Sitting of 19 June 1974

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

  BRITISH RAILWAYS BILL (By Order)
  Order for consideration, as amended, read.
  To be considered tomorrow.

  FIFE COUNTY COUNCIL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
  Considered: to be read the Third time tomorrow.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  SCOTLAND

    Economy
    Mr. Barry Hendersonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will issue a White Paper on the Scottish economy.
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. William Ross): I have nothing to add to my reply to the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) on 10th April.—[Vol. 872, c. 418–19.]
    Mr. Henderson: Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that since he was last in office there has been a major industrial revolution in Scotland? The national statistics of unemployment and employment conceal the serious problems which exist in the non-oil sector, particularly in the west of Scotland. This imbalance in the Scottish economy, the slowing up of new industry inquiries, the slump in the market and fears of the excesses of the Secretary of State for Industry are causing extreme anxiety in Scotland.
    Mr. Ross: I am aware of the problems in Scotland. Having been in this House during the three and a half years of Conservative Government I could not fail to be aware of them. Not once in those years did the Conservatives produce a White Paper on the subject.
    Mr. Sillars: A very important element in the Scottish economy is the question of land ownership and the cost of land. Will my right hon. Friend reconsider the decision of the Scottish Office, made during the life of this Parliament, not to proceed with a land register giving ownership of land in Scotland? If we do not have the register, how can we take the land into public ownership?
    Mr. Ross: Information on this matter is already available. It is much more important to get action by way of legislation than to have a register.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that on 28th February in Scotland unemployment was falling, job vacancies were at the highest level ever and migration was at the lowest point since the war'? Can the right hon. Gentleman explain the relevance of the Secretary of State for Industry's plans, which are causing half the firms in the country to cut back their investment programmes? Can this be in the interests of Scotland?
    Mr. Ross: Stagnation in investment began a long time before that date. Employment could not but be falling at the time the hon. Gentleman referred to, in view of the high level it reached because of the industrial dispute and the three-day working to which the country was driven by Tory policies.

    Beef and Pig Production
    Mr. Fairgrieveasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received from the Scottish beef and pig producing industries concerning the effects of Her Majesty's Government's policies and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. William Ross: I have received representations from the National Farmers' Union of Scotland and others. The Government have started discussions with the unions about longer-term support measures. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and

    453
    Food will be making a statement today about decisions which were taken on beef and pigs at the recent Council of Ministers' meeting.
    Mr. Fairgrieve: Does the Secretary of State appreciate that only last week there were further falls in the market in the price of beef, making the situation even more difficult than for the last three months?
    Mr. Ross: Market prices until recently have been fairly firm, but there has since been some seasonal reduction. We have already taken action and we gave the pledge that we would take further action if that was necessary. The hon. Member should await the statement by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture later.
    Mr. Monro: Will the Secretary of State accept that the Minister of Agriculture's statement in Luxembourg yesterday did absolutely nothing to restore confidence to the agriculture industry? Will he say whether the variable premium has been fixed for beef in this country, and how quickly it will be introduced, because at present all farmers are gravely concerned at the lack of speed shown by the Minister of Agriculture and the Secretary of State, who seem to equate with a tortoise?
    Mr. Ross: I have seen the Scottish Farmers' Union and the Ayrshire farmers. Their concern was more related to the failures of the previous Government who did nothing while things got worse.
    Mr. Monro: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the completely unsatisfactory nature of the reply I give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on another occasion.

    Housing (District Authorities)
    Mr. Lambieasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what are his plans for transferring the houses controlled by the Scottish Special Housing Association and new town corporations in Scotland to the new district authorities.
    The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Mr. Bruce Millan): My right hon. Friend has no plans to transfer Scottish Special Housing Association houses to district authorities. The Government's policy for new towns, including their relationship with local authorties, is under consideration.
    Mr. Lambie: Is my hon. Friend the Minister of State aware that it is Labour Party policy to transfer Scottish Special Housing Association and new town corporation houses to the local authorities in the area? Will he give an assurance that when the Bill to repeal the Housing (Financial Provisions) Scotland Act is published it will contain a proposal to transfer these houses to the new district authorities and not just to eliminate rent anomalies which now exist between various houses?
    Mr. Millan: There are wider considerations than differences of rent levels between new towns and local authorities to be taken into account. The position in Scotland as a whole is that the differences are not all that substantial, except perhaps in the case of Irvine, which is the new town that most concerns my hon. Friend. The whole policy in relation to the new towns is under consideration.
    Miss Harvie Anderson: Dees the Minister accept what his hon. Friend said in relation to the commitment to transfer the houses?
    Mr. Millan: The commitment is as I have expressed it this afternoon; we are considering the policy and are having discussions at present.
    Mr. Harry Ewing: Does not my hon. Friend accept that there is good, sound, common sense in using the SSHA as a building agency only, and transferring the houses to the control of the new district authority? Will he give a commitment that in our forthcoming legislation on rents the provision in the previous Tory legislation to preserve a differential between new town houses, SSHA houses and local authority house rents will be abolished?
    Mr. Millan: My hon. Friend knows our commitment to the abolition of the previous legislation affecting local authority houses and the restoration of freedom to local authorities to determine their own rents. As for SSHA houses, I think that there is an element of management as well as rent-collecting involved in the present arrangements, and I am not sure that rent-collection and management could satisfactorily be split up between the SSHA on the one hand

    455
    and local authorities on the other. As for transferring the houses, my hon. Friend should have in mind that the building of SSHA houses is a considerable advantage to local authorities and ratepayers, because the deficits on those houses are borne by the Government and not by the local authority.

    Ross and Cromarty
    Mr. Grayasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will pay an official visit to Ross and Cromarty.
    Mr. William Ross: While I have no present plans for a visit, I look forward to one at the earliest suitable opportunity. Both my noble and hon. Friends, the Ministers of State, are planning visits within the next few weeks.
    Mr. Gray: Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that when his noble and hon. Friends visit Ross and Cromarty they will include in their itinerary a visit to the aluminium smelter at Invergordon and a visit to Nigg Bay, where Brown and Root-Wimpey Limited is operating in such a successful way? Will he also use his powerful Scottish voice in the Cabinet to ensure that those who are employed there need have no fear that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry will be let loose with a scythe to cut the prosperity they are now enjoying by nationalising those industries?
    Mr. Ross: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that he raises fears that need not exist.
    Mr. Russell Johnston: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the problems of Ross and Cromarty cannot be separated from those of the area stretching from Orkney and Shetland down round the coast to Morayshire? On the question of oil, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the major problem in the area now is the shortage of housing? When will he be in a position to say what plans the Government have for improving the housing stock, in view of the immense difficulties that local authorities are having? Perhaps he can add a comment on the amazing statement from a Scottish Office source which appeared to indicate that the Scottish Office projected a smaller number of houses than other people had projected were needed for the population?
    Mr. Ross: I do not know anything about that unsubstantiated statement. I do not know who made it. In the area to which the Question refers, in the Easter Ross and Invergordon area, and the hon. Gentleman's area, we have under construction or are proceeding with plans for about 6,200 houses, and there are further to come. We are determined to meet the needs of the area and to deal with the urgent problems arising there.
    Mr. Dalyell: Will my right hon. Friend use the same powerful voice to which the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Gray) referred to persuade certain incoming American companies to be just a little more sensible about the recognition of trade unions?
    Mr. Ross: That point has already been made to them.
    Mr. Teddy Taylor: Will the right hon. Gentleman make the position quite clear? In answering my hon. Friend the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Gray), was he pledging to the House and Scotland that in the Cabinet he will prevent the Secretary of State for Industry from bringing forward plans to nationalise Brown and Root and other oil-related industries? Will he stop his right hon. Friend, or not?
    Mr. Ross: The plans of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry, which were debated fully before and during the General Election—and in respect of which we received a considerable vote of confidence in Scotland—will have my general support.

    National Health Service
    Mr. MacArthurasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about staffing in the National Health Service.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Robert Hughes): While there are difficulties affecting particular groups of staff, in general staffing in the National Health Service in Scotland is reasonably satisfactory.
    Mr. MacArthur: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that we are very glad that the review is now under way, but that we are concerned by his statement, a day or two ago, that it might not be completed until the autumn? Would it

    457
    not have been much better, and saved a great deal of needless trouble, if the Government had made use of the relativities machinery, which existed and which could have sorted out this difficult problem a long time ago?
    Mr. Hughes: There is no reason to suppose that the relativities procedure would have led to a quicker report. As for details of the review body and what might come out of it, there is a later Question on the Order Paper, and when we come to it we can no doubt review these exchanges.
    Mr. Gordon Wilson: In view of the slackening in recruitment of those workers who come under special grades—those in charge of support facilities within the hospital system—will the hon. Gentleman give consideration over the next few months to ascertaining the position of those special grades, whose valuable rôle in the hospital service seems to have been ignored in recent years?
    Mr. Hughes: Many grades of staff in the National Health Service were ignored by the previous Government. We shall certainly do all we can to improve the position.
    Mr. Monro: Does the Under-Secretary accept that two areas have been causing some concern over recent years? The first is that of physiotherapists. How near is the new school at Dundee nearing readiness to accept recruits? Secondly, when will the hon. Gentleman implement further steps under the Melville Report?
    Mr. Hughes: I do not have the information about the Dundee school, but I shall write to the hon. Gentleman. On Friday we shall take the remaining stages of the Bill of the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Gray) relating to the Melville Report. We shall make a statement on the other aspects of the report in due course.

    Falkirk
    Mr. Harry Ewingasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make arrangements for the Under-Secretary in his Department responsible for education to make an official visit to Falkirk.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: I have no plans for this at present, but I am always will
    458
    ing to make a visit to a particular area where circumstances so warrant.
    Mr. Ewing: Is my hon. Friend aware that I shall bear in mind that commitment, especially when the allocations of resources are made in respect of school building? Is he aware that we have in the Camelon area of Falkirk a serious problem in relation to the Falkirk High School and the Camelon High School? When making an allocation of resources, will my hon. Friend take into account this serious problem, about which I have been in correspondence with him?
    Mr. Hughes: I fully appreciate the desire of Stirlingshire Education Authority and the parents of Falkirk to eliminate a school that provides only four-year courses. When we come to the allocations for 1975–76, I shall bear in mind the points which my hon. Friend has raised.
    Mr. MacArthur: If the hon. Gentleman is generously prepared to go to places where circumstances warrant a visit by him, will he be good enough to go to Perth and tell the insurance industry, the whisky industry and the other big employers in Perth which of them are to be nationalised and which are not?
    Mr. Hughes: I regret that that matter does not fall within my ministerial responsibility.

    Strathclyde (Economic Prospects)
    Mr. Youngerasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a White Paper on the economic prospects for Strathclyde over the next five years.
    Mr. William Ross: I shall consider whether a White Paper would be appropriate when I have received the report and recommendations of the West Central Scotland Plan Steering Committee.
    Mr. Younger: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many of us feel that that might be helpful, bearing in mind the disastrous experience that Scotland had as a result of the nationalisation of the steel industry? Is he surprised that people in Scotland regard with horror the statements that are being wildly uttered by the Secretary of State for Industry, and will he reconsider the complacent replies which he has made today? Even my hon. Friends and I are astonished at

    459
    how out of touch he has become during his short time in office.
    Mr. Ross: There spoke the Chairman of the Conservative Party of Scotland. He has our condolences for the onerous task that he is undertaking. If he is to revive his party's hopes in Scotland, he had better improve his speeches. With regard to the production of a White Paper, we have the help of the steering committee and the report which it has commissioned from Professor Buchanan and Professor Alexander. Arising from that report, I hope that we shall be able to put forward recommendations that will be helpful in future.
    The hon. Gentleman's point about the steel industry shows how much he is out of touch with the steel industry in Scotland.
    Mr. Lambie: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) has some cheek in now being worried about the economic affairs of Strathclyde? Does he realise that for three and a half years when he was in office he did nothing about Strathclyde's economic affairs? I hope that my right hon. Friend will not listen to calls for White Papers. The day for White Papers has passed, and we want decisions. When will my right hon. Friend give us a decision about Hunterston?
    Mr. Ross: I hope shortly to be able to announce a comprehensive decision on Hunterston. When we consider what was done by the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) I do not think that we should put all the blame on him. After all, he had one or two colleagues.
    Mr. Teddy Taylor: Will not the right hon. Gentleman at least admit that despite some of the admitted failings of the last Government, we left the economy of Scotland in a satisfactory position? Unemployment was down, job vacancies were up and there was a rosy future. Will the right hon. Gentleman at least admit that and get away from his complacency? Does he realise that there is a genuine fear of substantial unemployment in Scotland because of the total uncertainty that is created by the Government's industrial policy? Will he state where he stands on that matter and will he give an assurance to industry that it will not be grabbed by the mad, extremist
    460
    policy of his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry?
    Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman has a strange memory. For nearly two and a half years of the previous Government's three and a half years in office unemployment in Scotland never fell below 100,000.
    Mr. Taylor: But we got it right.
    Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman says that the previous Government got it right, but today the unemployment figure is 20,000 fewer than it was a year ago. The Opposition should stop raising false scarces and hopes and should instead try to put forward some constructive policies and ideas relating to Scotland

    Rural Transport
    Mr. Sillarsasked the Secetary of State for Scotland if he will order an immediate inquiry into Scottish rural transport problems.
    Mr. Millan: I do not think this is called for at present. Two pilot studies into the problems of rural transport published by the Department of the Environment in 1971 were circulated to Scottish local authorities. Many of the suggestions they make are relevant to the situation in rural Scotland.
    Mr. Sillars: Will my hon. Friend reconsider his decision on an inquiry? Is he aware that despite the Transport Act, 1968, transport services in certain towns and villages in the rural parts of Scotland have now reached a point of crisis and breakdown? Does he agree that this would be a suitable matter for investigation by the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs, for which we have waited in vain since the election?
    Mr. Millan: The Select Committee is not a matter for me. I accept that there are considerable difficulties about rural transport in many areas. The 1968 Act places a good deal of responsibility for determining the needs of an area and giving financial assistance on local authorities and it provides the right kind of framework for tackling such problems. The Act has been used extensively by local authorities in Scotland.
    Mr. Corrie: Is there anything that the Minister can do to alleviate the problems of the ferry services to the islands on the

    461
    West coast? The Minister and I have been in long correspondence on the matter. Charges have risen by an average of 47 per cent. between Largs and Millport and it now costs nearly 2p a pound for food to be taken over to the island of Arran. These are severe costs for rural areas.
    Mr. Millan: I do not think that the recent increases have averaged anything like 47 per cent. The hon. Gentleman knows that I am committed to meeting very soon all the local authorities concerned. It is a question of finding a date which is suitable to them so that we can discuss these problems.
    Mr. Alexander Wilson: Does my hon. Friend understand that his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) was very disappointing? Does he realise that an inquiry is urgently needed into the rural transport services in Scotland? Hon Members are inundated with inquiries about the breakdown of transport in rural areas. Will my hon. Friend consider his plans for the new town of Stonehouse, and consider, in particular, advising British Rail to reopen the railway line between Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse?
    Mr. Millan: With respect, my hon. Friend's question about Stonehouse goes rather wide. If he has particular problems regarding that area, I shall be happy to hear from him about them and to consider what I can do to help.
    Mr. Donald Stewart: I return to the Minister's reply regarding ferry services. Does he accept that the local authorities are now insisting on a meeting with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland? Does he appreciate that the situation has reached a critical stage? The authorities are determined to have the matter discussed at the highest possible level in Scotland. Will the Minister impress upon his right hon. Friend that the authorities must have a meeting with him? If he does not do so we shall assume that he has no interest in the problem.
    Mr. Millan: The hon. Gentleman's last point was an absurd one to make. The hon. Gentleman knows some of the history about the arrangements for a meeting. He should be the last person to make that kind of comment. As I
    462
    have already said, I am committed to a meeting with the local authorities. The meeting could have taken place weeks ago if they had been willing to see me on the date that I suggested.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Is the Minister aware that in many of the rural areas of Scotland, and especially the remoter areas, the majority of people depend upon the use of their private cars for transport? The use of their cars represents a large part of their budget. Will the hon. Gentleman explain the relevance of the increase in the petrol tax that was announced by his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, coming as it does on top of heavy increases for fuel in general? Does he agree that the Chancellor's increase makes no sense to the people living in the remoter areas of Scotland?
    Mr. Millan: The whole question of taxation of petrol has been exhaustively discussed during the Finance Bill debates. One of the problems about rural bus transport is that an increasing number of people use private cars. That is one of the difficulties about operating viable rural bus services. The arguments are by no means all one way.

    Cost of Living (Rural Areas)
    Mr. Ancramasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received about the rise in the cost of living in rural areas in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. William Ross: I have received no representations relating to rural areas as such.
    Mr. Ancram: Will the right hon. Gentleman reject the complacent approach taken up by his hon. Friend the Minister of State regarding the effect of the increased taxation of fuel? Will he accept that it is not just a matter of rich people driving cars? They seem to be the Government's main target. Does the right hon. Gentleman understand that people need to use cars to get to work and to go shopping, and that the policy of imposing VAT on petrol—which he can not blame on the previous administration—has had a disastrous effect in rural areas? Will he accept his responsibility towards all the people of Scotland and not just towards those whom he thinks support him?
    Mr. Ross: I do not think that that last comment was worthy of the hon. Gentleman. It is not justified by the many actions which we have taken. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that a subsidy of 50 per cent. is paid by the Government on rural bus services. That subsidy amounts to approximately £1 million a year and arises from Labour legislation. The hon. Gentleman should know—I realise that he was not a member of the previous Parliament—that the economic situation was so appalling that something had to be done about it.
    Sir John Gilmour: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the size of the buses that are used for rural services? It seems that bus operators continue to use enormous buses which half the time are half full. Possibly something could be done through capital grants to get the right size of bus on to the rural roads. That might help rural transport.
    Mr. Ross: I shall pass on that suggestion to those concerned.

    Electricity
    Mr. Alexander Fletcherasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will issue a statement regarding his plans for the future supply and distribution of electricity in Scotland.
    Mr. Millan: The detailed planning of electricity supply in Scotland is primarily a matter for the Scottish electricity boards, whose intentions are set out in a statement, "Plans for the Future 1971–78", published in January 1972, and in their annual reports.
    Mr. Fletcher: What consultations did the hon. Gentleman have with the South of Scotland Electricity Board before the price of night storage heating was increased by 50 per cent.? How does the hon. Gentleman justify his approval of this gigantic confidence trick? What action will he take to try to improve the situation and also to improve what is clearly the ugly face of nationalised industry?
    Mr. Millan: The hon. Gentleman's final comment was rather laboured, and in any case did not arise out of the Question. These tariffs are not subject to the approval of the Secretary of State. The tariff increases in Scotland are still a good deal smaller than would have been
    464
    required to eliminate the deficits which accumulated under the Conservative Government. The question of night tariffs was considered by the two consultative councils and agreed by them, and the unit price increases for off-peak heating are exactly the same as those for heating during the day, so the differential between the two forms of heating has been maintained. In any case, the increases are not nearly as great as they have been south of the border. But I remind hon. Gentlemen that all these matters will be discussed in the House tomorrow and in the Scottish Grand Committee, and I shall be delighted to give even more detailed answers then.
    Mr. Adam Hunter: In the light of the coal industry's interim report yesterday, will my hon. Friend ensure that the future of the Scottish coal industry will be taken into account when he is considering Scotland's future electricity supplies? Will he consider consultation with the Department of Energy on the matter?
    Mr. Millan: In all these matters we are in consultation with the Department of Energy. The electricity boards in Scotland are already burning all the suitable coal available from the Scottish coalfields, which, like other coalfields in the United Kingdom, will benefit greatly from the plans just announced by the Government.
    Mr. MacArthur: Will the hon. Gentleman stop giving these silly and complacent replies? Is he aware that many thousands of people in Scotland believe, rightly, that they are the victims of a confidence trick, having been persuaded by advertising in the past to invest large sums of money in the installation of off-peak heating systems, only now to find that the Labour Government condone a 50 per cent. increase in what was supposed to be a cheap tariff?
    Mr. Millan: I do not accept any of what the hon. Gentleman has said. I have already replied to these points, but again I remind him that the subject will be debated in the House tomorrow and in the Scottish Grand Committee. I repeat that I do not accept any of the charges he has made.
    Mr. Gordon Wilson: In considering the plans for the supply and distribution of electricity in Scotland, will the hon.

    465
    Gentleman bear in mind the imbalance in supply distribution between the South of Scotland Electricity Board and the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board, as well as the fact that the benefits of hydro-electric power do not seem to be passed on to consumers in the hydroelectric board's area? Will he ensure that consumers in that area get a better deal in future?
    Mr. Millan: The assumptions on which that supplementary question was based are not accurate. Indeed, even with the increases that have just been announced there will be substantial deficits in both the North of Scotland and the South of Scotland areas. These deficits are made up by the Government and therefore, ultimately, by the taxpayers. I wish that hon. Members opposite who are constantly complaining about increasing public expenditure would take into account that even after these increases substantial sums are still having to be provided by the taxpayers to make up for the deficits.
    Mr. Sillars: Does my hon. Friend not agree that it is sheer humbug for Conservative Members to criticise the electricity boards in Scotland? Does he not also agree that these boards were highly efficient until the introduction of the Counter-Inflation Act, and that Tory Members like the hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) forecast then that these efficient industries would become inefficient because of the actions of the Tory Government?
    Mr. Millan: If one keeps prices artificially down, one cannot then complain if the nationalised industry boards make substantial deficits. That is what happened under the Conservative Government. We were left with a situation in which substantial increases would have had to be imposed if we were to get these boards back into balance. Certain increases have been imposed, but a large bill will still have to be picked up by the taxpayers.

    Hampden Park
    Mr. Teddy Taylorasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the position with regard to his discussions on the future of Hampden Park.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: The working part to which my right hon. Friend referred in his reply on 6th May to my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) is continuing its study of this problem.—[Vol. 873, c. 13–14.]
    Mr. Taylor: Does not the magnificent game played by Scotland last night in the World Cup wholly justify the Minister's making a statement now, without detail, that he is in principle in favour of providing help in order to ensure that Scotland has a modernised international stadium, with, in fairness to the local residents, better facilities for the crowds? Would not this be the best form of encouragement to our team on Saturday?
    Mr. Hughes: I certainly agree that the performance of the Scottish team last night was magnificent. It is a pity that we did not get the result we deserved. The hon. Gentleman knows how difficult it has been to get those concerned with Hampden Park to agree to what might be done. If it is to remain Scotland's premier stadium, something will have to be done, but we cannot give a detailed reply on finance until we know what is involved.

    National Health Service Staff
    Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will initiate an inquiry into the pay and conditions of nursing and other staff working within the health service.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: I would refer my hon. Friend to the statement made in the House on 23rd May by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services.—[Vol. 874, c. 686–97.]
    Mr. Hamilton: Does my hon. Friend recognise that the whole House appreciates the very sympathetic approach of the present Government to this matter, compared with the clobbering which the nurses got from successive Tory Governments? Will he give an assurance that this is one of the services that will not be denationalised? Will he also try to knock some sense into our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services to get her to provide an interim settlement pending the Halsbury proposals? If she will not do it, will my hon. Friend not attempt to do in Scotland

    467
    what she says cannot be done in the rest of the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Hughes: I affirm that there is absolutely no question of the National Health Service's being denationalised. It is the core of the Labour Party's philosophy and of the health care of our people. It has done and will continue to do a magnificent job. I agree that those working in it, particularly the nurses, have suffered each time there has been a statutory incomes policy, wage freeze and the rest, going back to earlier days.
    I am satisfied that we shall do all we can to improve conditions. I believe that the decision to establish the independent review body to report early, and our promise to backdate payments to 23rd May, are a guarantee of good faith to the nurses. I hope that they will accept that we are doing all we can to improve their conditions and will let us get on with the job.
    Mr. Ancram: When the Halsbury Committee does report, will the hon. Gentleman ensure that the benefits that we hope will accrue to the nurses will be extended to include the paramedical services, which are particularly suffering? I am sure that the hon. Gentleman accepts that many paramedical workers in responsible professional positions are getting no more than shorthand typists are getting fresh out of school.
    Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman should be aware that such an undertaking was given on the day that the setting up of a review body was announced. Therefore, no assurance is needed from me, except to say that I reaffirm it and agree with it.

    Fishing Rights (Hunter Report)
    Mr. Dalyellasked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he now hopes to complete his consideration of the Hunter Committee's Report on fishing rights.
    Mr. William Ross: I cannot add to my reply of 20th March.—[Vol. 870, c. 1006.]
    Mr. Dalyell: Is not the reality in this complex area that it is difficult for a minority Government to do what is necessary for a sport which is at least as important to us as football?
    Mr. Ross: I do not think it raises quite the tempers that football does at times. This is a complex subject. Conservative Members will appreciate that they did not get to the point of producing a Bill in their time of government—
    Mr. Teddy Taylor: Very nearly.
    Mr. Ross: I have not seen that Bill, and nor has the country. I could not give any pledge that there will be any legislation on this in the present Session.
    Mr. Anthony Stodart: Does the right hon. Gentleman, with his excellent memory, recall that in 1964 when I was asked this question I said that urgent consideration was being given to it, and that in 1965, Mr. Willis, of blessed memory, when asked a similar question, said that very, very urgent consideration was being given to it? Is this not a classic example showing why we need an Assembly to deal with matters of this kind?
    Mr. Ross: The right hon. Gentleman had better ask his hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galbraith) who is sitting on his left, and his colleagues in front of him, and see whether they agree with his last remark. He was a member of the last administration. It was so urgent then that nothing was done.

    Arms Exports (Cancellation of Contracts)
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyneasked the Secretary of State for. Scotland if he will require the Scottish Development Department to conduct a survey of the loss of employment in Scotland resulting from the cancellation of arms export contracts and the resulting loss of prospective arms export orders, and to publish the results.
    Mr. William Ross: No, Sir. I am not aware that there is likely to be any loss of employment in Scotland arising from the cancellation of arms export orders or contracts.
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that is a grossly inadequate answer? Cannot he grasp that whenever one of his right hon. Friends calls for the cancellation of orders from one country, owing to the selective

    469
    morality of the Government, export orders for defence equipment to many other parts are automatically hazarded? Is it true, as the Ministry of Defence has said, that 100,000 jobs in Scotland are dependent on the defence industry? What is the right hon. Gentleman doing to exercise what little influence he may have in the Cabinet to protect jobs?
    Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman asked me a Question about loss of employment and I have told him that there will be no loss of employment. That is true. He had better accept it—and keep his shirt on.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. In spite of the fact that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Selby) is waving his Order Paper at me I shall call him for a supplementary question.
    Mr. Selby: Is the Minister aware that there is some danger that the possible take-over of Barclay Curie's yard by Yarrow's could lead to unemployment at Govan Shipbuilders, which currently has a full order book? Does he appreciate that the developments of which I speak could lead to a diminution in Govan Shipbuilders' orders?
    Mr. Ross: I note what my hon. Friend says.
    Mr. Galbraith: Surely it is not a question of the jobs that have been lost but the prospective loss of jobs. In view of the great amount of public money in the shipbuilding industry, will the right hon. Gentleman apply his mind to that point?
    Mr. Ross: I do not intend to make a survey of a hypothetical loss of hypothetical jobs as a result of cancelling hypothetical orders.
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the totally unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

    Law of the Sea Conference
    Sir John Gilmourasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is satisfied that the long-term interests of the Scottish inshore fishing industry will be promoted and safeguarded by the policies of the United Kingdom Govern
    470
    ment to be suggested at the Law of the Sea Conference; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. William Ross: Yes, Sir. The Government are conscious of the longer-term needs of the Scottish inshore fishing industry and account has been and will continue to be taken of these in the formulation of our policies.
    Sir J. Gilmour: Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that because of the changed attitude in the fishing industry in this country towards pushing limits out, possibly to 200 miles, there is a real danger to the inshore fishing industry, due to the extra pressure upon fishing grounds from other vessels in the areas in which the inshore fleet now fishes?
    Mr. Ross: I am aware of this. The hon. Gentleman should appreciate that even the inshore fishermen are concerned about getting certain extensions of controlled waters. It follows from that that this whole question of access will have to be dealt with very carefully as a result of anything that comes out of the Law of the Sea Conference.
    Mr. Grimond: Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that the Scottish Office is represented at the conference, so that matters concerning limits may be taken into account and so that, in particular, restrictions on industrial fishing are asked for, particularly in respect of foreign vessels off north Scotland and Shetland?
    Mr. Ross: The right hon. Gentleman can accept from me that a representative of the Scottish Office will attend this conference. This is not a ministerial-level conference but an official-level conference. The representative from the Scottish Office is Mr. Aglen, who is probably the foremost expert in this subject, from an international as well as a Scottish point of view. He has been so recognised for a long time. We hope also to take a technical adviser from the industry.
    We had hoped that Mr. Campbell, from Lossiemouth, a gentleman with great experience in the industry, would go, but that has not proved convenient. We still hope that there will be an expert from the industry.
    Mrs. Winifred Ewing: Is it not a fact that while we and the fishing industry accept that Mr. Aglen is the foremost

    471
    expert on this subject, he is getting on in years—
    Mr. William Hamilton: So are you.
    Mrs. Ewing: Will there not be a great deal of lobbying of foreign delegations to be carried out on the various questions that will be raised at this conference? Mr. Aglen is the best there is from an expertise point of view, but could he not be supported by a representative, or representatives—since this is so important for Scotland—to deal with these other functions? Does the Secretary of State intend to leave Mr. Aglen to do it all by himself.
    Mr. Ross: The hon. Lady does not do justice to herself. [Interruption.] She did not have very much good sense to say when she was on her feet and I do not think she improves when she sits down.
    Mrs. Ewing: Cheap jibes!
    Mr. Ross: I am satisfied that the advice we shall be getting and the notice that will be taken of that advice will be used in pressing Scotland's needs and looking after our interests at this conference.
    Mrs. Ewing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As I have been attacked by the Secretary of State, may I cast his mind back—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I am afraid that the hon. Lady cannot do that on a point of order. She must seek some other opportunity.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: May I say, on behalf of the Opposition, that we in no way associate ourselves with the denigration of a notable Scot with an international reputation? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we have complete confidence in Mr. Aglen's ability to represent Scotland at this important conference? May I also ask the right hon. Gentleman, in view of the importance of this conference to Scotland, what steps are being taken to inform the House of the policy which the Government propose to follow at the conference?
    Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that there is a certain measure of confidentiality about tactical negotiations. This conference lasts from 20th June until about 29th August—a period
    472
    of 10 weeks. We have to appreciate that many people are dealing with this complex subject. We want to get international agreement. Negotiations will involve certain tactical moves, compromises, and the rest. It is not wise to declare precisely what one's position is at the beginning.

    Playhouse Cinema, Edinburgh
    Mr. Anthony Stodart: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if any consultations have taken place between his Department and Edinburgh Corporation about the possible development of the Playhouse Cinema as an opera house.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: This possibility was discussed by a corporation working party on which my right hon. Friend's Department and the Scottish Arts Council are represented. The corporation decided, however, not to acquire the Playhouse.
    Mr. Stodart: As the opinion of experienced people is that the size of the stage, the quality of the acoustics and the number of dressing rooms are far superior to most other premises of its kind, has the hon. Gentleman, as the guardian of public money, considered the possibility of developing this theatre?
    Mr. Hughes: The Question asks whether Edinburgh Corporation will proceed with this development. It has decided not to buy the Playhouse. We have had a report by theatre consultants on whether it might be used as a live theatre. Copies of that report have gone to Edinburgh Corporation. We must await developments.
    Mr. Rifkind: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, while a strong body of opinion believes that room must be found for the Playhouse, the vast majority of people in Edinburgh do not believe that it would be suitable as an opera house? They think that there is a need for the Government to repeat the Conservative Government's pledge of generous assistance in the provision of a multi-purpose theatre on the Castle Terrace site.
    Mr. Hughes: The question of a multipurpose site and the Opera House, which is intended to be finished by 1981, depends on the matter of progress, design and other factors. We must await developments.
    Mr. Lawson: In considering these matters, will my hon. Friend bear in mind that compared with any other city or place in Scotland Edinburgh receives exceptionally favourable treatment? If he has extra money to spend, will he consider spending it in some of the towns, notably Motherwell? We shall be very critical if there is much more special treatment for Edinburgh.
    Mr. Hughes: In considering the allocation of public resources we take into account the competing demands and the worth of each project. The article by a newspaperman in a certain newspaper was grossly discourteous to the City of Edinburgh, which has done much for the arts.

    Primary and Secondary Schools
    Mr. Monroasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will announce the new salary scales for teachers and the increase for designated posts in primary and secondary schools; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: The new scales and allowances to be paid as from 1st April were announced by the Scottish Teachers Salaries Committee on 29th May. I am sending details to the hon. Member.
    The Committee has under consideration the form of an extended designation scheme to operate from 1st August. The total sum for distribution is approximately doubled by the extra £1·15 million made available following the statement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 6th May. We are awaiting the committee's report.—[Vol. 873, c. 14.]
    Mr. Monro: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his statement, but how does it fit in with the commission on teachers' salaries set up by the Secretary of State? Will Scots be represented on it, and will it report to the Secretary of State or to the STSC? I am pleased about the designation scheme, because it is important that teachers should know at the earliest possible date the figure which will be allocated to it for next Session so that they can decide on their education authority employment in the coming Session.
    Mr. Hughes: The pay increase which operated from 1st April is not affected by the review body's recommendations. When the results are reported, the Government will honour their commitment that the increases so awarded will be backdated to the date of the announcement—24th May. There will be Scots on the body, and I understand that an announcement of its membership will be made today.
    It is important to obtain the details of the designation scheme as soon as possible, although that matter is not entirely in our hands. However, I shall do all I can to ensure that the report is not delayed.
    Mr. Hugh D. Brown: Surely my hon. Friend should make the point that many of the problems arise from the delay caused by the Conservative Government and their incomes policy on teachers' salaries. Will the new scales in the designation scheme be known within the next two weeks, in the next month, or after the review date?
    Mr. Hughes: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend that many of the difficulties which we face in teaching, in the National Health Service, and in many other respects, arise from the Conservative Government's statutory incomes policy, but I ask him not to confuse the report of the review body, which is considering the question of teachers' pay and conditions, with the working party of the Scottish Teachers Salaries Committee on designation. Those matters are not related.
    I cannot say when the committee will report, but, as the new designation scales will have to operate from 1st August, the sooner the committee can produce the report the better for all concerned, so that local authorities can make their plans for the next session.

    Identification Parade
    Mr. Dempseyasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will call for reports from chief constables of police on the methods which they employ at identification parades: and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Millan: No. Chief constables comply with a standard procedure of

    475
    conducting identification parades which is approved by the Crown authorities.
    Mr. Dempsey: Is my hon. Friend aware that at an identification parade in Airdrie a photograph of a suspect was shown to one of the witnesses prior to the parade, that afterwards a man was selected from the parade and was jailed at a sheriff court, and that his sentence was quashed within a matter of moments in the High Court? Does my hon. Friend realise that this matter has caused certain public misgiving? In the interests of public co-operation with the police, is it not time that the techniques were reviewed?
    Mr. Millan: My hon. Friend must be referring to the Boyle case. The complaints made in that case were later unreservedly withdrawn by the solicitors for Mr. Boyle. On the general question, the matter is under review by the Thomson Committee.
    Mr. Rifkind: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that identification procedures in courts are just as inaccurate as those at identification parades and that an alarming number of solicitors and advocates are identified in court instead of the clients whom they represent? Does the hon. Gentleman understand that this is causing increasing alarm to the legal profession? Will he inquire into this as well?
    Mr. Millan: In some cases, I think that kind of mistake is quite understandable. However, I believe that that matter is also under consideration by the Thomson Committee. If it is not, I shall see that it is considered because it is obviously a very worrying problem.

    LAW OFFICERS (PRESS INTERVIEWS)
    Mr. Sillarsasked the Lord Advocate how many public interviews, on matters for which they are responsible, have been given to the Press by Scottish Law Officers.
    The Lord Advocate (Mr. Ronald King Murray): One such interview was given by the Solicitor-General and some of his remarks were published in the Daily Record of 23rd April. No such interviews have been given by me.
    Mr. Sillars: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the Solicitor-General and the Daily Record should be congratulated on a first-class interview and a first-class article? Many people who read the article were deeply impressed by the Solicitor-General's fair highlighting of the strengths and weaknesses of Scottish law. As a token of open government, will my right hon. and learned Friend encourage this type of interview and this type of public discussion of a very important subject in Scotland?
    The Lord Advocate: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he has said. The Solicitor-General for Scotland is present and he will also have heard it. No doubt the Thomson Committee on Criminal Procedure will make recommendations on this matter. There is a limit to what can be done without legislation, but I think that something can be done by means of a positive dialogue with the legal profession and with the courts, and I have initiated such a dialogue.

    LAW COMMISSION
    Mr. Gordon Wilsonasked the Lord Advocate if he will recruit more legal staff for the Scottish Law Commission to allow it to make progress with its programme to reform the law of bankruptcy and to make progress with the third programme of law reform.
    The Lord Advocate: It is clear that the level of staffing of the Scottish Law Commission must be kept under regular review. To this end it has been agreed that a staff inspection be carried out and work on this has already begun. It would be premature to say what changes may result from that exercise.
    Mr. Wilson: May I express my gratitude to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his interest in this question and for arranging for a review of staffing? Many people in Scotland feel that there are weaknesses in the law of Scotland which should be reviewed and, although we are conscious of the strengths of the legal system, any help which can be given to the Law Commission to proceed with its work should be given.
    The Lord Advocate: I have no doubt that what the hon. Gentleman has said will be noted by members of the Scottish Law Commission and they will be glad to hear it. One of the more progressive moves of the last Labour Government was to set up the commission.
    Mr. Grimond: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that one of the most pressing reforms of the law of Scotland is reform of the divorce law, which is often pressed by the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton)? Will he find time for such reform?
    The Lord Advocate: I cannot give an undertaking that in the present Session time will be found for legislation of that kind, but I have noted what the right hon. Gentleman has said. Many other people have made similar comments.
    Mr. William Hamilton: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that my Bill would have had a Second Reading last Friday had not the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galbraith) made his first and last appearance at five minutes to 4 o'clock and called out "Object" at 4 o'clock?
    The Lord Advocate: My hon. Friend and I were two of the people who noted that.
    Mr. Ancram: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept the urgency of reforming the law of bankruptcy, especially in view of the economic policies which the Government are pursuing?
    The Lord Advocate: I take this question seriously. The Conservative Party is obviously bankrupt of ideas, but no doubt the hon. Gentleman is aware of the discussions on reform of the law of bankruptcy in Scotland. The matter is under serious consideration. There are also discussions concerned with the international aspects of bankruptcy. I am glad to tell the hon. Gentleman that recently I have had discussions with a view to identifying and increasing the participation of the Scottish legal profession in the discussions.

    LAW OF THE SEA CONFERENCE
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As you are aware, the United Nations Law of the Sea Conference opens in Caracas tomorrow. This is a matter of considerable importance to the fishing industry not only in Scotland but throughout the United Kingdom. So far, the House has had no indication of what is to be Her Majesty's Government's policy at this conference. Since there is no statement to be made by a member of the Government, so far as I know, may I draw your attention to Written Question No. 17, which has appeared on the Order Paper for the first time today? Can you let the House know whether you have had a request from the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs indicating that he is prepared to answer this Question in the House today? It is concerned with a matter of great importance not only to the House but to our fishing industry as well.
    Mr. Speaker: My answer to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's point of order is "Not a matter for me". The answer to the second part is "No".

AGRICULTURE (EEC MINISTERS' MEETING)
The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Fred Peart): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the Council of Ministers (Agriculture) meeting in Luxembourg on 17th and 18th June. There were two main items of business—a statement on behalf of the United Kingdom on the renegotiation of the terms of British accession to the Community in the agricultural sector; and the current market situation for pigs and beef.
On the former, I made a full statement elaborating our aims as they had been set out by my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary on 4th June. I have deposited copies of my statement in the Library. In it, I covered three basic areas. First, I outlined the ways in which the operation and mechanisms of the common agricultural policy must be reformed. I emphasised the need not only to adopt

479
clear criteria for future price determinations, but to implement them in relation to the requirements of modern efficient farms and to the supply/demand situation for individual commodities.
I also asked that it should be accepted in principle that prices could, by agreement, be fixed for particular parts of the Community at levels lower than those applying generally. I proposed that the mechanisms of intervention should be modified so as to reduce automatically the incentive to produce more than the market required, and that if surpluses accumulated they should be made available as a matter of priority to Community consumers.
Secondly, I pointed to the need for improvements in the régimes for particular commodities. I laid particular stress on the need for a new regime for beef—one which should replace permanent intervention by variable subsidies and production grants, to the benefit of producer and consumer alike. I recognised that such a new régime could not be introduced before next April and warned my colleagues that the difficult market situation might call for further Community action on an interim basis during the coming weeks.
Thirdly, I dealt with the need for a general liberalisation and improvement of access for food imports from Commonwealth and other countries. For New Zealand, I propose that the review of the existing arrangements should start this year rather than next; that prices should be reviewed annually; and that provision should be made for continuing imports of New Zealand butter after 1977 at broadly the levels envisaged then. We were also considering possible methods of dealing with cheese.
For sugar, I emphasised the need to offer continuing access for 1·4 million tonnes of sugar from the developing countries, and said that arrangements were also needed for further supplies from Australia—[Interruption.] Why not? I am defending Australia. Finally, I pointed to broad areas in which access for third countries to Community markets should be improved; and I gave examples where both levies and tariffs could be reduced to the benefit of consumers.
480
I was able to point out that all the issues I had raised could be dealt with as important and urgent business of the Council.
No member country dissented from this proposal and the Chairman of the Council declared that the various elements contained in my statement would be dealt with in the framework of the work which the Council had set itself to carry out in the course of the coming months—and I shall be present. This has been written into the record. So I shall look to the Council to approach seriously and expeditiously the questions which I put before it; and I shall report to this House on progress as it is made.
The second main item was the current market situation for pigs and beef. After full discussion in the Council, the Commission announced its intention of adopting two further measures which I had sought in the interests of United Kingdom producers. On pigs, provision has been made for the continuation of the current special subsidy of 50p per score deadweight until 1st September. Thereafter it will be paid at the rate of 35p per score until 29th September and at 15p until 3rd November. This amounts to total supplementary aid to pig producers of £30 million since March of this year.
On beef, the increase in the United Kingdom guide price scheduled for 31st January will be brought forward to 1st July. This should not raise prices to the consumer, for there are plentiful supplies available in this country. It is intended to sustain the market in a difficult situation. In consequence, the special subsidy in Northern Ireland will end on the same date, and, subject to parliamentary approval, Northern Ireland producers will become eligible for the full rate of calf subsidy payable in Great Britain.
In this meeting of the Council, I have thus taken three measures to sustain confidence in the meat sector—[Laughter.] I am surprised to hear hon. Members laughing—
Mr. MacArthur: "Sustain"?
Mr. Peart: First, I have secured the arrangements on pigs and beef which I have just described. Secondly, I have warned the Council of the possible need to take interim action to meet the beef market situation in the coming weeks.

481
Thirdly, I have outlined the kind of Communuity régime for beef which should be introduced next year.
These three measures are further evidence of the Government's determination to ensure that our livestock industry can continue to provide the nation with the supplies it needs in the years ahead.
Mr. Pym: The House is grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that statement, which is good in parts and a total disappointment in others. We are glad that the whole tone and context of it is Europe. That is something of a U-turn for the right hon. Gentleman. He now recognises and accepts the objective of improving the operation of the CAP.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we think it right that his suggestions for adjustments and other proposals which will be made should be considered within the framework of normal Community procedures?
The specific changes which the right hon. Gentleman indicated yesterday are short-term and inadequate. He is in fact tinkering with the problem. He has acknowledged at last that the beef sector is under severe strain. Is he aware that, after his statement today, it will still be under strain? He did a U-turn with his agreement of 23rd March, so that is a double U-turn so far. But is he aware that damage has been done, that confidence has been knocked, and that it will take more than a straight reversal to stop the decline, let alone to expand? He has allowed matters to drift and is acting too late. The consumer will suffer.
When will the right hon. Gentleman bring back a floor in the beef market? Is he aware of what has happened in beef markets this week? I ask him to expand on his statement. What in practice does he mean by,
"It is intended to sustain the market in a difficult situation"?
He talks about "the possible need"—I think it is a real need now—
"to take interim action to meet the beef market situation…"
Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the new intervention price is £17·90, and will he intervene at that level? If not, when and at what level will he intervene?
In the pig sector, the continuation of the 50p subsidy is obviously better than
482
was settled in March. Is that likely to be any more effective in stopping mass slaughtering than during the past two and a half months? What happens after the subsidy ends? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he has now been shown to have failed in his stated aim of safeguarding the future supply of bacon and pork to the consumer?
The right hon. Gentleman's arrangements in Northern Ireland represent a third U-turn and will be a great disappointment.
May I ask the Minister to tell us more about sugar supplies in 1975? What are the prospects for obtaining 1·4 million tonnes? What are the prospects for getting more supplies from Australia? What are the prospects for getting larger acreages at home? These are all crucial questions which should be answered.
Finally, is the Minister aware that, whilst we support the most careful consideration of long-term adjustments to the CAP in the European Community—of course we do—there is deep uncertainty still in the livestock sector which his statement does not dispel? Unless he puts the matter right at once, the consumer will suffer through inadequate supplies and higher prices later.
Mr. Peart: I am rather surprised at what I think is a pathetic statement by the spokesman for the Opposition. After all, I did not create this situation. I inherited it from right hon. Gentlemen opposite.
I have not altered my policy towards Europe. I believe that there should be fundamental changes in the CAP, as we stated at the election. I believe that I am doing something that right hon. Gentlemen opposite should have supported when they were in Government. They failed to do anything about our domestic agriculture. They failed to submit proposals to the Council of Ministers. The right hon. Gentleman knows that. We have done it. We believe that if we achieve what we set out to do, we shall help our producers and consumers.
The right hon. Gentleman asked what I had done regarding pigs. We have given £30 million, which represents a large amount of money, to the industry. I did not create the pig situation. It was there when right hon. Gentlemen opposite had responsibility. Moreover,

483
they know very well that the situation facing livestock producers, and the trend of inflation in feed costs, occurred under their régime. I make no apologies. I believe that what I am doing is right for Britain.
Mr. Pym Mr. Pym rose—
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that there is a procedural matter that the House of Commons should consider. Statements are being made and then questions asked upon them which lead to something in the nature of a debate. That is wrong. Other opportunities must be obtained for debating these matters. This is an opportunity for questioning the Minister on his statement, not for debate.
Mr. Jay: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the responsibility for the present beef situation rests with the Opposition who, when in office, abolished deficiency payments? Is he also aware that as a result of that situation the EEC now has a stock of nearly 100,000 tonnes of beef which is unsaleable because the price is too high and that apparently the remedy proposed by the EEC now is to raise the price still higher?
Mr. Peart: I agree with my right hon. Friend. I believe that the system operating in the Community of permanent intervention is wrong. I came to the House previously to announce that I believed that there should be an option. I have suggested that the Community should think in terms of having a new premium support system. That is right. I believe that the system that has been operating there is wrong, but right hon. Gentlemen opposite strongly supported it. For this reason, I am seeking to change the system in the Council of Ministers. We stated this at the election. I have our manifesto here. I keep strongly to it. I believe that what I have done is right and proper in the interests not only of this country but of world trade.
Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that he is entirely responsible for the weakness in the livestock sector now? Does he also accept that what he said at the Dispatch Box today, other than bringing back the
484
Australian quota, is nothing new or outside the terms that the Conservative Party was trying to negotiate and, indeed, had put forward during the last eight months at the various Community institutions? The right hon. Gentleman has put forward nothing new. Will he now do his best to achieve results?
Mr. Peart: I am amazed at the hon. Gentleman, who was a very effective and good Parliamentary Secretary, but he knows very well—
Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Read my speeches in the House.
Mr. Peart: The hon. Gentleman must listen; he is not at Strasbourg now. He should realise that what I have done in suggesting a new beef régime is something positive. What I have done about continuing access for New Zealand products is a change from what was decided by the previous Government.
Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Nonsense.
Mr. Peart: Of course it is. One has only to look at the Treaty of Accession. I have done something in relation to the Commonwealth and the lowering of tariffs on many products from third countries—problems about which right hon. Gentlemen opposite did nothing.
Mr. Scott-Hopkins: That is absolute nonsense.
Mr. Russell Kerr: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the House will dismiss the idle vapourisings of the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) and, indeed, will give a warm welcome to his reference to the Australian quota and especially to the fighting stance that he has revealed in defence of this country's interests, particularly in the light of the misrepresentation of his position recently set out in the Sunday Times?
Mr. Peart: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those remarks. I saw something in the Sunday Times which was a distortion. It is not for me to comment on what journalists say. We have to accept the situation. This is inevitable in political life. However, I believe that what I am doing is in conformity with what we said we would do, and that has been my stance throughout.
Mr. Russell Johnston: Surely the Minister will agree that the object of the

485
exercise, from the point of view of all parties, is to keep consumer prices as low as possible while maintaining stability for the farmer. Does he agree that the basis of his criticism of the CAP now is different from that in 1972? The basis then was that the CAP would cause alarming increases in consumer prices, whereas, were we not in the early stages of the transitional arrangements now, the CAP would be holding consumer prices down in view of the new world situation. How is it possible to have a referendum on the terms at one moment in an ever-shifting situation which might be negotiated very well now and change completely in two years?
I should like to put two further questions. Is the Minister proposing to introduce deficiency payments on beef? Secondly, is he in favour of unlimited improvement of access for Commonwealth countries' food irrespective of British producers' interests?
Mr. Peart: I believe that we should have a greater liberalisation of trade within the Community. The Community has been too rigid. That is why I have always argued that we must insist that some of our traditional suppliers, such as New Zealand and Australia, should be able to send their products to our market.
At the same time, I recognise always that there is our own domestic producers' point of view which must at all times be considered, but I see no reason for not having this liberalisation. This is why I am defending the 1·4 million tonnes target for sugar, and why we shall be having talks soon with the Caribbean countries on this matter. I want to honour this. We should do it. It is right.
With regard to high prices, I said in my statement that we should be in a position to lower prices if necessary.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned my position in relation to the CAP. I have repeated over and over again that, for beef in particular, intervention is a bad policy, because it reduces the quality of meat and in the end there is an accumulation. I believe that a policy resulting in a butter mountain is also bad. Whether we dispose of the butter to the Soviet Union or to any other country, the policy is wrong and does not help the consumer.
For those reasons, I want the changes which are proposed—and my party has said so.
Mr. Roy Hughes: Is my right hon. Friend apprehensive of representations about his alleged evasive attitude to renegotiation? While I appreciate that the Opposition are responsible for the present position because of the terms which they accepted for taking us into the Common Market, does not my right hon. Friend nevertheless agree that in order finally to restore reasonable prices to the British people it will be necessary completely to repudiate the CAP?
Mr. Peart: My hon. Friend should know that it was stated in our manifesto that we would seek major changes in the CAP. I note that a report in The Times today, following what I said in Luxembourg, says:
"Britain presents Community with radical proposals for changes in agriculture policy."
I believe that when my hon. Friend studies carefully what I have said, he will see that I have acted as I have been instructed by my Government and by my party, and I believe that in the end this will benefit both the producer and the consumer. We can fight any election again on this point.
Mr. John Davies: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the remark he made on the subject of operating differential prices in the Community will sound like the death knell to our livestock industry because that industry knows the Government's record? Is he further aware, in referring to an early review of the New Zealand situation, that the principal objective of New Zealand is to get an allowance for inflation, thus increasing butter prices to this country?
Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that he will get an arrangement with Australia which will allow sugar to come from that country at prices which we can accommodate within our problems of inflation?
Mr. Peart: I believe that with the good will of the Australian Government—I am glad to say that it is still led by a Labour Prime Minister—we shall be able to conduct bilateral negotiations on that matter. We have indicated our position.
I believe also that the question of guide prices which I have mentioned will help the beef industry. I am certain that when the farmers and the farmers' unions

487
meet me in connection with what I have proposed regarding the beef régime, they will fully accept it. It is time that the Opposition started to talk the market up instead of down.
Mr. D. E. Thomas: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that whereas we certainly welcome his longer-term proposals for a premium in place of the present intervention system, this still does not satisfy the deep concern about the crisis facing the industry? Why is he at present so reticent in the EEC as not to demand the reintroduction of the fatstock guarantee system in this country?
Mr. Peart: If I feel it essential to take immediate and urgent action I shall have to make proposals to my colleagues. After all, it was not I who said that we should go into the Community, but, now we are in, I must get a new policy adopted. I know that this is a long-term aim, but if the situation gets worse I will act.
Mr. Ronald Atkins: Has my right hon. Friend made it clear that substantial acceptance of his proposals are one of the conditions of continued British membership of the Community and does he agree that, if this is the case, we need an early reaction to these proposals from the Ministers in Europe, in view of the fact that the British Labour Party want to make it an issue at an early election?
Mr. Peart: I understand my hon. Friend's point. I have told the Council of Ministers that they must regard this matter as a serious proposal and that we should discuss it urgently and expeditiously. I believe that that approach is right.
Mr. Pym: The right hon. Gentleman said that he intends to sustain the beef market. Will he tell the House how he intends to do that?
Mr. Peart: That is for me to decide.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am afraid that we cannot debate this matter now. An important debate is to follow and there is also a Ten Minute Rule Bill to be considered.
Mr. Harry Ewing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. While not questioning in any way your choice of hon. Members to ask questions on this matter, I ask you with the greatest respect to bear in mind, when statements are made in future on the European Economic Community, that we in Scotland have some interest in the matter.
Mr. Speaker: I am well aware how many hon. Members have so many interests in so many subjects, and I try to do the best I can.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR FRIDAY 5TH JULY
Members successful in the Ballot were:

Mr. Caerwyn E. Roderick.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley.

Mr. A. P. Costain.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ordered,
That, at this day's Sitting, the Motion for an Instruction relating to the Greater London Council (Money) Bill, set down by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means for consideration at Seven o'clock, shall, instead of being considered at that hour, be entered upon at the conclusion of any proceedings in Committee on the Finance Bill this day, may be proceeded with after Ten o'clock though opposed, and shall be interrupted at the end of a period of one hour after it has been entered upon; but if proceedings in Committee on the Finance Bill have not been concluded at Ten o'clock the Chairman shall leave the Chair at that hour without putting any Question and the Motion for an Instruction may then be proceeded with, though opposed, for a period of one hour; and, in such case, at the conclusion of proceedings on the Motion, the House will again resolve itself into a Committee on the Finance Bill.—[Mr. Thomas Cox.]

ABOLITION OF TIED COTTAGES BILL
3.58 p.m.
Mr. Bob Cryer: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to abolish the system of tied cottages.
This is in accordance with the pledge contained in the Labour Party election manifesto to abolish the agricultural tied cottage. I understand and appreciate that the Government are sympathetic to this measure.
I propose to do this by amending the relevant sections of the Agriculture Act, 1970, namely Section 99(2)(a)(ii). That subsection would be deleted and the following words substituted:
"that it is not reasonably practicable for the owner of the premises to carry on an agricultural business in which he is engaged unless the premises are available for occupation by a person employed or to be employed by him."
These words were approved by the House to be part of the Agriculture Act, 1970, but they were replaced by a phrase more accommodating for landowners by the House of Lords, which is not entirely free of farming interests.
However, in my view the protection, though improved, would still be inadequate, and therefore my Bill will also contain provisions whereby if a tenant of a tied cottage had lived in the cottage and worked on the land for a period of at least 10 years, the farmer would not be able to obtain possession of the cottage unless and until the local authority was able to offer suitable alternative accommodation.
These provisions would cater for the genuine cases of farmers who need such tied accommodation in remote areas where access is not easily possible at the various times when help is needed on a farm. The provisions would also protect the tenant from greedy landowners who evict tenants in order to be able to sell or rent agricultural cottages as second homes to city gentlemen. Thus, the Bill would be a short enactment which would remedy a situation which has existed for far too long.
The evils of the tied cottage system must be remedied, and it is hoped that the Government will be able to provide time within a heavy legislative pro
490
gramme for this modest measure. I know, as I said before, that the Government are sympathetic to the aims of my Bill.
The Bill aims to prevent the heartrending situations which are involved in, alas, too many evictions. In 1973, 500 cases were reported to the National Union of Agricultural and Allied Workers and these went to court for eviction orders, but many other tenants were forced out by threats and intimidation without any resort to court action.
A not-untypical case which was reported in the Kent Messenger towards the end of last year illustrates the point graphically that although one farmer may be fully sympathetic and humane, when a farm is sold the new owner in effect buys the farm worker with the cottage and he may then proceed to evict.
The Kent Messenger reported:
"A farm worker who was bought with the farm' was evicted in the snow on Wednesday—a victim of the tied cottage system".
The victim said:
"My advice to young people is to keep well clear of tied cottages. You are owned by the farmer, and once you're in, you're in for life.
I had no choice over whom I worked for—I was bought."
That farm worker was clearly not content with such a situation, and he tried to extricate himself from it by what I suppose hon. Gentlemen opposite would call the noble method of trying to buy his own home but at the age of 51, with some savings for the first time in his life from redundancy payments, Mr. Henty found that he was too late. A property at which he was looking was valued at £5,500. He just could not afford to obtain a big enough mortgage to cover the cost.
"The worst part about it"
—said Mrs. Henty—
"was that he was offered a really good job as a field services worker, but he could not take it because there was no accommodation. We have been trapped by the system."
A further case occurred at York. A herdsman went to see his wife who was having a baby at her mother's home in London and on his return he found that the furniture had been moved from his tied house and put into a barn.

491
In both those cases the employees had worked loyally for more than 10 years, and so would have been protected by my Bill from these heartless evictions.
Many agricultural workers are approaching retirement and dread the age of 65. At present. 50 per cent. of agricultural workers in Kent are aged 55 or over and so could face eviction in any of the next 10 years or less due to old age or, like any other farm worker, due to ill health or injury sustained at work terminating their employment and consequentially their tenancy of a tied cottage.
I have received letters from vicars' wives and schoolteachers imploring me to extend the provisions of the Bill to their case. One vicar's wife wrote:
"Dear Sir,
Having lived in a tied vicarage for 34 years in Wales (the vicar has now retired) I know the agony of living in a tied house. If an incumbent dies during his occupation"
—or becomes ill—
"his family have to move out after two months. Do you think you could outlaw tied vicarages along with other residences?"
It will not be possible within the terms of a short enactment to cover that sort of situation. The main problem arises not in these peripheral cases but among agricultural workers. Recently a delegation of more than 200 agricultural workers visited this House. Many of them explained that during their child
492
hood they were promised the abolition of the tied cottage system and they are still waiting for that to happen. It is small wonder, when so many promises have been made and so many not kept, that people grow cynical about the actions of people who have power within their grasp.
I hope, therefore, that the House will accept my Bill. It will provide protection for tenants, yet preserve rights for farmers who can prove genuine need. It will ensure a cast-iron protection for those farm workers who have worked loyally in British agriculture so that they no longer need fear ill-health, injury or old age. I ask the House, in the name of common humanity and decency towards our fellow human beings, to give me leave to introduce the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Bob Cryer, Mr. Martin Flannery, Mr. A. W. Stallard, Mr. Max Madden, Mr. Stanley Newens, Mrs. Audrey Wise, Mr. Dennis Skinner, Mr. Fred Evans, Mr. Brian Sedgemore, Mr. Phillip Whitehead, Mr. Roger Stott and Mr. Thomas Torney.

ABOLITION OF TIED COTTAGES
Mr. Bob Cryer accordingly presented a Bill to abolish the system of tied cottages; and the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 28th June and to be printed. [Bill 67.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  FINANCE BILL
  (Clauses 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14 and 19, and new Clauses relating to the matters referred to in the Order of the House [9th May].
  Considered in Committee [Progress 13th June].
  [Mr. GEORGE THOMAS in the Chair]

  FINANCE BILL
    New Clause 4

      TRADE UNIONS
      —(1) References in section 338 of the Taxes Act (exemption for trade unions) to a registered trade union shall be construed as including references to a trade union entered in the list of trade unions maintained under the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974; and—

      (a) if a trade union entered in that list was formed after 30th September 1971 it shall be treated as having been a registered trade union within the meaning of that section at all times between its formation and its entry in that list; and

      (b) if a trade union was a registered trade union on 30th September 1971 it shall be treated for the purposes of that section as having remained a registered trade union so long as it remained a trade union.

      (2) Section 123(2) of the Finance Act 1972 (which restricted the exemption conferred by section 338 of the Taxes Act) shall cease to have effecr.—[Mr. Healey.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      4.6 p.m.
      The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Denis Healey): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      The clause ensures that in future trade unions entered in the list proposed under the Trade Union and Labour Relations Bill 1974, which is at present in progress through Parliament, will be entitled to provident benefit income exemption under Section 338 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1970, Appendix A. In addition, it restores the relief with retrospective effect to trade unions which deregistered under the Industrial Relations Act 1971 and to new unions and newly amalgamated unions formed after 30th September 1971 which did not register under that Act. It also protects the position of those unions after 30th September 1971 which ceased to exist
      494
      because of an amalgamation and will not, therefore, be listed in future.
      In total, its effect is that, whatever action they took under the Industrial Relations Act 1971, trade unions will continue to enjoy the exemption under Section 338 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1970 without a break.
      I think the Committee knows that this clause is generally known as the Carr clause, after the right hon. Member for Carshalton (Mr. Carr), because it seeks to achieve an objective to which the right hon. Gentleman repeatedly pledged himself and the Government of which he was then a member; that is, to ensure that the provident funds of a trade union were not taxed as a result of the Industrial Relations Act.
      Perhaps I may quote what the right hon. Gentleman told the House. He said:
      "The assurance which I give, and which I stand by, is that it should be possible for a union which decides not to register under the new scheme of registration to take measures without insuperable difficulty to enable it both to protect its present provident funds and continue its provident fund activities."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th August 1971; Vol. 822, c. 1714.]
      As late as 9th May of this year, after the last General Election, the right hon. Gentleman told us again that it was not the Conservative Government's intention that the provident funds of a union should be taxed as a result of the Industrial Relations Act.
      I think the whole Committee and the country will agree that it would be scandalous if that had been the Conservative Government's intention, because the purpose of provident funds is to provide benefits to a member during sickness or compensation for personal injury while out of work, to a member by way of superannuation, to a member who has met with an accident, to a member who has lost his tools by fire or theft, for funeral expenses on the death of a member or his wife, and for provision for the children of a deceased member. I am quoting Section 338 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1970, but those words have been on the statute book since 1893. Indeed, the provisions for relieving from income tax the provident funds of a trade union have been a fundamental part of our social system and tax machinery for over 80 years.

