenditure on the subject of adjustments to the road programme. Evidence given by the Department in November last showed that its view of the road programme was remarkably inflexible in terms of early and precise adjustments within a time span of a year or less. The whole burden of the Department's argument was that changes in the level of public expenditure on the road programme could only have a medium-term effect. To my mind it is a little preoccupying to have the expenditure adjustments which were announced in December presented as a response to a sudden new situation resulting from the energy crisis and the change in the Government's expectation of growth which thus arose. We must go a little further and express some modified scepticism about the extent to which the £1,200 million cuts will emerge from the pipeline at the end of the day.
On a small scale I was a little preoccupied to see that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland in his meeting with Scottish local authorities the other day stated that, of the £71 million cuts—the share my right hon. Friend had to bear according to the statement on 17th December—some £2½ million had already disappeared. I should like to know where it has gone. I do not suggest that in the context of the total exercise this sum has any great significance, but if that experience as a dilution of the economies made by the Scottish Office is extrapolated in terms of other spending Departments, one appreciates that the basis of the £1,200 million cuts would soon be eroded.
It is also fair to say that an element of scepticism was induced by the evidence given by Sir Douglas Henley yesterday to the Expenditure Select Committee. I was, alas, not there to hear his evidence, but I read in the Financial Times a report of his remarks. They suggest that inevitably there is a certain amount of dubiety about the precise impact of the cuts announced on 17th December and the extent to
338
which they will materialise nicely and neatly at the end of the day as a reduction of £1,200 million.
There is one other point arising from the Chancellor's statement of 17th December which I sought to raise during the speech made by my hon. Friend the Chief Secretary. I refer to the somewhat curious statement by the Chancellor:
"… the direction of the cuts in public expenditure must be such as to avoid, as far as is humanly possible, a reduction in employment in the public sector being added to the inevitable unemployment created by the energy shortage in the private sector."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th December 1973; Vol 866, c. 963.]
I am not clear about the logic of saying that we shall induce economies in the public sector so that these will have an impact on demand in the private sector, thereby inevitably reducing the level of demand for employment in the private sector, when the level of demand for employment in the public sector remains static. My hon. Friend the Chief Secretary answered my query on this point by saying that this was the way things were. But it is not a complete and sufficient answer to the question. Therefore, I hope that when the Financial Secretary replies he will be able to shed some light on this judgment.
I should like to refer to Table 1.4, "The Use of Resources", set out in the Blue Paper. Two alternative projections of expected growth rate are given. One is a figure of 3·5 per cent. of GDP in the period 1972 to 1978 and the other is a figure of 4·5 per cent. GDP. I understand that over the period 1972–73 the growth rate is now put at around 6 per cent. This would mean that the 3·5 per cent. growth rate in terms of GDP—the lower of the two hypotheses advanced in Table 1.4—would be equivalent to approximately 3 per cent. of GDP from this time onwards.
That strikes me as an highly optimistic assumption for a lower growth rate from now on. I thought that it had become apparent that, as a result of the oil situation, in the next 12 to 18 months we were unlikely to see any significant growth at all in the economy. Once again I ask the Treasury not persistently to err in its assumptions on the side of optimism and to offer us, not a high profile growth rate in the remainder of

339
the quinquennium but a low profile—a rate more likely to conform to a low pattern of growth. This would enable us more easily to spell out the consequences for the nation.
In conclusion, I wish to refer to some of the remarks made in a fascinating speech by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Dell), with a fair amount of which I found myself in some agreement. What concerns me about the pattern of public expenditure in the past four or five years is the extraordinary yo-yo course we have adopted. There were reductions in 1970–71, large increases in 1971–72, a vast increase in 1972–73, and we are now back to reductions.
There is a lot of argument about how the precise figures should be calculated, but the fact is inescapable that we have had dramatic changes over the years in the pattern of public expenditure which cannot be in the desirable interests of the long-term management of the economy and, above all, of the nationalised industries which so often have to take the brunt of these enormous reductions.
I come back to the point which I made at the beginning of my speech. I think that what lies at the heart of the numerous changes in both directions that we have had in recent years in the course of public expenditure is the quite erroneous belief of the Treasury that it can fine-tune the economy from one period of six months to the next. If we have to have fine tuning, I suggest to my right hon. and hon. Friends that nothing could be a more unsuitable implement for that purpose than public expenditure.
Having said all that, my view is that the reductions announced on 17th December are highly desirable and represent the right course for the Government to take, not from the point of view of any immediate short-term management-of-the-economy considerations but from consideration of the fact that we inherited in 1970 a situation of public sector preemption of resources which my right hon. Friend quite rightly castigated in the autumn of that year as intolerable.
I hope that we shall now begin to see that we bring it to more accurate proportions and to more acceptable proportions of demand on total resources.
340
If we do that in this direction, I think that we shall be heading for a more balanced budget in the year ahead and a more modest borrowing requirement, which in turn will enable us more successfully to contract the excessive growth of money supply and lead eventually to substantially lower rates of inflation which must be our over-riding objective.
8.23 p.m.
Mr. Robert C. Brown: We are facing three crises and, Heaven knows, a crisis in terms of 3½ years of this Government is nothing new. But three at one time is a bonus even for this lot.
We have inflation and the balance of payments crisis with an annual deficit, if the Governor of the Bank of England is anywhere near right, of some £3,000 million a year. Secondly, we have the oil crisis. Thirdly, we have an industrial relations crisis. The measures of 17th December imposed cuts in public expenditure of £1,200 million—£264 million on the nationalised industries, £212 million on roads and transport, £182 million on education, £128 million on defence, £80 million a year tax on capital gains on property, a 10 per cent. surcharge on surtax totally £35 million, and control of hire purchase. If those measures were meant to deal with the crisis, they are hopelessly inadequate.
As for inflation, the December budget is not likely to have any effect in the short term other than a dramatic slowing down in the building industry. With the housing situation that we have, this is one of the tragedies of the present situation. Long term, the likely effect will be governed by the extent to which inflationary pressure may have resulted from excess money supply associated with official deficit financing or excessive consumer credit.
The balance of payments is an immediate problem. The public expenditure cuts will make a minimal import saving contribution. I suggest that it will be about a third of a like amount of additional taxation. In any event, April is the starting date so the effects will not be felt much before this time next year or the back end of this year.
Obviously the hire-purchase restrictions will have a marginal effect on imports. But they will also hit home

341
industries, not least the motor industry. Meanwhile the rapidly worsening value of the pound caused by our deteriorating balance of payments is like pouring petrol on the flames of inflation.
When we come to consider ways of dealing with the oil crisis, we find nothing in the Government's measures except for the hire-purchase restrictions which will damp down the demand for cars. But the oil crisis in itself was already doing this job, so that there is not much of a bonus in the hire-purchase restrictions, either.
Turning to the industrial relations front, I say at once that any attempt to present the Budget as hitting the rich is not even a starter. If we look at the £35 million surcharge on surtax, compared with the £300 million awarded to surtax payers in the 1972 Budget which is to be picked up this year, it is nothing short of a calculated insult to the lower and average wage earners.
The £80 million capital gains tax on property is like using a feather duster to move away deep, sticky mud. I do not think that a feather duster will do that job very successfully. Unless this tax is taken alongside better planning control it may well in itself prove inflationary.
The public expenditure cuts obviously will hit hardest the nationalised industries, public transport and education, which are all areas from which the poorer people mainly seek to benefit. This package is not calculated to convince trade unionists, least of all the miners, that this Government are pursuing a socially just policy, and the sooner that the Government realise that social justice can make one of the biggest appeals to the so-called rapacious trade unionists, the better we shall get along.
The cuts in public expenditure will affect not only socially desirable projects such as schools and public passenger transport schemes but, much worse, they will also reduce growth in the economy by about 2 per cent. below what it would have been without the cuts.
It is probable that unemployment will not increase as a result of the budget much before the end of the year. But in my view it is likely to double—in other words back to more than 1 million—and that is over and above any long-term
342
unemployment resulting directly from the fuel crisis.
A package which does nothing in the short term is socially and economically damaging in the long term. Direct control on prices and on imports are what was needed. I have no doubt that on prices the Government find this politically unacceptable. But on import controls I have no doubt that we should soon run into trouble with our EEC relations.
I turn to the implications of the cuts for my constituents. At the back end of last month, the Department of the Environment issued a circular to local authorities calling for cuts on capital of 20 per cent. and on revenue of 10 per cent. What this means is that the new Newcastle-upon-Tyne District Council will not be able to initiate new capital schemes of any description.
Clearly this is a serious state of affairs, and it cannot be denied that a similar situation will prevail in all the other district councils within the Tyne and Wear County Council area. North Tyneside, South Tyneside, Gateshead and Sunderland will face the same problems as the new Newcastle district, and all five district councils have worthwhile schemes which should be commenced in the next 12 months.
The locally determined allocation will mean that the Newcastle District Council will barely be able to cover schemes already under contract. I understand that the total allocation for the whole of the Tyne and Wear County Council area for locally determined capita! schemes is £8 million for the coming financial year. Of that sum Newcastle District Council needs £3 million, which fortunately the other district councils have agreed, for its central area alone.
Newcastle is committed to central area redevelopment with two major contractors already working on site during the coming financial year to the extent of £3 million. It now learns that the proposed Department of the Environment allocation is to be £1·2 million. This is the type of problem that will face not only Newcastle District Council but every district council throughout the country.
The Government must appreciate that central area redevelopment cannot be

343
financed from revenue and that such schemes already in midstream cannot be turned off like a tap. Therefore, this type of allocation is a complete nonsense. Goodness knows, the citizens of my fair city have suffered long enough with the central area redevelopment making the centre of the city resemble something like a battlefield. We do not want this to be protracted over years to come.
Last week at Question Time I asked the Secretary of State about the East Central Urban Motorway in Newcastle, and I should like to broaden this issue. Whatever one's view on the environmental argument that is now raging about urban motorways, only an idiot would argue that a scheme should be left in limbo when the major part of it has been completed. That is the situation with the East Central Urban Motorway in Newcastle. But added to that we have the nonsense of the Secretary of State for the Environment caving in to local pressures, he or his predecessor already having had a prolonged major public inquiry on the coast road extension scheme, and we are now in the midst of a further inquiry into that scheme. The initial inquiry resulted in massive demolition. We now have vast areas of dereliction waiting for the coast road extension scheme to go ahead.
Alongside that scheme we have the three-level major intersection at Brandling Park now almost completed. That major intersection will have two spurs, one to connect with the coast road extension and the other to connect with the North-West radial route. Neither of those spurs will be going anywhere.
The Secretary of State must realise that this is a lot of nonsense. He must urgently announce his decision on the coast road extension and give both grant and loan sanction for the coast road extension and the North-West radial route, so that we do not have the nonsense of this beautiful—some would argue that it was hideous—expensive three-level junction having two spurs going nowhere at all. It is complete lunacy to suggest that we should put up with that situation.
In the economic and energy situation debate on 19 th December I referred to the unequal effects of the Government's cuts
344
on areas like the North-East where there is no question of any selectivity. In effect, this means that the poorer regions such as the North-East are carrying an unfair burden, because we are pushed faster into further poverty than the pot-bellied areas in the South-East and elsewhere. There is no doubt that we are carrying more than our share of unemployment at present. Clearly we shall carry a further burden of unemployment in the future.
If the Government believe in regional development, why do they not accept the case put forward by the Newcastle Airport Committee for an extension of the airport to international standards? Why do not the Government accept the case for the extension of regional airports on this basis and do away with the notion that everyone wants to fly from London? If the Maplin project were given a decent burial at once, we could do all of these things.
Finally, I turn to page 37 of the White Paper and to paragraph 7 thereon. That reads as a complete nonsense. The chapter is headed "Regional support and regeneration". Paragraph 7 is entitled "Regional employment premium". It states:
"At present no account is taken of any extension beyond 1974 of the premium, which is paid in respect of manufacturing establishments in development areas; though there is provision for residual claims into 1975–76. Once the precise form of phasing out the premium is decided, this provision will require amendment."
Precisely what do the words "require amendment" mean? If they do not mean that REP will be maintained under some other name, it is a nonsense to talk about regional regeneration because the abolition of REP will spell absolute murder in the regions of this country.
8.36 p.m.
Mr. S. James A. Hill: I suppose that parliamentarians, by and large, are devious creatures. There have been many statements over the past year calling upon the Government immediately to take all possible heat out of the economy. On many occasions, from both sides of the House, we have been talking of the Government spending and spending and taking no heed of the heat that they are creating. If more hon. Members had been present for this debate, we should probably have heard

345
many more claims, for we agree with the cut in public spending but not our particular bit of spending. I, too, shall fall into that category.
In all the cuts that must come, for the reasons that we well know, I am particularly concerned with one that is most serious, and that is that for the British Transport Docks Board and the various cuts that must come in the improvement of our ports.
Whether or not we agree about it, we are in the European Community. There have already been two major meetings of the European ports in Brussels. One was in November of last year and one was at the beginning of this month. I believe that another meeting of the ports with the Commission is scheduled in February. The European ports will have a policy of competition. Within the Community there are subsidies and certainly all the means of unfair competition. The ambition of the Commission is to rule out any unfair competition.
We realise that major ports such as Le Havre, Rotterdam, Bremen, Antwerp and Marseilles are very heavily subsidised. They have thought well ahead and their transport infrastructures are first class. They are tremendously efficient in clearing cargoes and in protecting the environment. This is, perhaps, one aspect that we have neglected. We have a very few years in which to bring our ports up to what we would consider to be a fully mechanised and efficient level so that we can compete in the Community.
There is a great charisma about Maplin. I know that there are many supporters of Maplin on this side of the House, but by the time it is developed Maplin will be too late to compete with the major ports on the European seaboard. This report makes little mention of Maplin because its development will take many years. The land has to be reclaimed and a city must be built to house the labour force for the port. It is to be positioned right opposite the most efficient port in the world, namely, Rotterdam. I do not think that it will be a viable proposition.
Rotterdam and the United Kingdom ports have a close and sympathetic understanding, even to the extent of wanting to form a seaports institute to cover all the main difficulties of modern management,
346
employing and training the super-dockers of the future, and getting the maximum efficiency and maximum transport infrastructure to serve the main ports such as Rotterdam.
Paragraph 40 of the report says:
"The investment figures for British Transport Docks Board are lower this year than last, chiefly because some of the proposed development at Southampton did not in the event materialise. The bulk of the firm plans which the Board have are for devlopment at Southampton, the Humber and South Wales."
I hope that the plans for the proposed development at Southampton will not be retarded any further. I have an interest here far beyond that of anyone else in the Chamber tonight. Southampton is in an exceptional position to compete with the major ports of Europe provided that it gets the necessary backing from the Government through the British Transport Docks Board.
Another sector where we are being a little mean and where we shall probably have to be a little meaner is the British Waterways Board. Throughout the continent massive use is made of the inland waterways for freight. We are always hearing from the environmental lobby, but we spend little or nothing on improving our inland waters such as they are. We have a great heritage. Perhaps they have fallen into disrepair and disuse, and it would be very expensive to cut further canals. This is a very simple, attractive, economic and efficient way of moving huge loads where time is not of the essence.
I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Treasury not to neglect the British Transport Docks Board, in view of the competition it will face, or the British Waterways Board, with a view to assisting those two bodies to dealing with some of the difficulties of moving large loads.
The section on roads and transport links up with operating a major port such as Southampton. The report refers to an outlay of £321 million by 1973–74. We knew before the Budget of 17th December that this was to be cut, anyway. If the United Kingdom is to compete with the European ports, it is essential for a major port such as Southampton to have a motorway linking it with where the bulk of the cargoes will come from—in other words, what is wanted is a motorway from Southampton

347
direct to the Midlands. We are not fortunate enough to have one. This must have come about from oversight. Otherwise it would be negligence to think of expanding a major container port over a few years without the necessary roads to the industrial Midlands and the North. I hope that the Department of Transport Industries will give this matter further consideration.
I congratulate the Treasury on the loans of £42 million to the private ports. These ports are worth while. They do a sterling job and create a facet of our economy which we on the Government side of the House can say is truly private enterprise.
The section of the White Paper dealing with housing has one or two items which I think the Treasury should have omitted. I refer particularly to paragraph 4 about option mortgages. Anyone who knows anything about mortgages and the sale of private houses will know that the scheme has not worked for some time. The paragraph states:
"The option mortgage scheme…is designed to help people with moderate incomes to buy their own houses".
We all know that those words scarcely apply in such cases. To buy a private house one sometimes needs an income as much as one-third of the price. Consequently the option mortgage scheme, which was a good scheme for those on moderate incomes and not paying sufficient tax to get the full rebate, is not now something which deserves as many lines as it has in the White Paper.
There has been mention of house improvement grants. I must congratulate the Minister for Housing and Construction that the estimated number of grants for the year just passed was 400,000. That is an admirable figure. Admittedly the figures of properties needing repair do not seem to have decreased. Two million properties are in great need of repair and on that phenomenal basis it will take several years even to catch up on the backlog.
I am pleased to see that the provision of new accommodation by the new local authorities will be permitted without restriction. Certain authorities try to make out that the Government are restricting them in building council houses. I realise the difficulties and the
348
problems of the yardstick and the more difficult problem of securing adequate labour. It is also extremely difficult to get tenders accepted. Nevertheless, the money is still there and local authorities which ignore it are failing in their duty to their citizens.
I turn finally to the regional employment premium and regional policy in general. I remind the House that there has been a certain amount of friction in Europe—I put it no higher—over the amount of the regional fund. The European Parliament and the Commission wanted 2,250 million units of account and the United Kingdom and Ireland wanted 3,000 million units of account, while the Germans wanted only 600 million units of account. I have heard reports and have read accounts in some of the more reputable papers that Germany is now offering at least double—perhaps a little more—and that tomorrow there is to be a meeting in Brussels of the Council of Ministers to decide on the eventual amount. I hope that the meeting will reach a firm decision. That would at least help to improve the figures in the years ahead.
8.50 p.m.
Mr. Neil McBride: I share the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West (Mr. Robert C. Brown) about the regional employment premium. If the regions are to realise their full industrial potential and provide employment for their people, the premium, due to be phased out in September, will need a replacement of some kind.
Despite what the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. S. James A. Hill) has said, it is clear that the Germans are not prepared to contribute exorbitantly to the Common Market regional fund. It will never reach the total of £950 million which the British Government envisaged. The Germans clearly will not go beyond £650 million in total.
Therefore, for Britain's peripheral areas like Wales the prospects of assistance are decidedly bleak, and the Government must tell us tonight what will be the alternative to the premium so that the regions are enabled to concentrate on providing industrial employment. I speak, of course, with particular emphasis on

349
Wales, which is forgotten by a Tory Government.
The concentration of the cuts on the public services is typically Tory. They affect the nation to a very great extent, and Wales in particular. I am concerned particularly tonight about the prospects of small firms in Wales, having questioned the Prime Minister on the matter last week.
I have asked the Secretary of State for Wales whether he has assessed the effect of the increases of between 20 and 30 per cent. in industrial rating on businesses in Wales. In particular, how will the increases affect small firms? This is important in the Principality, where 90 per cent. of the firms employ fewer than 250 people and more than 70 per cent. of these employ fewer than 100. The Secretary of State has told me that, while he hopes that local authorities can hold domestic rate increases to 9 per cent., it is not possible for him to say what the rate increases will be for business and industrial ratepayers in the next financial year. He has recently received a letter from the Welsh section of the CBI and is sending a reply. But he has failed to take the House into his confidence.
The Government expenditure allocated to the rate support grant should have been increased in order to benefit both domestic and the non-domestic ratepayers in Wales. In the former case this affects the provision of services, and in the latter case it affects employment. To ease the burden and increase the cash flow of small firms, which are the backbone of the Welsh economy, it is imperative to consider how seriously the situation will affect future employment and prospects of employment. Yet the Secretary of State tells us that he has received a letter from the Welsh section of the CBI but cannot say what was in it.
I suggest to the Secretary of State that the great majority of small firms in Wales are worrying particularly about their cash flow, about the problem of securing overdrafts at rates varying from 15 to 20 per cent. interest. Time and again I have questioned the right hon. and learned Gentleman on this, as well as the Prime Minister himself. But it would seem that neither of them is among the friends of small businesses in Wales.
350
It is amazing that the Secretary of State had no prior discussion with the Welsh section of the CBI before the terms of the rate support grant were announced. This aspect of Government administration is a perfect example of muddle and maladministration. The Government seem to have forgotten the importance of small businesses to Wales, and these small businesses will have to look to the advent of a Labour Government for their interests to be cared for properly.
I also protest against the failure of the Government to steer industry to Swansea. The last section of a firm, 98 years old, will close down in Swansea in June. This, with the earlier closure of the main plant, will mean a loss of 800 male jobs in the area. Appeals to the Government to steer industry there to maintain the balance between productive and non-productive industry has been greeted with platitudes. It is time they did something positive to meet the problem and shook off their slothful torpor.
The Secretary of State for Wales has told me that up to the end of November last 2,738 houses were started in the Principality and 2,815 were completed. The case for increased Government expenditure on council house construction in Wales has been proved beyond doubt. The Secretary of State's figures are deplorable and represent a Welsh national political scandal. They are a memorial to the ineptitude of the Welsh Office and are the worst for Wales since 1946. The Government cannot blame the last Labour Government for that.
The great need in Wales is for houses to rent. It is impossible for thousands of my constituents and for people elsewhere in Wales to get a mortgage. The Secretary of State's failure to provide more council houses should provoke him to do the honourable thing and resign. The paltry nature of the figures is demonstrated by the fact that in Swansea there are 3,000 people on the waiting list for council houses. The situation is a condemnation of the Government and particularly of our stubbornly inefficient Prime Minister.
It will be impossible for local authorities to hold the increase for the domestic ratepayers at 9 per cent. They will be faced with the natural increase in the cost of goods and services and with the

351
inflation which Government policies have induced. Those factors will push the increase beyond 9 per cent. Any Minister who tries to say that there will be no diminution in the level of services provided by the local authorities must be living in the cloud cuckoo land of accountancy.
The Government therefore have a clear duty to Wales in these matters. The Prime Minister never goes there and the Secretary of State seldom makes a visit. The Government must redress the imbalance in expenditure to provide the services which I have indicated are necessary and to ease the financial burden on the small firms and the domestic ratepayers of Wales. They deserve that and they ask no more.
8.59 p.m.
Mr. Brian Walden: There can be no doubt that, whatever else is or is not true, the proposition that the House of Commons is a peculiar place will go unchallenged. Let us face the fact that these public expenditure debates are, in terms of House of Commons participation, a disaster. As I gaze at the Treasury Bench I feel that the debate is rather like an Adjournment debate. There is, perhaps, one person more present than if the debate were an Adjournment debate. These debates are not working. Perhaps, having said that, I might say why the Opposition moved their amendment.
There is a number of reasons for the fact that these debates on public expenditure do not work. First, I agree strongly with the hon. Member for Kensington, South (Sir B. Rhys Williams) that the figures are simply not being presented in a way that means very much to Members of Parliament. It may be that that is a very great criticism of Members of Parliament, but I do not think it is. I think that the document is bedevilled at every point by co-called "real value" whereas what matters much more to Members of Parliament are money terms, discounting, if necessary, for inflation. I shall have more to say about that in a moment.
Another reason is that the debates have picked up the worst of all reputations, namely that of being uncontroversial. Those of us who participate in them do
352
not see them like that. Nevertheless, many Members do. I think that they think the Government come along in a friendly and cheerful mood, which is rather a rarity, and ask both sides to come together to discuss the facts put by the Expenditure Committee in a friendly and non-controversial spirit to see whether any conclusion of a wholly uncontroversial kind can be drawn about the future of public expenditure. That is not an attractive proposition for a good debate.
That is partly the reason why the Opposition put on a three-line Whip and put down a highly controversial amendment, hoping that it would widen the scope of the debate—there is every reason for widening the discussion—into a general debate on some of the aspects of Government economic management. I do not think that this year it has worked, but the attention of the Minister will have been drawn, and he in turn may draw the attention of the Leader of the House, to the fact that there is something the matter with the usual format of these debates.
I do not discount the fact, although it may be irrelevant to any debate on public expenditure, that this Parliament is dying, and this House of Commons is dying as a place for discussion, largely, I suspect, because many Members feel that all the decisions that really matter are taking place outside the House and that there is very little point in turning up to listen to things which have only a marginal relevance to the government of the country—a tragic situation and a terrible condemnation of the way government is at present being carried on.
However, let us switch to the issue of the White Paper and public expenditure and expenditure in general. There have always been fashions in discussions of public expenditure and to some extent debate on it has been bedevilled by the existence of fashions. For a time after the war, determination of how much the public sector ought to spend was frankly haphazard. Then we switched to a doctrine that became very fashionable, namely, that public expenditure should be used as a tool of demand management. I do not suppose that that is now as fashionable as it was, largely because, I suspect, many Members, and indeed the Government themselves, think that the cancellation of programmes involves unacceptably high costs. Then, when I

353
came into the House in the 1960s, attention was focused on the balance between the private and public sectors. Everybody used to get very heated about that.
At least the Expenditure Committee has now addressed itself to the general problem. I should not like to wind up the debate without paying a compliment to the Expenditure Committee on the work it has done. In particular, that of the Sub-Committee of which my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) is chairman has been excellent. It is certainly no fault of theirs that projecting public expenditure at the moment is a matter of very grave uncertainty indeed. Some of the technicalities the Expenditure Committee has dealt with excellently, and the Government have been right to accept them.
I want to say a word or two, but only a word or two, about some of the technicalities. I do not want to dwell on them, but there are one or two points which puzzle me. The first is the £600 million—I believe that the actual figure is £556 million—shortfall. I read in The Times, which Ministers have firmly denounced as wrong, which made me believe that there may be more in The Times report than I at first supposed, that the shortfall last year had arisen because of difficulties in obtaining resources to carry out the programme. Indeed, The Times suggested that the testimony given by the Second Secretary to the Treasury yesterday to the Expenditure Committee indicated that this might work itself through in this year's programmes, that the frustrated desires of last year might communicate themselves into what was done this year. The Minister denied that. Will the resources be available to carry out programmes at the increased level if local councils wish to do so? Are we looking at this matter in the right way?
I understand that the estimates of public expenditure until 1978 depend on the assumption of a 3 per cent. growth rate of production potential. That palpably is not very likely. Will the Minister say whether we have to consider that what figures we have have such a relevance as they do merely for the period 1974–75, and that there is not much prospect in that period that any shortfall incurred last year is likely to be taken
354
up and thus distort any cuts on which the Government have decided?
I have another technical point, about the way in which the figures are produced. I said earlier that I did not think they were produced in a way which hon. Members found readily comprehensible. I would much prefer the figures to be given in money terms. It may be said, rightly, that that would not take account of inflation, which is a constant reality. I would not object if the effects of inflation, at different levels, were projected. Figures could be given in money terms showing rates of inflation at nil per cent., 5 per cent., 7 per cent., 8 per cent. and 9 per cent. The figures would make more sense to the average hon. Member if they were presented in that way.
I accept that technical economists do not like figures to be presented in that way, but it seems that the House is not overburdened with people who would agree with technical economists, I have sympathy with the hon. Member for Kensington, South when he says that information is not getting through to our colleagues in a way which they find stimulating. I do not always agree with Sam Brittan, but he suggested a long time ago that one of the reasons for that was the use of the sort of base in which the ordinary hon. Member is not interested. I agree. I should like to see the next White Paper contain figures in money terms, with the necessary discounts for inflation, included in a series of different estimates, at differing rates of inflation.
The White Paper reminds me of the plans of Lady Jane Grey for the government of England. She got them into the correct logical sequence and the proper methodical order, at the moment that the headsman, axe in hand, appeared round the door. The White Paper has no relevance to what is likely to happen over the next four years. It would be difficult for anyone in the House, even the Government, to devise the kind of estimates for 1976–77 and 1977–78 which would have much predictive value at present.
I leave aside entirely a point which I shall speak about later, namely, whether sums that the Government declare should be spent, and that they have decided will be spent, are spent, and whether there is a need for what economists call the

355
"Jay index to work, whereby as one gets closer and closer to a given year the amount of public expenditure which has to be budgeted for in that year gets higher and higher.
The fact remains that the White Paper has been beheaded by the Chancellor's declaration before Christmas. I suppose that the Government, like Lady Jane Grey, could argue that their wounds were not self-inflicted, although I prefer the view of history that in the end her follies caught up with her. I am sure that history will take much the same view of the Government, especially if I have any hand in writing it.
I turn to the Government's whole attitude to public expenditure. No one can say that it has been marked by any boring consistency. Their first Public Expenditure White Paper contained a cut in spending of £942 million. The next had an increase in public expenditure of £482 million, and the next a substantial increase of £1,230 million. Now the Government are again reversing their policy, with big cuts. The Minister of State shakes his head. His testimony on this and other matters has been proved very fallible. The Government are reversing their policy. Any Government which find it so difficult to make up their mind about their own expenditure should be more modest in lecturing other people about theirs.
I suspect that the Government's to-ing and fro-ing does not have the great significance that some people attribute to it. It tends to be largely self-cancelling, because I suspect that the amount of money spent is a question of the availability of labour and resources rather than any Government determination.
But there is no doubt that a Government decision sharply to increase or sharply to diminish public expenditure must have an impact. The last time it was a sharp increase, although tempered by some of the mini-cuts last year, and the present intention is a cut in Government spending. It certainly has an impact at local level, where unfortunate people have to bargain with the Government about exactly what they will receive loan sanction to spend.
No one can say that the Government's record on public expenditure is any more consistent than it is on anything else.
356
Their record gives no clear indication of what they may or may not do if they are still in power when the various factors that have produced the present crisis no longer exist.
There is no real answer to the kind of question put by the hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne). There has never been an attempt by the Government to answer the philosophical case of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell). He must know as little as I do about the Government's intentions. Sometimes we wonder whether they themselves know what their intentions are.
On public expenditure the Government's general record is not good. It is no wonder that their demand management in general has been bad.
One of the troubles with cuts such as those of December is their inherent senselessness, by the nature of what is attempted. I take as an example the health and welfare cuts, starting from the assumption that there has been a steady erosion of the standards of the National Health Service, coupled with the unhealthy development of parasitic growths upon the service, such as agency nursing systems, which are proliferating in Birmingham. Other hon. Members tell me that the same thing is happening in other parts of the country.
That is bad enough, but if one decides to cut the money spent on health how does that cut work out in practice?
What sort of result does it produce in terms of saving money? Last year the Government restricted loan sanctions and promised added rate support to cover expenditure on mental health. The Government did not promise that added support because of any representations which the councils had made. The Government did so because they wanted local authorities to bring up standards to the minimum recommended by the Department of Health and Social Security. However, because of the restrictions which started last April, and even more because of what was done just before Christmas, the Government have now reduced loans sanctions for many council projects.
I am told that Camden, for example, which had planned for 90 hostel places for the mentally handicapped, had only

357
11 such places approved. The Department of Health and Social Security admits to having deferred schemes for 3,684 day places and 1,694 residential places for the mentally handicapped alone, leaving out of account other groups of the mentally sick. I am not stressing that that is a great tragedy for the mentally handicapped, although, of course, it is. I am saying that it is a ridiculous way in which to attempt to save money. In fact, it does not save money. It is only because the Government have a potty way of looking at these matters that they could even suppose that it saved money.
That is not untypical of what happens when Governments look at expenditure programmes and contemplate a little amateur surgery. The reason for it being foolish to economise in such a way—I use the example of the mentally sick—is that the people who would now be going into hostels if the loan sanctions were granted are kept in geriatric wards and mental hospitals and cost the country far more than if they were allowed out into community care. It is a nonsense because the two programmes cannot be linked in terms of expenditure saving.
We must make savings, it seems, in terms of community care by increasing what will be the charge on the hospitals. A dafter way to proceed could not be imagined. I do not suppose that it would be believed in some countries that we could do our accounting in that way. We solemnly listen to what are described as savings in public expenditure when the country has to pay more money than would have been the position if loan sanctions had been granted for Camden and all the other places which had asked for the mentally handicapped to be free to go out into community care.
Mr. Tom Driberg: Will my hon. Friend mention the cost to the health service of pharmaceuticals and especially those drugs prescribed under brand names?
Mr. Walden: I do not want to go too deeply into the health service not only because of the time factor but because it might unbalance the argument. Of course, my hon. Friend is right. I could go through the whole of the health service and point out how, because we
358
consider it in a narrow context and from accountancy purposes do not link it to other services with which it is intimately linked, we produce ridiculous results when we make what appear on paper to be expenditure cuts.
Expenditure cuts in terms of council housing and public transport do not make sense. They look good on paper but they will not save resources. Public transport cuts will only give rise to problems which will force people on to the already overcrowded roads, of which there will be fewer. I do not object to there being fewer roads, but there will be caused a good deal of economic loss and people will not be able to get to work so easily. People who live in London will rush on to an already overcrowded underground system. The underground system itself will be affected. I am told that the completion of the new Fleet line may have to be delayed because of Government measures.
Such cuts do not make sense. They are only paper accountancy. There is every reason to suppose that they will not work. It is the availability of labour and resources that appears to have a much greater impact upon what is actually spent than anything which the Government lay down in their own mandamus. That gives us nothing but cause for worry because it may mean that the burden which will fall upon the backs of those who can least carry it will be greater than the Government contemplate.
Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: The whole gravamen of the hon. Gentleman's case at the moment concerns the illusory and damaging effect of cuts in public expenditure. Surely precisely the same arguments apply to precisely the same extent when it is a question of expanding public expenditure in the same way.
Mr. Walden: I do not think they do, for this reason if for no other. I know the hon. Member's views. Although he may regard ample public provision, or over-ample public provision, as being not the best way to use resources, what we can certainly say about an expansion of public expenditure is that it does not occasion any greater hardship for the poorer members of the community, whereas cuts in expenditure palpably cause greater hardship for them.

359
The hon. Member should not underrate the economic consequences of doing that. One of the troubles with the Tory Party has always been that it keeps its economics in a separate box. It does not understand how psychological attitudes and social realities affect economics and, therefore, affect the kind of economic policy that a Government can have. I ought not to need to belabour that point because the Government know well that their present management of the economy is entirely dependent upon the resolution of the miners and the railwaymen, especially the former. My advice to the hon. Member is by all means to keep a careful eye on public expenditure but also to keep a careful eye on the kind of provocative action which leads many people to feel that they are not getting a fair deal in society.
An unfair society inevitably means that it is necessary to spend a lot more money than was desired, in the most foolish ways. The proof of that was in the hon. Member's speech when he told us that the Government had done precisely this. Having panicked by "overkill" which had produced a great deal of unnecessary unemployment, they panicked back the other way and spent money as if it was going out of style. The hon. Member should not encourage us to make the same mistake again.
Let me switch now to the Opposition's obvious and unashamed belief, shared by a number of Tory Members, that there was a better way of determining the level of demand, if it had to be reduced, as I believe it did. The domestic level of demand had to be reduced, first to make room for exports, which is about the one area where I can see any bright prospects for us at all in the short run, and secondly to cut the import bill. Something had to be done, but it would have been far better to have tried to switch some of this load away from the public sector into the private sector.
Let me give one reason—which I have not heard mentioned yet but which is important—why that is so. It so happens that consumer spending inevitably involves a greater use of imports and energy than does the public sector. A reduction in consumer spending would have been greatly to our benefit in terms of import and energy saving. The Opposition
360
do not hide the fact that they believe that at the minimum something should have been done with excise duty.
Consider cigarettes. They are relatively cheaper than they were two years ago. They are no less dangerous. If the Government argue that the demand for cigarettes is elastic and that the effect of increasing excise duty would mean that people would smoke much less, I would say that in that case we would save a great deal of money in the hospitals. If the argument is that demand is inelastic, I am right. The Government should increase the rate and they would get more money in.
The same applies to drink. I like cheap drink but I can see no justification at this time for not increasing the excise duty on alcohol. I admit that there are objections to increasing petrol duty, but generally I think that the advantages of doing so outweigh the disadvantages. It ought to have been done. Something should have been done about vehicle licence duty, too.
I do not want to be told that all these things would hit the consumer. Of course they would. The Labour Party does not have the shivering cowardice of hon. Members opposite in saying straight out that this is not a crisis which can be paid for by not building sufficient hospitals and not making proper provision for mental hospitals while people consume what they consumed before.
We must be frank and say that the people must be prepared to get themselves out of this crisis—they cannot rely on the Government to do it—and to achieve that they must make sacrifices. There might be a case for an across-the-board rise in the standard rate of income tax, although I would not commit myself to that. I tend to commit myself to far too much. I would necessarily want to see some of the calculations. Any change in tax rates inevitably requires time and such a change could not have been made in December and become effective, straight away, although, if a firm decision had been taken to do it in the budget, it could have mitigated some of the expenditure cuts. Whether it should be done I prefer to wait and see from the budget.

361
However, I am prepared to advance the proposition that at least half and possibly more, even if one accepts the Government's figures as being right, of the amount of money which needed to be taken out should have been taken out from the private and not from the public sector. The Opposition are frank enough about that. Hon Members opposite can make party capital out of it if they choose. But that is our view and we stick to it.
No one is more to blame than the Government's Treasury team. I exempt the Chief Secretary, because the unfortunate fellow has only recently come to his job. We have seen a few of them off in our time, and I expect to see him off. However, the rest of the team must carry the major share of blame for consistently arguing that increases in taxation were bad for everybody in the country and penalised people, which is true, whereas neither charges nor cuts in public expenditure, in some mystical way, had no effect on ordinary people. Apparently it was only taxes which mattered.
I have said time and again—and the Government still do not admit it, although there is an overwhelming weight of economic evidence for it—that the so-called tax cuts have benefited only the very rich. If one reads Mr. Alan Day's article in the Observer last Sunday—and I invite the Government to do so—one sees that every other section of the community has just kept step because of the inflation and other technical factors mentioned in the article. Only the very well-to-do have benefited.
But even if that were not so it is ludicrous to have one set of unavoidable charges called "tax", which is bad, and another set of unavoidable charges for the great majority of people in this country simply called "charges"—school milk, for instance—which is good and does not have any impact on the family budget. Public expenditure cuts are bound to hit the working class family—and the larger it is the worse it will be hit—more than anybody else. I give the hon. Member for Kensington, South full credit for having the political guts to say that what was wrong with his Government's policy was that it was utterly insufficiently redistributed and that it took no account of family budget realities. I honour the hon. Gentleman for saying that.
362
What I do not honour is the consistently misleading advice given to the country by the Treasury team. It has propagated many of the myths which have helped to divide our society. Its advice has created a good deal of the poisoned atmosphere which has caused the crisis.
The economy has been run in the most manic way basically so that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be able to say, at an election, that the Tory Party is the party which cuts and does not raise taxes, and he will be able to parade once more the endlessly boring speech which he has made in opposition and in government. Presumably he hopes to mislead and hoodwink anybody who cannot simply look around. If we want to see the Government's monument, we should look around: the worst industrial relations situation we have had in my lifetime; a three-day working week which may become a two-day working week; the bitterest partisan feelings expressed on both sides; election hysteria about every two weeks; the grimmest prospects for the balance of payments position, having inherited the most substantial balance of payments surplus we have ever had; a dim prospect that we shall be able to borrow the money to cover it—if we wish to cover it is without accepting further deflationary restrictions and, on top of it all, this.
The Government could hardly do worse. I do not expect the Government, in what little life remains to them, to do any worse. Even if they could beat the miners' strike—and it is a ludicrous conception, this is not Lüneberg Heath, the miners are not going to put their Davy lamps on the table and sign a surrender document to Edward Heath—even if the Government could beat the miners and go back to a five-day week, my judgment of their economic management and their management of public expenditure would be that they had created a desert even if they called it peace.
9.30 p.m.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Terence Higgins): This, the fifth debate on a Public Expenditure White Paper, is still an annual occasion which is in search of a tradition. In the first debate in January 1970 the hope was expressed by both sides of the House that it would become a major feature of

363
our parliamentary programme, but in successive years it has continued to fall between two stools—a technical discussion on public expenditure control techniques and analysis on the one hand, and a partisan battle on the other.
In many ways the speech made by the hon. Member for Birmingham, All Saints (Mr. Brian Walden) reflects this fundamental dichotomy. It may be regretted that the terms of the Opposition's amendment have ensured that few hon. Members taking part in the debate have concentrated on technical analysis, because this is the only occasion in the year when these matters can be discussed in depth on the Floor of the House.
I take issue with the hon. Member for Heywood and Royton (Mr. Joel Barnett) who suggested that these matters were better left to Committees upstairs. Certainly the work which the Expenditure Committee, the Sub-Committees and others have done has been extremely important, but it is right and proper that from time to time the proceedings of the Committees which work so hard upstairs and the matters which they are analysing should come to the Floor of the House. Therefore, it is a matter for some regret that the Opposition's amendment should—naturally enough—have generated several partisan and divisive speeches.
Mr. Joel Barnett: What else does the hon. Gentleman think this is?
Mr. Higgins: This is an occasion when serious analysis is appropriate, and I hope to engage in that in answer to some of the arguments put forward by Opposition Members.
Some hon. Members went into detail. My hon. Friend the Member for Kensington, South (Sir B. Rhys Williams), for example, went in some detail into the questions of pensions and social security, and the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Elystan Morgan) went into detail on student grants. As the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) said, essentially the debate today has been about demand management. That view is shared by the House as a whole. That perhaps is not unhelpful, and it is necessary to put it in the context of public expenditure and the White Paper that is before us today.
364
I am sure it is true, as the hon. Member for All Saints said, that there is a fundamental difference in approach between the two sides on the scale of public expenditure and on its extent. It would be very naïve to suppose that it is not recognised on both sides of the House that there is a choice to be made between public expenditure on one hand and taxation on the other, and there is certainly a difference in view on those matters between the two sides of the House.
It is illuminating to look at the successive annual Public Expenditure White Papers that have been issued from October 1970 onwards and to look at the main individual policy changes which have been made from year to year to see how the aggregate of public expenditure has been affected, as the hon. Member for All Saints sought to do.
The figures reflect two things: first, the determination of the Government to keep public expenditure under control and, secondly, the fact that public expenditure can be used as an important aid in economic management.
I do not think that one has to be, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) said, a wild enthusiast for fine tuning to suggest that it is appropriate to alter the rate of growth of public expenditure to allow for changes in economic circumstances. Thus both the 1971 and 1972 public expenditure White Papers include countercyclical proposals designed to help to reduce the level of unemployment. But the public expenditure plans were also designed to taper off as the economy approached the limits of capacity.
Let me say to the hon. Member for Birmingham, All Saints that some time ago it was said that there are many ways of being different but there is only one way of being the same. It would be inappropriate for the Government to say that they would not change public expenditure policies even though circumstances had radically changed. That is the important point.
It has been argued—and this was one of the matters mentioned by the hon. Member for Birmingham, All Saints—that public expenditure was out of control even before the oil and coal crisis and that in any event we would have had

365
to cut back. At the technical level it is important to get the record straight.
Reference has been made to the Jay-index, which is not to be confused with the J-curve—and indeed the latter has more validity than the former. It has been argued that the rise in public expenditure was inexorable, despite all our attempts to control it. The suggestion has been that the latest White Paper estimates for 1973–74 and those for each of the three following years are still higher, in volume terms, than those in last year's White Paper. It is true that public expenditure has a remarkable buoyancy and it requires great perseverance and determination to hold it within reasonable bounds, never mind reducing spending plans. It is not true that the upward pressure has, as alleged, proved inexorable. I should like to spend a few moments in seeking to clear up just how misunderstandings on this point can arise.
There are various ways in which public expenditure figures can be usefully displayed for various purposes, but there is only one satisfactory way of deciding whether the estimates in one year's White Paper are higher or lower than those in a previous year's White Paper. That is to take the earlier set of estimates, which will be valued at that year's prices, to revalue them up to the basis of the new White Paper, and, if necessary, to make adjustments to ensure that the coverage is the same. A great deal of work is involved if the correct answer is required, but there are no short cuts. Clearly, on a proper basis of comparison the estimates for 1973–74 have been slightly reduced and those for each of the following years have been reduced by more than £100 million. The figures are shown in more detail in tables 1.3, 3.11 and 3.12.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, All Saints suggested that we should change the basis and express the figures in money terms for differing rates of inflation. In my view—and I am speaking very much off the cuff—I believe that this would greatly complicate the White Paper. It is difficult to present these matters as clearly as possible, and it is true to say that as a result of the work carried out by a Select Committee on Expenditure and the suggestions which it has made, coupled with the work done by officials and others, the presentation in the White Paper is a great deal better
366
than on previous occasions. My hon. Friend the Chief Secretary referred to this matter in his speech, but there is a limit to the extent to which one can simplify matters. In a sense the more one tries to explain a complex matter, the more difficult it becomes. If the presentation which is now before the House is an improvement, then no doubt scope for further improvement will need to be taken into account.
I turn to a point made by a number of hon. Members who questioned whether the cuts are real. This point was made by the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), my hon. Friend the Member for South Angus and particularly by my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Loveridge). I think that this is a very important point. My hon. Friend the Chief Secretary said that the complaints about such measures were likely to be either that the cuts were nasty or that they were bogus. Therefore, it is right to clarify the position on whether the cuts are real.
No one can doubt that the action being taken by Departments in co-operation with local authorities and nationalised industries to change their physical plans so as to reduce their 1974–75 expenditures to the extent required represents real cuts. Details of many of the programmes have been given to the House in recent replies to several Parliamentary Questions, and my hon. Friend the Chief Secretary referred to the error in the report in The Times today suggesting that the shortfall in 1973–74 might well cancel out the cuts of 17th December because the spending authorities might try to catch up what they failed to spend this year. There will be no such catching up. All spending programmes will have to be adjusted to the figures given in the White Paper which provides us with an important yardstick—less, of course, the cuts in the December reductions.
If the Government had not taken action on this scale there would have been serious excess demand leading undoubtedly to frustration of some public expenditure plans in a haphazard and dangerous way. By their action the Government have ensured that the more essential parts of the programmes should be able to proceed. As for the years after 1974–75, the programmes will have to be reviewed carefully in the light of

367
the prospects of the economy and the paramount need to ensure that the necessary improvements in the balance of payments and in building up productive investment take place.
Having clarified that point, I turn to another main argument which has been used——
Mr. Sheldon: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Higgins: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will allow me to proceed a little further. I have a great deal to say, and I think that I have clarified that point. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to intervene later, no doubt he will do so.
A number of hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne suggested that——
Mr. Sheldon: My point deals with the shortfall of £400 million which was allocated to the Departments and not spent. Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the only acid test about whether the water is not be squeezed out of the estimates by the various Departments is that that shortfall continues beyond the period covered by the cuts? In other words, after those cuts are made, if there is still a £400 million shortfall, we shall know that the £1.200 million saving has been genuinely effected.
Mr. Higgins: I think that I have covered that point in what I have just said. The fact is that there will not be any catching up. If we take as the yardstick the White Paper and these cuts, I think that we shall find that the cuts are real for the reasons that I have given.
I turn to the points which have been made by hon. Members who argue that there has been overheating of the economy and that even before the oil and coal crisis this overheating would have forced the Government to impose an economic stop. This is a myth which the Leader of the Opposition and the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey)—who, I am glad to see, assents that it is a myth—have been at pains to build up. There is no truth in any of this, as the November issue of the very independent National Institute Economic Review made clear. It stated that in real terms the Government's growth strategy as it
368
was, before the oil and coal crisis. appeared to have been almost completely successful. It said that the panic about overheating had been much overdone. The Institute found that many of the supply difficulties reported had been brought to light merely by the exceptionally rapid rate of advance so far. It said that there were supply difficulties but that these had been very much exaggerated. It went on to examine the issue of spare capacity in some detail. It examined 11 capacity utilisation indicators over the past decade and concluded that only two indicated as high a pressure of demand in 1973 as in the boom period of 1964 to 1966, and that those two were suspect. Therefore, it is reasonable to say that the situation that we were in before the present crisis arose—I will expand on this in a moment—was one in which the Government's objectives were being achieved.
Mr. Healey: The Government have now decided to cut public expenditure by £1,200 million and to make further cuts in demand. They have also said that they do not propose to take action to deal with the oil part of our deficit. The Governor of the Bank of England has insisted that the Government must deal with the non-oil part of the deficit, which was running at £2,500 million a year before the oil changes began to hit our economy. If these cuts are not directed to the non-oil deficit, to what on earth are they directed?
Mr. Higgins: I will come to that precise point in a short time.
Mr. Healey: Come to it now.
Mr. Higgins: No. I will come to it at the appropriate moment.
The point I was making—it is important—is that it is clear from the National Institute's analysis that the situation before the present crisis arose was one where the Government's objectives were being achieved. The National Institute explicitly said:
"Nevertheless, in real terms, the policy appears otherwise to have had almost complete success: growth has been stimulated, two-thirds of a million new jobs have been created and recorded unemployment has fallen by well over one-third of a million. What is more, the growth of private consumption is now slowing down as planned, whilst the evidence is that a major upturn in private industrial investment has begun and will appear

369
fully in 1974. In addition, despite the strong rise in demand "—
this is part of the answer to the right hon. Gentleman—
"export growth has kept pace with import growth in volume terms, and in the most recent four months has (for goods only) exceeded the growth of imports in the ratio of 7 to 3."
Mr. J. Enoch Powell Mr. J. Enoch Powell (Wolverhampton, South-West) rose——
Mr. Higgins: That is a straight extract from the National Institute's report. The fact is that, until the radical change in the oil supply price position and the industrial action from which we have suffered over the last two months or so, the Government had achieved what no previous Government succeeded in achieving—a smooth transition from high unemployment to high utilisation of capacity and a growth path in line with the growth in productive potential.
Mr. Powell: Do I gather from my hon. Friend that the Government's objects which were thus achieved included a 10 per cent. annual rate of inflation?
Mr. Higgins: Certainly the rate of inflation was not satisfactory. I hope to have time to say more about that later.
It is important to stress that we had achieved what no previous Government had succeeded in achieving—a smooth transition from high unemployment to high utilisation of capacity and a growth path in line with the growth in productive potential.
In this context I should like to take up the point made by the hon. Member for Heywood and Royton and by my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Sir H. d'Avigdor-Goldsmid). The record published at the time of the last Budget shows that the rate of growth in demand was designed to taper off from about 4 per cent. or 5 per cent. to about 3½ per cent. That being so, our problem now is to cope with the changed world environment in which we find ourselves, to solve our immediate domestic difficulties and to restore economic growth.
The division between consumption and investment and Government expenditure and balance of payments in early November was developing as intended, but clearly we must now adjust to the new problems.
370
The measures announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer were necessitated by fundamental and dramatic changes in the world economic scene. We must now recognise that the total burden of our balance of payments, with oil adding a massive amount to our import bill, requires a major effort to restrain demand at home so that resources can be steered in sufficient quantities towards the export sector and towards investment, particularly in the energy sphere which is now of such importance.
Mr. Healey: This is a very important point. The Government have consistently said at international and national gatherings that they will not try nationally and unilaterally to deal with the oil component of their deficit for fear that this would lead to an international slump. Is the hon. Gentleman now saying that the sole reason for the Chancellor's measures in December was to deal with the oil component of our deficit?
Mr. Higgins: No. The right hon. Gentleman has asked that question previously.
Mr. Healey: That is what the hon. Gentleman is saying.
Mr. Higgins: No, it is not. If the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to proceed, I shall seek to answer the various points which have been raised.
During 1973 our exports rose twice as fast in volume as the average over the past five years. Indeed, we increased our share of world trade in the first half of 1973 for the first time since the war. Clearly, as a result of exchange rate changes, the present situation is that British goods are highly competitive. We should be taking advantage of the J-curve effect, but this clearly requires an increase in exports. It is all the more important that we should not be handicapped by industrial disputes. I agree with the hon. Member for Heywood and Royton who said that it would be tragic if we were not to take advantage of the present position.
That is one of the reasons why my right hon. Friend the Chancellor took measures before Christmas to reduce demand by £1,200 million in 1974–75 and to help to free resources for the export market.
There have been massive increases in world commodity prices, which were

371
having an effect on the balance of payments long before November. Since the beginning of 1972 the world prices of food and of raw materials for industry have increased by about 120 per cent. This situation has radically affected the position. Raw materials which cost £1 in 1972 now cost our industry £2·20. Wheat which was £32 per ton in 1970 now costs £115 a ton. Therefore, we are in a situation in which there has been a severe deterioration in terms of trade; but there was reason to believe that, as the effective depreciation of sterling worked through the balance of payments, the deficit would begin to improve.
I want to pursue a particular point which is also of great importance. We cannot now hope to achieve a 3½ per cent growth target over 1974. But I am sure that we must press ahead with all urgency with our efforts to raise the underlying potential to produce, whether it be by building up investment, by increasing skills or by other methods.
Mr. Driberg: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If you are allowing the Minister to read his speech, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will you ask him to read it a little more vividly?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I should hate to interfere with the way in which hon. Members present their speeches. I have enough trouble without that.
Mr. Higgins: I shall certainly seek to put forward rather more vividly some of the points which have been made during the debate, and I shall seek to do so by reference to the Opposition's amendment. That is a matter which is worth raising.
I say to Opposition Members that what has been singularly lacking in the debate has been any view upon the Opposition's view of public expenditure. The right hon. Member for Leeds, East said that the hon. Member for Heywood and Royton gave that view.
Mr. Healey Mr. Healey indicated dissent.
Mr. Higgins: The fact is that he added one or two caveats, but he certainly did not say what the right hon. Member for Leeds, East has said on other occasions. The right hon. Member for Leeds, East has said that the Labour Party intends to increase public
372
expenditure by between £5,000 million and £6,000 million a year. The right hon. Gentleman has put forward a number of massive proposals for increased public expenditure. The Opposition's amendment suggests that the policy which we are putting forward, which is a prudent policy, is not satisfactory, yet the Opposition are putting forward policies which would increase public expenditure massively. Therefore, it is reasonable that we on the Government side of the House should ask exactly what is the Opposition's policy on public expenditure.
I wanted to ask the hon. Member for All Saints about the Labour Party's policy and also to answer his argument that the public expenditure cuts are unfair and that they hit the poorer members of the community more than others. I do not believe that that charge can be justified. Indeed, the Government's policy as a whole, particularly our counter-inflation policy, has been designed specifically to help the low paid. As for the cuts, I do not believe it is the case that they will fall more heavily on poorer members of the community.
Labour Members have made clear that in their view the Government should go for tax increases. Indeed, the hon. Member for All Saints was clear and explicit about that. The House will have listened with great interest—[Interruption.] I say to the hon. Member who intervened that that is precisely what the hon. Member for All Saints suggested with such animation. [An HON. MEMBER: "A vivid speech."] Yes, it was vivid, and I think that the country will find that what he said was vivid.
Hon. Members suggest that there should be tax increases and no doubt, as the right hon. Member for Leeds, East said, they would have concentrated on the rich. I am never sure whom the right hon. Member for Leeds, East regards as the rich. One should remind him that if all the income remaining to those earning over £5,000 a year were withdrawn in higher taxation it would yield only one-third of the £1,200 million represented by the expenditure cuts.
We know that the Labour Party's preference is for higher taxation, but in the circumstances which we faced last month we judged it preferable to let the public

373
sector bear the main burden in the reduction of demand that was needed rather than go for tax increases which inevitably, for the reason I have mentioned, would have fallen on a wide range of people at many levels of income.
There is, of course, a valid choice. It is a difficult one. Opposition Members have made it abundantly clear where their preference lies, but in the circumstances which confronted my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in December there was a clear case for allowing the public sector to bear the main burden of the reduction in demand and thus avoiding the risk of boosting inflationary pressures. If my right hon. Friend had then taken action on indirect taxation, that would have had a direct impact on inflation and on prices. If he had acted on direct taxation, as the hon. Member for All Saints suggested, that would have reduced take-home pay and added to wage claims at present.
The measures which my right hon. Friend took were appropriate. They are ones which I believe have had general acceptance. The late Iain Macleod once said that economic measures which seemed popular at first sight were soon found to be unpopular. But it would have been wrong, as my right hon. Friend pointed out, to impose heavy increases in taxation in the circumstances which we face now, particularly in the difficult industrial circumstances.
For that reason I ask the House to reject the Opposition's amendment. It is unjustified and is irrelevant to the present circumstances that we face. I ask the House to note the White Paper which, together with my right hon. Friend's proposals, is a satisfactory answer to the present economic situation.
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The House divided: Ayes 280, Noes 301.

