Sitting of 27 June 1974

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  NORTHERN IRELAND

    Protection of Citizens
    Mr. Hooleyasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will discuss with appropriate persons and bodies in Northern Ireland the acceptability of an international force for the protection of citizens in Ulster which would, over a period of time, substantially replace the British Forces now operating there.
    The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Stanley Orme): No, Sir. The protection of the people of Northern Ireland is the responsibility of Her Majesty's Government, and, given the nature of the security threat, in the absence of normal policing in certain areas an international force would provide a poor method of protection.
    Mr. Hooley: Has my right hon. Friend noted that the Government of Southern Ireland are now taking extraordinary measures relating to security by the creation of a national militia? Does he agree that the British Army cannot and will not indefinitely maintain the peace in Ulster? Is it not time that we moved out of the present stalemate towards some new concept of maintaining law and order in that area?
    Mr. Orme: I recognise my hon. Friend's concern in these matters. The key to the whole situation is policing. The Government do not see how a United Nations force could help. There is increasing co-operation between the Irish and the British Governments. We believe that is the best way to resolve the matter.
    Mr. Kilfedder: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that one way of saving lives and protecting property would be for the British Government to persuade the Eire Government to control the sale and to keep a close watch on the distribution of fertilisers and weedkillers which still cross the border in large quantities and are used in those horrendous proxy bombs which cause widespread devastation in Northern Ireland? Will he take steps to deal with that situation?
    Mr. Orme: The Government are particularly concerned about the recent wave of explosions and proxy bombing. The Irish Government have been extremely co-operative and are stepping up their cooperation. Recent statements by the Taoiseach and the Foreign Secretary in the Republic have been more than helpful.
    Mr. Lee: I hope that my right hon. Friend's answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) is not intended to be the final answer. Is he aware that many of us are becoming increasingly impatient with the open-ended character of the commitment in Northern Ireland, having regard to all the circumstances and knowing, as I do, my right hon. Friend's difficulties in this matter?
    Mr. Orme: We must keep an open mind. We want to create a situation in which the Army can withdraw from certain duties which could be undertaken in normal policing. We do not believe that an international force would be of help in this matter.
    Captain Orr: Now that the Irish Republican Government appear to be setting up their own B Specials, would it not be sensible, instead of thinking about international forces, to think about employing the indigenous population more for their own security?
    Mr. Orme: Such emotive phrases will not help to achieve the co-operation that we want from the Irish Republic.

    Constitution
    Mr. Nigel Lawsonasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will make arrangements for elections to a constitutional conference, convention or assembly to be held in the Province this year.
    Mr. Biggs-Davisonasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will make a statement about the constitutional future of Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Biffenasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement indicating what success he has achieved in his most recent efforts to achieve power sharing in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. R. C. Mitchellasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps he is now taking to seek new power sharing arrangements in Northern Ireland; and with which groups he has has consultation.
    Mr. Michael Lathamasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress he is making in his discussions with political parties and interested persons on the future arrangements for the Government of Northern Ireland, following the collapse of the Executive.
    Mr. Duffyasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what consultations he has had with interested parties on the formation of a power-sharing Executive in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Wm. Rossasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the political parties, the organisations and individuals in Northern Ireland with whom he has had meetings regarding the future Government of Northern Ireland since the ending of the Executive.
    The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Merlyn Rees): Since the fall of the Northern Ireland Executive I have had an intensive series of discussions in Northern Ireland with leaders and members of all political parties represented in the Assembly and with many other groups and interests. A number of ideas have been put forward and the discussions are still continuing.
    It is my intention to make a detailed report to the House before we rise for the recess.
    Mr. Lawson: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his remarks. I hope that the statement, when it is made before the recess, will give a firm date for such
    1704
    elections and that that date will be in the relatively near future.
    Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a real danger of losing the support of the British people for a policy which, however well meaning, is inclined at times to look rather like one of drift?
    Mr. Rees: As matters stand, any election to an Assembly would have to take place under the Constitution Act. A large number of people who have been to see me do not wish this to happen, so they say.
    I am not unaware of public opinion at home, which is my base and the base of most of us in this House. I have that very firmly in mind.
    Mr. Mitchell: How many more by-elections will have to take place in Northern Ireland before the Government realise that the concept of power sharing, as we have had it before, is dead and they really start a radical re-think of alternative policy?
    Mr. Rees: I have said that that by-election arose because I had no power to do aught else. The Government had advised the Queen to prorogue the Assembly—for good reasons. This still allows the Assembly members, in the short term, at any rate, to meet and talk together. I disagree completely with my hon. Friend. What I have found from all sorts of people who have come to see me is that though they may have disagreements about the form of power sharing, the one thing which has come out of the last year is an understanding on all sides of the community that both parts of the community must find a way of working together. Power sharing is not dead. It is the one thing which has stayed on since the fall of the Executive.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: However impatient hon. Members may become with our fellow subjects in Northern Ireland, is it not a fact that it is our moral duty to uphold the right of those fellow subjects to remain with Britain? Is it not also a fact that it is an interest of the United Kingdom that Northern Ireland should so remain? Is it the intention of the right hon. Gentleman that when a new Assembly is elected, that Assembly should be a constitution-drafting body?
    Mr. Rees: As to what the future may bring, in the state of discussions that I am having it is too early to say. The hon. Gentleman has a great knowledge of Northern Ireland, which he visits very frequently. He knows many people there. I say to him that membership of the United Kingdom is not a one-sided thing. It means duties and obligations, and it means a way of life. It works both ways. I believe that my job, on behalf of the House as Secretary of State, is to look after and to be responsible for people in Northern Ireland, whatever their beliefs and whatever their religions. But there are two communities in Northern Ireland, and we in this House can never forget that.
    Mr. Duffy: As my right hon. Friend continues to have consultations, will he impress upon those who recently rejected political initiatives which London and Dublin thought reasonable and, moreover viable, that there is now a special onus on them to come forward with propositions that are not only seen to be viable but can command agreement?
    Mr. Rees: My hon. Friend is referring to what we all came to describe as the Irish dimension.
    Mr. Duffy: And power sharing.
    Mr. Rees: And power sharing—despite the failure. Indeed failure is the wrong word, because the Executive and the members of the Executive showed the people of Northern Ireland in a very fine way that the communities could work together. But the Executive did end. However, there is a realisation on the part of people in Northern Ireland—and increasingly, if I did not know it before, I realise this, as do many hon. Members—that it is out of Northern Ireland that a solution must come, based on the principles, in which we believe, for membership of the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Biffen: In view of the wide range of options for the future which the right hon. Gentleman, very understandably, wishes to keep open, and in view of the transformed political situation in Northern Ireland, will he state whether the Government still remain obdurate in their rejection of integration?
    Mr. Rees: The short answer is, "Yes." Nothing that I have ever seen, given the situation of the two communities in
    1706
    Northern Ireland, has convinced or will ever convince me that integration is a way out of the problem of Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Fitt: In the discussions which the Secretary of State has had with the various political groupings in Northern Ireland, has it been said to him by any of these groupings, or by a number of them combined, that they regard the present Northern Ireland Constitution Act as being dead and no longer viable in Northern Ireland? In regard to the statement that the Secretary of State proposes to make to the House before the recess, is it the intention of the Government to spell out in clear, unmistakable terms to all political parties in Northern Ireland the conditions under which Northern Ireland will be allowed to remain part of the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Rees: On the first point, some of the people who have been to see me have told me firmly that they regard the Northern Ireland Constitution Act as dead. It may be that they are referring to parts of it, because there is a large amount of it which I should have thought would be extremely valuable for any form of Government in Northern Ireland. But I have pointed out two things. There is not only Section 2, which is a special form of power sharing; there is Section 1, which concerns the status of Northern Ireland. If the Act is dead, it is not just one section that is dead.
    With regard to the future, as I am still discussing matters at present I think that I should keep the options open, as the hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) said. But I take the point made by the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt). There are facts and realities of belonging to the United Kingdom. It will be one of the main jobs of the Government in the future, as the people of Northern Ireland meet and talk together, to put the facts of the situation forward. That is one of our major obligations
    Mr. Latham: Whatever our personal views on this matter may be, is it not increasingly necessary to recognise the political fact that the Protestant majority in Northern Ireland clearly consider the right hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. West) and his friends as their main political spokesmen, and that we shall have to move forward on that basis?
    Mr. Rees: I should be the last to deny—if one is facing realities—that in the Westminster elections, 11 out of 12 Northern Ireland Members came from one particular grouping. But I would also say that one thing which I have learned in the last month, when talking all day and every day, is that there are no monolithic groups in Northern Ireland and that there is a wide variety of views even within party groupings. This is another factor which is a new element, perhaps—certainly on the Protestant side—in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Dalyell: Is it wise to allow these elections to become entangled with probable Westminster elections?
    Mr. Rees: With regard to probable Westminster elections, I am very pleased to say that that matter does not lie with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland—but my hon. Friend can take it as read that I am not unaware of possibilities and will take them into account.
    Mr. McCusker: Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that in his discussions with the various political parties in Northern Ireland he will tell them all, particularly the SDLP, that he considers as an absolute prerequisite to any form of power sharing a declaration of unequivocal support for the security forces in their fight against terrorism?
    Mr. Rees: The hon. Gentleman will recall that in the last days of the Executive, members of the SDLP, like the rest of the Executive, made a very useful statement on policing. But we should not ignore the facts of history and the effects arising out of them—that there are not many Catholics in the police forces. Would that it were the other way. Indeed, until we achieve that it will be extremely difficult to have normal policing in Northern Ireland.
    It is a very good idea, in the current situation in Northern Ireland, if people not only tell me things but tell each other things, because the people of Northern Ireland talking together and facing the facts together would be an excellent thing, in public as well as inside this House.
    Mr. Carol Matherasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the current constitutional position in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Merlyn Rees: The present constitutional position is that the Northern Ireland Assembly stands prorogued and Ministers in the Northern Ireland Office are being temporarily appointed to head the Departments and offices formerly headed by members of the Northern Ireland Executive and administration.
    Mr. Mather: Before he makes his statement in July, will the right hon. Gentleman undertake a study of the strategic importance of Northern Ireland to the United Kingdom? In the context of the constitutional position, does he not agree that if power sharing is to be successful in any future constitution those who are sharing power must believe in that power—in fact, must believe in the Union?
    Mr. Rees: Of course, the strategic position must be taken into account. I think that the hon. Gentleman would read with pleasure the oath that all members of the Executive took when they assumed office, which was to work for the good of Northern Ireland. I believe that they did just that, and that those who accepted power sharing accepted their position in Northern Ireland, which did not prevent their having an aspiration for the future which many people in this country have in other regards.
    Mr. Ian Gilmour: Will the right hon. Gentleman clear up a possible ambiguity arising from his earlier answer? Is it he who objects to holding elections under the Constitution Act because some of the people who have come to see him think that that Act is dead, or is it the people who have come to see him who object to holding the elections under the Act?
    Mr. Rees: May I welcome the right hon. Gentleman to his Shadow position? I answered the Question earlier in that way because I was being asked to carry out elections under the Constitution Act. It is people who have come to see me who have objected to the Constitution Act. It is only three or four weeks since the Assembly ended. Representatives of the parties in Northern Ireland told me pretty firmly that they regard the Northern Ireland Constitution Act as dead.
    Mr. Gilmour: I am sorry to press the right hon. Gentleman, but he has not answered the question. Do these people

    1709
    object to elections being held under the Constitution Act?
    Mr. Rees: This is not a pedantic point; it is an important point. Anything that I do I have to do under the legislation enacted by the previous administration. People who have come to see me have told me that they regard the Constitution Act as dead. If they have any new ideas for any other form of election, or for any other purposes, it will require legislation.

    Emergency Provisions Act
    Mr. O'Halloranasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement regarding his plans for the renewal of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act.
    Mr. Orme: My right hon. Friend expects to lay a renewal order before the House shortly.
    Meanwhile, the committee under my noble Friend Lord Gardiner has had its first meeting and has issued an invitation to all interested organisations and individuals to submit evidence in writing.
    Mr. O'Halloran: I am grateful for that reply. However, will my right hon. Friend assure the House that when he introduces the order he will amend it so that it will end internment and imprisonment without trial?
    Mr. Orme: That is not directly connected with the order as such, but my hon. Friend will be aware that the Government are committed to the ending of internment when the security situation permits.
    Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: Now that Corporal Foxford, my constituent, has been released on bail—about which the whole House will be very glad—will the Minister say whether he has had or will have discussions with the Ministry of Defence about the desirability or otherwise of soldiers being liable for civil trial following incidents occurring on the spur of the moment under what amount to active service conditions?
    Mr. Orme: The Gardiner Committee will consider this problem, and evidence may be submitted to it.
    Mr. McNamara: Why are we shuffling off responsibility on to the Gardiner Com
    1710
    mittee when in Standing Committee we fought the whole of this Bill, divided 22 times and resisted many of the powers in it? Why are we behaving in this way?
    Mr. Orme: A great deal of the Bill was opposed, but not the Bill in principle. I must ask my hon. Friend to await the renewal order before he pursues the matter further.
    Captain Orr: Am I right in thinking that we shall get a renewal order but that there is no question of the amendment of the Act this Session?
    Mr. Orme: I hope that the hon. and gallant Gentleman will await the renewal order. There cannot be amendment, but there could be deletions.

    Prisoners (Discussions with Ministers)
    Mr. Dalyellsked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the discussions held by Ministers with Mr. Morley and Mr. Quigley of the Provisional IRA, Mr. Monaghan and Mr. O'Hare of the IRA, Mr. Craig and Mr. Spence of the Loyalists, in the Maze Prison, Long Kesh, and with Miss Hickey and Miss McKie in the women's prison at Armagh.
    Mr. Orme: My noble friend and I have made several visits to familiarise ourselves with the conditions in prisons in Northern Ireland. In the course of these visits we have met a number of detainees and convicted prisoners, including some of those referred to in the Question.
    Mr. Dalyell: My right hon. Friend has seen the acres of wire at Long Kesh. Can he imagine, if Long Kesh had been in Kenya at the time of the Mau Mau, or in Aden, the eloquence of those speeches from Tribune platforms denouncing the whole set-up? In the circumstances, will he at least look at the possibility, unpopular though it may be, of allowing the people named and other spokesmen at least to talk with each other out of the hearing of English and Scottish representatives?
    Mr. Orme: On the last point, my hon. Friend is aware—because he has been to Long Kesh—that prisoners from different sections of the community do talk to one another, but this is seen as

    1711
    a security problem for the governor and he must have a representative present for that reason. I understand my hon. Friend's feeling about detention, but he is also talking about 1,000 convicted prisoners in the Maze, as well as other people.
    Mr. Kilfedder: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider building a new prison? He has referred to prisoners in the Maze, which is in my constituency. Will he consider this as a matter of great urgency and make a decision within the next month?
    Mr. Orme: I do not know about the next month, but my right hon. Friend is at the moment urgently considering this situation.
    Mr. Stallard: Will the Minister accept that I welcome any discussions of this character that take place in the Six Counties? Who is responsible for drawing up the list of people who are spoken to, and who decides who is to be excluded?
    Mr. Orme: When I visited the Maze it was the detainees and prisoners who decided who should come out and speak to the Minister concerned.

    Women Prisoners
    Mr. Norman Fowlerasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what maximum security conditions are available for women prisoners in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Orme: The prison at Armagh is at present the only institution in Northern Ireland for women prisoners. Security at the prison is kept under continuous review.
    Mr. Fowler: Will the right hon. Gentleman say to which prison the Price sisters will be transferred? Does he agree that at present there is no women's prison in Northern Ireland, including Armagh, which provides adequate security for these prisoners, and that the only way that this can be provided is by placing fresh demands on the security forces?
    Mr. Orme: I cannot answer the first part of the Question at the moment. There is a women's prison in Northern Ireland, and I cannot go further than the state
    1712
    ment by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.
    Mr. McNamara: How many women have escaped from Armagh since the prison was built?
    Mr. Orme: To my knowledge, none.
    Mr. McCusker: The prison in Armagh is in what is known as a Loyalist area of the town, and for the past five years it has been the focal point of a steady stream of protests and demonstrations which has led to riot situations between inhabitants and security forces—
    Mr. Stallard: So has Brixton.
    Mr. McCusker: My constituents would not welcome the transfer of the Price sisters, because this would result in an unending stream of protest. Will the right hon. Gentleman consider opening a high security wing at the Maze or Magilligan Camp?
    Mr. Orme: The siting of prisons is a difficult matter. The Government are always unpopular when they decide to put a prison in or near any hon. Member's constituency. On the general principle, the security arrangements at Armagh are adequate.

    Security Forces
    Rear-Admiral Morgan-Gilesasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what consideration he has given to strengthening the powers available to the security forces in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Orme: The powers required by the security forces to deal with terrorism and subversion in Northern Ireland will be examined by Lord Gardiner's committee. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman has any specific proposals may I suggest that he places them before the committee?
    Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: What does the Minister think about the arrest and immediate interrogation powers which are available to the security forces and which are so necessary in gaining intelligence upon which all else depends?
    Mr. Orme: I cannot comment on that. All these powers will be examined by the independent committee under Lord Gardiner, and I suggest that the hon. and gallant Member submits his evidence there.

    Political Parties
    Mr. Cryerasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will take steps to enable him to prescribe rules for the formation and operations of political parties in Northern Ireland, and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Merlyn Rees: No, Sir.
    Mr. Cryer: Is my right hon. Friend not concerned that there have been attempts by extreme right-wing elements to take advantage of the situation, and does not he accept that in order to arrest this lurch to the right it will be necessary for the British trade union and Labour movement to engage in conversations with organisations like the Ulster Workers' Council and other organisations representing the working people of Northern Ireland? Will he seek to assist in such negotiation?
    Mr. Rees: The one point that I have learned about Northern Ireland is that there is extreme everything in politics there. It is my job to make sure that everybody who wants to act politically, and not by the bomb or gun, should have the right to do so, and that is the hope. As for some of the organisations my hon. Friend mentions, there is a trade union movement in Northern Ireland which has a view on this matter. It is associated with the trade union movement here. I think that it knows its business on this, and on negotiations on political matters—as with so many other things—it is best left to decide for itself what is the best course.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: If the right hon. Gentleman were to prescribe rules on these lines, could those rules prevent the official IRA from holding an international guerrilla festival in Belfast, or has he powers adequate to deal with that situation already?
    Mr. Rees: I am aware of an international conference. I had not come across it under the precise title given by the hon. Member. I certainly have powers to deal with any matter under the Emergency Provisions Act and in other ways where, for example, a meeting might lead to death, fighting, gunfire or things like that. I shall be looking at this conference very closely.

    Constituencies
    Mr. Martenasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will now take steps to increase the number of constituencies in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Orme: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to a Question from the hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) on 4th April.—[Vol. 871, c. 1421.]
    Mr. Marten: In spite of that answer, will the Minister look at some of the highly inflated electorates in some of the Northern Irish constituencies, because they are simply not fair? If the argument is that because the people sometimes have a local Assembly, which operates or does not operate, they need fewer MPs, will the same doctrine apply if Scotland gets a local Assembly? Shall we cut down the number of Scottish MPs'? Would it not be a gesture for general peace in Northern Ireland if an offer were made to increase the number of seats?
    Mr. Orme: I am sorry that I cannot meet the hon. Gentleman's point. I think that hon. Members will recognise that Northern Ireland is in a unique position. The Government feel that to increase representation now would be detrimental to the general political situation. The Government want Northern Ireland people of both communities to start resolving the problems in Northern Ireland themselves. We do not necessarily believe that they can be resolved on the Floor of this House.
    Mr. Beith: Does the Minister accept that at the beginning of a period of considerable constitutional discussion, it is undesirable that that option should appear to be closed and out of the Government's mind? Could not the real reason for their unwillingness to give the representation to which Northern Ireland is entitled, in view of the extent of its affairs controlled from Westminster, be the fear that the results of elections not conducted on proportional representation would be unfair?
    Mr. Orme: We had proportional representation for the Assembly elections. If the Executive had remained, and if power sharing, which was becoming a great success in Northern Ireland, had remained, we should have had an Assembly and a form of government in

    1715
    Northern Ireland, plus representation in this House, without equal in any other part of the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Duffy: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are English Members who represent electorates in excess of any in Northern Ireland?
    Mr. Orme: I am aware of that.

    Border
    Mr. Dixonasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he has received any representations concerning the possibility of repartitioning Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. David Jamesasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will consider negotiating with the Republic of Ireland a border that is shorter, more in line with demographic considerations and easier for all concerned to patrol.
    Mr. Merlyn Rees: There are problems about the border, but it would be a mistake to suppose that Northern Ireland's troubles could be resolved or even made significantly easier by redrawing the boundary. I have received no representations for this from any political party in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Dixon: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that if there were repartition it would by implication also involve a transfer of population, and that although that would undoubtedly cause considerable economic and social stress, the danger to life and the economic prosperity of the Province would be considerably smaller than the sort of dangers that would arise if nothing were done about the present situation?
    Mr. Rees: This is the sort of exercise that looks good in the weekend papers but bears little relationship to reality. It might be different if it were just the question of the mixed population on the border, but the Catholic population of Belfast are proud of being citizens of Belfast. The hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) has told me, on many issues concerning Belfast, that Belfast matters to him and to his people. To suggest that because it is a difficult question that has exercised our minds without any solution for a long period—
    1716
    as I am often reminded—one should tell 500,000 people that they should live somewhere where they do not want to live, is the wrong way to approach the matter.
    Mr. Fitt: Will the right hon. Gentleman take if from me that both communities in Northern Ireland will bitterly resent the form in which the Question has been put which implies that people in Northern Ireland would agree to a further repartition of the country? Both communities in Northern Ireland resent any Englishman telling them where they shall and shall not live in the island of Ireland.

    Assembly
    Mr. Evelyn Kingasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will arrange as a matter of urgency for fresh elections to the Assembly.
    Mr. Merlyn Rees: No, Sir.
    Mr. King: All hon. Members find from time to time that people do not vote in the way they would like them to vote. This is annoying, but so far it has never been held to be a reason for not holding an election in either Ireland or England. How can the right hon. Gentleman expect a political solution to emerge if he bottles up and stifles political opinion, which can be expressed only through elections? Does he realise that he will be no more successful in governing by the Army in the future than he has been in the past, and that political expression of opinion is a vital element?
    Mr. Rees: The problem of the Army and its rôle is real. The hon. Gentleman should not believe that Northern Ireland is governed by the Army. I hope that he will consider the form in which his Question was put. He is asking me to hold elections under the Northern Ireland Constitution Act. It might well be that I gave the short answer, "No, Sir", because that is the answer I have had from many people in Northern Ireland who have come to see me.
    Mr. Madden: In view of the diversity opinion which he has said exists in Northern Ireland about the future, will my right hon. Friend consider modern methods of public participation, using the media, so that the people of Northern

    1717
    Ireland—both the majority and the minority—can clearly express their views about the various options for their country, and so that those views may be assessed?
    Mr. Rees: The best way of finding out what the people of Northern Ireland want is by elections. That statement is not a turn-round from the answer to the precise Question I was asked before. I am prepared to find any way of doing this, but one thing is sure: the supplementary question of the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) shows that there is only one way for the people of Northern Ireland to get to know each other and their views, and that is by talking to each other and not to an Englishman, or a Welshman, as some people tell me.
    Captain Orr: Will the right hon. Gentleman please desist from giving us a sort of semantic reason for not holding the elections, with his curious argument about the Constitution Act? There is no reason why he should not hold the elections for the Assembly without being in a hurry to implement Section 2 of the Act. Once the Assembly has been elected he can use it to determine the views of the majority.
    Mr. Rees: That is not the view that is put to me by some people in the hon. and gallant Gentleman's group in Northern Ireland. Friends of his are telling me very firmly that they regard the Northern Ireland Constitution Act as dead. My reply is that if it is dead, all of it is dead—not just the bits of it they do not like.

    Supplementary Benefits
    Mr. Ralph Howellasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the percentage of the population of Northern Ireland who are maintained by supplementary benefits; and how this compares with the percentage for the United Kingdom generally.
    Mr. Orme: In April 1974, the latest date for which United Kingdom figures are available, about 101,000 people in Northern Ireland—6·5 per cent. of the population—were receiving supplementary benefits. It is estimated that those benefits took into account the requirements of about 184,000 persons, including the recipients themselves—11·9 per cent. of the population.
    1718
    The corresponding figures for the United Kingdom were 2,855,000, or 5·1 per cent. and 4,427,000, or 7·9 per cent.
    Mr. Howell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that under the present tax and social security system many people, particularly those with large families, cannot afford to get a job? Is he further aware that so long as this state of affairs continues it will be impossible to bring the troubles in Ireland to an end, because so many people have time on their hands and the State is just paying for them to do nothing?
    Mr. Orme: I, and many Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies who have fought so long for full employment in industry in Northern Ireland, take that remark as an insult to both communities in the Province. The same conditions exist there as in the rest of the United Kingdom.

    Northern Ireland Finance Corporation
    Mr. James Allasonasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland why the Northern Ireland Finance Corporation refuses to agree to pay interest on overdue compensation payments.
    Mr. Orme: The Northern Ireland Finance Corporation is a statutory body with an independent board of directors responsible for the conduct of its affairs. It is not appropriate for me to comment further.
    Mr. Allason: Surely the right hon. Gentleman has an interest in seeing that the Corporation conducts its affairs in a reasonably economic way? Does he defend its actions?
    Mr. Orme: Of course the Government have a responsibility, but they cannot interfere in a case where litigation is currently taking place. The hon. Gentleman ought to be aware of that.

    Royal Ulster Constabulary
    Mr. McCuskerasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on Royal Ulster Constabulary recruitment.
    Mr. Orme: There has been a 28 per cent. increase in total RUC strength since 1st January 1970. At 31st May the strength of the force was 4,448 and of

    1719
    the RUC Reserve 2,538. A major recruiting campaign is being conducted by the police authority and the chief constable.
    Mr. McCusker: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with the Secretary of State that for any appreciable increase to take place in the RUC, recruitment must come from the Roman Catholic population of Northern Ireland? What is the right hon. Gentleman doing to ensure that such recruitment takes place?
    Mr. Orme: We consider this to be a major point. We have had consultations with representatives of the minority community, not least the SDLP. If the Executive had not fallen we should have been a long way on the road to getting more people into the RUC from the minority community. The majority has a responsibility to encourage people from both communities to join the RUC.

    CONDUCT IN LOCAL GOVERNMENT (COMMITTEE)
    Mr. Milneasked the Prime Minister if he will now make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's proposals in regard to the report of the Committee on Conduct in Local Government chaired by Lord Redcliffe-Maud in connection with the recommendations that can be implemented at once.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): Some of the committee's recommendations can be implemented by local authorities straight away. Consultations will begin very soon with local government bodies on those proposals which would require legislation.
    Mr. Milne: May I thank the Prime Minister for that excellent report? Will he have a special look at the section in the Redcliffe-Maud recommendations that deals with the question of local authority party groups and the fact that their code of conduct should be no less strict than the code of the authority?
    The Prime Minister: Where decisions are taken outside the council about the line to be taken in council this recommendation is important, irrespective of party. The hon. Gentleman will know that certain decisions were taken yesterday to try to improve this situation.
    Sir W. Elliott: Does the Prime Minister recognise that the constant suggestions of his hon. Friend the Member for Blyth (Mr. Milne) about corruption in the North-East of England, particularly in the ranks of the Labour Party, are doing a great deal of harm to public life in the region? Does he recognise that Recommendation 5 of the report, which suggests that councillors and officials need to work and should work in harmony, is accepted by most officials and councillors in the North-East of England? Will he consider instigating a Labour Party inquiry into the relationship between his party and local government, as requested by so many hon. Members?
    The Prime Minister: What we have done is to set up a Royal Commission dealing with the whole subject. I agree with the opening remarks of the hon. Member's statement about the damage being done by certain irresponsible statements that are being made, but the House will recognise that the speech I made at Shildon last year, which was warmly accepted by the hon. Member for Blyth (Mr. Milne), was followed up immediately by the then Prime Minister, in that he set up the Redcliffe-Maud inquiry into the general issues, knowing that the inquiry could not look into issues which were the subject of court proceedings. As soon as the court proceedings in those cases ended I took action, as I am sure the right hon. Gentleman would have done, to set up a Royal Commission, which will be able to take account of the evidence produced in those police inquiries and the court proceedings, to look into the wider issues.

    CROWD CONTROL EQUIPMENT
    Mr. Farrasked the Prime Minister if he will institute arrangements for cooperation between the Ministry of Defence and the Home Office in relation to the purchase of weapons and crowd control equipment.
    The Prime Minister: The services with which these two Departments are concerned have very different functions. But arrangements for co-operation already exist and I am satisfied that they are adequate.
    Mr. Farr: In view of the recent incidents in London, particularly the incident in Red Lion Square, a fortnight

    1721
    ago—which was contained by the police only at great personal bodily risk, and in which 39 police were injured—may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether discussions have taken place about the introduction of more sophisticated crowd control equipment, such as, for instance, making water cannon available for use when needed?
    The Prime Minister: I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's concern in this matter. As for the Red Lion Square incident, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has announced that there will be an inquiry into all the events that took place there on 15th June. The question raised by the hon. Gentleman, whether in the Red Lion Square context or any other, does not, I think, relate to his Question about co-ordination in the purchase of equipment.
    Mr. Ford: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Home Office appears to be badly in need of advice on weapons purchasing policy from, for instance, a central advisory committee on firearms control? Is he further aware that I have been told by the Home Office that 9 mm. Parabellum ammunition for hand guns has too high a velocity for approval but that, on the other hand, the Home Office appears to have approved the purchase of 7·62 mm. rifles for the civilian police force, which use ammunition with a much higher penetrating power than is required for normal police use?
    The Prime Minister: I shall refer the matter to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. As my hon. Friend is in touch with the Home Office, I am sure that the specialist and esoteric information he has given to the House this afternoon will be conveyed personally by him to my right hon. Friend.

    LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE
    Mr. Marksasked the Prime Minister if he will set up a Royal Commission on the reform of local government finance.
    The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will be making a statement later today on these matters during the debate on rates.
    Mr. Marks: I appreciate that a Royal Commission may take too long, but is the Prime Minister aware that an increasing number of people do not accept the Conservative Opposition's dishonest campaign on rates and do not believe the Government or their local councils, but would welcome an independent review or inquiry in the hope that it would abolish the rating system and introduce in its place a tax based on income?
    The Prime Minister: In reply to my hon. Friend's reference to the Conservative Party, while there is room for disagreement about the incidence of rates between particular areas on the basis of need, the total national increase in rates which the country has seen and is concerned about is exactly the same as it would have been under the Conservatives, but it is differently distributed. That being so, the Conservatives cannot say that rates have risen too much this year, because that was a decision of the Conservative Government before we came into office.
    The anxiety and general cynicism that are felt about the whole rating system are, I am sure, shared by right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House. We all know that the position is unsatisfactory, and about 30 years of endeavour have not yet produced a satisfactory alternative. I should like to leave the question in the hands of my right hon. Friend who will be speaking in the debate today.
    Sir David Renton: Is the Prime Minister aware that one particular aspect of this problem requires special and immediate inquiry? There are certain areas of the country, like the new county of Cambridgeshire, which, because of town development and new towns, are rapidly expanding and therefore have a higher-than-average educational burden but happen to be areas, generally, of below-average rateable value? There is a particular problem here worth a special inquiry. What will the Prime Minister do about it?
    The Prime Minister: That is a problem also for overspill areas outside some of the great conurbations. Indeed, my own local authority probably has to bear the highest education burden because of the past high birth rate. We all know that this is a serious problem. I do not

    1723
    know, but it may be that when these matters are further considered the widening of local government areas will help to produce the opportunity to spread the burdens more equitably, although we all recognise that the coming into force of the new local authority areas has led to a considerable increase in the salaries paid to local government officers generally, compared with the position before 1st April. That is certainly part of the increased national burden, however it is distributed.

    EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT (PRESIDENT)
    Mr. Dykesasked the Prime Minister whether he intends to have a further meeting with the President of the European Parliament following the discussions of 10th June.
    The Prime Minister: I have at present no plans to do so, Sir.
    Mr. Dykes: Would not Mr. Berkhouwer be as fascinated as the rest of us to know whether the national coalition proposed by the Liberals would enable the right hon. Gentleman to send a delegation to Europe? Secondly, and more important, would the right hon. Gentleman join a national coalition?
    The Prime Minister: When the Question was put down, I do not think that the feverish discussions on the part of the two Opposition parties could have been known to Mr. Berkhouwer. He discussed with me the question of the European Assembly. I told him that Labour Party representation was a matter for the Parliamentary Labour Party, and that I did not think that there would be representation in the immediate future but that this was a matter that would be considered after the conclusion of the negotiations and the decision of the British people about Britain's standing in relation to the Common Market.
    Mr. Kinnock: Does my right hon. Friend share my opinion and that of the overwhelming majority of our party comrades that the European Assembly is no more democratic now than it was when we originally took our decision about participation, and no more democratic than would be a coalition with the Liberals? Does my right hon. Friend
    1724
    agree that our aim of fundamental renegotiation would not be assisted by involving ourselves in superficial tittle-tattle at Strasbourg?
    The Prime Minister: I do not see why so distinguished an international figure as Dr. Berkhouwer should be smeared by association with the squalid coalition talks between the two major Opposition parties. He is a very serious parliamentary figure, with great experience in these matters, and, indeed, with experience of coalitions. My hon. Friend's other remarks concern matters which are for consideration by the House and by individual parties when the outcome of the negotiations is known, and when the decision of the British people is made. I have not yet heard from the Leader of the Opposition whether he supports either the principle of renegotiation or the particular terms we have put forward. Perhaps one day he will tell the country.
    Mr. David Steel: As the Prime Minister is now treating the European Assembly seriously, will he say whether the Government support the Assembly's attempts to get increased powers on budgetary matters? Leaving aside the question of Labour Party representation, will the right hon. Gentleman facilitate additions to the delegation in August when those who are no longer Members of the House have to retire from the delegation?
    The Prime Minister: The retirement of certain hon. Members of the past Parliament and their replacement must be a matter for the parties which send them. It is not a matter for the Government. We would not stand in the way of any views expressed by the Conservative Party or by the Liberal Party. I am not sure whether the Liberal Party is affected.
    The question of the powers of the Assembly is consequential on the much more fundamental negotiations which are going on about Britain in relation to the Common Market. As the hon. Gentleman has identified himself with a coalition, in that event he can only raise the average level of quality of the Opposition Front Bench. Before a coalition is ratified, no doubt with the weighty support of the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith), I hope that the Liberal Party will get answers from the

    1725
    Leader of the Opposition on his attitude both to a referendum and to the questions I put to him this afternoon.

    GOVERNMENT POLICY (MINISTER'S SPEECH)
    Mr. McCrindleasked the Prime Minister whether the public speech by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the Durham Labour Women's gala on economic policy on 1st June represents Government policy.
    The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. McCrindle: In that speech, the Chancellor of the Exchequer underlined the overriding need to stimulate investment in industry and to control inflation. Does the Prime Minister agree that it would materially assist the former if the Labour Party were to bring forward as quickly as possible its plans for public ownership in industry? Will the Prime Minister say whether, if the social contract does not mitigate inflation in the way it is hoped, his Government will feel free to return to the statutory control of wages?
    The Prime Minister: On the first part of the hon. Gentleman's wide-ranging supplementary question, I thought that the point which concerns him was answered by my right thon. Friend the Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House in my absence on Tuesday, when he said that we shall shortly present a White Paper setting out the situation quite definitively. In reply to the second part of the supplementary question, I am surprised that there has not been, either from the hon. Gentleman—who has great authority in these matters—or, indeed, from the Leader of the Opposition, a welcome for the statement made by the General Council of the TUC yesterday, which is a great advance.
    In view of the right hon. Gentleman's remarks yesterday about the Industrial Relations Act—and we welcome this great conversion, with its aim of building on his relations with the TUC—I hope that he will explain why his talks with the TUC did not lead to a voluntary policy. The TUC has made clear that it is now dealing with a Government who can introduce a great measure of social justice in the economy, which is a necessary
    1726
    requirement for the voluntary agreement which the right hon. Gentleman sought and failed to get.
    Mr. Cant: I welcome the statement by the Trades Union Congress. Does the Prime Minister accept that the economic prospects are such that the time has come to call a world economic conference? Does he further agree that the rate of increase in money supply in this country is falling so rapidly, and the national self-interest of Germany and the United States is such, that we shall not be able to reflate the economy—and that unless there is a change of heart here and in the world as a whole, there is likely to be serious unemployment?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend that, apart from the obligations of national Governments and national communities, there is a vast international problem connected with oil prices, oil moneys and volatile movements of capital. The recent meeting of the Finance Ministers dealt with these matters over a wide area of the world. I should like to deal with some of the matters raised by my hon. Friend, but at the weekend I hope to make a fairly full speech on the international questions raised by him and also on national issues. I undertake to place a copy of that speech in the Library.

    QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS
    Mr. Leslie Huckfield: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I realise that the form of today's Order Paper is slightly different, and I also appreciate that my name in Question 20 is not spelt as it should be, but could you tell me why my Question was not called with No. 3?
    Mr. Speaker: The answer is that I was not informed that it was to be grouped.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Heath: Will the Leader of the House please state next week's business?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Edward Short): The business for next week will be as follows:—
MONDAY 1ST JULY—Second Reading of the Social Security Amendment Bill.

1727
Debate on an Opposition motion on pension policy.
Remaining stages of the Pakistan Bill.
Motions on the Synodical Government and the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction (Amendment) Measures.
TUESDAY 2ND JULY—Supply [11TH Allotted Day]: Debate on defence on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Proceedings on the Juries Bill [Lords], which is a consolidation measure.
WEDNESDAY 3RD JULY—Supply [12TH Allotted Day]: Debate on an Opposition motion on education, until 7 p.m.
Thereafter, firstly a debate on draft Community Guidelines for Economic Policy etc., and then on Regulations on Regional Policy.
THURSDAY 4TH JULY—Second Reading of the Independent Broadcasting Authority (No. 2) Bill and of the Northern Ireland (Young Persons) Bill [Lords].
Remaining stages of the Solicitors (Amendment) Bill [Lords].
FRIDAY 5TH JULY—Private Members' motions.
MONDAY 8TH JULY—Consideration of Private Members' motions until 7 p.m. Afterwards, Second Reading of the Rent Bill [Lords].
Mr. Heath: It has been widely reported in the Press that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will make an important statement announcing further economic measures. Will the right hon. Gentleman say when that statement will be made and what arrangements are being made to debate it?
Secondly, when will statements be made about the Government's decision on the future of Concorde and on the choice of nuclear reactor?
Thirdly, I should like to mention another important matter, which is a constitutional point. I understand that the Government intend to alter the rules governing the political activities of civil ser
1728
vants by allowing special advisers of Ministers paid from public funds, to stand as candidates for Parliament or local authorities. This raises considerable constitutional issues.
The Leader of the House is aware that this is a matter on which the Opposition do not hold the same view as the Government. Will he give a firm undertaking that no action will be taken to alter these rules until the House has an opportunity to debate the matter? I believe that this is essential, since this point is of such constitutional importance.
In view of the large number of matters which I have mentioned and which remain to be debated, can he tell the House that certain suggestions that we shall rise early in July are certainly not true and that the House will find it necessary to sit until the end of July?
Mr. Short: The first point raised by the right hon. Gentleman concerned a statement by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. If my right hon. Friend has a statement to make, he will certainly make it before the recess. On Concorde, the Government will be announcing their decision some time in the next few weeks.
On the third question put to me by the right hon. Gentleman regarding special advisers, the Government intend tomorrow to table an amendment to the Servants of the Crown Order to the Privy Council. This is an amendment to the 1960 Order, which is a prerogative order, and no parliamentary action is required. Out of courtesy to the Opposition, I told the right hon. Gentleman about this amendment. I wrote to him some weeks ago, and I wrote to him again today to tell him that we intended to take this action. I thought that I should put the Opposition in the picture on this matter—[Interruption.] I repeat that this is a prerogative order which requires no parliamentary action whatever. I have told the Opposition about it. In any event the order with the amendment will be published in the Gazette. There is no secrecy about this at all—[interruption.] If the Opposition want to hear my answer, perhaps they will listen to what I am saying. We take

1729
the view that as these advisers are political, it is ridiculous to try to prevent their having normal political rights.
On the last point mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman, I have read the reports in the Press about the recess and I am afraid that there is some substance in them.
Mr. Heath: The Leader of the House is right to tell the House that it will be necessary to sit until the end of the month. However, is he aware that he has perpetuated the uncertainty on three major issues. I refer to Concorde, the nuclear reactor and further economic measures. It is not good enough to say that if the Chancellor needs to make a statement, then he will make one. Surely the Leader of the House must by now know the intentions of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
To return to the question of the position of political advisers to the Government, the order is not debatable. Moreover, when the order has been laid before the Privy Council, the decision is then taken. This is an important constitutional issue. We are grateful to the Leader of the House for telling us of the Government's intentions, but we express our opposition to the situation. It is only fair that an important constitutional change of this kind—a change which will distinguish between the political activities of different civil servants and will mean that some civil servants cannot indulge in political activities while others can—should be debated in the House before the order is laid. Therefore, I ask the right hon. Gentleman, in his capacity as Lord President of the Council, not to present this order to the Privy Council tomorrow.
Mr. Short: I cannot agree with the right hon. Gentleman and I shall present the order to the Privy Council tomorrow [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."] The right hon. Gentleman asserts that this will be the only group of civil servants to whom this civic right is extended. That is wrong. There are other categories of civil servants who have this right. This
In regard to Concorde and the subject of nuclear reactors, the uncertainty is due simply adds to the list of exceptions and does nothing more than that.
1730
to the inactivity on those topics by the Conservative Government. The Labour Government will reach a decision in the next few weeks and come forward with their proposals.
Mr. Heath: I repudiate what the Lord President said about Concorde. That matter and also the subject of nuclear reactors has been reopened by the present Government.
On the question of the Civil Service, if the immunity is to be extended to those right at the top of the Civil Service who hold the highest positions there, then it is essential that these matters should be debated by the House of Commons. The Lord President is behaving in a rather uncharacteristic way by trying to steamroller the House on this important matter. It would make no difference to him to hold up the order so that Parliament could debate it before he presented it to the Privy Council.
Mr. Short: I told the Opposition about this order some weeks ago. I wrote to the Opposition Chief Whip this morning to confirm that we were presenting the order tomorrow. If these people are brought into Government as political advisers, I believe, in common with most other citizens, that they should possess the right to stand as parliamentary candidates. They would have to resign their positions in the Civil Service on nomination day if they were nominated. We believe that they should be able to stand as candidates.
Mr. Arthur Latham: Does my right hon. Friend recall my request to the Prime Minister and his reply on Monday concerning a debate on the British nuclear explosion and the point of order that I subsequently addressed to you, Mr. Speaker, about a debate? Is he aware that Early Day Motion 194, which appeared on the Order Paper only today because of printing difficulties, amongst other things asked for a debate. Further, is my right hon. Friend aware that the motion is now supported by well over 100 of my right hon. and hon. Friends as well as by a number of Opposition hon. Members? Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that we are asking for a debate on this matter not as part of a general defence debate but a debate specifically on the nuclear issue? Will

1731
my right hon. Friend say when that debate will take place?
[That this House, taking account of views expressed by hon. Members opposing the series of French nuclear tests, and of the dismay expressed at nuclear explosions by other countries, greatly regrets the explosion of a nuclear device by Great Britain since the Labour Government came into office; and calls for a clear statement of the purposes of this test and whether it represents a further increase of Great Britain's nuclear armoury, in both military capacity and financial costs; asks for total adherence to the Prime Minister's promise that there will be no further such test until the completion of the Defence Review, debate by the House and the opportunity for Members to vote on the issue; and urges the Labour Government to discourage proliferation of nuclear weapons by itself setting an example to the rest of the world.]
Mr. Short: I cannot offer any time beyond the halfday on one day next week.
Mr. Grimond: May I declare an interest? I am a director of the trust which originally financed the political assistants to whom the right hon. Gentleman has referred. I ask him to think again about this matter because there are wide issues about the need for political assistants and their status which the House should consider, quite apart from whether they should stand for Parliament. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to find time for general consideration of this matter.
Further, are we to debate the Scottish economy before we rise? As I trust that a General Election is imminent, may we now debate Kilbrandon?
Mr. Short: On the right hon. Gentleman's last point, all I can offer at this stage is that there will be a debate when the Government have some proposals to put before the House. The Opposition Chief Whip put forward an alternative method of financing political advisers. As I told him in my letter this morning, I think that that is a scheme that has certain attractions, and I am happy to consider it and to discuss it with him.
I cannot give any time for a debate on the Scottish economy, but it is fairly
1732
certain that we shall have an economic debate before the House rises for the Summer Recess.
Mr. Douglas-Mann: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that despite the late stage at which the Rent Bill is being introduced, he is planning for it to complete its passage in the House before the end of the month? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the worst thing for furnished tenants would be to promise them security and not to legislate in time before they are all evicted?
Mr. Short: We hope to do this, but we can get the Bill on the statute book before the recess only with the good will and assistance of both sides of the House.
Mr. Kilfedder: Will the right hon. Gentleman provide time for a debate on Northern Ireland so that the House can debate and probe the attitude of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on early elections for the Northern Ireland Assembly? With regard to the Northern Ireland Young Persons Bill [Lords], which is to be debated next week, does the right hon. Gentleman realise that copies of this measure are not available in the Vote Office? Will he make some arrangements for hon. Members to have copies for the weekend so that they can study it and prepare themselves for the debate?
Mr. Short: There will be a number of opportunities to debate Northern Ireland matters before the Recess. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will have ample opportunity. I am happy to say that the printing workers are now back to normal working and I hope that the supply of printed matter to the House will right itself quickly.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am in some difficulty today. Over 50 right hon. and hon. Members wish to speak in today's debate. I cannot allow Business Questions to continue for very long.
Mr. Jay: Will my right hon. Friend say what will be the motion before the House for the debate on Wednesday on the EEC's decision on economic policy?
Mr. Short: On this matter we are feeling our way. It will be the first time that we shall have debated a motion from the Scrutiny Committee. On this

1733
occasion we are tabling a take-note motion. If my right hon. Friend has other suggestions I shall be pleased to discuss them with him.
Mr. Gow: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain to the House the urgency of the action he proposes to take tomorrow about political advisers? Does he not think that, in his capacity as Leader of the House, he should take into account the widespread anxiety on this subject and provide for a debate before he takes the action which he proposes to take?
Mr. Short: First, I do not equate noise with widespread anxiety. I do not believe that there is widespread anxiety. We have consulted the staff side about this matter. What we are proposing to do tomorrow is to add a tiny category of rather more than 30 people to the list of exempted civil servants.
Mr. Gow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the most unsatisfactory nature of that reply—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot do that during Business Questions. That may apply in other circumstances to prevent further questions, but not questions on the Business Statement.
Mr. Moonman: I recognise that my right hon. Friend is not impressed by noise, but I hope that he will be impressed by a genuine feeling that there may well be some validity in not dealing with the order tomorrow. It would seem that this is not a party issue. The genuine feeling to which I have referred reflects the great concern that is felt by some of my hon. Friends.
Mr. Short: As I say, we have discussed this matter with the staff side. We have informed the Opposition. This is a modest extension of civic rights to a small number of people, and I believe that the order should go ahead.
Mr. Heath: I must ask the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider the matter. When he says that he is not prepared to listen to noise, all well and good, but he sent the Opposition information because he wanted the Opposition's view and, if possible, their agreement. We found it impossible to give agreement and we expressed our complete opposition to it.
1734
The right hon. Gentleman is therefore overriding the views of the Leader of the Opposition and his colleagues and the Opposition as a whole. He is now overriding the views that are expressed by some of his hon. Friends. I must again ask him to postpone the order tomorrow and to let the House debate the order first. It is not only that it affects a small group but it affects a group who are at a high level in the Civil Service and in the closest contact with Ministers. This breaks the whole tradition of the Civil Service.
Mr. Short: The right hon. Gentleman is completely ignoring what I said in the second part of my letter. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman has been told about this by his Chief Whip. His hon. Friend came to see me and he put forward an alternative method of dealing with the matter. As I have said, I believe that his alternative had certain attractions and that we would consider it and discuss it with him.
Mr. Arthur Lewis: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of his hon. Friends do not like place men of either party being put into these positions and that many of his hon. Friends would like to discuss the matter before the Opposition get the chance to raise it in the House? When my right hon. Friend gives the Opposition private information will he try to give similar information to some of his back benchers?
Mr. Short: These are not place men. They are gifted young people who have come to do a job for a Labour Government—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] These are political advisers. The Conservative Party has 11 of them.
Mr. Burden: May I turn to another subject. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] The Leader of the House will be aware that his right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture has given an undertaking that the House will have an opportunity to debate the O'Brien Report. May we now be told when that debate will take place?
Mr. Short: The hon. Gentleman has asked me often about this. I am afraid that I still cannot give a date. However, I repeat my assurance that there will not be a change of policy until we have debated that report.
Mr. Edelman: Reverting to the exchanges about political advisers, is it not the case that many of them are holders of offices of profit under the Crown? Is it not, therefore, undesirable that the area of patronage should be extended? In that connection, is it not also undesirable that the privileged status of political advisers should spill over into general democratic politics in which they have a special standing which is not provided for by the constitution?
Mr. Short: I take a different view. I believe that all citizens should have full civic rights.
Sir John Hall: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that the feeling of back-bench Members on both sides of the House is very much against him in this matter? As Leader of the House, with a duty to the House, ought he not to take that into account and to withdraw the order until there has been time to debate it?
Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Short: No, Sir.
Mr. George Cunningham: Will my right hon. Friend accept that there are a number of Government supporters who think that the proposal on political advisers which the Government are putting forward is quite right, but that it is such an important matter that it should be debated before it is decided? Along with others of my hon. Friends, may I ask him to reconsider and to provide time for a discussion of this proposal?
Mr. Short: I have not turned down the possibility of a debate, in the same way as we are giving a debate next week to the Opposition on another motion which does not require parliamentary action. Certainly I am prepared to consider a debate later.
Mr. Heath: That makes the situation even more ridiculous. The Leader of the House is prepared to allow the House to debate it after he has taken the action giving these rights. Why cannot he give us a debate before he attempts to give these rights? All that that requires is a postponement of the laying of the order. Will he say now why the order has to be laid tomorrow? What is the urgency?
Mr. Short: The reason is that we believe that these people are political people. They came in as political advisers, in the same way as the 11 people whom the Leader of the Opposition brought into his Government. We believe that they ought to retain their rights.
Mr. Milne: Will the Leader of the House undertake to arrange an early debate on the Report of the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries dealing with purchasing procedures in the National Coal Board, if not next week certainly before the recess?
Mr. Short: I shall bear in mind my hon. Friend's suggestion.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. We must move on. Mr. Foot—
Mr. Cormack: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am afraid that I have not before me the Standing Orders of the House, but I understand that it is not possible to move a motion calling for a debate under Standing Order No. 9 on a Thursday. If that is correct, we face a very unusual situation. The Leader of the House has made a statement which I suggest affects the very constitution of this place and of the country. An order will be produced tomorrow without Parliament having a chance to debate it—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. At the appropriate moment, he is quite free to move a motion under Standing Order No. 9 on a Thursday. That moment will be after the statement. Mr. Foot.

FLIXBOROUGH INQUIRY
The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Michael Foot): I will, with permission, Mr. Speaker, make a statement about the Flixborough inquiry.
I said in my statement on 3rd June that I would set up a public inquiry which would deal with all the issues raised by the Flixborough disaster. I have come to the conclusion that this could best be done in the following way.
First, we shall set up an inquiry under the Factories Act to establish the causes

1737
and circumstances of the disaster; and shall ask for advice about any immediate lessons which we can learn from what happened. I have asked Mr. Parker, QC, to serve as Chairman, and Dr. Pope, Vice-Chancellor of Aston University, to be Deputy Chairman. The following people have agreed to serve as members:
Dr. Davidson, Reader in Chemical Engineering, Cambridge University.
Mr. Bill Simpson, Head of the Foundries Section of the AUEW.
I shall ask this court of inquiry to report as quickly as it can, consistent with a full examination of what occurred at Flixborough.
The work on site in connection with the investigation which was instituted by the Factory Inspectorate immediately following the explosion is now virtually completed, though metallurgical and chemical investigations are continuing and will take some time to complete. The information and evidence so far gathered will now be given to the members of the inquiry. The investigation team—and all the resources of the inspectorate—will be available to make such further inquiries as the members of the inquiry think desirable.
Secondly, this disaster has naturally raised public concern about the risk of similar disasters at other plants of this kind. The whole matter will have to be taken up as soon as possible by the Health and Safety Commission to be set up shortly under the legislation now before Parliament. This was specifically recommended by the Robens Committee.
However, in order that an immediate start can be made on the examination of these problems, I have, after consultation with those of my colleagues who have a responsibility in these matters, decided to set up an expert committee to begin work on the nature of the hazards presented by these large-scale plants and on the ways in which people who work in them, or live near them, can be safeguarded and reassured. I shall ask the committee to report in due course to the Health and Safety Commission so that Ministers can be advised on what further steps need to be taken, including the licensing of plants which present particular hazards.
The expert committee will later this year have the full resources of the Health
1738
and Safety Executive to be established under the new legislation to help it with its work. But we do not intend to wait upon the new legislation. I am establishing immediately within my Department an organisation specifically concerned with these major hazards; and the Home Secretary has agreed with me that we should at a very early date bring together within this organisation the Explosives Inspectorate and people from my own Factory Inspectorate. This will ensure a unified organisation to deal with these problems.
Mr. Prior: May I put two questions to the Secretary of State? First, as soon as the Health and Safety at Work etc. Bill receives the Royal Assent, will he be able to announce the members of the Health and Safety Commission, and can we get on with that quickly?
My second question relates to the expert committee. Will it be able to pay visits to similar plants where hazards are expected? If it will—and I think it should—will it be able to consult local residents to discuss with them their fears about these plants? I think that this would go a long way to allay the fears which may be felt by a lot of local people near these plants.
Mr. Foot: Under the legislation which is going through the House we shall proceed as swiftly as possible to the establishment of the Health and Safety Commission in order to get it into operation. I understand that it will come into operation in October, and immediately after the Bill is through we will proceed to select those who are to serve on the commission.
The expert committee, of course, will be in operation before that. I hope that it will be set up within a fortnight and in operation in four to six weeks. It will be able to visit neighbouring areas as well as going to the places themselves which may come within this list.
Mr. Crouch: What thought has the right hon. Gentleman given to the question of where responsibility lies for determining what is a hazard of this nature? Does it lie with the expert committee? Is it for the local authority to find out? Is it for the company to decide what that hazard is? Sometimes a chemical hazard can be relatively limited on a small scale,

1739
but magnified it can become a real hazard to the population.
Mr. Foot: What the hon. Gentleman says is true. The expert committee and later the commission will have full responsibility for these matters. It would not be a question solely of relying on what the companies might say about it.
Mr. Torney: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a factory in my constituency, known as Allied Colloids (Manufacturing) Co. Ltd., which makes chemicals? Its existence, because of the Flixborough disaster, causes a great deal of concern and apprehension to my constituents living around that factory. Will evidence be taken about that factory before the inquiry which is to be held?
Mr. Foot: I am sure the inquiry—not the Flixborough inquiry but the other inquiry—will be able to take evidence of that kind. I am sure that long before that time my hon. Friend will have sent details of information he may have on the subject to my Department and we will look into the matter immediately.
Mr. Torney: Details have already been sent.
Mr. Foot: If the information is already there I am sure we are already inquiring into it.
Mr. Jeffrey Archer: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for coming to North Lincolnshire. When he speaks to the expert committee, will he consider very seriously the problem of Immingham, in the next constituency, where the people are very worried about this sort of disaster? Will he put on record our thanks to the WRVS for the work it did immediately after the disaster? Is this not an example where it would be a good thing for this country to have the Civil Defence back in operation?
Mr. Foot: When I referred to the original disaster I made reference to the voluntary services which acted so promptly and magnificently in the Flixborough crisis. This refers not only to the voluntary services but to the mining inspectorate, the fire service, the police, the Salvation Army and others. I hope I have not omitted anyone from the list. One of the most impressive things I
1740
saw there was how the immediate crisis was dealt with.
People in many areas throughout the country are worried because of what happened when the accident took place. It is because of those worries that we have set up this expert committee, along the lines I am suggesting, as well as the inquiry into the Flixborough disaster.
Mr. John Ellis: First, I thank my right hon. Friend for the care and consideration he has shown throughout this inquiry to my constituents who have been bereaved and whose property has been damaged.
I also thank my right hon. Friend on behalf of my constituents for his very comprehensive statement, which shows that he has listened to the representations made to him by my constituents and me. Does he regard the inquiry set up by the Transport and General Workers' Union and other unions as being helpful? Will they and other bodies in my area along with other individuals who may have been affected, be heard before this inquiry? Will nothing that the inquiry is doing prevent the claims of the affected people in my area being paid out?
Will my right hon. Friend look immediately at the position of the Factory Inspectorate? I know, from cases in constituencies surrounding my own, that it is under very heavy pressure. My right hon. Friend may need to ensure that the whole force is strengthened to carry out the task which other hon. Gentlemen and I are laying upon them at this time. They must be dreadfully overloaded.
Mr. Foot: I am grateful to my hon. Friend not only for the questions but for the truly magnificent services he gave to his constituents during the whole of this crisis and the way, in particular, in which he assisted in ensuring that there could be established very speedily proper relations between the shop stewards, the trade unions on the spot and the Factory Inspectorate. We in my Department are deeply grateful to him for all the assistance he gave to us and to his constituents during the crisis.
I have nothing to add to what I said previously about the responsibility for the claims. On a previous occasion I gave

1741
the House a statement which was made by the company on that matter. I said we would have consultations about it to ensure that the claims were fully discharged. I am certain that will be carried out.
I believe that the Factory Inspectorate is the most important aspect of the matter. Anybody who saw what the inspectorate did on the spot will realise the strain imposed on it by disasters of this character. Therefore, there is one immediate incontrovertible lesson to be learned from the Flixborough disaster. We must strengthen the Factory Inspectorate. We must recruit more inspectors and pay them more money to get them.
Mr. Kimball: Referring to the expert committee on environmental pollution which the right hon. Gentleman has announced, will he ensure that the evidence taken on the west bank of the river, in Amcotts village, as well as on the Flixborough site, is considered?
Would the right hon. Gentleman also draw the inquiry's attention to the very humane and expeditious way in which the Nypro firm has been dealing with the damage? My constituents are highly satisfied with the very fair treatment they are receiving from this firm and the very prompt payment they have been given.
Without underestimating the human disaster and tragedy, could the right hon. Gentleman say what progress has been made with finding alternative employment for 500 people in North Lincolnshire who have lost good, well-paid jobs in this explosion?
Mr. Foot: I shall not try to answer the hon. Gentleman's last question yet because I have not the answer to it. There are other matters we have to attend to even more urgently. The inquiry will take into account the dangers for people in surrounding areas, as will the other expert inquiry, although that subject will come even more within its province.
The worst aspect of this terrible tragedy is the people who were killed in the plant. That is the peril we must avoid most importantly of all. That does not exclude all the other aspects of the inquiry.
Mr. Cryer: I welcome the Minister's statement. If he is not satisfied with the standards pertaining at Flixborough will he assure the House that he will be pre
1742
pared to bring to the House immediately further legislation to strengthen the Health and Safety at Work etc. Bill? Some of us feel that that Bill will not prevent another Flixborough.
Mr. Foot: I know of the constructive criticism my hon. Friend has made during discussions of the Health and Safety Committee. We will take into account what he and others have said in drawing up the regulations within the next few months. Our debates have greatly fortified the Department in proceeding along the way in which we are to tackle the problem. I am grateful to the hon. Member even if we have had to reject some of his amendments. I believe that the commission will be able to carry out the task properly. It will be able to do its work. Otherwise I would not have supported it as it stands. We must learn as swiftly as possible from Flixborough and take that into account. I assure my hon. Friend that we will do that.
If, when we bring forward our regulations, my hon. Friend or other hon. Members think we have not learnt fully from this appalling disaster, as we should have done, we must debate the matter in the House and we must ensure that we do what should be done.
The most important aspect of the whole business is that we should recruit more factory inspectors who are able to do the job. I am sure that my hon. Friend agrees with me.
Dr. Winstanley: With regard to the latter part of the right hon. Gentleman's statement and his very welcome proposals to set up an organisation to monitor these hazards on a continuing basis, does he recognise that there is a great deal of anxiety, which may or may not be justified, in many parts of the country about dangers of this kind? It is, therefore, essential to establish open lines of communication through which ordinary people can channel their fears and anxieties to a body that can act. Will he ensure that when this body is set up it will be readily accessible to all members of the public who have fears in this regard?
Mr. Foot: That is one of the aspects which I am sure the Health and Safety Commission will operate when it comes into being, and it is an aspect which was debated when the Bill went through the

1743
House. Prior to that, of course, the Department of Employment is very ready to receive any information which anyone may wish to offer from particular areas. Immediately we had the first reports from Flixborough, the Chief Inspector tooks steps to discuss the need for a review of safety precautions with the Chemical Industries Association. Letters were sent and discussions took place with representatives of large-scale chemical plants all over the country. So even prior to the inquiry we have tried to learn something from what happened.
Mr. Tinn: Bearing in mind that incidents may well happen despite all the precautions, will my right hon. Friend, in collaboration with his colleagues in the Home Office, look into the procedures and experience that have grown up on Teesside, which has the largest petrochemical complex in the world? Those procedures include co-operation among public services like the police and the fire service, private industry and public industry, in order to take action after incidents to minimise damage, to coordinate efforts to deal with it. No doubt even on Teesside we still have a great deal to learn. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the question of dealing with the situation after it has arisen is also considered, as well as that of avoiding it?
Mr. Foot: Yes, we are drawing up what we consider to be a judgment on what happened and what we can learn about immediate action to be taken after these disasters. But it is also the case that everyone who has seen what happened at Flixborough for himself will agree that the Factory Inspectorate, along with the many other services, acted with the utmost promptitude and skill.