      495
      Yet, in fact, though we gather not in intention, the Industrial Relations Act robbed trade unions of this fundamental right—[HON. MEMBERS: "NO."]—if they chose to exercise another right which was totally legal; namely, not to register under the Act. That has made them liable in the last two years to pay as much as £10 million in additional taxation.
      Mr. Peter Rost: They did not have to.
      Mr. Healey: I am coming to that.
      The last Government claimed that the unions which chose not to register under the Act could nevertheless retain tax relief by registering their provident funds under some other Act. But I am afraid that Ministers in the last Government were in a continuous muddle here. They kept making unequivocal assertions which they were later compelled either to withdraw or to revise.
      On 23rd March 1971 the right hon. Member for Carshalton told us confidently—I remember the ring of confidence as he spoke these words—
      "I am assured on technical advice that the Industrial and Provident Societies Act 1965 or the Friendly Societies Act 1896 is available for registering for the provident funds of unions which do not wish to register under the Bill in the industrial relations sense."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd March 1971; Vol. 814, c. 335.]
      But three months later he withdrew that assertion. He had to come to the House in a white sheet and accept, on 4th August 1971, that, as a result of further investigation, he had come to the conclusion that the Industrial and Provident Societies Act was not helpful in that respect. He continued to maintain that the Friendly Societies Act was helpful, but he proved to be as wrong about that Act as about the other.
      It is true, as he had said in May, that there was no legal impediment to unions which wished to do so protecting their funds by hiving them off and registering as friendly societies. There are, of course, no legal difficulties in the way of the right hon. Gentleman living on the moon—
      Mr. Russell Kerr: And a good idea, too.
      Mr. Healey:—or becoming Prime Minister, but in practice the difficulties in both cases are formidable.
      The Trade Union Congress General Council took legal advice as soon as this issue came up. In May 1971, on the basis of counsel's opinion, it was obliged to tell its members that the new friendly society proposed would have to be completely separate from the union and controlled separately. There would have to be a separate accounting system for the calculation of contributions. Unless every existing member and beneficiary agreed to the transfer of his accrued rights to the new society, the union would still have a commitment to provide the benefits to them, as their accrued rights would have to be assured.
      Any payment of union funds into the friendly society for the purpose of providing or supplementing benefits, as can happen between union funds when the provident fund is not actuarially based, would be irrevocable. Of course it is true that some unions have operated their provident fund activities through friendly societies from the outset, but that is quite a different matter from trying to unscramble the funds of an existing union and creating a separate body with an entirely new membership.
      The counsel's opinion showed that the obstacles in practice were insuperable, because a friendly society could not be formed simply by transferring the provident funds of the union into a separate fund. The friendly society must be formed by the union members and not by the union. While donations from a union's general fund might be added to members' subscriptions, it would not be possible to finance a friendly society through such donations alone. Nor would it be possible to make subscriptions to a friendly society a condition of membership of a union.
      Indeed, counsel held that the Registrar of Friendly Societies would not only require formal separation of the friendly society from the union but would be unlikely to accept any degree of overt control through overlapping membership of the governing body and the executive committee of the union.
      4.15 p.m.
      The last Government knew perfectly well that this was the case. The point

      497
      was repeatedly raised here and in another place during the passage of the Industrial Relations Act.
      Mr. Robert Carr: The right hon. Gentleman is, of course, entitled to state his opinion. He is not entitled to say that the last Government knew perfectly well that that was not the case. He has quoted one counsel's opinion. We took our legal advice through the proper channels, and it happened to be different from that. It is not unusual, perhaps, for counsel to differ, but, according to the advice given to us in a proper constitutional way, we knew—insofar as it is possible to "know" in this sense—the opposite of what the right hon. Gentleman is saying.
      Mr. Healey: I shall shortly disprove the assertion that the right hon. Gentleman has just made. Perhaps it is convenient that he has made it so that I may be able to disprove it.
      Lord Diamond raised the difficulties in detail in a debate in another place on 25th May 1971. He was told by Lord Drumalbyn that the interpretation that I have just quoted of the situation was correct.
      The practical impossibility of the friendly society solution was raised continually in the House on later Finance Bills. On 27th June 1972, in Standing Committee E, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mr. Walden) referred to the fact that his own union had considered the idea of forming a friendly society but had found it practically impossible.
      A year later—this is the answer to the right hon. Gentleman—the Government finally conceded the point. The then Minister of State, Treasury, the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Nott) said:
      "I realise that there are practical difficulties in some cases in that for these purposes provident funds have to be alienated from the main union funds…I am therefore aware that what I am now suggesting "—
      the right hon. Gentleman's solution—
      "cannot apply or appears not to apply in every case."—[OFFFICAL. REPORT, 10th July 1973; Vol. 859, c. 1425.]
      Nevertheless, the Government took no action to relieve the unions of tax penalties which they claimed they had never intended in practice.
      498
      They failed to fulfil the undertaking given by the right hon. Gentleman on 4th August 1971 that they would set up a special register for trade uinons which did not wish to register under the Industrial Relations Act, so that they could continue to receive tax relief on their provident fund activities if that proved necessary. They failed to meet repeated requests by the TUC that the six-month waiver of the rules in the Industrial Relations Act which was conceded at the beginning of its operation should be continued indefinitely.
      The issue was raised yet again by the TUC directly with my predecessor, the then Chancellor, in a meeting at the Treasury on Tuesday 5th February, two days before the General Election was announced. Having heard yet again that it was not possible for trade unions to separate their provident fund activities for tax purposes, the then Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Barber), according to the TUC minutes of the meeting, said that he
      "…realised that the whole issue was one of great importance to trade unions and he would endeavour to find a solution to the problem despite the difficulties which had been discussed."
      The Committee must presume that it was only the intervention of the election which prevented the Conservative Government from carrying out that pledge.
      It has been left to the Labour Government to carry out a promise made by the Conservative Party on this matter, as, for example, on reducing the price of milk at a stroke. I would have expected that when we announced our intention to do this, the Conservative Party would have welcomed this solution and this fulfilment of a pledge to which they had committed themselves in such detail over so many years.
      Our decision was welcomed, albeit reluctantly, by the arch-priest of the establishment—not a conspicuous ally of either the trade union movement or the Labour Party—Mr. William Rees-Mogg. In The Times on 24th April this year he said—this in many ways is the nub of my argument—in his leading article:
      "It must anyway be regarded as improper to use the beneficiaries of a charitable fund as pawns in the business of influencing a trade union's leadership to adopt one rather than another of two equally lawful courses concerning something else altogether."

      499
      He went on to say:
      "The tax position of funds which deserve to be considered as having charitable status should be determined by principles general to the taxation of charities, not consequently on decisions of a completely different kind."
      He also went on to say—and here I feel that he showed less foresight as a prophet and wisdom as a commentator:
      "Conservative MPs are likely to see the force of this, and it is indeed probable that if the Conservatives had remained in office to renegotiate ' the Industrial Relations Act, this is one of the things that would have been changed."
      Mr. Rees-Mogg must have been as shocked and surprised as I was that the Conservative Opposition have chosen instead to attack this decision, and in attacking it they have used arguments totally incompatible with the position that they took when in office and, furthermore, highly offensive to the whole trade union movement.
      The right hon. Member for Carshalton on 9th May this year, had the insolence to say in this Chamber:
      "The unions paid that tax when, in my view, they need not have done so, had they not been careless for political reasons of their trustee guardianship of their members' funds."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th May 1974; Vol. 873, c. 624.]
      "Careless for political reasons of their members' interests"—those were the right hon. Gentleman's words. He went on to say that he would develop that charge in due course. All of us on the Government side of the Committee will be fascinated to hear him develop it.
      Others of the right hon. Gentleman's colleagues have gone rather further. They have even asserted that unions which chose not to register under the Industrial Relations Act were seeking to act above the law—an assertion which they must have known to be false. The right hon. and learned Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Thomas), speaking at Llandrindod Wells on Saturday 27th April 1974, said of the clause that we are now debating:
      "It was a special reward to the unions for deciding that they were above the law for refusing to take part in the Industrial Relations Act."
      That is what he said, and he is a man not without influence, we are told, in the Conservative Party.
      Now we come to the Brutus of the Opposition Front Bench, the right hon.
      500
      Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw). It was he who struck the final blow. He said in a speech to the Primrose League on Wednesday 24th April—perhaps it was an election speech for all I know—
      "The object of the largesse"—
      the fulfilment of the previous Government's pledges—
      "is to relieve the Government supporters of the consequences of their own decision not to accept legislation lawfully passed by the previous Parliament."
      Does the right hon. Gentleman really claim that in deciding not to register under the Industrial Relations Act trade unions were acting illegally? That is an astonishing doctrine and is totally contrary to everything that right hon. Gentlemen opposite told us during the months and, indeed, years in which we debated this matter. Right hon. Members of the Opposition Front Bench have gone a very long way from all that they previously said when they were Ministers—that there was no intention to use the provisions of the Industrial Relations Act to prevent the unions from receiving tax relief on their provident funds.
      I think that not only the Committee but the country must ask themselves why members of the Conservative Party have chosen this particular moment, when according to the newspapers there may be some prospect of an early General Election, to widen the gulf between themselves and the organised workers of this country by adopting a posture of arrogant hostility towards the trade union movement far more offensive than they assumed at any time during the worst period of confrontation when they were in office.
      There has been some speculation in recent weeks about a possible change in the attitude of the Opposition towards the trade unions and industrial policy. Until now most of us assumed that the change would be designed to soften some of the asperities of the past. But instead we now see that if by some mischance they ever found themselves in office again, they would embark at once on a campaign of unrestrained aggression which could lead to us looking back on the two months of three-day working this year as an unexampled period of industrial peace.
      Mr. James Prior: The right hon. Gentleman is trying to whip it up now.
      Mr. Healey: The right hon. Gentleman has a charm which overcomes us all. We put down the new clause. The Opposition have chosen to debate it for a whole day on the Floor of the House, and they complain when we comment on the arguments they have used.
      Mr. Prior: I suppose that the remarks that the right hon. Gentleman has just made are designed to keep peace in industry.
      Mr. Healey: The remarks I have just made are designed to persuade the right hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friends to recognise the error of their ways before it is too late for them. They seek to treat the working people of this country as some lesser breed, outside the law, to be exterminated if they act in a way which is not illegal but is contrary to the political prejudices of right hon. and hon. Members of the Opposition. I believe that in adopting that posture, which goes far beyond anything they did when in office, they are damaging the unity of this country no less than they are damaging the prospects of their party.
      Mr. Prior: No words of mine could be as eloquent in condemning the right hon. Gentleman as are his own.
      Mr. Healey: The right hon. Gentleman's eloquence is as overwhelming as his charm. I may be wrong, of course, and I readily concede this to the right hon. Gentleman: it may be misinterpreting the motives which lie behind the words spoken by so many Opposition leaders, those I have just quoted, and their opposition to the clause that we have moved. I dare say—perhaps the Opposition spokesman will confirm this when he winds up the debate—that the Opposition Front Bench is simply trying to provide us with the first example of new style opposition which has been promised by the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) over the last few days. I note from the newspapers that he told his followers
      "The phoney war is nearly ended."
      As always, I find myself fascinated and a little perplexed by his choice of words. I confess that the Leader of the Opposition was possibly right to describe his
      502
      and his party's behaviour over the past three months as a "phoney war". I think probably the Committee can be united on that particular part of his statement. But what did he mean when he said "It is nearly ended"? Did he mean that it is ending tonight, or possibly tomorrow, or next week, in July, or after the Summer Recess? It certainly was not last night, when we had a majority which was far greater than would have been possible if the Opposition had been trying to win the vote.
      Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman threw more light on this interesting question in his television interview on Monday. He said that he believed that the Labour Party was leading the country to disaster. But when his interviewer asked "If you believe they are disastrous"—
      Mr. Peter Rees: I fail to see what possible relevance this has to the debate on the new clause which we are supposed to be debating.
      The Chairman: Order. When I find that there is a necessity to pull up the right hon. Gentleman, I shall have no reluctance in doing so. But that moment has not yet arrived.
      Mr. Healey: I am grateful for that firm assertion of your authority, Mr. Thomas. As you will recognise, I was trying to reinterpret the actions of the Opposition in a way more favourable to them than the interpretation I put on them a few moments ago, and in that I was responding to an invitation of the right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior).
      When the Leader of the Opposition was asked
      "If you believe they are dangerous, surely for the country's sake you should be fighting harder?"
      he replied
      "No. What is the point of giving the present Government the opportunity of fighting a General Election? Say we had been able to defeat them on a major item on the Finance Bill"—
      like this one, I might remark to the hon. and learned Member for Dover and Deal (Mr. Rees)—
      "and a General Election was called before the country itself realised the disastrous direction in which the Labour Party is leading us—what is the point of that? What is wise about that? What is the sensible leadership doing about that?"
      Mr. Peter Rees: Keep to the clause.
      Mr. Healey: The Leader of the Opposition might well ask.
      Mr. Peter Rees: Keep to the clause.
      Mr. Healey: I dare say that some hon. Members might feel—
      Mr. Peter Rees: Keep to the clause.
      Mr. Healey:—that the attitude reflected in the Opposition's behaviour on this clause might be sensible, but is it leadership? There is something a little undignified in the Opposition behaving like a gang of grubby little boys popping out from behind a hedge to check the passing policemen and then belting hell for leather across the field the second he turns his head.
      4.30 p.m.
      I think that the Opposition have made a great mistake in choosing this clause and the problems of the trade union movement as an excuse for these antics.
      Mr. Rost: Tell us what the Government are doing about inflation.
      Mr. Healey: I am not surprised that the Opposition would like to change the subject, although I suspect, Mr. Thomas, that you might decide I was out of order if I sought to respond to the invitation from the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Rost). Perhaps the two hon. Members might sort this procedural point out with each other.
      The Leader of the Opposition said that in this phoney war it is more important to win the argument than to win the vote. So far we have had no argument from the Opposition on this clause. We have had a series of gratuitous insults to the trade union movement intended to justify the posture which is the opposite to the one they adopted in office.
      Mr. David Waddington: Justify the clause.
      Mr. Healey: The Opposition do not have a leg to stand on in opposing the clause because it fulfils the decision by the Conservative Government to carry out a clear and specific understanding that the trade unions would not suffer in terms of taxation from the operation of the Industrial Relations Act. I hope that the House will unanimously justify the confidence of The Times by uniting in support of the clause.
      Mr. Robert Carr: One point is quite clear. If we are supposed to judge in this debate, and in any Division we may have at the end of it, what are the merits of the clause, we can say that the Chancellor has certainly not attempted even to explain its merits, reasons and purpose in any substantial way. He has found it easier to indulge in what was no doubt for him an enjoyable political knockabout, which was perhaps also enjoyed by some of his hon. Friends. Nevertheless, this is a serious subject and that is how I intend to deal with it.
      As he did on 9th May, the Chancellor today sought to honour me by describing this new clause 4 which the Government are hanging round their necks as the "Carr clause". Whether that be an honour is not for me to judge. We know, however, that the right hon. Gentleman's arguments are too clever by half and disingenuous in the extreme.
      Of course it should be possible, as I said on 4th August 1971 in the House, which was a repetition of what I said on 23rd March 1971, for unions, without insuperable difficulties, to carry on their provident activities and to see that their provident funds protected against tax. Of course that is so. We meant that at the time and we still mean it. The Chancellor said that the Industrial Relations Act robbed the trade unions of that right. It did not rob them of that right, and of course that is what the argument is all about today.
      Before coming to the substance of the argument I must refer to one thing said by the Chancellor which surprised me. He referred to a meeting which the trade unions evidently had with my right hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Barber) when he was Chancellor as recently as the beginning of February this year. I wonder how he knows what was said and what was not said at that meeting.
      Mr. Healey: May I answer that immediately? The TUC gave me a copy of the minute it took of the meeting, as it is perfectly free to do. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman is not sheltering behind some totally false and indefensible concept that discussions between a Chancellor and an outside body are not free to be referred to after an election. If

      505
      he cares to fight his case on that procedural line the Committee will draw its own conclusion about the honesty with which he is presenting his case.
      Mr. Carr: The Chancellor is entitled to his views, as are the trade unions, about what it is proper to disclose or not disclose when a body or an individual sees a Minister—this may happen while the right hon. Gentleman is Chancellor—at what are supposed to be confidential meetings.
      Mr. Healey: I have met a large number of bodies including the CBI since I have been Chancellor. They have never hesitated—and I make no complaint about this—to reveal their views and the general reaction I took even though I was still a Minister.
      Mr. Carr: I accept that, but will the right hon. Gentleman now say whether the trade unions on that occasion asked for retrospective legislation?
      Mr. Healey: The trade unions asked for an indefinite continuation of the waiver given at the beginning of the Industrial Relations Act, and which had lasted six months. But, of course, they would have been prepared to accept any offer from the right hon. Gentleman which, in the light of their view firmly expressed on that occasion that the friendly societies route was inoperable, met their justified grievance which had been rejected by the right hon. Gentleman personally in the speeches to which I referred.
      Mr. Carr: The Chancellor has made himself clear. The trade unions asked, I understand, for a change to be considered in this year's Finance Act, as they are perfectly entitled to do. They did not, I understand, ask for that change to be made retrospective. That is what the debate is all about—whether the change should be retrospective. This is, as everybody recognises, retrospective legislation. It has always been recognised by all parties in this Committee that any proposal for retrospective legislation requires a special scrutiny, and that it can be justified only in special circumstances.
      The Prime Minister acknowledged this when he told the USDAW conference at Margate in April this year:
      506
      "No one likes retrospective legislation but it is justifiable when it is introduced to right a wrong which it was never intended should be inflicted".
      I would accept that test as one which might well justify an exceptional measure of retrospective legislation.
      Mr. Healey: Perhaps inadvertently, the hon. Gentleman has misrepresented the point put by the TUC. It proposed that trade unions should qualify for the concession, and an alternative method available to the Government was also mentioned—that there could be an extension of the temporary provision in the 1972 Finance Act by which trade unions registered before 1st October 1971 continued to have tax relief on investment income applied to provident funds for the year 1971–72. That was clearly retrospective.
      Mr. Carr: I do not think that it was. I have not seen that document. Perhaps we might be allowed to have a sight of it. But I do not believe, on hearing what the right hon. Gentleman said, that that was a claim for retrospective legislation. I do not want to become involved in detail, but I am forced to ask whether that was an agreed minute.
      Mr. Healey: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman wisely wants to divert the argument on to this. I have no idea whether it is an agreed minute, but I know that at least three of the right hon. Gentleman's right hon. Friends have recently applied to the Treasury for permission to view minutes which were made when the previous Government were in power. The right hon. Gentleman is free to obtain the Treasury minutes of the occasion if he wishes. But, as he will know, I am not free to do so. I have to rely on the minutes of the TUC.
      Mr. Carr: Meanwhile, I prefer to rest on what my right hon. Friend has told me about the meeting, which is that he was not asked to make any retrospective provision. I believe that to be the fact.
      I was saying that the Prime Minister said that retrospective legislation is justifiable when it is introduced to right a wrong which it was never intended should be inflicted. I said that I would accept that test as one which might well justify an exceptional measure of retrospective legislation. What I do not accept is that that test is satisfied in this case.

      507
      The payment of the tax which it is now proposed under the clause to refund was not inflicted inescapably on the unions by Government action or by the legislation passed by the House. On the contrary, it was a burden which the unions imposed on themselves without making any reasonable, responsible attempt to escape from it in the ways properly made available to them.
      I want the Committee to look at the facts of the situation. The first point to stress has already been mentioned. I assured the House for the first time on 23rd March 1971, and again subsequently, that it was not the intention of the then Conservative Government that a union's provident fund should be subjected to extra taxation as a result of the Industrial Relations Act. I reaffirm that assurance today. If unions paid extra taxation on their provident funds, it was not as a result of any failure to honour the obligation in the assurance to which I have referred.
      There were two ways in which unions could have protected their provident funds from taxation. The first and easiest way was to register. That was not a particularly difficult or unreasonable thing to ask. It was not an idea, a condition, thought up by a Conservative Government. The Donovan Royal Commission unanimously recommended in paragraph 792 of its report that all trade unions should receive corporate status and be registered. The Commission also unanimously recommended in Chapter XI of its report that certain requirements should be attached to registration.
      4.45 p.m.
      The previous Labour Government also proposed registration. The White Paper "In Place of Strife", stated in paragraph 114 that
      "it is right and health in a democracy that any powerful body should be subject to outside scrutiny where abuse of its power can most harm the individual."
      The Labour Government of that time accepted that unions should register, and they said in paragraph 109 of the White Paper that they accept that a condition of registration should be that
      "Unions will be required to have rules governing certain matters".
      They said in the same paragraph that refusal to register
      508
      "will lay a trade union open to a financial penalty by the Industrial Board."
      They also accepted, in paragraph 114, that it was necessary that the administration of union rules should be subject to independent review.
      Thus, registration as a condition of achieving the benefits and privileges of trade union status was not a Tory invention. It was recommended unanimously by the Donovan Commission, which included trade unionists in its membership, including no less a person than the General Secretary of the TUC. The Commission's report was subsequently accepted by the Labour Government. [HON. MEMBERS: "They were wrong."] That is an opinion held by Labour Members who express it from a sedentary position below the Gangway. But it is a fact that the Labour Party and the Donovan Commission thought up the idea of registration and recommended it to the country. It was certainly not a concept invented by the Tory Party, the last Tory Government or me when I was Secretary of State for Employment.
      Mr. John Tomlinson: The right hon. Gentleman has made great play of the concept of registration. Does he not agree that registration goes back much further than either the previous Labour Government or the Donovan Commission, and that it begins with the 1871 Act? It is nonsensical to try to pretend that the new concept is something to do with the Labour Government. The conditions attached to registration are what matter.
      Mr. Carr: As the hon. Gentleman must know well, the Donovan Commission and the then Labour Government themselves attached new conditions to the old concept of registration.
      Mr. Tomlinson: No.
      Mr. Carr: Was it not a new condition that
      "Refusal"
      —to register—
      "will lay a trade union open to a financial penalty"?
      That was a direct quotation from "In Place of Strife". Was not that a new concept of registration?
      I believe that registration was a valid means to a valid and important end. It

      509
      was in that context that I sought as Secretary of State for Employment to encourage trade unions to register under the Act and to accept the conditions attaching to registration. It is a pity, if the argument was just about the conditions attached to it, that the trade unions refused to consult me about those conditions. There was nothing disingenuous about what I did. If it is accepted that the purposes that registration was designed to effect were valid and important, it must also be accepted that it was right for the Government to seek to encourage registration and to refuse to make the path just as easy for those unions which desired to escape the responsibilities of registration as for those which were prepared to accept them.
      But if registration were the easy and proper way of protecting a union's provident funds against taxation, it was not the only way. It was obviously the duty of the Government to accept the implications of their desire that registration should remain voluntary, and that if unions chose not to register they should be free not to do so. Our intention was that unions should voluntarily undertake the responsibility of registration, and that the Government should confine their rôle to persuasion and the provision of incentives to register. We carried out that duty.
      Mr. Thomas Swain: It was blackmail.
      Mr. Carr: There was no blackmail to register because we provided alternative means or made sure that alternative means existed. It is in that light that the Committee should view my statement during the passage of the Industrial Relations Act to the effect that a union should have a choice between obtaining tax relief by way of registration under the Act and obtaining it by way of:
      "hiving off their provident funds…into separate organisations, registering them as friendly societies and thereby achieving the present degree of registration".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd March 1971; Vol. 814, c. 326.]
      The position which the Conservative Government adopted on tax relief may be simply stated. I and my colleagues made it clear, both in the House and in another place, that it was our desire that unions should continue to enjoy tax relief in respect of income from their provident funds. At the same time we satisfied our
      510
      selves, on the basis of the legal and technical advice that was available, that there was no legal or constitutional impediment in the way of an unregistered union securing relief by hiving off its provident funds into separate organisations.
      In the debate that immediately followed my statement of 23rd March, the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) commented that these matters would be "inconvenient" for unions. Subsequently the Labour Opposition changed their tune and argued in another place that the technical advice that the Government had received on hiving off union provident funds was incorrect. Arising out of that suggestion, the Government took two steps to meet the points made by the Opposition and by the trade unions, which were properly advising the Opposition on what they saw the difficulties to be.
      The first step that the Government took was to amend that year's Finance Bill so as to ensure that those unions that chose not to register should have a year's continuance of tax relief to give them adequate time to fulfil their duties and to ensure the protection of their provident incomes.
      Mr. Dennis Skinner: Retrospective.
      Mr. Carr: Yes, we did make that retrospective. It was right and proper so to do. Had we not done so we might have been taking away a proper right which needed time to be established.
      Mr. Skinner: That is what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is arguing.
      Mr. Carr: That is not what the right hon. Gentleman is arguing. We gave the unions an extra year in which to make their choice and to make their protection. That is the essence of what we did. The Government's second step—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): Order. It is unreasonable not to allow a right hon. Member to state his case in the House without running interruptions.
      Mr. Carr: The Government's second step was that the noble Lords, Lord Diamond and Lord Drumalbyn, met their legal advisers to consider the legal impediments which the Opposition claimed to have discovered. At the same

      511
      time, the Lord Chancellor, at his own request, received a copy of the Opposition's legal opinion. The entire matter was subsequently debated twice in another place. At the end of the day the Lord Chancellor's view was accepted that there was no legal or constitutional reason for a union not to be able to transform its provident fund into a friendly society receiving tax relief.
      At the end of the debate in another place Lord Diamond, speaking for the Opposition, concluded that the unions, in cases where unions found insuperable difficulties,
      "should be entitled to the same tax treatment as promised to them, if they can establish to any reasonable independent person…that they have taken all reasonable steps to try and get this tax treatment and have not succeeded in doing so."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 20th July 1971, Vol. 322, c. 922.]
      There is no doubt that that was a reasonable request on behalf to the Opposition.
      There is also no doubt that if any union had complained to the previous Government that, having taken all reasonable steps, as indicated by Lord Diamond, it had met with insuperable difficulties, the Government would have investigated the complaint and would have acted accordingly. The plain fact is that at no point in the years that followed the passage of the Act did any of the unions complain to me while I remained Secretary of State for Employment or to either of my successors that they were meeting such difficulties.
      Mr. Russell Kerr Mr. Russell Kerr rose—
      Mr. Carr: No, I shall not give way. My successors were never given any evidence that the unions, having made their best and determined endeavours to secure relief for their funds, found themselves against insuperable impediments. None of us in this Committee or outside has yet been given any such evidence. That applies since the present Government announced their plan for a retrospective cancellation of the tax paid by unregistered unions. The Chancellor of the Exchequer did not adduce one whit of evidence today to substantiate that claim.
      I told the House in March 1971 that if I were convinced that some special register were necessary to protect the
      512
      provident funds I would be prepared to propose it. I was not so convinced at the time and at no time thereafter did any of the unions come to me or to my successors to seek the setting up of a special register, they having tried and failed.
      Mr. Healey: Supposing a union had complained to the right hon. Gentleman that in the 12 months from the middle of 1972 to 1973 it had sought to follow the course that he suggests, had found it impossible and had produced evidence to show that it was impossible. In that event, would he have retrospectively relieved the union from the tax obligation that it had incurred in the meantime? It is important that we should know that. If he concedes that, then his general argument against retrospection falls.
      Mr. Carr: The right hon. Gentleman might have listened to my opening argument. I quoted the Prime Minister and, as I have been challenged, I quote him again. He said:
      "no one likes retrospective legislation but it is justifiable when it is introduced to right a wrong which it was never intended should be inflicted."
      I accept that test as one which might well justify the exceptional measure of retrospective legislation. Speaking for myself, the answer to the right hon. Gentleman is "Yes".
      The gist of my argument is that, as we promised, in 1972 we introduced an amendment to the Finance Bill to give the unions retrospectively the year's grace that we promised. We would have honoured our promise if the unions had met insuperable difficulties. Nothing was inflicted on the unions and they never tried to use the alternative way out. They never came to us as Lord Diamond suggested on behalf of the Opposition. They never told us or anyone else that they had made reasonable efforts and had failed. At no stage did any union or the TUC collectively come either to me or to my successors to make that case or to take up our offer that if contrary to our advice, the difficulties were found insuperable, we would reconsider the matter.
      5.0 p.m.
      Mr. Healey: I hope that I am interpreting the right hon. Gentleman correctly, because we have some difficulty in interpreting him in this matter. Do

      513
      I understand that the argument is no longer on the principle of retrospection but) on the narrow question whether trade unions had done sufficient in taking counsel's opinion relating to the new problems which they faced, or whether they should have taken some further action—we know not what—in defiance of counsel's opinion in order to test it?
      Mr. Carr: That is not a narrow question, and the right hon. Gentleman knows it. To the best of our knowledge, they did not make any effort at all. They made no appeal to us to take up the offer to overcome the difficulties if they found them. That is a fact, and it cannot be denied. There is no evidence to suggest otherwise.
      There are occasions, as we all know, when retrospection may be justified. What we have said is first that we should not retrospectively impose penalties on people which they were not liable to incur when they took the action, and, secondly, that in any case retrospection must be a very special thing specially justified by circumstances arising, as the Prime Minister said, as a result of an unintended burden inflicted on the people concerned.
      The central part of our case is that, if there had been any evidence that unregistered trade unions had tried to hive off their provident funds as suggested, but had met with insuperable difficulties—perhaps constitutional difficulties—there would have been justification for the view that an unintended wrong had been inflicted. Indeed, I made it clear that our amendment to the Finance Act 1971 would put that view into legislation. But no such evidence was presented to us, and the present Government have not come forward with any, and therefore they cannot claim that there is here a very special case requiring retrospective legislation.
      Sir John Hall: Can my right hon. Friend recall any case where retrospective legislation has been introduced to relieve a taxpayer of a burden which he could have avoided by his own action?
      Mr. Carr: Of course I cannot. Nor can the Chancellor. This is the burden of my case. If there was one jot of proof that this was an unintended burden inflicted on the trade unions, there might be a serious case to consider. But there
      514
      is no such evidence. No evidence was produced by the unions to the Conservative Government, and the present Government have produced no evidence to the Committee today. There is no precedent, as far as I know, and nor have the Government made out a case for setting a precedent.
      Why the trade unions did not seek to protect their funds in either of the ways suggested is a matter of conjecture. Some may think that it was carelessness or preoccupation with other matters. Others may think that it was a deliberate policy to pay the tax as part of their political campaign against an Act passed by Parliament. Whatever the reason, the trade unions were offered alternative means to protect their funds. They were given the time to make use of those means. Above that, they were given the assurance that, if they tried and failed because the problems in the way proved insuperable, the matter would be reconsidered.
      The trade unions chose to do none of these things and they cannot now expect to have privileged treatment over all other taxpayers by having these taxes retrospectively refunded. The taxes were properly paid and were deliberately paid, and if Parliament were ever to start down the road suggested by the Government, where should we ever stop, and where and how could respect for Parliament and the law ever be sustained?
      Mr. Ivor Clemitson: I must declare a past interest. In the three years before coming to this place I worked for a trade union. Lest any hon. Members think that I have an axe to grind in this matter, I should point out that the union concerned was for technical reasons forced to register under the Industrial Relations Act 1971, and therefore suffered no loss of funds.
      We have heard a lengthy exposition from the right hon. Member for Carshalton (Mr. Carr), in which he totally failed to talk about the real issue in the debate. That issue is one of power. The Conservatives' view is, basically, that the balance of power in the relationship between unions and employers has tipped in favour of the unions, that the unions have become comparatively too powerful. The logical conclusion of that view is that the power of the unions should be

      515
      contained and, indeed, reduced. This was the basic thinking behind and the intention of the Industrial Relations Act 1971. If any hon. Members opposite doubt that, I invite them to read the debate which took place yesterday afternoon in Standing Committee E, dealing with the Trade Union and Labour Relations Bill, particularly the remarks made by the right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior).
      We, needless to say, have never accepted the thesis that the growth in the size and power of companies and corporations, particularly of supranational companies, in this century has been matched by a comparable growth in the power of trade unions. It is true that the unions have grown in membership, that their financial resources have grown and that they have become accepted as participants at the top table in consultations about the economic affairs of the country. But one has only to look at the rudimentary nature of international trade union organisation, or at the purely financial resources available to unions compared with those of the large companies and corporations, to get the argument about the balance of power into its true perspective.
      Trade unions are not rich organisations. Their financial resources are meagre in comparison with their size, with the size of their membership and with the tasks that they have to perform. That is certainly so if they are to be able to give a reasonable service to their members and to make a proper contribution to the betterment of industrial relations.
      Industry is becoming more and more complex in technology, organisation, managerial techniques and so on. If unions are to perform their traditional functions of caring for their members, of bargaining over wages and conditions of work, and so on, they need greater resources. But, more important, if they are to become more and more concerned with a much greater range of issues—including issues which up to now have been regarded as managerial prerogatives, of which investment decisions are an obvious example—they will need greater resources still. Yet, just at the time when the unions needed greater resources, their already meagre funds were depleted to a considerable extent, and that deple
      516
      tion of resources was part of a deliberate plan to tip the balance of power against them.
      It is argued that the trade unions concerned need not have forfeited the money, but that they consciously and of their own free will chose to do so. I would not argue with that proposition. In their view the conditions attaching to the saving of the money in question were more than they were prepared to stomach. Remember that the decisions in question were reached democratically, because trade unions are democratic organisations. For them the money was to be kept only at the price of a loss of autonomy and freedom which they and their forebears had struggled and striven for years to achieve.
      We have, I hope, learned some lessons. I hope we have learned that the philosophy behind the 1971 Industrial Relations Act, that the power of trade unions must be reduced, was, and is, profoundly mistaken. We have, I trust, learned that to try to improve industrial relations by such means as the Industrial Relations Act is not the right way. I hope we have learned that the way forward in industrial relations is not through a reduction in the power of trade unions but through the build-up of ways in which the power of trade unions can grow and expand in positive and constructive ways.
      We are, therefore, rightly in the process of clearing the ground by getting rid of the Industrial Relations Act. Then I hope we shall be able to build a framework of industrial democracy. If this is to be successful, if we are to have better industrial relations—and I am not talking merely in terms of fewer working days lost through industrial disputes; I am talking in a much more positive and profound sense—two things must be done about the finances of trade unions.
      First, trade unions need more money, not less, to do their job. Secondly, a gesture of good will needs to be made to the trade unions by the restoration to them of money which is rightfully theirs. This is not appeasement, as I have no doubt some Conservative Members will be arguing later. This is not a sweetener. This is a tangible token of our trust in the trade union movement and of our intention to create a system of industrial

      517
      relations more in tune with the growing democratic aspirations of the workers of this country.
      Mr. Jeremy Thorpe: The hon. Member for Luton, East (Mr. Clemitson) made many factual remarks with which I find myself in agreement. He did not, however, come to the nub of the question, which is what the legal position was, could have been and might have been. If I may paraphrase the Chancellor, what he was saying was that he accepted that the previous Government intended something but did not manage to achieve it and, therefore, what the Government are doing is trying to achieve by this new clause that which the previous Government sought to achieve but failed
      If that be so, we are not having a tremendous argument on the emotional issue as to whether trade unions should have these funds. We are asking a simple question, which is whether, in this legal conflict it is right to say that those unions which chose to deregister under the Industrial Relations Act immediately lost the tax exemption under Section 338 of the Income Tax Act 1970. It is the view of the Labour Party and the TUC that they did. It is the view of the previous Government that they did not. That seems to be the nub of the conflict.
      I confess that I think doubts were initially raised by the obiter dicta, or perhaps express statements, of the former Solicitor-General the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe) in Committee on the Industrial Relations Bill on 10th February when he said—I hope I paraphrase him accurately—that it was his view that no registration meant no qualification as a friendly society in respect of provident funds.
      That was certainly the indication which he gave then. It was, therefore, hardly surprising that the then Opposition on 23rd March 1971 sought to move an amendment which would remove any doubts and produce the guarantee of tax advantage which it was the united wish of the House should persist. Today the Chancellor said that on that occasion the right hon. Member for Carshalton (Mr. Carr), reiterating that it was his wish that these tax benefits should continue, believed that it was unecessary to make the suggested amendment because
      518
      there were two possibilities. The first was registration and the second, for those who did not wish to register, was hiving-off, so that the benefits of the 1965 Industrial and Provident Societies Act and the 1896 Friendly Societies Act could operate.
      5.15 p.m.
      The right hon. Gentleman went on to say that he would recommend the setting-up of a special register if the intention which he had could not be fulfilled in any other way. At that time my colleagues and I were, first of all, not satisfied by the right hon. Gentleman's view, not least because the 1965 Act is not appropriate to the question of tax relief. The right hon. Gentleman perfectly frankly admitted this in the House at a later date. We were not convinced by his ipse dixit as to what the legal position was. We believed that if the legal opinion expressed by the Solicitor-General was not correct we needed a legal opinion of considerable compulsion and weight before we could be satisfied.
      That is no reflection on the right hon. Gentleman, but the doubts I had about a statement of the legal position coming from a non-lawyer were precisely the same doubts as I have about the Chancellor's legal pronouncements this afternoon, to which I will come in a moment. Because we were not convinced that the Solicitor-General was "reversed", my colleagues and I voted with the then Oppositon for the amendment. I believe that was right. I believe that we had not been given sufficient satisfaction as to the legal position of those who hived-off provident funds.
      The right hon. Member for Carshalton referred to the discussions which took place between Lord Diamond and Lord Drumalbyn, when it was agreed that, because there was a clear legal conflict, both sides would take their own independent legal advice and then concert. This was done. As a result, when Third Reading was reached in another place on 20th July 1971, Lord Diamond said that two leading counsel had been consulted and had advised the TUC and it was his view that the understanding expressed by the right hon. Member for Carshalton was not likely to do the trick.
      It is not without significance that at that stage the Lord Chancellor thanked Lord Diamond for the courtesy that

      519
      had been afforded him in allowing him to see the opinion. Lord Hailsham went into the legal decision in considerable detail. He said that he was not only satisfied—again I paraphrase but most hon. Members who are interested in this will have read the debate—that the position was as the right hon. Member for Carshalton thought it, but he further believed that there were four or five different ways in which provident funds could be hived off so that they could produce the tax benefit which was generally desired. He mentioned charitable funds being set up with trustees, covenants; the purchase of annuities and the transfer of funds to friendly societies to obtain the benefits of the Friendly Societies Act. He mentioned that NALGO and the National Union of Teachers had already done that. He accepted that there might have to be a separate subscription and indicated that, in his view, which I share, there was nothing wrong in there being a separate subscription, possibly collected at the same time, for particular funds which one is entitled to say should be treated in a very special way. He also expressed the view that there were no legal, constitutional or technical reasons why it was not possible to hive off in this way.
      We have been in this difficulty. The Government say "We have had a legal opinion and we do not think that the Tory Government were right." We do not know what was in the legal opinion. Still less do we know who compiled it, atlhough I have no doubt that it was the work of one or two eminent "silks". We are asked to believe that all is well. The Government say "We have seen the legal opinion. The Conservative Government made a complete hash of it. Just take it on trust from us." Similarly, the Conservative Government said "We have taken legal advice. The Lord Chancellor has read his advisers' views and the other side's views and he prefers his own."
      We are, therefore, concerned with a conflict of legal opinion. No Member, with the exception of about four or five Ministers, has seen the opinions and the evidence on which they were based. That is a profoundly unsatisfactory situation. My colleagues in another place, having considered the Lord Chancellor's speech, believed that he had given the legal under
      520
      takings and assurance which we did not feel the right hon. Gentleman, with the best will in the world, had been able to provide to our satisfaction, and, therefore, they voted with the Government.
      The Prime Minister, in his speech to the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers on 28th April, said that no one liked retrospective legislation. The speech has been quoted in extenso, so I shall not quote it at length, but he went on to say that
      "Two years' experience of the Act showed that his hopes proved liars".
      He was referring to the view of the right hon. Member for Carshalton. He continued:
      "The unions found they could not ensure the necessary protection for their provident funds in the way suggested".
      Our difficulty is that not only do we not know the legal position but we have not been given one example of a union which tried to hive off and found that it could not do so. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Employment, good parliamentarian that he is, would be the first to agree that if there were ways in which there could be hiving off, if there were legal avenues open to trade unions to hive off provident funds and still obtain the benefit of Section 338, the case for retrospectivity would not have been made out.
      I therefore find it staggering that not one example has been given in the Government's presentation of the case. For all I know, there may be examples. If there are, it may well affect the way in which right hon. and hon. Members vote. However, we should jealously guard against the principle of retrospectivity.
      The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Michael Foot): In the debates which took place at the time of the passage of the Bill and in some of the subsequent arguments there has been dispute between the legal authorities, as was admitted by the right hon. Gentleman, whether occasionally there are difficulties in carrying out the hiving off operation. I am not talking about its legality or constitutionality. Some say that it would be extremely inconvenient or difficult, which was the advice the TUC received; others say that it would not be so difficult.
      However, as apparently every hon. Member, including, I trust, the right hon.

      521
      Gentleman, is in favour of the unions getting the relief in any case, why not provide for it? It could have been provided for at the beginning, so it is no good the right hon. Gentleman saying that this is just a legal question. Where there is a will there is a way. This is not a matter of retrospective action. It could have been dealt with in advance.
      Mr. Thorpe: The right hon. Gentleman poses a fair question. A case for retrospectivity is not made out because something is difficult and complicated. It may be made out if something is impossible. But no evidence has been given of any union being faced with an impossible siltuation in the hiving off operation.
      Mr. Foot: Plainly, different views were being expressed, as anyone who reads the reports of the House of Lords debate at the time of the passing of the 1971 Bill will agree. No one was speaking out of malevolence. Therefore, in order to remove doubt, why did not the Conservative Government, if they wished to assist, say "As there is doubt, we shall ensure that the tax relief is provided, whether or not the unions are registered"? They could have provided for relief, but they did not. They said that they wanted to provide for it, and we are now carrying out their wish.
      Mr. Thorpe: The right hon. Gentleman asks why the Conservative Government did not provide for it. I am not my brother's keeper—as the right hon. Gentleman may say in another context. All that I am saying is that the legal opinions, which I believe were respectable, just as I believe the Government's opinion was respectable, differed. We are being asked to make a judgment without knowing what was in the legal opinion and with no evidence of unions having hiving-off problems.
      My answer to the question why we do not have the will to achieve what we want is this. We are introducing an element of retrospectivity in a Finance Bill. If it is accepted, how much easier it will be for Governments of different complexions and for different reasons to follow the same procedure as the present Government intensely believe to be necessary. This is a dangerous precedent.
      Mention has been made of the Burmah Oil case. The Labour Government intro-
      522
      duced retrospective legislation but the Tory Opposition had drafted the Bill, so they felt they could not intervene, and kept quiet. We led the attack because it was retrospective legislation.
      If the Secretary of State wishes to make out a case for retrospective legislation, particularly in a Finance Bill, first, he has to show on the basis of the most unimpeachable legal authority that there is no alternative open to the trade unions, with no possibility of hiving off, and, therefore, that they are bound automatically to suffer the tax disadvantages of deregistering. No legal evidence has been given, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not put himself forward as a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary.
      Secondly, in order to justify what is proposed, some evidence must be given. Not a scintilla of evidence has been given in the debate, and unless we can have more convincing evidence about the legal opinion—
      Mr. Skinner: What will the right hon. Gentleman do?
      Mr. Thorpe: If the hon. Gentleman will belt up, I will tell him. Unless the right hon. Gentleman produces evidence on the legal position and makes out the case for retrospectivity, all my colleagues and I will vote against this measure.
      Mr. Nigel Lawson: The Chancellor of the Exchequer had the temerity to say that we on this side of the Committee had not a leg to stand on. The plain fact is that he and the Government have not a leg to stand on, and there is a simple test. If the Government had a leg to stand on, this proposal would have appeared in the Labour Party manifesto. Nothing of the sort appeared.
      This is a brazen and unequivocal piece of retrospective legislation. What is more, it is retrospective legislation in a Finance Bill, as the Leader of the Liberal Party has just pointed out. It is not as though this was the first piece of retrospective legislation or attempted retrospective legislation in this year's Finance Bill. In Committee upstairs only on Monday we had a Clause 4, again absit omen, which sought retrospectively to set aside a court judgment. In the event, I am glad to say that on Clause

      523
      4 the Government's retrospective intentions were defeated and that the forces of constitutionalism prevailed, as I trust they will again today.
      5.30 p.m.
      The retrospection in this clause—appropriately enough, new Clause 4—has been defended by the apologists among the Government's supporters broadly on two grounds. The first is that, in effect, the Government are merely implementing their predecessors' clearly expressed intention to exempt the provident funds of trade unions from taxation. This argument has already been examined in detail by my right hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton (Mr. Carr), and I shall not go into that again. The crux of the matter is that the trade unions deliberately failed for well known political reasons to take the steps open to them to relieve themselves of this tax liability. This has been admitted by the hon. Member for Luton, East (Mr. Clemitson).
      The question before the Committee, in plain English, is: if the trade unions deliberately seek the martyr's crown, is there any reason why the taxpayer should have to pay for so expensive a bauble, especially, some may think, when a number of unions are evidently able to abstract large sums of money whenever they happen to need it from mysterious and anonymous donors—
      Mr. Skinner: The hon. Gentleman should tell us about his improvement grants.
      Mr. Ian Lloyd: On a point of order, Sir Myer. Is it possible for the Committee to have some freedom from the seedy, seditious and sedentary interruptions of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), of whom we are thoroughly weary?
      The Temporary Chairman (Sir Myer Galpern): I appreciate the alliteration of the hon. Member for Havant and Waterloo (Mr. Lloyd). In any event, interventions from a sedentary position are entirely out of order.
      Mr. Skinner: Further to that point of order, Sir Myer. I understand perfectly well that there may be problems in this Chamber when an hon. Member is trying to put across what may be a provocative
      524
      and controversial point of view. There have been many occasions during the past four years when I have been subjected not to isolated interruptions from sedentary positions but to a tumultuous barrage from Conservative hon. Members. I have never complained. When I first came to the House I realised—
      Hon. Members: This is not a point of order.
      Mr. Skinner: Yes. There it is again. My case is closed.
      Mr. Lawson: Perhaps I might just interpolate the comment that many right hon. and hon. Members of this Committee find the passion for self-advertisement of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) incredibly boring.
      Mr. Skinner: The hon. Gentleman should tell us about his improvement grants.
      Mr. Lawson: The second ground advanced by the Government to justify the retrospection in this clause is the argument that, whereas it may be wicked to increase anyone's tax burden, it cannot be wicked to reduce it retrospectively. That distinction is manifest nonsense. The Government require a sum of money in taxation revenue, and a retrospective reduction for some means a retrospective increase for other taxpayers, however thinly spread it may be. It is true that hitherto there have always been retrospective increases in taxation against which this Committee has had to guard itself. But I cannot recall a case in which we have faced a proposal for a retrospective reduction in the tax burden of a group of people at the community's expense.
      The question to which we have to address ourselves is why, in this case, the Government have seen fit to do it and why, uniquely, the trade unions are to be the beneficiaries of this largesse. Incidentally, many unions, if they get the money, will put it straight into their general funds simply because they do not have separate provident funds.
      Mr. Skinner: Into property, like the hon. Gentleman did.
      Mr. Lawson: We have to ask ourselves what are the special merits of the trade unions which entitle them to this uniquely favoured treatment. Some people outside this Committee suggest that

      525
      the Government want to hand out this money because it will go into the funds of the Labour Party's paymasters and then be paid back in order that the party may fight the General Election which cannot be far off. I do not subscribe to that Machiavellian explanation. However, the Government have only themselves to blame if they allow that to be widely believed.
      What is so special about the trade unions? In his important and perceptive note of reservation to the main report of the Donovan Commission, Sir Andrew Shonfield, who to my knowledge has always been a supporter of the Labour Party, rightly described the British trade union movement as "a licensed conspiracy". Now it seems as though it is also to have, if not a licence to print money, at least a licence to have money printed for it.
      What functions do the trade unions perform which justify this unique licence? What is the raison d'être of the trade union movement in Britain today? I want to attempt a brief analysis of it, not in any spirit of arrogant confrontation, or whatever was the abusive language of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but in a cool, analytical light.
      The trade unions are important as a pressure group or, more accurately, a collection of pressure groups in our plural society. But that does not explain why they should be singled out for special privileges and immunities. In the past they have been rightly concerned to protect their members from unfair dismissal, from hazards at work, from dangers to health, and so on. But today they are protected by Parliament through legislation, and quite properly.
      What else is there for the trade unions to do? Certainly they cannot maintain full employment. The only argument is about how much unemployment they cause by pricing workers out of jobs. They cannot promote economic growth. Again, the only argument is how much their activities actually retard it. As is all too clear, and as I am sure the Chancellor of the Exchequer would agree if he were here, the trade unions cannot even protect workers as a whole from the inflation which they themselves largely cause. It is true that one trade union can gain on behalf of its members at the expense of another or, more easily, at
      526
      the expense of those who are non-unionised, such as retired people. But this is hardly so worthy and meritorious a national objective as to justify special privileges and immunities, special treatment, and now the retrospective handing back of £10 million of taxpayers' money.
      I am not concerned with the unions' methods, though they have given rise to concern over a long period. Since we have with us the Secretary of State for Employment, who spends most of his time living in the past, perhaps I might quote an extract from a report of the London Compositors' Society, itself a trade union, as far back as 1834.
      The extract reads:
      "Almost all trades unions hitherto formed have relied for success upon extorted oaths and physical force. The fault and destruction of all trades unions has hitherto been that they have copied the vices which they professed to condemn. While disunited and powerless they have stigmatised their employers as grasping taskmasters; but as soon as they were united and powerful, then they became tyrants in their turn, and unreasonably endeavoured to exact more than the nature of their employment demanded, or than their employers could afford to give."
      That was 1834: plus ça change.
      Mr. Tomlinson: I have been trying to check the hon. Gentleman's reference to the Donovan Report where Mr. Shonfield, in his note of reservation, describes the trade unions as "licensed conspirators"—
      Mr. Lawson: He calls it "a licensed conspiracy".
      Mr. Tomlinson: Will the hon. Gentleman give us the exact reference to the report of the Donovan Commission?
      Mr. Lawson: It is in one of the early paragraphs on a left-hand page. If the hon. Gentleman reads it carefully he will find it. If not, I shall be happy to show him where it is afterwards.
      My argument is not about the union's contribution to the evil of inflation, serious though that is and the greatest threat to this country, but that, in modern, post-Keynesian conditions, the trade unions collectively no longer have any industrial or economic raison d'être. Because of that, as some of their leaders explicitly recognise, their rôle and raison d'être are becoming increasingly political—the acquisition and the exercise of political power.

      527
      This is not a new analysis. One particularly disquieting aspect of that power was mentioned by the Prime Minister just five years ago. On 5th June 1969, speaking about the trade unions—the hon. Member for Meriden (Mr. Tomlinson) can look it up if he wishes, but I always get my quotations right, and I quote for the last time—he said:
      "It was a predecessor of mine, Stanley Baldwin, who referred to certain Press lords who were exercising a certain degree of arrogance in political matters, that they were asserting their claim to power without responsibility. That claim is being reasserted now not by Press lords but by another estate of the realm."
      The position has not changed since then—even though that of the Prime Minister has, from Tiger Baldwin to Appeaser Chamberlain.
      The clause is eloquent testimony to that change, for what is at issue is not simply the constitutional impropriety of retrospective legislation, serious though that is, not the payment of £10 million to the trade unions—a token, as one hon. Gentleman opposite called it. The clause is a symbol of something far more fundamental: whether the power of Parliament should defer and become subservient to the rival political power of the trade unions; in short, whether parliamentary democracy has the self-confidence to stand up to the gravest constitutional crisis and challenge that it has yet had to face. Heaven help us all if it has not.
      Mr, David Mitchell: The situation revealed in the debate today seems quite simple. The trade unions decided to play politics after the passing of the Industrial Relations Act. They decided to thumb their noses at the Act. They knew what they were doing, and they are now asking the taxpayers to make good the consequences of their own folly by retrospective legislation.
      It is said that when each new Government come into office Ministers arrive at their offices and their desks are cleared. All the working papers left by their predecessors are removed. They are then shown round, they meet their staff, and finally, when the other civil servants have gone, the Permanent Secretary unlocks a cupboard and brings out, one by one, the skeletons that have been left by past administrations—not just the previous one—over many years.
      528
      I understand—perhaps this account can be confirmed—that on this occasion the Chancellor of the Exchequer poked about a good bit further than his predecessors and made an extraordinary discovery. He thought he had come into office with the cupboards bare, the till with no money in it, and nothing in the kitty. Then, opening a cupboard, to his astonishment he found it stuffed with millions of pounds—£10 million. There-more, a Cabinet meeting was called and consideration was rightly given to the rival claims of different Ministers for spending this money on their Departments. That was right, for one of the major tasks of the Government is to consider priorities when they are to spend the taxpayers' money.
      I understand that at the ensuing Cabinet meeting the Secretary of State for Education and Science claimed that the money should go on teachers' pay as a useful lift to attract the right calibre of man and woman into the teaching profession. That was turned down.
      5.45 p.m.
      Then the Secretary of State for Social Services put in her bid. She wanted the earnings rule relaxed for pensioners. She also wanted to extend the constant attendance allowance which was introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) when he was Secretary of State. From the time that the money was paid out the then Opposition complained that insufficient was being paid out. Therefore, here was an opportunity to rectify the situation.
      There was then a suggestion of an increase in hospital building, a further suggestion that the money should be spent on cancer research, and, finally, a suggestion that the right priority would be to spend it on nurses' pay. I believe that that would be a better priority than the one chosen by the Government. However, those suggestions were turned down.
      Even the plea by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, that something should be done to ease the problems facing farmers who were having to slaughter pregnant cattle because they could not afford to take them through to birth and fattening, was turned down.
      Next, the Secretary of State for Trade put in his bid. He said—I understand

      529
      the point—that he must have more money to encourage exports because he had to offset the damage being done to our export trade to Chile, South Africa, and other countries of which he disapproved, where exports were to be discouraged or barriers put up against our selling abroad.
      Then, fearing and remembering the consequences if we were to leave the Common Market and trade barriers were to be put up against us, the Secretary of State for Industry, I understand, pointed out that the effects would be so disastrous that British Leyland would probably be bankrupted if it were locked out of the European market and that, therefore, the money should be devoted to that area.
      Then suddenly the right hon. Gentleman remembered his responsibilities to small businesses. He had fobbed them off on a junior Minister, but I think he had a guilty twinge. Perhaps something should be done for small businesses. The £10 million could make a contribution towards the productive potential of this country and help to offset some of the damage being done to small businessmen by increasing corporation tax, the introduction of the new vicious advance corporation tax, and the threat of a wealth tax which hangs over so many small enterprises today. They dare not spend money on investment and expansion for they do not know how much they will need to have available for the Chancellor's wealth tax.
      Mr. Bob Cryer Mr. Bob Cryer (Keighley) rose—
      Mr. Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman will have his opportunity to speak later.
      Those are the competing expenditures for that money. It is proper for the Cabinet and Parliament to consider the right priority for that £10 million. I take a different view from that of the right hon. Gentleman and the Cabinet. I do not agree that it is right to give the £10 million as aid to the trade unions.
      The Ministers in putting forward the views of their Departments, if they did—if they did not, why not?—were right to ask their colleagues to consider these matters.
      The Secretary of State for Industry would probably want an emergency fund to keep big firms going while they were
      530
      being bled white with taxation by the Chancellor of the Exchequer before he was ready to take them over under his new proposals.
      Mr. Rost: At knockout prices.
      Mr. Mitchell: At knockout prices, as my hon. Friend says.
      The Chancellor of the Exchequer, looking a little uneasy and desperate to encourage savings in the economy, probably recalled the words of Lincoln:
      "You don't help the wage earner by destroying the wage payer.
      You do not create wealth by destroying the wealth creator.
      You do not encourage thrift by penalising and destroying the saver."
      Perhaps Lady Falkenden put in her hand, too. She has not yet assumed her ministerial rôle, but no doubt she suggested that the money could be spent on reclamation.
      However, the Secretary of State for Employment swept all before him. He beat them all with impeccable logic. He has repealed the Industrial Relations Act, extended the immunities of trade unions and immensely strengthened their power, and here was a way of bribing them not to use that strengthened power, in spite of the danger of public misunderstanding about 87 per cent. of the funds of the Labour Party coming from trade unions. Nevertheless, it was considered that the biggest bribe in history given to the trade union movement would persuade it to eat out of the hand of the Secretary of State for Employment.
      But the Secretary of State does not know the difference betwen a pensioner and a prisoner, and that is the position in which he and his colleagues find themselves in relation to the trade union movement today.
      Despite all the alternative expenditures which could and should have had priority for the £10 million of taxpayers' money, this was chosen as the top priority. Any registered trade union would not have had to pay this money in taxation. The trade unions exercised their choice. We all exercise our choice in life, but we have to take the consequences of our decisions. The trade unions, however, are asking for the right to take the choice to play politics and then to let the taxpayer pick up the bill afterwards, instead of taking the consequences themselves.

      531
      But the Secretary of State for Employment says, "Ah, this is different. We have a social compact. We want to improve the atmosphere. We want to change the atmosphere of the trade union approach to Government." Will it work? We have a right to ask that question. In trying to answer it we do not need to gaze into the crystal ball. We can "look in the book", and see that it has been tried before.
      Let us look back to 1965, to the joint TUC-CBI statement on prices and incomes. The Committee should recall the terms of what then happened when the atmosphere was being improved in this connection. I quote from HANSARD of 16th December 1964. The First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs, the then Mr. George Brown, told the House that he had discussed matters with representatives of the trade unions and he had reached an agreement.
      "on the terms of a joint statement setting out the principles on which a prices and incomes policy should be developed…"—10[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th December 1964; Vol. 704, c. 382.]
      He said that there would be a meeting later that day to sign the statement. The statement, as it appeared in HANSARD, indicated that there would be attempts
      "to raise productivity and efficiency so that real national output can increase, and to keep increases in wages, salaries and other forms of incomes in line with this increase…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th December 1964; Vol. 704, c. 387.]
      What happened? Twelve months after the statutory control of prices and wages was introduced in the policy which was set out, the solemn declaration of intent had totally failed to be kept—
      Mr. Tomlinson Mr. Tomlinson rose—
      Mr. Mitchell: The hon. Member will have an opportunity to address the Committee. I am not anxious to prevent him making his own contribution.
      The year 1964 was not the only occasion when attempts were made of the sort I have described. In 1969 we had the copper-bottomed guarantees given. At that time the then Prime Minister—who is also the present Prime Minister—said,
      "In the course of yesterday's discussions the General Council"—
      of the TUC—
      "unanimously agreed to a solemn and binding undertaking which set out the lines on which
      532
      the General Council will intervene in serious unconstitutional stoppages."
      My right hon. Friend the Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) then intervened and asked,
      "What will happen should unofficial strikers ignore the trade union leaders, and go on striking?"
      The Prime Minister replied,
      "The TUC has given us this binding declaration".
      He later said,
      "…the TUC will place an obligation on the unions concerned to get their members back to work. It will then be the duty of the unions concerned to do this, including, where appropriate, the use of their rule books—[Laughter.]…[Interruption.]—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th June 1969; Vol. 785, col. 700–2.]
      We are going over the same ground again today. We are being asked to spend £10 million of taxpayers' money in a bribe to persuade unions to carry through a social contract or social compact. I do not make the charge against the TUC that it is dishonest in any way. There is no dishonesty, but there is impotence—an unsatisfactory condition which no one seeks to advertise—but it is nevertheless an unfortunate position for it to be in.
      What possible prospects are there of the social compact being carried out today? The best way to judge that is to look at the trade union conferences taking place at present. Delegates to these conferences are mandating their union leaderships. Bearing in mind that this money is to be forthcoming, and that the social compact is in existence, the Government should today be finding a ready response from the union membership and the union conferences. But we find, for instance, that the electricians at their conference at Hastings have agreed to abandon stage 3 deals and to try to imitate the miners. We find also that the teachers, at Eastbourne, have called for a 37 per cent. wage claim; the clerks, at Blackpool, have decided to oppose stage 3; the draughtsmen, also at Blackpool, have decided to oppose stage 3; the shop-workers, at Margate, have put in a 20 per cent.-plus claim, with a claim also for longer holidays, higher overtime rates and a shorter working week; and to cap it all, what greater determined confrontation against the so-called social contract would it be possible to produce than that

      533
      of the miners who, in conference at Porthcawl, have put in a claim for £100 a week for next winter?
      Further, the farmworkers, at Clacton, have claimed an 81 per cent. increase in pay; the technical staffs, at Harrogate, have decided to reject any TUC control of wages; and the printers, at Great Yarmouth, have decided to reject the current stage 3 offer. APEX, the clerical part of the AUEW, has decided to oppose any wage restraint while private enterprise survives. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman may dislike what I am saying. But the only possible justification for this £10 million of taxpayers' money being given to the trade unions is that the unions are to give something in return through the social compact, yet it is clear that they will not do so.
      A newspaper which no one could accuse of being a Conservative newspaper, The Times, states today:
      "Wage restraint pledges would be folly, Mr. Scanlon tells union."
      So there we have it in simple and straightforward terms. The Government, having £10 million to spare which we did not know they had, have considered the alternatives and have decided, despite all the priorities on which it could be spent, that the right priority is to give it to the trade unions—not to all the trade unions, but only to those which have been most politically motivated, those which had chosen to defy the theme of the Industrial Relations Act and refused to register, those which are the biggest, boldest and most bloody minded. That, with respect to the Secretary of State, is not a good enough criterion for spending £10 million of the taxpayers' money in the way that is proposed.
      6.0 p.m.
      Mr. Charles Loughlin: One of the tragedies of the debate is that it seems that the Opposition have learned nothing. The last two speeches from the Opposition reflect the kind of mentality that was shown towards the trade union movement when right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite were on these benches. That resulted in the greatest confrontation ever between the trade unions and the Government and the total collapse of British industry, which brought the country nearly to bankruptcy.
      534
      The hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Mitchell)—and in a moment I shall deal with some of the points that he made—may think that it is highly desirable for the Tory Party to continue with a policy of confrontation with the trade unions.
      Mr. David Mitchell Mr. David Mitchell indicated dissent.
      Mr. Loughlin: The hon. Gentleman shakes his head. He is not even conscious of his attitude. He is not even conscious of the effect of his words on those who listen to and read the debates in this Committee. He should not imagine that the TUC and the trade unions affiliated to it do not read HANSARD. He should not imagine that they ignore what is said in this Chamber. If he believes for a moment that it is possible to create in British industry the climate that is essential to our future prosperity by attacking at every touch and turn the whole of the trade union movement, he is living in a fool's paradise.
      Mr. David Mitchell Mr. David Mitchell rose—
      Mr. Loughlin: No.
      Mr. David Mitchell: On a point of order, Sir Myer. Is it in order for the hon. Gentleman to put into my mouth words which I did not utter and to suggest that I expressed views which I did not put forward?
      Mr. Cryer: Further to that point of order, Sir Myer—
      The Temporary Chairman: Perhaps I may deal with one point of order at a time. It may be that the hearing of some hon. Members is not as acute as that of others and there may, therefore, be some misinterpretation of what is said. One Member's comments are misinterpreted and misapplied by someone else. The hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Mitchell) has made his point.
      Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Sir Myer. During his speech the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Mitchell), who refused to allow interventions or corrections, implied that he had knowledge of Cabinet proceedings. I assume that that is a fantasy, but the hon. Gentleman did not express it as such.

      535
      So far as I am aware, Cabinet proceedings are secret.
      The Temporary Chairman: What is and what is not a point of order will one day have to be considered very carefully to decide what is genuine and what is spurious. The hon. Member for Basingstoke raised a genuine point of order because he wanted to correct an impression which it was said had been created.
      Sir Harmar Nicholls: Is it just a convention that when a Member attacks another Member's speech he gives way to allow the original speaker to intervene to put the matter right, or can that be raised as a point of order?
      The Temporary Chairman: These are matters of give and take in the debate. I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows that that is a common practice. We seem to have stirred up a lot of strife. The afternoon was peaceful until the hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls) arrived.
      Mr. Loughlin: Perhaps I may make two brief comments on the points of order. First, I assure you, Sir Myer, and the hon. Member for Basingstoke that my hearing is rather acute. I made a charge against the hon. Gentleman, and I am willing to repeat it because that was my interpretation of the whole tenor of his speech and the words that he used. Secondly, if the hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls) had been here while the hon. Member for Basingstoke was speaking he would have realised that on eight or ten occasions his hon. Friend refused to give way.
      Sir Harmar Nicholls: Did my hon. Friend mention your name?
      Mr. Loughlin: No. I do not believe that he mentioned your name at all, Sir Myer, except when he began his speech. Hon. Gentlemen opposite sit there grinning like Cheshire cats. One can see who is the biggest "burden" on that side of the Committee.
      Mr. F. A. Burden: On a point of order, Sir Myer. Since when has it been wrong for an hon. Member to smile at another hon. Member's interpretation of what a previous speaker said? This is not debate. This is turning the place into cloud-cuckoo-land.
      The Temporary Chairman: I appeal to hon. Members to try to maintain the dignity of the debate.
      Mr. Loughlin: Sir Myer, I very much regret your making such an observation.
      The Temporary Chairman: Order. I am casting no aspersions on the hon. Gentleman. I merely made a general appeal, without specifying anyone, that we should maintain the dignity of the debate, and that is what I hope hon. Members will do.
      Mr. Loughlin: As long as it is a general observation, I shall accept it. I hope that no one is suggesting that I am demeaning the dignity of the House by my remarks. I have been here long enough to know that this is the kind of cut and thrust that one has met in debate during the last 15 years. I want to get back to the point that I was making when the hon. Member for Basingstoke became so sensitive. I hope that that is not demeaning the dignity of the House.
      If we are to secure our future prosperity, the first prerequisite is complete co-operation between the "two sides" of industry. I do not believe that hon. Gentlemen opposite have been debating the issue involved in the clause. They have been using this debate as a vehicle to attack the trade union movement.
      There were some slimy personal references in the speech of the hon. Member for Basingstoke. Why was there a reference to Marcia Williams? Why was there a reference to reclamation? Why were there a number of references to the Prime Minister, with no connection with the issue with which we are dealing? It demeans the dignity of this place when people indulge in that kind of conduct without reprimand from anybody except hon. Members on this side.
      As for the copper-bottomed guarantee and the Prime Minister's statement, that guarantee referred to the spate of chalk-line or demarcation disputes. If ever there was a successful effort by the TUC it was the one which resulted in that agreement. When hon. Members talk about the biggest bribe in history they should be careful of their language. Is it a bribe for a Government to redress what they think is a wrong? We are not giving this money to the unions for union

      537
      organisation; we are repaying £10 million taken from their funds set aside for sickness, unemployment, death and funeral benefits.
      If that is a bribe, the £2 million a day that we constantly pay to British industry is also a bribe—and we do that 365 days a year. That is not just a question of—10 million. If we constantly harped on that in every speech that we made about British industry, we should commit the same error as Conservative Members commit when they talk about the unions—
      Sir Harmar Nicholls: Would the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Loughlin: The hon. Member has not been in for any previous speech—
      Sir Harmar Nicholls: I am in now.
      Mr. Swain: He is like a parrot in a cage.
      Mr. Loughlin: I will give way in a moment or two.
      Sir Harmar Nicholls: Thank you.
      Mr. Loughlin: If someone's political philosophy demands that he criticise a section of the community, that is reasonable. It is legitimate for Conservative Members to criticise the unions or a specific union if they wish, but if they use every issue of this kind to reflect their anti-union bias, they are set on a dangerous road.
      Sir Harmar Nicholls: Does the hon. Gentleman realise the dangerous argument that he used a second ago, when he spoke about the £2 million a day given to industry? Included in that figure is money to encourage industries to go to development areas, areas to which economically it would not suit them to go, to which they go to help the national need to provide for such areas. If it is now to be argued that in helping the nation in this way these industries are holding out a begging bowl, the hon. Member and those who take the same view may kill one of the most desirable developments in this country in improving such areas. The Secretary of State for Employment, who is present and who will now have to handle this policy, may like to give his hon. Friend some advice.
      6.15 p.m.
      Mr. Loughlin: If all the money to which I have referred were being used for that purpose, I would agree with the hon. Gentleman, but that is not so.
      I want to turn now to the tortuous speech of the right hon. Member for Carshalton (Mr. Carr). I had assumed that the reason for the Conservative Party's opposition to the new clause was that they had an objection in principle to retrospective repayments. The right hon. Gentleman went around in ever-decreasing circles to explain that he did not object to retrospective payment but only to retrospective payment on this occasion, because the unions had refused to do what he was almost commanding them to do at the time of the Industrial Relations Act.
      Any of us who have been in the trade union movement for any time and those Conservative Members who were here then know the immense antagonisms created by the Industrial Relations Act. It would have been impossible to persuade the unions to take any advice on that Act from the right hon. Gentleman, who insisted forcefully on carrying it out to the extent that it was guillotined clause by clause.
      Mr. Burden: Is the basis of the hon. Members argument that the unions must be above the law and that we must do nothing but accept that they are above the law?
      Mr. Loughlin: If the hon. Gentleman were a little more patient—if he is not careful, he will become as impetuous as I am—he would see the burden of my argument. I do not know whether he just wants to get his name in HANSARD, but that may be the case.
      Mr. Burden: Do you always have to be so offensive?
      Mr. Loughlin: This is the difficulty in allowing interventions. One spends time developing a theme and then has to return to it.
      I had been referring to the ever-decreasing circles of the previous Home Secretary. He objected not to the principle but to the refusal of the unions to take his bidding.
      I was saying that the right hon. Member for Carshalton ought to have known

      539
      that under the circumstances at that time it would have been impossible for the trade union movement to accept any advice at all. The Trades Union Congress and individual trades unions are not composed only of people who are officials. What is very often forgotten by Opposition Members is that the trade unions are the sum total of their membership. The trade union general secretaries, presidents and officials are charged with doing two things. They are charged with advising their members and with leading their members. But to lead people is one of the most difficult things in the world. Very often we as politicians choose our words guardedly when we are advising or trying to persuade people to take the point of view that we wish them to take.
      In the realms of leadership, it is impossible for trade union officials to be too much out of accord with their members, as it is equally impossible for politicians to be too much out of accord with their associations. That applies to Labour, Liberal and Conservative politicians. One issue that the trade union movement has to face constantly, particularly the TUC and union officials, is that it has to take with it the whole of the membership on the shop floor. Even if the whole of the TUC and all the officials of unions had wanted to accept the advice of Conservative right hon. and hon. Members when they were in Government, in consequence of the policy of confrontation with the trade union movement that they had pursued, it would have been impossible for the officials of the unions to hold the membership in check.
      It is no good the Conservative Party imagining that it can pursue a policy of confrontation with the trade union movement. If—God forbid!—it should ever happen that the Conservatives should come to power at some future date, they will have to create the conditions in which prosperity for the people of this country can be achieved. They could not possibly create those conditions by the kind of attitude that they have adopted previously or that which they are adopting at present in debate after debate, in which they are singling out the trade union movement for the worst possible kind of calumny. When the Opposition
      540
      talk, as the hon. Member for Basingstoke and the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) talked, about how the trade unions have held the country to ransom to get wage increases—I am paraphrasing their words—and about how the unions are now again going through the whole process of wages demands at conferences, they should realise that we are not living in the world of even five or 10 years ago. We are living in an entirely new situation.
      It is no good anyone, of any political complexion, trying to lecture the ordinary man or woman today about the demands that they are making on the economy. It is no good saying to the shop assistant, the engineer or the mine worker that his demands are unjustified or excessive, as long as we have so great a disparity in incomes across the social spectrum. When we have announcements made—as we have had today—about someone who is earning £28,000 a year—
      Mr. Burden: Nationalised industries.
      Mr. Loughlin: I wish that the hon. Gentleman would try to be a little more objective.
      Mr. Skinner: Perhaps the Chair might instruct the hon. Gentleman.
      Mr. Loughlin: Perhaps I should ask for your protection, Sir Myer.
      The Temporary Chairman: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman, but I do not think that he requires my assistance.
      Mr. Loughlin: People may read that people are in receipt of £28,000 a year and that they are today to have an increase in wages of £350 a year. References can be made to the nationalised industries, and to judges, as they have been. But if I wanted to go a stage further, I could talk about some of the top salaries in business and industry, because they are relevant.
      We cannot tell people that their wage demands are excessive while we still have the disparities that exist in society. We must begin to think not in terms of relativities between miners, engineers, shop assistants and nurses but in terms of relativities across the board in a changing society so that the disparities can be ironed out. We ought to be concentrating our efforts on that to a far greater extent.