Division No. 43.]

AYES

[10.0 p.m.

Abse, Leo

Cronin, John

Garrett, W. E.

Albu, Austen

Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

Gilbert, Dr. John

Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)

Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

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

Golding, John

Armstrong, Ernest

Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)

Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

Ashley, Jack

Dalyell, Tarn

Gourlay, Harry

Ashton, Joe

Darling, Rt. Hn. George

Grant, George (Morpeth)

Atkinson, Norman

Davidson, Arthur

Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

Austick, David

Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

Bagier, Gordon, A. T.

Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.

Barnes, Michael

Davies, Ifor (Gower)

Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)

Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)

Hamling, William

Baxter, William

Deakins, Eric

Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

Beaney, Alan

de Fraitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

Hardy, Peter

Beith, A. J.

Delargy, Hugh

Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

Hattersley, Roy

Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

Dempsey, James

Hatton, F.

Bishop, E. S.

Doig, Peter

Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

Blenkinsop, Arthur

Dormand, J. D.

Heffer, Eric S.

Boardman, H. (Leigh)

Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

Horam, John

Booth, Albert

Douglas-Mann, Bruce

Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)

Driberg, Tom

Huckfield, Leslie

Bradley, Tom

Duffy, A. E. P.

Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

Broughton, Sir Alfred

Dunn, James A.

Hughes, Mark (Durham)

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

Dunnett, Jack

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

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

Eadie Alex

Hughes, Roy (Newport)

Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

Edelman, Maurice

Hunter, Adam

Buchan, Norman

Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

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

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

Edwards, William (Merioneth)

Janner, Greville

Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

Ellis, Tom

Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

English, Michael

Jeger, Mrs. Lena

Cant, R. B.

Evans, Fred

Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

Carmichael, Neil

Ewing, Harry

Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

Carter, Ray (Birmingham, Northfield)

Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.

John, Brynmor

Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

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

Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

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

Clark, David (Colne Valley)

Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

Flelcher, Ted (Darlington)

Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

Cohen, Stanley

Foot, Michael

Jones, Dan (Burnley)

Coleman, Donald

Ford, Ben

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

Concannon, J. D.

Forrester, John

Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

Conlan, Bernard

Fraser, John (Norwood)

Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

Corbet, Mrs. Freda

Freeson, Reginald

Kaufman, Gerald

Cox, Thom"s (Wandsworth, C)

Freud, Clement

Kelley, Richard

Crawshaw, Richard

Galpern, Sir Myer

Kerr, Russell

KinnocK, Noil

Murray, Ronald King

Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

Lambie, David

Oakes, Gordon

Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

Lamborn, Harry

Ogden, Eric

Spriggs, Leslie

Lamond, James

O'Halloran, Michael

Stallard, A. W.

Latham, Arthur

O'Malley, Brian

Steel, David

Lawson, George

Oram, Bert

Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)

Leadbitter, Ted

Orbach, Maurice

Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick

Orme, Stanley

Stoddart, David (Swindon)

Leonard, Dick

Oswald, Thomas

Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

Lestor, Miss Joan

Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

Stott, Roger

Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold

Padley, Walter

Strang, Gavin

Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

Paget, R. T.

Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

Palmer, Arthur

Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

Lipton, Marcus

Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

Swain, Thomas

Loughlin, Charles

Pardoe, John

Taverne, Dick

Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

Parker, John (Dagenham)

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

Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

Pavitt, Laurie

Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

McBride, Neil

Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy

McCartney, Hugh

Pendry, Tom

Tinn, James

MacDonald, Mrs. Margo

Perry, Ernest G.

Tomney, Frank

McElhone, Frank

Prescott, John

Tope, Graham

McGuire, Michael

Price, William (Rugby)

Torney, Tom

Machin, George

Probert, Arthur

Tuck, Raphael

Mackenzie, Gregor

Radice, Giles

Urwin, T. W.

Mackie, John

Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

Varley, Eric G.

Maclennan, Robert

Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

Wainwright, Edwin

McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

Rhodes, Geoffrey

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

McNamara, J, Kevin

Richard, Ivor

Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

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

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

Wallace, George

Marks, Kenneth

Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)

Watkins, David

Marquand, David

Robertson, John (Paisley)

Weitzman, David

Marsden, F.

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

Wellbeloved, James

Marshall, Dr. Edmund

Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

Roper, John

White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

Mayhew, Christopher

Rose, Paul B.

Whitehead, Phillip

Meacher, Michael

Ross. Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

Whitlock, William

Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

Rowlands, Ted

Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

Mendelson, John

Sandelson, Neville

Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

Mikardo, Ian

Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

Millan, Bruce

Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

Miller, Dr. M. S.

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

Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

Milne, Edward

Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)

Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

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

Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

Molloy, William

Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

Woof, Robert

Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

Sillars, James

Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

Silverman, Julius

TELLERS FOR THE AYES

Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

Skinner, Dennis

Mr. Joseph Harper and Mr. Walter Harrison

Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

Small, William

Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

NOES

Adley, Robert

Burden, F. A.

Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

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

Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

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

Emery, Peter

Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian

Carlisle, Mark

Eyre, Reginald

Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

Farr, John

Astor, John

Cary, Sir Robert

Fell, Anthony

Atkins, Humphrey

Channon, Paul

Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

Awdry, Daniel

Chapman, Sydney

Fidler, Michael

Baker. Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

Chichester-Clark, R.

Fisher, Sir Nigel (Surbiton)

Balnlel, Rt. Hn. Lord

Churchill, W. S.

Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh, N.)

Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

Batsford, Brian

Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcllffe)

Fookes, Miss Janet

Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

Cockeram, Eric

Fortescue, Tim

Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

Cooke, Robert

Foster, Sir ohn

Benyon, W.

Coombs, Derek

Fox, Marcus

Berry, Hn. Anthony

Cooper, A. E.

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

Bitten, John

Cordle, John

Fry, Peter

Biggs-Davison, John

Corfield, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick

Galbraith, Hn. T. G. D.

Blaker, Peter

Cormack, Patrick

Gardner, Edward

Boardman, Tom (Leicester. S. W.)

Costain, A. P.

Gibson-Watt David

Body, Richard

Crouch, David

Gilmour, lan (Norfolk, C.)

Boscawen, Hn. Robert

Crowder, F. P.

Gilmour, lan (Norfolk, C.)

Boscawen, Hn. Robert Bossom, Sir Clive

Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)

Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

Bowden, Andrew

d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

Glyn, Dr. Alan

Bray, Ronald

d'Avlgdor-Goldsmld. Maj. -Gen. Jack

Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

Brewis, John

Dean, Paul

Goodhart, Philip

Brinton, Sir Tatton

Digby, Simon Wingfield

Gorst, John

Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

Dixon, Piers

Gower, Sir Raymond

Bruce-Gardyne, J.

Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec

Grant, Anthony (Harrow. C.)

Bryan, Sir Paul

Drayson, Burnaby

Gray, Hamish

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

du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

Green, Alan

Buck. Antony

Dykes, Hugh

Grieve, Percy

Bullus, Sir Eric

Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir John

Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

376

377

Gryils, Michael

McNair-Wilson, Michael

Rost, Peter

Gummer, J. Selwyn

McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)

Royle, Anthony

Gurden, Harold

Madel, David

Russell, Sir Ronald

Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

Maglnnls, John E.

St. John-Stevas, Norman

Hall, Sir John (Wycombe)

Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

Salnsbury, Timothy

Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

Marten, Nell

Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.

Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

Mather, Carol

Scott, Nicholas

Hannam, John (Exeter)

Maude, Angus

Scott-Hopkins, James

Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

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

Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

Mawby, Ray

Shelton, William (Clapham)

Harvie Anderson, Miss

Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

Shersby, Michael

Haselhurst, Alan

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Simeons, Charles

Havers, Sir Michael

Mills, Peter (Torrington)

Sinclair, Sir George

Hay, John

Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

Skeet, T. H. H.

Hayhoe, Barney

Miscampbell, Norman

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

Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward

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

Soref, Harold

Heseltine, Michael

Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

Speed, Keith

Hicks, Robert

Moate, Roger

Spence, John

Higgins, Terence L.

Molyneaux, James

Sproat, laln

Hiley, Joseph

Money, Ernie

Stalnton, Keith

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

Monks, Mrs. Connie

Stanbrook, Ivor

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

Monro, Hector

Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)

Holland, Philip

Montgomery, Fergus

Stodart, Rt. Hon. Anthony

Holt, Miss Mary

More, Jasper

Stokes, John

Hordern, Peter

Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

Hornby, Richard

Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

Sutcliffe, John

Hornsby-Smith, RI. Hn. Dame Patricia

Morrison, Charles

Tapsell, Peter

Howe, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Relgate)

Mudd, David

Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

Howell, David (Guildford)

Neave, Airey

Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

Nicholls, Sir Harmar

Tebbit, Norman

Hunt, John

Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

Temple, John M.

Iremonger, T. L.

Normanton, Tom

Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

Nott, John

Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

James, David

Onslow, Cranley

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

Jenkin, Rt. Hn. Patrick (Woodford)

Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon. S.)

Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

Trafford, Dr. Anthony

Jessel, Toby

Osborn, John

Trew, Peter

Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

Tugendhat, Christopher

Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)

Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin

Jopling, Michael

Page, John (Harrow, W.)

van Straubenzee, W. R.

Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

Parkinson, Cecil

Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

Kaberry, Sir Donald

Peel, Sir John

Vickers, Dame Joan

Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine

Percival, Ian

Waddington, David

Kershaw, Anthony

Peyton, Rt. Hn. John

Walder, David (Clitheroe)

Kimball, Marcus

Pike, Miss Mervyn

Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)

King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

Pink, R. Bonner

Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

King, Tom (Bridgwater)

Pounder, Ration

Wall, Patrick

Kirk, Peter

Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

Walters, Dennis

Kitson, Timothy

Price, David (Eastlelgh)

Ward, Dame Irene

Knight, Mrs. Jill

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

Warren, Kenneth

Knox, David

Proudfoot, Wilfred

Weatherill, Bernard

Lamont, Norman

Quennell. Miss J. M.

Wells, John (Maidstone)

Lane, David

Raison, Timothy

White, Roger (Gravesend)

Langford-Holt, Sir John

Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

Le Marchant, Spencer

Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

Wiggin, Jerry

Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

Redmond, Robert

Wilkinson, John

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

Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

Winterton, Nicholas

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

Rees, Peter (Dover)

wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

Longden, Sir Gilbert

Rees-Davles, W. R.

Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

Loveridge, John

Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

Luce, R. N.

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Woodnutt, Mark

McAdden, Sir Stephen

Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

Worsley, Sir Marcus

MacArthur, Ian

Ridsdale, Julian

Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

McCrindle, R. A.

Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey

Younger, Hn. George

McLaren, Martin

Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES

McMaster, Stanley

Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

Mr. Walter Clegg and

Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Maurice (Farnham)

Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

Mr. Paul Hawkins.

Question accordingly negatived. Main Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House takes note of the White Paper on Public Expenditure to 1977–78 (Command Paper No. 5519).

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ordered,
That the Pensions (Increase) Bill may be proceeded with at this day's Sitting, though opposed, until any hour.—[The Prime Minister.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  PENSIONS (INCREASE) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  10.15 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Civil Service Department (Mr. Kenneth Baker): I beg to move, That the Bill now be read a Second time.
  I am very pleased to move the Second Reading of this important Bill. It is important since it will bring benefits to about 100,000 public servants who retired in 1973 or will retire in 1974 and in some cases 1975. They include teachers, police, fire service officers, civil servants, local government and National Health Service officials. All those whose pensions are calculated by reference to pay that has been affected by stage 1 and stage 2 or by stage 2 alone of the Government's counter-inflationary policy will have their pensions increased by supplements of up to 9 per cent. The cost of this is about £5 million of which £4 million will fall on the Exchequer and £1 million on local government expenditure. If we did not introduce this Bill, all those who retired after 1st January 1973 or during 1974 and in some cases 1975 would have lower pensions permanently.
  We are also taking action to allow the private sector pension funds to make similar provision for their pensioners if they wish to do so, and to this end the Inland Revenue will be making changes to the Code of Practice for Approved Occupational Pension Schemes.
  Previous income policies—I am sure the House will appreciate this—including that of the last administration, have affected pensions adversely. This is the first time that action has been taken by any Government to mitigate the effects on pensions of an incomes policy. It fulfils a specific pledge given by the
  380
  Prime Minister in relation to stages 1 and 2. This Government have a fine record in improving public service pensions, a record of which we can be proud.
  To understand the precise nature of the problem which this Bill is intended to solve the House should bear in mind the very substantial improvements to public service schemes which we introduced in 1972. The most important of these was that any man or woman retiring from the public service since 1972 has his or her pension based upon the best salary he or she earned in the last three years, rather than the average of the last three years' salary, and in general this means that the pension is based upon the salary in the last year of service. Pensions, therefore, which are now being awarded are substantially higher than they were a few years ago, but they also—and the House will appreciate this—reflect rapidly and to a much larger extent than before any distortions or restrictions that occur in pay.
  This Government also introduced the Pensions (Increase) Act 1971. Under this, cost-of-living increases are now given each year to public service pensioners to take account of rises in the cost of living since they retired. This arrangement puts public service pensions in a very good position—indeed, in a better position than that of many pensions in the private sector, though by no means all—since public service pensions are now inflation proofed.
  As from 1st December last the pensions of all those pensioners who retired in 1972 or any time earlier were increased by percentages related to cost of living increases. This means that, because of the interaction of those two measures of improvement—the pension based on pay in the last year of service and the regular annual increase—if no mitigating action were taken, with effect from 1st December those whose pensions are based on pay affected by stages 1 and /or 2 would receive smaller pensions than those who had retired earlier. This would impose on them a permanent disadvantage in terms of pension for the rest of their lives and the lives of their widows.
  That is the problem to which the Bill provides a solution. As I have said, we think it is important that we should not introduce measures only to assist public

  381
  service pensioners, and so by selecting this solution which is based on the cost of living concept embodied in the Pensions (Increase) Act 1971 it has proved possible to make changes in the Inland Revenue Code of Practice for Approved Occupational Pension Schemes to allow the private sector to make comparable arrangements.
  I do not want to detain the House for long at this late hour, but I should like briefly to explain the concept behind the Bill, which is difficult to read through and understand. It is written by actuaries and professionals for actuaries and professionals. I shall try to explain the basic concept because I know that what I say will be read with great interest by many public service pensioners affected by the Bill, who will have some difficulty in understanding its details.
  The concept of annual cost of living increases and the method of calculating those increases provides the basis of the scheme in the Bill. The exact amount of an individual's supplement will depend on the date of retirement and whether or not he suffered a deferment of a pay increase under stage 1 of the incomes policy. The percentage increases are given in the Schedule.
  Paragraph 17 of the Schedule gives the general formula for calculating the supplements. They are made up of a combination of 10·4 per cent.—the cost of living increase given to pensions beginning at the end of 1972—and 6·1 per cent.—the increase given to pensions beginning in the first half of 1973.
  The basic concept is to divide into months the last year of service, which normally determines the pension, and apply a 10·4er cent. or 6·1 per cent. increase for each month according to whether the pensionable pay was received during 1972 or was affected by stage 1 or stage 2.
  It may be helpful to give a few examples of what the Bill means to individual pensioners. I take first an assistant teacher, on Scale 2, working outside London who, on retiring on 31st July 1973, has qualified for a full pension of £1,224 per year. Teachers as a group were not affected by the incomes standstill under stage 1 but they received a pay increase on 1st April 1973 within the limits of stage 2. The Bill gives the
  382
  teacher whom I quoted an increase of 7·9 per cent. on his basic pension with effect from 1st December—a cash increase of £97. Teachers retiring at later times—up to March 1975—would receive smaller increases as their pensions are less affected by stage 2 of the counter-inflation measures.
  My next example is a National Health Service manual worker—a hospital porter, say—who had both stage 1 and stage 2 pay restrictions, retiring at the end of August 1973. He will receive an increase of about £41–8·6 per cent. of his basic pension of £476.
  Let us take a public servant for whom I bear direct ministerial responsibility, a clerical officer in the Civil Service, again a grade whose pension was affected by both stages 1 and 2, retiring at the end of July 1973. He will receive a 9 per cent. increase.
  In all the cases the supplement will be treated as part of the pension for the purposes of future pensions increases. Therefore, this is a correction lasting for ever, not just for this year. The supplement will also be added to the preserved pensions of those who leave during the period covered by the legislation, that is, those who retire from the public service and have preserved pension rights. Contingent widows' and other dependants' pensions will be similarly increased.
  The Bill contains a provision for the appropriate Minister, with my approval, to make regulations modifying the special supplement arrangements in those relatively few cases where the pension is not based on pay received during the final year of service.
  In Clause 3 we have taken the opportunity to include two unrelated further improvements in the pension increase arrangements for dependants. We have raised the upper qualifying age limit for increases in children's pensions from 16 to 17 to take account of the raising of the school leaving age by one year. We have removed, with effect from 1st December 1974, to coincide with the effective date of the next annual review, the age restriction for the payment of normal pension increases to widows without dependent children. At the moment we cannot pay such increases to widows under the age of 40 who have no dependent children.

  383
  As to the date of payment, for retirements before 1st December 1973 the increases will be paid with effect from that date. That is the date of the cost-of-living increases, and it is only at that date that the problem of distorted relative values of pensions occurs. For retirements after that date the problem is apparent immediately on award, and the increase will thus be given with effect from the date that the pension comes into payment. That is why I am anxious to have the Bill on the statute book as soon as possible. We want to get the increase paid to pensioners as quickly as possible.
  In short, what we seek to do in the Bill is to reduce the disadvantage which public service pensions would bear as a result of stages 1 and 2 of the counter-inflation policy. It is the first time that any Government have taken this step. It is only fair and equitable that we should do so. I commend the Bill to the House.
  10.26 p.m.
  Mr. Arthur Palmer: The House will be indebted to the Minister for the clarity with which he has attempted to introduce a Bill which by its nature is difficult to understand. The hon. Gentleman in his speech dealt with two groups of pensioners—namely, the public service pensioner and what he described, I think, as the private pensioner in an occupational scheme. It is rather surprising that he left out pensioners or would-be pensioners of the nationalised industries. They represent a numerous group adversely affected by the counter-inflation legislation.
  Nationalised industry pension schemes are, in a sense, half way between the normal public service scheme and the straight private occupation scheme. In the nationalised industries the pension schemes are best described as statutory schemes. Under the various nationalisation Acts it has not been left to the boards as employers to introduce pension schemes as they think fit or as a result of negotiations with trade unions. Under the statutes the nationalised industries are compelled to establish such schemes. What I have to say probably applies to all the nationalised industries but I intend to concentrate my remarks on electricity supply because I happen to be closely concerned with the welfare of the
  384
  technical staff employed in electricity supply.
  There are in the nationalised electricity supply industry two statutory schemes. One scheme is for the industrial staff and the other is for the salaried staff. The salaried staff scheme embraces all the professional, technical and administrative employees. It is a final salary scheme. As the Minister is aware, that is a most important point in relation to the Bill because it was those who had final salary schemes who in many ways were most acutely affected by the counter-inflation legislation. If nothing is done, they could have a reduced pension until their dying day and afterwards their widows would suffer the reduction.
  Until two or three years ago—this is true of the electricity supply industry and, I think, the gas industry and probably other nationalised industries—it was necessary before any major change could be made in a statutory pension scheme to seek the approval of the Minister. But in 1971 certain amending legislation was introduced, by regulation, under which the statutory nationalised industry pensions schemes were released from the obligation to seek direct ministerial approval for changes. Those schemes were then placed more or less in the same position as occupational pension schemes in private industry. They were left only subject to normal Inland Revenue control because of the income tax relief on contributions which is allowed under the Finance Acts.
  The Inland Revenue control is extremely complicated—sometimes called "the Code". It is called a code but the explanation of it, which I have here, runs into 275 clauses contained in 60 pages of close type. To be certain that a scheme really has the approval of the Inland Revenue in all respects an enormous amount of research is necessary. To make any change it is necessary fully to understand the code and its detailed application.
  This has some relation to what the hon. Gentleman said because if he is telling me that the nationalised industries schemes are now to be in the same position as normal private occupational schemes as a result of changes to be made in the Inland Revenue code I should like him to give us an assurance that the nationalised industries schemes are to be

  385
  covered and will have no difficulty in obtaining the necessary approval if they apply for it.
  I pursued this matter earlier and tabled a Parliamentary Question last year. I received an Answer to the effect that it would be quite in order for occupational schemes to make adjustments to compensate any pension prospects for losses which would be incurred because of the working out of the counter-inflation policy. Strengthened by this reply I took the matter up on behalf of my own union, the Electrical Power Engineers' Association, with the Electricity Council. I ended by corresponding with the chief labour relations member of the Council, Mr. Harold Spear. In spite of the assurance given to me by a Minister from the Department of Employment that it would be plain sailing and could be easily done by adjustment, it was discovered by the electricity industry administration that this could not be done in fact.
  If a person was about to retire and had served a full 40 years entitling him to the maximum of two-thirds pension there was no latitude allowed under the code because no pension and lump sum must exceed two-thirds of final remuneration apart from cost of living adjustment. If a change upwards is to be made it cannot be done for those who, by their long service, have already qualified for maximum pension. This was not obvious to the Department of Employment but it became clear in the discussions I had with Mr. Spear. He told me that unless something was done by way of special legislation these people would be adversely affected throughout their pensioned life. Could I finally therefore put these questions? Is this Bill intended to cover the nationalised industries and pensioners who retired during the time at issue? Is it intended to cover the nationalised industries in any way directly or indirectly? If not, will steps be taken to ensure that when changes are made in the Inland Revenue code there will be no difficulty about statutory occupational schemes obtaining exactly the same relief as that which the private industry occupational scheme is likely to obtain?
  When exactly will the changes be made in the Inland Revenue code? Is it intended
  386
  to make them in the next Finance Bill? May we have an assurance that they will not take a tremendous time? Experience teaches us that such alterations often take a tremendous time. It would be most unfortunate if after this legislation—which has been introduced fairly speedily to assist the public service pensioner—the nationalised industry pensioner had to wait for another year or two before any corresponding relief was granted. I should be much obliged to have the Minister's answers to my questions.
  10.36 p.m.
  Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary has introduced an extremely proper Bill which, of course, will be approved by the House. However, although the amount of money in terms of the total cost of Civil Service pensions is small, the implications are important and it is worth dwelling on them for a minute or two.
  My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary said that this proposal puts the public service schemes ahead of the private sector but by no means ahead of all private schemes. I differ from him in his emphasis. Final salary schemes which are, in effect, fully transferable and which are totally inflation-protected make public servants into a privileged élite in pensions. One may well say that there is nothing wrong with that or point out that the public sector schemes have led the way for a century or more. I do not object, but the matter is worthy of comment. The private sector cannot commit itself to make comparable arrangements.
  First, without going over all the ground again, one must deplore the fact that the Government have not done what they undertook to do in making existing pension rights in private schemes fully transferable on change of employment. But no private scheme can offer full inflation protection as a guaranteed element of the benefit. A private scheme may achieve that if its investment policy is adroit or if the employer undertakes to top up the scheme to subsidise it to achieve this result. But I do not think I have heard of any scheme in which the element of total inflation-proofing can be guaranteed and is written into the

  387
  scheme by the employer. For the Civil Service there is now no element of doubt: the taxpayer must find the funds. The Bill merely adds emphasis to the point.
  The Civil Service scheme constitutes a significant addition to remuneration—an element which is perhaps higher than is achieved by any private scheme because the inflation guarantee is, in the present context, such an important element. Civil servants have a measure of job security which plainly, in present circumstances, cannot be guaranteed by many firms, if any, in the private sector. Those two factors constitute a significant element in the total package of Civil Service remuneration and terms of employment, and they must not be left out of account in the negotiations on Civil Service pay which take place from time to time.
  10.40 p.m.
  Mr. Guy Barnett: I hope that the hon. Member for Kensington, South (Sir B. Rhys Williams) will excuse me for not following his train of thought. I want to look at the Bill from a different point of view, largely because I act as consultant to the Society of Civil Servants. It is in that rôle that I am speaking tonight, and I should declare an interest.
  At the outset—although I shall make a couple of criticisms—I give a general welcome to the Bill. It is a highly complex Bill which the Parliamentary Secretary introduced with a remarkable degree of clarity. He said that the purpose of the Bill was to ensure that no civil servant was at the time of his retirement disadvantaged as a consequence of the counter-inflation policy. In view of that, it is right for me to point out what appear to be a couple of anomalies in the provisions of the Bill, on which I should be grateful for the Parliamentary Secretary's comments, as they affect mostly members of the Society of Civil Servants who retire.
  The first is that the Bill appears to make no satisfactory provision for those pensioners whose pay had fallen furthest behind at the time when the incomes policy legislation was first introduced in November 1972. Secondly, it does not appear that any provision has been made for a recalculation of the lump sum where a pension scheme provides for part of a pension to be commuted in a cash payment.
  388
  To illustrate the first point, I draw attention to the way in which the Bill would operate within the Civil Service. Part I of the Schedule gives the percentage increases of basic rates of pensions calculated on pay rates where increases were deferred by stage 1 of the counter-inflation legislation. This Part will apply to practically all Civil Service pensioners, but the whole of the Civil Service is not due under the Bill to be treated in the same way.
  The Civil Service pay agreement provides for Civil Service pay to be reviewed by the Pay Research Unit every two years, but to facilitate administration the job is done in two halves—one half of the service is reviewed in one year and the other half in the next year—and the review date is 1st January.
  When stage 1 of the Government's counter-inflation legislation was introduced in November 1972, one-half of the Civil Service, mainly the professional and technical staff, had had their pay brought up to date from 1st January 1972. The other half, mainly the clerical, executive and messenger staff, were due to have their two-year review from 1st January 1973. The increases due from this review could not be implemented from the due date of 1st January 1973 because of the standstill, and they were further delayed because of the requirement under stage 2 that increases had to conform to the £1 plus 4 per cent. formula.
  The House will recall that it was because of this difficulty that many clerical and executive grade civil servants took industrial action in the early part of 1973, and it was while discussing the situation that the Prime Minister first indicated to the House that because of the representations he had received from the Staff Side of the Civil Service he was aware of the difficulty about pensions and was hopeful that something could be done to put the situation right.
  In the event, the Government conceded that civil servants due their PRU increase on 1st January 1973 were a special case, and the stage 3 pay code provided for them to receive what was due to them outside the pay limit. The code did not, however, allow increases to be retrospective to the normal operative date of 1st January 1973; instead, these pay

  389
  increases were dated from 7th November last year—the beginning of stage 3.
  As a result, the staff retiring from the Civil Service between 1st January 1973 and 6th November 1973 were in two distinct groups. One group was the professional and technical staff who had had their two-yearly pay review, and their pay was, therefore, very much in the same position as that of other workers who had an annual pay review deferred because of the standstill legislation. For this group, the proposed legislation provides a reasonable supplement to their pensions, but the other group, of which I am speaking, the clerical and executive staff, were in a different position. Their pay review was not implemented and the pay on which their pension was calculated was some two years, or 20 per cent., out of date.
  For this group, the proposals in the Bill provide a pension enhancement very much less than is required to ensure that they are not disadvantaged as a result of the counter-inflation legislation. The Government have already recognised the special position of this group as an anomaly from the beginning of stage 3, and have ensured that staff continuing in employment do not suffer in pay, but the Bill does not do the job completely for the pensions.
  I accept that it is not possible to assess the extent of the effect of the counter-inflation legislation on the pay and, therefore, the pensions of most groups of workers. Because of this, the somewhat crudely calculated pension increase supplements shown in the schedule are generally agreeable. But in my view there is no need to use this rather hit-and-miss method of calculation for those workers who were worst hit by the counter-inflation legislation and who were accepted by the Government as suffering a pay anomaly.
  They have now negotiated pay increases—they were due earlier—and these pay rates have been vetted by the Pay Board on behalf of the Government. There is no dispute, therefore, about what they should have been paid and also no dispute about the time from when it would normally have been paid. For this group, the Bill should be amended to provide the opportunity for pensions to be calculated accurately, based on proper
  390
  pay rates from the correct operative date, as recommended by the PRU.
  The second point of criticism is that the Bill does not provide for that part of the pension which is commuted into a lump sum to be enhanced. This will mean that there will be unfairness between pension schemes, with some pensioners losing several hundreds of pounds. In pension schemes where a lump sum is payable, it is not paid by a benevolent employer in addition to a full pension. It is a cash sum paid for by the pensioner by accepting a lower regular pension payment. Therefore it seems quite unfair to enhance the full pension for those like the police, for example, who do not commute while only enhancing part of the pension for those who commute and take a pension and a lump sum. I hope that the Government will look at the possibility of amending the Bill with a view to correcting the anomalies which I have tried to point out.
  However, I congratulate the Government. Undoubtedly the Bill is an advance. In view of these apparent injustices, I hope that something will be done to put these matters right during the Bill's passage through its various stages.
  10.50 p.m.
  Mr. Tom King: I join the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Guy Barnett) in welcoming the principle of the Bill. We all recognise that this is a necessary and fair corollary to the impact of the counter-inflation policy and that we should not penalise those who by accident find that they are about to retire or have already retired at the time when this policy has come into force.
  I was surprised, however, that the hon. Gentleman resurrected the comment about certain seotors being more than two years out of date. This is a common fallacy which has never been answered satisfactorily. It is known that the Pay Research Unit does its exercise during the year and that it produces a result as at 1st January which usually is published in about April or May of the following year.
  It seems to be embedded in people's minds that the unit's researches on comparability are based upon salaries which were paid at the beginning of the previous year. But industry makes salary

  391
  increases at many different times of the year. If an industry with which Civil Service pay is compared makes its increases in September, October, November or December—the latter being a very common month—there is very little gap between its pay and that of the Civil Service. I am advised by those on both sides of the argument that late increases are included in PRU findings, with the result that they may be no more than one month out of date. It is quite wrong to suggest that there is a two-year gap. At most there may be a one-year gap.
  The hon. Gentleman will convince me that I am wrong only if he can show me that the contrary is the case by telling me the dates of increases of industries, groups or sectors used in the comparability exercise and taken into account. But no one has been able to identify them clearly, and the information is not provided in the PRU reports submitted to this House.
  Mr. Guy Barnett: The hon. Gentleman may have misunderstood my argument. I was paid on Civil Service rates, and I received an increase at the beginning of 1971. I believe that that was the rate of pay still operative at the beginning of 1973. It was in that sense that I talked about two years.
  Mr. King: In that case, I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. However, he will be aware of the argument raised over the two-year lapse and how many civil servants felt that they were always two years behind when a pay review was made. It has been argued before Committees of this House by officials of the unions concerned, but when challenged they have had to admit that it was not necessarily the case.
  The Minister said that he was pleased to introduce a measure which was of benefit to all public service pensioners affected by the counter-inflation policy. We all recognise this to be abundantly true, and we are conscious of the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington, South (Sir B. Rhys Williams) to the effect that some inflation-proofing is necessary. In the company with which I am associated, we look upon 3 or 4 per cent. as the required cost-of-living increase at the moment. We are
  392
  about middle field, if not well above average, in occupational pension schemes.
  Many pension schemes have very little inflation-proofing at all. If one knows in advance the cost of providing even a 3 per cent. inflation-proofing for pensions, one realises the substance of the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington, South about these inflationary times and the value of a Civil Service pension of this scale. The sums are very substantial if we are to attempt to fund them in advance, as in the private sector.
  My hon. Friend referred to public service pensioners. I recognise the equity in this matter. However, he will be aware of my interest. It seemed that in all the equity for public service pensioners a grave injustice was about to be committed against those in private occupational pension schemes, no less worthy, who appeared to be about to be omitted from the Government's consideration.
  I was pleased when my hon. Friend responded to a Question that I put down to him shortly after his original statement in which he said that the Inland Revenue rules would be changed so that the same or equivalent treatment could be permitted by firms wishing to make similar arrangements for their pensioners. That is obviously fair and right.
  I share the concern expressed by the hon. Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Palmer). My hon. Friend said that he hoped that the Bill would have a swift passage through the House, because all hon. Members would recognise the urgent need to implement these arrangements. We understand that the new rules will be introduced. But surely the same criteria and the necessity for urgency must in equity apply to private occupational pensioners as to Civil Service pensioners. I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to say that the amendment to the rules will be introduced at the earliest possible opportunity.
  It is a little surprising that a matter of considerable importance to a substantial number of people in our community—I believe that over 100,000 are affected by these proposals—has attracted relatively little attention. However, I have had one important submission made to me, which I passed to my hon. Friend some weeks ago with a considerable number of detailed queries on the proposed

  393
  measures. I am concerned that I have not yet had a reply to those points. I hope that my hon. Friend will give me an assurance of an early reply, certainly before the Bill proceeds into Committee. In conclusion, I should like to ask my hon. Friend a totally unfair question. I was intrigued by the reference to the special variation of the situation of dependants consequent upon the raising of the school leaving age. A number of issues and aspects of Government policy relating to treatment and finance could and are said to be affected by the raising of the school leaving age. As far as I am aware, this is the only proposal where the raising of the school leaving age has been taken into account in any adjustments in any area of Government finance. My hon. Friend may decline to enter into this wider sphere, but I should be interested to know whether the raising of the school leaving age has entered into any other adjustments in Government measures.
  11.0 p.m.
  Mr. Douglas Houghton: This is a short Bill and a very important Bill, but it is hideously complex. There is hardly an intelligible clause in it. It is a good thing that we are considering this Bill late at night because only a few hon. Members on both sides of the House are present to misunderstand it. It is always a great encumbrance in our debates when a large number of hon. Members are trying to understand a complicated Bill.
  I give the Minister his self-congratulation on the Government's record on public service pensions. It is good, and he is entitled to say so. On this Bill, however, the Minister said several times that this was the first time that any Government had made pension adjustments for losses of pay suffered during deferments owing to economic circumstances. That is true, but in the past when pensions were calculated on the average of the last three years, any temporary losses of pay increases due to economic policy had a much smaller effect upon the final result than they do at present, when reckonable salary is that in the last year of service. Obviously, therefore, any deferment of increases in one year is of more importance than a deferment in three years. However, I shall not crab this extremely useful adjustment.
  394
  As the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Tom King) said, there has been no assurance so far that the principle to be applied to public service pensioners will be universally or even substantially applied to the private sector. After all, the conditions of many private occupational schemes will probably preclude this kind of adjustment being made except at considerable additional expense, which the funds may not be able to bear. However, private occupational pensioners are not in the Bill. One can only wish them well. They are just as entitled as those in the public sector to this adjustment, because all suffered alike and for the same reason. There seems to be no reason in equity for one section of occupational pensioners to be treated differently from another.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Palmer) raised the question of nationalised industries. They are not in the Bill, either. As far as I recall, the Minister did not mention them. We are always in this difficulty about the nationalised industries. They are closely allied to the public services and yet not covered by the same statute law regarding their superannuation schemes. Having regard to the parlous financial condition of most of the nationalised industries at present, one can only hope that those affected in the nationalised industries will not be prejudiced in their relationship with the remainder of the public sector by the temporary difficulties of the nationalised industries—though I am sure that the House would be glad to hear something about those industries if the Minister is able to give us the information.
  I come to the public servants covered by the Bill. These include teachers, police, fire service officers, civil servants, local government officials and National Health Service officials. That is a very large area of employment with wide variations in conditions of service and pay and, in some respects, in conditions of superannuation. I am sure that the aim had to be to find a formula which would apply to all of them rather than to have the matter made more complex and probably create even more anomalies by attempting to deal with the various problems that arise in the different sectors of the public service pension

  395
  schemes. The principle is right. The formula is probably the best that could be made of a difficult problem.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Guy Barnett) referred to a particular section of the Civil Service. I regret that he did not mention that what is in the Bill is an agreement as regards the Civil Service on the Civil Service National Whitley Council. As a former chairman of that body, I attach great importance to the writ of the Civil Service National Whitley Council running for all when an agreement has been reached on a general Civil Service question. That is the position about the proposals in the Bill.
  I am not criticising my hon. Friend for raising the point. I criticise the Society of Civil Servants for asking him to do so, because the Society is part of the Staff Side of the Civil Service National Whitley Council. I do not think that it helps the system of collective bargaining, nor do I think it is fair to the House, if sections of the Staff Side of the Civil Service National Whitley Council are to raise or seek to raise on the Floor of the House matters which have been dealt with in the negotiations and upon which, notwithstanding all the difficulties and problems, an agreement was reached.
  I do not speak with the authority of the Staff Side of the Civil Service National Whitley Council, but I am informed that the Staff Side regards the agreement reached as binding on the whole of those who compose the Staff Side of the Whitley Council. That is not to say that the anomalies that my hon. Friend mentioned are not important. There are probably many more throughout the whole field of this superannuation scheme.
  It is very important that as far as possible a common formula should run throughout the public sector. That may have to apply, if it can be applied, to the nationalised industries. These detailed questions are always extremely difficult to get right when the rhythm of pay increases has been disturbed by interruption on account of economic measures taken by the Government of the day. As the Minister said, it has happened before and nothing has been
  396
  done about pensions, but this time something has had to be done about pensions because of the more serious effect on the pension of non-reckonability of deferred increases for pension purposes, and that would have occurred had there been no adjustment made by the Bill.
  I am sorry to mention that critical note, but it is important for the House to uphold the authority of the Civil Service National Whitley Council where an agreement has been reached and where all concerned have had their say in the negotiations even though it has not been possible to meet all points of view.
  This is a good Bill. I am sure that all interests concerned hope profoundly that the Bill will reach the statute book without delay. I do not want to talk about elections. We have had enough such talk lately. Nevertheless, it would be a pity if a Bill of this kind were to become a casualty on account of any change in our parliamentary arrangements. I give the Bill my blessing. I am sure that we all want to see it through all its stages as quickly as possible.
  11.9 p.m.
  Mr. Kenneth Baker: With the leave of the House, I will reply to the debate. In these stirring times the minds of hon. Members are perhaps turning to other things. It is something of a rarity to find a Bill which is welcomed on all sides of the House. "A good Bill and we congratulate the Government on it" were the words I heard from the Opposition. I was glad to hear them.
  Many interesting points have been raised. The hon. Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Palmer), with his deep knowledge of nationalised industries, particularly electricity, asked about the position of nationalised industries under the Bill. They are not covered, as I am sure he is aware, since nationalised industries are independent managerially in matters of this kind and are responsible for their own pension funds. Therefore they are in the same position as private industry because, as the hon. Member remarked, there is no longer any managerial control over the detailed schemes.
  Having said that I appreciate that, this position raises problems since the nationalised industries are part of the public sector. The House will appreciate

  397
  that I cannot give any undertakings tonight about the nationalised industries. I do not have ministerial responsibility for them. I should need to check, but I do not think that my ministerial colleagues who are responsible for nationalised industries have authority in this matter.
  What has generally happened in the past is that fundamental changes have been made in public pension schemes which have tended to be followed closely by the nationalised industries, we having set the example. I will undertake to write formally to my colleagues responsible for nationalised industries drawing their attention to the fact that we have taken these measures and to the remarks made in the debate.
  Mr. Palmer: Has the hon. Gentleman had any representations from the nationalised industries about the management of these schemes?
  Mr. Baker: I do not know whether my ministerial colleagues have received any. The changes made in the Inland Revenue code will give the pension funds of nationalised industries an opportunity to make similar adjustments. Whether they do so is entirely up to them.
  The hon. Member also asked about cost-of-living increases under the Inland Revenue code and about someone who was up to the two-thirds limit. I am advised that consultations are taking place on the code which would allow a cost-of-living increase in the specific period covered by the Bill to exceed that limit. He also asked me, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Tom King), about the speed in introducing the measure. We want to get the Bill through quickly. When can the Inland Revenue code be amended? We do not need specific legislation and it does not have to involve a Finance Bill. I am advised that the Inland Revenue have begun discussions with a view to announcing early changes in the code. I am sure the discussions will be concluded rapidly.
  The hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Guy Barnett) raised interesting and important points and I was much in sympathy with the wise words of the right hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Douglas Houghton) who spoke from the Opposition Front Bench. The measures
  398
  in the Bill have been approved by the National Whitley Council by the national Staff Side and, like the right hon. Gentleman, I attach great importance to this. Since I have borne responsibility for the day-to-day running of part of the Civil Service Department I have experienced what this means in terms of good participant management consultation at all levels constantly.
  There is a tradition that when the Staff Side reaches an agreement, it is accepted that the whole staff side has agreed. I do not reproach the hon. Member for putting the view of the Society of Civil Servants, but it is important to place on record that it is the view of only a section of the Civil Service and of only certain ranks represented by the society.
  What the hon. Member was asking for, in effect, was for the pension increases to be based on notional pay and for lump sums——
  Mr. Guy Barnett Mr. Guy Barnett indicated dissent.
  Mr. Baker: With respect, he was, because he was asking for pay increases agreed from 7th November to be deemed to be the basis for pensionable pay as from 1st January. That is what is known in pension jargon as notional pay.
  There are four reasons why that solution is unsatisfactory. First, the "anomalies grades" involved form only about 10 per cent. of the people working in the public service and our solution must apply to all public servants, not only civil servants. The hon. Gentleman spoke repeatedly about the Civil Service, but the Bill is about the public service. For 2½million staff in the public service, his solution has no meaning, because they were not affected by anomalies and no notional pay figures are available on which to base the pension.
  Secondly, it was concluded that the only reasonable approach was to find a solution applying to everybody in the public and private sectors. Accepting a degree of benefit for particular groups would not necessarily reflect their comparative pay situation. Once again the subject of notional pay does not arise in the public sector.
  Third, the Inland Revenue, when approving pension arrangements for tax purposes. is not prepared to approve pensions based on a notional amount of

  399
  pay which the employee might have received. Pay and methods of arriving at it vary from firm to firm and from individual to individual, and it would be impossible in most cases to judge whether notional figures were genuine or reasonable. This could of course lead to tax avoidance. We believe that our solution is sufficiently generous to be just—in some cases roughly just—to everybody.
  The fourth reason why we do not pursue the solution that the hon. Gentleman suggests is that, because of the variation of the personal limit and the bias in the stage 2 formula in favour of the lower paid, the proposals in the Bill favour the lower paid. This is in accordance with general Government policy. There is indeed little difference between our solution and full compensation for the effects of stages 1 and 2 on pensions of, for example, the large number of civil servants at clerical officer level and below who are not represented by the society.
  In the case of the NHS manual workers, our proposed solution is more favourable than notional pay. Individual pensions of highly-paid civil servants may be up to 5 per cent. lower than had the anomalies settlement been back-dated, but the overall effect is much less and even for those people who are so affected our proposals provide substantial compensation.
  The hon. Member also mentioned lump sums. The Bill does not cover lump sum payments. We have been concerned to mitigate the continuing effects on remaining pensions, because that is the remaining disadvantage relative to pensions of those who retired earlier. This problem arises when cost-of-living increases are given with effect from 1st December 1973, and the disadvantage remains throughout the life of the pensioner and his dependants. But lump sum payments, once awarded, are not given cost-of-living increases. Anyone retiring in the period covered by the Bill will receive a similar lump sum to one paid to a similar person with the same length of service who retired earlier. This would not happen with pensions, and that is the problem that the Bill seeks to solve.
  The case for enhancing these once-for-all payments falls far short of that for continuing payments. We have concentrated our substantial assistance—I would not call it "generous", because that does
  400
  not denote the right sort of connotation of the Bill—of a public expenditure increase of £5 million on the pension, applying the cost-of-living increase in the most favourable way.
  I am conscious of the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington, South (Sir B. Rhys Williams) about the position of civil servants in pension matters. I could not help recalling them when the hon. Member for Greenwich was speaking. We have provided a solution which covers all public service pensions, we think very fairly, in a way which was not available to the previous Government because they did not have an annual Pensions (Increase) Bill. But to make the extra concessions that the hon. Member seeks would lay us open to the sort of comment that my hon. Friend made—I know that he did not make it pejoratively—that the Civil Service is a privileged élite in this matter.
  I am proud of our record over public service pensions and I am glad that in this Bill we have been able to remedy what would have been a long-term disadvantage to those who retired after 1st January 1973 and in 1974 and 1975. I hope that it will have a speedy passage.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Kenneth Clarke.]
  Committee tomorrow.

  PENSIONS (INCREASE) [MONEY]
  Queen's recommendation having been signified—
  Resolved,
  That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to provide for increases of certain official pensions, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenditure incurred by government departments, and of any increase in the sums payable under any other enactment out of money so provided, where the expenditure or increase results from provisions included in the Act with respect to pensions other than Service pensions for the purpose of—

  (a) increasing the rates of pensions in respect of service ending after 31st December 1972 and before 6th November 1975; or

  (b) enabling a Minister of the Crown at his discretion to alter provisions of the Act by regulations; or

  401

  (c) raising the age specified in section 3(3)(6) and (6) of the Pensions (Increase) Act 1971 from 16 to 17 years; or

  (d) authorising increases under the said Act of 1971 of widow's pensions for pensioners under the age of 40;

  and for the purposes of this resolution ' pension ' has the same meaning as in the said Act of 1971.—[Mr. Kenneth Baker.]

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

  OIL SUPPLIES
  11.21 p.m.
  Mr. Laurance Reed: The separation of opposing forces in the Sinai is a big step forward and should be welcomed, but we should be deluding ourselves if we were to suppose that this heralds an early settlement between Arab and Jew. The peace talks at Geneva are likely to be a long and drawn-out affair. Yet even if Dr. Kissinger could work some quick and magical cure for the political ills of the Middle East, it would not make much difference to the oil question. A crisis in energy has been building up for a number of years. The latest Israeli-Arab conflict simply brought matters to a head sooner than anybody expected.
  The days of cheap and abundant energy are over, and we are launched on an era of shortages and high costs. Just how long this situation will last nobody seems able to say with certainty but it will last until new power sources can be brought on stream in sufficient strength to dislodge desert oil from its commanding position.
  During these years the Arab world will exercise great political power and will use it for its own advantage at the expense of the industrial nations which for the most part are poorly endowed with energy resources. The oil weapon, which has been deployed to such effect once, can be used again—and for purposes quite unconnected with the Arab cause against Israel.
  The quadrupling of oil prices has imposed a massive external debt on the developed world. I do not know what intelligence the Government have about OPEC's future intentions—Sheikh
  402
  Yamani made some interesting remarks at the weekend, which were shot down by other Middle East oil producers—but I should have thought it on the cards that we shall see a further increase in prices during the current year. Certainly some oil companies expect this to happen.
  At the current price it immediately becomes worth while to exploit alternatives such as offshore oil, tar sands and shale deposits. Unfortunately, none of these resources can be tapped very quickly. Until they become available the Arabs can charge virtually what they like for their oil and we shall be forced to pay.
  An article in a recent edition of the Economist argued that the hidden hand of Adam Smith would soon get to work and in next to no time we should have a world-wide glut of energy on our hands. Such theoretical matters may appeal to the minds of abstract economists, but the practical difficulties involved in winning any of these resources suggest a time scale of 15 years before the West as a whole can hope to correct the situation.
  The new prices will generate huge cash surpluses for the oil-producing States, and with every increase in the price there will be less and less incentive for them to restore production to former levels. Even if we can find some suitable outlet for these moneys, the Arab rulers remain concerned about the rate at which they are exhausting their oil, and would like to lock more of it in the ground as an investment for the future.
  Oil has a greater value as a raw material for industry than as a fuel and, whatever the effect of nuclear power on energy prices in the future, I suspect that the value of oil as a raw material will not diminish as the years pass. If hoarding pays it could be prudent to work upon the assumption that there will be a continuing shortfall in supplies in relation to demand. No doubt in the short run supply difficulties can be overcome by leaving our salt on the ski slopes of St. Moritz but it is quite certain that the Arab world will never again automatically increase production in step with the growth targets we set ourselves in the West. From now on it will not be the gnomes of Zurich but the rulers of Arabia who will dictate the pace of our economic progress.

  403
  The domestic implications of this upheaval are so far reaching that we are still trying to fathom out what it all means. The true significance is only just beginning to penetrate the public consciousness. The Governor of the Bank of England has warned us of a decade of "relative austerity" with little scope for improvement in personal living standards. I would not quarrel with his assessment. For three or four years there will be little or no economic growth in our economy, prices will continue to move sharply ahead under the influence of Arab oil, and everybody in Britain, for the first time in many years, will experience a falling off in their standard of living. To be blunt, tomorrow will not be a better day.
  During the past quarter century we have lived in the expectation that tomorrow will be a better day and hopes have been built very high on that assumption. So it is now necessary for us to lower our sights and show restraint and discipline in the demands we make. If we do not, then home-bred inflation will be added to inflation generated by Arab oil and other world prices. Expectations remain long after the prosperity which gave rise to them has ceased. It will be only too easy for us to slide into the maelstrom of hyper-inflation.
  I suggest that the Government must ensure that the hardships are carried equally by all sections of the community and that there is a fairer sharing of accumulated wealth in Britain. It is one thing to have an incomes policy which holds people back from something they may still hope to obtain in the future. But it is quite a different thing to expect them to accept a lowering in their standard of life unless it is on a share-and-share-alike basis.
  There can be no question now of returning to free collective bargaining. In conditions of no growth this would amount to an enforced redistribution of national wealth not according to any principles of social justice but through a random process in which the strong would devour the weak. The Government will also have to curb their own propensities to spend. Expansion in education, health and welfare services will have to be postponed and extravagant projects abandoned. Public funds must
  404
  be diverted to develop national energy resources, particularly our offshore oil. That will be very costly both in terms of skilled manpower and of cash.
  It is no comfort to know that other countries are in exactly the same boat. Some, indeed, are in worse shape. However, we can find consolation in the know ledge that Britain is one of the few industrial nations that can hope to become self-supporting in oil relatively quickly. Japan cannot do that and nor can Germany or France. Even America, despite its great potential, will find it hard to reverse its growing energy deficit. The full potential of oil on the United Kingdom Continental Shelf has still to be proved, but it is now as certain as it can be that enough will be found to satisfy all our own needs. The oil crisis, thanks to our Arab friends, has greatly enhanced the value of these assets. But it has also presented us with something of a dilemma. As an oil-consuming country we have an interest in keeping the price down but as an oil-producing country we may have an interest in pushing the price up.
  Should we sell our oil to the highest bidder and reap the maximum benefits for the balance of payments, and huge dividends for the nation from the royalties and taxes charged on the profits? Or should we retain the oil exclusively for our own use, feed our industries with a relatively cheap fuel, and gain the edge over competitiors abroad who will continue to be dependent on Arab oil long after we have ceased to be?
  The choice is not an easy one, and needs to be balanced against other international objectives. Nevertheless, it is difficult to believe that, after experiencing several years of austerity, people in Britain will be prepared to pay a price for their own oil that has been fixed by a producers' cartel in the Middle East. It is perhaps too soon to answer the question.
  The immediate task is to secure our advantage. First, we must get the oil ashore as quickly as possible. The sooner it arrives, the sooner there will be an improvement in our balance of payments and a return to growth policies. I shall never understand why we had a licensing policy which encouraged the most rapid exploration of the shelf but no policy at all when it came to the delivery of the discovered oil ashore.