POLITICAL ADVISERS
Mr. Heath: On a point of order. My hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South-West (Mr. Cormack) suggested a moment or two ago that one way of dealing with the matter which we discussed during business questions, of political advice to the Government, would be for the House to ask to be allowed to debate the matter on the Adjournment, moved under Standing Order No. 9. I should like to adopt that suggestion.
1744
I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration; namely,
"the announcement by the Leader of the House of his intention to lay an order tomorrow which is not debatable in the House, to alter the rules on the political activities of civil servants by allowing special advisers to Ministers, who are paid from public funds, to stand for Parliament and local authorities."
It emerged clearly from the questioning today that this is a specific matter. It is an important constitutional matter. It is also a matter which right hon. and hon. Members on both sides have expressed a desire to debate before a decision is reached. It is, therefore, urgent.
In this connection, perhaps I can make what I hope will be a helpful suggestion. Of course, Mr. Speaker, the decision rests in your hands. Should you decide to allow the House to debate the matter, I understand that there are two alternatives under the Standing Order, which I have just consulted: either the debate would be granted this evening—it cannot be granted on a Friday—or it would be granted for the first part of Monday.
Since today's business is undoubtedly of extreme importance—you have already indicated the large number of hon. Members who wish to take part—may I put forward the suggestion that, if you did decide to grant leave, the Leader of the House should agree to postpone the order from tomorrow, that we should be allowed to debate it on Monday afternoon, and that he should then, if the House agrees, lay the order next week.
The right hon. Gentleman has given no indication why it is essential that the order be laid tomorrow. I hope that he will, therefore, find it possible to cooperate, in that, if you do grant this request, he will be prepared to postpone laying the order for 72 hours so as to enable the House to debate it on Monday afternoon rather than interfere with today's important debate.
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Edward Short): Rather than put you in that position, Mr. Speaker, and in view of what the right hon. Gentleman has said, I will defer laying the order until the meeting of the Privy

1745
Council at the end of July. That will give us time to find adequate opportunity, if it is thought desirable, through the usual channels to debate it.
Mr. Speaker: In the light of that intervention, does the Leader of the Opposition still wish to pursue his application?
Mr. Heath: In the light of what the Leader of the House has said, for which I express my appreciation—on behalf, I am sure, of the whole House, since there was a general desire to debate the matter—I will withdraw my request for leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 to permit the matter to be debated.
Sir Bernard Braine: On a point of order When the Leader of the Opposition rose to seek leave to move the Adjournment, I naturally thought that he was seeking to question the Secretary of State for Employment on his important statement. I felt that I was entitled to put a supplementary question to the right hon. Gentleman since my constituency has one of the most threatened environments in the country—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentle-made a speech about this matter yesterday. I have to have some regard for that sort of factor. It is a matter for my discretion whom I call to put supplementary questions. I will tell the hon. Gentleman that he has not been backward in putting forward the interests of his constituents, but I cannot call him every time.

PALACE OF WESTMINSTER (VISITORS)
Mr. Arthur Latham: On a point of order. I wish to raise a matter of which I have given you notice, Mr. Speaker. I know that time is pressing, but I am also aware that many other hon. Members are concerned about the matter that I wish to raise. Today seems the only appropriate time at which this can be done.
On Monday of last week, 17th June, I raised a point of order with you, in which I said:
"… the Serjeant at Arms in some respects is responsible to you",
1746
and further asked you whether you would see to it
"… that hon. Members are both consulted and informed about arrangements and are not confronted with arbitrary decisions over which they seem to have no control and about which they have no information, to the embarrassment of themselves and their constituents."
You, Mr. Speaker, kindly replied:
"If action is taken … it must be by my authority, but I prefer that the House itself should exercise that authority. These are basically matters for the House and it is for the House to resolve what should or should not be done. But if, in an emergency, I have to take immediate decisions, I do so upon the advice of the Services Committee, if possible."
I then asked:
"But you will inform us, Mr. Speaker?"
You replied:
"I or the Leader of the House will certainly inform the House of what measures have been taken."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th June 1974; Vol. 875, c. 44.]
In the light of difficulties that I have experienced three times in the last week about interference with arrangements which I have made to receive visitors, on my behalf a request was made to the police to quote the authority on which they were acting. It was certainly not intended to challenge the conduct of the police. In support of the rule that the police were enforcing there was produced a letter addressed to the Chief Inspector of Police, Houses of Parliament, and the Superintendent of Custodians, Houses of Parliament, signed by the Serjeant at Arms, which said:
"During the time that the Staff Canteen, Westminster Hall, is out of action, no guests may be entertained in the Strangers' Cafeteria before 8 p.m."
Inquiry to your office, Mr. Speaker, revealed that you apparently had no knowledge of this, further inquiries showed that the Services Committee had no knowledge of it and inquiries to the office of the Leader of the House revealed that there was no information about the matter there either.
I understand that what was conveyed in the letter was a mistaken interpretation of an intention and also that a new decision is to be announced in the near future. But the point that I am making is not a storm in a teacup. It concerns an important matter of principle—that of who runs this place and for whom it is run, and whether my impression that the basic intention is that it should be run for the

1747
benefit of Members and their constituents is correct, or whether there are other interests to be taken into account.
I want to ask you, Mr. Speaker, to rule on two points. First, can you please repeat and see that there is enforced the ruling that you gave to me last Monday week? May I also ask that any announcement which is made shall state on whose authority the instruction is given? Second, would you take steps to see that hon. Members are informed of these decisions and are not put in the embarrassing position of having no knowledge of them, and of not even knowing who is responsible for the instruction which is given?
Mr. Dunn: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to apologise to the House for any inconvenience which any hon. Member may have suffered from a misunderstanding that has arisen because of imprecise communication with the authorities within the House, namely the Catering Department and the Serjeant at Arms.
It was never decided by the Catering Sub-Committee, nor were instructions given, that this notice should be published. However, it would be true to say that in the anxiety and concern that the facilities of the House should be made available to all, including members of staff, there were some difficulties to be overcome. In that anxiety the imprecise language left some room for concern. I have looked at the correspondence and I do not believe that any one person is responsible for the imprecise language in that correspondence.
Instructions have been given that until such times as the Catering Sub-Committee reaches a decision and conveys it through the usual channels, no person can assume to act in the Sub-Committee's name. In consultation with the authorities of the House I asked that this notice be withdrawn. That request was made yesterday. There has been difficulty in communicating this position to every hon. Member, particularly to those who are involved.
For my part I sincerely regret any inconvenience which may have been caused.
Mr. Skinner: The power which the Serjeant at Arms wields is considerable. One acknowledges that some of that power is due to the authority given to
1748
him by the Services Committee and to some extent by you, Mr. Speaker and your department. However, there is a matter for concern regarding special permits for visitors from our constituencies. In this respect we are coming up against a block which means that for the period of June and July none of these visitors is allowed to come along the Palace route. But upon investigation, and upon trying to circumvent the problem by booking an interview room to enable me to take visitors through a few at a time, I find that the place is swarming with tourists. Perhaps we have to encourage tourists to come to London and to look at the House of Commons in order to help solve the balance of payments problems. On confronting one of the tourist hostesses I was informed that special permits are not gained through any of the offices of any Members of Parliament on either side of the House, but are gained apparently through other offices.
If the Serjeant at Arms can allow batches of American tourists from Miami to visit this place, as was the case yesterday, while at the same time electors from my constituency and other constituencies are thwarted from entering the House of Commons and having a look around, there must be something sadly wrong. My guess is that the Services Committee did not know of this practice which is taking place.
It may be that the idea of having some restriction on our own visitors in June and July is sensible, but this cannot be satisfactory when we see a lot of other visitors floating about in this place while we are unable to get passes for our visitors for the remainder of the parliamentary Session.
May I remind you, Mr. Speaker, that as a result of running into this problem head-on yesterday I was politely informed by one of the people within the House that if I carted round the House of Commons and the House of Lords visitors on behalf of someone from the other place I would not need a permit—and on Thursday week I shall be doing precisely that.
Mr. Speaker: I cannot prevent hon. Members raising points of order and I shall carefully consider what has been said. There has to be a certain amount of consultation as well as give and take

1749
in the House. We are in difficult times. I knew nothing of either of the problems which have been raised. Had I known about them I should have done my best to try to resolve them.
It is my intention that nothing should be done which has not my authority, or my authority upon the advice of the Services Committee, or unless it is something which has been decided by the Leader of the House, after consultation in the usual channels.
It will be of assistance to the House and will save time on the Floor of the House if I am asked in other ways to deal with specific problems when they arise. I shall do my best to do so.
Mr. Arthur Latham: Further to my point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you confirm your ruling that hon. Members shall be notified, and see that your ruling is enforced?
Mr. Speaker: I will certainly do my best.

ORDERS OF THE DAY
  SUPPLY
  [10TH ALLOTTED DAY],—considered.
  SUPPLY

    RATES
    Mr. Speaker: Almost 50 right hon. and hon. Members have told me that they want to speak in the debate which is to follow. We are starting rather late, which is not altogether my fault, but with a self-denying ordinance all round, including both back bench and Front Bench speakers, perhaps we shall be able to manage fairly well as we have done on previous occasions, including in particular one or two occasions in the last Parliament.
    I understand the anxiety of hon. Members who have a strong constituency interest in the subject of the debate. I shall do my best, but there is no point in hon. Members coming to the Chair to ask about their chances of being called. However, if they indicate that they can say what they have to say in five minutes, it might improve their chances.
    4.25 p.m.
    Mrs. Margaret Thatcher: I beg to move,
    That this House, in view of the massive increases in rates in many areas greatly in excess of the growth of incomes, stresses the need for a fundamental reform of the rating system; and urges Her Majesty's Government to introduce a measure of interim relief this year for the benefit of those worst affected and to provide that water and sewerage charges should rank for rate rebate.
    The motion is deliberately phrased in moderate terms. The purpose is clearly stated—it is to help the ratepayer now. The motion contains three parts—we try to deal first with the immediate situation, then the longer-term situation and finally the question of water and sewerage rates.
    With regard to the immediate situation, people have for years complained about rates, but they have paid them, usually on time. The losses to the local authorities through failure to pay have been minimal. This year not only have there been the most vociferous complaints ever but people have been threatening to withhold payment of rates, or that part of the rates

    1751
    which exceeds money growth in incomes, which, taking the personal disposable income as a yardstick, was 12½ per cent. between the end of 1972 and the end of 1973.
    Over the years local authority expenditure has risen faster than the growth of the economy. In spite of attempts to relieve the burden on ratepayers, the weight of tax on the ratepayer has risen. While over the years there have been anomalies in the rating system, so long as the amount raised by rates was comparatively small people would bear the anomalies. But when the amount to be raised became larger than ever before people naturally objected strenuously.
    The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State and his right hon. Friends will have seen innumerable deputations from the counties. After they had seen him, or one of his Ministers, they came to see me. There have been deputations from many parts of the country, including Cornwall, Northampton, Norfolk, Somerset, Lincolnshire, Dorset, North-East Derbyshire and Cheshire, and also from the newly-formed ratepayers' action groups.
    All those people have been to see us about increases in rates, the reasons for which I shall try to analyse in a moment. Their rate demands show increases of up to, and occasionally in excess of, 100 per cent. Many of them have increases of between 70 and 80 per cent. These increases go far beyond anything for which they have budgeted, and many of them are in no position to pay.
    That is the position in many parts of the country, particularly, but not exclusively, in those areas adversely affected by the abolition of the variable domestic relief.
    The right hon. Gentleman, much as I regret it, is in the seat of power, and he is the only person who can now introduce a major relief. He and his Ministers justified rent freezes on the ground that if people's incomes were restrained it would be wrong if their rents were to be increased. Similar reasoning could also be applied to rates.
    I make it clear that, although people are threatening to withhold their rates, I would never advise anyone to withhold rates contrary to the law. Any member of any Oppositon who urged people to
    1752
    disobey the law would morally have forfeited the right to expect others to obey his Government's laws. Unless the rule of law is upheld, society will have lost its most valuable asset. But if that is our advice to our constituents, when we are presented with genuine and serious grievances by the most law-abiding citizens it is our duty to try to redress those grievances.
    The Secretary of State has a choice—he can do something or he can do nothing. I can assure him that if he had my hon. Friends behind him he would not be allowed to do nothing.
    Mr. Max Madden: Can the right hon. Lady tell us what obstacles to reform of the rating system the Conservative Government were confronted with?
    Mrs. Thatcher: I think that the hon. Gentleman will know that neither party has managed to reform fundamentally the rating system. That is not the only question at issue, and I will come to it later. At the moment, I am concerned with the short-term problem in which people are faced with massive increases which, try as they will, they cannot meet. This is causing many human problems which must be as well known to hon. Members opposite as they are to us. The Secretary of State will doubtless try to blame it all on us. I shall, therefore, trace the events which led to the rate support grant order which was issued by the right hon. Gentleman in March.
    First, a thorough reorganisation of local government was required, which, presumably, was why the last Labour Government set up the Radcliffe-Maud Commission. In spite of criticism, the terms of reference of the commission failed to include the financing of local government. Yet it would have made sense to consider the powers of local government and one's belief in devolution and dispersion of power along with the method of financing local government. That was the only sane and proper way to do it.
    Secondly, my right hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker) introduced reorganisation. It was a measure different from that proposed by the then Opposition, but I believe that any measure involving larger authorities would have had substantially the same

    1753
    effect. The economies of scale are often elusive, and "bigger" tends to mean "dearer". When it came to deciding to which tier education should go in the metropolitan areas, the then Opposition urged me to put it to the top tier. I refused to do so and kept it with the smaller authorities. "Bigger" again would have meant "dearer", and I believe that keeping education to the lower tier means a more personal service.
    Thirdly, the Conservative Government moved some small blocks of expenditure away from local authorities to central Government. In particular, the local health services and 90 per cent. of the cost of students awards were moved to the central Exchequer to protect the ratepayer. The saving to local authorities at November 1973 prices was some £348 million, and if we had not done it that burden now would go on the ratepayers.
    Fourthly, unlike the right hon. Gentleman, we believe in containing local public expenditure. To substantiate my accusation, I will quote from a speech made by the right hon. Gentleman to the Labour Party's local government conference last year. The report was published in The Guardian on 12th February 1973. The report quoted him as saying:
    "At a time of high taxation—and taxation should be high under a Labour government if we are to carry out our social programmes—we shall never find another source of as much money as accrues through the rating system."
    It is quite clear that the right hon. Gentleman believes in high taxation. We, on the contrary, usually succeed in having lower taxation, and this cannot be achieved without rigorous scrutiny of local expenditure for the purpose of determining the amount of relevant expenditure. Last year, when we were doing the relevant expenditure estimates, my right hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Barber) announced in December a reduction in expenditure of which £111 million was to be saved by the local authorities. The present Government have adhered to those cuts, although they had denounced them in Opposition. If those cuts had not been made, the rates would be still higher now.
    A level of inflation of 9 per cent. was the position at which the expenditure level for local authorities was finalised. It is,
    1754
    of course, customary to take care of any further increases by rate support grant increase orders. The final result of the relevant expenditure negotiations permitted a growth of only 2½ per cent. in local authority expenditure in real terms over the previous year.
    Some of the authorities which have suffered the biggest rate increases—and I have been over the accounts of Somerset and Norfolk in particular—are those which have adhered in every respect to the last Government's request for economy. They have implemented the cuts; they have allowed for only 9 per cent. inflation; some have even had to lower the standards of their services to protect the ratepayers. But, even having done all these things, they are faced with rate increases on declining services in excess of 50, 60, 70 or 80 per cent. My own local authority managed to keep to an increase of only 9 per cent. for inflation—and I remind the House that I represent a London constituency. The Chairman of the Barnet Finance Committee said:
    "The Conservative Government in making every determined effort to control inflation requested local authorities to reduce capital expenditure by 20 per cent. and revenue expenditure (excluding salaries, wages and loan charges) by 10 per cent., so as to limit the increase in the domestic rate to 9 per cent. This has been done so far as Barnet's own expenditure is concerned, and the increase for domestic ratepayers would have been no more than 9 per cent. had the Greater London Council played its part in a spirit of co-operation in the true interests of the ratepayers and the country as a whole."
    Next, a rate support grant representing the highest percentage grant of all time, was made to local authorities to help them to keep the rates down. It meant 60·5 per cent. of their relevant expenditure being met by the taxpayers—a further effort on the part of the Conservative Government to reduce the rates payable.
    Mr. David Ginsburg: The right hon. Lady has omitted from her historical catalogue the order for mandatory differential rating, laid by the Secretary of State for the Environment in the Conservative Government on 7th February, not long before the General Election. It led to substantial increases in rates, including my constituency.
    Mrs. Thatcher: It is true that we laid an order for mandatory differential

    1755
    rating. I agree also that the Local Government (Finance) Act was hurried through the other place in one day, otherwise some other amendments might have been made. But it was vital, when we had the election, to get the Act through in one day. The new formula for the distribution of that grant was slanted to the benefit of the cities—sufficiently, we thought, bearing in mind the needs of the rural areas.
    The right hon. Gentleman knows that a sum of £448 million was allocated to domestic rate relief, and in principle this was to be distributed on the basis of the largest increase in rates to warrant the largest relief. Those increases in rates which ranked for relief included water and sewerage rates. At the time when those allocations were made by us on that equitable principle local budgets had not been made up.
    Mr. Joseph Dean: When the right hon. Lady speaks of "fair and equitable" does she consider the fact that some people in Cornwall were receiving as much as 40p personal assistance on their rates as against 7p in the Trafford area? Is that her idea of "fair and equitable"?
    Mrs. Thatcher: But the reason they were to receive 40p was that otherwise they would have suffered the largest rate increases. It seems to me to be an equitable principle that those who suffered the largest percentage increase should have received the largest amount of relief.
    Mr. Joseph Dean Mr. Joseph Dean rose—
    Mrs. Thatcher: I am sorry, I cannot give way again. As the hon. Gentleman's right hon. Friend gave 33p to Wales he must have recognised the need for some differential between the needs of Wales and England. When we allocated the domestic relief on the basis I have indicated the local budgets had not been drawn up and we were working on the basis of calculations. There were a few exceptional areas, and Trafford is one, where I believe the calculations were wrong, and corrections would have had to have been made when the facts became known; but before the facts became known a General Election intervened, and when the right hon. Gentleman came to do his computer runs the budgets were known and he had all the
    1756
    necessary facts in order to distribute the £448 million on a different equitable basis if he wished. I will give way for the last time.
    Mr. Kenneth Marks: The last communication which the Conservative Government sent to local authorities informing them of the domestic rate relief was on 20th February. Is the right hon. Lady suggesting there would have been some changes in local government estimates then, and is she suggesting that any more money would have been forthcoming from a Conservative Government seven or eight days later had the election gone the other way?
    Mrs. Thatcher: I do not think the hon. Gentleman can have been with us when we debated the rate support grant order or he would have heard me refer to the similar situation we got immediately after rating revaluation when, after the facts were known, more money was made available because my hon. Friends insisted that it should be. In fact, the right hon. Gentleman altered the whole distribution of the £448 million domestic relief. That aggravated the situation in a number of rural areas already facing serious problems, and they are rightly resentful of that.
    When the right hon. Gentleman came to allocate the relief the facts were known, and he could have had a different system of distribution so as to have alleviated some of the 70, 80 or 90 per cent. increases had he chosen to do so. He did not choose. He himself called it rough justice and used the word "capricious". We say it was not justice but was very rough and capricious. Reports of increased staffs for the new authorities were rife and among the offenders were some of the new Socialist authorities; and some of the bitterest attacks in council were those made by Conservatives on the Metropolitan counties for putting the staff up beyond any reasonable assessment of need. I have with me copies of a speech by Alderman Bellow, of Leeds, and attacks made on the West Yorkshire Authority for the very extravagant policy it was following. My right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) in January ordered an urgent inquiry into complaints about extravagant overstaffing and excessive salaries of chief officers in

    1757
    reorganised local councils. We are still awaiting the result.
    All these steps were taken by the Conservative Government to try to protect the ratepayer from severe increases. We could not protect him from local authority expenditure above the limit of relevant expenditure. All the extra fell heavily on the ratepayer because it would not attract grant, but that is a matter for the local authorities themselves. The domestic relief which has now been given by the right hon. Gentleman on the basis of an equal 13p and 33p in Wales would not be altered or taken back, so this year we have to accept the right hon. Gentleman's distribution and its consequences. But unless some extra interim relief is found to help those worst affected in time for the autumn rates demand we can see a bitter and desperate situation developing.
    There is a precedent. My right hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale after revaluation was faced with rating anomalies. I told the right hon. Gentleman the last time we debated the rate support grant that my right hon. Friend made available a sum of money—I agree a much smaller sum than would now be required—for relief that year. The right hon. Gentleman will by now have a full list of rate demands and knows the percentage increases over last year. I have only the limited list published by the Rating and Valuation Association. The kind of order needed and the distribution would have to be left to his Department in consultation with the local authorities, as was the case when we had the other relief after rating revaluation.
    I quote what my right hon. Friend then said in his Budget speech on 6th March 1973:
    "After discussion with the local authority representatives, the Government therefore propose to phase the effects for those hardest hit by meeting half the cost above 10 per cent. of any increases in domestic rate bills in 1973–74 which are attributable solely to the effects of revaluation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th March 1973; Vol. 852, c. 268.]
    In this case, when the facts were known we took action. We did not limit ourselves to expressions of sympathy. I must tell the right hon. Gentleman that deputations have been received most courteously by his Department. His Ministers have been very sympathetic. It is simply
    1758
    that they have failed to take any kind of action afterwards.
    There is one point I should mention before leaving the question of interim relief, arising from a deputation from North-East Derbyshire including the area formerly administered by the urban district of Clay Cross. At its meeting on Saturday last, the North-East Derbyshire District Council passed a resolution calling on the Minister to allow the council to levy a special rate on Clay Cross sufficient to cover the amount of any deficit inherited from that council. It is impossible to be precise about the amount of the deficit. It could be as little as £75,000 or as much as £500,000.
    There is strong feeling among the ordinary people in North-East Derbyshire, regardless of their usual party affiliation, that no part of that deficit should be paid by the people of North-East Derbyshire other than those who live in Clay Cross. Ten of the parish councils in North-East Derbyshire have already indicated to the district council that they are not prepared to meet any part of the deficit. There exists in North-East Derbyshire a situation in which a great many ordinary people may find themselves disobeying the law by refusing to pay any rate which relates directly to the Clay Cross deficit. In our view the Government must give favourable consideration to relieving North-East Derbyshire from the burden arising from Clay Cross and I hope they will do so.
    I shall now say a few things about the longer-term position on rates. As a result of Question Time today I understand from what was said by the Prime Minister and from the amendment that the right hon. Gentleman has put down that he is going to announce—to quote the words I expect to hear from him later—"a fundamental review of local government finance". Most of us would welcome this but I am not quite sure what kind of review he will announce.
    May I urge what we on this side have come to know as a James-type inquiry? We feel that a Royal Commission takes a very long time. When we had an inquiry on teacher training it was of a different kind. We took a comparatively small number of people, about seven or eight, and asked them to sit fulltime and report within a year. The James inquiry did that. I think

    1759
    that the situation now is such that people would wish any fundamental review to be undertaken quickly and not at the rather leisurely speed which is customary with reviews meeting only once a week or once a month and embarking on a great deal of research.
    I should like to make some further points about the longer term. First, any fundamental changes must be considered in conjunction with the powers of local authorities, their degree of independence and the nation's philosophy on the distribuion of power. Local authorities carry out their tasks better than Whitehall could, although many of us may have criticisms of the way that some of them discharge their duties from time to time.
    Second, before adopting major changes local authorities would have to be consulted. That is obvious. To do otherwise would be high-handed and arrogant.
    Third, I accept the thesis not wholly accepted by some of the many local authorities that I have seen that the Chancellor should have control over the level of public expenditure. As local authority expenditure is arranged now, he has not got that control, particularly on the revenue side. For example, in 1973–74 the difference on the estimate and the provisional outturn of local authority expenditure was over £200 million in real terms. That can make a serious difference to the Chancellor's Budget.
    I accept that the central Exchequer must be able to determine the top level of local authority expenditure, but to do this the Chancellor must give himself the requisite powers.
    This becomes even more important when considering the possible transfer of further items of expenditure from the local to the national budget. We transferred nearly £350 million worth. I believe that we should get the worst of all possible worlds if the Chancellor had to raise more tax to meet the transferred expenditure and local authorities then added further items to their budgets instead of reducing the rates proportionately.
    Fourth, I hope that the review will involve an investigation into the consequences of financing local authorities in block grant money terms rather than the present method. This would give strict
    1760
    control over the upper limit of expenditure. It may be objected that such a scheme would mean the end of local authority independence. I do not think so. A similar method is used for financing the universities, and no one suggests that that is an example of central control. Rather it is quoted to illustrate university autonomy.
    Fifth, a review body would obviously look at the effect of a local income tax on various income groups in different areas where wages and salaries varied greatly and at the varying income from a sales or turnover tax.
    I should be grateful if at some stage today—perhaps in the reply—I can be given the answer to one particular question. I have the impression—perhaps past experience comes in—that the Inland Revenue could not at the moment contemplate the administration of another tax because it is still very much occupied with the work involved in moving to a tax credit scheme. If so, the option of a local income tax would be closed for some time.
    Sixth, any change in the system of local government finance should not involve the creation of a new bureaucracy to operate it. People do not like it and it would be expensive compared with the tax collected.
    Seventh, there will be cities with special problems which need special subventions of a kind for which the rate support grant, I admit, is not at present fitted. London will be in difficulties later because of the awards recommended in the Pay Board's report on the London allowance. I understand that that will rank for relevant expenditure, but there is no way of ensuring that the grant attracted by that expenditure will find its way into London where the expenditure is incurred. We must find a way of getting special grants to cities with special problems.
    I turn now to the third part of the motion relating to water and sewerage charges. To put it mildly, the demands of the new authorities have in many areas been unexpectedly high. The right hon. Gentleman's answer no doubt would have been nationalisation. But bigger still would probably have meant dearer still. I hope that someone in his Department will go through the demands of the water authorities to see whether they are

    1761
    justified. At a time when their capital expenditure has been cut, it is difficult to understand why they should be making such heavy demands. I suspect that they may be attempting to build up a reserve out of the rates for the first year or two years. I trust that the right hon. Gentleman is carrying out the same kind of monitoring as did my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby on rates during the early period of counter-inflation. I believe that due to his action the rate increase that year was prevented from rising still further.
    Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
    Mrs. Thatcher: No. I have given way many times already. I am concerned to continue, because many of my right hon. and hon. Friends wish to speak in the debate.
    Many deputations have reported the difficulty of getting adequate information from the new water authorities. The authorities must be told to give the information that is required. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman has made that perfectly clear.
    The problem of a charge for a sewerage or water service which is absent has arisen many times. The final insult was having to pay to have a septic tank emptied in addition to paying the main drainage rate. [Interruption.] We discussed this matter on the Control of Pollution Bill. I pointed out that in the Bill the Government had retained the power of local authorities to make a charge. I suggested that that power should be deleted from the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman has power in Section 30(1) and (6) of the Water Act 1973 to give directions to the water authorities regarding charges. My hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) and others of my hon. Friends also took up that point in Committee on the Control of Pollution Bill. The right hon. Gentleman is creating many difficulties which do not really exist.
    On the allowance for rate rebate, the right hon. Gentleman will no doubt point to the previous Government's decision at the earlier stage of the Bill dealing with local government finance not to let it be rebated. We took account of the increases in water and sewerage rates in distributing domestic relief on a variable basis. The
    1762
    present system has reduced that because it was an even distribution.
    The only further relief I can find that was provided by the previous Government is in a letter of 29th January, 1974 from the Department to local authorities and water authorities which stated:
    "The charge is also not subject, in principle, to remission on grounds of poverty, but the Department accepts that it would be unreasonable to expect a rating authority who allowed remission of rates on these grounds in any case to proceed to recover the charge in that case. They will be authorised therefore to treat as irrecoverable the sewerage charge payable by any person to whom they or the magi-states have remitted the rate and should take this into account in estimating losses on collection."
    The right hon. Gentleman will have noted that some of my right hon. and hon. Friends have tabled an amendment to the Finance Bill to secure full rebate for water and sewerage charges. We fully support that. I hope that the Government will now take steps to deal with these matters, because there is very strong feeling about them.
    The Government amendment refers to the effects of inflation. The rate of inflation over the last 12 months was published on Friday. On Saturday 22nd June The Times said:
    "The recorded rise in retail prices over the last 12 months has now edged up to 16 per cent. The annual rates of change have been 22·1 per cent. over the last half year and 25·3 over the last three months."
    So the rate of inflation is now accelerating. What hope, therefore, for the ratepayer next year? [Interruption.] I shall not make a point about the accelerating rate of inflation. My point is that even an increase of 16 per cent. through inflation does not and cannot account for increases in rates of anything up to 100 per cent. It is absurd to try to use that defence to suggest that it does. The right hon. Gentleman knows that, but that is his chosen defence in his amendment.
    The situation has been made infinitely worse by the right hon. Gentleman's own decisions in respect of some of the towns and the rural areas and his attitude to expenditure to be borne by the ratepayer. If he refuses to redress this grievance, if he and every one of his hon. Friends on the back benches refuse to grant a measure of relief, he will deserve and receive the censure of the nation.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): Before I call the Secretary of State, I should inform the House that Mr. Speaker has selected for debate the amendment standing in the name of the Prime Minister and the names of his right hon. Friends.
    5.2 p.m.
    The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Anthony Crosland): I beg to move to leave out from "greatly" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
    "caused by the inflationary policies of the previous administration, endorses the decision of Her Majesty's Government to undertake a fundamental review of Local Government finance."
    We have naturally assumed for some time past that the Opposition would want a debate on "the rates". But we have waited with mounting curiosity to see the exact terms of the motion which they would put down and the names of the signatories to it. I can well understand their difficulties, given their own record in government, and fully appreciate why certain names are conspicuously absent from the list of signatories, and, I may say, absent from the House today as well.
    I start by saying how strongly I agree with the first clause in the motion, which refers to
    "the massive increases of rates in many areas greatly in excess of the growth of incomes."
    To understand why this massive increase has occurred, I fear I must delve a little into recent history, for the speech of the right hon. Lady the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) showed marked signs of selective amnesia.
    On 22nd January this year, only a few days before the General Election was announced, the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon), introducing the then Government's White Paper on the Rate Support Grant for 1974–75, used these words:
    "I believe that the percentage rise in domestic rate burdens can be kept to a maximum of about 9 per cent. subject to any exceptional local circumstances. In a number of cases, particularly in the cities, there should actually be a decrease in the domestic rate burden. The average national increase should accordingly be about 3 per cent."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd January 1974; Vol. 867, c. 1469.]
    This statement was greeted with astonished incredulity by all the leaders
    1764
    of the local government world, Conservative as well as Labour, and by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) and others in this House. I do not know whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman—who is not present—himself believed it, or whether he had simply looked into the entrails of a chicken, or whether he was under instructions to keep his doubts to himself—at any rate until after 28th February. Unfortunately, the public believed it, which is no doubt why the Opposition joined the bandwagon as soon as it started to roll.
    What actually happened—in contrast to that statement—can be quickly described. We have now received details of their rates from 255 local authorities. First, I take the right hon. and learned Gentleman's predicted maximum increase of 9 per cent. In the event, the average domestic rate increase would have been within the maximum of 9 per cent. under the right hon. and learned Gentleman's variable domestic relief proposal in precisely 10 of these 255 cases. That leaves us with no fewer than 245 sets of "exceptional local circumstances". These include examples such as South Tyneside, where the increase would have been 75 per cent. and many other places I could mention.
    Next, I take the national average increase in domestic rates—prophesied to be about 3 per cent. It has not been 3 per cent. It has been 30 per cent. The right hon. and learned Member for Hexham distinguished himself by making a forecasting error of almost 1,000 per cent. No wonder he is not a signatory to this motion, though his talents clearly call for recognition in other fields, and I will gladly sponsor any application he may think of making for employment as a television weather forecaster. Ratepayers are naturally infuriated by the huge discrepancy between what they were told they would pay and what they are actually paying. Equally naturally, they are accusing local government of extravagance, and central Government of duplicity.
    Let me set the record straight. When I came into office I altered neither the total of local authority relevant expenditure, nor the total of rate support grant, which I inherited from my predecessor. Nationally, therefore—I am speaking

    1765
    nationally; I shall come to the domestic element—neither the domestic nor the non-domestic rate increase is one penny more as a result of any change in the total support going from central Government to local government.
    Why, then, did my predecessor's statements turn out so grotesquely wrong? The unsurprising answer is that the greater part of the increase is due to inflation—last year's as well as this year's. Misled by the Tory Government's bland assurances, local authorities made quite inadequate provision for inflation in their 1973–74 budgets. In consequence, many ran their balances right down, and many had to resort to extremely costly short-term borrowing. All of this had to be made good by the new authorities in their rate for 1974–75 and they had also, of course, to provide for the further pay and price increases which were already in the pipeline for this year. It restored my faith in human nature to hear that even after their disagreeable experiences in 1973–74 some local authority treasurers actually accepted the previous Government's forecast of a 9 per cent, inflation rate. They must be kicking themselves now. Fortunately, many of their colleagues were quicker to draw the moral.
    Past and present inflation and the building up of balances appear to account for about three-quarters of the national rate increase this year on the figures that we have.
    A further factor is, of course, the growth in real terms of local authority expenditure. The previous administration tried to curb this growth by the December expenditure cuts. But these came extremely late in the authorities' budgeting process. So it was hardly surprising that local government was less successful than in the past in cutting back its expenditure in response to Government appeals.
    That leaves us with the extra cost of local government reorganisation, and the bizarre consequences of the reorganisation of water and sewerage. We on the Government side of the House prophesied these again and again during the long debates on the Local Government Act 1972 and the Water Act 1973. There is not even a melancholy satisfaction in seeing our prophecies proved right. I feel only regret that hon. Members of
    1766
    the Opposition did not devote their energies at an earlier stage, before, for example, the Water Act became law, to rooting out the myriad anomalies which they are now parading before us with such avid zeal.
    So the broad picture is clear. This years' unprecedented rate increases are due to two major factors—past and present inflation and the growth in services with inflation by far the greater influence—and two lesser factors—local government reorganisation and water reorganisation. None of these was the work of the present Government, nor have we altered the total scale of central Government support. So the national average increases of 30 per cent. for the domestic ratepayer and 40 per cent. for the non-domestic are wholly the result of decisions and policies that were inherited.
    Mr. Teddy Taylor: How does the right hon. Gentleman's figure of 30 per cent. square with the answer he gave me yesterday about the increase in the total domestic rate call which works out at less than 25 per cent.? Has he taken a series of percentage increases and made an average of those without splitting the real increase in the rate demand?
    Mr. Crosland: The hon. Member will know that the rate call and the domestic rate burden are not the same thing. The figures I am quoting now are for the actual domestic rate burden, which is what the ratepayer pays.
    In this situation, some people argue that it was our duty, on taking office, to increase the amount of Government grant to local authorities above the figure already announced by the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham. There is a very short answer to that. Leaving aside altogether the economic situation which we inherited, it was simply far too late to do anything about the total grant.
    Honourable Members with experience of local government know only too well what utter chaos would have resulted had we sought in the early weeks of March to reopen the whole question of the total of rate support grant, and so left local government to stagger into reorganisation without knowing what rate it was supposed to be levying, or when it could hope to levy it. So, for the simplest prac

    1767
    tical reasons, there was no question of reopening the entire rate support grant settlement.
    The one change I made was to redistribute not the £446 million, as the right hon. Member for Finchley implied, but some £200 million of the domestic element—about 7 per cent. of the total grant of over £3,000 million. We discussed this in detail during the debate on the Rate Support Grant Order. I need no reminding that the decision has aroused strong opposition in many parts of the country. But I remain unrepentant. The situation which I inherited was quite illogical. The last Government had tried desperately to be all things to all men. They had to present themselves as the friends of the inner cities. They could not possibly ignore the overwhelming evidence that the conurbations had been shabbily treated in the past. So their first decision was, and rightly, to redistribute the grant towards the cities. But then they remembered, and were no doubt vociferously reminded, that they had more long-standing loyalties elsewhere, and hence the last-minute decision to introduce variable domestic relief—a hastily erected camouflage net designed to reassure their supporters that nothing had changed after all.
    Politically much the easiest course for me would have been to accept our entire inheritance from the previous Government and blame everything on them. It would have made my life a good deal easier in my constituency had I done so. But I was not prepared to put my name to such a shoddy piece of work and perpetuate the injustices under which the inner cities had suffered for so many years. There was no reason—and I take a highly controversial case—why householders in Cornwall should have gone on paying an average of £40 a year and householders in Manchester £93 a year, even making full allowance for the different levels of income and local authority services, and ignoring altogether the discrepancy in the quality of life between the two areas—
    Hon. Members: Wales.
    Mr. Tom King: Whatever the arguments about the relative position of ratepayers, is not the crucial point that if there is to be an adjustment
    1768
    there is a limit to the amount of adjustment in one year. The essence of the problem, which the right hon. Gentleman knows from his discussions when he has courteously received hon. Members on this point, is that my constituents and many others just cannot manage the scale of increase in one year?
    Mr. Crosland: I take the point which the hon. Member makes and which he and his hon. Friends put to me strongly when they saw me on behalf of the West Country in particular. However, had I not altered the domestic element, and had I left the variable domestic element, which would probably have proved unworkable in practice, there would have been rate increases in different parts of the country and some of the conurbations equivalent to those which have occurred this year.
    Mr. Robert Adley Mr. Robert Adley (Christchurch and Lymington) rose—
    Mr. Crosland: I will not give way. The right hon. Member for Finchley took over 35 minutes—I do not criticise her for that—and I should like to finish in less time if I can.
    No one disputed that this year has seen a quite unprecedented upsurge of public anger over rates. Rates have never been, to put it mildly, a popular tax. There have always been a few cases, here and there, of people refusing to pay. But the householders' reaction to this year's increases for once almost justifies the journalists' favourite term "a ratepayers' revolt". I hope that householders will pay up, and I was glad that the right hon. Member for Finchley made her position clear that she would not support any refusal to pay. Any widespread failure to pay up, leading to a shortfall of rate income this year, will simply lead to massive deficits which will have to be made up, at high rates of interest, in future years.
    But we are all agreed that we cannot leave it at that. Ratepayers have a right to expect a more positive response. They are not simply saying that this year's rate burden is unreasonable. They want a radical re-examination of the whole system.
    To begin with, we must do what we can to improve matters within the present legal framework. We are already reviewing the rate support grant distribution for next year to see how it can be made

    1769
    more equitable. A whole range of possible changes is under discussion with the local authority associations, including two, in particular, that have been pressed on me by many hon. Members in all parts of the House. The first is that we should take full account of the level of wages and other incomes in an area, which I am determined to do for next year's grant. The other is that we should do something to help those authorities most affected by reorganisation—whether completely new authorities starting from scratch, or counties which have lost much of their former area and population.
    Mr. Arthur Jones: Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to do anything about those counties which are particularly affected by town expansion schemes? I was grateful to one of the right hon. Gentleman's colleagues for seeing a deputation from Northamptonshire, which has four expanding towns and which are a burden to existing ratepayers.
    Mr. Crosland: This point has been made to us by the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Jones) and a number of other hon. Members whose authorities face similar problems. We shall bear the matter in mind in our discussions.
    I now turn to the long-term future and the phrase in the Opposition motion which
    "stresses the need for a fundamental reform of the rating system".
    There must be joy in Heaven today—not just one sinner that repenteth, but the whole massed ranks of the Tory Party. We have seen nothing like it since the Emperor Constantine changed the religion of his subjects in a single afternoon—at a stroke, to put it boringly—and I must, therefore, bear in mind the attitude of the Tories during their four years of office.
    First, we had the 1971 Green Paper on the future of local government finance. This was an elegant and ingenious essay on the impossibility of any major change. The traditional list of proposals, from local income tax to lotteries, was described in tones of ill-concealed disdain, and every imaginable, and unimaginable, objection was meticulously recorded. But at least the Green Paper did not finally dismiss each and every one of the sug-
    1770
    gestions for a radical restructuring. That was left to a still more bland and obscurantist document, curiously described as a "consultation paper", which appeared in June 1973, "in order", as it said, "to finalise this matter". "Finalisation", in fact, meant the postponement for the foreseeable future of any further consideration of alternative sources of local revenue.
    In case any doubts were left as to the Tory Government's adamant resistance to fundamental reform, they were laid at rest by the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"]—on 12th November during the Second Reading of the Local Government Bill, when he said:
    "I should like to comment on the reasoned amendment in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, which criticises the Government for not providing additional sources of local finance. I reject that criticism completely, in so far as the Government do not think that this is the right time to introduce new local taxes. The system of rates, the local authorities' own tax, is well tried, well known and easy and cheap to administer."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th November 1973; Vol. 864, c. 36.]
    Just in case any doubt was left even after that, the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page)—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"]—said in winding-up the debate:
    "Many hon. Members have indicated that we cannot leave the rating system where it is, and it has been suggested, particularly from the Opposition Front Bench, that we should have a Royal Commission. I do not think we should get any further by means of a Royal Commission than we did by the Green Paper of two years ago … it would be both disastrous and defeatist to put the whole matter back into the melting pot."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th November 1973; Vol. 864, c. 148.]
    Is that really the same right hon. Member who, newly relieved of the burden of office, told the House on 25th March how wonderfully simple everything would be if expenditure on education, law enforcement, fire-fighting, and so on were transferred wholly to the Exchequer, and whose youthful ardour on lotteries carried the day against all our attempts to curb his impetuosity?
    To round off the story of the Conservative Party's attitude when in Government, I may add that there was not a word in its election manifesto on reform of the rating system, or new initiatives

    1771
    on local government finance. There was, however, one document which said that
    "we have to look afresh at the whole system of rating and of Exchequer grants to local authorities".
    That document was "Labour's Programme 1973". At a time when Conservative leaders rejected it utterly, the idea of a far-reaching inquiry was firmly in our minds.
    At that time we were inclined to favour a Royal Commission, but after giving further thought to the matter—here I agree with the right hon. Lady—we now think that something less formal is required. But the question of the title is relatively unimportant. What is crucial is that it should be a wholly independent inquiry. It is absolutely clear that the public will not be fobbed off for a second time with a half-hearted, hole-in-corner internal review of the sort that produced the 1971 Green Paper.
    Accordingly, in fulfilment of the commitment in "Labour's Programme", I can now announce that the Government have decided to set up a full-scale inquiry into local government finance. I propose to give the inquiry wide terms of reference—much wider than what is proposed in the Opposition motion. It will be asked simply to review the whole system of local government finance and to make recommendations. That means that no suggestions for improving any aspect of local government finance will be excluded from consideration—not even site-value rating, though I scarcely know whether that proposal has survived the recent heady and cynical talk of a Liberal-Tory coalition.
    There is, of course, no painless way of finding the enormous sums of money that local government needs. Nevertheless, dissatisfaction with the present rating system is now both more violent and more universal than any of us have probably known it to be in our lifetimes. The time has come when we must take a long hard look at the whole system, with no reform, no alternative, no solution ruled off the agenda in advance.
    I shall ask the committee to make its recommendations as soon as possible, and in any event before the end of 1975. Obviously, I should like, if I could, to set a still tighter deadline, but these are immensely complex matters, and if we
    1772
    are to get the right answers we must not rush the inquiry into producing a hasty and ill-considered report.
    Mr. Paul Tyler Mr. Paul Tyler (Bodmin) rose—
    Mr. Crosland: I am reluctant to give way, because we have been told that 50 hon. Members want to speak.
    I and my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Wales are now considering the membership of the inquiry. I shall make a further announcement. To give the House a brief idea of the kind of categories of member I have in mind, I can say that I should like a chairman of unimpeachable standing, but not himself drawn from local government. For the members, we want elected local authority members, local authority officials, independent financial experts and economists, and representatives of business and of the trade unions.
    The third part of the motion
    "urges Her Majesty's Government to introduce a measure of interim relief".
    There is nothing I should like to do more, although the urging comes oddly from the party that imposed the violent expenditure cuts of last December. The money it refused to spend in December it asks us to spend in June. Unfortunately, things are not as simple as that.
    I have made it clear that the committee of inquiry will be concerned not with the interim problems raised by this part of the motion but with the long-term issues and the whole nature of the system. But I hope I have also made it quite clear—and, if not, I underline it again—that I am extremely conscious of the shorter-term problem and of the real hardship which many ratepayers are facing this year. I shall certainly consider with great care any points and ideas put forward in this debate which bear on the immediate situation. But there are, as the House well knows, acutely difficult questions of priorities in the field of public expenditure. I am willing to look at all the possibilities, but I cannot give any commitment today.
    I must say a word about the precedent the right hon. Lady quoted—the previous Government's 1973 revaluation relief. It is not a precedent that helps a great deal. The right hon. and learned Member for Hexham certainly received a great deal of undeserved publicity very cheaply. He

    1773
    offered only £9 million to a small and select group of ratepayers whose properties had for many years been undervalued. But the scale as well as the nature of the problem are very different this year. If we adopted the same principle, meeting half of any domestic rate increase in excess of 10 per cent., the cost would be not £9 million this year but a good £100 million. If we were to carry out the previous Government's promise to ratepayers and held the average domestic rate increase down to 3 per cent., we should have to pay out an additional £300 million—hardly the kind of sum one could disburse without the most intense parliamentary scrutiny.
    The last clause in the motion urges us
    "to provide that water and sewerage charges should rank for rate rebate".
    This is a very ironical suggestion indeed. It would have been wholly unnecessary if the Tory Government had heeded our warnings and had not introduced the 1973 Water Act. Instead, they took water and sewerage off the rates and out of local democratic control, and substituted a system of direct charges. Not content with that, they brought a further confusion to the minds of the public by requiring the local authorities to act as collecting agents for the new water authorities. Therefore, we have the extraordinary position that sewerage charges are collected together with the rate but no longer form part of the rate. Not being part of the rate, they do not, and cannot any longer, attract rate rebates. That was the legacy that the Opposition left us. It has at last dawned on the Opposition that this is a somewhat unsatisfactory state of affairs.
    We shall do our best to unravel the tangle which they have left us all in, though it is clearly too late to go back on the entire reorganisation. Once the water authorities have had a chance to sort out the various financial problems that confront them this year, we shall get down to reviewing with them various aspects of water service charges for the coming years. This includes, of course, the question of rebates. Picking our way through the obstacles placed in our path by the Water Act, we shall consider—without commitment at this stage—what the possibilities are. But the House must recognise that any new rebate scheme would require either a Government sub-
    1774
    sidy, which I understand to be contrary to the philosophy of the Water Act, or a further general increase in the level of all water service charges. In any event, new legislation would be required.
    But I am quite convinced, from discussions I have already had with the chairmen of the water authorities, that we must, as soon as possible, enable water authorities to collect water and sewerage charges direct. I want the use of local authorities as collecting agents to be confined to a short transitional period.
    A word now about the associated problem of sewerage charges levied on premises not connected to main drainage, something which has caused enormous trouble. The previous administration apparently felt obliged to provide for the levying of sewerage charges this year on all ratepayers regardless of whether they received the service. Here again we are left to deal with the consequences of their actions.
    As my hon. Friend the Minister of State told the House recently, we shall do our best to speed up the administrative arrangements needed to identify those properties which cannot be connected to public sewers in the hope that it will be possible to give them some relief from those charges next year.
    Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman (Lancaster) rose—
    Mr. Crosland: With great respect, I cannot give way. I am dealing with anomalies left behind by the Water Act and telling the House how we propose to sort them out.
    I have spoken of the two major anomalies. There is also widespread anger at the scale of the increases that have taken place in water and sewerage charges, particularly in areas such as the West Country. No doubt some increased spending on water services would have been necessary, with or without reorganisation. I fear that the warnings we gave in Opposition about the additional cost caused by reorganisation, higher salaries, increased administrative costs and so on have proved to be only too well-founded.
    The water industry is now a peculiar animal—half a nationalised industry, half a local government service. The new direct water charge is no longer a part

    1775
    of the local rate. My present view, therefore, is not to include it in the terms of reference of the committee of inquiry into local government finance, although I still have an open mind. A general study of the economic and financial objectives of the water authorities is already being undertaken by a steering group comprising officials in the relevant Departments and officers of the regional water authorities.
    I have told the chairmen of the National Water Council and the regional water authorities that, while I propose to let the new system run for two years or so, I then propose to review its progress with an entirely open mind.
    This debate is basically a motion of censure on the Opposition for their appalling performance when in Government, for introducing costly and extravagant reorganisation of local government and the water industry, for failing during their four years of office to undertake the fundamental review of the rating system for which they now ask, for grossly deceiving the country last January about massive increases in rates which were in prospect, and generally for their calamitous record over the entire sphere of local government affairs. The guilty men are on the Opposition Front Bench, and when the election comes the voters will show that they know it.
    5.35 p.m.
    Sir John Eden: The Secretary of State was absolutely right when he said that never before has dissatisfaction with the present rating system met with such violent and universal hostility, so violently and universally expressed. I am told that at a recent meeting in my constituency more than 500 people turned up to express their anger and resentment at the substantial increases which they are being called upon to pay.
    The anger and resentment was not just against the size of the increase. I am told that there was also expressed a general disquiet about what these people felt was a lack of understanding as to the cause of their anger and the reason why they felt so strongly. People are no longer prepared to accept that rate increases are inevitable. They want action now so that the burden they are being called upon to meet can be reduced.
    1776
    This applies especially to the most hard-pressed, where the increases are greatest.
    This is a case where the hitherto silent majority is now demanding to be heard and will become increasingly militant if it feels that it is being given the brushoff. When we were in Government we undertook various examinations of local government finance. I recognise that the 1971 Green Paper on local government finance came as something of an anticlimax, particularly since people were then looking for early action to ensure that the existing system was to be changed.
    I know that some steps were taken to ease the burden in various directions, but the fact is that no fundamental changes followed, and it was for the fundamental change that people had been calling. I recognise that the basic reason for this decision not to have a fundamental change was that we were then engaged in the whole exercise of local government reorganisation.
    However great the long-term benefits to the ratepayer of local government reorganisation, their worry now appears to be that reorganisation has brought about, and is bringing about, heavier and more costly administration. Ratepayers are very worried, and this has been recognised by the right hon. Gentleman and by my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher), about the heavy additional costs derived from the water and sewerage charges. They also feel that reorganisation itself, because of the large-scale operations involved, may lead to an increase in unnecessary expenditure.
    We have to accept that the rates would have gone up anyway, largely due to the fact that the cost of services has increased. In salaries alone, the cost of these services has risen considerably. Many essential improvements, rightly demanded by local residents, have been carried out. In my own area the Government have certainly made matters much worse by their arbitrary abolition of the variable domestic relief. The result of all this is that many people, especially those with comparatively limited means and those living on their own, are deeply and genuinely worried about their ability to pay.
    I endorse the remarks of my right hon. Friend. Obviously, people should pay

    1777
    their rates. I hope that I leave the right hon. Gentleman in no doubt at all, however, that the anxiety of individuals is absolutely genuine. They are very worried about their ability to pay this extra burden, greater by far than anything that had ever been contemplated. The increases are far outside anything any of them had ever planned or budgeted for.
    It is no answer, as has been suggested, for people to move away to other, smaller homes. They cannot do so. The cost of moving would be too great for many of them, and the physical disturbance and suffering in human terms would be much too high. There is no doubt that this is a major and exceptional crisis for the ratepayer and that the Government should take immediate remedial action, especially to ease the burden where the increase is greatest.
    In the longer term I was encouraged by what the right hon. Gentleman said about his inquiry. I hope that he might be able to find the opportunity still further to shorten the time scale of the investigations. A major change in our rating system is urgently needed.
    We must get away from the system—which has been shown to be unacceptable and indefensible—in which the cost of locally administered services is met by a tax on the occupation of land and buildings related to their notional rental value on the open market. That system can no longer be supported or defended by any hon. or right hon. Member, and it must be changed. Instead, we must turn to some form of local tax or charge to apply to all those who use and benefit from locally administered services, including earning non-householders. I hope that the review will come to an early conclusion that a change of this kind should happen.
    5.40 p.m.
    Mr. Richard Wainwright: The House is faced with a situation that is causing present hardship to a large number of ratepayers. This is not simply an emergency matter; it is the beginning of a chapter of hardship. All the inquiries that my hon. Friends and I have been able to make of councillor colleagues in various parts of the country from the far north to the south-west show that next year there will be a double dose
    1778
    of rate increases. The best estimate we have been able to reach is a further average increase of between 27 per cent. and 28 per cent. We must address ourselves to a continuing and worsening situation.
    The worsening situation is the result of the House having dodged for many years the essential problems of local government finance, failure to give the Redcliffe-Maud Commission a mandate to examine and report on local government finance, the even more astonishing failure of the Local Government Act 1972 to contain financial provisions and, perhaps most reprehensible of all, the failure in Departments, in Cabinet and in the House to give proper consideration to the structure and size of the rate support grant.
    I do not hold the present Minister to be responsible for the major faults in what was proudly proclaimed to be the restructured rate support system debated briefly in the House at the beginning of the year before the election. The forecasts which have since been so dismally confounded show how inadequately considered that structure was. Unfortunately, it was inadequately debated in the House on the eve of the election.
    The Chairman of the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, a new organisation which has been set up since the reorganisation of local government, stated in The Times on 19th June:
    "The inequity of the rate support grant formula had become an intolerable injustice long before this year's events."
    I am disappointed at the limited content of the review which the Minister has promised to make of the rate support grant for next year. I welcome the review of the two elements which he has singled out, but I hope that we may have in the winding-up speech some comments on the extent to which the Government are prepared to enlarge the rate support grant as a percentage of total local authority expenditure, pending the results of the investigation into local authority finance which has just been announced.
    In the view of the Liberal Party, next year at least there is every reason for central Government to come to the rescue of local authority expenditure with substantially increased support. We believe that the formula for the rate support grant should pay far more attention to the problems which climate inflicts upon

    1779
    many local authorities. There is practically no acknowledgment in the rate support grant that heating costs in less favoured parts of the country are, with the new fuel costs, double those in more favoured parts of the country.
    The effect of local government reorganisation was inadequately reflected in the rate support grant structure which the previous Government introduced, and many authorities which are not blessed with a natural centre for their new area are still struggling with enormous costs caused by scarcity of accommodation and other difficulties. Then there is the problem of dereliction which, in spite of clean-up campaigns and other special efforts, still haunts many local authorities. Again, that is not reflected seriously in the calculation of the rate support grant. There are also what are described in the rate support grant documents as "education units". It is primitive that the cost of educating a child with a fully supportive home, with all the advantages of living in a first-class residential area, should be equal for rate support grant calculations to the cost of educating a child who has great emotional difficulties or great language learning difficulties which create problems for the teacher and the school administration. Unless the child is positively subnormal, the present formula takes no account of the great variations in the cost of educating a child.
    When this matter was before the House on the eve of the rate demands being issued, the excuse was offered by the outgoing Government that many of the discrepancies would be cushioned by the domestic element. The incoming Government have been sharply rebuked, rightly, for the way in which they altered the distribution of the domestic element, but the whole idea that inequities in the rate support grant could be substantially cushioned by the domestic element, no matter how it was distributed, was misconceived.
    I cite the example of the local authority of Trafford in the Greater Manchester metropolitan county which, in spite of losing, by comparison with the same area under the old local government system, £8 million of rate support grant, was to receive 14½p in domestic element relief. In other words, it was to receive only 1½p
    1780
    more than the flat rate which the incoming Government imposed. There was never a chance that the domestic element could correct the gross anomalies of the rate support grant formula. With some reluctance, my hon. Friends and I are forced to the view—
    Mr. Churchill: The hon. Gentleman referred to the Trafford district of Manchester, which comprises my constituency. Perhaps he is not aware that on 13th February I received a letter from the Private Office of the then Secretary of State in these terms:
    "You may find it helpful to know that our provisional estimate of the domestic relief for Trafford is of the order of 16p on our estimates".
    That is to say, the best available estimates within the Department. The letter went on to say:
    "This should lead to an increase of the domestic rate burden of about 9 per cent."
    That was the firm intention of the previous Government, and I took that as a commitment which would be upheld.
    Mr. Wainwright: I have been informed of these matters by Trafford, otherwise I would not have ventured into that territory. The day following the dispatch of the letter to the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Churchill), the Trafford authority was told by the Department that the domestic rate relief in that area was to be 14½p, which was the figure I quoted.
    The whole idea that domestic rate relief was to cushion anomalies was misconceived from the start—in no case more so than in the Trafford District Council. My right hon. Friends and I are convinced, with some reluctance, that until the review body announced by the Minister today produces its findings the only alternative is for the Government to come in with massive new support for all those local authority functions the standards for which are nationally determined.
    We respect the case for the independence of local government, but it is inescapable in present circumstances that the national Exchequer has the responsibility for controlling demand and other aspects of the national economy. It is equally evident that the overwhelming proportion of citizens want a reasonably uniform degree of standards enforced throughout the country.

    1781
    With those two factors in mind, the obligation surely is on central Government, at any rate for the next few years, to shoulder a very much greater part of the burden of maintaining these services, even though they should continue to be locally managed with as much freedom as possible.
    Turning to the longer term, I must express some disappointment at the form of the review body which we understand the Minister to have in mind. In our view, two courses were open to him. After all the years of national discussion about local government finance, the Government could have taken responsibility for bringing forward their own proposals to this House. Personally I believe that that is the course which should have been adopted. The subject has been discussed and debated by all manner of authorities, academic, practical and political. The time has come for the Government to face this House with their proposals. Failing that, there should, in our view, have been a Royal Commission mainly on the ground of the very much greater authority which the findings of a Royal Commission would command. The history of local government finance is littered with the results of inquiries of all sorts over the years—all of which, without exception, have been swept aside on the ground that they did not command sufficient authority or that their findings were not attractive and convenient to government.
    The Secretary of State said that he had an open mind. Therefore, I hope that he will reconsider this matter and decide that on balance a Royal Commission would be more satisfactory. If a Royal Commission is appointed, we in the Liberal Party hope that its investigations will not be confined to this country but that the shining example set in some parts of the developed world in raising municipal finance will be carefully investigated. The rest of the world has a good deal to teach us on this subject.
    I thought Labour Members would have been sympathetic to the need for a Royal Commission. When the Local Government Bill was before the House on 12th November 1973 the then Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell), who is now a Minister in the present Government, proposed in eloquent terms
    1782
    the setting up of a Royal Commission on local government finance.
    Mr. Peter Temple-Morris Mr. Peter Temple-Morris (Leominster)rose—
    Mr. Wainwright: This must be the last time I give way.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that there will be as few interventions as possible because they cut into the time of other hon. Members who wish to take part in this debate.
    Mr. Temple-Morris: Then, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall refrain from making my intervention.
    Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
    Mr. Wainwright: I am about to conclude my remarks.
    We were disappointed to hear the Secretary of State refer in his speech to consultations solely with the local authority associations. Those cannot be ruled out, and it is admirable that local authorities of various grades combine in associations. We wish that they had been persuaded to form one association to speak with a united voice, but they have decided to have a variety of associations for different types of local authority. A great deal of damage has been done in the past because of the lazy course of relying on consultations with a handful of local authority associations rather than on painstaking consultations with the local authorities themselves. One of the main advantages of local authority reorganisation is that the Government now face a far smaller number of local authorities than we have ever had before. It should not now be beyond the Government's power to consult specific local authorities about their own problems rather than relying as exclusively as Governments have done in the past on local authority associations. I believe that the Minister is sympathetic to this point of view, but I hope that it will be confirmed in the Government reply to the debate.
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Gordon Oakes)The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Gordon Oakes) rose—
    Mr. Wainwright: I must point out to the Government that this is not a vote of censure. If tonight we were voting on a matter of censure, our inclination

    1783
    would be to pass censure on the outgoing Government now in Opposition. In fact, as the House well knows, the motion consists of a series of requests on behalf of extremely hard-pressed citizens. Those requests can be put only to the Government of the day who have the power to deal with them. In view of the unsatisfactory response to those requests given by the Secretary of State this afternoon, we intend to divide against the Government.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Before I call the next speaker I must appeal to hon. Members to respond to Mr. Speaker's suggestion for short speeches.
    5.58 p.m.
    Mr. Jack Ashley: Nearly alt of us have a constituency interest as well as a general interest in this subject. Therefore, I shall obey Mr. Speaker's request to be very brief indeed, because I realise that many hon. Members want to take part in the debate. It is a subject on which I should like to see a non-party-political approach. But that is absolutely impossibel by virtue of the highly partisan way in which the Conservative Party has approached the subject of rating.
    The Conservatives have conducted a superficially brilliant propaganda exercise. I have been appalled at the allegation made against this "wicked" Government. I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) has left the debate, because I want to make some comments about her speech. The Government have been accused of abandoning the justice of their rating policy; they have been accused of abandoning equity. When that allegation was made, I thought it meant that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment was abandoning his trade union, but I know that he belongs not to Equity but to the General and Municipal Workers' Union, to which I too belong.
    My right hon. Friend was also accused of callous indifference to the ratepayer. Therefore, in the light of all these allegations, I dashed out to check the facts. It is always advisable to check the facts before one makes allegations. It is a pity that the Conservatives did not do so. The fact is that the rate support
    1784
    grant brought forward by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is exactly the same as the rate support grant introduced by the Conservative Government. Why all this propaganda? Why this sense of outrage?
    Let us come to the question of the distribution of the grant, but let us not create the illusion that the amount was reduced by this Government. The money involved was exactly the same. What proportion was redistributed? A miserable 7 per cent. of the total rate support grant was redistributed, yet the illusion was created that the whole system was being turned upside-down by the Government. I believe that the Opposition's propaganda campaign is now failing because the country recognises that the Government have been saddled with the previous administration's legacy.
    I regret that rating has become such a highly partisan matter. It is now impossible to discuss rating because of the highly emotive campaign that is being conducted throughout the country. Redistribution of the domestic element has adversely affected Stoke-on-Trent and North Staffordshire. I was one of the first to complain. In Stoke-on-Trent the 13p flat rate was a poor substitute for what it was receiving. Stoke-on-Trent was receiving 19p and North Staffordshire as a whole was receiving between 17p and 19p. I complained to the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. Oakes). He listened to the representations from Stoke-on-Trent with courtesy and promised to do what he could on the specific issue and on the general issue.
    Not only redistribution but inflation has affected Stoke-on-Trent, North Staffordshire and the rest of the country. Inflation is an appalling problem and it is ridiculous to blame this administration for inflation after it has been in office for only a couple of months. The previous administration advised local authorities to budget for 9 per cent. inflation. Some local authorities, including those in North Staffordshire, took that advice and budgeted for 9 per cent. They now find themselves totally discomfited. They accepted the previous administration's calculations, which were misleading, and they were sold short by the Conservative rate support grant. They now find themselves blamed for their rating policy.