      541
      I urge Opposition Members not to continue to try to make the trade union movement a bogy. One has to live with the trade union movement, and that means living with trade unionists. One can live with people only when one begins to try not only to understand them and their problems but to understand the context in which their problems arise. If we once begin to try to do that, debates such as we have had so far will no longer take place. If there is no principle involved, there is no reason why on this occasion—as it is not trade union industrial funds that are involved but sickness, unemployment and death benefits—the determination of the Opposition to force a vote tonight could not go by the board.
      6.30 p.m.
      Mr. Waddington: I found it somewhat difficult to relate many parts of the hon. Member's speech to the clause. I certainly do not accept for one moment that the previous Government adopted a policy of confrontation. It became more and more obvious towards the end of that Government's life that there were certain powerful influences at work which were determined to frustrate the policies decided upon by a democratically-elected Parliament, but that is not what we are discussing this afternoon.
      The hon. Member said, in those of his remarks which bore some relationship to the clause, that the money would not be given by the Government to trade union officials but would go to the sick and others who benefit as a result of the provident activities of the unions. If the hon. Member had been in the Chamber to hear the Chancellor he would have heard him say on a number of occasions that one of the justifications for the clause and the change in the law which he was seeking was that not only did the trade unions have no separate provident funds but that it would be intolerably difficult, if not impossible, for separate funds to be created.
      I invite the attention of the Committee to a leader which appeared in The Times on 6th May. It read:
      "Mr. Robert Carr expressed surprise when he learnt during the passage of the Act that many unions did not have separate funds for their provident activities. His surprise is justified. The next time anyone dares to turn his hand to the statutory regulation of trade unions that is a point to take up."
      542
      Indeed it is, because it is difficult to see how it will be possible to ensure that the £10 million gift will be used for provident purposes. I hope that the Secretary of State for Employment will address his mind to that point when he replies to the debate. In view of all these difficulties, I challenge the right hon. Gentleman to explain how we are to know that the £10 million will be used for provident purposes—for pensions, sickness benefits, death grants and so on, since no proper separation is ever provided between these types of fund and between expenditure of moneys for different purposes.
      I can see nothing to prevent trade unions, who will benefit from these gifts at the taxpayers' expense, from using the funds to pay more officials, for general administration or even for financing strikes.
      I am sorry the Chancellor is not here now to hear what I have to say about his speech. What I say as a humble Member is that I believe it was disgraceful. It was a frivolous contribution in which he did not try to address himself to arguments in favour of the clause. I took the gravest exception to see him sitting across the Chamber grinning like a Cheshire cat and treating this as a most frivolous matter when I thought that everyone considered it to be an issue of the greatest importance. I know from experience that the Secretary of State for Employment will not treat us with that sort of discourtesy tonight but will try to deal with the important matters of principle which are involved here.
      The Treasury is not normally noted for its great generosity, and I can think of no previous case of a citizen being granted the privilege of the retrospective cancellation of a tax obligation. I know of no such case in the history of this country, and I cannot recall any mention in the Labour Party manifesto that a Labour Government would make this great departure from previous practice.
      The matter goes much further than that and far beyond the simple issue of retrospection. The relief is not being granted to remedy a mistake. It is not being granted to right a wrong which the authorities never intended to inflict. It is not even being granted retrospectively to the innocent victim of a penal law. I can imagine circumstances eventually

      543
      developing when after three or four years of irresponsible government by a Left-wing administration, during which elderly widows with small investment incomes have been soaked, there may well be demands from an incoming Conservative administration for a dreadful wrong like that to be put right.
      The important point is that the relief is being granted to trade unions which need not have paid the tax if they had wanted to do otherwise. The relief will go to unions which chose not to qualify for tax relief when they could have so qualified in the same way that I chose not to qualify for tax relief for six children when I stopped at having five. They chose not to qualify and there has never been the suggestion that a person who deliberately chooses not to qualify for a tax relief should expect a Government at some time in the future to change the law to grant him the benefit he freely rejected.
      We all know that these bodies adopted this course of action as a political gesture in complete disregard of the interests of the prospective beneficiaries of the provident funds of which we have heard so much. I have found few things more nauseating in recent weeks than having to listen to the Chancellor of the Exchequer referring to Section 338 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1970. He has been talking of how the Tory Government had so arranged matters that these unions were not able to benefit from that section so that if a member were sick or incapacitated through personal injury, he might suffer loss of benefit, or an aged member might receive less superannuation, or that a member might be denied funeral expenses as a result of these diabolical actions.
      But I wonder how many rank and file trade union members knew at the time that their leaders were more interested in politics than in their duties and were reducing the provident benefits available to members. I wonder how many rank and file members knew in 1971 and 1972 of the calibre of the men who were supposed to be looking after their affairs. I wonder how many rank and file members knew at that time that their leaders were quite deliberately, under Section 338, acting in such a way as to reduce the benefits available to the sick, to the retired or the victims of accidents at
      544
      work, and to people who had to incur funeral expenses because of the death of a relative.
      Mr. Loughlin: The hon. and learned Gentleman will know, because I have declared my interest so often in the House, that I am an official of the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers. It is not a militant trade union by any standard. But at the annual conference which determines the policy on all issues there is a representation of its membership throughout the country of about 87 to 89 per cent. If the hon. and learned Gentleman tries to understand that, he will see that it is not a question of the members not knowing what happens. It is the members who are taking the decisions.
      Mr. Waddington: I do not follow the hon. Gentleman's point. A trade union is not a unique organisation. Any body has its active members and its inactive members. For example, in the universities some people take an interest in National Union of Students' affairs and some do not. The hon. Gentleman will not persuade me by any argument that the vast majority of members of trade unions know the day-to-day activities of trade unions or take the slightest interest in them. The world would be a much better place if they did, which is my next point.
      It is an extraordinary state of affairs that the unions are now demanding more and more privileges not afforded to ordinary citizens. The Secretary of State for Employment has been debating these matters for the past two or three weeks in the Standing Committee considering the Trade Union and Labour Relations Bill. Time and again new privileges have been demanded, and they look like being won.
      Here we are considering acts of complete irresponsibility committed by trade union leaders, with complete disregard of the members they are supposed to serve. The Government are prepared to reward such people in a unique way, in the sense of making them appear to have been right all the time. A responsible Government would have pointed the moral and told rank and file union members, "If you don't turn up to meetings and if you let Scanlon get to the top, you cannot expect

      545
      us to come to your rescue. You must pay the penalty for allowing these men to get to the top".
      Mr. Joseph Dean Mr. Joseph Dean (Leeds, West)rose—
      Mr. Waddington: I will not give way now.
      The present Government are irresponsible. They could not say that, they could not do the right thing and point the moral to the members, saying "These men have let you down, and it would not be right for us to try to twist the law now to help you. You must face the consequences of the bad management of your affairs by your leaders." The reason the Government could not do that is that they are under orders. They jibbed at paying the fines of the Amalgamated Union of Engineering Workers, but otherwise they have set about doing everything the TUC and the trade unions have asked them to do. Those who want chapter and verse for that should read the OFFICIAL REPORT of the proceedings in the Standing Committee on the Trade Union and Labour Relations Bill. More than once the only argument advanced in Committee for a change in the law has been that the trade unions want it.
      Mr. Joseph Dean: The record should be put right. Mr. Scanlon was not allowed to get to the top by the inadequacies of the members of his union. Does the hon. and learned Gentleman realise that Mr. Scanlon was elected leader of the AUEW by a postal ballot in which every member received a ballot form?
      Mr. Waddington: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for mentioning that, because it proves my point. Mr. Scanlon was apparently elected by 6 per cent. of the membership of the union.
      Mr. Dean Mr. Dean rose—
      Mr. Waddington: I am not giving way again.
      Mr. Dean: Let us get the facts right.
      The Temporary Chairman (Sir Myer Galpern): Order. The hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Dean) must resume his seat if the hon. and learned Gentleman is not giving way.
      Mr. Waddington: If an hon. Member is asked a question and gives way, he is entitled to answer. I do not see why I should give way again before I have even completed the answer I was giving.
      The matter I have raised is one of great importance in the debate, because it gives the lie to what was said earlier by the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West, who tried to pretend that rank and file members took an interest in trade union affairs and therefore knew perfectly well of the irresponsibility of the leaders of the trade unions who refused to register, disqualified themselves from tax relief, and therefore disadvantaged the provident funds. Now the hon. Gentleman—
      Mr. Dean: The hon. and learned Gentleman is incorrect again.
      Mr. Waddington: I shall give way when I have finished the sentence. The hon. Gentleman apparently objects strongly to my saying what I believe to be the truth, that 6 per cent. of the members voted. I think someone said just now that it was 7 per cent., but I do not mind, because that is near enough.
      6.45 p.m.
      Mr. Dean: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for giving way again. His inference is that the leaders of the union concerned took a decision without any consideration of the members' wishes. That decision was taken by lay members who represent the rank and file and who give the union leaders their instructions on behalf of the rank and file. Therefore, when the hon. Gentleman says that it is a dictatorship he should come off it.
      Mr. Waddington: That was an extraordinary observation. I thought that I was being accused of saying something that was inaccurate, but the hon. Gentleman apparently concedes that only 6 per cent. of the membership voted for Mr. Scanlon. Therefore, how can it be said that the average rank and file trade unionist has the faintest idea what his leaders are doing? He is far too busy working and looking after his family. He would be horrified if he knew of some of the irresponsible activities of the leadership, activities which are dedicated far more to political aims than to the

      547
      true responsibilities of trade union leaders, which are to look after the pay and conditions of their members.
      The pathetic thing is that all this grovelling by the Government is to no effect. As my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Mitchell) said, we should look around us. We should remember what was said at the Scottish miners' conference, the electricity workers' conference, the National Union of Teachers' conference and the draughtsmen's conference. The social compact or contract is as dead as the Dodo. The Government will certainly not get value for money. What do they think they will get by dishing out £10 million of the taxpayers' money for the purpose in the clause? They will not get value for the country. I believe that this action will stick in the gullet of every decent citizen.
      Mr. Tomlinson: I hope that the right hon. Member for Carshalton (Mr. Carr) will not take exception to the way in which I summarise what I understood to be the main part of his argument on the £10 million. It had three main points. One was that no one had wanted in the first place to take the money. The right hon. Gentleman made that abundantly clear to the Committee. The right hon. Gentleman's second point was that the Government had provided means for the trade unions not to have to give the money. The third point was that because the trade unions would not come cap in hand to the Government under the procedures that the Government wanted to lay down, they should not have the money back.
      It is an argument of extreme churlishness to say that the money that nobody wanted to take, and that the Government themselves tried to make provision not to have to take, should not now be given back to the trade union movement. That is an argument of extreme churlishness.
      The right hon. Gentleman spent a great deal of time explaining the two methods by which he had proposed that the money could remain in the hands of the trade union movement. The first method was registration. He showed a complete misunderstanding of the view of ordinary trade unionists when he indicated that he thought that they could be brought to accept the Industrial
      548
      Relations Act by offering a bribe to register. He also said that the previous Government made great efforts to lay down plans so that those trade unions that could not hive off their provident funds could go to the Government and explain their difficulties. Of course, he did not tell the Committee that in the earlier discussions that the trade union movement had with the Government its reception was nothing like as helpful as the right hon. Gentleman suggested it might have been.
      The consultative document allowed approximately 14 days as the totality for consultation. When that consultation was taking place the right hon. Gentleman was forthcoming in receiving the views of the trade union movement to the extent that he said to its representatives that he was prepared to consult only on the detail and not on the principle. That was the kind of reception and the kind of consultation to which trade unionists became accustomed under the previous Government. It is not surprising that the trade union movement was not prepared to engage in that kind of nonsensical activity all over again.
      The philosophy demonstrated by the right hon. Gentleman—and I am sorry that he is not here—is one of extreme churlishness. He accepts that the decision to take the money was one that was entered into almost unintentionally. He seemed to indicate that it was something that he did not want to do and that he tried to avoid.
      I am sorry that the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) is not in his place. I challenged his reference to Sir Andrew Shonfield's Note of Reservation in the Donovan Report. The Committee will recall that the hon. Gentleman said that Sir Andrew described the trade union movement as a "licensed conspiracy". I have found a reference to "licensed conspiracy". I asked my hon. Friend to give me the reference—
      Mr. Skinner: The hon. Member for Blaby is not my hon. Friend's hon. Friend.
      Mr. Tomlinson: I must tell my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) that I am friendly with all kinds of people. I found a reference to "licensed conspiracy" but I could not

      549
      put the same construction on those words as the hon. Member for Blaby put on them. As that was reiterated by the hon. Gentleman after I asked him for the reference, the Committee should understand exactly what Sir Andrew said.
      Mr. Skinner: This is why the hon. Member for Blaby has run away.
      Mr. Tomlinson: In Paragraph 7 of the Note of Reservation—the Committee will recall that the hon. Member for Blaby vaguely referred to a left-hand page—in page 290 of the Donovan Report Sir Andrew said,
      "I therefore regard the principle which is stated in paragraph 471 of the Report to be characteristic of the British system, that collective bargaining should remain 'outside the law', to be wrong."
      Then there is the important sentence, which says,
      "The special grounds for treating trade unions in this way which seem to have influenced the 19th and early 20th century legislators, who laid down the framework of rules which govern British industrial relations today, were essentially that trade unionism was an unpleasant conspiracy…"
      In paragraph 8 Sir Andrew says,
      "Historically the doctrine of the 'licensed conspiracy' served a useful social purpose."
      Anyone reading those words correctly—and as the hon. Member for Blaby knew that they were on the left-hand page presumably he had read them—and trying to give the Committee a reasonable impression of what Sir Andrew said would have made it clear that "licensed conspiracy" was not a description of the modern trade union movement but an historical description of the conditions which early trade unionists had to suffer. I mentioned to the hon. Member for Blaby that I intended to raise this issue. He has not seen fit to justify the accusation that he made.
      Mr. Prior: Far be it from me to wish to defend my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson), who is not here, but would it not be for the benefit of the Committee if the hon. Member for Meriden (Mr. Tomlinson) read to the bottom of the paragraph?
      Mr. Tomlinson: I am happy to read through the whole of the report, as I have done, unlike the right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) who has just picked up the report and started to read
      550
      it. I accept that he demonstrated fairly clearly this afternoon that he was new to the subject of industrial relations. The important words that I challenge are "licensed conspiracy". The hon. Member for Blaby suggested that Sir Andrew described the trade union movement as a licensed conspiracy. There is nothing in paragraph 8 that suggests that Sir Andrew even suggested anything remotely like that. I think that we can judge the rest of the hon. Gentleman's contribution when we remember that he, perhaps unintentionally, mislead the Committee by making the assertion to which I have referred. It was an assertion that he continued to make after he had been asked to give the reference for the words that he was quoting to the Committee.
      I now turn to some of the comments of the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Mitchell). He made many points that were of interest to the Committee. First, he suggested that the Government were in some way prisoners of the trade union movement. Having made that sweeping assertion he said nothing further to seek to justify it.
      Mr. Robert Adley: Will the hon. Member for Meriden (Mr. Tomlinson) remind the Committee of the proportion of the Labour Party's funds that come from the trade union movement?
      Mr. Tomlinson: The Committee would be more inclined to have some degree of sympathy with any kind of statement made by the hon. Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley) if the hon. Gentleman had the courtesy to listen to the debate. The hon. Gentleman has walked in and has tried to divert the debate because of the embarrassment of the position in which the Opposition find themselves. That is something that my hon. Friends and I are not prepared to allow. I assumed when I gave way to the hon. Gentleman, he having only just come into the Chamber, that he had a genuine interest in the debate. My hon. Friends and I will not be diverted in this way.
      The hon. Member for Basingstoke vagely told us something about U-turns—relating to statutory incomes policy. Surely that is one of the worst areas of policy which he

      551
      could possibly have chosen. I have a document which is very hard to come by and which may have great significance one day. I presume that Central Office has been buying and burning copies of "A Better Tomorrow". I seem to remember that we were told in that document that statutory incomes policy had failed and that the Conservative Party would not repeat the mistake. When the hon. Member for Basingstoke lectures us about U-turns on incomes policy he should look a little nearer to the present and not only at Lord George-Brown's declaration of 1965.
      Mr. David Mitchell Mr. David Mitchell rose—
      Mr. Tomlinson: I shall extend the courtesy to the hon. Gentleman which was not extended to me.
      Mr. Mitchell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I would have given way to him if I had referred to him in my speech. The point that he makes is not a direct parallel. I referred to the possibility of the social compact succeeding and to the attempts of previous Governments to secure such a success. If the hon. Gentleman would address himself to that point he would help the Committee considerably. Does he believe that there was success when previous attempts were made to introduce an incomes policy?
      7.0 p.m.
      Mr. Tomlinson: I have said that accusations of U-turns come ill from the mouth of a supporter of a Government who engaged in more U-turns than we have seen from all the Governments since the war put together. We judge the validity of the hon. Gentleman's statements against that background.
      The hon. Gentleman demonstrated that he is not even au fait with some of the structure of the trade unions when he talked about APEX as being the clerical section of the AUEW. That was the specific point on which he refused to give way to me. I am sure that he now admits that that was a mistake. If he had had the grace to give way to me, he would have been able to correct himself by acknowledging that the white collar section of the AUEW is TASS.
      The hon. Gentleman went on to talk about how the unions set out to defy the theme behind the Act—registration.
      552
      We have been told many times by Conservative Party spokesmen that, under the Act, the unions could register or not register as they chose and that either course was legal. Yet the fact that unions, acting within the law, decided to exercise one of the options available to them leads the hon. Gentleman to chastise them. We have heard from the hon. Gentleman today a number of unsubstantiated assertions and allegations, none of them adding up to very much in practice.
      We heard the same saga continued when the hon. and learned Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Waddington) decided to give us the benefit of his industrial understanding. The main pearl of wisdom gleaned from him was that he did not believe that the Conservative Government caused confrontation. I do not want to go too wide of the subject under discussion, but I feel bound to remind the hon. and learned Gentleman not only of the Industrial Relations Act but also of the Housing Finance Act, the cuts in school milk, the cuts in public building programmes, and so on. Indeed, confrontation was becoming almost endemic in our society because of the Conservative Government's activities.
      The Conservative Party argued that the Industrial Relations Act was being set up to solve all our industrial relations problems. It was destined to bring us to a mecca of industrial relations. Yet, in the first two years of its operation the number of days lost through strikes grew steadily worse. Indeed, in each of those two years in succession the number of days lost through strikes was worse than in any year since 1926. The Labour Government left office in 1970, when the Conservatives were returned, and 1970, 1971 and 1972 in succession produced worse and worse figures until, in 1972, the non-confrontation to which the hon. and learned Member referred produced a loss through strikes of 23·9 million working days.
      The 1965 position had led the then Labour Government to appoint the Donovan Commission. Yet if, by 1972, we had been able to get back to the 1965 figures, we would have acclaimed that as a great triumph for parliamentary democracy. One wonders just what were

      553
      the problems of 1965 which led so many people to be so neurotic about our system of industrial relations.
      Mr. Waddington: The hon. Gentleman has mentioned 1970, 1971 and 1972. Will he give us the figures for 1973?
      Mr. Tomlinson: I do not have them.
      Mr. Waddington: There was a big reduction, to 7 million.
      Mr. Tomlinson: It is remarkable that the hon. and learned Gentleman should, seemingly, regard a mere 7 million days lost through strike action as something of a triumph. The fact that he can regard 7 million working days lost as a triumph is a reflection of how the situation had deteriorated. In the last full year before the Conservatives took over in 1970, the figure was less than 7 million. If the hon. and learned Gentleman will meet me outside, we can get the exact figures, but I think he will find that the precise figure was 6·8 million—and that was a pretty bad year in itself.
      We have also heard generous explanations about the Conservatives not having wished to create any kind of conflict and that they did not govern by confrontation. Yet the result was confrontation in a way we had never seen before. The Opposition make great play of their bogyman, Hugh Scanlon, and talk in great detail about the precise figures by which he was elected as President of the AUEW. I, too, share the concern, inasmuch as I want to see a high degree of participation and a larger number of people taking part in the decision-making processes.
      This was why I was amazed when, during their confrontation with the miners, which need never have taken place, the Conservative Government, having claimed so much for the Industrial Relations Act, were so reluctant to activate its emergency powers whereby they could have given the miners the chance to have a vote on their industrial action. But, of course, we heard very little about these emergency powers after they were tested on the railwaymen. They were never used at all during the miners' strike, but, when the miners used their own democratic processes to decide how they would react to the confrontation which the Government had forced on
      554
      them, they voted 86 per cent. in favour of the action they were taking.
      If we are concerned about the low degree of participation in some unions, let us give credit to the miners who, in their ballot, managed to get a very high degree of participation. The Conservative Government were obviously afraid that there would be such high participation, and therefore refused to invoke the emergency powers under the Act, which would have given the miners the opportunity to vote at an earlier stage.
      Mr. Ian Lloyd: If the Conservative Government had activated the emergency powers, would they then have been accused of confrontation?
      Mr. Tomlinson: That is a matter of conjecture, but I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has made a valid intervention. I can only assume that the Conservative Government, having used the emergency powers in the railway dispute, decided against using it in the miners' strike because they were afraid of the consequences. Because of the control and influence which the Conservative Government had over the Commission on Industrial Relations, having changed its rôle—this is one of the objections we have to the continuation of the CIR—they launched into a tortuous process in the railway dispute, virtually dividing the industry into four sections, three represented by ASLEF, the NUR and the TSSA, and the other for non-trade unionists. Unfortunately for the Conservative Government, they were beaten in all four ballots.
      I am convinced that it was the result of the railwaymen being forced to have a compulsory cooling-off period and a compulsory strike ballot which had a significant influence on the Government's later refusal to activate the emergency powers in the miners' dispute, because they knew that the miners, too, like the railwaymen, had more confidence in their own leadership than in the leadership of a Government hell-bent on confrontation.
      A large number of red herrings have been drawn across the debate. I end as I began by recalling the simple proposition that the right hon. Member for Carshalton put to the Committee. He put three points before us. First of all, the previous Government, he said, did not want to take money from the trade union

      555
      movement. Secondly, when they found out that the legislation would have that effect, they tried to devise means by which they could avoid taking the money.
      If those two points are made, then the third is self-evident. There must be a rectification of what was obviously a mistake in the first place. I hope we shall not have any more nonsense about this.
      Mr. Peter Hordern: This clause concerns retrospective legislation. The Committee has always regarded such legislation with great care and wariness. I remember that when I first came to this place there was retrospective legislation in respect of the Burmah Oil Company and its assets in Burma. I can recall the heated debates that took place then, when there were great issues of demarcation, war and peace and the definition of the assets. That was felt by many of my hon. Friends at the time to be a highly unsatisfactory piece of legislation.
      It is unusual to have retrospective legislation in anything to do with the Finance Bill. It is not only most unusual but I think unprecedented that there should be retrospective legislation in respect of a body which is not a taxable body, which is invited to pursue a course of action of which the consequences of not following that action is taxation, and where that body has deliberately chosen to be taxed. That is the point about this debate. The unions had every opportunity to avoid the taxation which they were plainly warned would come upon them if they did not take the action required under the Industrial Relations Act either to register with the Registrar or to hive off their provident funds into separate funds.
      It is interesting to recollect that the whole question of legislation was in any case not always so unpopular with the Labour Party. It was in "In Place of Strife" that the consequences of not registering were made plain. In paragraph 109 of that document it said,
      "The Industrial Relations Bill will therefore propose that trade unions should register with a new Registrar of Trade Unions and Employers' Associations within a prescribed period. Refusal will lay a trade union open to a financial penalty by the Industrial Board."
      That was a plain example of what the consequences might be under the original
      556
      proposals which were acceptable, apparently, to a Labour Government.
      Nor was that the only example. The Donovan Commission recommended that the status of trade unions should be confined to those bodies which registered as trade unions. It made alternative recommendations for compelling such registration. One was the withdrawal of privileges under the 1906 Act or, as the minority suggested, the imposition of cash penalties. Thus in the Donovan Report and in the Labour Government's document there were to be financial penalties if trade unions did not register. It was a perfectly reasonable proposition contained within the original Industrial Relations Bill that the trade unions would lose the tax benefits which their provident funds and benevolent society monies were accorded if they did not register with the Registrar.
      7.15 p.m.
      However, during the long debates which occurred on the Industrial Relations Bill it was put forward very forcibly by the Opposition that these funds affected sickness and accident benefits, facilities to allow members all sorts of social benefits which were urgently needed. My right hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton (Mr. Carr) accepted that there was an extremely powerful case to be made for treating these funds separately so that they would not be liable to tax.
      Mr. J. W. Rooker: Will the hon. Gentleman check his paragraph reference from "In Place of Strife"? Perhaps he would also reflect on the point that in "Fair Deal at Work" registration was to be made compulsory. Would he like to comment on the change made between the issue of "Fair Deal at Work", the consultative document and the 1971 Act?
      Mr. Hordern: The quotation was from paragraph 109 in "In Place of Strife".
      My right hon. Friend made every effort to meet the case put forward about these funds. There were discussions in another place between Lord Diamond and Lord Drumalbyn. It was clearly the case that the best legal advice obtainable by the Government was that if the funds were hived off and separately registered they would not be taxable. Two trade unions have done this, and their funds

      557
      were exempt from taxation. It was Lord Diamond's case that it would be physically very difficult to hive off some of these funds to take advantage of tax concessions. It was therefore suggested by my right hon. Friend that if there were any insuperable difficulties the unions should approach him and the Government would see what accommodation they could make.
      The unions were the custodians of benevolent funds for some of their members and their dependants. They were acting as trustees. One might have thought that they owed a duty above all to these people to see that their interests were properly protected. Yet, strangely, on no occasion did they ever approach my right hon. Friend to inform him that there were difficulties in hiving-off these benevolent funds. Such a difficulty never occurred and it was not apparently even suggested, when the TUC saw the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, that the legislation should be retrospective. It is clear that, for reasons at which we can only guess, the trade unions decided that they would not draw his attention to the, inconveniences of which they now complain—although they did not complain at all when the last Government was in power.
      I must leave to the Committee the conclusions to be drawn from this lack of activity on their part to protect the funds of their members. No attempt was made before the election to inform the Government of any inconveniences. It was therefore clear that the unions deliberately chose to pay the tax. I do not recall during the election campaign that there was anything in the Labour Party manifesto saying that one of the first actions of a Labour Government would be to restore to trade union benevolent funds the sums which they had lost entirely through their own actions. Nor do I remember any mention of it in the Gracious Speech. It was never suggested that the unions had suffered a wrong which required to be put right by the Labour Government. The first mention which I recall was that made by the Secretary of State for Employment. But he did not announce it as a measure which needed to be taken to restore to trade union benevolent funds something which they had lost in taxation by some mishap or accident. What he said was that a
      558
      benefit of £10 million was going to the trade unions, not to their benevolent funds or to those acting as trustees of the benevolent funds.
      The Government must say exactly where the £10 million will go. Will it go to people who should benefit from the provident funds, or will it go to the trade union funds? The Government must answer that question plainly. If it goes to the trade union funds, people who should receive sickness and injury benefits will not receive them.
      Mr. Waddington: The position is worse than that. If what my hon. Friend says is correct, right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite will give a present of taxpayers' money to themselves.
      Mr. Hordern: That may well be so.
      We need to know from the Secretary of State where the money will go. It is most extraordinary that of all the places to which the fl £10 million could be restored the Government should select to restore it to the trade unions' funds and not to any other section of society which may already have suffered considerably in the short time that the Government have been in office.
      Mr. Gordon A. T. Bagier: Whether or not the money was taken by accident, is the hon. Gentleman saying that it was the Conservative Government's considered intention that the taxation should be taken?
      Mr. Hordern: That point has been dealt with many times. I hoped that I had made it clear that the intention of my right hon. Friends was to ensure that payment was not made by trade union benevolent funds, and that trade unions themselves, in order to accommodate them, should register them and hive them off as benevolent funds.
      The unions, for reasons of their own, deliberately chose not to see the then Secretary of State, and they deliberately chose to pay the tax. The announcement by the present Secretary of State for Employment was plainly intended to act as a counter-weight in the social compact. It was never suggested by him that it would benefit the provident funds of the trade unions involved. It was a deliberate ploy to persuade them to take action which otherwise they may not have taken.

      559
      It was in every respect a form of Danegeld.
      "But we've proved it again and again, That if once you have paid him the Dane gold, You never get rid of the Dane."
      The difference on this occasion is that the geld has been paid without the Dane even asking for it.
      Mr. Cryer: The background to this matter needs emphasising time and again. Right hon. and hon. Members opposite are so embittered by their prejudices that they fail to understand that the Conservative Government did not want this taxation revenue. The new clause simply provides for repayment of revenue unwanted by the Conservative Government of which right hon. and hon. Members opposite were a composite part. The Conservative Government did not want the money, but they wanted the unions to go to them cap in hand and follow a number of rules which they suggested to them in a variety of ways in order to get the money back.
      The background to the matter is one of bitter confrontation started by the Conservative Government with the passing of the Industrial Relations Act. That Act was put forward by the Conservative Party on a fraudulent basis. It was not, therefore, surprising that those in the trade union movement felt that a fraud had been inflicted on them, that the people had been cheated at the election when they were told that a framework of law was necessary, in such a manner that it gave the impression that there was no law affecting the trade union movement and that these wild men had to be curtailed by a framework of law.
      The Conservative Government failed to point out that before the 1970 General Election there was probably more law attached to the trade union movement than was attached to almost any other organisation in the country. If hon. Members opposite wish me to spell it out, I shall be delighted to do so.
      Mr. Peter Rees: If what the hon. Gentleman says is correct, why did his right hon. and hon. Friends introduce and subsequently withdraw proposals for a framework of law for the trade unions?
      Mr. Cryer: I am interested that the Opposition should treat all the utterances
      560
      of my right hon. Friends as though they had been brought down from Heaven on tablets of stone. They seem to think that some statement made several years ago should be treated with hallowed sanctity.
      It has been admitted that what was done was not a prudent move. Governments are not perfect. I dare say that right hon. and hon. Members opposite would not argue that the 1970–73 Government were perfect. We are saying the same about the 1964–70 Government. They made an error, and the error has been admitted. But to suggest, as right hon. and hon. Members opposite do, that we must look to previous statements by members of the Labour Government, as though they are Holy Grail, is to try to score a cheap political point.
      The basis of the Industrial Relations Act was fraudulent because the Conservative Party, at the 1970 election, put forward the idea that the trade union movement had no legal background. It said that a framework of law was necessary. That framework started to be formed as early as 1779, with the combination laws, and there has been a succession of other laws such as the Trade Union Act 1872, the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act 1875, and the Trade Disputes Acts of 1906 and 1965, all of which put the trade union movement in a comprehensive framework of legislation. There was also legislation passed for political purposes in the Trade Union Act 1913.
      The funds which trade unions use for political purposes are subject to strict scrutiny, which does not apply to the Conservative Party's friends in industry who every year pour out thousands of pounds—
      Mr. Loughlin: Millions of pounds.
      Mr. Cryer:—to the Conservative Party and top up its coffers prior to an election. They do not have the degree of scrutiny which trade union funds have. When hon. Gentlemen opposite advance the old argument that this clause will benefit the Labour Party in some mysterious way, it is a total fabrication. I served on a local authority which had shareholdings in a number of companies, and in its last year of existence it learned that those companies contributed some £30,000 to Conservative Party Funds——
      Sir Harmar Nicholls: Shame!
      7.30 p.m.
      Mr. Cryer: It is a shame, because the local authority was not consulted in any way, and the ratepayers would have been interested to know that their local authority—which, incidentally, was Conservative-controlled—had made no protest and had not bothered to consult the firms which they knew to be contributing to the coffers of the party of which they were members. The hoary argument that somehow in this case the money will flow into the coffers of the Labour Party must be nailed as the deliberate lie that it is.
      Mr. Douglas Hurd: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that, as a result of the payments which we are discussing, the unions receiving them will not possibly be in a stronger position to contribute to the party which he supports?
      Mr. Cryer: Perhaps I might explain the position to the hon. Gentleman. Funds for a political purpose must be collected separately by any trade union, and members of trade unions have the right to opt out of payment. The funds are separate and are permitted to be spent only on certain purposes. I thought that I had emphasised that the political money came from separate sources and was subject to a very detailed legal scrutiny.
      I ask the Opposition whether they are prepared to advocate legislation which gives the same degree of scrutiny to company funds which are paid into the coffers of their own party. Do they advocate legislation in which every shareholder has to give consent to ensure that political money is paid from company funds into the coffers of the Conservative Party? Let them advocate that before they start criticising the trade union movement.
      Mr. Peter Rees: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the provisions of the Companies Act 1967, introduced by the previous Labour administration, which makes it necessary for companies which make donations to political parties to disclose them? What is more, shareholders can comment on them in general meetings. There is no question of shareholders having to subscribe as in the case of trade unions, and, therefore, the hon. Gentleman's analogy breaks down. If he is aware of the provisions of that Act, a great deal of his indignation ought to be reserved for more worthwhile topics.
      Mr. Cryer: Of course I am aware of that Act. I am also aware of the Conservative Party's opposition to the provisions which the hon. and learned Gentleman describes. However, the Companies Act 1967 does not require shareholders to be specifically consulted, as the comparable legislation relating to trade unions does. I thought that I had explained in stunning detail that the local authority of which I was a member was not consulted, although it was a shareholder—not simply a shareholder trying to obtain a dividend for its private benefit, but a shareholder representing the communal benefit of the town of Keighley.
      Mr. Hordern: It is clear from what the hon. Gentleman says that the local authority of which he was a member was anxious to invest in private enterprise to the benefit of the ratepayers of Keighley. In selecting the companies concerned, the local authority was wise and astute enough to make a contribution to the Conservative Party. All that the hon. Gentleman is showing is that his authority believed in successful private enterprise. That is a matter for congratulation.
      Mr. Cryer: That is an interesting change from the hon. Gentleman's speech. Apparently he is prepared to congratulate companies on contributing to the Conservative Party when he is reluctant to congratulate trade unions on contributing to the Labour Party.
      Mr. Ronald Atkins: Whereas a trade unionist can opt out of his union's political fund, a shareholder cannot opt out of a political contribution to the Conservative Party.
      Mr. Cryer: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. That is the very point that I was making.
      Sir Harmar Nicholls: But, apart from what the trade unions do with any money that they may get as a consequence of this legislation, will the hon. Gentleman say whether he thinks that this £10 million, if it is made available, will go into trade union funds?
      Mr. Cryer: I shall be answering that question in the course of my speech, if the hon. Gentleman will be patient. If I am constantly interrupted, my speech will have to be fairly lengthy. Each time

      563
      I am interrupted I shall have to take up the thread of my remarks at some length.
      To get back to what I was saying, the Industrial Relations Act had a fraudulent basis for its introduction. There was already a huge amount of statute law controlling political funds, among other matters. The Industrial Relations Act was passed on the basis that there was no framework of legislation. However, in my view the Act was not passed because the Government of the day thought that it would improve industrial relations. It was designed to curb the right of trade unionists to combine and to withdraw their labour. In the view of Government supporters, that is an important right.
      Trade unionists recognise the Industrial Relations Act as an attack on that basic right. I am sure that it is a right which the Opposition would not seek to erode, with the lessons of the disastrous failure of the Industrial Relations Act at their backs.
      The right to withdraw labour is one which is not present in numerous countries of various "isms". It is a right which we ought to be prepared to cherish. It is a right in which free people can engage. It is an important right because it equates the power of the employee with that of the employer. The Opposition regard the world through rose-coloured spectacles and apparently believe that every employer is kindly and well disposed towards his employees.
      The carrot in the Industrial Relations Act designed to lure the unions was that part of it relating to unfair dismissal procedures. That apart, employers have the right to dismiss any employee very easily and quickly. It may be argued that an employee may sue his employer for breach of contract—
      Sir Harmar Nicholls: And thousands have done.
      Mr. Cryer: At the same time, millions have not because of the enormous expense of going to law. The law is like the Ritz Hotel: it is open to everyone who has the necessary money.
      Sir Harmar Nicholls: That is old-fashioned.
      Mr. Cryer: It is not old-fashioned. Legal aid is not handed out like spoon
      564
      fuls of treacle. It is controlled carefully. In any event it is an intimidating process. Legal aid is qualified by the fact that the legal aid committee must be convinced that an applicant has a case to win. A wealthy person may go to law without fear of the cost. An ordinary poor person who might have to contribute to the costs of a legal action has a great fear of going to law. The reality is that the ordinary person does not have the equality of freedom under the law that the employer has, and the employer can dismiss him at a moment's notice. He may well be in breach of contract in doing so, and happily the Trade Union and Labour Relations Bill will improve the protection which employees have. That improvement was referred to in the Labour Party manifesto. It is yet another promise that the Labour Government are meeting.
      To combat the power of an employer, employees must combine. If an employer decides to get rid of one person, his process can carry on uninterrupted. But he cannot get rid of everyone. To do so would bring the process to a halt. If trade unions do not have this power and right to combine and to withdraw their labour, they become mere sick clubs. The £10 million is concerned with that section of the activity of trade unions. The clause affects a sick club function, not the basic right to combine.
      I should like to disabuse hon. Members opposite of some notions which have come bubbling to the surface in the last hour or so. The controversial side of the trade union movement is the right to combine. Its main function is not the provision of funeral expenses and widows' benefits in cases where members have been injured or killed through industrial activity.
      Yesterday I pointed out that every year 1,000 people died as a result of industrial injuries. Many more days are lost through industrial injury than through strike action.
      I remind the Committee that the sick club function is being affected, not the right of combination which is the most controversial part of the trade union movement. One notion that has come bubbling to the surface is that somehow the unions are predatory and have groups of workers ready to go on strike at a

      565
      moment's notice. That is not true. I believe that 99 out of every 100 members of trade unions do not wish to go on strike. That is very much the last resort for them. Certainly the withdrawal of labour takes place, but it is the last resort. The Press, aided by the Opposition, like the picture of a group of people who go out on strike at the proverbial drop of a hat. That is a most unkind and unfair picture, and I should like to refute it.
      Some trade unions have separate provident funds for the benefit of the sick. But, taking the argument of some hon. Gentlemen that this money will not go directly to the sick, alternatively it will benefit the organisation and efficiency of the trade union movement. Donovan spent a good deal of time investigating the trade union movement. The Donovan Report clearly indicated that one deficiency in the trade union movement was the lack of full-time officials. One point that Donovan made emphatically and clearly was that in many situations the presence of a full-time trade union official could prevent a dispute spreading. I recall, for example, the number of members per employed official of the Transport and General Workers' Union. Those figures have since been improved. That is the kind of deficiency that the trade union movement wants to improve.
      To argue against the payment of this money is to argue against improvements in the payments of benefits to the sick, the deprived and the elderly, or is to attack the efficiency of the trade union movement in industrial relations.
      Donovan and most sensible contributors to parliamentary debates accept that we must improve the efficiency of the trade union movement to keep to the minimum the withdrawal of labour, not because people are, so to speak, hell-bent on strike action, but simply because an official often has information and the ability to communicate information not available to a group of people who are on the point of reaching the last resort.
      The attitude of hon. Gentlemen opposite does not improve industrial relations. I have been a Member of the House of Commons for only a short time, but I have heard Hugh Scanlon's name shouted out as though he were some kind of bogyman of whom we should be
      566
      afraid. If it is not Hugh Scanlon, it is Mick McGahey. The trade union movement is not some kind of peculiar machine with these terrible people emerging from it. It is a highly democratic organisation and movement. It is not as democratic as some would like, but it is more democratic than companies. It does not depend on the depth of one's pocket for its power. Each individual who pays his membership fee has the right to participate. It is democratic, but, of course, we should like it to be more democratic.
      Hon. Gentlemen opposite may say that the trade union movement does not have the maximum number of people participating. But the movement's officials are chosen and its policies are decided and put into effect democratically.
      I mention these points specifically because of a suggestion by one hon. Gentleman, who, of course, has gone, that somehow officials were running ahead and acting against the interests of the trade union movement without the consent of the members. No official would dream of doing that. He knows full well that he is employed within the terms of the rules of the trade union movement and is appointed through machinery which is democratically controlled.
      The Government, through the clause, are attempting to repay tax which it is commonly admitted they do not want. The previous Government certainly did not want it. The money was taken from the trade unions in a confrontation situation. Now we are attempting some degree of reconciliation. The trade union movement is a fact. I wish that hon. Gentlemen would accept that the Government are trying to imbue into industry a new spirit of reconciliation. They should cease their abuse and attack on the trade union movement, which is a basic fountain of the democratic brotherhood of this country.
      7.45 p.m.
      Mr. Nick Budgen: I am sure that when the Secretary of State for Employment winds up the debate he will enchant the Committee with one of his historic analogies. I expect that three quarters of his speech will be an enchanting story about Cromwell or perhaps Plymouth. [An hon. Member: "There is nothing wrong with that."]. I agree. Indeed, I am

      567
      about to follow his example, albeit without his eloquence.
      I remind the Committee that to a large extent landed interests controlled the fortunes of the Tory Party in the nineteenth century and the early part of the twentieth century. Legislation of the time bears ample witness to the proposition that that interest group had perhaps too great a hold on the Tory Party. But what finally slaughtered the landed interests in this country?
      Mr. Rooker: Giving the working man the vote.
      Mr. Budgen: A Liberal administration, no doubt supported by the father of the present Secretary of State for Employment, introduced death duties. Until recently death duties were an entirely voluntary tax. Many families, who were later slaughtered by that tax, refused to avoid taxation for political reasons. Rather than avoid death duties, they preferred to come to the House of Commons to complain about their level.
      Some families unhappily received bad advice from lawyers, and for that reason lost their lands. Other families were plain stupid, and for that reason lost their lands. But in that way, by the imposition of a voluntary tax, a great interest group in this country was almost slaughtered. It was a most moving performance. They lost their provident, pension and funeral funds and their sickness benefit. All this was forgotten by the Tory Party. It was forgotten because the Tory Party recognised that the principle of retrospective legislation was one of the principles that we and every party have to adhere to.
      The Tory Party then recognised two things which the present Government do not recognise. The first was that any responsible Government cannot be the tool of any interest group. I say that in relation to the CBI and my party just as much as I say it in relation to the TUC and the Labour Party. Secondly, the Tory Party in those days, notwithstanding the drama enacted before its eyes and the slaughter of its principal interest group, recognised that retrospective legislation erodes both the rule of law and a primary principle of public administration. Further, it prevents the
      568
      citizen having any certainty in his relations with the State.
      Surely in this case the principle is as clear as clear can be. This tax was a voluntary tax. The unions could have chosen to register or, on the other hand, to use their funds in a different way and so have avoided the tax. They are in no different a position to the landed interest slaughtered by death duties, except in only one respect, that they must be appeased in order that this Government may go before the country in the near future and parade the sham of the social contract in order that they may pretend that they have some defence against the ravages of inflation.
      I do not pretend that I believe that the party of which I am proud to be a member has a particularly consistent record in defending the citizen against inflation. But one thing is clear—if great interest groups do not obey the law and lean on the party they support, get preferential treatment and encourage people to bend the mose important principles of public administration no Government, of any political complexion, can rule and we shall then be naked before the forces of hyper-inflation.
      Mr. Bagier: I listened to the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) with some interest. It seems to me that towards the end of his speech he was trying to present the theme that no political party should have to lean, as he puts it, on any sort of paymaster. May I remind him that for a long time—well before 1967—the Labour Party has always published details of where its funds come from, but it required an Act by a Labour Government to insist that the paymasters of the Tory Party should expose where their funds come from. Let us all be clear about that—
      Mr. Budgen: On a point of order, Mr. Murton. I was not saying that. I was saying—
      The Deputy Chairman (Mr. Oscar Murton): Order. It seems that procedure is going a little astray. That is not a point of order. It is an interjection, which the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Bagier) has allowed the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) to introduce.
      Mr. Budgen: On a point of interjection, I was saying that I believe that no

      569
      political party should be ruled by the interest group that pays it.
      Mr. Bagier: That is exactly the point which the hon. Gentleman was making. I was saying that it had long been known that the Labour Party receives funds from the trade union movement. But it was not until a Labour Government changed the situation that we were able to know from where the Conservative Party gets its funds.
      The debate is taking the form of consideration of the credibility and honesty of the Opposition Front Bench. When the right hon. Member for Carshalton (Mr. Carr) was in Government he said that it was not the intention of his Government to take taxes from the trade unions as such. The right hon. Gentleman nods assent to that. If there was no such intention the money should not have been taken in the first place. The new clause has been introduced to put right what the right hon. Gentleman and some of his more honest members of his Front Bench are prepared to concede were the intentions of the Government of the day.
      The debate has nothing to do with what is happening in the trade union movement, but rather it has to do with what has been taking place over the weekend. We hear that the Leader of the Opposition wants to flex his muscles and have a fight. He wants the Opposition to become a real Opposition again. Had he been involved in the 1964 situation, when there was a majority of three, he would have been manning the barricades and bringing every hon. Member who was sick to the House so that they could all go through the Lobby, apparently trying to defeat us.
      The difficulty today is that if the Opposition and the other opposition parties want to get together they can defeat the Government any time they wish, but they have to ask themselves whether this is the issue on which to do it. That is their dilemma. One of the traditions of the Tory Party is that it always believes in union bashing. However conciliatory the speeches from the Opposition Front Bench they have not been echoed from the back benches. They have said "Let us have a real go at Hugh Scanlon and Dan McGarvey, as the villains of the piece." If they believe that that is the best way to get industrial
      570
      peace they ought to talk to people outside the Committee. It would help them occasionally to give credit to the great majority of members of the trade union movement and leadership who have worked hard, honestly and sincerely to get industrial relations operating and to get the nation working properly. It would also help the Opposition if we did not have the union-bashing approach from them. That approach is harmful to the nation; it does not help the Opposition and it does not help us——
      Sir Harmar Nicholls: It is not a matter of righting wrong or of doing what my right hon. Friend said he would like to do. It is a matter of how it is being done—of its being done in such a way as to appear to give the impression of having contempt for both the laws of the land and a High Court judge's decision.
      Mr. Bagier: The hon. Gentleman says that a wrong has been done but he objects to its being put right by the only possible means; namely, by altering the law. That is the wish of some Members of the Conservative Party. But many of them want to go into the Lobby tonight.
      I suggest, Mr. Murton, that when the Division bell goes tonight you make sure you give the Opposition the full six minutes, for we do not know how many of them will be locked out when making charades of how they will defeat us.
      The Leader of the Opposition was not present when I made my earlier remarks. He has been saying that it is time there was some purposeful opposition and that tonight is the opportunity for that. I hope that when hon. Gentlemen opposite consider some of the remarks that have been made today they will realise that what they are doing is wrong.
      8.0 p.m.
      If Opposition Members think back over their time in Government, they will realise that by bringing the law into industrial relations they created more industrial strife than there was even in the early 1930s. One hon. Gentleman opposite referred to my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) and "In Place of Strife". The penal clauses in that document were a mistake. Trade unionists and Members on this side of the Committee managed to convince my right hon. Friend that she was wrong, and

      571
      those proposals were withdrawn. The Tory Government introduced similar proposals and brought the law into industrial relations, and their record over the last three years shows the folly of doing that.
      One cannot bring the law in to arrive at decisive decisions in industry. Such decisions can be made only by people of good will on both sides getting together round the table and thrashing out matters. Difficulties cannot be resolved by a judge or a court of law. A judge cannot give and take. He cannot do a deal. He can only interpret the law, and we saw the folly of that.
      Mr. Robert Carr: How does the hon. Gentleman explain the introduction of such a system—not by the law but with a lot of help from the law—in Socialist Sweden, Western Germany, Holland and several other countries, but not here?
      Mr. Bagier: In Socialist Sweden a social contract was drawn up between a Socialist Government, the trade union movement and industry.
      Mr. Robert Carr: The law helped.
      Mr. Bagier: The system was introduced with the full agreement of all parties, and not by the guillotine procedure against the will of the then Opposition and the organised trade union movement.
      Mr. Robert Carr: The law was introduced in Sweden in face of far more violent opposition than there was from the trade unions here. Trade unionists picketed Parliament and tried to prevent Swedish Members from getting in to pass the law.
      Mr. Bagier: When the contract was finally made, it was arrived at in a manner which ensured that there was a fair division of power between the three sides to the bargain. The trouble in this country has been that because of the Opposition's general attitude towards trade unions and their policy of union bashing there has been no feeling of trust on the part of trade unionists. The Opposition asked for this lack of trust, and they received the response which they got.
      It is difficult for those of us who try to take a reasonable line to encourage
      572
      trade union leaders and our membership at shop floor level to act in what is sometimes called a more responsible manner, or not to react too sharply to calls for strikes. It is not easy to ask them to change their attitudes when they hear the individual and personality bashing, that is indulged in by hon. Gentlemen opposite.
      The nub of the matter today is whether, as the hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir H. Nicholls) said, it is right that this money should have been taken in the first place, and, if it is wrong, whether the Government are right in introducing a new clause to restore the position to what it was, but instead of trying to right a wrong the Opposition are taking advantage of the situation to divide the Committee and make it look as though there is real opposition to this proposal instead of a mere charade.
      Mr. Hurd: I wonder how we can persuade the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Bagier) that he is wrong in his analysis of what we are trying to do. He ranged widely in his speech, and in doing that he followed his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The right hon. Gentleman did not say a great deal about the clause, but he did say a great deal about the political situation as a whole. Some of my hon. Friends became a little impatient with him for that, but the right hon. Gentleman was justified in what he did because the clause goes to the root of the Government's whole attitude to the trade unions. The fact that the Secretary of State for Employment has been here for most of the afternoon and evening and has been smiling rather anxiously is proof that that is so.
      I have no doubt that, second to inflation, the question of trade union rights and trade union power is the most important subject in the minds of the people whom I represent. That may be partly because so many of my constituents work at or live near the Cowley car works at Oxford, and my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Woodhouse) made a telling intervention on this situation in a recent debate.
      In the short time that I have been a Member—and this happened during the election campaign too—large numbers of trade unionists of different political opinions have been to see me, have written

      573
      to me and have rung me up to make all kinds of representations. It is puzzling, after listening to the speeches of hon. Gentlemen opposite, to realise what the representations are about. People come to see me not to ask for the immediate repeal of the Industrial Relations Act, and certainly not to ask for the provisions in the clause that we are debating today but, with their wives and children, to complain about the industrial disruption which they suffer at their place of work.
      In a wide-ranging speech the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) dealt eloquently with the right to withdraw labour. I accept that part of his speech, and if it had been delivered 50 or 60 years ago it might have been relevant. The relevant issue today at Cowley is not the right to withdraw labour but the right to work. People there find that their livelihood is disrupted over and over again by disputes in which they do not feel themselves involved and which for them have no meaning.
      The best thing that has happened in my part of the world since the General Election is that at last, after many months, the great majority of trade unionists—whom hon. Gentlemen opposite have rightly praised—their wives and the management have come together and administered a sharp rebuff to the kind of trade union leadership which the Labour Party when in opposition did so much to encourage and invoke, and with which it is now landed. This has been an encouraging development in my part of the world, and it shows in what an unreal world some of those who have spoken today live.
      The clause opens up alarming possibilities for the future. At Question Time last week I had a brush with the Chief Secretary on the question of the wealth tax as it affects farmers. At the other end of my constituency there are many small farmers who are worried about the effect of a wealth tax on their farms—whether their farms will be broken up as a result of a wealth tax, or whether they will be able to carry on. This is a legitimate and deeply-felt complaint.
      Using the principles which we have heard advocated about putting right a wrong, and using the quotations from the benches opposite, if, by a mishap, the
      574
      tax were to come in we should be entitled to come back in four or five years' time—and perhaps £10 million would not be enough, and we should need £20 million or £30 million—and ask the House to pay back the money that had been taken by way of wealth tax because we thought a wrong had been done to this section of the community, their livelihood had been disrupted and they were entitled to a retrospective refund of taxes.
      That is the principle opened up by the clause. It may affect the farmers one day, but one can imagine various categories of people who from now on can expect, with some degree of justification, that we would go forward and make sure that they got their money back. The implications of this are alarming. None of us wants an approach by this or that group of aggrieved constituents about rates or taxes to lead to our not only putting the matter right for the future but restoring the rates and taxes that they have paid.
      Having listened to the speeches of Labour Members on this subject over the last few months, I would acquit them of any hypocrisy. They have been quick to accuse us of hypocrisy today, but I do not return that accusation because it would be unfair. However, judging from my admittedly short experience in the House and the representations and complaints that I have had from constituents who are trade unionists, I believe that many Labour Members are living in a dream world.
      They really think that they won a majority at the last election for this kind of measure, that most people are unionists and that most unionists are pressing for this. They really think that it was in the national interest for them to stimulate the opposition to the 1971 Act which has done so much harm. They really think that they serve the honourable tradition of their party as the party of the underdog by heaping these privileges on already powerful organisations.
      Of course, as has been said, the trade union movement is a fact that we must not just live with but work with. Any Government must accept that. The sooner we move towards some nationally acceptable policy on the unions the better. But if the Government think that this clause

      575
      is a step in that direction, they misunderstand the nature of the problem and the nature of democracy in this country.
      Mr. Ronald Atkins: I was prompted to intervene by the extraordinary remarks of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen). He said that the Conservatives never went in for retrospective legislation. He must be unaware of the Immigration Act, for instance. He also said that the Conservatives did not represent a section of the community, implying that they represented the whole community.
      In fact, the history of the Conservative Party, and indeed of the Liberal Party, is that they have represented a small section of the community—namely, the employer class. Because the working classes were not represented by either of the main parties, the Labour Party came into being. That is its raison d'être. The combination laws have been mentioned, and the nineteenth century is full of examples of both the main parties trying to destroy the unions. There is one exception. Disraeli found it necessary to repeal a part of Gladstone's Act which had made peaceful picketing impossible.
      The Conservative Party has suffered from that split mind ever since. It has an inner ego full of hatred for the working classes. The Labour Party, because it represents the unions and they represent the majority of the community, in fact represents the community at large.
      Mr. Robert Redmond: First, am I not right in thinking that there are 25 million people employed in this country but that only 10 million are members of affiliated unions? Second, how can someone like me represent a constituency like mine without a large number of solid working-class votes behind me?
      Mr. Atkins: The answer to the second question is that that was Disraeli's tactic. After the workers had been given the vote, especially in the towns and later in the countryside, he knew that the Conservatives could never get power unless they fooled the workers. These conflicting attitudes in the Tory Party have been present ever since.
      8.15 p.m.
      On the first point, it is true, to the delight of some Conservative Members,
      576
      that not all workers are in unions. There are various reasons for that and it does not mean that they are against unions. So many employments do not give an opportunity for union membership. But unionists, their families and their friends represent the great mass of the community. That is why ours is a truly democratic party.
      Mr. Michael Marshall: Will the hon. Gentleman also accept that all our estimates show that a third of the 9 million to 10 million trade unionists have to vote Conservative for us to get the kind of vote we get? He cannot say that no unionists support us.
      Mr. Atkins: I have the greatest admiration for the ability of Disraeli and for the Conservatives ever since to deceive that section of the electorate.
      Mr. Carol Mather: Is the hon. Gentleman not saying that many of the people on whom he depends for support, the working classes, are foolish?
      Mr. Atkins: I am not saying that they are foolish; I am saying that the Tories are very cunning. They have had the advantage of education, public schools and the rest. I am anxious for my own people to get similar advantages. That is one reason that I am in the Labour Party—[Interruption.] I was one of those boys who was able to take advantage of State education. Some of my colleagues have not had the same opportunities.
      The Conservative Party has not changed. When they brought in the Industrial Relations Act, they cloaked their intentions in all sorts of pretence about working for the community. They were supposed to be going to improve industrial relations—and we know what happened. One way in which they intended to do it was through tax remissions if unions registered. It was an effort to make the unions commit suicide. It would have weakened them back to their pre-1875 position—[HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense".] There is fury on the other side of the Committee, like the fury of blackmailers who have lost their means to blackmail.
      The Labour Government will get rid of this pernicious imposition which should never have been placed on the unions. Typical of the true Tory attitude to the

      577
      unions is what happened when the employers, in their wisdom, decided to pay the fine imposed on a union by the National Industrial Relations Court. They took that decision for the sake of the country and of their own profits. The Tory Party in Parliament does not even present the employers sensibly and wisely. By creating an atmosphere of bad industrial relations, they are hurting not only the country but the men they represent.
      This is another example. For a mere £10 million they are trying once again to poison industrial relations at enormous cost to the country. They themselves speak about the importance of industrial relations. But one thing they always forget is that industrial relations are human relations. Until one starts treating working people like human beings, one will never have a good relationship with them.
      Mr. Adley: I should like, first, to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Oxon (Mr. Hurd) on a very constructive contribution to the debate. I echo something that he said, that is, that when I am visited by trade unionists, as I frequently am at my surgeries, they do not come complaining about the Industrial Relations Act. As the Secretary of State for Employment knows very well, many of my constituents work on building Concorde and are very concerned about that. Some of them visited the right hon. Gentleman recently, and I accompanied them. Therefore, it is totally false for anyone to suggest that the rather sterile arguments that we have so often back and forth across the Chamber represent the views of millions of trade unionists in this country. A very small number of them are actively interested in the political arguments that we spend so much time discussing.
      In opening the debate, the Chancellor of the Exchequer made what for him was a very poor speech. He has an extremely high intellect. One can only assume that his failure to spend any time discussing the merits of new Clause 4, and the time that he spent in political banter, was an indication that a man with a mind as sharp as his could find so little to say about the clause, that he had to indulge in party-political bluster.
      My right hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton (Mr. Carr) won the argument absolutely hands down. Certainly if I
      578
      needed any persuading as to how to vote at the end of a debate, it has been provided and I shall vote with my right hon. Friend.
      It is perhaps prophetic that we are discussing new Clause 4. After listening to the Chancellor, I rushed to the Library and perused Keesings Contemporary Archives. I am glad that the Secretary of State for Employment is on the Government Front Bench at present, because I want to take him back to Clause IV and the Labour Party Conference of 1959. From that conference stem so many of the wrangles within the Labour Party which have resulted in the present situation, the wrangles which have resulted in that faction of the Labour Party which the right hon. Gentleman has represented gaining ascendancy at present.
      If I may briefly quote from the report on the debate at the Blackpool conference and the speech made by Mr. Gaitskell on the nationalisation controversy, Keesing says
      "Strongly contrasting views on this subject were expressed, ranging from demands that the party should not compromise on the question of public ownership (voiced inter alias by Mrs. Castle, Mr. Michael Foot, Mr. Frank Cousins…) to assertions by MPs (among them Mr. Pannell, secretary of the trade union group of Labour MPs) that nationalisation had lost the party large numbers of votes, especially in the new housing estates."
      Nothing much has changed about that. Mr. Gaitskell went on to say that nationalisation "was not the be-all and end-all" of Labour policy.
      Mr. Ted Leadbitter: I am trying to follow, with considerable interest although not too much energy, what the hon. Gentleman is saying. What has it to do with new Clause 4? Unless the hon. Gentleman tries to explain it to me, I shall get him wrong.
      Mr. Adley: It has as much to do with new Clause 4 as the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The point I wish to make is simply that we are faced with a new clause on the Finance Bill at the behest of a Labour Government who are represented now by that faction of the Labour Party which lost the argument on Clause Four in 1959. There has been a turn-around. The point is that we are faced with this new Clause 4 on this occasion because although Mr.