  405
  Secondly, we must accelerate the pace of exploration in areas to the west of Britain, where only four holes have been drilled to date, and draw up our licensing provisions accordingly. At this stage it is more important for us to unlock the oil in the ground than to unlock the vaults of the oil corporations by seeking to maximise revenues. Risks and costs will be higher in these waters than in the North Sea.
  Thirdly, we must build up our own capabilities in offshore engineering. We are dangerously over-dependent on foreign know-how and technology. The energy crisis will give a tremendous boost to undersea oil exploration right across the globe, and many of the rigs currently under construction in foreign yards and destined for use in the North Sea may now never get here.
  The United States Government have already set out to achieve self-sufficency by 1980. Bearing in mind that the bulk of offshore drilling capacity is owned and operated by United States companies, it is reasonable to suppose that the exploration programme on the American Continental Shelf will now receive priority. Of 27 rigs drilling in the North Sea last summer, BP owned one, Shell one, all the rest were American.
  To achieve self-sufficiency by 1980 we should have to discover enough reserves to produce 200 million to 250 million tons a year. On the current success rate, this means that we shall need to drill a further 600 holes. Yet existing leasing agreements call for only a further 220 holes by 1978. This rate will have to be stepped up.
  A rig is normally capable of drilling three holes per season, so we shall need the full-time services of 30 rigs at least. The most recent estimate of semi-submersible drilling rig capacity—made before the recent oil crisis—foresaw a world-wide shortage of 20 rigs by 1982. There are being built 11 semi-submersible rigs for use by United Kingdom opera tors, to come off the line by 1977.
  The impact of going for self-sufficiency by 1980 goes far beyond the problem of finding the necessary drilling capacity. The whole approach to platform construction needs to be examined, as does the problem of using steel for line pipe. I doubt whether the Japanese will allow their crude oil to be used extravagantly
  406
  for the extremely high specification steels so far supplied to the North Sea.
  If we are to become self-sufficient in oil, it is clear that we need a major national effort in ocean technology, promoted by the State in conjunction with business enterprise and the universities. We cannot continue to justify the expenditure of hundreds of millions of pounds on fuel-hungry aircraft projects while spending next to nothing on research and development in sea-bed engineering, the technology upon which we now depend for our survival as an industrial Power.
  Self-sufficiency in oil will radically transform our position from one of great weakness to one of exceptional influence and strength and by 1980 we could emerge as one of the strongest countries economically, overtaking Germany and Japan. Unhappily, this is today but an enviable prospect.
  We might get some oil this year, we shall certainly get a little next year, but we shall not get oil in any volume until 1977–78. In the intervening years we shall face a test of parliamentary democracy, because we can be sure that people of extreme political disposition, as much of the Right as of the Left, will seek to exploit the situation to their own advantage, spread unrest and undermine established order. We must remember that the tension which exists in sections of United Kingdom industry today has arisen under conditions of steady economic progress. One wonders, therefore, just what it will be like when we have no growth and living standards are falling.
  This is no time for compromise and retreat. We need a strong but just Government to see us safely through this period, and if national unity is to be preserved all the forces of democracy will have to be mobilised, because what will be challenged in this period is not an individual Government, an individual Prime Minister or an individual policy. What will be challenged is the authority of Parliament itself.
  11.37 p.m.
  The Minister for Energy (Mr. Patrick Jenkin): My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, East (Mr. Laurance Reed) has raised a number of very pertinent points about our financial, our economic,

  407
  our industrial and our political stake in the new world energy context. I am sure, however, he will agree that some of the points at least which he raised are outside the immediate scope of the responsibilities of my Department. While I might be tempted to follow him in some of the arguments which he has put before us, it would mean wearing my former hat as a Treasury Minister rather than my present one as Minister for Energy. I can assure the House that I shall resist the temptation because I have quite enough to do in the Department of Energy.
  My hon. Friend is quite right in his main thesis that the change in the level of world oil prices that has taken place is nothing short of cataclysmic. It is far too soon, however, to be able to see all the implications. Indeed, it would be wrong to try to reach a quick view of what the consequences will be. I say this because never before in the history of the world, so far as we know, have we seen an increase in the price of energy anything approaching the magnitude of the increase in the price of oil that we have seen during the last 12 months, a quadrupling of crude oil prices in one year. It would be quite impossible for anyone to have reached what I might call a responsible view on the consequences and implications of this within so short a time scale.
  Over the last couple of weeks, when I have had the time in between dealing with the immediate crisis, I have been reading a large variety of analyses from various sources, some prepared within government, some by bodies outside government, some originating in this country and some abroad. One of the things that has struck me about these is the extraordinary difference that has existed between the analyses of the different commentators. One can go further. We do not yet know whether prices will stabilise around their present level, whether they may decline, as Sheikh Yamani indicated in Tokyo—I do not altogether agree with my hon. Friend's view as to the extent to which what the sheikh said has been subsequently contradicted—or whether, on the contrary, prices may still increase, as my hon. Friend seemed to think was possible. This uncertainty affects everyone, Governments, oil companies and above all consumers.
  408
  My first point is that it is too soon to reach any firm view of the consequences of what has happened. We live in a time of rapid change and we have to continue to watch changing events closely. My hon. Friend mentioned particularly the possible future rate of economic growth. I am sure that we must not plump at this stage for too pessimistic a view. There is a great deal going for us. In the short term a competitive exchange rate will make sure that our goods are competitive overseas and in the longer term the prospects are there for a secure oil supply from the North Sea.
  I do not believe that it is fanciful to imagine that the prospect of the supply of oil in the sort of quantities now foreseen will throw its shadow ahead of its actually coming ashore and will generate the confidence, and with it the growth, which it must still be the intention of any British Government to pursue. Our immediate problem is to weather the next year or two. It has been our primary concern to seek an improvement in the difficult supply situation facing us and to achieve some measure of price stability.
  The Government are convinced that these aims are in the interests of the consumer and producer States alike. It is for this reason that we gave immediate support to what has been called the Kissinger initiative. We hope to play a full part in the discussions which will begin in Washington on 11th February. We believe that it is important that this initiative should not be seen as a confrontation between the consumer and producer countries but more as a means of improving our understanding of the issues involved in the recent movement of prices and the supply of energy.
  My hon. Friend would agree that this should not rule out sensible approaches by nations individually. Britain has for some time been anxious to improve the technological and industrial contribution she can make to the Middle East States. The deal with Iran which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry reported to the House yesterday is a valuable result of these efforts. We shall obtain an extra 5 million tons of crude oil from Iran, delivered in the latter part of this year and early 1975 at an attractive price compared with some of the prices that have been quoted recently. We shall be paying about seven dollars a barrel.

  409
  Iran is prepared to make this additional supply available to us because our industry will supply goods which are in short supply on world markets, to a value of about £110 million.
  Another major uncertainty with which we are faced is the effect of these high prices on the level of demand for oil. Prices have now reached levels where it is economic to invest in alternative sources of energy and even in unconventional sources. My hon. Friend is right when he says that it is bound to take time to produce the energy in the quantities required but perhaps it will not take quite as long as he feared.
  There is also the great stimulus which high prices give to the search for new sources of oil in areas as yet unexplored. It is, after all, less than 10 years since we began exploring the bed of the North Sea and the first discoveries of gas were made. My hon. Friend was also right that for the United Kingdom one vital key to the energy problem in the medium term lies in the North Sea and maybe in the Celtic Sea. Already the prospects are for oil flowing ashore by the 1980s by amounts towards the upper part of the range of 70 million to 100 million tons.
  This takes account only of the nine proven fields. The other more recent discoveries, the Hutton, Alwyn, Ninian and the so far un-named field in block 2/5 have yet to be fully assessed. Their contribution to our oil supplies is likely to be significant. The forecast based on previous levels of United Kingdom demand suggested that these discoveries might be equivalent to about two-thirds of our needs by 1980. But with the new price levels and in the changed circumstances we could be much more nearly in balance.
  I was a little surprised when my hon. Friend said that we, as potential producers might have an interest in raising oil prices still further. I cannot agree with him. Not only shall we be a big importer of oil for a number of years but as a major trading nation it must be in our interest to create stable world conditions, and that means a stable energy price. One of the important tasks of the new Department of Energy will be to work out a proper framework for North Sea oil prices. I have come to realise in the few days in which
  410
  I have been involved that this is a very complex matter.
  But we must look further ahead than 1980. Production at the level I have indicated can be maintained through the following decade only if further substantial reserves become available, and here continued exploration is essential. As at last week there were 14 exploration rigs actively drilling in United Kingdom waters and there will be several more by the end of this year. Successive Governments have timed previous licensing rounds in order to achieve the most rapid exploration and development of the United Kingdom Continental Shelf, and this must continue to be an important consideration, although we have no immediate plans for the next round of licensing.
  As my hon. Friend said, rigs are scarce and skilled manpower is scarcer still. It is essential that we do not allow these valuable resources to be diverted to other parts of the world. Incidentally, I cannot imagine anything more calculated to produce a complete hiatus in exploration and virtually to drive the companies elsewhere than the Labour Party's plan for the full nationalisation of the United Kingdom interests on the Continental Shelf.
  At the moment the main need is to get production platforms built and launched, and it is hoped to put in position this summer three or four in what one might call the weather window. It is essential to avoid delays, and that is why several hundred companies in this country have been licensed to use electricity for five days a week and why the British Steel Corporation has made special arrangements to make steel available for this purpose. My Department is searching for ways in which the exploration of the Continental Shelf can be accelerated. My hon. Friend mentioned research, a very important matter, and the whole House recognises his great interest and knowledge in this area of our affairs.
  One aspect is the location of a new centre of drilling technology. This must be primarily a matter for the drilling contractors and offshore operators with advice from the Petroleum Industry Training Board. But my right hon.

  411
  Friend the Secretary of State for Employment is taking the lead in discussions with the industry leading, we hope, to the establishment of such a centre. I am keeping in touch with this matter on behalf of my Department.
  This has been a short but useful debate. It has touched on a few of the vital issues affecting our energy supplies in the years ahead. No one can deny that we
  412
  face formidable problems, but already much is being done to overcome them, and I am confident that with the new thrust which I hope the new Department of Energy will give to these matters we can go on to achieve success.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at eleven minutes to Twelve o'clock.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Head Teachers (Recruitment)
  Head Teachers (Recruitment)
  School Building Programmes
  School Building Programmes
  Single Sex Schools
  Single Sex Schools
  Colleges of Education (Interviews)
  Colleges of Education (Interviews)
  Student Grants
  Student Grants
  School Meals (Synthetic Meat)
  School Meals (Synthetic Meat)
  Stockport
  Stockport
  Business Education Council
  Business Education Council
  Further Education (Linked Courses)
  Further Education (Linked Courses)
  Public Expenditure (London)
  Public Expenditure (London)
EMPLOYMENT
  Scientific Civil Servants (Pay)
  Scientific Civil Servants (Pay)
  Miners (Alternative Work)
  Miners (Alternative Work)
  Pay Settlements
  Pay Settlements
  Earnings
  Earnings
  Coal Miners (Pay)
  Coal Miners (Pay)
  Northern Region
  Northern Region
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Speech Therapy
  Speech Therapy
  National Health Service Commissioner
  National Health Service Commissioner
  Sedgefield General Hospital
  Sedgefield General Hospital
  Members' Correspondence
  Members' Correspondence
  Doctors' Lists (London)
  Doctors' Lists (London)
  Strikers' Dependants (Benefits)
  Strikers' Dependants (Benefits)
  Enderby
  Enderby
  Supplementary Benefit (Disregards)
  Supplementary Benefit (Disregards)
  Family Income Supplement (Wales)
  Family Income Supplement (Wales)
  Chiropodists
  Chiropodists
  Northern Regional Hospital Board
  Northern Regional Hospital Board
  Nurses (Nottinghamshire)
  Nurses (Nottinghamshire)
  Supplementary Professions (Nottinghamshire)
  Supplementary Professions (Nottinghamshire)
  Mortality Rates (Industry)
  Mortality Rates (Industry)
  Immunisation
  Immunisation
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Hare Coursing Bill
  Hare Coursing Bill
  Social Inquiry Reports
  Social Inquiry Reports
  Prisoners
  Prisoners
  Drug Offences
  Drug Offences
  Maintenance Orders (Reciprocity Agreements)
  Maintenance Orders (Reciprocity Agreements)
  Immigrants
  Immigrants
  Sex Equality (Legislation)
  Sex Equality (Legislation)
  Bangladesh, India and Pakistan (Ministerial Visit)
  Bangladesh, India and Pakistan (Ministerial Visit)
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Vitamin Tablets (Advertising)
  Vitamin Tablets (Advertising)
  Tariff Concessions
  Tariff Concessions
  Press (Government Assistance)
  Press (Government Assistance)
  Manganese Nodules (Deep-sea Mining)
  Manganese Nodules (Deep-sea Mining)
  ENERGY INDUSTRIES (MANPOWER)
  ENERGY INDUSTRIES (MANPOWER)
  BIRMINGHAM
  BIRMINGHAM
  CBI AND TUC (MEETINGS)
  CBI AND TUC (MEETINGS)
  INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS
  INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (WALES)
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (WALES)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Animals (Export)
  Animals (Export)
  Inorganic Fertilisers
  Inorganic Fertilisers
  Wages
  Wages
  Beef Prices
  Beef Prices
  Common Market Expenditure
  Common Market Expenditure
  Grants and Subsidies
  Grants and Subsidies
  Potatoes
  Potatoes
DEFENCE
  Chile
  Chile
  Thorney Island
  Thorney Island
  Civil Authorities (Support)
  Civil Authorities (Support)
  Recruiting
  Recruiting
  Northern Ireland
  Northern Ireland
ENERGY
  Nuclear Research
  Nuclear Research
  Coal Mining (Manpower)
  Coal Mining (Manpower)
  Power Supplies (Restrictions)
  Power Supplies (Restrictions)
  Gas Lighting
  Gas Lighting
  Coal Miners (Pay)
  Coal Miners (Pay)
  North Sea Oil
  North Sea Oil
  Departmental Advertising
  Departmental Advertising
  Coal Exports
  Coal Exports
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  EEC Regional Policy
  EEC Regional Policy
  Oman
  Oman
  Law of the Sea Conference
  Law of the Sea Conference
  India (EEC Trade)
  India (EEC Trade)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Public Investment
  Public Investment
  Research and Development
  Research and Development
  EEC Budget
  EEC Budget
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Housing
  Housing
  Royal Ulster Constabulary
  Royal Ulster Constabulary
  Internees
  Internees
  Rents and Rates (Non-payment)
  Rents and Rates (Non-payment)
SCOTLAND
  Earnings
  Earnings
  Speech Therapists
  Speech Therapists
WALES
  Rating
  Rating
ENVIRONMENT
  Planning Applications and Appeals (Bedfordshire)
  Planning Applications and Appeals (Bedfordshire)
  Council Housing (Sale)
  Council Housing (Sale)
  Camden High Street (Demolition)
  Camden High Street (Demolition)
  Local Government Reorganisation (Avon)
  Local Government Reorganisation (Avon)
  Vehicle Transits (Britain and Abroad)
  Vehicle Transits (Britain and Abroad)
  Rent Rebates and Allowances
  Rent Rebates and Allowances
  South Bank
  South Bank
  Mortgages
  Mortgages
  Petrol
  Petrol
  National Exhibition Centre, Midlands
  National Exhibition Centre, Midlands
  Disabled Drivers (Badge Scheme)
  Disabled Drivers (Badge Scheme)
  Clay and Gravel Extraction
  Clay and Gravel Extraction
  Rent Scrutiny Boards
  Rent Scrutiny Boards
  Housing (London)
  Housing (London)
  Green Belt (London)
  Green Belt (London)
  Berwick Shipyard
  Berwick Shipyard
  Water Authorities (Capital Programmes)
  Water Authorities (Capital Programmes)
  Rate Support Grant
  Rate Support Grant

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

WALES AND THE GOVERNMENT STATISTICAL SERVICE
LORD LLOYD OF KILGERRAN: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will arrange for all Governmental statistics relating to Wales to be issued as a separate item whenever they issue statistics of any kind relating compendiously to England and Wales.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD ABERDARE): My Lords, the Government Statistical Service is extending its provision of statistics for Wales and will increasingly publish separate Welsh totals whenever possible.
LORD LLOYD OF KILGERRAN: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for that helpful Answer and to say how much it will be appreciated in Wales. Without wishing to embarrass the Minister, may I ask whether it might be possible for him to press that the elegant title which he now has of "Minister Without Portfolio", might soon have added to it some such words as "and Minister of State for Wales"?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, we have a very good Minister of State for Wales; I do not think I need to occupy that position.
LORD LLOYD OF KILGERRAN: Yes, my Lords, but he does not sit in this House.

EMERGENCY SPEED LIMITS
2.45 p.m.
BARONESS MACLEOD OF BORVE: 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' Government whether they are now prepared to remove the emergency speed limits.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: No, my Lords. The 50 m.p.h. limit was introduced as a fuel economy measure and my right honourable friend considers that it should continue for the time being.
BARONESS MACLEOD OF BORVE: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for his reply, may I ask him whether he would agree that although a majority of motorists are complying with the restrictions, either for reasons of patriotism or because the increased price is a deterrent to unnecessary motoring, there are many motorists who have to get from point A to point B as speedily as possible in the interests of their job, their employers, and often of their country?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, I fully appreciate that the limit may be inconvenient to many motorists who cannot use other means of transport, but this is a measure to conserve fuel during a time of shortage.
LORD MOYNE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether there may not be a case for continuing this speed limit, which has proved very popular with less nimble pedestrians and less impetuous motorists alike, and also whether there are as yet any significant figures to show any fall in the number of fatal accidents since the 50 m.p.h. limit was imposed?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, it is too early for us to have figures which are accurate and statistically proper so I cannot give those to my noble friend. With regard to his first and major question, the answer is that it would be wrong to continue for other reasons something which was introduced for a specific purpose, which I think motorists understand. To try to continue it for other reasons would probably not meet with

167
their consent and we should be encouraging them to break the law.
LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, surely it would not be wrong to continue with a measure which has already resulted in the saving of a great many human lives and has reduced the number of casualties on our roads significantly, according to figures which have already been published and are available to the House. Before the noble Lord makes a final decision on this matter, will he call for the most up-to-date and accurate statistics that are available and then make a Statement to the House on those figures, so that we may judge accordingly whether the limit should be maintained?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, as I told my noble friend a moment ago, there are no figures which are at all accurate. I think we should all agree that because there are fewer cars, and because people are travelling more slowly, there are probably fewer accidents. But there are other points to be taken into account, such as that mentioned by my noble friend Lady Macleod of Borve. The 50 m.p.h. limit is inconvenient to many people; people's time is money; money is trade, and we are a trading nation. Safer driving does not necessarily have to coincide with one speed: it may be that over 70 m.p.h. is not a safe speed but that in the long run 50 m.p.h. is too slow.
VISCOUNT HANWORTH: My Lords, would not the Minister agree that it might be more effective in reducing accidents if we imposed a universal 20 m.p.h. speed limit?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, the noble Viscount might well suggest that we should go back to horses: that would be safer still.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, is it not a fact that there have been reports from hospitals that the number of motoring accidents has been reduced?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, I think there is a general indication to that effect, but whether the reduction is because of the lower speed or because fewer people are motoring we do not know. However, there are other aspects to this question, as I have pointed out.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, would the noble Lord agree that it is better to travel hopefully than to arrive, as this Government have so repeatedly demonstrated?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord.
LORD CROOK: My Lords, would not the noble Lord agree that it is fortunate for some people that they are able to travel by car, while others have all the trouble of trying to travel by rail?
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, does not the noble Lord consider that if the Government were to travel at the maximum speed limit to settle the miners' dispute the roads of our country could become racing tracks?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, I think the noble Lord, Lord Blyton, would agree that that is another question.
LORD ALLERTON: My Lords, would not my noble friend agree that petrol consumption—and presumably the object of this legislation is to reduce the consumption of petrol—is dependent much more upon the width of the throttle opening than on the actual speed of the vehicle? Would not he agree that once the vehicle has gained momentum there can be very little difference between the amounts of petrol consumed at 50 m.p.h. and at 70 m.p.h.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, I should not like to bandy words with my noble friend on the technicalities, but the general indication is that with the average family car—which is what we are talking about, although it may not be what my noble friend drives—the saving is of the order of some 8 miles per gallon.
LORD POPPLEWELL: My Lords, will the noble Lord publish figures of the road accidents which have taken place since the imposition of the 50 m.p.h. limit as compared with a similar period before the imposition of this limit?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Popplewell, that I am not trying to dodge the question. As I have already said twice before, the figures are not available at the moment. This exercise has been introduced primarily not to reduce accidents but to conserve fuel.
LORD POPPLEWELL: My Lords, when the noble Lord says that the figures are not available, is he aware that we look with grave suspicion on that statement? Although the publication of these figures was stopped some two years ago, we hear from various chief constables and safety authorities in various parts of the country that the accident rate has been reduced in consequence of the reduced speed limit.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, I told the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, just now that there are indications of a reduction in accidents; but I am speaking on behalf of the Government, and official statistics are not yet available to the Government. I repeat that this is not the object of the exercise.
BARONESS EMMET OF AMBERLEY: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether he thinks this is the right moment to discuss this particular question, which is only a temporary measure introduced in an emergency?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, I think my noble friend Lady Emmet of Amberley has hit the nail on the head. This is a temporary measure, to conserve fuel during a emergency.
LORD CROOK: My Lords, when the noble Lord talks about statistics, does he mean that the Government have not troubled to look at the figures issued by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, the 50 m.p.h. speed limit has been in force only since December 8, and we are now at the end of January. To obtain meaningful statistics takes a longer period than that.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, has the noble Lord been surprised, as I have, having done a journey at a speed limit of 70 m.p.h. and then later having done that journey at the limit of 50 m.p.h. at the small amount of time lost when travelling at the slower speed?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, what the noble Viscount says might well be the case. I am not prepared
170
to answer whether it is or not. It depends on the type of road and on many other things. On the M roads the journey is going to be slower, on the ordinary roads there is not much difference.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, when the noble Lord issues these statistics will he take care to see they are more accurate than those of the coal stocks which have been issued by the Govern ment in the last year?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland, that Her Majesty's Government never intentionally issue false figures.
BARONESS MACLEOD OF BORVE: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that motorists are grateful to this Government for not implementing the possibility of petrol rationing?
EARL HOWE: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that a high compression engine can be seriously damaged by a speed of 50 m.p.h.? Is he further aware that consumption of petrol at 50 m.p.h. in some motor cars can be greater than that at 70 m.p.h.? Is he also aware that the difference in consumption between a speed of 50 m.p.h. and 60 m.p.h. is almost negligible? Would he take this point into consideration when the Government come to review this speed limit?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, I must tell the noble Earl, Lord Howe, that I answered this question a moment ago. We are aware of the fact and are legislating for the majority. I accept from him that there may be the odd car which gets caught out, as my noble friend said.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, it is not the odd car.
LORD THOMAS: My Lords, when considering time saving, would the noble Lord agree that much more time could be saved by better traffic planning on suburban roads than in wide open motorways?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: Yes, my Lords, but I think that is another question, too.

CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY AND THE UNITED KINGDOM
2.49 p.m.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have any knowledge of the alleged establishment of branches in the United Kingdom of the Central Intelligence Agency of the U.S.A. for the purpose of checking so-called "Subversive elements" within our trade unions and elsewhere, and including the maintenance of headquarters for the penetration of Commonwealth countries in Africa; and, if so, whether such activity is with their consent.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (LORD WINDLESHAM): My Lords, as my right honourable friend the Home Secretary said in a Written Answer in another place on January 24, it is a long-established practice that security matters are not discussed in public. He stated, however, that any activities of foreign intelligence agents in this country are kept under close scrutiny. Any evidence of improper activities is followed up at once.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, while thanking the Leader of the House for that answer, may I ask him this question. Is not one of the difficulties of this problem that Governments and Embassies always deny knowledge of intelligence services? Is this not a matter which is of deep interest to our people? Is the noble Lord aware of the reservations which The Times expressed in its article on January 19, and its quite responsible correspondence since, about the validity of the denial which the American Embassy issued?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, the noble Lord referred to the statement made by the American Embassy—I have seen a copy of it—on January 18. The Home Secretary has already said that the Government fully accept the statement made by the United States Embassy that there is no truth in recently published allegations.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, arising from the second part of the Question,
172
while many of us have not been convinced by the public appearance of Mr. Copeland which gave rise to the article in The Times, may I ask whether the Minister has seen the much more serious statement by Simon Winchester, the correspondent of the Guardian on January 14, and the quotations from the book, which are much more responsible, by Victor Marchetti who was in the C.I.A. until 1969, about the C.I.A. headquarters in London to discover subversion in Africa? Even if the Government are not prepared to say that that exists, will they look very carefully into any allegations that there is such a headquarters in London applying to the internal affairs of Commonwealth countries in Africa?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I have seen the report in the Guardian, as well as the one in The Times to which the noble Lord referred earlier. All I would say about it is that it appears to relate to events which may have taken place several years ago.
LORD HALE: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that this was a front page attributed article in The Times giving a large number of details? In view of the fact that the Civil Service has increased, is increasing and ought to be diminished, could not some detailed dementi have been given to The Times, and indeed to the Guardian, as well as to the Sunday Telegraph, which also made further allegations last Sunday?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, the United States Embassy made a specific statement on January 18 in the course of which they said:
"There is absolutely no truth in the allegations that there has been an influx of American intelligence men into Britain in recent weeks or months. Furthermore, there are no American agents in the United Kingdom gathering information on activities of the British trade union movement."
As I have said, both the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary have fully accepted that statement.
LORD HALE: My Lords, now that we are all working happily together in the Bon Marché could the noble Lord say whether any special facilities are being given to M. Herculé Poirot or Inspector Maigret?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, the noble Lord has made his point. We must leave it there.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, the Minister said that these events occurred several years ago. Is that quite true? Is it not the case that Mr. Marchetti has said quite recently that these activities have been going on regarding African countries—and I quote:
"winning over black African skins, financing newspapers, stirring up trouble of one sort and another in Africa, and the British let them."?
Does not that refer to incidents much more recent than several years ago to which the Minister referred?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I understand these are allegations made in a book by a former member of the C.I.A. which is now the subject of court proceedings in the United States. I do not think it would be proper to discuss it in this connection.
LORD DOUGLASS OF CLEVELAND: My Lords, as these subversive elements are on an international basis, is it possible to counter them without some international organisation?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, that is an extremely important point, of course, and I am grateful to the noble Lord for raising it. So many international terrorism and guerrilla operations are now conducted on an international basis that they need to be countered by international action and co-operation in the intelligence field.

FRENCH MULTI-ROLE COMBAT AIRCRAFT
2.54 p.m.
LORD SHINWELL: 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 the French Government advised them of their intention to produce the multi-role combat aircraft; and whether NATO was informed despite the statement by M. Jobert on behalf of the French Government in November last that defence matters must be based on co-operation between the Nine countries.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DEFENCE FOR THE ROYAL AIR FORCE (LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL): My Lords, we have close relations with the French Government over defence equipment matters and we have known for some time of their intention to develop their Avion de Combat Futur. I do not know what information the French Government may have given to their other NATO allies.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, is not that an astonishing reply, in view of all the euphoria about European unity? Does it mean that each of the countries associated with NATO can manufacture potentially destructive weapons without consultation with NATO or with each of the other countries?
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, I do not think it is an astonishing reply. The agreed NATO guidelines require us all to exchange information about our requirements and intentions, and to examine the possibility of collaboration before starting national development of important items of equipment. But the final decision on whether national requirements are compatible with co-operative procurement must rest with the Government concerned.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, could we then have an explanation of the speech made in November last by M. Jobert, the French Foreign Minister, in which he said that co-operation in defence matters in the E.E.C. was essential? What was the meaning of that statement in view of what the noble Lord has just said about the prerogative of each nation to produce weapons of destructive use?
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, I think I should emphasise that there are in fact a number of co-operative projects going on at the present time. There are three helicopters, there is Martel and there is also the Jaguar aeroplane. M. Jobert in fact made two speeches. We welcome the emphasis of those speeches on the importance of the Atlantic alliance for our common defence, and we share his concern about the problems which face us as Europeans in our future. We believe we must reflect on these pronouncements and act on them, and we hope the French will co-operate with us in the future.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, while the noble Lord's reply may not be surprising, would he not agree that the situation is really quite deplorable? Does he recall that when the French withdrew from the M.R.C.A. project there was an understanding, to the best of my recollection, that they would not develop an aircraft in competition? Is not the A.C.F. in fact in direct competition? It is another swing-wing aircraft. Was it not agreed to be the most important single project? Indeed, I think my right honourable friend Mr. Healey described it as the heart of our aircraft programme. Now the French are going ahead with their own. Will not the Government make some representations with a view to trying to achieve some co-operation so that this damage which is being done to NATO will at least be appreciated by the French?
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, I think I ought to correct one statement of the noble Lord, I believe the A.C.F. is not in fact a swing-wing aircraft. There is rather a long history here, which I do not think I should go into at the present time. The aircraft would unquestionably do some of the same jobs as the M.R.C.A. is intended to do, but it does not by any means cover all the areas where the M.R.C.A. would operate. The noble Lord also raised the question about the future development of projects of this kind. We do pass to our allies information as to how development is proceeding, in the hope that they may collaborate with us at any time as the development proceeds.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, are we to understand from the noble Lord's replies that the definition of "common defence" means that each of the countries associated with NATO can produce whichever weapons it desires to produce and merely contents itself with conveying information to each of the other countries? Is that the definition of "common defence". Is that the definition of "common unity" in the E.E.C.?
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, if we get into defining exactly what is meant I think that we run into fairly sticky problems. In practice what we hope to do is to find the areas where we have common
176
interest, but ultimately these must be the decision of the national Governments. All I can say is that we hope to leave the door open, and hope that some of our allies will walk through it.
LORD SLATER: My Lords, in view of the Government's constant attitude of mind with regard to greater European unity, would the noble Lord state whether there is any possibility of the French Government applying to re-join NATO?
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, I think we are straying rather wide of the original Question there.

INSURANCE COMPANIES BILL [H.L.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD HAILSHAM OF SAINT MARYLEBONE): My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to consolidate, with certain exceptions, the provisions of the Insurance Companies Acts 1958 to 1973. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

HORTICULTURE (SPECIAL PAYMENTS) BILL
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD (EARL FERRERS): My Lords, I understand that no Amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript Amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move, pursuant to Standing Order No. 45(2), that the Order of Commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the Order of Commitment be discharged.—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

DUMPING AT SEA BILL [H.L.]
3.1 p.m.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen and his Royal Highness the Prince

177
of Wales that they, having been informed of the purport of the Dumping at Sea Bill, have consented to place their prerogative and interests, so far as they are concerned on behalf of the Crown, the Duchy of Lancaster and the Duchy of Cornwall, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Bill read 3a.
Clause 2 [Licences]:
BARONESS WHITE BARONESS WHITE moved as an Amendment:
Page 3, line 9, at end insert—
("( ) Where a licence granted in pursuance of this section permits dumping within United Kingdom waters, before issuing it the licensing authority shall inform any relevant regional water authority or the Welsh National Water Development Authority, as the case may be, and allow reasonable time for any representations to be made.")
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name. On the Report stage of this Bill I moved a somewhat similar Amendment, but it was an Amendment which went a good deal further. I was not altogether surprised that the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, resisted it, because in my earlier Amendment I proposed that there should be agreement between the licensing authority under the Dumping at Sea Bill and the relevant water authorities.
The Amendment now before your Lordships' House is much more modest, because this requires only that where a licensing authority (which in fact is the Minister), grants permission for dumping within a tidal estuary or a territorial water—and only in those circumstances, and not in the open sea—and where there is a licence granted for such dumping, then the parallel authority, which is either the regional water authority or the Welsh authority, should at least be informed that this dumping is to take place; because it is they who are responsible for effluent, which we are discussing under the environment Bill that will come before us again in a few minutes' time. It seems to me that it is only proper that they should at least have the right to be informed as to what noxious or
178
objectionable matter is to be dumped in the waters for which they have this responsibility.
When we discussed this matter on Report stage, the noble Earl tried to resist that Amendment by suggesting that if one made it obligatory either to agree with or to consult—I have now watered it down to "inform"—the relevant water authorities, one would then have to bring in other people. The noble Earl even stretched it to the Crown Estates Commissioners. I do not think that he was making an altogether sound point, because those of us who have been working on the Protection of the Environment Bill are well aware of the responsibilities of the new water authorities which are to take effect in April, for the regimen of the tidal estuaries, and they also have responsibilities in the coastal waters. It seems to me, therefore, that it is most desirable that they should know exactly what is happening.
The noble Earl suggested that one wanted, as he put it, not so much statutory provision but a flexible administrative arrangement; but these arrangements do not always work. My advice is that at the present time there is a degree of dumping—not much, and not often, and I do not wish to exaggerate it—in tidal estuaries under the voluntary arrangements, and that the present river authorities, who will be superseded in due course by the water authorities, do not know in certain instances, what is being put into particularly the tidal estuaries. It appears to me that we should be quite certain that the authority that comes under the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, namely, the licensing authority under the Bill before us now, and the water authorities that come under the Department of the Environment and therefore have different Ministerial responsibilities and chains of communication, should each know what the other is doing.
When we were discussing the Protection of the Environment Bill last night the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, moved a Government Amendment bringing in the Secretary of State for the Environment, with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, into a clause in that Bill dealing precisely with the waters that we are discussing under this Part of this Bill; namely, coastal waters and the tidal

179
estuaries. What is sauce for the goose in the Protection of the Environment Bill is surely to be sauce for the gander in the Dumping at Sea Bill. Therefore, it appears to me that it is right and proper that we should provide for what I think is reasonable and practicable; namely, information. All I am asking is that there should be a duty to inform, and then reasonable time allowed for any representations to be made.
I believe that there will not be many instances of dumping being permitted under the Dumping at Sea Bill in the tidal estuaries or coastal waters. I do not think that this is going to be a frequent occurrence. However, when it does happen, in the nature of the case the matter that is to be deposited has something wrong with it, otherwise there would not be any need for this legislation before us. Therefore, I repeat that where you have two different authorities answerable to two different Ministers, it is desirable that one should know what the other is doing. I beg to move.
3.8 p.m.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady White, for explaining her Amendment. I would congratulate her on her persistency and constancy because, as she indicated, she tried to move something into this Bill on Report stage, and indeed we have been in some correspondence over it. I am bound to tell her that when I saw this Amendment I was much attracted to it because it seemed to be a harmless Amendment. But on looking into it further, I found that there are other factors that should be taken into account. Also, I think that there could be an element of misunderstanding about this. I should like to try to persuade the noble Baroness of the situation as we see it.
In this Bill we are talking entirely about pollution. As she knows, the water authorities will have control over what is put into rivers—that is, fresh water—and the licensing authorities will have control over what is put into the sea—in other words, into salt water. There is a definite difference. Because what is put into the rivers eventually ends up in the sea, it has been decided, under the Protection of the Environment Bill, that
180
the Ministry of Agriculture should be consulted in advance of such licences being issued, or such agreement being given, by water authorities to anyone proposing to dump in a river.
The noble Baroness said that what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, and therefore when a licence is to be granted by the Ministry of Agriculture for what goes into the sea, the water authorities should be consulted. I would draw to her attention that in fact from a pollution point of view the water authorities do not have any control over what is put into the sea apart from that which extends up to the three-mile limit. But, of course, anything which goes in below high water mark is the responsibility of the Ministry of Agriculture, for this reason: all the expertise of knowing what happens to the tides, to the currents, to the winds and flows of sea is all held under their brief in the Ministry of Agriculture. They have fisheries laboratories which advise them on these things, and they have the responsibility of issuing a licence for anything that is dumped into the sea below high water mark. Therefore it would seem unreasonable in this case that the water authorities, who control what goes into the rivers, should be affected by what is put into the sea. If the noble Baroness is saying that it is going to affect their estuaries or rivers I would point out that it will be as a result of the tides; and the knowledge of what happens to the material which is dumped into the sea must and does rest with the Ministry of Agriculture. That is where their expertise lies.
I go further and say that one of the responsibilities of the Ministry of Agriculture is looking after the conservation of Fish and fish stocks. A very great proportion of this work is done within the three-mile limit, and indeed the majority of shellfish catches comes close to the shore. Again, this is one of the reasons why it is essential that the Ministry should be the licensing authority for anything which is going to be dumped into the sea and which could have a noxious affect. I have told the noble Baroness before, and I will tell her again, that while I understand her concern about this matter, I think, and indeed the Government feel, that it would be inadvisable to put this particular Amendment into the Bill. If there is any situation where a water authority's interests will be

181
affected of course there will be consultation beforehand.
The noble Baroness will, I know, accept the fact that where the river authorities fundamentally deal with what is put into the rivers and into fresh water, the correct people for the grant of licences under this Bill should be the Ministry of Agriculture, where the expertise rests. But I again give the noble Baroness the assurance that where a water authority's interests are likely to be affected, there will be consultation beforehand. I hope that I have been able to allay what may be the fears of the noble Baroness. There is I think the possibility of a misunderstanding as to exactly where the separation between the duties of a water authority and the duties of the licensing authorities under this Bill occur.
3.14 p.m.
BARONESS WHITE: My Lords, with great respect, I do not think there is this difficulty. I was not for one moment arguing that one should diminish the authority of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in this matter. I was merely pointing out that, especially where the great tidal estuaries are concerned, which include the Severn, the Bristol Channel, the Thames (which is tidal, as we are often told, up to Teddington), the Humber and the other great rivers which are tidal for a considerable distance, there is an intermingling both of the water and of the responsibility. It is for this reason that it still seems to me—I think the word "obdurate" was used in a recent debate—that where you have a mingling of the waters as in the great tidal estuaries, each authority ought to be at least aware of what is going on.
The responsibility, of course, rests with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I do not deny that for one moment, and the Amendment does not seek in any way to derogate from their responsibility. I cannot see that anybody reading the Amendment in its present form could be in any doubt about that. All it asks for is information, an opportunity to make representations if desired—there is not even an obligation to consult. It is simply a matter of letting the water authorities know that a licence is about to be issued, so that if by any chance they have some point of difficulty they will have an opportunity of making it known. The noble Earl says that of course they will be consulted, but when there are two quite different Ministries this does not always happen in practice. I have been given instances where, under the non-stautory arrangements which are in practice at the moment, it does not happen. Therefore, I am sorry but I have no desire to withdraw this Amendment. I think it is a sensible one. I have altered it considerably from an earlier stage. I cannot see that it can do any harm to either set of authorities. It would really take effect significantly in the great tidal estuaries where, because of their very nature, the fresh and the salt water mingle and therefore in my view the responsibilities also. To ask for information in these circumstances seems to me perfectly reasonable and practicable.
3.17 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 61; Not-Contents, 78.

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Henderson, L.

Amherst, E.

De Ramsey, L.

Henley, L.

Archibald, L.

Diamond, L.

Hoy, L.

Arwyn, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Jacques, L.

Ashby, L.

Douglas of Barloch, L.

Janner, L.

Avebury, L.

Douglass of Cleveland, L.

Leatherland, L.

Birk, B.

Energlyn, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B

Blackett, L.

Foot, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Blyton, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Popplewell, L.

Brockway, L.

Gardiner, L.

Redcliffe-Maud, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Garnsworthy, L. [Teller.]

Rochester, L.

Byers, L.

Geddes of Epsom, L.

Royle, L.

Chalfont, L.

Grantchester, L.

Rusholme, L.

Champion, L.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

St. Davids, V.

Chorley, L.

Hacking, L.

Segal, L.

Clifton of Chudleigh, L.

Hale, L.

Shackleton, L.

Craigton, L.

Hall, V.

Shannon, E.

Shinwell, L.

Wells-Pestell, L. [Teller.]

Willis, L.

Slater, L.

White, B.

Winterbottom, L.

Summerskill, B.

Williamson, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Ebbisham, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Effingham, E.

Macpherson of Drumochter, L.

Amory, V.

Elles, B.

Mansfield, E.

Auckland, L.

Emmet of Amberley, B.

Margadale, L.

Balerno, L.

Erskine of Rerrick, L.

Middleton, L.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Ferrers, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L [Teller.]

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Fortescue, E.

Berkeley, B.

Goschen, V.

Northchurch, B.

Bessborough, E.

Gowrie, E.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Bledisloe, V.

Grenfell, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Boothby, L.

Gridley, L.

Redesdale, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Reigate, L.

Clancarty, E.

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

Sandford, L.

Clwyd, L.

Sandys, L.

Cole, L.

Hanworth, V.

Selkirk, E.

Coleraine, L.

Hawke, L.

Sherfield, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Howe, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Conesford, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Strathspey, L.

Courtown, E.

Inglewood, L.

Thomas, L.

Cowley, E.

Ironside, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Craigavon, V.

Kinloss, Ly.

Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, B.

Cromartie, E.

Lauderdale, E.

Vivian, L.

Daventry, V.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

de Clifford, L.

Long, V.

Windlesham, L. (L. Privy Seal.)

De La Warr, E.

Loudoun, C.

Wise, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Lyell, L.

Young, B.

Drumalbyn, L.

McFadzean, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I beg to move the privilege Amendment.
Moved, That the privilege Amendment be agreed to,—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, an Amendment (privilege) made.
Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

PROTECTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT BILL [H.L.]
3.26 p.m.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Aberdare.)
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF LISTOWEL in the Chair.]
Clause 33 [Transitional provisions relating to consents]:
LORD ABERDARE LORD ABERDARE moved Amendment No. 156D:
Page 46, line 3, after ("this") insert ("Part of this").
The noble Lord said: This is a purely drafting Amendment. The provisions dealing with appeals connected with applications for consent, revocation or modification of consents and so on are to be found in Clause 32. Other provisions dealing with appeals about other matters—for example, site licences for waste disposal under Clause 8—are to be found in other Parts of the Bill, and it is appropriate to make clear in Clause 33 that the appeal provisions in Part II of the Bill are those which are referred to. I beg to move.
On Question, Whether Clause 33, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
THE EARL OF COURTOWN: I should like to ask the Government why they are proposing in this clause to make transitional arrangements by regulation, rather than by putting a general provision in the Bill. The fact that the Government propose to deal with transitional arrangements in this way causes additional uncertainty among those who have consents to discharge under existing legislation. I shall be grateful if the noble Lord will consider this point in order to make sure that this uncertainty is set at rest.
LORD ABERDARE: I certainly undertake to do that. The clause provides for transitional arrangements for consents that have been granted by river authorities
186
or by water authorities after April 1, 1974, under powers contained in the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Acts 1951 and 1961, or Section 72 of the Water Resources Act 1963 or, in Scotland, the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) (Scotland) Acts 1951 and 1965. I hope that there is no cause for concern here, but I certainly undertake to look at the point and will take into account what my noble friend has said.
BARONESS WHITE: I should like to ask a question about subsection (3), which states that consents,
"… pending immediately before the relevant day shall be treated on and after that day as an application for consent in pursuance of section 27 of this Act."
They will presumably be consents under the 1961 Act, or perhaps under other legislation. Can the Minister indicate how many such applications are likely to be outstanding because I am told that there is a considerable backlog? I wonder whether leaving the provision open like this, without any limit on the time that that they should be regarded as applications for consent under this Bill, would be sensible or good administration. Can the noble Lord tell the Committee whether the difficulty which has been drawn to my notice is as significant as I am led to believe it may be?
LORD ABERDARE: I am afraid I am not informed on that point, but I do take the point. Perhaps I could go into it and let the noble Baroness know what the answer is. Then, if she wishes, we can return to it on Report stage.
BARONESS WHITE: I am much obliged to the noble Lord.
Clause 33, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 34 [Registers]:
3.30 p.m.
BARONESS WHITE BARONESS WHITE moved Amendment No. 156B:
Page 46, line 7, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall")
The noble Baroness said: This is a very important clause because, as your Lordships will be aware, it provides for registers which are to be maintained by the authorities, and for them to be open to public inspection. But the curious thing about it—and I have had a considerable

187
number of letters about this from interested parties—is that the opening sentence of this clause says:
"Provision may be made by regulations for the maintenance by water authorities of registers containing particulars",
and then the details of the various particulars follow. This has induced an impression, which seems to be extraordinarily widespread, that the Government are not really firm in their intention in this matter. There seems to be a discrepancy between that first phrase,
Provision may be made by regulations",
and that in subsection (2) of this clause, where it says categorically,
"It shall be the duty of a water authority … to secure that registers maintained are open to inspection",
and so forth. This is leading to a considerable degree of misunderstanding. I would therefore suggest that there should be a redrafting of the first part of this clause so that it will be perfectly plain that the Government have every intention to make such regulations.
How far the regulations should include all the matters appended to this opening phrase could be considered. It may be necessary to have a further rephrasing; this particular Amendment goes possibly only part of the way. But it seems to me that if so much misunderstanding has already arisen as to the genuineness of the Government's intentions in regard to this clause it would be desirable to draft the Bill in such a way that there could be no doubt. I myself have every confidence that the Government intend to activate this clause, but I am sure the noble Lord will appreciate that there is an apparent discrepancy between the permissiveness of the first part of it and the mandatory nature of the second part of it. It was for that reason that it seemed desirable to put down this Amendment in order to draw attention to the situation. I beg to move.
LORD ABERDARE: I can give the noble Baroness an absolute assurance that the Secretary of State will be making these regulations. It is really only a matter of drafting. I understand—and it is so in other parts of the Bill—that it is normal phraseology to use the word "shall" (for example, in subsection (2),
188
to which the noble Baroness drew attention) where an immediate duty is imposed; whereas "may" is not necessarily as strong, but it leaves a little bit of flexibility, for example on the question of timing. If one were to say that the provisions "shall" be made by regulations, then for a short period after the Bill was passed and before the regulations were in effect it could be held that the Secretary of State was in default. This is so right through the Bill. Wherever it is a question of regulations, the word "may" is used in various other clauses—Clauses 16, 17, 44 and 45—and this is so in other legislation, too. So I hope the noble Baroness will be satisfied with my absolute assurance that these regulations will be made, rather than changing this word here, which would entail a great many other changes in this Bill and conceivably in other Bills, too. I assure her that regulations will be made by the Secretary of State and that they will be made as soon as possible.
BARONESS WHITE: I am still not quite convinced that consistency is as essential as all that when people are going to misunderstand the proposed legislation. I should have thought one could say,
"Provision shall be made by regulations for the maintenance by water authorities of registers which may contain particulars"—
putting the permissive part of it at the end of the phrase rather than at the beginning. Of course, timing does not really matter in this particular Bill because, as I am sure the noble Lord is well aware, the very last clause, Clause 97, provides:
"This Act shall come into force on such day as the Secretary of State may by order appoint; and … different days may be appointed … for different provisions of this Act and for such different purposes of the same provision as may be specified in the order".
Therefore, if the Secretary of State is not ready to make his regulations he does not need to activate this particular clause. But that he must do it at some point of time is what people want to be assured about.
I do not propose to press this Amendment at this stage because I recognise that it may be incomplete. I had hoped that the Government might have looked at it again and had their own form of

189
words properly vetted by their draftsman, in which case I do not intend to take the Amendment any further. This is a point which, as I say, is causing a great deal of misunderstanding. I have had more letters on this particular Amendment, I think, than on almost any other in the entire Bill, because people cannot understand why it should look as though this was purely permissive and not a firm intention. I will not press the Amendment at this moment, but I should be grateful if the Minister would look at it again because in its intent, at any rate, it is a serious Amendment. In the circumstances, unless other Members wish to say anything—
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: I would hope that the Minister would not alter this language, which is common form in a very large number of Acts. The argument is put forward that people misunderstand it by reading it with "shall" in subsection (2) and by contrasting the two. One imposes a duty, and where you impose a duty you must use the word "shall". But here, in the first part of this clause Parliament is giving the Secretary of State power by regulations to do certain things. It would be inconceivable that the Secretary of State should ask for those powers unless he intends to exercise them. I feel it is really hopeless to seek to achieve the avoidance of all misunderstandings of a Bill by all people, and that that really is not a very good argument for making this change. I would take it as absolutely clear that in any Act where there is a provision that regulations may be made the intention is to make regulations dealing with the matters in respect of which power is given to make them. I think that that has been common form for a very long time indeed, and I myself certainly am not aware of any case where a power has been taken and not exercised. Therefore, I hope the Minister will stick to the form which has been recognised for so long.
BARONESS WHITE: If I may say so, that is a good legal argument, which is one of the reasons why the public so much distrust laws and lawyers. It goes against all common sense. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.39 p.m.
BARONESS WHITE BARONESS WHITE moved Amendment No. 156 C:
Page 46, line 13, leave out ("(except section 33(4))").
The noble Baroness said: This Amendment concerns the exemption of consents given under Clause 33(4), the preceding clause, from the regulations regarding registers. It is quite true, of course, that under Clause 33(4) the discharges concerned are such that one might regard them as being of not very great importance. But, nevertheless, they are discharges, and it appears to those of us who are very much interested in this question of registers that if you are to have a register at all it should be a complete register, and that one should therefore know that authority has been given for discharges whether they are under the other provisions of the Bill or of the particular kind which are described in Clause 33(4). It is really to ensure that there is a comprehensive register, so that one can have a full picture of the watercourse concerned, that one is very hesitant to agree to the exception made in Clause 34(1)(b). I should be grateful to have the Minister's comments on that matter.
LORD ABERDARE: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for drawing attention to this point which is one we should like to consider. The deemed consents in Clause 33(4), as she has pointed out, are deemed to have been given to existing discharges which, before the coming into force of the consent provision in the Bill, did not require consent. These provisions are purely transitional. In order to obtain a deemed consent the discharger has to put in an application giving details of the discharge before the new controls come into force. If he does so he gets deemed consent to continue the discharge unaltered until the notice of the application has been published and finally determined. The details of the application will be entered in the register by virtue of Clause 31(1)(a). Deemed consents are not really proper consents and we do not think it appropriate that they should be entered in the register as consents.
My right honourable friend accepts, however, that it is right that details of applications under Clause 33(4), which automatically engender deemed consents, should be kept separately. This would