    1785
    The third problem, which has not been adequately dealt with in the House, is the terrible problem of threshold agreements. North Staffordshire is gravely affected by such agreements. I have received a telegram from Mr. Jim Westwood, the chairman of the Stoke-on-Trent council. The telegram reads:
    "Assurance of increase in rate support grant for 1974–75 urgent. Staffs County Council now overspent by £4 million. Threshold agreement to date will cost £2,400,000. Inflation 9 per cent. in January now 16 per cent. will cost £1,300,00. Further increases in costs will accrue. Before Staffs County Council decide whether to issue a supplement precept which it wishes to avoid must know decision on grant by end of July. All local authorities in difficulty."
    My right hon. and hon. Friends must take account of the fact that threshold agreements are hitting local authorities very hard. It is a grave situation, and we must have Government action both in the short term and in the long term.
    If my right hon. and hon. Friends say that they cannot take short-term action, I would refer them to the proposal put forward by my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction when in Opposition, on 12th February 1973. He said:
    "What can be done? The rate support grant is not just a support grant which must be treated once every year. It does not mean that, once it has been discussed and passed, no further action is open to the Government. Powers are available to the Government under Sections 1 and 2 of the Local Government Act 1966. Under Section 3, if the Government find that
    'an unforeseen increase has taken place in the level of prices, costs and remunerations'
    the Minister may by order approved by the resolution of this House increase the amount of the grant and its elements—the needs element, the resources clement and the domestic element.
    Therefore, it does not require any special legislation or any great intellectual exercise."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th February 1973; Vol. 850, c. 1041.]
    My hon. Friend was right. I believe that this administration should now take urgent action to compensate those local authorities which are being penalised by the redistribution of the domestic element. I speak for my own authority but I know that I speak for many others when I say that we need urgent Government action. We also need urgent action to help combat the effects of inflation and threshold agreements. I hope that my
    1786
    right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will discuss the situation urgently with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and that he will act accordingly.
    The present rating system is outmoded and outrageous in that it is regressive and unfair. For example, it is preposterous that four people living in one household who are all wage earners and four people living in a neighbouring household only one of whom is a wage earner should pay the same rates. That is a well-known example, but it is wrong that the system should be allowed to continue. The present system disregards the basic Socialist principle that the broadest backs should bear the heaviest burdens. I believe that we must raise revenue in accordance with the ability to pay. We should have income-related rates.
    Why have successive Governments played pat-a-ball with the rates? I believe that they have done so because they have been afraid of losing their influence. At the same time, local authorities have been afraid of losing their autonomy. We have the spectacle of central Government and local government facing and glaring at each other like Muhammad Ali and Joe Frazier at the weigh-in. They are not fighting but they are eyeing each other warily because each is jealous of the other's influence and autonomy. I believe that reform is urgent.
    I should like to see education taken out of local authority finance. I should like to see a local income tax based on the ability to pay. That would not need bureaucracy but it would include the 9 million non-ratepayers who are now receiving the benefits of the rating system but are not paying. They would be added to the 16 million ratepayers. I believe that the step announced by my right hon. Friend of initiating an inquiry is of value, and I warmly welcome it. It is the first major step forward in reassessing the rating system that we have seen for a long time.
    But I make this criticism. By asking it to report in 1975, I do not think that the Secretary of State is showing the sense of urgency required. I believe that it should be asked to report within six months. All the facts are known. They are known ad infinitum and ad nauseam. Every fact about the rating

    1787
    system has been exposed. Therefore, I suggest to my right hon. Friend that he should ask the members of his inquiry team to report within six months.
    Our local authorities do a very valuable job but we must give them proper finance with which to do the job.
    6.10 p.m.
    Mr. Mark Carlisle: I am very glad to be called immediately after the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) and to add what weight I can to his plea to the Government for some urgent help to the hard-pressed areas during the current year.
    In common with many hon. Members on both sides of the House, I have had more letters on the subject of rates than on any other since becoming a Member of this House in 1964. I have received letters from individuals, from local authorities, and from parish councils. I have received petitions from groups of people living in my constituency. They all make the same point. They are from people who are concerned, worried and alarmed that, at a time when they are asked to restrain their own incomes to increases of between 7 and 9 per cent., they face increases in one year, in the majority of cases, well in excess of 70 per cent. in their rates, and in many cases of 80, 90 or 100 per cent.
    To an extent, we can forget the past when we consider the position that these people face. Increases of that kind to be imposed in one year are both intolerable and unacceptable. What is more, they are causing considerable personal hardship to many people in many constituencies. I believe that I speak for all the other Cheshire Members of Parliament, since Cheshire is one of the counties worst hit by the increases, when I say that we have all received this type of letter from our constituents.
    In answer to a Parliamentary Question which I put to the Minister recently, I was told by the right hon. Gentleman—and he repeated it today—that the average increase throughout the country for the domestic ratepayer was 30 per cent. I was told by the Under-Secretary of State, who is a neighbour of mine and who knows the position, that the increase for domestic ratepayers in Cheshire was between 41 and 65 per cent. If that was
    1788
    true, it would be bad enough, but it is not true. The average increases to be borne by my constituents are well in excess of the figures which his answer gives. I cannot understand how the hon. Gentleman can give an answer to me in May of this year saying that domestic rate increases in Cheshire vary between 41 and 65 per cent. when as long ago as 11th April of last year I received a letter from the clerk of the county council showing that in more than 50 per cent. of my constituency the increase in domestic rates was well in excess of 70 per cent. The Under-Secretary knows the area. I can assure him that all those parts of my constituency which go into the Warrington district and the Vale Royal district have increases in excess of 70 per cent.
    Facing that prospect, Cheshire Members of Parliament decided to see the clerk to the county council. Having done so, I believe that, despite the increase in the rate, the county council has done what it can to curb its expenditure. However, when more than 50 per cent. of a county rate today is caused purely by education, it is very difficult to make meaningful cuts in the rate.
    Although inflation is one cause, we must realise that a major cause of the increase in the county rate is the changes which have been made in the rate support grant. It was in view of that that I wrote to the Secretary of State asking him whether Cheshire Members of Parliament could see him as a deputation and put to him the hardship that our constituents faced as a result of increases of this nature. I was appalled to receive a letter from the Secretary of State refusing even to see us. Until I received that letter, I had not believed that any Minister would refuse to see a deputation of Members of Parliament about a matter which so clearly affected their constituents.
    Mr. R. J. Maxwell-Hyslop: The same happened to me.
    Mr. Carlisle: The Secretary of State said today that he would still listen to pleas about what should be done. That makes it even more extraordinary that he should have been unwilling to see us so that we might make these pleas to him. It throws into question how sincere he is in saying that he is willing to listen to us.

    1789
    In the course of this debate, I hope that we shall hear from the Government what is the precedent for a Minister of the Crown to refuse to see a deputation of Members of Parliament on a matter concerning their constituents, especially when the deputation of which I speak was to be led by my right hon. Friend the Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies), an ex-Cabinet Minister, as I made clear in my letter.
    I had the honour to be a member of the previous administration for three and a half years in the Home Office. I can say with complete honesty that during that time I never once refused to see any Member who wrote asking to see me. What is more, I do not believe that the Home Secretary of the day ever refused to see any deputation of Members asking to see him. I should like to know whether the principle has been changed. I have always understood that hon. Members had freedom of access to Ministers on matters concerning their constituents.
    I do not want to over-weigh the point, but it is not enough to say that the Secretary of State has seen a lot of other deputations. I have been to an all-party meeting of ratepayers in my constituency. I have listened to the pressure coming from that hall asking Members of Parliament to support them in their refusal to pay their rates. I have made it clear that I could never give my support to any such suggestion, and I have asked them to rely on the democratic processes of this House and to let us as their representatives put their case to the Minister.
    It is difficult to know how to carry out that fundamental task as a Member of Parliament if a request to see a Minister on a matter of this gravity concerning so many constituents is met by a blank refusal. In my view, it is arrogant and scandalous that the Secretary of State should adopt this attitude.
    I realise that inflation is one of the causes of the increase in the rates, and I realise that the proposals of the previous Government in changing the rate support grant were in themselves equally adverse to Cheshire. But when it was realised what effect the increase would mean in one year for domestic ratepayers in the area the previous administration proposed to alleviate it with a differential domestic rate relief. The abolition of that by the present Government has resulted, in my constituency, in a reduction of the relief to
    1790
    domestic ratepayers from 19p to 13p in the pound. That decision alone is costing every domestic ratepayer in my constituency about 5p in the pound more.
    I believe that the reasons for it were purely political. They were aimed at reducing the rates in municipal areas at the expense of rates in other areas. The Secretary of State believed that the Labour Party would gain more success and support from the municipal areas at the expense of areas from which his party does not traditionally get its support. It shows no interest in the effect on local ratepayers. Removing the differential shows that he has ignored the relationship that should exist between rates and the services provided. In many rural areas people receive fewer services for their rates than are received by people living in the urban areas. There was perfect justification for alleviating the burden on domestic ratepayers for that reason.
    I echo what the hon. Gentleman the Member for Stoke on Trent, South said. In the short term there must be some supplementary relief given to those areas in the country where the increases are in excess of 70 per cent. At the least I would ask the Government—the right hon. Gentleman said he would listen—to make an order so that the percentage increase can be phased over a period of years even if in the end that percentage rate is reached. It is intolerable to expect those people to undertake, accept and absorb that degree of increase in 12 months.
    Regarding the long term, I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's statement concerning the review. It will be very difficult to find any attractive alternative to the rating system. All the other alternatives are unattractive. A greater proportion of education expense should be removed from the rates. Something should be done about wage earners who do not now pay rates. That may be in the long term.
    Something must be done now. It is no good the right hon. Gentleman saying he will listen; he must act. It is essential that he does so. He has shown, in his refusal to meet many of us, an unwillingness to recognise the serious human problems being created for people facing increases of that kind.
    If we do not hear from the right hon. Gentleman at the end of this debate a promise of definite action I hope we shall defeat the Government on this matter.

    ROYAL ASSENT
    Mr. Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

    1. Lord High Commissioner (Church of Scotland) Act 1974

    2. Dumping at Sea Act 1974

    3. Ministers of the Crown Act 1974

    4. Statute Law (Repeals) Act 1974

    RATES
    Question again proposed, that the amendment be made.
    6.23 p.m.
    Sir Geoffrey de Freitas: Like the hon. and learned Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle), I have received a large number of letters from constituents. Most of them on this topic have gone right to the root of the matter in criticising the rating system. I am particularly pleased at what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said this afternoon.
    I was elected to a local authority nearly 35 years ago. At that time I thought the rating system was ridiculous. Nothing has passed since then to revise my opinion. In many ways it is far worse.
    The hon. and learned Member for Runcorn spoke for a constituency and a particular county. I speak as a Northamptonshire Member. Northamptonshire has a formidable problem. Over the last five years we have had the fastest growth of any county in Britain. My friends from West Sussex, Bedfordshire and Berkshire complain that their counties have experienced a rapid growth rate too. But not one of them has had an increase of even as much as 10 per cent. in population over the last five years, whereas in Northamptonshire that growth rate has been 12 per cent.
    If we look at the increase in the number of children it is obvious why the county's expenses are soaring. The number of children increases by 5 per cent. each year. That may not sound much, but the national average is only 1½ per cent. We have experienced a 5 per
    1792
    cent. increase in the birth rate as opposed to 1½ per cent. nationally.
    It is not as if we have brought this on ourselves. The people in Northamptonshire are not exceptionally fertile. The increase is due to the people who come from London and Birmingham. The increase in the population is directly due to people coming from those places because both Labour and Conservative Governments' policies over the years have been that we should receive tens of thousands of people from those cities.
    Since both Governments have done us down, the five Northamptonshire Members of Parliament—two from the Government side and three from the Opposition—have preserved a united front. I see that one of my constituents, the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry), is present.
    On 21st May we visited No. 10 Downing Street bearing a letter signed by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mrs. Colquhoun), by me and the hon. Members for Daventry (Mr. Jones). Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) and Northampton, South (Mr. Morris), by the leader of the county council, by the leader of the opposition on the county council and by the chief executive officer. This was a united all-party protest. The last paragraph of our letter read:
    "We urge Her Majesty's Government to recognise the unique position of Northamptonshire as the fastest growing county in this country and to provide additional financial relief."
    On the same day during an Adjournment debate my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for the Environment who is on the Government Front Bench, in replying to a speech by the hon. Member for Daventry, made several points. I shall refer to two of them. He accepted that Northamptonshire is the fastest growing county in Britain. Indeed, he agreed that in Western Europe it has the fastest growing population of any local authority. Secondly, he agreed that we should look at the rating problems from an all-party point of view because it is a problem which has been caused by both parties.
    On 12th June the Prime Minister wrote to me. The first paragraph of his letter reads:
    "On 21 May you led a deputation from Northamptonshire to 10 Downing Street to

    1793
    hand in a petition and a letter setting out the case for additional financial support to the county to meet the problems associated with its rapid growth of population."
    The last sentence reads:
    "your constituents"—
    that is, all the Northamptonshire constituents—

    "may be assured that the Government knows about"—
    the wording is important—
    "the particular problems the county and the districts have to face in coping with the rapid growth of population."
    The people of Northamptonshire have suffered from both Governments. They expect particular consideration in this particular problem. They are entitled to it.
    6.28 p.m.
    Mr. Peter Fry: It is very rare that one can rise to speak after hearing one's Member of Parliament put one's own case. As a ratepayer living in the constituency of the right hon. Member for Kettering (Sir G. de Freitas), I find that unusual. I endorse what he said, because we in Northamptonshire constitute an extra special case.
    Unlike the people in many counties, we have discovered that our rates have risen not only because of inflation, not simply because of the cut in domestic rate relief, but because of the enormous expansion programme that has been imposed on us. My constituency has experienced rate increases of not less than 50 per cent. and of up to 100 per cent.
    It would be wrong to use this debate to make party political capital. The country and the ratepayers in my constituency do not want me to make a series of party political points.
    When the Under-Secretary graciously received the three Opposition Members from Northamptonshire, together with the protest representatives, he said that he would take up the question of the four expanding towns and the extra help we would require. I am disappointed that he has not felt himself able to persuade the Secretary of State that extra help should be offered this year. I hope that the representations made this afternoon will mean that he thinks again on this point as to why our ratepayers are more aggrieved than those in other parts of the country. It is because the county
    1794
    treasurer has already announced that next year we are likely to face a further increase of 60 per cent. in our rate burden, without allowing for inflation.
    It would not be so bad if the people at present living in the county were to benefit. Someone living in one of the rural areas of my constituency, who will probably have a bucket lavatory and will be waiting for a bypass to be built goodness knows when, is paying to house the people from outside the area and supply the new schools, roads and other local government services. That is why there is the gravest discontent. What good is it to a shopkeeper in Rushden High Street to be told that Northampton will be developed and that more trade will go there to the benefit of the whole county?
    Therefore, the existing population are emphatically saying to the Government that unless there is more Government aid the expansion should stop. In the short term, if there is no help, I believe that there will be a cry from all the political parties and from the district and county councils to cut back existing expansion programmes. This can be done because the premise of the South-East Study is now false. London's declining population means that more people could be absorbed in the empty dockland areas, people who will be needed anyway if London Transport is not to collapse through lack of staff.
    If I am told that one reason why this cannot be done is that the reduction in population is not matched by a fall in the number of households, it is about time the Government considered why the latter is not falling. My personal observation—I make no moral judgment here—leads me to conclude that the permissive society has aggravated our problems. A growing number of broken families means that husbands and wives need separate homes. Although I do not object to early marriages, young people who marry and have children at an earlier and earlier age show some irresponsibility which they turn to local government to put right.
    Although I have said that we can take short-term action by cutting expansion, I should not restrict myself entirely to parochial affairs. There are three myths associated with the rates and local government. The first, which one almost always hears at rates protest meetings or when a district official or councillor makes a

    1795
    speech, is that we cannot cut services. Why not? For years the education and health services have been administered centrally. Would anyone put his hand on his heart and say that services in those two areas have not been reduced recently, in some cases drastically? The electorate has a perfect right to demand cuts in services rather than enormous rate increases. No council, no official, has any right to say that services are sacrosanct no matter what they cost. That is the way to ruination and it is one reason why the country is in its present dire economic state.
    The second myth is that the sates are the easiest way of collecting local government finance. That is now an illusion. The strength of feeling nationally is such that the unfairness that now exists by far exceeds any merits which that argument might once have had. The public demand action. It is no good taking refuge in claims that the previous Government did nothing. The Labour Party are now the Government and it is their job to do something.
    The third myth is that if too much money is paid from the centre, there will be little local independence. The real danger is the reverse. If 80 or 90 per cent. of the money spent by local government were allocated from the centre and local councils were told to settle their own priorities according to local needs within that budget, the problem would be not how to give them independence but what to do when they overspent or spent too quickly and came back for more, if they were denied the opportunity to raise money themselves.
    We must therefore dispose of those myths before we investigate this knotty question. I have some suggestions for meeting the problem. It is not profitable to talk about removing this or that charge from one ratepayer. Rates are taxes, and sooner or later they have to be paid. If we were to say that someone without mains drainage should not pay for sewerage, what would we say to the childless couple about the education part of their rates? In the long run we should end up in a blind alley if we were not careful.
    My main suggestion is that the bulk of local government finance should be provided from the centre. There is no one
    1796
    simple answer, but perhaps a mixture of direct and indirect taxation would be best. It would be wrong to transfer most of the burden simply to direct taxation. Then many small firms that are being crippled by the rates burden would pay the same amount in another way. We have to seek alternatives which would not cripple the small business.
    I should like to commend the way in which continental countries finance their road building programmes. A system of road bonds guaranteed by the Government means that money is raised on the open market and the expense is taken off local authorities or the State. If it is argued that that is merely taking up resources that would otherwise be employed, I would answer that much of that money has gone into property or income bonds which do nothing to further the country's economic well-being. I commend my idea to the Government.
    Local authorities must have some means of raising money themselves. That is why I welcomed the Local Revenue Bill introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page). Lotteries alone, however, are not the answer. After much thought on the subject I would defend a proportion—perhaps as low as 10 per cent.—of local finance being raised still by the existing system. I do so for two reasons. First, if local authorities can raise only 10 per cent. of their own income any large increase that they themselves have caused will be immediately obvious. A council which is profligate will soon be seen to be exceeding what others think it should spend. At the moment, if it is profligate that fact is lost in the mass of the rates. If there were still a small local element the electors could see whether councillors were doing a good job financially.
    Second, in an age when the planners so largely decide our fate—decide to put a motorway within 400 yards of our house, for example, or to allow a factory to be built at the bottom of our garden—the only way that the ordinary citizen can gain redress is to have his rates reduced by appealing against the valuation. If we do away with the rates altogether, how will we recompense somebody whose property has genuinely lost value due to circumstances beyond his control? That is why, despite the major fundamental reform which must take

    1797
    place, some local money-raising must continue. Perhaps it should be based on the rates system.
    I shall vote for the motion and against the amendment because I believe that the Government have failed. They have failed to introduce any similar measure to that of the former Chancellor which gave help to areas with extra large increases. We accept that help for any increase over 10 per cent. is perhaps too much to ask, but why not help those paying more than the national average of 30 per cent.? Why have not the Government acceded to that simple request? I shall go into the Lobby because the Government have neglected the areas with particular problems, because they have done nothing.
    If the present Government and any future Government do not radically reform the rates, they will discover to their horror that they have done great harm to the cause of democracy in Britain.
    6.40 p.m.
    Mr. James Lamond: Like my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State I welcome the remarkable conversion of the Opposition as illustrated in the motion, in which they stress the need for a fundamental reform of the rating system. Those of us who served on the Committee stage of the Bill which dealt with local government reform will remember how often the point was made to the then Government Minister that reform of local government finance was much more necessary and urgent than reorganisation of local government. Unfortunately that plea fell on deaf ears.
    Why, therefore, has there been this conversion so soon after the Tory Party lost office? It is obvious from speeches in the debate that pressure put upon Opposition Members by their constituents has forced them to abandon the stubborn stance they have taken over the years and to realise at long last that radical reform is necessary.
    Unlike some hon. Members who have spoken, I cannot say that I have had a lot of letters from my constituents about this matter, because my constituency was one of those which benefited from the change made by the Labour Government. I make no bones about that. But I also make the point that I am convinced of the need for a radical change, without
    1798
    having to have the pressure of my constituents applied upon me. I have believed in this need for many years. During the whole of the time that I served on a local authority, including my years as chairman of its finance committee, I considered that the present system was unfair and must be changed. There has been resistance to this proposal for a long time.
    We have heard today one of the defences of the present system—almost the only defence—that it is simple to operate and that it is easy to collect the rates. But the mounting cost of local government has forced us all to try to ensure that a radical change must be made. We need not take a blind jump into a new system which is completely untried. This matter has attracted the attention of many local authority bodies, including the International Union of Local Authorities, for many years, and on a number of occasions reports have been prepared comparing different rating methods used throughout the world.
    I attended a conference in Vienna in 1969. I admit that that now seems to be a little out of date, but at that conference we were presented with an extensive report of the rating methods used in no fewer than 33 countries. Those methods varied widely, as one would expect. The method used in this country was not very popular. Only three other countries used our system in the main—South Africa, Canada and to a great extent the United States.
    The difficulty of our system is that because it is based on the taxation of owners or occupiers of property it is not at all buoyant. It does not expand with a buoyant economy. That is the difficulty from which all the complaints about it stem.
    At the conference to which I have referred, the system which was most popular, and which was demonstrated to be the most efficient was that operated in Sweden and Finland. That was a local income tax system which gave the local authority the greatest flexibility, allowing it to select the tax, within certain limits, which it wished to apply. There were limits to the amount which could be applied to any individual's income tax, and those limits were recognised as necessary by all the local authority representatives who took part in the conference. It

    1799
    was recognised that while local authorities would wish to be able to fix their own rate of tax and the amount to be collected, they must operate within a total national taxation policy of the central government and that restrictions must therefore be imposed. There are rating methods much superior to that used in this country.
    My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State today indicated that he is to instigate an inquiry and that he will try to do this as quickly as possible. He said that he would not have a Royal Commission because of the time it would take before it reported. I suggest that members of the inquiry should be given details of rating methods used throughout the world to enable them to make comparisons and to look at systems which are not untried but which have been used for many years. The members of the inquiry would be able to compare the efficiency or otherwise of other systems as against our own.
    We should recognise that local government plays an important part in the affairs of our constituents and that it should be given the utmost freedom to carry out the voters' wish. In giving local government freedom, we must relinquish some of the control we have over it.
    I am sure that everyone interested in focal government will give a warm welcome to my right hon. Friend's announcement of an inquiry. That decision is many years late—perhaps both sides of the House should take blame for that—but it is nevertheless a welcome move.
    6.48 p.m.
    Mr. Percy Grieve: I am deeply disappointed that the Secretary of State has not today promised us a measure of interim relief immediately for those adversely affected by the actions taken by the Government this year. My disappointment arises because my constituency is one of the worst affected, and the way that Solihull has been treated by the Secretary of State lends a great deal of substance to the charge which the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) referred to when he said that the Government were being accused of injustice and callous indifference.
    In Solihull rates have gone up by 92 per cent., 36 per cent. of which was due to the direct arbitrary action of the Gov
    1800
    ernment in withdrawing £1,500,000 from Solihull's rate support grant. The arbitrary nature of the decision can be seen in a West Midlands context when we compare what happened to Solihull, a metropolitan district in the West Midlands metropolitan county, with what has happened in other metropolitan districts in the area. Only two, Birmingham and Walsall, have benefited from redistribution of the rate support grant. They have benefited to the extent of £4,376,000. The other five areas within the metropolitan county have lost £3,450,000, of which Solihull has lost £1,500,000.
    It is absolutely crazy that parts of Birmingham—such as Sutton Coldfield, which is in a similar situation to Solihull and has a similar kind of residential district and similar problems of development—should have benefited by the Government's arbitrary measures while Solihull should have been disadvantaged in the way it has.
    I said that Sutton Coldfield has similar problems to Solihull, but that was an exaggeration and indeed perhaps a misstatement in favour of Sutton Coldfield and other parts of Birmingham, because Solihull is a rapidly developing area with considerable problems of its own in trying to deal with a growing population. In this context, if I may take the words from the right hon. Member for Kettering (Sir G. de Freitas), I believe that the people of Solihull are themselves responsible for the growth of their population. The school figures for 1972–73 were 39,145, for this year they are 41,494 and for next year it is expected that there will be another 5,600 pupils.
    In addition, the newly created enlarged district of Solihull has an enormous financial burden resulting from a large overspill population at Chelmsley Wood of people from Birmingham desperately needing schools, social services, libraries and all the other things with which local government should and ought to provide them.
    I speak passionately in the cause of Solihull, but everyone here has problems of a like kind. In the circumstances, it is extraordinary that there should have been no recognition by the Government of the damage they have done by the redistribution of the rate support grant

    1801
    this year and by their refusal to give a measure of interim relief from it. There was a time when it was possible to obtain transitional grants in matters of this kind. No transitional grant is offered this year. Why not? It surely is not beyond the bounds or means of the Department to tide over local authorities in this position with transitional grants.
    I echo the words of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) in saying that the Secretary of State has been singularly reluctant to receive a deputation from Solihull to put to him its problems and the way in which it has suffered. Not surprisingly, the people of my constituency are angry and bitter at the way they have been treated. Like many of my hon. Friends, I have heard threats to withhold rates, and I have stood out against such threats. But the Government have only themselves to thank for such threats when they supported the illegal activities of the councillors at Clay Cross and the Leader of the House himself came out in their support.
    These matters have been raised not by me but my constituents with me in threatening action of this kind. I hope very much that the inquiry which we are promised into the rating system will be speedy and urgent. I hope that we shall have interim relief before long.
    6.53 p.m.
    Mr. Kenneth Marks: The interesting thing about the debate so far is that while Tory Members have talked about their constituency problems not one has mentioned the rates actually paid in their constituencies. Part of my constituency had a rise of only 1p in the rates this year, and the rates are now 58·8p in the pound. The greater part of the constituency paid 35p last year and this year it will pay 52·3p, a considerable increase of 17·3p.
    I served on the Standing Committee which dealt with the Local Government Act 1973 and I have attended all the rate support grant debates since I first came to the House. I can only describe the Conservative position as one of ineptitude and delay in government and hypocrisy in opposition. It is one of ineptitude and delay because the Act under which the new grants were to be made was pro
    1802
    duced a year later than it should have been. The Green Paper was produced in 1971. In the Gracious Speech of November 1972 we were promised a Bill. It did not appear until November 1973, and then we were told that it would have to be rushed through, because if we did not get on with it the local authorities would not know what their grants would be, and so on.
    The Conservative Government mixed up all kinds of things in that measure, including an ombudsman for local government. It was described by the Minister responsible as five Bills in one. We co-operated in getting it through the House even though we put down important amendments designed to provide an alternative to the system and to assist the ratepayers. Before the Bill became an Act the Conservative Government informed the local authorities of the proposed rate support grant.
    At the end of December 1973 the right hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Barber) brought in new cuts and there had to be a new rate support grant. On 22nd January 1974 the Conservative Government announced a new figure, and the present Government have kept to it. The total of the grant which the councils receive themselves as opposed to individual ratepayers on the individual domestic rate is exactly what the Conservative Government proposed.
    Only one change was made by the new Labour Government. In the determination of the 7 per cent. applying to domestic rate relief, the Government thought it unfair to subsidise some domestic ratepayers—some of them well off, some even with two homes—as much as six or seven times as the city dweller. Rightly, therefore, the Government gave the citizens of Liverpool, Manchester, Birmingham and elsewhere a 13p domestic rate relief. That was social justice. But, of course, it meant some increases elsewhere. Yet not one Tory Member has said exactly how much. All Opposition Members who have spoken have merely quoted percentages.
    Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: The hon. Gentleman says that none of us has stated how much. In my constituency we are having to pay 15½p in the pound more, entirely as a result of the change made by the Government and for no other reason.
    Mr. Marks: The hon. Gentleman had not yet spoken when I made that point, and he still has not given the figures for the rates paid last year and those which will be paid this year. I have accused the Opposition of hypocrisy. It emerges very early in the motion in the call for a fundamental reform of the system, for interim relief this year and for water and sewerage to rank for rate rebate. The Opposition could have done every one of those things before 28th February. But they did not. Instead, Conservative Members went into the Lobbies time and time again in support of their Government probably not even knowing what they were voting about. They opposed our amendments to the Local Government Bill and to the Water Bill.
    On 25th March last the rate support grant was put up for approval or rejection by the House. The present Leader of the Opposition voted against it. So did the Liberals—perhaps all of them. But 70 Conservative Members were missing. Where were they? Why did they not oppose the grant, as their leader did? This is hypocrisy. It is "phoney" war.
    There was dishonesty too during the General Election. On 20th February the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon), then Secretary of State for the Environment, issued a Press release. In it he said that there would be no rise in rates of over 9 per cent. That statement was completely untrue. It was not even what he had earlier said in the House.
    I want now to deal with the problems of Greater Manchester. Most of my constituency is in the new metropolitan borough of Tameside, which has particular problems because it is a new borough with no former county borough basis; it is like Trafford and Knowsley in the Merseyside area. In the part of the borough in which I live, the rates have gone up from 35p to 52·3p. The prospective Conservative parliamentary candidate has sent telegrams to the local newspapers from London, where he lives, saying that this is because of the wastefulness and extravagance of the Labour-controlled council.
    On the other side of Manchester there is the metropolitan district of Trafford, and there the rate has gone up from 35·7p to 55p, an even bigger increase. Whose fault is it there? According to
    1804
    the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Churchill), it is all the fault of the Labour Government. They cannot both be right. The fact is that they are both wrong. I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, though I assure him I have not yet finished with him. Without that level of rate, neither Trafford nor Tame-side council could have done the job which the Conservative Government placed on them. The hon. Member for Stretford spoke in the House on 25th March. Let me deal with his speech and the so-called information he has given to his constituents and the Press. Either he has an immense lack of knowledge about the rating system or he has an intention to mislead the House.
    I suggest that the very numerous claims made by the hon. Member of cuts that would be forced on the Trafford council because of the Labour Government's decision were entirely misleading. He read from a statement by the chief executive officer but he did not tell us the date of that statement, which complained that
    "There would be redundancies of staff; including professional staff; replacement and maintenance provision would have to be reduced to levels which would result in forced deterioration of property … there would be no grants to voluntary bodies. One of the two teaching centres would have to be closed … In the public health service, reductions would involve significant staff vacancies, including five public health inspectors …—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th March 1974; Vol. 871. c. 127.]
    All those were cuts that were insisted upon by the hon. Gentleman's colleague in the Trafford borough, his right hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Barber). These were the cuts he was proposing on 17th December, cuts which the hon. Member for Stretford went into the Division Lobby to support.
    Mr. Churchill: The hon. Gentleman has not stated the facts as they were. As he will see if he reads the relevant part of the OFFICIAL REPORT, the letter from the chief executive of Trafford district from which I quoted at the time of the last rates debate was based on cuts that would have been required had the council sought to remain within the 9 per cent. increase within which the previous Government had indicated in their letter to me it was their firm intention to remain. This is why the hon. Gentleman is misleading the House. As

    1805
    regards his earlier point, he suggests that there was a similarity between the Tameside situation and the Trafford situation. This is not so. In the case of the Conservative-controlled Trafford authority the expenditure from local government reorganisation resulted in a saving of £1½ million.
    Mr. Marks: The hon. Gentleman is saying that those cuts should have been restored. He voted for them. He is saying that it was quite impossible for the Trafford borough to carry out its task with a rates increase of only 9 per cent., given the grants which the Conservative Government had sanctioned and which we maintained. So far as Trafford was concerned the domestic rate relief was different by only 1½p. I asked the right hon. Lady the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) if there would have been any extra money coming from the Conservative Government had that party won the election. The answer is there would not be any extra money, because the Conservative Government were, perhaps in their view rightly, insisting on cuts in public expenditure and not more expenditure. But I suggest that those cuts were published in a Press release by the Department of the Environment on 4th February 1974.
    The hon. Gentleman has said the Conservative Government were determined to ensure that rate increases for householders in Trafford were limited to 9 per cent. compared with last year. But he has not brought any evidence, and neither has the right hon. Lady, that that would have been the case. Whatever my right hon. Friend might have done, it would have been quite impossible for Trafford, Tameside or a vast number of authorities to have restrained the growth in rates to 9 per cent. In any case it would have been in the neighbourhood of 50 per cent. for both Trafford and Tameside.
    I want to thank my right hon. Friend for accepting the proposal that there should be an immediate review. I believe that for next year he should examine whether water should not only be separated from local government expenditure but should be precepted directly to the Government from the water authorities. I also welcome his statement that local authorities with particular problems resulting from local government reorganisation—Trafford and Tameside
    1806
    are similar here—will have special recognition. I hope, however, that the Inland Revenue will not altogether be taken out of the reckoning when this is being examined and that someone from the Inland Revenue will serve on the inquiry, because in the end we want to see a change from an unfair system of rates to a fairer system of taxation on income.
    The figures are remarkable. If we did away altogether with domestic rating and transferred it to income tax, the increase in the tax rate would be only from 33 to 37½ per cent., so that anyone now paying £10 tax a week would pay only £70 a year more and not a domestic rate. This is the main thing we should examine.
    7.7 p.m.
    Mr. Anthony Steen: I am proud to succeed a man so respected in this House, so loved in his constituency and with such a reputation for public service in this country and overseas. Sir John Tilney was Member of Parliament for Wavertree for 24 years. He had the special distinction of speaking not only in this House but immediately outside it in Parliament Square at the unveiling ceremony of the statue of Sir Winston Churchill, having played a great part in seeing that it was built there. He set a high standard and established a great reputation in Wavertree with his wife, Guinevere. I hope my wife, Carolyn and I will be able to live up to this standard in forthcoming years.
    I have delayed intervening in this House for some time, as some hon. Members may have noticed, awaiting an appropriate opportunity to bring to the notice of the House a serious and grave issue, one which has a direct bearing on this debate, which faces my constituency, the city of Liverpool, and the major part of this country. Since John Tilney's day the size of local authority districts has greatly changed. In his day people identified with a small unit which was accessible and comprehensible to them. These small units have now been superseded by giant authorities where fundamental decisions on strategic policy affecting the lives of ordinary people are taken by what seems to them a remote authority no longer representing them.
    It is this lack of identity and sense of distance from those who make decisions

    1807
    that is creating an alienation foreign in this country and endangering the democratic process. Post-Beveridge and more recently post-Seebohm we have seen new and increasing pressures placed on local authorities by this Chamber which in turn have given rise to new levels of expenditure. In 1963 the rate per head, including central Government grant, was £48. By 1972 this figure had risen to £128. The location of power and the ratio between central Government and local government expenditure have also changed in that today more than 65 per cent. of all public expenditure is incurred directly by central Government. This in turn results in over-dominance of central Government on the local authority and of the local authority on the community.
    Does this increase in dependence on central Government matter? I believe that it does. It takes away local authority control in determining the destiny of the people whom it was elected to represent. This undermines the democratic process which is at the cornerstone of our local government system and is admired by countries throughout the world.
    But perhaps more important—a view which I imagine is shared by hon. Members on both sides of the House—it takes away the self-reliance, motivation and willingness of the individual to take action for himself and for his neighbours. It also reduces his incentive to take action for the benefit of the community.
    If the increased power of central Government had removed injustices at local level there might have been some justification for the Government's financial dominance, but that is not borne out by the facts. More than 4½ million people live in more than 1¼ million homes which are unfit for human habitation. One in six homes lacks one or more of the basic amenities. In Liverpool, 5 per cent. of the population live in overcrowded conditions, according to the 1971 census. It has been estimated that about 30 per cent. of the disabled still do not get help. About 43·6 per cent. of all children leave school without educational attainment, and 2 million adults are estimated to be illiterate. Tens of thousands of old people remain isolated and neglected, and an increasing number die alone. During 1972 at least 7 million supple-
    1808
    mentary benefit claims were made. The social conditions in which our people are living are a terrible indictment of our times, and the situation is getting worse.
    Surely the time has come for a radical reappraisal of how we spend public money at local level and what level of services can be expected to meet the demands of a primarily urban society. It is apparent that public services are not tackling the fundamental human and urban problems, but are designed, albeit unintentionally, to reinforce the dependency syndrome to which I have already referred.
    I want to suggest an entirely new style, new process, new social philosophy—not a new political party—to tackle this kind and scale of problem. I can claim firsthand experience of what I am advocating as a youth and community worker and founder of Task Force.
    Task Force has recruited about 100,000 young volunteers in London alone to care for neighbours and to befriend the old, the lonely and the handicapped. It has reinforced the importance of involving young people in understanding and caring for the needs of the individual and shows what can be done.
    I think that you, Mr. Speaker, know the importance of this work, having been actively involved in helping to found Task Force. The Prime Minister—if he were here—would recollect, as would my own Leader—if he were here—the all-party programme that was launched from 10 Downing Street six years ago—YVFF—the Young Volunteer Force Foundation. Lord Houghton of Sowerby, formerly of this House, the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) and you, Mr. Speaker, played a major part in building YVFF into the largest major community work foundation in Britain today sending small teams of community workers into areas of severe urban stress where the ordinary channels of communication have broken down. There they tackle social anomalies through a variety of action projects and have helped to reduce risks to the community. It was my privilege to be involved as director of that foundation since its inception. I retire from that post tomorrow.
    It is this spirit of social responsibility, kindled by YVFF, Task Force and many other similar community organisations,

    1809
    which may provide some guidelines on how to handle the problems of alienation and resentment which are now so prevalent and increasing rapidly.
    The changes that I am advocating at the local authority level would see a new style of approach adopted which would engage every person in the decision-making processes and evoke hope within them that they have power over their own destinies. This spirit of hope opens new political possibilities. Instead of public philanthropy, which some of the major Government community programmes of recent years have offered, resources could be used by communities, especially for residents in high stress areas, in a way which would bring dignity instead of despair.
    I have been trying to persuade the Liverpool City Council to encourage the tenants of a new council estate known as the Belle Vale Estate—rather inappropriately named—to tackle their own problems: for example, vandalism in car parks, lack of play facilities, refuse bins on fire, no grass and no trees, unmade-up roads, and broken pavements.
    I have asked the Liverpool City Council not about administrative reorganisation but about adopting a completely new way of thinking. Instead of waiting for officialdom to take action—now almost too late—the new approach could have had an immediate impact.
    It is not only housing estates that produce some of the worst urban problems, but new constructions like the Rocket Flyover in my constituency at the end of the M62. The Department went ahead with that without utilising the knowledge or experience which has been accumulated over past years. It did not properly consult the residents, and this has directly affected the attitude of local people. The residents have still not had a rate reduction, their homes are still not sound-insulated, they do not know when they are to get compensation, telephone kiosks have been removed overnight, trees have been dug up without authority, and the site office, which is there to establish good relations with the community, is just failing in its public relations.
    Public participation is still regarded by many as a hindrance and delay rather than as an enrichment of the democratic process. This short-sightedness and lack
    1810
    of vision directly results in huge social and financial costs. This can be illustrated in the acceleration of rate expenditure. Officials are being paid to handle a deluge of dissatisfied and unhappy ratepayers who, understandably, are complaining about the blunders of officialdom which could have been avoided if genuine participation had taken place. The community and the ratepayers pay twice: first for the blunders and, secondly, for the face-saving operations which follow.
    Public participation and community involvement would make public services less expensive. I speak from experience of 14 years of community work at the rock face, the grass roots—call it what one will. More community involvement could result in a saving of expenditure which we all so much desire today.
    The cold hand of bureaucratic indifference has stifled the latent British talent of finding solutions to urban problems. I recognise that it is possible to justify the increased size and scale of local authorities, but that does not absolve them for failing to recognise the attendant problems that result.
    By mobilising local people to do things for themselves, it is possible to envisage neighbourhood development groups which would have delegated powers from these huge councils and be responsible for the day-to-day running of council estates. The make-up would be heavily biased towards the people in the local community and the leaders of the community groups. By all means let us have professional guidance from the social work area team leaders, the local councillors and someone from the treasurer's department to see that the books are in order. But they must have power and money to deal with the blocked gutter and the broken paving-stone, to plant trees. finance play schemes and run community centres. They would have their own labour force. They would be there for and of the people. This would introduce an important new element into local government with which people would be able to identify and feel once more that the neighbourhood was truly part of their lives.
    Unless we introduce this kind of innovation the nerveless hand of bureaucratic inertia will demand more money from us for a poorer quality service and at

    1811
    ever-increasing cost. The decision facing the House today is whether it will send a message of hope to all those people who have come to despair of politicians and Government.
    7.19 p.m.
    Mr. Joseph Dean: May I first apologise for the wording I used in an interjection during the speech of the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher). My wording was perhaps not correct. If any offence was taken at my use of non-parliamentary language, I offer an apology.
    Looking at the signatories of the motion, I am rather surprised to see the name of the Leader of the Opposition. I have had some experience of dealing with rate support grant negotiations over the last two years as a representative of an association of local authorities. I should not have thought that the Leader of the Opposition was the best person to become involved in predictions of rates and at what figure they ought to be levied.
    The Leader of the Opposition made a speech on 13th December, 1972 at a luncheon to celebrate the centenary of the Association of Municipal Corporations. Quite a number of Cabinet Ministers were also there in support of the right hon. Gentleman, who was then Prime Minister. At that time the worry about rates was the effect of the revaluations. An average revaluation of two-and-a-half times the original rateable value was being done nationally. The then Prime Minister said in his speech that he saw no reason why, because of revaluation, rates would increase at all.
    It was just after that time that the imbalance in the rate support grant formula showed itself so drastically biased against some areas that a deputation from the large conurbations went to see the right hon. Gentleman, who agreed that the formula showed that instead of receiving 58 per cent. of their expenditure in rate support grant some authorities were receiving a proportion as low as 39 per cent. The then Prime Minister conceded that this was a very grave injustice which ought to be put right.
    But what did the right hon. Gentleman do? That was in January 1973, three
    1812
    or four months before the rates were to be levied by the local authorities. He said that the time factor would not allow for any such alteration but that it would be put right by the Government in the 1974–75 rate support grant negotiations. Those negotiations started to emerge last autumn. They were based almost identically on the grants that have been levied, or a portion of them, by the Secretary of State. But what happened? The money had been apportioned and it was obvious that if the large conurbations which were then to receive domestic relief of 7p were to be given a further 6p or an across-the-board 13p levy, it could be done only at the expense of some authorities that were receiving a tremendous amount of domestic rate relief. Some authorities which are now receiving 13p, like others, over the last two years have suffered rate increases of tremendous dimensions.
    Conservative Members have spoken of the action of the previous Chancellor in helping certain areas in distress. But he did not help any of the large conurbations which sent representatives to see him. The equalisation that has been brought about is entirely just. In the financing of local government there will have to be a great increase in the amount of money that is found to enable local government to operate. That is why the motion is almost meaningless. A large number of hon. Members were absent from the House when the subject was debated some time ago. It is clearly very difficult for a Conservative Member who represents a city constituency which has now received rate relief at a level that it ought to have had years to go into the Lobby in denial of that and then to have to tell his constituents in, for example, Leeds, Liverpool or Birmingham that they must find another £3 million or £4 million because they will not get the same domestic rate relief as, for instance, Yeovil, Cornwall and similar areas.
    I am not crowing about the fact that the rates of some people have risen dramatically. I understand their chagrin and dismay. In the major conurbations, however, one still finds that the person living in an ordinary three-bedroom house is still paying more in rates than someone living on the periphery in one of the metropolitan districts who is occupying the same type of house.

    1813
    I could not understand the point made by the hon. and learned Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) when he said that one of the grumbles in his area was that people had no facilities in return for their rates. If that is so, why do they need this massive injection of rate relief? What is it for if they have no facilities?
    I welcome the Secretary of States' announcement that he is to set up an inquiry. I hope that it will report very quickly indeed. In view of the rate of inflation there is a sense of urgency, and this matter cannot wait for 12 or 18 months. There has now been enough examination of the alternative forms of financing local government for us to come up with something better than the present rating system.
    However, overnight the Secretary of State has put right a grave injustice. It is unfortunate that some authorities were made to suffer. But it is still only a measure of justice. People in inner London boroughs are still paying higher rates, as a proportion of outgoings from the family budget, than those living in outer London boroughs. A person living in the centre of Birmingham will be paying out more in rates than people in the constituency of the hon. and learned Member for Solihull (Mr. Grieve) and those in many other constituencies. This is part of the imbalance that has always existed. Part of it has been put right.
    When I began my speech I was not sure that I was following a maiden speaker. I have been informed that I have done so. I should like to compliment the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Steen) on a very good maiden speech. Clearly, as a social worker and in view of all the work he has been doing, he has tremendous knowledge of the subject and an appreciation of people's rights to run their own affairs. I compliment him on the content of his speech. We shall look forward to hearing him again.
    7.28 p.m.
    Mr. W. Benyon: I start by adding my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Waver-tree (Mr. Steen) on his maiden speech. His predecessor as Member for Wavertree was held in great affection by the House. From what my hon. Friend has said this evening, it is clear that we shall be look
    1814
    ing forward to hearing him many times in the future.
    Criticism of the rating system is not new. It has been rising steadily over the years. It has concentrated on two main aspects—first, that not everyone pays rates; second, that rates are not a buoyant tax but a regressive tax. When rates were low these criticisms were muted. It is only since the imposition has increased that we have the situation in which this tax imposes quite unacceptable burdens on certain citizens just because they are householders.
    Like many other hon. Members, I have had a number of letters and petitions on this subject—more than I have had on any other issue since I became a Member of the House in 1970. Although local authorities realise the situation, they are relatively powerless to do anything about it. I have been working in local government for 10 years. That experience has taught me that most councillors are more concerned with keeping up the standard of services than with effecting economies in expenditure.
    I was most interested when the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) raised the problem of the threshold agreements, because these are adding, and will continue to add, an enormous extra burden on local authorities. Yet all the alternatives to the rating system have significant disadvantages. Although I believe that some form of locally-based income tax or sales tax will eventually come, while retaining some form of property tax, these changes cannot come quickly, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) explained. Therefore, these are no easy solutions to our present problem.
    I was pleased to hear the Secretary of State refer to the inquiry he is to set up, but apparently it cannot report until 1975 and cannot, therefore, help us in our immediate difficulties. I believe that the last Government were right to introduce a variable rate of domestic support. It was an attempt, albeit an imperfect attempt—and we all realise that—to iron out some of the special problems of individual authorities. In my county, Buckinghamshire, it took into account the loss from that county into a neighbouring county of a high rated

    1815
    area. It also took into account the point made by two Northamptonshire Members that we are establishing a new city which requires very heavy initial expenditure, and, therefore, imposes a heavy burden in these early stages of development. Even with this variable relief the domestic rate increase would have been substantial, and industry and commerce, of course, would have been subject to the full amount. That point has not been raised today and is sometimes overlooked. Then, for reasons best known to themselves, the Government swept it all away, and in my constituency that meant an extra imposition on the domestic ratepayers under my two local authorities of 8·5p and 7·5p respectively.
    My right hon. Friend was correct to say that there could be no return to the original levels of domestic support. That would be impossible. The only answer that makes sense, therefore, is for additional relief to be made available during the second half of the current financial year so that at least the worst inequalities can be removed.
    There is one other aspect I wish to raise which the House should consider carefully. Nothing typifies more the general character of this country or the way we run our affairs than the way the taxes and rates are paid by the population. That is now at risk. I have been approached over the last few weeks by responsible people asking for my support for some form of rate strike, and citing instances where this has been done elsewhere. I have strenuously refused to have anything to do with this because the law is completely indivisible. We cannot obey some parts and disobey others, in spite of the examples I have referred to. If, on top of the strains imposed by inflation, the ratepayers of this country are to be subjected to this additional unjust imposition we are courting disaster. On behalf of my constituents I must tell the Government that it does not matter what they do, but they must do something, and they must do it quickly.
    7.35 p.m.
    Dr. Edmund Marshall: I wish to address a number of remarks to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State over the broad canvas of the need for a
    1816
    complete reform of the rating system as it affects the domestic householder. There is no doubt that the recent anger we have seen throughout the country—and this has been particularly acute in my constituency—is directed to the fact that the whole system is anachronistic, unjust and quite inadequate for providing the necessary finance for modern local government.
    It is a system which goes back to the Statute of Artificers of 1601 in the reign of Good Queen Bess. It is a system of regressive taxation, taking no account of people's ability to pay and bearing particularly hard on retired people with fixed incomes which are declining in real value.
    As my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) said, the system takes no account of the number of people who are resident in a property or the number of income earners there. It is a system based wholly on hypothetical criteria like the fictitious rent of a property, and people find it ludicrous that they should have to contribute more to the running of local authority services simply because they have more windows or because they install central heating or make other adjustments to their house. Coupled with these factors is the fact that the rating system is not generally understood. Hon. Members will gather from the correspondence they have received on the subject that people are almost completely unaware of how the system operates, and I have found an increasing number of people who do not know how to go about getting a reduction in the rateable value of their property.
    Because of this unpopularity the system puts a severe brake on a lot of initiative that should be shown by local authorities. Local authorities see the need for better roads and better schools, or water authorities see the need for new enterprise in particular areas—the introduction of new sewerage schemes, for example. Yet all this is damped down because of the effect that the authorities feel it will have on the local rates. Because the rating system is unpopular there is less inclination on the part of people to press local government for necessary improvements in their areas. Their way out of the dilemma is always to call for increased financial help from the central Government, so that when some new initiative

    1817
    is required to expand local authority services the initiative is always left to the Government.
    This leads to arguments over the rate support grant and dispute with the central Government over who should pay what. In any alternative system which is designed to replace the present rating system, finance must as far as possible be given a local base. I believe strongly in the principle, which is perhaps a constitutional one, that he who pays the piper should call the tune, and therefore the person who tries to call the tune in local government should essentially be the one who pays the piper.
    The difficulties caused by the rate support grant in certain areas stem from the fact that the money is coming from the central Government to pay for a lot of schemes which are determined locally. There difficulties are reflected in some of the sections of the Kilbrandon Report on the Constitution where it discusses the possibilities of financing the new regional authorities, and all these difficulties apply with equal force to the system of financing local government.
    I think, therefore, that those who cry out for a transfer of the cost of main local authority services to national funds are dodging the issue and that if there were to be a transfer of the cost of, say, education we should seriously consider whether it would be right for education to be maintained under the control of local government.
    If we are to maintain local government in its present form, with its present functions, we must have a financing of local government based on locally-raised revenue for those specifically local purposes. I agree with the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) that the Chancellor of the Exchequer must have overall control of public expenditure because of the need to operate demand management in the economy as a whole, but I think that with that one proviso we must have the greatest possible local flexibility in the financing of local government.
    My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced this afternoon the setting up of a committee of inquiry with the broadest terms of reference into the whole of local government financing. I welcome
    1818
    the decision to set up the inquiry but I am a little worried about the breadth of its terms of reference. As one of my hon. Friends said, most of the information is already available. The matter has been talked over for many years. Even though the Green Paper was a very green document in metaphorical terms, at least the information is there.
    I hope that the committee may be given more specific terms of reference, and told to direct its attention to particular means of raising local government revenue and the practicalities entailed so that when the report becomes available an alternative system can be put into practice rapidly.
    As I consider all the various alternative ways of raising local government finance, I have no doubt that the only equitable solution to the problem is a local income tax. I find that that solution has the widest agreement among the people of my constituency. It would be a buoyant means of taxation. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Lamond) that we should examine particularly how local income tax is applied in Sweden and Finland. I hope that details of the system there will be scrutinised by the committee of inquiry so that it can make detailed recommendations on how it might be applied here.
    Mr. Daniel Awdry: I agree with the hon. Gentleman—I think that some form of local taxation is the answer—but does he think that it would be centrally or locally organised and administered?
    Dr. Marshall: I was just coming to those points. I think not only that local income tax would be widely acceptable but that in general it would be far more easily understood, certainly much more easily understood than the present system. Therefore, it would be a system that people would be prepared to operate.
    There are difficulties in the application of such a tax. We should have to look into the details of how it would be raised. Would it be operated through the Inland Revenue? Would the collection of local income tax be carried out at the same time as the collection of national income tax, with a return from the Inland Revenue to treasurers of local authorities? All those practical difficulties must

    1819
    be ironed out within the terms of reference of the committee. There would be much more work for employers who operated PAYE systems as their personnel departments would have to take into consideration all kinds of factors, such as the local authority areas within which employees lived.
    In addition there would be the need to retain a means of Government support to equalise the local income tax revenue to different local authorities. It would be wrong for some local authorities to be penalised because people in their areas had much lower incomes than people elsewhere. That problem could be dealt with through the machinery of the resources and needs elements of the present rate support grant. I would retain the rate support grant in that form, but I should like to see as far as possible the rest of local government expenditure depending on locally-raised revenue by means of a local income tax.
    I hope that the committee will do its work not only rapidly but in great practical detail and that it will go particularly thoroughly into the means of raising local income tax, which I see as the only remedy to the desperate situation in which we are placed.
    7.46 p.m.
    Mr. James Allason: In Hertfordshire there is unprecedented dismay over rating. Domestic ratepayers in my constituency face increases of up to 40 per cent., a figure which represents personal hardship for many people. Those increases, combined with earlier rate increases, of which Hertfordshire has had more than its fair share, have meant that Hertfordshire has recently suffered desperately in the matter of rates.
    The result is that, instead of paying 4 per cent. of their income in rates, most people find themselves paying 6 per cent., which is equivalent to an extra week's pay being taken from them each year. That is intolerable.
    Mr. John Ovenden Mr. John Ovenden (Gravesend) rose—
    Mr. Allason: I will not give way. I promised Mr. Speaker that I would take four minutes, and I intend to keep my promise, as so many other hon. Members have tried to do.
    1820
    What is the Government's feeling about capital expenditure? The previous Government called on local authorities to reduce their capital expenditure by 20 per cent. What do the Government say to a local authority which instead raises additional rate poundage to spend on capital projects? Is that legitimate, or is there a justifiable complaint against an authority which does that, and does it in a substantial way?
    Some parts of my constituency are in the area of the Anglia Water Authority, which charges a 6·8p water rate, whereas other parts—happily, most—are in the area of the Thames Water Authority, which charges a 3·8p water rate. One can understand the immense discontent felt by people over that difference, which depends on the watershed on which they are situated.
    What is the position over consumer consultation for the water authorities? I know that they report at the end of the year, but is there not a case for a consultative body, such as exists in other industries, so that there can be some protection for the consumer against possible extravagance by authorities?
    I cannot now deal with what will happen next year. However, there is still time to put matters right this year. The Secretary of State has made a £200 million switch from the rural areas to the urban areas, and he could not take it back again even if he wished to. But he can introduce a rate support grant increase order to restore to the rural areas what has been taken from them. If he does that in time for the autumn rate demand he can remedy the situation. I ask him to do that, and my constituents demand that he does it.
    7.50 p.m.
    Mr. John Ovenden: We have heard today some tremendous examples of humbug. We are faced with a motion which is a supreme example of political opportunism. We on the Labour benches have not spent the past few months bemoaning the inheritance willed to us by the former Government, because that inheritance was probably no worse than that which we should have expected.
    It is not fair that my right hon. and hon. Friends should be asked to carry the can for decisions of the Conservative

    1821
    Government when we have had no opportunity to make any effective changes. This Government came into office only four weeks before the new local authority financial year was due to start. In such a position, the Government could not make changes to the needs and resources element of the rate support grant. What Conservative Members are saying is that the special needs of their areas are not being properly looked after by the rate support grant system. They say there are inaccuracies and mistakes in the allocation of the needs and resources element. These decisions were made by the former Government. Hon. Members can hardly ask for a special grant to compensate them for something to which they originally agreed.
    My right hon. Friend has made only one change, and that is in the allocation of the domestic rate support grant. It may be that Conservative Members representing specific areas may object to that action. Can they really blame my right hon. Friend for taking back a bit of the money which was allocated by them in the reverse direction? Can they blame us for taking from Paul some of the money robbed from Peter in the first place? There is no justification whatever, if the calculations of the resources and needs element are correct, for a variable domestic grant.
    I have not heard one hon. Member try to justify this. What they are saying is that some of their areas are now being forced to take a higher share of the rate burden, and in some way they should be compensated for this. If another of my right hon. Friends decides to introduce a progressive form of redistributive taxation, which we hope he will, will it be said that those from whom money has been taken should be compensated for perhaps the first or second year? I hope not.
    In many areas the effect of what was done by the Secretary of State pales into insignificance when compared with the other factors which have forced rates up—local government reorganisation and inflation. There are many of us who believed, when the previous Government forced local government reorganisation upon reluctant local authorities—I accept that some local authorities are always reluctant about reorganisation but a large number were right to be reluctant about the half-baked and half-hearted
    1822
    system forced upon them on this occasion—that the Government should have been prepared to carry a bigger share of the burden of the costs of reorganisation. This is what hon. Members opposite should have campaigned for during the period of the last Government.
    There is also the inflation factor. It looks to me as though the calculations which municipal treasurers made and the views which they took about inflation will prove to be far more correct than decisions taken by the last administration. We have to look at local government finance as a whole.
    I am disappointed that there has been little discussion on what I thought was the major item in the motion. Instead we have had a repeat of the debate on the rate support grant at the end of which the Government had a comfortable majority. I would have thought that it could have been concluded from that majority that they had the confidence of the House.
    Today we have had a discussion about local government finance generally. Some people are falling into the trap of thinking that there is a magic wand in local government which can produce a system acceptable to everyone and which will relieve people of the burden of paying for local services. There is a reluctance on the part of many people to face up to the harsh and unpalatable facts of life in local government.
    Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: If the Secretary of State could freeze rents on the ground that incomes were restricted should he not also compensate local authorities such as my own which have to pay another £20,000 because of the rent freeze? Should he not reduce rates because incomes are restricted?
    Mr. Ovenden: I understand that the hon. Lady supported her party when in Government. This is another example of the political humbug of which I spoke earlier. She did not oppose the actions taken by her party.
    However, I was about to move away from this rather sterile debate about the rating position this year and look at local government finance generally. The harsh, unpalatable fact of local government finance which we must face up to, if we are not to delude ourselves, is that

    1823
    the cost of local government services must rise over the years, and at a faster rate than the average rise in prices. This is because if the general level of wages in this country rises at a higher rate than that of prices, and presumably hon. Members hope that they will, then, since 75 per cent. of local authority expenditure goes on labour costs, it follows that the rise in wages must be higher there than the rise in prices in manufacturing industry, where the labour content is far less.
    There are only three other solutions. Those are that local authority wages should be depressed below the level of general wages, that the services which they provide should be cut back or that central Government should bear a larger share of the expenditure. There is a serious conflict, which we have not faced up to, when we talk about shifting a bigger burden of expenditure to central Government and at the same time believe that local independence can be maintained. Those who believe that any Government, of whatever political complexion, will foot a bigger share of the Bill and yet allow decisions on these services to remain in local hands are living in cloud-cuckoo-land.
    The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Mr. Denis Howell): It is interesting to note that the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) relied heavily in her speech on the fact that the previous Government gave help to the National Health Service by moving it from local government to the central Exchequer, which makes my hon. Friend's point. When that is done local democratic control is also removed.
    Mr. Ovenden: I am sure that there are many other instances of such action. Those who believe that they can send the bill to central Government and maintain control could not be further from the truth. If we are to provide the services needed in local government—and we all know that, although we get letters protesting about the rates we get an almost equal number demanding improvements in services—then we will have to provide a larger share of our resources for local authority services. We are under tremendous pressure to make more money available for the disabled. Every local
    1824
    authority is under pressure to improve or make available sport and leisure facilities. Local authorities have to find the money for this from somewhere. Under our present system every local election becomes a dutch auction on the level of rates. Parties vie with each other about who can depress the services most to keep the level of rates constant.
    We must look for a new system of financing local government. We want a dynamic system which can provide revenue and which keeps pace with the general level of wages, or possibly does better than that if we are to improve the services. Our present system is agreed by everyone to be archaic and nonsensical.
    I read the report of the Second Reading debate on the Rating and Valuation Bill which took place 11 years ago. After reading it, I was no wiser about what was meant by "gross values" than were the hon. Members who took part in the debate. It is a meaningless term which can be defined by no one.
    The Liberal Party suggested site value rating. I fail to see how a change of that type will achieve a more equitable system. All it will achieve is a system which is as unjust in its operation as is the present system, added to which we we shall have the cost of introducing site value rating. That suggestion holds no benefit; it holds only extra expense for us.
    Besides being dynamic, the new system must also be fair. It must be based on the ability of individuals to pay. I have received letters from old-age pensioners who complain that they have to pay the same rates as do households further up the road in which there are two or three wage-earners. That is a valid point. It is equally valid to take into account not only the number of individuals but the income within a household. I can point to some households in which there is only one wage-earner but the income is as great as it is in households which have two or three wage-earners.
    Mr. Jim Lester: The comparison is constantly being drawn between a single-person household and a household which consists of several wage-earners. It must be remembered that 60 per cent. of the rate is supported by central Government taxes, and if four

    1825
    people are living in a house they pay substantially more in taxes than does the single person living in a house. It may be rough justice, but inadvertently a balance is achieved. It is wrong to say that the people who pay rates are the only ones to make a contribution, because taxes also play a part and four people living in one household contribute very much more through taxation.
    Mr. Ovenden: That is the supreme example of illogicality. Those individuals bear their own fair share of national income tax but pay only a quarter of the rates, which is totally unfair. The system which I want to see adopted would be based on income.
    There is no panacea which will solve the problems of local government finance overnight. Many questions on local income tax remain to be answered. For example, should it be a flat-rate system or a sliding-scale rate as it is within the national Exchequer? I favour the sliding scale rather than the flat-rate taxation system. There is also the problem raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Goole (Dr. Marshall) of how to offset the differences which arise between wealthy and poorer areas. Nothing will discredit a system of local income tax more than large variations between areas. If people working side by side take home at the end of the week vastly different earnings because of the local income tax they have to pay, that will undermine the system faster than anything.
    In the context of a system of local taxation no one has mentioned what is to be done about the contribution which comes from industry in the form of rates. No one would suggest that we should relieve industry of its contribution so that the whole burden is put on local income tax. We must find an equitable way of getting industry to pay its share of the burden. That will be a problem for the inquiry which has been set up.
    It will be a long, difficult job to reform a system which we have been trying to reform for decades. We must not hold out to people the hope of a quick and easy solution. We must not hold out to them that the problems of local government finance will go away if we change the system. All we can honestly say to people is that if we are to achieve expanding services in local government they will
    1826
    be asked to pay a higher proportion of their incomes towards the maintenance of local authority services. That may be harsh and unpalatable, but it is a fact of life. We cannot hide our heads in the sand and avoid it.
    8.06 p.m.
    Mr. Peter Temple-Morris: This is an important subject upon which I made my maiden speech in March. I congratulate the hon. Member for Gravesend (Mr. Ovenden) on his contribution. He began in a partisan way and I thought that I might have to be partisan in replying to him, but about one-third of the way through his speech took on a constructive form. He said that the cost of the services will rise. In speaking from the Opposition benches my task tonight is to make a small contribution towards ensuring that there is a fair system of taxation to meet those costs.
    As the hon. Member for Gravesend said, what is to be done with industry is a matter for the inquiry. Once more we may get into the position where the towns which possess industry have much higher taxation, just as now they have a higher rateable value. Rural areas have no industry. The local taxation system will therefore have to be framed so that money can be taken from the richer areas and given to the rural areas. That problem will exist whatever system is adopted.
    I am against the rating system. In addressing the House, I hope constructively, I want to accept responsibility for the actions of the previous Government, not having been here at the time, and I shall invite hon. Members on the Government benches to accept their responsibility. I use the word "responsibility", not "blame", because that must be the keynote. The previous Government were responsible for the removal of 10p in the pound from the grant for country areas such as Hereford and Worcester. We are responsible for taking that away. We shall serve no constructive purpose if we argue about money going from the towns to the country and vice versa.
    We are also responsible for the rate of inflation until 28th February. I shall not go beyond that date. I shall try to approach this in a reasonable and sensible way. We are, therefore, responsible for the official allowance to local authorities for inflation at that time,