      579
      Gaitskell won then, he and his followers, the social-democratic section of the Labour Party, have lost at present. That answers the point made by the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Leadbitter).
      Mr. Bernard Conlan: Is not the hon. Gentleman getting confused between two separate and distinct Clause 4s? Tonight we are discussing new Clause 4 of the Finance Bill, but the speech that he is making now he should be making tomorrow.
      Mr. Adley: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I am glad to be able to assure the Committee that I shall not seek to make the same speech or any speech tomorrow. I am deliberately confusing the two Clause 4s. But it is prophetic that this clause was introduced by the Chancellor as new Clause 4.
      Mr. Terence Higgins: There are three Clause 4s. Clause 4 of the present Finance Bill is related to VAT and television rentals, on which the Government were defeated the other night in Standing Committee.
      The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Harold Gurden): It would help the Committee if we discussed new Clause 4.
      Mr. Adley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins). I hope that tonight will be third-time lucky for the country.
      The whole political atmosphere at present is dominated, as it has been for some time, by the defeat—and the fear—of the social-democratic section of the Labour Party by the Left-wing of the Labour Party. The way in which the present Secretary of State for Education and Science was reviled by many of his colleagues in the previous Parliament was something which many of us who were Members during that Parliament will not forget very quickly.
      Returning to the speech made by the Chancellor this afternoon, there was a sedentary intervention from the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner)—who is in his place, as assiduous as ever. I think that I am not misquoting him when I say that he called out to his right hon. Friend, "Ah, yes, but there have been two elections since then." The hon. Gentleman nods assent, for which I am grateful. He was referring to the
      580
      change that had taken place in the view of the Labour Party since "In Place of Strife" in 1969 and the situation which pertains today.
      My right hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton pointed out that the Conservative Party had accepted that part of Donovan in 1969 and that part of "In Place of Strife", and that we would have agreed had the then Labour Government had the courage to go ahead with that piece of legislation. That is still the position of the Conservative Party. As the hon. Member for Bolsover pointed out, it is the Labour Party which has changed since then because of the takeover by the Left.
      What I find infinitely depressing is that almost everywhere one looks there are manifestations of this take-over. The phrase "worker participation" has become the phrase "worker control". In Germany they have the two-tier board system which allows the election from the shop floor of workers to a place on the board. That is not the proposal which the Labour Party seems to be putting forward now. The Labour Party is proposing nominations from union headquarters or from Transport House, and it seems likely that those nominations will include people who do not even work for the company concerned. That is, perhaps a detail—but it is a significant detail.
      I fear that what we may be going through at present is the last chance for responsible trade unionists in this country to have a fair say in the way in which their unions operate. The words of a leading trade unionist in the West Country will live with me for ever. I do not think I misquote his meaning when I say that what he said to me privately was "Any Government who remove the Industrial Relations Act totally from the statute book are kissing goodbye to responsible trade unionism". That same chap 48 hours later got up on a platform to denounce the Industrial Relations Act.
      8.30 p.m.
      Mr. Clemitson: I am interested in this phrase "responsible trade union" or "responsible trade unionist". Would the hon. Member care to define what he means by it? It seems to me he is using it in terms of a unionist who agrees with the 1971 Act.
      Mr. Adley: By "responsible trade union" I mean a trade union which takes into consideration the views of all its members and takes into consideration the national interest.
      Today a number of hon. Members have accused the previous Conservative Government of deliberately seeking confrontation. I submit that the confrontation to which they refer was the same confrontation which Winston Churchill felt that the British people could offer to another overweening power in September 1939. There comes a time in the affairs of men when, however unpleasant confrontation may appear to be, confrontation is better than subjugation. This afternoon the Chancellor of the Exchequer sought to paint the Conservative Party as anti-unionist. That is absolute nonsense. We are, however, opposed to those who seek deliberately to disrupt our society, and the point was made so eloquently by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Oxon from his own experience.
      I object very strongly to the methods and the motives which lie behind this new clause, a clause retrospectively paying back money to people who are in a position to pull the purse strings of the Labour Party.
      I want now briefly to deal with another point which has been made by a number of hon. Members today—the continuing saga of the unions versus big business. I am not going to indulge in a blind defence of big business. The one point I want to make is this: I cannot think of one hon. Member on either side of the House—certainly not among my hon. Friends—against whom a finger could be pointed and of whom a company could say, "We sponsored that man to be a Member of Parliament and if that Member of Parliament does not do what we want then at the next general election when that Member of Parliament is again a parliamentary candidate we shall see he does not get selected for the constituency."
      Mr. Conlan: I feel that on reflection the hon. Member may regret what he has just said because many of us are Members sponsored by trade unions and not one of us—and there are 130—would accept a diktat of a trade union. Each and every single one of us, trade union-
      582
      sponsored or otherwise, represents his constituents and nobody else.
      Mr. Adley: I am delighted to hear that, but I was not aware that I had said anything about sponsored trade union Members. I had not gone on to make any remarks about that. What I said was that I am not aware of any Conservative Member or any Member sponsored by big business, and who could have his seat withdrawn. I have nothing whatsoever to add to what the hon. Member has just said because I am more than happy to accept what he said as a fact. He seemed to assume that I was about to make some sort of accusation. So be it. He has made his point, and I am sure that it will stand, and that all those 130 Members will continue to sleep as easily in the future as they do now.
      I think that this is a rotten new clause because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West said, it is likely to undermine the sovereignty of Parliament, if people outside the House can put pressure on the Government to get them to introduce retrospective legislation. The principle is crystal clear, and anybody who takes an interest in this subject and who will read tomorrow the speeches of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and of my right hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton will be able to judge for himself who is putting forward the national interest.
      It is against the national interest for the clause to be carried and if it is carried the effect upon Parliament, the will of Parliament and the rule of law in Britain will be far more insidious than any bombs the IRA may care to place in this building.
      Mr. Leadbitter: The hon. Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley) attempted to speak, like other hon. Members, sincerely on a matter on which he feels genuine concern. It is slightly irrelevant, however, with 21 out of a possible 635 Members present to begin to talk about the will of Parliament and loss of sovereignty in this current situation. I am sure that the more reasonable Conservative Members would agree with that if they were asked privately. I understand that the Opposition Front Bench feel that it was regrettable that this money should have

      583
      been taken from the trade union movement. They did not envisage the technical and legal situation which has developed and which has involved the loss of the provident funds by the unions. I would be the last person to suggest that the Opposition saw this situation coming and deliberately set out to cause it to happen.
      Hon. Members generally have a high regard for the institutions of this country, and the trade union movement, whether the Conservatives like it or not, is an important institution. It is only right, therefore, to have, in the vernacular of my part of the world, "fair do's". The money was taken from the trade unions unintentionally, and it is now time to consider in a reasonable manner and with no strings attached how to achieve the previous Government's original intention. The clause is the only way by which the money can be returned to the trade union movement. We are not here dealing with political funds. We are not concerned with whether the trade union movement has been wise or unwise. We are dealing with a matter in which it is generally agreed that if we could go back to square one and start again we would ensure that the provident funds of the unions were not endangered.
      Some Conservative Members, particularly back benchers who take a different line from their Front Bench, have made the mistake of trying to inject a belligerent element into the situation. Some have been unreasonably aggressive, which is not what we require in a respectable Finance Bill Committee in the Chamber. But I do not want to react by saying "You have all been mistaken, and you should not do it." What I am saying is that in a free Parliament we should be free to say what we want, and say it as vehemently as we can, whilst acknowledging that when another hon. Member seeks to calm the waters, which can be stirred to violence so easily here, we should respond by saying "Perhaps this is the best approach." When we want to redress a wrong, it is not right to indulge in peripherical arguments about whether the trade union movement is disruptive.
      Not long ago some Conservative Members mistakenly sought to put to the country the argument about who runs Britain—the Government or the trade
      584
      union movement. Those of us who are wiser said "We have heard that story before, and the fair-mindedness of the British people as a whole will take it for what it is worth." I remind those who raised that argument that there is a corollary. A few days ago the President of the CBI was telling an elected British Government exactly what to do. I am pleased to say that none of us on this side of the Committee has made the mistaken observation that one could cry "Who rules the country—the CBI or the elected Government?"
      There is little to be gained from introducing areas of animosity into a serious debate. I respect the hon. Member for Christchurch and Lymington for talking about the will of Parliament and the sovereignty of the House. There is no point in taking that away from an hon. Member. But it must be understood that the House is not itself democracy. It is the end product of a democratic process in which the trade union movement, the CBI and everything else that makes up this great nation play a part. It behoves us to speak with a degree of humility rather than arrogance about the true situation.
      The Conservative Members, who have led the country to believe that tonight there is a great issue, that they will show as an Opposition that at last there are teeth in their fight against the elected Government, have a duty to tell the nation that the fight will be sincerely and genuinely fought, when it comes, on issues that really matter to the nation. This is not such an issue. I can forecast what will happen when the vote takes place. Already the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition has been in the Chamber frowning. It seems that he is wondering what will happen. A lot has been said about this clause, and the national newspapers have carried headlines relating to it, but there are not enough hon. Members present to make up two football teams.
      Mr. Prior: Hon. Members are watching it.
      8.45 p.m.
      Mr. Leadbitter: Perhaps most hon. Members were watching it last night. This may be one of the rare occasions when the right hon. Gentleman is correct.

      585
      Having decided this issue it is important that credibility be restored in Parliament. None the less, I forecast that the Whips are working hard to see that certain hon. Members do not vote and that the Labour minority Government are upheld. That is the true position.
      I do not want to anger Conservative hon. Members, because they are all honourable men. I do not want to worry them too much, and I do not want to put too much energy into this matter. I merely wish to put to them a simple businesslike proposition. They claim a greater knowledge of such matters than most of my right hon. and hon. Friends. I am talking in terms of a fair deal. If, on the basis of a fair deal, we take something from a person or from an organisation when it is not our intention to do so, is it morally wrong when we realise the error of our ways, to correct the error?
      Conservative hon. Members do not want to get themselves into an awful tizzy about retrospective legislation. They do not want to call upon principles. We have all read our Machiavelli. Principles are often brought into play when there is little left in an argument. Principles are only passengers in the night. However, Conservative hon. Members want to bear in mind that some of my right hon. and hon. Friends can recall occasions when they have found retrospective legislation much to their liking. I remember on one occasion in the 1960s sitting in another place, which perhaps for the first time this century was full, and watching their lordships support retrospective legislation to give compensation to the Burmah Oil Company.
      Mr. Rooker: They are all shareholders.
      Mr. Leadbitter: Conservative hon. Members might be advised—and I say this gently—to knock it off.
      Mr. Ivan Lawrence: I hope that I shall not be accused of being unreasonably aggressive when I remind the Committee that the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Bagier) referred to credibility and said that this debate was all about credibility. I have heard some incredible things this evening by Labour Members. I remember my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Waddington) talking about the democracy of the trade union
      586
      movement, about which Labour Members are proud. He said that Mr. Scanlon had been elected by only 6 per cent. of the entire electorate. Knowledgeable hon. Members were first in some discord, but with a united cry they called out "Liar".
      Mr. Tomlinson: No.
      Mr. Lawrence: The incredible thing is that they do not appear to have been aware that that was just the position. I went to the Library and secured a cutting from The Times stating that Mr. Scanlon had been re-elected president by 76,063 votes—a vastly increased majority. The report pointed out that this retained for Mr. Scanlon the leadership of the union's 1,168,000 members. I do not seek to take away from Mr. Scanlon his right to represent and speak on behalf of the AUEW, even on a 6·3 per cent. poll, but it is difficult to support wholeheartedly the claim by hon. Members opposite that the wielding of his union's enormous power by Mr. Scanlon is the result of a democratic process.
      Mr. James Tinn: Can the hon. Gentleman assure us that there are larger turn-outs of shareholders for the election of company directors? Are shareholders more assiduous than trade unionists in attending meetings?
      Mr. Lawrence: The Conservative Party does not represent shareholders, and I do not know one single company which can bring this country to a standstill. The same cannot be said of some of the powerful unions. The hon. Gentleman's intervention was another of the odd and incredible things which have been said by hon. Members opposite in the debate. There have been others.
      The hon. Member for Sunderland, South, echoing other hon. Members, said that it was wrong of the Conservative Party to think that the way to peace was by having a "go", to dare to criticise Mr. Scanlon, to dare to criticise the unions, to launch an attack upon the sanctity of the trade union movement or any of its constituent parts.
      But the attitude that we should not dare to criticise or attack was the very attitude of appeasement found to be so wrong at the outbeak of the Second World War. People were saying in the 1930s "We must not rock the boat or criticise." The attitude was that we must not fight, and the result was war. Looking back to those

      587
      years, we are rather ashamed of the attitude of appeasement.
      Mr. Tomlinson: The hon. Gentleman is directing his approach against the wrong target. His attack should be concentrated on the confession of the right hon. Member for Carshalton (Mr. Carr). who said that the £10 million arose from a decision whose result he had not expected.
      Mr. Lawrence: I cannot speak for my right hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton (Mr. Carr), but criticism of his statement by hon. Members opposite conies a little strange to my ears. It is about the third oddest thing I have heard in the debate.
      If one is going to discipline one's child—I am not using a very good analogy because it is just off the cuff—one does not intend to hit him with a slipper. One's intention is that he should do the right thing, and it is with the greatest regret that later on, if he has not done the right thing, one chastises him with the slipper. It surely cannot be claimed that one chastises him with the slipper. It surely should apologise for the reason for chastisement.
      The Conservative Government went into office in 1970 with the clear mandate of the people to introduce an industrial relations Bill which would include registration. To make sure that as far as was reasonably possible registration was what happened—and some sort of stick had to be used apart from the carrot—certain consequences followed if the unions did not register. One consequence was that they were not immune from taxation. It cannot lie in the mouths of Labour Members, or even the unions, to say that these bodies, with their eyes open, having deliberately taken a step which was lawful, which had been laid down by Parliament, should now be able to turn round and say "What a shame. We want our money back."
      That is why we say that this issue is so important. It is yet another example of the Government turning back on the traditional respect which this country has always had for the rule of democracy and of law. We play by the rules and we do not change them when we come into office.
      588
      Another thing I found strange was the eloquent speech of the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin), who spoke at great length, in eulogistic terms, saying what a wonderful measure this was, how it safeguarded provident funds now being denied to the unions by wicked Tory legislation. He said that the measure would advance co-operation in industry, that it was a great measure, one that had been pondered long. It was important to him and his hon. Friends. I pause to ask: why, if that was so, was this measure not part of the Labour Party's programme in 1973? Why was it not part of the General Election manifesto of 1974? Why was it not part of the Gracious Speech and why was it not part of the original Bill?
      There is only one answer. It is obvious to the country, if not to Labour Members. We know it and the country knows it. This £10 million is part payment of the social contract, if such a thing exists. What we are concerned about is that there is no guarantee that the £10 million will not go down the drain. We have only to read our newspapers to see that the social contract is by no means the sort of instrument upon which any great reliance can be placed. I will not go into detail and explain why we have reasons for thinking that it will not last long. We have all seen the declarations of certain trade union leaders. I certainly hope that this contract will last.
      I find it incredible that Labour Members should believe that the public will think that it is a mere coincidence that 130 of them who are sponsored representatives, sent here partly by a process of choice in which the unions play a large part, should be taking the view that they do. It is not a matter of coincidence that people who come here on that basis should be unduly sympathetic towards the trade union cause. The public will not be able to understand how hon. Gentlemen can honestly believe that they can put across to the people that it is a matter of coincidence that 80 per cent. of the funds of the Labour Party are contributed by the unions, irrespective of whether this £10 million will be so used. This sum is a satisfaction, a payment, an earnest to the trade union movement, and in due course the movement will, it is hoped, pay out to support the Labour Party.
      Mr. Joseph Dean: Will the hon. Gentleman explain what happens to the massive donations made to the Conservative Party by private industry, sometimes without the acquiescence of shareholders?
      Mr. Lawrence: The hon. Gentleman will understand that I can talk only from my own experience. I have a mass of business enterprises in my constituency. I can assure him that there was only one substantial business enterprise there which dared to give any money to the Conservative Party.
      The Temporary Chairman: Order. That part of the hon. Gentleman's speech does not come within the new clause.
      9.0 p.m.
      Mr. Lawrence: I am obliged, Mr. Gurden, and I apologise.
      Right hon. and hon. Members opposite know full well that it was the reaction of the unions which broke the last Conservative Government, and it is the action of the unions which can break the present Government, too. The behaviour implicit in the clause will be partly construed as a justification for placating the unions, whether as a down payment or not. We have heard a hollow pretence from hon Members opposite to justify their support for the clause.
      I do not necessarily accept that all hon. Members opposite are in contempt of the law. I do not accept that every hon. Member opposite wants to undermine parliamentary democracy and the traditions of our legal system. Nevertheless, if there is a significant proportion of hon. Members opposite who do not believe that infringement of the rule of law is reflected by the action of the Clay Cross councillors, by the Secretary of State for Employment's attack on the judges and by the retrospective payment contained in the clause. I conclude that the pressure on them to pass this measure must be very great indeed. The stronger the pressure on hon. Members opposite, the more we on this side must be fearful.
      Mr. Tinn: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me?
      Mr. Lawrence: I have given way four times. I am not duty bound to give way any more.
      590
      The mightier the pressure, the more appalling is the predicament in which this great democracy of our finds itself.
      The hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West said that we on this side of the Committee were using the clause as a vehicle to attack the trade union movement. Nothing could be further from the truth. We are using it as a vehicle to attack the Labour Government for being weak, helpless, and the lackeys of the over-mighty unions. Right hon. and hon. Members opposite have said that, in government and now, we have been following a policy of confrontation. In my view, confrontation in defence of law and democracy is to be preferred to abject cringeing before brute force and political blackmail.
      I hope that the clause will be thoroughly defeated.
      Mr. Prior: I hope that the Committee will permit me to make a few short general comments about industrial relations and the attitude of my party and of the last Conservative Government to the trade unions and the part which they have to play in our economic and social affairs. The debate has ranged fairly wide, and I wish to deal with one or two of the points raised.
      It is self-evident that no party or group of individuals in a party can claim in recent years to have found the right balance between Government and unions, or unions and employers, or even unions and unions, or the people and unions. We should therefore approach this subject with a good deal of humility and open-mindedness. I intend to listen with care to the views of all who make suggestions, from wherever they may come. A solution to the problems of our industrial society is vital if Britain is to remain a prosperous and contented nation.
      However, I do not believe that there is anything to be gained by soft words, any more than there is by soft words in debate in this Committee. A degree of plain speaking will not be misinterpreted. The cut and thrust of debate is just as much part of the life of trade union leaders as it is part of the life of this Committee, and I do not think that we are more likely to reach a consensus or a solution to the problem of mealy-mouthed words than we are by plain speaking.

      591
      There are a number of facts which we all have to face. It is not self-evident that the unions are an underprivileged, downtrodden lot, unable to look after themselves and incapable of standing up for their rights against wicked employers. I do not think that any hon. Member who, for one reason or another, exaggerates the case for or against a given point of view improves it by wild exaggeration, some of which we have heard today from Government supporters.
      In truth, the trade unions have enormous power and strength. I want to quote some words written by a man who I do not suppose has ever voted Conservative in his life. He had this to say on the subject of trade unions a little while ago:
      "It is not easy for people of liberal-left sympathies to face up to the extent of the threat to a stable, democratic and just society posed by the power enjoyed by the unions. After all, we were all brought up on the history of the unions, from the Combination Acts onwards, seeing them as the struggling representatives of the oppressed underdog; it is not easy, then, to accept that this picture is now only a limited part of the whole truth. The unpalatable—and uneasy—prospect is that if we are to maintain and improve the kind of society which most people in this country appear to want, the power of the unions needs to be further curbed. The right to strike must, of course, be maintained. So must the right of workers' representatives to negotiate with management about working conditions, and, one might hope, to participate increasingly in management. But the present strength of ill-co-ordinated mass trade unions, which are far more concerned with maintaining the privileges of differentials than with the interests of the real underdogs, amounts to a threat which we all—and especially those of us of the Liberal-left—must face squarely."
      That was what Professor Alan Day wrote in a recent article.
      I am bound to say that I agree with him. I am prepared to accept that not everything can be improved by legislation any more than it can be put right without it. Somewhere and at some time soon we have to reach a middle way. In seeking for it, we must go for the maximum of co-operation and consultation, and on that we shall embark.
      It is against the background of one attempt to solve our industrial relations problems that we come to this debate.
      592
      There have been two main strands running through the debate. The first one was retrospection, to which I shall return later. The second was whether the tax could have been avoided—and the answer to that is plainly, "Yes". It could have been avoided either by registration or by means of a special register under the Industrial and Provident Societies Act 1965 or the Friendly Societies Act 1896.
      Let me take the Committee back to the debates about registration under the Industrial Relations Act. The Committee will recall that the Donovan Commission recommended that all trade unions should receive corporate status and be registered, and a majority of the commission recommended that the immunity for inducing breaches of contract should be restricted to registered trade unions and to those acting on their behalf.
      The Commission also recommended that certain requirements should attach to registration—in particular, that the rule books of trade unions should conform to certain conditions designed to
      "ensure better safeguards for individual members"
      before those unions could be registered.
      This concept of the use of a power to refuse registration to a trade union whose rules failed to meet certain standards was taken up by the former Labour Government. In "In Place of Strife" the principle is accepted that
      "it is essential that unions should be able, and be seen to be able, to conduct their business according to clear and comprehensive rules, and to deal fairly with any dispute between the union or its officers and the individual member."
      The Labour Government of that time accepted that unions should register, and that a condition of registration should be that
      "Unions will be required to have rules governing certain matters"
      and that
      "Refusal will lay a trade union open to a financial penalty by the Industrial Board."
      It was also accepted that
      "it is necessary that the administration of their rules should be subject to independent review."
      We built on that foundation. "In Place of Strife" remarked:
      "it is right and healthy in a democracy that any powerful body should be subject to outside scrutiny where abuse of its power can most harm the individual."

      593
      It is not an ignoble concept to
      "ensure better safeguards for individual members"
      of unions, as Donovan called it. It is not unreasonable that there should be registration. It was not unreasonable at the time the Bill was introduced that a concept recommended by Donovan, incorporated by the previous Labour Government, should be put into statutory form by the incoming Government which had made it a main plank of their election campaign.
      As time went on, and only as time went on, it became clear that a large number of unions would not register. We do not want to go into all the reasons why they decided not to register. Perhaps if we had had more assistance from hon. Members who only a few months before that were saying how essential it was that unions should register, we might as a nation have got over some of our problems.
      It was a decision that the unions were perfectly entitled to take—albeit, a great disappointment to hon. Members who now sit in Opposition and, I fancy, to a large number of hon. Members who sit on the Government side, and it was certainly a grave disappointment to the country as a whole.
      Had the unions registered, their funds would have been protected. By their not registering, provident funds became liable to tax.
      We have today been through the various periods when this matter was debated in the House of Commons and in the House of Lords. It was debated first on 10th February 1971 when my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe), the then Solicitor-General, stated that an organisation which was not registered under the Industrial Relations Act could not qualify as a friendly society in respect of its provident funds. The implication was that it could no longer secure tax relief on those funds.
      Following that, the then Opposition put down an amendment which sought to give effect to the concept of a special register. That my right hon. Friend the
      594
      Member for Carshalton (Mr. Carr), then Secretary of State, resisted, saying:
      "I resist these amendments only because they are not necessary"
      My right hon. Friend went on to argue that registration was a necessary condition for the provision of tax reliefs for provident funds, and that a union could secure this relief either by registration under the Industrial Relations Bill or by
      "hiving off its provident funds…into separate organisations, registering them as friendly societies and thereby achieving the present degree of registration."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd March 1971; Vol. 814, c. 3267.]
      The matter then went to the House of Lords where a debate was introduced by Lord Diamond who moved a similar amendment to that which had previously been moved in the House of Commons. His arguments are set out in columns 40 to 46 of Vol. 322. The upshot was that Lords Diamond and Drumalbyn and the Lord Chancellor undertook to consult about the question and the technical difficulties already identified by Opposition counsel.
      The final round of the debate occurred on 20th July when Lord Diamond introduced a new amendment to secure a special register and reiterated his arguments about the technical difficulty of securing the transfer of union provident funds to friendly society status, and the Lord Chancellor replied to him. He rejected the opinion submitted by Opposition counsel, which he had examined, and he charged that the difficulties alleged by Lord Diamond were essentially "administrative" and not legal or constitutional.
      When Lord Diamond came to sum in reply to the Lord Chancellor, he said:
      "There must be…some cases where the difficulties would be insuperable, and therefore it is right, in those cases where they cannot get over these difficulties, that they should be entitled to the same tax treatment as promised to them, if they can establish to any reasonable independent person…that they have taken all reasonable steps to try and get this tax treatment and have not succeeded in doing so."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 20th July 1971; Vol. 322, c. 922.]
      I ask the Committee to pay attention to the words "all reasonable steps" and
      "establish to any reasonable independent person''.

      595
      What would one expect to happen next on these occasions? Great unions had funds at risk. Funds which we heard the Chancellor of the Exchequer describe today as being for widows, orphans and under-privileged sections of our society were at risk. Would one not have been reasonable in expecting that a great union with all the legal power at its command, would take the most strenuous steps to make certain that no stone was left unturned to render those funds not liable to tax? Is that not a reasonable supposition for any unbiased person to make on this occasion?
      All the legal brains in the country were at the disposal of the unions. They could have made constant attendance on my right hon Friend if they had wished to do so. It seems inconceivable to me that, given all the circumstances of the case, not once in the whole period from that time onwards until we left office did anyone approach my right hon. Friends and put this case to them. In all the talks which the Prime Minister of the day had with the unions, not once was this ever made the subject of a strong challenge. One is therefore bound to be led to believe that the unions were not serious in what they were saying.
      Again, what could the unions have done? If they were unhappy about the difficulties of applying to register as a friendly society—and they had the assurance from my right hon. Friend that if there were insurmountable difficulties he would put the matter right—they could have taken the case to the Registrar of Friendly Societies, and if the Registrar had refused to register—which he might have done—they had the option of going to the High Court or of returning to my right hon. Friend.
      They did not do so. I do not know whether they ever made inquiries of the Registrar of Friendly Societies. I hope they did, but I rather suspect that they did not, and so, as the right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) said, there is no single example of a union which had tried to register its provident funds separately so that they would not be caught by the provisions of non-registration generally. There was not one union which tried that and proved that it had failed.
      596
      The Chancellor said today that the legal advice was against that course. He based his case on insuperability. But how can the Chancellor know that on legal grounds it cannot be done if it has never been tested? That must leave any reasonable person to the suspicion that the unions were not trying and that it suited them better to build up a case against the dreaded Act. Like good negotiators, they worked it out and got their sums right, and it is paying a handsome dividend in getting the Act repealed.
      I do not suppose that they ever dreamed that they would get the Act repealed and that some suckers would come along and offer them £10 million into the bargain. Like all trade unionists, they try for more, but they do not always get it, except from the right hon. Gentleman.
      I turn now to the question of retrospection. The Prime Minister said at the USDAW conference at Margate in April that
      "no one likes retrospective legislation but it is justifiable when it is introduced to right a wrong which it was never intended should be inflicted."
      The only justification we have had until today was that given by the Prime Minister. This afternoon the Secretary of State made remarks about where there is a will there is a way and he asked, "We all want to do it, so why not get on with it?" I do not know that that is a constitutional practice which we ought to adopt. Whatever the merits of that principle as a justification of retrospective legislation, it is obvious that Parliament must be satisfied that the principle applies satisfactorily to the case in question.
      We do not think that it applies in this case as justification for retrospective action. It was not the intention of the previous Government that unregistered unions should continue to enjoy tax reliefs come what may. It was our intention that they should be able to secure those reliefs by taking action, either to register under the Industrial Relations Act, or to transform their provident funds into friendly societies. If a union failed to take either course it would inevitably forfeit its reliefs, but that would not be a wrong inflicted upon it by the Government. Rather, it would be a loss which it had chosen for its own reasons to incur.

      597
      If there were any evidence that unregistered trade unions had tried to hive off provident funds as suggested and that they had met with insuperable legal and constitutional difficulties, there would be a case for the view that an intended wrong had been inflicted.
      Our amendment to the 1971 Finance Act regarding the provisional register concerned the principle of retrospection in such a case. But no evidence of such difficulties has been presented and the Government have therefore failed to make out their case for retrospective legislation.
      I do not wish to lead the Committee into a great debate about the rule of law and how that principle is or may be affected by recent developments, but there is a danger that those who feel that the talk of a present danger to the rule of law is exaggerated may, because of that feeling, be led to deprecate the importance of that principle and the duty of the Committee to safeguard it.
      Both sides of the Committee are rightly suspicious of retrospective legislation. There are two types of restrospective legislation. There is that which retrospectively destroys claims which were lawful when made and that which retrospectively allows claims which were not previously lawful. It is clearly objectionable that Parliament should intervene retrospectively to create or destroy retrospectively the claims of one subject on another and it is hard to justify any retrospective action to destroy lawful claims of a subject upon the Government. My hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Hordern) mentioned the Burmah Oil case. In that case, retrospective action by Parliament destroyed the lawful claims of a subject upon the Government. In this case, the Government are making a backdated grant, they say, to certain deserving organisations.
      I do not wish to press the objection that £10 million of public money can be given to one class of subjects only if it is taken from another class. My hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Mitchell) drew attention to the other ways in which it could be spent. But I am entitled to remind hon. Members that the Donovan Commission and "In Place of Strife" adopted the concept of the refusal of registration to a union whose rules failed to meet certain standards. That was the concept underlying the registra
      598
      tion provisions of the Industrial Relations Act and it has imposed new responsibilities upon unions. All we did was accept what was thought desirable by a Royal Commission, a Labour Government and a Conservative Government.
      In the course of its legislative activities, Parliament imposes many novel responsibilities and obligations upon individuals and groups—especially when it is Labour legislation. However, it is our tradition that, when those obligations and responsibilities have been imposed by lawful process, we accept them and their consequences even when we hope that in due course they will be removed. By the conventions of our constitution, we are entitled to hope that legislation that we oppose will be repealed in future, but we are not entitled to hope that such appeal will be retrospective, securing us from the past consequences of democratic legislation.
      Nowadays, when new taxation is imposed, particularly by a Labour Government, how can we hope to proceed if we once accept the principle that taxes lawfully imposed by one Government may be paid back retrospectively by a future Government? How can we proceed if powerful sectional groups simply refuse to consent to legislation in the confident expectation that a future Government will retrospectively relieve them of the consequences of their actions?
      I have sought to show that it was not necessary for the funds to be taxed and it would be a breach of an important principle if retrospection were allowed. So why did the Government take this step? There can be only one proper explanation for the Government seeking to justify this repayment of tax. It has nothing to do with the justifications that the Chancellor put forward. He was not very certain of his ground. He seemed to be getting ready for the hustings rather than concerning himself with the argument.
      The real reason is simply that the unions have an arm-lock on this Government. In a political debate, the Government have given way to the unions—[Interruption.] Hon. Members should not get excited; that is what most of them wanted anyway. The price on this occasion is £10 million—not high in terms of cash, although one or two of us could

      599
      think of better uses for it. It is in a much more fundamental way that this price should not be paid.
      9.30 p.m.
      This rebate undermines the law. It is clear that the unions made no real attempt to insulate their provident funds. It is equally clear that they were reconciled to these funds being taxed so that they could build up resentment against an Act which they did not like.
      They are perfectly entitled to take that point of view, however unreasonable it may seem. What no Government are entitled to do is to say that because the unions decided to boycott the Act and not to register, they should now be compensated retrospectively for the consequences of such a defiance. This is to bring our law into further disrepute. It undermines the authority of Parliament and it gives comfort to those who seek to destroy our way of life.
      There is a growing belief in society that the law can be defied with impugnity. In Opposition, the Labour Party was not always forthcoming in its defence of the law, but the country had a right to expect that the Labour Party would be more forthcoming once Labour Members became the Government. No excuse made by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor this afternoon, no great feats of oratory, which mean precious little, by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Employment when he winds up the debate, can excuse what they have done. The social compact, the economic situation or the Industrial Relations Act do not justify this action that the clause would permit. I invite all those who believe in upholding the law and who are against retrospective legislation to join me tonight in rejecting it.
      Mr. Foot: The right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) started his speech with some general comments on industrial relations, and he concluded with some comments on what he considers to be the constitutional issues involved in the matter that we have been debating. Clearly I have no complaint on those scores. I may follow him in some of those matters, although I wish to direct most of my remarks, if I can, to the precise question that we are debating. But I say to the right hon. Gentleman that
      600
      he made one obvious error, at any rate—the others I hope to reveal later. If he thinks that Professor Alan Day is a Left-wing publicist, I must be the newly-appointed Archbishop of Canterbury. Despite the curious elevations I have had in recent times, I do not think that that has actually occurred.
      However, I turn back to the speech of the right hon. Member for Carshalton (Mr. Carr). I shall come, I trust, to the remarks of the right hon. Member for Lowestoft in a few minutes' time. I come now to the right hon. Member for Carshalton and the note of sweet reason which he used to present the whole of his case. That naturally suits my temperament much better than the controversial tone of the right hon. Member for Lowestoft. It is on that basis that I should prefer to discuss the matter.
      Despite differences on this subject, those who have listened to this debate—I have listened to practically every sentence that has been uttered in it—those who have been here all the time, will know that, despite controversial matters, there has been one question and one central point on which we have been entirely agreed. It was underlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mr. Tomlinson) extremely effectively in his speech. There is one matter that is central to the whole argument and on which there is not the slightest difference between myself and the right hon. Member for Carshalton and, as we understand it, if they agree with him, all his followers. That is that the money that we are discussing, the £10 million or whatever the precise figure may be, is money which on their reckoning, on their calculations and on their desires and policies should never have been withdrawn from the trade unions. One way or another, whosoever's fault it may have been, we will discuss in a moment.
      The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carshalton has not disputed this proposition. I am trying to establish what he said, and I think that there is no doubt what he said. He underlined that according to his view this money should never have been been withdrawn. [HON. MEMBERS: "Need not"] Need never have been withdrawn. Right. Therefore, their policy was, their intention was, that the money should have stayed with the trade unions. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] That

      601
      was the meaning, the whole meaning, of what the right hon. Gentleman said.
      Mr. Robert Carr: Could I just state to the right hon. Gentleman our position? Our position is that if there was the will there was the way for the trade unions not to pay.
      Mr. Foot: I am coming to that. I promise the right hon. Gentleman that, if I am permitted, I will come to his argument. I am not seeking to trap him in any way. I am seeking, for the benefit of hon. Members not all of whom have been here throughout the day, to establish the proposition on which we are all agreed, and that is that their intention and their desire was that the money should have stayed with the trade unions.
      Hon. Members: No.
      Mr. Robert Carr: The point was that there was no need for the trade unions to pay if they did not wish to do so.
      Mr. Foot: I understand. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman appreciates that it is not possible for me to present all my arguments in one sentence.
      I have tried to establish the common premises, and any one who has listened to this debate, any one who has studied the debate which took place on these matters in 1971, would concur in the view I have stated—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—that the central part of the right hon. Gentleman's argument has been that he never wanted this £10 million taken away from the unions. He said it in the debate. If that was not the case the right hon. Gentleman would have been guilty of gross deception, and we are not accusing him of that.
      The right hon. Gentleman goes on to say that in certain circumstances he would have been prepared to agree to retrospection to deal with this matter, and indeed, there was an element of retrospection, as the right hon. Gentleman acknowledges, in the fact that the money was not collected in the first year. [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman is nodding. Hon. Gentlemen way back of him cannot see. The right hon. Gentleman also admitted and acknowledged very fairly this afternoon that there were occasions—this might have been one of them—in which retrospection to which he had already agreed, in this matter
      602
      might have been extended if the case had been satisfactory. He agrees to that.
      I am coming to the point of both right hon. Gentlemen who have argued—it has been the central part of their argument, to which I am seeking to reply, and it touches on the main argument put by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Liberal Party—that their charge is that the trade unions did not deal properly with the issue, that they had alternatives which they should have taken. [HON. MEMBERS: "Could have taken."] This is the argument I am now trying to rebut.
      We need not spend a great deal of time arguing about registration, as the right hon. Member for Carshalton acknowledges. He must not claim that the form of registration proposed in the Donovan Report or in "In Place of Strife" was in any sense the same form of registration as that in the 1971 Act. [HON. MEMBERS: "That is not the point."] It may not be the point but it touches upon the point because one of the reasons why the trade unions exercised the right they had under the 1971 Act, to refuse to register, was that the form of registration was far fiercer and more severe and rigid than anything contemplated by Donovan.
      Let us come to the second alternative since we do not have to deal further with the first. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?") Let us come to this second—[Interruption.] I am trying to answer the argument—[Interruption.] Let us come to the second argument which the right hon. Gentleman put forward, that the unions should have adopted the method—[HON. MEMBERS: "Could have."]—could and should have adopted the method of seeking to hive off their friendly society operation from their trade union operation. This has been the central argument.
      The right hon. Member for Lowestoft says that the unions never took proper precautions, that they were most negligent in dealing with this matter, and that their approach to it was insufficient and unsatisfactory. Perhaps I may describe what they did so that people may judge whether that is the case. The right hon. Gentleman accuses them of being careless in the use of their funds.
      Mr. Barney Hayhoe: Deliberately so.
      Mr. Foot: The right hon. Gentleman knows better than almost anyone what happened during the passage of the 1971 Bill. The unions had very serious discussions on these matters. They had talks, and they consulted, among others, the two unions which had previously adopted the method the right hon. Gentleman was advocating. NALGO and the NUT were the unions in question, and the other unions consulted them to see whether they, too, could adopt the same method. They also took legal advice on the subject. I have the legal information here.
      The right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) said he wanted some indication of the legal position and the view of the trade unions about the advice they received from the Government at that time. The conclusion was that the friendly society solution would secure fairly comprehensive tax protection but would create severe administrative difficulties, in particular:

      "1. The friendly society would have to be formed by the members and not by the union as such and be completely separate from the union and controlled separately.

      2. Contributions would have to be separately collected and accounted for. They might be collected at the same time as union subscriptions.

      3. Unless every existing member and beneficiary agreed to the transfer of their accrued rights to the new society the union would still have a commitment to provide benefits to them as their accrued rights would have to be assured.

      4. Any payment of union funds into the friendly society for the purpose of providing or supplementing benefits (as can now happen between union funds where the provident fund is not actuarily based) would be irrevocable."

      Their conclusion, which the unions sent to their members, seems to be unavoidable. It was that neither of these solutions, the other one being that suggested by the right hon. Gentleman, would provide a satisfactory means of securing tax exemption. They added:
      "It is, however possible that one or two unions might find the friendly society solution practicable in their own circumstances."
      That was the advice which the General Council gave to its members in July 1971.
      9.45 p.m.
      Sir Derek Walker-Smith: Turning for a moment
      604
      from the abstract to the specific, can the right hon. Gentleman say how many unions actually tried to put that solution into practice?
      Mr. Foot: I am saying that two unions made an approach following the circular. The General Council said in the circular that it thought a few unions might do so. Two unions made an approach to the Registrar of Friendly Societies, and the answer they received was very much along the lines of the answer the trade unions collectively had had. That was the situation then, but the right hon. Gentleman said that there was no attempt by anyone to put these matters right or to present the case to the Government of the day, that there was no strong challenge to the Government of the day on the subject.
      Mr. Prior: Does not the right hon. Gentleman exactly make the point I was making? Does he not realise that this is the first time we have ever heard that there were two unions out of all the unions which actually took the trouble to go to the Registrar, and even after that none of them returned to my right hon. Friend?
      Mr. Foot: The right hon. Gentleman says further that there was never any strong challenge, that nobody made representations about it. That is absolutely untrue. Some of my hon. Friends moved a clause as an amendment to last year's Finance Bill. The Minister who replied to that debate, the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Nott) said:
      "I realise that there are practicable difficulties in some cases in that for these purposes provident funds have to be alienated from the main union funds".
      That is quite different from what the right hon. Gentleman said. I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mr. Walden), then the Member for Birmingham, All Saints, who moved the amendment, said that his union had run into this difficulty, as indeed it had. The hon. Member for St. Ives continued:
      "I am, therefore, aware that what I am now suggesting cannot apply or appears not to apply in every case."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th July 1973; Vol. 859, c. 1425.]
      We have just been told by the right hon. Gentleman that the Conservative Government had no idea of the difficulties, that

      605
      no representations were made to them. Nothing of the sort—the representations were made here on the Floor of the House, the proper place to make them.
      The right hon. Gentleman also says that the TUC never made the representations. That is exactly what it did in the confabulations it had with the previous Government at Downing Street and elsewhere. As my hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer revealed in the debate earlier today, at the end of last year or the beginning of this year it went again to Downing Street. When Conservative Members say that it did not make any representations for retrospective action at these times, that is not the case as we understand it. In the Economic Review published by the TUC only a few months ago it reported that it had made representations to the previous Government. It referred in that document to the fact that it had had retrospective legislation to deal with the matter for one year and was asking that it should be applied to other years.
      Therefore, the whole of the fabric of the right hon. Gentleman's argument about the unions having been negligent or backward in raising the issue collapses to the ground. Why should it be said that there is anything improper in introducing the new clause?
      Mr. Waddington: Much of the right hon. Gentleman's argument has been directed to the proposition that the unions were anxious to protect their provident funds. Will he answer the important question that has been posed today—namely, how are we to know if the clause is carried, that the £10 million will be used for provident purposes?
      Mr. Foot: The money will go back to the places from which it should never have been taken. The Opposition were in favour of leaving this money in the coffers of the trade unions a few years ago—at least, that is the only reputable defence that they can put forward. If the policy of Conservative hon. Members is to be represented by the spleen of Conservative back benchers, they are then faced with a different proposition. However, the claim from the Opposition Front Bench is that the previous Government were dealing fairly with this matter and trying to deal with it in the most mild and moderate manner.
      606
      I now turn to retrospection in a different form—
      Mr. Thorpe: Is the right hon. Gentleman, in putting to the Committee that two trade unions sought to hive off their provident funds and were told that it would be administratively difficult, basing his case on those two exclusive applications?
      Mr. Foot: It seems that the right hon. Gentleman has not attempted to follow the argument. My case is based not only on those two claims but on the whole argument that has surrounded this matter ever since it was mooted by Conservative hon. Members that they were going to take action which implied that the money might be taken away.
      The right hon. Member for Lowestoft referred to the debate in another place. I acknowledge that that debate was probably the most extensive discussion of the whole matter that has taken place. The right hon. Gentleman knows very well that my noble Friend Lord Diamond took one view and the previous Lord Chancel-lord took another. He may say that he wants to side with the Lord Chancellor but on financial matters and tax matters I would think that Lord Diamond is probably a better guide. These matters involve not only legal but financial considerations and, as the right hon. Gentleman has said, there are also involved some political matters—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh".] Yes, fair treatment for people who subscribe to their trade unions. That is a political matter. We now have a Government who are prepared to stand up for those people.
      If the previous Government were so eager to be fair in 1971 as they now pretend, and if there was the balance between the two different legal opinions that is now suggested, why did the previous Government not take the course which we have taken to ensure that the funds stayed where they have said they should always have stayed? That is action which could have been taken and that is the action which we are taking in the clause. As we are carrying out the good intentions of the previous Government as the right hon. Gentleman declared them, we should have had a vote of thanks and not dissention.
      I suppose that we must look for other excuses. I have said that political matters were involved. We must remember that

      607
      the decision to have a debate on this matter was taken a few weeks ago in the middle, according to the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, of the phoney war. Hence this phoney attack by the Opposition.
      Mr. Robert Carr: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us why not one single union came to me or my two successors to ask us to honour the pledge that we had made?
      Mr. Foot: I will tell the right hon. Gentleman why. It was lack of confidence in him and his Government. Why should the unions go to the right hon. Gentleman for fair play? They did not get fair play from him in 1971. They did not get it in the debates in Parliament. He has not given them fair play today. If the right hon. Gentleman had any courage, he would have repudiated the spleen of his back benchers in this debate.
      If the right hon. Gentleman will not learn from me about retrospection and fair play for all the people of this country, perhape he will take it from that leading article in The Times which has already been quoted. It is on the tender point of retrospection, about which the Opposition claim to be so sensitive. It says:
      "There remains the element of retrospection. Parliament is right always to be wary of retrospective legislation;—
      I agree—
      "and it would have sufficed in this case to change the law with effect from this financial year. But if it is conceded that the income
      from funds which deserve to have charitable status were made liable to tax either by inadvertence or upon false principles, then it cannot be very wrong to correct the error with effect from the time at which the error was committed."
      The question is: was it inadvertence which led to this problem? Or was it on the basis of false principles and a false prospectus? The members of the Conservative Government responsible are either fools or crooks, and I leave it to the Committee to decide which. I had thought that it was the folly of the right hon. Member for Carshalton which led him into this course. But I had hoped that he and his right hon. Friends had learnt from their experience of the 1971 Act and were ready to say that changes would be made. Indeed, that was what they were saying to the unions in the last few months of negotiation, but now, in this debate, we have learnt how false that claim was.
      The Labour Party is very eager to have the General Election that the right hon. Member for Lowestoft so nervously calls for. But we know that he will not lead the Conservative Party into battle with much spirit because he has had his tail between his legs ever since he came back from the marginal constituencies a few weeks ago. We are ready for the battle, and when we have it the people will say that we played fair towards the trade union movement.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 299, Noes 308.

      Division No. 45.]

      AYES

      [9.59 p.m.

      Abse, Leo

      Bradley, Tom

      Cox, Thomas

      Allaun, Frank

      Broughton, Sir Alfred

      Craigen. J. M. (G'gow, Ma yhill)

      Atcher, Peter (Warley, West)

      Brown, Bob (NewcastleuponTyne, W.)

      Cronin, John

      Armstrong, Ernest

      Brown, Hugh D. (Glasgow, Provan)

      Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

      Ashley, Jack

      Brown, Ronald (H'kney, S. & Sh itch)

      Cryer, G. R.

      Ashton, Joe

      Buchan, Norman

      Cunningham, G. (Isl'ngt'n,S&F'sb'ry)

      Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)

      Buchanan, Richard (G'gow,Springb n)

      Cunningham, Dr. John A. (Whiteh'v'n)

      Atkinson, Norman

      Butler, Mrs. Joyce (H'gey, WoodGreen)

      Dalyell, Tam

      Bagier, Gordon, A. T.

      Callaghan, Jim (M'dd'ton & Pr'wich)

      Davidson, Arthur

      Darnett, Guy (Greenwich)

      Campbell, Ian

      Davies, Bryan (Enfield, N.)

      Barnett, Joel (Heywood & Royton)

      Cant, R. B.

      Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

      Bates, Alf

      Carmichael, Neil

      Davies, Ifor (Gower)

      Baxter, William

      Carson, John

      Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

      Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

      Carter, Ray

      Deakins, Eric

      Bennett, Andrew F. (Stockport, N.)

      Carter-Jones, Lewis

      Dean, Joseph (Leeds, W.)

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Castie, Rt. Hn. Barbara

      de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

      Bishop, E. S.

      Clemitson, Ivor

      Deiargy, Hugh

      Blenkinsop, Arthur

      Cocks, Michael

      Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

      Boardman, H. (Leigh)

      Cohen, Stanley

      Dempsey, James

      Booth, Albert

      Coleman, Donald

      Doig, Peter

      Boothroyd, Miss Betty

      Colquhoun, Mrs. M. N.

      Dormand, J. D.

      Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

      Concannon, J. D.

      Douglas-Mann, Bruce

      Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)

      Conlan, Bernard

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Bradford, Rev. R.

      Cook, R. F. (Edinburgh, C.)

      Dunn, James A.

      Dunnett, Jack

      Kinnock, Neil

      Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

      Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth

      Lambie, David

      Roberts, Gwllym (Cannock)

      Eadie, Alex

      Lamborn, Harry

      Robertson, John (Paisley)

      Edelman, Maurice

      Lamond, James

      Roderick, Caerwyn E.

      Edge, Geoff

      Latham, Arthur(CityofW'minsterP'ton)

      Rodgers, George (Chorley)

      Edwards, Robert (W'hampton, S.E.)

      Lawson, George (Motherwell&Wishaw)

      Rodgers, William (Teesside, St'ckton)

      Ellis, John (Brigg & Scunthorpe)

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Rooker, J. W.

      Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

      Lee, John

      Roper, John

      English, Michael

      Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Sough)

      Rose, Paul B.

      Ennals, David

      Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold

      Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

      Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

      Lewis, Arthur (Newham, N.)

      Rowlands, Edward

      Evans, loan (Aberdare)

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Sandelson, Neville

      Evans, John (Newton)

      Lipton, Marcus

      Sedgemore, Bryan

      Ewing, Harry (St'ling,F'kirk&G'm'th)

      Lomas, Kenneth

      Selby, Harry

      Faulds, Andrew

      Loughlin, Charles

      Shaw, Arnold (Redbridge, Ilford, S.)

      Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.

      Loyden, Eddie

      Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

      Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

      Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

      Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (S'pney&P'plar)

      Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)

      Lyons, Edward (Bradford, W.)

      Short, Rt. Hn. E. (N'ctle-u-Tyne)

      Flannery, Martin

      Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

      Short, Mrs. Renee (W'hamp'n, N.E.)

      Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

      McCartney, Hugh

      Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (L'sham,D'ford)

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      McCusker, H.

      Silkin, Rt.Hn.S.C. (S'hwark,Dulwich)

      Foot, Rt. Hn. Michael

      McElhone, Frank

      Sillars, James

      Ford, Ben

      MacFarquhar, Roderick

      Silverman, Julius

      Forrester, John

      McGuire, Michael

      Skinner, Dennis

      Fowler Gerry (The Wrekin)

      Maclennan, Robert

      Small, William

      Fraser, John (Lambeth, Norwood)

      McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

      Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

      Freeson, Reginald

      McNamara. Kevin

      Snaps, Peter

      Garrett, John (Norwich, S.)

      Madden, M. O. F.

      Spearing, Nigel

      Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

      Magee, Bryan

      Spriggs, Leslie

      George, Bruce

      Mahon, Simon

      Stallard, A. W.

      Gilbert, Dr. John

      Mallalieu, J. P. W.

      Stewart, Rt. Hn. M. (H'sth, Fulh'm)

      Ginsburg, David

      Marks, Kenneth

      Stoddart, David (Swindon)

      Gourlay, Harry

      Marquand, David

      Storehouse, Rt. Hn. John

      Graham, Ted

      Marshall, Dr. Edmund (Goole)

      Stott, Roger

      Grant, George (Morpeth)

      Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

      Strang, Gavin

      Grant, John (Islington, C.)

      Mayhew, Patrick (RoyalT'bridgeWells)

      Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

      Griffiths, Eddie (Sheffield, Brightside)

      Meacher, Michael

      Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

      Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

      Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

      Swain, Thomas

      Hamilton, William (Fife. C.)

      Mendelson, John

      Thomas, D. E. (Merioneth)

      Hamling, William

      Mikardo, Ian

      Thomas. Jeffrey (Abertillery)

      Hardy, Peter

      Millan, Bruce

      Thorne, Stan (Preston, S.)

      Harper. Joseph

      Miller, Dr. M. S. (E. Kilbride)

      Tierney, Sydney

      Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

      Milne, Edward

      Tinn, James

      Hattersley, Roy

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

      Tomlinson, John

      Hatton, Frank

      Molloy, William

      Tomney, Frank

      Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

      Moonman, Eric

      Torney, Tom

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

      Tuck, Raphael

      Hooley, Frank

      Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

      Urwin, T. W.

      Horam, John

      Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

      Varley, Rt. Hn. Eric G.

      Howell Denis (B'ham, Small Heath)

      Moyle, Roland

      Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

      Huckfield, Leslie

      Murray, Ronald King

      Walden, Brian (B'm'hom, Ladywood)

      Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

      Newens, Stanley (Harlow)

      Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

      Hughes, Mark (Durham)

      Oakes, Gordon

      Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, North)

      Ogden, Eric

      Watkins, David

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      O'Halloran, Michael

      Weitzman, David

      Hunter, Adam

      O'Malley, Brian

      Wellbeloved, James

      Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir A. (L'p'I.EdgeHill)

      Orbach, Maurice

      White, James

      Irving, Rt. Hn. Sydney (Dartford)

      Orme, Rt. Hn. Stanley

      Whitehead, Phillip

      Jackson Colin

      Ovenden, John

      Whitlock, William

      Janner, Greville

      Owen, Dr. David

      Wigley, Dafydd (Caernarvon)

      Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

      Padley, Walter

      Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

      Jeger, Mrs. Lena

      Palmer, Arthur

      Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

      Jenkins, Hugh (W'worth, Putney)

      Park, George (Coventry, N.E.)

      Williams, Alan Lee (Hvrng, Hchurch)

      Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (B'ham.St'fd)

      Parker, John (Dagenham)

      Williams, Rt.Hn. Shirley(H'f'd&St'ge)

      John, Brynmor

      Parry, Robert

      Williams, W, T. (Warrington)

      Johnson, James(K'ston upon Hull, W)

      Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

      Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

      Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

      Pendry, Tom

      Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

      Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

      Perry, Ernest G.

      Wilson, William (Coventry, S.E.)

      Jones, Dan (Burnley)

      Phipps, Dr. Colin

      Wise, Mrs. Audrey

      Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

      Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg

      Woodall, Alec

      Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

      Prescott, John

      Woof, Robert

      Judd, Frank

      Price, Christopher (Lewisham, W.)

      Wrigglesworth, Ian

      Kaufman, Gerald

      Price, William (Rugby)

      Young, David (Bolton, E.)

      Kelley, Richard

      Radice, Giles

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Kerr, Russell

      Rees, Rt. Hn. Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

      Mr. John Golding and

      Kilfedder. James A.

      Rhodes, Geoffrey

      Mr. Laurie Pavitt.

      Kilroy-Silk, Robert

      Richardson, Miss Jo

      NOES

      Adley, Robert

      Finsberg, Geoffrey

      Lloyd, Ian (Havant & Waterloo)

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Fisher, Sir Nigel

      Loveridge, John

      Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

      Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh, N.)

      Luce, Richard

      Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

      Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

      MacArthur, Ian

      Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      MacCormack, Iain

      Ancram, M.

      Fowler, Norman (Sutton Coldfield)

      McCrindle, R. A.

      Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

      Fox, Marcus

      Macfarlane, Neil

      Atkins, Rt. Hn. Humphrey (Spelthorne)

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

      MacGregor, John

      Awdry, Daniel

      Freud, Clement

      McLaren, Martin

      Baker, Kenneth

      Fry, Peter

      Macmillan, Rt. Hn. M. (Farnham)

      Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord

      Galbraith, Hn. T. G. D.

      McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)

      Banks, Robert

      Gardiner, George (Reigate&Banstead)

      McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)

      Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

      Gardner, Edward (S. Fylde)

      Madel, David

      Beith, A. J.

      Gibson-Watt, Rt. Hn. David

      Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

      Bell, Ronald

      Gilmour, Rt. Hn. Ian (Ch'sh'&Amsh'm)

      Marten, Neil

      Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)

      Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

      Mather, Carol

      Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Fareham)

      Glyn, Dr. Alan

      Maude, Angus

      Benyon, W.

      Godber, Rt. Hn. Joseph

      Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

      Berry, Hon Anthony

      Goodhart, Philip

      Mawby, Ray

      Bitten, John

      Goodhew, Victor

      Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

      Biggs-Davison, John

      Goodlad, A.

      Mayhew, P. (Royal T'bridge Wells)

      Blaker, Peter

      Gorst, John

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.)

      Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

      Miller, Hal (B'grove & R'ditch)

      Body, Richard

      Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

      Mills, Peter

      Boscawen, Hon. Robert

      Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

      Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

      Bowden, Andrew (Brighton, Kemptown)

      Gray, Hamish

      Moate, Roger

      Boyson, Dr. Rhodes (Brent, N.)

      Grieve, Percy

      Money, Ernie

      Braine, Sir Bernard

      Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmund3)

      Monro, Hector

      Bray, Ronald

      Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.

      Moore, J. E. M. (Croydon, c.)

      Brewis, John

      Grist, Ian

      More, Jasper (Ludlow)

      Brittan, Leon

      Grylls, Michael

      Morgan, Geraint

      Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

      Hall, Sir John

      Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

      Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

      Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

      Morris, Michael (Northampton, S.)

      Bruce-Gardyne, J.

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

      Bryan, Sir Paul

      Hampson, Dr. Keith

      Morrison, Peter (City of Chester)

      Buchanan Smith, Alick

      Hannam, John

      Mudd, David

      Buck, Antony

      Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

      Neave, Airey

      Budgen, Nick

      Hastings, Stephen

      Neubert, Michael

      Bulmer, Esmond

      Havers, Sir Michael

      Newton, Tony (Braintree)

      Burden, F. A.

      Hayhoe, Barney

      Nicholls, Sir Harmar

      Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

      Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward

      Normanton, Tom

      Carlisle, Mark

      Henderson, Barry (Dunbartonshire, E.)

      Nott, John

      Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

      Henderson, Douglas (Ab'rd'nsh're, E)

      Onslow, Cranley

      Chalker, Mrs. Lynda

      Heseltine, Michael

      Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

      Channon, Paul

      Higgins, Terence

      Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

      Chataway, Rt Hn. Christopher

      Hill, James A.

      Osborn, John

      Churchill, W. S.

      Holland, Philip

      Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)

      Clark, A. K. M. (Plymouth, Sutton)

      Hooson, Emlyn

      Page, John (Harrow, W.)

      Clark, William (Croydon, S.)

      Hordern, Peter

      Pardoe, John

      Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Howe, Rt.Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Surrey, E.)

      Parkinson, Cecil (Hertfordshire, S.)

      Cockcrofl, John

      Howell, David (Guildford)

      Pattie, Geoffrey

      Cooke, Robert (Bristol, W.)

      Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, North)

      Percival, Ian

      Cope, John

      Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

      Peyton, Rt. Hn. John

      Cordle, John

      Hunt, John

      Pink, R. Bonner

      Cormack, Patrick

      Hurd, Douglas

      Price, David (Eastleigh)

      Corrie, John

      Hutchison, Michael Clark

      Prior, Rt. Hn. James

      Costain, A. P.

      Iremonger, T. L.

      Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

      Critchley, Julian

      Irvine, Bivant Godman (Rye)

      Quennell, Miss J. M.

      Crouch, David

      James, David

      Raison, Timothy

      Crowder, F. P.

      Jessel, Toby

      Rathbone, Tim

      Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutstord)

      Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

      Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

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

      Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

      Redmond, Robert

      Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)

      Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

      Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

      Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

      Jopling, Michael

      Rees-Davies, W. R.

      Dixon, Piers

      Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

      Renton.Rt. Hn. SirDavid (H't'gd'ns're)

      Dodds-Parker, Sir Douglas

      Kaberry, Sir Donald

      Renton, R. T. (Mid-Sussex)

      Dodsworth, Geoffrey

      Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

      Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec

      Kershaw, Anthony

      Ridley, Hn, Nicholas

      Drayson, Burnaby

      Kimball, Marcus

      Ridsdaie, Julian

      du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

      King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

      Rifkind, Malcolm

      Durant, Tony

      King, Tom (Bridgwater)

      Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey

      Dykes, Hugh

      Kirk, Peter

      Roberts. Michael (Cardiff, N.-W.)

      Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir John

      Knight, Mrs. Jill

      Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

      Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Knox, David

      Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

      Elliott, Sir William

      Lamont, Norman

      Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

      Emery, Peter

      Lane, David

      Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)

      Ewing, Mrs. Winifred (Moray&Nairn)

      Langford-Holt, Sir John

      Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

      Eyre, Reginald

      Latham, Michael (Melton)

      Rost, Peter (Derbyshire, S.-E.)

      Fairgrieve, Russell

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Royle, Sir Anthony

      Farr, John

      Lawson, Nigel (Blaby)

      Sainsbury, Tim

      Fell, Anthony

      Le Marchant, Spencer

      St. John-Stevas, Norman

      Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

      Lester, Jim (Beeston)

      Scott-Hopkins, James

      Fidler, Michael

      Lewis. Kenneth (Rtland & Simford)

      Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

      Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

      Stradling Thomas, J.

      Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)

      Shelton, William (L'mb'th.Streath'm)

      Tapsell, Peter

      Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

      Shersby. Michael

      Taverne, Dick

      Wall, Patrick

      Silvester, Fred

      Taylor, Edward M. (Gl'gow, C'cart)

      Walters, Dennis

      Sims, Roger

      Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

      Warren, Kenneth

      Sinclair, Sir George

      Tebbit, Norman

      Watt, Hamish

      Skeet T. H. H.

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Weatherill, Bernard

      Smith, Dudley (W'wick&L'm'ngton)

      Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Margaret

      Wells, John

      Spe e, John

      Thomas, Rt. Hn. P. (B'net, H'dn S.)

      Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

      Spicer, Jim (Dorset, W.)

      Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Spicer, Michael (Worcestershire, S.)

      Townsend, C. D.

      Wilson, Gordon (Dundee, E.)

      Sproat, Iain

      Trotter, Neville

      Winstanley, Dr. Michael

      Stainton, Keith

      Tugendhat, Christopher

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Tyler, Paul

      Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

      Stanley, John

      van Straubenzee, W. R.

      Worsley, Sir Marcus

      Steel, David

      Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

      Young, Sir George (Ealing, Acton)

      Steen, Anthony (L'pool, Wavertree)

      Viggers, Peter

      Younger, Hn. George

      Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)

      Waddington, David

      Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

      Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Stodart, Rt. Hn. A. (Edinburgh, W.)

      Wakeham, John

      Mr. Walter Clegg and

      Stokes, John

      Walder, David (Clitheroe)

      Mr. Paul Hawkins.

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Mr. Robert Carr: On a point of order, Mr. Thomas. May I ask—[Interruption.]
      The Chairman: Order. I think it is to the advantage of the Committee to hear the point of order.
      Mr. Carr: May I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to confirm that, in view of the will of the Committee expressed in this Division, he will undertake not to reintroduce the clause on Report?
      Mr. Healey: On a point of order, Mr. Thomas. The answer is "No, Sir".
      No one on this side of the Committee will regret that the phoney war is now ended. When the General Election comes—it may be sooner rather than later—after tonight's events millions of working people will cast their vote in the knowledge that the Conservative and Liberal Parties have voted to rob them of funds subscribed exclusively to protect themselves and their families against illness, injury and death, in flat violation of the most solemn undertaking given by the previous Conservative Government.
      Mr. Edward Heath: Are the Chancellor of the Exchequer and all his colleagues aware of the fact that millions of people in Britain tonight will know that as a member of a minority Government he has declared that that Government will defy the will of the House of Commons and that in defying the will of the House of Commons they will be supporting those
      614
      who throughout the past four years have continuously defied the will of Parliament, and that all the millions of people in this country who believe in the maintenance of parliamentary democracy will make absolutely sure that if the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues call a General Election they will be thrown out?
      The Chairman: I think that on an occasion such as this both sides of the Committee have exchanges, but this point of order is rapidly coming to a close.
      Mr. Healey: The Leader of the Opposition was asking a question to which, with your permission, Mr. Thomas, I propose to reply. We all understand the Leader of the Opposition's chagrin that his party has chosen to reject the advice he offered it only two days ago, that it should win the argument and not the vote, but a more important vote will shortly be taken by the people of this country as a whole. When that vote is taken the people of this country will bear in mind fully the fact that the Conservative and Liberal Parties tonight have betrayed the promise which they had made over the past four years.
      The Chairman: I hope that the Committee will understand that I shall not always be as generous on points of order.
      Bill (Clauses 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14 and 19) reported, with amendments; to lie upon the Table.

  GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [20th May]:
  That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill to reduce the sums mentioned in Item 10 of Part I of the Schedule (Page 6) as follows:—

  (a) in column 3, by leaving out "£142,601,000" and inserting "£87,601,000", and

  (b) in column 4, by leaving out "£82,605,000" and inserting "£55,605,000".—[Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg.]