191
have the merit of identifying applications in respect of existing discharges, drawing attention to the deemed consents covering those discharges until the applications have been fully examined and a considered consent, issued, and maintaining a running record of the water authorities' backlog of cases. I think that this will meet the noble Baroness's point. Certainly we should like to have a look at it. We believe that what I have suggested can be achieved simply by drafting the regulations to be made prescribing the forms of the registers so as to provide for applications having deemed consent to be kept separately from other applications. If that is so, I will let the noble Baroness know. If we do need an Amendment, I will undertake to introduce it at the next stage.
BARONESS WHITE: I am most grateful. Can the noble Lord reassure me entirely, as I am not quite clear about how many existing discharges are covered by Clause 33(4), whether any existing discharges escape this registered provision? It is plain that applications for consent made in pursuance of this part of the Act are caught. The noble Lord has explained deemed consents under Clause 33(4). Are there any other discharges now going on which would escape this register, or are they all included?
LORD ABERDARE: So far as I know they are all included, but I should like to check that to make absolutely certain, and to reassure the noble Baroness.
BARONESS WHITE: That being so—and, of course, I rely on the noble Lord to tell us whether further consideration indicates the need for other Amendments—I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD ABERDARE LORD ABERDARE moved Amendment No. 157:
Page 46, line 14, leave out from ("conditions") to end of line and insert ("to which the consents are subject").
The noble Lord said: Clause 34(1)(b) requires particular consents to discharges to be entered in the water authority's register together with any conditions subject to which consent was given. As it is drafted at present, there is no requirement for any modification of the conditions to be entered. What we want in the
192
registers is an account of the current conditions of consent and, if amended as suggested, that is what the paragraph will require. I beg to move.
BARONESS WHITE: This is an Amendment which we all warmly welcome.
3.45 p.m.
LORD CRAIGTON LORD CRAIGTON moved Amendment No. 157D:
Page 46, line 24, at end insert—
("(e) certificates issued by the Secretary of State under section 35 of this Act.").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment 156C the noble Baroness, Lady White, said that if you are to have a register, it should be a complete register. This Amendment adds to the particulars recorded in the water authority's register a certificate issued by the Secretary of State under Clause 35 which gives power to the Secretary of State to exempt applications, consents and conditions, et cetera, from publicity. While the security of the Realm and trade secrets must be protected, it seems desirable that some publicity should be given at least to the fact that the Secretary of State has issued a number of such certificates and, where appropriate, the names of the persons and places concerned.
LORD ABERDARE: The noble Baroness, Lady White, has down two Amendments which cover very much the same point; they are Nos. 157C and 159A. There she suggests that the name of the applicant and the place of discharge should be entered in the register in cases where a certificate has been issued by the Secretary of State under Clause 35 and, therefore, the discharger is exempt from publicity requirement. We agree that this is a sensible requirement and the sort of information that should be made available. Therefore, I am prepared to accept these Amendments when we come to them. I am not sure whether the drafting is absolutely right, but I will accept the Amendments which seem to me to meet the point made by my noble friend. I hope that in those circumstances my noble friend will withdraw his Amendment.
LORD CRAIGTON: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, and I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.48 p.m.
BARONESS WHITE BARONESS WHITE moved Amendment No. 157A:
Page 46, line 29, after ("charge") insert ("at its own offices and those of the relevant county council").
The noble Baroness said: The point about this Amendment is that, welcome as these registers are—being open to the public free of charge at all reasonable hours—the use which may be made of this provision will for many people depend on how far they may have to travel in order to inspect the register. If I may take the position in the Principality, with which I am closely familiar, the office of the Welsh National Water Development Authority will be at Brecon. There are no trains of any kind to Brecon from any direction. There are buses, of course, but they are not always convenient, and we do not know what is going to happen to our petrol. Unless some arrangement is made for these registers to be available in certain other places, it seems to me that there will be considerable hardship for people who wish to inspect them.
For example, so far as I know, there will be no register on public view in the capital City of Cardiff. It would be improbable that the water authority will have an office at Cardiff as well as at Brecon. There are those in North Wales, but I do not know what offices will be established in North Wales. There may be some, but again they may not be in very convenient places because the counties, and the river authorities now existing, cover wide areas. In Wales we have the peculiar situation that the whole of the Severn catchment comes under the Severn-Trent authority and the headquarters, I would suppose, would be at Stoke, or some such place. This is not very convenient, Therefore, it appears to me that there is some sense at least in looking at the proposition that there should be copies of these registers available. It is purely a matter of inspecting them at the county council offices as well as at the offices of the water authorities. I would not press this Amendment in its present form, if the Minister feels that some slightly different arrangement is desirable. But I am sure he will appreciate that it may be very difficult to take advantage of the registers if they are confined to the offices of the water authorities.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: Despite what the noble Baroness said a moment ago, on this occasion I should like to support her Amendment which has all the sense that her last Amendment lacked! What is the point of having a complete register—and it is very desirable that there should be a complete register—if it is really inaccessible to the people who want to see it? There are to be only eight water authorities. It is quite unreasonable to expect that a complete register kept by a water authority should have copies in every office of every county council, but it should be possible for persons interested to find out what is in the register relating to a particular area.
In order to meet the request of the noble Baroness, I would ask the noble Lord to suggest that the part of the register which relates to the area of a county council should be available for inspection in the county council's offices. That would meet the point the noble Baroness has made, and it is a very valid point. However, I certainly do not think it is necessary, or indeed desirable—and the cost would be very high—to have a complete copy of the register covering the whole area of the water authority in all water authorities' offices and in all county council offices. I do not think this Amendment would provide for copies of the relevant parts being kept in the offices of the county council, but I hope that the Minister will give an assurance that he will consider introducing an Amendment to bring that about. Unless something of that sort is done, keeping a complete register will serve little useful purpose.
VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN: When the Minister considers this matter, will be also consider that there is a country, with which I am slightly connected, called Scotland? We are about to abolish counties altogether. I would imagine that the appropriate wording in our case would be "district councils".
LORD HAWKE: May I put this point to the Minister? It is very important that if registers are to be kept they should be complete; in fact, registers of all samples. All too often nowadays we have cases of recurrent intestinal disorders. The general public ought to have access to the registers to see what is shown in the samples which have been

195
taken. In fact, the general public do not altogether trust the authorities not to suppress samples which show some deleterious microbes and other things. They want to be sure that all the samples are listed in the register.
LORD ABERDARE: This is an Amendment with which we have great sympathy and I am very grateful to your Lordships who have contributed to the short debate we have had on it. I can assure your Lordships that the points which have been made will be taken into consideration. We do not think it right to require copies to be kept at the county council's offices for the reason which has been given by my noble friend Lord Hawke—that these registers are of no value unless they are kept absolutely up to date. The county councils have no direct responsibility for keeping them up to date; nor do we think that they should be given this responsibility. But that does not detract from the importance of having information from the registers available at the point where the public can conveniently see it. But there is still a good deal of work to be done on the way in which these registers should be kept. For example, it will clearly be desirable to relate new applications to discharges already taking place in the particular river or stretch of river; to relate samples and their analysis to the relevant consent, and so on.
Much of the work done in connection with the organisation of the River Pollution Survey should help in this respect. The old forms of date-order "book" registration may serve for registering applications, but consent would better be kept in some geographical order in relation to the receiving water. It may be, for example, that the solution will be to have two sets of registers, both in the hands of the water authority, one complete and kept at a single location; and the other split, say, into river catchments, with each part kept at the water authority office most conveniently central to that particular catchment.
These are really only ideas. I am only thinking aloud, because the water authorities have only recently been established and they have not yet had time to consider this extremely important organisational arrangement. I am grateful, therefore, to the noble Baroness for drawing
196
attention to it. I can give her the assurance that I will certainly take note of her views and those of the noble and learned Viscount and others of your Lordships who have spoken. We shall pursue the issues she has raised when we join in discussions with the water authorities in order to make administrative arrangements which will ensure that the correct and relevant part of the register is available to those people who wish to consult it.
BARONESS WHITE: This brief debate has been worth while because it has drawn attention to something which is of importance in making the clause really effective. In view of what the noble Lord has said, it may be that it is not necessary to insert anything into the Bill itself. I can appreciate the position of the water authorities. They are still not fully operative. It is obviously desirable that there should be some consultation with them. Therefore, my own feeling about, this matter, having drawn attention to it and it having received support from all quarters of the Committee, is that I should now beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 34, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 35 [Power of Secretary of State to exempt applications, consents and conditions etc. from publicity]:
3.55 p.m.
BARONESS WHITE BARONESS WHITE moved Amendment No. 157B:
Page 47, line 6, leave out from ("be") to ("contrary") in line 8.
The noble Baroness said: I have no expectation whatsoever that the Government will accept this Amendment, but I put it down because, as one noble Lord said yesterday—I think it was the noble Viscount. Lord Bledisloe—one has the feeling that the interests of the polluter are being carefully looked after in this Bill. There is no suggestion anywhere in the Bill that there are instances where it would be in the public interest to publish certain information even though it might on occasion be held to be damaging to the interests of a person or an enterprise. I do not propose to press this Amendment, but simply again to give voice to letters which I have received, particularly from organisations

197
of which young people are very enthusiastic members, in which they say it is all very well to protect something because it would be contrary to the public interests if it were published; that is understandable but there is no provision in the Bill for saying "Look, it really is in the public interest that this should be published."
There is quite a strong feeling among young people who are intensely interested in environmental and conservation matters. I have been very impressed by some of the organisations that I have dealt with since I became interested in this Bill. It is partly because of that feeling that I felt it was only right to draw your Lordships' attention to this matter. I am speaking of people who are not what one might call "cranks", or anything of that kind, but who spend a tremendous amount of their time and energy—some of them giving up very good jobs in order to do so, I may say—because of their intense concern with these environmental matters. They feel that this Bill as a whole, while it has many good things in it, tends towards protecting the private interest rather than putting the public interest first. That is why I put down this Amendment, though I repeat that I have no great expectation that the Government's attitude to society will make them likely to accept it.
4.0 p.m.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: I gave notice as is shown on the Marshalled List, that I intended to move to leave out this clause. I put down that Amendment for much the same reasons as prompted the noble Baroness to move this Amendment. I think I can say on this Amendment—and it will probably save time—all that I desired to say on the Motion, That the clause stand part without getting out of order. I am very puzzled by this clause because I cannot find in the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution Acts of 1951 and 1961 any corresponding clause entitling discharges to which a consent has been given under those Acts to be kept secret. It rather astonishes me to find, after those Acts have been in force for so long, that this is thought to be required. I have made some search, and although I may have missed it I cannot find a provision in the earlier Acts which is being replaced by this clause. If I am right, I ask: what are the grounds for such a provision?
198
I have criticised this Bill during our earlier discussions because it seems to me to make inadequate provisions for notifying persons likely to be affected by a consent given to a pollutant discharge and to give inadequate rights to such persons to object to and prevent such discharges. Under this Bill, despite the clauses we have considered for advertisements to be inserted in the London Gazette, and so on, we find that power is being taken to keep applications for consent to discharge secret, to keep the consents secret and to keep the samples secret. Why? If disclosure is unreasonably damaging", as the clause provides, "to the interests of the person aforesaid"—and "the person aforesaid" is the person concerned with the discharge—the Secretary of State may issue a certificate. What is meant in this context by "unreasonably damaging"? It always will be damaging to the interests of the polluter to have to incur expense in order to try to cure the pollution in every single case.
I wonder therefore what content can be given in this context to the word "unreasonably", particularly as the clause does not require the Secretary of State to consider what unreasonable damage that discharge will cause to those whose legal interests and rights will be affected by the discharge. It has no regard to the other side of the coin at all. The words "contrary to the public interest" are of the widest possible context, and if this provision is new I wonder very much on what occasions it can be said that the publication of the sample of water is contrary to the public interest. Is there any prohibition on other people, if they wish, to take a sample and have it analysed? If that is so, how can it be in the public interest to try to keep secret something which anyone is free to find out for himself?
Again, how can it be contrary to the public interest—I am very puzzled about this—to keep secret the fact or the character of a discharge? Are you going to be able to find out that a particular discharge is taking place or that any particular activity is going on—or an activity which it would be contrary to the public interest to reveal? Are you going to be able to ascertain the content of trade secrets by examining the effluent from a factory? That does not seem to me in the least likely. So I do press the noble Lord in his

199
reply to give the justification for this provision if, as I think, after looking at those two earlier Acts to which I have referred, this is an entirely novel provision.
LORD HAWKE: I would go a very long way with the noble and learned Viscount but I would not go quite so far as he does regarding the public interest. Having been brought up on a diet of Bulldog Drummond, James Bond and so on, one realises that some extraordinary things can go on in this world and that the clue to them may well lie in the examination of effluent coming from places like this. I can well imagine that there may be defence establishments in respect of which it might be highly inconvenient to publish to the world that a certain type of pollution was occurring, and giving, moreover, details of the analysis. But I should like to ask my noble friend to tell us how he can justify the protection of the private individual. If the private individual is engaged in defence matters and so on, he will obviously be covered by questions of the public interest, but I cannot conceive of any other form of interest which it would be advisable to cloak in the way the Bill seeks to do. Undoubtedly if people hear of certain types of effluent being put into a stream it could stir up the "anti-effluent society", if I may so call them. That would be highly inconvenient to an individual, but I do not think it would be highly undesirable.
THE EARL OF COURTOWN: Quite often it is not the inconvenience of the private individual that is intended to be referred to this clause, as I understand it. The Royal Commission, in paragraph 8 of their Second Report, say that there will be instances, though comparatively few, where genuine confidential or trade secrets should be protected by not disclosing information about an industrial discharge, which is covered by this clause. I have some examples of these, but they are highly technical and I hope it will not be necessary to give them to the Committee. However, there is nothing particularly secret about the ones that I have.
LORD ROBBINS: Could the noble Earl be induced to specify the sort of cases he is referring to, because to the lay ear it seems to be almost incredible that these cases should be actually occurring?
4.9 p.m.
LORD ABERDARE: I can certainly justify this Clause 35, though I am afraid I could not recommend to the Committee that they accept the Amendment of the noble Baroness on this occasion. The very short answer, as my noble friend Lord Courtown has explained, is that first of all there is nothing new in the effect, at any rate, of this provision. Secondly, it is based firmly on paragraph 5 of the Second Report of the Royal Commission—I believe my noble friend referred to "paragraph 8", but it is actually paragraph 5 of the Second Report of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution.
Clauses 29 and 34 of the Bill contain entirely new arrangements for advertising discharges, and for public registers to be kept of details of all consents to discharges and all samples taken of discharges. This provision for publicity is completely new. Under existing legislation—and I think this is the answer to the noble and learned Viscount—it is a criminal offence to disclose, without permission from the applicant, information obtained in connection with an application for consent. Registers of consents are open only to a person appearing to the river authority to be interested in the land, premises or outlet concerned. The reference is in Section 7(7)(a) of the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Act 1951, and on applications and results of samples, et cetera, being confidential, the reference is in Section 12 of the 1961 Act. So the difference is that now there will be publicity for applications, consents and for samples. These provisions follow the Second Report of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution. Unless there are strong arguments to the contrary, the intention is that information about applications and consents for discharges made to rivers, estuaries and the sea, should be available to anyone who wants it. We think it is necessary to make provision for the very exceptional case, and this is the point of Clause 35.
The Royal Commission were of the opinion that as a rule the legislation which protects secrecy over industrial effluents and wastes no longer safeguards genuine trade secrets; that is, operations and knowledge which have a real financial value in that they give an advantage over a competitor or could be licensed for royalties. They felt that, whatever

201
reasons of this kind existed in the past they were less valid now because in large industrial complexes effluents from many processes are mixed. Even so, this is simply the general rule, and the Commission go on to say—and I think this is the answer to the noble Lord, Lord Robbins—that of course this is not always so and that confidentiality may sometimes be important where there is a single chemical operation on a single site, but nowadays such cases are relatively uncommon.
LORD ROBBINS: Would the noble Lord enlighten us on his attitude concerning what I thought was ultimately the telling point made by the noble and learned Viscount concerning the accessibility of this information? The noble and learned Viscount said that it was open to anybody to take samples of the water in question. Is not that a conclusive argument in his favour?
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: Supposing there is a secret discharge into my river, am I or am I not entitled to take a sample to find out what it is and to tell the world what it is? So far as I can see I am not prevented from doing that.
LORD ABERDARE: If I may answer my noble friend's question first, certainly his legal rights are unchanged. Under Clause 36 he can apply for an injunction or damages, or anything of that kind.
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: That was not my point. If I take the sample and discover what the secret effluent is, I can have it analysed and publish the answer, can I not? Then the secrecy has gone.
LORD ABERDARE: I should have thought that by the time the sample had been taken from the river it would have been altered from what it was when it went into the river. I do not want to go into too much detail here because these are very exceptional cases; there may be none of them at all. All one is saying—and this is following exactly the Report of the Royal Commission—is that it is conceivable that there could be a case, either of a defence contract, which was mentioned by my noble friend Lord Courtown, or of a specific operation where a secret process was involved. There we think there should be an exception available.
202
Even if the Secretary of State is satisfied that confidentiality is justified in a particular case, the discharge will still be subject to the full measure of control by the water authority, and the exemption from the publicity clauses also carries with it the fact that the, discharger would not have the benefit of Clause 36 as it is at present restraining the issue of an injunction. These will be very exceptional cases; they will be fully controlled by the water authority; riparian owners and others will have their full legal rights. I hope that your Lordships will agree that this is a wise provision to make in view of the recommendation of the Royal Commission.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: In view of what the Minister has said, I would not seek to challenge the view of the Royal Commission. But the provisions of this clause are unnecessarily wide. He says there may be exceptional cases. I hope that it will only be in exceptional cases that this clause will operate. The clause as such does not provide that it shall be only in exceptional cases; it indicates that it can be operated when it is unreasonably damaging to the interests of a person. I do not know what those words are meant to mean, what they are intended to signify. If the noble Lord means that in cases where disclosure would reveal, or be likely to reveal, an important trade secret this clause should spell it out and not use vague language. Every person engaged in trade who wants to keep his discharge secret will say (and there may be some substance for doing so) that disclosure would be unreasonably damaging to him. That is not the test in accordance with the argument we have listened to from the Minister.
The point put by my noble friend Lord Bledisloe indicates to the Committee that this is a rather pointless clause, because any riparian owner is at liberty to take a sample at the actual point of discharge of effluent into his river if the point of discharge is on his property. That being so, he will get the sample without any dilution to speak of; he may be able to discover the alleged trade secret from analysis of the sample and he will be free to publish it to the world, or give the information to anyone who desires it.
I do not think there is very much to this clause, but I should like to ask the

203
noble Lord to look at the wording again and to narrow it, and make the wording conform more precisely than it does at the present moment to the intention which he says lies behind the clause.
LORD ABERDARE: I am very ready to do that. At Second Reading there was a good deal of discussion on this clause. A number of noble Lords suggested that Clause 71, to which we shall be coming later, should be brought more into line with Clause 35. We looked at this after the Second Reading debate. We are of the opinion, as the noble Viscount pointed out, that perhaps Clause 71 is rather more tightly drawn than Clause 35. Clause 71 refers to prejudicing to some unreasonable degree some private interest by disclosing information about a manufacturing process or trade secret. This might be a better expression to use in Clause 35, as it is much more tightly drawn. I should like to consider this further. If, by making it tighter, that seems a better alternative, I will undertake to do so.
BARONESS WHITE: I am afraid that if the noble Lord is going to put into Clause 35 information about the manufacturing process, we shall be much more unhappy than we are, because virtually any information about effluents or emissions from a place of manufacture could be taken to refer to some manufacturing process. I can see the point made by the noble and learned Lord about the difficulty of interpreting what could be regarded as "unreasonably damaging to the interests of the person aforesaid" in Clause 35. However, if he wishes to have it tied to a manufacturing process—
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: I was not suggesting any form of words. I would be content with the emphasis being placed on "trade secrets," and having that put in. I did not put forward the words, "the manufacturing process. "What I suggested was that the present words in Clause 35 are far too wide and too ill-defined.
BARONESS WHITE: I am glad to have that assurance, because this reference to the manufacturing process" I found entirely unacceptable. I am not sure whether, when we reach it, the noble and learned Lord is going to move to
204
leave out the entire clause. If he is, I shall be most happy to support him.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: I say straightaway that I have said what I have to say in this debate. I put down "leave out Clause 35" to indicate that I was going to raise questions in regard to it. I have no intention of dividing upon it despite the encouragement, on this occasion, that the noble Baroness has given me.
BARONESS WHITE: For once I might have been very happy to have marched into the same Lobby as the noble and learned Lord. However, as he is not prepared to lead the troops on this occasion, perhaps that is a rather empty gesture.
I can see that one may not be able to press this particular Amendment, but I am unhappy about it. I am glad to learn from the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, that it is the intention of the Government that such exemptions should be very few and far between. I think I have some of the same information as the noble Earl, Lord Courtown. It refers to trace elements and things of that nature which are said to be insignificant in relation to the quality of the water, but they might possibly be of some use to rivals in the same field of manufacture. I am prepared to ask leave to withdraw this particular Amendment, although with very great reluctance because I take the same attitude towards this entire clause as the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, and wish that it were not in the Bill. However, for the moment, I beg leave to withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.23 p.m.
BARONESS WHITE BARONESS WHITE moved Amendment No. 157C:
Page 47, line 14, at end insert—
("Provided that the name of the applicant and the place of the proposed discharge shall in all cases be made public in the register referred to in subsection (2) of the preceding section.")
The noble Baroness said: I think it would be for the general convenience if the Committee considered this Amendment and Amendment No. 159A, which makes exactly the same point. I understood from what the Minister said that the Government are prepared, in principle at any rate, to accept these Amendments

205
which simply secure that if this clause is maintained in the Bill the register shall include reference to these reserved discharges, or whatever they might be called, so that they cannot be entirely shrouded in secrecy. At least the world will know that a secret discharge is being made at a certain place and by a certain person or enterprise. That will at least get them a little nearer to what I believe is the general intention of the Royal Commission on Environment and Pollution. I beg to move.
LORD ABERDARE: I am prepared to accept these two Amendments in principle. I agree with the noble Baroness that where there is a discharge that the Secretary of State has seen fit to allow to be on the register without full details because it would either be to the detriment of the discharger giving some trade secret away, or not in the public interest, that nevertheless the discharge should be entered on the register. I think that the name of the applicant and the place of the proposed discharge are the two matters that should be listed. I accept the noble Baroness's Amendments. I would like to be able to look at the drafting, because we are not quite certain whether the name of the applicant concerned with the discharge may not be the right one to put in the register. But I will certainly accept it at the moment. We can always make alterations later on.
BARONESS WHITE: I am very much obliged to the noble Lord. However, when he is considering re-drafting this clause, I wonder whether he could also take this point. What he has said about the discharges being subject to the control (which applies to all discharges) is perfectly accurate, but nevertheless I am still concerned about public opinion in these matters. I think it would be very helpful if, when the Secretary of State agrees that there should not be disclosure of these details, it should be regarded at any rate as common form that there should be some indication that the discharge is regarded as not inimical to health or something of that sort. There is an intense suspicion that, for reasons of private gain which could be to the detriment of the public people will escape the provisions which this part of the Bill seeks to provide. I assume that the Secretary of State would not in fact agree
206
if he thought there was any serious danger or detriment to the public. In any case, the water authority would have the information and would have to take steps, presumably, of seeing that the right thing is done in such a way that so far as possible the public would understand that this is so. If there is any method whereby that could be secured, that would help us with this awkward and difficult clause. But since the noble Lord wishes to look again at the drafting, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.27 p.m.
LORD ABERDARE LORD ABERDARE moved Amendment No. 158:
Page 47, line 22, leave out ("(a)") and insert ("(b) or (c)").
The noble Lord said, With the Committee's consent, I will speak to Amendments Nos. 158 and 159 together. After the passing of the present Bill, there will be no more applications under existing Acts. For that reason, the reference to subsection (1)(a) of Clause 34 is incorrect. The references should be to (1)(b) and (1)(c) which deal with information about consents, with conditions attached to them, and about samples which it may be appropriate to exempt from publicity. The Amendment makes this correction.
I beg to move Amendment No. 158.
LORD ABERDARE: I beg to move Amendment No. 159.
Amendment moved—
Page 47, line 24, after ("subject") insert ("or any sample of effluent taken from a discharge to which the consent relates or any information produced by analysis of such a sample ").—(Lord Aberdare.)
Clause 35, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 36 [Publicised discharges not to be restrained]:
4.30 p.m.
LORD ABERDARE LORD ABERDARE moved Amendment No. 160:
Page 47, line 41, leave out ("contract or agreement") and insert ("agreement or undertaking").
The noble Lord said: Clause 36 provides that publicised discharges which are made in accordance with consent and any

207
conditions attached to the consent may not be restrained by injunction, or in Scotland by interdict. Subsection (2) goes on to say that this shall not affect any remedy in respect of a breach of a covenant, contract or agreement. The deletion of the word "contract" is a drafting Amendment since the terms "covenant" and "agreement" will subsume all cases of contracts; while the insertion of the word "undertaking" provides in effect for a unilateral promise as well as for the bilateral agreements that are already covered. I beg to move.
On Question, Whether Clause 36, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: Some years ago I had the honour of being appointed by the then Minister of Agriculture, my noble friend Lord Amory, to be Chairman of a Government Committee to advise on fishery legislation. That Committee reported on March 1, 1961. The Report was unanimous, and I think I can say that it was very well received by the fishing community. By far the most important problem which that Committee had to consider was the question of river pollution, and with your Lordships' leave I propose to refer to certain parts of the Report. It is the Report of the Committee on Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries (Cmnd. 1350).
We dealt with pollution at page 41, paragraph 149. We said—and I quote:
"It became increasingly evident to us, when we received and heard evidence from organisations and individuals concerned with the preservation and improvement of our inland fisheries, that the pollution of our rivers, streams and estuarial waters was, together with the allied problem of water abstraction, the most serious question affecting fisheries. We have been told that for general purposes the term 'pollution' is very hard to define though the condition itself is easily recognisable. Fortunately a criterion to meet our needs is readily available in Section 8 of the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act, 1923, which reads as follows:
'8. (1) No person shall cause or knowingly permit to flow, or put or knowingly permit to be put, into any waters containtaining fish, or into any tributaries thereof, any liquid or solid matter' "—
this is the important point—
"'to such an extent as to cause the waters to be poisonous or injurious to fish or the spawning grounds, spawn or food of fish, and if any person contravenes this subsection
208
he shall be guilty of an offence against this Act'."
On page 42 of the Report, we continued:
"When, therefore, in this report we use the term 'pollution' we mean the putting into any waters of any matter to such an extent as to cause the waters to be poisonous or injurious to fish or the spawning grounds, spawn or food of fish.
150. It was pointed out to us that it would be largely a waste of time to consider such problems as close seasons for fishing, provision of fish passes and penalties for poaching, unless and until the dual threat to our inland fisheries caused by pollution and water abstraction was brought under effective control.
151. In view of the wider aspects of the problem we were fortunate in that a review of legislation affecting pollution was undertaken by a sub-committee (the Armer Committee) of the Central Advisory Water Committee, which began work under the chairmanship of Sir Frederick Armer, K.B.E.. C.B. M.C. shortly before our Committee was set up. Their report was published in January, 1960. We consider that if the recommendations of that committee are implemented the reduction of pollution, which has been in progress ever since the setting up of river boards, will be accelerated, and this must clearly be for the benefit of the fisheries of the country. We welcome the report whole-heartedly.
Remedies Available
152. The remedies available against the polluter are two, namely:

(i) the ancient common law rights available to riparian owners and others with proprietary rights in the fisheries concerned, and

(ii) the statutory powers conferred on river boards and others.

It is, we think, essential to distinguish clearly between these two separate and distinct classes of remedy. The former is a civil remedy available to persons with proprietary rights and enforceable in the civil courts by the granting of injunctions and the award of damages, whilst the latter is a criminal remedy depending on the commission of a statutory offence punishable by fine or imprisonment."
Then comes our recommendation:
"In our view these remedies are, and ought to remain, complementary to each other."
We continued, at paragraph 153:
"Whilst we would agree with the members of the Armer Committee that there is a general desire amongst those discharging effluent into rivers to co-operate in securing their improvement' … we apprehend that there are some who would not hesitate to take advantage of any relaxation or loophole in the law relating to the prevention of pollution, or who might be careless when introducing a new process or when modifying their plant.
154. In this connection we recall the words of Lord Evershed, M.R., in the case of Pride

209
of Derby and Derbyshire Angling Association Ltd., and another—v.—British Celanese, Ltd. and the Derby Corporation and another, 1953, Ch. 149 in which case at page 162 he said:
'But Sir Andrew Clark (who appeared for the Derby Corporation) … went to the length of arguing, if it were necessary, that no injunction ought ever to be granted against a local authority in any circumstances, at any rate in regard to its sewage works. He argued further that an injunction, though negative in form, being mandatory in substance was a means of bringing, as I understand him, some sort of improper pressure to bear upon the Minister in the exercise of his duties in granting licences and so forth, and further it was a wrongful interference with the Corporation's own right to deal with their own problems in such order as they thought fit'.
That argument did not commend itself to the Court of Appeal and an injunction was granted against the Derby Corporation who were discharging, and arguing that they were entitled to continue to discharge, inadequately treated sewage into the River Derwent.
155. In the case of Martell and others—v.— Consett Iron Co. Ltd., 1955, Ch. 363, the Defendants were seriously polluting the waters of another River Derwent. Rather than take steps to cease polluting the river the Defendants attempted to stifle the proceedings by arguing at great length both before Danckwerts J. and the Court of Appeal a highly technical legal point. It was only when this very artificial plea had failed that the Consett Iron Co. Ltd. gave an undertaking to the Court to cease polluting the river and paid substantial damages to the Plaintiffs. In fact the Consett Iron Co. Ltd. ceased polluting immediately thereafter and installed a closed circuit system.
156. That bodies will still exist who would welcome and presumably use any relaxation in the law relating to pollution became evident to us during the examination of witnesses who gave evidence before us, for example:

(i) The British Iron and Steel Federation advanced the view that both the common law and the provisions of Section 8 of the Act of 1923 ought to be relaxed in view of the Act of 1951.

(ii) The National Coal Board also wished to modify both the common law and Section 8 of the Act of 1923 for the same reason.

(iii) The Federation of British Industries wished to see Section 8(1) of the Act of 1923 repealed for the same reason.

(iv) The Gas Board also wished to modify both the common law and Section 8 of the Act of 1923. In addition they asked that the provisions of paragraph 32 of the Third Schedule to the Gas Act, 1948, re-enacting the Gas Works Clauses Act of 1847, should be modified in favour of the particular type of discharge involved in the manufacture of gas.

157. Whilst calling attention to the above evidence it is only fair to record that, generally
210
speaking, we formed the view that industry and many local authorities were anxious to co-operate in lessening the pollution of our rivers, streams and estuarial waters, and we acknowledge that very large sums of money have been expended to that end.
Paragraph 158 reads:
"The majority of the witnesses who gave evidence (either written or oral) before us, however, were unanimous in considering that it was of fundamental importance that the common law remedies should be preserved intact, not least because the right of a fishery owner or riparian owner is a right of property and it would be unusual if this particular kind of right were not protected by the civil courts."
Paragraph 159—and this is our recommendation—reads:
"We would unhesitatingly endorse the recommendations of the majority of the Armer Committee (to the same effect as the recommendations of the Hobday Committee embodied in Section 11(6) of the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Act, 1951), namely, that no alteration should be made in the common law relating to river pollution.
We go on to say:
160. Generally speaking it is, we think, a sound principle to keep civil and criminal remedies and punishments in their own separate and distinct categories. If, for example, one's car is damaged owing to the action of a dangerous driver of another car, damages are recoverable in the civil courts and the dangerous driver can be prosecuted in the criminal courts, and in that way the individual's rights are protected and the dangerous driver is punished for his offence in the interests of public safety. Valuable as the common law remedies against the polluter undoubtedly are they are not, and cannot, constitute the sole remedy. In this connection we would quote from the speech† of Lord Forbes during the debate in the House of Lords on 3rd December, 1959 on the Pollution of Rivers and Estuaries when he said: "From time to time some riparian owners have brought actions against polluters in an attempt to clean up our rivers. Surely, however, the battle of the rivers should be fought not by a few riparian owners, but by the nation". We unanimously endorse this viewpoint. Whilst we welcome wholeheartedly the part played by riparian owners, the duty of protecting our inland fisheries from the activities of the polluter must in the long run rest squarely on the shoulders of the river boards.
161. The common law remedies against the polluter suffer from the following limitations:

(i) They are only available if and when a riparian owner or other person with proprietary rights sees fit to institute what may well be very expensive proceedings, and, even if he does so, he may be content to accept damages and allow the pollution to continue.

(ii) The common law remedy of an injunction is more appropriate to a continuing than to an isolated or temporary pollution.

211

(iii) The common law remedy is not available to protect public rights such as exist in most estuaries.

It would, in our view, be equally erroneous to say that the statutory remedies could safely be relaxed owing to the existence of the common law remedies, as it would be to say that the common law remedies could safely be relaxed owing to the existence of the statutory remedies.
I apologise for reading at some length from that Report, but your Lordships will see that three separate Committees—my Committee, the Hobday Committee and the Antler Committee—reached the same conclusion; namely, that no alteration in any circumstances should be made in the common law relating to river pollution.
This Bill is entitled, somewhat cynically, I think, the Protection of the Environment Bill, and Clause 36 is designed to do away with the right of a fishery owner to obtain an injunction to stop pollution, in direct conflict with the recommendations of all three of those Committees. A curious feature of Clause 36 is that while its purpose is to do away with the right of a fisherman to obtain an injunction (or interdict in Scotland), it purports to preserve the rights to damages. That appears to contemplate a situation in which legalised pollution destroys fish and allows the fishery owner or members of a fishery club to obtain damages. But the truth of the matter is that fishermen do not want damages; they want to catch fish. I suggest to your Lordships that fishing is a healthy recreation, and it is one enjoyed not only by the salmon and trout anglers but by our coarse fishermen; and I am told that they number over 2 million. Their interests are well looked after by the National Federation of Anglers, who gave most useful evidence before my Committee.
These common law rights to obtain injunctions (or interdict in Scotland) have in the past been by far the largest factor in cleaning up our rivers. In the majority of cases that have come before the courts an injunction has been granted against a polluter, but he has always been given time—and plenty of time—to treat his effluent so as to render it harmless. What happens—and I have been engaged in many of these cases—is that the court grants the injunction and gives the polluter anything up to a year or more to put things right.
212
What this Bill appears to contemplate is that pollution which damages a fishery (otherwise why preserve the right to damages?) should be permitted. Generally speaking, I think it is true to say that there are two types of polluters: there are the industrial undertakings and factories, and there are local authorities who are discharging untreated or semi-treated sewage into the rivers. Why should our rivers be polluted so as to enable industrialists to save money for themselves and their shareholders by not treating their effluent properly, or to allow the local authorities to refrain from installing proper sewage treatment plants?
But there is another way of looking at this matter. This right of a fishery owner to obtain an injunction to prevent pollution is simply one example of the ancient common law right belonging to every individual to prevent a nuisance. Let me give an example. If you like in a flat and somebody in the flat above plays loud "pop" music all night, you can get an injunction to stop him. You want a night's sleep: the award of damages is no good to you. Similarly, a fisherman or fishing club or riparian owner wants to catch fish; it is no consolation to him, when he gets no fish, that the fishery owner gets damages. Take, for example, the coarse fishermen. What comfort is it to them if some riparian owner who has let the fishing to them gets maybe a considerable sum in damages? The fishing is ruined; no more fish, no more sport; and, incidentally, the owner cannot get any more damages because once the damage is done there are no fish and there is no more damage. Why should the normal common law rights—very ancient rights—to obtain injunctions against nuisances, against torts, be taken away in the special case of polluted rivers? In my submission this is a very serious inroad into our ancient and well-established common law rights, and I cannot believe that it would commend itself to our judges and lawyers.
In this connection I have a letter from the Lord Chief Justice, who unfortunately cannot be here this afternoon. What he says is this:
"I doubt if I shall be able to get down to the House of Lords … but I shall be with you in spirit.
"I was in one of the Anglers' Co-operative Association cases when I was at the Bar, and I know what good work they did in preventing

213
the deterioration of the rivers which was then going on. They established that the private rights of the riparian owner were paramount, and were to be maintained despite arguments to the contrary based on so-called public interest. The present Bill makes it perfectly clear that if a consent to pollute is given by one of the appropriate authorities, the riparian owner will have no right to seek a remedy by injunction, though he can get damages for what they are worth. At a time when our rivers are getting cleaned up and are I believe, very much better than they were when the A.C.A. started their campaign, it seems to me to be a retrograde step to take away one of the most effective weapons which has contributed to the clearing-up. I wish you well."
That is a letter from the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Widgery. I have a similar letter from the Master of the Rolls, Lord Denning, who I rather hoped would be here this evening, but it is difficult for him to get away.
What I say is that Clause 36, if it is allowed to become law, will constitute a serious inroad into our common law. There have been three Committees who have considered this matter, and all three have recommended that on no account should this right be taken away. The Government are flying in the face of the recommendations of all three Committees, and I ask your Lordships to leave out Clause 36.
4.52 p.m.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: The noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, has made a powerful speech in relation to this clause, and with his experience as Chairman of the Committee whose Report he quoted he speaks with authority. Some days ago, in the course of some observation on an earlier Amendment, I ventured to express the opinion that this Bill weakens the existing law. At that time I had particularly in mind this provision in Clause 36.
I have already complained of the slanting, as it seems to me, of the Bill against riparian owners and others with legal interests in rivers. In referring to that I have not been thinking only of those with fishery interests because the provision goes far wider than affecting merely those with fishery interests. I am not against the water authority having all the powers it should have and all the duties imposed upon it which this Bill suggests. But this Bill seeks to put a water authority over and above the law in relation to a consent which the water authority, in the exercise of its discretion, has given for the discharge of polluting matter. For that I can
214
see no justifiable reason at all. Why should the rights of individuals—and not only of individuals—be restricted because a water authority has given a consent to, say, an industrialist to make a polluting discharge? I can see no reason for it. When I say "not only the rights of individuals", I say it for this reason. I have received communications—I hasten to say that they were entirely unsolicited—from the British Waterways Board severely criticising this decision and saying that if it is carried into effect it will considerably inhibit them in their efforts to keep canal waters clean. They have found—and it is no doubt the case—that an injunction is a very effective weapon.
I have myself had experience on both sides. I remember years ago being in a court where the Thames Conservancy, who are not concerned only with fisheries, were prosecuting in respect of very serious pollution in a river which flows into the Thames. They were prosecuting the local authority in the borough magistrates' court. I am sorry to say that on that occasion—and it is many years ago now—there was a very considerable miscarriage of justice. The Thames Conservancy, although they made two attempts which ought to have succeeded, did not succeed in obtaining a conviction at all. It was then left to a riparian owner to bring proceedings in the civil court for an injunction. The application was strenuously fought. I was in the case, and it lasted, according to my recollection, 31 days. In the end, the injunction was obtained and the pollution, which in those days the Thames Conservancy had failed to achieve, was prevented. I have been on the other side, defending a borough corporation for causing pollution—and on that occasion not unsuccessfully. So I agree with my noble friend that one really ought to have both these remedies.
I think it is true to say that the industrial polluter is more frightened of an injunction than he is of a prosecution. He may be fined as a result of a prosecution, and if he likes, he can run the risk of being fined again. It may be far less expensive for him to pay the fines than it is to put the matter right and stop the pollution. In the same way, he may much prefer to pay damages and go on polluting. This particular clause preserves the right of the riparian owner to obtain damages. But the one thing the

215
polluter hates is to be told that what he is doing in polluting our rivers and our waters has got to stop. I really do not understand why this Bill, which is concerned with the protection of the environment, should take away the right of those with proprietary interests to seek to obtain an injunction.
It is not everyone who can go along to the courts and ask for an injunction. It must be requested by someone who has a legal interest, such as the British Waterways Board, or a private individual, or an angling club. That person must be able to show that damage will be suffered by him because of the discharge. So it is not just anyone who can go along and ask for an injunction. Proceedings for an injunction are expensive and are not lightly undertaken. At the end of the day, the granting of an injunction is a discretionary remedy. Even though the court is satisfied that pollution is occurring and has occurred, it does not follow that it will then grant an injunction. The court has discretion as to whether to do so or not, and I venture to think that where a water authority, which I assume will be and is entirely responsible, has been given consent to a discharge of polluting matter it will need a strong case to induce one of Her Majesty's judges to the conclusion that it would be right to grant an injunction. But such cases may occur. And the fact that it requires a strong case to bring about that result is no argument for taking away that power from the court, as this clause proposes.
Let us consider what happens. The injunction, if granted, is, in my experience, always suspended to give a polluter time within which to operate and put the matter right. It may be suspended for 12 months. If at the end of the 12 months the polluter has done nothing he may expect very serious consequences. If he shows that he has made a real effort but has not quite completed the task, then I have no doubt—and it has happened—the suspension of the injunction will be continued. I see no reason why the powers of the court in this respect should be limited as this clause proposes. I cannot think why the clause is in the Bill at all. I do not think I need add anything except to say that I hope we shall succeed this afternoon in removing
216
it; and if the Minister does not agree to its being removed, I hope that on this occasion the noble Baroness will not feel embarrassed in accompanying me into the Division Lobby.
5.1 p.m.
LORD STOW HILL: My name is down to the Amendment to leave out Clause 36. Had it not been, I would not have presumed to take the time of the Committee by offering any observations after the two most powerful speeches to which we have just listened. I will endeavour to be very brief. This, clause, in my submission, is a most extraordinary clause in principle. I speak in the presence of three extremely distinguished judges. We are to put them in the position of hearing a case, finding on the evidence and the argument that the case is established, that the rights of some private individual or possibly a body like the British Waterways Board have been infringed, that there has been a breach of the law and a civil wrong has been established. Having come to that conclusion they are then to say, "Certainly we can award damages here. Our own view is that justice requires that we should in addition grant an injunction. Damages is not, in our view, in the circumstances of this case a sufficient remedy. But we cannot grant an injunction." They look with some dismay and puzzlement through this Bill to try to discover why, what is behind it. I should have thought that their researches in that regard could only lead to growing bewilderment on their part, as it certainly does on mine.
It seems to me this is a completely topsy-turvy clause without any kind of justification in principle that I can possibly think of. It is not as if learned judges automatically granted injunctions when they found that some civil right had been infringed. As the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, has pointed out, they consider very carefully, in the circumstances of each case, whether in addition to any damages which they feel they ought to award it would be appropriate, and justice would require, that they should grant an injunction. Very often an injunction—and I speak with hesitation before them, in view of their very great experience—is the only really effective remedy which is appropriate to the circumstances of a

217
given case; damages would be quite inadequate. Nevertheless, they cannot proceed to do what they think in the circumstances is just. They have to say to themselves, "No, we are to be inhibited by a completely unintelligibly worded clause", or section, as it would be at that time.
I do not want to take up the time of the Committee further, but I very respectfully urge upon your Lordships that in principle and as a matter of justice and common sense this clause cannot conceivably be justified. If the assumed polluter has obtained consent, he is excused from a risk of any criminal proceedings being taken against him so long as he acts within the terms of the consent. But if, besides that, he infringes somebody else's rights, for some reason he cannot be ordered by the courts to do what justice requires and submit to an injunction to stop him from continuing the unlawful action upon which he has been shown to be engaged. I beg to support this Amendment.
THE EARL OF COURTOWN: I speak with diffidence in the face of so much legal eminence. I have no legal training myself, and I speak only with such common sense as I believe I have. This clause has to be looked at in relation to the whole Bill. Here we now have water authorities with great powers to deal with the polluter. The water authority have indeed the main responsibility of seeing that all emissions are of an acceptable standard of purity. The applicant for consent has to make his case, and the water authority can call on various sorts of technical knowledge to help them make a decision. Others who think they may be affected have ample opportunity to make submissions. In my opinion to allow them also to seek injunctions would duplicate the safeguards which the water authority exercise, without deploying the equivalent technical expertise.
If the clause is deleted, a man who is running a business, who has gone through all the procedures of obtaining a consent, has been subject to all the tests which have had to be met, and has put in whatever plant is necessary or is regarded as necessary by the water authority, may find his whole livelihood and those of his employees put at risk—this in spite of the fact that he has taken all these precautions. This seems most
218
inequitable. I hope the Government will strongly resist this Amendment.
LORD DENNING: May I say one word? I think it is over twenty years now since we had the Pride of Derby case, and we granted an injunction to prevent the pollution of our rivers by sewage, which was claimed to be justifiable. We gave the particular corporation opportunity, over a period of time, to remedy it, but we did grant an injunction and I think it succeeded. Ever since that time the remedy by injunction has been one of the most powerful remedies for ensuring the cleanliness of our rivers.
As I understand it, the point in this Bill is that the remedy of injunction is to be taken away from our courts. It is said, "Well, all the tests will have been gone through. The consent of the water authority will have been obtained". That is to put the ultimate decision not in the hands of the judges but in the hands of an executive authority. It is not as though the judges would exercise this power unwisely. If the consent is produced, they will certainly take it into account. If it is a case in which damages would be an adequate remedy, the court can certainly take that into account and award damages in lieu of an injunction. But this Bill would go further. It would take away the remedy of the courts in respect of an injunction. I see no necessity for it whatsoever. The consent certainly will be taken into account, the remedy by damages will be taken into account; but ultimately the power of the courts to award an injunction should, and I suggest must, remain in the judges, to maintain the cleanliness of our rivers.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: I am not a lawyer, nor am I a fisherman. I am a representative, perhaps, of the other users of the waterways, of whom there are many. I myself am a navigator, but there are far more numerous users of the waterways, who are not navigators but who are walkers, campers, all sorts of people who enjoy these waterways in all manners. Over all these years, we have, however, been at a disadvantage compared with the fishermen.
We have not been able to protect our waterways with an injunction because we have had no visible rights for which an injunction could be granted. However,

219
we have been perfectly aware that our waterways have been protected by the army of fishermen that we see sitting along the banks. While the fishermen are where they are, we are aware that there are fish, and that the water is therefore of a certain standard of purity. In this manner, the fishermen are in fact the front line fighters. They have the weapon in their hands, and they protect the waterways. More strength to their rods, say I. I will certainly go into the Lobby to remove this clause from the Bill.
5.11 p.m.
LORD ENERGLYN: I should like to support the noble Lords who have placed a very powerful case before the Government. It cannot be too often repeated that this clause has the effect of removing the common law rights of a riparian owner to take proceedings in the courts for an injunction. I am aware that the Report of the Royal Commission on the Environment and Pollution suggests that this might be a safeguard against unwarranted common law actions, but I am very reluctant to see this well based type of attack disappear. As has been said, it was all due to the initiative of the Pride of Derby Anglers Association in taking common law proceedings in 1954 against the Derby Corporation and Celanese that largely cleared up the River Derwent, in spite of the apathy on the part of the local authorities at that time.
At a recent meeting of the Nottingham University Environmental Studies Group, which was founded by generous grants from Allied Breweries, the subject of this clause was discussed in great depth. I was impressed by the evidence that I heard from such professors as Professor Lees and Professor Garner, concerning this very clause. This afternoon all this evidence has been endorsed, and I should like to join with the three noble Lords in pressing their plea to the Government to remove this clause.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: May I say one word in reply to the noble Earl, Lord Courtown. The industrialist he instanced who has gone to all the trouble of getting in the consents and everything else, runs no risk at all of proceedings for an injunction unless, at the end of the day, he discharges a polluting liquid.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: May I plead for one moment, as a practical riparian owner who has had fishing which has been enjoyed by charabancs full of men from Northumberland, Durham, and the Lowlands of Scotland. It is not the riparian owner wanting fishing for himself; it is the riparian owners' wish to preserve the cleanliness of our rivers. The decision Parliament has to come to will affect many millions of ordinary common folk's enjoyment.
I had knowledge of the three committees the noble Lord, Lord Bledisloe, spoke about. I was appalled when I saw this clause in the Bill, because really it is making it the polluters' charter. As a riparian owner, I am not interested in receiving damages once, and then the polluter being able to go on week after week, month after month, year after year; I am interested in the river remaining clean. So long as this clause remains in the Bill, I fear that that remains in doubt.
BARONESS WHITE: The noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, has my sympathy. So far he has had only one articulate friend in the House. I realise that the Government probably have a stronger case than has been admitted in the debate so far, and I suspect that the new clause which is to be substituted for Clause 39 was drafted partly with a view to meeting the kind of criticism which the Government were well aware was going to come on Clause 36.
It is not customary from this side of the House to support landowners of any description, and normally I should be one of the last persons to do so. However, I have been impressed by the arguments put forward on two counts. First is the undoubted record of the riparian owners, whether acting for themselves or on behalf of others, in the sense of persons who have interests in the fishing, and the undoubted success of their activity in the past few years in cleaning up the rivers. This is an historic fact, and no one would wish for one moment to dispute it. The other aspect which moves me is that, although the Government in the other provisions of the Bill have very significantly altered the context in which all these matters must be considered, nevertheless they are seeking to take from a citizen a right which has subsisted not quite from

221
time immemorial but for a very long time.
It may seem a little odd that from this Bench we should take a rather unradical view of the law, but it appeals to me that here is the right of an individual to seek an injunction which the courts can, in their discretion, grant or not grant according to the circumstances, as has been eloquently explained to us. It seems to me contrary to the whole spirit of the rule of law in this country, that in this instance we should, even for quite good administrative reasons, which I grant, remove from the citizen a right which he now enjoys. It is for those reasons that, unless in their wisdom the Government recognise the feeling that has been abundantly displayed in the House and accept the proposition put before them, I should certainly advise my noble friends to support the noble Lords who have moved that this clause be deleted from the Bill.
5.18 p.m.
LORD ABERDARE: I have listened with great attention and interest to all that has been said in this short debate on Clause 36. To begin with I should like to give your Lordships the reasons for this clause being included in the Bill. It is impossible to do so without considering other provisions in Part II of the Bill and the whole range of new proposals for the control of water pollution contained in the Bill. That is the reason why I do not think that it is a valid argument for my noble friend Lord Bledisloe to bring up as a complete answer that three committees have recommended in a certain direction, because in fact the situation is completely altered by this Bill, and the new situation will be quite different from that which obtained when those committees were sitting.
I shall not detain your Lordships very long. May I summarise the control measures which were put in the Bill to control pollution and to replace the injunction power which has existed hitherto. In the first place, anyone seeking consent to discharge will have to advertise the fact, and will have to give other interested persons the right to object. This is a completely new provision. Secondly, a consent once given will be registered by the regional water authority and will be available to the general public together with details of any conditions attached to the consent and
222
analyses of samples of effluent discharged. As we have already mentioned this afternoon, all that information has hitherto been confidential and the task of the plaintiff in a civil action under common law has been made more difficult as a result. In future, full information will be available on the registers and this will be of substantial help to any plaintiff.
In the third place, should any third party have cause for complaint about a particular discharge they can, of course, approach the regional water authority who have a statutory duty to ensure the wholesomeness of their waters. If they agree with the complaint, then they have ample powers under Clauses 30 and 31 to revoke their consent or to alter the conditions of their consent. A fourth provision is that a third party also has legal remedies even if Clause 36 remains in the Bill. In the first place, they could seek an injunction against anyone discharging without consent or discharging in breach of the conditions of consent. In the second place, there is no change whatever in their right to apply to the court for damages caused by a discharge. However, it would clearly be undesirable that someone with a valid consent could go on causing pollution even if he is paying periodically for the damage caused. That is the reason why, as the noble Baroness, Lady White, correctly stated, we are proposing to amend the Bill by the new Clause 39 which will give a regional water authority powers to forestall and remedy pollution of water. This, I think, is the answer to my noble friend Lord Bledisloe that the pollution would not be allowed to continue because the regional water authority would have a duty to remedy it.
Finally, the sixth provision in this Bill that I would mention as a longstop, is Clause 30(2) by which the Secretary of State has powers to direct the regional water authority to vary or revoke a consent, and he has default powers under Clause 86. We felt that here was a formidable armoury of new weapons against water pollution but—and I have listened with great interest—a number of your Lordships who are very experienced in the law have argued that this is still not right and sufficient and that the right to an injunction should remain in the judges' hands, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, put it. The difficulty is that there are two sides to the equation in Part II of the Bill. The first side is

223
the need for strong action to curb pollution; the second, as mentioned by my noble friend Lord Courtown, is the need for industry and others to use our waterways to discharge their effluent. Much as we may deplore it, the second requirement is essential and it is important that we should recognise it. Already the Bill lays strict conditions on industrial discharges. Is it really fair to go further and say that even though he has to reveal publicly the exact nature of his discharge, even though he gets consent from the regional water authority, even though he abides rigidly by the terms of that consent, he may yet find that his discharge will be halted by an injunction in the courts?
The Second Report of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution recognised that confidentiality as it exists at present protects industry,
"against the risk of common law actions of against misconceived or ill-formed allegations that the environment is being dangerously polluted. We fully agree that those industrialists who are concerned to abate pollution are justified in wanting some safeguard against risks of this sort",
and it suggests that one safeguard would be for the courts to accept the defence that a water authority has given consent for the discharge to be made. That is how the present Bill is drafted and that is the reason why we included Clause 36. We followed the recommendation in this respect of the Royal Commission.
Having said that, I must recognise the force and the weight of the opinions that have been expressed in this House this evening, that it would be wrong to remove this common law right from the individual. At the same time, we are concerned to protect industry against unnecessary interference with a consent which has once been granted—and I took note of what was said by the noble and learned Viscount on that point, that if a consent had already been given by a regional water authority this could well influence the courts in deciding whether or not to grant an injunction. In these circumstances, I am prepared to advise the Committee to omit Clause 36 on the understanding that we shall be allowed to look at it very closely again, and perhaps to amend the Bill when it goes to another place in order to see whether it is necessary to introduce some restriction on those who might seek an injunction
224
for this purpose. We would only wish to be sure that there is no loophole, no chance of a frivolous application for an injunction being granted. I do not know whether perhaps it could be limited to a person who can show that he has suffered damage as a result of the discharge. I am only asking your Lordships, if we take the clause out here, to reconsider it to see whether, in order to reassure those industrialists who have real worries about this matter, we could draw it a little tighter. In general, and subject to that proviso, I am convinced by what your Lordships have said to-night that it would not be right to continue with this clause.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: I would say thank you to the noble Lord for what he has said. I have no objection at all to his saying that he would like to consider the matter to see whether it is necessary to insert a provision to stop frivolous applications for injunctions and to stop injunctions being granted almost automatically. I am perfectly certain that when he takes proper legal advice as to the situation he will find that there is not the slightest possibility of what he might call a frivolous application for an injunction being granted by the courts. The only persons who can apply are people who rightly think that their legal interests will be damaged or who have suffered damage and then, as I said before, it is a discretionary remedy which the court is not bound to grant. I know that there are fears by industrialists that this will be abused, but I think those fears are totally unfounded and I am grateful to the noble Lord for what he has said.
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: I should like to endorse what my noble and learned friend Lord Dilhorne has said. As I understand the Government's attitude, it is this: that with all the powers given to the river authorities there will be no need for civil actions or injunctions. That may or may not be so, but if that is so nobody would be more pleased than the fishing community, but it is one thing to say that actions by people with interests in fisheries will not be necessary because certain statutory bodies will look after things. All the better if they are not necessary. It is quite another thing to take away an old-established common law right to get an injunction against