    1827
    which amounts to 9p to 10p in respect of my own authority.
    I sound a warning note on the urgency of the problem. Hereford and Worcester already, on the present rate of inflation, are between £5 million and £6 million "in the red ", which does not augur well for next year unless we get a fairer system into operation quickly. My right hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Gibson-Watt) well knows this too.
    I accept responsibility for water reorganisation. There was too little control of last-minute expenditure. Water mains were being put in, the bill for which had to go to the new authority. Hardly a council in the country was ready properly to audit those precepts. The net result in my area is that the water rate has soared. I have accepted my share of the responsibility, and I invite Labour Members to accept their share of responsibility for the cut in domestic rate relief in the rural areas.
    The hon. Member for Gravesend asked for the figures to be given. I can tell him that in Hereford and Worcester there is a variable rate relief for the domestic element ranging from 19½p to 29p. Some people have suffered a cut to 13p, making a maximum loss of 16p. Translated in terms of the rateable value on a council house or small private house in Leominster with, say, a rateable value of £202 this means an extra sum of 58p per week. On a house with a £240 rateable value, 70p extra will be paid. In the rural areas we have our poor as well as our rich. Indeed, we happen to be one of the lowest wage-earning areas in the West Midlands.
    Mr. Ovenden: I should like the hon. Gentleman to tell the House the rate in his area last year and what it is this year so that we can compare that figure with the burden placed on some of the cities and towns.
    Mr. Temple-Morris: I have a file of figures in front of me, and I can tell the hon. Gentleman that many of my constituents are suffering increases ranging from 80 per cent. up to 115 per cent. The average figure in the 600 square miles of my constituency comes out at something like 90 per cent. That is causing a serious problem in Herefordshire, and particularly in the Leominster district. We have heard a lot already
    1828
    of figures like 40 per cent. or 60 per cent., I count myself modest in not having mentioned mine sooner.
    There is a feeling in the usually non-complaining country areas, which normally take these things in their stride, that the towns are beginning to get on top of them. This applies not only to rates but right across the argicultural spectrum. We saw this plainly during the last debate on this subject when a number of my hon. Friends abstained. It must be said that we have many town Members, and indeed there are more town Members than country Members. As this feeling gains momentum and people's rates increase by an average of almost 100 per cent., there is bound to be protest. I protested rather peacefully when on Monday of this week the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment was kind enough to visit my constituency. That protest was an orderly one, but the point I wish to emphasise is that the situation in the local authorities will not hold out for very much longer. That is why our motion asks for immediate relief to be given now.
    The country is in a state of almost rebellion. I know that there is a letter waiting for me, which I have not yet read but about which I have heard, saying that from October in Herefordshire a rates strike is threatened. That is the position in my constituency and I know that hon. Members in all parts of the House are aware of similar protests.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: My hon. Friend makes the strong point that there is an urgent need for action on rates and that this matter cannot wait until next year. Does he not concede that the present Government—and I am sure that Conservatives would accept responsibility during their term of office—have a responsibility for the rate of inflation now being encountered by local councils? Inflationary budgets have triggered off a threshold which has put many councils, particularly those in Cheshire, in tremendous financial difficulties. Does not my hon. Friend agree that the Government should now bring in an interim supplementary rate support grant?
    Mr. Temple-Morris: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. I agree with him that the greater the rate

    1829
    of inflation, the greater is the urgency for action to be taken.
    I wish to mention the problems of the Welsh National Water Development Authority. I am sorry that the Secretary of State for Wales is not present. I raised this matter with him in an earlier debate, and to be fair, he did not then have much of chance to say anything when he wound up the debate. However my constituents would like to have a reply in regard to the Welsh National Water Development Authority.
    Perhaps I may briefly explain the position. Our water rates have risen from a figure of 4·6p to 13·8p. We are just over the hill from a development area, and that area has a domestic rate relief of 33½p compared with our 13p. What makes the situation worse is that in Montgomeryshire, which happens to be in the Severn-Trent Water Authority area and which pays a water rate of 3·6p, the authority there still receives 33½p in domestic rate relief. That does not go down very well in my area.
    Mr. Ted Leadbitter: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House whether he is aware of any rate increase announced at the end of the financial year on 31st March which has been changed since that date arising from any action of the Labour Government? If not, will he confirm that the rate increases arose as a result of the actions of the Conservative Government?
    Mr. Temple-Morris: I was hoping for a slightly more worthy intervention than that. This problem was dealt with a little earlier in my speech. One of the major points touched upon in this debate concerns the variable clement. I was asking Labour Members, including the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Leadbitter), to accept part of the responsibility for that.
    I was about to make a point about the Welsh Water Authority. I have been speaking for too long, and I shall soon complete my remarks. With regard to the sewerage rate, I seek to provide that people are not double charged or that local authorities and district councils should introduce a septic tank-emptying service. I believe that the Government should ensure that either one course or the other should be adopted.
    1830
    We are facing a crucial time in the country areas. I repeat that we face the possibility of a rates strike. We face widespread inflation. We also face the fact that many towns, which until recently have been quiescent on these matters, dislike a system in which rates are constantly rising. If inflation continues at its present rate, action must be taken and changes will have to be made in the system. Unless something is done to cope with the situation, and done soon, there will be a gradual loss of national party control in all local government, from whichever side it comes. We shall see a further fragmentation of democracy. This is very much our responsibility in this debate today.
    8.20 p.m.
    Mr. John Garrett: I wish to be brief, but first I must observe that any discussion of the future of the rating system should be set in the context of the future of local government itself. There is what I believe to be an alarming and continuing loss of local democratic control over locally-administered services. Local government is becoming progressively less local. Its recent history is the steady erosion of local authority powers. Unless the House takes some decision to the contrary, the process of bureaucratic centralisation, which was actively encouraged by the previous Government, will continue to gain in strength. The two-tier system of local government will inevitably encourage the shift of power away from the district to the county and we now have regional government in prospect. What is needed is a shift of power from the county to the district and from the district to the neighbourhood.
    Local autonomy has been diminished as much as anything else because the revenue from rates is less and less adequate to support the tasks laid upon local government by central Government. That makes the need for a supplementary form of revenue most pressing. It seems to me that the most satisfactory form would be a local income tax similar to that which has been proposed by other hon. Members and which is successfully operated in other countries.
    The Opposition's motion is the most remarkable piece of political bandwagoning since last week's debate on night storage heating charges. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has

    1831
    described its basic hypocrisy. However, there is no profit to the ratepayer in bandying charge and counter-charge across the Floor of the House. What we must do is consider rating reform in the short term and in the long term. In considering the arrangements for next year I should like the Government to increase the total rate support grant as a high priority for public expenditure planning. Second, I ask that special arrangements be made to relate the grant to income levels. I am glad to know that my right hon. Friend has something like that in mind. Third, it is essential to base the needs element on more sensitive measures of need.
    My right hon. Friend asked us to be specific in our recommendations, and I shall be. I believe that the resources element, which favours the authorities with a below-average rateable value, should be complemented by an income equalisation grant for areas with particularly low wage levels. First, there should be within the grant an allowance for each percentage point which a district falls below average national earning levels. That would ensure that the regressive nature of the rate burden which is so heavily felt in low wage areas, such as my constituency, would not continue. The reforms required in the needs element would be somewhat reduced in total as a result of the institution of an income-equalisation grant. That grant should provide that all the basic data on which the rate support grant is based, such as the total population, children and the over 65s, should be up-dated to the year of account. The 1974–75 grant was based on 1972 figures and failed to take account of the dynamic of population growth. The latest available figures should be up-dated by the average annual rate of increase in population in recent years. The very fast-growing county of Norfolk was penalised by the present arrangement of using historic figures which fail to take account of the lag between growth of population and growth of rateable values.
    Second, the allowance for sparcity of of population is inadequate and fails to allow for the costs of servicing a scattered population, for developing new services in rural areas or for staffing small rural schools. Third, there is inadequate justification for the sizeable weighting in
    1832
    favour of the South-East. Household costs are certainly not lower in Norfolk than in the South-East, and in such matters as transportation Norfolk's costs may well be higher. I ask the Department of the Environment to look again at the weightings in the needs element and to produce factors which more closely relate to the cost of services and the general cost of living.
    Local government will require a continually growing share of the national income for many years ahead. The demand for environmental and personal services aimed at enhancing the quality of life will increase faster than the average rate of increase of the gross national product. That is something with which we must learn to live. Internationally we are a country with a wide range of local services but with a low local revenue base. As local government becomes more concerned with comprehensive environmental planning, renewal and the control of the environment, the more important local direction becomes, subject, of course, to central Government influence on total expenditure in the interests of the economy as a whole and the maintenance of standards of service.
    The power of local direction will be much enhanced by a source of income additional to the rates. Local income tax is the best proposition. If local democracy is to be strengthened—and I believe that strengthening it is essential—a new and fairer source of revenue, locally raised, is crucially important. There would still, of course, have to be redistributive arrangements between rich areas and poor areas on the general lines of the present rate support grant.
    Giving economic power back to local authorities and giving them increased autonomy, which I believe to be right, calls for a response from the authorities. As they grow larger they become more remote. It seems essential that they try to create neighbourhood councils or associations based on a ward, a parish of a group of city streets, and to give those local neighbourhood councils powers to spend and provide local environmental and social services, each based on a community centre or meeting place.
    It seems important that councils provide more information to their people by an annual report, which was suggested

    1833
    by the Bains Report but never taken up. It seems important that they adopt a modern system of expenditure planning and control by programme in which the attempt is made to describe services as programmes of expenditure and to show the community their impact and. effectiveness and benefits.
    It is important that the authorities open up the town halls and their administrative services to the community. The local authority scene should be one of innovation and experiment with new services, and not just an interpretation of statutory requirements. There should be a continual search to understand and satisfy the needs of the community. We want local authorities that are less subservient to Whitehall and more accountable and responsive to the communities that they serve. Such change will take place only if the authorities are given greater freedom, and that can only follow from a new source of revenue.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): Before I call the next lion. Member, may I remind the House of Mr. Speaker's suggestion at the beginning of the debate that it would be helpful if speeches were short. There are still many right hon. and hon. Members who wish to speak and the time is very limited.
    8.28 p.m.
    Mr. Anthony Kershaw: The hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett) displays a good knowledge of local government from which I am sure his constituents will benefit. However, like some of his hon. Friends, he made two propositions which I find it difficult mutually to reconcile. The first is that more money should be spent locally and the second is that rates or local tax should somehow be lowered. I do not believe that any sleight of hand could make that a sound system.
    In Gloucestershire the rates have gone up by about 52 per cent. Such increases have been described today by hon. Members opposite as entirely "just" and as "social justice". There are various causes. Reorganisation of local government undoubtedly has played a part, but that is not the basic cause. Inflation has played its part. The appetite of the people has played its part in that we demand better services, and it is difficult to refuse. Central legislation by
    1834
    the present Government has played its part. The rent freeze has been a heavy impost and has added substantially to local costs, as my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman) said. But the most important part has been the decision of the Secretary of State about the variable domestic relief. In Gloucestershire this has meant that an additional £9 million has had to be found, and that has accounted for 22 per cent. of the increase we have suffered. It must not be forgotten that that has occurred in the countryside, where there are far fewer amenities than there are in our cities and where we cost the country far less. It reflects no doubt the estimate of the Secretary of State of where support lies for his Government.
    The result has been a great burden, all in one year and too heavy to be borne in one year. It is grossly unfair. In the short term we must have a bigger Government grant to get over it. Furthermore, the rates are bound to go up again next year. The estimate of the hon. Member for Dearne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) is 25 per cent. Other hon. Members put it at a much higher figure. It would be quite intolerable if we had to face such a state of affairs next year.
    I was disappointed that the Secretary of State appeared to have no sense of urgency. He has appointed a committee of inquiry which will not report for two years. If that is the best he can do, he should consider resigning. For the short term it is an impossible proposition. I hope that we shall hear what is to be done. So far we have heard nothing of value.
    In the long term we should reduce the costs falling upon the rates. First of all, education should come off the rates entirely. In the old days education was a local service. It is no longer that now. It is subject to central direction. In the Stroud area we have two good grammar schools. Some of the people paying rates want to keep them though that cannot be said of everyone. But at present the people are paying rates to close down those schools or to make them comprehensive, because that is the order of the Secretary of State for Education and the people can do nothing about it. If the Secretary of State insists on telling the local authority what to do,

    1835
    it is the taxpayer who should find the necessary money and not the ratepayer.
    Fire and police services should be looked at as well to see whether the weighting is fair.
    Like other hon. Members, I believe that if in the end we are to give any kind of local responsibility and independence, some form of local tax will have to be devised. There have been suggestions about a local income tax about a poll tax and about a mixture of the two. They are all sound ideas, and they work in other countries. I welcome the suggestion that we should study the methods adopted in other countries. At the moment, we pay our taxes in sorrow but our rates in anger. That is unnecessary. After all, they are both taxes, and we should be sorrowful about both, not angry about one.
    We could at the same time keep some form of household tax. I do not rule that out. But whatever is done will have to be done right away if the countryside is not to be decimated and driven to despair by the actions of present Government.
    8.32 p.m.
    Mr. Robert Kilroy-Silk: I wish to strike a parochial note, which is not inappropriate in a debate about rates, and to draw attention again to a matter which is of deep concern to my constituents. In doing so I address myself to my own Front Bench.
    I refer to the difficulties encountered by the metropolitan borough of Knowsley, which is one of those anomalies of which there are only five in the country—a new council which has no county basis on which to base its expenditure for future years.
    In determining the rate support grant for Knowsley, I contend that the Government applied figures which meant that the costs attributable to Knowsley were far too low, with the result that the figures for rate support grant were far too low. That may seem a contentious assertion. Thanks largely to the efforts of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, Knowsley received an additional 7p in rate support grant. Although we are very grateful for my hon. Friend's efforts, we contend that we should have a further 7p to meet the needs of the area and its very clear and specific problems. They
    1836
    are problems specific to that council, and they are shared by few others in the country. The domestic element in the rate support grant should be 20p.
    In announcing his variation of the rate support grant, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State referred to it as "rough justice". For my constituents the justice was damned injustice. As I say, the metropolitan borough council of Knowsley has no base on which to determine its expenditure. The Government grant for this year was based upon a proportion of expenditure by the Lancashire County Council for the year 1972–73. Clearly that was an absurd calculation, because in the intervening period the population and with it the responsibilities and services increased enormously.
    It is even more absurd when one takes into account certain other factors. In education, for example, the apportionment was made pro rata to the population of each new district. That is not a principle with which I would normally quibble. Nor would I expect that many other hon. Members would quibble with it if the school population per thousand of the population was the same throughout the area of the Lancashire County Council. Yet that is not the case. In the Knowsley Borough Council area the figure is one in four whereas throughout the county it is one in five. That figure makes the point more forcibly.
    The estimated expenditure for education for 1974–75 in respect of the additional pupils remaining at school due to the increase in the school leaving age was calculated on a national basis, which gave an average of 34 per cent. Yet in the Knowsley council the figure is double that at 68 per cent.
    We contend that that part of the rate support grant based on the social services statistics is again too low. The apportionment should have been made on a case work basis and not the basis employed by the Government. In Knowsley, for various reasons the case load is excessively high. Knowsley Borough Council has had to provide new headquarters because of its lack of any former borough status. There were no headquarters for education, the libraries or the social services administration. The council had to take on the provision of a wide variety of ancillary services in order to carry out those functions.

    1837
    The burdens imposed by the previous administration's reorganisation of local government on those of my constituents who live in the area of Knowsley Borough Council are excessive and require greater Government assistance than has been forthcoming so far. This is even clearer if we look at the problems of that area of Knowsley Borough Council that is in my constituency. I refer to the town of Kirkby—whose domestic rate is higher than that of any other district in Knowsley. We have a differential rate system. The rate is 71·1 per cent.
    The whole purpose behind the reorganisation of local authorities was to create, in the words of Lord Redcliffe-Maud, a new community of interests, a new identity of interests.
    We have one authority, one set of services, yet we have different rates for different areas within that authority. That is clearly inequitable. If the same services are provided and enjoyed in common, they should be paid for on the same uniform basis. We object very strongly to a differential rating system that applies to the detriment of my constituents in Kirkby. I do not consider that differential system to be fair. I want the same rates for the same ratepayers in the same authority. I should like the Government to give a clear commitment to ending what Opposition Members have referred to as the iniquitous system of differential rating.
    Kirkby is the highest-rated town on Merseyside. It is one of the highest-rated towns in the country. It is an area which has the highest rate of unemployment. It has the highest number of low-paid people. It has a larger number of children under the age of 16 than any other town in Western Europe. It has enormous social problems. We have high unemployment, low pay, a large number of children and tremendous social problems; yet that area has to pay a higher rate than any other district in the same metropolitan borough, a higher rate than is paid by any comparable area on Merseyside.
    My constituents will have a wry smile when they hear of some of the complaints addressed in this House tonight, when they compare their services and the rates they have to pay with the rates paid by the constituents of those Members who have been most vociferous and most
    1838
    opportunistic in their claims. What we need is positive discrimination in favour of areas of need and not based upon a series of abstract figures.
    I turn now to the purpose of the debate—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah.'] Of course, if one hears too many cries of "Ah" one reacts and tends to speak for longer. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend (Mr. Ovenden) said, rating as a system has been attacked for a long time. It is an inequitable and regressive tax. But we have been talking about getting rid of it for a good 50 years, ever since the old Board of Inland Revenue reported in 1913 on various suggestions for ending the system.
    Few people would disagree in principle with the need to shift the burden of financing local government away from rates and on to ability to pay. There have been many suggestions for forms of local income tax, pay-as-you-earn and entertainments tax. But what the House should remember is that this is no simple proposition. There is certainly a need to move the burden away from rates and on to ability to pay, but it will be a difficult and cumbersome process. There is no easy answer. All the suggested solutions encompass many difficult administrative problems.
    What I am very pleased about, ironically, is that the furore caused by the tremendous rate increases this year has at last galvanised one Government into action. I am in favour of far more support for ratepayers and for their being far more vociferous in their demands, so that we can at last end the rating system and achieve a more equitable system based on income rather than home. What has been lacking in the past and what I believe is present in the Secretary of State today is the political will, the guts and the courage to implement those proposals.
    8.42 p.m.
    Mr. Patrick Cormack: As my hon. Friends are here to make their speeches and not to listen to mine, I will try to be as brief as possible. The hon. Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) spoke eloquently on behalf of his constituents and I shall seek to speak for mine.
    We have all been inundated with letters. We have attended meetings with hundreds of people present. I have been asked to

    1839
    present a petition to the House next week, which I shall gladly do, signed by thousands of my constituents. Even today, 20 members of my council came down to make their representations on this issue, so deep is the feeling in my part of the world, where we face an increase of some 70 per cent.
    I was stimulated into trying to do something about this problem when I got so many letters which underlined the absolute inequity of the present system. An old lady wrote to say that there were four wage earners and three cars next door, yet she had to pay the same rates. We have all heard of similar examples. This year, they have been exaggerated by the wanton disregard of rural areas displayed by the Government in redistributing the rate support grant. That alone has made a difference on average of £9 per year to every ratepayer in my constituency—and they know who is responsible for that bill.
    These increases are a blow to the owner-occupiers; the people who are most hit are the young marrieds struggling to buy their own homes, and the elderly who, in the evening of their lives, feel that they should be allowed to enjoy what they have struggled to buy.
    What has thrown this matter into disturbing perspective is the Government's action, on taking office, in freezing council rents. I am not commenting on that, but the contrast between the two things has been an insult to owner-occupiers.
    Mr. Denis Howell: Council house tenants pay their rates.
    Mr. Cormack: The Minister loves shouting from the Front Bench. Of course they pay their rates, but their rents were frozen. Their rents are subsidised—and under this Government's proposals will be more subsidised—by the rates.
    There is a danger of a revolt of the middle classes throughout the country. I deplore this trend. At every meeting that I attend I say that I will have absolutely nothing to do with any rates strike or the withholding of payments. This is outside the law, and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Benyon) said, the law is indivisible. That cannot be said often enough or too fiercely and firmly.
    1840
    Nevertheless, people are suffering. Over the years we have seen a massive redistribution of wealth. The middle classes have suffered relatively in their standard of living compared with the period before the war. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. Grieve) earlier obtained some interesting information. We are now in a situation in which an investment of £2,000 in 1939 would require £83,500 to be matched today. That is a measure of the sort of redistribution that has taken place. If we are sincerely to preach about national unity—as we are—we should remember that there are many interests in this country to be considered which have been neglected and ignored in recent years.
    We want two things. First, we want first aid. It is outrageous and totally unsatisfactory that the Secretary of State should have said today, in effect, that he is not proposing any first aid measures. That attitude comes from a Government who have spent £700 million on food subsidies—that cannot be too firmly emphasised; from a Government who at the moment are indulging in the grotesque irrelevance of proposing more nationalisation. This point ought to be hammered home, because my constituents feel about it bitterly.
    I am glad, however, that the Secretary of State is to have a review of the rating system. I hope that the committee which is to carry out the review will meet quickly and will complete its deliberations before the end of 1975. One of its tasks should be to study the modest proposals which my hon. Friends and I have put forward and which will, hopefully, be debated in the House tomorrow. Their proposals seek to do two things. First, they seek to get away from the iniquitous system in which a person is penalised for carrying out internal improvements to his home, and secondly, they suggest that consideration should be given to the number of adult wage earners in a household, either in the form of a poll tax or some other method. I am not pretending that this measure is a panacea or perfection, but it is worthy of consideration.
    Over and above all, there is the need to consider the cost of the education service, and perhaps the police and fire services, being at least in part removed from the ratepayer.

    1841
    If the committee of inquiry can get down to its task quickly and report within a year we shall have some cause to thank the right hon. Gentleman for what he said today, but at the moment he has given us short commons and the people of this country will realise that that is so.
    8.48 p.m.
    Mr. Frank Hatton: I must reveal to the House that have not had a single letter of complaint from any of my constituents regarding the rating system. I am certain that if the action which the Government took, and which I strongly supported, in substituting a common level of domestic relief had not been taken I would have had many complaints.
    However, I welcome the unanimity which now exists for a review of local government finance. My city of Manchester was always at the top of the league table for rates. Manchester was the highest-rated authority in the country. I point out to members of the Opposition who are so worried about this matter that my party found itself in almost complete control of the local authority in Manchester year in and year out.
    We have heard in the debate about the revolt of the middle classes. Some members of the middle classes reside in surrounding areas of the city of Manchester, but we have never previously heard any complaint from them about the rating system. They have been happy to live on the backs of their big city brothers. But now, of course, finding themselves in a somewhat different situation, they are welcoming the prevailing unanimity for the reform of local government finance.
    I deeply resent the attacks which have been made on my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. The needs formula simply did not provide for the needs of the cities, including London. The inner city area problems were such that the needs element distribution formula became quite unsatisfactory. Indeed, the Conservative Government accepted without question the necessity for some redistribution.
    I was present at many of the discussions in the House which took place on the rate support grant last year. They went on and on but ended in a totally unsatisfac-
    1842
    tory manner that produced very great variations in relief, quite unjustified and unfair by any standards. The plain truth is that we had reached a situation in 1973–74 when the ill-distribution of the rate support grant was resulting in some areas paying far too much in rates and other paying far too little.
    Average domestic rates in London and several other cities were about £75 to £100 but in large parts of the rest of the country they were between £35 and £50. Yet the education service, the most expensive of all local government services, was universally available throughout the country.
    It is just 12 months since I had the honour of being elected to this House. I remember my maiden speech, which was on the subject of education. At that time the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) was Secretary of State for Education and Science. I referred to the horrific situation facing chief education officers in preparing their rates. We all knew 12 months ago that this situation was upon us, but no action was taken by the Conservative Government. I believe, therefore, that it is humbug and hypocrisy to talk as Tory Members have done today about the rating situation.
    I sincerely welcome this new-found unanimity for the reform of the rating system. As someone who has spent 20 years in local government, I know that the local government services at present are on the point of breakdown. Housing, education, social services, the arts and recreation are indeed the lifeblood of the nation, and hon. Members know from the letters they receive from constituents that these are the issues which interest and affect them from day to day.
    We have before us a very complex situation in trying to solve the problem. As some of my hon. Friends have said, it is nonsense to believe that we can solve the problem very easily. I say to those who are in favour of a form of local income tax—which I believe is the road we have to take if we are to have a better system—that, whatever we do, we have to find a massive sum, and it will not be easy to find. As well as local income tax, we should also consider carefully the contributions that industry and commerce have to make to the rating of our big cities and towns.
    8.55 p.m.
    Mr. Jim Lester: One supports the terms of this motion rightly because this year my own constituency faces a rate increase of some 60 per cent., but I will address my remarks particularly to what I believe is the breaking point, next year. I support what was said by the hon. Member for Stoke on Trent, South (Mr. Ashley). because the House has to recognise, if it believes in the fundamental place of local government in our society, that the rate of increase this year, to which my constituents object, and the anticipated rate of increase next year could deal a body blow to local government which while it may not administer a knockout—and Muhammad Ali has been mentioned—may make recovery difficult.
    It is not always understood outside this House that some of the problems facing local government today are generated here, particularly because we pass eminently desirable legislation requiring local authorities' support and action and a share of the finance without anticipating the expenditure to be generated in terms of capital or revenue. As a consequence the build-up locally is inexorable. It may interest hon. Members to know that from March to June this year there have been before this House 13 Bills affecting local government, seven of them Government measures, six Private Members' Bills, some having a profound effect, some a minimal effect; but there are 13 Bills which could be listed to illustrate my point.
    Secondly, the Government bear some responsibility because of their inability to indicate the level of national support in terms of grant until the budgetary procedures in local authorities are well under way, particularly in terms of expansion. Certainly, the example of this year will not bear repeating. Having had responsibility for producing budgets, I submit to Governments that they must produce indicative figures on a much clearer basis than is done at the moment in September and October of the year in which one is working if they want anything to happen in realistic terms of control. I suggest local government itself must bear some responsibility. Though one should not generalise, there are still local authorities which enter into expansive capital programmes, again without looking at the
    1844
    revenue implications and the effect on their own rates in two or three years' time, and also because when they establish guidelines they do not take into account the national situation or the national interest when they calculate their future programmes. They pursue foolhardy levels of expansion.
    Local government has the responsibility to act within a national framework and if the Government try, certainly for the next year, to declare and implement a moratorium on legislation unless supported with extra grant, and certainly if the Government will give an early indication of the level of grant, the response from local government as a body would be very much more realistic. During this debate many hon. Members have mentioned local income tax as a solution to our problem. Sweden has been talked of. It may interest the House to know that over the past two years there has been a freeze in the rate of local income tax in Sweden because of public pressure. This freeze has been brought about for precisely the same reasons as we are debating tonight. The shortfall has not been made up by national grant. The freeze has been genuine as a cut-back on actual local government action.
    I say this only because when we talk of a fundamental review we all know there are no easy answers. To transfer services finishes local government. There may be better but not painless taxes. Those who complain about the rates system would sound more genuine if they did not use the pressent current of feeling to campaign against the system without costing and debating the alternatives and leaving it to the judgment of those who feel strongly about it to say which they prefer. The situation is so critical that it is in the long-term interests of local government as a body through its associations, not as individuals authorised to accept part of the discipline for next year, which I believe is critical, as has been done in Sweden. There are difficulties about alternative taxes. Even Sweden is looking for other ways than local income tax and national tax to finance local government in future.
    The third element in the problem is the public. There is pressure for better standards. I have great sympathy with parents who want new schools for their

    1845
    children and with pleas for greater levels of support for the elderly.
    I think that we should have a standstill, or a near standstill, of expansion while the review takes place. I do not believe that we can afford to go further down this road without fundamental consequences to the checks and balances of our political system, without a rapid deterioration in the standards of service provided by local government, and without a continuation of this remorsless, mad, merry-go-round of inflation, which, when all is said and done, is the root cause of the problem.
    9.1 p.m.
    Mr. John Tomlinson: I shall be brief, but my brevity does not mean that I am unaware of the serious problem facing my constituents.
    It is a tragedy that much of the argument in the debate has tended to become a slanging match between rural and urban interests. There have been suggestions that the rural concern has not been shared by the Government and others, and vice versa. I am concerned that this Government and Parliament should legislate in the interests of all the people in our community and that we should get a balanced approach to the financing of local government. We should not try to represent constituency interests at the expense of others in the community.
    I represent a largely rural constituency. I am deeply concerned about a number of factors which in combination have led to an almost 100 per cent. increase in rates in my area. However, it would be wrong for anyone who is trying to be rational about the situation to attempt to attribute the failure of local government finance this year to the actions of my right hon. Friend in three and a half months in government, notwithstanding that the decision on the variable domestic element did nothing to help what was already a bad situation. Basically five major causes, one of which is the variable domestic element, have led to this situation in my constituency.
    I am somewhat nauseated by the hypocrisy of Opposition Members, who with crocodile tears complain about the effects of what was largely their own creation, call for reform of local government finance
    1846
    and castigate the Government for failing to do in three and a half months what they failed to do in three and a half years.
    I hope that in his reply to the debate my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Wales will indicate not only the long-term solution that will have to be found by reform of the rating system but the short-term amelioratives that my constituents can expect from a Labour Government, because they find it intolerable that, at a time when we are seeking to curtail expenditure and to control inflation, a combination of factors, many of which are outside the Government's control, has caused a substantial increase in their rates. [Interruption.] I suggest that hon. Members opposite should read the resolutions and make their judgment on the complete record of what has been done.
    The present Government inherited the worst record of inflation and the highest level of interest rates that the country has known and the criminal insanity of a reorganisation of local government that did not reorganise the financial basis of local government. Tory Members would do well to accept their responsibility for those matters and not to shout too loudly. There are a number of important issues which ought not to be the subject of jeers and laughter. While Conservative Members are indulging in that, my constituents and others are suffering from things which originated from their decisions.
    I hope that my right hon. Friend will give further indication not only of long-term solutions but of some short-term amelioratives. I hope he will deal with two specific points, to one of which my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett) referred—the problem of areas which are growing in population, where the needs element is based on statistics which are out of date. We have a two-year time lag in statistics. My constituency has grown in population to 98,000 electors, despite boundary changes. That kind of growth is causing major suffering there because the statistical basis upon which grants have been determined is two years out of date. I hope that we have specific proposals from my right hon. Friend about updating these figures.

    1847
    Secondly, what is my right hon. Friend prepared to see done about the extension of central Government financing of key services such as education, the police and fire services? We already have some national services which are administered by local government, such as the health service. We already have a much more democratic base in local government, and we could have more democracy in locally-financed services.
    I hope we shall have sufficient assurances on the short-term problems as well as for the long term so that we can continue to do the job in our constituencies of assuring people that the Labour Government are concerned about their problems and are seeking to remedy the defects which they inherited from the previous administration.
    9.7 p.m.
    Mr. Michael Morris: The motion calls for interim relief. It calls for interim relief because there are hundreds of thousands of ratepayers in this country, not least in Northamptonshire, who find the increase in rates unacceptable. We on the Opposition side of the House know full well that, had a Conservative Government been in power, they would have listened sympathetically to the representations which we have made and would have taken some action on an interim basis. That is why people are concerned.
    We look for certain other assurances tonight, in addition to that overall assurance. Let me be practical and to the point. Let us have a needs element which reflects the needs of the area more accurately. Mention has been made of bringing it up to date. Let us do that. That is not all that difficult. Let us also have some factors which more adequately reflect certain dimensions of particular areas. For example, one quarter of the needs of Northamptonshire is based on the needs of social services which take only 6 or 7 per cent. of the expenditure—and, to forestall comments, may I add it is a Labour-controlled authority? May we have an assurance that the cities lobby will not just steamroller the rural areas?
    Mr. George Cunningham: The hon. Gentleman would not be saying that if he lived in Islington.
    Mr. Morris: We should like an assurance that for once local government can be given the chance to plan ahead—I take up here the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Beeston (Mr. Lester). Can we have some indication in the early autumn of what the level will be for next year?
    It has also been said that we are now helping the inner areas. But Northamptonshire is growing in importance. We have four new towns. Will they have special help? It is no good the Secretary of State smiling. That will not help the ratepayers of Northamptonshire, nor will it help people in the inner London areas who are coming to Northamptonshire. We need practical financial help for the second half of this year.
    9.10 p.m.
    Mr. Teddy Taylor: This has been an interesting and at times passionate debate with certain outstanding features. First, there was an excellent maiden speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Waver-tree (Mr. Steen), who spoke of the amount of local government service to the community and participation of individuals in decision making. It was a remarkable debate because my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) did not participate, as he usually does in local government debates. It was a shame that Labour Members took exception to his absence. I am sure they will be fully aware that throughout the day and this evening my right hon. Friend has been in the Finance Bill Standing Committee putting forward important amendments about local government finance. If there is one Member of this House who does not deserve to be criticised for being absent from the debate it is my right hon. Friend.
    It has been an astonishing debate because we heard from the Secretary of State the most astonishing, complacent and insensitive speech. He gave the impression that he did not appreciate the urgency or seriousness of the problem, and the only real meat we had from him was that there would be an inquiry and that rates would go up by about 30 per cent. this year overall. That figure surprised me, because it seemed to conflict directly with a parliamentary answer that I received from him two days ago.

    1849
    However, he has courteously explained to me that the figures appear to be wrong. The other point that made the debate special is that not one Scottish Member has taken part from any of the parties in the House. That might give the impression that the problem of rate increases is an English one, and that is certainly far from the case, although the situation in Scotland is somewhat different.
    We have not yet had local government reform in Scotland. That does not come until 1975, but the problems this has caused in England are creating concern for what might happen in Scotland. There was industrial derating in Scotland to the extent of 50 per cent., and, although that appears to be a generous concession, the indications are that industries in Scotland will pay at least as much in rates as industries in England.
    Mr. William Baxter: The hon. Member will recognise that this matter will be discussed in the Scottish Grand Committee next Thursday, when Scottish Members will have the chance of putting their point of view about the Scottish rating system.
    Mr. Taylor: I am aware of that, and I remind English Members that there are many public seats in the Committee room, and I hope that they will be there to listen to the Scots talking about their problems.
    The situation in Scotland is different because our organisation of water is different. Until recently we had water boards, but under local government reform we shall transfer them back to the local authorities, which is somewhat the reverse of what happened in England. Another difference is that in Scotland we have regular revaluations instead of the once-for-all revaluation which took place in England. However, all the indications are that in Scotland by and large, by any comparison, the amount of rates paid for comparable dwellings is considerably higher than in England and Wales. The burden of rates per head of the population is also greater, and we have the prospect of local government reform next year, which will mean considerable increases if events in England are a guide.
    What we do not have, which probably explains why there has not been an explo
    1850
    sion so far from Scotland, is the rate demands. Most of them have still to come in. With one or two exceptions the rate poundage has yet to be fixed. One was announced in the last 24 hours. We have also not had the peculiar injustice in our rate demands that was inflicted in England by the Secretary of State in his treatment of the variable grant.
    We achieved a partial victory in the debate today in having secured a clear assurance from the Secretary of State that there will be an inquiry into the rating system. It has been generally agreed that, while there has been dissatisfaction with the rating system in many areas, recent events, particularly the dramatic increases in rate poundages, have now created a special situation which demands urgent Government action. I believe that if the Secretary of State had not made that announcement there would have been a major outcry.
    Certain of my hon. Friends—my hon. Friends the Members for Buckingham (Mr. Benyon), Bournemouth, West (Sir J. Eden), Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) and Staffordshire, South-West (Mr. Cormack)—and the hon. Members for Goole (Dr. Marshall) and Gravesend (Mr. Ovenden) spoke about the injustices of the present system of rating. They pointed out that it has no direct regard to ability to pay and that many people are entirely excluded from making a direct contribution to rates. They said that it discriminates against the improvement of property. It is also a disincentive to regional development and can undermine national economic policy.
    Consideration has been given to various alternatives. The one that has been mentioned most is the possibility of a local income tax, first suggested in the debate by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley). That alternative could have serious repercussions, although the advantages have also been spelt out in the debate. The obvious repercussion which stands out a mile to someone representing a Scottish constituency is that if there were a local income tax there would inevitably be a relatively high rate of tax in areas where wages and profits tended to be lower and a relatively low rate where there was prosperity, with high wages and high profits.

    1851
    Another serious problem is that of taxing industry and commerce when some multinational firms and British firms have factories in some areas, shops in other areas and warehouses in others. There is also the difficulty that a local income tax might be a frightening weapon to give into the hands of spendthrift local authorities.
    We heard a little about the sales tax from my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham. It is an interesting suggestion, but it would be difficult to administer, and there is the problem that people in a rating area do not necessarily spend their money in the same area.
    We heard nothing from our Liberal friends about site values, but we are all grateful to the hon. Member for Gravesend for making up for that by mentioning the subject himself.
    I think that there has been general agreement that what is required, and the most useful avenue for consideration, is the transfer of some, if not all, of the burden of local government expenditure to the national Exchequer. Some of my hon. Friends have said "Let's think of transferring the burden of education or teachers' salaries." Some have gone even further and asked "Couldn't we transfer the major slice of spending to the national Exchequer?"
    The advantages are obvious. First, there would be an equal burden of tax throughout the nation. No areas would have high or low rates; everyone would pay on the same basis. Secondly, it would be easier to pay for local government services through PAYE or through an expenditure tax in the shops. Thirdly, everyone would make a contribution to local government expenditure. One of the matters that cause most resentment is that some people do not make a direct contribution. Fourthly, the Government would have a more effective control of general spending.
    However, one point has been rightly mentioned. We know the problems we have had in achieving distribution formulas. If we had a simple 100 per cent. block grant from the Government to every local authority to cover all its expenditure, it would be very difficult to arrive at the right formula, and there would be a considerable reduction in local freedom.
    1852
    All those matters explain how difficult it has been to find an easy solution. There is no easy solution. The money must be found from somewhere, but what has happened over the past few months has made it clear that an alternative must be found to relieve some of the burden and prevent some of the savage rises in rates that there have been.
    The Secretary of State was a little unkind in his attacks on the previous Government for their apparent sins of omission, and other sins. The one thing he cannot say about the last Government is that they were insensitive to the problem created by the rate burden. Just look at some of the measures introduced recently by the Conservative Government. First we had the massive improvement in the rate rebate scheme, which ensured that 3 million people who were unable to pay savage increases received special help. That was a major step forward. Second there was the system of variable domestic relief, of which we are not at all ashamed. Indeed many of us are rather proud of it. This was introduced to ensure that if there were to be increases they would be fairly shared across the country so as to ensure, as far as possible, a uniform increase.
    Obviously, it was difficult to aim at that in advance, but the principle showed that our aim was to ensure that there would not be wide variations between the increases in different parts of the country. Third, we made a definite attempt to restrict unnecessary local government spending. Under the Counter-Inflation Act we had a procedure whereby local authority expenditure was reviewed by the Government and strong representations could be made. In Scotland the accounts of Dunbarton County, Renfrewshire and Edinburgh were challenged, and there is no doubt that this counter-inflation procedure resulted in reductions in expenditure. It was a deterrent against local authorities going ahead with extravagant schemes.
    Fourth, we made substantial increases in the amounts of expenditure which were covered by Government grants. In England last year the grant which we agreed was the largest percentage in the history of the country—60·5 per cent. of total expenditure compared with only 57 per cent. in 1970 when we came into power. The global amount was much greater. In

    1853
    Scotland the figure rose from 65 per cent. to 68 per cent. of total expenditure. We made a change, through the Local Government Act 1974, whereby the cost of mandatory student grants and teacher-training awards were transferred to the Exchequer, as were local authority health service charges.
    One thing we cannot be accused of is being insensitive to the problem or being unwilling to act when a special situation arose. A special situation has certainly arisen now. We have had quite dramatic increases in rate poundages. In different parts of the country it has been 70 per cent., 80 per cent. and even 100 per cent. It is little wonder that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) has said that a new militancy is being expressed by our ratepayers, who are demanding action.
    If some of them had been listening to the Secretary of State tonight they would have been appalled at the complacent way in which he approached this urgent problem. It was suggested by one Labour Member that the changes made by the Secretary of State, when he changed the variable relief order, involved only 7 per cent. of total rate support grants. That sounds a small amount. But try to put that across to someone who was facing a 30 per cent. rate increase but who, because of the change, faces an 80 per cent. Increase! This is serious and urgent.
    Mr. Tomlinson: Give us the figures.
    Mr. Taylor: I will. In Cheshire the rates were up by 70 per cent. In Lincoln, before the change by the Secretary of State, the relief was to be 20p to 26p. It was cut to 13p.
    Mr. Tomlinson: What were the rates?
    Mr. Taylor: There has thus been an increase in the rate burden of 80 per cent., half of which is the direct result of the action taken by the Secretary of State. In Somerset the rates were to go up by between 10 per cent. and 41 per cent. They are now to rise by between 33 per cent. to 85 per cent. Others will be paying more. Much of this is the result of the action of the Secretary of State. He said that there was a higher rate burden in the cities and there should be a redistribution. He also said that there was a need for a fundamental re
    1854
    distribution of wealth and asked: if the Socialists would not do it, who would? He must accept that with the evidence that the general level of services provided in cities and counties is vastly different, there may be a case for a change, but surely the time to make a dramatic and sudden change which can put up some people's rates by 30 per cent., 40 per cent. or 80 per cent. is not a time of rampant inflation when we are trying to control expenditure.
    If it is said that there should be a uniform 13 per cent. throughout the country, why did the Secretary of State set a separate percentage for Wales and England? If there is a case for uniformity, surely it should apply to Wales as well as England. Once again the Secretary of State has shown that as well as having flexible language he has flexible principles.
    What about Scotland? Not many rate increases have been declared in Scotland. There have been a few within the last 24 hours, and I will mention one or two. For example, Dunbarton county has just announced a 38 per cent. rise in rates. We have had an indication from provosts—[HON. MEMBERS: "How much?"]—I have the detailed infromation here. The county rate is 97p in the pound, an increase of 27p on the flat rate. That is for Dumbartonshire and it is the first Scottish declaration we have had.
    It is sometimes suggested that we deliberately pick out the worst cases just to show how bad the Government are. I should like to read something which appeared in the Glasgow Herald today. It is not a statement by a Tory, by Aims of Industry or by the Conservative Central Office. It was made by the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Lambie), who cannot be here because he is speaking to the Scottish district councils. The heading reads as follows:
    "Rates may rise by 50 per cent. says MP"
    This is a Tory paper printing a speech made by a Labour Member of Parliament. It is crystal clear that we have a desperate situation.
    I am glad that the Secretary of State for Scotland has come in. It is unfortunate when these savage rate increases are being announced in Scotland that no hon. Member on the Government benches representing a Scottish constituency has taken part in the debate. But I know

    1855
    that the Secretary of State will be glad to listen to what I have to say and will do what can be done.
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. William Ross)The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. William Ross) rose—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman gives way to the Secretary of State, he must be heard in some degree of silence.
    Mr. Ross: I heard every word the hon. Gentleman said. I have been listening to his speech in the corridor. In quoting my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Lambie) the hon. Gentleman should have made plain that my hon. Friend was talking about the likely result of the reorganisation of local government that was put through by the Conservatives.
    Mr. Taylor: The Secretary of State could not have been listening with care and attention, as he will appreciate if he reads the remarks made by the city treasurer of Glasgow—a Labour Party treasurer—who was talking not about the increases arising from local government reorganisation but about increases which were the direct result of the Labour Government's actions through the Budget and which will be paid by Glasgow ratepayers.
    We have put forward a case for income relief. We have done so, first, because there have been massive increases in rates of as much as 100 per cent. We accept that some of those increases are not the responsibility of the Government. Some of them are the direct result of Government action. Secondly, we have an argument in logic. Hon. Gentlemen on the Government benches who said that this was something we would have to live with were the ones who brought forward arguments that because the rents of council house tenants had been increase by £26 a year immediate action should be taken to ensure that the rents were frozen. Surely one cannot say that when people are facing massive rate rises they deserve no help or relief. [An HON. MEMBER: "YOU opposed relief before."] We did not.
    Thirdly, there is the contribution to the control of inflation which such interim relief would bring. We cannot hope to expect people to exercise restrain in
    1856
    wages or prices if they face, either in their homes or in industry, unprecedented rate rises.
    Fourthly, we have a sound precedent for action being taken by the Conservative Government when unexpected results flowed from revaluation. It would cost money, but, bearing in mind that the Secretary of State admitted that if the Government were to pay half of all the extra rates above a 10 per cent. increase the figure would amount to £100 million, I suggest that this would be a cheap price for Government to pay when apparently they are prepared to spend hundreds of millions on worthless nationalisation of industry and to give £10 million of taxpayers' money as a straight bribe to trade unionists.
    At the beginning of the debate the Secretary of State for the Environment gave a jolly, elegant and highly political and amusing speech, which was inappropriate in view of the serious human problem and hardship caused by the alarming, unprecedented, and, indeed, unexpected rises in rates. The right hon. Gentleman said that he would listen to ideas and suggestions. This must surprise some of my hon. Friends, including a former Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who were apparently unable to obtain an interview with the right hon. Gentleman. They were not able to put their ideas to the Secretary of State. However, we have given the right hon. Gentleman some ideas tonight. We ask him to accept that a serious and alarming situation exists. Some of these matters are outside his direct control, but others are certainly within his direct control.
    We ask the right hon. Gentleman not for sympathy but for action to give interim relief to those who are hardest hit. We ask him to accept that many ratepayers are alarmed by the situation and that there is a militancy which has never existed before. We are traditionally a law-abiding and non-militant nation, and the tragedy is that the present Government who came to power on a pledge to surrender to militancy, have created a situation in which all sections of society believe that only by the exercise of militancy can they get results. It is a disastrous course which is poisoning our society.
    In those circumstances I appeal to the Government and to the House to say that

    1857
    we understand the problems of ratepayers, some of whom are facing staggering rises in rates. We must show them that in this Parliament we have a true understanding of their grievances and that their justified plea will be met by urgent action. If we do not have urgent action by the Government expressed in the Minister's reply tonight, we shall vote for the motion and make clear to the nation that this urgent problem must be urgently dealt with and treated seriously, so that justice may be done to ratepayers.
    9.34 p.m.
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. John Morris): I have great pleasure in joining in the congratulations to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Steen) on a delightful speech. We listened intently to his comments on public participation and public interest. The only regret I had was that he failed to mention that Liverpool had benefited by 6p in the pound because of the changes in rate support grant.
    The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) made a passionate speech. He began with a peroration and seemed to end with a peroration. He conceded that a lower rate existed in Scotland at present, but because of the imminence of reorganisation he said that the rates there were likely to be much higher next year. That perhaps is the best evidence that I can call. Local government reorganisation is a major factor which bedevils the rates that have been levied in the whole of England and Wales.
    I am sure that the hon. Member for Cathcart did not consult his colleagues who represent English constituencies before he made that statement. I am sure that the attack that he made on the Welsh rating system caused great embarrassment to his right hon. Friend who looks after the interests of Wales on behalf of the Opposition, the right hon. and learned Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Thomas). In any event, he does his best.
    I thought—and I am being most charitable—that in the course of the examination which the hon. Gentleman made of the inquiry which my right hon. Friend has set up he knocked down the possible alternative sources of finance for local government one after the other. He seemed to be placing his excuses on the
    1858
    record to justify the inability of the previous administration to do anything about local government finance. Perhaps that was the object of the exercise. He told us that the rates had gone up in some areas by 70 per cent. and 80 per cent. Of course, some of the water rates in the Principality have gone up as a result of the Water Act 1973, which the right hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Gibson-Watt) supported—
    Mr. David Gibson-Watt Mr. David Gibson-Watt (Hereford) rose—
    Mr. Morris: From time to time the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cathcart supported the previous Government and it may well be that he supported the Water Act 1973. I am not sure whether he was in favour or out of favour at the time. In Anglesey there were increases of 400 per cent. as a result of the Water Act which the right hon. Gentleman supported.
    Mr. Gibson-Watt: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I shall intervene but not interrupt. Water rates may be high in Wales, but, because of the action of the right hon. Gentleman and his Government, and because of the low amount of domestic rate support in Herefordshire, the water rates in Hereford are far higher than in the rest of the Wye Valley. That is damnably unfair. What will he do about it?
    Mr. Morris: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I and my—
    Mr. Gibson-Watt: Answer.
    Mr. Morris: The right hon. Gentleman said that he would not interrupt but intervene. Now let me reply. I have to defend all sorts of things at this Dispatch Box, but one thing that I do not have to defend is the Water Act 1973. The right hon. Gentleman was jointly in charge of that measure, and he knows full well that the present water rating system is the direct result of that iniquitous Act.
    Perhaps it will help to lower the temperature a little if we examine with some care the points at issue between the Government and the various motions which have been tabled by the Opposition parties. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has drawn attention to the absence of certain signatories whom we

    1859
    would have expected to see. For instance, the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) has been conspicuous by his absence all day. We note that he is not a signatory. In the same way we have listened with interest to the alibi of the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page). I am sure that he is doing well in Committee on the Finance Bill. The reason for their absence is clear. Both right hon. Gentlemen have made it known where they stand.
    I remind the House of what the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham said on the Second Reading of the Local Government Bill:
    "The system of rates, the local authorities' own tax, is well tried, well known and easy and cheap to administer."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th November 1973; Vol. 864, c. 35.]
    It is no wonder that his name is not among the signatories to the motion.
    When that same debate was wound up by the right hon. Member for Crosby, he knocked down the idea that there should be a Royal Commission. I find it odd to read the motion, the first limb of which stresses the need for a fundamental reform of the rating system. This is the cavalier manner in which this idea was thrown out by the official spokesman of the previous administration. He said:
    "We should only have discussion before the Royal Commission, repeating the discussion on local government finance, which the Government stimulated by issuing that Green Paper; it would be both disastrous and defeatist to put the whole matter back into the melting pot."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th November 1973; Vol. 864, c. 148.]
    It is no wonder that the Opposition are fielding a new team in seeking to put forward the need in 1974 for a fundamental reform of the rating system.
    Mr. Peter Tapsell: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is giving us an amusing knock-about speech but I am sure that he realises that for millions of ordinary people and certainly for my constituents this is a matter of deadly seriousness. To many of my constituents it is giving rise to the most acute anxiety. I hope that he will now address himself seriously to the problem and give some reassurance, especially to rural ratepayers, who are desperately anxious about the rate demands that they face.
    Mr. Morris: I do not know how long the hon. Member for Horncastle (Mr. Tapsell) has been listening to the debate. I observe him now for the first time, though perhaps I am being unfair to him. That should go on the record, I think. In any event, if the hon. Gentleman feels so passionate today and intends to join his colleagues in voting for the Opposition motion about the need for a fundamental reform of the rating system, I wonder why he did not do so three or four years ago and why he did not object when on that occasion the right hon. Member for Crosby said that to have a Royal Commission on this matter would be defeatist and disastrous and would put the whole matter back into the melting pot. Is there not humbug and hypocrisy on the part of Opposition supporters?
    Let me deal with another limb of this ill-drafted motion. It urges the need to provide that water and sewerage charges should rank for rate rebates. However, they cannot rank for rate rebates because that part of the rate was taken away from local government in the Water Act introduced by the previous administration. That is why it is not possible to make the rebates which have been prayed in aid as a very important assistance to people who are in difficulties. We are doing the utmost to ensure the greater use, the greater availability, and ensuring that this is brought to the attention of more and more people.
    Mr. F. A. Burden: What does that mean?
    Mr. Morris: But it must be humbug and hypocrisy on the part of the Opposition now, in 1974, to call for water and sewerage charges to rank for rate rebate. This relief was available until the Act came into being on 1st April, 1974.
    Why this conversion, this death-bed conversion on the road to Damascus, whereby the Opposition have seen this shining light? The outside world will know of the humbug and hypocrisy of hon. Gentlemen opposite.
    Mr. Hugh Fraser: How can someone have a death-bed conversion on the road to Damascus?
    Mr. Morris: By means of my somewhat colourful description, I pointed out the idiotic posture of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite.

    1861
    It is not a late gesture on our part in setting up a fundamental review. There was no mention of rating reform in the Conservative Party election manifesto; there was not a word about local government finance. Indeed, during the local government debates the Tories resisted any inquiry or examination into local government finance.
    The Labour Party made its position clear in its 1973 programme. We have to look afresh at the whole system of rating and of Exchequer grants to local authorities. That is an illustration of the consistency of the approach we are adopting urgently and speedily to try to grapple with an unfair tax, a tax which is based not on ability to pay, not on need, but on the premises one occupies and depends upon the part of the country in which one lives or operates. That has been the general tenor of the debate. Both sides of the House now accept the need for a fundamental inquiry of that kind.
    Perhaps it would be of interest if I were to set out some further material regarding the inquiry. Perhaps it would be helpful if at this stage I were to give an indication of what we stress about this inquiry. First, I stress that we are placing no restrictions on the work of the inquiry. It will be open to its members to re-examine any of the suggestions made in the past, to formulate new ones of its own on every aspect of local government finance, or, as has been suggested today, to inquire into practice overseas.
    There is one point we do not accept. Perhaps the only major difference between the Liberal Party and the Government is in this respect. The Liberal Party put forward very strongly the need for a Royal Commission. In reply to the speech made by the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) I would say that we do not accept that the inquiry will suffer any lack of authority through not being dubbed a Royal Commission. When we announce the membership it will be recognised that the committee is well able to stand on its own feet and make its views carry weight.
    Furthermore, we do not consider the formal machinery of a Royal Commission and its powers to call for evidence to be either necessary or appropriate in this case. The problem will lie not in gathering evidence but in the sifting of it. There has never been a shortage of advice to
    1862
    Governments on these matters. During the course of today's debate advice has been freely proffered by organisations and people on all sides. The prime need now is for constructive analysis, not a further agglomeration of material.
    Mr. Richard Wainwright: I am glad that the Secretary of State agrees on the importance of the inquiry taking account of valuable overseas experience. Does he think that an independent inquiry without Royal Commission status will meet with the same co-operation from foreign countries?
    Mr. Morris: In my view and that of my right hon. Friend there will be no difficulty. The need on occasion is for a Royal Commission with powers to summon persons and call evidence, but the lack of those powers will cause no difficulty in this kind of inquiry. There is so much evidence. What is needed now is to sift it, reach conclusions and make recommendations. I anticipate no difficulty on the score the hon. Gentleman mentioned. He and others have spoken about the need for urgency. The charge is often made that a Royal Commission loses not months but years. The kind of inquiry, with the kind of time scale indicated by my right hon. Friend, will report much earlier and be able to bring before the Government the examination which is needed. I hope that that will reassure the hon. Gentleman. My right hon. Friend's suggestion will more than meet the case for a fundamental inquiry.
    The hon. Member for Colne Valley also suggested that we should negotiate individually with the local authorities instead of consulting the local authority associations. I may have misunderstood him, but I think he will agree that in that extreme form his suggestion would be a recipe for confusion. It is essential for the Government to take the collective views of local government on these matters. We simply cannot have 400 or more separate grant settlements. Besides, there is a statutory requirement on the Secretary of State to consult the local authority associations in making the settlement.
    However, we fully accept that there is a need for us to have a clear picture in our minds of the problems confronting individual authorities during our discussions with the associations. That is why

    1863
    my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. Oakes) is visiting a wide range of authorities to talk about the prospects for next year. The hon. Member will recall that he visited the new district of Kirklees, which I understand falls within the hon. Member's constituency.
    Many hon. Members have pressed us to take account of income levels in next year's distribution arrangements. It seems to be true that local authority spending per head is artificially depressed in low income areas and unusually high in many areas which have a high level of rateable resources—presumably a reflection of the ability of the local people to pay. We very much hope that in consultation with the local authority associations we can find ways of adjusting the formulae to take account of this.
    Hon. Members on both sides have raised the problem of areas with rapidly-growing populations, the new and expanding towns and the need for early and speedy action to help those areas. My hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mr. Tomlinson) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Sir G. de Freitas) and a number of other hon. Members raised this matter. A case has been forcibly put here for more help for areas with rapidly-growing populations, particularly those areas with planned overspill development. We are again reviewing the evidence of the effect of population growth on expenditure levels and we are seriously considering the possibility of using more up-to-date data on population and other matters in the rate calculations for 1974–75.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) made a similar point. I understand that there is a particular problem in Knowlsley because there was no former county borough base on which to build. We are discussing with the local authority associations whether there is any way we can reflect in the grant distribution the heavy burden which some new authorities suffered from reorganisation, and we are exploring the possibility of using more up-to-date data on expenditure, popula-
    1864
    tion and other matters in preparing next year's distribution.
    It is obvious to all hon. Members who have taken part in the debate that the ratepayers have been taken in as a result of the deception of the Opposition. The Opposition prophesied a maximum 9 per cent. and an average 3 per cent. increase in rates, and now we have had crocodile tears from one end of the Opposition benches to the other because of the staggering increase in rates. The Opposition have misled local authorities regarding inflation. Local authorities were told to plan for a 9 per cent. inflation rate, but it has been running at 15 per cent. and more.
    We have inherited an appalling economic situation—
    Mr. Carlisle: In the last two minutes at his disposal will the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell us, instead of what he has been saying, what he will do to help those parts of the country where people are facing increases of 70, 80 and 90 per cent.? Those people cannot understand why a Government who throw money about like confetti are unwilling to do anything about the rates.
    Mr. Morris: I would have thought that the hon. and learned Gentleman would be blushing, having been in office for four years and having been party to a rejection of a fundamental review. How dare he stand there, with crocodile tears seeping out of his eyes, over rate increases of 70 or 80 per cent. when he knows, about the cost of local government reorganisation, the appalling mismanagement of his Government and the way they deceived people in their prophecy of the extent of the rate increase? They now seek to put the blame on the Government.
    In the last debate on this matter, 80 or more Opposition Members were absent from the Lobbies. No doubt many of them represented areas which have benefited from the Government's proposals. What a change there has been since the last debate. The whole of the responsibility for the present situation lies with the Opposition.
    Question put, That the amendment be made:—
    The House divided: Ayes 289, Noes 298.

    Division No. 57.]

    AYES

    [9.59 p.m.

    Abse, Leo

    Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

    Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

    Allaun, Frank

    Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

    McCartney, Hugh

    Archer, Peter

    Evans, John (Newton)

    McElhone, Frank

    Armstrong, Ernest

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

    MacFarquhar, Roderick

    Ashley, Jack

    Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

    McGuire, Michael

    Ashton, Joe

    Flannery, Martin

    Maclennan, Robert

    Atkins, Ronald

    Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

    McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

    Atkinson, Norman

    Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

    McNamara, Kevin

    Bagier, Gordon A. T.

    Foot, Rt. Hn. Michael

    Madden, M. O. F.

    Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

    Ford, Ben

    Magee, Bryan

    Barnett, Joel (Heywood & Royton)

    Forrester, John

    Mahon, Simon

    Bates, Alf

    Fowler, Gerry (The Wrekin)

    Mallalieu, J. P. W.

    Baxter, William

    Fraser, John (Lambeth, Norwood)

    Marks, Kenneth

    Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

    Freeson, Reginald

    Marquand, David

    Bennett, Andrew F. (Stockport, N.)

    Galpern, Sir Myer

    Marshall, Dr. Edmund (Goole)

    Bidwell, Sydney

    Garrett, John (Norwich, S.)

    Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

    Bishop, E. S.

    Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

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

    Blenkinsop, Arthur

    George, Bruce

    Meacher, Michael

    Boardman, H.

    Gilbert, Dr. John

    Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

    Booth, Albert

    Ginsburg, David

    Mendelson, John

    Boothroyd, Miss Betty

    Golding, John

    Mikardo, Ian

    Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

    Gourlay, Harry

    Millan, Bruce

    Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)

    Graham, Ted

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

    Bradley, Tom

    Grant, George (Morpeth)

    Milne, Edward

    Broughton, Sir Alfred

    Grant, John (Islington, C.)

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

    Brown, Bob (Newcastle upon Tyne, W.)

    Griffiths, Eddie (Sheffield, Brightside)

    Molloy, William

    Brown, Hugh D. (Glasgow, Provan)

    Hamilton, William (Fife, C.)

    Moonman, Eric

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

    Hamling, William

    Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

    Buchan, Norman

    Hardy, Peter

    Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

    Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Springb'rn)

    Harper, Joseph

    Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

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

    Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

    Moyle, Roland

    Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James (Cardiff, S.E.)

    Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

    Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

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

    Hattersley, Roy

    Murray, Ronald King

    Campbell, Ian

    Hatton, Frank

    Newens, Stanley (Harlow)

    Cant, R. B.

    Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

    Oakes, Gordon

    Carmichael, Neil

    Heffer, Eric S.

    Ogden, Eric

    Carter, Ray

    Hooley, Frank

    O'Halloran, Michael

    Carter-Jones, Lewis

    Horam, John

    O'Malley, Brian

    Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

    Howell, Denis (B'ham, Small Heath)

    Orbach, Maurice

    Clemitson, Ivor

    Huckfield, Leslie

    Orme, Rt. Hn. Stanley

    Cocks, Michael

    Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

    Ovenden, John

    Cohen, Stanley

    Hughes, Mark (Durham)

    Owen, Dr. David

    Coleman, Donald

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, North)

    Padley, Walter

    Colquhoun, Mrs. M. N.

    Hughes, Roy (Newport)

    Palmer, Arthur

    Concannon, J. D.

    Hunter, Adam

    Park, George (Coventry, N.E.)

    Conlan, Bernard

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

    Parker, John (Dagenham)

    Cook, Robert F. (Edinburgh, C.)

    Irving, Rt. Hn. Sydney (Dartford)

    Parry, Robert

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

    Jackson, Colin

    Pavitt, Laurie

    Crawshaw, Richard

    Janner, Greville

    Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

    Cronin, John

    Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

    Perry, Ernest G.

    Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

    Jeger, Mrs. Lena

    Phipps, Dr. Colin

    Cryer, G. R.

    Jenkins, Hugh (W'worth, Putney)

    Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg

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

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

    Prescott, John

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

    John, Brynmor

    Price, Christopher (Lewisham, W.)

    Dalyell, Tam

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

    Price, William (Rugby)

    Davidson, Arthur

    Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

    Radice, Giles

    Davies, Bryan (Enfield, N.)

    Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

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

    Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

    Jones, Dan (Burnley)

    Richardson, Miss Jo

    Davies, Ifor (Gower)

    Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

    Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

    Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

    Deakins, Eric

    Judd, Frank

    Robertson, John (Paisley)

    Dean, Joseph (Leeds, W.)

    Kaufman, Gerald

    Roderick, Caerwyn E.

    de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

    Keiley, Richard

    Rodgers, George (Chorley)

    Delargy, Hugh

    Kerr, Russell

    Rodgers, William(Teesside, St'ckton)

    Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

    Kilroy-Silk, Robert

    Rooker, J. W.

    Dempsey, James

    Kinnock, Neil

    Rose, Paul B.

    Doig, Peter

    Lomborn, Harry

    Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

    Dormand, J. D.

    Lamond, James

    Rowlands, Edward

    Douglas-Mann, Bruce

    Latham, Arthur(City of W'minster P'ton)

    Sandelson, Neville

    Duffy, A. E. P.

    Lawson, George (Motherwell & Wishaw)

    Sedgemore, Bryan

    Dunn, James A.

    Leadbitter, Ted

    Selby, Harry

    Dunnett, Jack

    Lee, John

    Shaw, Arnold (Redbridge, Ilford, S.)

    Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth

    Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

    Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

    Eadle, Alex

    Lewis, Arthur (Newham, N.)