  Question again proposed.
  10.27 p.m.
  The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr. Reginald Freeson): When the debate was adjourned on 20th May, I was about to list the ways in which the Greater London Council will be spending that portion of the money in its Bill allocated for the municipalisation of rented houses. This is the subject of the motion before the House which seeks to cut back expenditure by the GLC in the housing field.
  The ways in which the GLC will wish to spend the money concerned in this motion are as follows. The first will be in pursuance of a confirmed compulsory purchase order or to meet a statutory obligation such as a purchase notice served by a private owner on the GLC. The second will be on acquisition, particularly in areas of acute housing stress, of tenanted property where the local authority has clear evidence that tenants are in need as a result of bad housing conditions, including threat of harassment and risk of becoming homeless. The third will be on the acquisition of properties which have been standing empty for six months, or of properties with vacant possession in areas in which there is a serious overall shortage of housing, and the acquisition of which would be for the purpose of housing essential public service workers or homeless families. The fourth would be the acquisition of houses previously sold by a local authority which it is reacquiring under the terms of a pre-emption clause imposed on the original sale. The fifth will be the acquisition on behalf of, or in order to sponsor, a housing association or a tenants' co-operative.
  616
  I should like to know—I think the House is entitled to know—on what grounds any Member of the Opposition would oppose the purchase of rented accommodation to serve those purposes—and perhaps the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) will tell us—for these are the five categories of acquisition which are listed in paragraph 30 of Circular 70/74 as priorities which the Government wish local authorities generally to pursue in their acquisition programmes, a policy to which the GLC and other local authorities which have been in touch with us since the issue of that circular have acceded.
  If both Government and local authorities, including the GLC, are agreed on the policy of acquisition in these categories, what objection can the Conservative Party have to such a policy? This is not a question of random acquisition. It represents a planned approach to solving the deep housing problems in some of our major cities, including, of course, London. Nowhere are these problems more acute or is the approach set out in the circular and the policy of the GLC more appropriate than in London.
  The panel of inquiry into the Greater London development plan pinpointed the main area of housing stress in London as the privately rented sector, which was shrinking in size and being replaced by accommodation which the displaced inhabitants could not afford. The panel concluded that unless local authorities provided such accommodation themselves, or helped housing associations to provide it, it was unlikely to be provided.
  The panel recommended that the GLC and the boroughs should acquire a greater diversity of houses and let them on a variety of conditions, in order to deal more effectively with the widest possible range of housing problems. The report of the panel of inquiry was received by the previous administration, of which the hon. Member for Hornsey was a member as a Minister in the Department of the Environment.
  Are we to understand that the Conservative Party has now rejected one of the most central recommendations on policy which the inquiry submitted to the then Government and which is now before this Government? We accept the

  617
  analysis of the Layfield panel of inquiry. The GLC is willing to do the job and the Government intend to see that it has the financial resources. Does the Conservative Party really seek to prevent the GLC from making acquisitions which will stop harassment, prevent more homelessness and help those who are already homeless?
  Mr. Ronald Brown: That is exactly what they want to do.
  Mr. Freeson: Do they not want London's essential services improved by increasing the accommodation available for the workers in them? From teachers to transport workers, covering the whole range of public services, London is in difficulty. One of the most important areas in which help can be given is housing. These people are increasingly turning to the local authorities direct or to the housing associations, which I have helped the local authorities to finance, or to the Housing Corporation for such help. They expect Parliament to support their pleas, not oppose them, as would be the effect of the motion.
  The hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Finsberg), who moved the motion, professed to recognise all these problems. His words about London's public services are well worth quoting. Among other things he said:
  "our public services are creaking because of manpower shortages."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th May 1974; Vol. 874, c. 105.]
  I think that we would all accept that one of the most important reasons why the services are creaking is the housing situation which the staff of these services are facing.
  The House must recognise, therefore, that the kinds of acquisition of rented accommodation by the GLC which the Conservative Party's motion opposes are the very kinds which the hon. Member for Hampstead seeks to persuade us that he supports. The Conservatives cannot have it both ways. I do not know about other hon. Members who spoke in a different vein in the earlier debate, but the hon. Member for Hampstead would say that it is the local borough which should act and not the GLC. But he also said that he considered it quite wrong and not genuine local government that
  618
  the GLC should come to the House to get its money. He pointed out that the GLC is the only local authority which has to come to the House in this way.
  That is a fair point to make, but it is quite beside the central point of the debate on the motion. It is another matter, which concerns the procedures by which the GLC gets authorisation for its expenditure. It is separate from the issue before us, which is the request to the House that it should instruct the Committee which is to handle the Bill to delete expenditure designed to bring houses into public ownership in the categories that I have put before the House. That is the issue. It is not the methods by which the GLC has to get authorisation for its expenditure. That is a red herring and a bluff. The hon. Member for Hampstead and those who spoke in the earlier debate know that. They are introducing something that is quite irrelevant. If they want to alter the method by which the GLC gets authorisation for expenditure, let them bring an appropriate motion before the House.
  Mr. Ronald Brown: Why did they not do that?
  Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: The Minister will recall, among his quotations, that in two previous money Bill debates I have said that the GLC should not come to the House for its money and should behave like other local government bodies. It is because the GLC has to come here for money that the House has the right to say to the GLC what it should do.
  Mr. Freeson: I do not particularly agree with the representation which the hon. Gentleman has put to the House again. It is an acceptable argument, but it is quite beside the point of the motion, which seeks to stop the GLC acquiring properties to meet the kind of needs that I have put to the House. That is the issue before us.
  In his motion, the hon. Gentleman, despite the view that he has expressed about this being an improper way for the GLC to get authorisation for expenditure, seeks to cause the procedure which he sees as anomalous to produce even more serious anomalies. Under the circular from which I have quoted, any other

  619
  authority anywhere in the country, without coming to the House, can do precisely what the GLC wishes to do. Are we to say to the GLC, the largest local authority in the country, that it should be more restricted in the exercise of its proper housing functions than the smallest district council? The case has to be argued. Are we to say to the GLC that it should not operate its housing powers in the same way as the smallest district authority in the country operates its housing powers? That would be the effect of passing the motion.
  I remind the House that the powers under which the GLC acts in housing matters are powers conferred by Parliament. The Bill authorises only the expenditure. The powers already exist. If hon. Members want to take away those powers, they should take the proper parliamentary steps and have such a motion carried in the House. The motion before us seeks to render inoperable powers which Parliament has provided to the GLC. The House would thus be producing constitutional nonsense if it were passed.
  Mr. George Cunningham: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the law which requires the GLC to come to the House for its authorisation stems from an Act passed during the period of the Conservative Government in the early 1960s?
  Mr. Freeson: My hon. Friend is correct to remind the House of that. The procedure arises from the London Government Act 1963, which set up the present system of local government in London. Many Conservative Members were present in the House at that time and no doubt campaigned in favour of that legislation.
  To do what is being asked by the Opposition, quite apart from the fact that it is wrong in principle, would create constitutional nonsense. The hon. Member for Hampstead is not challenging the purposes for which the money is to be used, unlike some of his hon. Friends. He said that he in no way opposes these purchases. He is on the record as having said that, although he now claims the right, since the GLC has come to us, to stop these purchases. Some may under
  620
  stand this sort of convoluted argument, but my hon. Friends and I cannot.
  Mr. Ronald Brown: The Conservatives in County Hall who attempted to do what the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Finsberg) is seeking to do were soundly defeated. We are seeing tonight the intrusion of local government into this House.
  Mr. Freeson: That is what I gather. The hon. Member for Hampstead and others have argued against this matter not only in the course of the earlier debate but on other occasions. Whatever he may say, he is challenging the basic housing powers of the GLC as given to it by Parliament under a Conservative Government.
  Conservative Members say that municipalisation does not add to the existing housing stock. That is not an original argument. [HON. MEMBERS: "It is true."] Of course it is true, but it is hardly a profound observation. The aim of municipalisation is to achieve the objectives I spelt out in my opening remarks. I gather that the hon. Member for Hampstead does not disagree with those objectives, because he said so the last time we debated this matter.
  Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: Not quite like that.
  Mr. Freeson: The hon. Member said it should be the boroughs and not the GLC, but he did not object to the policy. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo) pointed out the last time we debated this, although there may not be an increase in the housing stock there is an addition to the effective housing stock when for every empty privately owned house there is a municipally owned occupied one.
  The Housing Bill, which has now completed its Committee stage and has been generally welcomed by the House, provides extensive new powers for local authorities, including the GLC, to acquire dwellings in housing action areas where this is necessary if they are to be used effectively. That is the central theme of the circular on house purchase to which T have referred, as is clear from the categories of acquisition which I mentioned in my earlier comments. It would, therefore, be quite contradictory to the Bill

  621
  if the House passed this motion. It would make it almost impossible for the GLC to be active in areas of stress in the way the Bill seeks.
  Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: I apologise if I do not appear to understand the argument that the Minister is putting forward. When he speaks of the ability of Parliament to amend any provision which the GLC seeks to obtain, is he complaining that Parliament will not he a rubber stamp for the decisions of the GLC or is he complaining that Parliament proposes to use the powers conferred upon itself in that respect?
  Mr. Freeson: I am not surprised that the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stan-brook) does not understand my argument in view of what he says. Nor does he show much spirit of interest or concern about the housing problems in London. It is not understood by Conservative Members who make nice speeches about the compassionate politics from time to time but are not prepared to put the necessary instrument into the hands of the authorities so that they can do something about the problem.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, North (Mr. Davies) rightly said on the last occasion, the most desperate housing need in London is not houses to buy but houses to rent. We must get our priorities right in considering London's housing problems, and the aims of the Bill are a major step in the right direction.
  The housing problems of this great city are far too important to be treated in the way in which Opposition Members are seeking to treat them. At this time, well past the middle of the twentieth century, hundreds of thousands of families are living in conditions of which we should be ashamed. The worst of these conditions are to be found in London in the privately rented sector, where 40 per cent. of such dwellings are in substandard to slum condition. The only way in which we can have action taken is by public enterprise by the GLC and other forms of social ownership.
  In our earlier debate the huge size of these problems was shown by a number of figures which I gave to the House. But it seems that the seeking and obtaining of information is the limit of what
  622
  we can expect from Conservative Members. It is no wonder their housing policies led to the disaster we are having to tackle.
  It is no use seeing the problems if action is not taken to deal with them. The need for action in London is a matter of the utmost urgency, requiring immediate and continuous effort by all concerned—the Government, Parliament, the GLC, the boroughs, the voluntary housing movement, everyone who can act.
  If the motion is passed, the GLC's contribution to this effort will have to be severely curtailed. The reduction proposed for housing expenditure is nearly 40 per cent. Let there be no mistake—this will not be made up by other people, for most of the boroughs are doing all they can already, where in some instances they are not, it is not because they are relying on the GLC to act for them but because they take the view of Conservative Members.
  Mr. Neil MacFarlane: Will the hon. Gentleman refute the suggestion that the instruction will in no way lead to the addition of more houses for the Greater London area? Should not the accent be on the acquisition of more land and more houses and not on existing houses?
  Mr. Freeson: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman that we should have more land brought into use for more housing. I hope that he and his colleagues will use all their endeavours to support the Government and the GLC in our attempts to get such land in the outer London boroughs as well as in dockland and elsewhere brought into housing use. It is in many of the outer London boroughs dominated by the Conservative Party that there is a callous indifference to solving London's housing problems.
  What we shall shortly be voting about is not whether the GLC or the boroughs should be acting but whether we really want an all-out attack on London's housing problems. In the Government's view, there can be only one answer. I ask the House to reject this heartless and indifferent motion, and let Londoners know that we care about their welfare and want to see an end to the social evils that exist in far too much of housing and blight the lives of so many of the families in this great city.
  10.50 p.m.
  Mr. Hugh Rossi: We owe this debate—
  Mr. Ronald Brown: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. There are quite a few of my hon. Friends in the Chamber who were present when the previous debate of 20th May was truncated by the Opposition. Is it not fair that my hon. Friends should now continue this debate as Opposition hon. Members did not want to argue their case on that earlier occasion?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): The same principles apply to calling hon. Members now as on the previous occasion.
  Mr. Rossi: I was about to say that we owe this debate to the extraordinary scene in this House on 20th May to which the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Brown) has referred, when the Government Chief Whip gave a remarkable imitation of an on-course bookie's tic-tac man. I am not sure how the Chair was intended to interpret those unusual gestures, but the result was that the Government lost the rest of their business for that date, the lion. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) lost his Adjournment debate and the Bill was put at risk for one month.
  When the Minister came to intervene on that earlier occasion he did so, as he has done tonight, with his usual curious mixture of aggressive arrogance and defensive bitterness. He took it as the grand occasion to make an onslaught upon our housing record and give himself an alibi for the future. Tonight he has continued that line to impugn our motives regarding housing.
  The Opposition have as much concern for the homeless, for the ill-housed people and for London as the Government, except that we do not adopt the continual holier-than-thou attitude that is all that we get from the Government. All that Labour hon. Members have to do is to examine side by side the housing records of the two parties back to 1950 and they will see that we outscore them time after time. If there is time at the end of the debate I shall turn to housing figures and statistics. I have come prepared to do that. I shall take the Minister right through the parties' records. He will find
  624
  that his party does not come out of that at all creditably.
  Mr. Ronald Brown Mr. Ronald Brown rose—
  Mr. Rossi: I shall now—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that words of heat should be moderated. Both sides should be heard in turn.
  Mr. Rossi: I now turn to the real issue—namely, the municipalisation of privately owned property. The Minister has come round to that only today. The motion before the House is an instruction to the Committee on the Greater London (Money) Bill to reduce certain sums mentioned in the schedule by approximately £83 million. The money is earmarked by the GLC for carrying forward its programme of municipalisation up to the end of the first six months of the financial year 1975–76. In addition, I understand that the GLC proposes to petition Parliament for a further net £13 million for the year 1974–75 to enable it to buy up new houses from private developers. It is that request that we have to scrutinise. We must consider whether the borrowing for such purposes is justified and whether the resources could be better employed.
  We are charged by previous legislation to do that because of the size of the GLC and the great impact upon public expenditure that an authority of that size has by virtue of its operation. Parliament has seen fit to give us that responsibility, and it is that responsibility that we must now discharge.
  The more one examines the details of the proposals, the more one becomes disquieted. According to the joint report of the valuer and the director of housing to the council, dated 12th September 1973, the acquisitions practical for 197475 total 5,000 dwellings at a cost of £50 million—not the £83 million with which we are now dealing nor the other £13 million which is going to be involved.
  The report states that, given staffing and administration, 5,000 houses in a year is what is practical for the GLC to acquire. But that is only the beginning of the arithmetic. It estimates that the difference between the loan charges involved in borrowing all this money and the fair rents will leave the GLC with a

  625
  deficit of £800 per annum for each dwelling it acquires. Even allowing for Government subsidies of £600 per dwelling per annum, this will mean a deficit on the revenue account of the GLC of £700,000 for 1974–75. That is quite apart from the borrowing we are now talking about.
  The officers advise that a further £25 million will be required for repairs and improvements, presumably out of the revenue account, which will require a supplementary estimate. In addition, staff will have to be augmented in the departments concerned. The GLC will require, in carrying out the acquisition of 5,000 properties a year, 60 additional valuers and surveyors and 30 additional solicitors—the latter, at £3,000 a year, costing an extra £300,000. The GLC has recently rented new offices in Regent Street for staff at prime rents; it will have to rent even more offices in central London, at an even greater burden to the ratepayers.
  Mr. Bruce Douglas-Mann: Is the hon. Gentleman. therefore, proposing that the forest of "For sale" notices covering London should continue to adorn empty premises and that tenants should continue to be winkled out and to have to be put into bed and breakfast accommodation or other accommodation for the homeless because the GLC is unable to come to their rescue?
  Mr. Rossi: If the hon. Gentleman will compose himself with a little patience, I shall come to that point. At the moment I am dealing with the financial implications.
  As I was pointing out, the employment of an extra 60 valuers and surveyors and 30 more solicitors is not the end of the story. Anyone with experience of the management of local authority housing knows that it is most efficiently and economically done where properties are grouped in reasonably-sized estates. This eases the problems of rent collection, caretaking, calls for maintenance and repairs, and the sorting out of the myriad tenancy problems which arise between landlord and tenant. The management of individual properties scattered over a large geographical area is both expensive and inefficient.
  Mr. Ronald Brown: Nonsense.
  Mr. Rossi: It is not surprising, therefore, that the officers of the GLC recommend the council to engage a further 510 clerical management staff, maintenance men, caretakers and cleaners to deal with the additional 5,000 properties, which will mean a salary and wage bill, on my estimate, of about £1,400,000.
  No provision has been made in the current rent estimates of the GLC because of the uncertainty of recruitment. It does not even know yet whether it will get the people to administer any block of property.
  Supplementary estimates will require to be submitted to the ratepayers in the New Year. The GLC ratepayers, who already face an 85 per cent. increase, will jump for joy at the things I have just mentioned. To what purpose is this colossal expenditure being incurred? The municipalisation of 5,000 houses will have but a marginal effect on the housing problems of Greater London. The Minister does not like me saying this but it will not deter me: it will not add one new unit of accommodation to the existing house stock.
  This brings a new competitor with massive funds into the housing market, making it even more difficult for those trying to find their own homes, and will force prices up.
  Mr. Anthony Berry: In Enfield the GLC is not only forcing up prices by buying above the market price, but preventing people from buying their own homes, forcing the ratepayers to subsidise them.
  Mr. Rossi: I am well aware of the effect on the house market and on prices of this kind of activity by anybody with this kind of money at its disposal. It will limit even further the choice of living accommodation between council property and home ownership. It means imposing greater financial strains on those already struggling to pay their rates. It is wasteful deployment of public resources, using money which could be better employed for other housing purposes than by acquiring houses which are already there. If successful, this will have a stultifying effect on housing supply and will mean little hope for new families being formed by youngsters leaving their parents to

  627
  marry—because they never get on a council housing list.
  How much better it would be—I answer the hon. Member opposite by posing another question—if the GLC were to use this money in providing mortgages at low interest rates for these young people or for teachers who cannot afford to live in London and do not qualify to go on housing lists, and for employees of London Transport, which we are told is desperately under-staffed.
  Mr. Freeson: Since the hon. Gentleman is making so much of the point, he is aware, unless he has forgotten, that in the same money Bill the GLC is seeking authority for another £80 million of expenditure for precisely the purpose he has put to the House. It will provide about a quarter of the local authority home loans throughout the country.
  Mr. Rossi: That is not sufficient for the purposes we have in mind, because the hon. Gentleman was suggesting municipalisation for teachers, for London Transport staff and for the homeless housing programme. If he thinks municipalisation is necessary for that purpose he accepts that the mortgage money is not enough. He must do.
  Add this to the money for mortgages, and, instead of employing 60 valuers, 30 solicitors and 510 managers, caretakers and cleaners, getting new offices, spending ratepayers' money on those purposes, it could use that money for giving lower interest rates to teachers so that they could buy their own houses. The policy of municipalisation is so absurd in terms of expenditure and of what it will achieve that I cast around for other reasons why these proposals are brought before us.
  I recall a story, almost apocryphal, which is told in London local government circles about the late Herbert Morrison. It is said that when Labour won control of the LCC in the '30s and he became leader, Herbert Morrison unrolled a map of London and said "We will build large council estates there, there and there. That will make sure that London will be Labour for ever."
  He pursued that policy with the vigour for which he was well known. The result was satisfactory in the Labour interest but the price was the creation of large
  628
  soulless estates. In recent years the reverse process has been taking place in inner London, the so-called process of "gentrification". Areas of London, originally Regency and Victorian, were built for the "carriage" trade. Those areas became less fashionable between the two world wars as the middle class followed the progress of the Underground and the electrification of Southern Railway into the outer suburbs.
  The houses they left behind fell into multi-occupation, became subject to rent control and decayed through financial neglect. The inner borough councils were faced with declining rateable values and less and less money to spend on amenity and environment. Obsolescence accelerated as the inner boroughs became increasingly depressing and squalid, and Labour power became more and more secure. In London squalid districts and Labour Party control of local government have become synonymous.
  Mr. Nigel Spearing: A squalid argument.
  Mr. Rossi: In the last two decades there has been the reverse of this taking place. As travel in and out of the centre of London has become more and more difficult and frustrating, and house prices in the most fashionable areas have moved out of the reach of people, the middle class has begun to return to inner London, salvaging and resuscitating decayed properties, starting with those with a period flavour. We have seen the process from middle class to middle class go full circle in parts of Islington, Camden, Lambeth and Paddington. This has been viewed with great alarm by the London Labour Party, which is more concerned with securing its power base than seeing good homes re-created at minimum cost.
  Mr. Spearing Mr. Spearing rose—
  Mr. George Cunningham Mr. George Cunningham rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Member indicate to which hon. Member he is giving way?
  Mr. Rossi: I give way to the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham).
  Mr. George Cunningham: Speaking as a Member for an area where there has been exactly this kind of "gentrification"

  629
  process which the hon. Member tried to describe, may I assure him that this process which is taking place in the heart of my constituency has had no effect whatever upon the strength of the Labour majority in the area? It is a very bad thing only because it means that people who are performing the necessary services for London simply cannot find accommodation. That is why we disapprove and feel that there needs to be a brake upon a process which otherwise would run not throughout the centre of London.
  Mr. Rossi: No doubt the hon. Gentleman will rejoice that his majority has not been affected by "gentrification". Perhaps he will explain that to some of his hon. Friends who have shown so much concern about this process. Of course the services are a problem, but Camden is virtually one vast council estate now. There are vast areas—[Interruption.] This is a natural process which should be allowed to continue.
  Mr. George Cunningham: We are continually told by the outer London boroughs "We have our own atmosphere, and the inner London boroughs must not interfere with it by being allowed to build or acquire houses in our areas.". It seems that they must keep their middle class nature, but apparently the working people living in the inner boroughs are to be displaced to give way to market forces. How does the hon. Gentleman reconcile the two?
  Mr. Rossi: I know that the Minister does not like it when we mention it, but there is land available. It is dockland, and I intend to deal with that subject later.
  The London Labour Party recognises that the massive council estate is no longer socially acceptable, any more than is bulldozing down London's architectural heritage. For that reason, it invented "gentrification" as something of a pejorative term. It has sought in its place some other means of stopping that happening and has seized on municipalisation, or, to use that euphemism of it, social ownership, as a means of controlling who shall and who shall not live in a particular district by taking as many private homes into public ownership as it can. In inner London the purpose is to ensure that its supporters remain in sufficient numbers and in outer London it
  630
  is an extension of the Morrison strategy of political colonisation.
  All this is done under the cynical cloak of care for the people in housing need. The hypocrisy of the Labour Party sickens me.
  Therefore, let us look at the alternative. The only policy which can succeed is that which will provide an extension of the housing stock, which will create new homes for new generations of families, and which will rescue our old decaying houses and turn them into decent homes. My hon. Friends and I believe that such an alternative is viable, and, therefore, I put five specific matters. They are not original; they have been canvassed before. But they are matters which, taken together, will, I think, serve more to help the people in housing need in London than will playing around with 5,000 houses round the periphery.
  First, there must be a diversion of greater public resources for the rescue of the older housing stock. Second, there must be conversion of uneconomically large houses into units compatible with modern family needs. Both those objectives were sought in our Housing and Planning Bill to supplement our massive programme of house improvement grants. I am gratified that the Minister has taken up all those proposals and has reintroduced them with very little variation because he realises their validity.
  I do not know whether hon. Members appreciate that, as a result of the massive encouragement given by the Conservative Government to improvement grants for making up-to-date conversions, decent homes were being provided at the rate of 400,000 a year. That is a genuine contribution to the housing stock and a useful deployment of public resources.
  Third, I suggest the release of the vast pool of unoccupied and under-occupied property throughout the capital by freeing all future lettings from control and security of tenure. I refer to premises at the moment unlet because people are fearful of bringing in tenants who may turn out to be bad ones of whom they may never rid themselves. Anyone who knows London will know of the hundreds, if not thousands, of people who have accommodation of that kind available and would bring it on to the market tomorrow if they had no fear of future control.
  Mr. Ronald Brown: Where are all these properties?
  Mr. Rossi: Fourth, I suggest to the Minister the immediate setting up of a new town corporation for the redevelopment of the 5,500 acres of derelict and idle land lying in the docks. It is a continuing scandal that the GLC and the five—[Interruption.] The Minister laughs, of course. He is not concerned with the problems of London or with solving them. He is concerned only about making political arguments and appearing as the knight in shining armour to the homeless of London.
  Mr. Freeson: It is a matter of months ago, during the course of last year, that it was the hon. Gentleman's own Secretary of State who did not proceed along the lines that are now being urged on this Government, who have been in office only four months. Instead, the then Secretary of State sponsored the setting up of a joint committee of the GLC and the London boroughs concerned to study various ways in which they could deal with this land. Why, then, does the hon. Gentleman come up with this so-called new proposal when his own Government rejected it months ago?
  Mr. Rossi: An independent consultant's report was prepared, the GLC and the five London boroughs did not like it, they asked for time to reconsider it, they started to fall out amongst themselves, and it was shortly before the General Election that my right hon. and learned Friend's patience was becoming stretched to the point of setting up this new town corporation. Those are the facts, and the hon. Gentleman can look at his departmental records to see whether or not that is the case.
  I urge the hon. Gentleman not to play this "footsy" game with the GLC and his Labour colleagues in these boroughs, but to get on with the job of providing houses on those 5,500 acres, which are a growing insult to the homeless in London.
  Mr. Spearing: Does not the hon. Gentleman remember that when his right hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker) initiated this project there were 800 acres of land in my constituency awaiting the building of houses, and that one of the conditions of the survey was
  632
  that all development should be frozen? If the hon. Gentleman's party and his right hon. Friend were really serious about this, why would not they permit the Newham borough council and the GLC to go ahead on land which had been allocated for housing, which has been agreed to be there for housing and on which, I believe, housing will now be built? Why did not they do that?
  Mr. Rossi: I have no idea at all. No doubt there is a valid answer and it can be studied. But I am not in the position of having an official box at my elbow to feed me bits of paper with all the answers.
  Taken together, and immediately, I am sure that these proposals will present an immediate and positive solution to London's housing problems. In favour of them, I reject utterly the temporary and ridiculous expedient of municipalisation, which owes its genesis to a cynical exploitation of a crying human need. I reject that it should be done at the enormous expense of the hard-pressed ratepayers of London and those seeking their own homes.
  Mr. Paul Tyler: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I came to the House tonight representing the Liberal benches with the intention of supporting the Minister? I certainly intend to do so now after hearing what can only be described as the silliest speech that I have ever heard.
  Mr. Rossi: I oppose municipalisation because I believe that Londoners' homes should be their own castles, not feudal cottages held under the patronage of the political barons of the GLC.
  I said that if there was time I would comment on the Minister's remarks about the comparative housing records of the two main political parties. I do that gladly.
  The burden of the Minister's criticism was that he inherited a programme—
  Mr. William Molloy: Before the hon. Gentleman delves into all the facts and figures, may I ask whether, on behalf of the Conservative Party, he will comment on the position of ordinary people who have no proper places in which to live and bring up their children? Will he leave these figures,

  633
  abandon his abuse, and show a little concern for the ordinary folk of London who have no proper housing because of the policies of the Conservative Party?
  Mr. Rossi: I have that concern. I came into politics 25 years ago because of the housing conditions that I saw in Islington. That experience impelled me into local government, and from there I have progressed to this place. Housing has always been my main concern and interest. I wish to do my best to try to alleviate some of the appalling conditions in which so many people have to live. I give way to no Member in this House it my feelings for those people.
  I differ profoundly from the hon. Gentleman about the means by which that object shall be achieved. I do not believe that it will be done by political bosses operating in town halls. It will be achieved only by giving people the ability to acquire their own homes. That is where we must direct public help and assistance. We must provide resources for those people to modernise their homes.
  I believe that there is a different and better way to achieve that objective than what is proposed by the hon. Gentleman. That does not mean that I do not feel for these people and their problems as much as he does. I probably feel a great deal more.
  Let me now get back to housing statistics. The Minister said that he had inheri-
  ted a programme of housing starts well below the number that the previous Conservative administration inherited from its predecessors. If we are to bandy about housing records, we must go back far beyond the events of the winter.
  The Labour Party said that it was impossible for this country to build more than 200,000 houses a year. The Conservative Government set a target of 300,000 houses a year, went on to 400,000, and were getting their sights on 500,000 houses a year when we had the disaster of the Labour Government of 1964–70, which completely wrecked our programme in 1967 and 1968.
  In the period 1967–68 the housing programme went into a deep slide which was arrested only in the past 12 months. Let me quote from the Financial Times of 12th June last in which Colin Jones writes about the private sector. [Interruption.] I know that hon. Gentlemen opposite do not want to hear the case when it is not convenient to them, but let me read from an impartial article:
  "There is a growing impression that the long downward slide, which began as far back as 1967–68, may at last be bottoming out. For about a year now in England and Wales and for about six months in Scotland, the number of new local authority houses for which tenders have been approved has been rising."
  Question put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 278, Noes 304.

  Division No. 46.]

  AYES

  [11.26 p.m.

  Adley, Robert

  Bray, Ronald

  Corrie, John

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Brewis, John

  Costain, A. P.

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Brittan, Leon

  Critchley, Julian

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Crouch, David

  Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian

  Bruce-Gardyne, J.

  Crowder, F. P.

  Ancram, M.

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)

  Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

  Buchanan-Smith, Alick

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

  Atkins, Rt. Hn. Humphrey (Spelthorne)

  Buck, Antony

  Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)

  Awdry, Daniel

  Budgen, Nick

  Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

  Baker, Kenneth

  Bulmer, Esmond

  Dixon, Piers

  Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord

  Burden, F. A.

  Dodds-Parker, Sir Douglas

  Banks, Robert

  Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

  Dodsworlh, Geoffrey

  Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Carlisle, Mark

  Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)

  Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Drayson, Burnaby

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Fareham)

  Chalker, Mrs. Lynda

  du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Benyon, W.

  Channon, Paul

  Durant, Tony

  Berry, Hon. Anthony

  Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

  Dy es, Hugh

  Biffen, John

  Churchill, W. S.

  Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir John

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Clark, A. K. M. (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Blaker, Peter

  Clark, William (Croydon, S.)

  Elliott, Sir William

  Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.)

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Emery, Peter

  Body, Richard

  Cockcroft, John

  Eyre, Reginald

  Boscawen, Hon. Robert

  Cooke, Robert (Bristol, W.)

  Fairgrieve, Russell

  Bowden, Andrew(Brighton, Kemptown)

  Cope, John

  Farr, John

  Boyson, Dr. Rhodes (Brent, N.)

  Cordle, John

  Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

  Braine, Sir Bernard

  Cormack, Patrick

  Fidler, Michael

  Finsberg, Geoffrey

  Lamont, Norman

  Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

  Fisher, Sir Nigel

  Lane, David

  Kidsdale, Julian

  Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh, N.)

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Rifkind, Malcolm

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Latham, Michael (Melton)

  Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.-W.)

  Fowler, Norman (Sutton Coldfield)

  Lawson, Nigel (Blaby)

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Fox, Marcus

  Le Marchant, Spencer

  Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

  Fry, Peter

  Lester, Jim (Beeston)

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Galbraith, Hn. T. G. D.

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rtland & Stmford)

  Royle, Sir Anthony

  Gardiner, George (Reigate & Banstead)

  Lloyd, Ian (Havant & Waterloo)

  Sainsbury, Tim

  Gardner, Edward (S. Fylde)

  Loveridge, John

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

  Gibson-Watt, Rt. Hn. David

  Luce, Richard

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Gilmour, Rt. Hn. Ian (Ch'sh' & Amsh'm)

  MacArthur, Ian

  Shaw Giles (Pudsey)

  Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

  McCrindie, R. A.

  Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

  Glyn, Dr. Alan

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Shelton, William (L'mb'th,Streath'm)

  Godber, Rt. Hn. Joseph

  MacGregor, John

  Shersby, Michael

  Goodhart, Philip

  McLaren, Martin

  Silvester, Fred

  Goodhew, Victor

  Macmillan, Rt. Hn. M. (Farnham)

  Sims, Roger

  Goodlad, A.

  McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Gorst, John

  McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Gow, I. R. E. (Eastbourne)

  Madel, David

  Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'm'ngton)

  Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Spence, John

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

  Marten, Neil

  Spicer, Jim (Dorset, W.)

  Gray, Hamish

  Mather, Carol

  Spicer, Michael (Worcestershire, S.)

  Grieve, Percy

  Maude, Angus

  Sproat, Iain

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

  Mawby, Ray

  Stainton, Keith

  Grist, Ian

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Grylls, Michael

  Mayhew, Patrick (Royal T'bridgeWells)

  Stanley, John

  Hall, Sir John

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Steen, Anthony (L'pool, Wavertree)

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Miller, Hal (B'grove & R'ditch)

  Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Mills, Peter

  Stodart, Rt. Hn. A. (Edinburgh, W.)

  Hampson, Dr. Keith

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Stokes, John

  Hannam, John

  Moate, Roger

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Money, Ernle

  Tapsell, Peter

  Harvie Anderson, Rt. Hn. Miss

  Monro, Hector

  Taylor, Edward M. (Gl'gow, C'cart)

  Havers, Sir Michael

  Moore, J. E. M. (Croydon, C.)

  Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

  Hawkins, Paul

  More, Jasper (Ludlow)

  Tebbit, Norman

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Morgan, Geraint

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

  Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Margaret

  Henderson, Barry (Dunbartonshire, E.)

  Morris, Michael (Northampton, S.)

  Thomas, Rt. Hn. P. (B'net,H'dn S.)

  Heseltine, Michael

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Townsend, C. D.

  Higgins, Terence

  Morrison, Peter (City of Chester)

  Trotter, Neville

  Hill, James A.

  Neave, Airey

  Tugendhat, Christopher

  Holland, Philip

  Neubert, Michael

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Hordern. Peter

  Newton, Tony (Braintree)

  Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

  Howe, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Surrey, E.)

  Nicholls, Sir Harmar

  Viggers, Peter

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Normanton, Tom

  Waddington, David

  Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, North)

  Nott, John

  Wakeham, John

  Hunt, John

  Onslow, Cranley

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Hurd. Douglas

  Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

  Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Osborn, John

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)

  Wail, Patrick

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

  Walters, Dennis

  James, David

  Pattie Geoffrey

  Warren, Kenneth

  Jessel, Toby

  Percival, Ian

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Wells, John

  Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

  Jopling, Michael

  Prior, Rt. Hn. James

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

  Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Raison, Timothy

  Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine

  Rathbone, Tim

  Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

  Worsley, Sir Marcus

  Kilfedder, James A.

  Redmond, Robert

  Young, Sir George (Ealing, Acton)

  Kimball, Marcus

  Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

  Younger, Hn. George

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Kirk, Peter

  Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David (H't'gd'ns're)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Knight, Mrs. Jill

  Renton, R. T. (Mid-Sussex)

  Mr. Walter Clegg and

  Knox, David

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Mr. Cecil Parkinson.

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

  Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

  Brown, Hugh D. (Glasgow, Provan)

  Allaun, Frank

  Bennett, Andrew F. (Stockport, N.)

  Brown, Ronald (H'kney.S. & Sh'ditch)

  Archer, Peter (Warley, West)

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Buchan, Norman

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Bishop, E. S.

  Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Springb n

  Ashley, Jack

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce(H'gey, WoodGreen)

  Ashton, Joe

  Boardman, H. (Leigh)

  Callaghan, Jim (M'dd'ton & Pr'wich)

  Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)

  Booth, Albert

  Campbell, Ian

  Atkinson, Norman

  Boothroyd, Miss Betty

  Cant, R. B.

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

  Carmichael, Neil

  Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

  Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)

  Carter, Ray

  Barnett, Joel (Heywood & Royton)

  Bradley, Tom

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Bates, Alf

  Broughton Sir Alfred

  Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

  Beith, A. J.

  Brown, Bob (Newcastle upon Tyne,W.)

  Clemitson, Ivor

  636

  637

  Cocks, Michael

  Huckfield, Leslie

  Padley, Walter

  Cohen, Stanley

  Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Palmer, Arthur

  Coleman, Donald

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  Pardoe, John

  Colquhoun, Mrs. M. N.

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, North)

  Park, George (Coventry, N.E.)

  Concannon, J. D.

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Parker, John (Dagenham)

  Conlan, Bernard

  Hunter, Adam

  Parry, Robert

  Cook, Robert F. (Edinburgh, C.)

  Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir A. (L'p'I,EdgeHill)

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Craigen, J. M. (G'gow, Maryhill)

  Irving, Rt. Hn. Sydney (Dartford)

  Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Jackson, Colin

  Pendry, Tom

  Cronin, John

  Janner, Greville

  Perry, Ernest G.

  Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Phipps, Dr. Colin

  Cryer, G. R.

  Jeger, Mrs. Lena

  Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg

  Cunningham, G.(Isl'ngt'n,S&F'sb'ry)

  Jenkins, Hugh (W'worth, Putney)

  Prescott, John

  Cunningham, Dr. John A.(Whiteh'v'n)

  Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (B'ham,St'td)

  Price, Christopher (Lewisham, W.)

  Dalyell, Tam

  John, Brynmor

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Davidson, Arthur

  Johnson, James (K'ston uponHull, W.)

  Radice, Giles

  Davies, Bryan (Enfield, N.)

  Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

  Rees, Rt. Hn. Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

  Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

  Rhodes, Geoffrey

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

  Richardson, Miss Jo

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Deakins, Eric

  Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

  Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

  Dean, Joseph (Leeds, W.)

  Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

  Judd, Frank

  Roderick, Caerwyn E.

  Delargy, Hugh

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Rodgers, George (Chorley)

  Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

  Kelley, Richard

  Rodgers, William (Teesside, St'ckton)

  Dempsey, James

  Kerr, Russell

  Rooker, J. W.

  Doig, Peter

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  Roper, John

  Dormand, J. D.

  Kinnock, Neil

  Rose, Paul B.

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Lambie, David

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Lamborn, Harry

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

  Dunn, James A.

  Lamond, James

  Rowlands, Edward

  Dunneit, Jack

  Latham, Arthur (CityofW'minsterP'ton)

  Sandelson, Neville

  Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth

  Lawson, George (Motherwell&Wishaw)

  Sedgemore, Bryan

  Eadie, Alex

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Selby, Harry

  Edelman, Maurice

  Lee, John

  Shaw, Arnold (Redbridge, Ilford, S.)

  Edge, Geoff

  Lestor, Miss Joan (Elton & Slough)

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

  Edwards, Robert (W'hampton, S.E.)

  Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold

  Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (S'pney&P'plar)

  Ellis, John (Brigg & Scunthorpe)

  Lewis, Arthur (Newham, N.)

  Short, Rt. Hn. E. (N'ctle-u-Tyne)

  Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (L'sham, D'ford)

  English, Michael

  Lipton, Marcus

  Silkin, Rt. Hn. S. C. (S'hwark, Dulwich)

  Ennals, David

  Loughlin, Charles

  Sillars, James

  Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

  Loyden, Eddie

  Silverman, Julius

  Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

  Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Evans, John (Newton)

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford, W.)

  Small, William

  Ewing, Harry (St'ling, F'kirk&G'm'th)

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

  Faulds, Andrew

  McCartney, Hugh

  Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

  Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.

  McElhone, Frank

  Snape, Peter

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  MacFarquhar, Roderick

  Spearing, Nigel

  Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)

  McGuire, Michael

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Flannery, Martin

  Maclennan, Robert

  Stallard, A. W.

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

  Steel, David

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Stewart, Rt. Hn. M. (H'sth, Fulh'm)

  Foot, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Madden, M. O F.

  Stoddart, David (Swindon)

  Ford, Ben

  Magee, Bryan

  Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

  Forrester, John

  Mahon, Simon

  Stott, Roger

  Fowler, Gerry (The Wrekin)

  Mallalieu, J. P. W

  Strang, Gavin

  Fraser, John (Lambeth, Norwood)

  Marks, Kenneth

  Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

  Freeson, Reginald

  Marquand, David

  Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

  Garrett. John (Norwich, S.)

  Marshall, Dr. Edmund (Goole)

  Swain, Thomas

  Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

  Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

  Thomas, D. E. (Merioneth)

  George, Bruce

  Meyhew, Christopher (G'wh, W'wch, E)

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Gilbert, Dr. John

  Meacher, Michael

  Thorne, Stan (Preston, S.)

  Ginsburg, David

  Melish, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy

  Gourlay, Harry

  Mendelson, John

  Tierney, Sydney

  Graham, Ted

  Mikardo, Ian

  Tinn, James

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Millan, Bruce

  Tomlinson, John

  Grant, John (Islington, C.)

  Miller, Dr. M. S. (E. Kilbride)

  Tomney, Frank

  Griffiths, Eddie (Sheffield, Brightside)

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

  Torney, Tom

  Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.

  Molloy, William

  Tuck, Raphael

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Moonman, Eric

  Tyler, Paul

  Hamilton, William (Fife, C.)

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Urwin, T. W.

  Hamling, William

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Varley, Eric G.

  Hardy, Peter

  Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

  Harper, Joseph

  Moyle, Roland

  Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, Ladywood)

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Murray, Ronald King

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Hattersley, Roy

  Newens, Stanley (Harlow)

  Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

  Hatton, Frank

  Oakes, Gordon

  Watkins, David

  Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

  Ogden, Eric

  Weitzman, David

  Heffer, Eric S.

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Wellbeloved, James

  Hooley, Frank

  O'Malley, Brian

  White, James

  Hooson, Emlyn

  Orbach, Maurice

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Horam, John

  Orme, Rt. Hn. Stanley

  Whitlock, William

  Howell, Denis (B'ham, Small Heath)

  Ovenden, John

  Wigley, Dafydd (Caernarvon)

  Howells, Goraint (Cardigan)

  Owen, Dr. David

  Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  638

  639

  Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

  Wilson, Fit. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

  Wrigglesworth, Ian

  Williams, Alan Lee (Hvrng, Hchurch)

  Wilson, William (Coventry, S.E.)

  Young, David (Bolton, E.)

  Winstanley, Dr. Michael

  Williams, Rt. Hn. Shirley(H'f'd&St'ge)

  Wise, Mrs. Audrey

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Woodall, Alec

  Mr. Thomas Cox and

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Woof, Robert

  Mr. John Golding.

  Question accordingly negatived.

  EUROPEAN SECONDARY LEGISLATION
  Resolved,
  That the Committee on European Secondary Legislation, &c., or any Sub-Committee appointed by the Committee have leave to confer with any Committee appointed by the Lords on the European Communities or any Sub-Committee appointed by them.—[Mr. Harper.]

  EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
  Resolved,
  That any Member requested by the Committee appointed by the Lords on the European Communities to attend as a Witness before them or before any Sub-Committee appointed by them shall have the leave of this House so to attend, if the Member think fit.—[Mr. Harper.]

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

  MALADJUSTED CHILDREN
  11.41 p.m.
  Mr. Peter Hardy: My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary does not deserve to be detained at this rather late hour, for only a few days ago I passed to him a letter from Wales High School in my constituency expressing appreciation of his helpfulness and advice. That was in connection with an international exhibition at which the school provided a large part of Britain's representation. I make that point for, while schools everywhere face the impact of social change, I am proud of the achievements in local education. From what I hear of the exhibition, the British Council should be very grateful to Wales High School and the youngsters from Kiveton Park, Hart-hill, and Thurcroft.
  I said that it was unfortunate that my hon. Friend should be detained, but I know that he will not find that a hardship,
  640
  for I am confident that he regards a debate on such a subject as entirely deserving of the concern of the House.
  I listened to part of our last debate on education. To be frank, I found the less-than-full understanding almost to reach the point of mischief. Hon. Members on the Opposition benches showed some recognition of difficulties, but then appeared to suggest that these were due to egalitarian views or to the comprehensive principle. This is nonsense, for the broadening of opportunity must mean a diminution in social evil, and it is that which is at the root of maladjustment.
  In Rother Valley we have removed the worst shadows of selection, and excellent schools are to be found. Nevertheless, there are problems, fewer perhaps than in cities, but enough to reveal that their source lies in the wider society, in social values and attitudes rather than in the absence of selection examinations.
  Among the more serious problems are those created by a very small number of young people who can exert a disproportionately disruptive influence in school. We are talking of disturbed children, and not naughty children. The reasons for their disturbance can often be assumed. This understanding may be such as to arouse compassion or anger, but it does not really lessen the harsh difficulties which have to be faced. We may criticise the cause—the violent, criminal parent; the ruthlessness of life with an increasing urban anonymity—and we may deplore the erosion of family influence, the deterioration in certain valuable social standards, or the growth of cynical and negative opting out. But such critical awareness does not directly assist the teacher facing the problem.
  Too often, unfortunately, those educators who may most clearly recognise the problems are long out of the classroom—some of them possibly in the House. We cannot expect the problem to go away merely by shutting it firmly within the classrooms of ordinary schools. Advance is scarcely likely to be sure if the maladjusted child remains

  641
  within the environment and in the circumstances which have caused or aggravated his desperation. We need to provide a greater capacity to allow such children the chance of either short or long stays in a setting different from the vicious or extravagantly foolish one in which maladjustment may be nurtured. One headmaster in my constituency said to me recently that experimentation in the provision of a residential annex to a normal school might be worth while.
  I should like to illustrate the position by relating the case of a girl in my constituency. For good reasons she will not be identified, but my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary is well aware that the case is, sadly, a very real one. In late January this year I received a letter from the mother of the girl about whom we are concerned. This letter informed me that her daughter, although in the care of the local authority, had not attended school for months. I made immediate inquiries of the divisional education officer. In view of later comments, let me say now that I offer no criticism of this officer, Mr. Cyril Johnson. He is rightly very much respected in my area, where he has given long and really tremendous service. I pay tribute to him quite unstintingly. Much of the success in our local education is due to his endeavour.
  Mr. Johnson has made a full report of the case, and what I read led me to write to the chief education officer of the West Riding, Sir Alec Clegg, and to the Department. The girl came from outside Yorkshire to a local infants school in 1965. Between 1966 and 1970 she attended three different junior schools. In June 1968 the head of a Rother Valley junior school reported upon disturbing behaviour by the girl. She was violent, menacing others—with an iron bar on one occasion—and biting other children. There was pseudo-epilepsy and marked fearfulness of her aggressive father. If spoken to kindly she burst into loud wailing. The head teacher believed—and this was six years ago—that the child required guidance, and he said that until she was more stable her presence in an ordinary school was detrimental to the welfare and progress of the other children. Heads of primary schools do not often make such reports.
  642
  In October 1968 it was concluded that because of her aggression the child should attend school only in the mornings. At this time her intelligence quotient was assessed at 83—not such as to promise academic success, but sufficient to emphasise that she was not educationally subnormal. Before she was due to leave primary education the girl left my constituency but remained within the West Riding County Council area. On reaching the age of 11 she attended a secondary school just outside my constituency. By September 1971 there had been yet another move, and she commenced attendance at one of the new high schools in my constituency in that month. In November 1971, after sad experiences, the head teacher of the school suspended her for utterly disruptive behaviour. There had been loud and vile obscenities, refusal to talk, running away upon a busy railway line, swearing at and attempting to bite her teacher, and threats to jump out of a window. The girl was said to need a full-time teacher to herself, and it was hoped that her suspension would give the school a breathing space and a possible opportunity for the girl to calm herself.
  A visit from various officers was requested, and a meeting was held on 30th November 1971. From this it was recommended that top priority should be given to investigating her maladjustment and a suitable placing decided upon. The divisional medical officer recommended that a suitable placing should be provided, and this was confirmed by the county medical officer, who wrote to the chief education officer on 5th April 1972 to recommend that there should be a place in a boarding school for maladjusted girls. At the time a further IQ assessment was carried out and a quotient of 64 was arrived at. Perhaps conveniently it lead to the county authority recommending that the girl should attend the local day school for the educationally subnormal opened not long before. This school was opened by converting an ordinary school some time after I discovered that one or two children in Rother Valley were not attending any school due to the entire absence of provision for the educationally subnormal in my area.
  On 28th March 1972 there was a court appearance and a care order was issued.

  643
  The girl was taken into the care of the county council. Despite the urgency of the case it should be noted that from November 1971 to that date there had been no school attendance. Following the care order, and bearing in mind the county medical officer's recommendation, one might have expected a suitable place to be found. Nevertheless in April 1972 the county education officer recommended that the girl should return to the school from which she had been suspended. However, after the court order the girl was sent to an assessment centre, and following that, no doubt because of the weight given to the last IQ assessment, she was sent from the family unit home where she then lived to attend the school for the educationally subnormal from 22nd July 1972.
  On 20th September 1972, two months later, with the school summer holidays intervening, the head teacher of this school felt that she was definitely not educationally subnormal and should not be a pupil there. On 2nd October the girl's mother stated that she did not agree that the girl was educationally subnormal. By this time her parents had been divorced and the mother remarried and set up a new home in my constituency. This is relevant, for the previous marriage had been unstable and it ended when divorce was granted on the ground of the father's cruelty to the mother and their children. He is and was an aggressive man with a criminal record. There was no stability. The family was continually moving home; it moved four times in one year. At the time the court order was made it seemed clear that, although the mother loved her children, she could not meet their needs and maintain the control and structures they required. Two of the girl's brothers were also in care, the elder outside the area.
  The girl continued to attend the school for the educationally subnormal, despite the head teacher's view and other recommendations. But these were not entirely ignored. On 21st June 1973 a case conference was held at the special school, and it was agreed that the girl was inappropriately placed. One view was that there should be a transfer to another local secondary school, but this was not approved.
  644
  Then, on 14th August last year, the chief education officer suggested transfer to another family unit home outside the area, with attendance at a secondary school which would not know of the girl's history. The chief education officer said that boarding placement was not practicable. That was never fully explained to the people concerned locally.
  No further development occurred after that date; the girl simply did not go to school at all. She was supposed to attend the school from which she had been suspended, despite all the contrary recommendations. No doubt then the patterns of bureaucracy would have been neater, the problem swept under an unsuitable carpet.
  To resolve the situation the divisional education officer recommended last December, after further absence, that the girl should be placed in the school from which she had been suspended. The chief education officer confirmed that recommendation on 23rd January this year. But again the head teacher, in my view rightly, made very clear his view that provision at his school was not the answer in view of all the evidence accumulated over the previous five years or more.
  At that point the mother approached me. Clearly, the West Riding County Council was in breach of the Act, and long had been so at fault.
  Then on 31st January another case conference was held. There was one significant absentee. The chief education officer was not there, and he was not represented. It is recorded that he felt that it would not serve any useful purpose. The records of that conference noted the county medical officer's recommendation 21 months earlier for a boarding placement. The divisional education officer expressed his concern at the girl's continual absence from school. It was agreed that the social services department would ask its director to request the chief education officer to arrange suitable education for the child.
  Shortly after this, there was a significant development. Resilience triumphed over muddle, and the girl began to think that she would like to go to school, no doubt because of the work of those involved in the family unit home in my constituency.

  645
  Some weeks after that case conference, the chief education officer denied that he was not concerned. He sought to pass the blame to those engaged at the local level. I have already paid tribute to the divisional education officer, who explained to me that he had been brought almost to his wits' end by the case. Therefore, I could not accept that Sir Alec Clegg was in any way right to try to shift the blame.
  On 19th March I was informed that the special schools adviser was giving attention to the case. On 28th March, three days before responsibility ceased, Sir Alec recommended that the director of the new local education authority should treat the case as urgent. That was consoling after six years of difficulty and months of non-attendance at school.
  When I wrote to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 25th March about this case I was pleased with the swift way in which the Department responded. The new Rotherham Borough Council was quickly approached. I must make it clear that the new authority responded very promptly, setting in immediate motion a thorough ascertainment of the position. Unfortunately, by then the new authority faced one grave hurdle. The girl had little time left for statutory education, and any suitable school would now be unlikely to accept her as a pupil.
  In view of the change in the girl's attitude, possibly because of the work of those engaged in social work in my constituency, as well as the fact that the father was not on the scene, the head teacher at the secondary school decided after various consultations that he would make a further try, and the girl was readmitted to the school last month.
  Quite properly, the mother had by now become very angry at the delay and the inadequacy of provision, and the question of the care order was reconsidered by the court. This provided an unfortunate and untimely experience for the girl, but she may have weathered it. I spoke to the headmaster today on the telephone. There seems to be some ground for cautious optimism about the girl. If that is justified, we are luckier than we deserve.
  All this is a sad tale of delay and utter illegality. The county council during these months might well and rightly have prosecuted some parents for their child's
  646
  absence from school whilst committing the same offence itself. Public authorities should not act in that way. No doubt those responsible at the county headquarters might plead that the West Riding's own imminent extinction was part of the problem, but that will not do in view of the long history of the case and my previous experience of not absolutely dissimilar ones.
  Those involved locally were right to stick to their guns and to insist that the chief education officer should have the girl placed in a suitable boarding school. After all, county ratepayers supported normal children in private schools. The sudden recommendation of 28th March 1974 that the council should act urgently has a ring of hollowness deserving almost of mockery.
  I know that there may be surprise that I criticise the well-regarded former West Riding County Council. I do so not without knowledge for I taught within it for many years and for a long time I served on a divisional education executive. In many ways it was a successful authority, not least in image projection. There was, of course, excellence locally but it was not entirely due to anyone at Wakefield. More credit locally is perhaps due to Mr. Johnson and not least to Councillor Charles Broughton, who is a former chairman of the Association of Education Committees. I was pleased when Charles Broughton was elected chairman of the new education committee. He has seen a good start. The prompt response in this case is to be seen as encouraging.
  My hon. Friend will recall that there was much anxiety about reorganisation in my constituency. It was extensive, and criticism was strong. I remember being criticised locally when I urged teachers not to overstate the case. That was inspired by overstatement from Wakefield which was at times almost extreme. I was anxious about the matter and I led a delegation from my constituency which was made to submit its petition upon a Whitehall pavement. The recent rates increases are one result of that sort of high-handedness. However, I must put it clearly on the record that, while there is still cause for anxiety in the long term, my new education authority has started well and the provision made for education is an improvement upon that which was offered by the former county council.

  647
  I am gratified that the chairman and members of the education committee are fully determined that the authority will gain a really well-deserved national reputation.
  Even the best authorities must accept that the problems of maladjustment are severe. It would be wrong for them to accept that schools shall always be disrupted and perhaps young teachers broken by a few difficult youngsters. If relief is to be secured, we must make appropriate provision. I hope that my hon. Friend will feel able to agree that this matter deserves very high priority. We need suitable residential schools where a consistent, firm but friendly approach might cancel previous experience. Perhaps we could view such a development as providing a period of educational convalescence. More opportunity of that sort is certain to be needed, for there is no sign that society is yet prepared to transform itself.
  I shall say little more but repeat that any case such as that which I have outlined is enormously serious. Procedural weaknesses, administrative mismanagement or inadequate material provision can be ruinous to a child who is already a casualty. Such weaknesses are to be deplored.
  One head teacher in my constituency was kind enough to comment fully about the central problems which we face and upon the recent parliamentary responses to these problems. He drew my attention to Christopher Jenck's "Inequality", published last year. That book may have appeared almost iconoclastic, but it comments on the matters now before us.
  My hon. Friend and I are both concerned about opportunity and equality. Maladjustment may well be a chronic form of indirect inequality. There may be inequality, not necessarily in a material sense but in moral example and spiritual condition or in terms of experience of adult wisdom and parental affection. We cannot inject the latter as an allotment from our social services departments, although we can show our concern and our care by our attitude. Of course, that in itself will not be enough. We need to show our concern by our provision. I am well aware that my hon. Friend cares. I trust that he can reassure us in rather more material ways, too.
  12 midnight.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): My hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Hardy) need not apologise for raising this very important matter at such a late hour. I hope that the House and the Department will always be concerned about any individual child to ensure that the best possible education and treatment is given. My hon. Friend described in detail the sequence of events, and I shall not repeat the facts of the case, which, I am glad to say, has reached a reasonably satisfactory conclusion.
  It is clear that there have been differences of opinion about the most suitable way of dealing with this girl's education and personal needs, and that these differences contributed in large measure to her absence from school. I do not want to defend the decision made when she was sent to a day school for the educationally subnormal, but no doubt the West Riding authority was acting as it thought best in a difficult situation.
  I understand that the girl left the ESN day school in July 1973 and that the authority was satisfied that she did not need special educational treatment. When my hon. Friend first contacted me in March about the case, he enclosed with his letter a number of documents, including reports of her behaviour at school and of the discussions which had taken place between members of the staff and officers of the local education authority about her future education.
  While I respect and understand the view that the girl was in need of special educational treatment, the responsible authority took a different view, and it is impossible to justify her absence from school as a result of these differences of opinion. I am very glad that the Rotherham authority, which is now responsible for her education, has arranged for her to return to the high school, in the light of recent medical, psychiatric and psychological reports. The headmaster has been asked to keep a close watch on her progress and the authority will seek further advice if the present improvement in her behaviour is not maintained.
  The Rotherham authority at present makes no provision for maladjusted pupils in separate schools or in classes in

  649
  ordinary schools. The national shortage of places for maladjusted children is particularly acute in Yorkshire and the North-East of England, and I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing attention to the unmet need in this area. Even though the new authority has decided that the girl is no longer in need of special educational treatment, a day school for maladjusted pupils in the area may well have provided a temporary solution to her needs at the time when she was taken into care.
  I understand that the Rotherham authority is well aware of this deficiency, and that, as a direct result of the case, it has instructed officials to prepare a survey of the needs of handicapped children in the area, including ways in which these needs could be met in ordinary schools. It is aware that additional help will be needed if ordinary schools are to deal successfully with children who are potentially disruptive, and it may also consider submitting proposals for a maintained special school for maladjusted pupils.
  The case which my hon. Friend has raised tonight touches on a number of wider isues, and it may be helpful if I say a word about maladjustment and about the types of special educational treatment now available. Maladjusted children are defined in the regulations as
  "pupils who show evidence of emotional instability or psychological disturbance and require special educational treatment in order to effect their personal, social or educational readjustment."
  It is important to recognise that this definition is confined to children who can and should be treated within the educational system. Maladjustment is not a term diagnosing a medical condition, nor should it be equated with bad behaviour, delinquency or educational subnormality. The maladjusted child has been described as one "who is developing in ways that have a bad effect on him or his fellows and cannot without help be remedied by his parents, teachers and the other adults in ordinary contact with him."
  Whether or not a maladjusted child needs to leave his ordinary school for a day special school or unit or to go to a boarding special school depends not merely on the skills and resources available there but on the whole attitude of
  650
  the school to the emotional health of children. If this is to be fostered, two experiences are essential for all children—continuity of concern from either one member of the staff or from a very small number, and some experience of success.
  Difficult children about whose behaviour teachers complain are sometimes merely reacting to a frustrating school environment. At the same time, hard-pressed teachers need more support than they sometimes get at present in dealing with difficult children. A variety of ways of helping them could be developed. For example, several authorities have successfully experimented, where premises and staffing permit, with small groups taken out of ordinary school with a view to giving the children satisfying experiences in a relaxed atmosphere in a room with a domestic, as well as a teaching, focus.
  Again, as my Department and the Department of Health and Social Services stated in a recent joint circular on child guidance, we want to encourage child psychiatrists and educational psychologists, instead of just seeing individual children in clinics and centres, to spend more time than at present visiting schools and advising teachers who most need help.
  There are at present about 12,000 school places for maladjusted children, including those in special classes in ordinary schools as well as in separate schools and units. In addition, local education authorities make arrangements for about 1,500 maladjusted children to be educated other than at school, under the provisions of Section 56 of the Education Act.
  How do these figures compare with the total number of places needed? This is a difficult question to answer. It will be affected by the capacity of ordinary schools to cope with children whose behaviour threatens to disrupt their education, and this in turn depends on the supporting services which are available.
  Local authorities have an important rôle to play, and we now know that there are nearly 2,000 children ascertained as maladjusted still awaiting a place in a special school or class.
  The Government's rôle is to make available resources for special school building and to control the distribution of

  651
  money for different categories of handicap. Inevitably a number of desirable projects compete for limited resources but I assure my hon. Friend that we are concerned. We gave a pledge that we would help children with special need.
  I am grateful that my hon. Friend has taken this opportunity to raise this case,
  652
  thus allowing us another look at the necessary demand on scarce resources. I assure him that I shall continue to give close attention to the needs of these children.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at seven minutes past Midnight.

SCOTLAND
  Lanarkshire Health Board Area
  Lanarkshire Health Board Area
  Labour Force (North-East)
  Labour Force (North-East)
  Travelling People
  Travelling People
  Unemployment
  Unemployment
  Rates
  Rates
  North Sea Oil and Gas
  North Sea Oil and Gas
  Offshore Oil Development (Housing Requirements)
  Offshore Oil Development (Housing Requirements)
  Licensing Laws (Clayson Report)
  Licensing Laws (Clayson Report)
  Thornton Bypass, Fife
  Thornton Bypass, Fife
  Hunter Report
  Hunter Report
  School Building (Highlands)
  School Building (Highlands)
  Farmers
  Farmers
  Nursery Nurses (Pay)
  Nursery Nurses (Pay)
  Lead Water Pipes (Replacement)
  Lead Water Pipes (Replacement)
  Public Buildings (Roof Beams)
  Public Buildings (Roof Beams)
  List D Schools
  List D Schools
  Housing (Statistics)
  Housing (Statistics)
  Veto Polls
  Veto Polls
  Tied Cottages
  Tied Cottages
  Rossend Castle
  Rossend Castle
  Judicial Proceedings (Identification Methods)
  Judicial Proceedings (Identification Methods)
  Waste Paper
  Waste Paper
  Community Service Orders
  Community Service Orders
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  United States of America
  United States of America
  South Africa
  South Africa
  Yugoslavia
  Yugoslavia
  Turks and Caicos Islands
  Turks and Caicos Islands
  European Parliament
  European Parliament
  Romania
  Romania
  USSR Ship (Clyde Docking)
  USSR Ship (Clyde Docking)
  Luxembourg Agreement
  Luxembourg Agreement
  Law of the Sea Conference
  Law of the Sea Conference
  European Economic Community (Channel Isles)
  European Economic Community (Channel Isles)
ENERGY
  Oil Refineries
  Oil Refineries
  Atomic Energy Establishments (Safety)
  Atomic Energy Establishments (Safety)
  Electricity (Scotland)
  Electricity (Scotland)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Agricultural Output
  Agricultural Output
  Badgers
  Badgers
  Fish Farming
  Fish Farming
  Twine
  Twine
  Horticultural Imports
  Horticultural Imports
DEFENCE
  Ulster Defence Regiment
  Ulster Defence Regiment
  Northern Ireland (Service Medal)
  Northern Ireland (Service Medal)
  Park Hall Camp, Oswestry
  Park Hall Camp, Oswestry
  Pensions
  Pensions
  H.M. Ships (Anti-Missile Defences)
  H.M. Ships (Anti-Missile Defences)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Truancy
  Truancy
  Post-Graduate Students (Grants)
  Post-Graduate Students (Grants)
  School Leaving Age
  School Leaving Age
  Local Education Authorities (Expenditure)
  Local Education Authorities (Expenditure)
  School Building (Expenditure)
  School Building (Expenditure)
  Trent Polytechnic
  Trent Polytechnic
  Teachers (Pay)
  Teachers (Pay)
EMPLOYMENT
  Royal Commission on Incomes
  Royal Commission on Incomes
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Prisoners (Refusal to Eat)
  Prisoners (Refusal to Eat)
  Air Rifles
  Air Rifles
  Prison Service
  Prison Service
  North Sea Inshore Rescue Service
  North Sea Inshore Rescue Service
  IRA Funeral Procession (London)
  IRA Funeral Procession (London)
  Police (Lancashire)
  Police (Lancashire)
  Immigration (Member's Letter)
  Immigration (Member's Letter)
  Fire Precautions (Hotels)
  Fire Precautions (Hotels)
  Public Records
  Public Records
  Television (Group Licences)
  Television (Group Licences)
  Television Reception (Wales)
  Television Reception (Wales)
  IRA Demonstrations
  IRA Demonstrations
  Television (Northern Ireland)
  Television (Northern Ireland)
INDUSTRY
  Chilean Contracts (Cancellation)
  Chilean Contracts (Cancellation)
  Multi-national Companies
  Multi-national Companies
  Advance Factories (Wales)
  Advance Factories (Wales)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Profits
  Profits
  Value Added Tax
  Value Added Tax
  Gold Reserves
  Gold Reserves
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Royal Ulster Constabulary
  Royal Ulster Constabulary
  General Register Office
  General Register Office
  Republic of Ireland (Talks)
  Republic of Ireland (Talks)
PRICES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION
  Football (Television Fees)
  Football (Television Fees)
  Railway Fares
  Railway Fares
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Cohabitation
  Cohabitation
  Dental Hygiene (Children)
  Dental Hygiene (Children)
  Geriatric Beds (Nottinghamshire)
  Geriatric Beds (Nottinghamshire)
  Hospital Beds
  Hospital Beds
  Chronically Sick Persons (Trent Region)
  Chronically Sick Persons (Trent Region)
  Ships' Passengers
  Ships' Passengers
  Departmental Office (Western Isles)
  Departmental Office (Western Isles)
  Student Nurses
  Student Nurses
  Physiotherapists
  Physiotherapists
  Agency Nurses
  Agency Nurses
  Child Care
  Child Care
  Over-80 Pensions
  Over-80 Pensions
  Doctor-Patient Ratio
  Doctor-Patient Ratio
  Women's Pensions
  Women's Pensions
  Mentally Ill and Handicapped Persons
  Mentally Ill and Handicapped Persons
  Community Care (Islington)
  Community Care (Islington)
  PALACE OF WESTMINSTER (SECURITY)
  PALACE OF WESTMINSTER (SECURITY)
TRADE
  Australia and New Zealand
  Australia and New Zealand
  Fish
  Fish
  Hand Tools
  Hand Tools
  Companies Registry
  Companies Registry
WALES
  Reservoirs
  Reservoirs
  Tied Cottages
  Tied Cottages
ENVIRONMENT
  Industrial Pollution
  Industrial Pollution
  Buses (No Smoking Areas)
  Buses (No Smoking Areas)
  M6, Walsall
  M6, Walsall
  Housing (Maintenance Payments)
  Housing (Maintenance Payments)
  Radioactive Waste (Storage)
  Radioactive Waste (Storage)
  Tied Cottages
  Tied Cottages
  Improvement Grants
  Improvement Grants
  Empty Houses
  Empty Houses
  Insulation
  Insulation
  Central Lancashire New Town
  Central Lancashire New Town
  M5
  M5
  Roads (Bridgwater)
  Roads (Bridgwater)
  Water Authorities
  Water Authorities
  House Purchase (Local Authority Staff Aid)
  House Purchase (Local Authority Staff Aid)
  Ministerial Residences
  Ministerial Residences
  Railways (Manning)
  Railways (Manning)
  Railway(Government Grants)
  Railway(Government Grants)
  Departmental Properties
  Departmental Properties
  Municipal Tenants (Eligibility)
  Municipal Tenants (Eligibility)
  Newbury-Whitchurch Link Road
  Newbury-Whitchurch Link Road
  Lorry Routes (London)
  Lorry Routes (London)
  East Lancashire Road
  East Lancashire Road
  Land Compensation Act
  Land Compensation Act
  Driving Licences
  Driving Licences
  Rents
  Rents
  Local Authority Staffs (Retirements)
  Local Authority Staffs (Retirements)
  Local Government Finance
  Local Government Finance
  Educational Expenditure
  Educational Expenditure
  Roads (County Durham)
  Roads (County Durham)
  Government Grants
  Government Grants
  Roads (Manchester)
  Roads (Manchester)
  Housing (Mentally Handicapped Persons)
  Housing (Mentally Handicapped Persons)
  Warenford (Bypass)
  Warenford (Bypass)

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

THE LORD BISHOP OF SOUTHWELL
John Denis, Lord Bishop of Southwell—was (in the usual manner) introduced between the Lord Bishop of Winchester and the Lord Bishop of Winchester and the Lord Bishop of Ely.
LORD CHELWOOD
Sir Tufton Victor Hamilton Beamish, Knight, M.C., having been created Baron Chelwood, of Lewes in the County of East Sussex, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Viscount Gage and the Lord Saint Oswald.