225
a nuisance unless there is some overriding reason to take it away. There is no reason to take it away. It may simply be a long-stop, but to take away an old-established principle of our common law without any overriding reason would be disgraceful.
But having heard what my noble friend Lord Aberdare has said, I think we can leave the matter where it is. As I have always understood the law, no court will grant an injunction unless some harm is done to a river. Let me take the case of Pride of Derby, to which my noble and learned friend Lord Denning has referred. They were polluting a river with sewage, and an injunction was granted which was upheld in the Court of Appeal. They were then given time to put the matter right. What they were putting back into the river was still a foreign substance, but it was doing no damage so the injunction did not bite at all. An injunction is meant to prevent harm being done to a river. That is all it does, and it will not be granted when no harm is being done. So if that is what my noble and learned friend is worried about, I do not think he has any cause for concern.
Clause 36, as amended, disagreed to.
Clause 37 [Control of discharges into sewers]:
5.32 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND SCIENCE (LORD SANDFORD)THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND SCIENCE (LORD SANDFORD) moved Amendment No. 161:
Page 48, line 26, after ("and") insert ("to").
The noble Lord said: This is no more than a drafting Amendment. Section 55 of the Public Health Act 1961 relates to charges which may be made for certain discharges into public sewers, and Section 59 relates to conditions which may be imposed as to the permitted temperature of the effluent and other matters. "Charges" and "conditions" are distinct subjects and each is entitled to its own proposition. I beg to move.
LORD SANDFORD LORD SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 162:
Page 48, line 28, leave out ("date aforesaid") and insert ("appointed day").
The noble Lord said: This Amendment makes a small change to Clause 37(2). As subsection (2) is drafted, deemed consent is given on the appointed day for the discharge in the form in which it was lawfully made immediately before the date of passing of the Act, and subject to the conditions, if any, then in force. The result is that an interval is left between the date of passing of the Act and the appointed day, during which charges and conditions could not effectively be imposed or varied under the powers of Sections 55 and 57 of the Public Health Act 1961. By substituting "appointed day" for "date aforesaid" in line 28, the Amendment ensures that the clause remains subject to the relevant 1961 Act provision up to the appointed day. I beg to move.
5.34 p.m.
LORD CRAIGTON LORD CRAIGTON moved Amendment No. 162A:
Page 50, line 1, leave out ("such") and insert ("the").
The noble Lord said: Under subsection (10) of Clause 37 the appointed day could be delayed indefinitely. This clause is only a machinery clause, but its effect is that the longer the appointed day is delayed the longer it is before records of discharges are kept. I see no reason for delaying the implementation of this provision, and I shall be glad to hear what the Minister has to say, I beg to move.
LORD SANDFORD: I am glad to respond to my noble friend, and to explain why this subsection needs to be related in this way to the appointed day for the coming into force of the whole Act. The Committee will see that the Royal Assent to this Bill will start the whole process of the serving of the notices concerned in relation to those discharges which have hitherto been exempted since 1937. But the Royal Assent does not govern the coming into force of the Act itself, the timing of which is left to the judgment of the Secretary of State through the operation of Clause 97(2); and I notice that my noble friend Lord Craigton is not objecting to that aspect. From the point of view of the water authorities, the process of taking action under Clause 37 and converting the deemed consents into actual consents, in respect of the discharges which have been exempted

227
since 1937, must be phased in relation to all the other duties under this Bill; that is, in relation to the date of the coming into force of the Act as decided by the Secretary of State, rather than in relation to the fixed date of the Royal Assent. It is for that reason that the subsection has to be related in this way to the appointed day.
LORD CRAIGTON: The Committee will realise that I put down this Amendment because some concern has been expressed in some quarters. I am grateful to my noble friend for his explanation. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 37, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
5.36 p.m.
BARONESS WHITE: I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, to enlighten us on the question of Private Acts. I gave notice of this question earlier when we discussed Clause 23. I am sorry if the noble Lord has not been briefed on this subject, but I referred specifically to it and to the clause on which I proposed to raise it again. I do so because it has been brought to my notice that there are Private Acts which deal with discharges of trade effluent into public sewers, and it appears to me that under the Bill the position will remain just as it is to-day. If the control of discharges of trade effluent into a public sewer is subject to the provisions of a Private Act, it will be possible for it to continue and this Bill will make no difference. If I am wrong, I shall be glad to be told so, and told precisely what will happen.
Under a Private Act, industrial effluent in the very important industrial city of Huddersfield can be discharged into the public sewers, and the present authorities have no control over toxic waste that may enter the sewers. Equally, so far as they can see, the new regional water authority will have no control over toxic waste, because the dischargers will be able to say, "We are doing this under Private Act legislation." The Huddersfield Act was passed in 1906 and it allows industry in Huddersfield virtually unrestricted access to the sewers for the disposal of their trade wastes. It is suggested by my correspondent that this is likely to be a major problem in the
228
control and treatment of the sewage of Huddersfield, and he queries whether anything in the proposed legislation is likely to affect such a Private Act.
I understand that a similar situation has arisen in neighbouring industrial areas. There was an occasion last year, in 1973, when Spenborough fought a court case. Also I think there was a separate action by Beverley, about a tannery effluent, where they fought the action and won. In our earlier discussions it appeared to us that the Government had not given much thought to the problem of these Private Acts and did not seem to have any scheme for dealing with them. As we said at the time, they are, of course, a very difficult area of legislation, because some of them are of very long standing, many of them cover many subjects other than sewers and sewerage, and to have to go through every one of them to see whether by any chance it said anything about trade effluent being discharged to sewers would be a most laborious job. But it does not seem to me beyond the wit of man, nevertheless, that in legislation we should find some method to ensure that those who wish to discharge into the public sewers, even if they are covered by private legislation at the moment, are brought into the general system of consents; because it really is nonsense to have a Bill of this sort, which purports to control pollution of this kind, and to leave certain places—I have given a couple of examples of really very important towns with a good deal of industrial activity—outwith the legislation.
I am told that the matter of charges, which was referred to, can be altered, that there are arrangements for dealing with that, but that the quality of the discharge is not at present amenable to regulation by the authorities concerned Therefore, before we add this clause to the Bill I think this is the appropriate place to inquire just what the Government think they are going to do to meet the situation I have described.
LORD SANDFORD: I am glad to have this opportunity. The noble Baroness is quite right when she says that this is not covered in Clause 37, but there is provision which will enable what she wants done to be done by the Secretary of State under Clause 96(3). I apologise to the noble Baroness and the Committee,

229
because I could perhaps have made this clear when I referred to this same clause and subsection when dealing with her Amendment No. 136B. She raised a query then about how local Acts were to be dealt with, and it is this same clause which is operative in both cases.
BARONESS WHITE: Is the noble Lord satisfied that there will be adequate information available for the Secretary of State to take action? I think the noble Lord said on the previous occasion that he thought that probably the water authority could cope with it.
LORD SANDFORD: Of course, it is perfectly true, as the noble Baroness herself said—and I think I said it on the previous occasion—that there is an enormous number of these Acts, and it is because of the uncertainty about which ones allow what effluents that it is not possible to go into more detail than we have here; but there is sufficient power here to deal with the problem that the noble Baroness has outlined. When it is found that there is some discharge of polluting matter going on and that the explanation for it is that it has been authorised by some earlier local Act which is still in force, that is the point at which the Secretary of State can take the action which he is empowered to take. I should be glad to go into the particular cases which the noble Baroness has mentioned and to reassure her that this provision would be adequate to deal with those cases, if that would help.
BARONESS WHITE: But I am sure the noble Lord will appreciate that what he is saying is that action can be taken after the event. As I understand it, there is no need for notification by persons who are relying on the local Act. I quite appreciate that the knowledge that Clause 96 is in the Bill would have some deterrent force, but it seems to me to be unsatisfactory that no notification whatever need be given of a new effluent. It will presumably be left for somebody to complain about it before the regional water authority find out about it; but, meanwhile, the effluent will have occurred and will be able to go on until the Secretary of State takes action under Clause 96. I must apologise; perhaps I did not make
230
myself clear enough, because we have discussed this before and I should have mentioned Clause 96, to which the noble Lord had drawn my attention on the previous occasion.
It is this element about it that it must be retroactive which worries me; and what I should have made plainer is that I would hope that nevertheless the Government might be able to find some way to make it necessary for anyone who wished to introduce any fresh discharges, at any rate under private legislation, to notify the appropriate authority that it is going to do so. I should have thought that something on those lines would at least make certain that we would not get any new discharges. The old ones are presumably rather well known already, but there is this loophole, that some kind of noxious waste could be discharged and it might take quite a little while before it could be dealt with. So I should be grateful if the noble Lord would look at that aspect again.
LORD SANDFORD: Yes, I will look at it. I do not think the problem lies with the new discharges. There will be ample opportunity for my right honourable friend to look at local Acts in the course of their passage through Parliament and to object if there is not a sufficiently stringent provision to bring any discharges there might be relating to them under control. But I agree with the noble Baroness that the problem is the existing, old local Acts under which fresh discharges may be made under authority which has been given in the past. I assure her that this is a problem which we are not satisfied we have satisfactorily concluded. The problem remains in the case of these older Acts in a way that it does not remain in the case of the discharges exempted by the 1937 Act. The noble Baroness is perfectly right: there is a problem here which will run on until the authority to make these discharges has been discovered. How we can make further progress meanwhile is a matter on which we are still working, and if I have any more information to give the noble Baroness during the course of the passage of the Bill I will see that that is done.
Clause 37, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 38 [Early variation of conditions of discharges]:
LORD SANDFORD LORD SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 163:
Page 50, line 25, after ("required") insert ("—(a)").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 163 and I should like at the same time to speak to Nos. 164, 165 and 166, which are all linked. This group of four drafting Amendments merely matches the drafting provisions in Clause 38, dealing with the obligations on a water authority, with similar provisions in Clause 31, dealing with another lot of consents to discharge to relevant waters. This is purely a matter of drafting, and I beg to move Amendment No. 163.
LORD SANDFORD: I beg to move Amendment No. 164.
Amendment moved—
Page 50, line 26, leave out ("including") and insert ("which may include").—(Lord Sandford.)
LORD SANDFORD: I beg to move Amendment No. 165.
Amendment moved—
Page 50, line 30, leave out ("which").(Lord Sandford.)
LORD SANDFORD: I beg to move Amendment No. 166:
Amendment moved—
Page 50, line 31, at end insert ("and
(b) otherwise than in consequence of consents for discharges given after the beginning of that period;").—(Lord Sandford.)
Clause 38, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 39 [Powers of water authorities to forestall and remedy pollution of water]:
5.50 p.m.
THE EARL OF COURTOWN THE EARL OF COURTOWN moved Amendment No. 166A:
Page 51, line 26, leave out ("that person satisfies") and insert ("the water authority fails to satisfy").
The noble Earl said: I beg to move Amendment No. 166A and, with the leave of the Committee, I will speak also to
232
Amendment No. 166B. The Government have down a replacement clause for Clause 39, but the same general point emerges as in the old Clause 39. I am not quarrelling to any material extent with the content of this clause, but to exercise its functions under Clause 39(1) the water authority needs to compile information on what operations to stop any pollution which is going on were necessary and the costs. The object of these two Amendments is to place on the water authority the onus to justify its action and the cost thereof. At present, it is placed on the person. That person has to satisfy the county court that the operations were unnecessary for the purpose for which they were carried out.
The water authority must have gathered together all the information necessary for it to take the action which it decided was required. Therefore there is no great difficulty in the authority coming to the county court and stating the reasons for that action. It is much more difficult for the person affected to find out what were the reasons and to try to assess whether or not the action was necessary. I would add that the person affected is much more likely to be a small firm than a larger firm with greater resources. The effect of the Amendment would be that the water authority, having compiled all the information, would go to the county court to claim on the person affected for the cost of the operations that it had decided were necessary to be carried out. This seems to me much more sensible and fair.
BARONESS WHITE: I am afraid that I do not feel entirely convinced, at any rate so far, about the merits of this Amendment which, as the noble Earl has rightly pointed out, would apply equally to subsection (6)(a) of the substituted clause. As I understand it in the circumstances described at somewhat greater length in the proposed substituted clause, it would be regarded as the normal thing that costs should be recovered. Therefore it seems to me that the Bill has got it right: that the normal thing is that the person should pay the costs and if he contests them as being unjustified, because the expenditure incurred was unnecessary, surely it is up to the person appealing against the normal procedure to make his case. The fact that the water authority may have fuller information

233
would not necessarily affect the position of the person putting his point of view to the county court, because the court would appreciate that it might not get such full technical details from the person appealing as from the water authority. But that does not seem to me to alter the balance of the intention of the clause. I do not know what is the Government's view, but my view is not in favour of the Amendment.
LORD ABERDARE: That is my view, too. This Amendment is not one that I could recommend the Committee to accept. As the two Amendments stand, they would have the effect—which I am sure is unintended by my noble friend—of obliging the water authority to go to the county court every time it wished to recover casts, whether the person concerned was contesting liability or not. That is only a matter of drafting, I admit. But there would still remain the human difficulty. If you say to a man, who knows that he is liable for some pollution damage which the water authority has put right, that he need not pay the costs, unless he wishes, unless the water authority goes to the county court and proves to the court's satisfaction that all the operations it had undertaken were necessary, you are almost inviting the man to postpone payment in the slight hope that the water authority will not perhaps trouble to go to the court. I do not think we should go so far as that to help someone who has caused pollution. We do not expect the water authority to invoke this provision except in an emergency. We think it right that when authorities do invoke it there should be the presumption that their costs would be met by the person causing the pollution, unless he can show that an authority has carried out work unnecessarily. This seems fair and right to me. I am sure that it is something which would happen only on rare occasions, but when it does I think that we should stick to the general principle that the polluter pays.
THE EARL OF COURTOWN: I am sorry to hear that the Government will not accept this Amendment, and that it does not receive any support from noble Lords opposite. I would not in any way quarrel with the idea that the polluter pays. The question is really, what is the most convenient way to collect the money from him. I would have thought
234
that it would be much easier for the water authority to put the information before the county court. Indeed, it is not at all clear how the person affected would gain the information why the water authority had taken the action that it took. There is no obligation put on the authority, so far as I can see, to give this information to the person affected. But having made that point, and after hearing the remarks of the Government spokesman, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.0 p.m.
LORD MOLSON LORD MOLSON moved Amendment No. 166E:
Page 51, line 29, leave out paragraph (b).
The noble Lord said: We have had a discussion about polluting water which may come from an abandoned mine. My noble friend Lord Sandford explained to us, in what I thought was quite a convincing speech, that the extremely difficult problem of a mine abandoned in the past, for which there might be no obvious owner at the present time, made it impossible for him to accept the Amendment on the subject moved by the noble Baroness, Lady White. He undertook that there would be further consideration of this general problem. I see no reason, however, why we should have postponed indefinitely the right of a water authority to obtain from any ascertainable owner of an abandoned mine the cost of carrying out necessary works for dealing with the effluent from that abandoned mine.
For the sake of simplicity, I have written out the words that would be operative if this Amendment of mine were accepted:
"Where it appears to a water authority that any poisonous, noxious or polluting matter is likely to enter … any relevant waters in the area of the authority, the authority may

(a) carry out such operations … and

(b) recover the cost of carrying out the operations from any person who caused or knowingly permitted the matter … to enter the relevant waters.

Any dispute as to the liability of the persons to pay … shall be determined by the county court."
My noble friend Lord Sandford pointed out that in the case of a long-abandoned mine the only person apparently in possession of it might be a farmer who was running sheep, and there would be no justification whatsoever for trying to

235
make him liable for the cost of dealing with polluting water.
This Amendment avoids that difficulty because any dispute as to liability of the person to pay shall be determined by the county court, and also it is covered by the earlier provisison
"who caused or knowingly permitted the matter … to enter the relevant waters".
I see no reason why we should indefinitely delay requiring those who are ascertain-ably responsible for polluting water coming from an abandoned mine—after the county court have tried the case—to pay to the water authority for those works which are necessarily carried out to deal with this continuing nuisance.
LORD ABERDARE: I am grateful to my noble friend for drawing attention to this problem. I will certainly study what he has said. He did mention that he found convincing the speech of my noble friend Lord Sandford. I am afraid that my speech is really modelled on the same lines as that my noble friend, and that we find a point of considerable difficulty here although we realise that water overflowing from disused mines may cause considerable pollution. Indeed, the cost of preventing it can be heavy. We are up against this difficulty, which my noble friend has mentioned, that the person now owning the disused mine may have bought it for quite another purpose and may be using it for grazing sheep or for some other agricultural object. It really would not be right to saddle him with the cost of taking whatever measures are necessary to prevent the pollution. I realise that this is an extremely difficult problem, and of course the Bill takes the first step of enabling the water authorities to investigate these problems in Clause 42.
I would suggest to my noble friend that it is better to leave the Bill as it stands, and when we have a better idea of what can be done, what the likely costs will be and what the benefit will be, we can then decide what arrangements should be made and who should pay for this remedial work. Meanwhile, we think it right to leave water authorities with the power under Clause 39(1) to prevent or remedy pollution from this source if they see an urgent need in a particular case to anticipate any general arrangements
236
that may in due course be made. It would not, in our view, be right to expose the owner or occupier for the time being of disused workings to the liability to meet the cost of such operations, but I should like to have a further look at what my noble friend said about the possibility of being able to charge a person, if one could find him, who had been responsible for that mine when it was in operation.
BARONESS WHITE: I have listened with interest to the speeches by both noble Lords. I wonder whether the Government would look at this in a wider context altogether than simply the prevention of pollution under this Bill. As the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, said, in most instances any remedial action is likely to be very costly indeed, whoever pays for it. That is what worries me, because one has the problem which we discussed on my Amendment where, as noble Lords may recollect, I tried to limit the exemptions from payment to mines which had been abandoned before the coming into force of this Bill. That was not acceptable to the Government, but in all circumstances, whoever has to pay for an abandoned mine is, as I say, going to have to meet a very heavy bill.
Is it sensible, therefore, in the conditions in the mining areas to adopt this approach? I am sorry, I really do not feel sympathetic this time to the noble Lord, Lord Molson, because I do not think it is practical. The people who have abandoned mines, other than the National Coal Board in fairly recent times, are probably not in a position to meet the sort of costs that might well be involved, because at the time when they may have owned the mines—I am thinking of a number of South Wales mines which have been abandoned over the years—they were a great deal less profitable than they have now become. Anyway, with the change in the value of money and the lapse of time this approach would be quite impracticable.
When one looks to the water authorities, are they going to be any better placed to meet this kind of cost? And will they not hesitate to take action, except in the most dangerous situations, to deal with effluent which might still be damaging because they would say it is going to cost them too much and that they have to

237
balance their books? The water authorities will have to pay their way. Therefore it seems to me that there will be a strong temptation for them to leave as long as possible any matter of an abandoned mine, because they would say that this was something which was not positively going to improve the water supply. It would limit the damage, but if it was not too bad the chances are that they will let it go on until they have to do something about it; but it would be nowhere near the top of their priorities. This affects us in the mining areas; and it is causing a good deal of concern, as I know, to scientific advisers and other similar people in the area.
Among the interesting suggestions in the report—not a public report, of course—of the investigations by the noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman, into propositions for possible mining in North Wales, in Snowdonia, was the suggestion that problems of this kind should be dealt with on a national basis. We have the Derelict Land Unit in the Welsh Office, for example, which is financed directly out of general taxation. It is not financed by the National Coal Board because mostly the dereliction happened before the Board came into being, although not exclusively so. Ought we not to treat this business of pollution from abandoned mines on a similar basis? Ought it not to be dealt with under national financing, as something for which we really cannot now pin the responsibility sensibly on anyone?
I would seriously ask the Government to look at this point. Noble Lords will know that I have a special interest in these areas. I have had representations made to me by those who are working there. I would suggest that this business of abandoned mines as dealt with in the Bill is not likely to lead to satisfactory results. I do not know what the noble Lord, Lord Molson, proposes to do with his Amendment, but I would plead with anyone concerned with this matter to look at it again, to see whether it cannot be raised to a national level rather than trying to deal with it under the normal arrangements provided under the Bill.
LORD ABERDARE: I shall do what the noble Baroness has suggested. I have great sympathy—
BARONESS WHITE: The noble Lord might even have to pay!
LORD ABERDARE: I was thinking about that, because in fact the landowner has to pay for the capping of a shaft of a disused mine, as I found to my cost recently; so I have every sympathy with what the noble Baroness says. In these circumstances I hope that the Committee will leave the Bill as it stands and that my noble friend will be prepared to withdraw his Amendment.
LORD MOLSON: I think that the proposal made by the noble Baroness, that derelict mines should be dealt with under the same system as for derelict land, is of great interest and I hope that my noble friend will see that it is considered in the context of this Bill. Having said that, and having heard the reply of my noble friend, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.12 p.m.
LORD ABERDARE LORD ABERDARE moved Amendment No. 166F:
Leave out Clause 39 and insert the following new clause:
Operations by water authorities to remedy or forestall pollution of water
(".—(1) Where it appears to a water authority that pollution injurious to the fauna or flora of a stream in its area has been caused in consequence of discharges made by virtue of a consent given by the authority in pursuance of section 27 of this Act after the date when this section comes into force or discharges made by virtue of a variation of a consent in pursuance of that section which was made by the authority after that date, then, subject to the following subsection, it shall be the duty of the authority—

(a) to exercise the powers conferred on it by section 30(1) of this Act with a view to ensuring that further discharges of a kind which caused the injurious pollution in question are not made by virtue of the consent or variation or are not so made after such a period as the authority considers necessary for the purpose of allowing a person making discharges by virtue of the consent or variation to secure that the discharges are not of such a kind or to make arrangements for discontinuing the discharges; and

(b) in a case where the authority considers that a period is necessary for the purpose aforesaid, to carry out as soon as reasonably practicable such operations as the authority considers appropriate with a view to remedying or mitigating the injurious pollution in question; and

(c) to carry out, as soon as reasonably practicable or after the expiration of the said

239
period, such operations as are necessary for the purpose of restoring the fauna and flora of the stream, so far as it is reasonably practicable to do so, to the state in which they were before discharges were made by virtue of the consent or variation.

(2) If it appears to a water authority that injurious pollution of a stream in its area has been caused in consequence of discharges made as mentioned in the preceding subsection but that further discharges so made after such a period as the authority considers reasonable in the circumstances will, after the carrying out of such operations as are mentioned in paragraph (c) of that subsection, not cause injurious pollution of the stream, then—

(a) the authority shall not be required by virtue of paragraph (a) of the preceding subsection to exercise the powers there mentioned; but

(b) it shall be the duty of the authority—

(i) to carry out as soon as reasonably practicable such operations as are mentioned in paragraph (b) of the preceding subsection, and

(ii) to carry out, after the expiration of the period mentioned in the preceding provisions of this subsection, such operations as are mentioned in paragraph (c) of the preceding subsection.

(3) The duty imposed on a water authority by virtue of subsection (1)(a) of this section shall be performed notwithstanding anything in section 31 of this Act but no compensation shall be payable by a water authority in pursuance of that section in consequence of the performance of that duty; and nothing in this section shall be construed as restricting the powers conferred on the Secretary of State by section 30(2) of this Act.
(4) Where it appears to a water authority that any poisonous, noxious or polluting matter is likely to enter, or is or was present in, any relevant waters in its area, the authority may, without prejudice to any duty imposed on it by virtue of the preceding provisions of this section, carry out in its area or elsewhere such operations as it considers appropriate—

(a) in a case where the matter appears likely to enter such waters, for the purpose of preventing it from doing so; and

(b) in a case where the matter appears to be or to have been present in such waters, for the purpose of removing or disposing of the matter or of remedying or mitigating any pollution caused by its presence in the waters or of restoring the waters (including the fauna and flora in them), so far as it is reasonably practicable to do so, to the state in which they were before the matter became present in the waters;

but nothing in this subsection empowers a water authority to impeded or prevent the making of any discharge in pursuance of a consent given by any authority by virtue of section 27 of this Act.
(5) Where a water authority carries out any operations in pursuance of this section the authority shall, subject to the following subsection, be entitled to recover the costs of doing so—
240

(a) in the case of operations in pursuance of subsection (1) or (2) of this section, from the persons who made the discharges in question; and

(b) in the case of operations in pursuance of the preceding subsection, from any persons who caused or knowingly permitted the matter in question to be present at the place from which it was likely in the opinion of the authority to enter the relevant waters or, as the case may be, to be present in the relevant waters.

(6) Any dispute as to the liability of a person to pay costs to a water authority in pursuance of the preceding subsection or as to the amount of the costs shall be determined by the county court; bu tno such costs shall be payable by a person—

(a) in so far as he satisfies the county court that the costs were incurred unnecessarily; or

(b) for any operations in respect of water from an abandoned mine which that person permitted to reach such a place as is mentioned in paragraph (b) of the preceding subsection or to enter relevant waters.

(7) In determining the damage which a person has suffered in consequence of pollution in respect of which operations have been or may be carried out in pursuance of this section, account shall be taken of the extent to which it is shown that the damage has been reduced by operations in pursuance of this section and of the extent to which it is shown that the damage is likely to be so reduced.
(8) In this section—

"injurious pollution", in relation to a stream, means pollution injurious to the fauna or flora of the stream; and

"variation", in relation to a consent, means a modification in pursuance of subsection (1) of section 30 of this Act of the conditions to which the consent is subject or, in the case of an unconditional consent, the subjection of the consent to conditions in pursuance of that subsection;

and in the application of subsection (6) of this section to Scotland for the references to the county court there shall be substituted references to the sheriff.").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move this Amendment: it is the new Clause 39 which we have been referring to on and off throughout the afternoon. I should like to apologise, as I did yesterday for other Amendments that had been put down at fairly short notice. This was put down only on Friday. It is a large new clause, although it contains much of the content of the previous Clause 39. In this case we thought it of great importance that your Lordships should have in front of you the new clause when discussing earlier clauses such as Clause 36.
It has always been our intention to include these sort of provisions in the Bill

241
because we recognised—or at least we recognised at the time when we thought Clause 36 was going to stand—that if there are to be restraints against publicised legal discharges, then there must be corresponding duties placed on water authorities to take action themselves to make sure that where a legal discharge causes damage it is stopped as soon as reasonably practical and the damage made good. These provisions have been difficult to draft satisfactorily, however, and I am sorry that the Amendment has been put down at a fairly late stage.
What the new Clause 39 proposes in relation to the powers already contained in the Bill is that where consent to a new discharge or a variation of an existing discharge results in a discharge which causes pollution and injures the flora or fauna or the stream, then the authority has a duty immediately to serve notice that the consent has to be varied or, if necessary, revoked so that the injury will cease. As soon as favourable conditions are re-established the authority will have to restore the flora and fauna, so far as is practicable, to the state they were in before the pollution occurred. It will not always be practicable or reasonable to stop or vary the polluting discharge immediately. It may be that new equipment would be needed, or alternative arrangements need to be made to dispose of the effluent. In these cases the authority will specify a period before the variation or revocation takes place, in order to give time for these works to be carried out or for alternative arrangements to be made. In the meantime, the authority must take such action as it considers appropriate to mitigate the effect of the discharge. For example, this could entail pumping oxygen into the water.
Subsection (2) of the clause makes similar arrangements to those in subsection (1) but deals with the rather special situation where a two-stage consent has been granted. Two-stage consents are given where a discharge is expected initially to reach a certain standard but later, when the necessary bacteria are present to digest the effluent, to meet higher standards. Even the first, inferior, stage should still not cause damage to flora or fauna but, if it does, it still should not be necessary to vary the consent because it already contains
242
its own variation in the second stage. A duty to vary as provided in subsection (1) would therefore be inappropriate. The authority would still have the same duties to mitigate the pollution while it continues and to restore the stream when it ceases. The cost of these operations under subsections (1) and (2)—as under subsection (4) which replaces the first part of the present Clause 39—are recoverable from the discharger or polluter.
We believe that this is a useful new clause and that it will add to the colourful armoury (as I believe I described it in connection with Clause 36) of weapons in the fight against water pollution.
LORD CRAIGTON: I should like to give an unqualified welcome to this new clause, not from a legal point of view but because of everything implied in the words
"restoring the flora and fauna of the stream."
This is something to be welcomed by people all over the country. If I ask some questions now, they arise because it is difficult to put down Amendments, so I hope that my noble friend will note the few points that I have to make and, if anything needs to be done, to take the necessary action. First of all, as to restoring the flora and fauna, nothing is said about the natural flora and fauna. If one looks at the first three lines at the bottom of page 6—I should like it to read there, though I am sure it cannot—
"… where it appears to the water authority that pollution injurious to the natural flora or fauna of the stream and its area has been caused by or built up to such a degree that in consequence of the discharge …".
There are two points there. The stream will almost certainly be, as nearly every stream is, polluted to a certain extent. Pollution is cumulative: we are not going to have an absolutely pure stream suddenly polluted. When the pollution has reached the stage in a cumulative manner when damage is being done, or is beginning to be done, to flora or fauna, there may be other people who are guilty of discharges which, but for the final discharge, would not have done a great deal of damage. It may be that the final discharge did no more than break the camel's back. This is a very difficult problem, but it is going to be there and it may be necessary, in restoring the flora and fauna, for people other than

243
the last discharger to have to take some action—and of course all this has to be found out as having happened after the consent has been given in Clause 27.
Another problem is the flora and fauna on beaches. It is a problem which arises in connection with oil on the beaches. It is grand to say to the oil companies: "You are the polluter and you must pay to restore the natural conditions of the beach." But nobody knows what the natural condition of the beach was before it was polluted. So the problem is to know what was the natural state before the pollution took place. Should, for instance, Clause 27 impose on the applicant the necessity for a survey—perhaps a scientific one—of the water that is to receive the discharge, or should the water authority do it? Unless someone can take some reasonably intelligent record of what the water was like before it was polluted then no one will know what flora and fauna to restore.
Finally, may I mention one small point. Under the clause, as I read it, the authority alone can carry out any work of cleaning up and restoration, though the offender, quite rightly, has to pay the bill. Is it implied that the authority can, if they want to, require the offender to clear this up himself or to contract with the offender to do it, provided the offender does the work to the authority's satisfaction? I understand that it is only the authority who can do the work. With those few words, I welcome the clause.
BARONESS WHITE: I am sure we are all extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, for his helpful analysis of certain points in this new clause. I was particularly interested in what he rightly said about the need to know the original state of the water. This is something which has very much exercised us in Wales. I referred in our recent discussion to the proposals at one time which Rio Tinto Zinc made to mine in the Snowdonia National Park. Had it been decided to carry out this operation, this would undoubtedly have resulted in the pollution of streams and of the Mawddach Estuary. Efforts have been made, but on a relatively modest scale, to prepare for any such eventuality by studying the nature of the waters as they are now and various academic exercises have been going on with that in mind.
244
But if one takes the country as a whole this is a big problem, and although it is incumbent upon the water authorities to do all this it may take them a very long time: it may be impossible for them to do it adequately before some of the provisions of this new clause are due to come into effect. This is largely a matter of directing and co-ordinating research and paying for it. If we are serious about this new clause it will not be effective unless, as the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, pointed out, money is spent quickly in the early stages of the responsibility of the water authorities in studying the waterways which are under their control. We do not have the current levels for many possible pollutants. Such research has to be carried out over a period. It is not something which one can do in a few weeks or months because of varying conditions, water flows, and so on.
One would be reassured if one had some feeling that the Government have not only put down what I freely grant is an attractive new Clause 39, but that they were prepared again to regard this as something which it might be difficult for water authorities to do adequately with the kind of money that might be available to them in the early years. One would expect them to be able to plan their financial arrangements as time went on to take matters of this kind into account. I speak subject to correction, but I suppose in the areas of a good many of them there are considerable gaps in the scientific knowledge available.
I do not like crash research programmes because they can go badly wrong, but at least there should be an energetic attempt to deal with these problems. I hope that this could be supported by Government, not necessarily by grants to the water authorities themselves, but to the Science Research Council or the Natural Environment Research Council, as might be appropriate. I should like to suggest to the noble Lord. Lord Aberdare, that it would be helpful if he could make some comment on that aspect. Otherwise we, so far as we can understand it, welcome the new clause.
LORD MOLSON: I am sure we welcome this clause, so far as we understand it, for what it does. I do not think I have ever seen a clause which is so verbose

245
and where so many words are used to convey so little and with such an obscure meaning. But I am sure we welcome the clause for what it does. The first point that I should like to make to my noble friend is this: in the Second Reading debate my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford (the Chairman Designate of the National Water Council) mentioned a extraordinarily interesting case of damage done to a crop by the use of water for which consent had been given. That is extremely important. If I had spoken in the debate on Clause 36 I should have given that as a classic example of where it was important to retain the power of an injunction.
My noble friend spoke of the interesting incident which occurred this year of the heavy mortality of the tomato crop in Essex. An intensive horticulturist in Essex, with his tomatoes being grown under glass and entirely dependent for their irrigation on the main water supply, suddenly found that the tomato crops were stricken and were dying at a terrifying rate. Nobody could discover the cause. After intensive investigation, which lasted for months, it was eventually discovered that the source of the mortality of the tomato plants came not from a river in Essex, but from the Great Ouse near Cambridge. There was a factory manufacturing plant herbicides and discharging effluent into the Great Ouse which was acceptable to the river authority there.
The Great Ouse has a magnificent water transfer scheme to Essex (which is a very dry county), and the Great Ouse water had been transferred into the Essex rivers and then into the pipe system and it then went off to supply the horticulturist. Because his tomatoes were entirely dependent on the piped supply, there was just enough of this dangerous chemical in the water—although it was in infinitesimal amounts—to cause destruction of the crop. I should like to know whether a case of that kind is covered by this new clause and who would have to pay for carrying out any necessary works which might be extremely expensive in this case under the provisions of this clause?
My second point is this. I was asked to put a question to the Government by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, who is not able to be in his place. He wished to know why subsection
246
(7) has been put into this Amendment:
"In determining the damage which a person has suffered in consequence of pollution …"
Then it goes on to say how the damages are to be assessed. The noble and learned Viscount says that this is only a repetition of the existing law upon the subject and he wonders whether it is either necessary or desirable to incorporate it in this Amendment.
6.30 p.m.
LORD ABERDARE: I am grateful for the general welcome that has been given to this new clause. It has been extremely difficult to draft, and it is no doubt for that reason that your Lordships have raised various points about it. My noble friend Lord Craigton suggested that the word "natural" should be inserted before "flora or fauna". I was not clear why he wished to put that word in. It might be slightly more limiting than an unqualified use of the words "flora or fauna". I am not sure what "natural" really adds to the words, if anything. It could mean the flora or fauna that existed at the creation of the world.
LORD CRAIGTON: I should put my noble friend right. I meant flora and fauna that were there before the pollution started.
LORD ABERDARE: That is covered by the clause as it stands. Going on to that point, it is a difficult one because there are considerable gaps in our knowledge of the biology of individual streams. It is doubtful whether a central research effort would help very much because each stream needs separate consideration. A start was made in the River Pollution Survey of 1970 and 1972. We shall certainly continue to encourage the development of biological classification of streams. On the whole I think we shall have to rely on the regional water authority to determine what the state of the river was before the action took place which triggered off this Clause 39. I should like to have a look at what he said about whether the water authority could contract with a person who had caused the pollution. I should hope that this was so, but I should like to check the actual legal wording of it.
The noble Baroness, Lady White, also asked me about the state of the streams.

247
I have done all that I can to answer her. I will see whether I can go any further later. For the moment, I have said all that I can.
My noble friend Lord Molson asked me two questions, to which I should like to give him the answers later. So far as his first question is concerned, the case that Lord Nugent of Guildford mentioned on Second Reading, I doubt whether Clause 39 would cover this matter because it begins:
"Where it appears to a water authority that pollution injurious to the flora or fauna of a stream in its area …".
I very much doubt whether it would cover that case.
LORD MOLSON: So do I.
LORD ABERDARE: On the other hand, Clause 30(1) gives the water authority and the Secretary of State power to revoke consents and to impose conditions. If there was a factory which was causing a difficulty, as in the case mentioned by my noble friend, I should have thought that the local water authority had ample powers to revoke or alter the consent in that fashion.
BARONESS WHITE: May I intervene for a moment before the noble Lord leaves that point? It had not occurred to me until the noble Lord, Lord Molson, raised it. We are dealing with charges (are we not?) in the new Clause 39. Though there may be a change or revocation of a consent, who pays to put that damage right? It does not seem to me that the people who made the pesticides which killed the tomatoes would be caught. This situation is surely going to arise more frequently if we are going to have these fantastic transfers of water from one part of the country to another. One would hope that this situation might never arise, but it is conceivable. I have not had time, I admit, to read the Final Report of the Water Resources Board. However, in its strategy for water supply in future it does make suggestions for a water grid. I would suppose that that principle will be carried out on a smaller scale in many parts of the country, as indeed it is between the Great Ouse and the Essex rivers. But this whole point of who pays seems to me to be a very important one. If polluting effluent happens to go into
248
your neighbouring stream, you pay: but if the effluent from your enterprise finds itself travelling many miles throughout the country, though it may be just as damaging and noxious you escape payment. I am not at all clear how we are going to deal with this situation.
LORD ABERDARE: Are the two cases similar? What happens under this clause is that pollution is caused by a discharger, and the water authority move in and put it right. They charge the cost of putting it right to the person who was causing the pollution. This is quite a distinct matter from that which the noble Baroness is talking about, which, as I understand it, is damages to the person who suffered from the pollution. Nothing in this Bill prevents anybody who has suffered damage from going to the court and seeking to recover from the person who caused the damage. That, I would think is the answer. But if the noble Baroness is not satisfied with that answer, we can look at it again.
On subsection (7), which my noble friend mentioned, the intention is clear that when a riparian owner seeks damages at common law the subsection requires the court to take account of the restoration undertaken, or to be undertaken, by the water authority under the new clause. Otherwise, the riparian owner might, in effect, be given compensation twice over. I will, if I may, write to the noble and learned Viscount who asked this question, I understand, when I have had a chance to go into the legal side of it.
Clause 40 [Duty of water authorities to deal with waste from vessels etc.]:
6.38 p.m.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS moved Amendment No. 166C:
Page 51, line 38, leave out from ("which") to ("collection") in line 39 and insert ("needs").
The noble Viscount said: This Amendment concerns quite a simple matter. It is a matter of adding a little more weight to the requirement on the water authority to provide facilities to collect waste. It is very important that these facilities should be provided all over the place, and quickly, if this Bill is to be effective as regards waste collected from boats. I

249
have been concerned with this particular matter for quite a number of years. Long before anybody thought that wastes should be collected from boats, I wrote a textbook on how to navigate the inland waterways. Among other things, I put in my textbook quite a long passage on what one should do with one's wastes—there being at that time no collecting points whatever. It is true that at that moment there was no legal responsibility for anybody to do anything with the wastes other than dump them in the water. However, as a good boy scout, I did not consider that adequate. I included what I thought should be done.
Nevertheless, it is intensely difficult to get rid of wastes from boats unless there are regular collecting points, well spaced and not too far apart; and they must be there before it is possible to start carrying out the requirements we are now considering—and "there" means not merely at one or two spots, but at regular intervals all along the various waterways. If the collecting points are not at any one place that will be just the place where a boat has to get rid of something, or it overflows, and we shall be back in the old state of affairs, with the water being treated in the way most people treated it—which was rather roughly. My own method of dealing with the problem—taking out the residues and burying them some way from the waterway—while better than standard practice, was not very good practice. Unless there are not merely places where somebody thinks that some stuff ought to be collected, but regular places along all the navigable waterways, the law will simply not be obeyed. There will be no possible way of obeying it. It is a small point. The Amendment is put up simply because one would like to hear a little more about what the proposals are. I beg to move.
LORD CRAIGTON: I have sympathy with the noble Viscount's Amendment. I am not sure he is quite right in saying it is a good idea to bury waste anywhere, but that concerns another Amendment altogether. I was going to ask him and the Minister this question. The noble Viscount referred to wastes, but of course the way this Bill is drafted, as I read it, means that the waste is really only sanitary waste. I wonder whether he and the Minister are satisfied, and whether we ought to be satisfied, that there is no provision for an adequate
250
number or positioning at regular points of dustbins. Cartons, cans and bottles are from the æsthetic point of view the worst waste on any enclosed water. There should be dustbins, and separate dustbins for bottles, adjacent to sanitary facilities and at public moorings where people tend to stop and shop. This is perhaps something upon which we should have put down an Amendment. It is not too late to raise the matter, and so I support the noble Viscount in what he has said.
LORD SANDFORD: In response to the noble Viscount I would make a few preliminary remarks and remind the Committee of something we were doing when we were enacting the Water Bill, in which it was provided that the water authorities—the same water authorities as we are dealing with to-day—had among their duties the duty of making plans for the recreational use of their waterspace and the development of the waterspace for recreational purposes. It will fall to them in doing that to decide where this kind of provision should be made: to consider the kind of points the noble Viscount has just been putting before us—that these waste disposal points should be properly spaced—say, down a canal or along a river bank—and to decide who is going to provide what; because in the towns there may already be conveniences provided by the urban district council. There may in other places be marinas with these facilities provided by private boat hirers or boat builders. All this is taken into account in drawing up these plans, and particularly the recreational plans.
I understood from what the noble Viscount said that he is not proposing to press his Amendment and is just probing the Government's intentions. Against that background, it is obviously necessary for the discretion as to where these facilities should be, and from what points it is necessary to collect waste, to rest with the water authority. If this Amendment were to be imported into the Bill, then the question of which waste needs to be collected from what vessels, and where, would be, in the last resort, a matter for the courts. I think the noble Viscount and the Committee will agree that that would be going too far. As the matter stands, the discretion rests with the water authority as to precisely what provision they make, which areas vessels are likely

251
to congregate in, and, for considerations of that kind, from what points the waste should be collected. Everything that I am saying applies of course to sanitary waste—waste which would be emptied from Elsans, for instance—and solid waste, though the solid waste is a matter dealt with in the first Part of the Bill. The same considerations as I have just been mentioning apply in both cases. I hope that that explanation satisfies the noble Viscount.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: I am glad to have that further statement from the noble Lord. It is the kind of information we want. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, I quite agree with him that rubbish and such things as he mentioned are waste which most urgently needs collecting. The sheer mess which was collecting along some of the waterways was terrible. One of the difficulties with rubbish, if it is not adequately collected, is that it tends to attract animals who injure themselves on it. Cows that swallow plastic bags are not improved. Creatures get these things on their hooves or cut their mouths on tins—all sorts of trouble occurs. I quite agree with him that burying is not the best that can be done. The best would undoubtedly be what this Bill provides for. One of the troubles in burying was that the animals came and dug up the stuff again. My remedy for that, given in my book, was that one first of all buried the solid waste and then put the lavatory waste on top of it; that kept the animals from doing it. But undoubtedly this is only a second best, and one can only welcome with joy all the splendid facilities we are now to have. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.48 p.m.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS moved Amendment No. 166D:
Page 51, line 40, at end insert—
("(1A) A water authority shall reimburse any navigation authority or other person or body the reasonable cost incurred by that authority, person or body in providing and maintaining facilities (including the cost of maintaining facilities provided before the coming into force of this section) for the collection and disposal of waste from vessels being facilities which it is or would (had they not been otherwise so provided) have been the duty of the water authority to provide under subsection (1) of this section; and any dispute as to
252
whether or on what terms of reimbursement is to be made under this section shall be determined by the Secretary of State.")
The noble Viscount said: This is a matter to which the noble Lord referred a moment ago. The new authorities are going to provide a number of places to collect waste of all kinds. The question then arises: Who is going to pay for those places? Where the water authorities provide them themselves, naturally they are paying for them. But there are already a great many such places which have been provided because various private and public bodies have found themselves compelled to provide them. Under previous legislation there was power to make rules (which were made) by various water authorities preventing rubbish and lavatory wastes and other things from going into waterways. But although these rules were made, there was no provision in many cases for these waterway authorities to have power to provide anywhere to collect this stuff. The result was that numbers of boatyards had to provide places to protect themselves. On the British Waterways Board's waterways of course the Board has had power to erect sanitary stations, and so on, and has done so, and it has also appointed rubbish collection points. All these are in existence.
The question is: If the duty falls on the new water authorities to do this job, what is going to happen to the existing rubbish and sanitary collecting stations? Are they going to be paid for by the new water authorities? They have a duty to do this job. If somebody is doing the duties for them should these stations be handed over to the new water authorities? The British Waterways Board is now to continue in existence, but will the water authorities pay the British Waterways Board for running the existing sanitary stations which it is now the duty of the authorities to run? Supposing the British Waterways Board closed its stations, would the water authorities under this Bill have the duty to provide them? Would they be compelled to buy them from the British Waterways Board? What is the position?
The same applies to the number of privately owned rubbish and sanitary stations in the hands of boatyards and similar places. These also are performing a function which it is now the duty of the water authorities to perform. Should the water authorities be paying

253
for these? What is the position there? We have tabled this Amendment for the simple purpose of finding out. I beg to move.
LORD STOW HILL: May I add just one word to what my noble friend has put before the Committee in his full and clear speech? It is simply this: it is anticipated that it is probably the intention of the Government that there should not be, as it were, duplication; that the water authority should be in a position to avail itself of existing facilities which have already been provided. I gather that the British Waterways Board has already provided something like 150 such stations, or is in course of providing them. I infer that from the wording of subsection (2) of Clause 40, namely,
"arrange for the provision of facilities by way of water closets,"
and so on. Clearly, therefore, the Government intend that what is already on the scene should be incorporated into the general programme and be made use of, and if I may respectfully say so that would seem to be an eminently sensible approach.
What is rather in the minds of those who have already arranged for these facilities and have gone to considerable expense over the years, not only in installing them but in maintaining them so that they are now in use and usable, is that the words
"arrange for the provision of facilities"
leave very uncertain the financial implications as between a water authority and those who have provided the facilities. I hope that it would be the intention of the Government by those words to give power to the water authorities to make reasonable financial payments to those who have installed existing facilities. I suppose that in the first place there is the original capital cost of installing them. Then, over the years, there is the cost of maintaining them and improving them or extending them from time to time. It is submitted that it would be a matter of fairness that the water authority, being relieved of the obligation pro tanto themselves to provide these facilities because of the fact that they are already there, should make some fair reimbursement to both public authorities, like the British Waterways Board, and private individuals like those who hire boats on the Norfolk Broads, to recompense
254
them for what they have done and, by so doing, lightening the burden which this clause rightly puts upon the water authority.
In moving this Amendment I think my noble friend largely had the purpose of probing the Government and ascertaining from them in somewhat more precise terms what their intentions are in this particular regard. I would respectfully submit to the Minister that it is desirable in terms to spell out that there is to be a duty on the water authority to pay reasonable compensation, and that duty should be supplemented by a right for any claimant to ask that the decision of the Secretary of State should be invoked in the event of a difference between the water authority and the person who has installed the facilities. Your Lordships will see that this Amendment provides that right. In those circumstances, I hope the Government will be able to indicate that their intention goes the full length of the proposal put forward by my noble friend, and that they will be able to say that they will either accept in terms this Amendment or at least put something in the clause which makes it perfectly clear that the measure of responsibility on the water authority is no less than I have sought to spell out.
6.56 p.m.
LORD SANDFORD: I am glad to respond to another probe, first, by saying that if the Amendment was thought to be necessary in order to enable water authorities to pay someone else to collect waste I can assure the Committee that it is not necessary because they can do that; but I would suggest that if the Amendment was intended to oblige the water authorities to pay everyone who makes provision for waste disposal, that is not reasonable and what in fact will happen will lie somewhere between those two. I do not myself believe it is practicable—as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stow Hill, was perhaps tempting me to try to do—to spell out in the Bill the co-operative arrangements which need to be made by the various authorities concerned in this particular field. If the total range of facilities for individual boat owners is sensible and effective and sufficient, that is really all that is needed. Our object in the Bill has been to make the provision sufficiently flexible to permit such sensible arrangements to be

255
made, and that is exactly what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stow Hill, surmised. It will be for the water authorities, the British Waterways Board, the boat yard owners and any other bodies concerned to get together and to make sure that sufficiently comprehensive facilities are available on appropriate terms and at appropriate stages along the river which is being used for recreation.
Going back to where I began, this cooperative action is something on which the water authorities have a duty to take the initiative and to prepare plans under duties laid upon them by the Water Act which we enacted last Session. I hope with that assurance about what the water authorities can and will do, and what it would not be reasonable to expect them to do, the noble Viscount will be content to accept my assurances and will not press his Amendment.
LORD STOW HILL: I should like to add one word which arises out of what the Minister has just said. He has indicated the broad intention of the Government. Would it be his view—because I would submit that there may be some doubt about it—that the water authority, if it thought it appropriate and fair, would be able, in the compensation that it provides under the powers given to it by the wording "arranges for the provision of facilities", to include some measure of reimbursement for the actual capital cost that has been incurred? A number of those who have already provided the facilities, as I have said, have put them there on the ground and they are now in operation. If they had not done so, it would mean that the water authority would be under a duty to incur the capital cost of now doing so. They are relieved from that obligation, and I would submit to the Committee that the justice of the case requires, in such circumstances, that the water authority should at least have power, if it seemed fair in the circumstances, to reimburse to some extent the actual capital cost which may have been incurred a considerable time ago by those who installed the facilities, measured against relieving the water authority of incurring a capital cost not necessarily commensurate, I agree at once, in restoring new facilities.
I submit that is fair, and I also submit to the noble Lord the Minister, that it is
256
somewhat doubtful as to whether the words "arrange for the provision of facilities" would confer the power to pay such compensation. I submit that the words "arrange for the provision of facilities" seem to look to the future. They do not seem to apply to an existing situation. They seem only to empower the water authority to enter into a new arrangement with some outside person to install and provide, in the very near future, the relevant facilities. If that is all they do provide, I submit that is not quite a fair result. The water authority should be able to go further and make some reimbursement provision for the capital cost already incurred, the incurring of which relieves them of the obligation of incurring a capital cost on their account. I ask the Minister to be so good as to say that he will look at these words, to see whether he is satisfied that they are wide enough in scope to encompass the Government's intention.
LORD SANDFORD: I can certainly confirm that the power provided in the clause as drafted, to arrange for the collection and disposal of this waste, does include the power to pay for it, but it does not go so far as to lay a duty upon a water authority to pay everyone who is collecting and disposing of waste, in every case, their full expenses for doing what the water authority would otherwise have to do. But clearly, in so far as the work that other people are already doing, or intend to do in the future, relieves the water authority of the duty of doing it, there is scope for negotiation and adjustment on a financial basis between the two parties. But I fall back on what I was saying in my first remarks. I do not believe it is feasible or even desirable to go further than that in the terms of the Bill itself.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: I am sure the Committee would not wish me to press this Amendment, but nevertheless I think one should make some remarks on what has been said. In the matter of the capital costs I cannot say (because I am not a lawyer) whether my noble and learned friend Lord Stow Hill is right. But one point I am sure of is that the running costs of clearing the waste are a considerable burden either on a boatyard or, even more so, on the British Waterways Board. If the water authority

257
is compelled by law to provide these facilities, and if these various people already providing facilities are not paid for the work they are doing, then they are quite likely to stop doing it because they are under no legal obligation to collect this waste. If they do stop collecting it, then the cost of collecting the waste will inevitably fall on the water authority, whether they like it or not.
Indeed, I conceive that those people who are collecting waste may even get back part of their capital cost simply by saying that they do not see why they should do this work. As the Bill stands they may indeed be in a position largely to compel the water authority to pay them part of their capital cost. I do not know whether this is right or wrong, but that seems to me to be the position. It looks as if the water authority may find themselves, whether the noble Lord thinks it right or wrong, in a position where they have to do it. We cannot take this matter further to-day, but it seems to me that this is a point where some further amendment ought to be made to the Bill, though in quite what sense I am not sure. It needs looking at further, but for the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD SANDFORD: May I intervene to move that the House do now resume for other business. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
House resumed.

BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS BILL
7.6 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time. As noble Lords will know, the Bill before us is a consequence of the United Kingdom's signature in 1972 of the Biological Weapons Convention. The Convention imposes certain obligations upon us; before we can ratify it, we must make the necessary legal provisions to enable us to fulfil these obligations.
258
In 1968, the United Kingdom tabled a Working Paper at the Eighteen Nation Disarmament Conference in Geneva, calling for the early conclusion of a new Convention to prohibit biological methods of warfare—"germ warfare". The Geneva Protocol of 1925 had already prohibited the use of biological weapons, as well as of gases, in war. Our proposal in 1968 was intended to supplement this prohibition in two ways: by banning the production and possession, as well as the use of biological agents; and by banning them in all circumstances, not only in war.
In July, 1969, the United Kingdom formally tabled in Geneva a draft Convention for the prohibition of biological methods of warfare, and negotiations on a new version of the draft began in the early part of 1971. They resulted in agreement on the text of the Biological Weapons Convention, which was opened for signature in London, Moscow and Washington in July, 1972. The United Kingdom is a Depositary Power. We and the other Depositary Powers, the U.S.A. and the U.S.S.R., all signed on that day. Up to the present time 110 States have signed the Convention and 30 have ratified it. However, it will not come into force until it has been ratified by all three Depositary Powers. We, for our part, cannot ratify the Convention until provisions have been enacted in the form of this Bill and the Act has been extended to Dependent Territories.
The purpose of the Convention is to ban the production and possession for hostile purposes of biological and toxin weapons. Biological agents and toxins are defined both in the Convention and in the Bill in wide terms. Although we recognise that there are problems in such a wide definition, it is not thought possible to devise a better one for the purpose intended. Any narrower definition would risk excluding agents which the Convention and the Bill should include; and any list of prohibited substances would quickly become obsolete. For a biological agent is a micro-organism which causes death or disease by multiplying in man, animals or plants. A toxin is a poison which is produced by a biological agent, but is not capable of reproducing itself.
The Convention is directed primarily towards States. However, each State

259
Party is also obliged, under Article IV, to take any necessary measures to prevent people from engaging in activities forbidden by the Convention,
"within the territories of such State, under its jurisdiction or under its control anywhere".
The Biological Weapons Bill will give us the legal means to carry out this obligation.
The Convention was not intended to prohibit States from developing "passive" defensive measures against the possibility of an attack using biological agents or toxins. During the negotiations on the Convention it was recognised that even when it comes into force States may still need to hold some stock of protective masks, clothing and warning devices, as well as laboratory quantities of certain agents and toxins. On the other hand, there is no doubt that the development of biological weapons for "defensive" warfare is prohibited. Her Majesty's Government and all Government agencies will of course be bound by the terms of the Convention.
I will now turn to the Bill, which is largely self-explanatory. Clause 1 defines the new offences that are created, and it provides for a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. Its wording closely follows that of the Convention. Clause 2 makes the institution of proceedings subject to the consent of the Attorney General, but with no risk that vital steps to obtain warrants or arrest suspects may be delayed by this requirement. It also removes the offence from the jurisdiction of the county courts in Northern Ireland. Clause 3 deals with offences by officers of bodies corporate. Clause 4 gives the police powers to search premises and seize suspect material. This is important, because it could be difficult to decide on the spot whether such material was likely to be covered by the Act. The clause also provides that the police may be accompanied by experts, who could give them advice about any material found. Clause 5 excludes the new offence from the jurisdiction of courts-martial. Clause 6 extends the effects of the Bill to Northern Ireland, and permits its extension by Order in Council to other territories, so that it can be applied in any territory under United Kingdom jurisdiction or control, as required by the Convention.
260
We remain committed, by Article IX of the Convention, to carrying on further negotiations on chemical weapons, and this we are doing. But meanwhile we believe that the present Convention is an important and useful measure which forbids the possession of so-called "germ" weapons, not only by States but by criminals and by terrorists. The weapons which this Bill seeks to ban are, I think, especially abhorred by all. It is for this reason that I commend this Bill to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a. —(Baroness Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie.)
7.13 p.m.
LORD GREENWOOD OF ROSSENDALE: My Lords, a few minutes ago my noble friend Lord St. Davids confessed that he was not a lawyer. I think I should confess than I am not a scientist, and comprehension of this Bill does not come easily to me. I intend no discourtesy to the noble Baroness when I say that even her lucid explanation would not have been readily intelligible to me if I had not done a good deal of homework on the Bill. But such homework as I have been able to do leads me to the conclusion that the Bill is non-controversial and one which all of us ought to welcome. I think, too, it is of interest because it is an example of how some measure of disarmament can be achieved. The noble Baroness has told your Lordships that it arises from the negotiation of the Convention on Biological Weapons. I congratulate the Government on their part in these negotiations, but I think noble Lords will agree that praise is also due to the last Government; indeed the noble Baroness herself referred to the initiative taken by the Labour Government on August 6, 1968. It was that which really opened the way to this important Agreement.
The initiative was the suggestion that biological weaponry should be separated from chemical weaponry. I think the traditional link between the two was clearly a mistake. It is much easier to ban biological weaponry than chemical weaponry. In fact I believe that many military men wish to retain chemical weaponry until general and complete disarmament is achieved, but they have seen little use for the uncontrollable biological weaponry. If my understanding is correct, it was for that reason that the

261
suggestion was made that the two should be separated. The Soviet Union accepted the British idea in principle in the spring of 1971, and thus opened the way for the present Convention. The Labour Government was out of office by that time, but both the Labour Government and the present Government, I think, deserve the part of the credit which is due to them for what they have achieved.
I think most of us will agree that in some respects it might have been better if the Convention could have been stronger, but any strengthening would no doubt have made it correspondingly more difficult to negotiate. I believe, for example, that the provision for withdrawal on three months' notice is a pity. Permanent renunciation would have been better. And unless I have misread it, the Convention does not specifically contain a provision banning the use of biological weapons, as was suggested in the last Government's initial plan. I recognise, however, that it can be argued that a ban on development, production and stockpiling, if effective, would seem to make use impossible.
I appreciate, too, that the first use of biological weapons, like chemical weapons, is already covered by the Geneva Protocol of 1925. Even so, it is difficult, it seems to me, to rely exclusively on the Geneva Protocol as an instrument for preventing the use of biological weaponry, because the British, in particular, have recently caused a good deal of controversy as to the exact scope of the Protocol. I am referring to the decision of the Labour Government in 1970 to redefine the British attitude to the use of CS gas in warfare. If I understand the noble Baroness correctly, the present Government have been giving careful consideration to this redefinition, and I should like the noble Viscount who is to conclude this discussion to tell us whether in his view the Bill makes this clear, at least by implication. I think from what the noble Baroness said that this is the case, but if the noble Viscount is able to answer this point I shall be grateful. I apologise for not having been able to give him advance notice.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUTR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I wonder whether it would help the noble Lord if I answered that question at once. I think my noble friend the Minister of State
262
at the Home Office would like particularly to reply on the body of the Bill which deals very much with Home Office matters. On the specific question of CS gas, we are giving careful consideration to it; but we have taken no decision yet on whether to follow the previous Government's ruling in 1970 that CS gas is not covered by the Geneva Protocol.
LORD GREENWOOD OF ROSSENDALE: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for having made that clear. It was a point on which I was far from clear in my own mind, and I appreciate the trouble she has taken to elucidate it. I would only add that a decision by Great Britain to reduce the use of CS gas in warfare, as distinct from domestic riot control, would greatly strengthen international confidence in the Geneva Protocol, and therefore increase the likelihood that biological weaponry will never be used, thus complementing the measure before the House to-day.
Finally, I should like to comment on the precedent which the present Bill constitutes by introducing for the first time in multilateral arms control history the domestic legal aspect. If this became general practice in many countries in all treaties of this type—I mean, of course, partial nuclear test bans and nonproliferation treaties—it might be of great value to the human race. I say that for two reasons. First, it would lessen the chances of lethal weapons falling into the hands of guerrillas, or even common criminals. So many of us have been preoccupied with the risks of war between the States that we have until recently overlooked the great danger that hijacking, urban violence, and the like, may become the great curse of mankind in the last decades of the 20th century, in the same way that international conflict was in the first half. I heard it said recently, for example, that Professor Rotblat, who originally started me thinking on the ethics of nuclear warfare, believes that it might soon be technically feasible for a group of guerrillas to hold the world up to nuclear blackmail. The principle embodied in this Bill is a step, but only a step, towards preventing that kind of development taking place.
Secondly, the idea of introducing a domestic criminal aspect into international arms control agreements may

263
also be of value in helping to overcome the problem of on-site verification by international inspection, which has been such a stumbling block in the post-war period. Even in the harshest dictatorships courageous men might well speak out if they saw officials of their own Government conniving at the breaking of their own laws. I would hope that for many measures of arms control, where vexatious large scale on-site inspection is unacceptable as being likely to involve military or industrial espionage, the passing of domestic laws might be an adequate substitute. In the case of biological weaponry, for example, no international verification is proposed. That is clearly a weakness in the present situation, but we must be satisfied with even small advances. The introduction of domestic legislation is an important step towards getting the development of biological weaponry under control, and I therefore give the Bill a wholehearted welcome and the Government the congratulations of the Opposition.
7.23 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS): My Lords, I not only have to share with the noble Lord, Lord Greenwood of Rossendale, the disadvantage of not being a scientist but a further disadvantage of knowing very little about foreign affairs and conventions, and absolutely nothing at all about the workings of the Ministry of Defence. Nevertheless, the noble Lord is quite right; within the scope of this Bill is the domestic implementation into the criminal law of this country of our obligations under the Convention. He is quite right that this is perhaps only a small step forward when one thinks in terms of verification. As I understand it Article VI of the Convention deals with what States themselves shall do, and the way in which they shall draw attention to each others sins, if any, and of course Article I requires the signatory States not to sin in the first place. I hope, like everybody else, that this will be the preface to other things to come, as my noble friend has said, and will also attract the good will of Governments of States that have these capabilities, so that they will stick to the letter and indeed the spirit of the Convention.
264
There is no question of attributing praise here. We recognise the share that the previous Administration had in the preparation of this. Perhaps it has been developed a little in that the toxins have now been included. They may not have been present in the days of the noble Lord's Administration. What the "toxins" are I am not sure, but my noble friend defined them in a fine way. Perhaps that is a small inroad into the area of chemical warfare, at which we are no doubt aiming, and to which my noble friend referred.
For the rest of the Bill itself, it is the result in this country of the obligation laid upon us by Article IV, which makes us, like all other signatories, provide out own internal remedies for anybody who wishes, or thinks that they might like to acquire, or make, or indeed use any of these dreadful things. We think that the machinery that we have invented is as good as can be devised. It provides a very severe penalty for anyone caught. We think that we have done the best we can on the internal detection methods and powers of the police, and the assistance the police might be given. Certainly there is no doubt that if we pass the Bill we shall be able to ratify the Convention. This is a great step forward, because until each of the depository parties have ratified it it cannot come finally into effect.
I was just wondering—and this is the last point that I think I need make in answer to the noble Lord's speech—about the use of weapons of this sort. The noble Lord said that the States that are parties to this Convention undertake that they will not develop, produce, or stockpile any of them; but if he reads on he will see that they cannot acquire or retain them. I should have thought that if you could not acquire them, you would not be able to despatch them; and if you could not retain them you were fairly tied down in what you would be enabled to do. So far as this undertaking is binding in international law, this covers, in its wording, about as wide a spectrum as it is possible to imagine. I hope that at least the wording of the Convention itself is broad enough to cope with that point.
I am really concerned with implementation in the domestic law of this country. I was delighted that the noble

265
Lord has no criticism to make of this. I shall not in the least object if he wishes to come back on detailed points at later stages of the Bill. Meanwhile, I am grateful for his welcome, and I should like to repeat our thanks for the preliminary work done by the Administration of which he was a Member. I hope that the House will give a Second Reading to this Bill this evening.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
[The Sitting was suspended at 7.28 p.m. and resumed at 8 p.m.]

PROTECTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT BILL [H.L.]
House again in Committee on Clause 40.
LORD CRAIGTON LORD CRAIGTON moved Amendment No. 168.
Page 51, line 42, after first ("of") insert ("reasonably convenient")
The noble Lord said: The next two Amendments are designed to ensure that an ample number of sanitary stations are provided. I am talking now of the needs mostly of people who use holiday boats. We need, first, to have a good mooring for a fair number of boats; secondly, adequate facilities for carrying and emptying privy buckets or containers—these are very heavy and facilities must be fairly adjacent to the waterside; thirdly, proper facilities for washing the receptacles when they are emptied. None of these essential facilities seem to be included in the Bill, which refers only to what people themselves use, that is, water closets, urinals and wash basins. I should like subsection (2) of this clause to read—
"A water authority may provide or arrange for the provision of reasonably convenient"
and that is very important—
"facilities by way of water closets, urinals and wash basins and arrangements for emptying and washing out other sanitary facilities."
The other point in this Amendment, as I read it, is that the operation of emptying and cleansing is not included in the words
"collection and disposal of waste"
266
in subsection (1), and although subsection (1) could refer to pump-out stations the words do not refer to the equally essential work of cleansing and recharging the tank unit of the pump-out station. That must be provided for. With that short speech I hope that the Minister can agree to provide what in fact are sanitary stations, as they are known to people who use boats, and that he will agree to my Amendment. I beg to move.
LORD SANDFORD: I should like to take up my noble friend's offer and consider with this Amendment the one which follows, No. 169, chiefly because it is the latter one that concerns the arrangements for emptying and washing out sanitary facilities such as Elsan buckets, with which I most agree. In fact, I would tend to go a little further than my noble friend and say that wherever the other provisions as set out in subsection (2) are made it should be almost a duty on the authorities to make these other provisions with which my noble friend is concerned. So I can go all the way with him on that; and, in fact, a little further.
However, I am not sure that I can or do agree that anything much would be gained by adding the words, "reasonably convenient", as suggested in his Amendment No. 168. In the last resort the decision as to what is reasonably convenient can rest only with the water authorities and, as I have already described, they will take this decision in the first instance in the course of making the full plans for the recreational development of their waters. If I give an assurance that we will certainly give effect to this, but not precisely in the way proposed in No. 169 and without doing anything to limit or add any further glosses to the responsibility of the water authority for deciding just how convenient and how reasonable their provision of the sanitary stations should be, I hope that my noble friend will not feel it necessary to press this Amendment. We should like to look at it further, and incorporate something very much like it, and, if anything, strengthen Amendment No. 169.
LORD CRAIGTON: I am very glad to hear that from my noble friend, and I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 40 agreed to.
Clause 41 [Power of water authorities to exclude unregistered vessels from rivers, etc.]:
LORD CRAIGTON LORD CRAIGTON moved Amendment No. 169A:
Page 52, line 10, at end insert:
("( ) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) above, byelaws made in pursuance of that subsection may make provision for prohibiting the registration of any vessel which is not provided with such sanitary facilities as are specified from time to time in the byelaws for that vessel or class of vessel.").
The noble Lord said: if this Amendment is not right as it stands I hope that my noble friend will be able to give effect to it. Once the discharge from the lavatory into the water is illegal, one is left with three possibilities: the boat can have no toilet at all; secondly, it can have a container or bucket which is emptied by hand; thirdly, it can have a tank which is pumped out by a pump on the bank. The first essential is to do everything possible to encourage the vessel user not to foul the water. If there is a bucket it can be so easily emptied overboard when nobody is looking, or it is possible to go to a convenient and wooded bank and use that as a toilet; or, as the noble Viscount opposite said, you can dig a hole and empty the contents of the bucket into that.
The most satisfactory type of toilet is undoubtedly a containment recirculating toilet. Even then this can be pumped out by hand on to the bank, but it is a long and messy arrangement and it is the least likely to be emptied except in the right place. In practice, a recirculating toilet is no more than a closed lavatory. The boat is brought alongside and a pipe which is exited flush on the deck is attached to a pump, and in about a minute the toilet is emptied. As I have said, the tank unit is without question preferable even to the portable container, and some of those are very good—some better than others.
The reason for this Amendment is that there are many types of portable containers, some good, some not good, and many other types of equipment for treating sewage on board in some way. In fact, the list is quite formidable, which shows the necessity for the water authority to be careful to choose the one which suits its water best. There are containment
268
recirculating toilets which I have been talking about, there are filtration systems, electrolysis incinerators, chlorinators' aeration by agitation, what are called "magical additive chemicals", and even the sealing of waste matter into an airtight endless plastic sock. With that long list of types of closet, it seems essential that a water authority should have power to do two things: first, to approve the types of toilet that may be used; and secondly—when, for example, adequate riverside pump-out stations have been installed—to phase out certain types of toilet by a specified date. That is why the Amendment includes the words "from time to time". With that explanation, I beg to move.
LORD SANDFORD: I think that the whole Committee are disposed to accept any proposition which helps us to get our rivers cleaner and to keep them cleaner, but I am not sure whether my noble friend is justified in going quite as far as he proposes in this Amendment. Side by side with all the other alternatives open to people to adopt in order not to foul rivers and canals, and places such as the Broads, with sewage discharged from boats, there is the very straight forward alternative of availing themselves of the sanitary facilities on shore. Of course that is not practicable in every case, but it will become increasingly practicable. With that alternative available, and becoming increasingly available, I should not have thought it necessary to be quite so restrictive as my noble friend intends to be, especially when powers to make by-laws controlling boats in the ways laid down in the clause are already there.
LORD CRAIGTON: So long as the powers are already there, I am quite happy. But I must tell my noble friend that his answer will not bring joy to the heart of anybody who knows anything about boats. But with that assurance, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.13 p.m.
LORD CRAIGTON LORD CRAIGTON moved Amendment No. 169B:
Page 52, line 18, leave out ("or by arrangement with").
The noble Lord said: I think that this is really a probing Amendment. I

269
am not quite clear what policy is intended in regard to pump-out stations, but apart from that aspect the clause is quite all right. These pump-out stations cost several hundred pounds to install and it is estimated that there is very little profit in charging £1, including V.A.T., for a pump-out and a wash-out. It is highly desirable that pump-out stations should be as numerous as possible, and I am quite sure that eventually every responsible boat hirer will have one for the use of those who hire his boats. But will a boat hirer allow the owner of a private boat to use his equipment if he cannot charge for it, which I do not think he will be able to do under the Bill?
Under a previous Amendment, a water authority might rely on the use of his pump-out station as part of the services on a river, and might reimburse him. But a private boat user could expect to pay £1 to have his re-circulating containment toilet emptied—there is no reason why he should have this service free—and instead of a water authority reimbursing a boat hirer I think that a boat hirer would be perfectly satisfied to provide services free for his own boats and to charge for other boats. That is the reason why I put down this Amendment. I hope that the noble Lord can be helpful on it. I beg to move.
LORD SANDFORD: I agree that the current position is exactly as my noble friend has described it. We are talking about a service which involves boatyard owners in considerable expense, but which they provide free to the people who are using the other services of the boatyard, the economic charge for which might be as high as £1. The position under the Bill is that there is nothing to oblige a boatyard owner to enter into arrangements with a water authority for the provision of facilities, and there is nothing which prevents him from doing so. Nor is there anything in the Bill which prevents a boatyard owner from making his own arrangements, including a scale of charges for people who are not using his boatyard but who want to make use of this service. I hope my noble friend will agree that that is the right framework within which water authorities, on the one hand, who have the duty to collect this waste and the power to pay other people to discharge
270
that duty for them, and boatyard owners, on the other, can make sensible arrangements which are mutually convenient to themselves and which provide a satisfactory service for boat users generally.
LORD CRAIGTON: I am grateful to my noble friend. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 41 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD CRAIGTON: When we discussed Clause 25 I gave my noble friend notice that when we reached this clause I would ask whether the words "keeps or uses" in Clause 25 are right, or whether the words "a person who causes or knowingly permits" in this clause are more advantageous; since the words "keeps or uses" include a person who hires a boat, whereas the words "causes or knowingly permits" exclude—as they should exclude—a person who hires a boat from any liability for infringement of the law under this Bill. I shall be grateful if my noble friend can answer that point.
LORD STOW HILL: Before the Minister replies to that question, may I put a general question to him on which I shall be grateful if he can give some information. I believe I am right in thinking that there have been a great many discussions held between Government Departments and other concerns involved on the question of whether there could be introduced some comprehensive system of registration of vessels, partly to avoid duplication of effort and partly to achieve a number of purely practical objectives. I should like to take an example which is of concern to the Royal Yachting Association. Their concern is that it is very difficult for the owners of pleasure craft to move them up and down the country—for example, by boat trailers attached to motor vehicles—because there are so many local systems of registration.
The broad position, I think, is this—and the Minister will be able to confirm it. The number of authorities involved has in substance been reduced from 29 river authorities to 10 regional water authorities. The river authorities were given a general power to institute registration systems for vessels by means of by-laws made under Section 79(6) of the

271
Water Resources Act 1963. Those powers are now transferred to the water authorities under the Water Act 1973. There are the broad powers. In addition, the British Waterways Board operates a registration system of its own in relation to the river waterways which are under its charge for all pleasure craft using them. Other inland navigation authorities operate further registration systems in relation to the inland waterways for which they have a responsibility. There, I believe, is the general picture and I hope that, broadly speaking, I have described it with reasonable accuracy.
One is now dealing with this clause, which confers on the water authorities a power to prescribe by by-laws for the registration of vessels and for the prohibition of their user in streams (which, broadly speaking, means inland waterways) unless they are suitably fitted with the facilities under discussion or are exempted by by-laws from registration. The first subsection speaks of the power to exempt vessels from the necessity to be registered. Subsection (2) confers the power to make charges. The proposition which I would advance is that it is in the public interest that there should be a single, overall system of registration. I gave the reasons. Certain practical objectives can be obtained; and it is surely better for the purpose of avoiding the duplication of labour, expense and inconvenience that there should be one comprehensive system operative throughout the country.
I am told (I am sorry to repeat myself) that these discussions have been continuing between those concerned and Government Departments. The question I should like to put to the Minister and which I should be grateful if he would answer on the Question, Whether the clause shall stand part? is: what is the state of those discussions now? Is there a possibility of a comprehensive system being arranged? What are the prospects? Is the power contained in this clause under discussion—that is, the power to exempt by by-laws vessels (of categories I suppose to be specified in by-laws) from the necessity of registration—designed to fit in with some more general system? Is that the objective of this power to exempt? How do the Government envisage that the general system of registration in the country will
272
work? I should be most grateful if the Minister would give us any information he has at his disposal, and I think it would be very much valued by those who are concerned.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: Perhaps I may add one word to the remarks of my noble friend. There is an absolute necessity to get a unified system of registration in this country as soon as we possibly can, because we are getting small craft capable of being trailered and craft which are moving all over the place. If they have to take out one licence, that is fair enough; most people will do that. If they have to take out five or six licences; or if, having a fistful of licences, they find that they still need another one, then quite likely they will not take out another one and we shall have more of the trouble that we are already deeply involved in in this country. That is the problem of unregistered boats—and once boats are unregistered it is impossible to control them in any way. Already on the British Waterways Board's waterways we are having a great deal of trouble with these craft which appear from nowhere, break a large number of rules and then vanish—simply because there is no unified system in this country. It is highly important that we get this unified registration as soon as we can. This should be one of the main objectives of this Bill, because unless we have a unified system of registration we shall not have the provisions of this Bill properly carried out.
LORD SANDFORD: Perhaps I may start by answering my noble friend Lord Craigton. It is the intention that both the hirer of a boat and the person to whom the boat is hired should be at risk if offences are committed under this clause and under Clause 25, and I think I shall be able to show that there are circumstances in which either party may be at fault. We do not agree that the phrase in Clause 41, "causes or knowingly permits", can apply only to the person to whom a boat is hired. For example, if a hirer owns craft which are normally on a stream and are in contravention of bylaws, he must be causing or knowingly permitting by the act of hiring the boat in that condition. However, we are equally prepared to acknowledge that there are many occasions when the person to whom the boat is hired will be at

273
fault—where, for example, a boat is hired on tidal waters and is taken by the person to whom the boat is hired into an area where by-law limitations apply. In such a case he will be at fault. So the intention is to meet both those sorts of circumstances and for both the hirer and the person to whom the boat is hired to be at risk.
In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, and to the noble Viscount, I would confirm that it is the intention to go for a system of comprehensive registration covering, so far as may be, the inland waters of the whole country. But it is not possible to give many or, really, any further details yet because the extensive discussions which are an essential preliminary to working all this out cannot make very much progress until the water authorities are fully staffed and fully active, which they are not at the moment. When that time comes, and when they are able to address their minds to this matter, then substantive discussions will begin. At the present moment, not very much progress is being made because there are not the people to conduct the necessary discussions.
LORD CRAIGTON: I cannot really believe that my noble friend, on reading what he has said, will find it entirely satisfactory. If, after the operative date, somebody who does not know anything about boats comes along to a small-boat hirer and hires a boat, and the man hiring the boat has not had the boat sealed off, is the person taking the boat going to be blamed? Is he going to be held responsible for fouling the water when he has hired a boat from a man who has not sealed off the exit? Surely that is not the intention of this Bill.
LORD SANDFORD: I think that it depends on the circumstances. If the boat is in an area where it should be sealed but is not, then the person who hires out the boat in that condition has caused or knowingly permitted an offence to take place. If, on the other hand, the boat is in tidal waters, or in some other situation where it is not necessary for it to be sealed, and it is explained to the person to whom the boat is hired in that condition that it must not go beyond point X, if he then takes it beyond point X, it is he who commits the offence.
LORD CRAIGTON: That is not what the Bill says. On page 33 it states:
"A person who, after the end of the year, 1978, keeps or uses on a stream any vessel provided with a sanitary appliance …".
If I hire a boat which has a sanitary appliance, after 1978 I should be using that boat illegally if I used it on a stream. I think it is most improper that the person who hires the boat should be responsible. The person who owns the boat should be responsible.
LORD SANDFORD: Surely the hirer is the person who owns the boat.
LORD STOW HILL: May I thank the Minister for the information that he has just given to me and also ask him this question. If it is the case that the Government are in favour of a general scheme of registration; and if in consequence it is likely that after further negotiation and when the staffs of the water authorities have been assembled and get to work that such a scheme will be brought into being, would it not be desirable to make provision for some such a scheme in the terms of this Bill?
The point I have in mind is that if one looks at Clause 41 which provides for registration of vessels, surely it would be necessary to make a fairly substantial amendment in the terms of that clause to accommodate any general registration scheme. It is likely that if there is a general registration scheme and this Bill becomes an Act within months the scheme would come into operation a year or 18 months from now. It would seem rather a pity if legislation had to be introduced specially for the purpose of causing that general system to supervise the sort of arrangements which seem to be envisaged under Clause 41. Would the Minister consider favourably some Amendment at a later stage of the Bill designed, as it were, to pave the way for some such general scheme?
LORD SANDFORD: Certainly I will consider that. But my advice at the moment is that Clause 41 is drawn with the prospect of comprehensive registration fully in mind. But I will look at it again to make sure that there is no need to amend the Bill and that comprehensive registration when it comes, can be fitted into it. I will look again at the point raised by my noble friend Lord Craigton, and will answer him more

275
extensively if I find that I am able to do so.
Clause 41 agreed to.
Clause 42 [Investigation of water pollution problems arising from closure of mines]:
8.35 p.m.
LORD CRAIGTON LORD CRAIGTON moved Amendment No. 169D:
Page 52, line 19, leave out ("power") and insert ("a duty").
The noble Lord said: The investigation of water pollution problems arising from the closure of mines should be mandatory. Is my noble friend satisfied that in every case surveys will be made to establish the extent of the problem and that steps necessary to meet it will be taken in every case? There is a power, but there is no duty. There cannot be all that number of mines closed and we suggest that "duty" rather than "power" would be the right word.
LORD SANDFORD: Of course we are all fully in sympathy with that idea, but I do not think it would be satisfactory to lay a universal duty on all water authorities to undertake studies of this matter, just like that. I think that some will certainly need to put studies fairly high on their list of priorities. Others may not need to do so or may even not have abandoned mines in their area; or, if they have, they may not be causing any great trouble. They may not constitute a pollution hazard to any great extent and there may be many other more important things they should be getting on with. But the intention is that studies of this problem will be undertaken by any water authorities who have to contend with pollution in a large measure and in so far as their other duties and powers permit. Obviously this will be an important matter for quite a number of them, but I should not have thought there was any reason to believe that water authorities will not take up the power under this clause; and under the Water Act of 1973 they will be under a duty to submit programmes for the discharge of their functions for the approval of Ministers. So what the Secretary of State judges to be a failure in any particular case to make proper use of these powers would soon become apparent to him.
LORD MOLSON: Last Thursday, my noble friend persuaded the Committee that an Amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady White, was unnecessary because of the assurances that he gave that under Clause 42 studies would be made with a view to action being taken later. I should have thought that it would be entirely appropriate to provide that there should be a duty to carry out these studies. We were told that it was inappropriate to force them to take action at present—the problem is, admittedly, very difficult—and that previous studies were necessary. I should have thought it possible for the Government to agree to this Amendment and that it should be a duty to carry out studies for the purpose of ascertaining what problems might arise, or have arisen. My noble friend has now said that there may be cases where there is no problem. In that case, the study would not result in anything having to be done.
I should have thought that when we are all agreed that the whole problem of pollution of relevant waters from the abandoning of any mine is as serious as it is—and the Government have defended the previous provisions in the Bill by saying how important these matters are and how costly it may be to deal with them—there was nothing unreasonable in asking that there should be a duty on each water authority to carry out the studies. Nothing is obligatory on them. My noble friend says that some of them would have nothing to do; when they had carried out the studies they would find that there was nothing to do. But this is an extremely serious problem in the parts of the country where mining or quarrying has been going on for a long time. I should not have thought that there was any reason at all why the Government should not agree to it being a duty upon all water authorities to study this problem.
BARONESS WHITE: I can of course perfectly appreciate the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, that if you do not have a mine you cannot study it. But I should have thought that the number of water authorities finding themselves in that situation must be small. It depends partly (does it not?) on the definition of "mine". I assume that this is not confined to a coal mine. I wonder whether it includes china clay, for

277
instance, because if so that would bring in an area which might otherwise not enjoy the benefits of coal mining.
My noble friend behind me mentioned tin mining, which might also arise, and we know there is prospecting going on in various parts of the country for mineral mining of one sort or the other. There are iron ore operations in certain parts of the country. I assume that the word "mine" could cover any or all of these. I am racking my brains to think of what water authority would find themselves in a position with no mine of any sort. I cannot think of one, although perhaps there may be one. But if they do have a mine, or more than one—that is the whole point—then I think we feel sufficiently strongly that they ought to have a duty to do something about it.
It may mean a slight amendment to the form of words if one wants to make it abundantly clear that if there is no mine whatever in the area of the water authority, then they are absolved from this duty. I would suppose that the noble Lord who moved this Amendment would make no objection to that. We think that this is sufficiently serious, because these studies will take time. No doubt there will have to be some sort of comparison between one area and another so that they can learn from one another. When they have discovered what the problems are, they have to budget, or at least estimate, what the cost of taking the step will be. This may also be quite a lengthy procedure. One then has to take technical advice as to how best to deal with the problem, not merely to ascertain what the problem is.
Furthermore, I am not at all clear what facilities a water authority would enjoy in undertaking these studies. Would they have a right of entry into workings? I suppose with the National Coal Board one might reasonably assume that there would be no great problem as it is a public authority, but some of the mines I have mentioned are not publicly owned and what guarantee have we that that information would be forthcoming, that entry could be secured?
This is a far less simple clause than appears at first sight. I shall be moving another Amendment in a moment, but it has been put to me that anyone who is seriously undertaking a study of this kind
278
in an area which could affect the work of a water authority, but which is not within the jurisdiction of the water authority themselves could come up against all sorts of difficulties. Yet this is a problem of national and public importance. One ought to be quite sure before passing a clause of this kind that what we are saying is not just a pious hope but that we are also willing the necessary means for this kind of investigation to be carried out, both physically on or under land which does not belong to the water authority at all; with records and so forth, all the documentation that might be necessary, studying the workings and also, in certain circumstances, safety precautions to be taken by those who understand safety in mines, which again would not be a matter of expertise for the water authority themselves.
I only mention these in relation to the Amendment moved by the noble Lord opposite because I take this clause very seriously indeed. I want to be quite sure that we know what we are doing, and that the Government are able to assure us that what is purported to be done in this clause will be possible to carry out in practice.
LORD SOMERS: I should have thought that the whole matter could be put simply like this: is it or is it not desirable that the water authorities should carry out this investigation? If it is—and I think we are all quite agreed that it is—why not make it a duty?
LORD HAWKE: I would just remind the Committee that there are not only coal mines and tin mines, but there are arsenic mines and lead mines, and the pollution from them might be very serious indeed.
LORD SANDFORD: It would be easier if we knew exactly what was involved in these studies and what it was we expect the water authorities to do. All we know is that this is the first time the authorities which are being created under the Water Act of last year will be able to grasp and deal with this problem, first by studying it and then by taking whatever action the studies indicate is necessary.
But we have not got past either of those stages yet. The authorities which are for the first time able to address

279
themselves to the whole problem of dealing with the pollution hazards of abandoned mines are only now in the process of being assembled. That is the first point. It is quite clear—and the noble Baroness, who knows much more about this than most of us, I think would agree—that the studies themselves are going to take a considerable time and will involve quite a lot of staff effort and resources. Furthermore, the noble Baroness also rightly pointed out that we are not just concerned with one particular type of mine. Some of us might have been thinking particularly of coal mines, but there are tin mines and there are all sorts of open cast and deep mining. They are all involved. Some things are noxious, like lead mines, with arsenic involved as well.
If we are to lay a duty upon each water authority—and it is each water authority that is referred to in Clause 42—the precise nature of that duty would, I am sure all Members of the Committee would agree, need to be much more precisely defined. That could be done if we knew exactly what the duty involved. We do not even know at the moment what the duty of studying this problem involves. It has not been done. I should have thought that it was much more sensible for those authorities for whom this problem is clearly a top priority—some of the authorities, for instance, in the South of Wales where there are a large number of mines and many of them are serious potential pollution hazards—for this study to be tackled perhaps by mining consultants.
When those particular studies have gone far enough, it will be possible to see what is involved for other authorities in other situations, and whether some extrapolation will be possible. Other authorities will then be able to judge how important it is, according to their list of priorities, for them to study this particular problem.
While we are so much in the dark—and it is nobody's fault that we are in the dark—it has not been possible to tackle this problem before and I should have thought it would be wrong to go so far as to lay a precise duty, because duties have to be precise on each water authority to tackle this particular business
280
of studying the problems of pollution from abandoned mines. I will certainly take this away and look at it again to see whether it is possible to go some way—I do not think it is possible to go all the way—toward meeting the concern that noble Lords are expressing, that somehow or other this is an important matter which water authorities will be hesitant and reluctant to tackle.
I should have thought there were some water authorities who would see clearly enough that this is something that it is important for them to get on with quickly and to devote resources, time and effort to. I should have thought other authorities would be quite justified in feeling that for them there are other matters which for the time being are more important. The only other point I would make before sitting down is to remind the Committee that this whole business must be seen in this context, that programmes are to be submitted by each water authority to the Secretary of State for approval. He will see from that which authorities are exercising their powers and have an opportunity to exhort those which in his view ought to be doing more. I hope that, with the assurance I have given that I will look at this again to see whether I can go some way towards meeting these points, my noble friend will not feel it necessary to press his Amendment.
LORD MOLSON: There are two points made by my noble friend to which I should like to draw attention. I do not think they strengthen his argument. He spoke about us all being in such complete darkness about this problem. If we are in darkness about this problem then it really is a matter of urgency that the matter should be investigated. Secondly, reference has been made to mines such as arsenic mines, tin mines and so on—and I confess I had not given thought to them before. It seems perfectly clear that if the Amendment is accepted the only obligation upon the water authorities would be to peer into the darkness and find what problems arise and what steps are likely to be appropriate. If there is no need to do anything about the situation, if there are no mines in their area which are likely to cause trouble, then nothing under this Amendment, imposing a duty, would

281
result in anything more than their satisfying themselves (and public opinion) that there is no danger of this kind.
So far as I am concerned, in view of the assurance given by my noble friend, I should not wish to pursue the matter any further but I should have thought that the Government might well have accepted the word "duty" and this would be entirely in accordance with the line of reasoning my noble friend has adopted.
LORD CRAIGTON: The impression I get is that the Government do not really know what is involved and that it is all going to be very very difficult and expensive; and I doubt whether anything at all will be done. It is an important point, and I am glad that my noble friend has said he will look at it. I am sure the Committee would wish that he could have gone further than he has gone so far. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.52 p.m.
BARONESS WHITE BARONESS WHITE moved Amendment No. 169C:
Page 52, line 19, after ("carry out") insert ("or commission and publish").
The noble Baroness said: I beg to move this Amendment standing in my name. I gather from a phrase which dropped from the lips of the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, that it is intended that the words "to carry out" should include "commission" —in other words, it is not expected that this work would be done by direct labour or by the staff of the authorities, but that they would have freedom to commission possibly university research teams or other specialists to carry out some of the necessary investigations. I should like that to be confirmed on the Record so that we are perfectly certain about it.
I have also included the word "publish", because there is nothing here to indicate that the water authorities should publish the results of their inquiry. I cannot see why not, because this is a matter of public concern and these are bodies carrying out a duty of that sort. As a matter of fact, in the mining areas I know I do not think it would be possible to keep anything secret anyway, because the people working at various levels in the pits (both physically and
282
metaphorically) would know all about the situation between them. They might not know all the scientific facts or the data underlying the condition, but they would have a shrewd idea. So I can see no reason at all why such reports should not be published, and I think it is very much in the public interest that they should be published. Therefore I should like to see at least a reference to publication included in this clause. I beg to move.
LORD SANDFORD: I am glad to be able to confirm that there is nothing in this clause to prevent water authorities from either undertaking these studies with their own staff or commissioning someone else to do them, or combining together to do the studies. I think all those different approaches will be adopted. Certainly there is nothing in the clause to prevent the reports, when completed and submitted, from being published. I do not think the noble Baroness or anyone else in the Committee would wish to lay an obligation on each water authority to publish every part of each report. I think that when and what it publishes ought to be left to its discretion and I am happy to confirm that there is nothing whatever in the clause to prevent it doing that. I am sure it would be a sensible course to adopt.
BARONESS WHITE: Until we are sure what is to happen to the first line of the clause it would perhaps be unwise to press the Amendment. I believe it is worth while spelling out these things, however, because although they may seem self-evident to us here they are not always so to other people, and I should like to reserve my position so far as putting down some comparable Amendment at a later stage is concerned. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw this one.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD SANDFORD LORD SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 170:
Page 52, line 23, after ("area") insert ("or might arise if any such mine were abandoned").
The noble Lord said: On behalf of my noble friend Lady Young, I beg to move this Amendment. This is necessary in order to make it clear that the water authority does not have to identify a particular abandoned mine before carrying

283
out studies. It should be able to carry out studies into problems that might arise if mines were abandoned. I am sure the Committee, and in particular the noble Baroness, would agree that is necessary, and I beg to move.
Clause 42, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 43 [Notice to abstain from certain agricultural practices]:
8.58 p.m.
BARONESS WHITE BARONESS WHITE moved Amendment No. 171:
Page 52, line 38, leave out ("requesting") and insert ("directing").
The noble Baroness said: I beg to move this Amendment. We now revert to the question of agricultural practice. I may say, en passant, that I find this Bill very difficult because it jumps about from one thing to another and I think really it might have been drafted more helpfully to those who have to follow it. However, that is by the way.
I put down this Amendment because to me it seemed extremely odd that the Secretary of State should merely "request". I have such veneration for Secretaries of State that I would expect them to direct and not to request, if they thought something should be done. However, I recall that at an earlier stage in our deliberations—I believe the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, pointed this out—the term "request" in this sense was the equivalent of giving prior warning before something rather more drastic might take place. That I can now understand; but from simply reading the clause, I do not think that anyone would have read that meaning into it unless they were very experienced in the ways of legislation and in the ways in which Government Departments work. I would ask that this might be looked at again. I am very much concerned that a Bill of this sort, concerning the environment, should, so far as possible, be clear to interested members of the public. Where those of us who are reasonably experienced in these matters are puzzled, I should have thought we might reasonably suppose that members of the public would also be puzzled. It is not by any means clear what "request" means in this context. I think that I understand it now, but if the noble Lord has anything to add which
284
might clarify the matter further I should be interested to hear it.
LORD DE RAMSEY: This is intended to be helpful. It certainly gives a farmer more time to find out in a practicable or scientific way what he has done wrong. Incidentally, the wording confirms to me that this creates a new form of pollution of something which hitherto has been perfectly legal; but as the noble Baroness has pointed out, it will give rise to confusion in the minds of the public. After all a policeman directs the traffic to stop, he does not request it to stop. The Secretary of State should do the same. Good agricultural practice ceases if there is pollution. Unfortunately, unlike in industry, a farmer cannot install purifying plants to the subsoil water from his fields. Therefore, perhaps it is nicer to request him to stop farming than to direct him to get out. The limiting factor to economic crop production, apart from water, is nitrogen. The noble Lord, Lord Sandford, in answer to my Amendment on Clause 23(2)(c), said that the main consideration was not nitrates. If not, what is? Perhaps "request" is the right word to ask for it to stop raining on a farmer's land. In that case someone higher up is the right person to request.
BARONESS WHITE: I remember another reason why I was worried: the word "request" is used in the preceding line where the authority requests the Secretary of State. This adds to the confusion. There "request" is used in the normal way, in that the authority says to the Secretary of State, "Will you please, if it seems good to you, do such and such?" Whereas the Secretary of State, in serving on the occupier a "notice requesting" is using the word "request" in a somewhat different form. This is another instance in the Bill where the drafting could be improved.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: If I may interrupt for once, I agree with the noble Baroness. I am a farmer and I am completely lost. I hope that my noble friend will give me an answer to two simple questions regarding the word "request". I have a nasty suspicion—I hope it is entirely unfounded—that this word "request" will involve a farmer in rushing off to a lawyer to ask him what it means. What might be the consequences should the farmer decide to

285
ignore this request and continue to put on fertilisers, "muck" and so on? I do not like the idea of farmers having to consult lawyers and, with the greatest respect to any noble and learned Lord here, I suggest that farmers have better things to do. I think the noble Baroness will agree with me on that matter. Let the Secretary of State make up his or her mind on this point and direct if necessary. I do not think it is fair to put the onus on the farmer.
Secondly, I hope my noble friend will answer one other question. My noble friend replied to the noble Lord, Lord De Ramsey, regarding his Amendment No. 140 (and this is at column 1635 of last Thursday's Hansard) and I have to admit to being suspicious that this word "requesting" is used as an escape for the Government from having to pay compensation should the farmer be prohibited from carrying out certain well-established agricultural practices. I hope that my noble friend can assure me that I have a suspicious and evil mind, that I have the wrong end of the stick and that there is no question in this wording of the Government opting out of their moral obligation to pay compensation. I hope they will not threaten me with removing Clause 43 and Clause 23(2)(c) altogether because I and my fellow farmers would think that that was not playing fair.
LORD HAWKE: I wonder whether "request" is related to the reference to the river of chicken manure that I mentioned last week. We did not get a very clear reply from the Government, but I think we were told that it was perfectly legitimate for the farmer to put his chicken manure on his land outside his chicken-houses, but wrong for him to put it into a stream. We never received any real reply to the point about the natural phenomenon whereby the chicken manure was drawn by gravity down the hill into the stream. Presumably, the Government cannot prohibit the farmer from putting chicken manure outside his chicken-house; they can merely request him to do so. But if it eventually finds its way into the stream it becomes, by act of God, an illegal procedure.
LORD SANDFORD: What a fascinating Bill this is! The noble Baroness is perfectly right; her understanding of this part of the Bill is correct. We are not
286
dealing with a control system in which it would be inappropriate for the Secretary of State, or anybody else, to be requesting somebody to do this or that but rather to be directing or ordering him. We are dealing with an early warning system. In that context it is perfectly appropriate to use the word "request". I agree it is unfortunate that we have in two consecutive lines the use of the word "request" in its normal sense, and the use of the word "request" in the technical sense of being part of an early warning system. We will look at that and see if the potential confusion can be removed.
I would make one general point about this particular legislation, and legislation in general. The actual practitioners in the field are normally guided by reference to the legislation not in neat form, but as it is distilled to them in the form of circulars and so on. These should normally be enough, perhaps with the help of ordinary professional advisers—not legal advisers—for most farmers' purposes. I hope that it would not normally be necessary for a farmer on receipt of this kind of request—using the word here in the technical sense—to consult his solicitor.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, for having reminded us of the chicken manure because this might well be the kind of thing which, if it were deposited in the ordinary way outside the chicken-house and left on the land, would not constitute any great polluting hazard, though if it were carried down to a stream, while still forming part of good agricultural practice, might nevertheless become a polluting hazard and form the subject of a request. In those circumstances, the request is issued as a warning to the farmer that unless he does something about it he will cease to be in the special provision provided for the farmers by the operation of these two clauses, and will be in the normal position of anybody who is about to commit, or is actually committing, a polluting offence. I hope that makes the situation clear.
In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, there is nothing in what I have said here which represents any departure from the undertakings I gave when we were last discussing this matter to consider the various issues that

287
were raised by members of the Committee.
BARONESS WHITE: I am so sorry, but would the noble Lord be kind enough to refresh my memory? Where is it that we are told that if the farmer declines the request he then takes himself out of the protection given to him in Clause 23? There must be something in the Bill, somewhere, that says what happens to him if he says, "No, thank you very much, I am not acceding to your request." The noble Lord has not answered very adequately this point about whether this is simply a means of enabling the Government to escape the obligation to pay compensation.
LORD SANDFORD: The last point is one which I have undertaken on previous discussions to look into again. We are actually on the clause now which deals with this very point, the serving of a notice requesting the farmer to prevent a particular act, because the object is to place him, as a result, in exactly the same position as the other person. I am referring to the notice requesting the farmer to abstain from certain agricultural practices which, because they are authorised by the codes which are being proposed, entitles him to this early warning, the first step in which is the request to desist from something which normally is approved by virtue of the code. This is the very clause we are on now.
BARONESS WHITE: I shall have to think about it still further. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD SANDFORD LORD SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 171A:
Page 53, line 25, at end insert:
("(5) If the Secretary of State considers that a notice served in pursuance of subsection (3) of this section on the occupier of a place should be cancelled he may, after giving notice of his proposal to do so to the water authority on whose application the other notice was served and considering any representations made to him by the authority about the proposal, serve on the occupier of the place a further notice cancelling the other notice at a time specified in the further notice; and where the Secretary of States serves a notice in pursuance of this subsection—

(a) it shall be his duty to serve a copy of it on the authority aforesaid; and

288

(b) it shall be the duty of the authority to enter in the said register a statement that the other notice was or is to be cancelled at the time specified as aforesaid.")

The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 171A. This was one which we considered along with No. 136A at an earlier stage of the Bill. I do not think there is anything I want to add to what I said then. I beg to move.
Clause 43, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 44 [Charges in respect of certain contents and discharges in England and Wales]:
On Question, Whether Clause 44 shall stand part of the Bill?
9.13 p.m.
BARONESS WHITE: Here we come to one of the most difficult and puzzling clauses of the Bill. This clause, as your Lordships will be aware, deals with the question of charges. We should like to know what the Government's attitude really is. My noble friend Lord Kennet apologises to the House for the fact that he is not able to be present to-night, but he thought the Amendment was going to be reached yesterday. He had originally intended to move this Amendment because, as some of your Lordships may recall, he referred with some emphasis to this matter on Second Reading. As a result of that, he received a letter from the noble Baroness, Lady Young. It is not in any way marked "confidential", and it referred to that debate, so I assume I might quote from it. I found the letter, with great respect, even more confusing than the clause. The penultimate paragraph says:
"Of course, this is an altogether oversimplified view."
LORD SANDFORD: Two pages.
BARONESS WHITE: Two pages of utter confusion. I find this very difficult indeed, but to try to put it as simply as I can, we are not at all clear in our minds (and I fear that the correspondence has not made the position any more lucid) what kind of change is envisaged in this clause. If it is a charge for what might be called "services rendered", in order to cover the cost of treating polluting matter, then of course there could be no possible objection. If there were possibly a charge which included some element for

289
the water authority for overheads or administrative costs, I do not think we should worry about that, either. But what worries us is that there appears to be a possibility of paying to pollute: in other words, provided that you pay a certain charge, and provided that your effluent is not too offensive, then you may continue to pollute on payment.
We are worried about this matter because there is an attitude in this direction, we understand, in certain Western European countries—I think I am correct in saying in the Netherlands in particular; I think there is some tendency this way also in the West German Republic. We know that consultations are going on within the context of the E.E.C. But it has never been part of the philosophy of dealing with these matters in this country, so far as I know, that we think it right that one should be allowed to pollute provided that one pays. So one has a real difficulty over this clause. If it were simply to mean that it might be said: "Look ! If we clean up your effluent for you, then we expect you to pay", that I think is perfectly straightforward, although normally, as we all know, an industrialist either does the job himself or gets a contractor to do it for him. But we see no difficulty in principle if he says to the water authority: "Look! I cannot do this. Will you take it on, and I will reimburse you?" The only difficulty about that concept is that the polluting matter might well get into the stream or river and not be treated until it was a good deal further down, after it was abstracted for some other purpose. The result would be that you would be treating the river as a sewer and you would have polluted Walter for the distance between the discharge into the water and the point of abstraction further down at which the water would be cleansed. This we should regard as undesirable, for quite a different reason.
I should very much like to have further clarification on this subject. We have received very strong representations about it. What worries us is that in any case it appears to us that the industrialist responsible for the discharge will have to pay: but in one case he will be paying for something to be done, and the result will be that the effluent will be treated and the river will therefore be cleaner; in the other case he will certainly be paying (if we take what I might call, for
290
shorthand, the Continental view), but the effluent, provided it is not too obnoxious, will not be treated and will add to the general pollution of the water. So there is here a very real problem.
In her letter to my noble friend, the noble Baroness, Lady Young, said this—I think I should perhaps quote it. She indicated that studies were going on, and pointed out a number of highly complicated problems that can arise in this business of charging, and then finally said:
"This is why, as I said in winding up, we have an open mind on the question of charging for discharges and feel that we must have the results of the current studies and consult widely about them before reaching any conclusion."
That is a perfectly understandable position, but if you are in that position it does not seem to me that you have any business to put this provision into legislation, because you really do not know what you are doing. It is for that reason that my noble friend Lord Kennet and I (and we are supported by other noble Lords) feel that it is inappropriate at this stage to include in a Bill of this kind the provisions which are contained in Clause 44.
If it is the case that we may be involved in arguments with our partners in the Economic Community, anyone with any knowledge of the kind of consultations that go on there will know that these may go on for years. Therefore if we reach a point where, for quite different reasons, we may feel obligated to adopt a philosophy which I think to many of us would be repugnant, that ought to be considered on its merits at the time when it is really necessary. Our submission is that at this moment of time it is not only not necessary but that nobody has yet determined the proper way of dealing with this problem. Therefore it is quite irresponsible to press for legislation at this time.
I assume that the Department has advised Ministers that they want this as a longstop. Of course that is understandable. Departments have to think ahead and say "Legislation is not always easy to obtain when we need it, so why not pop this into the Bill and we shall have it when we want to use it." My understanding—and I would not put any other interpretation upon it—from the letter written by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, is that the Government have not yet made up their mind whether or not they would use the powers in this clause,

291
or how they would use them. I repeat, it would certainly be wholly obnoxious to those of us on this side of the Committee to adopt the philosophy that you may pollute, provided that you pay. That is an interpretation that would certainly be put on the clause as it now stands and I would have thought that was in itself sufficient reason not to accept the clause; but possibly an even stronger reason is that it is perfectly plain that the Government themselves are not sure.
My final submission on this matter is that I am aware, as I am sure are some other noble Lords, that this is one part of the Bill on which the Confederation of British Industry is very much opposed to the view of the Government—so I am told by them—and this is one of the areas in which they have failed to reach an understanding. This seems to me to be an added reinforcement of the view which I have attempted to put before your Lordships.
LORD DE RAMSEY: I have the same fears and was as puzzled as the noble Baroness, Lady White, but perhaps they are unfounded. Perhaps this is intended purely to be an administrative charge for discharging, in which case one's first reaction is relief and to say, as the noble Baroness, Lady White, said, that we are not going to make a fuss about that. But when we come to think of it further we ask ourselves: is this purely an administrative charge that is really necessary or is it just a vexatious imposition? Will it not just add more clerks to the treasurer's department, with supporting staff? I wonder whether the noble Lord thinks that this is an essential provision in the Bill.
THE EARL OF COURTOWN: I too was puzzled by this clause. The present system of abatement of water pollution is based on an assessment of the effluent to the extent that the pollution needs to be acceptable to the receiving waters. The cost of this is borne by the polluter—by the industrial discharger—either by himself or by payment to a contractor or to a local authority, or possibly both. It seems to me that there can be little justification for making, certainly not without much consultation, an additional charge—that is, a charge over and above the cost of improving the emission to the
292
proper standard. As I see it, the clause means that the water authority may be entitled to impose charges on a discharger to a river, estuary or coastal water, even if the water that he used has never been polluted, or if he has purified his effluent to the standard required.
Then there is the other point mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady White. Is a kind of pollution tax intended, by which a polluter will be taxed according to the amount of pollution in his effluent? This seems to me an extremely difficult measure to operate, and in any case it would require a great deal of consideration before being brought in. It seems to me that the whole question requires further study and consultation, and I hope the Government will be able to undertake to do this.
9.26 p.m.
LORD SANDFORD: Perhaps I can deal with that point straight away, and say that that is certainly the intention. Perhaps I should go back, in answering this proposal to delete the clause, to the genesis and reason for it. In including Clause 44 in this Bill, and Clause 45 which is the same thing for Scotland, my right honourable friend is primarily concerned to follow up the Third Report of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, set up by the previous Government, and to follow up the recommendations contained in that Report. Perhaps I may start by reminding the Committee what is set out there.
There was a Minority Report from the noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman and Professor Beckerman, who held the view that there was much to be said for switching from a system of consents, which is what we primarily rely on, although some system of charging is already available in existing legislation; all that is happening there is that the system is being modified and made more effective by this clause. They were in favour of switching from a system of consents for controlling pollution to a system of charging. We are not happy with that, nor were the majority of the Commission. Nor are we happy to contemplate, as the minority were, the introduction of charges straight away, and direct provision for them is not made in the Bill. But the Royal Commission were agreed that a case had been made out to them