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

    Edelman, Maurice

    Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

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

    Edge, Geoff

    Lipton, Marcus

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

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

    Loughlin, Charles

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

    Ellis, John (Brigg & Scunthorpe)

    Loyden, Eddie

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

    Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

    Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

    Sillars, James

    English, Michael

    Lyons, Edward (Bradford, W.)

    Silverman, Julius

    Ennals, David

    Skinner, Dennis

    Tierney, Sydney

    Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

    Small, William

    Tinn, James

    Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

    Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

    Tomlinson, John

    Williams, Alan Lee (Hvrng, Hchurch)

    Snape, Peter

    Torney, Tom

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

    Spearing, Nigel

    Tuck, Raphael

    Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

    Spriggs, Leslie

    Urwin, T. W.

    Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

    Stallard, A. W.

    Varley, Rt. Hn. Eric G.

    Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

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

    Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

    Wilson, William (Coventry, S.E.)

    Stoddart, David (Swindon)

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

    Wise, Mrs. Audrey

    Storehouse, Rt. Hn. John

    Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

    Woodall, Alec

    Stott, Roger

    Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

    Woof, Robert

    Strang, Gavin

    Watkins, David

    Wrigglesworth, Ian

    Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

    Weitzman, David

    Young, David (Bolton, E.)

    Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

    Wellbeloved, James

    Swain, Thomas

    White, James

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES

    Taverne, Dick

    Whitehead, Phillip

    Mr. Michael Cocks and

    Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

    Whitlock, William

    Mr. James Hamilton.

    Thorne, Stan (Preston, S.)

    NOES

    Adley Robert

    Dodds-Parker, Sir Douglas

    Hooson, Emlyn

    Aitken, Jonathan

    Dodsworth, Geoffrey

    Hordern, Peter

    Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

    Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec

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

    Allason James (Hemel Hempstead)

    Drayson, Burnaby

    Howell, David (Guildford)

    Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian

    du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

    Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, North)

    Ancram, M.

    Durant, Tony

    Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

    Archer, Jeffrey

    Dykes, Hugh

    Hunt, John

    Atkins, Rt. Hn. Humphrey (Spelthorne)

    Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir John

    Hurd, Douglas

    Awdry, Daniel

    Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

    Hutchison, Michael Clark

    Baker, Kenneth

    Elliott, Sir William

    Iremonger, T. L.

    Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord

    Emery, Peter

    Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

    Banks, Robert

    Eyre, Reginald

    James, David

    Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

    Fairgrieve, Russell

    Jenkin, Rt. Hn. P. (R'dge W'std &W'fd)

    Beith, A. J.

    Farr, John

    Jessel, Toby

    Bell, Ronald

    Fell, Anthony

    Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

    Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Fareham)

    Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

    Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

    Benyon, W.

    Fidler, Michael

    Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

    Berry, Hon. Anthony

    Finsberg, Geoffrey

    Jopling, Michael

    Biffen, John

    Fisher, Sir Nigel

    Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

    Biggs-Davison, John

    Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh, N.)

    Kaberry, Sir Donald

    Blaker, Peter

    Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

    Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine

    Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.)

    Fookes, Miss Janet

    Kershaw, Anthony

    Body, Richard

    Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'Field)

    Kilfedder, James A.

    Boscawen, Hon. Robert

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

    Kimball, Marcus

    Bowden, Andrew (Brighton, Kemptown)

    Freud, Clement

    King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

    Boyson, Dr. Rhodes (Brent, N.)

    Fry, Peter

    King, Tom (Bridgwater)

    Braine, Sir Bernard

    Galbraith, Hn. T. G. D.

    Kitson, Sir Timothy

    Bray, Ronald

    Gardiner,George (Reigate & Banstead)

    Knight, Mrs. Jill

    Brewis, John

    Gardner, Edward (S. Fylde)

    Knox, David

    Brittan, Leon

    Gibson-Watt, Rt. Hn. David

    Lament, Norman

    Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

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

    Lane, David

    Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

    Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

    Langford-Holt, Sir John

    Bruce-Gardyne, J.

    Glyn, Dr. Alan

    Latham, Arthur (Melton)

    Bryan, Sir Paul

    Godber, Rt. Hn. Joseph

    Lawrence, Ivan

    Buchanan-Smith, Alick

    Goodhart, Philip

    Lawson, Nigel (Blaby)

    Buck, Antony

    Goodhew, Victor

    Le Marchant, Spencer

    Budgen, Nick

    Goodlad, A.

    Lester, Jim (Beeston)

    Bulmer, Esmond

    Gorst, John

    Lewis, Kenneth (Rtland & Stmford)

    Burden, F. A.

    Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

    Lloyd, Ian (Havant & Waterloo)

    Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

    Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

    Loverldge, John

    Carlisle, Mark

    Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

    Luce, Richard

    Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

    Gray, Hamish

    McAdden, Sir Stephen

    Chalker, Mrs. Lynda

    Grieve, Percy

    MacArthur, Ian

    Channon, Paul

    Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

    McCrindle, R. A.

    Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

    Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.

    Macfarlane, Neil

    Churchill, W. S.

    Grist, Ian

    MacGregor, John

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

    Grylis, Michael

    McLaren, Martin

    Clark, William (Croydon, S.)

    Gurden, Harold

    Macmillan, Rt. Hn. M. (Farnham)

    Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

    Hall, Sir John

    McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)

    Cockcroft, John

    Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

    McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)

    Cooke, Robert (Bristol, W.)

    Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

    Madel, David

    Cope, John

    Hampson, Dr. Keith

    Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

    Cordle, John

    Hannam, John

    Marten, Neil

    Cormack, Patrick

    Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

    Mather, Carol

    Corrie, John

    Harvie Anderson, Rt. Hn. Miss

    Maude, Angus

    Costaln, A. P.

    Hastings, Stephen

    Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

    Critchley, Julian

    Havers, Sir Michael

    Mawby, Ray

    Crouch, David

    Hayh e, Barney

    Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

    Crowder, F. P.

    Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward

    Mayhew, Patrick (RoyalT'bridge Wells)

    Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)

    Henderson, J. S. B. (Dunbartonshire, E.)

    Meyer, Sir Anthony

    d'Avlgdor-Goldsmld, Maj.-Gen. James

    Heseltine, Michael

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

    Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)

    Higgins, Terence

    Mills, Peter

    Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

    Hill, James A.

    Miscampbell, Norman

    Dixon, Piers

    Holland, Philip

    Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

    1868

    1869

    Moate, Roger

    Renton, R. T. (Mid-Sussex)

    Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

    Money, Ernle

    Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

    Tebbit, Norman

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

    Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Morgan, Geraint

    Ridsdale, Julian

    Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Margaret

    Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

    Rifkind, Malcolm

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

    Morris, Michael (Northampton, S.)

    Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey

    Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy

    Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

    Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

    Townsend, C. D.

    Morrison, Peter (City of Chester)

    Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

    Trotter, Neville

    Mudd, David

    Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

    Tugendhat, Christopher

    Neave, Airey

    Rost, Peter (Derbyshire, S. E.)

    Tyler, Paul

    Neubert, Michael

    Royle, Sir Anthony

    van Straubenzee, W. R.

    Newton, Tony (Bralntree)

    Sainsbury, Tim

    Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

    Normanton, Tom

    St. John-Stevas, Norman

    Viggers, Peter

    Nott, John

    Scott-Hopkins, James

    Waddington, David

    Onslow, Cranley

    Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

    Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)

    Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

    Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

    Wakeham, John

    Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

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

    Walder, David (Clltheroe)

    Osborn, John

    Shersby, Michael

    Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)

    Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)

    Silvester, Fred

    Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

    Page, John (Harrow, W.)

    Sims, Roger

    Wall, Patrick

    Pardoe, John

    Sinclair, Sir George

    Walters, Dennis

    Parkinson, Cecil (Hertfordshire, S.)

    Skeet, T. H. H.

    Warren, Kenneth

    Pattie, Geoffrey

    Spence, John

    Weatherill, Bernard

    Percival, Ian

    Spicer, Jim (Dorset, W.)

    Wells, John

    Peyton, Rt. Hn. John

    Spicer, Michael (Worcestershire, S.)

    Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

    Pink, R. Bonner

    Sproat, Iain

    Wiggin, Jerry

    Price, David (Eastleigh)

    Stainton, Keith

    Winstanley, Dr. Michael

    Prior, Rt. Hn. James

    Stanbrook, Ivor

    Winterton, Nicholas

    Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

    Stanley, John

    Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

    Quennell, Miss J. M.

    Steel, David

    Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

    Raison, Timothy

    Steen, Anthony (L'pool, Wavertree)

    Worsley, Sir Marcus

    Rathbone, Tim

    Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

    Young, Sir George (Ealing, Acton)

    Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

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

    Redmond, Robert

    Stokes, John

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

    Stradling Thomas, John

    Rees-Davies, W. R.

    Tapsell, Peter

    Mr. Walter Clegg and

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

    Taylor, Edward M. (Glgow, C'cart)

    Mr. Paul Hawkins.

    Question accordingly negatived.
    Main Question put:—
    The House divided: Ayes 298, Noes 289.

    Division No. 58.]

    AYES

    [10.12 p.m.

    Adley Robert

    Carlisle, Mark

    Fidler, Michael

    Aitken, Jonathan

    Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

    Finsberg, Geoffrey

    Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

    Chalker, Mrs. Lynda

    Fisher, Sir Nigel

    Allason James (Hemel Hempstead)

    Channon, Paul

    Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh, N.)

    Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian

    Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

    Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

    Ancram, M.

    Churchill, W. S.

    Fookes, Miss Janet

    Archer, Jeffrey

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

    Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'Field)

    Atkins, Rt.Hn. Humphrey (Spelthorne)

    Clark, William (Croydon, S.)

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

    Awdry, Daniel

    Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

    Freud, Clement

    Baker, Kenneth

    Cockcrott, John

    Fry, Peter

    Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord

    Cooke, Robert (Bristol, W.)

    Galbraith, Hn. T. G. D.

    Banks, Robert

    Cope, John

    Gardiner, George (Reigate & Banstead)

    Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

    Cordle, John

    Gardner, Edward (S. Fylde)

    Beith, A. J.

    Cormack, Patrick

    Gibson-Watt, Rt. Hn. David

    Bell, Ronald

    Corrie, John

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

    Bennett, Or. Reginald (Fareham)

    Costain, A. P.

    Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

    Benyon, W.

    Critchley, Julian

    Glyn, Dr. Alan

    Berry, Hon. Anthony

    Crouch, David

    Godber, Rt. Hn. Joseph

    Biffen, John

    Crowder, F. P.

    Goodhart, Philip

    Blggs-Davison, John

    Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)

    Goodhew, Victor

    Blaker, Peter

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

    Goodlad, A.

    Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.)

    Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)

    Gorst, John

    Body, Richard

    Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

    Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

    Boscawen, Hon. Robert

    Dixon, Piers

    Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

    Bowden, Andrew (Brighton, Kemplown)

    Dodds-Parker, Sir Douglas

    Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

    Boyson, Dr. Rhodes (Brent, N.)

    Dodsworth, Geoffrey

    Gray, Hamish

    Braine, Sir Bernard

    Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec

    Grieve, Percy

    Bray, Ronald

    Drayson, Burnaby

    Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

    Brewis, John

    du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

    Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.

    Brittan, Leon

    Durant, Tony

    Grist, Ian

    Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

    Dykes, Hugh

    Grylis, Michael

    Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

    Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir John

    Gurden, Harold

    Bruce-Gardyne, J.

    Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

    Hall, Sir John

    Bryan, Sir Paul

    Elliott, Sir William

    Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

    Buchanan-Smith, Allck

    Emery, Peter

    Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

    Buck, Antony

    Eyre, Reginald

    Hampson, Dr. Keith

    Budgen, Nick

    Fairgrieve, Russell

    Hannam,John

    Bulmer, Esmond

    Farr, John

    Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

    Burden, F. A.

    Fell, Anthony

    Harvie Anderson, Rt. Hn. Miss

    Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

    Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

    Hastings, Stephen

    Marten, Neil

    St. John-Stevas, Norman

    Havers, Sir Michael

    Mather, Carol

    Scott-Hopkins, James

    Hayhoe, Barney

    Maude, Angus

    Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

    Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward

    Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

    Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

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

    Mawby, Ray

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

    Heseltine, Michael

    Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

    Shersby, Michael

    Higgins, Terence

    Mayhew,Patrick(RoyalT'bridgeWells)

    Silvester, Fred

    Hill, James A.

    Meyer, Sir Anthony

    Sims, Roger

    Holland, Philip

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

    Sinclair, Sir George

    Hooson, Emlyn

    Mills, Peter

    Skeet, T. H. H.

    Hordern, Peter

    Miscampbell, Norman

    Spence, John

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

    Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

    Spicer, Jim (Dorset, W.)

    Howell, David (Guildford)

    Moate, Roger

    Spicer, Michael (Worcestershire, S.)

    Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, North)

    Money, Ernie

    Sproat, Iain

    Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

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

    Stainton, Keith

    Hunt, John

    Morgan, Geraint

    Stanbrook, Ivor

    Hurd, Douglas

    Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

    Stanley, John

    Hutchison, Michael Clark

    Morris, Michael (Northampton, S.)

    Steel, David

    Iremonger, T. L.

    Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

    Steen, Anthony (L'pool, Wavertree)

    Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

    Morrison, Peter (City of Chester)

    Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

    James, David

    Mudd, David

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

    Jenkin, Rt. Hn. P. (R'dgeW'std&W'fd)

    Neave, Airey

    Stokes, John

    Jessel, Toby

    Neubert, Michael

    Stradling Thomas, John

    Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

    Newton, Tony (Braintree)

    Tapsell, Peter

    Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

    Normanton, Tom

    Taylor, Edward M. (Glgow, C'cart)

    Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

    Nott, John

    Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

    Jopling, Michael

    Onslow, Craniey

    Tebbit, Norman

    Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

    Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Kaberry, Sir Donald

    Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

    Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Margaret

    Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine

    Osborn, John

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

    Kershaw, Anthony

    Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)

    Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy

    Kilfedder, James A.

    Page, John (Harrow, W.)

    Townsend, C. D.

    Kimball, Marcus

    Pardoe, John

    Trotter. Neville

    King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

    Parkinson, Cecil (Hertfordshire, S.)

    Tugendhat, Christopher

    King, Tom (Bridgwater)

    Pattie, Geoffrey

    Tyler, Paul

    Kitson, Sir Timothy

    Percival, Ian

    van Straubenzee, W. R.

    Knight, Mrs. Jill

    Peyton, Rt. Hn. John

    Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

    Knox, David

    Pink, R. Bonner

    Viggers, Peter

    Lamont, Norman

    Price, David (Eastleigh)

    Waddington, David

    Lane, David

    Prior, Rt. Hn. James

    Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)

    Langford-Holt, Sir John

    Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

    Wakeham, John

    Latham, Arthur (Melton)

    Quennell, Miss J. M.

    Walder, David (Clitheroe)

    Lawrence, Ivan

    Raison, Timothy

    Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)

    Lawson, Nigel (Blaby)

    Rathbone, Tim

    Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

    Le Marchant, Spencer

    Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

    Wall, Patrick

    Lester, Jim (Beeston)

    Redmond, Robert

    Walters, Dennis

    Lewis, Kenneth (Rtland & Stmford)

    Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

    Warren, Kenneth

    Lloyd, Ian (Havant & Waterloo)

    Rees-Davies, W. R.

    Weatherill, Bernard

    Loveridge, John

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

    Wells, John

    Luce, Richard

    Renton, R. T. (Mid-Sussex)

    Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

    McAdden, Sir Stephen

    Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

    Wiggin, Jerry

    MacArthur, Ian

    Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

    Winstanley, Dr. Michael

    McCrindle, R. A.

    Ridsdale, Julian

    Winterton, Nicholas

    Macfarlane, Neil

    Rifkind, Malcolm

    Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

    MacGregor, John

    Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey

    Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

    McLaren, Martin

    Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

    Worsley, Sir Marcus

    Macmillan, Rt. Hn. M. (Farnham)

    Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

    Young, Sir George (Ealing, Acton)

    McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)

    Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)

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

    Mr. Walter Clegg and

    Madel, David

    Royle, Sir Anthony

    Mr. Paul Hawkins.

    Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

    Sainsbury, Tim

    NOES

    Abse, Leo

    Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

    Coleman, Donald

    Allaun, Frank

    Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)

    Colquhoun, Mrs. M. N.

    Archer, Peter

    Bradley, Tom

    Concannon, J. D.

    Armstrong, Ernest

    Broughton, Sir Alfred

    Conlan, Bernard

    Ashley, Jack

    Brown, Bob (Newcastle upon Tyne,W.)

    Cook, Robert F. (Edinburgh, C.)

    Ashton, Joe

    Brown, Hugh D. (Glasgow, Provan)

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

    Atkins, Ronald

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

    Crawshaw, Richard

    Atkinson, Norman

    Buchan, Norman

    Cronin, John

    Bagier, Gordon A. T.

    Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Springb'rn)

    Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

    Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

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

    Cryer, G. R.

    Barnett, Joel (Heywood & Royton)

    Callaghan, Rt.Hn. James (Cardiff.S.E.)

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

    Bates, Alf

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

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

    Baxter, William

    Campbell, Ian

    Dalyell, Tam

    Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

    Cant, R. B.

    Davidson, Arthur

    Bennett, Andrew F. (Stockport, N.)

    Carmichael, Neil

    Davies, Bryan (Enfield, N.)

    Bidwell, Sydney

    Carter, Ray

    Davies, Denzil (Llaneill)

    Bishop, E. S.

    Carter-Jones, Lewis

    Davies, Ifor (Gower)

    Blenkinsop, Arthur

    Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

    Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

    Boardman, H.

    Clemitson, Ivor

    Deakins, Eric

    Booth, Albert

    Cocks, Michael

    Dean, Joseph (Leeds, W.)

    Boothroyd, Miss Betty

    Cohen, Stanley

    de Freltas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

    1872

    1873

    Delargy, Hugh

    Jones, Dan (Burnley)

    Radice, Giles

    Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

    Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

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

    Dempsey, James

    Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

    Richardson, Miss Jo

    Doig, Peter

    Judd, Frank

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    Dormand, J. D.

    Kaufman, Gerald

    Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

    Douglas-Mann, Bruce

    Kelley, Richard

    Robertson, John (Paisley)

    Duffy, A. E. P.

    Kerr, Russell

    Roderick, Caerwyn E

    Dunn, James A.

    Kilroy-Silk, Robert

    Rodgers, George (Chorley)

    Dunnett, Jack

    Kinnock, Neil

    Rodgers, William(Teesside, St'ckton)

    Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth

    Lamborn, Harry

    Rooker, J. W.

    Eadie, Alex

    Lamond, James

    Rose, Paul B.

    Edelman, Maurice

    Latham, Arthur (City of W'minster P' ton)

    Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

    Edge, Geoff

    Lawson, George (Motherwell & Wishaw)

    Rowlands, Edward

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

    Leadbitter, Ted

    Sandelson, Neville

    Ellis, John (Brigg & Scunthorpe)

    Lee, John

    Sedgemore, Bryan

    Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

    Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

    Selby, Harry

    English, Michael

    Lewis, Arthur (Newham, N.)

    Shaw, Arnold (Redbridge, Ilford, S.)

    Ennals, David

    Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

    Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

    Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

    Lipton, Marcus

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

    Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

    Loughlin, Charles

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

    Evans, John (Newton)

    Loyden, Eddie

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

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

    Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

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

    Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

    Lyons, Edward (Bradford, W.)

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

    Flannery, Martin

    Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

    Sillars, James

    Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

    McCartney, Hugh

    Silverman, Julius

    Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

    McElhone, Frank

    Skinner, Dennis

    Foot, Rt. Hn. Michael

    MacFarquhar, Roderick

    Small, William

    Ford, Ben

    McGulre, Michael

    Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

    Forrester, John

    Maclennan, Robert

    Snape, Peter

    Fowler, Gerry (The Wrekin)

    McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

    Spearing, Nigel

    Eraser, John (Lambeth, Norwood)

    McNamara, Kevin

    Spriggs, Leslie

    Freeson, Reginald

    Madden, M. O. F.

    Stallard, A. W.

    Galpern, Sir Myer

    Magee, Bryan

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

    Garrett, John (Norwich, S.)

    Mahon, Simon

    Stoddart, David (Swindon)

    Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

    Mallalieu, J. P. W.

    Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

    George, Bruce

    Marks, Kenneth

    Stott, Roger

    Gilbert, Dr. John

    Marquand, David

    Strang, Gavin

    Ginsburg, David

    Marshall, Dr. Edmund (Goole)

    Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

    Golding, John

    Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

    Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

    Gourlay, Harry

    Mayhew, Christopher (G'wh,Wch, E)

    Swain, Thomas

    Graham, Ted

    Meacher, Michael

    Taverne, Dick

    Grant, George (Morpeth)

    Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

    Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

    Grant, John (Islington, C.)

    Mendelson, John

    Thorne, Stan (Preston, S.)

    Griffiths, Eddie (Sheffield, Brightside

    Mikardo, Ian

    Tierney, Sydney

    Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

    Millan, Bruce

    Tinn, James

    Hamilton, William (Fife, C.)

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

    Tomlinson, John

    Hamling, William

    Milne, Edward

    Torney, Tom

    Hardy, Peter

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

    Tuck, Raphael

    Harper, Joseph

    Molloy, William

    Urwin, T. W.

    Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

    Moonman, Eric

    Varley, Rt. Hn. Eric G.

    Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

    Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

    Walnwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

    Hattersley, Roy

    Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

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

    Hatton, Frank

    Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

    Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

    Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

    Moyle, Roland

    Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

    Heffer, Eric S.

    Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

    Watkins, David

    Hooley, Frank

    Murray, Ronald King

    Weitzman, David

    Horam, John

    Newens, Stanley (Harlow)

    Wellbeloved, James

    Howell, Denis (B'ham, Small Heath)

    Oakes, Gordon

    White, James

    Huckfield, Leslie

    Ogden, Eric

    Whitehead, Phillip

    Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

    O'Halloran, Michael

    Whitlock, William

    Hughes, Mark (Durham)

    O'Malley, Brian

    Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, North)

    Orbach, Maurice

    Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

    Hughes, Roy (Newport)

    Orme, Rt. Hn. Stanley

    Williams, Alan Lee (Hvrng, Hchurch)

    Hunter, Adam

    Ovenden, John

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

    Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir A. (L'p'l,EdgeHI)

    Owen, Dr. David

    Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

    Irving, Rt. Hn. Sydney (Dartford)

    Padley, Walter

    Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

    Jackson, Colin

    Palmer, Arthur

    Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

    Janner, Greville

    Park, George (Coventry, N.E.)

    Wilson, William (Coventry, S.E.)

    Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

    Parker, John (Dagenham)

    Wise, Mrs. Audrey

    Jeger, Mrs. Lena

    Parry, Robert

    Woodall, Alec

    Jenkins, Hugh (W'worth, Putney)

    Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

    Woof, Robert

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

    Perry, Ernest G.

    Wrlgglesworth, Ian

    John, Brynmor

    Phipps, Dr. Colin

    Young, David (Bolton, E.)

    Johnson, James (K'ston uponHull, W)

    Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

    Prescott, John

    Mr. Thomas Cox and

    Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

    Price, Christopher (Lewisham, W.)

    Mr. Laurie Pavit

    Price, William (Rugby)

    Question accordingly agreed to.
    Resolved,
    That this House, in view of the massive increases in rates in many areas greatly in excess of the growth of incomes, stresses the need for
    1874
    a fundamental reform of the rating system; and urges Her Majesty's Government to introduce a measure of interim relief this year for the benefit of the worst affected and to provide that water and sewerage charges should rank for rate rebate.
    Mrs. Thatcher: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the decision of the House in favour of the motion, will the Secretary of State undertake to make a statement on what he proposes to do about interim relief for the overburdened ratepayers during the next few days?
    Mr. Crosland: I shall take the most careful note of all the points made in this
    1876
    bizarre debate, in which the Tory Opposition voted against all the policies of the Tory Government. I shall certainly consider the question that the right hon. Lady has raised, as a matter of courtesy to her and to the House, but the final verdict on all this will be given by the electorate, and they will well understand how much cant, humbug and hypocrisy has been spoken today.

    BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
    Ordered,
    That the Motions relating to the First, Second and Third Reports from the Select Committee on House of Commons (Services) may he proceeded with at this day's Sitting, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Mellish.]

    HOUSE OF COMMONS (SERVICES)
    Ordered,
    That the First, Second and Third Reports of the Select Committee on House of Commons (Services) be now considered.—[Mr. Bottomley.]
    Considered accordingly.

    NEW PALACE YARD (LANDSCAPING)
    10.28 p.m.
    Mr. Arthur Bottomley: I beg to move,
    That this House doth agree with the Select Committee on House of Commons (Services) in their First Report.
    I should like to draw special attention to certain points.
    Mr. Speaker: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me for interrupting him. Are the reports being taken separately or together?
    Mr. Bottomley: I think that for orderliness it might be preferable to take them separately, Mr. Speaker.
    I hope that this time we shall be able to reach a solution. I think that the whole House will agree that it is necessary to clean up New Palace Yard in an appropriate and attractive way without further delay.
    When the House last debated the issue it had before it a scheme prepared by the Department of the Environment for paving the yard with a uniform surface of granite setts, and with bollards separating the roadway from the central area. This scheme was recommended to the House by the last Services Committee. I understand that it was favoured by the Department's Inspectorate of Ancient Monuments, because it pre
    1878
    served the historical character of the area as an open yard. For largely the same reasons, it was preferred by the Department's architects and commended by the Royal Fine Art Commission.
    It was also felt that visually such treatment would be more in keeping with its surroundings than any alternative involving grass and shrubs or water. I note that the Chairman of the Royal Fine Art Commission, in a letter to The Times recently, reiterated this view, which was shared by the Westminster City Council.
    However, on 10th December 1973 the House decided that it did not want the yard scheme. Although no clear-cut alternative was suggested, the general view was that a scheme incorporating grass and trees or shrubs would be more acceptable. The Committee has faithfully tried to give effect to that general view in the recommendations contained in the report.
    I do not think I shall be betraying any confidence by telling the House that, like the Royal Fine Art Commission, the Department was not very happy about our proposals. It naturally wanted its own scheme. When we first met to discuss the matter it produced a variant for the Committee's consideration. However, it was felt by the Committee that it would have been wrong to come back to the House with something which differed very little from what had already been rejected. For this reason the Committee instructed the Department to prepare the scheme described in paragraphs 6 and 7 of the report. I think that the scheme will add a new dimension to the Yard and will be attractive.
    The Department would have reasonable latitude, in consultation with the Services Committee, to carry out the scheme in the most practical way. In our consideration of this matter we have had much help from the Department of the Environment, and I would like to thank all the officials who have given unstintingly of their service and time. I think the Committee would wish me in particular to pay tribute to the work of the principal architect, Mr. Ellis, who produced at short notice various schemes at our specific request. I should also like to pay tribute to the sub-committee and its chairman, the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Cooke), who worked so hard

    1879
    to produce the report and its recommendations. Another point has been highlighted by the recent bomb attack. We have to ensure that whatever we do is consistent with security requirements and that there is always access for fire engines. The Services Committee will keep this matter under review.
    Finally, I should like to strike a note of urgency. The Committee has been conscious of the need to restore the yard with the least possible delay. We have all lived for far too long in this untidy and unavoidable consequence of building the car park. For this reason I hope that the House will give our scheme its wholehearted blessing tonight and enable us to get the job finished as soon as possible.
    10.33 p.m.
    Mr. Roger Moate: On 10th December last, when we debated this matter, I was one of those who opposed the previous propostion. I hope that the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bottomley) will not think me simply contrary if again I do not express approval of the new scheme.
    I do so rather hesitantly because I am conscious that the Services Committee has an immensely difficult task. It has to decide on matters of taste, and that is hard enough for anyone to do. It is even harder for the Committee to obtain the approval of the entire House of Commons on a matter which is basically one of taste.
    I can put my objections to the scheme simply. When I objected previously I did so on the ground, primarily, not just that it was an open yard but that it was a useless open yard. I can sympathise with the argument of the Royal Fine Art Commission that it has traditionally been an open yard and should remain so. I did not express a preference for a grass and water scheme. If we are to have such a scheme, the architects have done a very good job and it is an attractive proposal. But I cannot see that a pretty parkland effect is an appropriate feature for the Palace of Westminster. To that extent I go along with the Royal Fine Art Commission. To put a pond in the middle of the attractively landscaped area is inappropriate and a great waste of space.
    1880
    I know that we are not debating the car parking proposals, but paragraph 3 of the Second Report reads as follows:
    "One fact stands out clearly. This is that completion of the underground car park will not create a surplus of parking accommodation; on the contrary there will continue to be a shortage."
    Is it not extraordinary that we should use this valuable space in the centre of London for nothing, when there is, we are told, a continuing shortage of car parking space?
    Mr. Phillip Whitehead: Surely the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that New Palace Yard should revert to being a car park? That is not what he said previously. There will always be a shortage of car parking space.
    Mr. Moate: I think I can claim to be consistent. I maintained then, and have always maintained, that car parking in New Palace Yard is part of the Westminster scene. Complete elimination of cars from the site would give a dead impression. It is a matter of taste. I have nothing against orderly car parking on the site. I see that as part of the Westminster scene. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Hon. Members clearly disagree, but that is a legitimate viewpoint. It would make far more sense, economically speaking, to use that space.
    The cost of the new car park is £2½-million approximately. It accommodates 500 cars, which means that the cost of one place is £5,000. If 200 cars were parked on the surface the space would be worth £1 million. The pond will cost the ratepayers £1 million. If there will still be a shortage of car parking space, I argue that it is a misuse of that space to put it down to what is by general account inappropriate parkland.
    Mr. George Cunningham: Is the hon. Gentleman arguing that, for the same reason, we should convert the garden in the middle of Parliament Square into a car park?
    Mr. Moate: The hon. Gentleman is being illogical. We are talking about the yard of the Palace of Westminster, which is a traditional historical setting and has always been an open yard. The Royal Fine Art Commission argued that it

    1881
    should be an open yard. As an open yard we should use it for a useful purpose. I argue that economically, and to an extent in historical and aesthetic terms, to keep it for car parking is a practical proposition, certainly in the interim period until another purpose can be found. I say, reluctantly, that it would make much more sense to think again. We could put down a temporary surface until we know exactly what we want to use the space for. For those reasons I hope that the Committee may find a reason for reconsidering this proposition.
    10.38 p.m.
    Mr. Marcus Lipton: I suppose I should be out of order if I argued the merits of the car park, to which I have always been opposed. At a time when we are trying to discourage car owners from driving their cars into central London, it is fantastic that we should embark upon the expenditure of millions of pounds to make it easier for cars to come into the Palace of Westminster.
    I must concentrate upon the issue before us, which is the use to which New Palace Yard will be put.
    The House is taking on itself a serious responsibility in completely disregarding the views of the Royal Fine Art Commission. That commission is a body of responsible people, and I should be surprised if in the course of this debate the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Cooke), who is representing the Conservative Opposition, says that the views of the Royal Fine Art Commission should be disregarded. However, that is what we appear to be doing.
    I must confess that I am a traditionalist. New Palace Yard is a yard. Why should we start messing about having a bit of grass, water in the middle, and that sort of thing in what historically is a yard? If I may paraphrase Gertrude Stein, "A yard is a yard is a yard …". We do not want to mess about with it. It would be more appropriate if we forgot all about a lawn, and a pool and these extravagances which will add to the cost of the project, and allowed the granite setts to be installed so that we shall continue to have New Palace Yard as a yard not some other fancy extravagancies thought up by the Services Committee.
    1882
    I hope that my right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bottomley) will be persuaded to think again. We are old friends and I do not want to start quarrelling with him at my time of life, and indeed at his time of life. I ask him to think again and not force the House into a decision on what should appear on the surface of New Palace Yard.
    10.43 p.m.
    Mr. Paul Tyler: I did not have the privilege of serving in the last Parliament. Therefore, although I read with interest the previous debate, I had no opportunity to take part in it.
    I am pleased this evening to see many of the Members who were present on that occasion here in the Chamber tonight. However, there are two notable absentees. One is the former right hon. Member for Sowerby, who is now Lord Houghton, who, I think, was then Father of the House. [HON. MEMBERS: "No"]. I beg the pardon of the House. He was certainly a distinguished and long-serving Member of the House, and I shall quote his views in a moment.
    The other absentee is the former Member for Birmingham, Handsworth, Mr. Sydney Chapman, who is an architect and planner, and who, I believe, was the only Member in the House at that time who had any professional qualification to judge the issue.
    Mr. Bob Cryer: Is the hon. Gentleman advancing the case that an architect necessarily has some sort of taste? Can he really make such a statement when he looks around at some of the monstrous abortions which architects have inflicted on the country?
    Mr. Tyler: I am not an architect, but as a layman I take an interest in architectural matters. Having worked with architects for some years, I think their voice is at least worth hearing.
    I was depressed to hear the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bottomley) claim urgency as the reason for the choice made by the Services Committee. As I recall from reading the debate in Hansard, the same argument was then adduced for having a late-night debate on the car park. It was urged that something had to be done quickly—and, in my view, the wrong decision was taken.

    1883
    I hope that no hon. Member will feel tonight that he cannot vote against the recommendations of the Services Committee because the right hon. Gentleman says that the matter is urgent. What is more important is to get the right thing done.
    There was throughout the debate on 10th December a general conviction that New Palace Yard should be used. It came out in many speeches, including those of Mr. Houghton, the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) and the hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate), who has spoken tonight in the same terms.
    It is important to ensure that New Palace Yard does not become a dead place when looked at from outside. It is not a dead place but part of the environs of the Palace of Westminster, which I regard as a place of work and not just as a backcloth for tourists to look at, or a quiet idyllic scene for people to walk round in and enjoy themselves.
    I draw attention to the picture in the report. I am sorry hat it will not appear in HANSARD, because the point may not be apparent to people reading the debate without it. The picture is significant, and the most significant thing of all is that if one looks closely one can find only two people in the Yard.
    Mr. Ben Ford: They are all under the trees.
    Mr. Tyler: One can find a few cars in the picture, but the most important thing about it and the proposal that it represents is that it is dead. It has nothing to do with the working institution of democracy. It is a dead picture of a tourist scene. It may be that the artist drew the picture during the Summer Recess; if so, he misunderstood what this place is about. We are considering an integral part of the centre of British democracy. I do not think that a nice little row of trees round a croquet lawn with something like a municipal bandstand in the middle is appropriate.
    Mr. Lipton: The hon. Gentleman will notice that the cars are stationary.
    Mr. Tyler: The hon. Gentleman has made an excellent point, as only he can, in his inimitable way. Mr. Douglas Houghton on 10th December said:
    1884
    "… New Palace Yard has been a courtyard since records were kept of the environs of this palace."
    That point has been repeated tonight. The hon. Member for Faversham said that it must be
    "… functional, recognising the economic value of the site and its important position. … I believe that the site will be left sterile, dead and nattractive."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th December 1973; Vol 866, cc. 109 and 112–13.]
    The hon. Gentleman's fears have materialised in the picture. The hon. Member for Derby, North said, rightly, that it would be quite wrong for the yard to be considered as merely a tourist attraction.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) adduced the argument in that debate that during the recess the yard should have a function. He suggested it as a suitable venue for a son et lumière. Certainly one of the most effective ways of explaining what a building is about today is to explain its history.
    Mr. Michael English: Would the hon. Gentleman make a simple point? Was it proposed that the son et lumière should be profit-making?
    Mr. Tyler: I do not recall whether my hon. Friend had views on whether it should be profit-making or not, and I do not have strong views about it.
    Mr. English: The hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) wanted it to make a profit.
    Mr. Tyler: My hon. Friend wanted the yard used. I have not discovered whether he wanted to make a profit. But, if there was a profit and that profit was used to provide better facilities for Members—
    Mr. English: That is not his proposal.
    Mr. Tyler: This is not a party point
    Mr. English: A personal point.
    Mr. Tyler: If the hon. Gentleman wants to make a personal point about non-profit-making son et luèiere, I have no doubt that he will seek an opportunity in the course of the debate.
    I have said already that I believe that this proposal will sterilise New Palace

    1885
    Yard. There are many uses to which it should be put. The one which I find most objectionable is that it should become a quiet shady garden for tourists, which appears to be the proposal before us.
    Mr. Whitehead: How does the hon. Gentleman know, even with his keen eyesight, that the two people whom he has discerned in the picture are actually tourists?
    Mr. Tyler: The cars appear to be far too big to be afforded by hon. Members. That is why I suggest that they may be tourists.
    I turn to the uses to which the yard should, could and always has been put. It has been part of the Palace of Westminster. It has been the normal arriving point since the palace was rebuilt after the fire in the 1830s, the place to which carriages and subsequently cars have come, parked for short periods, and gone again. I do not think that it is beyond the wit of this House to impose short-term parking restrictions upon those hon. Members—even some Government supporters—who find that they come in for a short period in the evening to exercise their democratic right at 10 o'clock and then depart again.
    It is very important that New Palace Yard should be a centre of bustle and activity. It is wrong for it to be treated as a monastic garden with the sweet sounds of birds and bees. Moreover, it is totally misconceived to imagine that any water in the centre of London will remain respectable for any length of time. Even in the Palace of Westminster, water does not remain pure and attractive to look at. In a very short space of time it will look, as most municipal ponds in London and elsewhere look, squalid.
    We should be seeking informality to set off the formality of the yard. Anyone with experience of architectural or landscaping matters will appreciate that the formality of the ring of trees shown in the picture will not provide a foil for the background of historic buildings. We require small groups of trees to disguise any short-term car parking which may occur and to give a real sense of a rectangle to the area surrounding it.
    The proposal before us would be very attractive in a municipal beer garden
    1886
    somewhere in the South of England. It is inappropriate to the historic environment of the Palace of Westminster. I hope very much that right hon. and hon. Members will join me in the Division Lobby when I divide the House against this proposal.
    10.53 p.m.
    Mr. G. R. Strauss: I am not quite sure what the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Tyler) wants. I am clear about what he does not want. He does not want the scheme that is before us now. He wants something lively, active and, it seems to me, messy which is difficult to judge without knowing in more detail what he has in mind.
    I rarely disagree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bottomley). In fact, this is the first time that I have done so for many years. But I disagree with him about the merits of the scheme that he has presented.
    In this important setting, what is wanted is something simple, grand and dignified. Nothing else will set off the very fine architecture of Westminster Hall and Parliament which surrounds it. Any erection in New Palace Yard, including a circle of trees or whatever it may be, is a mistake.
    The proposal to place granite setts, and nothing else, in New Palace Yard was proposed by people whose advice we do not necessarily always follow but to which we must listen. The Royal Fine Art Commission, the Inspectorate of Ancient Monuments, Westminster City Council, the architects attached to the Department of the Environment—all important people with considerable knowledge of these matters—gave their advice. Their advice was unanimous and correct. It was accepted by this House in July 1973.
    When the Department presented a scheme in December last year to carry out those proposals, for a variety of reasons the House rejected it by a very small majority, by 42 votes to 35. Anyone reading the report of that debate can see, from the way it ranged over a huge number of proposals, that it was a messy debate. Having read it, it seems to me that many people voted against the scheme more from resentment of the fact there was going to be a very expensive car park under New Palace Yard than for any other reason. There was general

    1887
    criticism of the Department of the Environment for putting a car park there costing millions of pounds. The proposal was debated late at night, and that sort of feeling was evident throughout the debate. I believe it was partly for that reason that the proposal was turned down by 42 votes to 35.
    I agree that the Department was in a difficulty. It had to produce another scheme. It has produced this scheme, which is an abomination. Just because a scheme which had been agreed to by all the authorities was turned down by the last Parliament by a small majority, I do not know why a new Parliament might not consider the scheme afresh. That is what I hope the House will do.
    Mr. Moate: Is the right hon. Gentleman suggesting that the same principle—which I agree with—should be applied to the new Parliament building?
    Mr. Strauss: I do not think that is a relevant comment.
    I want the principle that was applied to the Great Court of Trinity, which is the best comparison, to be applied to this important setting. a simple fine layout with nothing on it except granite or grass.
    The only way I am prepared to depart from the recommendations of the Royal Fine Art Commission is to suggest that instead of having granite setts over the whole area there should be grass. I think that might be an improvement. What is needed is something simple, not an oblong space in the centre of New Palace Yard surrounded by a line of pleached lime trees, which have nothing to do with the setting. It detracts from the simplicity of the place. It means nothing. Is it expected that hon. Members will walk round these trees in the summer? I do not know.
    Presumably the public will not be allowed into New Palace Yard. It is desirable that there should be—indeed, there are now—large numbers of seats for the public in Parliament Square from which they can see the House of Commons and Westminster Abbey.
    I do not know the purpose of having this line of trees. Anyone looking at this picture must agree that it detracts
    1888
    from the simplicity and grandeur of the place and is wrong.
    I regret that the proposal before us is not a wise one. It is not put forward with any conviction. It is put forward in spite of the recommendation of the authorities, which we should consider although not necessarily accept. It has been put forward because the Department did not know what else to do.
    The proposal of the Royal Fine Art Commission and the other experts was put before the House and defeated by a small majority during the last Parliament. Therefore, they hesitate to put forward that or a similar scheme to this Parliament. That is wrong. I hope that the House will turn down this scheme. New Palace Yard could be as magnificent a setting as the Great Court of Trinity.
    I will therefore reject my right hon. Friend's advice, although this is the first time that I have disagreed with him. The Services Committee should consider the matter afresh, and try to come up with a simpler scheme more appropriate for this important part of Westminster.
    11.1 p.m.
    Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: I declare an interest as a member of the Services Committee.
    I am finding this debate increasingly odd. The Father of the House, the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss), said that, because the advice of the Royal Fine Art Commission, the City of Westminster and the Department of the Environment was turned down by the last Parliament by a small majority, the new Parliament should have been able to consider it again. He is saying that the new Services Committee should have listened to that rejected advice and not had a mind of its own. No Services Committee worth its salt should do that.
    The hon. Member for Lambeth, Central (Mr. Lipton) voted against the new parliamentary building on 25th June 1973, although it was recommended by the Royal Fine Art Commission. Because the commission does not recommend this scheme, he says that we should now follow its advice. He is a trifle inconsistent.
    The House is being put in an impossible position. It will soon find no hon. Members willing to sit on the Services

    1889
    Committee if it always turns down the Committee's views without suggesting any constructive alternatives. My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate), in an unholy alliance, will be in the same Lobby as the Father of the House tonight, although what he wants to see is cars all across New Palace Yard because they have always been there. Old pictures do not show masses of carriages in the yard. As the Chairman of the Services Committee said, these days we must take account of security considerations. If the yard is covered with untidy motor vehicles, it will be increasingly difficult for fire vehicles to get through. My hon. Friend must be realistic, and not always put that sort of view, which does not take us any further forward.
    The House should accept that this scheme is practical. No scheme could suit everyone, but it has been carefully thought out and accepted by the Committee, with or without expert advice. I do not believe in always accepting expert advice. Some of it is trashy. If we do not accept the scheme, the House will be committing itself to spending a considerable sum of taxpayers' money on temporary paving of New Palace Yard. That money will be slung away because some hon. Members are not prepared to accept that it is a practical scheme.
    I believe that this is a practical scheme. The Services Committee would be dishonest if it came forward again with the scheme which was turned down last time. The House would be well advised to accept the scheme put forward by the Chairman of the Services Committee.
    11.5 p.m.
    Mr. Philip Whitehead: Like the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Finsberg), I am now a member of the Services Committee, and I have certain sympathy with the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Cooke), upon whom the fickle finger of fate has settled tonight in making him reply to the debate, in which the House appears—or some hon. Members appear—to be taking a totally contrary view to the one vehemently expressed in the debate less than a year ago. There was absolutely no doubt last time, small majority or not in percentage terms—few hon. Members stayed until that hour—[Interruption.] It was a late debate. I realise that hon. Gentle
    1890
    men on the Liberal benches know little about Divisions and are rarely here for them. I shall in a moment deal with the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Tyler) and his proposals, ludicrous though they were.
    When the Division took place after the last debate, the hon. Members who were whipping at that time asked us, with their usual monosyllabic eloquence: "Are you for grass or cobbles?" That was the way the House divided. To put it no higher, those hon. Members who threw out the previous proposals were for grass in the courtyard, as tastefully arranged as it could be, and they were against Portuguese cobble stones which were to be imported at great expense to provide the paving setts recommended by the Services Committee.
    Not all the suggestions in the new proposals are exactly what I would like, or what some other critics would like. I appreciate some of the objections which the Father of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss), raised about trees. That may be a matter of detailed argument which we could take note of or resolve.
    The central issue is what we do with New Palace Yard—whether we keep it open, or put it to some new, more attractive use. I am convinced that the Services Committee's proposals offer something which the majority of the House ought to be able to accept—
    Mr. Nigel Spearing: Can my hon. Friend say whether the Services Committee has ascertained if the trees can root in the position proposed? If we were instead to agree to have paving in New Palace Yard it would mean we could keep our options open, and the point about the proper rooting of the trees—the planting of which would cost a lot of money—could be properly looked into.
    Mr. Whitehead: There is a difficulty concerned not merely with the inital rooting of the trees but with other things which would have to remain in the courtyard. The hon. Member for Bristol, West will be able to deal with this in detail in replying to the debate. There is an issue not so much about the additional catalpa trees to be put around the site but about the lime trees in the centre. There has been almost everything in New

    1891
    Palace Yard in its time. One of the reasons why I jocularly suggested a tennis court when the matter was previously debated was that we know from the discovery of tennis balls in the rafters of Westminster Hall that tennis was played in the precincts of the palace for a long period before those who govern our affairs decided in their wisdom that such recreation should not be allowed here.
    Mr. Tyler: The hon. Member made the point in the previous debate that New Palace Yard should be put to some use. He has not yet explained what use is to be made of the curious bowling green. Is he proposing that hon. Members play croquet on it?
    Mr. Whitehead: I keep telling the hon. Member for Bodmin, whom I have known for many years and for whom I have a high regard, that I will come on to his remarks. I hope that he will contain himself until I reach that happy position.
    Recreation is itself a use, and recreation within New Palace Yard would be better suited under these proposals than under anything we have heard by way of an alternative from the critics. Recreation is an essential in the crowded, dense urban environment into which some people, like the hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate), wish to bring more and more motor cars. During the previous debate—the hon. Gentleman was in the House at the time—no one suggested that we should make New Palace Yard the same grubby car park as before.
    Mr. Moate: No.
    Mr. Whitehead: If the hon. Gentleman did, I think he was the only hon. Member to do so. I hope that the position will be the same tonight. When we consider the few open spaces that are left in central London, to suggest that we should measure out space here in terms of the going rate per footage of motor car and consider those spaces in terms of the market price for parking spaces is a ludicrous suggestion in relation to this historic site. It has seen many uses in the past and no doubt there will be more in future.
    The hon. Member for Bodmin, in the major statement of Liberal policy which we heard tonight, wanted the yard to be
    1892
    less sterile. I am sometimes called the father of vasectomy of the House, and I am able to judge as well as anyone else when something is sterilised. I do not believe that New Palace Yard, as the proposals suggest, will be a more and place or a more and environment because there are no people conspicuously working in it. Does the hon. Gentleman want to take his desk out into the yard and dictate to his secretary and become an additional tourist attraction? New Palace Yard, since the advent of the motor car, has been a fume-ridden enclave into which cars have come and gone, and all too often they have been parked in it for far too long. That at least is eliminated under the proposals before us, because there will be little room for motor cars to be parked.
    I do not think that we should surrender at this late stage to the motor car. I do not think that we should return to the paved setts from Portugal, although Portugal is not in such a bad odour on these benches as it was a few months ago. I hope that the majority tonight, bearing in mind the hard work put in by the hon. Member for Bristol, West and his advisers to whom I pay tribute, will settle in the Division, as it did last time, for grass and not for cobbles.
    11.8 p.m.
    Mr. James Allason: The hon. Member for Lambeth, Central (Mr. Lipton) told us that we should disregard the views of the Royal Fine Art Commission and act on our own belief. I suggest that before we consider that proposition we should look at some of the things of which the commission has approved—for example, the Queen Anne's Mansions, the Knightsbridge Barracks Tower and the New Parliamentary Building. I do not think that the commission can be judged as the supreme arbiter of taste.
    Mr. Ernie Money: My hon. Friend has missed out the most important example of the lot—namely, the Department of the Environment itself.
    Mr. Allason: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend. The hon. Member for Lambeth, Central also said that hon. Members should set a good example to Londoners as we tell them not to bring their cars into the centre of London and

    1893
    park. There are spaces for 220 cars in New Palace Yard, but under this scheme they will not be parking in the yard but elsewhere. We shall later be discussing other places for parking, but under this scheme cars will not be parking on the surface. That will set a good example to Londoners. We shall be hiding our cars away underground. We work after midnight, after public transport has stopped, and, therefore, we need to have our cars here. That is not generally understood by the public.
    Mr. Lipton: Does the hon. Gentleman think that when a Division is called at 10 o'clock and cars pour into the yard, they will all park underground and that cars will not be left on the surface to enable hon. Members to nip in the Lobby? That is just not on.
    Mr. Allason: I do not think that 10 o'clock at night is the time when workaday Londoners are watching what we are up to.
    We have the choice of the open scheme—simple, grand, and dignified—which will be a view of either 220 cars, the mess that is left by them and those ugly ramps that we are compelled to have into the building, or a bit of camouflage for those ramps.
    The pride of New Palace Yard is not that it is open but that we have our curtain of trees. It will not be a matter of regret for me if we have more trees in New Palace Yard. In the middle we could have a fountain or, if the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Tyler) has his way, a beehive. I should prefer a reproduction of the old Tudor fountain. I am attracted to that for sentimental and historic reasons. On the other hand, it would be quite reasonable not to have it, because it is not an essential part of the scheme. On the whole, I believe that this scheme is a great improvement on the previous one.
    11.17 p.m.
    The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Mr. Charles R. Morris): I should like to associate myself with the expressions of appreciation voiced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bottomley) about the work of the Services Committee, the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Cooke), and the officials of the
    1894
    Department of the Environment, particularly Mr. Ellis and Mr. Mackenzie, regarding this scheme.
    It is no secret that my Department would prefer to preserve the historic character of New Palace Yard. It is perhaps sufficient to say that, without accepting that the Royal Fine Art Commission is the final arbiter in taste in these matters, we are inclined to agree with its view that the paved area scheme would have been best and feel that it is a pity that the House did not see fit to accept the original recommendation of the Services Committee. But I accept that this matter was, and is, one for the House, and my Department will do all that it can to comply with the decision of the House.
    I agree with my right hon. Friend that, in the light of the vote on 10th December 1973, his Committee could scarcely have come back with a mere variant of the scheme. I congratulate both him and the Committee on what is an ingenious and, if the illustration is any guide, attractive solution to the problem.
    I do not accept that the scheme produces what the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Tyler) described as a sterile, dead, and unattractive feature for the setting of the Palace of Westminster. I was fascinated when the hon. Gentleman discerned two figures on the illustration. I should perhaps disclose that they were two worried, anxious, frustrated officials from the Department of the Environment suffering from a surfeit of good advice and a multiplicity of views from Members of this House on a scheme for New Palace Yard.
    I accept that there are problems over certain details of the scheme, and I gladly accept the offer of consultation made by my right hon. Friend on the best way of solving them. As at present advised, I do not think it is impossible to implement the proposed garden scheme, but my officials will wish to examine the practical implications rather more fully. That is important if we are to secure uniform growth of the lime trees which were described in such disparaging terms by one of my right hon. Friends. It is suggested that there might be difficulty in growing these trees to a uniform height. If those difficulties subsequently prove insuperable we should like to have the

    1895
    opportunity of proposing alternatives to the Services Committee. This is, however, a matter of detail, and I agree that if the Committee and the House concur there should be no need to make further reference to the House.
    We should also have regard to the security aspects in working out the details of the scheme. Access for emergency services such as fire engines and ambulances is particularly important, especially in view of the recent terrorist bombing incident which affected Westminster Hall, access to which was needed through New Palace Yard. There has to be access for the fire appliances, ladders and all other kinds of fire-fighting equipment, and we must bear in mind that if a bomb can burst a gas main, as it did in the recent regrettable incident, it may do the same to a water main. Accordingly, we must be prepared for all eventualities and ensure that the roadway is adequate to cope with them.
    My right hon. Friend mentioned cost and time. The latest estimate of cost for the garden scheme, including what has been described as a pond, is in the range of £140,000 to £175,000. That compares with £180,000 for the paved area scheme. We had originally believed that this could have been accommodated within the £2,500,000 provided for the car park as a whole. Unfortunately, the general escalation of building costs now rules that out. As the House knows, there have been delays during the construction of the car park, most particularly to enable important archaeological research to take place. There have been other minor modifications which should add to the cost of the main contract, and it now seems, inevitably, that some additional provision may be required. It is far too early at this stage to be specific on the figures, and I have every reason to hope that in the context of about £2,500,000 it will eventually prove to be a marginal amount. In any case we shall have an opportunity to review the matter later in the year when we consider the cost of repairing the recent bomb damage.
    The other point concerned time. As my right hon. Friend said, this is primarily the Committee's scheme, and its implications will have to be worked out in detail by the Department. The actual
    1896
    planning should not take long, and we shall do all we can to carry out the work as quickly as possible. There is the problem of long delivery dates for slate and granite, but we should be able to do a fair amount of preparatory work and tidying up during the recess, and, while I can give no assurances about dates now, the House has my assurance that we shall do our best to complete the whole job with the minimum of delay.
    I want to end briefly by dealing with the Second Report of Services Committee—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order, order."] I assume, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that we are taking the orders together.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): They are being taken separately.
    Mr. Morris: In those circumstances I conclude by commenting on the point made by the hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) when he suggested using the surface of New Palace Yard for providing additional car parking places. There is a practical difficulty in this regard. I am advised that the air vents from the underground car park would make it difficult and undesirable to park cars on the surface. It would mean that fewer could be parked than had been parked there previously.
    Dr. Alan Glyn: I do not think that anyone will disagree about the value of the project, but it is difficult for people who work in the House—not only Members—to find accommodation. If the vents could be covered, additional car parking space could be provided temporarily, until we have sufficient accommodation for hon. Members and those who work in the House.
    Mr. Morris: I appreciate the difficulty of providing adequate car parking space for Members and staff who are obliged to attend the House over a period of 24 hours every day, but one must recognise the extent of the expenditure involved in providing such additional facilities.
    Sir Anthony Royle: Why cannot the hon. Gentleman arrange with his Department to put a stronger surface on the vents to enable cars to be parked there, at least in emergencies?

    1897
    What would be the cost? Is it not possible?
    Mr. Morris: I do not have this information available. Vents imply access to air. Strengthening them with additional concrete would inhibit the development of any scheme for enhancing New Palace Yard.
    There have been a variety of views on whether we should have opted for the paved area scheme recommended previously. We now have before us proposals of the Services Committee for what has been described as a garden scheme. The issue has been under consideration for three years. Expenditure in providing the underground car park involves £2½ million. I have reservations about some features of the garden scheme, but we have an obligation to the taxpayers. Today is the day of decision for the House. It should face up to its obligations in this regard.
    11.28 p.m.
    Mr. Ernie Money: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Finsberg), who made a remarkably sensible speech, I find much of the debate totally mystifying. [Interruption.] I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not continue to make bravado interventions from a sedentary position.
    Two points go to the root of the problem. First, there is the mind-boggling suggestion by the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Tyler). The use of the New Palace Yard for son et lumière seems to entail that in any circumstances there would have to be an audience to watch the lumière and listen to son. If the hon. Gentleman has attended son et lumières, he may know that it is almost impossible to enjoy either with the amount of noise that there is now in Parliament Square and the Bridge Street area.
    Mr. Patrick Cormack: That would provide the son.
    Mr. Money: Of a sort.
    I do not know whether the hon. Member for Bodmin will find an audience for son et lumière in those circumstances, and at the sort of hour that is likely.
    What is much more important is what has just fallen from the Minister, that we
    1898
    have lived with the scheme for far too long. We have to come to a solution soon. This scheme is basically civilised within its terms. It is basically far cheaper, and, considering some of the difficulties that this Parliament has, it might be as well not to have too many paving stones around.
    I warmly welcome what the Services Committee has put forward, on the basis that at long last something is being done with an area that is rapidly degenerating into a slum. The sooner something is done with it, the sooner we can get on with the primary purpose for which the House is here, rather than have so much of the House taken up by the individual views of every Member.
    It is sometimes said that Israel is a country with just over 3 million people and just over 3 million political parties. In the House, it is obvious that every Member will have his own views. This scheme will not only meet the duty to serve the public but will provide something that will not be objectionable to the majority view of taste and, therefore, it is to be welcomed.
    11.31 p.m.
    Mr. Patrick Cormack: I am in a similar position to the Father of the House the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss). I hardly ever disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Money), just as the right hon. Gentleman hardly ever disagrees with his right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bottomley) but I disagree with what my hon. Friend said this evening.
    It is rather unfortunate that anyone should try to stampede the House into taking a decision. It may be that this has been going on for years, but the car park has been under construction, and we are to determine what, for the foreseeable future, will be New Palace Yard. It will be a complete change from anything that we have known before, and we must make the right decision. We and successive generations have to live with it, and if we take extra time to make a decision, so what?
    The right hon. Member for Vauxhall was right when he talked about a certain guilt complex about the car park. There was such a guilt complex, and I still share

    1899
    it. I may be ruled out of order for saying so, but I still wonder whether these five storeys could not be put to better purpose than for the parking of cars.
    I advanced that theory during the last debate on this subject and I am being consistent. If we are to have it as a car park, and if it cannot be used for other purposes, so be it. I raised this matter last time and the Minister said that he would investigate it, but I have never had a reply. I do not know whether a reply was ever given to anybody. One knows that in Congress there is an underground swimming pool, and so on. A swimming pool here might keep Members fitter and be a better use of the space.
    But accepting that we shall have this area as a car park, it seems to me that the Father of the House said some sensible things. This is an extremely bitty scheme. Those of us who voted against the granite setts because we thought that they were austere and would not give the area the new character that we wanted to see had in mind a sort of Trinity Court, with an area of grass and a focal point in the middle. I even suggested a statue of Cromwell as being appropriate. There is one skulking around outside. There could be either a statute or a fountain as a focal point—it does not matter which, but I should favour a statue because it would be cheaper—with grass around and granite setts on the outside. That would be a delightful and pleasing prospect for many people.
    Nobody likes trees more than I do, but to have these arboreal units of uniform size would not produce what we want. It is no wonder that the hon. Member is known as the Minister for urban affairs, when he talks about trees in this way. Such a scheme would produce a bitty effect.
    I suggest that the Services Committee be instructed to think again, to take away these trees. After all, the Services Committee is there to serve this House. We all appreciate the hard work that it has done, but if the House as a whole feels unable to accept its recommendations there is nothing particularly petulant or undemocratic in that. We are entitled to say that to the Committee. I should like
    1900
    the Services Committee to take the scheme away and take away the trees. The Trinity Court concept would meet the requirements of most people.
    11.35 p.m.
    Mr. Michael English: I think I can legitimately claim that when I vote against the motion I shall be consistent, in that I voted for the Services Committee on the last occasion, but I recollect that the opponents, who then won, did not actually ask for trees. I shall join the opponents tonight, not because I particularly believe in their argument, but because I believed the argument of the Services Committee last time.
    I should like to mention something a little more serious. The repute of the Services Committee and of the House has declined over the period the Committee has existed. It was once chaired by the Leader of the House. I mean no disrespect to my right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bottomley) when I say that he is not the Leader of the House. The Committee used to have both Chief Whips on it. Now it has both Deputy Chief Whips. I could go on in detail, but I do not wish to do so. It is the case that the repute of the Services Committee has declined.
    The Committee does not indulge sufficiently in consulting hon. Members before it reaches its decisions. In respect of its recommendations regarding car parking I see no reason why the Committee could not have sent out a simple questionnaire to hon. Members asking "What would you like to be done about New Palace Yard?" before we had a debate.
    We are using sledgehammers to crack nuts. We have had two debates on this issue. It would not surprise me if both debates ended with defeats for the Services Committee. The first one ended that way. The Services Committee may win tonight, but it sounds as if it will lose. Is there any reason why the Services Committee, which is supposed to represent hon. Members, should not consult hon. Members about what it is doing?
    The Services Committee meets in relative privacy, if not in total secrecy. I know that hon. Members have a right to attend and listen to the proceedings of

    1901
    the Committee, if they wish to, but most hon. Members do not do so. The Committee is usually defeated in the House. It used once to win.
    I do not wish to delay the House at this hour. I merely suggest that in future, before the Services Committee arrives at a decision, it might conceivably send out 635 letters privately to hon. Members saying "What is your view?". It should ask after the fashion of a Gallup poll, what their opinions are and receive their opinions back. Then perhaps the Committee would arrive at a decision which would be acceptable to the overwhelming majority of hon. Members.
    11.38 p.m.
    Mr. Robert Cooke: Many of the speeches which have been made in this debate have been answered by other speeches. I will try briefly, in winding up, to cover the other points.
    The Services Committee is the servant of the House. We recognise our obligation to the House. I think that every member of the Committee does his best to be in contact with as many Members as possible. Indeed, in the special context of the Services Committee, although there are various rules of privilege applicable to Select Committees, they are loosely applied in this context, for the Services Committee is there to carry out the wishes of the House. I have never noticed hon. Members being slow to tell me about what they think we should do or what they wish us to do.
    The House rejected our previous report. In that debate we were asked to think again. We could not return to the House without making a real attempt to incorporate into a new scheme all the eminently helpful and worthwhile suggestions which Members of the House made, both in that debate and outside it.
    The House has asked us for trees, for grass, for water, and for a design complimentary to the historic stone buildings and various dates and styles which surround New Palace Yard. The scheme outlined in our new report, which incorporates all that was asked for, will, we believe, turn New Palace Yard from a dusty desert cluttered with vehicles into a place of some tranquillity, which is surely no bad thing as the pounding traffic passes two sides of it.
    1902
    There were questions about points of detail. I know that the House wants to come to a decision so I will not go into too much detail. The scheme is not perhaps well presented in the sketch. Sketches can never do everything. I am sorry that the cars are not moving for the benefit of the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Tyler). We cannot ask the Stationery Office to produce a coloured film strip of everything we want to show the House.
    The centre embodies materials from practically every corner of the United Kingdom—Westmorland slate, Portland stone from Dorset, granite from Scotland. My Ulster Unionist Friends this morning told me that they could supply some Ulster granite from the Mourne Mountains. There is no reason why for historic reasons a great many parts of the United Kingdom should not help in doing this job in New Palace Yard.
    We are adding to the catalpa trees. Those sacred trees have been very much part of the scene for more than a century. We are keeping to a minimum the stone paved area. I hope my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Money) is pleased about that. I am grateful for his support this evening during his first appearance as spokesman for the arts in the Conservative Party.
    The stone paved areas will be far more pleasing than the dirty tarmac already referred to. We have contrived a central area embodying a carpet of green in contrast to such stone as is necessary. The historic site of the Tudor fountain is to be marked by a simple pool of the same dimensions.
    Perhaps I should explain that what is shown in the sketch is a hexagonal reconstruction of the octangular medieval fountain found by archeologists below the Tudor fountain. It would have cost about £50,000 to reconstruct that, and it was questionable whether it was desirable, anyway. I can assure the House that the remains of the fountains found in the excavations have been carefully preserved and will be able to be put on view in some appropriate place. Members may like to suggest where.
    The central area is shown in the sketch as being surrounded by a double line of lime trees, formally trained to provide a shaded walk and capable of hiding the ramps of the car park by lateral growth

    1903
    —from their stems along that stretch of the footpath only. One will not be able to see the hideous ramps to the car park and the walls that contain them. As one steps out of the great doors of Westminster Hall one will see merely a green area. There are ample precedents for such a feature in such a setting.
    In Europe such things are extensively used, and when well cared for, as we can be sure ours will be by the Bailiff of the Royal Parks, they are a perfect complement to fine architecture. This is possible—
    Mr. Spearing: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves the subject of the trees, could he deal with the point I raised? What steps has the Services Committee taken to ascertain whether these trees in this position can take root and continue to flourish if the House decided to accept the recommendation of the Committee?
    Mr. Cooke: I knew I should not have given way, not because I do not wish to answer the question but because I am coming to it. All this is possible and, if the House approves, could be a living reality by next summer.
    The hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) asked about the trees. The House will know that New Palace Yard is far from level. There are parts of the central area which have differing depths of soil. The part nearest to the colonnade would be a problem if the central area were to follow the contour of the yard. In other words, if the path round the trees were to follow the contour of the yard it would be askew. If the central area is to be laid out more or less level, or appearing level to the eye, which is what a landscape gardener would do, there will be ample depth of soil for the trees all round the central area. I do not think I am disclosing any confidence when I say that I have had expert advice to the effect that provided that the central area is treated that way the trees will grow perfectly well and can be properly maintained.
    I come to the problems of the central area. This will help the House consider.
    ably. Following the recent bomb and the fire in the area adjoining Westminster Hall, which happened after our report was published, we are advised that we should look most carefully to ensure that nothing we propose will impede the fire services and their appliances. We there-fore propose forthwith to take evidence from those best able to advise us and act accordingly, keeping the House informed. We do not believe that any major departure from our proposed scheme will be necessary, and I ask the House to approve it with this one proviso.
    The House was clear on the previous occasion that it did not want a bare yard, and we believe that we are faithfully carrying out its instructions. Time is running on, and we are faced with the stark alternative of a temporary covering of tarmac, which, alas, can well be all too permanent and costly to change, or an imaginative scheme which will be a welcome addition to historic Westminster.
    I commend the scheme to the House, and I would attempt to persuade those hon. Members who said that it was their intention to divide the House to think again and to approve the report in principle. I have made a proviso about the trees, which seem to be a problem in some people's minds, but let us get on with the job.
    Mr. Cormack: My hon. Friend says that the trees can be looked at again. Does that mean that it is possible that he will accede to the suggestion made by the Father of the House and supported by some of us that the trees should go?
    Mr. Cooke: No. I am asking the House to approve the principle. What I said about the trees was that in the light of the necessity of providing access for fire appliances, the question whether all the trees are possible must be looked into. It is the view of the Committee that it has carried out the instructions of the House in providing trees round the central area, and we stick to our proposal.
    Question put:—
    The House divided: Ayes 76, Noes 31.