SOCIETY FOR UNDERWATER TECHNOLOGY REPORT
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, I beg 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 now implement the 1972 Report of the Society for Underwater Technology on diver training and performance standards.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (LORD HUGHES)My Lords, the Government welcome the continuing interest of the Society for Underwater Technology in this important aspect of underwater working. At the instigation of the Department of Employment, Working Parties are at present drawing up recommended standards for initial diving training to be evaluated by a pilot course in the autumn, and are studying the setting up of advanced underwater training facilities in the United Kingdom—both areas of concern to the
904
Society. The Working Parties have drawn on the Society's Report and on its expertise.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that encouraging reply, so far as it goes, may I ask him whether he is aware that this Report has been lying on the table for two years? A year ago, the Government of the day said that they had it under active consideration. The speed has not been so great as we could have wished. But is the noble Lord aware that the existing Diving Operations Special Regulations 1960, presently covering diving standards at sea, refer only to the three-mile limit? Is there not a need for legislation covering diving standards further out to sea in the deep waters?
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, this Government took office only at the beginning of March, so we certainly cannot be charged with any dilatory action in this field. So far as the second part of the noble Lord's question is concerned, I have no doubt that when we receive the reports of the Working Party and the task force we shall be in a better position to decide what legislation, if any, may be necessary.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord for his answer, but can he add this information? Is there any project to make diving standards mandatory, seeing that the Navy's diving standards manual is only a set of recommendations? At present there is nothing to ensure that diving standards are maintained and enforced.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, not at this stage.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the diving standards of H.M.S. "Dolphin" at Fort Blockhouse, where they teach diver training, are the most up-to-date in the world?
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I was not so aware. But I am perfectly certain that what my noble friend has said is completely accurate.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, is there any possibility of the Government's taking steps to make sure that

905
divers are registered, the compulsory registration of divers having been one of the recommendations of that Report?
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I must again ask the noble Earl to await the results of these reports.

HEBRIDES TRANSPORT COSTS
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they realise that the ever-increasing transport costs in the Hebrides, culminating in the recent 25 per cent. increase in the charges of MacBraynes (a Government monopoly), are exerting an economic stanglehold on the resident population.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, the Government regret as much as the noble Viscount that rising costs, from which no sector of the economy has been exempt, have made necessary increases in charges by all the shipping companies serving the Scottish islands, but I cannot accept what he says about their effects. The most recent detailed study which has been made of the impact of charges found that the freight element in consumer prices in the main islands was not significantly in excess of that in mainland areas remote from the main centres of distribution.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply, but may I ask him whether he agrees that it does not really bear out what is happening in regard to the Isle of Mull where the cost of living, as regards the price of consumer goods, is higher than that on the neighbouring mainland? Will the Minister therefore bear in mind that if Her Majesty's Government wish to have a viable resident population remaining in the Western Isles, they must have cheap sea transport?
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I am afraid that at this stage the noble Viscount has put a supplementary to his second Question, which I will deal with after he has put his second Question.

ISLE OF MULL FERRY CHARGES
2.53 p.m.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government why on MacBrayne's shipping services to the Isle of Mull the charges for a lorry are 12 times as great as for a car with caravan, when the amount
of deck space used is identical.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, services to Mull are operated by the Scottish Transport Group's subsidiary, Caledonian MacBrayne's Limited, on a commercial basis without Government subsidy and the level of charges is a matter for the Group. If the noble Viscount takes the matter up with the Group I think, however, he will find that he has very considerably overstated the difference.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, while thanking the Minister for that reply, may I tell him that I have overstated the case inasmuch as I have said that charges for a commercial lorry are twelve times as great as for a car and caravan? May I ask the Minister whether he will agree with me that, according to the information supplied by the purser on the ferry boat from Oban to Craignure, Isle of Mull, the charge across the sound of Mull from Fishnish to Lochaline for a car and a caravan taking up to 10 metres is £3·25, and for a lorry taking up the same area the price is £25·74? May I ask the Minister whether he will agree that, from the point of view of a farmer exporting livestock or importing fodder, this is really outrageous? Further, may I ask the Minister whether he will agree that it is wrong for tourists with caravans to be treated so much better than resident farmers, who, after all, are extremely important to the viability of the isles? The tourists may well bring all his food in with him, thus being of no help to the economy and, of course, he can be a blithering nuisance!
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, where subsidy is involved the Secretary of State can influence the level of charges. But

907
the differences in charges between one class of traffic and another is a matter for the commercial judgement of the operator. There is no room for the Secretary of State to intervene.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, is this not a situation where the Opposition believe in private enterprise, with no complaint made about their charges?
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, it is not for me to interpret the thoughts or wishes of the Opposition.
LORD HAILSHAM OF SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, will the noble Lord admit that MacBraynes is not a private enterprise?
LORD HUGHES: No, my Lords. But very largely because of the operations of previous Administrations, its subsidiaries must so operate.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that while MacBraynes—and I have had the pleasure of travelling on their impedimenta—may not be private now, it was private once and we have reached the pitch where the Government "socialise" the losses and "privatise" the profits?
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether he will agree that when MacBraynes was private the charges were far less? Further, may I ask him whether he will agree that though MacBraynes may not be directly subsidised on this particular ferry service, it is of course subsidised indirectly through Scottish public transport?
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, if one goes far enough back in history, one finds that things were very much cheaper for almost anything.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether there is any reason why another shipping line should not set up in opposition, so that some competition might be introduced?
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I have not known of any rush by private enterprise to divide the losses among themselves.
LORD TAYLOR OF GRYFE: My Lords, is the Minister aware that since
908
the inception of the Group the commercial carryings of MacBraynes have increased in four years from 43,000 to 84,000?
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I keep on collecting information!
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that for many long years everybody associated with Scottish transport has been well aware of the difficulties that confronted the MacBraynes firm, and that it was because they had the greatest difficulty in making a profit that eventually it became essential to rescue them from private enterprise, and the State had to take them over?
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, my noble friend is perfectly correct.

SUNDAY TRADING LAWS
LORD DERWENT: 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 powers to ensure that all local authorities carry out their enforcement duties to prevent illegal Sunday markets; and, if not, what they intend to do about it.
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, the Shops Act 1950, as the noble Lord is well aware, gives the Secretary of State no power to direct local authorities in the enforcement of the Sunday trading laws; nor is this a power that the Government would consider to be appropriate to them.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, while I am in full knowledge of the Answer given by the noble Lord, may I ask him whether it is impossible for the Central Government to circularise local authorities to remind them of their duties, in view of the fact that in the long run Central Government are responsible for the carrying out of the law?
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, as the noble Lord knows, both the present Government and the previous Government have been concerned about this matter for a number of years. The noble Lord will know that the matter is confused and that recently an organisation known

909
to the noble Lord, the Institute of Shops Acts Administration, has in fact written to my noble friend. It is the intention of my noble friend to issue at an early opportunity a circular to local authorities reminding them—and particularly the new district councils—of their responsibilities in this matter. I hope that this matter will receive fairly early attention.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord not to bring pressure on local authorities in the way he suggests?—because these Sunday markets are a boon to those women who work outside the home all the week.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, as I am sure the noble Lord is well aware of this fact, may I ask him whether he is aware that I, too, know that Sunday shopping is a boon to many people? But until the law is altered should it not be enforced?
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: Really, my Lords!
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, the noble Lord has certainly stated the view of the present Government in this matter; hence their decision to circularise new district councils with regard to their responsibilities in this regard.
LORD POPPLEWELL: My Lords, would not my noble friend agree that the law as it stands on this matter is rather complex and confusing and bears many different interpretations? May I ask my noble friend whether he is able to give any indication as to whether the Government might at some future date try to bring some common sense into the disposition as it now stands? Much controversy has been roused previously among many people. May I ask my noble friend whether he would agree that surely this is something which the Government will ultimately face up to?
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, in the not too distant future a Government will have to face up to this situation because it is untidy and unsatisfactory; but I am bound to say that as things are at the present moment this cannot be regarded as a high priority. There are many other things, which must be given (shall I say?) more urgent consideration. Meanwhile, the Government feel that the existing law should be enforced by the local authorities.

E.E.C.: AGRICULTURE MINISTERS' MEETING
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, with the leave of the House, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend Lord Goronwy-Roberts will be making a Statement on the Council of Ministers' Meeting on Agriculture.

PARKS REGULATION (AMENDMENT) BILL [H.L.]
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to amend further the Parks Regulation Act 1872, and to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read Ia.—(Lord Amulree.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

ORKNEY COUNTY COUNCIL BILL
Read 2a, and committed to a Select Committee.
WRIGHTSON N.M.A. LIMITED BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

SCOTTISH TRANSPORT
3.2 p.m.
VISCOUNT THURSOrose to call attention to the need for all forms of transport in Scotland to be improved to meet the requirements both of a developing industrial economy and of the basic industries of farming and fishing; and to move for Papers. The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I submit that just as in a living organism circulation is the key to growth and, indeed, to life itself, so in the economy of a country the transport system can retard or accelerate or even create growth. At this moment, when Scotland stands poised for the greatest growth in her economy that history will probably ever record, it is our duty to see that this new-found prosperity can be shared widely, wisely and well by all parts

911
of the Scottish nation, so that with all parts well planned and flourishing, the Scottish nation itself may grow and prosper. This is why we on these Benches believe that a wide-ranging debate upon Scottish affairs, touching on the needs of new sources of wealth, but not forgetting the requirements of the old basic industries, is proper at this time.
The core of this debate is Scottish transport; the purpose of this debate is Scottish prosperity. The interest which can be generated by such a debate on Scottish affairs is evidenced by the distinguished list of noble Lords who have put their names down to speak this afternoon. In our view, this shows how people of all shades of political opinion believe it to be urgently important to deal imaginatively with Scotland's problems and to give the leadership to the nation which she needs at this time. My Lords, I feel rather like that mythical beast of Scottish heraldry, the unicorn, whose staple diet was virgins—I note that we we have no less than three "maidens" on the menu and I shall look forward with relish to digesting them.
I have already said that Scotland is poised for growth. Not since the 18th century—not since the days of the "improvers" when my distinguished ancestor Sir John Sinclair was forming his Board of Agriculture, when Thomas Telford was building roads and harbours, when Admiral Pulteney and the British Fisheries Society were bringing the herring fishing industry into being and when Watt and Stephenson were developing steam—has such opportunity lain before Scotland. We have the opportunity now to strengthen the whole Scottish economy—remobilising old skills into new industries, old industries into new ventures and using our young people to build up new and exciting technical industries. To these ends an efficient integrated transport system is important.
We have the opportunity now, completely, once and for all, to solve the Highland problem. If we wish it, and if the Government speak the word, the power is there to remove the ills of the Highlands now and for all time and make it as though they never had been. But to make this a reality an efficient and integrated transport system is vital. We
912
have the chance again, like the opportunity which our 18th century forbears had, of replanning our towns and our countryside. We can get rid of rural slum and urban ghetto alike—if we use an efficient integrated transport system to help us.
We, in Scotland, if we can grasp these opportunities, and if the Government have the vision to let us grasp these opportunities, can demonstrate to the whole world how to create a way of life fit for the 21st century. We can show how a whole country can be replanned to give opportunity and to give prosperity, to give health and to give happiness to all its citizens wherever they live and whatever their skills. But to do this we shall, as a first step, need an efficient and integrated transport system.
Of course, the key to all these new-found opportunities is oil. But oil is only the key; oil is only part of the picture. It is what we do with oil that will count, and we should be planning now to make this new wealth our servant and not our master. We should be using this new wealth to build a new Scotland. Never again must whole areas of the country be poor relations out of remoteness. Never again must we let slums grow up to serve the avarice of industry. Never again must we allow whole areas to die as their basic industries die off. If we are to prevent this happening we must plan now so that we have moved before we are forced to move, and so that new facilities are already building in the proper places and in the proper proportions before we are suddenly forced to run up makeshift infrastructure and put it any old where that we can find to put it. This is especially true of transport. It is no good waiting until the system is choking itself to death before making a move. Energy therefore is the key, but transport is the means by which it can be made effective, and that is why we should be talking about it now. That is why we should be planning it ahead of growth. We can use transport to control growth, to promote growth and to shape growth, so we should use it positively as a planning tool. If we do not our inaction may react negatively against us.
My Lords, I have been talking about an integrated transport system and I have chosen these words with care. Each

913
method of transport has its place and its part to play in the economy of a country, and each form of transport is made more effective by the way in which it integrates with every other form. What use is the port that is ill-served by road or rail? What is the point of flying swiftly over the majority of a journey only to be kept hanging about waiting for a surface transport connection? In Scotland there is all too little attempt made by publicly owned nationalised corporations to plan their services so that they integrate. Trains do not wait for ferries; aircraft land five minutes after trains have left and so on. I am sure that other noble Lords will be drawing attention to specific instances in this debate. We may also be told that much is being done by the public transport corporations to improve matters and that may also be so. Nevertheless, so long as one example of lack of integration exists it is one example too many and we should ask the Government to be vigilant to see that a proper integration is demanded and is provided.
Let us turn now from the general theme of transport, from the theme of transport as a planning tool, to the needs of particular forms of transport, to the way in which each form of transport can be made to play its part, and let us begin at the seaports of Scotland. Let us ask ourselves whether enough is being done to develop our major seaports to meet the needs and the challenge of the oil age. Further than that, we must ask whether we arc developing them to handle the growth of industrial activity which it must be our intention to generate from the oil boom in the cities which lie in the hinterland behind the ports. What, for instance, is being done about developing Invergordon as a major seaport? Or has nobody thought about it? Or perhaps it is being left to chance. It should be being actively planned, but is it? Hunterston we hear about as we read our papers or listen to the news, and I hope we shall hear more about it in this debate, but what has happened to the great, imaginative concept of Oceanspan? Has it sunk into oblivion or is it still being studied? Should we not be studying it even more closely as part of an industrial growth strategy for Scotland?
What about fishing ports that are being swamped by oil developments? Is the fishing industry suffering by being a poor
914
relation? Should we be developing new ports for the fishing industry or perhaps building up some existing fishing ports to handle fleets which may be elbowed out of neighbouring harbours which have sold their souls to oil? For instance, I believe that in Buchan, Fraserburgh is still maintaining itself as a major fishing port, while Peterhead has largely gone over to oil servicing. This seems a good idea, but are we looking ahead at other ports in the same kind of way?
In the area of pure transport, are we seeking to encourage sea transport from Scottish ports to the Continent of Europe? I suspect that the number of regular sailings from Scottish ports to the Continent has fallen in recent years; yet surely we should he taking steps to increase trade and travel to Europe. We should not be leaving this to chance. If we cannot sail to Europe, then can we fly? The answer is: "Not from Scotland direct by British Airways". Surely we should be developing air links with Norway, Denmark, Germany, Holland, all these old trade links that existed even before the 18th century between Scotland across the German ocean to the Continent of Europe. I am glad to see developments taking place to the runway at Inverness, and I am quite prepared to put up with the temporary inconvenience it causes. I find it comforting that Inverness will become an airport capable of taking the major kinds of aircraft. I hope, however, that someone has planned to give it control and approach facilities to match the runway.
One major defect affects the internal services of Scottish Airways. They are all planned from South to North and none is planned from North to South, while East to West flights simply do not exist. This means that if there is a fog in the morning at Abbotsinch even the birds have to walk. If I lived in London and your Lordships' House were in Wick (which I am sure your Lordships do not want, but if it were), I could attend daily and sleep in my bed each night. As it is, if I wished to hear the Answer to a Question I should have to leave home the afternoon before and I should not reach home until the mid-day after my Question was called. Now that Shetland is a major oil base surely we can improve on performance of this kind. If we do not, then we shall all have to fall back on rail

915
transport as really it offers a very good service in spite of being a sort of limbless ex-Serviceman of the battle of Beeching compared with what it was 25 years ago. Seriously, though, railways are one aspect of Scotland's transport network in which a truly magical transformation could take place. First, we have an existing network which is grossly under-used. The recent Government announcement that railways are to be regarded as a social service should open up the possibility of using them once more in the remoter areas for all the vital social purposes which they used to discharge. Let them carry parcels to Kildonon and sheep from Kinbrace once more.
Now that the Government have adopted this wholly admirable new approach to our railway system, and seem to be prepared to regard the permanent way as part of our national infrastructure and the services provided thereon as a social necessity, I wonder whether they will persuade British Rail to alter their hostile attitude to the farming community. British Rail's intransigent antipathy to what they are pleased to call "the green field trade" has caused hardship in the remoter areas, disrupted traditional farming patterns like the wintering of Caithness and Sutherland ewe hogs in Morayshire, and has thrown an unnecessary volume of seasonal traffic on to the roads. Almost every livestock mart is sited deliberately on a railway line, and it seems the height of foolishness and prodigality that nearly every animal that goes in or out of them travels by road.
One final plea for the railway system before I turn to roads. Is it too much to hope that we might invest some capital in modernising the permanent way, the rolling stock and the schedules of the railways of Scotland? We seem to be the scrapyard of the railways systems of Britain. Our journey times do not seem to have altered much since the last century, and all that has happened to the permanent way in the last hundred years is that half of it has been pruned away while what is left has had its standard of maintenance reduced in order to save cost. We still have many devoted and efficient railwaymen working in the industry in Scotland, so I bg Her Majesty's Government to give them the tools and equipment worthy of their talent and devotion.
916
Important though railways, airlines and seaports are, the one transport system which everyone uses is the road system, and paradoxically in this respect Scotland is both well and ill served at the same time. For what they are, our roads are good and are well maintained—better maintained, I venture to say, than in the rest of the United Kingdom; perhaps it is the Macadam tradition still living on. But what they are is inadequate for any kind of serious economic development. One would think that we had only about three roads in the country by the way some people speak—the M.8, the M.90 and the A.9. The mileage of dual carriageway in Scotland, outside one or two little bits of motorway which we have, is pitifully small, so it takes only a good tourist season to bring the country to walking pace. I know that Her Majesty's Government are planning big improvements in, for instance, the A.9. But those are only the improvements that are overdue since the 1940s. I suspect that the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, may be going to develop this theme of the road system as a planning tool, so on the subject of roads I will only add that in Scotland the quickest way of shortening journeys is by the bridging of firths. It really is time for the Government to commit themselves firmly and unequivocally, and with dates, to a bridge across the Kyle of Sutherland from Tain to Dornoch. To do less is simply to drag their feet.
My Lords, I hope I have done enough surgery to lay open the transport system of Scotland as a whole to the critical examination of your Lordships' House. But before sitting back to listen to and take note of the many expert opinions which I am sure we shall hear voiced during this debate, I would make one special plea on behalf of everyone who lives North of Inverness, and especially for the hotel and tourist industry in the far North. My plea is for any form at all of public transport to and fro on a Sunday. It really is a big problem for the tourist industry not to have a road or a rail or an air service on a Sunday, and it in fact limits the full use of available accommodation at the height of the season. There may be parts of our transport system in Scotland upon which I have not touched. I have not, for instance, mentioned ferries, nor have I mentioned

917
rural bus services, both of which are important. I hope that other speakers will fill in the gaps in the framework which I have laid down. I have tried to concentrate on the main arterial forms of transport, and particularly on the fixed equipment which they use.
I have tried to steer your Lordships' thoughts towards the strategic planning importance of all forms of transport, especially at a time when Scotland stands on the brink of a new era in history. I have tried to draw your Lordships' attention to the real importance of thinking big and thinking early about these matters so that the infrastructure which we provide can draw Scotland smoothly forward into new prosperity rather than staggering along in the wake of growth, stopping gaps, and trying to circumvent bottlenecks.
My Lords, I am confident that we shall hear these sentiments reflected by speakers on all sides of your Lordships' House. Those of us who voice them are not Scottish "chauvinist pigs". We are people of imagination who know what Scotland has to offer. We are people who beg to be able to offer it and to demonstrate what Scotland and the Scots can do for themselves and for our sister nations within the United Kingdom. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.22 p.m.
LORD GLENKINGLAS: My Lords, if I understood the allusion of the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, I am in the position of the hors d'oeuvre of the unicorn to-day. I hope to deserve the indulgence of the House by being both short in my maiden speech, and I hope not unduly controversial. Indeed, my Lords, there is no controversy about the aims with which this particular debate is concerned. Those of us who know Scotland well, who live there, appreciate the enormous importance of a good transport system. Scotland itself is a difficult country, at least in this respect. We have the wrong shape; we have occasionally rather difficult topography; and, much more seldom than most people believe, we have occasional bouts of bad climate. But none the less, the Scottish transport position is—and I agree entirely with the noble Viscount who has just spoken—vital to the development of the country. I have had the opportunity of being a farmer in that country, of being involved in industry,
918
of being considerably concerned in the fishing industry, and for a short and possibly not a very successful time—that is for others to judge—being in the Government. There is no doubt in my mind that transport is the key to the future of Scotland which I believe is better to-day than it has been for perhaps two centuries.
In the past, and I am talking about the immediate past, the biggest single problem was the link between England and Scotland, when we were trying to get some of the great industries up from the Midlands and from the South of England. It was the links over Shap and through Newcastle that were the key to the industrial development of Scotland. Thank goodness, these are now at least a very great deal better. As the noble Viscount has said, as we approach the next period in Scotland, it is not only going to be the links North and South—and these will be important from Perth to Inverness and beyond, and up the East coast—but also the need for good communications from East to West.
I can remember a few years ago having a little controversy with some of my colleagues in the Government as to whether we ought to maintain the lines North of Inverness and out to Kyle. I claim no credit for any particular crystal-gazing at the time, but it seemed to me to be vital to maintain these basic links in case they were needed in the future. We should have been very much worse off to-day with the developments that are coming, mainly at this moment through the oil industry, if these links had been allowed to go. I am bound to admit that in the future some of the links may well need to be from the West to the East. Here we are particularly vulnerable. There is a great deal that the Government should perhaps now be contemplating in case this type of development is necessary.
I could not help remembering, as the noble Viscount spoke of the railways and their task in carrying cattle and sheep, which they did so often in the past, that when I was fighting that particular battle for the line North of Inverness, I could find not one single farmer who wanted to send his sheep South from Lairg by rail. Perhaps to be fair this may have been the fault of British Railways themselves. However, since I promised to be short,

919
I must not spend too long on any particular theme.
I should like to raise one point which I hope may not be thought to be controversial, but which I feel very strongly about. Those of us who live in Scotland know that in most cases the distances that we need to travel are infinitely greater than down here. During the period I was fortunate enough to be a Minister of the Crown, on not one single occasion was the duty on petrol raised. I regret very much that this has had to happen this year. I know how easy it is for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to look upon petrol as something which is a milch cow if the Treasury want some more money; but that is disastrous in the Scottish context. If one looks at the statistics and studies the position in Orkney, one will find that there are a greater number of cars per head of the population than there are in any other part of the United Kingdom, including London. This is not because Orkney is vastly rich. It is because a car is absolutely essential to the life of people in that area. If the Government use petrol as a method of increasing taxation, they are going to hit at the life of the Scottish community in the countryside infinitely harder than anywhere else. I hope that I may make this point.
Next, perhaps, is also a slightly controversial subject though I hope not controversially introduced. It has been most admirably demonstrated in a number of fields that competition is of real help to the consumer. The noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, was talking during Question Time about the problems of the Island of Mull. The problems to the Islands of Islay and Jura are also great; but they are nothing like so difficult as they are to the Island of Mull, where private enterprise is also competing with the State corporation of Caledonian MacBraynes. The cost per passenger mile or per ton mile in those Islands is very substantially below what it is in the Island of Mull. I happen to know this because it used to be part of my constituency. I hope the Government, in planning their future thinking, whether it is by air, by ferry services, by buses or in any other form, will bear in mind that a reasonable element of genuine and fair competition is enormously to the benefit of the consumer;
920
and it is very easily demonstrated to have been so in Scotland over the last few years.
My Lords, there are a number of small islands scattered round the West coast of Scotland where they have their own particular problems. These are not always problems that are created either by MacBraynes or by the Government; they are sometimes aggravated by the attitude of local authorities. I am thinking of two small islands in my own area of Argyll, the Islands of Gigha and the Island of Lismore. In both of these cases a perfectly satisfactory system of transport could have been established years ago if it had not suited—I am bound to admit this is the only conclusion that I came to—a number of people on the county council, sometimes in the Scottish Office, and sometimes in the nationalised industries concerned, to try to play one section of the community against another so that nothing happened. This is not always difficult to do on the West coast, where time is not always quite as important as it is to some of your Lordships down here.
My Lords, I should like to point out too—and I am sure this point will he made on many occasions during the course of the debate—that if one wants to take a sizeable modern lorry, of perhaps 20 tons, over a stretch of 25 miles of roadway in this country, or on the mainland of Scotland, it will cost at to-day's prices about £25 for five miles. If one takes that lorry the same distance over the Minch it will cost at least £80. This is the element of extra cost that is falling on the islands—many of them with quite useful production and other development potential—due to the haphazard effect of their communications being across the sea and not across the land.
I have spoken for nearly long enough for this, a maiden speech. I have no doubt that on future occasions if I am fortunate enough I may speak for a good deal longer on other transport subjects because they are very dear to my heart. I am certain that the Government and many people concerned, as happened in my day—so I am not being at all controversial in saying this—will pay lip service to the vital necessity of coordinating all forms of transport. I have had my share of trying to do this and I

921
know how important it is. We are at the moment in a period of considerable national financial stringency. In my view it is absolutely essential that we should get the best possible transport system for Scotland or Wales or England or any other part of the country at the minimum cost. But this means very careful coordinating of plans and sometimes taking awkward decisions on priorities. I wish the Government well in it because if they are successful we in Scotland will be successful too.

E.E.C.: AGRICULTURE MINSTERS' MEETING
3.33 p.m.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS): My Lords, with the permission of the House I will repeat a Statement made by my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The Statement is as follows:
"The Council of Ministers (Agriculture) met in Luxembourg on 17 and 18 June. There were two main items of business: a statement on behalf of the United Kingdom on the renegotiation of the terms of British accession to the Community in the agricultural sector and the current market situation for pigs and beef.
"On the former, I made a full Statement elaborating our aims as they had been set out by my right honourable friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary on June 4. I have deposited copies of my Statement in the Library. In it I covered three basic areas. First, I outlined the ways in which the operation and mechanisms of the Common Agricultural Policy must be reformed. I emphasised the need not only to adopt clear criteria for future price determinations, but to implement them in relation to the requirements of modern efficient farms and to the supply/demand situation for individual commodities. I also asked that it should be accepted in principle that prices could, by agreement, be fixed for particular parts of the Community at levels lower than those applying generally. I proposed that the mechanisms of intervention should be modified so as to
922
reduce automatically the incentive to produce more than the market requires; and that if surpluses accumulated they should be made available as a matter of priority to Community consumers.
"Secondly, I pointed to the need for improvements in the régimes for particular commodities. I laid particular stress on the need for a new regime for beef: one which should replace permanent intervention by variable subsidies and production grants, to the benefit of producer and consumer alike. I recognised that such a new régime could not be introduced before next April, and warned my colleagues that the difficult market situation might call for further Community action on an interim basis during the coming weeks.
"Thirdly, I dealt with the need for a general liberalisation and impovement of access for food imports from Commonwealth and other countries. For New Zealand, I proposed that the review of the existing arrangements should start this year rather than next; that prices should be reviewed annually; and that provision should be made for continuing imports of New Zealand butter after 1977 at broadly the levels envisaged then. We were also considering possible methods of dealing with cheese. For sugar, I emphasised the need to offer continuing access for 1·4 million tonnes of sugar from the developing countries, and said that arrangements were also needed for further supplies from Australia. Finally, I pointed to broad areas in which access for third countries to Community markets should be improved; and I gave examples where both levies and tariffs could be reduced to the benefit of consumers.
"I was able to point out that all the issues I had raised could be dealt with as important and urgent business of the Council. No member country dissented from this proposal and the Chairman of the Council declared that the various elements contained in my Statement would be dealt with in the framework of the work which the Council had set itself to carry out in the course of the coming months. This has been written into the Record. I shall look to the Council to approach these questions seriously and expeditiously;

923
and I shall report to this House on progress as it is made.
"The second main item was the current market situation for pigs and beef. After full discussion in the Council, the Commission announced its intention of adopting the two further measures which I had sought in the interests of United Kingdom producers. On pigs, provision has been made for the continuation of the current special subsidy of 50p per score deadweight until September 1. Thereafter it will be paid at the rate of 35p per score until September 29, and at 15p until November 3. This amounts to total supplementary aid to pig producers of £30 million since March of this year. On beef, the increase in the United Kingdom guide price scheduled for January 31 will be brought forward to July 1. This should not raise prices to the consumer, for there are plentiful supplies available in this country. It is intended to sustain the market in a difficult situation. In consequence, the special subsidy in Northern Ireland will end on the same date, and subject to Parliamentary approval Northern Ireland producers will become eligible for the full rate of calf subsidy payable in Great Britain.
"In this meeting of the Council I have thus taken three measures to sustain confidence in the meat sector. First, I have secured the arrangements on pigs and beef which I have just described. Secondly, I have warned the Council of the possible need to take interim action to meet the beef market situation in the coming weeks. Thirdly, I have outlined the kind of Community regime for beef which should be introduced next year. These three measures are further evidence of the Government's determination to ensure that our livestock industry can continue to provide the nation with the supplies it needs in the years ahead."
My Lords, that is the end of the Statement.
LORD SANDYS: My Lords, from this side of the House I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, for reading the Statement, which was exceptionally long and dealing with a particularly difficult and intricate subject.
924
I should like to ask whether it is possible for the full Statement amounting to about 20 pages, which his right honourable friend Mr. Peart made in Luxembourg, to be made available in our Library, because there are a number of areas which will need elucidation. If I may say so, the Statement is not one which we would do well to debate at length here now, but may I take the opportunity of making two points? First, we support the Minister in regard to many of the areas in which he has reached agreement, especially in regard to the pig and beef sectors. These are areas about which the production industry in this country will feel some measure of relief. Secondly, it is encouraging to hear outlined the measures in regard to sugar, especially the arrangement forecast for the coming years. We shall be debating the calf subsidy to-morrow, and it would therefore be inappropriate to say more now.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, we should like to thank the Minister for repeating the Statement to the House, and I should like to ask only two or three questions. First, when is it expected that the Council of Ministers will respond to the proposals put by his right honourable friend? Secondly, the Minister referred in the Statement to the possible need to take interim action to meet the beef market situation in the coming weeks. It is our impression on this Bench that farmers in this area are not confident, and that something positive needs to be done immediately. I should like to ask the Government what they have in mind here, because the feeling in the farming industry is that the position is very serious indeed.
LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I am most grateful to both noble Lords for their contributions. It is at least agreed that it is a long and complicated Statement, and a copy of the document to which the noble Lord referred will certainly be placed in the Library. He also said that there would be general support in at least most of the areas covered by the document, particularly for the measures proposed to sustain confidence in the future policy on pigs and beef. We believe that this is so, and that the interests of consumers will in no way be harmed.
We are very strongly in favour of there being a continuing arrangement on sugar, especially for developing countries,

925
for at least some years ahead. We have also raised the question of imports of Australian cane sugar which are a very valuable addition, especially in the tight market situation in sugar which we are experiencing at the moment. We look forward to joining those two issues—developing countries' sugar and Australian sugar—in the negotiations ahead. On the calf subsidy, I took note of what the noble Lord said about the fact that your Lordships will be debating this subject to-morrow and no doubt, from time to time, reference will be made to the arrangements which are being made, especially in the Northern Irish context.
The noble Lord, Lord Byers, very rightly stressed the concern that is felt in the industry. It is no good denying that there is considerable concern and anxiety, especially in the pigmeat and beef sectors. My right honourable friend has said very clearly and firmly to the Council of Ministers that he would wish to have this subject discussed as a matter of urgency—and that means in the next few weeks—as occasion and need arise. As regards the movement of the beef market, it is a little early to decide whether the present slide and the sudden dip, which only last week emphasised the trend in the beef market, will continue. But we have very much in mind the need for further discussion at very short notice, if this slide is accentuated and causes further anxiety.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, I must declare an interest in that I am a beef farmer. Can the noble Lord be more forthcoming in saying what interim action his right honourable colleague will take on the beef situation? As he rightly said, beef prices are falling, most costs are going up. Wages have gone up with the threshold agreement in the last week or two—concentrates, admitterly, are falling a little—and fertilisers, like everything else are going through the roof, so beef farmers are really very worried. Can the noble Lord tell us in greater detail what interim measures or ideas he has for the protection of this vital industry?
LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, we have abrogated the derogation which was granted to us in March, bringing forward to July 1 the new prices which would operate in January next.
926
We expect that this will have a steadying effect on the markets and will sustain confidence in the industry. If not, my right honourable friend has said that he will immediately seek further discussions and, if necessary, further measures. I cannot elaborate at this point.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for the Statement, which I am pleased to say offers some amelioration for the sugar producers. Having been in Fiji when we made the international agreement for Fiji to have its markets for sugar, may I ask whether some amelioration has also been offered to that pleasant little island which, at least, has some good rugby players? Finally, whatever our politics on both sides of the House, we do not want to see British agriculture dominated too much by outside influences. We can have a healthy Britain only with a healthy British agriculture, and this is a critical point in the beef producers' history.
LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I can assure my noble friend that the phrase "developing countries" covers all those countries which so largely depend upon the export of sugar. May I say that the conjoining of sugar with rugby comes very pleasurably to my ears.
LORD HOY: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend about the sugar agreement? When the sugar agreement was reached, certain assurances were given to this House by the noble Lords opposite who then occupied the Government Benches, but I am afraid that they have not been borne out in practice. It has been for this Government which succeeded to try to protect the sugar interests in Australia and elsewhere. Secondly, may I ask about beef and pig production? I shall not seek to exaggerate what we have achieved at this time, but it is very much greater in support of pig and beef production in this country than was achieved by noble Lords opposite. I do not think we have reached a panacea, but I would say that over this interim period this Government and my right honourable friend Mr. Peart, the Minister for Agriculture, have at least achieved for Britain something that noble Lords opposite failed to achieve when they were in office.
LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, as my noble friend said, this is not a complete panacea—very few things are in this sector for very long. But it is a very substantial contribution to steadying the market, and, above all, to instilling a new confidence in this industry. We are all conscious of the anxieties to which the noble Lord, Lord Byers, referred. I know that my noble friend made a distinguished contribution in this field during his tenure of office in the Ministry of Agriculture and, with his special knowledge, he knows that what has been achieved since March is very considerable indeed. As regards sugar, it is of course true that what we originally had from the other side of the House was a "firm intention". This was ultimately transformed, with some bilateral, bipartisan help, into 1·4 million tonnes, which I am told is very much the same as tons.
LORD LEATHERLAND: When my noble friend referred to the document which he is to place in the Library, are we to understand that it is a different document and longer than the one available to-day in the Printed Paper Office? If that is so, and in view of the fact that that document will no doubt be produced by some mechanical or photographic means, can a few extra copies be run off so that any noble Lord who wishes to see the document in full may take the opportunity of so doing?
LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I am grateful for the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland, in case I have unwittingly misled the noble Lord who raised the point originally. Certainly a copy of the Statement will be in the Library. I think it would be expected that a copy of the speech could be placed in the Library also. In any case, I give a guarantee that it will.
LORD BALERNO: My Lords, does the Minister really think the proposals being made for support to the pig subsidy can lead to a lessening of the rate of slaughter of sows? While the subsidy is at present at 50p there have been considerable slaughterings of sows, and that may well continue as the subsidy has been announced as decreasing to 39p and, if I heard rightly, in September to 15p. I find it difficult to appreciate how this will
928
bring any comfort to pig breeders in this country.
LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I take the point of the noble Lord, Lord Balerno. I am advised that the expectation is that this support will in fact assist pig herds.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: My Lords, the Minister keeps on talking about the stabilising of the beef market. Is he aware that to stabilise something at a loss of approximately £30 per animal is hardly likely to encourage the beef industry? Is he further aware that the loss has just about doubled since March'?
LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, perhaps I should have said "stabilise the position". I was addressing myself fairly to the consumer point raised by the noble Lord. We do not expect this will raise prices for the consumer, but we hope that it will arrest the slide which the noble Lord, Lord Byers, reminds us has been proceeding for some time, and which only last week took a disastrous turn. So we expect it would stabilise the trend, and at least arrest the slide without unduly adding to the burdens of the consumers, if at all. Incidentally, if this does not work, we shall look at the position de novo and act immediately.
LORD O'HAGAN: My Lords, would the noble Lord accept that this subject is of great interest to every British consumer, and to the British agricultural industry? Would he also accept that it is a major factor in the future of our renegotiation of the terms of entry to the E.E.C.? Is there any chance of having a full debate on this subject? It seems to be something that is not wholly suited to debate by question and answer in the form to which we have been listening recently.
LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I am always responsive to the suggestion that a subject of this complexity is not susceptible to proper discussion by question and answer. Nevertheless, extremely useful and opposite points have been made from both sides of the House this afternoon. No doubt the Leader of the House and others who discuss the arrangements for Business will have heard what has just been said by the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, in his reply to my question, my noble friend said that he would arrange for a copy of the longer document to be placed in the Library, but I do not think he quite answered the main point I made. My main point is that the long document will have to be produced by some mechanical or photographic means. Therefore, instead of running off a single copy to place in the Library, could not a few more be run off which we can obtain from the Printed Paper Office?
LORD GORONTWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I do not think the resources of Parliamentary technology will be exhausted by that suggestion. I will do my very best to meet the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland.
LORD FORBES: My Lords, may I suggest that sometimes the noble Lord might wear his hat in the capacity of Minister of Agriculture, the agricultural side, and not always wear it as Minister of Food?
LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I think there is only one appropriate comment to that—heaven forbid!

SCOTTISH TRANSPORT
3.56 p.m.
Debate resumed.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I must first express thanks to the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, for having brought this matter forward to-day, and for the very wide-ranging way in which he spoke to it. In fact, so wide-ranging was it that for once we have had a Statement, much of which could have fitted in quite admirably with the general theme of the debate initiated by the noble Viscount. The wide-ranging nature of his speech was matched also by the wide-ranging nature of his views. I suppose he worked on the basis that if one is to open one's mouth for goodies, one might as well open it as wide as possible. The first thought I had on hearing the long list of items on which the noble Viscount wishes Governments to spend money, if not to-day no later than the day after to-morrow, was that it is just as well that there is to be a very considerable income to the country from North Sea oil, because the noble Viscount has sought to mortgage it for some considerable time ahead.
930
However, his speech is none the worse for having done that.
My Lords, the second matter to which I should refer immediately is the maiden speech which we have had from the noble Lord, Lord Glenkinglas. It is a special pleasure that a debate of this importance should have been the subject of a maiden speech from one who was recently Secretary of State for Scotland. It is not because I anticipate that there will be many occasions when I will be disagreeing with the noble Lord that I ask him to make it a regular part of his life to take part in the debates in your Lordships' House, particularly those on Scottish affairs. I am sure that all of us, wherever we sit in the House, will always be glad to listen to what he has to say, and to enjoy his speeches as we have done to-day. I also look forward to the maiden speeches of the noble Lords, Lord Mackie of Benshie and Lord Erskine of Rerrick, to whom only the traditions of the House prevent me from referring as my noble friends, because both are friends of very long standing indeed. I do not necessarily expect that I will agree with much of what they say either, although the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie and I have, on occasions, found ourselves in agreement, generally when the subject was to attack the Tories. I am not so sure whether the noble Lord still finds the same enthusiasm for that ploy nowadays, however. Time will tell.
The Scottish economy has recovered well during the past few months from the period of three-day working earlier in the year. Total unemployment is now lower than at any time since 1969, although the current level of 78,000 is still high in comparison to the 50,300 figure achieved by the previous Labour Government in June, 1966. However, unemployment, as measured on a seasonally-adjusted basis, is currently falling, and the number of unfilled vacancies is very high—both suggesting that there is a strong and rising demand for labour in Scotland. Indeed, as the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso said, the Scottish economy appears to be enjoying one of its fullest periods of expansion since the war.
One noticeable facet of the situation has been the improvement in the position of Scotland relative to the rest of

931
Great Britain. During the 1971/73 period, the Scottish unemployment rate averaged 1·7 times the corresponding rate in Great Britain. Since the beginning of this year there has been a considerable improvement in Scotland's relative posilion, and last month the Scottish figure was 1·56 times the Great Britain rate. I do not want anyone to take from that fact that I have any satisfaction at the Scottish rate being higher than the Great Britain rate. I look forward in the not too distant future to the situation being the other way round when the percentages may go the other way.
The most recent C.B.I. Industrial Trends Survey also suggested that Scotland was faring better than Great Britain as a whole. Fewer firms were working below full capacity in Scotland and there was a strong upward trend in both manufacturing orders and output over the first quarter. Investment prospects are also marginally better in Scotland, with more firms expecting to increase rather than decrease investment over the next year. But, my Lords, good as this may be, it is by no means nearly enough. The sustained growth of the Scottish economy will require a very much higher rate of investment than in the past, and it is to be hoped that industry in Scotland will take full advantage of the investment opportunities now available.
It is of the greatest importance in a situation as difficult as the present one to exploit all one's strength. Transport is something we are very good at as a nation, and in selecting transport as the main theme of the wide-ranging debate on the economy the noble Viscount has shown both discrimination and understanding. Transport is the flux of a modern economy. It gives it its flexibility and makes possible the vast range of permutations which make a commonplace of its intracacies and sophistication. Transport—or, to widen it a little, communications—is the common element. In tackling the problems of North Sea oil the single common element, the theme that ran through all problems, was that of communications, whether it was service boats to drilling rigs, helicopters for exploration personnel, rail for the hugh quantities of aggregate, telecommunications, air services or whatever.
I should like now to turn to roads, since this is the field in which the Secre-
932
tary of State spends more money directly than anywhere else, as the noble Lord, Lord Glenkinglas, will be well aware. There are over 29,000 miles of public road in Scotland: 1,980 are trunk roads, for which the Secretary of State has direct responsibility; 4,500 miles are principal roads where the grant is paid at the rate of 75 per cent.; 10,600 miles are classified roads; and 12,000 miles are unclassified roads. Expenditure by highway authorities on the last two groups is supported through rate support grant. Since 1956, when the Secretary of State took over responsibility for roads, Government expenditure has increased from £1·7 million in 1956-57 to about £50 million this year.
Successive Governments have stuck to two main aims: the provision of a modern network of roads throughout the industrial belt, and a programme of major river crossings. Anyone who drives around Central Scotland now can see for himself how much has been accomplished already, and it will be only a few years now before the dual carriageway network, both trunk and motorway, connects Dundee, Perth, Stirling, Edinburgh, Glasgow, right through that city to Greenock and Southwards to the M6 at Carlisle. Ayr, Kilmarnock and Dumbarton will also be connected. Besides joining these particular places the network serves all the industrial areas which surround them, and there will be not many places in Central Scotland which will be more than a few miles from access to the network of new roads throughout Britain.
The main river crossings have been built: the Clyde Tunnel, the Forth and Tay Bridges, the Kingston Bridge in Glasgow and the Erskine Bridge. Work on the next group has started or is imminent: Ballachulish and Kessock and the crossing of the Cromarty Firth. These bridges help to shorten many journeys, and there is already discussion about other crossings which will bring similar benefits—the Dornoch Firth, Kyle of Lochalsh and the Kyles of Bute.
There are, of course, still many frustrations. Not the least for us in the Scottish Office is the need required by the economic situation to cut back the level of capital expenditure on roads in the next few years. This will impose some delay

933
on the completion of the industrial network, but we intend to do all we can to ensure that the delay is not too long. We have, as is known, taken steps to isolate from the cuts the expenditure needed to improve the roads which support North Sea oil development. I should perhaps take this opportunity to allay a misapprehension which may arise in the minds of some of your Lordships, as it has arisen elsewhere. To obtain a cut of 20 per cent. in capital expenditure during the financial year 1974-75 on road improvements not related to oil development, a much higher reduction than 20 per cent. has had to be imposed on the planning of new schemes which can be allowed to start this year. This is because the bulk of the financial provision for 1974-75, and indeed for much of the following year as well, is required to meet the continuing cost of schemes already in progress; hence the reduction has had to be found in the sums earmarked for the start of new schemes, with a resultant severe cutting down of the number of new starts which can be allowed. The Secretary of State has, however, been able so to arrange matters that the exemption of oil-related road schemes from the reduction in expenditure is not in itself cutting into the rest of the Scottish roads programme.
The current programme was outlined in the 1970 White Paper Scottish Roads in the 1970s. It foreshadowed the completion of the network in the main industrial belt and the progressive improvement of the long-distance routes leading from it to the other parts of Scotland. The most notable single development has been the commitment to rebuild the A9 from Perth to the Cromarty Firth, but we are also doing a good deal of work on the improvement of the route from Dundee to Aberdeen.
Next year will see a great change in highway administration. With the reorganisation of local government in May the responsibiltiy for all non-trunk roads in Scotland will lie with the new regional and islands authorities. These will be more powerful authorities, with greater resources than the present ones and they will deal with all the roads in their areas. We have it in mind that the system of financial support should recognise this, and be changed so that the new authorities will not need to be so dependent on consultation with the Scottish Develop
934
ment Department on principal roads as they are now. The idea is that all the grants should be channelled through rate support grant, so that there will not need to be the same central control as there has to be on the present system of ad hoc grants. The change will, however, be greater than this alone. The new regional and islands authorities will have all the local transport responsibilities, including responsibility for public transport, the infrastructure associated with it and grants to assist the provision of rural bus and ferry services. For the first time local authorities will be able to consider their local transport requirements as a whole, including the improvement of the road system and the support and improvement of public transport.
We intend to introduce, as part of the overall planning process an annual document called Transport Policies and Programmes. This will cover the whole of each regional and islands authority's responsibilities in the field of local transport and require them to plan future expenditure with an eye to the interplay of public transport, the use of the car and traffic management schemes. This procedure is now being discussed with the local authoritity associations and, when adopted, should result in a better balance of expenditure between the various means of meeting the needs of people to move around the area in which they live—second best to shifting the centre of government to Wick.
It has been accepted by successive Governments that the best way to improve shipping services is to introduce wherever possible modern efficient roll-on/roll-off vehicle ferries operating from purpose-built terminals over the shortest practicable sea crossings. Much remains to be done, of course, but good progress has already been made, as those who use these services will know. The policy now being followed is to pay a subsidy for services to small and remote places where revenue cannot be expected to meet operating costs. The Government expect to pay £845,000 in this way during the present financial year to the two operating companies with which we have undertakings for the Western Isles and for the inter-island services in Orkney and Shetland. In addition, some £316,000 will be paid as the direct Government

935
share before rate support grant is calculated of grants for ferry services made by local authorities under the Transport Act 1968.
There is also very substantial Government financial assistance towards the cost of providing terminals for the roll-on/ roll-off services to the major islands. In 1973-74 grants amounted to about £1· million and this year we expect to pay between £1·4 million and £1·5 million. An example of what is being accomplished with Government help is that our grants and loans for the new terminals at Scrabster and Stromness for the Pentland Firth crossing will amount to £1,200,000 out of a total cost of £1,300,000. You cannot get very much nearer to 100 per cent. than that unless you go the whole hog. Major services which have already been modernised or where work is now in progress are at Ardrossan/Brodick, Gourock/Dunoon, Islay, Oban/Craignure, Oban/Lochboisdale, Ullapool/Stornaway, Pentland Firth, and also Aberdeen/Lerwick where work is about to start. In addition, a number of small modern vehicle ferries have been brought into use. I should like to say how well the shipping companies, harbour authorities and local authorities have responded to these changes and worked together to bring them about.
Finally, I must say something about shipping charges. The Government regret as much as any user of the services or resident in the islands the fact that rising costs, which have their effect on all sectors of the economy, have made necessary increases in charges for the services operated by all the companies serving the islands. I must point out that Government financial assistance for these services in the two forms I described earlier has far outstripped any increase in charges and has gone up threefold over the past five years, and the total this year is expected to be very nearly £2,600,000. I think noble Lords must agree that that is a very considerable advance.
I come to railways. With public support to passenger services at £14 million in Scotland last year, we obviously cannot say that there will never be any more closures. But there has not been a major closure for some time. Closures take the publicity. Noteworthy developments are too often overlooked. One exception,
936
however, was the completion of the West Coast main line electrification scheme, the start for which was authorised by the Labour Government in 1970. This new service provides not only seven trains each way daily between Glasgow and London, with a journey time of only five hours—and as against what the noble Viscount had to say about the air services, it works equally well both ways—but also fast and conveniently timed services from Scotland to industrial centres like the Midlands, Manchester and Liverpool. Additional passenger services to the North include a new day-time through service each way between Inverness and London. The Glasgow South suburban electrified network has also been extended to Hamilton and Lanark.
Apart from extended passenger services in the North, additional facilities have been provided at Invergordon and Aberdeen for bulk freight traffic, and Alness station, closed in 1960, has been re-opened. The possibility of establishing a freightliner terminal at Inverness and other suggestions for improvements to the services to the North are being examined by British Rail. Approval has been given for the first stage, involving expenditure of £11 million, for major track rationalisation and resignalling in the Edinburgh area, and the Government have under consideration ambitious proposals by the Greater Glasgow Passenger Transport Executive for extension of the rail system in their area.
The Government's recognition of the railways' important role was recognised in the Statement on May 13 in another place by my right honourable friend that there would be no closures of substance in 1974, and by the publication last week of the Railways Bill, to which the noble Viscount referred. This is, of course, not the occasion for a discussion on the legislation, but noble Lords will be aware that the Bill's provisions provide ample evidence of the Government's acceptance of the railways valuable contribution to the social, environmental and industrial aspects of the nation's life.
The Government believe that railways should make a full contribution to the movement of freight which is suited to rail. A joint initiative has been launched with the Freight Transport Association and some 100 major firms to seek additional worthwhile freight consignments

937
for rail. This initiative is supported by the provision in the Bill far payment of grants to potential rail customers towards the costs of providing freight loading facilities. Many firms either based in or operating in Scotland are included in the examination of rail freight possibilities, and the proposed grants will be available in Scotland.
British Rail are planning major new developments in the provision of high performance long distance passenger services in the next few years in the shape of high speed diesel trains and Advanced Passenger Trains. The Government are at present considering the Railway Board's proposals for investing in high speed diesel trains for the East Coast main line and constructing prototype Advanced Passenger Trains which would be used initially on the West Coast main line. Even to maintain the Scottish rail system at roughly its present size will involve considerable cost, but that cost the Government are prepared to bear. It would be unrealistic to envisage much expansion, but the Government will continue to give every consideration to proposals for improvement of the Scottish network.
Perhaps I should now say something about air services. One of the most valuable contributions to the aviation field in Scotland in recent times has been the Civil Aviation Authority's recent Report entitled Air Transport in the Scottish Highlands and islands. It gives a comprehensive picture of the air transport situation in that region and contains a good deal of statistical information that has never been published before. It is all the more valuable because of the increasing importance of Highlands and Islands services and airports in the North Sea oil context. The Authority has suggested that if loss-making services are to be subsidised in future my right honourable friend should be responsible for making the grants. The Government are considering the Report and their views will be made known as soon as possible.
It is well recognised that developments along the East Coast and up into far Northern waters as a result of North Sea oil operations have forged ahead at an unprecedented rate, and the commercial prospects for services in that area are being transformed. Scottish Airways
938
have on the whole responded well to the challenge, and they are now considering urgently what more needs to be done to meet an escalating demand. They provide a remarkably reliable service. In spite of all the problems that an airline encounters in operating quite large aircraft into airports with strictly limited facilities, on most routes they achieve over 95 per cent. regularity on scheduled flights with an average loss of time per flight of just over ten minutes. I am sure noble Lords will agree that in these very exacting conditions this is a most commendable record. After all, we are rather inclined merely to concern ourselves with air services when we happen to find we are diverted from Edinburgh to Abbotsinch or occasionally to Prestwick.
An important concern must be to establish arrangements which will ensure the efficient organisation of the ground support systems, and particularly, of course, airports. In giving close and urgent study to this, we shall have very close regard to the need to move with the times and to be able to react quickly in art industry notable for its rapid rate of change. When this is associated with dramatic North Sea developments in the last two to three years—and it is difficult to recognise that it is as short a time that—and particularly with the very rich strikes 100 miles or more off our most Northerly island group, the problems can become acute.
Because of the special need to develop the infrastructure for North Sea oil, successive Governments have taken the exceptional course of making grants to the Civil Aviation Authority for the improvement of airports which they own and operate in the Highlands and Islands. The previous Government sanctioned a grant for the lengthening and strengthening of the runway at Inverness to make it suitable for B.A.C. 1-11 jet aircraft. I hope that work on this will be completed within the next few months. In a visit to Shetland shortly after we took office, my honourable friend announced a grant for the improvement of Sumburgh airport in the Shetlands. As a parallel measure, British Airways are making a special purchase of HS 748 aircraft for use on the Shetlands route. and this, together with the aerodrome developments, will result in a very big improvement in the services, which many

939
of your Lordships know fell last year to a regularity as low as 83 per cent.
North Sea oil operations have of course brought the most rapid increase in air traffic at Aberdeen Airport. The number of passengers has more than doubled during the past four years and is expected at least to double again by the early 1980s. This growth rate is placing a severe strain on the existing very limited terminal and other facilities at the airport. An extension to the terminal building was opened in April of this year, but this cannot be anything more than a temporary palliative. The question of the ownership of the airport and its future development is now under very urgent consideration. I recognise that the present situation of uncertainty is highly unsatisfactory and that a speedy decision must be arrived at. An early decision is also desirable at Glasgow on the possible take-over of the airport by the British Airports Authority and on the need for new development. I can say no more at the moment than that proposals there are being very urgently considered.
The possibility of establishing one major airport to serve the whole central belt of Scotland has been ventilated on many occasions, and notwithstanding what I or anybody else may say it will continue to be raised; but, as others have said before me and as I am sure others will say after me, we do not believe that a new central Scottish airport on a green field site is either a practicable or an economic proposition at the present time.
LORD POLWARTH: My Lords, before the noble Lord leaves the question of airports, I wonder whether he could assure us that the question of the ownership and future of Aberdeen Airport is being treated really seriously? It does not appear that very much progress has been made since the present Government took Office.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I can confirm that the major airports are all being urgently considered, and I think that we shall be able to take a decision in sufficiently short a time to make the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, quite envious of the progress made in comparison with the previous Administration.
940
I would wish to touch on only one other point, that of the ports. The continuing increase in activity at our Scottish ports shows that they are responding well to the calls being placed on them by developments in overseas trade, particularly to Europe and to the rapidly expanding North Sea oil operations, which are demanding both in their time scales and their requirements. There has never been a time when so much work has been done in so many Scottish ports and harbours as in the last two or three years. The total value of projects just completed, under construction, or at the planning stage is well above £25 million. A considerable amount of this expenditure has been met by way of Government grants (for instance, in the case of Peterhead harbour), and loans, in the case of Aberdeen, Lerwick, and a few others. I think that your Lordships will agree that this represents a most commendable response in a most important, not to say highly traditional, transport sector.
As I have gone into fairly substantial detail about things which are going on at the present time it has not been possible for me to cover the whole field on which the noble Viscount touched in moving his Motion. I shall be taking a very careful note during the succeeding discussion. I am not just being polite when I say that the Government welcome this debate and will make use of it, because I believe that it is our common attitude that everything possible should be done to move Scotland firmly into its proper place by the end of this century, and as early as possible in this century. We are planning Scotland's future, and if we plan it well we can be planning for a Scotland that is prosperous not just for a few years ahead, not just for a few decades ahead, but for a very long time ahead indeed. I am very grateful to the noble Viscount for moving this Motion.
4.25 p.m.
LORD MACKIE OF BENSHIE: My Lords, I was anxious to speak before the noble Lord, Lord Hughes. Now I feel rather churlish, because after he has detailed the enormous sums and enormous effort being expended to improve transport in Scotland, one feels that the debate which my noble friend initiated is unnecessary. But I must say that

941
all the expenditure still results in an awful lot of complaints from people who actually travel around Scotland, and have business interests particularly in the far North. I must declare that Caithness transport means a great deal to me, personally, and to my noble friend Lord Thurso, in that we are engaged in manufacturing industries there, and also trying to promote small manufacturing industries, with a little success. We know very well the difficulties that occur in the promotion of manufacture or, indeed, of doing business in an area which is not fully served with all kinds of communications.
My noble friend has already mentioned that if you want to fly to Wick for a four or five hour business discussion you can do so in a day, but if our executives in the Wick area want to go to London they need three days away from business. The transport service there is not improving, because some years ago we had an early morning service out of Wick which was of immense benefit to us. I do not know why more people did not use it, but with the expansion that is bound to come this kind of thing needs looking at again. It is absolute nonsense that a man should have to spend three days away to do one piece of business.
The question of executive travel is also important in the Northern areas. If you do not have ease of travel, and reasonably cheap travel out, then you cannot get the right quality of man or executive to stay there if you want to promote industry in a difficult area. It is enormously expensive to travel from Wick to London. In fact, your Lordships would be horrified if you knew what it costs you to listen to my noble friend Lord Thurso and myself—although, pound for pound, it is cheaper for me!
I think that before the expansion of the oil business the Government must get their priorities right on the main arteries. They must improve greatly the road from Inverness to Wick, and also the terrible road from Perth to Inverness. I know that a great deal is being done and is projected, but it is absolutely vital that the Government make it their main priority. If the arteries are right, then you can put up with a little less well-made roads going out. I have many examples of this. We export Scottish
942
fruit, strawberries, down to Liverpool and Manchester. It is cheaper to do that now than it was some years ago simply because of the new road system, the M.6, and the development of new markets where lorries do not have to wait for hours before they can unload. The result is that we can now send down overnight a lorryload of four tons of fruit and visit a market in Liverpool and in Manchester, drop off our fruit and come home, and the cost per pound is actually dropping a little. This is a practical example arising from the improvement of the main arteries of communication. Unfortunately, it is mostly in England, although I must confess that it is a great help from Stirling on. But we need the same sort of development to Caithness.
I hate to think what will happen when the oil development gets going in Caithness—as it will get going—simply because it is an area with an infrastructure for 30,000 people. Although at the moment development is taking place in Shetland, Orkney, the Aberdeenshire coast, and of course Invergordon, sooner or later the area must be used. To do it I would plead with the Minister to exercise all his powers to get the money for the main arteries. I am afraid that road transport will still be the most important feature of any development. We in the glass firm there can get a private enterprise firm, which is operating an integrated system throughout the country, to deliver in Somerset and the West Country within three days. I think that for the expenditure of subsidies to the various firms in the North we should get a better service.
Very curious things happen. I have been in touch with the N.F.U. and with a few convenors, and find that in the island of Arran, for example, a subsidised firm operates a day return ticket from Brodick to Ardrossan but it will not issue tickets before 12 o'clock. That seems to be a curious way of helping the public. If they want to save money, perhaps they should not issue them until 5 o'clock and then nobody would use the service. Little restrictions like these annoy people much more than the actual cost of the fare. I also understand that this firm, which is wholly subsidised, is charging Arran about £10·50 to transport a ton of hay, £8·40 to transport a ton of feeding-stuffs and £5£50 to take a beast to the mainland. All these costs add enormously to the

943
already rising costs of agriculture—and agriculture is clearly in a crucial position at this time.
My Lords, the people in the good land are losing money on beef and I do not like to think what is to happen to the people in the hills, which Government after Government have recognised as a reservoir for the production of calves for the fatteners, if transport costs keep rising at the same time as prices are falling. I wonder whether the money which successive Governments have spent on subsidising various firms is being spent in the best way. Perhaps they should look at agriculture and should subsidise the transport of individual items. There is no question that the hills of Scotland could carry infinitely more cows and raise infinitely more calves than they are doing at present, if the winter food could be supplied—and winter food, of course, involves transport. At the present moment there may be a slight embarrassment about the amount of beef, but I do not think that this position can continue if beef remains as unprofitable as it is to-day. The Government should look at the question of a direct subsidy on the transport costs of agricultural feed, instead of the all-over subsidy which to farmers often appears wasted.
The question of roads for tourism is enormously important to Scotland, as well as to the people who regard the Highlands as one of the last areas left in Europe where they can find a little peace and get a little refreshment away from the industrial society in which they live. I know that the Highlands roads are heavily subsidised but the Government must continue to expand the network, because the tourist industry is bringing ever-increasing amounts of money to the Highlands, and the foreign exchange is assisting our balance of payments position. I am tempted to ask a number of other questions. but I appreciate that many other noble Lords are due to speak. I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Hughes. who has assisted me in the past, to look carefully at a number of relatively small points.
We have another interesting example of self-help—in this case assisted by the Highlands Board—concerning the short crossing of the Pentland Firth from John
944
O'Groats. Some Orkneymen bought a boat, assisted by the Highlands Board, and found that there was not enough depth at John O'Groats. These gentlemen made an extension out of an old tank, added a boom to extend the pier, floated it across the Pentland Firth and erected it themselves. That is the kind of self-help which has had the effect of helping to provide a good tourist service, which the Minister might well examine, as well as the major harbours with their roll-on roll-off facilities. I beg him to keep the arterial concept in mind. If the main arteries are right—I am really talking about roads—then you have a chance of prosperity in the veins running off and at the end, and private enterprise could then take advantage, as has been done by the firm which I quoted in improving service to industry in the North.
4.37 p.m.
LORD HOY: My Lords, it is my pleasant duty to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, on his maiden speech. I have known him a long time, both in another place and in your Lordships' House. I am bound to say that I knew his brother more intimately because his brother, John, and I served together for six years as Parliamentary Secretaries at the Ministry of Agriculture. Indeed I can say that we did it quite deliberately because we refused to be moved to other Departments. The family which the noble Lord represents has a very distinguished record in farming in the North of Scotland and their contribution to society as a whole is not to be underestimated. So we welcome the noble Lord to your Lordships' House as a representative of a family which has brought great credit to Scotland as a whole. On this occasion I will not dispute some of the things he said, but will give him an assurance that a little later we might not be seeing eye to eye. On behalf of your Lordships may I say we were grateful to him for his contribution. We certainly look forward to his next one.
My Lords, one thing that disturbs me about changes in Government—if changes disturb anyone—are the views taken up by noble Lords and Members of another place immediately they change from one side to another. I thought this was

945
typified this afternoon by the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, who I think now has departed. I am sure he will not mind my saying in his absence that, three months after being Minister of State for Scotland, to come along and say to my noble friend, "What are you doing about this problem?" can only merit the reply, "What were you doing all the time you were Minister of State?" To raise a question of this kind does not impress me; I am certain that it does not impress your Lordships' House. If that matter was so urgent for such a long period, then the noble Lord should have dealt with it when he was Minister of State for Scotland. What he ought not to do is to come along three months afterwards and ask my noble friend what he has done about it in that period. I am not impressed by that type of argument, whether it comes from my side or from the other side of the House.
The noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, whose speeches I always enjoy and with whom I am very friendly, always surprises me by the number of times that he gets complaints. He was talking about the A.9 development. I do not talk about the A.9—I use it. Many people talk about it but do not use it. I repeat, I use it. The noble Viscount said that the A.9 has been in this position for the last forty years. Those were the words he used, and he wants to know from my noble friend what he has been doing for the last three months!
VISCOUNT THURSO: My Lords, may I correct the noble Lord? I said since the 1940s. The 1940s finished with 1949, so it is not quite forty years. But there are sections of the A.9 which he and I. who both use it, know have not changed since 1949.
LORD HOY: My Lords, I do not want to argue about a year or two, but from 1940 to 1974 is 34 years, and I do not know why the noble Viscount wanted to interrupt over a matter of six years. All I am saying to the noble Viscount is this: he may be absolutely neutral in his argument, but his most distinguished father was responsible for this road over a long period of time.
VISCOUNT THURSO: Only a year.
LORD HOY: But he was in a very dis-
946
tinguished position, and even if, as the noble Viscount says, his distinguished father had the position for only 12 months, he has no right to come here and ask my noble friend to do something in a quarter of the time for which his noble father occupied the post. That is something one ought not to do. I want the A.9 to be put right very quickly, and I want to ask a specific question of my noble friend about the A.9. I was told quite recently, indeed through the columns of the Scotsman newspaper and by a picture, that the bridge at Carr Bridge collapsed about a fortnight ago. That is a tremendously important link, and as one who uses this road frequently in the course of a year, I want to know what is being done to put that right.
LORD BURTON: My Lords, perhaps I may tell the noble Lord briefly that it was the obsolete bridge that collapsed, but that there is a Bailey bridge which he can use.
LORD HOY: My Lords. I know it is the obsolete bridge that collapsed. With all due respect, that is not great information. I should not have thought it was the Bailey bridge which was collapsing as it was put up to replace the obsolete one which has collapsed. All I as a user want to know is—and I know what the noble Lord's responsibility is in that part of the world—what is being done to put it right so that when the summer traffic comes, and it is now coming, provision will have been made to meet the needs of the people in that area. I should have thought that the noble Lord would have wanted to support me in putting that question. I am sorry he does not.
LORD BURTON: My Lords, I can give the answer very briefly. This bridge was under construction. It was the old bridge that collapsed while being demolished, but it had already become obsolete. A new bridge is under construction which should have been completed before the onset of tourist traffic, but owing to the steel difficulties it has been somewhat delayed. However, in two or three months' time if the noble Lord comes up he will be able to go over the new bridge.
LORD HOY: My Lords, I shall be up before then and I can only hope the bridge will be ready. When I look at a