293
for the possibility of gaining advantages by combining a system of charges with a system of consents, but that nothing should be done until that matter had been studied. Those studies are now under way. Of course, they will be much more effective when the authorities set up under the Water Act of last year—the National Water Council and the various regional water authorities—have been fully established. But it has not been possible to make much progress yet. That is the background. Even at this early stage, one can say that the two things contemplated are, first, the use of charges to buy a licence to pollute. That is clearly not a road which any of us would wish to pursue, and I am glad to be able to say to-day that that is not a proposition which the Government have any intention of accepting.
BARONESS WHITE: If I may interrupt the noble Lord for a moment, of course I accept without hesitation what he says is the intention of the Government. But would it not be possible to incorporate it in this clause as it now stands? The noble Lord cannot bind his successors.
LORD SANDFORD: That is perfectly true. I shall have to deal with the point, and I shall seek to do so.
The other thing which it is not the intention of the Government to pursue is any sort of levying of a general tax on discharges by means of these enabling powers. The question I think we need to ask ourselves is: is it sensible to seek to follow up the Report of this expert Royal Commission, as we are doing, and to pass this Bill into law, seeing that there are possibilities here which have yet to be fully studied, without providing any enabling powers to give effect to the conclusions when they have been reached, in the expectation that they might include some possibility of combining charges with consents to a greater extent than has prevailed hitherto? Notwithstanding, the Committee has a duty to consider whether it is right to give the Government the kind of blank cheque which Parliament is always reluctant to give to any Government, and rightly so.
It is because it is not possible to spell out precisely how these enabling powers are going to be used, because these studies have not been carried very far, that the charges can only be introduced
294
by Order, and that that Order is to be subject to Affirmative Resolution. I have explained the origin of these proposals, that some combination of charges and consents should be studied. I put it to the Committee that it would be sensible to put in enabling powers to give effect to these conclusions when they have been reached, and I have confirmed that nothing can be done without Parliament having a further opportunity to see what is proposed before it is introduced. I may not have satisfied the Committee that the Bill ought to be enacted in this form, but I should like to end by putting in more of a plea than anything else that we at least leave these clauses in for the time being so that Parliament can continue to discuss the matter. I will take away the points that have been made so far and see whether there is more that can be said to allay such fears and anxieties as have been expressed. I hope I have dealt with the questions that have been put to me. I would have thought that, the state of investigation being what it is, the sensible thing would be to leave this clause in the Bill so that this House and the other place can discuss the matter. I hope the noble Baroness will not feel that it is necessary to move the clause out at this stage, because that would have the effect of stifling all further discussion of the matter, and I hope she would agree that would be a pity.
BARONESS WHITE: I must admit that in his final plea the noble Lord has put me into a certain difficulty, because as a good Parliamentarian I would be the last one to wish to stifle discussion of what is a highly contentious matter. The difficulty is, of course, that in this House we are more apt—and I speak with experience in both Houses—to judge matters on their merits, and therefore, I am rather reluctant to leave a decision of this kind to the other place. I am being as frank with the noble Lord as I think he is trying to be with us. I would not, therefore, wish to press this Motion now, but I would hope to carry with me other noble Lords who have put their names to the Motion to leave out this clause, so that we could have some further consultations. I should be less than frank, however, if I did not say to the noble Lord—and he put his finger on the point—that this is a blank cheque,

295
and to say that it would not be presented until one had had an Affirmative Resolution passed by both Houses is not in itself very satisfactory. We all know what happens even to an Affirmative Resolution; it cannot be amended. As a rule it is not difficult for a Government to get through an Affirmative Resolution if they are determined to do so. It is far more difficult for them to get legislation through by Statute.
I would wish to consult both with my noble friend Lord Kennet, and other noble Lords whose names are associated with this Motion and who have taken part in the discussion, before deciding on our line of action at a subsequent stage, To-night it would probably be wise to accede to the noble Lord's request that we should consider this further. In the entire Bill, this is one of the clauses about which I am most unhappy.
Clause 44 agreed to.
Clause 45 agreed to.
Clause 46 [Exclusion of certain liability in respect of discharges with consent]:
LORD SANDFORD: I beg to move Amendment No. 172, which is purely drafting, and the consent in question would be given under Clause 27.
Amendment moved—
Page 55, line 20, after ("this") insert ("Part of this").—(Lord Sandford.)
Clause 46, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 47 agreed to.
9.37 p.m.
BARONESS WHITE BARONESS WHITE moved Amendment No. 172A:
After Clause 47, insert the following new clause:
Application to Crown Premises
(". This part of this Act shall apply to premises used for and to persons in the public service of the Crown as it applies to other premises and persons provided that the Secretary of State may by regulations provide that this section shall apply subject to any exceptions specified in the regulations.")
The noble Baroness said: I beg to move Amendment No. 172A. The point of this Amendment is consistency, and to inquire from the Government why it is that when we reach Part IV of the Bill
296
(which deals with emissions into the atmosphere as opposed to effluents to water) in Clause 70(7) there is an application of Part IV to the Crown but there is not in Part II. It is not plain to us why there should be this discrepancy, other than that we believe that the Parts of the Bill were drafted by different people. There may be some reason which is not apparent, and I should be grateful if the noble Lord could explain what it might be.
LORD SANDFORD: I noticed this discrepancy myself. My advice is that the inconsistency is more apparent than real, because in Clause 70, as we shall find when we get to it, the whole business is to do with providing and publishing information, and it does not involve any departure from normal practice for the Crown to supply that information in respect of its own premises, and so on, along with everybody else, and to legislate accordingly. On the other hand, at this point of the Bill we are dealing with control by water authorities, and I think that the noble Baroness would agree with me that it is not normal for the Crown to be bound in that sort of situation in the same way as everybody else. It appears to be inconsistent, but here we are dealing with control and charges in respect of consents, and so on. In Clause 70 it is only a question of publishing information. I think she will agree that with those differences it is reasonable to deal with the Crown in different ways.
BARONESS WHITE: I am afraid I cannot see it because if we do not say anything about "premises used for and to persons in the public service of the Crown" it will mean, for example, that if the people who print our Parliamentary Papers like to pollute water with whatever is left when they clean the printing machines they can do so. Is there any real reason why Crown premises and Crown servants should be allowed to pollute, when other people are not? As the noble Lord w ill have noticed, there is provision in the Amendment for the Secretary of State to make regulations which would, for example, exempt defence establishments where there might be some real reason for it. But why, in the normal course of events, should public offices and public officials be allowed to pollute water?
LORD SANDFORD: That is a different point, but I am happy to respond to that one, too. The noble Baroness first asked me to explain the apparent inconsistency between the two clauses, which I hope I did. She has now asked why Crown premises should be allowed to pollute the rivers when that is forbidden to everyone else, and of course they cannot be. But that is not to say that it would be right to go to the extreme of binding the Crown by legislation, and it is not normally done. But certainly we are prepared to consider whether it is possible to go further than we have already gone and, for example, to take steps to see that effluents from Crown premises are registered in the same way as other effluents, even though the Crown is not bound by legislation.
This is a situation which prevails under planning law, where applications by the Crown for planning permission to do this, that or the other go over all the same hurdles as any other planning applications, although they are not bound by legislation to do so. That is probably what the noble Baroness is asking for, and I will certainly give an assurance that some such procedure will be considered.
BARONESS WHITE: Naturally, I am much obliged to the noble Lord. I still do not see why you can bind the Crown to give information but cannot bind it not to pollute. It seems to me that you should either not bind the Crown at all or should bind it in both directions. However, perhaps the noble Lord will take this point home and look at it together with all the other points that he is taking home to look at, and will let us have the result of his deliberations. For the time being, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
BARONESS WHITE BARONESS WHITE moved Amendment No. 172B:
After Clause 47, insert the following new clause:
Duties of water authorities
(". It shall be the duty of a water authority to enforce provisions of this part of this Act in relation to the area of the authority.")
The noble Baroness said: I must freely confess that, with all the papers that I have gathered in order to deal with the various clauses of this Bill, I have mislaid my note on this Amendment. But my
298
recollection is that we want to be quite sure that it is the water authority which is the enforcement authority within its own area for the purposes of Part II of the Bill. This point was raised with me by one of our legal advisers and I am sure that he had good reason for doing so. But if the noble Lord cares to comment on this Amendment, so that we can be quite clear about the position of a water authority as an enforcement authority, I shall be grateful. I beg to move.
LORD SANDFORD: Unfortunately, my brief states that the purpose of this new clause is not clear, and if the noble Baroness cannot tell me then I am afraid that we cannot make very much progress. Perhaps she will write to me and we can carry on from there.
BARONESS WHITE: The noble Lord has made a very fair point. It is a question of the blind leading the blind. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
BARONESS WHITE BARONESS WHITE moved Amendment No. 172C:
After Clause 47 insert the following new clause
Penalties for false statements under Part II
(". Any persons who for the purpose of obtaining the consent of the water authority under this part of this Act knowingly makes a statement which is false in a material particular shall be guilty of an offence and liable:—

(a) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding £400 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or both; and

(b) on conviction or indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or a fine or both.")

The noble Baroness said: This is rather like Amendment No. 172A in so far as in Part IV there is provision, again in Clause 70 but this time in subsection (8), for penalties for anyone who knowingly makes a statement which is false in a material particular. There may be good reasons why a false statement is more to be deprecated in Part IV, when dealing with emissions to the atmosphere, than in Part II, when dealing with effluents in water. We do not quite understand the moral distinction between the two, but if there are good reasons for making it a criminal offence in one case but not in the other perhaps we could be told. I beg to move.
LORD SANDFORD: I am happy to say in response to this Amendment that

299
my right honourable friend thinks it is a rather good one. But, rather than just accepting it and inserting it here, we should like to see whether it cannot be applied in a more general sense and perhaps inserted in other parts of the Bill, or put in the parts of the Bill where it will apply elsewhere. On the assurance that the Amendment will be considered in that light, I hope the noble Baroness will not press me to accept it as it stands.
BARONESS WHITE: I shall of course be entirely satisfied if it is put in as a general provision in some other part of the Bill. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 48 [Interpretation etc of Part II]:
LORD SANDFORD: This is a drafting Amendment. Some reports under the 1963 Act have been prepared; those under the 1973 Act have yet to be prepared. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 56, line 14, after ("or") insert ("is or was").—(Lord Sandford.)
9.47 p.m.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS moved Amendment No. 173A:
Page 56, line 26, after (" "tidal waters" ") insert ("means waters which lie seaward of such limits as may be prescribed or (where not so prescribed) seaward of high water mark of ordinary spring tides and").
The noble Viscount said: I am not sure that this is the right Amendment for the purpose, because it is for the purpose of clearing up a piece of confusion which is so confused that nobody quite knows what is right, but no doubt the noble Lord will say what he thinks about it and we will get where we may. The difficulty is this: Boats are not restricted in tidal waters or docks leading off tidal waters. But what are "tidal waters", and what is a dock leading off tidal waters? Presumably, a dock has dock gates. The reason it is included is so as not to have little patches of restricted waters leading off unrestricted waters one quite undestands that. But the difficulty is this: How big is a dock? It is rather like the question, "What is the length of a piece of string?" A dock
300
may be quite a small thing. Ramsgate Harbour has an inner harbour, behind which is a dock; that is clear enough. But then you come to something like the Gloucester and Sharpness Canal. The Gloucester and Sharpness Canal has dock gates only at one end: it has no locks along its length. Indeed, it connects with the tidal river further up, near its other end, near Gloucester. So one may say that the whole of the Gloucester and Sharpness Canal is a dock leading off tidal waters. If that is so, presumably you have to exempt from your pollution requirements the whole of the Gloucester and Sharpness Canal, which I should have thought is highly unreasonable.
This sort of thing needs clarifying; otherwise, nobody is going to know precisely whether they fall within these restrictions or not. You have the same sort of thing in many other places. On the waters of the North-East you have a whole lot of canal sections which are one lock up, so to speak, from tidal water, and the question is: is that whole first length of a canal or inland waterway a dock? If it is not, how do you differentiate it from the rest of the docks in the Bill?
The confusion is even worse than that. Take the Thames for example. At the moment the Thames conservancy area is a boundary stone marking a point in tidal waters both sides of the boundary stone below Teddington Lock. The Thames conservancy pollution restrictions on craft apply down as far as that boundary stone, right down into tidal waters. If this Bill became law as it stands, the boundary for restrictions on pollution would be pushed right the way upstream. And not only to Teddington Lock. You could count Teddington Lock as a dock gate, and push the pollution boundary up to Hampton, miles up river. Obviously, whatever the Bill says, that is not what is required. I am not sure what is required. It needs a great deal more thought than has been given to it. We may have to make a special list of exemptions. I do not know what is the answer to this; there are several answers that I would accept. The Government have to do some thinking about it, but meanwhile let us hear what they have to say.
LORD STOW HILL: I support my noble friend's Amendment. He has

301
pointed to the practical difficulties and we have had occasion to discuss them on at least two occasions during the passage of this Bill. The immediate difficulty which arises from the expression "tidal waters" can I suppose be crystallised in the way in which it has been crystallised for me, by saying that it poses the problem of determining where the limit of tidal waters and the downstream limit of fresh waters is to be found. That is the issue that one has to try to resolve by the language used.
In his Amendment, my noble friend has tried to resolve that problem in a twofold way, first by providing a regulation-making power. I am not sure that that is altogether satisfactory. "Tidal waters" as an expression should be understood. If one wishes not to use it in any particular context and to substitute some regulation-made concept in place of it, well and good. But when we use the expression we should know what it means. I should have thought that in its second limb my noble friend's Amendment gives an intelligible meaning to that. It reads that tidal waters means:
"waters which lie seaward of … high water mark of ordinary spring tides …"
The result in any given context may or may not be satisfactory. It may not answer the problem that my noble friend posed. But at least one has reached the first stage, and achieved the first objective, which is saying what it means. For that reason I strongly commend at least that part of the Amendment, and hope that Ministers will be able to say that they will give consideration to trying to embody in Clause 48 a definition that is clear in its meaning. Then it would be a matter of policy, when one is looking at other parts of the Bill, whether one wanted to use that definition or whether one would prefer some concept formulated by regulation or as I would prefer it from some actual context of the Bill itself. I hope the Ministers will be able to say that they agree that there is a real problem here which ought to be tackled. It ought to be tackled, and I believe that Clause 48 is the appropriate part of the Bill in which to deal with it. Therefore, I hope that my noble friend's Amendment, if not accepted in terms, will at any rate be viewed favourably.
LORD SANDFORD: I certainly agree that the right place to define tidal waters is in this clause. The normal understanding of the expression tidal waters will probably not suffice here, and the main reason is indicated there already. We need to take into account the issued raised by the noble Viscount at an earlier stage of this Part of the Bill and on which I gave the undertaking to consider whether, and in what way, it would be possible to discriminate in favour of certain ports which are connected to the sea by a short length of canal, the amenity of which it is not necessary to protect to the same high standards as that of other inland waters. All I should like to do, in replying to this Amendment, is to confirm that consideration of that issue will also involve consideration of this definition, and I think that is what the noble Viscount himself was arguing for. I am grateful to him for putting down the Amendment to draw attention to the fact that that definition must embrace the result of our consideraions on the issue which he raised earlier.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: That is possibly as far as we can take that this evening. I must say that any definition I can think of will have some strange results, for example, on the Thames—some results I should never have imagined. For instance, I never thought of Hampton Court as being on tidal waters. However, possibly the best thing to do is to make a special list and deal with these one by one. I do not think we shall get anything satisfactory in the way of a general definition, try as we will—our efforts so far have got nowhere. So I suggest that we might leave the matter as it is for the present and await the results of further consideration by the Government. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD SANDFORD LORD SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 174:
Page 56, line 27, at end insert ("and").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move this Amendment and at the same time to speak to Amendment No. 175, which follows, and to Amendments 206 and 207, which come much later in the Bill and refer to Clause 93. They are only

303
drafting Amendments, and the effect of them is to transpose the definition of "a vessel" from Clause 48 to Clause 93, so as to apply to the whole of the Bill instead of only to Part II. I beg to move.
LORD SANDFORD: I beg to move Amendment No. 175.
Amendment moved—
Page 56, line 36, leave out from ("trade") to end of line 38.—(Lord Sandford.)
LORD SANDFORD LORD SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 176:
Page 57, line 3, leave out from ("means") to end of line 6 and insert ("such underground water as may be prescribed").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 176. This Amendment alters the definition of "specified underground water" so that it is in terms of water prescribed in regulations by the Secretary of State for Scotland. It does this by removing the reference to its being water which is used or expected by the Secretary of State to be used for any purpose which is inapplicable in Scotland because the law there is slightly different. I beg to move.
LORD SANDFORD: This is the last Amendment of Part II of the Bill, a mere drafting Amendment. I beg to move Amendment No. 177.
Amendment moved—
Page 57, line 25, leave out ("those Acts") and insert ("the Act in question").—(Lord Sandford.)
Clause 48, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 49 [Periodical inspections by local authorities]:
LORD CRAIGTON LORD CRAIGTON moved Amendment No. 178:
Page 57, line 31, at end insert ("and not less than every two years.")
The noble Lord said: This is the first Amendment in Part III of the Bill. This is a simple matter. I have never liked the phrase "from time to time". Unless
304
the local authority enforces this clause the whole of Part III of the Bill falls to the ground. But what exactly do the words "from time to time" mean? I believe that it will be much better to make it the duty of the local authority to carry out inspections at least within some period or other, and I suggest it be not less than every two years. I beg to move.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT (BARONESS YOUNG): One can well understand why the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, might consider that it would be an advantage to put in a specified period of time at which measurements of noise should be taken by local authorities. The reason why this particular form of words has been put into this clause is that they are based on the Public Health Act 1936 and we have no reason for supposing that this has not worked adequately in the past. There is a practical reason for not giving a specified period of time: noise nuisance is very much a local matter. The fact is that for many authorities it may be appropriate that inspections should take place much more frequently than every two years, for instance in a heavily industrialised area. On the other hand, in a rural area it might not be necessary to have inspections as frequently as every two years; perhaps five-yearly intervals might be more appropriate. It is for that reason that we have specified the words, "from time to time". I hope that will answer Lord Craigton's doubts about this phraseology.
LORD CRAIGTON: Unhappily I accept what my noble friend has said. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 49 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: May I make a brief comment. This is a flourish of trumpets announcing what we are talking about in Part III. I hope that trumpets will never be considered pollution!
Clause 49 agreed to.
Clause 50 [Summary proceedings by local authorities]:
10.5 p.m.
LORD MERRIVALE LORD MERRIVALE moved Amendment No. 178C:
Page 58, line 35, at end insert—
("or
(d) the alleged offence resulted from operations which were subject to a notice served in accordance with section 52 or a consent issued under section 53 and the operations were not in contravention of the terms of such notice or consent.")
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 178C. Defences are provided where a consent made by a local authority under Clause 57 in respect of any premises or a notice served under Clauses 58 and 59 are being complied with in relation to any premises or to a building to be constructed, with reference to noise exceeding certain levels, or to a reduction in noise levels. I feel it only reasonable that notices issued under Clause 52 regarding control of noise on construction sites, and consents for work on construction sites under Clause 53 should be analogous to those previously mentioned. Therefore I hope my noble friend will agree to the inclusion of these additional defences regarding construction sites and prior consent to carry out works.
BARONESS YOUNG: As I understand it, what Lord Merrivale wishes to do in this Amendment is to provide to a contractor operating within the terms of a notice under Clause 52 or a consent under Clause 53 an automatic defence in noise nuisance proceedings. The works to which Clauses 52 and 53 relate tend to be noisy. The notice/consent procedure is designed to ensure that the noise is minimised. But even this minimum of noise could amount to a nuisance. In such a case the local authority could, theoretically, proceed against the contractor for this nuisance. The Amendment
306
therefore seeks to safeguard the contractor from what might appear to be completely arbitrary behaviour.
I think the difficulty that we have with this Amendment is that it is very difficult to envisage in what circumstances a local authority might take such action, especially as it would involve an admission to the court that its original judgment had been at fault. But in the unlikely event of such proceedings being brought, the contractor should in practice be able to rely on the defence of the best practicable means given by subsection (5). This is on the assumption that he was really operating within the terms of the notice consent. Since the local authority is required by Clause 52 (4) and Clause 53 (5) to have regard to the relevant code of practice, and to the need to ensure that the best practicable means are employed to minimise noise, a contractor should have little difficulty in most cases in establishing his defence. I hope this will serve to reassure my noble friend Lord Merrivale that we have taken this point and that we feel this clause meets this case.
BARONESS WHITE: I wonder whether the noble Baroness could perhaps speak a little more slowly. This subject is somewhat difficult to follow.
LORD MERRIVALE: This is a highly technical matter as well as a legal matter. What I am trying to achieve is that the provisions within the clauses I have mentioned—that is Clauses 58 and 59—which have certain defences, should also be applicable under Clauses 52 and 53. But as the noble Baroness is advised that any contractor would have appropriate defences, all I will say now is that I should like to read in more detail what she has said. Then, if her assurances are not satisfactory, we can come back to this question again on Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question Whether Clause 50 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: I think that in this particular clause (and of course I am subject to correction) we are touching on something which is of very substantial importance. The Noise Advisory Council's Working Group, which produced a document called Neighbourhood Noise, which went on sale in 1970—the Scott Report—made six points. One of them was that the total exemption for authority undertakings was unnecessary and unreasonable: in fact, the Crown could do wrong in this matter. Apparently the Noise Abatement Act 1960 exempted various statutory authorities from responsibility in obeying this particular Act. The Scott Report proposed that in fact this immunity should be withdrawn and that various statutory authorities should be responsible for obeying the law of the land as if they were owned by private individuals. I should be grateful if the noble Baroness who is replying to this discussion could confirm that this is so.
If it is so, then a series of rather interesting situations arise. As I understand it, Clause 50, if we translate it into the English language, means that statutory undertakings ("undertakers" is in the document I have in my hand, but I do not really think that is meant) will be able to plead that noise was necessary for the continuance of their undertaking at a particular time or place; it does not mean that they can make noise because they find it convenient to do so. This is a very important point. In the past, I am certain that many of the statutory undertakings (or undertakers, depending on how correctly the typescript I have is produced) must have hidden behind this particular right. Under the 1960 Act they are protected; they do not have to obey the law that is applied to organisations other than those owned by the State or the Crown. If one looks at the list one sees a rather interesting number of undertakings to which this now applies, if this particular clause means what I believe it means: British Rail, British Waterways, Inland Navigation, Docks and Harbours, Gas, Central Electricity Generating Board, Statutory Water Undertakers, National Freight, National Bus, Passenger Transport Authorities, London Transport Executive, and—here
308
is the real problem one—British Airports Authority.
It is very curious to see how they can react to this particular situation. As I understand it, there is in fact a protection. They can argue that noise is necessary for the continuance of their undertaking at a particular time or place. I suppose that London Airport here and now is an area which can hardly be moved at short notice. Nevertheless, it is a healthy fact that these statutory undertakings have in fact to adapt themselves to the requirements of the community that surrounds them in the same way as (shall we say?) a subsidiary of Imperial Chemical Industries or a smaller undertaking must adapt itself in order that the irritant of noise, which apparently is something that is becoming increasingly significant in our society, shall be denied to them in the same way as it is denied to the subsidiaries of major private companies. I should be most grateful if the noble Baroness would comment upon my interpretation of this particular clause and my interpretation of the situation of nationalised undertakings under it.
10.14 p.m.
LORD STOW HILL: May I make just one or two comments on Clause 50 on the Question, That the Clause stand part? I want to refer to subsection (3) of the clause which reads:
"The person served with the notice may appeal against the notice to a magistrates' court within fourteen days from service of the notice."
That, I believe, is broadly based on the model of the Noise Abatement Act 1960—subject to this. In the case of the 1960 Act the recipient of a notice is given no right of appeal. All he can do, if he receives a notice and wishes to challenge it, is to disregard it, and, when subsequently proceedings are taken against him in a magistrates' court for continuing the nuisance, plead that the notice was for some reason or another invalid.
One therefore has this new model. The person who gets the notice is given a right of appeal within 14 days to a magistrates' court, and one scans Clause 50 to try to discover what the magistrate is empowered to do if he has such an appeal brought before him. Can be set the notice aside? Can be amend it? What can be do? One finds no guidance at all in Clause 50 and one has to go grubbing

309
through this Bill, I suppose, until one gets to Clause 61—that is to say 10 clauses later—before one gets any information on this point at all.
I start from the general proposition that our criminal legislation should be perfectly clear. The ordinary liege of Her Majesty must know, in terms chosen for their clarity, exactly how he stands in the face of the criminal law—and I suppose this is a branch of the criminal law. He is given a right of appeal to the magistrates' court. Therefore when one has found one's way to Clause 61 (and may I, in parenthesis, protest against having to look 10 clauses further on to find out how you stand if you are a person who wishes to appeal against a notice; I submit that that is thoroughly bad drafting and a thoroughly bad arrangement) what does one find? Subsection (1) says:
"Where any provision … provides for an appeal to a magistrates' court, the procedure shall be by way of complaint … and the Magistrates' Courts Act 1952 shall apply to the proceedings."
You know therefore what are the proceedings to which you are to be subjected, because you look at the 1952 Act. Then you want to know what the magistrate can do. That you find (in so far as you find it at all) in subsection (2) of Clause 61, if I have understood this Bill correctly. That subsection provides that:
"The Secretary of State may make regulations as to appeals under this Part of this Act to the Secretary of State or, subject to the preceding subsection, to magistrates' courts, and the regulations may in particular—
(a) include provisions comparable to those in section 290 of the Public Health Act 1936 (appeals against notices requiring the execution of works) …".
Then the succeeding paragraphs go on to give a regulation-making power with regard to other matters relating to a notice which need to be dealt with.
With great respect, I protest strongly against that way of drafting. So far as I know it is quite contrary to our criminal law—or semi-criminal law if one is dealing with a notice in this case. Our criminal law should be clearly spelt out in the terms of a Statute and not left to a Minister to determine by regulation. This really is mixing up the function of an executive Minister and the functions of the courts. I do not mind whether
310
the Minister says that this is not really criminal in substance. The appeal lies with the criminal court—and I quite agree that appeals in non-criminal matters also lie with the magistrates' court—but this initiates criminal proceedings in that failure to comply with a notice gives rise to criminal proceedings pure and simple. So it is half a step towards a criminal proceeding.
I do not know who is responsible for this drafting. I should like to know whether the Minister can cite to me any precedent for a regulation-making power which gives power to define a magistrate's jurisdiction. Is the magistrate to be empowered to impose a penalty? What in the world is the meaning of the word "comparable" to those in Section 290 of the Public Health Act, 1936? "Comparable" is a word of wide import. A thing can be comparable even if it is very dissimilar; it may have points of similarity which give rise to the possibility of comparison. If I may respectfully say so, I do strongly protest against this form of drafting. I wish my noble and learned friend Lord Dilhorne, were here; I can just imagine how he would approach this matter and the sense of indignation he would feel about it.
I do ask the Minister to say that she will take this back, and that she will have this re-drafted in such a way there will be spelt out in the words of the Bill itself and in the subsequent Statute precisely what the powers of a magistrate are when he has an appeal against a notice before him: spelt out in terms of the penalty jurisdiction he is to have. I ask the Minister generally to re-draft this either non-criminal, semi-criminal or criminal proceeding (I do not know which it is) in a form in which it is clearly intelligible without having to look at the regulations made by an executive Minister. It is clearly undesirable to draft in that way. I hope the Minister will take this back and look at it again.
BARONESS YOUNG: I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, for his reception of the inclusion of statutory undertakers in this part of the Bill. I should like to confirm that it does include them, and I am glad that he accepts that this is a useful advance in the whole of the noise legislation that we have. The Department has in fact had consultation

311
with those statutory undertakers most likely to be affected, in particular British Rail and London Transport. Indeed, it would not be untrue to say that they have accepted these proposals in a spirit of resignation rather than anything else, but the fact is that they do have a safeguard written in in Clause 63 subsection (4). This will give them some manoeuvrability that they may require to run their undertakings without what they might regard as frivolous intervention on grounds of noise. They can in fact plead that noise is an inevitable part of doing their statutory duty. Only in that case can they plead this defence in Clause 63. In other cases, of course, they would be subject to exactly the same rules as would any other body.
The noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, has, I realise, raised a very different point. I shall want to read with very great care what he has said about this clause. Perhaps it may be helpful if I state what I think subsection (3) is trying to achieve. This provides for an appeal to the magisstrates after the service of a notice which has to be made within 14 days, and the time for appeal is kept to a minimum in order to reduce the delay in eventual compliance with any such notice. As I understood him, the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill asked what was to happen then. The position is that magistrates, on receiving the appeal, can review the matters that have been dealt with in the notice, and if the court dislikes the terms of the notice, it can then set it aside, or not, as the court considers to be right under those circumstances.
Clause 61 really deals with procedures and not with action which magistrates can take under Clause 50, or indeed under any other clauses in this part. I think that there is some misunderstanding as to how this subsection would work, and with this explanation I hope the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, will feel that some of his criticisms have been met. I will, however, read very carefully what he has said; if I have not given him a sufficient answer, or if indeed there is anything further I can find out for him, I shall be very glad to write to him about these matters.
LORD STOW HILL: I am very grateful to the noble Baroness. She says the magistrates are given a power to
312
review or dismiss a notice; I forget which she said. Is that provided in the Bill? If it is, I will withdraw and at once apologise to those who drafted it. I searched for it and could not find it. The only provision I found was a regulation-making power in Clause 61. It is that that I think is undesirable; it should be spelled out in the Bill. If it is in the Bill, as I say, I will at once withdraw and offer apologies to those who drafted the Bill: it would be most unfair if this criticism remained on the Record, not withdrawn, if that power is in the Bill spelled out in terms. But I have not found it. If the Minister can tell me where it is, I will withdraw at once. I have looked quite carefully and could not find it.
Clause 50 agreed to.
Clause 51 [Summary proceedings by occupier of land]:
10.27 p.m.
LORD MERRIVALE LORD MERRIVALE moved Amendment No. 178D:
Page 59, line 37, at beginning insert—
("Where an offence is committed under subsection (4) of this section,").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 178D. Subsection (4) of this clause reads:
"A person who without reasonable excuse contravenes any requirement of an order under subsection (2) above shall be guilty of an offence against this Part of this Act."
It seems to me that this clause, Clause 51, and subsection (6), as drafted now, would allow a magistrates' court the right to direct a local authority to take steps to abate noise nuisance without affording an opportunity to the defendant to himself institute abatement measures. While I would agree that it is perfectly reasonable for a local authority to abate a nuisance in cases where a defendant is unwilling to do so himself. I do feel that in the first instance the defendant should always be allowed to take the appropriate steps himself. I have put down this Amendment with a view to endeavouring to achieve this end. I hope I shall have a favourable answer from my noble friend. I beg to move.
BARONESS YOUNG: I sympathise with the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, in the intention behind this Amendment, which is indeed to make sure that the

313
consent that has been given is in fact being carried out. The purpose of subsection (6) of Clause 51 is to give a magistrates' court the power to direct a local authority to take action to deal with a noise nuisance. Such directions would be given at the same time as the magistrates made any order under subsection (2).
This clause gives the court various powers against a person responsible for noise nuisance. In the first place, it can make an order under subsection (2) requiring the defendant to abate the nuisance and prohibit a recurrence, and requiring the execution of any necessary works for either purpose. Secondly, in addition to, or instead of, such an order it can use its powers under subsection (6). Thirdly, if the defendant contravenes any requirement of the court's order, he can be fined. This last possibility is quite separate from the other two and arises at a separate stage. To attempt to link subsection (6) with subsection (4) in the way suggested in the Amendment would result in fact in the nullification of the subsection (6) powers, and this is presumably not the intention of the Amendment.
The Government assume that the purpose of the Amendment is to make it clear that the court should only use the powers given by subsection (6) if it is convinced that the defendant would himself be unwilling to take the necessary action. As this subsection is identical in effect with the relevant part of Section 99 of the Public Health Act, 1936, and as there is no suggestion of a defect in these powers, the Government consider that the fears underlying this Amendment are unfounded. Nevertheless, they would be willing to consider the possibility of introducing an Amendment to make the power of subsection (6) available only where the court is satisfied that the defendant is not going to do the work himself. I hope that that is a sufficient reassurance to the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, for him to feel able to withdraw the Amendment.
LORD MERRIVALE: I am grateful to my noble friend for her final remarks. What I was trying to achieve was that the defendant should be given the opportunity to first of all endeavour himself to reduce the noise. I understand that is what the noble Baroness has said the
314
Government are prepared to do. With that assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 51 agreed to.
Clause 52 [Control of noise on construction sites]:
10.33 p.m.
LORD MERRIVALE LORD MERRIVALE moved Amendment No. 178E:
Page 60, line 28, leave out ("and")
The noble Lord said: With your Lordships' permission, I should also like to speak to Amendments Nos. 178F and 178L. The purpose of these Amendments is to replace subsection (6) by a new subsection (3)(e). As subsection (3) deals with what may be specified in a notice, it would seem to me to be sensible to include in this subsection the question of the time within which a notice is complied with rather than separately under another subsection. The execution of works, and the taking of other steps, should be specified in the code of practice proposed under subsection (4), and it would therefore seem unnecessary to reiterate this in subsection (6). I beg to move.
LORD ABERDARE: This group of Amendments would have the effect of preventing a local authority specifying in a notice the works to be executed and the steps to be taken for the purpose or the notice. A local authority would also be obliged to specify a reasonable time for compliance with the requirements of a notice served under this clause.
Similar powers to those in subsection (6) which allows a local authority to specify works or other steps in a notice are to be given to local authorities in other contexts in this Part of the Bill. This it not an innovation. Parliament conferred similar powers on local authorities in the Public Health (Recurring Nuisances) Act 1969. The power to specify works is discretionary and there is no compulsion on any local authority to exercise these powers if it does not wish. But even if a local authority did so wish and was not well advised in so doing, there is always the safeguard of an appeal against its requirements under subsection (7). We believe that there is no doubt that these powers, properly used, are a

315
useful instrument for the local authority to have, and there is no evidence to suggest that they use their present powers irresponsibly.
A statutory requirement that a local authority should specify a "reasonable" time for compliance with the requirements of a notice seems to us unnecessary. Subsection (6) as drafted allows a local authority to specify a time for compliance and this has to be realistic. Local authorities already operate this kind of requirement in the context of the Noise Abatement Act and other legislation. Indeed, if insufficient time is allowed for compliance this could well constitute a valid ground for an appeal. I hope it will be some reassurance to my noble friend that we intend in due course to issue a circular to local authorities giving guidance on this and other similar matters which are essential to the smooth working of the Bill. I do not think that the Amendments he has suggested would help us very much, so I hope that he will not persist with them and will withdraw them.
LORD MERRIVALE: I should like to thank my noble friend for his reply. It appears that there is a precedent in the Noise Abatement Act and in other legislation for inserting this subsection into the clause. I am pleased that it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to circularise local authorities about the way in which this clause should be applied. With that assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
BARONESS WHITE: Before leave is given, may I say that we have received very strong representations about the necessity for retaining subsection (6) and we should be very much against any suggestion of removing it from the Bill. So we are glad to have that reassurance from the Minister that the Government are also of the opinion that it should remain in the Bill.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10.38 p.m.
LORD MERRIVALE LORD MERRIVALE moved Amendment No. 178G.
Page 60, line 30, leave out ("have regard").
The noble Lord said: With this Amendment I should like to speak to
316
Amendments Nos. 178H, 178J and 178K as they are consequential and interrelated. The point about Amendment No. 178H is that if a code of practice is to be effective it will not be sufficient for a local authority merely to be obliged to "have regard" to it. With regard to Amendment No. 178K, subsection (4)(c) refers to the use of,
"methods of plant or machinery … which are equally effective",
but it is not clear what the alternative methods should be effective in doing. It could mean that they should be equally effective either in carrying out the job in hand or in reducing the noise level.
The alternatives may not be strictly comparable in this way. The comparison may be between a piece of machinery which would complete a job in a short time, and in so doing would produce a certain level of noise, and other machinery which would take far longer but would produce a lower level of noise. Taking all the circumstances into account, it might well be preferable to allow a higher noise level for a shorter time or vice versa. That being so, I trust my noble friend will agree that it would be preferable to remove the poorly defined constraint that alternatives should be "equally effective" and to insert instead:
"In acting under this section the local authority shall—… have regard to the possibility of specifying the use of reasonable alternative methods, plant or machinery."
I beg to move.
LORD ABERDARE: My noble friend has described the effect of these four Amendments, but I am afraid I cannot advise the Committee to accept them. I hope I can convince him that what is in the Bill at the moment is preferable. In so far as the Amendments requiring the local authority to serve notices which are consistent with the code of practice have any effect at all, they do not provide any better safeguard for the interests of the contractor than the clause as drafted. If the local authority has patently failed to have regard to the relevant provisions of the code of practice, its requirements will be at severe risk of successful challenge in the courts under subsection (7).
But there is a disadvantage to his Amendment. To require the local authority to serve notices which are "consistent with" the code would limit its

317
freedom of action to depart from the code where it judged it reasonable to do so. Circumstances may well arise when in a particular case it would be in everybody's interest to depart from the strict interpretation of the code. An excessive rigidity might well work to the disadvantage of a contractor. It would, for example, prevent local authorities from exercising any latitude where the contractor was working on a "green fields" site, and this would be undesirable for everybody concerned. And, of course, the appeal provisions are always in the background. The code will be there for the guidance of local authorities and others, and is not intended as a rule book. Discretion and good sense in its interpretation are important, and may be looked for from local authority officials. I hope that, in these circumstances, my noble friend will see that this part of his series of Amendments really would not help the contractor as much as anybody else.
As to his other Amendments, again I do not think the last one, No. 178K, would be desirable. It would mean the loss of the words "equally effective", and this would weaken the powers of the local authority. My noble friend was asking me what those words meant. In this context, "equally effective" means effective in minimising noise. Local authorities will have to decide whether short and noisy is better than longer and less noisy. I hope that, with that explanation, my noble friend will agree to withdraw these Amendments.
LORD MERRIVALE: I suppose that in this case I shall again have to bow to greater wisdom. What one definitely wants, of course, is flexibility regarding the use of this code of practice. I was interested to hear from my noble friend that the code of practice does not set down rigid instructions, but, in effect, is meant to act as (what shall we say?) not a source of inspiration but a source of guidance for local authorities. At this stage, I can only ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 52 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD WOLVERTON: May I ask a question before we part with this clause? I was going to move some Amendments
318
which I had been asked to do by the Federation of the Civil Engineering Industry. I did not put them down in time as I got them only this morning, and I did not think that we should reach Part III to-night. The industry say that they will be able to make adjustments to some of their equipment to make it less noisy. I was glad to hear the noble Baroness say that guidance would be given to local authorities, but there are certain aspects of this clause which worry me. It is not possible to make pile drivers less noisy. Will special guidance be given in the memorandum to be issued to local authorities so that throughout the country local authorities will be treating this matter in the same way, and that machines like pile drivers will be exempt?
LORD ABERDARE: I was a little surprised to hear my noble friend Lord Wolverton, with his long experience of Parliamentary affairs, say that he was going to put down Amendments for any other organisation. It is the normal practice to put down Amendments in one's own name—
LORD WOLVERTON: I should have put them down in my own name.
LORD ABERDARE: I do not think that my noble friend need worry. There will be the code of practice. If he looks at Clause 62 he will see the code of practice is there laid down. Furthermore, in acting under Clause 52 the local authorities should also have regard to the need for ensuring that the best practical means are employed to minimise noise. If he looks at Clause 63 he will see the definition for "best practicable means" which naturally covers the current state of technical knowledge and financial implications; and I think he will find that all those matters are satisfactorily covered.
BARONESS WHITE: I should like to make a brief point before my noble friend Lord Winterbottom makes a more substantial one. We were asked to consider possible Amendments to this clause which would exempt work on agricultural buildings more than a hundred yards from any dwelling. In the light of what the Minister has said and from what is included in the Bill, I should have thought that it would be undesirable to have such a specific Amendment. But I hope that in any guidance which is given it will be

319
suggested to local authorities that in the country where, apart from the farm or agricultural holding, residential accommodation is a considerable distance away it would be reasonable to take a fairly lenient view of any noise which might occur.
LORD ABERDARE: I will certainly take that into account.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: May I make three quite short points? The noble and learned Lord, Lord Stow Hill, made a complaint about drafting. Although I think I understand the reason why the content of Clause 52 precedes Clause 53, nevertheless, in terms of the average man trying to understand the Bill, it would seem that Clause 53 should precede Clause 52. Clause 52 gives a local authority power to impose requirements. Clause 53 gives the individual contractor the opportunity to ask the local authority what are its intentions. Although I understand that Clause 52 is weightier than Clause 53, I feel that this is the wrong way round, and is putting the cart before the horse. Perhaps when we send the Bill to another place it may be adjusted slightly.
The first of my other points refers to pile-driving, which was also mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Wolverton, and which has kept me awake for many a long hour at night. Possibly the best way of countering the noise is by muffling in some way. But I should like to ask for how many hours each day the noise would be permitted and whether the control of this kind of nuisance covers the hours of day or night during which activities of this type may continue. It is a question not of techniques but of the number of hours each day that the activity may continue.
I should also like to ensure that it is made quite clear that the statutory undertakers (I understand that is the correct form of words) are as bound by this provision as anyone else. Most of the pile-driving at night is on behalf of river authorities, people building power stations and anyone driving piles where there is water—and that is usually a public undertaker. I should therefore like to ask that it be made quite clear that the individual who has to do the work knows that he
320
can turn to the local authority for a definition before he starts. Secondly, is time a factor, as well as technology? Thirdly, do all these statutory undertakers know that they are bound by their construction activities to the same degree as they are by their operating activities?
LORD ABERDARE: To comment on the first point made by the noble Lord about drafting, a great many hard things have been said about the Parliamentary draftsmen. I must say I have the very greatest sympathy with them. I am not sure that noble Lords are correct in blaming the draftsmen—I think perhaps it should be the Minister who takes the blame; but at any rate my sympathies lie with them. As to the second point made by the noble Lord, regarding the number of hours that may be worked by pile-drivers, Clause 52(3)(b) says:
"The notice may in particular … specify the hours during which the works may be carried out."
There is a cast-iron provision there, making it clear that the licence will permit pile-driving only within certain hours. This applies to public undertakers as well.
Clause 52 agreed to.
Clause 53 [Prior consent for work on construction sites]:
10.54 p.m.
LORD MERRIVALE LORD MERRIVALE moved Amendment No. 178M:
Page 62, line 7, leave out ("twenty-eight") and insert ("fourteen")
The noble Lord said: I beg to move this Amendment and also to speak to Amendments 178N and 178O, which are related. I suggest that a local authority should be required to issue its consent within 14 days and not 28 days, as mentioned in the Bill, and that the code of practice should be applicable to a wide range of cases, thus enabling the determination of consent conditions to be carried out quickly and easily. Many developments are on a relatively small scale, and a delay of 28 days could be very significant.
I have in mind, too, under Clause 52(1)(a) the repair or maintenance of buildings, structures, and so forth. In such cases 28 days could be quite a long time. Large scale developments, on the

321
other hand, usually involve a very much longer time scale, and therefore could accommodate an agreed extension to the 14 day period. I feel that the effect of the 28-day period would be to deter developers from making applications for smaller developments, and to apply pressure on local authorities with regard to the use of their powers under Clause 52.
Would it not be better therefore to encourage the obtaining of prior consent under Clause 53 by shortening the 28-day period, as I am seeking to do in this Amendment? I beg to move.
LORD ABERDARE: I can well understand what my noble friend has in mind. I hope that we shall arrange matters so that there is no undue delay. Certainly it is relevant to point out that the 28-day period is a maximum, and one would hope in the case of a relatively minor operation that the consent would go through much quicker than that. We think that 28 days is a reasonable maximum in the majority of cases. The giving of consents is not a rubber-stamping operation. Applications will require expert scrutiny and consultation between public health officials and the authority's professional staff. Discussions with the contractor and site inspections may also be necessary. It would be unrealistic to expect that these essential processes could be carried out properly if insufficient time was allowed for proper consideration. If we were to adopt the suggestion of 14 days that would be only 6 or 7 working days if allowance is made for typing and postal time. Local authorities might react to the imposition of an unrealistically tight timetable by attaching very stringent conditions to a consent. This would lead to delay while they were challenged in the courts, and the contractor would then be in a worse position than if the clause had been left unamended.
The 28 days period is a reasonable compromise between the sometimes conflicting interests of the contractor and the local authority. Since this clause is primarily intended for the benefit of the contractor, to enable him to get a decision before work starts, the onus is on him to make his application in sufficient time for the local authority to give proper consideration to it. By allowing the local authority a reasonable
322
period to deal with the general run of cases, the chances of their being able to respond more quickly to the application where urgent consent is genuinely required are also improved. We intend to issue guidance to local authorities on the need to deal with cases as expeditiously as possible. I hope therefore that after hearing that explanation my noble friend will agree -to withdraw his Amendment.
LORD MERRIVALE: I was hoping that my noble friend would assure the Committee that Her Majesty's Government would give guidance to the local authorities so that they would know exactly how to proceed in order that in certain cases—emergencies, or in the case of the smaller developments—consent could be given in a short period of time. I was also pleased to hear my noble friend mention that the 28-day period would be a maximum period, and that Her Majesty's Government feel it to be a reasonable maximum. I only hope that local authorities will also consider this to be a very definite maximum, and that they will endeavour, whenever possible, to deal with the matter in a short period of time. I also take the point that in certain cases there will need to be expert scrutiny and consultation. It could be in the interests of the contractor that this should be so.
I also take my noble friend's point that in asking for 14 days, that would leave only six or seven working days. I was just wondering though (one very often hears in Parliament that half a loaf is better than none) whether my noble friend would agree in this case possibly that 21 days may be a reasonable compromise, or are Her Majesty's Government wedded to this idea of a 28-day period? Would my noble friend like to comment on that?
LORD ABERDARE: I should like to help my noble friend if I could, but in this case we have looked at the matter very carefully, and I really think 28 days for a major building contract is required. Since it is only a maximum, I think we must stick to 28 days.
LORD MERRIVALE: I take my noble friend's point at this stage, and ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 53 agreed to.
11.3 p.m.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM LORD WINTERBOTTOM moved Amendment No. 178A:
After Clause 53 insert the following new clause:
Noise Ratings
(". The Secretary of State may by regulations require that—

(a) prescribed machinery shall have noise ratings ascribed thereto; and

(b) any machinery prescribed as aforesaid shall not be used if it emits noise above a prescribed level.")

The noble Lord said: This new clause is in itself quite a simple addition to the Bill—not an Amendment but an addition. If we are talking about noise, and in particular about noise arising from plants, it would surely be sensible that the actual noise emission by machine tools and machinery being offered for sale should be defined before the machine is offered to the public. If we have a certain noise emission rate considered as a standard for an operation on a construction site, it would be stupid to sell a machine with a noise emission rate higher than that which would be permitted on the site itself. So we are putting forth the suggestion laid down in the clause which we would wish to see added after Clause 53. It is very simple and good English:
". The Secretary of State may by regulations require that—

(a) prescribed machinery shall have noise ratings ascribed thereto; and

(b) any machinery prescribed as aforesaid shall not be used if it emits noise above a prescribed level."

So, if a local authority says that machine tools working on a site shall not emit a volume of sound above a defined level, then the machine tool should not be sold with an emission of noise above that of the prescribed level.
This suggestion really arises from the Scott Report which recommended that the Secretary of State should be empowered to specify the noise emission level of machinery. It is recommended that a comprehensive statutory framework for the progressive alleviation of the neighbourhood noise problem over the next 10 or 15 years should include a reserve power for the Secretary of State to introduce by regulation a statute of limitations on a noise output of a
324
specified class of machinery. It is only common sense. We are not going to get a satisfactory world overnight. We must work towards a certain level. If we think in terms of a decade, it is entirely sensible that we should arrange that the machinery to be used on a construction site should be so designed that its noise emissions are acceptable to the people living in the general area.
Of course, it is not only the people who surround a building site or a working site who are affected; the people who actually work the machines are themselves affected. We are dealing not only with citizens but with the workpeople on the site. It is for this reason that I believe we should include a clause of this type, which would empower the Secretary of State to lay down levels of noise for machinery that is offered for sale for use on sites, where the local authority is empowered to lay down the standards of noise emission, and so on, which would take place with the work on that site. I beg to move.
LORD CRAIGTON: Does this new clause apply only to construction sites, or to any machinery, such as the noisy saws which householders use for cutting down trees on Sunday afternoons? I do not see why it should apply only to construction sites. Is that the noble Lord's intention?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: I am afraid that I have not thought this matter through as deeply as I should have liked. I, like the noble Lord, suffer from the noise from active power saws on Sundays, but I find it difficult to know how one could silence a rip saw carving through a fallen tree. Nevertheless, I suppose that we in the country, who spend our weekends in the country, do not suffer so much as people who are closed in in an urban environment, who have to hear the traffic by day and pile-driving by night.
LORD CRAIGTON: They employ machinery with a noise rating.
LORD PLATT: Surely one of the most awful noises is that of the pneumatic drill, particularly on building sites. But is it possible to produce a piece of machinery that would dig up concrete without making such a frightful noise? We have to be a little careful in drawing up regulations or we may find that we

325
are asking for the impossible. As an antedote at this late hour, I would say that the most pleasant noise is that of your wife mowing the lawn.
LORD ABERDARE: It was originally our intention to include a provision of this kind because we, too, had read the Scott Report. But, having looked at it carefully, we thought that it would probably be preferable to see whether manufacturers themselves would respond to market pressures for quieter machinery. We therefore thought this was not an essential provision and it would be better to leave it to see how manufacturers dealt with the situation, in the light of pressure for quieter machinery. Indeed, you can make quieter machinery. I do not think any drills are very quiet, but they can be made quieter. The noble Lord said, quite rightly, that his new clause was drafted in plain English. That is the most dangerous thing to do in any Bill—to put it into plain English. And I have to warn him that there would be great drafting difficulties with his clause—indeed, with any Amendment of this kind—because it would have to avoid the danger of being regarded as erecting a technical barrier to trade which would make it unacceptable to our trading partners, notably in the E.E.C. But, having said that, I appreciate that this is an interesting clause and I will certainly consider all that has been put forward by the noble Lord.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: I think my new clause, Amendment No. 178B is saying the same thing in rather more complicated language, and is therefore more in line with what the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, seems to wish. However, as it is more complicated I will not press the matter.
Clause 54 [Noise in Streets]:
11.10 p.m.
LORD CRAIGTON LORD CRAIGTON: moved Amendment No. 178P:
Page 64, line 2, at end insert:
("( ) It shall be an offence under this Part of this Act to connect a burglar alarm to a bell which, when the alarum is operated, can he clearly heard from any street unless there is no reasonably practicable method of connecting
326
such alarum to a police station; and notwithstanding the provisions of section 97(2) of this Act this provision shall not come into effect before the expiry of two years from the date of the passing of this Act.")
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is in such simple English that I will read it out to your Lordships. It says quite clearly what I should like to see:
"It shall be an offence under this Part of this Act to connect a burglar alarum to a bell which, when the alarum is operated, can be clearly heard from any street unless there is no reasonably practicable method of connecting such alarum to a police station; and notwithstanding the provisions of section 97(2) of this Act this provision shall not come into effect before the expiry of two years from the date of the passing of this Act."
The noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, when referring to the pile-driving spoke of the noises by which one is personally affected, and he asked whether they have to go on for 24 hours in the day. I expect every noble Lord in the Committee has heard the noise of the burglar alarm that is set off by a heavy lorry, or even by a mouse, and rings for hours—even all night, even all week-end. It is well known to everyone and is one of the most irritating noises that one can imagine. I will read an extract from a letter from somebody who also wrote to his Member of Parliament. It says:
"It does seem extraordinary that the peace of law-abiding, peaceful citizens should be shattered periodically by shopkeepers who go away for weekends and are not available to control an alarm bell that admittedly has gone of inadvertently. Two nights running of sleeping pills seems to me to be quite unjustifiable if it is for reasons beyond one's control."
I am sure the police have powers to act in this matter. Maybe they do. I do not blame them if there are too many instances where a bell just keeps ringing. But something must be done, and if the police powers need strengthening perhaps my Amendment is not so essential. But it would have two advantages: one is that it would be an answer to quite a large number of potential offenders, and the other is that it would lessen some of the work of the police. I beg to move.
BARONESS YOUNG: I am sure we all have sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, in his Amendment, especially if we have had the misfortune to suffer from one of these alarm bells ringing for a long period of time. It seems to be one of the facts of modern life that these machines go wrong, for whatever reason, and ring for long periods of time.