    Division No. 59.]

    AYES

    [11.47 p.m.

    Allason James (Hemel Hempstead)

    Bates, Alf

    Carter, Ray

    Ancram, M.

    Boardman, H.

    Cocks, Michael

    Banks, Robert

    Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

    Cohen, Stanley

    Barnett, Joel (Heywood & Royton)

    Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

    Conlan, Bernard

    Cook, Robert F. (Edinburgh, C.)

    Hannam, John

    Pavitt, Laurie

    Cooke, Robert (Bristol, W.)

    Harper, Joseph

    Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

    Cox, Thomas

    Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

    Prescott, John

    Cryer, G. R.

    Howell, David (Guildford)

    Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

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

    Hughes, Mark (Durham)

    Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey

    Dalyell, Tarn

    Irving, Rt. Hn. Sydney (Dartford)

    Roderick, Caerwyn E.

    Davidson, Arthur

    Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

    Rodgers, George (Chorley)

    Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

    Kilroy-Silk, Robert

    Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

    Dean, Joseph (Leeds, W.)

    Knox, David

    Sims, Roger

    Dormand, J. D.

    Lamond, James

    Sinclair, Sir George

    Duffy, A. E. P.

    Lawson, Nigel (Blaby)

    Skinner, Dennis

    Dunn, James A.

    Leadbitter, Ted

    Tomlinson, John

    Edge, Geoff

    MacArthur, Ian

    Townsend, C. D.

    Emery, Peter

    Magee, Bryan

    Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

    Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

    Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

    Weatherill, Bernard

    Evans, John (Newton)

    Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

    Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

    Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

    Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

    Worsley, Sir Marcus

    Finsberg, Geoffrey

    Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

    Wrigglesworth, Ian

    Ford, Ben

    Newton, Tony (Braintree)

    Gilbert, Dr. John

    Oakes, Gordon

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Grant, George (Morpeth)

    Ovenden, John

    Mr. Ernle Money and

    Hall, Sir John

    Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)

    Mr. Phillip Whitehead.

    Hamling, William

    Palmer, Arthur

    NOES

    Bagier, Gordon A. T.

    Kerr, Russell

    Spearing, Nigel

    Beith, A. J.

    Kitson, Sir Timothy

    Stanbrook, Ivor

    Cope, John

    Lipton, Marcus

    Steel, David

    Davies, Bryan (Enfield, N.)

    McLaren, Martin

    Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

    Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

    Moate, Roger

    Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy

    English, Michael

    Pardoe, John

    Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)

    Freud, Clement

    Redmond, Robert

    Winstanley, Dr. Michael

    George, Bruce

    Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

    Winterton, Nicholas

    Glyn, Dr. Alan

    Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

    Heffer, Eric S.

    Royle, Sir Anthony

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Horam, John

    Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

    Mr. Paul Tyler and

    Jessel, Toby

    Snape, Peter

    Mr. Patrick Cormack.

    Question accordingly agreed to.
    Resolved,
    That this House doth agree with the Select Committee on House of Commons (Services) in their First Report.

    HOUSE OF COMMONS CAR PARKING
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That this House doth agree with the Select Committee on House of Commons (Services in their Second Report."—[Mr. Bottomley.]
    11.57 p.m.
    Mr. Marcus Lipton: The House ought to be acquainted with what it is doing in being called upon to decide whether to accept the Second Report. According to paragraph 33 on page 11:
    "The cost of operating the underground car park will fall upon the House of Commons vote and its control will be the responsibility of the Serjeant at Arms."
    It goes on to say that it will be necessary to put the work out to contract, and according to paragraph 34 the contractor's staff will have to
    "undergo training and familiarisation with the special needs of the House in the underground car park where their duties will be
    1906
    very different from work in other car parks outside."
    The Committee expresses the hope
    "that the underground car park should not be brought into use until 1st October 1974."
    I very much doubt whether the work will be completed by then. There have been many delays for a variety of reasons. The final cost has not yet been estimated. The cost was to have been £1·3 million, but it is already twice that amount and we still do not know what we are letting ourselves in for. That is why I have grave doubts as to whether the Second Report should be accepted.
    12 midnight.
    Mr. Roger Moate: I wish merely to make one inquiry of the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bottomley) concerning the car parking provision in that part of the present space provided in Old Palace Yard. I understand from the report that this will be used primarily for House of Lords car parking. But it is obvious that, at times, severe congestion arises round St. Stephen's entrance, with many hon. Members coming into the House for Divisions.
    May we be told whether provision will be made for the large number of cars which drop off and pick up Members and

    1907
    visitors, and whether space will be provided for cars coming in when Members are taking part in Divisions?
    12.1 a.m.
    Mr. George Cunningham: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Lambeth, Central (Mr. Lipton), I wish to draw attention to a matter to which this House will agree if it approves of the report.
    I welcome the new arrangement which is proposed for the little courtyard at the back of New Palace Yard which is known as Mr. Speaker's Court. Any hon. Member who has ever dared park his car there without being one of the privileged class who are supposed to use it will know what happens.
    Perhaps I may recount what happened to me when I parked my car there about a year ago. First, an attendant told me that I could not park there. I asked him what rule said that I could not, and I was told that the Serjeant at Arms said that I could not. Naturally enough, my rejoinder was that I made rules for the Serjeant at Arms, and not the other way round.
    Being the cussed sort of person I am, from then on I insisted on parking my car in Mr. Speaker's front garden. Then a policeman left a very respectful note on my windscreen which said:
    "Sir, do not park your car here again."
    The next day when I parked it there, I had a communication from the Inspector of Police, who told me that it had always been the case that Members like me could not park their cars there. Everyone else accepted it. Why did not I? I asked what was his authority for this. He said that it had always been the case. I told him to report back to his superiors that I intended to continue to park there until my attention was drawn to a rule to which I had contributed.
    Following that, I was sent for by none other than my Chief Whip. After 15 minutes of conversation, I made it clear that I did not feel that it was appropriate to be whipped upon such a matter.
    Next, I had a half-hour discussion with Mr. Speaker's secretary, and the final stage was that I had a very pleasant drink with Mr. Speaker.
    1908
    I have never come across anything like it since first hearing Stanley Holloway's monologue entitled, "Sam, Sam, pick up thy musket". Since then I have occasionally parked my car in Mr. Speaker's Court to emphasise that the rules of this building must be made by the Members.
    There is a more serious message, however. As a result, the rules were studied. According to rules which were never made formally but just grew up over the years, the list of those who could use Mr. Speaker's Court was found to be extremely long. It seemed to include absolutely everyone in the House except me.
    I am glad to say that this mighty matter was referred to the Services Committee, and clearly it has looked into it very carefully. I draw the attention of hon. Members to the Committee's very sensible recommendation, first, that there should in future be no distinction drawn between Privy Councillors, who were one of the privileged class in the past in this respect, and other Members; and, second, that no distinction should be drawn between Ministers and other Members.
    Every time the House comes across a distinction being drawn between the prefects in this House and the "fags" it ought to react and stop such a distinction being drawn. I am glad to see that that little incident has resulted in this modest advance of democracy and egalitarianism in the matter of car parking. I thank my right hon. Friend the Chairman of the Services Committee for achieving that.
    The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Mr. Charles R. Morris): I would wish to comment briefly on the Second Report of the House of Commons Services Committee.
    I was very impressed with the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham). Listening to his comments I felt that he appeared to be the odd man out, who wants to be the odd man in so far as Mr. Speaker's Court is concerned. I recognise that the accommodation in Mr. Speaker's Court is ultimately a matter for Mr. Speaker's decision, as indicated in paragraph 16 of the report.
    I am aware that the Lord President of the Council has thoughts in that regard.
    Mr. Russell Kerr: That is not what our hon. Friend said.
    Mr. Morris: My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury was indicating the difficulties with which he found himself confronted as a result of the fact that the Speaker exercises the decision as regards who should use Mr. Speaker's Court in terms of the allocation of car parking space.
    In this regard the Lord President of the Council has some thoughts on this matter which he would wish to place before Mr. Speaker on the proposals for restricting the parking of ministerial cars in Mr. Speaker's Court before any final decision is made.
    My other comments concern the recommendation in paragraph 7 of the report that car parking in Broad Sanctuary should be retained for parliamentary use after the underground car park has come into operation. We all appreciate the difficulties which hon. Members, and particularly staff, suffer when the House sits late. If the House so wishes we can arrange for parking to remain available in Broad Sanctuary, on a strictly temporary basis. I am bound to point out, however—and I hope every hon. Member of the House will agree—that this important site in the very heart of our capital city cannot remain indefinitely as an open air car park. Various proposals have been made about its future from time to time since the war. It is unnecessary for me to discuss them now, except to say that car parking on the present basis is not one of them. For that reason alone we could accept the recommendation only as a temporary expedient.
    There is also a more fundamental point. Much has changed since the House first considered the possibility of building the underground car park. Not the least of these is the general attitude towards the use of private cars for travelling to work in cities, and particularly in London. I noted the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Lambeth, Central (Mr. Lipton) in this regard. As a reflection of this changed attitude the Greater London Council is pursuing policies aimed at restricting such use as far as possible. We and our predecessors have co-operated by, for example, restricting parking in the Royal Parks.
    1910
    Against that background, I must ask the House to consider very carefully whether we can possibly justify any addition to our present net parking capacity of 760.
    It is true that those who really need their cars to get home after late night sittings rarely add to rush hour congestion, but, despite the confidence expressed in paragraph 10 of the report, that our needs are well understood, it would be folly to ignore the considerable criticisms both from within and outside the House when it was decided to build the car park. I suspect that there will be considerably more criticism now that it has been built at a cost of £5,000 or so for each individual car parking space. The car park, however, is now a fact.
    In general, I accept the proposed allocation of car spaces recommended in the report. For the future, I hope that the Services Committee will give further consideration to the possibility of finding other means of getting people home who live at a distance, rather than that we should appear to encourage yet a further proliferation of private cars.
    It is expected that the underground car park will come into operation by 1st October.
    12.11 a.m.
    Mr. Michael English: There is still one point to which the Minister did not reply. Paragraphs 33 and 34 of the report do not make sense. Paragraph 33 says that Government or House of Commons staff will not be able to operate the car park, because
    "The special requirements of parliamentary use demand a high standard of servicing"—
    that is a fine comment on Her Majesty's Government—
    "and the attendants will need to be highly skilled at their job."
    The implication is that any attendants employed by the House of Commons would not be.
    Paragraph 34 says:
    "It will be necessary, once the contract has been let, for the contractors' staff to undergo training and familiarisation with the special needs of the House. …"
    In other words, they are incompetent. These attendants cannot be employed by the Government or the House or the Parliamentary Commissioner because people from outside are more skilled, yet when they are employed they will have to be

    1911
    trained by the Government because they are not skilled enough. Paragraph 33 simply contradicts paragraph 34. I hope that this point will be answered.
    12.13 a.m.
    Mr. Robert Cooke: Although the report gives what the Committee was advised were the minimum requirements for car parking in and around the Palace of Westminster for Members and staff, it also makes recommendations about allocation. I stress that we shall be watching the situation as it develops. I think that that takes care of some of the Minister's observations.
    The Minister said that we could have the temporary use of Broad Sanctuary for the staff and others until it was built over or laid out as an open space. The Services Committee, as the servant of the House, is content with that, because it looks as if we shall have the use of it for at any rate the foreseeable future.
    The Committee will also take note of the points raised in the debate and listen to representations from users in future. That takes care of the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English), who said that the Committee was out of touch with Members. I think that it will get plenty of advice from hon. Members as experience develops in the use of the car park.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) asked whether arrangements for hon. Members arriving for Divisions at St. Stephen's entrance would be in any way altered by what we are proposing. The answer, as I see it, is "No".
    Mr. Moate: I was saying that the present arrangements are increasingly unsatisfactory, and that a larger number of cars than ever before seem to congregate there. The police are helpful, but there is congestion there which I should have thought could be relieved by allocating a small part of the yard for temporary parking at least.
    Mr. Cooke: There is a small part reserved for visiting ambassadors. Unless they are all there when there is a sudden Division, there should not be too much congestion. But we appreciate that there
    1912
    are certain problems in some places, and St. Stephen's entrance is certainly one.
    The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) retailed his interesting experience at the hands of Mr. Speaker and the Serjeant at Arms. We recognise that Speaker's Court is part of Mr. Speaker's territory, and the Services Committee, being the servant of the House, is charged with the job of advising Mr. Speaker on matters connected with it. Mr. Speaker asked our advice on how he could be assisted in making the best use of that courtyard.
    In times gone by Mr. Speaker enjoyed the use of a substantial mansion as part of the Palace of Westminster, and from an historical point of view there were Speaker's Court, Speaker's Green and Speaker's Steps. As for Mr. Speaker's House, it has been considerably truncated over the years, and the Library and other Departments have benefited immensely by successive Mr. Speakers giving up parts of Mr. Speaker's House. If we regard the State rooms as being common to all and used for public purposes, there is practically nothing left in Mr. Speaker's House in terms of his own personal purview.
    Although it is necessary for the Serjeant at Arms to live on the premises, his residence has been cut down to the absolute minimum. A large room was cut off not long ago and is now used for State occasions by Mr. Speaker.
    If hon. Members experience difficulties or trouble with Departments of the House they have a remedy in appealing to the Chairman of the Services Committee. He will, I am sure, do his best to investigate particular problems. When there is difficulty between an hon. Member and a member of the staff it must be remembered that the member of staff is doing his duty. If we have not given that member of staff the correct instructions we ought to look at the matter.
    We do not want to be inflexible in the running of the car park, and we shall review the system after it has operated for a full Session.
    If I dare mention the Serjeant at Arms again, the report of the Services Committee says that it may be necessary for him to make suitable ad hoc parking arrangements on certain occasions on a temporary basis. Adjustments of this

    1913
    kind will have to be notified to the Services Committee and the whole picture will be reviewed after a full Session.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Resolved,
    That this House doth agree with the Select Committee on House of Commons (Services) in their Second Report.

    PARLIAMENTARY ACCOMMODATION
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    That this House doth agree with the Select Committee on House of Commons (Services) in their Third Report.—[Mr. Bottomley.]
    12.19 a.m.
    Mr. Roger Moate: I do not wish to delay the House at this late hour, but the report of the Services Committee contains matters which should be discussed. I begin by declaring an interest. I have a most pleasant office at No. 1 Bridge Street, overlooking Boadicea and her chariot, and I am rather reluctant to depart from those premises. I consider No. 1 Bridge Street a fine building. The report contains a proposal that the Bridge Street premises should be vacated in the near future. What will happen to those premises? Are they simply to be left vacant and to deteriorate and become an eyesore at an important site in the centre of London?
    As far as we know, no decision has been taken by the Government about when, if at all, we are to proceed with the new parliamentary building. While indecision remains regarding the new parliamentary building it would be wrong to vacate what I would argue to be good quality accommodation at No. 1 Bridge Street. I cannot argue the same view about Palace Chambers. My impression is that those premises are not of the same standard as No. 1 Bridge Street.
    No doubt the accommodation problem has been made more acute by the damage to the Westminster Hall offices, and presumably there is now an increased need for extra accommodation for Members and secretaries. Surely, therefore, it makes much more sense to provide the Norman Shaw (North) premises for secretaries and to maintain the premises at No. 1 Bridge Sheet for the
    1914
    use of Members. To take this type of decision now without having any idea when we are going to the new parliamentary building is wrong. I ask the Services Committee, in view of the new circumstances resulting from the bomb damage, whether it should not think again about the use of No. 1 Bridge Street. Paragraph 7 of the report reads:
    "It is essential that No. 1 Bridge Street and Palace Chambers should be evacuated by Members at the same time as Norman Shaw (North) becomes available for occupation because staff and facilities including telephone lines will have to be removed from these two premises …".
    I cannot believe that a large number of staff is needed to run No. 1 Bridge Street. That is not an overwhelming argument. Wherever those Members are they will require servicing by a certain number of staff. If the exterior of No. 1 Bridge Street were cleaned up it would be regarded by many people as a very fine building. As it stands, the interior is worthy of preservation. I believe that we are making a mistake in committing the building to dereliction. I do not believe that Parliament should take such a decision without giving it far greater consideration than it has so far received.
    12.22 a.m.
    Mr. Marcus Lipton: I support what the hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) said. It appears that no one who is directly affected by the report has been consulted. Paragraph 7.1 reads:
    "Members and Secretaries now in No. 1 Bridge Street and Palace Chambers should be transferred to Norman Shaw (North) at a date to be agreed with them. …."
    When are the people who now use No. 1 Bridge Street and Palace Chambers going to be consulted? It appears that no consultation has taken place. It is not yet known when No. 1 Bridge Street and Palace Chambers should be closed. It is not yet known when the Norman Shaw (North) building will be occupied. We are being asked, in effect, to buy a pig in a poke. I think that the Members and secretaries directly concerned should have the opportunity to express their views on the proposals contained in the report.
    12.23 a.m.
    Mr. Michael Marshall: I do not wish to take up the time of the House unduly, but I wish to put in a word for

    1915
    the under-privileged who are accommodated in Dean's Yard. What is not clear to me—I hope that we shall have some assurance tonight—is what will be the result for those who are not mentioned specifically in the report. I assume that the occupants of Dean's Yard will be entitled to put in for a transfer to some of the extra accommodation which will be created by the Norman Shaw (North) project, but that is not clear. I assume that that is covered by paragraph 7.3.
    I wish to draw to the attention of the House the real problems which many hon. Members face in, as it were, the outer suburbs of Dean's Yard. We are working seven to an office. Any hon. Member who drops into our office when we are all on the telephone will appreciate the problem. The nearest comparison I can think of is a betting shop. I hope that it is not a situation that will continue indefinitely. I am willing to receive an assurance tonight, but if that is not forthcoming I urge the Committee to hoist on board this problem with all speed.
    12.24 a.m.
    Mr. James Lamond: The report which we are now considering should not be the subject of lengthy debate as the Committee, in Paragraph 2, gives a description of the existing accommodation for the benefit of new Members. If we look further into the report we see that Paragraph 3 reads:
    "In the opinion of some Members many rooms which are now shared, including those in Commons Court which were furnished specifically for use by two Members, should be occupied by one person only. If this is the general view of the House such infilling will not solve the overall problem …"
    I suggest that the inclusion of that sentence means that the Committee is anxious to obtain the observations of hon. Members on the desirability of single rooms.
    There seems to be some method of promotion among back benchers. One starts some distance from the House, sharing a room with three, four or more hon. Members, and is then gradually promoted, until one reaches the stage that I have now reached, of sharing with a delightful companion a room in the precincts of this building. But, like the community at large, increasing affluence whets the appetitie for even more affluence. Having achieved the distinc-
    1916
    tion of sharing a room with one companion, notwithstanding her attractiveness, I prefer a room of my own.
    If the Committee is indeed asking a question, my reply is that it should, as far as possible, endeavour to provide a single room for each hon. Member of this House.
    The Committee, in paragraph 4 of the report, states that
    "Private Members occupy 70 single rooms within the precincts".
    That is a very small proportion of the total number of private Members. I know that there are single rooms outside the precincts, but, ideally, we should have a single room for each Member within the precincts. It may not be possible to achieve that ideal. However, we should make it clear that that is what we would like.
    Mr. Moate: I have asked many hon. Members who have desks in the Cloisters—who possibly fall into the category of Members sharing rooms—about this matter. Most of them expressed the view that they would rather have their desks in the Cloisters than offices of their own in either the new parliamentary building or Norman Shaw (North). The Committee should take their views into account and not automatically accept that all hon. Members want their own offices.
    Mr. Lamond: I accept what the hon. Gentleman said. The Committee is asking for views. I can speak only for myself in this respect. I felt it was valuable for the Committee to know that at least one hon. Member was anxious to have a room of his own.
    12.28 a.m.
    Mr. Patrick Cormack: As a Member who has a room in Bridge Street and a secretary in Dean's Yard I can sympathise with many of the points that have been made.
    We have an eminently fine building in Bridge Street, and the accommodation within it is good. The rooms are reasonably large, and certainly soundproof, which is more than can be said of some of the accommodation in this building.
    If hon. Members are prepared and willing to work at No. 1 Bridge Street, as I am and as many secretaries are, they should be allowed to do so. It would

    1917
    be an act of gross irresponsibility for Parliament, at a time of national difficulties and when accommodation is not easy to supply, to give up a building of the standard of No. 1 Bridge Street. Many secretaries have worked there for 10 years or more and are quite happy to continue there.
    The Minister of State, Department of Industry (Mr. Eric S. Heffer)The Minister of State, Department of Industry (Mr. Eric S. Heffer) indicated assent.
    Mr. Cormack: The hon. Gentleman's wife is one of those who has worked in that building for a long time. I know that she is happy there. It seems quite stupid to turf her out, or to turf me out for that matter.
    I am in favour of the Norman Shaw building. If asked, I should be quite prepared to go there and allow another hon. Member to move into Bridge Street. I do not object to the extra distance from this place. I like the Norman Shaw building—I find it aesthetically pleasing—and should be happy to take my secretary there, not to leave her in Dean's Yard.
    We cannot afford to close the Bridge Street building. I am still opposed to the new parliamentary building—indeed, all the arguments deployed a year ago about extravagance and expense are even more telling now—but even its most fervent advocate would agree that, in current circumstances, it is unlikely that work on it will be started for at least four or five years.
    Why, therefore, should we move from Bridge Street where many hon. Members and secretaries are perfectly happy? Why not keep that accommodation in good repair? Most of the rooms need only a lick of paint. If we do that we shall be meeting the extremely important point raised by the hon. Member for Oldham. East (Mr. Lamond). Every hon. Member, if he wishes, should have the opportunity of occupying a private room. If he does not want one, fair enough. If a Member prefers to stay in this building and occupy a desk in the cloisters than walk a couple of hundred yards across the road to a private room, that is a privilege which should be accorded to him. There are hon. Members on both sides of the House who have homes in London, or have interests in and around London, and who prefer to work from their homes or City offices. Such people want only a desk,
    1918
    and I do not object to that. But if we keep Bridge Street, Norman Shaw and Dean's Yard, every hon. Member who wants a private room can have one. That would meet the hon. Member's point. So whatever we do with Norman Shaw, let us keep Bridge Street and do not let us set a bad example to the nation at a time like this by deserting a building which is structurally sound and which can provide excellent accommodation and, moreover, in which many people are extremely happy.
    12.32 a.m.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I do not normally intervene in debates of this sort, but on this occasion I was incensed by the report, not so much by what it did contain but by what it did not. I wonder how many members of the Services Committee have been to Dean's Yard and seen the totally inadequate space allocated to secretaries, the papers all over the floor because there is no place to store them, no filing cabinets to put them in, and no cupboards. Yet here we are considering closing a building which could be put to good use, is popular, and where the people who are in it want to stay there.
    The Services Committee might be comfortable, but there are many people who operate from London, perhaps representing constituencies many miles away, who are totally inadequately provided for, and the closure of the building would only make the situation worse.
    12.33 a.m.
    Mr. Robert Cooke: Perhaps it will help if I say a word now and try, on behalf of the Committee, to deal with some of the points that have been raised. May I first, however, deal with the question of the people who are to be hired from outside to run our underground car park—people who are skilled in car parking? These people have learned their skills outside on car parks. They will have to be trained in the ways of the House of Commons, and that answers the point raised by the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English). I am sorry I did not deal with the point before. If the hon. Member wishes to pursue the matter with us we shall be prepared to do so.
    It is the constant aim of the Committee to improve the facilities for hon. Members.
    Mr. Russell Kerr: Before the hon. Member leaves the point about the car park, may we be clear about the precise nature of the deal entered into with what I presume to be a private supervising firm? If possible, will the hon. Member give us the name of the firm?
    Mr. Cooke: It would probably be out of order to pursue the matter—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): Order. The hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Cooke) was making a passing reference to our previous discussion. I allowed him to go on, but he was strictly out of order. No doubt he can see the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Mr. Kerr) at another time.
    Mr. Cooke: In attempting to help the House I have put us into a difficulty, and I must not say another word on the subject. When hon. Members read HANSARD they will see that they will be able to pursue the points they wish to pursue in another way and get the answers they seek.
    It is the constant aim of the Committee, which is a servant of the House, to improve facilities for hon. Members and to do so as near the Chamber as possible, at the same time ensuring that those members of our hard-working staff, to whom we might give a little thought for having kept them here late tonight, who have to be within call of the Chamber, are decently provided for. I hope that hon. Members will study paragraph 12 of the report. It outlines a complete refurbishment of all the staff mess rooms near the Chamber. That matter is being attended to.
    Some of us remember coming here and and being given a small cupboard, often at floor level. That was all we got. We have come a long way since then, with the help and pressure of hon. Members. When I arrived in the House it was not considered decent to ask for anything more than the cupboard. Now there are many Private Members' rooms within the precincts.
    In-filling, which is not popular with all hon. Members, can help, and has helped. More is possible, and the Committee is still exploring this and aims to provide more space close at hand.
    1920
    There are two factors that we must consider. There is a limit to the violence we can do to this historic building. I see the Minister nodding his assent. He is its jealous guardian, with his officials. They are always helpful in looking at our schemes, which are not dreamt up by the Committee but are often suggested by hon. Members. No hon. Member need fear that if he writes to the Chairman of the Committee his scheme will not be looked into. But we must consider the nature of the building and the high cost of alterations.
    After the fire adjoining Westminster Hall we may be able to improve the gutted rooms to provide more and better accommodation. There will be that accidental plus. We acknowledge that it is not possible to provide for all our needs within the precincts. The Committee has been active in securing outbuildings, referred to flatteringly or unflatteringly by hon. Members, until such time as permanent supplementary accommodation, such as the new parliamentary building, becomes a reality. We have No. 6 and No. 7, Old Palace Yard, and No. 3, Dean's Yard, which is a fine building with good facilities, although overcrowded. We intend to retain both those buildings.
    I come to Bridge Street and Palace Chambers, which stand on the site of the proposed new parliamentary building. Some of us have our reservations about that building, and I voted against it, particularly on aesthetic grounds. The present buildings on that site look superficially sound. Some are sounder than others, but they are expensive to maintain. I hope that the Minister will intervene if he disagrees, but I think that he will not, because I think that we are at one on this, as we say it on the basis of advice. Some of the buildings are in need of massive works if they are to have a reasonable life, and all the money spent would be wasted if the new parliamentary building were built.
    There is also the question of staffing. We are told that we cannot obtain sufficient extra staff of sufficient quality. We are already overstretching staff to cover Bridge Street and Palace Chambers and now we are faced with Norman Shaw.
    There is one even more vital point. Hon. Members might say, "Hire staff", but we know that the quality of staff we

    1921
    require—I will not go into the details here—is not easy to obtain, and the staff must be trained. But one of the real difficulties is the question of telephone lines. We do not have enough lines on the House of Commons exchange to provide for a service to Bridge Street, Palace Chambers and Norman Shaw (North). It cannot be done. [AN HON. MEMBER: "Get some more."] We made massive provision for extra telephones, and they have all been mopped up. [AN HON. MEMBER: "Not enough."] The hon. Gentleman is right, and we are making provision for more. There are time lags in these matters. There are not enough lines to keep these buildings going at the same time.
    Mr. Cormack: I appreciate my hon. Friend's difficulties, but, with the greatest respect, that is an argument I cannot accept. It seems fatuous in the extreme. We talk as if the £30 million parliamentary building is a realistic proposal, with all the telephone lines we need for it. A year ago we were even talking of its being ready in three years' time—in other words, about two years from now. In spite of that, my hon. Friend says that we cannot maintain Bridge Street. I cannot accept my hon. Friend's argument that it is impossible to find staff. The staff that we need at Bridge Street are not highly qualified. They are nice people, they do a good job and they are courteous in the extreme, but we are not looking for first-class honours graduates, and I do not think that it should be beyond the wit of man to find enough people to man Bridge Street.
    Mr. Cooke: My hon. Friend is entitled to his point of view. I beg him to consider the question of security in that building. We do not want to debate that here now.
    I can help those who are hostile to the idea of moving out of Bridge Street and Palace Chambers to Norman Shaw—which is what the report says should be done and which I believe should be done—by saying that when Bridge Street and Palace Chambers are given up by the House of Commons they will return to the Department of the Environment, to which they belong. What is done with the buildings then will be a matter of debate, and it will be open to the House, if it so wishes, and to hon. Members to make
    1922
    representations to the Department of the Environment about some future use for those buildings.
    This may seem a strange way of proceeding, but the difficulties which I have outlined make it necessary to make this move now. The Minister is nodding his assent, but I do not know whether he wants to intervene. If one wants to make representations that the buildings should be retained for longer than some think they should, the matter can be looked at again.
    Mr. David Steel: May I, as a former colleague on the Services Committee, ask the hon. Gentleman to confirm that when the original decision was taken to recommend the use of the Norman Shaw building it was in the context of the decision taken by the House of Commons to proceed with the new parliamentary building? If that building is to be delayed, for good reason or for bad, clearly the Services Committee ought to have another think about the evacuation of the buildings adjacent to the House
    Mr. Cooke: I thought that I had given the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel), who was such a valued colleague on the Services Committee for so long, the answer to that. He says that these buildings—Bridge Street, Palace Chambers and the others there—should be looked at again, and there is no reason why that should not be done in the light of our experience, but the report says that there should be a tidy operation to get Members—some of whom are reasonably well placed in Bridge Street, but others are not—to go into Norman Shaw.
    If Members feel unable to move to Norman Shaw, they should get in touch with their Whips, who look after accommodation matters.
    Norman Shaw (North) was formerly the police headquarters and is named after the architect, Norman Shaw. It might be worth saying that the Royal Fine Art Commission, which has been unkindly treated this evening, and every amenity society deplored its possible demolition when a huge Government office complex would have wiped it out, and Richmond Terrace, too. The House of Commons can claim some credit, and I

    1923
    hope that hon. Members will join me in doing so, for the fact that, as a result of pressure in the House, these fine buildings were saved.
    We have first-class accommodation for about 128 Members and 130 secretaries, and not in crowded conditions. The Deputy Chief Whips of the Labour and Conservative Parties have inspected the building, and they will bear me out when I say that the conditions there are very much better than those in which most Members work in almost every other place.
    The work of preparation is going ahead smoothly, and it is intended—this is the answer to some of the worries hon. Members have—to invite hon. Members who will be moving from Bridge Street and Palace Chambers to view the new accommodation the week after next, and those hon. Members will be receiving letters inviting them so to do, together with other useful information, from the Serjeant at Arms. So those in Bridge Street and Palace Chambers will be given the first chance in Norman Shaw (North). If they wish to reconsider their position and make some other application, they will be entitled to do so, but they will be given the first chance to look at the new accommodation and they will be given priority in its allocation. All other Members of the House will be able to view the new accommodation shortly, but after those who are to be moved out of Bridge Street and Palace Chambers. An announcement about that will be made through the usual channels.
    Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: Will my hon. Friend say whether, before the examination of Norman Shaw (North), the Services Committee examined in considerable detail the alternatives of keeping Palace Chambers and Bridge Street, and was it advised that the cost of this would be well over £100,000 more in tarting the place up?
    Mr. Cooke: Yes, indeed. Several schemes were considered. The minutes of evidence, if not published, are not confidential, and the Services Committee could no doubt arrange for Members to be informed about this. There were two aspects. One was whether it was worth while to do a decorative tidying up. A decorative tidying up is what has been
    1924
    done to Norman Shaw (North), together with installing some new lifts and many other services. The Minister will confirm that it has cost a prodigious sum. The cost has run over a million pounds, but we believe that the expenditure will be worth while in providing accommodation for a period of years.
    Consequential on the acquisition of Norman Shaw (North), some reorganisation within the Palace will be possible and further accommodation near the Chamber can be relinquished by staff for the use of Members in due course—and that means during the course of next year. The Services Committee is always on the look-out for further opportunities to place Members closer to the Chamber, thus bringing about greater convenience and efficiency generally.
    If hon. Members have any ideas and will put them to the Chairman of the Services Committee or to myself or other members of the Committee, all ideas will be investigated; because some very useful ideas have come, not from official quarters, but from hon. Members who know the building and its difficulties well.
    Norman Shaw (North) will provide two small broadcasting studies—this is in the report—and they will enable Members to be interviewed by BBC and ITV without the necessity of travelling long distances. One can go to College Mews in the rain and see the BBC, but if one wants to go to the ITV companies one must go a very long way, very often, or out into the air.
    These will be studios for radio and television for the two networks. They will come into operation, we trust and pray, in the middle of the next year. I cannot be precise about the date. They will be an extension of the facilities of the House and thus come under the same rules as other Press facilities. That is important. If hon. Members will study those words, they will realise what they mean.
    I hope that the House will find that there is quite a lot that is encouraging in the report if they read it carefully. I have tried to answer the questions that have been asked.
    Mr. Michael Marshall: Will my hon. Friend cast his mind to the problem of Dean's Yard? He accepted that there is overcrowding there. Can he give some

    1925
    assurance with regard to the secretaries and Members now in Dean's Yard?
    Mr. Cooke: I have two hon. Friends helping me! I have been asked whether the Committee could do something about the overcrowding in Dean's Yard. The answer is, "Certainly", because the acquisition of Norman Shaw (North) means that we shall be able to make a number of adjustments. However, I cannot help my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) by altering the distance, though we appreciate the fact that it is a long way, and we are seeking to provide more accommodation near to the centre. I have said that several times—perhaps too often—in the course of these remarks.
    Mr. John Prescott: One of the problems about Dean's Yard is that there are some Members who are in reasonable accommodation and some are not. The same is true of secretaries. If there are those who are in Dean's Yard and do not wish to move elsewhere, will they be allowed to remain there?

    Division No. 60.]

    AYES

    [12.51 a.m.

    Atkins, Rt.Hn. Humphrey (Spelthorne)

    Gilbert, Dr. John

    Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

    Bates, Alf

    Glyn, Dr. Alan

    Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)

    Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

    Gray, Hamish

    Pavitt, Laurie

    Cocks, Michael

    Hamllng, William

    Prescott, John

    Cooke, Robert (Bristol, W.)

    Harper, Joseph

    Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

    Cope, John

    Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

    Royle, Sir Anthony

    Cox, Thomas

    Jessel, Toby

    Sinclair, Sir George

    Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

    Knox, David

    Steel, David

    Dunn, James A.

    Lamond, James

    Stott, Roger

    Emery, Peter

    Lawson, Nigel (Blaby)

    Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

    English, Michael

    Magee, Bryan

    Weatherill, Bernard

    Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

    Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES

    Finsberg, Geoffrey

    Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

    Mr. Phillip Whitehead

    Freud, Clement

    Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

    and Mr. Ernle Money.

    NOES

    Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

    Heffer, Eric S.

    Skinner, Dennis

    Banks, Robert

    Hughes, Mark (Durham)

    Winterton, Nicholas

    Barnett, Joel (Heywood & Royton)

    Lipton, Marcus

    Cormack, Patrick

    Moate, Roger

    TELLERS EOR THE NOES:

    Davies, Bryan (Enfield, N.)

    Ovenden, John

    Mr. Bob Cryer and

    Edge, Geoff

    Roderick, Caerwyn E.

    Mr. Russell Kerr.

    Question accordingly agreed to.
    Resolved,
    That this House doth agree with the Select Committee on House of Commons (Services) in their Third Report.

    STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): If there is no objection, shall put a single Question on the remaining motions.
    Mr. Cooke: I do not think that I have been obscure. The report makes it clear that we propose that those Members in Bridge Street and Palace Chambers should move into Norman Shaw, or into some other building, if they can persuade their respective parties to agree to this. No one will be forced to leave Dean's Yard or Nos. 6 and 7 Old Palace Yard. If there are overcrowding representations they will be able to take their chance with the other applicants for better accommodation. I know that the two main parties do their best to satisfy all their members. The minority parties are reasonably well looked after in this House. We shall continue to look after their interests.
    Perhaps I might be allowed to sit down, at last, after saying that we shall continue our efforts. We are currently exploring further improvements to our facilities within the Palace, which, with the ready co-operation of the Minister of State and his Department, could become a reality before too long.
    Question put:—
    The House divided: Ayes 39, Noes 14.
    Motions made, and Questions put forthwith pursuant to the Standing Order (Statutory Instruments):

    TRANSPORT
    That the Carriage by Railway (Revision of Convention) Order 1974, a draft of which was laid before this House on 14th May, be approved.—[Mr. Walter Harrison.]

    GOVERNMENT TRADING FUNDS
    That the Royal Ordnance Factories Trading Fund Order 1974, a draft of which was laid

    1927
    before this House on 10th June, be approved.—[Mr. Walter Harrison.]

    DIPLOMATIC PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES
    That the Asian Development Bank (Immunities and Privileges) Order 1974, a draft of which was laid before this House on 12th June, be approved.
    That the European Molecular Biology Laboratory (Immunities and Privileges) Order 1974, a draft of which was laid before this House on 12th June, be approved.
    That the Central Treaty Organization (Immunities and Privileges) Order 1974, a draft of which was laid before this House on 12th June, be approved.
    That the Customs Co-operation Council (Immunities and Privileges) Order 1974, a draft of which was laid before this House on 12th June, be approved.
    That the European Space Research Organisation (Immunities and Privileges) Order 1974, a draft of which was laid before this House on 12th June, be approved.
    That the International Atomic Energy Agency (Immunities and Privileges) Order 1974, a draft of which was laid before this House on 12th June, be approved.
    That the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (Immunities and Privileges) Order 1974, a draft of which was laid before this House on 12th June, be approved.
    That the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (Immunities and Privileges) Order 1974, a draft of which was laid before this House on 12th June, be approved.
    That the South-East Asia Treaty Organisation (Immunities and Privileges) Order 1974, a draft of which was laid before this House on 12th June, be approved.
    That the Specialised Agencies of the United Nations (Immunities and Privileges) Order 1974, a draft of which was laid before this House on 12th June, be approved.
    That the United Nations and International Court of Justice (Immunities and Privileges) Order 1974, a draft of which was laid before this House on 12th June, be approved.—[Mr. Walter Harrison.]
    Question agreed to.

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

    AIRCRAFT NOISE
    1.2 a.m.
    Mr. Toby Jessel: I am grateful for this opportunity to raise a matter which is of great concern to many of my constituents and to a large number of people beyond the boundaries of my constituency. I refer to the problem of aircraft noise—a problem which nobody with any personal experience of living under the noise shadow of a major airport would dream of belittling This is a serious problem which causes a great deal of human suffering, ruins people's quiet enjoyment of houses and gardens, interrupts the work of schools, churches, hospitals and offices, and interferes with people's private lives, their telephone conversations, their opportunities to listen to gramophone records or watch television.
    It must be said that some people do not mind aircraft noise very much, but to a large proportion of people it is a major nuisance and to a substantial number it causes suffering and in some cases mental ill health. It is a major social evil in the communities affected by it.
    In reply to a question which I put to the Under-Secretary of State on this matter two weeks ago, the hon. Gentleman who is to reply to this debate referred to aircraft noise as a pestilence. He was absolutely right and was not exaggerating at all. The hon. Gentleman is known in the House for his great concern for social problems and the avoidance of human suffering in matters such as housing, and he is well aware from the voluminous correspondence which he has had with me on aircraft noise how much suffering exists. I hope that he will take every possible action he can to relieve the lot of my constituents and to mitigate this nuisance, despite the undoubted technical difficulties. I hope that he will be able to assure me that he and the Secretary of State for Trade will not flinch from placing the peace, quiet and health of people around airports above any commercial interests.

    1929
    This problem is compounded by the great growth in traffic through Heathrow Airport. The British Airways Authority estimated in 1973 that 27 million passengers passed through the airports of South-East England during the year, and it projected the 1985 figure as 84 million, almost a three-fold increase. No one who has studied the problem is in doubt that the oil crisis will cause no more than a temporary hesitation in the graph reflecting the upward trend of air travel.
    I suggest seven main areas of action. The first and most popular among people who have not studied the problem is the quietening of engines, thus dealing with noise at the source. There has been talk about this for years, and it is highly desirable in principle, but it is not enough. It is limited in scope and I am sceptical about how much can be achieved, especially in the short term. It is true that some quieter aircraft are coming along.
    Mr. James Allason: My hon. Friend has spoken of quieter aircraft. Is it not more appropriate to say "less noisy aircraft"?
    Mr. Jessel: I agree wholeheartedly. Two years ago, I and others in the House suggested to the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry that he should use his influence with BEA, as it was, to buy quieter or less noisy aircraft. We were pleased when a few weeks later BEA announced that it would buy Lockheed TriStars. However, four adverse factors are involved.
    First, the life of an aircraft is about 20 years. Many of the 62 airlines using Heathrow continue to receive deliveries of Boeings and other very noisy aircraft to orders recently placed. Secondly, the quietening of existing aircraft by hush kits is much easier said than done. There is little to show for the already large sums spent, and I remain unconvinced until we have definite evidence to the contrary that any major advance can be made in this way.
    Thirdly, it is not just a matter of quietening the engines. The aircraft themselves make considerable noise passing through the air. Fourthly, and most important, it is the frequency of flights which people resent most. I believe that they resent the frequency more than the peak loundness of an individual aircraft.
    1930
    People can tolerate 10 or 20 very noisy aircraft but they cannot take several hundred in a day, very often at peak hours every minute or two.
    Already there are 600 movements in and out of Heathrow every day, and it is projected that by the late 1980s the figure will be 1,000. This is intolerable from the point of view not only of aircraft noise but of crash risk. As I pointed out two months ago, when the Secretary of State for Trade made a statement about the crash of the Turkish aircraft outside Paris, if it had crashed 20 minutes later it could well have done so on part of London—and the mind boggles at the thought of over 100 tons of metal, bodies and luggage ploughing through a heavily built-up area at several hundred miles an hour. A thousand flights a day is an unacceptable level of crash risk, quite apart from the noise involved.
    That brings me to my second point, which is the Third London Airport. I am a strong supporter of Maplin. It must make sense to put an airport by the sea on land relaimed from the sea so that aircraft may take off and approach the airport for landing over the sea instead of over residential areas. What is more, the noisiest aircraft and all-night flights can be routed through it. Despite all that has been said in recent months, I ask the hon. Gentleman to keep an open mind on the matter, especially in the light of the aircraft noise problem.
    Third, on Concorde, I was pleased to receive an assurance from the Secretary of State for Industry a few weeks ago that the Government would take the aircraft noise aspect into account when deciding on the future of Concorde.
    My fourth point relates to bans on night flights. Here, some progress has been made since 1971, when, in the summer season, there were more than 1,600 night jet take-offs. That was reduced by five-sixths by the summer season of 1973 to 261. I should very much like to hear what further progress has been made in reducing still further the number of night jet take-offs.
    Fifth, I suggest, as other hon. Members have done, that there should be a total ban on all traffic through Heathrow on Sundays. There should be one day a week when people could look forward to a total respite from aircraft noise. It

    1931
    is reasonable that the interests of people on the ground should be put above those who wish to fly, at least on one day of the week.
    My sixth point concerns soundproofing. My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Surrey (Sir A. Royle), who I am very pleased to see attending this debate, despite the lateness of the hour, tabled an early-day motion two weeks ago, which I was glad to sign, urging that the system of sound-proofing grants be extended to the London borough of Richmond-upon-Thames, which embraces both his constituency and my own. I am sure that my hon. Friend will not argue that this is a complete answer to the problem, but at least as a matter of equity it could go some of the way to compensating those residents who suffer from aircraft noise and, as a consequence, from what is permitted by Parliament in the way of disturbance. It is right that the rest of the community should compensate householders by providing sound-proofing which would give some limited protection to those who choose to avail themselves of it.
    Seventh, I refer to the distribution of flight paths. This is my final and main point for the purpose of this debate. My constituency is burdened by three flight paths on those days when, for safety reasons, aircraft take off from Heathrow towards the east against the prevailing wind.
    There is the Dover 2 route, which is centred over Whitton, West Twickenham, Strawberry Hill and onwards over Richmond Park and my hon. Friend's constituency, towards the coast at Dover, as its name implies.
    There is the Woodley route, which turns round 180 degrees to enable transatlantic flights to go in a westerly direction. I was glad to learn from a document recently published that the Civil Aviation Authority is now studying the possibility of routeing this to the north of Heathrow.
    Then there is the Mole Valley route, which is used for southward destinations. Last week the Department of Trade published a consultative document suggesting a split in the Mole Valley route. I am not opposed to the idea of a split to
    1932
    relieve the concentration of noise on those living under the present route, but I cannot support the split proposed in the document, for reasons I shall come to. I wish to propose what I believe is a fairer solution than that in the document. I say this without any disrespect to those who have worked on the document. In saying that I wish to produce another proposal I am fortified by paragraph 17 of the document, which reads:
    "The Department will be pleased … to consider any alternative proposals that are consistent with the Noise Advisory Council's report."
    That report was published a month or two ago and gave rise to the consultative document.
    The document suggests changing the Mole Valley route by moving half the traffic half a mile to the east and the other half of the traffic half a mile to the west; half the route would be centred over the Heathfield area, the Rivermeads, the west side of Hampton Hill and the centre of Hampton; the other half would be situated over Whitton, West Twickenham, Strawberry Hill and the centre of Teddington.
    The hon. Gentleman has assured me both in reply to a Question some weeks ago and in a recent letter that full consultation will be carried out with all parties concerned. I regret to say that annex D of the document does not provide this quite as it should.
    Astonishingly, Teddington, a town of some 15,000 people, has been left out, even though the document proposes to put a new flight path straight over it.
    I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would confirm, if I supply him with the necessary addresses, that he will consult the Teddington Society, the Strawberry Hill Residents' Association, the Hampton Wick Association, the Hampton Court Green Residents' Association, the Whitton Community Association, the Twickenham Green Residents' Association and the Hampton Residents' Association, in addition to those he has already listed in annex D, in addition to the Richmond upon Thames Borough Council.
    I wish to criticise the proposed route split as being unsatisfactory because it is so narrow that it will not achieve the desired objective of dispersing the noise,

    1933
    because its centre lines are only about 1 mile apart at the widest point, so that people in the middle hear both lots of noise, bearing in mind the width of the noise shadows. It will give hardly any benefit to Hampton Hill or Fulwell, which are two of the areas which suffer the worst under the present route. Whitton, West Twickenham and Strawberry Hill will suffer from increased noise although they have also to endure the Dover 2 route.
    It would be more equitable to split the Mole Valley route rather more widely. I suggest half the traffic is put along a route to the west of Hampton over Han-worth Park, Kempton Park and the Queen Elizabeth Reservoir, slightly to the west of the route used prior to December 1971. I believe this would be fairer than the split proposed. It would bring limited relief to my constituency, which is now carrying far more than its fair share of the burden of noise.
    I hope the Minister will look into this proposal with a fair and open mind.
    1.19 a.m.
    Sir Anthony Royle: I do not wish to hold the House more than a minute as I realise that my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) would wish to have the answers to the many points he has raised.
    I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this subject and also for allowing me to have a minute to add one major point to the very important points he has raised. I fully support everything my hon. Friend has said about double glazing, night flights, and most of the other of the first six points he made.
    Regarding Concorde, I expressed my concern to the Minister about the reply he gave when he told me that the noise made by Concorde will be equivalent to that made by a Boeing 707. This, in the view of my constituents—and I assume that my hon. Friend would agree with me—is unacceptable. We must ask the manufacturers to reduce the noice to the level of the quieter jets using the airport today and not just to be satisfied with the noise running at the level of that made by the present Boeing 707.
    One point not touched on by my hon. Friend is helicopter noise. People at one end of my constituency suffer very much from helicopter movements. Much of
    1934
    the responsibility here rests with the GLC, but its attitude towards the environment of my constituents is totally unsatisfactory. It has tried in the past to drive motorways across my constituency. It has tried, and is succeeding, to flood one end of the constituency with juggernaut lorries, and now it has a proposal before it to increase the number of helicopter flights from Battersea Airport from 4,000 to 6,000 per annum, excluding emergency flights. The fact that the number of movements is double that figure shows the extent of the concern.
    Although the Minister will not have time to deal with this matter tonight, I would ask him to look into it as soon as possible, because my constituents and I are very concerned.
    1.22 a.m.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Trade (Mr. Clinton Davis): I think that it was by cutting into my time rather than that of his hon. Friend, that the hon. Member for Richmond, Surrey (Sir A. Royle) was able to make his speech. I clearly will not be able to cover all the points that have been raised, but if any are missed, of course, I shall communicate with the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel).
    I am grateful to the hon. Member for raising this vexed question again. I was right to describe aircraft noise as a pestilence I do not know the hon. Gentleman's constituency, apart from the fact that I used to raise questions about it when in opposition.
    To a major extent, this sort of noise detracts from the quality of life of those who suffer from it. This point was made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade in a speech on Monday to the Airport Operators' Council International Conference. He said:
    "In my view if the air transport industry is to have a healthy and vigorous future it is essential that the high level of disturbance in areas around too many of the major airports throughout the world should first be mitigated and then progressively reduced.
    This cannot be done overnight without unacceptable serious damage to the industry It must follow from a controlled and phased programme which is universally accepted"
    Thus, while the industry must recognise the yearnings for peace and quiet of those affected by aircraft noise and work towards the continued mitigation of those problems, those who live near airports,

    1935
    unhappily, must accept that civil aviation is here to stay, that it provides benefits for millions of people throughout the world and that noise is an inevitable consequence. We must face this acute dilemma
    The hon. Member mentioned the Mole Valley route, a matter which he has often raised in the House. On 10th April 1972 he advocated a change to two routes which passed over his constituency, with the express purpose of reducing the number of people exposed to aircraft noise. Largely as a result of those pressures, in July 1972 the more important of these routes—the Mole Valley route—was revised, but, regrettably, the results have fallen short of expectation.
    It is an unhappy situation that often a well-intentioned initiative fails to bear fruit, and sometimes the temptation is to conclude that nothing more can be done. But in the case of aircraft noise, I believe that we must learn from experience, even from unhappy experience, and redouble our efforts to find ways of achieving a real advance. That is the view I take of the Mole Valley problem since I have been able to consider it.
    We have the independent report of the Noise Advisory Council, which was set up largely because of the experience with the Mole Valley route, and we have had the opportunity to consider the position. This was one of my first tasks when I assumed office. We have to see how best we can implement those recommendations that appeared technically feasible and most likely to bring substantial alleviation to noise suffers.
    I cannot discuss the report in depth in six minutes, but it is of direct relevance to the debate because it contained a specific recommendation that the Mole Valley route should be split in order to give a measure of relief to the worst affected areas to the south east of Heathrow, where several routes, of which the Mole Valley route is one, are concentrated. I regard this an an eminently sensible suggestion and, after a full evaluation by officials of the Department and of the Civil Aviation Authority, a route split consistent with the conditions contained in the report was formulated.
    We have sent out a consultative document to Members of Parliament affected
    1936
    and to local authorities with a direct interest in the matter, and to those amenity groups which submitted evidence about the Mole Valley route to the Noise Advisory Council during its investigation. I must stress, as I have done in correspondence, that we place the greatest emphasis on the importance of the need for full consultation. It does not mean that because we have identified a number of amenity groups other people are excluded. If people wish to submit their views we shall certainly consider them because, as I stress, consultation is the order of the day.
    I do not want anyone to go away with the belief that we are seeking to impose new routes by stealth. There must and will be consultation.
    I should like to go into more detail on the precise form that the route split should take, but I fear that I cannot. The essence of the matter is that we have to look at the recommendation and adjudge the response which the recommendation receives. There is nothing more I can usefully say in this respect in the time available, because there are a number of other points which the hon. Gentleman raised which I would like to deal with.
    Mr. Jessel: Is the hon. Gentleman able to look at the alternative proposal which I have put forward?
    Mr. Davis: Of course we shall be able to look at the alternative proposal, but it has a number of drawbacks. I am certain that even some of the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends would be reluctant to accept the conclusions he has reached, but this matter falls within the ambit of consultation. With regard to the hon. Gentleman's suggested reservoir route, it should be pointed out that while this would transfer the burden in part from his constituency it would fall upon some of his neighbours, and that may not be totally acceptable.
    The hon. Gentleman will know that steps are being taken in relation to quiet aircraft. I wish that the hon. Gentleman had given me more time to deal with this. British Airways are introducing the TriStar, and there is to be an increasing use by European carriers of the A.300B Airbus. Both of these are notably quiet aircraft. Steps are being undertaken by the Government

    1937
    to modify the older types of jet aircraft, but this takes time. The hon. Gentleman cannot expect a remarkable reformation in days or even months.
    We are looking at the noise insulation grants scheme—to which the hon. Gentleman rightly referred—in the light of the recommendations made by the Noise Advisory Council, but I cannot promise a hasty reaction to it, because other Government Departments have to be consulted, as well as local authorities, and we have to see what the full repercussions would be of implementing all the recommendations of the Noise Advisory Council's report—
    Sir Anthony Royle: How long will it take?
    Mr. Davis: This is a matter of lengthy consultation upon which I cannot make a prediction at the moment. I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman's constituents are deeply affected, but this matter has tremendous repercussions. There are also other types of noise pollution to be considered.
    Reference has been made to Maplin. It is impossible to anticipate what will be in the statement to be made by my right hon. Friend before the Summer Recess, but noise disturbance will figure largely in his considerations. My Department, the Department of Trade and the Government as a whole will have to consider this issue.
    The hon. Gentleman referred to Concorde. That is a little academic at the moment. I do not want to get involved in comparisons between the various air
    1938
    craft involved. I wrote to the hon. Gentleman along the lines that he suggested. There is, as he rightly said, a difference of view. I shall take carefully into account the views that he has expressed.
    In the last minute and a half that is available to me I shall refer to helicopter noise. The hon. Gentleman will realise that that is the responsibility of the GLC rather than of the Government. The GLC is at present discussing with Westlands, the owners of Battersea Heliport, the number of flights to be allowed from the heliport this year. Last year the number of flights exceeded the number allowed by the GLC. Essentially that is a matter for the GLC, but we shall use our influence with the GLC to ensure that the point that the hon. Gentleman has made is taken into account.
    We are trying to find quieter helicopter routes, with the help of the CAA. I hope that to some extent that satisfies the hon. Gentleman. I cannot prophesy that the noise problem will be overcome. It is a gradual process and each element in the noise abatement programme, although not always a major headline item, makes a major contribution—
    The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock on Thursday evening and the debate having been continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
    Adjourned at twenty-eight minutes to Two o'clock.

NORTHERN IRELAND
  Royal Ulster Constabulary
  Royal Ulster Constabulary
  Security Forces
  Security Forces
  Detainees
  Detainees
  Internment and Detention
  Internment and Detention
  Gross National Product
  Gross National Product
  Schoolchildren (Republic of Ireland)
  Schoolchildren (Republic of Ireland)
  Westminster Parliament (Northern Ireland Representation)
  Westminster Parliament (Northern Ireland Representation)
  Parole
  Parole
  Terrorist Activities (Armagh)
  Terrorist Activities (Armagh)
  Criminal Injury Compensation
  Criminal Injury Compensation
  Discrimination in Employment
  Discrimination in Employment
  Security Powers
  Security Powers
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Danish Farm Products (Imports)
  Danish Farm Products (Imports)
  Import Levies (New Zealand Food)
  Import Levies (New Zealand Food)
  Fishing Industry (Building Grants)
  Fishing Industry (Building Grants)
  Poultry (EEC Directive)
  Poultry (EEC Directive)
  Food Requirements
  Food Requirements
  Cattle (Marketing)
  Cattle (Marketing)
  Honey
  Honey
  Strawberries
  Strawberries
  Livestock Prices
  Livestock Prices
  Livestock and Poultry
  Livestock and Poultry
  Rabbit and Squirrel Clearance
  Rabbit and Squirrel Clearance
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Tanzania, Zambia and Rhodesia
  Tanzania, Zambia and Rhodesia
  Law of the Sea Conference
  Law of the Sea Conference
  Irish Republican Army (International Guerrilla Festival)
  Irish Republican Army (International Guerrilla Festival)
  Migrant Workers
  Migrant Workers
  Ethiopia (Gift of Trucks)
  Ethiopia (Gift of Trucks)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Inflation
  Inflation
  Personal Incomes
  Personal Incomes
  Betting Duty (Greyhound Racing)
  Betting Duty (Greyhound Racing)
  Overseas Borrowing (Scottish Local Authorities)
  Overseas Borrowing (Scottish Local Authorities)
  Redemption Stock (Sinking Fund)
  Redemption Stock (Sinking Fund)
  Sterling Area Reserves and Overseas Investments
  Sterling Area Reserves and Overseas Investments
  Exchange Rates (EEC Proposals)
  Exchange Rates (EEC Proposals)
  Public Expenditure
  Public Expenditure
  Nationalised Industries
  Nationalised Industries
  Earnings
  Earnings
  Company Taxation
  Company Taxation
  Company Profits
  Company Profits
  Corporation Tax
  Corporation Tax
  Loan Interest
  Loan Interest
DEFENCE
  Nuclear Tests
  Nuclear Tests
  Education and Medical Care (Expenditure)
  Education and Medical Care (Expenditure)
  Service Medical Schools
  Service Medical Schools
  Dockyards
  Dockyards
  Nuclear Missiles
  Nuclear Missiles
  Low-flying Aircraft (Wales)
  Low-flying Aircraft (Wales)
  Nuclear Test
  Nuclear Test
  Greece (Arms Supplies)
  Greece (Arms Supplies)
  CBI (MEETING)
  CBI (MEETING)
  GOVERNMENT POLICY (PRIME MINISTER'S SPEECH)
  GOVERNMENT POLICY (PRIME MINISTER'S SPEECH)
  ITALY
  ITALY
  REFERENDA
  REFERENDA
  PRICES (PRIME MINISTER'S SPEECH)
  PRICES (PRIME MINISTER'S SPEECH)
  NORTHERN IRELAND
  NORTHERN IRELAND
  LUXEMBOURG
  LUXEMBOURG
  PRESS RELEASES
  PRESS RELEASES
  DISASTER PREVENTION
  DISASTER PREVENTION
  INDUSTRY (GOVERNMENT POLICY)
  INDUSTRY (GOVERNMENT POLICY)
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE
  NATO SUMMIT MEETING
  NATO SUMMIT MEETING
  COMPLAINTS
  COMPLAINTS
  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
  INTERNATIONAL MARXIST GROUP
  INTERNATIONAL MARXIST GROUP
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Handicapped Children
  Handicapped Children
  Teachers
  Teachers
  Secondary Schools (Size)
  Secondary Schools (Size)
  Sacred Heart School, Redcar
  Sacred Heart School, Redcar
  Examination Results (North-East England)
  Examination Results (North-East England)
  Countesthorpe College
  Countesthorpe College
  Children (Medical Examinations)
  Children (Medical Examinations)
ENERGY
  Offshore Supplies Office
  Offshore Supplies Office
  North Sea Oil Platform Production
  North Sea Oil Platform Production
  Coal (Scotland)
  Coal (Scotland)
  Offshore Installations (Certification)
  Offshore Installations (Certification)
ENVIRONMENT
  Rent Scrutiny Boards
  Rent Scrutiny Boards
  Departmental Employees (Pay)
  Departmental Employees (Pay)
  Driving Licences
  Driving Licences
  Highcliffe Castle, Dorset
  Highcliffe Castle, Dorset
  Planning Procedures (Hampshire)
  Planning Procedures (Hampshire)
  Road Developments (Property Compensation)
  Road Developments (Property Compensation)
  A17 (Bypass)
  A17 (Bypass)
  King's Lynn Bypass
  King's Lynn Bypass
  Layby Picnic Sites
  Layby Picnic Sites
  Trade Effluent Disposal (Yorkshire)
  Trade Effluent Disposal (Yorkshire)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Passport Controls (Ireland)
  Passport Controls (Ireland)
  Irish Republican Army (International Guerrilla Festival)
  Irish Republican Army (International Guerrilla Festival)
  Capital Punishment (IRA Members)
  Capital Punishment (IRA Members)
  Essex Constabulary
  Essex Constabulary
  Political Meeting (Advertising Prohibition)
  Political Meeting (Advertising Prohibition)
  Foreign Husbands and Fiancés
  Foreign Husbands and Fiancés
INDUSTRY
  Task Forces
  Task Forces
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  Computer Companies
  Computer Companies
  Companies (Harrow)
  Companies (Harrow)
  Triumph Motor Cycles and Beaverbrook Newspapers
  Triumph Motor Cycles and Beaverbrook Newspapers
  Telephone Charges
  Telephone Charges
  Coal Miners (Absenteeism)
  Coal Miners (Absenteeism)
  DEVOLUTION
  DEVOLUTION
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Developing Countries
  Developing Countries
  Malawi
  Malawi
  India, Nigeria and Arab Countries
  India, Nigeria and Arab Countries
PRICES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION
  Manufactured Foodstuffs
  Manufactured Foodstuffs
SCOTLAND
  Off-Peak Electricity
  Off-Peak Electricity
  Grant-Aided Schools
  Grant-Aided Schools
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Heart Patients
  Heart Patients
  Deaf Persons
  Deaf Persons
  Chiropodists
  Chiropodists
  Possum Equipment
  Possum Equipment
  Disabled Persons
  Disabled Persons
  Abortion
  Abortion
  Smallpox Inquiry
  Smallpox Inquiry
  Bexhill Hospital
  Bexhill Hospital
  Geriatric Beds
  Geriatric Beds
  Speech Therapy
  Speech Therapy
  Radiographers and Speech Therapists
  Radiographers and Speech Therapists
  Knottingley Office
  Knottingley Office
  Departmental Offices (Disabled Persons' Facilities)
  Departmental Offices (Disabled Persons' Facilities)
WALES
  A55 (Route)
  A55 (Route)

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Saint Edmundsbury and Ipswich.