947
picture in the Scotsman and find the people who are repairing the bridge lying in the river that does not encourage me. I want to know from my noble friend what steps are being taken to put that right. I find it difficult to follow the contribution which the noble Lord, Lord Glenkinglas (who was a very old friend of mine in the House of Commons) had to make. I thought it was a very modified one and I rather liked it. It was a little different from the speeches he used to deliver in the other place, and perhaps because of that I liked it all the more. The only exception I took to it was when he accused the Government of using petrol—and I think these were his words—as a "milch cow". This Government do not use petrol as a "milch cow". All we can do is to reflect the prices charged to us by the Arab States and no Government can do anything other than that.
All I would say to the noble Lord is this—and he will correct me if I am wrong. I understand that he has some influence in the Arab world. Indeed, if I take the Press reports to be correct—and I do not know whether they are correct or not—the noble Lord is regarded as a kind of adviser to the Shah of Persia. I do not know whether or not that is true, but he will be able to tell me. If he is an adviser to the Shah, then all he could say to the Shah is, "You had better supply your oil to Great Britain at a cheaper price so that the Government of Britain will be able to reduce the price to its consumers."
LORD GLENKINGLAS: My Lords, am grateful to the noble Lord and I do not want to prolong the debate, but he is not looking at the matter in the way in which I know the Arab States are looking at it. They regard the tax that we put on petrol and the increasing taxes which the present Government are putting on petrol as probably the best excuse they have for putting up the price.
LORD HOY: My Lords, I do not think that is a very good answer.
LORD GLENKINGLAS: I am only telling the noble Lord what is the position.
LORD HOY: With all due respect, my Lords, I know a little about the Middle East. having served there for a long time in difficult circumstances. The people
948
who supply us with the oil decided to put up the price very substantially, and whatever else happens, no matter which Government is in power—whether a Conservative or Labour Government—they have to pass that rise on to the consumer. What the noble Lord is not entitled to do is to come along to-day to your Lordships' House and say to this Government, "You ought to be doing something about it!" May I re-issue my hint to him. If he has this influence in the Middle East and if he is what he is reported to be, then I think he had better advise the Shah that he would be doing a very good thing for Britain if he reduced the price and then, even from a humble Back Bencher, I can give an assurance that we will be prepared to reduce the price to the consumers in Britain.
May I turn to one or two things that really matter in this debate. I should like to turn, if I may, to the road-building programme, because this is extremely important. One of the mistakes we have made in the past—and I do not excuse the Party which I support from that—is that very frequently we are too late in building the roads that we need. In other words, the development has taken place and we handicap industry by not having the roads to serve them. I should like to see more anticipatory knowledge about this matter with people looking to the roads that are needed. I remember that immediately after the war Germany decided that the one thing they ought not to do was to have a crash programme as we did in this country about building houses and so on, but to get the roads built and then to provide the factories and the houses which they were going to serve. If we are to have this difficult period in Scotland it is quite obvious that we are going to have a tremendous oil development, and we have to ensure that we have roads to meet the needs of the industries that will be developed. I should like my noble friend to give a thought to this particular point and to see whether it could be done.
I have already raised the question about the A.9 at Carrbridge. I raised it a little earlier than I anticipated, but having raised it may I repeat it because I want to ask about another development taking place in connection with the oil industry. I have no doubt that many of your Lordships will have read in the Scotsman

949
to-day that some agreement has been reached between the Shetland County Council and the oil industry. Your Lordships will know that I have an interest in this because I have a connection with Shell. But in the Scotsman this morning I read that some agreement has been reached, possibly yesterday, to the tune of £19,500.000. This agreement involves a considerable sum of money for that part of the world—though not more than we are entitled to—and it seems to me so important that I am certain your Lordships will want to know what is entailed in the agreement that has been reached, because it was not so very long ago that we gave approval to the Shetland County Council Bill which made this agreement possible.
I should like to turn very shortly, if I may, to a much more local matter; that is, the question of roads in the Edinburgh area. I shall not do anything to interfere with the case which I am sure is going to be made by the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, because for something like the last 19 or 23 years the noble Lord has been pursuing this matter of roads in Edinburgh and he has done it with great assiduity. I think he ought to be congratulated for that. I have no quarrel at all with him. I do not know whether the by-pass would make as great a contribution as the noble Lord suggests—I am not expert enough to make a judgment about it—but I am always willing to listen to him because he has argued it for such a great period of time that there surely must be something in it. What I am considering is that there was another plan put up in Edinburgh. As I understand it, two independent traffic studies have been carried out in and around Edinburgh in recent years—one in 1968 and the other in 1971—and while I would not say that they disprove the noble Lord's case, they do not really support it.
I am also interested in the final Report of the Edinburgh Planning and Transport Study Group in 1972, which proposed a complete by-pass of Edinburgh starting at the City on the A.90 road to the Forth Bridge, and continuing around the South side of the City on the proposed Musselburgh by-pass. Having looked at this project for some time, it seemed to me that this was a road with distinct possibilities. When the proposal was made,
950
a Working Party was set up and half its cost was borne by the Government. I cannot remember whether the total cost was £500,000 which was shared in two ways, or whether the Government paid the whole £500,000. But it cost a substantial amount and I understand that the Government came to the conclusion that the City of Edinburgh and its associates should take another look at the problem, because they did not altogether agree with it. This proposal was made some eight or nine months ago and it now rests with the Corporation. What I should like to know is: what has happened since then? Have the Corporation replied to the Government's suggestion that they should take another look and see what alternatives there might be? I am sure, whatever may be said about the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, that this would make a substantial contribution towards the relief of the traffic problem inside the City of Edinburgh, and I should like to ask the Government what they are going to do.
My Lords, having congratulated the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, on his maiden speech, I cannot sit down without saying a word about the noble Lord, Lord Erskine of Rerrick, who is to follow me. He and I have been associates over a very long period of time. He is, of course, a very distinguished financierwho managed a very distinguished bank in Scotland. He has risen to fame since then, because he and I are now joint vice-presidents of the greatest bank in Britain, the Trustee Savings Bank, and we have held these positions for a number of years. So I can only present my come pliments to him prior to his speech. I know that when he delivers it he will give pleasure to your Lordships' House.
4.52 p.m.
LORD ERSKINE OF RERRICK: My Lords, I rise to make my maiden speech with a full degree of that anxiety which I am sure is not unusual, particularly in the case of those who, like myself, have had no political experience. I was tempted to make a small contribution to this debate by the terms of the Motion proposed by the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, which struck me as being closely in line with an action of his very distinguished ancestor, Sir John Sinclair of Ulbster, the first Baronet of Ulbster. Sir John was a man very much ahead of his

951
times and, with the assistance of the parish ministers throughout Scotland, he projected and carried to finality, what he called "The First Statistical Account of Scotland". Sir John was a big enough person to be able to use words to suit his purpose and in a short foreword to the first volume, 176 years ago, he wrote this:
"By 'statistical' is meant an inquiry into the state of a country for the purpose of ascertaining the quantum of happiness enjoyed by its inhabitants and the means of its future improvement".
It appears to me that the matters which your Lordships have been invited to debate are very material to that happiness which he was so anxious to quantify and, if possible, improve. Incidentally, among Sir John's many projects he raised and commanded the Caithness Fencibles, and in his exasperation over a residual number of parish ministers who were dragging their feet in the completion of the share of the great work allocated to them, he threatened to march his Fencibles to their manses if they did not "ante-up". gather he did not, in the end, need to do that.
Twenty years ago, when I retired from my business life, I was invited to add to my numerous public duties the chairmanship of the Transport Users' Consultative Committee for Scotland. I did all I could to be excused from this assignment, as I was not in harmony with what was being done. But, eventually, I succumbed to the pressure and promised to serve for a maximum of three years—which I did. As I anticipated, those three years were the most frustrating of my years of public service. I witnessed and participated in the abandonment of enormous assets in the shape of railway tracks and ancillary equipment which had been acquired and built at costs which could never be repeated.
I must make it clear to your Lordships that what I am saying must not in any way be taken as a criticism of the railway authorities or their officers, who are doing their duty strictly in accordance with their mandate—an impossible duty—to make profits in the conditions which had been permitted to develop in the absence of an all-comprehending transport plan. It was the same old routine, time and time again. We met to approve the closure of a line
952
or lines, or of a station or stations. The service in question had been allowed through financial pressures to deteriorate; the clientele had naturally diminished, and in the vicious circle thereby created the conditions were ripe to justify closure. By this process, towns and villages with railway stations for generations were reduced in status. In my experience, no concerted action was taken to make new, modified use of branch lines, which might have required relaxation of the statutory requirements for signalling and other equipment; but that did not seem to be an impossible re-think.
In these circumstances, my dear departed friend, the right honourable Thomas Johnston, C.H.—who is very well-known, I am sure, to many of your Lordships—made a suggestion which seemed well worth considering. By this time he was Chairman of the North of Scotland Hydro Electric Board—one of his brain children while Secretary of State for Scotland—and I was a member of his Board. He had ascertained that in Germany battery-driven electric rail-cars were in extensive use, which he considered could usefully be fitted into the Highland scene, to be charged at night from off-peak hydro power. As a member of the Board, I undertook to go to Germany to investigate the position, which I did at my own expense.
I received the greatest possible assistance from the German Railway Authority, who showed me all that had been done over many years in developing these vehicles up to the very sophisticated state they were then in, particularly in respect of batteries and control equipment. I travelled with officials in the driving cab of one of these small trains over busy lines in the Ruhr—these were busy tracks where heavy trains were running, as well as these little trains running right through—and I came home with drawings and much useful information which the authorities had kindly given to me.
Mr. Johnston was full of enthusiasm, and pressed the railway authorities to try an experiment with a battery train between Aberdeen and Braemar. After great hesitation, again due to lack of finance and other causes, they agreed, but instead of importing from Germany a complete unit in its perfected state they would agree only to convert one of their

953
small diesel units to battery use at their own hands. The result was a very short life, as the batteries available, and the control gear, did not measure up to the strain, and the experiment was abandoned. I am still of the opinion that Mr. Johnston's idea was a good one, and in any re-think is worthy of consideration.
Twenty years have passed since my German visit. I wondered whether, in the large extension of normal electrification, the small units had served their day and been abandoned. Through the kind offices of the German Embassy I have learned that, far from being abandoned, no less than 240 units are in daily use at the present time providing, what is said to be, a very economical service, mostly in Hessen and in North Germany; and I think your Lordships would be interested to hear that these small units have an annual mileage of the order of 12½ million miles. I sincerely hope that I have not stretched your Lordships' tolerance too far.
5.2 p.m.
LORD FORBES: My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Lord, Lord Erskine of Rerrick, and I am even more delighted to be the first to congratulate him. The noble Lord is extremely well known throughout Scotland for his service to Scotland, especially his services to banking, and as deputy chairman of the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board. I am sure I am echoing your Lordships' views when I say that we hope we shall hear the noble Lord speak in your Lordships' House on many occasions in the future.
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, for introducing this extremely important debate. Communications are absolutely vital to Scotland, not only for the people of Scotland but also for industry in Scotland. Some 20 years ago I made my maiden speech in your Lordships' House on the need for good communications in Scotland and the need for a freight liner rail system and the Forth Road Bridge. Ever since then I have considered that transport in Scotland is of paramount importance; and I think one of the greatest achievements when I was at the Scottish Office was the launching of the project for the Tay Road Bridge. To-day I must declare an interest as I am a
954
director of a travel agency in Edinburgh.
A really good transport system for Scotland is even more necessary than one for many other countries. Unfortunately, Scotland is badly placed geographically. Scotland is not only remote from the mass markets in England but also from the many sources of supply. Many of her older industries, which are in the central belt, are the heavy industries. where freight costs form a large part of total costs. To aggravate this, there is the terrible geographic position of London—the hub of the United Kingdom, but located some 500 miles away or more from places in the North of Scotland. The distance barrier creates many problems. Not only does it account for high freight rates and high passenger rates but also there is no doubt that it accentuates the feeling of remoteness which leads to people getting out of touch at times. Surely in this age of going to the moon it should not be outwith man's ingenuity to bring people living in the North of Scotland within commuting distance of London, and at a price which those who want to use the service can afford. Surely we can devise a system whereby industry in Scotland can transport not only raw materials but also the finished articles at a reasonable cost, so that the finished article remains competitive.
My Lords, whatever happens it is up to the Government of the day to ensure that personal opportunity is not restricted through lack of mobility. Unfortunately, it is not just the distance between Scotland and England: there is also the problem of distance within Scotland, where there are long distances between centres of population, and also the population generally, outside the central belt, is more sparse—indeed, in some places extremely sparse. The sparseness of population in itself creates a problem. It means that in some cases services are highly desirable but are not economic. This is where the Government must come to the rescue. Those who live and work in the less populated areas cannot just be ignored by Governments, even if their votes do not count for much. Last but not least, we must take into account that Scotland, largely through the advent of North Sea oil, could be entering an age of new prosperity. I say, "could" because she will achieve this prosperity provided she has a transport system to match not only the needs of to-day but

955
also future needs. The requirements are changing from time to time, and the transport system must be kept under review at all times.
My Lords, how is this system to meet the needs of Scotland to be planned? First, the needs have to be identified and then priorities must be established. The planning of the system has to be at the highest level so that the most suitable forms of transport are used to meet the various needs. I entirely agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, that this means that we must have an integrated system of transport. I go further: the Secretary of State for Scotland should have direct responsibility for rail and air transport as well as, as at present, trunk roads. Furthermore, my Lords, the Secretary of State should be responsible for the provision of airports and the track on which the railways run, as in the case of trunk roads. There would be much sense in the State paying for the railway track. The railway system should still be run by British Rail and the air system by British Airways and the independent airlines, because in the running of the systems independence is much to be encouraged.
Communications are Scotland's life blood, and here again I would agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie: the system has to be planned so that it has arteries and feeder veins as its foundation. All forms of transport will be needed for the arteries. However, in some areas the accent will be on one form of transport and in others on another form. The arteries and the veins together will make up a comprehensive transport system. Now the need for overall planning is absolutely paramount. It is blatantly obvious that in some instances in the past priorities have not been right: the veins have been developed without regard to the arteries. The Secretary of State must be responsible for the overall planning of the arteries while the regional authorities should play a major part in planning the veins, with the overall policy guidelines laid down by the Secretary of State.
When planning a transport system the biggest difficulty is to look far enough ahead Added to this is the problem that the situation is constantly changing. For instance the present high-speed trains
956
could make some internal airports redundant just because of the time that it takes passengers to get aboard a plane for a short-distance haul and the time a plane takes to reach cruising height. Changes in industry, changes in centres of population and changes in the vehicles of transportation will all necessitate changed transport priorities. Furthermore, measures unique to the United Kingdom may well have to be adopted to cater for special circumstances such as long distances and, at times, comparatively low density traffic. By this I mean Government must have an open mind to such things as subsidies in certain circumstances.
Transport subsidies should be used either for short duration, to get a project off the ground, or to sustain certain necessary transport services that are otherwise uneconomic; and it is most important when services require subsidies that the route should be put out to competitive tender, otherwise public money could be wasted. Never must people or industry suffer from lack of necessary and economic communications. Lack of communications leads to depopulation, desert areas, while other areas become overcrowded. Both extremes have their evils and it is up to the Government to see that they do not arise and to ensure that the whole country is healthy; the whole body must be healthy, not just parts of it. Her Majesty's Government must take an urgent look at freight charges which in some instances where long distances are involved, are going so high they are having an adverse effect on industry. Equally, some passenger fares are now becoming a major deterrent to personal initiative. It is for consideration whether the Regional Development Fund should be used to mitigate this fast growing evil. Something must be done.
We must accept the fact that the transport services are important in promoting the regional, economic and social development. The problem for Her Majesty's Government is to ensure that the best value for public money is obtained. At present, the Highlands and Islands air service is subsidised to the tune of £2 million. But surely in relation to other forms of public expenditure in aid of regional, social and economic development it is a small sum. The detrimental distance barrier simply has to be slashed somehow. What is wanted is an easy and cheap

957
interchange of people—people from the wilds of Scotland being able to go to the hub of the United Kingdom, London, where among other things, they can see the pace at which life ticks over. Equally, people from the congested areas of England can go to Scotland to relax, find time to think straight and recharge their batteries by filling their lungs with good, fresh air and, for good measure, their tummies with a dram of whisky. Already statistics show many more people go north each year—and no wonder, because the further North they go the more civilised life becomes!
To enable a healthy interchange between those in the North and those in the South to take place there must be a form of cheap travel for the casual traveller. I am not talking about the business traveller who can afford the scheduled services. The best way to achieve this is by chartered air service based on a low fare with a correspondingly high load factor. An initial Government subsidy might be necessary because it might be difficult to achieve a high load factor in the early stages of mounting the programme. It would be largely a question of education and getting people to take their first flight. After that, success would breed success.
The State simply must be prepared to take a part in something to revolutionise the lives of not only those living in the remote parts of Scotland, but also those involved in the rat race in the South of England. The present scheduled return air fare from Aberdeen to London is £40·80. This scheduled air service will remain the businessman's service because he sets so much store on reliability. A charter fare, based on a high load factor, should be about half that cost, and there is little doubt that, with an air fare which would come within the reach of a much wider portion of the population, the potential would be tremendous.
I hope this project will be examined by the Government without delay. Of course the body which should take on this task and show its mettle is the Scottish Tourist Board. The Tourist Board should bring together all the interested parties and any examination should not just be left to the airlines, as in the past, because in this case ground arrangements, such as hotels, will also have to be considered. I have little doubt that, given
958
initial encouragement by the Government, an airline can be found to undertake this service which would not only be highly beneficial and healthy in bringing together the people of the United Kingdom, but would soon become an extremely lucrative service. The Minister gave an assurance that the improvements to the road between Dundee and Aberdeen was to go ahead. I should like to ask the Minister when those improvements are likely to be completed. With the advent of oil exploration this road is now totally inadequate. It is a classic example of a gummed old vein being available instead of a free-flowing artery, as is required.
Then there is the very vexed question of Aberdeen airport, which has already been touched on. Aberdeen is now the oil capital of the United Kingdom and its airport is something one might expect to find in the foothills of the Himalayas, or in the remoter parts of the Prairies of Canada. Its development just has not moved at anything like the speed of increase in traffic. What a way to show the Americans that we really mean business over oil when the first sight they get of the Scottish oil kingdom is a number of huts which go to make up Aberdeen airport! The noble Lord quoted figures to show that there had been great expansion at the airport. I can give him further figures. Last month compared with the previous year the increase in passengers went up by 70 per cent., to 38,507 passengers. The number of aircraft using Aberdeen airport compared with the same month the previous year went up by 88 per cent. There is the vexed question as to who is going to run Aberdeen airport—the Civil Aviation Authority or the British Airports Authority. In the meantime, the Aberdeen County Council are to go ahead with development plans for the expansion of Dyce and, particularly, industrial sites around the airport. All this is so urgently required in respect of industrial expansion.
The local authority may be taking a risk, because if the ownership of the airport is changed it is possible that there could also be a change of plan. This is a had situation and one only hopes that there will not be any waste of public money due, first, to indecision, and then to which authority is to own and run the airport. I beg of the Minister to settle this matter without delay. Then,

959
more apron room and hangar room is required as more airlines want to use the airport. Pilots coming in to land get assistance from landing aids, but as yet no radar exists at Aberdeen airport. When the Minister replies, I should like him to tell us when Aberdeen airport will get radar. There are no proper customs facilities to deal with scheduled flights to the Continent or charter flights coming in from abroad. That again is not the way to impress people coming to Scotland, from abroad. In short, Aberdeen airport is not only failing to keep up with expansion of new industries, but is failing to keep up with expansion of the indigenous industries.
The noble Lord, speaking for the Government, dismissed the idea of an inter-Continental airport. I warned the noble Lord that I would be raising this question but he just dismissed it; he wiped it off the slate completely. I do not think that that is good enough. There is a good case for an inter-Continental airport. It should be sited somewhere where fast land communications can be obtained so that it would serve Edinburgh, Glasgow, Dundee and Perth. This means that it should be within easy reach of a motorway. A possible site might be between Airdrie and Bathgate, just off the M.8. To demonstrate the importance of good land communications I would only instance the fact that there are a number of people now living on the Eastern outskirts of Glasgow who use Edinburgh Airport, Turnhouse, when they want to fly because it is quicker to go to Edinburgh by the motorway than it is to get through Glasgow to go to Renfrew Airport.
A number of years ago a major airport in the central belt was mooted, and at that time I think it was turned down because of bad weather conditions in the central belt or, should I say, weather conditions that were not ideal. But since then there have been tremendous advances in aids both in the air and on the land and surely these advances would now mitigate this problem. Of course, there is the introduction of smokeless fuel zones, and that has been a great help. An inter-Continental airport would not only relieve pressure on Heathrow but also give Scottish businessmen a Continental service they need so badly. Today
960
the majority of businessmen have to fly to Heathrow to reach the Continent. This is quite ridiculous; it is just about as ludicrous as it would be if English businessmen had to fly to Wick in order to get to the Continent. The central belt of Scotland is a very large catchment area in itself and it would be an even larger catchment area if Continental traffic was included. The central belt is ideally suited for inter-Continental traffic. I have little doubt that an airport sited there would be viable because the viability of an airport depends on the number of aeroplanes and passengers passing through. One has only to look at the Danish inter-Continental airport to realise this. In Denmark the airport handles some 6 million passengers a year, while the population of Denmark is only 4 million. Therefore, most of the passengers using the airport are in transit from other countries.
I know that some will say: "What about the expense of building a new airport?" But against this could be offset the valuable ground on the outskirts of Glasgow and Edinburgh, presently occupied by Renfrew and Turn-house airports. These considerable and very valuable areas could be sold once a new airport has been established. Of course, no city likes losing its airport and there would doubtless be a howl against it unless the matter was carefully handled. First, a feasibility study should be carried out, and then one hopes it would be shown that by concentrating on one really good airport people would get not only a better service in the form of better and more frequent internal services but also faster and more frequent services to the Continent. Airport Scotland I believe is essential.
To sum up, my Lords, good communications are vital to the health of Scotland, both for industry and for the people who live in the country. To neglect necessary improvement to the various systems of communications, as in the past, will increase the existing malaise throughout the United Kingdom and the barrier—in this case the distance barrier—will remain with dire consequences, not only for Scotland but for the whole of the United Kingdom. Improved transport services will make healthy not only Scotland but the whole of the United Kingdom.
EARL HAIG: My Lords, this debate introduced by the noble Viscount. Lord Thurso, has included so far a large majority of Highlanders, so perhaps your Lordships will allow me to say a few words on behalf of the Borderers. In recent times our area has been adversely affected by depopulation and by reduced prosperity. Some years ago a team of planners, under Professor Johnson Marshall. set out to make proposals which would help to combat some of these problems and bring new blood to our society. A plan to establish a new settlement at Tweedbank was decided upon, and is now under way. Unfortunately, just as these winds of change were beginning to warm our climate they were accompanied by a cold blast in the form of the closure of the Waverley railway line, which has had a damaging effect on our economy and on our way of life and which has been very off-putting to potential newcomers who wanted to come to join us. Plans to provide better and more public transport have not materialised. Our roads are better, but our bus services are not. Buses are infrequent, cold and uncomfortable, and they are strongly criticised by the Borderers who use them. Many people without cars who wish to enjoy the amenities of life in Edinburgh and else-where, or who need to travel for some urgent purpose, find themselves cut off and often frustrated and lonely. I regret that my noble friend Lady Elliot of Harwood is not here to-day. She has to be in Manchester. I think that her views would be in line with what I have to say.
When fighting the closure of the Waverley line she warned us that this situation would arise, and it has. Mr. Alan Smith, chairman of a group of textile factories in the Borders, said recently that every one of their 26 factories was short of labour and that in the Borders poor communications were partly to blame. Although the cutting out of passenger trains with all the station staff who were involved was probably necessary, nevertheless small rail passenger buses might have replaced them. Although the lines have been lifted up, even at this eleventh hour I still hope that the line may be reopened for small passenger mono-rail buses or for some form of
962
hovercraft. I should also like the Minister, if he would, to see whether some comprehensive system of mini-buses running on the roads between villages might be established. At present we are in a desperate situation with no rail transport, with roads which are inadequate for the increasing amount of freight and car traffic which they have to carry, and with inadequate bus services.
Looking ahead, many Border forests are now reaching maturity and our factories in the Borders will, we hope, be producing more textile and other goods. So the situation could become chaotic. The worst chaos would be along the A.7, where this winding road runs through the main textile towns and through many large woodlands. This road provides our main link with the M.6 at Carlisle. If nothing is done to stop the increase of traffic on this road there will be an increasing number of holdups with more frustration and more accidents. Only recently I was held up for an hour while a crane slowly extracted a heavy lorry which had overturned near Canonbie.
One of the difficulties of our situation is that the two existing main North/South roads, the A.7 and the A.68, run along the river valleys. These rivers flow through gorges past high banks, and at these points they twist and the roads have to follow the twists. An added factor is that at these points the landscape is at its most beautiful, and because it is also fertile and watered the trees that grow there are often fine specimens. Even if we wanted to ruin the landscape by road improvements along the Esk, I doubt in fact whether we could do the job satisfactorily, so some way must be found to help to restrict the flow of the traffic between Carlisle and Hawick. The best way, no doubt, would be to introduce some form of passenger transport system along the Waverley line. But some road straightening and widening has to be done. When we do this we should do as little harm to the landscape as possible.
I congratulate the Scottish Development Department on their creation of the road bridge over the River Tweed at Leaderfoot. Future generations will be able to thank them for this beautiful structure and example of 20th century architecture at its best. But, my Lords, I can only describe the Department's

963
efforts a few miles North near Chapelon-Leader as nothing less than barbaric. Something had to be done to widen and straighten this stretch, but no effort has been made to preserve the existing banks and vistas. Trees have been ruthlessly torn down. One of my favourite subjects for painting, a view beloved by Girtin himself, looking across the Leader, has been blocked by a high railway-type embankment which could have been avoided if the road had been redesigned to follow the natural line of the valley's wooded bank. I hope the second phase of this particular operation near Carolside will be cancelled. The road there is much straighter than in the first phase, and the trees and banks are even lovelier. When the Berwickshire Civic Society tried to persuade the local authority to save a screen of trees along this second stretch we were told that this would cost too much money, and that the trees belonging to this screen would have to be felled to make room for the spoil taken from the high banks of the opposite side of the road, spoil which otherwise would have to be carted some distance away. Surely in the interests of economy, if not amenity, this second phase should now be reconsidered.
I should like to pass very briefly from the particular to problems of general planning. In recent years an extensive road improvement scheme has been got under way in Scotland, and because of the need for speed there has been a failure to consult the public before carrying out plans. The alterations near the Leader have been a case in point. Had the Scottish Development Department consulted the Countryside Commission and the local authority consulted the Berwickshire Civic Society, these mistakes would not have been made, and this beautiful scenery would not have been ruined. The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, has mentioned the new system whereby the regions will now take over responsibility for grants. I hope that in future local authorities will be required to publicise well ahead all major schemes. particularly in areas of special scenic beauty so that time can be given for consultation and for proper deliberation.
If the new regional authorities were to consult their local civic societies—made up on the whole of distinguished pro-
964
fessional people, architects in our case, agriculturists, landowners and artists—many of these mistakes could be avoided. In Berwickshire we have been ready to give our time and energy, and very little time has been wasted because we have held things up. I may say that on the occasions when we have been consulted our advice has been appreciated and valued by the county council authorities. Indeed, we were orginally established at the instigation of the county convenor and the county planning officer. One aspect of our present local administrative structure which has worried me has been the lack of liaison between different departments in the county council. It is probable that a similar lack of liaison will exist between different departments in the regions between planners and road engineers. Where there are controversial plans, it is all the more important that advice be sought from the competent people before decisions are taken to carry them out. Up till now plans for road improvements have been rushed into by central and local Government without advice from people on the spot, from people who have knowledge of and a love for the piece of ground which is to be carved up.
I hope that local civic societies will have the right to approach the local authorities about cases where there is controversy and where perhaps extra expense is involved, with some hope of success. That success will only come if stricter controls are introduced. Procedure is needed whereby plans are submitted to civic societies in good time before they are due to be carried out. The present system in which they are rushed through without much warning by road departments so that local residents have little option but to accept plans must cease. Civic societies can also help to improve roadside scenery by encouraging the planting and pruning of trees. Just as the French system of roadside tree care has helped to enhance the pleasures of Continental motoring, we in Scotland could do much to improve our scenery in order to foster tourism.
Tourism in Scotland centres on Edinburgh. As a vice-president of the Edinburgh Amenity and Transport Association I am in full agreement with its policy of restricting traffic within a city which is so well worth preserving. The noble Lord, Lord Hoy, has referred

965
to the possibility of a by-pass being built. If this by-pass were built, through traffic would be enabled to by-pass the city from Musselburgh past the edge of the Pentland Hills to the Barnton area. This outer ring road would not only assist long-distance traffic but would also improve the links between the Borders and the outside world so that we would be enabled to drive reasonably quickly to the airport at Turnhouse, to Glasgow and to the Forth Road Bridge. This would enable heavy lorries going to the industrial West from the Borders to use the A.8, and we should then not be required to reconstruct, to some extent, the East-West road along the Tweed valley.
My Lords, some years ago we in the Borders were offered a shot in the arm by the Government in the form of an expensive new settlement near the Tweed at Tweedsbank. We accepted that offer gratefully and got ready to welcome the newcomers to our community, because we were anxious to play our part in the creative life and work of modern Britain. Then almost at the same time we lost our mobility at the hands of the Government. This was a disaster for the Borders. Some people have called us the end of a long line of cattle thieves. But before that we rode at Flodden and Ancrum Moor. We are descended from horsemen and the role of horsemen is mobility. I am reminded of the frustrations which the regiment I served in during the war, the Royal Scots Greys, suffered in the early days of that war. We had to wait three years for tanks, passing the time as best we could on our grey horses in Palestine. In the end we got our tanks and were then able to live up to our motto: "Second to none". We Borderers are proud of our traditions. We are energetic people, ready to play our part, but we must be mobile.
5.38 p.m.
LORD TAYLOR OF GRYFE: My Lords, the House is indebted to the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, for introducing this subject. I am sure that he must feel adequately rewarded by the number of participants in the debate, and by the presence of so many interested Members of this House. He must also feel rewarded by attracting three maiden speeches in the course of this debate. How welcome it is that the House will benefit in the future from the long experience of the
966
noble Lord, Lord Glenkinglass; from the deeply felt concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie; and from the industrial background of the noble Lord, Lord Erskine of Rerrick. I am quite sure that in future debates on Scottish and other affairs the House will enjoy their contributions. The speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, was a very distinguished and very eloquent one. If there is one criticism that I might offer it is that perhaps the speech asked more questions than it answered. Perhaps at a later stage we shall try to examine what it is that is holding up the kind of desirable developments on which there is such great unanimity in this House this afternoon. One of the most interesting points about to-day's debate, unlike previous debates on Scottish affairs, is the general mood of optimism which is shared on all sides. I have listened to debates on Scottish affairs over the years, and invariably there have been complaints about this form of neglect by Central Government, or that form of neglect by Central Government. But to-day the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, set the mood for the debate when he approached it in an atmosphere of optimism about Scotland's future. Justifiably, this has been echoed by other Members of the House. However, there is grave danger of the present upsurge of optimism, based largely on the discovery of oil, going slightly to our heads and there may follow political consequences in the upsurge of a nationalism which seeks to separate Scotland from the United Kingdom. Yet when we look at this problem of developing an adequate transport system in Scotland, we must recognise that it calls for the large-scale investment that is possible only within a United Kingdom system. I hope that some of the present enthusiasts for Scottish nationalism, whose enthusiasm is based on very desirable and decent emotions, will calculate some of the costs involved which the new Scotland will itself have to support.
I believe that the optimism about the future of Scotland is not misplaced. Like the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, I believe that Scotland is entering a new era. If we look at the history of our country and the great leap forward in Scottish industrial and commercial development in the 18th century, we realise that two things happened at that

967
time. One was the fact that we gained access for the first time to a large common market. Before that time we were engaged in fighting wars with England and had little opportunity to enter the large market of 20 million people that was at our disposal. The second factor which generated the Scottish industrial and commercial revolution was the fact that we made use of new resources of power, the discovery of steam and the availability of coal and iron. I suggest that there are certain parallels in the present situation; that we have at our disposal a new source of energy, that we have access to a large Common Market and, in addition, we have resources of inventiveness in Scotland which are under-utilised and are sometimes utilised only when our young people go abroad. We have eight universities for five million people. In just the same way as a great deal of the Scottish industrial innovation was based on one school in every parish, to-day we have the intellectual and inventive resources which, I am sure, will make possible the kind of changes that were so eloquently described by the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso.
As the noble Viscount said, if we are to do this transport is an important element. The Scottish Council for Industry and Development, which has done such excellent work in analysing Scotland's economic problems and producing programmes for improvement, produced a report last year on the future of Scotland in which they indicated, quite rightly, that the whole industrial basis of the Scottish economy has been in the narrow Central Belt 20 miles North and South of Glasgow across to Edinburgh. Practically all the industrial development is concentrated in that area—large towns, engineering, mining and so on. But the change that is now taking place in Scotland will be based on a new axis stretching from the large industrial complex. which is inevitable, in Hunterston and stretching up through the North-East of Scotland to Inverness and Aberdeen. If this is to be the new axis of Scottish industrial development then, as the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, said, we should not let our transport system follow the developments, with all the attendant difficulties and problems. Let
968
us anticipate the kind of industrial growth which will take place and adapt our transport facilities to take advantage of them.
The other important change in our Scottish economy will be based on our relationship with Europe and, while I wish the Government well in their re-negotiation of terms for our membership of the European Community, I hope we shall never reach the stage when we are going to withdraw from Europe. I would regard that as disastrous for Scotland, because I believe that Europe offers opportunities which can be taken advantage of by Scotland, and I sincerely hope the Government will succeed in achieving results in the negotiations which will be generally acceptable in our country. If we look at exports to Europe last year, we find that they were 37 per cent. up. The port of Grangemouth is suddenly becoming alive with the export of chemicals and petrochemicals to Europe. Our exports to the rest of the world were up 24 per cent. But the pattern of trade is moving away from the old traditional pattern of West to Scottish trade, and moving to the East Coast, to a Scottish-European trade. Therefore, if this is so, our whole transport system must be geared to anticipate that kind of development, and it is against that kind of economic situation that we must plan the future of our transport.
During the last few years I have been engaged in attracting European investment to Scotland, and I find that in Europe there is a great misunderstanding as to where Scotland is and as to its proximity. I do not know whether this will be in any way clarified by the appearance of 20,000 Scotsmen in Frankfurt yesterday—I suggest not. Nevertheless, there is in Europe a lack of appreciation that Scotland is reasonably close to Europe, and the mere fact that we have only two direct air services from Glasgow Airport to Europe is certainly a limiting factor. Lufthansa initiated a service from Glasgow to Frankfurt and after a year withdrew it, because of lack of support. K.L.M. is battling on manfully with the Glasgow-Amsterdam service of direct flights and I hope they will succeed, because it is very important, if Scotland is to take advantage of the new European situation,

969
that we should have direct flights between Scotland and Europe, and that we do not have the frustrations of Heathrow to suffer on every European journey.
Those are the main points that occurred to me, my Lords, but there is one final point that the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, made no reference whatsoever to tourism in his Motion, referring only to the importance of a transport system to commercial and economic life and to agriculture and fisheries, and several noble Lords have corrected this omission. It we are to have an expanding tourist industry we should not destroy our countryside, even in our desire to get new and better roads. Let us pay due heed to good landscaping of roads. I am Chairman of the Forestry Commission and we boast of having 10,000 miles of roads in this country where motor cars are prohibited, because we believe that we have something to offer in the peace and quietness of the countryside. So I hope that, in the development of our road system and of our new transport system, due attention wil be paid to the environmental implications.
Just as we now pay a great deal of attention to the environmental implications of sites for oil rig construction—and we have certainly been through that during the past year in Scotland—so we should pay some attention to the question of access to these oil rig areas. To take the oil rig construction area at Ardyne on the Clyde, where there is great activity and what seems to be a very desirable development, it would be a disaster if the vast amount of cement and steel which is required there were transported by road, which I gather is a possibility. It would mean a constant flow of vehicles every day up Loch Lomond side and across the Rest and Be Thankful, in order to get to Ardyne. So that in considering the siting of oil rigs and industrial development, I hope the planners will pay some attention to the transport going to and from these oil rigs and, wherever possible, divert it from roads.
My Lords, according to the Addison Rules, I am somewhat inhibited in this debate, as Chairman of British Railways in Scotland, from mentioning railways. But it would be unwise if I did not mention the fact that the railways provide a minimum of visual intrusion in the landscape, cause no pollution and make for a
970
much more economical use of land. Having said these few words about railways, which I hope will not offend against the Addison Rules, I once again congratulate the noble Viscount on introducing this interesting debate.
5.52 p.m.
THE EARL OF CROMARTIE: My Lords, may I add my congratulations to the three very distinguished maiden speakers, and as we all do, hope that they will speak again I am sure that all of us are grateful to my noble kinsman, Viscount Thurso, for initiating the debate. A good deal of the subject matter was, of course, covered by your Lordships during the debate on oil when at least we had the welcome statement from the noble Lord the Minister that the A.9 road was to go ahead, and with some further improvements. As most of us are aware the whole country is suffering from the misbegotten terms of reference laid down by the Government of the day which led to the Beeching Report and the near destruction of what had been the finest railway system in the world. Now even the powerful road lobby, who have much to answer for in this tragedy, have come to realise that their pressures have resulted in traffic chaos, with death and injury to great numbers of road users.
Would not the Government agree that where possible those responsible for certain loads which are highly dangerous, such as liquid gas and chemicals, should be made to use the railways, which are far safer for such loads? A few weeks ago a hugh tanker carrying North Sea liquefied gas overturned in the middle of the village of Carrbridge. The tanker was badly dented but luckily there were no leaks, by the grace of God, otherwise that village might well not have been there if there had been anybody smoking a cigarette nearby.
My Lords, I turn briefly to the tourist traffic which is assuming gigantic proportions, to some extent due to the valueless pound in Europe. I mentioned during the oil debate that our West Coast Highland roads were not fit to carry this traffic plus the normal commercial and local traffic. One of the causes of dangerous frustration to road users, such as doctors and those going about their normal business, is hold-up by caravans on narrow roads. It is perfectly understood by

971
any reasonable person that many families find the caravan holiday essential due to the high cost of hotels, and indeed in many areas lack of accommodation. But it must be appreciated that this form of tourism is the least profitable to those areas which they tend to make their targets—South-West England, Wales, the Lake District and above all the West and North-West Highlands of Scotland where, as I have explained, the roads are in most cases utterly inadequate to absorb the traffic of the summer months.
My Lords, I would ask the Government to consider levying a reasonable road tax on all trailer caravans, which subscribe least to the rural areas which they penetrate, such tax to be given to the local authorities of the areas who suffer the most. This would go far towards meeting the heavy expense of providing desperately needed caravan and camping stances with the necessary sanitary arrangements which are so often nonexistent. I would draw the attention of noble Lords to the fact that so far as the Highlands are concerned there is no Elsan disposal point North of Fort William.
It must be realised that the holiday season in the North of Scotland is short, and this is an added reason why help should be given from this source. The capital expenditure on sites to conform with the regulations is very high indeed. I would suggest to Her Majesty's Government that much greater powers be given to local authorities to control caravans, especially in relation to designated sites, and also powers to the local authorities to forbid the use of certain roads to caravans, roads which are unsuitable and dangerous to themselves and to other road users. If caravanners wish to use these roads then all they need do would be to leave their caravans on a designated site and use their cars or possibly even their feet.
My Lords, I cannot end without reference to MacBrayne's ferries, as naturally being convener of Ross and Cromarty includes the Island of Lewis, the biggest of the Outer Hebrides, in my county. Is it not time that these ferries should be regarded as an extension of the mainland roads and, where they exist, railways? Why should those who have their homes and work in the Isles be penalised by ever-increasing freight and passenger
972
rates? A variety of transport is available for those, who, for example, live in the South-East of England and who come up to London to work, strikes permitting. The Islanders have a shipping company who have a monopoly. Certainly the air service is reasonably good, but every commodity—food, the lot—leaving and entering the Islands must go by sea, and with the latest increase in freight charges the burden on the Island economy has become a very serious problem. I hope that the Government will look very carefully into this matter as I know the noble Lord the Minister will.
5.58 p.m.
THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, as have many other noble Lords I want to thank the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, for introducing this debate; and he must be very pleased at the sequel, the three maiden speeches and the general high level of the debate which has taken place. I should also like to ask him to express our thanks to the Liberal Party. When we were trying to get a date for the Scottish debate. I found that both the Labour Party and the Conservatives were very coy about sparing their time, so I think we should all recognise that for to-day's debate we owe our thanks to the Liberal Party for giving us their day.
My Lords, the country's prosperity, indeed its whole development, as the mover of the Motion tells us, depends on good communications—on land, the roads and the railways, on the sea, the ports, and also the air. When one is talking about developing a country you talk about, "opening it up". I wonder, my Lords, how Scotland stands in relation to this in comparison with many other places. First, let us take the question of the roads. I am thinking now not of the small roads but of the major roads.
The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, quoted a lot of figures (which I must confess confused me) about how many good roads we have. I put down a Question for Written Answer ten days ago, which I thought would be a very simple Question. I asked how many miles of motorways existed in England, Scotland and Wales respectively. I have had no Answer. I do not know whether it is that the wheels of Government grind slowly, or whether it is that the Answer would not be very satisfactory. But I should say that in England there may be a

973
thousand miles or more of M roads; in Scotland there are probably under one hundred miles, and I wonder whether, for Wales, the mileage of motorway has reached double figures. So much for the roads. What is clear is that there is still a lot to be done.
My Lords, we come then to the railways. We all know what nearly happened on the railways—we very nearly came to the point where we had no railway system, even to Inverness or Dumfries. The noble Lord, Lord Erskine of Rerrick, told us how distasteful was the task for him when he had to agree to one line after another of the railways being closed. I have experienced that myself. We had a line from Perth to Edinburgh. We saw the process as outlined by the noble Lord, of the service deteriorating. I do not say that it was deliberately allowed to deteriorate, but nothing was done to improve the service for the passengers and as a result the railway service ran down, it began to lose money and then the excuse was made that the line should be closed.
I should like to mention what has been happening lately on the service between Perth and Edinburgh. It has now become a 57-mile journey; we have to go via Stirling, and often have to change. It is quite a frequent service, with seventeen trains a day from Edinburgh to Perth, but when we come to the question of how long that journey takes, we find that the trains average 33 m.p.h. I should not have thought that to be very good for a fairly busy line. Sometimes, of course, the average speed is as bad as 27 m.p.h., but there is one train (this is a real cannon ball) which does the journey at an average of 45 m.p.h.—but that is once a week and Fridays only. This really is not good enough.
I think it worth recalling that in the 1800s, when there were no railways, Edinburgh was a real capital of Scotland. It was the golden age, with the building of the New Town; it was the time of Walter Scott. Then came the railways. As the noble Lord, Lord Forbes, said, railways were deliberately designed to go to London, to make London the hub of the United Kingdom. It was deliberate planning. It resulted in the London Midland and Scottish Railway, and the London and North-Eastern Railway. Such cities as Edinburgh, York, or other
974
great cities were inevitably to decline. I mention this because the same thing is happening with regard to air traffic, or is very nearly happening. Those who determined the air services came to the conclusion that once again London must be the "hub of the air". The result was that we very nearly had a third London airport, while up and down the country all the other places were to languish. A great number of people come from abroad who do not want to go to London, but who want to go direct to wherever it may be. Ask the citizens of Houston, the Texans, who want to go to Scotland whether they want to go to London.
At last, after twenty-five years, we are seeing some improvement on the Edinburgh airport. That will do something to bring back Edinburgh as the hub of Scotland, but it was a very close thing. With reference to seaports, with the development of great ore carriers and the great tankers which are now the fashion, the West coast of Scotland (the deep part around the Clyde) comes into its own. The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, spoke of what I might call the skeleton of Oceanspan, which is in process of development. High time, too.
A year or two ago, I made an impassioned speech about how I felt that the Government, or the people who ran things, were unfair to Scotland. As examples I gave such things as the new bridge over the Tay to Dundee, or the new bridge over the Forth, where there is always a toll. But if London wants anything, they are given a subsidy. I think I was wrong. I do not believe that they deliberately want to be unfair. I think rather that it is an attitude of mind which I might call invincible ignorance, not only on the part of Government as a whole, but also on the part of the nationalised industries. This has a serious effect on Scottish transport and on Scotland generally.
I was going to give two examples of what I have in mind, and one of them would have been about the British Sugar Corporation and Cupar. But as time is running out, I will restrict myself to the example of the British Steel Corporation and Hunterston. They have said that with others they are going to build an ore terminal. Splendid! Quite right! It is the right thing to have in this day

975
and age. But they have not gone on from there to say that they are going to make a large new steelworks in the area, which is so necessary for Scotland. No; the idea is that the ore will come in there and then in the main be transported South to Tyneside, or where you will. Perhaps it is natural for the British Steel Corporation to think in those terms but I do not think it is natural for a Scottish Steel Corporation. That is what we want—a Scottish Steel Corporation. The noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, said he was Chairman of the Scottish Railways Board, but that is a subsidiary of British Railways and British Railways dictate the policy to its subsidiary.
We might be in the same position with regard to air traffic, but luckily we have not only British Airways, but British Caledonian—long may that competition continue. At one time the Labour Party said that they were going to give back to British Airways the lines that British Caledonian had, and recreate that monopoly. If the Labour Party attempts to do that, we must fight it for the good of Scotland. It is only with the competition and help of British Caledonian that we have a reasonable service at the present time. I could make a case for a central bank of Scotland rather than the Bank of England, but I think you might consider that a little far from the Motion we are debating.
My Lords, what is the answer to the question of communications, which we have been talking about with so much wisdom and knowledge, with many suggestions being put forward by many of your Lordships to-day? I believe it is quite simply that Scottish internal affairs including the national industries, should be run from Scotland for Scotland. The Scottish National Party are, of course, in the forefront of this belief. The Liberal Party are not very far behind. The Conservative and Labour Parties are dragging their feet; they are not coming out at all clearly. They say this is something that should be debated. Certainly Kilbrandon should be debated. It should be debated now; there should not still be talk and only talk.
We are having a very interesting debate. It may be read by a few people and there will be some small notice about it in Scottish papers to-morrow, if we
976
are lucky. But think how much more valuable it would have been if this debate had taken place in Scotland. It would have had some real meaning to the people of Scotland and it would have been in a wider assembly. But this is what we want. I am worried about the future relations between England and Scotland. I am worried that when action comes, as it will come, it will be too little and too late. We know that history abounds in examples of that kind. I would appeal to all Parties to agree that we should be given Home Rule now; that we should not have to wait. Otherwise, I fear that the Scots will take what they want, will take what is theirs, and in the taking will smash the union of 250 years—and nobody will benefit from that.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, the noble Earl made reference to a Question that he had sent for Written Answer. I recollected while he was speaking that I had signed a reply to him, and I have been to the Prince's Chamber and I am almost certain that the reply he says he has not received has been there nearly all the afternoon.
THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, that is very good news. I shall be able to see whether the figures I guessed at were correct. It is a little difficult when figures are given during the debate because one cannot really take proper notice of them. It may have been more helpful to all of us if it had been possible to have had them a day earlier.
6.14 p.m.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, my first reason for speaking to-night—of course, I have spoken on this subject so very often—is to congratulate my former Member of Parliament, now the noble Lord, Lord Glenkinglas, on his very good maiden speech. It was well timed, exactly the right time for a maiden speech; I think eight or nine minutes. I shall be only five minutes. I also congratulate the other two maiden speakers, whose speeches I enjoyed very much.
I should like, very briefly, to take up one or two points made by my noble friend Lord Glenkinglas, to which I have always subscribed. He brought out the point that it is quite extraordinary that in the Highlands, particularly the Western

977
Highlands, the railways and the boat ferries do not appear to work in cohesion regarding timetable, so that the car ferry system from the Isle of Mull appears to have no relation to the railway system at all; the railway might as well not be there.
The other point my noble friend brought out (and it is a point I too am keen on) was that it is disastrous that you cannot now send livestock on the railways in Scotland. You certainly cannot send livestock from Oban. We used to have a very good rail service for livestock from the markets, but that has now all been stopped. I think this is a very shortsighted policy on the part of the Transport Board.
The noble Earl behind me, Lord Cromartie, spoke about dangerous loads on the Highland roads. I heartily agree with his observations. There have been several bad accidents in this connection, and there ought to be some legislation or bye-law compelling dangerous loads to be carried by train. It may not always be possible, of course, because the rolling stock may not be suitable, but where it is suitable these loads should go by train. I am all for getting as much heavy traffic as possible off the Highland roads because they are not now adequate for the amount of heavy traffic carried on them. We all know that the Perth-to-Inverness road is to be made a dual carriageway, and that road at the moment is an absolute death trap.
While I know this is a hobby-horse of mine, I hope the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, will forgive me if I again refer to the Isle of Mull. The trouble with transport there is that it is a complete State monopoly. You cannot drive your sheep or cattle to the pier; you have to put them on lorries. You are not allowed to hire any other lorries but State-owned lorries—or rather MacBaynes' lorries, which to my thinking is one and the same thing. You can, if you have your own lorries, take stock, but many small farmers cannot afford their own lorries. I think that the farmers who are rich enough to have their own transport ought to be allowed to compete with the State transport in transporting other farmers' livestock to Oban on the ferry.
My Lords, I think the sea freight charges throughout the whole of the Hebrides ought to be the same, according
978
to the mileage, or perhaps I should say the knottage, traversed. I pointed out in a Question to-day how extraordinary it is that whereas a farmer whose stock occupies the same space as a caravan and a car has to pay £25, the owner of a caravan and a car pays £3·75 to go across the Sound of Mull. This is really working against the agricultural community. My noble friend who is just leaving mentioned caravans. Caravans must be more controlled. There should be a caravan park near the port of disembarkation. In Mull we have for sometime been trying to get the council interested in a caravan park, but we have no caravan park. Consequently, there is nowhere for a caravan to go. This is very inconvenient. One does not like to be hard-hearted and to shift the caravans on, but it does rather destroy the scenery for other tourists if at every 100 or 200 yards a beautiful coastline is dotted with caravans. I should like Her Majesty's Government to put pressure on councils to really go ahead in this matter of making caravan parks, not near the railhead on the mainland—I do not think that would be possible—but certainly near the port of disembarkation on the Islands.
I think the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, mentioned that there was going to be an Edinburgh by-pass. Perhaps I was wrong. It is perfectly obvious that with this new discovery of oil in the North East Sea, as I call it, of the Orkneys and Shetlands, the whole transport of freight will have to be reorientated. To date it has always gone to the West, to Glasgow and Carlisle. I think it is extremely urgent that we should now build a dual carriageway linking Perth, Edinburgh, Berwick and so on down the East coast of England, because the present congestion of the Glasgow-Carlisle route is very great. I have occasion to travel it often. When the oil growth in the North of Scotland really gets going the congestion will be quite impossible.
I should like to say how much I enjoyed the speech of my noble friend Lord Forbes regarding air services. In many areas in the Highlands air services have been lagging behind. Air services are one of the cheap answers to the prosperity of the Highlands. A few years ago I tried running a small air service from Glasgow to Mull for two seasons; but I

979
got no support from any quarter, so I had to close it. But I am sure that service will now come about with official backing. Regarding the Western Highlands, why cannot we use hovercraft to cross many of the sea lochs. Some of them are very sheltered. I do not know why hovercraft have not been used before.
The other question I wish to raise before I sit down concerns commercial fishing on the West coast. I am rather of the opinion that commercial fishing is being overdone at the moment. For instance, in my sea loch we had all last winter three Norwegian ships which were receiving the fish from boats from Barra and elsewhere, putting them into cold storage, and then occasionally going to Norway. Definitely we will find in two or three years that we will have over-fished the West coast, certainly in the vicinity of the Western Highlands and Islands. I would suggest that this matter should be taken into account and the danger of over-fishing guarded against.
I would end by thanking the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, for initiating this debate. I hope it will bear some fruit with Her Majesty's Government.
6.25 p.m.
LORD LYELL: My Lords, I should like to begin by thanking the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, for giving us the opportunity to speak in this debate, and also for his own very inspiring speech which started it off. It is very rare that we begin a debate in such an inspiring and excellent manner, and I should like to thank him for that. It is also very rare for us to be able to welcome three maiden speakers. I should like to extend my own warm good wishes to my noble neighbour, Lord Mackie of Benshie. We all look forward to many further contributions of the very high standard we have had from each of the three maiden speakers we have heard to-day.
One main point I would seek to make, in thinking of transport in Scotland, concerns integrating the existing system of transport in Scotland. I hope that this integrated system will lay down the foundation of Scottish economic health for decades to come. One small example of the integration I would look for is in the City of Dundee, which is so well known to the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, to Lord
980
Mackie and certainly to myself. The station in Dundee serves as a railhead for most of the county of Angus, and many buses bring in passengers who want to continue their journey by rail; yet the bus station is half a mile distant from the railway station. I myself have had to carry light luggage from one station to the other. I am still reasonably fit and young; but other passengers have to make this journey in the best way they can, and on a cold rainy evening it is not the easiest journey to make. The situation in Aberdeen is totally different. There the buses arrive at and leave a modern station about 100 metres from the railway station. I think we should seek to see that our transport services, bus and rail, are further integrated. This small example of difficulties between rail and road transport is only one small blemish on the scene, since there are absolutely superb rail services from Dundee to Edinburgh and on to London or to Glasgow, and even up to Aberdeen. I have not yet had art opportunity of using the freight facilities from Dundee, but I hope British Rail can maintain the high standard set by passenger services in this area.
The rail network in East Scotland has been considerably reduced in the last 20 years or so, possibly as a result of more and more cars being owned in country districts. This growth in the motoring population is unlikely to continue with the rise in fuel costs. However, we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Glenkinglas, that in many areas more remote than Angus and Dundee, generally the East of Scotland, a motor car is essential in order to work or to do shopping or for any emergency which may arise. In recent years, transport costs, which in Scotland bear a heavier proportion of industrial costs than elsewhere in the United Kingdom, have been rising alarmingly. It is for this reason that I think we must applaud every effort made to reduce transport costs.
Such efforts in reducing these costs will require that the economies of scale have to be seized. Unfortunately, this means that our roads are now becoming accustomed to carrying 10, 12 or 20-ton lorries. In many cases our rural roads, let alone the A.9 or the other roads noble Lords have mentioned, are simply unsuited for such loads. If we in the country districts or anywhere in the North

981
or East of Scotland wish to obtain supplies in the country, in the towns, in factories, in offshore oil rig sites, or on farms, we have to accept that these abnormal lorries will increasingly use our roads.
We must hope that the recent review of road expenditure will not cause further difficulties to Scottish transport, rural or urban, passenger or freight. In the country districts one recent development which has given us great encouragement is that in Glen Lyon in central Perthshire. Here there runs a small bus which is eminently suitable for narrow roads and it provides a totally integrated and comprehensive transport service. Mail, freight, newspapers and passengers are all welcome at a reasonable rate. Such a project is a perfect example of imaginative thinking, and we must all hope that it will be the forerunner of many similar schemes in Scotland.
October 1973 was a watershed all over the world, no less so in Scotland. As a result of the Yom Kippur war the oil supplies of the world were thrown into turmoil. Prices everywhere, and not just for oil but for other things, rose sharply; and apart from the fact that transport costs were distorted fuel costs for the rural population, particularly in Scotland, rose equally sharply. The noble Lord, Lord Glenkinglas, in his outstanding and competent maiden speech, pointed out that the car is far less of a luxury but far more a necessity for work or pleasure in the country districts. Any form of passenger mobility, if petrol should become too expensive or even rationed, cannot be turned on or off like a tap. Should travel by motor car become totally impossible, I do not believe that buses in their existing form can maintain the standard of mobility we are going to need in the 20th or 21st century.
In my own district the nearest railhead is 17 miles distant, and for many of my neighbours the distance is nearer 30 miles, and they do not regard themselves as being in the wild. It is in such districts that transport becomes far more directly involved in the life of everyone, as opposed to some of the more lucky urban dwellers, many of whom can go about their daily life without the need for wheeled transport. Thus. I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, to
982
bear in mind the need to integrate public transport so far as possible while continuing to show the same imagination as in the Glen Lyon scheme.
The noble Lord, Lord Forbes, may not agree with me, but I believe that the roads of East Scotland are among the best in the United Kingdom. I know from personal experience that the Perth/Aberdeen road, the A.94, is continually being improved, and while it may not be perfect it is much better surfaced and better designed than many roads in England which have to carry similar traffic. Sadly, the more that local authorities, be they districts, the existing county councils, or the new regional councils, do for the main trunk roads in their area, the more dense grows the traffic to fill these roads. However, we in Scotland must admit that this traffic is increasing in a good cause and to good purpose to help development in essential offshore oil industries. This traffic is not likely to decrease, since as more oil drilling and production rigs are completed so shall we find new industries moving into North-East Scotland to seize the fine facilities we are now creating.
I can only conclude by adding my support to the eloquence of the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, in expressing such confidence in Scotland's future. From my own personal observation on a recent visit to the U.S.A., I know that there is a new and awakening interest in the Scottish economy. The oil men of the U.S.A. believe in us. Therefore, let us lay down a sound system of transport which will enable us to develop not just oil, but industry, agriculture, and the whole country of Scotland for the decades to come.
6.34 p.m.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, I should like to add my tribute to the noble Viscount for introducing this debate which has, of course, as he intended, provoked a wide-ranging discussion on this important matter. I propose to confine my contribution to one aspect; namely, the increasing impact of industrial traffic on Edinburgh, its environs and environment. I am the more happy to do so because not only the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, but my noble friend Lord Massereene and Ferrard have pointed out that the pat-

983
tern of industrial traffic in Scotland is shifting eastwards.
The Forth road bridge which is now—can one believe it?—approaching its tenth birthday, produced the expected injection of traffic into the area, but now a further injection is inevitable. In fact, it has started to show. Even people who have lived in Edinburgh all their lives sometimes fail to appreciate that the city is curiously situated, in that it lies between the Pentland Hills and the sea, and that the Pentland Hills extend for twenty-two miles before there is a road across them. In other words, traffic in those airts has to pass through Edinburgh or round its southern edge. There is really no other way, because the northern by-pass suggestions seawise have proved quite impossible, as, I think everybody agrees, to introduce on the grounds of expense in terms of the destruction of industrial and residential buildings. I will come to this later on, but of course it would not link up with the roads to the South in the way that my noble friend Lord Haig mentioned as necessary when lie was speaking about the Borders.
I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, for his lead-in in this respect. I am sorry that he is not here, but I have no doubt that your Lordships are only too glad because I can resist the temptation to start a hammer and tongs discussion on the by-pass of Edinburgh. I mean to approach it only in the whole context of the noble Viscount's debate, which is on the transport situation of Scotland. The problem was realised 30 years ago. In the Abercrombie Plan of 1947 the by-pass road is marked out clearly and much of the land indicated by this plan has already been sterilised. He envisaged that the road bridge should be built, and that the road from the road bridge should continue round the South of Edinburgh. But, alas, when the bridge was built the planners lost both their hearts and heads and they diverted in a two-way highway the traffic from the bridge to Cramond Bridge. Certainly much of the Leith traffic now passes down the Ferry Road.
The fact is that a great deal of the traffic from the North, which is growing every day, filters through the city streets. They had been misled by the traffic census
984
in 1960, which was so inaccurate as to be misleading. The noble Lord, Lord Hoy, mentioned subsequent surveys in 1970 and 1973, but I still regard them with the utmost suspicion and I do not think they analysed the question, which should have been put to the people they talked to: "Do you want to avoid Edinburgh?" They were mostly asked, "Are you going to Edinburgh?", and they said "Yes", because there was nowhere else to go if you wanted to go South. The noble Lord, Lord Hoy, was quite right in saying that I have been interested in this subject for something like 20 years. I began when I was a director of the Edinburgh Chamber of Commerce in 1954 or 1955. If we want to go on with that I shall put down a separate Unstarred Question. The first that I put down was in July, 1960.
There are two important new factors which have been touched on by a number of noble Lords, and which apply to-day as they have never applied before. The first is the pressure of traffic arising from North Sea oil, which we have already dealt with. The second is the creation of the new enlarged local authority, with responsibilities covering the whole concept. This was touched on in his speech by my noble friend Lord Hughes. I hope that in his reply we may have an indication whether I am right. Is it to be a question—if built or when built—of a trunk road or a road coming under the new local authority? As to the first question about oil transport, I quote from an article in The Times yesterday in which reference is made to the Transport Action Scotland group. which is a combination of the A.A., the R.A.C. and a number of business enterprises.
The chairman, Mr. Andrew Lewis, said:
"One major shortcoming in the roads programme has been the implicit assumption that all major traffic to England would use the west coast route by the A.74 from Glasgow to Carlisle. A great deal of oil-related traffic from the North-East and Highlands will want a direct route through Perth, the Forth Bridge and the outskirts of Edinburgh, which must have an outer ring road for the heavy long-distance traffic. At present the M.8 is overloaded by Edinburgh traffic doubling back on towards Glasgow and down the A.74 to reach Carlisle and the M.6. The alternative is for traffic to make its way by roads that are not adequate. What is needed is dual carriageway on the A.1 to Berwick, the shortest route to North-East England."

985
That latter point was just mentioned by my noble friend Lord Massereene and Ferrard.
Of course the term "outer ring road" is anathema to me because, in the years that have gone by since this original mistake was made of not building the continuation around the South of Edinburgh when the Forth Road Bridge was built, we have had two "ring road" plans with acres and acres of concrete running through our beautiful city, covering the meadows and the Bruntsfield links. So I try to avoid the word "ring", in case it is confused with the inner ring roads which have proved quite unacceptable to the inhabitants of Edinburgh.
My Lords, I return to the question of the impact of this by-pass on the traffic, and emphasise that by-passing the South of Edinburgh it intersects and connects with no less than seven radial roads—A.9, A.8, A.70, A.712, A.701, A.7 and A.68. This, again, impinges on the point made by my noble friend Lord Haig. All of those, however, are major links which have to be used by industrial traffic. As to the second point about the local authority, the unco-ordinated plans of a number of different local authorities now come under the one hat. Hitherto, the plans have not been co-ordinated; all that is needed now, I believe, is a vigorous nudge from the Government which, I hope the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, will be able to administer.
I have another point, my Lords, which, as I see it, concerns the Department of the Environment. Edinburgh is a jewel, and an internationally recognised one. I need not enlarge on that, but it is a national asset to be preserved from the acres of concrete about which I have spoken. It has already been damaged enough by vandals in the guise of planners. I believe that my strongest point—and I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, is not here because I am not quite sure what he was getting at; however, I shall talk with him about it—is that until a complete by-pass from the Forth Road Bridge to the Great North Road is available and in use, it is impossible to assess its effect on the city's internal traffic. Hitherto, plans have inevitably been based on conjecture. Any-
986
body who knows seasonal traffic in Edinburgh can guess how difficult such conjecture might be. Further internal planning of every sort—I mean in terms of parking, housebuilding, and the value of land, the rateable value and the like—must await the results of a diversion of traffic around the city.
There is one other urgent ancillary matter, my Lords, and it is my last related point. At the junction of a bypass, if and when planned—I believe it to be inevitable that it will come at some time; it is a question not of "if", but of "when"—with the top of the A.1 in the Wallaford Tranent—Musselburgh direction, it is obvious that some link or interchange must be established with Musselburgh's by-pass. But those plans which are urgently needed—I pass through Musselburgh on my way to Edinburgh and back, and I know that the people there are desperately in need of a by-pass—cannot be crystallised until Edinburgh's plans are finalised. Further, Edinburgh's plans, certainly in regard to the Eastern end of the by-pass, must conform with Musselburgh's, otherwise, there will be a muddle and additional cost over the bridging of the River Esk. I could say much more but, important as it is, this is only one facet of Scotland's overall problem which the noble Viscount has unfolded.
I have one other small point, my Lords, which I think of in terms of what my noble friend Lord Massereene and Ferrard said concerning traffic bearing upon the A.1 to Berwick. it is as well to remember that once clear of the city industrial traffic to Newcastle over a by-pass will then have a choice of three routes—the A.68, the A.7 and the A.1—which might, if the A.68 and the A.7 were properly served by a bypass, set back the date when a total dual carriageway and a bridge across the Tweed is absolutely necessary on the A.1. This point is worth considering. I hope that the time is not far off when sleeves are rolled up and the orbital highway is manfully tackled as a matter of urgency, almost as urgent as the A.9. However, I agree with other noble Lords that the major road problem in terms of urgency to-day is the duplication and improvement of the A.9.