327
But while we have a great deal of sympathy in regard to the problem I am not sure that this particular Amendment is the most appropriate way to deal with it. Unfortunately, burglar alarms, whether of a silent or an audible type, are in fact a necessary part of modern life, and it would be difficult to justify making it an offence to connect a burglar alarm to a bell when there are many such devices which cause no inconvenience to anybody and which provide the protection for which they are designed. It really is not unreasonable to allow this type of alarm, provided it is switched off as soon as possible after it has been activated, although clearly the key holder has a great responsibility to ensure that his alarm is in good working order and that if it is activated arrangements are made to switch it off. Some companies, I understand, are prepared to offer a switch-off service if an alarm is activated, and if more people were to take advantage of this it would do something to mitigate this dreadful problem.
We hope, however, that the Bill as at present drafted will lead to an improvement in the position. Under the Bill a local authority will be empowered to issue a notice prohibiting the occurrence or recurrence of a noise nuisance which it is satisfied is likely to occur or to recur. This should certainly be a way of dealing with faulty alarms which are continually activated. Furthermore, consideration is being given to the possibility of reinforcing these powers by issue of a code of practice on audible alarm bells. This might, for instance, require them to be switched off within a specified period, and failure to observe such a code of practice could then be taken into account in any proceedings which might subsequently be brought for noise nuisance. This may not be, as it were, a cast iron solution, such as the noble Lord's Amendment provides, but I hope I have said enough to show that we do think something should be done about this matter, and we hope that this Bill will go some way towards meeting it.
LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY: There seems to be a problem here because it is difficult to know who can switch off a burglar alarm. Recently, one went off in our mews at about 11.30
328
at night; it started to ring loudly, and after a certain time a cluster of people formed outside the house wondering what to do about it. We rang up the telephone number on the alarm; I spoke to a man, who said he could not do anything about it unless he was given authority from the police. In the meantime we found out that the owners of the house were in New York. I went round to the police station, and they said they appreciated the alarm was making a noise, but they could not of their own responsibility switch it off. They said the man I had already talked to was responsible; it was his alarm. So there does seem to be difficulty in knowing who can switch off when the alarm goes off and the owner is away. In the end, in this case, the man who made the burglar alarm came and switched off the bell outside. The other one inside went on ringing gently until the owners returned from New York.
LORD CRAIGTON: I am grateful for that support, but as all noble Lords in the Committee have not jumped to my aid, and as the noble Baroness gave what I thought was a reasonably satisfactory answer, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 54 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD SOMERS: Before we leave this clause, might I put in an urgent plea to the Government to introduce a ban of some sort on the use of radios in residents' gardens in urban areas? This is sometimes an extreme nuisance. I need not go into all the technicalities and the acoustical reasons, but there is no doubt that noise from a loudspeaker carries for a much greater distance than a similar noise produced in a natural way. I think the reason is that it emphasises certain harmonics which result in the noise carrying much further. There is also another peculiar characteristic. Some loudspeakers tend to emphasise one particular note very much more than others, so if one is a sufficient distance away all one hears is a constant repetition of that one note. This can be absolutely maddening. As this part of the Bill is concerned with reducing noise which is a nuisance to other people, I sincerely hope that the

329
Government will consider introducing something of this sort.
BARONESS YOUNG: It is always very difficult to strike a balance when one has a problem such as noise from transistor radios. Obviously, they can be very noisy and objectionable to some; on the other hand, there is the freedom of the individual to play one, and to that individual it is not objectionable at all. It is really a subjective matter. It is, of course, open to one individual, if the noise can be heard outside the house or in the street, to bring an action for nuisance under the Bill, and it is open to a local authority to have a bylaw, if it so wishes, prohibiting the use of radios in certain public places. So this would be another way that the problem could be met. It is very difficult to see how one could go further than that. Apart from any of the legislative difficulties, there is always the difficulty of enforcement of any proceedings that could follow, or indeed tracking down people playing radios or switching them on and off. I hope, however, the noble Lord, Lord Somers, will recognise that the whole provision on noise is strengthened by the fact that one person can now bring an action for nuisance under this Part of the Bill if a noise can be heard in the street or outside a private house. This Bill does not, of course, apply to noise within a private house or private property altogether.
LORD SOMERS: The noble Baroness speaks of the liberty of the individual, and, I quite recognise the desirability of that. But should it be the liberty of the individual to create noise which is a thorough nuisance to all those living in very close proximity to him? I remember that when I was a student and was practising regularly I made it a rule to keep my windows closed. I suppose I could have exercised my liberty of the individual in summertime and kept them open. I did not do it. So far as making a protest about radios is concerned, it is very often very difficult to track them down, to decide exactly where they are. You hear them coming from somewhere, but you cannot tell definitely whose they are. How can you make a protest?
Clause 54 agreed to.
Clause 55 [Designation of zones]:
LORD WINTERBOTTOM LORD WINTERBOTTOM moved Amendment No. 179:
Page 64, line 10, at end insert ("and in doing so, shall take into account noise from traffic and from all other sources present in or adjoining the area to which the Order relates").
The noble Lord said: If we turn this Amendment into a meaningful clause, to use an Americanism, it should now read:
"A local authority may by order confirmed by the Secretary of State designate all or any part of its area a noise abatement zone"—
and here the Amendment starts—
"and in doing so, shall take into account noise from traffic and from all other sources present in or adjoining the area to which the order relates."
The reason for this is that if you take London or any of the great cities in this country traffic noise is a predominant source of noise nuisance, and if we are trying to define a noise abatement zone it is rather stupid to say you cannot do this and cannot do that if you do not at the same time take into account the fact that traffic is also making a substantial addition to the background noise of the zone in question.
I think we have to bear in mind, when we think of the implications of Clause 55, that every effort must continue to be made to reduce traffic noise at source, if the Government's policy on noise abatement is to be of real benefit to the community, and in particular if the benefits of noise abatement zones, which at the moment deal only with industrial noise, are not to be jeopardised by continuing unacceptable nuisance from traffic. Part of industrial noise is major heavy vehicles moving in and out of factory space. My life when I live in London is dominated by a whole series of noises, one of them being a major dairy operation opening its roller doors at five o'clock in the morning, and lorries bringing in milk and moving out the full cases. We have to think of a noise abatement zone in its entirety; not only the noise arising from industry in a certain area but also the movement of traffic in and around the industrial area controlled in the noise abatement zone. It is for this reason that I move this Amendment.
11.25 p.m.
LORD ABERDARE: We expect that a local authority will have in mind all types of noise when considering whether

331
or not to designate a particular area as a noise abatement zone, but we do not think that there would be merit in singling out traffic noise for special mention. Indeed, we think there would be some disadvantage in so doing. The clause as drafted allows a local authority to designate a zone, taking into account whatever factors it thinks appropriate. No two areas will be the same, and it is therefore appropriate to leave to a local authority the widest possible discretion in the process of making designation orders. We do not think it right to require local authorities to take a particular type of noise into account; it is the total noise with which they ought properly to be concerned.
Moreover, the Amendment might give the impression that the noise abatement zone clauses are designed to deal with traffic noise, and this would be misleading. The powers provided in Clauses 55 to 59 relate to noise from classified types of premises—for example, factories; and I should think possibly even the dairy which the noble Lord was concerned about—and they are not appropriate for dealing with noise from moving sources. There are already adequate powers to control traffic noise by existing legislation, such as the Construction and Use Regulations made under the Road Traffic Act 1972. There are powers available to local authorities to ban traffic, or certain classes of traffic, from using specified roads under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1967, and there are the powers available to local authorities under the Heavy Commercial Controls and Regulations Act 1973 to prohibit or restrict, the use of heavy commercial vehicles.
Where there are limitations on the action we can take in these respects is in the economic and technological constraints imposed by the need to make use of existing vehicles and to meet the European Community's general requirements. The need to reduce noise is one requirement that has to be weighed against others. New and generally exhortatory legislative powers are not going to alter this situation. We have to tackle the question of vehicle noise at source. The Government have already secured the E.E.C. agreement to a revision of existing vehicle noise limits by October 1, 1974, and we are also sponsoring a great deal of research, particularly into the production
332
of a quiet heavy goods vehicle. These are the reasons why I suggest that the Amendment has some disadvantages, and I hope that the noble Lord will agree to withdraw it.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: I am grateful to the noble Lord for his explanation. We live in an imperfect world, and what we are trying to do is to lessen the degree of imperfection. I am glad that thought is being given to this particular problem of background noise arising from traffic. Death and noise on the roads are things that we seem to accept as part of nature; and of course they are not. I am glad to know that we are giving a lead to Europe in this matter of quiet vehicles, and doing research into very quiet heavy goods vehicles. I hope that we shall not use the European Community too often as an alibi. As an ardent European I should be unhappy if this were the sort of thing behind which we hid. But having received the noble Lord's reassurance, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 55 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD MERRIVALE: As I understand this clause, it requires that a noise abatement zone order shall specify the classes of premises to which it applies. However, construction and demolition works are controlled separately under Clauses 52 and 53, so would it not be inappropriate for there to be dual control in a noise abatement zone order? Is it the Government's intention that the Secretary of State will not allow construction and demolition works to be covered in a confirming order? I regret that I have not given my noble friends notice of this point, but perhaps either he or she can reply to it.
LORD ABERDARE: I think that "he" will reply to this point, but I do so with some uncertainty because, as my noble friend said, he has not given me any warning. My understanding of a noise abatement zone is that it is a zone where the general noise level is measured and where efforts are made to restrain the level of noise to that level, and, in certain cases to reduce it. But if there were a construction operation going on within the zone, that would be a purely temporary interruption in the normal

333
noise level of the zone and, I think, would be controlled under the other clauses, as my noble friend said. But I should like to confirm that point.
Clause 55 agreed to.
Clause 56 [Register of noise levels]:
11.33 p.m.
LORD MERRIVALE LORD MERRIVALE moved Amendment No. 179B:
Page 64, line 31, leave out ("on") and insert ("before").
The noble Lord said: As this clause now stands, the noise level register might contain entries which were misleading because an appeal to the Secretary of State had not been determined. This would obviously be unsatisfactory, and it seems sensible to allow an owner or occupier of premises an opportunity to accept or to appeal against the validity of the noise levels before an entry is recorded in the register. I hope that my noble friend will consider this to be a reasonable Amendment. I beg to move.
BARONESS YOUNG: I hope I can show my noble friend Lord Merrivale that his Amendment is unnecessary. The recording of the noise level in the register will be a statement of fact, and against that fact the person concerned with the noise level will have an opportunity to appeal. The Amendment suggests that he should be told before it is recorded, so that he can then give notice of his appeal. I do not think that this Amendment is necessary, because a person will have the opportunity to appeal if he is dissatisfied. The recording in the register will be merely a statement of the measured noise level. I think my noble friend will agree that anybody who is concerned will have an adequate opportunity to object.
LORD MERRIVALE: I am most grateful to my noble friend for stating categorically that this Amendment is unnecessary, and that the recording will be merely a statement of fact. With that assurance given by my noble friend, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
11.35 p.m.
LORD MIDDLETON LORD MIDDLETON moved Amendment No. 179A:
Page 65, line 5, leave out subsection (5).
The noble Lord said: Clause 56 provides that when a local authority has designated a noise abatement zone it shall measure the noise level emanating from premises covered by the order, that such measurements are to be recorded in a noise level register, and that a copy of that record must be served on the owner and the occupier of the premises. Subsection (5) says:
"Except as provided by the preceding provisions of this section the validity or accuracy of any entry in a noise level register shall not be questioned in any proceedings under this Part of this Act."
I do not see any provision in the preceding provisions of Clause 56 with regard to proceedings. Subsections (3) and (4) refer to a right of appeal after receipt of a copy of an entry in a noise level register. An owner or occupier could therefore presumably question an inaccuracy under subsection (3), which provides that he can appeal to the Secretary of State against the record so long as he does it within twenty-eight days of receipt of a copy of the record. One can, however, envisage an administrative mistake, for example, or some other cause putting an owner or occupier out of court through missing the twenty-eight days allowed for the appeal. Under subsection (5) it would seem that the register then becomes sacrosanct, and that the validity or accuracy of any entry cannot be questioned in any further proceedings.
Local government officials are not infallible. Inaccuracies can occur only too often in the making of measurements and in the compiling of records. The validity of noise level measurements in particular, may, in our urban circumstances, be open to all sorts of question. The subsection appears at first sight to be one which could act unfairly on a person charged with an offence. If a mistake has been made in a register, it is only right that a defendant in peril of the criminal law should be allowed to question it. The mistake may, for example, be a clerical error, referring to the wrong premises, to premises not within the noise abatement order, or to the wrong level of noise. I am sure there is a good reason for this subsection and that my noble friend will justify its existence, but it does not seem to me to serve any useful purpose and it does not seem to me to be right that it should be there so long as there is no provision in the Bill—and I cannot find one—for

335
rectification of a noise level registry in the same way as, for example, you can rectify a land registry through the provisions of a land charges bill. I beg to move.
BARONESS YOUNG: The noble Lord, Lord Middleton, is I think concerned that there will not be an opportunity for somebody to object to the measurement which is put into the noise register in a noise abatement zone, and perhaps it might be helpful if I explained that subsection (3), which of course is the subsection particularly referred to in subsection (5) when it says
"Except as provided by the preceding provisions of this section …",
provides an opportunity for an appeal to the Secretary of State if anyone considers that a local authority has not used the right methods of measurement or has not taken accurate measurements within the procedure as laid down.
Subsection (3) is designed to ensure that the matter may be dealt with promptly while the facts are fresh in the minds of everyone. Subsection (4), to which this also applies, enables the Secretary of State to give directions to the local authority about the record of measurement so that a record of undisputed validity and accuracy can be produced. I hope, therefore, that my noble friend will agree that the position of the individual or industrialist in a noise abatement zone will be adequately safeguarded. If the possibility of an appeal is not taken up, or is exhausted, the difficulty is that under his Amendment the possibility of questioning the accuracy of any measurement could be raised a long time after the original measurements were taken, and therefore would not contribute anything to safeguarding the individual, which is what we want to do. The aim of subsection (5) is to create finality because, as I said in answer to a previous Amendment on this subject, the object of the noise register is to provide a record of fact and not a judgment about noise levels. It is to provide a record of fact against which future noise levels can be measured. I hope I have said enough to explain that the individual has this right to appeal on this point.
On the particular point raised about the clerical error, the noise readings could
336
not be taken without co-operation with the industrialist or the individual, because they would be required to be taken at certain times, and obviously this would have to be done with agreement. Furthermore, there would be nothing to prevent the individual from seeing that the record in the register was accurate about the premises, the day, and so on. If it were not true, that would be a ground for objection.
LORD PLATT: I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, will not readily withdraw his Amendment. Subsection (5) reads in a peculiar way—that the register shall not be questioned in any proceedings under this Part of the Act except as provided by the preceding provisions. Is it not in any case completely redundant because it already says in subsection (3) that the owner and occupier of the premises:
"may, within twenty-eight days of the date of service, appeal to the Secretary of State against the record."?
If he may do so within 28 days is it not implied that he may not do so within 29 days? Therefore, does not subsection (3) do everything that you are trying to do in subsection (5)? I may have misunderstood the noble Baroness, but that is my reading of it.
BARONESS YOUNG: I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Platt, is quite right on this matter. The individual concerned has the right to object within 28 days. I have no doubt that if he objected on the twenty-ninth day, in many cases that might well be accepted. If subsection (5) is left out there is no ultimate limit to when objections might arise and they would be held in a completely different context than the time when the measurement was taken. This is a technical matter in a new field, and therefore it is necessary to have a limit put on the time far objection against the measurement which has been taken. That is why it is written in this way. After all, it is not a measurement that is going to stand for all time. It could well be that five years later other measurements would be taken and the same procedure gone through. What it is doing is setting finality on the measurements taken at a specific time.
LORD PLATT: My point is that that limit is set at 28 days.
LORD MIDDLETON: I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for what she has said. I am concerned with the man who has missed the opportunity to lodge his appeal within 28 days: there may have been a muddle, or the record may be wrong. The noble Baroness said that this is a new field and that in this respect we are feeling our way, but it seems to me quite wrong that someone who has committed an offence cannot challenge this record, if the record of facts is wrong. However, I should like to study very carefully what has been said, and to reserve the right to bring this up again at a later stage, if necessary. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
11.46 p.m.
LORD CRAIGTON LORD CRAIGTON moved Amendment No. 179F:
Page 65, line 15, at end insert—
("( ) A local authority may measure the level of noise in any part of its area not designated as a noise abatement zone under section 55 of this Act and may enter the particulars of such measurement in the noise level register").
The noble Lord said: I beg leave to move this Amendment. As I read this clause, the local authority has powers only to measure the noise in a noise abatement zone and to enter only such zonal information in the register. Supposing a ratepayer, not in the noise abatement zone, complains about a noise: should the local authority not have power to test the truth of his complaint? It can do this only by measuring the noise, and it can most properly give the ratepayer the answer by entering the noise level in the register, so that the authority may justify to ratepayers the case for action—perhaps by making a new noise abatement zone—or for inaction. This seems so obvious to me that I fear I must have made a mistake somewhere. I am sure the noble Baroness will tell me, if I have. I beg to move.
BARONESS YOUNG: I can assure the noble Lord that in fact his point is met in the Bill. It is open to a local authority at any time to take a noise measurement outside a noise abatement zone and to enter it in a register of noise levels. This would be a different register from that in a noise abatement zone, which would have its own register for that zone. But
338
there is nothing to prevent a local authority, under Clause 49, from taking measurements and recording them anywhere it chooses within its area.
LORD CRAIGTON: I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for that explanation, and I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, whether Clause 56 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD MERRIVALE: I should like to take this opportunity to ask my noble friend whether it is the Government's intention to bring this Clause 56 into effect only after regulations prescribing the way in which, and the methods by which, noise levels are to be measured have been prepared. Subsection (8) reads:
"Regulations may provide for the way in which, and the methods by which, noise levels are to be measured for the purposes of this section, …"
and so on. This subsection recognises the fact that noise levels can be measured by different methods, used in different ways. Surely there is a need for standardisation of the methods adopted by different local authorities.
As I see it if this clause is brought into effect before regulations are made prescribing the methods to be used, not only will there be a variation in the approach of different local authorities, but some local authorities may find it necessary to remeasure noise levels of premises where measurements have already been carried out. I know that I have not given notice to my noble friend on this matter, but would it be possible to confirm, or consider confirming at a later stage that regulations will be introduced at least no later than when this clause takes effect? It would be preferable if the regulations could come in beforehand.
BARONESS YOUNG: I am glad to confirm this point. It will be brought into effect after regulations have been laid down. As I indicated in answering an earlier Amendment, the measurement of noise levels is a new and somewhat complex science and we are devising a scheme in conjunction with the Building Research Station. It is hoped that we shall be able to devise regulations that

339
will cover the different types of area, and the different types of noise abatement zone, which could apply to different local authorities.
Clause 56 agreed to.
Clause 57 [Noise exceeding registered level]:
11.52 p.m.
LORD MERRIVALE LORD MERRIVALE moved Amendment No. 179C:
Page 65, line 35, after ("section") insert ("within twenty-eight days from receipt of the application").
The noble Lord said: I believe this Amendment conforms to normal practice whereby there is mention of a period within which consent should be given or refused. Without such provision the application could remain undetermined indefinitely, and this would place the applicant in a difficult position for he might not know whether or not he should continue with his plans. I beg to move.
BARONESS YOUNG: My noble friend has a real point here and we shall consider requiring the local authorities to notify an applicant of their decision within a specified period of time. This is given in the other clauses of the Bill and I think that something should be put in here.
LORD MERRIVALE: I am most grateful to my noble friend. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 57 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD MERRIVALE: I presume that the level of noise measured and recorded in the noise level register will usually be the level of noise when plant and machinery are on the premises and operating normally. However, the noise level under start-up and emergency conditions is higher than the registered levels, although this is only for a limited time. Could my noble friend say whether it is intended to advise local authorities that consents under Clause 57 should be granted to allow levels of noise above the registered levels under start-up and emergency conditions? This is possibly permitted under subsection (2), although
340
I am not sure about that. Perhaps my noble friend could clarify this point.
BARONESS YOUNG: The noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, has asked a question as to the circumstances in which the noise permitted would be above the noise level recorded in the register for a noise abatement zone. It is possible for a local authority to give a written consent in certain circumstances for industry to rise above these noise levels. Such a circumstance could well be the kind of circumstance that the noble Lord has mentioned. There could be examples, such as the expansion of existing facilities, or a return to full-capacity working after existing noise levels had been registered, where indeed a higher level might be justified. I hope this answers his point.
Clause 57 agreed to.
11.58 p.m.
LORD CRAIGTON LORD CRAIGTON moved Amendment No. 179:
After Clause 57, insert the following new clause:
Prohibition of vehicles
".—(1) A local authority may make a noise abatement order which shall prescribe the level of noise which shall not be exceeded by road vehicles of the classes named in the order except with the consent of the local authority.
(2) The local authority's consent may be made subject to such conditions, whether as to the amount by which the level of noise may be increased, or as to the period for which, or the periods during which, the level of noise may be exceeded, as may be specified in the consent.
(3) The local authority shall notify the applicant of its decision on any application for consent under this section, and the applicant may appeal to the Secretary of State against that decision within three months of the date on which the local authority notifies him of the decision.
It shall be the duty of the local authority to act in accordance with the decision of the Secretary of State on the appeal.
(4) If noise emitted from any road vehicle constitutes a contravention of subsection (1) of this section, or of a condition attached to a consent under this section, the person responsible shall be guilty of an offence under this Part of this Act."
The noble Lord said: I beg to move this new clause. As the Bill is drafted, the only major uncontrolled noises left out seem to be vehicles and aeroplanes. I should like to bring in vehicles. The existing provisions about vehicle noise are governed by the Ministry of Transport Road Vehicle (Maximum Noise) Regulations 1968. I am advised that in

341
the five years that have ensued only twelve prosecutions have taken place. Why is this? It is, as I understand it, because the prescribed method of measurement of noise in these regulations is virtually unenforceable. First, the measuring instrument has to be in open country, so that no other vehicle or building can be in the vicinity; secondly, the vehicle's speed has to be 30 m.p.h. only; and thirdly, the measuring instrument must be 25 feet away from the vehicle. This sort of restriction might be all right for the Yorkshire Moors, but I do not think that it goes down in Bond Street.
It is essential that some legislation should be available to enforce this. We have been able to enforce the speed limit: why not a nuisance noise limit? This new clause would produce a system that could be enforced in practice. I would hope the local authorities could fix, say, 80 decibles as the maximum noise. This would give the Government an opportunity to correct what seems a strange omission in this Part III of the Bill, which is headed, "Noise." I beg to move.
LORD SOMERS: I should like to support this Amendent very strongly. A great deal of noise from road vehicles is easily avoidable. People who drive cars with noisy exhausts, merely for the purpose of feeling that they are driving a very powerful vehicle, should be made to have them properly silenced. There is also the rather more difficult problem of very high-powered diesel vehicles which make an absolutely shattering noise that could, I think, be silenced to a very great extent. I think that the reason, probably, why there have been so few prosecutions, as the noble Lord has just said, is that it is extremely difficult to catch a car when it is travelling at a very high speed with a noisy exhaust; and unless it is travelling at a high speed it does not make much noise.
LORD ABERDARE: In considering this Amendment I am afraid that I rather have to repeat what I said to the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, who was equally interested in an earlier Amendment on the question of vehicle noise. These provisions in the Bill—noise abatement zones—are designed to deal with noise from fixed premises, such as factories, and not with noise from moving sources such as road vehicles. When we
342
were preparing this Bill we considered the possibility of introducing new legislation to deal with vehicle noise, but came to the conclusion that the Government had all the powers they could wish to have to give better control over this source of noise and that there was nothing to be gained from new powers in the Bill. I have already mentioned the extensive powers we have under Section 40 of the Road Traffic Act 1972, under which the Secretary of State for the Environment may prescribe any reasonable level as the maximum permissible noise level for vehicles; and limits have been prescribed in the Motor Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1973.
We accept that the existing limits are too high, but since motor vehicles are an internationally traded product, effective action requires international co-operation, and unilateral action can only touch the surface of the problem and would place United Kingdom manufacturers at a serious competitive disadvantage. There are also the local powers of the local authorities under Sections 1 to 6 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act, and the Heavy Commercial Vehicles (Control and Regulations) Act 1973, to regulate the movement of traffic through their area and thereby to reduce traffic noise. But I can see grave difficulties in going any further as my noble friend was suggesting. The noble Lord, Lord Somers, himself mentioned how difficult it was to enforce this kind of provision and catch people for making a lot of noise, and I really do not think, with due respect to my noble friend, that this would fit neatly into the present proposals for noise at all into the present proposals for noise abatement zones. I hope that he understands the difficulties and will withdraw the Amendment.
LORD CRAIGTON: I have heard my noble friend's case with due respect. I am grateful to him for such a careful explanation, which I shall read with great care. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 58 [Reduction of noise levels]:
12.3 a.m.
LORD MERRIVALE LORD MERRIVALE moved Amendment No. 179D:
Pace 66, line 46, at end insert:
("Provided that the time specified in the notice in accordance with subsection (3) above

343
is not less than two years from the date when consent was granted under the preceding section.")
The noble Lord said: The previous clause, Clause 57, provides for the granting of a consent to an increased noise level, perhaps after the determination of an appeal by the Secretary of State. Such a consent may specify the period for which the consent applies, and it is expected that an appropriate period would be specified where the activities producing increased noise were of a limited duration. On the other hand, there will surely be many instances where activities producing increased noise level will be more permanent in character. I think that in industry it is inevitable. While I would agree that it would be wrong to remove the possibility of the variation of a consented level, it would be reasonable for a minimum period during which the consented level may not be varied to be prescribed in the Bill. Also, it should be a reasonable period of time that is inserted in the Bill, for failing this we might easily run the risk of unduly penalising industry, on which in effect we all depend so much.
Under Part I of this Bill certain noble Lords (perhaps also the noble Baroness, Lady White; but the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, I know) rejected the idea of inserting at the end of subsection (4) in Clause 5 wording to the effect that a notice served in pursuance of this clause shall not revoke or modify a disposal licence within two years, except in the case of an emergency. That was what we were debating at that time. On that occasion my noble friend Lady Young said—and I quote:
"We propose to consider whether any greater security can be given to an operator once he has a licence, by laying down explicitly in the Bill that once a licence has been issued it shall not be unreasonably varied or shall only be varied where there is good reason to do so in order to secure satisfactory standards of operation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17/1/74, col. 1119.]
The noble Baroness also spoke on that occasion to the effect that the licence holders must be able to make their investments with a reasonable degree of confidence. I think the Government gave certain assurances then, and I hope that my noble friend will be able to do so now. I agree that in this Amendment I am not considering waste,
344
but noise at consented levels, where also high investment may already have been made. Therefore I hope my noble friend will be able to give certain assurances so that at least the Amendment may be useful as a probing Amendment, if nothing else. I beg to move.
BARONESS YOUNG: I think it would be useful at this point to consider the relationship of Clauses 56, 57 and 58. Clause 56 establishes the noise abatement zones and Clause 57 allows an industry to have a higher level than the register has allowed it in the noise abatement zone. This is presumed to be the exception rather than the rule in this case. Clause 58 will allow a local authority to lower the levels of noise allowed within a noise abatement zone. Therefore if this Amendment were agreed to, one of the difficulties would be that an industrialist could, if he had permission for a higher noise level, keep this for two years without having it altered, and therefore in a sense he would be at an advantage as against other people in the noise abatement zone whose noise level was lower. So that is one quite practical difficulty.
But if what the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, is seeking is, as I think it is, a safeguard against what might appear to be unreasonable behaviour by the local authority in that they would be continually asking for lower levels at a time when the industrialist was quite unable to achieve it, of course he has a safeguard in that he has a right of appeal to a magistrates' court against that local authority's requirements. This should be a safeguard for him.
I am not sure that I would entirely agree with the noble Lord that the situation with regard to a licence holder in Part I, who has a licence for disposal, is exactly comparable with an industrialist in a noise abatement zone. The fact is that a local authority would have to consider carefully the zone that it decided upon as a noise abatement zone. It would clearly have to get the co-operation of everyone in it, and there would have to be a great deal of consultation between the local authority and the industrialists. In the case of a licence holder, he is applying to the local authority for a quite specific job to do, and therefore he needs safeguards which are quite different from the kind of situation that would

345
arise in a noise abatement zone. I trust this will reassure the noble Lord that we have understood his point, and I hope we have met it.
BARONESS WHITE: I do not wish to detain the Committee at this "early" hour, but would just like to say I am very glad indeed that the noble Baroness has taken the line she has. I think we would have been very unhappy had she been able to accept her noble friend's Amendment. Of course, she is perfectly right; the circumstances are very different in this Part of the Bill from those in Part I, and we are very happy with the line she has adopted.
LORD MERRIVALE: I thank my noble friend. I take the point that there would be practical difficulties in the implementation of my Amendment if it were incorporated in the Bill. The noble Baroness also said there are safeguards, in that the local authorities should not behave unreasonably, and that there is a right of appeal to a magistrate's court. The noble Baroness stressed, and this I think is a very good point indeed, that there would be extensive consultation between local authorities and industry. With those assurances, and also bearing in mind the practical difficulties regarding my Amendment, I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
12.13 a.m.
LORD MERRIVALE LORD MERRIVALE moved Amendment No. 179E:
Page 67, line 2, leave out ("a magistrates' court") and insert ("the Secretary of State")
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 179E. As I see it, appeals against noise reduction notices will usually be made on the grounds that the noise level or levels specified in the notice are inappropriate for the area in which the premises concerned are situated, or that the steps prescribed in the notice to reduce the noise levels do not constitute the best practicable means of abatement. These two grounds are the same, I should imagine, as those on which one would normally expect appeals to be made under Clauses 57 and 59. In those cases, a new increased level is under consideration, whereas in Clause 58 a new reduced level gives rise to the appeal. The two circumstances are surely very similar, and I would have thought
346
one could regard the serving of a noise reduction notice as the belated imposition of a condition which would normally be attached to a planning consent.
In Clauses 57 and 59, the Bill proposes that appeal should be made to the Secretary of State. There are certainly merits in that. For instance, one merit is that there should be a large measure of consistency in the determination of the appeals. It is essential that the consent to noise levels for premises in one part of the country are the same as for premises similarly situated in another part of the country. The determination of the best practicable means of abatement usually requires the assessment of highly technical considerations by persons with the requisite technical competence and expertise. I am sure my noble friend would agree that the D.O.E. inspectors are perfectly suitably qualified to advise the Secretary of State when determining such appeals.
The determination of appeals under Clause 58, bearing in mind that these are cases which do not involve the perpetration of a statutory nuisance, also demand a large measure of consistency, so that reduced noise levels are consistent both with one another and with the new or increased noise levels allowed under Clauses 57 and 59. Furthermore, under Part I of the Bill magistrates' courts usually will not have the appropriate technical expertise to decide what is the best practical means; nor will they have available independent assessors to assist them in this task. In view of these arguments, I sincerely hope my noble friend will feel it is appropriate that appeals against noise reduction notices should be made to the Secretary of State. I beg to move.
12.15 a.m.
BARONESS YOUNG: The noble Lord has advanced two arguments in support of his Amendment, the first being that the magistrates would not have the technical expertise to deal with this particular kind of case. I hope he will be reassured when I say that we believe that they would. Since the Noise Abatement Act, which is now about 14 years old, they have been dealing with this kind of case. They have also had to deal with questions of noise nuisance, which are somewhat similar in character, and of course they

347
can get the technical advice that they require in order to make a judgment.
His second argument was that there is a difference between Clause 57, where a person has a right of appeal to the Secretary of State, and Clause 58, where it is to the magistrates. We do not think that the two circumstances are really the same. Under Clause 57, which is an appeal against a local authority's refusal to allow noise levels to be increased, the matter goes to the Secretary of State. The reason is that refusal of consent could in certain circumstances have very widespread implications for jobs, or the whole of the industry, or possibly for investment or for some such big reason. Once the noise level has been accepted and the question is one of reducing it, we believe the situation is not parallel. The situation is one in which there must be a measure of agreement about reducing the level, and it is only when discussions have failed that the person has a right of appeal to the magistrates. It could not involve the same kind of major implications for industry as applies under Clause 57. I think the noble Lord will recognise that magistrates have considerable experience in dealing with these kinds of case; although in a technical matter they would have available to them, or could get, the technical advice they need to make a judgment. For those reasons, I hope he will feel able to withdraw the Amendment.
LORD MERRIVALE: I am to some extent grateful to my noble friend for her Answer, and particularly that she feels the magistrates have the appropriate expertise. The advice I have had from industrial sources is that they do not; but I would not argue that matter at this stage. I need to study what my noble friend has said as to the exact reasons why certain cases should go on appeal to the magistrates' court and others to the Secretary of State. I may return to that later.
LORD SHACKLETON: Before the noble Lord withdraws the Amendment, I wonder whether the noble Baroness would consider further what she has said. I did not find it entirely convincing. I have consulted my noble friend Lady White, and it may well be that on the Report stage the noble Lord may wish
348
to return to it again when he has discussed it. I did not find the arguments entirely convincing, as I have done most of her other arguments.
LORD MERRIVALE: I am grateful to the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition for that unexpected support. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
12.21 a.m.
LORD CRAIGTON LORD CRAIGTON moved Amendment No. 180:
Page 67, line 11, at end insert:
("(9) If it appears to the Local Authority that in regard to any premises within its area action cannot properly be taken against any person requiring him to abate the level of noise occurring in those premises then the Local Authority shall themselves take such steps as are reasonable and within their powers to bring about such abatement.")
The noble Lord said: In giving the local authorities powers to control noise in premises where no one else can be blamed, I was thinking of the word "premises" not only as a building but also as an area. On looking up the word in the Library, I found that small boys using an enclosed space in a built-up areas as a dirt track for motor cycles were using "premises" within the meaning of the Act. The example I have in mind is that there might be traffic noise at certain times of the day for which no one person was responsible, but which could be minimised by the local authority by perhaps a small diversion. Or there could be excessive noise created by, say, holidaymakers on a beach that maybe could be controlled a little by displaying a notice or by an attendant. I believe that this would be a useful power for a local authority. They may need to use it very seldom but I think they would be sorry if the noble Baroness said that they could not have that power. It would not do any harm, and there might be examples where it would do a great deal of good. I beg to move.
LORD MERRIVALE: I am sorry to oppose my noble friend, but it would seem to me—I may be wrong—that acceptance of the Amendment would mean several things. A local authority could avoid serving a noise reduction notice; it could also mean the removal of the opportunity for the person on whom a notice would be served to take

349
corrective action himself, and possibly also could mean the removal of the right of appeal against such a notice. Bearing in mind that noise reduction notices will be served in cases where a statutory nuisance is not involved, the provision of such far-reaching powers to a local authority can scarcely be justified. Furthermore, Clause 65 of the Bill contains substantial financial penalties, £200 and so forth, which would be sufficient inducement to ensure that noise reduction notices are complied with. I shall be interested to hear what the noble Baroness has to say.
BARONESS YOUNG: I understand the purpose of the Amendment, but I do not think that it is necessary. The purpose of this clause is to give the local authority adequate powers to require any person responsible for noise from classified premises in a noise abatement zone to reduce the level of noise from those premises. Furthermore, as my noble friend pointed out, there are fairly high financial penalties for non-compliance with the noise levels, and these penalties rise very rapidly. Therefore, there is every incentive on a person to keep to the noise levels that have been agreed. If, however, my noble friend is referring not to premises but to areas of a local authority, that is a matter which could be covered by local authority by-laws.
LORD CRAIGTON: The word "premises" in the Bill refers to any area—not simply to bricks and mortar. My noble friend Lord Merrivale did not read my Amendment. I am thinking of a noise about which no single person can have any action taken against him. Of course, if someone is responsible for it, then this clause will operate. I am thinking of a noise anywhere in a noise abatement zone, not necessarily in a building, for which no one person can be held responsible, and where there are no powers under which a local authority can do anything about it. Will my noble friend see my point of view and consider whether something can be done about this matter?
BARONESS YOUNG: I will certainly read very carefully the report of what my noble friend has said, and if there is some gap in the provisions which we ought to fill I will consider it.
LORD CRAIGTON: In view of that assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 58 agreed to.
12.26 a.m.
BARONESS WHITE BARONESS WHITE moved Amendment No. 180A:
After Clause 58 insert the following new clause:
".—(1) It shall be an offence for any licensee of a place to which the public has access or of any club to permit noise levels therein which may cause impairment of hearing.
(2) The Secretary of State shall by regulation prescribe the relevant levels.
(3) The penalty for an offence under this section shall be for the first offence a fine not exceeding £200 and for a subsequent offence a fine and the forfeiture of the licence."
The noble Baroness said: Had my noble friend Lord Kennet been able to be present he himself would have wished to move this Amendment, because it embodies a subject in which he has taken a very keen personal interest. Anyone who has studied the question of the noise level in discotheques, clubs and "pop" concerts must be concerned about it. I do not think any of us can accept with equanimity a situation in which young teenagers, as well as older teenagers, subject themselves, sometimes with great frequency, to a level of noise which may have permanently damaging effects on their hearing. Anyone who knows young people who frequent these places is aware that they may come back from them in a state of partial deafness, because they have been subjected to a level of noise which I find almost inconceivable.
I do not wish at this hour to weary your Lordships with too many figures, but I have here various computations of the danger level—"danger" in the sense of a possible threat to hearing—of noise. I am advised that it starts at some 80 decibels, and that 120 decibels is loud enough to cause actual physical pain. This sensation is positively sought after by some teenagers, and certain "pop" groups produce a noise of up to 125 decibels which is well above what is regarded as the lower danger level. It produces a physical reaction on the persons who hear it which is apparently rather like a blow in the chest. It is not simply a question of what one hears; it has a very marked physical effect.
Studies have been made and my noble friend Lord Kennet has supplied me with a report, which was recently compiled at Leeds Polytechnic in the Department of Architectural Studies by Mr. Fearn, who is the principal lecturer in environmental physics. He has carried out a very widely-based survey with a control group, not only to see what the effects of exposure to noise at this level may have, but also to try to see what recovery of impaired hearing can be expected over a period of time. I must say that if one accepts the evidence given in this report—and there is no reason not to—it is really very disquieting indeed. It is perhaps significant that this study was made in the City of Leeds, because that city has made a by-law, which took effect at the beginning of this month, limiting the level of noise which may be permitted in places of public entertainment or clubs. It is obviously too soon to judge whether the limit of 96 decibels is the right one. Complaints have been made by organisers of "pop" concerts that this level is too low. So far as one can judge on the medical evidence, it would probably be about right. But in the new clause which I am putting before your Lordships, we felt that it would be quite improper to suggest any particular level. What we are suggesting is that in the light of the kind of evidence which I have mentioned we should put this enabling clause into the Bill which would make it possible for the Secretary of State, by regulation, to prescribe (on taking advice, obviously) a level which would appear to him to be reasonable.
Nobody wants to interfere with the enjoyment of the young, and it is quite clear to many of my generation that they obviously enjoy a level of noise which I find utterly intolerable; but for them it brings great pleasure. One hesitates, therefore, to suggest action of this kind, but these young people—and some of them are really quite young teenagers who go to these discotheques—should not be exposed to something which is going permanently to damage their hearing, and in a way which I think, if one uses a little imagination, can be quite peculiarly tragic if it should occur. I am advised that with noise damage of this kind one has a sort of deafness which may result in a constant ringing in the
352
ears which one cannot stop, and this must be almost literally a maddening state of affairs.
These youngsters are sometimes exposed with great frequency to noise which is at a level which would not be allowed in industry; and also, for various reasons of physics which I cannot profess to understand, it appears that the type of noise which subsists in these discotheques is of a level which impairs one's hearing of the speaking voice. I think it would be inappropriate to try, in a layman's terms, to explain this, but it means that in some ways this noise is really far worse than even bad industrial noise. If any noble Lords who are skilled in physics wish to look at the evidence I have here, I would be most happy, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Kennet, to show it to them, or to place the documents in the Library, if desired. If we are serious about the problem of noise, it seems to me that this is a case in which we ought to take powers in this Bill which would, as I say, enable the Secretary of State to prescribe levels above which young people should not be so exposed. I think I should emphasise that it is not only the teenagers who go to these discotheques; there is also the staff, who are there sometimes for very long periods and who may be exposed to really very serious danger indeed to their hearing. It is for those reasons that I plead with the Committee to accept this new clause.
12.35 a.m.
LORD PLATT: This is not a matter on which I, as a medical man, can claim any particular expertise, but I have carried out some research on the subject and I am sure that everything the noble Baroness, Lady White, has put before us is true. I have a certain amount of knowledge of "pop" groups and so on, having at least five grandchildren who have played in them, and I know what the noise can do. Not only can it have the devastating effect that the noble Baroness described, but I also believe that it could be permanent, as she said and even progressive. It is a very serious thing. The fortunate thing about it is that in spite of the intolerable noise the deafness phenomena is comparatively rare, but I do not think that is a reason for us to say that we are not going to

353
take any notice of it. The noble Baroness mentioned the staff. I do not know whether she was including the players who get the biggest share of the noise and for the longest time. I think that the Committee should take this matter seriously and I hope that we shall be able to write something constructive on this subject into the Bill.
LORD MERRIVALE: I should like to support the noble Baroness, Lady White, in her intention. I feel that the noble Baroness, Lady Young, should give careful consideration to this Amendment. Perhaps I should have consulted my son, as I believe he was a member of a "pop" group called "The Stormy Clouds" and he might have been able to advise me on the question of the strength of noise of some of the instruments. When I heard the noble Baroness, Lady White, refer to 120 and 125 decibels, with my limited knowledge of physics it seemed to me that that was certainly above the threshold of pain. If the Minister could give favourable consideration to what the noble Baroness is trying to achieve it would be a very good thing.
The noise made by "pop" groups was brought to my attention some years ago when I visited the E.M.I. studios where a group was being recorded. The recording on tape was played back at absolutely the greatest possible noise level. I asked the technician, "Why do you play it at the threshold of pain?" He replied, "Because the defects emerge better when it is played at a very high level of decibels." On the question of the desirability of keeping the number of decibels reduced within licensed premises and clubs I think one should also take account of the damage that could be caused to eardrums by the very high level of the low notes which do more harm to the eardrums than the high notes.
LORD SOMERS: May I interrupt the noble Lord for a moment? I am afraid he is mistaken there: it is the high notes that cause harm.
LORD MERRIVALE: I thought it was the low notes, and that beyond a certain level only dogs could hear some sounds. However, I stand corrected. I should like to support very strongly the plea made by the noble Baroness, Lady White.
LORD CRAIGTON: I should also like to support the noble Baroness, and I hope she will not take "No" for an answer.
LORD ELTON: I also would ask my noble friend to take a friendly view of this Amendment. The objection against it might be that there may be a limitation of freedom concerned here, but there is in this Chamber a considerable precedent for protecting people from exposure to self-injury. We have recently passed laws making it obligatory to protect oneself from injury while riding motor-cycles by wearing protective clothing. We do not allow people to smoke injurious drugs and we do not even allow them to go and see films which may corrupt them; so it is quite right that we should try to prevent them from receiving a particular form of injury which may result from a particular form of enjoyment. It may be difficult to recognise the levels which are specified by the Minister, but I understand from the Noise Abatement Society that instruments are being developed which can do this quite cheaply and efficiently.
Finally, I should like to urge the Minister to pay attention to the competitive effect. Where any group can get a bigger clientele by investing in even more expensive electronic machinery, then it is tempted to do so, in order to rob its competitors of an audience. If we put a limit beyond which competition cannot go, we remove this factor; and art will perhaps replace science at the upper levels of noise in discotheques in this country.
BARONESS YOUNG: The number of people who have spoken on this Amendment at this late hour shows that the noble Baroness, Lady White, has raised an issue of great interest and concern to all the Committee. People in general hold differing views about "pop" groups and discotheques, as the noble Baroness herself pointed out.
Underlying this argument is the freedom of the individual and the right to attend "pop" groups, and indeed to play in them. I should like to follow up some of the points that have been made, because this is a matter of serious concern; and I think it would be helpful to the Committee if I gave all the evidence we have managed to collect on

355
this matter—because one of the problems is that, so far as we can ascertain, the evidence on the question of impairment of hearing is not yet complete and experts on this subject differ.
LORD PLATT: Before the noble Baroness goes any further, may I say that she spoke rather as though we were disapproving of "pop" groups or were trying in some way to prevent their meetings. Surely no such intention was in the minds of any of us. It is only a question of how many decibels are allowed.
BARONESS YOUNG: I think the answer to the noble Lord, Lord Platt, is that those who enjoy going to discotheques and listening to "pop" groups often enjoy exceedingly loud music. That, as I understand it, is part of the pleasure; and that of course is the point at issue.
LORD SOMERS: May I interrupt the noble Baroness once more? The noble Lord, Lord Elton, has just pointed out that we are not allowed to damage ourselves by drugs, by indulging in car accidents, by smoking too much or by various other means. We are not even allowed to commit suicide, though we may often feel like it. What is the difference? What are we trying to do in the way of reducing noise?
BARONESS YOUNG: I hope that in Part III of the Bill we are trying to do quite a lot. I was about to explain that we have been looking very hard at the evidence on this question of the level of noise and its effect on hearing, which we recognise to be a very important matter, and I shall try to show how far we have progressed on this subject.
Research into this problem suggests that those who are most at risk are the performers and disc jockeys who might be exposed to high noise levels for long and continuous periods. This is primarly a question for the Department of Employment who are responsible for the health, safety and welfare of employed persons. That Department has a code of practice for reducing the exposure of employed persons to noise, and it might be appropriate for the provisions of this code to be brought to bear in the case of performers and disc jockeys. But, as I indicated earlier, one of the difficulties has been that expert opinion differs on
356
the degree of risk to members of the audience; that is, those attending a discotheque or a "pop" group. It is thought that the worst situation for the average audience, those going to a "pop" group perhaps once a week or twice a week, would be about 104 decibels. That would be at a "pop" concert or a commercial discotheque.
The medical evidence on permanent hearing damage is not very clear. A survey of studies which has been carried out by the National Physical Laboratory has found that existing statistics are suspect and too little is known about the teenage behaviour patterns for reliable conclusions to be drawn. One does not know enough about the number of times teenagers go to discotheques or hear "pop" groups, nor the hours during which they are exposed to this very loud noise.
It is not only a question of numbers of decibels, but also the numbers of hours of noise to which a person is subject, and also the frequency, whether it is every day, part of a day or once a week. It is because we do not have this definite evidence that we do not feel able to accept this Amendment. It would be on a basis that there was conclusive evidence which, as I think I have shown, we do not yet have. But, having said that, I can reassure the Committee that we recognise that this is something of concern and we shall of course study carefully what has been said.
LORD SHACKLETON: It is an interesting thought that the greatest number of decibels are probably pounding out from the Slade and other groups at this very moment. Since I am in considerable disagreement with the noble Lord, Lord Somers, on certain aspects, and am one of the few Members of your Lordships' House who has actually made speeches in defence of "pop" festivals, I find the noble Baroness's argument somewhat confusing. The suggestion was that it is for the Department of Employment to protect the performers, and that they might impose the obligation on the performers to wear ear muffs while the public are exposed to 125 decibels. That points to the difficulty of this problem. I am sure this is a difficult issue to deal with in this Bill.
My noble friend Lord Kennet was only seeking to give the Government

357
a power. Noble Lords who judge the noise in discotheques by the noise in Annabel's would be very misguided if they thought that that was the noise inflicted by "pop" groups in certain clubs which I do not attend, but which I am sure Lord Merrivale's children or grandchildren—
LORD MERRIVALE: My son!
LORD SHACKLETON: —would be able to supply information on. This is more serious and may carry long-term implications. It may be much less serious out of doors at a "pop" festival, but within a jazz club with a live "pop" group it is quite astonishing how acute it may be. Most of your Lordships, like me, would flee at that point. The fact that this may be doing permanent damage suggests it is a matter to which further consideration might be given before the Report stage. I am sure my noble friend has no intention of pressing this Amendment to a Division at the moment.
It raises again these difficult questions of the freedom of the individual and the duty of the State. I think that most of us would really be horrified at the State having to interfere in this sort of area. None the less, we may have to face the consequences. I hope that before we come to the Report stage, the noble Baroness might make some further inquiries, possibly from the noble Lord, Lord Platt, and from Leeds, as to further evidence that might be available. We could look at it again at the Report stage. It is a serious problem, and not one lightly to be dismissed from the standpoint that it may not be many years before we have a certain number of people who will be unnecessarily deaf.
BARONESS YOUNG: I would certainly be very happy to look at any further evidence between now and the Report stage. Indeed, if any noble Lord would let me have any evidence he has I should be very glad to receive it. I can say further that the Noise Advisory Council has set up a new Working Group on noise as a hazard to hearing. One of the objectives of this Working Group will be to look at the problem of exposure to excessive noise in discotheques. If I may indicate the kind of difference of expert opinion there is, I think the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, said as a statement
358
of fact that the public is subjected to 125 decibels. My evidence is that the average audience would be subjected to 104 decibels; whereas a pilot study of ten "pop" groups undertaken under the auspices of the Institute of Sound and Vibration Research found that the mean noise level within a "pop" group is about 110 decibels and 105 decibels within the audience. I am only saying this to indicate that there is some difference of expert opinion.
LORD ELTON: May I draw to the attention of my noble friend that the "mean noise" is not what we are really concerned with; it is the "peak noise".
LORD SHACKLETON: If I may say so to the noble Baroness, I do not wish to blacken the reputation of certain groups or clubs, but there are certain much more intense noise producers than the average 104 decibels.
BARONESS WHITE: I should like to feel that this matter is going to be given genuine consideration. If the Government can put in this Bill anything like Clause 44 (when they do not know what they are going to do with it) then there is, to my mind, no good reason why they should not put in enabling powers, maybe somewhat differently drafted from this particular Amendment. But they should take to themselves enabling powers. That will give them an opportunity to study the reports of the various committees referred to by the noble Baroness. They do not necessarily have to use enabling powers unless they are convinced; but the powers will be there. From such evidence that we have been able to obtain, we have little doubt that there are certain circumstances in which such powers should be used. But that is a matter which could be left to the future. I should have thought that we have established beyond any serious doubt that there is a situation here which must cause concern and that we should put ourselves in a position, if we are serious about noise, to do something about it.
I would entirely agree that the new clause as drafted may need amendment because, for example, I have "shall" when I was told on some earlier amendment it ought to have been "may", and of course one would be happy in that connection. I am reminded that there

359
are some noble Lords in this House who know something about gun-fire. I do not think we need go into that, but I should have though that anyone who had had experience of certain types of gun-fire, at any rate at close quarters, would not be unduly complacent about the possible permanent effects of noise. But in the circumstances I would ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 59 and 60 agreed to.
Clause 61 [Appeals to Secretary of State and magistrates' court]:
On Question, Whether Clause 61 shall stand part of the Bill?
12.56 a.m.
LORD STOW HILL: This was a clause to which I referred earlier when I was addressing the Committee upon the provisions of Clause 50(3). I do not want to detain the Committee. The noble Lord on the Front Bench said that criticism should not be addressed to Parliamentary Counsel but to Ministers. At this late hour I hesitate to do so, but I agree with him 100 per cent. that criticisms should not be addressed to Parliamentary Counsel, and I did not intend it. Over the years I have received the most invaluable help from Parliamentary Counsel, for which I am infinitely grateful, and I yield to nobody in my admiration of their skill and expertise. This Bill is a long and complicated and difficult Bill, and if no more can be said in criticism of some passages in the drafting than has been said, I should have thought one could say that this is a very high example of the art and a great tribute to the Parliamentary draftsman who was its author.
The only comment I would make about this clause is this. It is a matter of judgment, and I may be wrong, but I submit that subsection (2) gives the Secretary of State far too wide a regulation-making power. I should have liked to see, and I submit it would be right, that the powers of a magistrates' court, when an appeal is brought to the court under subsection (3) of Clause 50, against a notice, and indeed against other notices for which provision is made in subsequent clauses, should be spelt out in terms, and somewhere near the subsection which gives
360
the right of appeal. I would submit that it is wrong in principle that the Secretary of State should be given the power in effect to formulate the jurisdiction of the Appeal Court in some important respects. From what the noble Baroness said, I apprehend that I was right in my thinking that one cannot find in the Bill any formulation of the jurisdiction of the Appeal Court when an appeal goes to it under subsection (3) of Clause 50. If so, I would respectfully submit that my criticism is well-founded. But if I can be referred to some passage which does formulate that jurisdiction in the terms of the Bill, I would at once gladly withdraw it. But the last persons against whom I wish my criticism to be directed are Parliamentary Counsel, who I think in formulating this Bill have excelled themselves in producing in such perfect form such a long, complicated and important measure.
BARONESS YOUNG: I shall certainly read very carefully what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stow Hill, has said on these points and look at them; and I will, if I may, write to him on this particular point which he has raised.
Clause 61 agreed to.
Clauses 62 and 63 agreed to.
Clause 64 [Interpretation and other supplementary provisions]:
On Question, Whether Clause 64 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD CRAIGTON: The noble Baroness and her friends who have so ably conducted this Bill will, I know, be glad and relieved that there is no Amendment tabled to delete subsection (3) which makes the Bill not applicable to aircraft noise—the most objectionable noise in our environment. But the tabling of this Amendment has not gone by default. Noise is not the only objectionable feature about aircraft. We realise that it would be virtually impossible to achieve it, at least in subsection (3), but we feel very strongly that the Department of the Environment should have some status in the operation of aircraft. Therefore, I have tabled an Amendment in Part IV, and I want to give my noble friend warning that if I am supported by my noble friends on either or both sides of the Committee I intend to press it

361
very strongly, not because it is such an important Amendment but because it gives my noble friend some status about aircraft operation which is badly needed and which is such a vital matter. I do not want the noble Baroness to reply to that point.
Clause 64 agreed to.
Clause 65 agreed to.
House resumed.

  COUNTER-INFLATION ACT AND DIVIDEND RESTRICTION
  COUNTER-INFLATION ACT AND DIVIDEND RESTRICTION
  IMMIGRATION RULES AND REPUBLIC OF NIGER
  IMMIGRATION RULES AND REPUBLIC OF NIGER