OPEC AND INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: 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 what is their policy on suggestions that it would be in the interest of industrial countries which are heavy importers of crude oil to secure larger representation of the OPEC countries on the Council of the International Monetary Fund.
THE LORD JACQUES: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government welcome full and active participation of all member countries in the important work of the International Monetary Fund. It would certainly be appropriate for the growing importance of the Oil Producing and Exporting Countries in international financial affairs to be reflected in their position in the International Monetary Fund.
Subject to a moderate weighting in favour of small member countries, voting rights in the I.M.F. are based upon quotas. These also determine subscriptions and drawing rights. Quotas are a matter for periodic negotiation. A renegotiation has begun and is due to be completed by February, 1975. It is to be expected, unless the OPEC countries themselves wish otherwise, that their relative position will be increased as a result of this round of renegotiation.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, in thanking the noble Lord for his informative and valuable reply, may I ask him to clarify one or two points? Can we take it that Her Majesty's Government are in favour of this general approach, inasmuch as the delays in the production of North Sea oil will make
1632
it important to be able to buy Middle Eastern crude? Do the Government realise that it is important to persuade the OPEC countries to be willing to accept Special Drawing Rights?
LORD JACQUES: My Lords, on earlier occasions not all OPEC countries have claimed as much as they might have been entitled to claim by way of quotas. Her Majesty's Government would welcome their full participation.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord for that answer to my supplementary question. It is satisfactory to me.

SCOTLAND: PLATFORM CONSTRUCTION SITES
3.8 p.m.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: 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 when the Scottish Development Department intends to publish the comprehensive list (which has been expected since the limited list published last September) of physically possible sites around the Highlands and Islands coasts for the construction of gravity platforms.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (LORD HUGHES): My Lords, as the noble Earl knows, the Scottish Office has published two discussion papers dealing with platform construction sites. The first, Production Platform Towers: Construction Sites, dated April, 1973, included a list of possible locations for platform tower construction yards. The other was North Sea Oil and Gas: Interim Coastal Planning Framework, dated October, 1973. It is hoped to publish a revised version of this during the summer, indicating suggested zones around the Scottish coast in which conservation and development might, respectively, have priority. It is also hoped to publish a statement on the national requirements for platform construction sites.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that

1633
reply. May I also thank him for a letter which he was good enough to write to me on this subject a few weeks back, and ask whether the further document which is envisaged will cover possible sites in the Islands?
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, in so far as the Islands also have Scottish coasts, yes.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, it is very satisfactory that the Hebrides and the Western Isles will be included in this study. However, may I ask the noble Lord whether the study will also take account of the depths needed for towing gravity platforms out to the sites where they will eventually stand, and of channel depths, as well as of the inshore qualifications of particular sites for construction?
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I can assure the noble Earl that the study will take account of all relevant factors.

MOTORWAY SERVICE STATIONS
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: 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 to state what is the system of inspection of motorway service and refreshment stations, the frequency of reports, and whether they are published.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, there are frequent inspections of catering facilities by all local authority public health inspectors. Officials of the Department of the Environment inspect service areas, including catering facilities, at least four times a year. Inspection reports are not published.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that information, may I ask whether he is aware that these service stations sometimes fall conspicuously below the standard that we should like to see achieved; and that when they do so it is not only uncomfortable and disappointing for those wishing to use them, both for refreshment for themselves and their motor cars, but is also very bad for the
1634
tourist trade? Is the noble Lord aware that it appears that some tightening up of the inspection system seems to he required? Also is he aware that a system of publishing reports might be stimulating to licence holders?
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, we are aware that there are periods when the standard of service falls short of what we are confident the operators would like it to be. The House ought to know that the service stations are open 24 hours a day, and there are periods when they are under heavy pressure. With regard to tightening-up inspections, I will draw the attention of the Department to what the noble Lord has said, but I should like to add that a recent survey showed that the vast majority of people who use service stations appear to be satisfied with the standard of service.
LORD POPPLEWELL: My Lords, will the noble Lord agree that local authority inspectors' reports on service stations can vary considerably, area by area, according to the interpretation that is placed by the local medical officer of health on an inspector's report. In view of the importance of these motorway service stations to our tourist traffic, is it possible for a code to be established, giving guidance to local authorities on the standard which they should expect at each of these important stations?
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, I am very much aware of the first point that my noble friend has made and, indeed, I have personally drawn the attention of the Department to the variation. I will draw the attention of my right honourable friend to the second part of my noble friend's remarks.
LORD HAILSHAM OF SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, as well as drawing the attention of his right honourable friend to the matter, will the noble Lord, when he goes on his holiday—which I hope he will very greatly enjoy—visit some of these stations himself? He will undoubtedly find that many of them are very nasty and smelly.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, I have visited them when I have been travelling North. But I have not had the pleasure of being in a service station when the noble and learned Lord opposite has also been there.
LORD PEDDIE: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that, while some of these refreshment stations are appallingly bad, some are quite good? Will the noble Lord agree that the publication of reports indicating comparative standards would be in the public interest, and would at least make some contribution towards raising the standards of those that I have already described as being appallingly had, bringing them up to the standard of those that are quite good?
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, I will draw the attention of my right honourable friend to what my noble friend has said.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, will the noble Lord agree that most of the motorway service station areas are operated on a rental and royalty basis, and is there any opportunity during the term of a contract for such a basis to be renegotiated in the light of financial circumstances?
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, I rather think not.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the basic point here is that these stations have within their area a monopoly interest, and, therefore, it is the responsibility of the Government and of the local authorities to protect the public to see that a proper standard is observed? While I sympathise with his defence of the position, is the noble Lord aware that improvements can be achieved and that those of us who travel abroad in Europe have seen such improvements achieved in other countries; notably in Italy, where the service stations have gone from being very bad to very good? Will the noble Lord therefore exert his utmost influence to see that a real improvement is achieved in this area?
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, I certainly appreciate what the noble Lord has said, and indeed I myself have been making much the same representations. However, I have to remind the House that these service stations are operated privately and that the operators expect to make a profit. Indeed, if they did not make a profit it would be impossible to supply any facilities at all.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware of the high prices
1636
charged in these service stations? Is he also aware that the disease now seems to have spread to the Lords' Dining Room?
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, I am acutely aware of the latter point made by my noble friend.
LORD SLATER: My Lords, will my noble friend agree, in view of the great interest that has been shown in this Question, that the inspectorate to which he referred is inadequate to meet the situation and ought to be increased?
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, I can certainly say that this matter will be looked at.

NATIONALISED INDUSTRY ADVERTISEMENTS
3.18 p.m.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, when a nationalised industry advertises and sells goods by holding out promises which receive publicity but are not kept, such a breach of good faith is subject to prosecution under the variety of consumer protection measures now in existence; and what action should be taken by aggrieved consumers.
TILE MINISTER OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY (LORD BALOGH): My Lords, nationalised industries are, like other commercial enterprises, subject to a wide range of consumer protection measures. Aggrieved consumers can take up complaints with the consumer councils for the industries, or initiate legal proceedings if they wish. If by any chance my noble friend has in mind the question of off-peak electricity tariffs, I would refer her to the answer given by my noble friend Lady Birk on June 17, the Statement in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Energy on June 20, and my own Answer to her Question on June 25.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, while being grateful for a

1637
much longer Answer this time than I received before, I wonder whether I might ask my noble friend, in also referring him to the Answer which my noble friend Lady Birk gave me on June 17, whether we were told that the Director General of Fair Trading could himself have made a reference on this matter to the Consumer Protection Advisory Committee if he had been asked by the Minister to do so, and that alternatively the Minister himself could have asked for a report?
Secondly, does my noble friend recall that I was also told that the Consultative Councils on this occasion made no complaint and had nothing to say about this particular advertisement and this particular matter, and therefore it would not have been the slightest use appealing to them?
LORD BALOGH: My Lords, as to the first supplementary question of my noble friend Lady Burton of Coventry, I would say that the Council's advertisements were fully justified when they were made. They gave no guarantee that the situation would never change. As to the Consumer Council, it seems to me that if any complaints had been received, they would have been transmitted. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Energy announced in another place on June 20 that he had asked the Chairman of the Electricity Council to examine urgently the giving of relief to domestic off-peak users. He said his aim would be to restore the differential so that the charge per unit for off-peak electricity would once again be a 50 per cent. charge per unit. I hope my noble friend will wait for the next Statement of my right honour. able friend the Secretary of State on this matter.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. As he knows, I am awaiting a letter from him on that matter, which I hope will arrive fairly soon. But may I just make this point which is really a serious one so far as the consumers are concerned. Does the noble Lord realise that the public thinks that a promise was made of a half-price charge for electricity? This is not a question of merits, but a promise was made. Does the noble Lord further realise that the Minister himself now thinks this, because he has
1938
said his aim will be to restore the 50 per cent. charge? It is this matter which is concerning us all.
LORD BALOGH: My Lords, I do not think that the industry has ever made a promise that there will be no change in the relationship between the full tariff and the off-peak tariff. If my noble friend would give me some examples, I can assure her we shall investigate them. But so long as the present situation exists I do beg her to await the next Statement of the Secretary of State.
LORD MAYBRAY-KING: My Lords, in view of the representations made from all sides of the House on the question of night storage heaters, will the noble Lord accept and convey to the Government our congratulations that they have accepted the old principle of the 50 per cent. rate?
LORD BALOGH: My Lords, I shall certainly convey those sentiments to my right honourable friend.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, may I ask whether the first Answer of the noble Lord applies also to nationalised industries selling services, such as the Post Office, whose advertising with regard to the delivery of mail is very far from being fulfilled?
LORD BALOGH: My Lords, I should have thought that that is rather wide of the Question. If the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, puts down a Question relating to the Post Office, I hope someone will answer it.
LORD PEDDIE: My Lords, arising out of my noble friend's reference to previous Questions on this subject, may I ask him once again the question I put on a previous occasion, as to whether or not a service has been provided on a contractual basis to the user? If that be not so, may I further ask him whether or not there has been any consideration given to the adoption of such services on a contractual basis?
LORD BALOGH: My Lords, I do not think there was any contract on the 50 per cent. charge, but I shall call the attention of my right honourable friend to what the noble Lord, Lord Peddie, has said. We will answer him in writing.

FLIXBOROUGH DISASTER: PUBLIC INQUIRY
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, with the leave of the House my noble friend Lord Hughes will be making a Statement on Flixborough at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m.

FRIENDLY SOCIETIES BILL [H.L.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD ELWYN-JONES): My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to consolidate the Friendly Societies Acts 1896 to 1971 and certain other enactments relating to the societies to which those Acts apply with amendments to give effect to recommendations of the Law Commission and the Scottish Law Commission. I beg to move that this Bill be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 1a. and to be printed.

ANIMAL BOARDING ESTABLISHMENTS (AMENDMENT) BILL [H.L.]
LORD DE CLIFFORD: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to amend the Animal Boarding Establishments Act, 1963. I beg to move that this Bill be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord de Clifford.)
On Question, Bill read 1a. and to be printed.

MINISTERS OF THE CROWN BILL
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (LORD SHEPHERD): My Lords, I understand that no Amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript Amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move, pursuant to Standing Order No. 45(2), that the Order of Commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the Order of Commitment be discharged. —(Lord Shepherd.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
1640
Then, Standing Order No. 44 having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution), Bill read 3a, and passed.

HEALTH AND SAFETY AT WORK ETC. BILL
3.26 p.m.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. Almost 18 months ago to the day, this House debated the Report of the Committe of Inquiry into Safety and Health at Work—the Committee which was so ably chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Robens of Woldingham. That very full, informed and constructive debate was, I believe, a significant contribution to the process of extensive consultation and discussion that has accompanied the preparation of the Bill which is now before us. The message of our debate was clear. The noble Lord, Lord Robens, and his Committee had done an excellent job in analysing the weaknesses of our present legislative and organisational arrangements for controlling safety and health hazards in industry; and the Committee's recommendations for improvements, far-reaching and comprehensive as they were, provided the essential basis for new legislation. The Government, in effect, were told to get on with the job quickly.
Of course a Bill of this size and importance takes time to produce. Nevertheless, it is still solidly based on the Committee's recommendations. There has been no dilution; and I think it is fair to say that the very extensive consultations with both sides of industry, local authority associations, professional organisations and so on, that took place on the Robens Report, and then on the consultative proposals for this Bill have increased both knowledge and understanding of the whole subject. The strengthening process has been continued in another place, where the Bill has been considered with speed, but none the less with deep thought, much constructive comment, and a very large degree of unanimity. I am sure that this House also will welcome it, and will want to expedite its passage.
It can very aptly be described as an historic measure, because it is, after all, the culmination of over a century and a half of health and safety legislation. The

1641
first Factories Act of 1833, which set out to do something about the appalling working conditions created by the Industrial Revolution, was followed by a whole series of such Acts, each one broader in scope than its predecessors. At the same time, the general principle of regulating working conditions, accepted at first with great reluctance by a laissez-faire society, was gradually extended to other sectors of employment—to mines and quarries, to agriculture, and, as recently as 1963, to offices, shops and railway premises. Other Acts set out to control specific sources of major hazards which affect workpeople and the public; such as explosives, petroleum, alkali works and nuclear installations. Increasingly we have learned that the operations of industry are a matter of vital concern to the whole community, not just in the economic sense, but in terms of effects upon our quality of life.
Another lesson learned early in this process was that, without a system of enforcement, legislation of this nature was unlikely to be effective. So with these various Acts came the development of the various inspectorates—the Factory Inspectorate, the Mines and Quarries Inspectorate, the Explosives Inspectorate and so on. Their development is an important part of our social history. We have now come a very long way since the appointment of the first four factory inspectors in 1833. Much has been achieved by a century and a half of legislation for safety and health at work, but much more needs to be done. The figures speak for themselves. Something like 1,000 people are killed every year at work. Half a million suffer accidents. Around 20 million working days are lost annually through occupational accidents and diseases. Every year brings its own crop of disasters, some large some small, often affecting members of the public as well as work-people. Aberfan, Dudgeons Wharf, Lodden Bridge, Lofthouse Colliery, and now Flixborough—one could go on for a long time indeed with the melancholy roll call.
We have now before us a Bill whose purposes are to build on the achievements of the past, and to provide for continuing improvements in standards of health, safety and welfare, to keep in sten with developments in industry and in public
1642
expectations. As the Robens Committee pointed out so vividly, the process of making health and safety legislation over the past century and a half, in piecemeal fashion to deal with specific problems, has resulted in a corpus of law which contains many anomalies and leaves many gaps in cover. Parliament can but rarely find the time for new measures to keep up with the ever-changing technologies of industrial processes and the health and safety problems which they create.
This Bill is, therefore, primarily an enabling measure. It provides powers to devise new controls for new problems as and when they occur. It provides for the establishment of a new organisation, whose sole concern will be the promotion of health and safety, and gives it responsibility for ensuring that the powers to impose controls are fully used and that such controls are effectively exercised. It also does all that legislation can do to stimulate forward thinking, the taking of measures to prevent problems arising, rather than to control them when they do.
The purposes of the Bill are set out in the first clause. The objectives are simple but all-embracing—to secure the health, safety and welfare of all persons at work, and to protect the public from risks to their health and safety arising from work activities. The means of achieving the objectives are also set out in Clause 1. The enabling powers in the Bill are to be used with a view to revising and replacing the existing piecemeal legislation—out-of-date and often limited in application as much of it is—by an integrated and comprehensive system of up-to-date provisions. This system of new provisions is to be designed to maintain or improve the standards of health, safety and welfare laid down in the existing legislation.
There have been voices raised, in another place as well as in some quarters outside Parliament, querying the reliability of these stated purposes. These critics of the Bill have wondered whether, in the process of revising and replacing existing legislation, standards of protection may, in fact, be lowered, specifics may be lost in generalities, and so on. I suspect that part of the trouble is that because it is an enabling Bill this Bill has an unfamiliar appearance by comparison with other health and safety

1643
legislation. It imposes only requirements of a very general nature. It does not itself seek to regulate known and specific hazards in detail. But, as I shall try to make clear, this does not for one moment mean that those hazards will not henceforward be controlled, and in the most stringent way. We must have the imagination to look to the potential which the Bill's provisions contain. In particular, we must look to the effects of the Bill upon those most directly involved in securing health and safety, the two sides of industry.
First, the new organisation which will be set up to take responsibility for health and safety matters will have a membership largely drawn from the two sides of industry. They will take responsibility for putting forward proposals to Ministers for the new regulations which will control the activities of industry in the interests of health and safety; and they will have a direct say in the way in which all existing and future requirements are carried into effect on a day-to-day basis.
Secondly, and most importantly, the Bill provides for rights to be given to trade unions to appoint safety representatives who in turn may call for the setting up of a safety committee at their workplace, where management and employee representatives may co-operate in devising new policies for health and safety and in ensuring that they are followed up. This responsibility for taking initiatives to secure workpeople's safety can be squarely placed on the representatives of these workpeople, quite apart from and in addition to the responsibility on management to comply with the law. Thirdly, the Bill provides extensive powers and duties regarding the free flow and full availability of advice and information on health and safety matters. This is an essential counterpart of regulation and enforcement, a vital means towards increasing awareness of the problems involved. The availability of information and advice as part of the process of educating people to a greater awareness of health and safety problems will be as important in the future in improving health and safety standards as legislative controls.
Fourthly, in considering how the powers in the Bill will ensure that its purposes are achieved and that standards of health and safety are progressively improved, we
1644
must look at the power to make health and safety regulations. This is an extremely comprehensive power; regulations may be made for any of the general purposes stated in Clause 1 of the Bill. The power extends to everything from the licensing, design, siting and operation of plants which pose major industrial hazards, such as nuclear installations, or chemical plants of the kind established at Flixborough, to the number of windows in a secretary's office. I have no doubt that it is comprehensive enough to deal with the problems raised by future technologies that we have not yet dreamt about.
But I should emphasise that it is not a power which can be exercised without responsibility. Proposals for regulations will normally be put forward to Ministers by the new Commission, which will have at its disposal the best expert resources available. That Commission will be accountable to Ministers and Parliament for the way in which it fulfils its duty of reviewing the needs for more legislation and of bringing forward proposals. Before it puts forward its proposals, it is required by the Bill to consult interested bodies so as to ensure that what it is proposing is workable and effective. And, of course, the regulations will actually be made by Ministers who will be accountable to Parliament for their adequacy. I hope that what I have said makes clear that this Bill is not just a statement of laudable purposes, but that it makes concrete and powerful provision for achieving those purposes.
May I describe a little more comprehensively its main provisions. First, the Bill is entirely comprehensive in its scope and application. It applies for the control of operations of all industry. Requirements may be imposed on anyone who carries on an undertaking or anyone who works in one. Protection may be extended to such people and, at one and the same time, to members of the public who may be affected by the way in which industrial operations are carried on. Thus, for the first time some 5 million workpeople who have been without Statutory protection will come under the Bill. Moreover, and very importantly, the closely-related questions of public health and safety as affected by industry and workpeople's health and safety may be dealt with as part of one comprehensive approach. The

1645
gaps and loopholes in existing legislation are eliminated.
Next, the Bill provides for the establishment of a Health and Safety Commission to administer the legislation in place of the present fragmented arrangements, so rightly and cogently criticised by the Robens Committee, whereby a number of Government Departments do this work. This unification of administration will create a single and major centre of initiative for progress in this field. Health and safety at work will cease to be a poor relation, diffused between different Departments. It will become a subject in its own right, attracting the priority it deserves. The membership of the Health and Safety Commission will reflect the interests of those most affected by the legislation—employers, trade unions, local authorities and the public at large. Thus those most directly concerned will have a major say in the making and implementation of policies, rules and procedures of national application.
The Bill also provides for the establish. ment of a Health and Safety Executive, as the Commission's operational arm. This will provide advice and services to industry and others, and will be responsible for enforcing the Statutory requirements. It will comprise most of the present central Government inspectorates concerned with regulating work-activities in the interests of health and safety. The Executive will be a highly professional organisation, with a wide range of scientific support facilities. As a further measure of co-ordination, the Employment Medical Advisory Service is to be placed under the wing of the Commission, alongside the other specialist groups within the Executive. This is provided for in Part II of the Bill. It is also intended that the National Radiological Protection Board should be able to put its expertise to use on behalf of the Commission and Executive. The Radiological Protection Act is amended to allow for that.
The Bill also enables local authorities to be given enforcement responsibilities. They will have a most important role in enforcing this legislation in certain fields. They already have substantial enforcement duties under some of the
1646
existing legislation with which the Bill is concerned, and this will continue under the overall guidance of the Commission. A close partnership between the Commission's Executive and the local authorities is an essential aim of the Bill and of the proposed administrative arrangements. Fire authorities will also be given more responsibilities for general fire precautions, in workplaces as elsewhere, but not under this Bill. The Fire Precautions Act 1971 is amended by the Bill to enable them to take on these additional functions— which is a further step in the direction of rationalising who does what in the health and safety field.
The Bill also provides extensive powers for inspectors of those bodies who will enforce the health and safety requirements. These powers include powers to issue notices containing directions requiring improvements, or ordering operations to cease until serious risks of danger have been overcome. The Bill will also enable the penalties in existing legislation to be raised; and where there are more serious offences against health and safety requirements, the Bill enables enforcing authorities to prosecute in the higher courts where unlimited fines—and in some cases imprisonment—may be imposed.
I have not so far mentioned Part III of the Bill. This covers a different, but associated topic; namely building regulations. It is the responsibility of the Secretaries of State for the Environment and Scotland. For some time it has been evident that there is a need for new powers in order that the system of building control in England and Wales can be modernised and made more comprehensive and efficient. A consultative document, Proposals for a Building Bill, was published by the Department of the Environment in August, 1972. Part III of the Bill gives effect to the majority of the proposals outlined in that. It is essentially a corollary to the main provisions of the Bill since it is concerned primarily with the initial construction of work places and other buildings, while the main provisions in the Bill are directed to the health and safety of work places in use.
But there are two important aspects in which it goes beyond the scope of Parts I and II. First, it applies to all buildings; not only to work places. This is because to have confined the new

1647
powers to premises covered by the remainder of the Bill would have resulted in two codes of regulations—which would plainly be unworkable. Secondly, it extends the purposes for which building regulations in England and Wales can be made to include not only health and safety and the closely associated areas of welfare and convenience, but the conservation of fuel and power and the prevention of waste, undue consumption, misuse or contamination of water.
There are no radical changes in the present building control system. However, the subject matter about which building regulations may be made is widened and updated and, in particular, no longer excludes (as at present) electrical services and equipment. The new provisions mainly consist of enabling powers and the making and amendment of regulations under the new powers will necessarily be spread over some years. Although building legislation, in Scotland is less in need of immediate revision, some amendments to it are made in Part III of the Bill to ensure that broadly similar powers will be available on both sides of the Border. The updating and extension of the building regulations will mean that the Health and Safety Commission and their agents, in dealing with premises with which they are concerned, will, generally speaking, be able to rely upon the building regulation system to look after the health, safety and welfare aspects of the design and construction of buildings and of services, fittings and equipment put into them.
I have left till last the general duties imposed by Clauses 2 to 9 of the Bill—
LORD POPPLEWELL: My Lords, my noble friend has been dealing with the question of what types of industry, factories and buildings will be affected. Before he leaves this point, can he say whether this will also apply to the operational side of transport; such as railways and marshalling yards, and lorries et cetera that are travelling our roads? Will they be within the orbit of this Bill?
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, my noble friend Lady Birk is looking forward, I think with a mixture of trepidation and pleasure, to her first performance in this field and will be replying to the debate. It would be unkind of me to deprive her
1648
of the opportunity of replying to questions from my noble friend. It also saves me the trouble of taxing my brains.
I was about to say that I have left till last the general duties imposed by Clauses 2 to 9 of the Bill, not because I think them unimportant, but for quite the opposite reason. They are the only substantive health and safety requirements in the Bill itself, and they provide a comprehensive and inescapable safety net for securing improvements in health and safety standards. For all their breadth, these are criminally enforceable duties, and this is why they are not expressed in absolute terms. More stringent requirements on specific matters can and will be laid down in regulations. But these general duties in the Bill will provide the enforcing authorities, who are concerned to prevent accidents and to achieve remedies for potentially dangerous situations, with firm grounds on which to base demands for remedial action, regardless of whether or not regulations have been made on any particular matter. We should not underestimate the practical relevance of broad duties of this kind in dealing with the enormous variety of circumstances of industry which cannot all be catered for in specific regulations.
These then are the main provisions of the Bill. It may help noble Lords if I also refer very briefly to some of the main points raised and amendments made in another place. First, on the question of availability of information, I have described what the Bill does in that respect, and I should say that the powers and duties which ensure that information can and will flow freely have been very considerably strengthened in another place. A good example of this is Clause 75, which amends the Companies Act to enable us to require information on health and safety matters to be included in directors' reports. This was a new clause inserted in the Bill, to follow up a recommendation of the Robens Committee. It is, I am sure, a most valuable addition.
Secondly, the Bill has been amended to put agriculture on the same footing as any other industry, while at the same time ensuring that the Commission will be able to utilise the inspectorial and other resources of the Agricultural Departments for enforcement purposes, by making an

1649
agency agreement with those Departments. This is an Amendment which must commend itself both in logic and in its practical implications. The essential difference, as compared with the Bill as first published, is that although special arrangements for enforcement in agriculture will be retained, to take account of the peculiar difficulties posed by the structure of the industry, the Commission will no longer be excluded from having responsibility for health and safety in agriculture. Agriculture will thus now have the best of both—worlds it will benefit from both agricultural expertise and health and safety expertise.
Enforcement on farms can be carried out, in the normal course, by inspectors of the Agricultural Departments who are fully familiar with the industry's problems and peculiarities. But, at the same time, the full expertise of the Commission and its Executive on health and safety matters, the full strength of a body solely devoted to health and safety, with all its back-up facilities and its overall responsibility to Ministers for health and safety in all industry, will be brought to bear on health and safety problems in agriculture. Health and safety risks in agriculture are becoming increasingly akin to those in other industries, and it is entirely in keeping that the Commission responsible for health and safety generally should assume responsibility for health and safety in agriculture as for all other industries.
A further matter raised in another place was the problem of mental health in industry; and there was some suggestion that the Bill ignored this problem. It does not. The word "health" is used in the Bill in its broadest sense. It is not particularised—it covers all forms and aspects of damage to health arising from work activities. I think the definition of "personal injury" in Clause 49 makes the point clear. There was also considerable discussion in another place about the question of controlling industrial developments so that the public and community at large are not put at risk. We must all have in mind what happened at Flixborough, and naturally noble Lords, like Members in another place, will want to know what the Bill can do to help minimise the chances of a repetition of that kind of tragedy.
1650
As I said earlier, the Bill provides powers for licensing installations which present major potential hazards. This means that those who want to carry on particular kinds of operations—whether in existing plants or in new ones—will first have to obtain a licence from the Executive. In the case of new developments, the Executive will be able to get in at the planning and design stage; in the case of existing plants it will be able to impose conditions on operations—and, if necessary, require the cessation of some operations—in the interests of health and safety. Where health and safety licences are required, conditions can be laid down requiring the plant to be set up at a safe distance from any other buildings, and so on. This means that even if a local authority grants planning permission to a firm, if the Executive is not satisfied that the site chosen is safe for all concerned, then it can refuse the firm a licence to operate. But, in any case, the Executive and local authorities will certainly need to develop arrangements for close co-ordination and exchange of information on industrial developments which have the potential for putting in jeopardy the safety of whole communities; and the groundwork for this has already been laid by procedures which have been and are being developed jointly by the Factory Inspectorate and the Department of the Environment.
Finally, the question of joint consultation, and appointment of safety representatives. We in this House have not had as many opportunities to discuss these questions as have Members in another place, and perhaps therefore we may see the provisions of Clause 2 with fresher eyes. We cannot but welcome provisions of this kind which will give rights 10 trade unions to ensure that the voice of workpeople on the shop-floor is heard on the safety and health matters which so directly and urgently affect them. This must be a major step forward, even if it is a step in a slightly different direction from that which some people in another place would wish. In my view these provisions place the responsibilities in the right place—on those who are best organised to make use of them. I hope that the noble Lords will be able, to welcome these provisions for the great step forward that they really are.

1651
That is a sentiment which, in fact, applies to the Bill as a whole. I hope I have illustrated its breadth and comprehensiveness and made clear its objectives I cannot think that those objectives will be in dispute. I hope and trust that noble Lords will join with me in welcoming this Bill, which provides a charter for renewed progress and continuous improvement in matters which all too rarely get the attention from Parliament that they deserve. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a—(Lord Hughes.)
3.55 p.m.
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: My Lords, it gives me pleasure and satisfaction to talk from this Box about a Bill which we on this side can support warmheartedly if not 100 per cent. wholeheartedly. Of course the pleasure would have been greater if I had, as I had hoped, been doing the same thing from the Box opposite. I think it would have been one of my tasks. Then, of course, the satisfaction could have reached its century, as we would have been dealing with a Bill good in all aspects, instead of a good Bill which has been defaced just a little: a few warts added here and there, and added, I fear, for cosmetic purposes. But the pleasure, though impaired in these ways, is none the less real, and I have the additional satisfaction of welcoming the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, to the Benches opposite. I have usually only been able to get to this House in the late afternoons, so I am not sure whether the noble Baroness has broken her duck at the Dispatch Box or not but for too long now I have been, in the Opposition Whip's Office, a shadow in search of a substance, and if the substance is to be the noble Baroness, nobody could be more delighted than I am. I have always had great respect for her, and that consoles me a little in my present enforced and ghostly role.
I think the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, was a little wanting in gallantry. I would have been pretty upset if one of my senior Ministers had left me "in the cart" like that; and I am not nearly so pretty as the noble Baroness.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, if the noble Earl will allow me to interrupt,
1652
he does not, of course, have the tremendous advantages that I have.
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: My Lords, that was very gracefully said.
My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, said, a year and a half ago my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn and I spoke as strongly as we knew how on the Second Reading of a rather similar Bill in your Lordships' House. I do not propose this afternoon to detain your Lordships by making substantially the same speech again, but I should like quickly to resume one theme. Our Government recognised, with the noble Lord, Lord Robens, that in terms of international comparisons this country was not doing too badly where industrial accidents and fatalities were concerned. But we recognised also that although there was very roughly the same incidence of fatalities and of all accidents in this country in 1970 as in 1961, in several European countries there had been a notable decline in accidents per head during the same time.
So, as well as honouring formally the work and the great achievements of Lord Robens and his Committee, we agreed with the Committee in practical terms that this country had reached some kind of plateau in accident prevention. We recognised that we needed new institutions and new initiatives; that working along the same lines was unlikely to produce a dramatic breakthrough. Since then we as an industrial nation have suffered the appalling trauma of Flixborough. We are to be reminded of this again this afternoon in a Statement, if we need any reminding. This debate, indeed, is taking place in the shadow of Flixborough.
I remember that in Government I had the pleasant task of presenting a great international chemical company with a base in this country with an award to celebrate five years of operation without a single disabling accident. I said then that although the avoidance of accidents or incidents which do not cause injuries appeared in a way to be negative, the achievement of non-events as it were, it could only be done by positive and active means.
We have now to learn and learn quickly from a cataclysmic event. But if

1653
Flixborough has cracked the whip of immediacy at us, we must also recognise that the accidents and ill-health which are still occurring—the on-going situation, so to speak—are quite enough justification for these new initiatives; 1,000 people killed every year and perhaps as many again dead from prescribed diseases. At least half a million reportable accidents—and by that term I mean accidents which involve one having to take three or more days away from work—23 million working days lost each year at a cost, I am told, of some £200 million. And one cannot, of course, quantify human cost. So if the Bill can push forward new initiatives and generate additional concern we welcome it. If the new initiatives and concern can put paid to some proportion at least of all that carnage and cost, then all sides will declare themselves grateful to it, and doubly grateful to the sterling work of the noble Lord, Lord Robens.
But it is because of this general good will, this unpartisan concern, that I so much regret the tacking on to the Bill, by a minority Government, of what can only be described as a few partisan banners. We cannot keep politics out of safety and work legislation because that would keep Parliament out, and that would cut out Ministerial responsibility. But we can surely keep out politicising. What has been added to the Bill is a special privilege to one slice of our working life—a big and important slice, but a slice all the same. I refer, of course, to the special privilege for recognised trade unions to appoint safety representatives and establish safety committees. I refer to the contentious and therefore partisan and, in my view, damaging stuff in Clause 2. This privilege is "in prescribed circumstances", certainly, and words like "request" are used. But I find that such emollients cannot cope with the difficulties we find here and the fears that we have.
What are the difficulties? Of course the Opposition recognise, with the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, that in many cases the trade union is the normal organisation for creating the safety committee. Of course we agree with the Under-Secretary of State for Employment when he said in Standing Committee in another place that as a lifelong trade unionist he
1654
has had occasion to feel somewhat critical of our trade unions for being too obsessed with pursuing wages rather than with getting themselves involved in such matters as health and safety. Good for the Minister for saying that! But what about the interests and the legitimate democratic rights of others employed in firms and in industry? There are many firms where there is no union. There are many only partially unionised firms. There is nothing to be said against unions or unionising, of course; but safety and health at work is just what it says and should not, in my view, form any part of a recruiting drive.
My Lords, we find that the Labour Party is always talking about industrial democracy. Yet it looks to us as though here a Labour Government are going out of their way statutorily to deny the opportunity for representation of work safety committees to non-trade unionists. We are concerned, too, for the fate of those individuals who have long and successfully concerned themselves in safety and who might wish to continue to be safety representatives. If only recognised trade unionists can do the appointing there might be circumstances in which some people with admirable records could get edged out. What I fear most of ail is the possibility of safety and health at work getting caught up, perhaps all too literally, in the machinery of bargaining between unions and employers.
Imagine a situation—and I do not say that it would occur often, but it could occur—and the Bill seems to me to encourage it to occur in which a union-appointed safety committee could intervene in an existing pay dispute with the subtle air of saying that if the dispute could be settled to the union's satisfaction there might be a slight lessening of pressure on the safety front. We must neither politicise or commercialise this area of life. I have said that we would be vigilant in Committee on these aspects. Generally, of course, as I have also said, we welcome the Bill. It is not before time. I do not mean that the Government have been laggard in putting it forward. On the contrary, I congratulate the Government for completing its stages in another place within three and a half months of the General Election. But it is well known that the new package of safety and health legislation has been held up for too long

1655
by one or two seismic inter-Departmental rows. The Secretary of State himself acknowledged this on Second Reading in another place. Good for him, too!
The Secretary of State said he was glad that the Whitehall war had led to triumph all round. He said he was prepared for the laurels to be shared by every Department in Whitehall so long as the Department of Employment retained the sword. He felt that they did. I suppose that they do, or I should say, I suppose that he does. But I cannot close without shedding a metaphorical tear for that great Department of State—the Department of Employment—so denuded of functions and personnel as to be Whitehall's, or rather St. James's, "streaker". Look at the limbs it is losing, to use a gorier description: Training and Employment Services to the Manpower Services Commission; Industrial Relations and the Manpower Consultancy to the Conciliation and Arbitration Service: Factory Inspectorate to the Executive and Commission under the legislation before us, and the Employment Medical Advisory Service also. I grant that the Secretary of State is still Head of Commonwealth but he is surely no longer Rex Imperator, or perhaps I should say Pes Imperator.
We on this side, my Lords, were going to do the same thing, so perhaps I should keep my mouth shut. I rather regret the current vogue for hiving away, if not hiving off. Add a dash of regional dispersal and a dash more of regional devolvement under Kilbrandon-ism and it seems to me you have a perfect recipe for anxious and confused civil servants.
Once again, I am grateful for the chance to have taken part on Second Reading of the Bill. With a few qualifications we wish it every good fortune. By "we", I do not mean just the Opposition. This country initiated the Industrial Revolution. For better, as well as worse, and like it or not, that revolution remains the hope of most of mankind. It has improved the human situation but at tremendous cost to our environment and even, should war become endemic, to our humanity. It is up to us as a species to humanise the Industrial Revolution. This Bill contributes to the effort.

FLIXBOROUGH DISASTER: PUBLIC INQUIRY
4.9 p.m.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, with permission I should like to repeat a Statement which has been made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Employment in another place. These are his words:
"I will with permission, Mr. Speaker, make a Statement about the Flixborough inquiry.
"I said in my Statement on June 3 that I would set up a Public Inquiry which would deal with all the issues raised by the Flixborough disaster. I have come to the conclusion that this could best be done in the following way.
"First, I shall set up an inquiry under the Factories Act to establish the causes and circumstances of the disaster; and shall ask for advice about any immediate lessons which we can learn from what happened.
"I have asked Mr. Parker, Q.C., to serve as Chairman and Dr. Pope, Vice-Chancellor of Aston University, to be Deputy Chairman. The following people have agreed to serve as Members:
Dr. Davidson, Reader in Chemical Engineering, Cambridge University.
Mr. Bill Simpson, Head of the Foundries Section of the A.U.E.W.
I shall ask this Court of Inquiry to report as quickly as it can, consistent with a full examination of what occurred at Flixborough.
"The work on site in connection with the investigation which was instituted by the Factory Inspectorate immediately following the explosion is now virtually completed though metallurgical and chemical investigations are continuing and will take some time to complete. The information and evidence so far gathered will now be given to the members of the Inquiry. The investigation team (and all the resources of the Inspectorate) will be available to make such further inquiries as the members of the Inquiry think desirable.
"Secondly, this disaster has naturally raised public concern about the

1657
risk of similar disasters at other plants of this kind. The whole matter will have to be taken up as soon as possible by the Health and Safety Commission to be set up shortly under the legislation which we are presently considering. This was specifically recommended by the Robens Committee.
"However, in order that an immediate start can be made on the examination of these problems. I have after consulation with those of my colleagues who have an interest in these matters decided to set up an expert committee to begin work on the nature of the hazards presented by these large-scale plants and on the ways in which people who work in them, or live near them, can be safeguarded and reassured. I shall ask the committee to report in due course to the Health and Safety Commission so that Ministers can be advised on what further steps need to be taken, including the licensing of plants which present particular hazards.
"The expert committee will later this year have the full resources of the Health and Safety Executive to be established under the new legislation to help them with their work. But I do not intend to wait upon the new legislation. I am establishing immediately within my Department an organisation specifically concerned with these major hazards; and the Home Secretary has agreed with me that we should at a very early date bring together within this organisation the Explosives Inspectorate and people from my own Factory Inspectorate This will ensure a unified organisation to deal with these problems."
My Lords, that completes the Statement.
4.13 p.m.
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: My Lords, from these Benches I should like to thank the noble Lord for repeating that Statement, which is of course so highly apposite to our debate that I do not think it is necessary for me to comment in any detail upon it. I did indeed mention Flixborough in my speech a few minutes ago. I would ask the noble Lord two things, and if he cannot answer now I should be very happy and very grateful if he would write to me. No one will
1658
of course condemn the Secretary of State for not waiting for the legislation we are discussing this afternoon or for acting in haste on this issue, but will not the organisation that he is proposing to set up within his own Department to some degree pre-empt the work of the Health and Safety Executive? I mean the major centre of initiative for work in this field which the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, referred to earlier. Or will, perhaps, the personnel be the same? Secondly, my Lords, I should be very grateful if the noble Lord could tell us what is the present situation as to fatalities. I tried to get a list earlier, before this debate, of the number of people killed and injured, but I found it hard to do so.
LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, we are also very grateful to the noble Lord for repeating the Statement made in another place. In view of what he said about the necessity for full disclosure of information under the legislation we have just been discussing, may I ask him whether he does not consider that the information and evidence which has so far been gathered, and which he says is now being made available to the members of the Inquiry, should also be given to the Chemical Industries Association and the trade unions concerned, so that if there are any preliminary lessons to be learned from it in relation to other plants they can be acted on immediately? Secondly, may I ask him what will be the relationship between the Committee of Inquiry into Flixborough itself and the other expert committee which is to begin work on the nature of hazards presented by large-scale plants as a whole? Is it not important that there should be the closest possible relationship between these two bodies?
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for the way in which they have responded to this Statement. The first question asked by the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, was about whether or not the special organisation being set up would or would not pre-empt the work of the new body. My Lords, it will not. In fact, it will be part of the organisation which will be taken over by the new body when it comes into existence. I am sorry that I do not have the information for which the noble Earl asked, about the number of people killed

1659
and the number who were injured, but I will certainly react to his suggestion that the information should be conveyed to him in writing at the earliest opportunity.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for the suggestions which he has made. As noble Lords appreciate, the number of Ministers in this House does not always ensure that these matters are dealt with by people who are departmentally knowledgeable. Therefore, the best I can undertake to do is to pass on to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State what I think are useful suggestions, in which I am certain he will be interested.

HEALTH AND SAFETY AT WORK ETC. BILL
Second Reading debate resumed.
4.16 p.m.
LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, from the fact that we initiated the debate on the Robens Report in 1973, as early as January 30 of that year, it may be inferred, and correctly inferred that we attach a great deal of importance to the subject of the Bill. We are on Record as in general support of the principles which were laid down in the Robens Report, which we now see embodied in this Bill, and I should like to summarise them briefly as a framework for my remarks. First, the status of health and safety at work should be raised in the minds of individuals, and everybody in industry has an important role to play in this matter. Secondly, legislative protection should be given to the whole of the working population, and millions of workers who were formerly excluded from the provisions of the legislation should be brought in. Thirdly, seven different inspectorates established under nine groups of Statutes and supported by 500 Statutory Instruments should be replaced by a unified Statutory and administrative framework. Fourthly, more flexible procedures should be developed for countering new hazards as soon as they are identified. Fifthly, potential dangers to the public arising from industrial processes or materials should be dealt with by the same authority that looks after safety at the workplace itself. Finally, the framework should be of an
1660
enabling nature so as to cope with rapidly changing industrial situations.
My Lords, I do not intend to cover all these matters, but to pick out one or two of them which seem to be of importance—and some have already been mentioned in the speeches of the two noble Lords. I agree broadly with the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, as to the criticisms that we have to make of Clause 2. The Liberal Party has always placed great emphasis on worker participation, and of course we approve warmly of the thinking behind Clause 2, which provides for a key role to be played by the safety representative where he is appointed. But we have this reservation about the way in which it has been done by the Government: that the appointment of a safety representative by recognised trade unions in cases prescribed by the Secretary of State is perfectly satisfactory in an industry such as coal-mining, where 100 per cent. of the workers belong to the trade union concerned, but it seems to us that it leaves a gap in those industries where a small proportion, or none, of the employees is a member of the union. I say this, not in any anti-union spirit, because I am a member of two trade unions myself, and 1 want to see the trade unions fully participating; but, at the same time, I do not wish to see the protection of safety representatives and safety committees denied to those workers who are in industries where the unions are weak.
We understand that there are 5 million people in employment working in wholly non-unionised plants, and out of a total work force of 24 million there are 11 million workers who are not members of any trade union—a state of affairs which we may well deplore but which we have to take into account in framing this legislation. It is by no means certain that non-unionists are generally in less dangerous occupations and, therefore, in less need of safety representatives and the committee to be appointed in the Bill. One can think of comparatively risky jobs where the trade unions have hardly penetrated at all. An example was given in another place the day before yesterday when the problem of trade union representation for workers on North Sea oil rigs and platforms was dealt with by the Secretary of State for Employment. He emphasised that there were difficulties here, that the problem required care and

1661
attention and he was not content with the present situation. In the meantime, until we can make provision for adequate trade union representation of the workers on these oil rigs and platforms, they will be denied the benefits which are conferred on other workers by Clause 2 of the Bill.
The other major point to be made on employee participation is that without full access to all the relevant information any form of consultation would be a complete waste of time in some work situations where such information is essential if the trade union representative and the safety committee is to take action. I am thinking particularly of the case where potentially harmful substances are being used or produced. I was very glad to hear the noble Lord say that the intention was that there should be a free flow and full availability of information and advice, but I should like some reassurances on the parts of the Bill which deal with this matter. It is, as has been said, an enabling Bill and it does not lay down any detailed procedures for the disclosure of information. The intention, as I understand it, is that it will be supplemented by codes of practice under Clause 16, and presumably it is these codes which will specify how an employer is to comply with the obligation laid on him in Clause 2(2)(c) to provide:
"… such information … as is necessary to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health and safety at work of his employees."
That is also a responsibility which is placed on the Commission in Clause 11,
"… to make such arrangements as it considers appropriate for securing that … employees … are provided with an information and advisory service … "
on matters connected with health and safety.
I think that these arrangements are unlikely to meet the demands of people who have said that precise details of health risks should be given to workers. It seems to me that where there is an identified causal connection between an industrial process and ill-health, as, for example, exposure to radiation, there is no problem because safe working limits are laid down and workers are entitled
1662
to all the relevant research findings which in these cases are normally in the public domain. But where there is a link between a process and a disease which is of a statistical nature, or where a substance has been shown to cause disease in experiments on lower animals, perhaps in much higher concentrations than would be usual in the work environment, then what is to be the responsibility of the employer and of the Commission?
This is not a theoretical question as one can see from the discussion of the oncogenicity of vinyl chloride monomer in the very interesting article in the New Statesman of June 13. The circumstances were that in 1971 an Italian scientist found that rats exposed to high concentrations of vinyl chloride monomer developed tumours of the skin and lungs, and some developed bone cancers. Subsequent investigations by another Italian showed that with concentrations of this substance as low as 50 parts per million some rats developed angiosarcomas and that the U.S. Manufacturing Chemists' Association repeated the experiment on mice with the same results. In January of this year a works doctor at a Kentucky chemical plant revealed that four workers at this plant, which makes P.V.C. from the monomer, had died of liver cancer and since then another 15 deaths have been reported from similar factories in the U.S.A., Sweden and the United Kingdom.
The point of this story, so far as the present discussion is concerned, is that it is now alleged that the Manufacturing Chemists' Association held in confidence for at least a year the preliminary but significant findings of the Italian research workers. One could not say that a recognised health hazard had been identified until the epidemiological studies of former employees had been undertaken and even now there are disagreements about the safe limits of exposure to vinyl chloride monomer. But could we not say, with the benefit of hindsight, that workers in these plants should have been informed of the relevant findings as soon as they became available?
In this connection I should like to refer to Clause 28 which deals with restrictions on the disclosure of information. I find it somewhat disturbing that the

1663
clause is couched in a negative frame. It reads as follows:
.. no relevant information shall be disclosed without the consent of the person by whom it was furnished"
but then it goes on to list a number of exceptions. I would have preferred that this clause was worded:
"Relevant information should be disclosed except where the Commission was satisfied that commercial interests might be harmed."
Paragraph (b) reads as follows:
"without prejudice to paragraph (a) above, disclosure by the recipient of information to any person for the purpose of any function conferred on the recipient by or under any of the relevant statutory provisions"
is allowed. I want to know definitely from the noble Baroness who is to reply whether "any person" mentioned in this paragraph would include the safety representatives of the employee. It is vital that in these circumstances they should be given the information so that they can take any necessary action on it.
There is provision in the Bill for the Commission to require the testing of any substance. I think that provision is in Schedule 3. One might hope that in future any new chemicals coming on to the market used by industry would be subject to far more stringent testing for possible harmful effects just as we have now for new pharmaceuticals. It is highly desirable also that the Commission should make full use of its powers to require medical screening of employees in factories where substances known to be toxic are used. I believe that the Factories Inspectorate had such a power, but it was very sparingly used mainly because of lack of resources. I think also this provision for screening could well be—
LORD WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, would the noble Lord permit me to ask him a question on this point? He refers to the question of new chemicals. Does he refer to new final products or to intermediates? It seems to me that the intermediates are more likely to be dangerous than the final products and they might not be coming on the market.
LORD AVEBURY: The noble Lord has a very good point. One example was given to me of screening investigation undertaken by the Factory Inspectorate into the incidence of mesotheliorna,
1664
which I think was caused by a chemical intermediate and not by a final product. I think the noble Lord has made an extremely valid point I was not confining my remarks to the screening effect of final products but also of intermediates. The provision for screening in this Bill could also be very effective in helping to identify the factors at work which cause psychiatric ill-health.
When we were discussing the Robens Report last January I referred to criticisms that were made by Mr. David Ennals, who was then Director of the MIND Campaign. He said that very little, if any, attention had been paid by the Robens Committee to mental illness and Mr. Christopher Mayhew, M.P. who is now chairman of MIND complains that this is reflected in the Bill. The Secretary of State, in reply to him, assured the House that wherever the Bill speaks of "health" it means mental as well as physical ill-health, and the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, reiterated this in his speech this afternoon. I think it would have helped to reassure workers in the field of mental health if this had been spelt out rather more precisely and not just in the definition of personal injury contained in Clause 49, to which the noble Lord also referred.
What really matters here is how the Commission set about their task in practice. Very little is known about the work-associated factors in the etiology of mental illness which, as Mr. Mayhew pointed out in that debate on Second Reading in another place, is now a very significant reason indeed for absence from work. This is a question on which there should be the very closest co-operation between the Commission and the E.M.A.S. and is perhaps an argument for more formal links between the two organisations than we find in the Bill. Incidentally, one finds, on making inquiries, that only one senior medical officer out of 100 doctors employed by the E.M.A.S. has been appointed to deal with mental illness. I do not want to be dogmatic about the future of the E.M.A.S. but it seems to me on balance, for the reasons I have given, the necessity of close co-operation between the E.M.A.S. and the Commission, that ultimately it should form an arm of that body.
Finally, if I may make a brief reference to Part III of the Bill, under Clause

1665
57 the scope of the building regulations is to be very considerably widened so as to further, inter alia, the conservation of fuel and power. This is a matter that has been under discussion since a long time before the oil crisis of last autumn, and in particular one might refer to the study made by the Economist Intelligence Unit in 1969. Yet we still have the lowest insulation standards of any country in Europe except Spain. Yesterday it was announced that the Secretary of State was to establish an Advisory Council on Energy Conservation to identify the areas in which energy is potentially to be saved. That is all very well, but in the case of insulation we already have these estimates made by the E.I.U. as well as the official calculations of the Department of the Environment itself which were published twelve months ago in the Department's journal Construction.
In the light of this evidence, surely the Department should anticipate the new building regulations by making it a condition of the approval of loan sanction that local authorities should adopt the higher standards which are to be prescribed on all new housing from now on, and that they should recommend to the private sector that it should follow suit. I made some very rough calculations of what this might save on the public sector dwellings which are to be constructed during the course of this year. There will be, we hope, 125,000 dwellings completed, and if these were all typical three bedroom semi-detached houses and we adopted the "U" values which I understand are to be prescribed under the new building regulations, the saving in the heating bill for a householder would be about £25 per annum. That could be achieved at a cost of not much more than £30 per dwelling. I worked out from that, that to recover the additional cost of this insulation the tenant would have to be charged another 10p a week, but during the 33 weeks in which his heating apparatus is turned on, the cost of heating would be reduced for him by 75p a week. I should have thought that that was a matter of some importance for the many thousands of tenants of local authority dwellings who are facing large increases in their heating bill just at this moment.
1666
The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, mentioned that Lord Robens told the Government to get on with the job quickly. But as in many other instances one could name, the gestation period of this Bill has been elephantine and as it approaches its final stages the problems which it seeks to remedy have become acute. We on these Benches will do our best to facilitate its progress so that in this short-lived Parliament we can score at least one major legislative success which will be approved by the nation as a whole.
4.35 p.m.
BARONESS HORNSBY-SMITH: My Lords, I am not altogether sure of the propriety of laying claim to a second maiden speech 24 years after I made my first in another place, but I am hopeful that I can claim your Lordshipc' indulgence for my first venture in this august Chamber. It is by good luck rather than by judgment that I am in the unusual position of agreeing with very great pleasure with the very lucid explanation which we had from the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, in introducing this measure to us to-day, although when I am less inhibited than on this occasion I have no doubt I shall find myself agreeing at Committee stage with the reservations made by the noble Earl, Lord Cowrie.
Health and safety at work concerns us all and the Report of the noble Lord. Lord Robens, and his very distinguished Committee was, in my view, a masterly analysis of the jungle of regulations; the grave accident fatalities; and the enormous amount of personal suffering imposed by ill health which was brought to light by their very comprehensive study. We were also made clearly aware of the point that the human and economic toll of industrial accident and sickness imposes very large burdens on the population in industry. I particularly welcome the emphasis placed in the Report, which is reflected in this Bill, not on increased and yet more complicated controls, but on simpler laws and, above all, greater involvement of management and men with Government, directing their attention to the hazards and problems of specific industries as well as those common to all.
Legislation and a whole army of additional inspectors will not achieve the goal

1667
we seek in this Bill, until we get a universal acceptance that this is not the Government versus industry; it is not a pernickety boss or a foreman against the shop floor; it is not "them" and "us". It is everyone accepting their individual and corporate responsibility towards safety and good health and the onus is on every one of us to preserve human life. The misplaced bravado of those who say, "Well, it is my neck, is it not?", is just as reprehensible as carelessness about the safety of others. The Bill involves us all—Government, employer, employee and public—and I join in the welcome of it. There will always be the hazard of human error, but most accidents result from misplaced overconfidence, or ignorance of, or contempt for, the safety regulations. I quote from personal knowledge of two accidents. A few weeks ago, an elderly man looking forward to his retirement from work and walking home from lunch in the West End was fallen on from above by a window cleaner who had been provided with equipment that he did not apply. Both of those people lost their lives. I am also aware of a case in a factory with which I was associated some years ago when a young man with unduly long hair, who had been told by the foreman to wear a safety hair net, whipped it off as soon as the foreman was out of the way and, as a result, was half scalped.
I hope that the new Health and Safety Commission and the Executive will receive the maximum support from the C.B.I. and the T.U.C. and also, and not least, the many invaluable voluntary organisations which do magnificent work for the disabled and the sick. Without the many millions now raised by such voluntary organisations interested in research such as Cancer Research and the Heart Foundation the scope of research and care in this country would be poorer and thinner. I hope very much that the specialised contributions that these voluntary and specialised organisations can and do make will be taken into consideration, will be recognised and will be represented on the committees where their knowledge and expertise applies.
I have been associated with several of these organisations, but I declare my prime interest to be the Arthritis and Rheumatism Council for Research, of whose Appeals Committee I am proud
1668
to be Chairman. The arthritic diseases affect more of the population than any other group, and although they kill the least they cripple the most and take savage toll in long and continuing pain. I am sure your Lordships will forgive me for my natural "plug" for my pet charity and for singling out this affliction, but I should emphasise its importance in relation to this Bill. We lose 37 million working days each year from arthritic diseases, and for too long research into these diseases has been ignored and patients have been told that they "must learn to live with it".
I am proud to say that it is due to the persistence of distinguished medical men, such as the late Lord Homier, the late Lord Dodd and the late Dr. Copeman, who worked ceaselessly from the tiniest beginnings, that this scourge has been placed on the research map, and at this moment the organisation is financing 79 research projects in the National Health Service teaching hospitals. We are financing the Kennedy Institute where, some of your Lordships may be pleased to know, they can now cure gout. I should hastily add that during a recent visit there I discovered that gout is by no means an affliction solely of the landed gentry. At this moment, we are hoping to raise £1 million to install a clinic to deal exclusively with the many arthritic diseases going under the name "backache" under the umbrella of a London hospital. These are matters which are of real concern and they make a genuine contribution under the terms of this Bill. It is my earnest hope that the deep concern, and the warm-hearted generosity of the British people in so many of these fields of voluntary medical-aided research, will give the opportunity to co-operate in the new organisation's work and to continue their great contributions.
I have been privileged to visit many industrial health centres, many of which are lamentably under-used since there is undoubtedly a certain resistance among employees to their personal ailments being made known to the firm. This is regrettable, but in some cases understandable. It is an important precaution of these industrial medical centres that the non-professional staff must be fully apprised of the absolute confidentiality of

1669
their work. It is no use the doctor keeping his Hippocratic oath if a chatty and inexperienced junior, typing that doctor's tapes, gabbles away about the fact that poor old Jones' nervous tension is because his wife is an alcoholic, or the boss's secretary was not holidaying in Spain but having an abortion.
The security of these records must be very tightly supervised if employees are to have confidence in the industrial medical service. The vital industrial statistics we require can be in the form of numbers or cyphers put through a computer, but we shall not get cooperation from employees unless they are sure that their medical records are really secure. The doctors are fully aware of the situation, but junior staff are not always appreciative of what it means. Medical information should be disclosed only to that limited number whose responsibility it is to ensure that employees are not taxed beyond their personal and medical capacity, or to gather the vital statistics which we need to increase safety and improve health.
I believe that much can be done to create this confidence, leading to greater use of the medical centres, many of which are already in existence, by encouraging services where an individual, either through misplaced pride or because football viewing takes up too much of his time, delays seeking medical advice about matters which are not so dramatic in his life but which are very important; for example, for deteriorating sight or hearing. Equally important is the provision of services for dentistry, because so many put off a visit to a dentist until an abcess is formed or their teeth break up. There must be encouragement to those concerned to widen the use they make of the clinics or centres which are set up under this new scheme. There is much to be done, and a great deal of provision must be made. But in the last resort it is the duty of each one of us to safeguard himself and to safeguard others.
4.45 p.m.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, I am very happy to be the Member of this House to follow the noble Baroness who has just made her maiden speech, because we were colleagues in
1670
another place for many years, although we always sat on opposite sides. It would be an impertinence for me to congratulate her on her manner of delivery, because I have heard her so often in the past and I know that your Lordships' House will be hearing her again in the future. She is a seasoned campaigner, and although she has addressed us to-day in the mildest way, I can assure your Lordships that on those occasions when she feels deeply and when she is not making a maiden speech and therefore does not have to be non-controversial, you will hear a noble Baroness who knows her subject extremely well, who feels very strongly and is determined to get her own way when the time comes. I should like to say this to her. I think she will find that the most attractive aspect of this House is that there is no Speaker upon whom one has to gaze for long periods, hoping to catch his eye. In this House, one is either called automatically or one calls oneself.
I warmly welcome this measure, and shall be astonished to learn that there is any Member of this House on either side who opposes it, at least on the ground that it is premature. I regard one of the most interesting parts of the Robens Report to be that which is covered by pages 216 to 218, which contain the bibliography. They reveal that there have been 44 official publications since 1876, and 26 other publications on some aspect of health and safety at work. Added to this, there have been hundreds of Questions and a great many debates which I have attended, some of them in another place and others in your Lordships' House. Then, seven years ago, Mr. Ray Gunter (the then Minister of Labour) promised a consolidation measure. Again, eighteen months have elapsed since the publication of the Robens Report. I am not surprised, having listened to speakers to-day from both Front Benches, to learn that everybody has grown a little tired of the constant delay. It is the first time that I have heard such an honest revelation that one reason for the delay is the quarelling between Departments. Generally civil servants hide these things and always blame the politicians for quarrelling and being unable to reach decisions.
For all these reasons, but particularly for this delay, I attach first importance to the procedure of translating this Bill

1671
into action. I believe that is the first thing we should look at, and not to debate once more certain aspects of the Bill which we really know by heart. We should ask: when will the workers themselves feel the results of this change in legislation? I do not want to be depressing, bur I foresee inordinate delay. The Commission will propose regulations to the Secretary of State who, in his turn, is empowered to modify them. I believe I am right in saying that he is going to be allowed to take only one month to make these changes. But there is no time limit, so far as I can see, during which the Commission can delay making their proposals. The Secretary of State, having made his modifications, must come along and lay them before Parliament, and who can say how long Parliament will take to confirm these changes? In my opinion, if no time limit is set to this procedure, the pace of the slowest in this exchange of opinions will dictate the speed, and I ask at this stage for the Government to consider this aspect of the Bill.
How can we expedite the necessary legislation? Of course one wonders whether this legislation will be overtaken before it operates effectively owing to the rapid progress of technology. Indeed, the number of processes used in a modern factory have multiplied with such rapidity that the hazards to health are only appreciated long after the dangerous material has been in use. Even then, some of those in authority drag their feet before the worker is given effective protection.
It astonished me in reading my newspapers during the week to learn that every pneumoconiosis victim is going to be given a certain amount of money. We have known about pneumoconiosis during the whole of this century. If one wants to have one's heartstrings really wrung, go to the pneumoconiosis clinic in Cardiff. It is the most tragic sight in the world to see these men, sometimes 40 or 50, sitting there with an incurable disease which must inevitably be fatal. We have known about this disease for years and years, and to-day, in 1974, we are told that a certain amount of money is to be given for research into pneumoconiosis. This is an example of the delays which I still feel will continue even when this Bill reaches the Statute Book.
1672
It will be said, no doubt, that the incidence of fatal accidents in factories in the early part of the century was greater than in the past decade. But there was greater ignorance, combined with less public concern with human life. I recall meetings which I addressed in the 'twenties and 'thirties on the high maternal mortality rate in the country. Those meetings were heralded with the slogan, "It is more dangerous to be a mother than a miner", because in those days the maternal mortality rate was higher than the death rate in the pits. The women's demonstrations undoubtedly hastened the provision of legislation and hospital accommmodation for mothers, with the result there was a striking decrease in the maternal death rate.
I often wonder why men have not demonstrated, or used the strike weapon, to ensure higher standards of industrial safety. My noble friend on the Front Bench has told us that this is an enabling Bill; that it is going to deal with generalities, but I find that less than satisfying. We are to have a Commission which will no doubt decide which aspects of the accidents or diseases of industry will be dealt with. Undoubtedly they will avoid, in the first place, those which have caused us a great deal of trouble so far as coming to a conclusion with regard to remedying them is concerned. First, may I deal with noise. I have stood here before the last Government with my noble friend Lord Taylor of Mansfield when we had debates on noise. Nothing has been done, although I remember there were useful recommendations which went out from that debate. I find nothing in this Bill which deals specifically with noise. Again I say that I am told that this is so because it is an enabling Bill. But how are we to ensure that the Commission will deal with what I believe is one of the most important aspects of factory work: that is, the effect of noise of machines on the worker? The Industrial Health Advisory Committee issued a code of practice on noise with a 90 decibel limit. I should like to know why this is not included forthwith in the statutory safety regulations. This took a long time to decide. To be told now that it is simply to be left to the Commission to decide whether or not they will give it a priority is very disappointing.