987
I was greatly attracted by the maiden speech of the noble Lord. Lord Mackie of Benshie, when he said that to do something of the sort would,
"put one of the main arteries rights",
to use the words from his interesting and constructive maiden speech. It is important that road development should
"put the main arteries right",
and, as the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, said, they should come as they came in Germany—and, incidentally, to some extent in India—with the roads before the buildings. I look forward anxiously to the Minister's reply, because a number of people other than myself are anxious to know exactly how the Government regard this facet of the overall transport problem of Scotland.
6.49 p.m.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, to encourage those who are still waiting for the end of the debate and those who still have to speak, I have cut out the short passages of my speech, while retaining the long ones. First, I should like to join in the plaudits for my noble friend Lord Glenkinglas, speaking in the style we have come to expect from him in the years when he was Secretary of State, a man who did so much—this is seldom recognised—to get an increasing volume of light industry, particularly electronics, into central Scotland during a serious period of Scottish decline.
The maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, attracted me in many respects. He and I have been sparring partners in another connection and have known each other for a long time; but, of course, he did not mention, as perhaps he might have done on some other occasion, that he is really a Maitland. His family is Maitland-Mackie, and I regard it as a great advantage to him to have that connection with my own clan. At any rate, it is a pleasure to hear him again pleading the case for Caithness which we know he has advocated very well and for so long. The speech of the noble Lord, Lord Erskine of Rerrick, was elegant and informed. I wish I had been able to be in the Chamber the whole time he was speaking, but unfortunately I was called out.
988
My Lords, I should like to join other noble Lords who have congratulated the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, on as apt and effective a speech as we would expect. But what timeliness of choice! What happy choice of a debate now on Scottish transport! Of course we are accustomed to being blinded with figures scattered like stars by the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, and we are sometimes even confused by them, but there were some figures which were not mentioned to-day to which I would draw the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Hughes. On Monday the Minister of Transport made a Statement in answer to a Question in another place giving figures for the road programme South of the Border which in fact—and I had his figures confirmed by the Department this afternoon—made a cut in real terms of £32 million. I have had some difficulty in getting the exact corresponding figures with regard to Scotland, but, taking the trunk road and motorway estimates for the years 1973-74 and 1974-75 and treating them in the same way as the Department of the Environment have done, I interpret the meaning of the English figures as a net cut in the current English programme in real terms of some £2·2 million. My mathematics may well be wrong and in any case the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, spent part of his speech explaining why cuts are necessary, though he did explain too that oil-related developments were exempt. The broad context of all this is one of great expectations whether it be from oil or from Hunterston.
However, I believe that official quarters continue to underestimate what is coming. For example, we have been inclined to think that oil development North-East of the Shetlands is inevitably focused on the Shetlands and possibly also Orkney Islands but—and this was reflected by the noble Lord, Lord Mackie—the time must come when the economies of the Orkneys and the Shetlands are so overheated that development is forced back on to the mainland, particularly at Caithness and, I suggest, on to the North coast of Sutherland. I draw your Lordships' attention to a statement

989
by the executive vice-president of the Occidental Oil Company, Mr. R. S. MacAlister, at a conference in Scotland only a month ago when he said that,
"Geological and geophysical investigations have revealed interesting possibilities in the English Channel and Celtic Sea, and challenging prospects West of Shetlands and in the Western Approaches..."
He went on:
"On sheer volume of prospective sedimentary rocks the West of Shetlands and the Western Approaches offer the greater prospect... this area is the logical extension of North Sea development."
My Lords, what in fact is the overall picture? It is one underestimate after another. The Government—and when our roles were reversed the noble Lord, Lord Balogh, was constantly making this point and I think he was proved right—have for ever been underestimating what is to be expected. The Brown Paper we had the other day gave us a likely production figure for 1980 of somewhere between 40 million and 120 million tons a year, but coming down between those parameters at around 50 million to 70 million tons a year. But a distinguished firm—Messrs. Economic and Planning Consultants who are retained by banks and other quarters to estimate precisely and soberly what are the scales of the reservoirs for which oil companies are seeking development credit—have been retained by Bell Lawrie and Robertson, the much respected and distinguished Edinburgh stockbrokers. They provided a Report entitled Scotland, A Growth Economy and they came out with a very serious estimate for 1980 not of somewhere around 50 million or 70 million tons a year but more like 150 million tons. For good measure the Scottish Council give us a figure of 185 million tons.
The Government have consistently underestimated what the oil exploration will produce. But it is not only that they have underestimated in volume terms the oil which is to be expected, they have also underestimated the job-content, housing and infrastructure needs. The other day we had a statement from the Scottish Office—I have it here—dated June, 1974, from the Scottish Information Office Reference Unit entitled, Housing and North Sea Oil. It suggests that
990
between Stonehaven and Shetland Scotland will need only another 10,000 houses between now and 1978. 10,000 houses at a normal conversion means an increase of population of about 40,000. That is the Scottish Office view. But I must again point out that Bell Lawrie and Robertson, having drawn upon their skilled consultants, reckon that by 1980, (only two years later than the Scottish Office date) the population will have risen about 85,000 and that about 30,000 new jobs will have been created directly and indirectly in the oil industry. Such a figure argues in turn for a need for more like 20,000 houses between Stonehaven and Shetland by the end of this decade.
My Lords, these figures may be right or wrong; I merely want to say that our consistent experience has been that there has been an underestimate on the part of the Government and when we were in Government the same underestimates were given to us—it is the same people who advise both Governments. We have had these underestimates and I believe they are a serious brake on proper long-term planning. Of course, in the light of these underestimates, one can well understand that a cut in real terms in the road estimates was accepted especially as the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, assured us that oil-related schemes were exempt.
But if that is the case, can we really be satisfied with the picture that we have been most recently given? The A.92 road from Dundee to Aberdeen has very limited improvements; from the Stonehaven by-pass up to the Aberdeen city boundary, that is about all. On the A.94 through Forfar and Kirriemuir it is simply virginal and dangerous. One may take the A.9 from Perth to Inverness. Some 21 improvements or by-passes are programmed with a few more in the preparation pool; from Inverness to Alness there are some seven others, but on the whole a hundred miles or more from Alness to Wick and Thurso (which are marked out in the Scottish Development Department's own discussion paper last October as destined for coastal development)—on that whole stretch practically nothing is programmed, except the improvement of the bridge at Bonar Bridge and some work on the Ord. What about the link to the West? On the A.835 Inverness to Ullapool there are a few improvements only.

991
I will accept the point that there is at this moment, due to the balance of payments and other problems, a serious constriction on capital expenditure. But surely we can be told what is in the preparation pool. Is there any reason why some of the most important trunk roadworks, which will obviously be needed if we take independent estimates of likely development seriously, should not be in the preparation pool now and why we should not know about them?
My Lords, just now I quoted the forecast by the executive vice-president of the Occidental Oil Company about the waters North of Scotland and the Western Approaches. Others have said very much what he has said. Is it not time to prepare the road developments that will be necessary past or through Altnahara to Eribol, and for that matter up Strath Kildonan to the North Coast? Surely these road developments, which will be needed, should be prepared now so that when the funds are available and the climate seems right for entering upon the kind of mortgage of our future that the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, does not seem to like very much, the thing is ready to go. So often with road developments we are told, "Well, there is preparatory work needed and it will be two or three years before we can give the order to start".
I am thinking too about the implications of Hunterston. It has been with us for the last four years, and the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, and I, have taken part in a number of debates on Hunterston. What about the road links that will be needed across Scotland properly to advance and provide for the Hunterston development when it comes? What about the case for a proper trunk road from Galashiels in the Tweed area up to the Clyde? There is no sign that I am aware of that this is even in the preparation pool. What about the clamant demands of the new town of Irvine which is, after all, related to the Hunterston concept? What about their demands for a proper motorway link to the M74? Is that in the preparation pool?
The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, said that some people want to mortgage our future. But,my Lords, any business raises equity capital on its prospects. It
992
goes round and says, "We have a good thing. We believe in it. Come in and lend us some money." Therefore, to mortgage a future revenue which, at 11 dollars a barrel can scarcely be less than the amount of £3,000 million a year by 1980—anyway somewhere between £300 and £3,000 million—for road development is not so improvident as it may sound. But may we know (if not to-day then perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, will tell us a good moment to put down a Question so that he could answer it in the House) what are the major trunk road schemes in the preparation pool for the future, bearing in mind what we are to look for and expect in regard to Hunterston as well as the oil? May we know what is in the preparation pool?
The noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, called for strategic planning. I heartily agree. He called for thinking big. I heartily agree. He called for thinking early. I heartily agree. He called for new facilities in the proper places. I heartily agree. In the homely phrase of country people, a stitch in time surely saves nine. But both the oil volume, both the exploration successes, both the job implications and the housing needs of this whole matter have been steadily underestimated up to now. Is this really a kind of provincial inferiority complex, a begging bowl mentality, a hangover from the days when Scotland was still stinking of decline? Surely the hangover of that way of thinking should be cast aside because, as the noble Earl, Lord Perth, put it in his own way, the time for that has gone and a new breeze is astir.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down—he spoke of a trunk road from Galashiels to the Clyde—would he not agree that a perfect bypass road for Edinburgh linking the A.68 with the M.8 would be a step in that direction, at least to go on with?
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, my thought on that is that the cost/benefit of the two would not bear comparison because traffic that was heading for Edinburgh and so on is to some extent heading for the North, Central Scotland or the Forth Bridge, whereas traffic heading direct for the Hunterston area and the Clyde area would naturally seek to avoid that roundabout route.
LORD FERRIER: Ultimately, yes.
7.4 p.m.
LORD BURTON: My Lords, may I start by adding my congratulations to the three maiden speakers and also my thanks to the noble Viscount. But in doing so may I add one small grumble to those who arranged the business of the House, I believe the noble Viscount was not given much option, and it seems that we always get matters which are of great interest to Scotsmen during Highland Show week, although I must remember that it is also Ascot week.
One morning last week I turned on the car wireless when the report on Scottish road conditions was being broadcast. I admit that I may have heard it out of context, but the words were to the effect that motorists need expect no hold-ups as there were no major roadworks taking place in Scotland. Back to the times of the last Labour Government! During that period there was a year when the total of trunk road improvements for the vast county of Inverness was one lay-by. During the last few years we got under way the largest roads programme ever known in Inverness-shire, a splendid investment and exactly what was needed to stimulate the economic state of the Highlands. Now what have we got: a complete decimation of that programme.
The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, said that oil-related works would avoid the cuts. I would ask him to look very carefully at why we have had cuts between Inverness and Beauly which I should think were very much oil-related. Two major schemes which were ready to go with British Rail under a very dangerous bridge have been cut out.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, before the noble Lord gets too far out in his debits and credits, he must recollect that it was Mr. Barber who was responsible for those cuts, which we are not yet able to reverse.
LORD BURTON: Well, my Lords, St.Andrew's House must be even slower than I thought it was. It was only in recent weeks that we have been told they were to be cut. But be that as it may, we are fortunate that some of the schemes started by the previous Government were too far advanced to be stopped. The cut is supposed to be one of 20 per cent on last year's expenditure. But 20 per cent. makes
994
no allowance for approximately a 50 per cent. increase in the average cost of contract works. Bitumen alone is up by 60 to 70 per cent. Then there are machinery costs, labour and the like. So, in all, throughout the country, roadworks have been cut not by 20 per cent. but by something like 45 to 50 per cent.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, the noble Lords ought at least to have paid me the courtesy of listening to what I said on this point. I emphasised the fact that because the greater part of the money which was available was already committed to roadworks under construction, it followed that there must be a very much greater cut than 20 per cent. in new starts. Obviously his percentage is bound to be pretty accurate; in any given year the bulk of the money being spent is already committed because most of the road schemes take two to three years from the time they are started before they are completed.
LORD BURTON: Yes, but I was not questioning whether they were new works, old works, repairs or whatever they were. What I was saying was that in real terms, as opposed to money terms, the cut is 45 to 50 per cent. It may be 20 per cent. of what was last year's money, but it is 45 to 50 per cent. in real terms owing to the rise in costs since last year. As luck would have it, the Government while in Opposition were suggesting that the A.9, the Perth to Inverness road, should be dualled. This road, being vital to oil production, has been saved from the axe and should have good stretches of dual carriageway over the most difficult lengths, so that the remainder can be dualled fairly easily in the future. Even here there has been a marked slowing up in the last few months in progress in getting schemes under way. The noble Lord shakes his head, but I have spent a lot of time at the receiving end.
The survey for the length of road from the Perth-Inverness county boundary to Dalwhinnie has been in the hands of the Development Department for some months now. This is the worst portion of the whole of this road for getting blocked in times of snow. It is not the snow that blocks the road; it is the vehicles which perhaps should not be on the road, which get themselves stuck in the snow and then have to be got out of it. It is therefore vital that this length

995
of road is dualled. In the event of a snowstorm one of the carriageways could be closed and vehicles that are going to get blocked in can get themselves blocked on the other one; then, when the snowstorm is over, we have a road which can be easily cleared. It is vital, if this money we are spending on the rest of the road is not to be wasted, that this particular section—and it is not a very difficult section—should be dualled. I hope that if the noble Lord is unable to answer this evening he will take a very careful look to see whether something can be done about this. I rather fear that the delay in giving us an answer is because there may be thoughts of cutting it from a dual to a single carriageway—a financial decision rather than a sensible one.
There is one piece of good news about this road: an eleven-mile contract between Dalwhinnie and Newtonmore has at last been let and is proceeding extremely well. At the present time over £10,000 per day is being spent on this piece of road on earthworks alone, and if the contractors continue to make such splendid progress before long we shall have a good stretch of eleven miles. Before leaving the subject of the A.9, perhaps I might say that it would be appropriate if the new bridge at Carr Bridge were opened by the noble Lord who is so interested in it—and I am sorry he has left the Chamber, because he might have been invited to come and cut the ribbon!
From what your Lordships have heard to-day it might be imagined that the A.9 is the worst trunk road in the country; but I am afraid it is not. By far the worst trunk road in the country is the Mallaig road. Fair progress was being made on this road under the last regime. It is now carrying extremely heavy traffic. Mallaig is a boom town for fishing and you get these huge articulated lorries rattling along trying to get the fish away fresh to the East coast. When there is a touch of frost in the morning, for morning after morning this road is blocked by enormous great lorries jack-knifing. That is not only a problem on this particular road, but it is particularly bad on this road. I wonder whether it is in any way possible for these large vehicles to be kept off the road in certain adverse conditions, when they are extremely dan-
996
gerous. The police seem to think they have no powers to ban them at the moment, but it would be very useful if the police could be given powers to ban them from the roads in certain conditions.
Equally, on the Mallaig road, when substantial tourist traffic is mixed in with the commercial traffic, then the trouble really begins. This area is a particularly beautiful one and a large number of caravans travel along this road. In another month's time it will really be chaos. We have the schemes ready to go forward and it is just a question of whether we shall be allowed to let them go. A year ago everything was set to go. I hope that the Minister will take a close look at this. If he is in any doubt about the wisdom of stopping it, I would suggest that he should take a drive along this road during the summer months. He would soon change his mind and would be all in favour of finding money from somewhere to improve this particular road.
We all appreciate that finance is short, but there are very substantial delays in getting contract work started. It takes far longer to get the paperwork going than is the case with the actual work on the site. It seems that our system is inefficient. Schemes that go up for approval to various places seem to get stuck on one desk after another. As Chairman of our Roads Committee, I have found it particularly frustrating to find that no progress is being made on scheme after scheme. This fact does not apply in regard to any particular Government, because we get more and more bogged down as bureaucracy increases and the working week gets shorter and shorter. I found myself always asking where the various schemes had got to and on whose desk they were sitting, and could they be chased up.
My Lords, if at any time in the future all Scottish business has to go through St. Andrew's House, heaven help Scotland! This seems to be an unanswerable argument against Scottish nationalism. because we shall then get completely bogged down. One inevitable delay point is the district valuer's office. Here the land for new roads has to be acquired. Here we have had what is to my mind a false economy because the district valuer in the North, despite of enormous

997
oil development in the North Sea, has had his staff cut. It is no fault of his, but there are very substantial delays caused because of that cut. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, would be good enough to look at this matter to see whether something cannot be done to speed things up. Perhaps I might also ask the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, whether he would see how it might be possible to improve efficiency, and how the administration might be improved, and, what is more, whether it may be possible to save expense while doing so.
As an example, the administration of our system of piers and ferries is absolutely chaotic. Your Lordships have been given one example of bad administration by my noble friend Lord Glenkinglas in respect of one of the Argyllshire islands. We have far too many agencies dealing with transport, and in particular with sea transport. An example of this is the proposed ferry to the small island of Vatersay with a population of about fifty. The first and obvious thing was to try to find a suitable boat. Having found what we thought was a suitable boat we spent 18 months battling with the Board of Trade, and were eventually told that it was not suitable. So we found another boat of a different type, and battled for another nine months—only to be told at the end of it that the boat could be used in calm waters, and it was agreed that the boat should be purchased. Then, after more than two years of struggling with the Board of Trade, we asked for grant aid for the terminals, and the Scottish Economic Planning Department, who now look after this aspect, refused it. We really felt that if we were not going to get it anyway we might have been told before we got the boat. That is the sort of thing one has to put up with. That example covers three of the agencies involved: the local authority, the Board of Trade and the Scottish Economic Planning Department.
Then on many of the ferries one gets involved with that collection of retired bus operators, the Scottish Transport Group. I could give your Lordships some wonderful examples of the lack of planning by this Group; but I must at the same time congratulate the Government on setting up a special Committee
998
of the House of Commons which I believe is very shortly to look into this Group. Perhaps we shall then be able to iron out some of the problems with them. Apart from all the other agencies, there are various private operators, including Caledonian MacBraynes—and perhaps the less said of them the better—and the local authorities. Now we are to have new local authorities. Up to now many of the ferry services ran between the same authorities—Ross-shire went across to Stornaway, and so on. Inverness and Argyll had their own service. Now there are to be separate Island authorities and we shall have further delays by having two authorities, one at each end of the terminal, which will cause further confusion. There are different pier owners. We know what has happened in Rothesay, where we are still held up.
At the end of all this, we have what is supposed to be an appeal body called the Scottish Transport Users' Consultative Committee. It seems impossible to meet them. Then, to cap it all, we have the Highlands Development Board, and if you really want to get things in a muddle—but I will leave that comment unfinished. Unfortunately, they call themselves the "Principal Advisor on Transport to the Secretary of State". I would suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, that this is one thing which might be looked at so that it might be made more efficient. If it is possible, perhaps it would be desirable to have a new body altogether. The local people, who would like these services and are involved, get very frustrated, and I hope that a single body to co-ordinate and co-operate will be set up. What they really want is a short sea crossing such as we have been trying to get for some time now between North Uist and Harris. That would be an enormous advantage.
My noble friend Lord Haig mentioned small buses. I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, could do something to expedite those postal minibus services which have so far worked extremely well elsewhere. The noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, referred to camouflaging those roads with trees, but equally, I feel that we must be careful that they do not have to run down green tunnels, as is rather liable to happen now. We are getting so many thick coniferous plantations

999
alongside all our roads that we shall not be able to see anything at all.
Finally, may I make one small plea for the small communities in the Highlands. There are still a number which have no road at all. I walked out the other day to a small community in Harris. They are trying to improve their houses, but all the bricks and mortar, and everything else, has to be carried out over a track for a considerable distance. There is no road. They suffered the cuts just as seriously as the rest of us. It is a comparatively small amount of money and I think that people with no roads should be given special preference.
7.20 p.m.
LORD RANKEILLOUR: My Lords, may I first thank the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, for leading off one more Scottish debate, and though saying much that is in the minds of most of us, it has to be reiterated to a certain extent and can be slightly enlarged. I agree with him particularly regarding thinking big and thinking modern. We in the West Highlands must he in a unique position of inconvenience so far as the main forms of mobility of passengers and freight are concerned, since very long distances are further complicated by large patches of water splattered over the map of that region which often increases an otherwise simple journey into an aggravatingly long and tiresome one, especially in inclement times. Even after accepting the fact one often has to drive round the heads of inland and sea lochs rather than across the narrowest sections by bridge, one is still faced with the lack of main roads (let alone side ones) capable of handling modern traffic, the famous example being the A.9 which is now well out of date before it has been completed. Failing this, the Highland railway system, which the Minister of Transport has accepted to be a social service rather than an economic one, should accept a far wider variety of freight and suitable rolling stock for it than is the case now, for all the few roads are cluttered with huge lorries and slow-moving tourist traffic, a combination of which is lethal in this ultra-different landscapes, this super-rural hill country.
My Lords, when I started to assemble ideas for this Scottish debate, it became obvious that it was no good to present it
1000
in the old "have-not" formula. It has to tell of the past, present and future, although not necessarily in that order. There is little doubt that if the two main Parties, Labour and Conservative, continue to regard the Highlands as, "Too far away, with too few people, to always matter", that area might well follow the lead of the Lowlands and cause a rift in their political allegiances by turning to the Scottish Nationalists for help. This would be tragic, especially if it led to a massive move to independence. Therefore it must be averted.
The Highlands is as yet part of the United Kingdom, but because it is a very large area, with a very small population, it is constantly being short-changed so far as vitally essential basic development is concerned. I do not want to see Scotland break away from England. It is a family tradition that we wish to retain the Union. As far back as 1703 my great-grandfather's great grandfather, the Earl of Hopetoun of the time, was an ardent supporter of the Union between England and Scotland, and belonged to an illustrious group of leaders, which included the Marquess of Tweeddale and Sir John Clerk of Penicuik who were convinced of the advantages of the Anglo-Scottish alliance. My noble kinsman even went so far as to have his Palace of Hopetoun enlarged in order to gain something of the same splendour that he had found in English country houses. In the year of 1721 William Adam was called in and given his instructions. That is history. I have no wish to change it for the worse. I only seek to continue that tradition and to see that those far-seeing men were justified in taking the political line that they did in those days so long ago. Alliances, though, are usually based upon mutual help and understanding, so if one partner drags his feet the others may suffer.
So far as the Highlands are concerned. I feel that better, faster progress could be made in the purely fundamental issues such as the supports of every-day life. If these requirements are denied to one section of the Union and granted to others, can it be surprising that there exists so much discontent with Government—any traditional United Kingdom Government? I should not like this House to think that I am ungrateful for the industries that have been set up in the Highlands, but it would be unrealistic of me to ignore the fact that the primary

1001
necessities of the people who live there, and the needs of the newly arrived personnel, are sadly lacking.
My noble friend Lord Lauderdale—and I do not see him in his place—often refers to my speeches as idealistic. But that is not really so, for when I speak in this House upon the subject of the Highlands and its requirements, I do so far its betterment and not to try to push it into a corner of Utopia. We, who live there, know full well that it has more than its fair share of drawbacks that no Government could possibly alter due to its mountainous and cut-off nature. However, there are considerations that should be seriously and speedily rectified in order that a rather better life can be made for its inhabitants.
Not enough is being done, and that, too slowly. Communications in this 20th century are really pitiful, and this is soon shown up in times of strikes and winter conditions, when people suddenly find themselves totally marooned by having so few types of alternative transport and routes. Is it not time that the very advanced state of United Kingdom technology could be put to use in this realm? May I suggest hover-power particularly, so far as fuel economy is concerned? I hasten to add that I must declare an interest in this principle, and only wish that every United Kingdom Government did, too.
Unlike the conventional railway track, the hover-train can travel on a single rail and this can be supported on simple pillars that can be let into any terrain, thus rendering sleepers and metalling obsolete on the so-called permanent way. What could be more straightforward? Yet, why do successive British Governments persistently ignore and starve the development and promotion of the hover-power concept? It really is unbelievable. We have a British invention steadily being eroded by foreigners who have quickly realised its vast potential for inexpensive moving of heavy equipment over a wide variety of surfaces. Yet we are forced to stand by and let our advanced technology wither away for lack of more Government encouragement. That is very sad. It is vital in these troubled times to utilise every form of modern and ultra-modern development that Britain has to offer. Who knows, perhaps our scientists will come up with silent and fumeless trains, motor
1002
cars, lorries and other forms of transport? How acceptable that would be! Yet to accomplish such things Government initiative and constructive support will really have to get a move on. What about the highly economical power-assisted horizontal fly-wheel motive unit that will push a fully loaded bus up hill and down dale with only the occasional pep-up help of a tiny four-stroke engine? It seems worth while considering.
With the massive amount of research that has gone into modern types of transport, is it not about time that a halt is called so that some of the positive findings could be put into practice? Research for research's sake can be a dreadful drain on Government monies when, as now, the United Kingdom has its back to the wall in the fields of fuel and expensive methods of moving people and freight for long, as well as short, journeys. By now the boffins of Britain must have enough workable data to produce a practical branch-line hovertrain, steam car, linear motor-driven locomotives, supermassive freight hovercraft, and a variety of other vital machines, some of which should be brought forward to save this country from being ripped apart economically. This country of ours is in trouble, and it is no use denying it. We have led the world with inventions for many generations but, time and time again, our prowess at this art has had to find its final manufacture and use in other countries, especially the United States of America; thus we are the loser in a really big way. This drift must stop, and one way to stop it is to freeze monies in certain sectors and divert them to the more practical use of building the equipment, not just researching it. We do not have a lot of time.
For the small inventor of this country we need a Ministerial department that can supply money and expert advice leading to manufacture, and possibly a repayment scheme at a later date should a machine prove to be financially successful. We cannot afford to ignore the little man and his brainchild, made from tin cans and bits of wire, for who will ever forget the trials and tribulations of Sir Christopher Cockerell in his stunning discovery of the hover-power principle? I think that modern land transport, public and freight, will soon have to run on elevated monorails which will do away

1003
with the need for the terrifying destruction that increasing, wide motorways are doing to the farming community throughout the nation. We have the know-how. Let us build one in the virgin country of the West Highlands, perhaps instead of a road.
England is criss-crossed with major motorways that have torn villages apart and made life intolerable for people living nearby. Let Scotland learn from her mistakes and not fall into the same folly. We must be allowed to diversify in our own methods of getting from A to B. Of course we shall need dual carriageways, especially if we are offered no alternatives, but they must be few, kept clear of populations, and be fed by well-paved spur roads. Without a general speed-up in innovationary methods to improve the requirements and needs of the Highland economy, concerning industry, farming and fishing, we shall find ourselves in real trouble. With our new developing industries and old rural ones we must have the ways of coping with them, on a par with England at least; and that means modern, fast and efficient movement of people and all types of freight the whole length and breadth of the country, in all weathers, not just for part of it, in some. My Lords, it should not be necessary for me to stand here to-day to ask for proper communications, for they should be part and parcel of any new or improved town, sea or countryside industry. To use a modern phrase: a package deal from the drawing-board onwards.
7.34 p.m.
LORD GAINFORD: My Lords, first of all, it gives me great pleasure, which is literally trebled, to congratulate our maiden speakers to-day; to thank them for their magnificent contribution to this debate, and to wish them long, happy and successful careers in your Lordships' House. I also wish to congratulate the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, on initiating this debate with a most exciting and inspiring opening speech. I also have to add my apologies because, owing to an evening engagement, I may not be able to remain long after I sit down. To the noble Lord. Lord Hughes, I speak with gratitude. I hope that I heard him correctly—he will no doubt say whether I am wrong—and that he gave us an assur-
1004
ance that, for the time being, no closure of Scottish railways is being contemplated. That assurance will be received with great gratitude by many people living in Scotland.
I noted with interest that in the list of speakers I was following my noble friend Lord Rankeillour, because last year on March 7, in a debate initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Popplewell, both my noble friend and I pleaded for the retention of railway services in the Western Highlands, particularly the line from Inverness to Kyle of Lochalsh, the line from Glasgow to Fort William and on to Mallaig, and the line from Oban to Crianlarich. I am particularly grateful for the assurance, because I had heard talk that the line from Oban to Crianlarich was likely to be next under the axe of estimated economy. May I ask the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, whether there is any possibility of a further assurance that, should any line be forced to close, the track will remain for a certain period in case any body of persons, public or private, could possibly put it to use, or because it might be found possible, owing to demand, to reactivate the line?
Many persons still grieve the loss of the beautiful railway between Connel Ferry and Balachulish. The 30 miles of track could have been used, for example, by some of these interested groups of railway enthusiasts who keep railway history alive by maintaining steam trains in working order. Trains on that Balachulish line could have been a wonderful draw to the tourist industry in that part of the world; but, in spite of all the pleas and protests, that line was closed and the closure was made irrevocable by very quick taking up of the track. I can only suppose that the reason for this was that magnificent bridge over the tidal race at Connel Ferry, known as the Falls of Lora. While the railway was in operation the bridge carried the single track of the railway and a single line of road traffic. Taking up the track quickly enabled the bridge to be used for two-way road traffic, obviating all the expense of building another bridge over that bit of sea.
The next matter to which I turn is air transport. I believe that a number of your Lordships know my interest in

1005
the possibility of reviving airships, though nothing like the old Zeppelins that used to be constructed. I think I mentioned this matter three times in your Lordships' House during debates last year, and I can say that since then some progress has definitely been made in research into this matter, so that the ideals of last year are, at any rate, now a step or two closer to becoming a reality. Research into airship design and potential shows that airships will be economical on fuel; their ability to take off and land vertically—an operation which will be almost silent—will not require large, land-consuming runway complexes.
Even if half-a-dozen airships were constructed within the near future, they could form welcome connections with centres of Scottish industry and the Highlands and Islands, and affect the sense of isolation which the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, mentioned—that would begin to disappear. It could also greatly reduce the amount of freight on the roads. Therefore, if it were possible to develop even a single aircraft of this kind that could take large loads efficiently, fast and economically, and not need an airport, the demonstration of its contribution to Scottish industry and economy would be impressive. Moreover, such airships could themselves be manufactured in Scotland, utilising traditional shipbuilding skills and providing jobs for Scottish engineers of all kinds. I would ask Her Majesty's Government to take particular note of the potential of airships. And might the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, send a message to the right honourable gentleman the Minister for Industry about the contribution which they could provide?
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, might I ask the noble Lord what would happen with an airship if one had a 100 m.p.h. gale, as one often does in the West of the Highlands? I think that an airship would come off worse.
LORD GAINFORD: My Lords, that is an interesting question, since the estimated speed of the new airship is about 100 m.p.h. If there were such a wind blowing, that flight would have to be cancelled. Airships, like other forms of air transport, still suffer from meteorological conditions. But I mention the airship only in passing. These ideals are
1006
matters for the future, however close that future may be. While they are being developed there are still very urgent matters of the present to be attended to, among them the problems facing farming communities in the Western Highlands.
For example, I wish to speak about the community of the village of Tayvallich in Argyllshire. It lies about 12 miles South-West by road from Lochgilphead, an important town in the district. It is a great tourist attraction in summer with visitors coming by land and sea, the caravan sites well-filled, as is the bay, part of Loch Sween, which is one of the most sheltered anchorages on the West Coast of Scotland. Well within a mile across the narrow strip of land, thanks to which the village is just on the mainland, is the Sound of Jura and Carsaig, where there are a few farms and dwellings, and at least one more caravan site in summer. I have known Tayvallich for 40 years come next year. For most of the first 20 years, it was my permanent home address. I still have ties with it, since my mother lives there and so does one of my brothers who is a farmer.
Before rail travel became much faster, and before the institution of a regular air service between London and Glasgow, travel to Tayvallich was slow but adventurous. The nearest railway stations are Oban, 40 miles to the North, and Arrochar, 60 miles away, where the Glasgow to Fort William line crosses the Glasgow to Campbeltown road. The main daily communication between Glasgow and Lochgilphead is a twice-daily bus service, formerly operated by MacBraynes—who have come in for some scathing comments in this debate and in Question Time—and now by Western S.M.T. But a pleasanter passenger and freight service was MacBraynes' steamer from Gouroch to Ardrishaig, two miles South of Lochgilphead, the port for the district and also the Eastern end of the Crinan Canal. This service depended a little on the weather, but it was not often that it had to be cancelled.
The main hazard to travellers from England, like myself, in bygone years, was in being able to reach Glasgow in time to catch the train to Gourock. That steamer service has now, most regrettably, been abolished and hardly any steamers at all call at Ardrishaig. It was most

1007
useful for carrying passengers and freight—and I do not know the economic reasons for cancelling it—and if there is any possibility of its being reinstated it will be extremely welcome. Between Tayvallich and Lochgilphead and Ardrishaig there is a mini-bus service which takes outgoing and incoming mail once a day. One recent advantage from a change in the service is that the daily incoming mail to Tayvallich is now delivered at about mid-day instead of at about tea time. Heavy freight, particularly cattle, used to be delivered as near as possible to individual homes and farms, so long as there were roads that the lorries could manage. Before the war, there were several private companies, and I remember one called Clyde Cargo. In the late 'forties, nationalisation came into force and all large road haulage companies became part of British Road Services.
At first, the nationalised road transport showed signs of being a great success, but gradually the reliability decreased. Apart from private companies operating small lorries with very limited cargo capacity, so great is the difficulty for farmers to obtain transport for their cattle that it is being said that British Road Services do not seem to care. I am choosing my words very carefully. Whatever Parliamentary privilege may permit, I do not want to make any suggestion—let alone anything approaching an accusation—that is unjust. Very likely, if any official of British Road Services were confronted with such a statement he could prove it wrong and show that all the lorries and drivers were working their utmost, and that they did not have enough staff or equipment to meet all the demands. The laws of carriage of cattle require the lorries to be fitted with special equipment. These laws are sensible for the matter of health, humane treatment of animals and safety, but they add a further factor towards the heavy expense of hiring these vehicles and transporting cargoes over long distances.
My Lords, I have no claim to being an expert on economics, but I know that the farmers in many West Highlands districts are finding it more and more difficult to make ends meet. They must not be penalised merely because they live in far away places. Whether near or far, the
1008
Scottish farmer plays a leading role in Scotland's economy. I beg Her Majesty's Government to take action. This is not just a matter to be looked into; a close examination is needed. If there is lack of equipment, can it be provided! If there is a shortage of drivers for road vehicles, can some means be found of encouraging them to work in the Highlands? There is still a misconception that life there is lonely. But it need not be. I am not asking for the impossible to be achieved, or for a miracle to be performed overnight. What I ask is that Scottish farmers should be given some immediate encouragement, so that they know their work is appreciated and can feel confident to carry on working where they are now. Otherwise, if circumstances force the farmers to move, the scenery of the Highlands, while retaining its beauties, will also include derelict farms each one being the sign of an unhappy failure.
To close, my Lords, I should like to recall once again the debate that I mentioned on March 7, 1973, and the words of my noble friend Lord Rankeillour about the fearful threat should the removal of any form of transport from any district be contemplated. He said:
"Cut off a right hand and the left will seek justice, but cut off a head and the body will die."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7/3/73; col. 1234.]
7.49 p.m.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, like the rest of your Lordships I am grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, for having introduced this debate, which has produced so many interesting speeches. Early on, when I knew that I should have to speak, I thought that after some 18 or 20 speakers most of the subjects would have been adequately covered. Needless to say, I have been proved right in that view. However, I decided that whether or not it had been covered—which, obviously, it would have been—I would still plug on about the infrastructure of the North-East; in particular, in relation to the oil industry in that part of Scotland. I shall still do that, because although the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, gave us reassurances, I was not quite certain whether they were complete reassurances or whether they were perhaps subject to a "little bit here and little bit there".

1009
Before continuing, I must add my tributes to the three noble Lords who have made their maiden speeches to-day. Of course from an ex-Secretary of State we no doubt expected the fine, polished performance that my noble friend Lord Glenkinglas gave us; and needless to say we on this side of the House are delighted to get such an accession of strength. I should also like to pay a personal tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Erskine of Rerrick, a friend of mine for many years, and under whose chairmanship I served for many years on the Scottish board of a well-known security company. The Liberal Party also are to be very much congratulated on their new recruit to this House in the form of my Angus neighbour, Lord Mackie of Benshie. I congratulate him sincerely.
As is obvious, my Lords, the oil scene has slightly dominated the transport view of this debate. This is right, because it is owing to this transformation of the Scottish scene that the decline in employment and loss of population by emigration which was so bad in the 'sixties is now over, and the trend is reversed.
Most of the administration of the activity in this new industry will be centred around and in Aberdeen. Most of the servicing of the various oil rigs will also be based on Aberdeen. So it is essential to develop both the airport and the harbour there.
THE EARL OF CROMARTIE: My Lords, may I interrupt my noble friend for one moment? He seems to have forgotten that one of the main oil-rig building area happens to be in my county at Nigg, and we may even have more on the West coast if we are not careful.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, I take the point raised by my noble friend. The functions of administration and servicing have to be at Aberdeen, although I was going on to say that places like Dundee, Montrose and Peterhead would also no doubt play a supporting role in these functions. However, Aberdeen is undoubtedly becoming the offshore capital of Europe. Some 200 companies which are directly involved in servicing the oil industry are already there, and some 300 more which are already there are partially involved. These are new companies which have come in. Thus in Aberdeen the unemployment rate
1010
of 1.4 per cent. is one of the lowest in the whole country.
When we were in office we had planned various items of expenditure, which I will go into in a moment. When we had our cuts in expenditure just before this last New Year, we specifically exempted from those cuts anything to do with the oil industry or the infrastructure thereof. I want to ask the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, whether he agrees with the items that I am going to mention as being part of the oil infrastructure because we considered them to be germane to this point and therefore we decided to exempt them.
First, we intended to spend £1 million in improvements to the harbour at Aberdeen and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, will confirm that this work is still going ahead, as well as improvements at Peterhead, to which we had allotted £3 million. We were also improving the harbours at Montrose and Wick and Lerwick. As I think most noble Lords know, we had planned to spend some £60 million on improving our old friend the A.9 between Perth and Invergordon and we were also going to spend £22 million on the M.80 between Glasgow and Stirling, all basically essential for the growing oil industry. We were also spending some £16 million on fast, safe feeder roads between Perth, Dundee, Aberdeen and Inverness involving trunk construction and major improvements to the Dundee—Forfar—Stonehaven A.94 road. Most of these improvements were desirable anyway and, my heavens! how many disgruntled Scotsmen and frustrated tourists have said "Hear, hear" to this scheme.
LORD HOY: My Lords, if the noble Lord will allow me to interrupt for a moment, he mentioned three figures totalling nearly £100 million, and I should like to know over what period it was proposed to spend this sum of money.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, we were going ahead as fast as we had the labour force to do it. I cannot give off the cuff at this moment the exact answer as to how long it would all have taken, but—
LORD HOY: My Lords, I do not want to be pedantic about it, but the noble Lord said that they were going to spend £66 million on a particular part of the

1011
road. Surely we are entitled to know over what period of time he was going to spend this and not merely to be told that it was subject to allocation of materials, or labour or anything else. Obviously, the Government of the day had planned it and therefore the noble Lord must know over what period the money was to be spent.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, I think my right honourable friend Mr. Gordon Campbell said it was going to be done as fast as we could do it, but the point I was making was that it was specifically exempted from the cuts which we made. There is only a limited labour force in the country, and as the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, knows full well, we were giving full priority. We were cutting corners in planning; we were not dilly-dallying at all. Indeed, we were being accused by some noble Lords of my Party and by some noble Lords on the other side of the House of cutting corners. Therefore I do not think we can be accused of not wishing to go ahead. We were planning to do it as swiftly as we could.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I am rather interested in this point because I may be able to make use of it. Would the noble Lord be good enough to give an example of the cutting of corners in planning which he was undertaking in this connection?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, I think the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, knows what I was referring to. We were discussing the planning of some of the oil rigs on the West Coast, for instance.
LORD HUGHES: I see, my Lords. The noble Lord was referring to legislation in regard to Drumbuie; I thought he was referring to cutting corners for the planning of the A.9.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: No, my Lords, I was just giving that as an example of the fact that we were wishing to get ahead. I am sorry if I misled your Lordships. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, can reassure us that these road schemes will not be affected and I hope his right honourable friend the Secretary of State, Mr. Ross, will not copy his other right honourable friend
1012
Mr. Mulley in making some new roads and improvements "smaller and cheaper", as he told us last Monday. All these construction programmes must go on as planned if full use is to be obtained from the new industrial boom which is about to hit Scotland.
Similarly, we were carrying out much needed improvements at Inverness, Aberdeen and Sunburgh airports. I was at Sunburgh last September and can personally vouch for the need for a new terminal building there. All these works together are essential for the infrastructure for North Sea oil if it is to be efficient and if the industry is to produce its goods both quickly and economically. I am sure your Lordships know that the Highlands and Islands Development Board published a Moray Firth access transport study which argued the case very well that some £7½ million investment was urgently needed to improve the rail link between Perth and Inverness. I shall be interested to know whether the noble Lord the Minister of State can tell us anything further about this matter. As he knows, at the moment the Perth-Inverness line is not capable of allowing trains to travel at a sufficient speed nor to have trains running two ways as most of the line is single track. Several noble Lords have made the point that the freight which could be carried on this line could be of considerable significance. The future needs of the Moray Firth area will need careful thought and rapid action if the growth rate is not to be stultified.
Probably most of us in this House tonight have recently enjoyed seeing work start on the new runway at Turnhouse after my right honourable friend Mr. Gordon Campbell had given his approval for the work to go ahead. At the moment I suspect that many Scots and foreign businessmen in the North go abroad via London, as some noble Lords have pointed out. I hope it may be possible for the airlines to introduce new direct international flights from Scottish airports. I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, has any further information about the £23 million Scottish helicopter network with 10 aircraft and some 18 heliports at all existing towns served by B.E.A., together with Fort William, Aviemore, Oban and Dundee, which the project manager of British Airways Helicopters Limited produced in March this year.

1013
The Sikorski F.65 helicopter carrying 44 passengers at 155 knots could be available, I understand, if the scheme started soon, in two years' time.
I am advised that a similar modernisation of all these airfields and new equipment for fixed wing aircraft might cost £100 million and take up to ten years, as well as passengers' convenience and saving of time of transport in the towns concerned, because the heliports could, if required, be more central than the main airports. These helicopters could be used for such jobs as loadlifting, power line inspection, lighthouse relief, pipelaying and even an air ambulance service. This might well be a most useful contribution to the future needs of Scottish transport, so I should be grateful if the noble Lord is able to tell me anything further of his thinking on that point.
My Lords, I should like to take up just one point. The noble Lord, Lord Hoy, was slightly scornful, I think, of the suggestion of my noble friend Lord Glenkinglas that putting more tax on already high priced petrol would add to costs in many areas of the country. I would make the point that ours has not been the Party which has been putting tax on petrol. I think his Party added 4d. in 1967-68 and 7d. in 1968-69, and of course V.A.T., which goes up every time the price of petrol goes up, has been added this year. The noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, and the noble Lord, Lord Forbes, also made a point about the cost of petrol, that of course the amount received by the oil sheiks (or whatever Government is getting the money) is still small compared with the amount which Governments such as ours take in tax. But I do not want to make a meal of this. It was no less a person than the present Prime Minister who, at the end of last year when the oil prices to us were going up heavily, suggested that a reduction in tax to offset the increase in the price of oil might he a good idea.
Up to date I am told that only about £200 million has actually been spent in Scotland on exploration of oil and the servicing of oil rigs. But in the next 10 years some £300 million will be spent every year on servicing and investment to produce the oil. I am not
1014
talking about profits. Scotland has only so far spent a trickle—£200 million so far, and from now on £300 million a year. The really big money is now coming in. Are we going to be ready for it? This we have to be sure about. We must get the infrastructure ready and right. In the words of the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, "thinking big and thinking early" as the theme of this debate I think is good.
8.4 p.m.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, it is now almost exactly six years since I have been answering debates on the Scottish economy and one of the interesting things is that after six years it seems to be the wish of your Lordships, by the number of questions put to me for answer, that you want my replying speech to be longer than my opening speech. The most useful parts of the debate, as I have already suggested to the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, who initiated it, fall into the category of fairly wide-ranging and concrete proposals which I would best serve the House by assuring them would be matters which I and my colleagues would look at carefully, and are not the subject for instant answer but rather the subject for careful consideration and, where possible, early operation. That I would propose to do, and I think it is the most appropriate way in which I could express the thanks of Her Majesty's Government to the noble Viscount.
The specific questions which were put for answer I must divide into three sections: those which are perhaps of a rather general nature, in which a number of noble Lords would be interested because they cover things which affect the whole country; secondly, those which are of a more local nature which can I think be most appropriately dealt with by writing to the noble Lord concerned in due course; and, thirdly, in order to cut down on time I do not propose to reply to questions put by noble Lords who are no longer here. That does not cut it down very much because most of them are still here.
My Lords, on the questions of fairly general nature, the first was put by the noble Viscount in his opening speech. This relates to the road crossing of the Dornoch Firth which he asked should be

1015
authorised straight away. The Government accept that this scheme is very desirable, but in our view it must follow the reconstruction of the A.9 between Perth and Invergordon; nevertheless, to allow progress to be made with preliminary studies, traffic surveys on roads in the area are now being made and the hydrological study of Dornoch Firth is being put in hand.
My noble friend Lord Hoy incited the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, to come back to the Edinburgh by-pass, but then he had to go for another engagement and the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, felt that he would have rather to leave the point alone, so we were saved a few minutes there. I should, however, say to both noble Lords that roads within Edinburgh are matters for the corporation and as has been said, I think, by the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, the Government made a 50 per cent. grant to the cost of the Edinburgh planning and transport study team because of the tie-up with the trunk road network outside the city boundary; but until the corporation have submitted formal proposals for consideration by the Secretary of State, the Secretary of State has no locus.
Informal discussions are taking place at official level and an official Working Party set up in February 1973 reported to the corporation in February this year. We understand that the corporation are concentrating their attention on a short stretch of by-pass in the Colinton area. So the noble Lord having gone at it for a very long time perhaps may say that this is a small sprat that he has caught at last; the big catch still remains for the future.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, I regard half a by-pass as similar to a tunnel that goes only half-way through a hill.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, the noble Lord exaggerates. I do not want him to think, because he has not got the whole by-pass, that really he only has a hole at the end of the tunnel.
On the subject of Carrbridge I was amused when my noble friend raised the question of this bridge. I received a letter from a Member of Parliament—and in order to have no risks with another place I will not say who it was—in which he passed on the views of the local people,
1016
saying that because of the interference with tourist traffic we ought not to go ahead with this scheme until the holiday season was over. My reply came to me for signature on the day on which the Scotsman published the photograph showing that the bridge in fact had collapsed. So it was absolutely essential to go ahead with the other operations. I let my letter go, giving reasons why we were going ahead, and then added a postcript in my own fair hand: "I enclose for your information a copy of the photograph in to-day's Scotsman". I gather that one result of it being raised to-day is that the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, is to be invited to open the bridge; that is, if the noble Lord, Lord Burton, has any influence in these matters—not evidenced recently, I regret to say, on his behalf in the Election results.
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Forbes, had many questions to put. I am answering quite a number of these because they were all of a general nature. On the question of dual carriageways on the Perth-Aberdeen road, for the purposes of long-term planning we envisage the strategic route from Perth should be via Dundee, Forfar, Brechin and Stonehaven, because it will thus be possible to take heavy through-traffic out of Perth, and because the topography of parts of the coastal road between Dundee and Stonehaven prevents the road from readily being brought up to the standard we would ultimately like to achieve for a strategic through-route. Between Perth and Dundee, the dual carriageways on the A.85 are virtually built. The last section just East of Perth, which will connect with the new bridge over the Tay at Frairton, and thus with the M.90, is being built at present. It should be completed early in 1977.
Schemes are also being prepared for providing dual carriageways on the Western part of the Kingsway in Dundee, while there are only two sections of dual carriageway between Stonehaven and Aberdeen which still have to be completed. One at Cammachmore is under construction, and proposals for the other, just South of the Aberdeen boundary, have been advertised. On the section between Dundee and Stonehaven, the A.929/A.94, we have had to balance the need for speed and the known short-term requirements against the ideal standards,

1017
which would be much more costly and must take considerably longer to achieve. Therefore, it seems to us that the allround needs of the situation will be best met by continuing a series of improvements on the A.929 between Dundee and Forfar, and on the A.94 between Forfar and Stonehaven, to provide a 24-foot single carriageway with a hard strip one metre wide on either side. (I do not like this mixture of footage and "metreage", but that is the way it is here) plus bypassing of local communities where necessary. To implement this intention, several major improvements, including a by-pass of Brechin costing £1¼ million, are now under construction and further schemes, including a by-pass of Forfar, Laurencekirk and Stonehaven are being prepared.
LORD FORBES: My Lords, if the noble Lord will forgive me for interrupting, he said that the improvement will be made. It is disappointing that it will not be dual carriageway. Can the noble Lord give any indication as to when the improvement between Dundee and Stonehaven is likely to be completed? That is what really matters.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, "as soon as resources and labour will make it possible." The noble Lord, Lord Forbes, raised a rather interesting point about charter air services. We should like to think about this but obviously this is a matter primarily for the travel trade itself.
On the subject of regional development having to mitigate abnormally high freight rates, as your Lordships will know the European Regional Development Fund has not got far at present, and notwithstanding the encouragement from the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, that we should be profligate in relation to mortgaging our future, I do not at this stage contemplate spending the money which we have not yet got from that Fund.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord for involving me in the Regional Development Fund, which I regard as being just as symbolic as the whole Common Market. The noble Lord will know that better than I do. But is there not a case for spending some money now
1018
on paper preparation, engineering preparation, for which the money could be provided when noble Lords are in a better mood than to-day to mortgage our future?
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I still have that to answer. As a matter of fact, I had the noble Lord's question on the reserve list in case he did not come back. With regard to Aberdeen Airport and who will run it, the C.A.A. or the B.A.A., there is a strong case for the airport, together with the other main Scottish airports, to be brought under single management with a clearly defined Scottish identity. The Government are currently considering proposals to achieve this objective, and I hope a decision will not be long delayed on this matter.
With reference to proper customs facilities at Aberdeen Airport, I understand that, because of the rapidly increasing volume of international traffic, something is going to be done about this matter. I am sorry it has not reached the stage of decision which would enable me to say to-day what exactly is going to be done. I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Forbes, will be disappointed with the decision when announced.
Turning to the point on radar at Aberdeen, this is a matter for the Civil Aviation Authority. They are currently reviewing the requirement for regulated airspace at the airport. If regulated airspace were to be reduced, it would be necessary to provide suitable radar which would take about a year to install. The noble Lord asked what were the plans for Aberdeen Airport. The major need at the airport is for a completely new terminal, with a new apron, taxiways and other facilities. B.A.A. have drawn up a scheme which might cost between £5 million and £6 million. The Government are considering these proposals as a matter of urgency.
LORD FORBES: My Lords, I think the point there is to make quite certain that the plan which has been drawn up by the B.A.A. is the one adopted. What happens if the Civil Aviation Authority continues to run Aberdeen Airport?
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I do not think the noble Lord should encourage me to find obstacles. The noble Earl, Lord Haig, referred to the Borders economy because, naturally, much of

1019
what we have been talking about has been in the Highlands and in the oil areas. The economy of the Borders area is, in fact, expanding, and has been expanding strongly in recent years. New immigrant industries have been attracted to many of the Borders towns. Last month the unemployment rate was lower in the Borders than in the congested South-East, unlike earlier years when the unemployment in the Borders was artificially low because the unemployed went elsewhere to find work, and the rate was therefore kept down by emigration from the Borders. The position now is that immigration to the Borders has almost exactly balanced the emigration from it, so that for once the very low unemployment rate in the Borders is a real and very satisfactory figure.
The noble Earl, Lord Cromartie, used a rather interesting phrase about the noble Lord, Lord Beeching, and the misbegotten terms of reference which produced the Beeching Report. The noble Earl reminded me of what was once said by the Provest of Brechin, when Brechin lost its section of the line. He said that the Government of the day—the Conservative Government of the day. I hasten to add—asked Beeching to tell them how they could make a railway pay, and after careful examination Beeching came up with the conclusion that the only way to make it pay was not to have a railway. So the Government proceeded to go ahead on that basis.
The noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, and the noble Earl, Lord Perth, both raised the question of the advantages of competition and the value of the small aircraft concerns. I think it would be appropriate in this connection if I paid a tribute to Loganair. They have been providing a growing range of local services over the last few years. They have had to contend with most of the problems faced by Scottish Airways, and a few more besides. The Loganair service makes a significant contribution to the economic well-being of many of the most remote communities, and their operations are conducted without the backing, either technical or financial, of a normal commercial network.
They show flexibility, resource, an intimate knowledge of local needs and a
1020
readiness to respond to them. They are a Scottish company with headquarters in Scotland, which is a matter of considerable importance at a time when not only we but all industrial countries are concerned with undue centralisation. We are very proud of our Scottish airline, and I should like to give an assurance that the Government will pay particular attention to the future arrangements for services on the routes they serve, for social and economic reasons rather than strictly commercial ones.
On the question of the expense to agriculture of freight, I should like to consider at greater length the points which the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, made. But the cost advantages of shipments in full lorry loads on roll-on/rolloff ferries—which are very difficult to achieve—contain a solution, particularly in the Islands. Many of the island farmers, of course, do not have full loads for themselves, and there is co-operation between them to make sure that lorries are used to the full capacity. It could reduce costs to them if existing organisations in the Islands encouraged greater co-operation in that direction and those larger cargoes could prove more economic by making greater use of puffer traffic, which still carries a fair proportion of fertilisers and loose feed. Consequent on that I should like to look at the wider aspect of what was raised.
The noble Earl, Lord Perth, raised the question of the effect of the Maplin project. As the House will know, the Government have set in hand a review of the Maplin project for the Third London Airport. This includes a study of the prospects of more intensive use of airports outside South-East England, including airports in Scotland, with the object of relieving the pressure of demand in the London area and lessening the imbalance of airport investment between London and elsewhere in the United Kingdom. If this serves the purpose of enabling Scots to cut out the journey by way of Heathrow, for which so many of your Lordships have asked, and conferring a benefit on the people who must use Heathrow, it becomes a double dividend from one course of action which could give encouragement to look at it as favourably as possible. The noble Earl, Lord Perth, also raised the question of Hunterston. The Secretary of State

1021
is at this time considering the whole future of the peninsula and hopes to make an announcement very soon. Consideration of all planning applications will be given in the context of that announcement. I must ask your Lordships to forgive me if, in these circumstances, I can say nothing more about Hunterston at the present time.
I was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier: Why not a dual carriageway for the A.1—Edinburgh-Berwick-Newcastleon-Tyne—like the West Coast route? The answer is fairly simple. At the present time the A.1 carries a quarter of the traffic which uses the M.74–5,000 to 6,000 vehicles a day, compared to 22,000 to 24,000 a day on the West Coast. The A.1 also has a smaller proportion of heavy vehicles—12 to 14 per cent. of its traffic is heavy vehicles, against 16 to 19 per cent. on the West Coast route. So that while almost everyone who spoke on roads accepted the need to conserve capital expenditure in the present economic circumstances, they have at the same time found it necessary to call for more roads to be made immediately—that those which are to be single carriageway should be dual carriageway, and those on which nothing is being done should be started—if not today, then tomorrow or the next day. It does not add up. We must employ in the most useful way the money which can be made available.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, the noble Lord may have misunderstood. I do not think I pressed for a dual carriageway on the A.1. I said that it would come one day, and I went further and said that if Edinburgh had a by-pass that would defer the day, because you would not need a dual carriageway on the A.1 as the traffic could use the A.68 or the A.7.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I do not know for how many years the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, said he had been chasing us on this subject of the by-pass, but he might get better results if he started chasing the Edinburgh Corporation. I do not know what influence he has there, but he must have some friends on the Edinburgh Council, so it might not be a waste of time.
1022
The noble Lord, Lord Lyell, asked a question about the small integrated bus post-office service. I have noted with appreciation what he said about the Glen Lyon scheme, and the Post Office are going further into this matter, because it has proved a success. Where conditions are similar and where it can similarly lead to success, obviously it is desirable to go ahead with it. The noble Lord, Lord Lyell, also raised the question of co-ordination of bus and rail stations, which I think is very desirable. Unfortunately, at the time when there was a clamant need for a new bus station in Dundee, there was no opportunity for locating it beside the railway station. If the bus station could have been deferred, then as things have turned out it could have been located very conveniently next to the railway station because there were two railway stations together and we did away with one under the Beeching proposals. But by that time the bus station was complete.
The noble Lord, Lord Burton, was rather critical of the Government. I ought not to be saying this, because he has gone. He will not object, as he slanged the Government in my presence, if I return in his absence. When he was complaining about the frustrations of twenty-four months at the Board of Trade followed by three months in the Scottish Economic Planning Department, I noticed a rather broad smile on the face of his noble friend Lord Glenkinglas, because for at least some part of the time he was the responsible Minister at the Board of Trade and I wondered whether the thought was passing through his mind: why should this come up again on the day I have made my maiden speech in the House of Lords? At any rate, the noble Lord, Lord Burton, found it convenient to raise his complaints about this delay after three months of the present Government.
This brings me to the point which the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, raised about planning ahead. My Lords, it is very easy to make this suggestion, and it is easier still if one does not know just exactly what one has to go on, but I think it was either the noble Earl, Lord Cromartie, or the noble Lord, Lord Burton, who spoke of the fact that the time spent on paperwork before the road

1023
starts is longer than the actual time for making the road—it is up to three years on preliminaries and two and a half to three years to get a major road scheme carried into operation. One of the reasons why it takes so long is because of the number of people who have to be consulted, and if we were to attempt to go ahead with planning a road which is going to be started five years from now on the basis that everything should be done, we should annoy an awful lot of people.
We could do an awful lot of harm from the point of view of blighting people's businesses if we were talking about things before it can be absolutely certain that a road is going to go in a particular direction, and until we have gone through the proposals for getting the necessary agreements from people we cannot be certain where the road is going to go. So there is only a certain amount of work which can be done in advance of going ahead with the scheme. Where a road is unlikely to be the subject of challenge from landowners who do not want to part with their land, from landowners who do not want the road to go in a particular direction, or from communities who want it to go in a certain way, the planning can be done in the way for which the noble Earl asked. Unfortunately, as anyone with experience of this subject will know, there are a very limited number of cases where this is so.
THE EARL OF CROMARTIE: My Lords, in fact, that was not one of my questions. It was asked by my noble friend Lord Burton, and I know which bit of road it was about.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, on the A.9, for instance, a recent Press comment on the way in which the 23 schemes are progressing said that one of the most urgent of them, and the one that ought to be done first, is the by-passing of Pitlochry. There is a special unit dealing with the A.9 and I went along to look at it. There were 14 permutations by which Pitlochry could be bypassed, and it was only after examination of all the possibilities that it could be decided which was the preferred road. We have the complication that there are objections to the proposal from the Pitlochry town council and the Pitlochry
1024
district council, and if these objections are proceeded with there will be the complication that we shall be involved in special Parliamentary procedures in order to go ahead, which could delay this proposal for a very much longer time than would otherwise be the case. So it is not a case of bureaucracy pushing things from one desk to another; it is a case of the procedures which have to be followed. We cannot ride roughshod over individual's rights or communities' rights, and part of the price we have to pay is that it takes much longer than desirable to get things done.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord for giving way. I appreciate his explanation but one or two roads were instanced, particularly those from Helmsdale up to the North Coast, and from Lairg up to Aviemore, which would involve interfering with a very small number of landowners and the problem of blight would probably not hurt them at all. Might it not be worth while in such cases to try to get the preparation going ahead, even though it will not happen for 10 years? I appreciate that in the more densely populated areas all the problems that the noble Lord mentioned are present.
LORD HUGHES: Yes, my Lords. I think that is a perfectly reasonable proposal. But in the absence of advance information about the roads, I cannot say whether or not that is being done. It is quite possible that that preparation is under way, because the basis on which this Government, and previous Governments, have worked is to have a rolling programme running five years ahead, so far as that can reasonably be done. But in certain cases one cannot take the programme to finality until one has actually determined the line of the road. In cases such as that. it may be that what is decided in 1974 as the likely line of a road is almost certain to remain the line on which the road will be constructed three or four or five years later, because of the circumstances which the noble Earl mentioned. However, I will examine what is being done on certain of these roads and will write to the noble Earl.
LORD GLENKINGLAS: My Lords, will the noble Lord be a little careful

1025
when studying this point? I know that in my own glen studies were made seven or eight times over 15 years. I shudder to think of the amount of money involved. Every time there was another engineer he did another study.
LORD HUGHES: Yes, my Lords, and obviously one wants to avoid that. I was very careful to limit what I said to the ones where there was certainty. I will note particularly the difficulties of Argyll. The noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, spoke about what the previous Government did in connection with North Sea oil and the exemption of these items from the Barber cuts. The answer is, Aberdeen Harbour, Yes; Peterhead Harbour, Yes; roads, Yes; airports, Yes; Montrose, funds, Yes, but it is held up by the Parliamentary Commission on Powers. So everything which the previous Government exempted from the cuts because of its connection with oil is continuing. The noble Lord said that what was being made available for the cost of the biggest of these, the A.9, was £60 million. This Government are prepared to find £110 million for the A.9, almost double the figure which the noble Lord quoted. This is in part due to the increased costs of the works, because this is a field in which costs have risen very considerably in the last 12 or 18 months.
I have never disguised my desire to have as much of this dual carriageway as possible, ideally all of it, but in existing circumstances the ideal is a little more difficult. In any event the need to get a satisfactory usable road at the earliest possible time means that it is in the best interests of North Sea oil use to do it as quickly as possible, and that means, for the greater part of, the single carriageway; but we have considerably increased the stretches which are to be dual carriageway, and it may be before we are finished some others will prove to be constructed on a dual carriageway basis right from the outset. This is where the engineering possibilities and so on make it the obvious thing to do at that time. But as was stated by the previous Government, and as I have confirmed for the present Government, the whole length of the road is being constructed on the basis that it will be possible in the future to add the second carriageway in those parts
1026
which are single carriageway in order to make it dual all the way.
On the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, the Moray access study was only recently received. Rail proposals for Perth-Inverness are already under advance study, and the British Rail proposals on that are hoped for soon. On the subject of helicopters, this, of course, is not a British Airways proposal, and they are still studying the matter, but obviously a helicopter development of this wide nature is a very big question indeed and not one to which we must attempt to find an instant answer.
Finally, as so much of our time has been on roads, I think an example of the difficulties which can confront the engineers who have to work out how these roads can be made was given by the noble Lord, Lord Burton, in regard to the Mallaig road. The last 17 or 20 miles is through very difficult terrain, indeed. The existing railway occupies the only really suitable place where the road could be improved. So when the Mallaig railway was in doubt obviously if it had gone we had the site for the road but since the pressure was and is for the railway to remain we have not got the site for the road. So all that can be done is that piecemeal improvements to this difficult and totally unsuitable road are to be carried out as and when they can be done. But I am quite certain that until a solution—if it is possible to find a solution for the improvement of the rest of this road—is found. the Government of the day, whether this Government or another Government, will continue to be charged with dilatory action, in relation to this road, by those ignoring the circumstances. To slightly change something which the late Sir Winston Churchill said, "It is very much easier to find solutions for our road problems in Parliamentary debates than at the engineer's desk."
8.40 p.m.
VISCOUNT THURSO: My Lords, I shall not keep your Lordships long in winding up this debate and sending you about your other occasions. I would start by thanking the noble Earl, Lord Perth, because it was he, on behalf of the Scottish Peers' Association (that august non-Party body in your Lordships' House)

1027
who first gave me the idea of a wide-ranging debate to be held in your Lordships' House. I should also like to thank my colleagues on these Benches for so readily having agreed that this was a good idea, and entrusting me with the task of leading your Lordships in this debate. I should like to thank all noble Lords who have taken part. We have had speakers from the far North, from the East, from the West and from the Borders. We have had discussion on road, rail, air and sea. We could hardly have ranged wider. I can hardly think of an important subject to do with transport or the economy of Scotland upon which we have not touched. I most sincerely thank every noble Lord who took part in this debate for the valuable contribution they have made to what I feel has been a most excellent debate on Scottish affairs.
In particular, I am delighted that this debate has offered a vehicle to three most distinguished Scotsmen so that they could make their maiden speeches in your Lordships' House. It has been an enormous pleasure to have been instrumental in providing a vehicle for so distinguished a Scotsman as the noble Lord, Lord Glenkinglas, who, after all, held the highest office that any Scotsman could aspire to. I know from what he said, and how he said it, that we shall be hearing more of him and from him in your Lordships' House, and we shall welcome it. Again it is a great pleasure to be able to offer a vehicle to the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie. I once worked for him and managed to get him into another place. Unfortunately, when I left him and went to Aberdeenshire he did not stay there, so now it is nice to be able to welcome him in your Lordships' House. I am sure that your Lordships will agree with me that he too will add considerable weight to our debates in the future. Finally, I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Erskine of Rerrick, should have felt inspired by this topic to make his maiden speech at last. He is another extremely distinguished Scotsman whose voice, I hope, will be raised again and again in your Lordships' House.
I do not want to refer to a whole lot of speeches individually. I have thanked all your Lordships for joining in this debate and making it such an excellent one. However, may I say one word about
1028
one remark that was made. I want to clear my father's name in this debate. He was Secretary of State for Scotland for one year at the bottom of the depression crisis in the Coalition Government in 1931. That was one opportunity that he might have had for clearing up the whole of the A.9. He was also Secretary of State for Air during four years of the war from 1940 to 1945, and that was another opportunity that he might have had for clearing up the A.9. Unfortunately in 1945 he lost his seat in another place, and thereafter had no opportunity of clearing up the A.9.
Finally, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, and the Government, for the generous way in which they have accepted the feeling of this debate, and the things that we have said and the questions that we have put. I feel that we have not so much asked the Government questions, but, together with the Government, we have written a chapter of recommended reading. I hope, and I am sure, that it will be read in Dover House and Saint Andrew's House. I hope that it will also be read by the officials of the new regional authorities and their members too, because we have managed to lay out, as a sort of conversazione many of the problems of Scotland, and to sketch in possible solutions for examination. If we can say that we have done this I hope that it will be useful to Scotland and that we shall feel we have done a good job for Scotland to-day.
I should like to end with one remark inspired by the kind remarks which the noble Lord, Lord Erskine, made about my ancestor, Sir John Sinclair. When he was Member for Caithness and Sutherland in another place, he was described by The Times as, "A great Scotch rat with tail and whiskers". If I can earn that title by doing one quarter of the work he did for Scotland, I shall feel very well rewarded. My Lords, with your leave, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

HEALTH AND SAFETY AT WORK ETC. BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
WEYMOUTH AND PORTLAND WATER SPORTS BILL [H.L.]
The Queen's consent signified and Bill reported with Amendments.
  CHANNEL ISLANDS TELEVISION RECEPTION
  CHANNEL ISLANDS TELEVISION RECEPTION
  MOTORWAY MILEAGE IN 1973
  MOTORWAY MILEAGE IN 1973
  TREATY OF ROME: IMMIGRATION BY BRITISH SUBJECTS
  TREATY OF ROME: IMMIGRATION BY BRITISH SUBJECTS
  RACE RELATIONS: POLICY REVIEW STAFF REPORT
  RACE RELATIONS: POLICY REVIEW STAFF REPORT
  ROYAL PARKS: UNIFORMED STAFF
  ROYAL PARKS: UNIFORMED STAFF