1673
Of course, none of this legislation will be effective unless it is made strictly enforceable and unless the penalties imposed are of such a severe character that a bad employer will weigh the cost of the penalty against the cost of providing safeguards against injury or disease. The bad employer must be reminded of the necessity to take action in a way that really hurts him.
The hazards of certain individual processes are not confined to the worker, but may be transmitted to the worker's family. I would remind the House—because we raised it here—that in 1971, following the discovery of raised levels of lead in dust in the vicinity of an East London lead works, it was discovered that the lead levels in the blood of children living near the factory were above normal. Of course it was said that they were playing in the infected dust and that that was how they became infected. But it was also suggested—and this is important—that workers may add to the contamination of the home environment by bringing home dust containing lead in their clothing. This emphasises the need for good hygiene within the factory, and the need to prevent workers from taking soiled clothing home for washing. A simple thing, but I wonder how many wives of workers in industrial areas are faced with washing clothes which might well be impregnated with some of these new materials which are used in industry to-day?
I was going to speak strongly about the farm worker and say that he must be given urgent consideration, and that it was a fundamental mistake to leave his fate with the Agricultural Ministers because, after all, they have done very little about this in the past. But I am now delighted to hear that the Bill has been amended. It will now be possible for the Commission to deal with the accidents and diseases of the farm worker.
Why do I feel so strongly about this? It is because—and I see my noble friend Lady Elliot of Harwood in her place; one of the finest farmers in the House—I feel that the Commission surely can be more objective than the Agricultural Minister. The Agricultural Minister is concerned with the farmers all the time, seeing them on deputations, and so on.
1674
Almost certainly he will be influenced by their interests. They may well come and put a case to him and, against his better judgment, he may decide in their favour. It is in their interests that we should have a Commission which can be objective. I should like to remind the House about what happens on a farm. Those of us who are not farmers—and there are many in this House—are apt to think of a farm as a delightful place where nothing unpleasant happens. Apart from the high rate of accidents on the farm, which includes an increasing number of children, the farm worker can suffer from chemical poisoning, from a distressing dust disease, and from deafness and other nervous disabilities from driving a tractor.
I will not weary you, my Lords, because I have wearied you on other occasions, by telling you of the high incidence of brucellosis among agricultural workers. Here is a case in point where the agricultural Ministers have dragged their feet. Here we have—and I say this because veterinary surgeons tell me this themselves—most veterinary surgeons having had some attack of brucellosis in their professional life. It is a very common condition among agricultural workers. Therefore I am truly delighted to hear that now the conditions of the farm worker will be considered by the Commission.
I also welcome the new clause whereby directors of companies must provide in their annual reports information concerning the arrangements for securing the health, safety and welfare of the employees of the company. There is nothing like publicity to ensure that negligent employers will face up to their responsibilities to their workers. If an employer can hide negligence, as he has over the years, nothing will be done. But at long last the bad employer is going to be compelled to give publicity, in his annual report, to his failure to do his duty. Furthermore—and I hope the noble Lord who opened the debate will consider this matter—the greatest vigilance must be exercised to ensure that bad employers do not use the excuse offered them in Clause 2 by the phrase "so far as is reasonably practicable to evade their duty to employees. I deplore this phrase. It has given every bad employer in the country an opportunity to run away from his obligations.

1675
My last constituency was an industrial constituency in Lancashire. I ask noble Lords to forgive me if I repeat myself here because we have had debates on these matters before. The picture of some of the industries in Lancashire and the conditions of some of the workers there always rises before me. It is something which, to one coming from London, makes a great impact. One sometimes reads of these matters in medical books on industrial diseases, but to find oneself a Member of Parliament for a constituency where one actually sees it all at first hand is a most distressing experience. I found in my constituency men of 45 looking 55 or 60, with chronic bronchitis, who had worked in a dusty atmosphere for years. They came to see me wheezing, hardly able to breathe. When I was shocked at looking at these comparatively young faces and said I was astonished to see them in this condition at their age, they did not complain; and when I attributed this to the conditions of their work they dismissed it as though it were a reflection on their manhood to suggest that the work had defeated them. This is the great difference between the woman worker and the male worker. The male worker feels all the time that he must show that he is capable of standing up to whatever conditions are sent to try him in his work. Undoubtedly, therefore, ignorance and fatalism have contributed to the mortality rate in industry.
I should like to know how the 16-yearolds, who are now kept at school until they reach that age, are prepared for industry before they enter a factory. I am told that some of them visit a factory or a works of some kind. But I want to know what lessons they are given by a well-informed instructor in their own form room as a preparation for their working life. Are they given talks on the health hazards of various jobs available in their neighbourhood, and are they given instruction on the statutory regulations in force, so that they may be truly prepared for the hazards of industry?
Finally, I welcome the unification of the Inspectorate. I find that the Factory Inspectorate as it is to-day, chronically below strength, has its efficiency diminished. I want to know how it is proposed to increase the numbers and improve the quality of the Inspectorate. Why is there not a drive for well-qualified
1676
women? What about all these women who are now leaving our universities—first-class material for factory inspectors? Why is there this eternal prejudice and discrimination? We are always told: "We have not enough factory inspectors. That is what is wrong. That is why a factory can be visited only once every four years." I ask—I have asked it before, but nothing ever happens: why is not a special drive made to get women factory inspectors? For I believe that the quality of the inspectors is the determining factor in ensuring action against a guilty employer. Legislation, my Lords, will be ineffective unless it is strictly enforceable, and this can be guaranteed only if the Inspectorate consists of keen, dedicated people whose compassion provides a motivating force.
5.6 p.m.
THE EARL OF COURTOWN: My Lords, it is with great pleasure that I congratulate and welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Hornsby-Smith, on this the occasion of her maiden speech in this House. To-day is the first time I have had the pleasure of meeting her and hearing her, and it has indeed been a great pleasure for me to do so. But her reputation has gone far before her, and I have no doubt we shall hear her many times again on rather more controversial subjects than we are dealing with to-day. My Lords, this debate inevitably is held with the shadow of Flixborough hanging over it. The Bill adds important safeguards. But however the regulations are drafted, it will be impossible to prevent the occasional disaster—just as happens occasionally but regrettably in air transport. I welcome the aspects of this Bill which attempt to deal with this type of disaster, but we shall be deceiving ourselves if we think it is ever possible to stop these disasters completely.
I support generally this Bill which follows closely the recommendations of the Robens Committee. The main way to improve safety in working establishments is to get management and employees fully involved in the common object of preventing accidents, taking into account that some four-fifths of all accidents occur, as the Report says, in handling materials, falling, striking against objects and misuse of hand tools. With this, of course, has to go control of dangerous

1677
processes for possible internal and external effects. The Bill provides a basis on which better co-operation can develop and the means of producing regulations and codes of practice to ensure progress. This mixture of regulation and codes of practice is entirely right. Regulations by themselves can deal with only part of the problem. Changes in technology are such that it takes far too long to issue regulations to deal with all new changes and conditions. But with these should go codes of practice which may prevent these dangerous sets of circumstances from ever arising at all—rather than waiting until the danger has been found and then the regulation is issued.
I have, however, certain reservations about parts of the Bill. Clause 2 is inclined to be too dogmatic about the organisation required. It implies, for instance, that safety committees are essential, while emphasis needs rather to be placed on the best organisation in each establishment to ensure co-operation, involvement and action.
Emphasis is placed in paragraph 65 of the Robens Report on the appointment of safety representatives. It is stated there and in paragraph 62 that safety committees are not necessarily the best way of dealing with the matter. In paragraph 70 the Report recommends that:
"The form and manner of such consultation and participation would not be specified in detail, so as to provide the flexibility needed to suit a wide variety of particular circumstances and to avoid prejudicing satisfactory existing arrangements".
I know of one company with an outstanding safety record which has safety representatives but which has no safety committees. It depends for communication and discussion upon ad hoc meetings with all the work people concerned. The company to which I am referring is a large concern. Other companies have works committees which deal with safety matters satisfactorily. A safety committee is only a means to an end and in some establishments there may be better ways.
Paragraph 70 of the Robens Report then says that:
"Guidance should, however, be given in a code of practice outlining model arrangements, including advice on joint safety committees and the appointment of employees' safety representatives".
1678
I hope to move an Amendment in Committee stage to provide that safety committees are not regarded as the sole means of communication and discussion.
The Bill lays down also the procedure where there is union representation in the establishment. and I have no quarrel with that. I find myself in agreement with what the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, said about this. However, this Bill deals with all working establishments—offices, laboratories as well as workshops. We know from the Bolton Committee that 70 per cent. of small firms have no union representation, and the Bill applies to them just as much as it does to everybody else.
I should not think of accusing the Government of trying to use this Bill as a means of proselytising for unionisation. However, I think it is likely that, even if we have increases in unionisation, most small firms will stay out of it for many years, because it is not worth the unions' time to try to bring a rapidly changing population into the unions in very small units. Therefore we should not encourage a situation in which people may think that this Part of the Bill does not apply to them. Here again I am seeking advice to enable me to produce an Amendment which will not quarrel with the idea that when there is unionisation and union representation in an establishment that shall be the means for discussion and the appointment of representatives, but that where that is not the case then there shall be some other way of electing representatives.
It is recognised in the Robens Report that the Commission must be a body of the highest repute and staffed accordingly. It must, therefore, have a considerable degree of independence. That is why, presumably, it was made a Crown Commission. However, I am worried about the extent to which it is to be subservient to the Secretary of State. Clause 11 says that it is the duty of the Commission to submit to the Secretary of State from time to time particulars of what it proposes to do. It has,
"to ensure that its activities are in accordance with the proposals approved by the Secretary of State",
and it has,
"to give effect to any directions given to it by the Secretary of State".

1679
If we accept that, I do not think that it is necessary to go further.
Clause 16(2) states that:
"The Commission shall not approve a code of practice under subsection (1) above without the consent of the Secretary of State …"
My Lords, there are going to be a great many of these codes of practice and it will delay them if they have to be approved by the Secretary of State. It will also reduce the prestige of the Commission if they all have to be approved by the Secretary of State and it will provide an excuse for the duplication of staff in the Department of Employment.
Finally, my Lords, I am sorry that there has been no mention in the Bill of occupational medical services by which I mean those services which are provided by large firms in the private and public sector and also by groups of firms in certain areas. In the debate on the Robens Report, I referred to the real advantages of these services to companies and to those who work in them, and I do not intend to repeat them here. However, the Bill deals with the Employment Medical Advisory Service, and the existence of a medical service in the company is complementary to it. It can provide great assistance in diagnosing and preventing possible hazards to health, including mental health. I do not see how, without the assistance of these services, the E.M.A.S. can carry out the purpose which is given to it in Clause 51(1)(b) of
"giving to employed persons and persons seeking or training for employment information and advice on health in relation to employment and training for employment".
I understand that in the E.M.A.S. there are about 100 doctors. If one realises that one large company has 24 doctors working in its own medical service, with another 50 or 60 on a part-time basis, one understands that the E.M.A.S. cannot hope to deal with individually employed persons in the way that is suggested in Clause 51 unless it has the co-operation of some other form of medical service.
I should like to see encouragement given to companies and groups to set up medical services where they do not have them because they can relieve the National Health Service of a considerable burden. Many minor ailments can be dealt with in a works surgery, often by a nurse, which would otherwise entail a morning off work at a National Health Service
1680
surgery involving the time of a doctor. If the matter requires the attention of a National Health Service doctor, then it is referred to him.
My Lords, I hope to move an Amendment to Clause 51 to draw attention to the value of these occupational and industrial health services. However, in general this is a desirable Bill. I strongly support it and such criticisms as I have made I regard as relatively minor compared with the value which the Bill is likely to produce.
5.19 p.m.
LORD TAYLOR OF MANSFIELD: My Lords, first may I apologise to my noble friend who moved the Second Reading of this Bill and to other noble Lords for my absence earlier. I attended a funeral this morning in Mansfield, and I have made the journey purposely from that place to make a few observations upon this very important measure. I heard part of the maiden speech of the noble Baroness and I should like to join with the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, and other noble Lords who have offered their congratulations to her. We are old colleagues from another place. I remember one occasion when the noble Baroness, Lady Hornsby-Smith, came into the Mansfield constituency and opened, I think it was, a health centre; at any rate it had something to do with the Ministry of Health. I hope she felt that she had a welcome. She did extremely well on that official occasion and, like other noble Lords, I shall look forward to hearing her on future occasions.
I think no one in your Lordships' House would deny that during the past 30 or 40 years—say since the end of the war—there has been a revolution taking place in industry. There have been new processes, new techniques, new mechanical means to deal with industrial production. In my humble judgment that has created problems in the field of safety and welfare. If we look back into history, the hazards were not so great as they are to-day; once it was the hand loom, then we had the Industrial Revolution and the introduction of mechanical means. Sometimes I am a little mentally perturbed and wonder, in connection with the effort and the research that is put into these new industrial processes, whether we give as much time and effort

1681
and money to the questions of research so far as safety and health hazards in industry are concerned.
I believe this was in the mind of the Secretary of State, Mrs. Castle, in 1970 when she appointed a committee under the chairmanship of one of her own colleagues, Lord Robens, to review the provision made for the safety and health of persons in the course of their employment. It is true that in 1961 we had the Factories Act, and also the Mines and Quarries Act, to which I shall refer in a moment or so. That was in 1954 and it was solely, entirely and exclusively connected with the mining industry. But apart from those two major measures, since the end of the war the momentum for the provision of safety measures against the health hazards in our industrial life has not been as great so far as the new industrial processes are concerned.
In reading the Robens Report I have found that after two years of patient and detailed investigation, consulting papers. receiving a lot of evidence, meeting a number of people who are expert in the field of research on the subject of industrial safety the Report was published, and we owe a deep debt of gratitude to the Committee who spent so much time and gave so much thought to this important problem of safety and health at work. I do not agree with all the conclusions of the Robens Report but it is illuminating, analytical and it deserves the attention of everyone connected with industry, both management and workers.
I am glad to see that in the Robens Report and also in the Bill there is a particular recommendation that the general public, when away from work, are not immune from the hazards brought about by industrial processes. I am reinforced in this opinion by the reference made to the tragedy at Flixborough a few months ago. People living in their homes a long way from where the explosion took place, people walking in the lanes, pursuing their leisurely activities, were not immune from the results of the explosion that took place at Flixborough. In this connection I am also reminded of what took place at Aberfan in the late 1960s: little children in school were not immune from the effecits of the industrial process of that mining valley.
1682
However, two years of hard work by the Robens Committee produced an illuminating document, and I hope and believe that it will focus attention upon an important aspect of the present industrial life in Britain.
There is an old saying that I use myself on many occasions and in many places:
"A fence at the top of the cliff is much better than an ambulance at the bottom".
Prevention is always preferable to cure. and it may be that in our misguided moments we are tempted to put more emphasis upon cure than upon prevention. After all, that is what the Robens Report and this Bill are all about to devise preventive measures, measures that cannot and must not be ignored if an improvement in the disturbing figures of accident and industrial diseases is to be brought about.
I do not want to indulge in a number of quotations from the Robens Report, but in my view paragraph 10 is important and reference should be made to it. In my humble judgment it is both sombre and disconcerting—1,000 people killed every year. That is the size of some small villages—1.000 people have been wiped out. In 10 years at that rate the number would be 10,000 and that is the equivalent of a small township being obliterated. Five hundred thousand—half a million non—fatal accidents of varying degrees of severity. That is the human side.
On the economic side, our attention is drawn to the fact that 23 million working days are lost annually, and I do not believe these figures take any account of the non-reportable accidents. which have inflated the figure to much more than 23 million days, if my assumption is correct. Figures of this kind from all sides of the House make us think. In human terms, the tragedy behind figures such as these is terrible; in terms of family relationships it is enormous—a lost husband, a lost father, a lost son, a lost daughter. We cannot estimate the gloom and the sorrow behind the figures that I have quoted in this respect. It behoves every one of us to realise our responsibility to do everything we can to bring about an improved state of affairs.
My Lords, I have thought for a long time that the greatest and most important

1683
investment in industry is not cash, not pounds, shillings and pence. This is especially the case in heavy industry and in industries where there are great hazards. The lives and limbs of human beings make an important investment in our industry. These people not only need, but should have, the utmost protection at their places of work, whether by legal or by voluntary means. This is really what the Bill and the Report are all about. I shall talk about trade union influence in this sphere. The history of safety and health legislation over, perhaps, the last 150 years, reveals a fascinating story, in which one point stands out clearly. There was not the same degree of safety awareness at that time as there is to-day among employers, and even among Members of Parliament. Of this I am quite sure. The present Secretary of State, Mr. Foot, made some remarks in this connection, which I do not propose to quote. I have no doubt at all that the trade union movement of this country over generations has played a noble part in the sphere of safety and health at work. Individual unions, and the Trades Union Congress, have their special committees and their research personnel dealing with safety and health.
It is not true, as is sometimes expressed, and in many quarters believed, that the trades unions deal only with wages and conditions. That is a fallacy. Their work is much wider and goes much deeper than that. The trades unions are concerned with problems that arise every day; they display an active interest in conditions in industry with regard to safety and health hazard. I doubt whether there would have been the codes of practice, the sanctions, the prohibitions and the penalties embodied in legislation had it not been for the work and the agitation over many years by the trade union movement. In heavy industries like mining and steel, in agriculture, deep-sea fishing and many of our modern factories, where the incidence of accidents is high and the health hazards great, the trades unions regard as not the least of their functions, in co-operation with management, the job of providing the best and most up-to-date safety measures to minimise accidents and industrial diseases. With what end in view? It is in order to avoid so much misery, unhappiness and
1684
loss of faculty by such people as I have described.
From my own experience over the years, I know that the miners union has ungrudgingly expended many thousands of pounds in the interests of its members, and in devising high standards of safety. I am pleased and proud to have been identified with the miners' union for so many years because they have done so much in the realm of safety at work. I shall return to this matter in a moment. I want now to say one or two words about Clause 2 and Clause 10. I am glad that the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, made references to what I regard as objectionable words—the words "reasonable" and "practicable".
I recall that during the Committee stage in another place on the 1954 Mines and Quarries Act, we spent hours in argument over similar words in that Bill. Once again the monster has reared its head. At the behest of someone, these words have been resurrected, placing upon the employers a basic obligation to do everything they can so far as the safety of their own employees is concerned. But I think those two words are a means of escape. Further, I think they provide a happy hunting ground for the legal profession, provided cases are ever taken into court. I should like to see removed the escape route from the basic obligation of the employers implied in these two words as laid down in the clause. In the 1961 Factories Act there are two references only to those two words; in the Mines and Quarries Act 1954—and my noble friend Lord Blyton, who played a large part in our debates on these words, will reinforce what I am saying—these two words are extinct.
My Lords, I will make one or two observations on Clause 10. This is a very important clause because it creates the new authority, organisation, call it what you will, to deal with this question of safety and industrial disease. The clause outlines the responsibilities the authority will have. In some ways I think it is a good thing. It is going to be a big umbrella. But I have a reservation so far as the mining industry is concerned. I am glad. as the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, intimated, that agriculture, which was left outside the jurisdiction of this new Commission, has now been brought within its purview. The view

1685
of the mining industry as a whole—this is not only the miners' union, but the N.C.B., the Institute of Mining Engineers, B.A.C.M. and N.A.C.O.D., organisations representing the official element—is that at any rate at this stage, in view of what has been and what is being done so far as the mining industry is concerned in this sphere of safety, it would be better at this moment to leave well alone.
There has been no end of correspondence with the previous Government and with the present Government. I could give many quotations, but that is not my intention. All that I would do is to repeat that the mining industry is not happy about the possibility of the breakup of the present system which exists in this field of safety so far as the mining industry is concerned. It is a long catalogue. I will say no more than this. Right from pit level, there are the safety committees, the works inspectors, the area safety committees, right up to Hobart House, the headquarters of the National Coal Board, in co-operation with one another.
While everything is not apple-pie in this sphere so far as the mining industry is concerned—and who would expect that it could be in view of the hazardous nature of the industry—all these elements within the mining industry feel that at this stage, at any rate, until some of the other industries are brought up to the level of the mining industry in this field of safety, it would be much better to leave well alone. I want to say to the noble Baroness who is to reply, that she can give an assurance that in the meantime the 1954 Mines and Quarries Act will not be repealed, and that nothing detrimental will be done about the obligations of the Mines' Inspectorate.
The only other thing I want to mention is on a new point entirely; I leave mining for the moment. It is in regard to the exploration for oil in the North Sea. I do not know whether any of your Lordships read the Sunday Times last Sunday, but there was an illuminating article on this matter. It was about men diving anything up to 1,000 feet in these Northern waters. The effect of compression upon their bodies is quite alarming; and then in the decompressors into which they have to go to be decom-
1686
pressed, that, too, is not a very pleasant experience. I want to give only one quotation, if I may, from this very illuminating article in regard to this new field, with all its hazards to safety and to health. This is what the writer of the article, Mr. David Blundy, had to say:
"Despite the fact that North Sea oil will play a key role in the British economy and is now a major multi-million pound industry, and despite the obvious dangers of the job, divers still work"—
this is the operative sentence that I want to impress upon your Lordships—
"without the protection of safety regulations. It is possible for an untrained man to be sent on a deep dive with inefficient or out of date equipment. As a former diver (whose name is mentioned) said, 'I have done dives on shoddy gear badly looked after and not properly understood. A bloke could get a job with a diving company if he got a medical from a doctor and then lied about his diving experience."
In view of the revelations in the Sunday Times last Sunday, I trust that something will be done, because the numbers involved are increasing: the fatalities are increasing. I hope that something will be done so far as regulations are concerned to protect these men who are doing a very dangerous job. With those remarks, and with the reservations I have mentioned, I have great pleasure in welcoming this important Bill.
5.47 p.m.
BARONESS SEEAR: My Lords, may I, in commencing, apologise for the fact that I was not able to be in my place when this debate started because of a meeting which I had agreed to attend long before I knew that this debate was going to take place. I fear also for a similar reason it is unlikely—I apologise to the noble Baroness—that I shall be able to be here for the winding up, though I shall endeavour to do so if it is in the least possible. For the same reason, of course, it may well be that I shall be guilty of some repetition of points that have already been made, because I am unable to know what points have already been made since I was not here to listen to them.
My Lords, it is, I feel, unfortunate that this debate is not better attended. It reflects the, to me, quite extraordinary attitude of the public in this country—and it is reflected again in the attendance in the Press Gallery—towards health and

1687
safety at work. We are all deeply moved when there is a major catastrophe, as at Flixborough recently, but we have become inured to the idea that it is perfectly reasonable and acceptable that accidents and disablement go on day in, day out, the aggregate of which, if they were to occur in a single day or a week, or even a month, would be a matter of banner headlines. Surely at a time like the present, when we are bedevilled by problems to which we do not know the answers, it would at least be some relief to be able to tackle and to get results in an area in which to some extent we know the answers.
I say with confidence that we know the answer, because those of us who have in any way, as I have, in however small a way, been involved directly in this question, know that a great many of the accidents which happen in industry are avoidable and could have been avoided; and that where managements, unions and the labour force combine to see that accidents do not happen they are to a large extent reduced in both severity and number. This is a problem that is within our power to deal with, and it is a problem which should appeal greatly to the public at the present time. It has a most important humane element, as the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, has been pointing out to us. It has also an extremely important economic element. We speak with great feeling about the days lost in industry for this reason or that, bad industrial relations—and I am the last person to decry the importance of that—but it is far more within our power to cut down the total number of days lost, and all that that implies, in the field of health and safety. We know this because it has been done by the most competent and the most responsible employers, and what they can do others can do, too.
I regard the Robens Report and this Bill as matters of major importance. This Bill is not a routine piece of legislation which is being pushed through both Houses of Parliament, between other more exciting matters which will get the headlines. But do not let us imagine that when this legislation is passed, it will, by itself, bring about any results at all. Indeed, it could have the contrary effect. This legislation is to some extent a gamble. The noble Lord, Lord Robens, carried out a
1688
detailed investigation, and he has come up with an analysis of the problem that is different from the previous one, and with a radically different approach to the way in which this problem should be handled. We are here making a dramatic change from our previous approach to the improvement of health and safety at work. What the noble Lord, Lord Robens, and this Bill are saying is that while there must be law, there must be enforcement and there must be penalties, the most important thing of all is informed participative action in the improvement of health and safety at work. It is this that is new; it is this that is important; and it is in this area that, unless we take steps other than and in addition to those laid down in this Bill the Robens Report and this Bill, with all their good intentions will fail.
I have said that I agree there has to be law and there has to be enforcement, but the most important thing of all is awareness and knowledge throughout industry, from top to bottom, about what safety at work really implies. In fact, the Committee themselves took a participatory approach. We are committing ourselves, first and foremost, to a quite mammoth training programme for health and safety at work. It is vitally important that boards of directors should introduce policies for health and safety. Of course it starts at the top, but unless this is followed up by informed and skilful training at all levels the results will be negligible. This is not easily done. This is not something that just a couple of courses and a few films will achieve. It needs to be thought out, it needs to be made appropriate for the different groups of people going into industry, and it needs to be followed through with resources, time, effort and research into the results of training of this sort.
My first suggestion in connection with this Bill is that we should link up with the newly appointed Training Services Agency and ask them, and the training boards through them, to intensify and improve their training for safety, which is an absolutely vital requirement if this Bill is to be worth the paper that it is written on. I should also like to suggest that this training and safety—and I tried a little of this years ago, and I know how tricky it is; it is very easy to get it wrong—could well start in the schools.

1689
I believe that the teachers are worried as to what is done with the last year in school. An imaginative approach to keeping oneself whole at home and at work—I would put it like that, rather than "safety first", because that in itself can be regarded as a challenge to avoid safety measures—could well be introduced into the last year of school, as part of the bridge which needs to be built between what goes on at school and what goes on at the place of work.
So I would put training for safety at all levels. If your foremen are not safety-minded you can whistle for results, as you can if your rank and file are not safety-minded—in particular, the new entrants. I do not know how many of your Lordships are aware of the alarming rate of accidents among new entrants, school leavers, going into industry for the first time. This alone is something which, if you think about it in individual terms, is quite horrific. It means that youngsters in their first year or two of employment are damaging themselves, limiting themselves, restricting themselves for the whole of their working career, because of the accidents that they very often suffer through lack of adequate safety training and adequate preventive work at the point of entry into employment.
Linked with this, but second in importance, is the organisational side; the need to have safety committees and safety officers. I am glad that there are now powers to compel the introduction of safety officers and safety committees. Years ago I worked on such a committee and I know how constructive and effective they can be. I am sorry, however, that the Bill says—and I hope that this can be altered before it becomes an Act—that the safety officer can be appointed by the trade unions, and that when he is appointed he can require safety representatives who can require a safety committee. I should have preferred election from among the work force, rather than the appointing of safety representatives.
In addition to this problem of the safety representatives being appointed by the trade unions who can then require a safety committee, the clause overlooks a vital point. The most difficult places, and the most urgent places in which to
1690
bring about change, are the small concerns—the small shops, offices, workshops—in which trade union organisation is very often extremely weak and in which, as any of us who have had anything to do with this subject in the past know, the writ of the factory inspector has run in only a very slight way indeed. This is no criticism of the factory inspectors, who if I may humbly say so, are princes among our public servants. But it has always been difficult for them to get round to small places of employment. It is a question of numbers and organisation. It is in the small places where there is probably a very great deal going on that is extremely risky to health and safety. We cannot be absolutely certain, because we do not get any records that begin to be accurate about what goes on in small places of employment.
Therefore, I should like to see a right given to all employed persons, even if the trade union is not there to speak for them, to have safety representatives appointed and safety committees set up. That need not be instead of; it could be in addition to the clause that we already have in the Bill. If we do not do so, we shall leave unprotected by the new legislation large sectors of employed people who most need this protection. Indeed, many small offices are far more unhealthy to-day than many large scale factories. They have not had the same pressure on them, and their conditions, of work are often lamentably bad. We need to extend this clause, so that it is not only for the people who have the trade union protection, but so that all people can benefit from this advance.
The Bill, probably rightly, does not say anything about the kind of standard of safety and health that we shall require in the future. Present legislation embodied in the 1961 Act has been built up over a very long period of time, largely by additions, one by one and two by two, to legislation over a period of 100 years. I hope very much that the Commission and the Executive, when they come into being, will look at the whole problem of safety and health with fresh eyes, and will not merely adjust the legislation which we have had in the past.
This brings me to a rather special point, which I should like to take this opportunity of making. There has been, and will continue to be, controversy about

1691
the subject of protection given to women in employment. I very much hope that the Executive and the Commission will look at this anew. I should like to see us aim—and this is the policy in some other countries, and, indeed, in the I.L.O. but perhaps we cannot get it straightaway—at a standard of safety and health at work which is really good for both men and women. It is anachronistic to think that women require special protection which men, because they are so much tougher, do not really need. If conditions are unhealthy for women in almost all particulars, they are unhealthy for men—not in absolutely all particulars, but in almost all particulars. I should like to suggest that this be reviewed to see to what extent we can have legislation which covers both men and women, because this is a civilised standard of working conditions. The special protection for women should, in the words of Article 10 of the United Nations Declaration on Driscrimination be limited to those matters which arise directly out of women's physical nature.
In other words, obviously women will continue to need special protection in all those matters connected with pregnancy and child-bearing. There is a clear case for that. Otherwise, the objective should be that the standards should be so good that there is no need for special regulations to protect what, in this regard, is considered, probably incorrectly, as the weaker sex. After all, we survive a good deal longer than men, so it is doubtful whether we are the weaker sex but that is another matter. That should be the aim, at least. Maybe we cannot bring it about straightaway, but it is surely in that direction that we ought to be moving.
This is a radical Bill, not only in its approach to the way in which we want to bring about improved standards of safety and health at work but also in the machinery which is proposed for doing so, that is, in the introduction of the Commission, a semi-autonomous body to do the urgent job of ensuring that standards are improved and better methods of safety are enforced. I welcome any attempt to cut through bureaucracy, and to the extent that the Commission is a way of getting speedier action and a more down-to-earth handling of these problems than the traditional Civil Service procedures permit, that is entirely desirable.
1692
We have done this before. This is a new administrative and Governmental device for getting results, but that does not mean that we have sorted out all the problems connected with the use of this new device. As many of your Lordships have said, and as I said earlier this evening, this is a matter of the greatest importance. It is a matter on which Parliament must continue to be informed and on which Parliament must continue to express satisfaction or dissatisfaction with the way in which new methods are working out. I should be interested to learn, given this semi-autonomous Commission which is being set up, what devices are being worked out for ensuring ultimate Parliamentary control, and adequate Parliamentary control, over this whole task, while still leaving the Commission enough freedom to do the job and to do it in a businesslike way the freedom that is envisaged in the Bill, and which Lord Robens asked for when this new device was propounded.
However, I hope that Parliament is not going to be unable to come in and to question in the way that it seems to me it is still very much Parliament's responsibility to do. At the very least, would it not be proper that both Houses of Parliament should have a regular Report. annually or at whatever interval is deemed appropriate, and that this should be debated? This is not a matter that we can afford to leave solely to the Commission. Parliament should have an opportunity, at regular intervals, of reviewing what is going on, of expressing an opinion, of asking questions and expressing approval or disapproval, as the case may be.
6.5 p.m.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, it was a great pleasure to be present in this House when the noble Baroness, Lady Hornsby-Smith, made her maiden speech in the House. I first met the noble Lady when she and I spent a week-end together, with Alfred Robens, at a seminar of the British Coking Industry Association many years ago, and I realised then that Miss Hornsby-Smith was to have a very important influence in political life. This debate has brought out a number of important points. It is perfectly clear that everyone welcomes the Bill. It is evident in the way in

1693
which the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, made his own comments on the Bill, that he danced placidly round it, and where he objected he would equally have objected to the Bill when he introduced it himself, if he had done so.
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: My Lords, I am sorry but I must rise to my feet on this occasion. I made a longish speech on our Bill when it was given a Second Reading in January of last year, and the objectionable passages were not then in it.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: I naturally accept what the noble Earl says, but if he will look tomorrow at Hansard he will see that he did state that there were still matters in the Bill that would have been in when he introduced it and to which he would have objected. However, the important point is that there is no real objection at all to the principle of the Bill. That principle is completely agreed, and nothing that I want to say now opposes the principle. On the contrary, I think that this is a radical Bill, as the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, has just said, and a Bill that should be carried through as quickly as possible. There are, however, certain matters in it which I hope will be considered carefully at the Committee stage of this House and to which I hope the Government will pay serious attention. I refer to certain questions which arise with regard to expert professional advice.
If one looks at Clause 2 one sees that there is an obligation on an employer to set up a committee, and that that committee should deal with matters within the factory with regard to safety. However, there is no obligation, and I believe that there should be, upon the employer to take the best professional advice with regard to safety matters, because the question of safety is an important one and not one that can be dealt with without having the best professional advice. I could quote many examples of this, and from what I myself have seen there have been many cases where, inside a factory, steps have not been taken because there was no adequate professional advice at the time or no adequate professional advice that was used, at any rate, by the employer.
1694
I can remember up in Newcastle some years ago when there was a very serious explosion inside the hull of a ship that was being repaired, and it occurred in a most extraordinary way. The welders had been at work, using propane gas and oxygen and using their blow torches for doing the welding. They went away overnight, but they came back next day, and a man went down a ladder into the bottom of the hull. He lit his torch, and was surprised at the flame which appeared; it was quite different from the ordinary flame. He came out, but left the torch down there and another workman descended; and as this other man came down the ladder flames appeared on his protective clothing. Shortly afterwards there was an explosion, the man was killed and a great deal of damage was caused. Fortunately, only one man was killed; it might have been many.
I learned the story from the fire officer who conducted the investigation. It shows how expert opinion can be valuable, because this fire officer had taken much trouble to look into the question of explosions of that kind. He came to me and asked me, as a professor of chemistry, if I thought that his explanation was reasonable. I had no doubt that his explanation was correct. What had happened was that propane gas had been leaking overnight through a faulty valve. There had built up several cubic feet of propane gas in the hull. When the man went down and lit his torch—he had oxygen—instead of getting the flame of propane gas burning in oxygen, he got a flame of oxygen gas burning in propane. When he saw the nature of the flame—because the two flames are quite distinctive in appearance—he got out, climbed up the ladder and the propane gas held on his protective clothing began to burn as he emerged into the air. When the next man came down the whole thing exploded.
A diagnosis of this type cannot be done by unskilled people; it requires people of considerable skill to do it. Therefore, in my opinion, it is a matter of considerable importance for safety precautions, and when employers have safety committees they should be required to take expert professional advice in order to help them in coping with the problems which arise. Every industry to-day has to meet new problems which cannot be

1695
solved simply from past experience. They are problems involving new principles, and because of this there is a deficiency in the Bill, not only in its not specifically requiring this type of expert opinion, but also in the way in which it fails to incorporate certain expert services. I believe that the Bill is allowing such specialised services to disappear in favour of a more general inspectorate.
This matter was raised by my noble friend Lord Taylor of Mansfield in regard to the Mines Inspectorate. The mines inspectorate is a highly qualified, highly specialised body of men. Every mines inspector has himself worked in a mine. They have seen every type of mining accident and know the mining industry inside out. If anything goes wrong to-day they have direct access to the Minister. But under the Bill they will not; they will be incorporated into a general inspectorate. There is no certainty that an expert mining inspector would be sent to investigate a mine and to me that seems wrong. There is good reason for having a general inspectorate, but surely within that unit there should be a clearly defined category of mining inspectors. If we do not do that we shall be taking a grave risk and doing something which may cause real trouble in the mining industry in the future.
I believe that the same situation applies to the Alkali Inspectorate. It is a small but specialised body, dealing essentially with the production of acid gases from factories and the works connected with them. Over the years the Alkali Inspectorate has acquired a great deal of expertise. It knows how to go to a factory and deal with these problems. I have been informed by factory managements that the alkali inspector is able to talk to them in their own language and tell them, "We think you ought to do suchand-such an investigation in order to find out whether the process you are using is dangerous. We think that it is."
In this way the Alkali Inspectorate, not by laying down the law but by skilled discussion with the factories, is able to get an immense amount done. I am informed that this relatively small body of men succeeds in doing work out of all proportion to its numbers, because of its skill and its knowledge of the industries with which it deals. If we replace these specialised bodies with a general inspec-
1696
torate, we may do an overall good over the whole of industry but we may well do serious harm within those industries which have been having the benefit of the specialised work of the inspectors. I think that this is true of quite a number of functions. Clearly it applies to an activity such as the Radiation Protection Service, which is specifically mentioned in the Bill. But it is important to realise that already we have a very good service in certain fields and we should do nothing to undermine or damage that good service. Instead we should seek to have a wider service which will incorporate the best features of the old one.
Finally, my Lords, I would mention the problem that arises in regard to such disasters as the Flixborough explosion. When that matter was first raised in the House I called attention to the fact that the aggregation of dangerous materials was something that, in itself, was a serious menace. Even though it might be possible to use these materials safely in a small quantity, in a large quantity they are liable to go out of control. That problem is something which will have to be taken into account in the future, and I am glad to see that the Bill makes provision for it. But the provision will have to be wider than my noble friend Lord Hughes explained, when he said that there will be a right to decide the siting of the factories. I think that the Executive will have to go further and be able to decide the size of a factory.
In the case of Flixborough, as we know, the whole of the basic material for the production of nylon in this country was being produced in one factory. I do not believe that the economic advantages are ever great enough to outweigh the risks of doing that. Therefore, it ought to be one of the functions of any body which is concerned with examining such matters to insist that the whole is not to be put into one place; that if it is put into one place the danger is too great. I heard unofficially that it is probable that there was a fault in a line which had been inadequately repaired at Flixborough. But the point is not how it happened; the point is that these things can happen however many precautions one takes. It is impossible to have an absolute guarantee that such an accident will not occur.

1697
Therefore, it must be an important matter to minimise the effect of it, and I believe that this can be done by ensuring that we do not concentrate in one place.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I should like to make one thing clear, if I may. In referring to a site I did not mean, nor was it in any way intended to imply, that it is only the site. I have been checking on what I said, and it included the words:
"In the case of new developments, the Executive will be able to get in at the planning and design stage".
Obviously, this will cover not merely the location of a plant but the size of a plant. But I will specifically draw to the attention of my right honourable friend the stress which my noble friend Lord Wynne-Jones has put on this point of the size of the plant, as well as its location.
6.21 p.m.
LORD MIDDLETON: My Lords, as the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, said when she spoke with such feeling, agriculture is a dangerous occupation. Everyone engaged in the industry has the common aim of reducing the hazards that multiply as farming becomes more heavily mechanised and as the techniques involving the use of chemicals become more and more sophisticated. There is, therefore, one simple criterion by which to judge any new legislation: is it or is it not going to make farmwork safer? Under the present administrative system, and since the Agriculture (Safety, Health and Welfare Provisions) Act 1956, the making of regulations governing farm safety and the enforcement of them has been the responsibility of the Minister of Agriculture. I have had a good deal of experience of the administration of farm safety regulations—as a farmer; as a member for a number of years of a county agricultural executive committee; and, when it came to applying the law, as a magistrate. I found it very difficult to fault the present system. The Ministry of Agriculture now has, in addition to a specialist staff in London, 8 regional safety inspectors, 31 divisional safety inspectors and 350 field officers. These field officers carry out a wide range of duties, but about 30 per cent. of their time is spent on safety work. One of the good features,
1698
which should appeal to those who like economical administration, is that often a safety problem can be seen and an accident prevented while a field officer is out on another task.
My Lords, there has been a depth of knowledge, and a sympathy with the technical problems, on the part of the Ministry that has led to wholehearted cooperation from farmers and their employees, who have willingly served on local farm safety committees, and safety standards on farms have improved enormously. The regulations now in force are widely recognised as being necessary. The timing of the application of certain regulations has wisely been geared to the ability of the industry to finance the necessary improvements. The farmer can always get advice on safety matters, and the Ministry have always recognised the value of education and guidance. I do not know of any case where there has been a feeling of injustice when a prosecution has been brought and a penalty exacted. The result has been what someone yesterday described to me as an entente cordiale between the Ministry and farmers and farmworkers, and the system has worked smoothly. But let me emphasise that this understanding was never, to my knowledge, due to any softness or lack of energy in enforcement. No respect for the Ministry could have resulted from that kind of policy. Therefore, any new legislation which seeks to alter this system of administration must be framed to retain the confidence of the industry. If it fails to do so, it is retrograde.
When this Bill first appeared it preserved the status quo and left the making of farm safety regulations and the control of their application to the Minister of Agriculture and his officers, with their specialised knowledge of farming techniques and working conditions. But now what is happening? As the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, has said, Government Amendments were introduced at the Report stage in another place, so that we now have before us a Bill which provides that agricultural safety shall be administered by the Safety Commission. My Lords, if that was going to make farmwork safer then no-one would be more eager than me to support in its new form a Bill which in other respects has so much merit. But I hope noble Lords

1699
opposite will forgive me if I say that I see the makings of a first-class administrative mix-up.
That the Ministry of Agriculture are experts in the field of farm safety is recognised under the proposed system, which envisages consultation on the making of regulations and using Ministry of Agriculture officers as agents in administering them. One must therefore ask the Government the question: why take overall responsibility away from the Ministry of Agriculture? Under the agency arrangement to be set up between the Safety Commission and the Ministry, no decision appears to have been taken, and certainly there was no clear statement from the Minister in another place, as to where the line would be drawn dividing responsibility between the Safety Commission and the Ministry of Agriculture. Any tinkering that leads to a division of responsibility for the supervision of the Inspectorate can lead only to inefficiency. The Minister of Agriculture, who under the Bill will have joint responsibility with the Secretary of State for Employment to introduce legislation specific to agriculture, must surely have a direct line of control over a supervisory hierarchy from London to the field officers.
Next, I would ask the Government: what is the line of authority on enforcement? To what extent will the Ministry of Agriculture officers have to seek the Commission's approval to prosecute or to embark upon some particular campaign? The answers to these questions are not to be found in the Minister's justification for these Amendments on June 18 in another place. I would also ask: to what extent has consultation been carried out in Scotland? So far as England is concerned, I know that the National Farmers' Union were consulted, but I believe they are very far from being happy with the present Bill. The English farmers' organisations are very conscious of the farmers' responsibilities for the safety of their employees, but they are convinced that the proposed system will not result in greater safety. They fear that the effectiveness of the Ministry of Agriculture may be diminished, and that the morale of its staff may suffer and recruitment be discouraged. They firmly believe that full responsibility for inspection and enforcement should remain squarely and
1700
unequivocally with the Minister of Agriculture, albeit within the general framework of a system operated by the new Commission in respect of industry as a whole.
One of the great strengths of the agricultural industry has been the excellent relations between employers and employees. Now, employers or self-employed outnumber full-time employees by 288,000 to 246,000. It will be a great pity if their respective organisations were to take diverging lines on working out a way of advancing their common interest in farm safety. I understand that the N.U.A.W. have felt that more could be done to enhance farm safety, and have given support to these Amendments, which are embodied in the Bill that we have before us. I urge them to consider whether this really is the way to reduce accidents.
If not enough safety enforcement work were being done—and I certainly have not any evidence that this is the case—will transference of responsibility necessarily provide the answer? It may merely be a matter of the number of officers. Up to last week the Government accepted the advantages of the present system; then they reconsidered the matter—inadvisedly in the opinion of a large part of the farming community. I cannot agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, when he tells us that agriculture will get the best of both worlds. I beg the Government to consider yet further whether this amended Bill will really lead to fewer accidents on the farm. I believe it will not.
6.31 p.m.
BARONESS BIRK: My Lords, it is a great privilege for me that my first participation in a debate from the Dispatch Box should be on this Bill, which is a distinctive and exciting milestone in social history. I am also delighted to have the opportunity of congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Hornsby-Smith, on her maiden speech. It was not, as she said, very "maiden"; she is such an experienced speaker, so informed and spoke so well that I envied her when I think of the trepidation I had then and that I have now. I think she will remember that we met many years ago when, in another existence, I was doing an article on, of all things, red-headed women in politics. It is very nice to see her now; although

1701
we have the same colour hair we sit on opposite sides of the House, and actually her hair matches my side better.
This debate has been so highly informed and I have sat back getting more and more frightened. I cannot claim the technological expertise of the noble Earl, Lord Courtown, the medical expertise of my noble friend Lady Summerskill, the scientific expertise of my noble friend Lord Wynne-Jones, and the tremendous experience in trade union affairs and in mining of my noble friend Lord Taylor of Mansfield, nor the formidable knowledge of other noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, who seems to be able to speak on so many subjects in such depth, and of course the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie. I should like to thank him for the very charming remarks he made. I felt at one point we should go into a two-step to the music of "Me and My Shadow."
I am particularly interested in this Bill because, apart from my lack of expertise and knowledge, I have always had a deep interest in health and social conditions, and it would be a very amputated interest if it did not include health and safety at work. Indeed, it was when I was at school and reading of industrial conditions in the last century that I was first propelled into the politics of reform.
Before dealing with some of the specific points raised by noble Lords during the debate I should like to spend a minute or two in speaking about what seems to me to be one of the most important aspects of the Bill and its implications. As the Robens Committee pointed out, following their comment that the great bulk of existing provisions are concerned with physical circumstances—
"… it has long been widely accepted that equally important factors in safety and health at work are the attitudes, capacities and performance of people and the efficiency of the organisational systems within which they work. This is not yet reflected in legislation."
It is this whole area of human relations in industry—I prefer the phrase to "industrial relations" in this context—which takes a big leap forward in this Bill. I have always disliked the clarion calls for "participation", "partnership", "working together" which trip off the tongue in a wordy vacuum. But here they are highly relevant since they can be
1702
directed to mutually beneficial purposes. The performance of employers in the health and safety field ranges from the highly efficient and socially responsible attitude of some organisations to the outrageous irresponsibility of others, whose negligence seriously impairs their efficiency and productivity. The measures in this Bill, spelt out by my noble friend Lord Hughes, make a clear statement of the obligations of industry in the widest sense which are also very much in the self-interest of industry.
Just as health and safety at work is too often at the bottom of the shopping list of management, so its priority has too often been lamentably low on the priorities of trade unions. The opportunities for working together under this Bill should reap industrial and human dividends which go beyond the frontiers of health and safety. One of the most important ways in which the vast number of measures incorporated in the Bill can be given real guts is in the field of the free flow and availability of information, which clearly the Government and all Parties in another place consider most important since the Bill was substantially amended to strengthen these provisions.
First, the new Commission is given specific duties to inform, advise, educate and train. This means not just leaving it as a statutory requirement, but taking positive and lively initiatives to produce information in a way that makes an impact that cannot be ignored. The key to this is something with which I have been closely concerned in a variety of other areas; namely, communication. This does not come about merely by passing an Act of Parliament. Once that is passed then the work begins: it requires initial research, careful monitoring and, above all, professional assessments of the results of the publicity and education, the sort of evaluations which are essential if the end product is to be something more solid than routine good intentions. This has been mentioned by, among others, the noble Baroness, Lady Seear.
There is a professionalism in this field which is as important as the scientific and medical and other forms of professionalism which are required in carrying out the various other measures and regulations. The core of the exercise must always be the individual, and the individual, whether employer or worker,

1703
must be aware of his or her responsibilities and the risks which are involved in any process or job. There is no easy and short cut to this, and I think it is important to recognise—and we as a Government recognise—that this is so. It cannot be plucked out of the air by posters, circulars or even a wide use of the media unless it is strongly backed by education, starting, as my noble friend Lady Summerskill has pointed out, at school. I would go further. Basically a great deal of this is in the realm of health education which makes people aware of the risks associated with their jobs and starts with the knowledge of safety in the home as a good foundation which naturally leads to safety at work.
During the period of time when I was chairman of the Health Education Council we found a vast amount of ignorance in all areas of health, whether it was safety in the home—leaving detergents around for children to get at; not enough pressure on making child-proof containers for dangerous drugs and pills—or lack of knowledge about such things as contraception and lack of awareness of so many people about the workings of their own bodies. Without health education of this sort extended to industry, I think it will be very difficult to make all the various other measures work with the necessary rapidity and vitality which I think everybody who has spoken in this debate has stressed.
Only knowledge can lead to action, and action implies responsibility, the responsibility of the individual who must not be the passive receiver of Governmental edicts. I was very pleased to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Hornsby-Smith, mention the example—which I also had in mind—of the young man with the long hair. That has happened in other instances as well, where people have felt that they are being told to do something, just as an order, and have not even begun to understand the dangers to themselves in what they are doing. By the time they are doing the job in the factory it is often too late for them to learn, so we have to start this education very much earlier. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, also raised this point. He also raised a point on information which I will deal with later.
Secondly, the Bill gives inspectors of the Executive specific duties concerned with keeping workpeople informed about
1704
health and safety hazards in their work place. Part of the inspectors' functions will be to explain those risks, to explain the results of tests carried out and to make sure that communication is strictly two-way. This means ensuring that the clause requiring enforcing authorities to appoint inspectors having suitable qualifications must be interpreted in these terms. If this is so, it seems to me that this should go some way to meeting the points raised by my noble friend Lady Summerskill and others in increasing the interest in the inspectors' job, which should help to recruit from a far wider spectrum of men and women than is the case at the moment. So far as women are concerned, I certainly agree with all that the noble Baroness said, and at the moment there are evidently 45½ women engaged—the half woman is a part-time woman.
But there must be a drive in order to get both keen and dedicated people—which was another point made by one noble Lord—and this means trying to interest young people at school, and recruitment at universities and other places of further education should be given the same priority as other job opportunities. I understand that if schools have well-developed programmes of careers education, there are likely to be some lessons in the later stages about the work situation and they might well include safety aspects of work. There may also be visits to observe work processes when health and safety factors might be discussed.
Although I am speaking from the Front Bench, it would be quite untrue for me to say that in this field, as in many other fields of health education—and I do not think other members of the Government would even say—one can be complacent or satisfied with the situation as it is. This Bill is a very good instrument in order to nudge education authorities—which means locally as well as centrally—into seeing that young people are prepared for their life in industry.
Obviously occupational health services at the work place should be and must be the aim—and I think the noble Earl, Lord Courtown, was making a particular point of this—but the fact is that we have a great lack of resources in this field. There is no need for me to go into the problems that exist in the National Health

1705
Service at the moment, particularly with regard to nurses and the shortages of doctors, but this does not mean to say that one should not make the best use of the resources that we have, and where there are not works doctors at the moment it seems to me that G.P.s must be brought much more into the educational process. There should be far more communication with the G.P.s and also, where there are works doctors, between the doctors and the G.P. This again is a two-way exercise.
I would say also to the noble Earl, Lord Courtown, that there is nothing to stop many more enterprises setting up excellent schemes similar to those which are already being carried out by a number of firms. Indeed, these schemes are not only of benefit to the workers, but by giving good and immediate medical care and attention the firm should benefit. In fact those firms who undertake these schemes—and I have discussed it with several of them—say themselves that their gain is quite as great as the workers' gain because they have a far smaller loss in production, lower absenteeism and far better morale. There is nothing in the Bill which precludes voluntary effort and voluntary initiative in this and in many other fields. Since so often we hear from all sides of the House—but particularly from noble Lords opposite—of the need to encourage the individual and voluntary effort, it would seem a pity not to inspire it further and to press on with it at the moment when we need it so much.
I should now like to come to some of the points raised by noble Lords. I must apologise if I cannot cover everything, but as noble Lords will agree there have been a tremendous number of very important points raised in this debate. First, I should mention the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Popplewell, who, through the generosity of my noble friend Lord Hughes, has had to wait some time so that I had the opportunity of answering him. I am very grateful to the noble Lord for giving me that honour. In answer to his question on transport, I can say that the Bill covers transport workers. The general obligations apply in relation to transport workers and provide a basic cover. In the case of road and rail workers—and I think he particularly referred to rail workers—the
1706
relevant regulations made under the Bill will apply unless they state otherwise. In the case of sea and air transport workers, no regulation made under the Bill will apply to them while they are at sea or in the air, unless the regulation specifically so states.
One of the main points that has been raised by several noble Lords, including the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, is this question of joint consultation and safety representatives. The first point here is that the position at non-unionised work places will not be at all changed by the Bill. At present, employers have no duties and employees have no rights regarding arrangements for joint consultation on health and safety, so the Bill is not taking away any existing rights. What is far more important, as I have just said on another point, is that there is nothing in the Bill which will prevent the continuation of existing voluntary arrangements worked out between work people and management. I hope that this links up with the remarks I made earlier on information and education. Where there are people who do not belong to a union or are in a non-union shop, they still have the opportunity to press for an arrangement with their employers, and to try to make a voluntary arrangement. If an employee wants to take advantage of these new provisions, there is nothing to stop him joining a union. Naturally, we hope they will, since the unions are clearly the bodies best organised to take on these initiatives. They have this machinery. I was rather surprised—not from a political point of view, but from a literary point of view, because the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, is a poet and always writes and speaks so well—to hear him using that terrible word "politicising" which really cut across my ears as well as my views on the policy of it.
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Baroness? I take her rebuke about the word. It is not one that rings very pleasantly in my ears, but I should be very grateful to her—or to anyone else in the House—if she can supply me with a word which will do the job as well. I was making the distinction that we cannot keep politics out of safety and health, but that the wrong kind of partisan political activity should not be there.
BARONESS BIRK: My Lords, in this case the noble Earl would have been well advised not to use it or even an alternative, but to take it as it is, that the machinery is the right sort of machinery. As my noble friend Lord Taylor of Mansfield pointed out in his very impressive speech, the record of the trade union movement in this field is so great that without its work we would not have had the kind of safety regulations we have to-day. Certainly, we should not have had them in the mining industry. The noble Lord was worried that some of these might be lost under the Bill, and I shall deal with that point later.
If one looks at certain industries or plants where health and safety are at their lowest, these places are very often where one finds a great number of women workers. I have been around and have seen a great deal of light industry where women are mainly employed, and it is an unfortunate fact that women will not group together or press for improvements, although things are better now. They have always been reluctant to join trade unions, and therefore their conditions have not been as good as they are in other industries, where the unions have fought hard for a far higher level of safety.
LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, will the noble Baroness give way? Is she not reinforcing my argument that where you get non-union plants the need for safety representatives and safety committees is probably much greater than in an industry such as coal mining, where a long record of activity by the N.U.M. has led to the successful introduction of safety procedures?
BARONESS BIRK: No, my Lords. I take the point of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, but would say that the conclusion he has come to, if looked at in another way, is that people would be better off if they joined a union which would work on their behalf. I would put the position in that way, and not turn it round the other way. There is a point here involving industrial relations, which could cause tremendous difficulties if the legal rights were not left with the trade unions. This is a very serious point for our economy, whichever Government is in power.
1708
My noble friend Lady Summerskill mentioned the delays in the regulation-making procedure. Perhaps I might say here that the Report came out in 1972. This Government have been in power only since the middle of March, and yet this Bill is now having its Second Reading in your Lordships' House. So we are getting on with the legislation. The recommendation that there should be a single authority means that the authority has to be set up, and it would be impossible to set a standard time limit which was applicable to the making of all regulations. Nevertheless, the plans are to go ahead with it as quickly as possible. Here, again, I think it is when people like my noble friend press for this and similar things that we shall get some action. It should not just go through and people should just not forget about it.
My noble friend Lady Summerskill, together with the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Mansfield, raised a point about the words "reasonably practical". I will not delay the House with all the arguments that have surrounded this very difficult phrase. But the Bill makes it clear that it will be up to whoever has to comply with a general duty to prove in court that it was not reasonably practical to do more than he did. There is no "let-out" and it is contrary to the general position, when you are presumed innocent until proved guilty. In this instance, the employer has to show that he did everything that was reasonably practical. As the duties apply to everything in and about the places of work, from the simplest welfare facilities to the most technologically complex processes, it seems to me quite unrealistic to make absolute duties which cover such a vast range of circumstances. If you do this, it makes for even more vagueness, and people may try to do less.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, raised the question of early warning of hazards from the use of toxic substances. This is an extremely important issue in this Part of the Bill. The noble Lord mentioned the problem of identifying and controlling the use in industrial processes of substances which can create health risks of an insidious long-term nature—risks which often remain hidden until serious damage has been done. For the first time, a duty

1709
will be laid on all those who market substances for use in industry to ensure that—dare I say it?—so far as is reasonably practical they are safe and without risk to health when properly used; that adequate research and testing is carried out with them, and that information about the products and their properties is made available to those who will use them. I accept immediately that this is not 100 per cent. perfection but, as was pointed out by the noble Earl, Lord Courtown, and others, there is no way of making absolutely sure that you prevent any accident or disaster unless you stop the activity entirely. At least this will go very much further than anything which is in existence at the moment to try to prevent not only major accidents but some of the more insidious hazards which are still major though on a smaller scale than was mentioned by my noble friend.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, also referred to the provision of information to workpeople. The codes of practice can certainly be used to give detailed guidance on the type of information which employers should give to workpeople. The disclosure of information in pursuance of an inspector's function certainly permits disclosure of information to workpeople's representatives. That is clearly laid down in Clause 28(8). The noble Earl objected to Clause 16, which concerns the requirement for consent by the Secretary of State before the Commission approve a code of practice. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Employment in another place has promised to consider an Amendment to this clause to loosen up the requirement for the Secretary of State's consent; and I hope that on Committee stage we shall be able to introduce a suitable Amendment.
My noble friend Lord Taylor of Mansfield raised the question, quite naturally, of mining. He was concerned that the present standards may be eroded if they are taken into the Bill. As the noble Lord will know rather better than I do, this matter has been under discussion for a long time and the existing statutory standards of protection for miners will not be weakened. The noble Lord referred specifically to the requirements of the Mines and Quarries Act, and these will remain in force until they are replaced by better standards. Quite
1710
obviously, these better standards could not be judged to be so unless the miners agreed that they were. That is quite specific, so I hope that my noble friend will feel happy about it.
In his extremely interesting speech, my noble friend Lord Wynne-Jones was concerned, among other matters, about the specialist bodies and the disappearance of the Mines and Alkali Inspectorates. The specialist inspectorates which join the Executive will not disappear: their specialisations will continue. Unity here does not mean uniformity. As I understand it, the aim is for more specialisation and more expertise. As technology becomes more and more specialised and expert, we need more of it in order to judge it and counter-balance it. But inclusion within the new organisation will mean that this expertise can be put to the fullest use regarding common problems and can be co-ordinated with related disciplines. Integration on the various inspectorates was a fundamental recommendation of the Robens Committee and one that has been very widely supported. He will he pleased to know that inspectors will have exactly the same access to Ministers as they have at present. There is no statutory right of access under any existing legislation. My Lords, that does not seem to make sense. I have probably got it wrong.
Now may I turn to Lord Middleton's point on agriculture. I am a strictly non-agriculturalist. The wife of a keen gardener is the nearest I have got to that! I employ my husband as an unpaid gardener. I do not know whether that makes me an employer or self-employed. The noble Lord referred to the fact that there were far more employers than employees in agriculture; but I think he will agree it would be more accurate to say there were more self-employed than employees, which is really rather different. It is true that there was extensive criticism from all sides of the special provisions, but after discussions between the Secretary of State for Employment and the Minister for Agriculture, and consultations with a number of bodies, the final result came about.
What we are now proposing under the Bill, as amended on Report, gives agriculture the best of both worlds, because the

1711
Bill now gives the Commission full responsibility for all aspects of health and safety in agriculture, as in all other industries. The case for this is the same as the general case for having the Bill in the first place, and for setting up a single organisation solely concerned with industry-based health and safety problems with full responsibility for tackling those problems wherever they are found in manufacturing, mining, the constructing service industries and so on. We are also proposing that in the normal course the day-to-day work of carrying out the Commission's policies and enforcing the statutory requirements in agriculture should be done on the Commission's behalf to its specifications by the inspectorial resources of the Agricultural Departments.
There are powers in the Bill to create an agency arrangement of this kind and this should solve the special problem of coping with the scattered structure of the industry, since the Agricultural Department's inspectors will in any case be visiting the farms for other purposes. It also means that farms will normally be dealing with people whom they know are fully familiar with their problems. I do not suppose it will bring much comfort to the noble Lord, but, thinking that this would come up to-day, I saw a friend of mine who is a very experienced farmer of long standing, who took the contrary view and he felt now that the Bill had been amended it made far better sense and agreed that in this way agriculture got the best of both worlds.
I am conscious of not having covered every point that has been made and I am also conscious of the clock ticking on. I can only say that I and my noble friends have listened with the greatest interest to the points that have been made, and that there will be an opportunity for more discussion of some of the particular points on the Committee stage. The debate to-day has been a most valuable contribution, not only to the need for educating and informing a wider public about health and safety matters, but on the whole subject of health and safety at work, so that in future it gets the priority and attention it deserves. One of the important things about this Bill is its flexibility with its imaginative enabling content which gives it the elbow room essential for what I hope will be a human
1712
and social growth industry. I know that noble Lords will welcome the chance to give this Bill its Second Reading as much as we have welcomed the chance to hear what they have had to about about the Bill.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

ROYAL ASSENT
7.4 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD ELWYN-JONES): My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:
Lord High Commissioner (Church of Scotland) Act,
Dumping at Sea Act,
Ministers of the Crown Act,
Statute Law (Repeals) Act.

HOUSING (SCOTLAND) BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.

ROAD TRAFFIC BILL [H.L.]
7.5 p.m.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen and His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales that they, having been informed of the purport of the Road Traffic Bill, have consented to place their prerogative and interests, so far as they are affected on behalf of the Crown, the Duchy of Lancaster and the Duchy of Cornwall, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD HARRIS OF GREENWICH): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Harris of Greenwich.)
LORD JANNER: My Lords, I must apologise to the House for intervening at this time. I think that the House will appreciate—
LORD HARRIS OF GREENWICH: My Lords, I hope my noble friend will forgive me, but I think it might be a good idea at this time if I moved the Privilege Amendment. I beg to move the Privilege Amendment.
On Question, Bill read 3a, an Amendment (privilege) made.
LORD HARRIS OF GREENWICH: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Harris of Greenwich.)
LORD JANNER: My Lords, as the House is aware I am deeply concerned about the effects of certain clauses of this Bill in relation to powers which are exercisable at the present time by magistrates to prevent crime. I would again say at this late stage in this House that it would he a grave error to pass certain measures which would deprive the magistrates of this country of the right to be able to exercise their judgment, and to impose certain sentences which they consider appropriate to deal with these motoring offences. I realise—and the magistrates themselves realise—that it is important to refrain so far as possible from sending people to prison if it can be avoided. But as one can see from speeches which have been made here, it is perfectly clear that by removing the powers of imprisonment certain results will follow which were probably not contemplated at the time the Bill was introduced. Various custodial possibilities are being taken away in relation to attendance centres, detention centres, and so on. I shall not go through the whole story again, because it has been very carefully voiced in this House. Magistrates feel the whole object of their jurisdiction would be seriously impaired in relation to the kind of offences to which the Bill refers, and would make their task practically impossible, particularly in the juvenile court.
Let me give one illustration. The removal of the power of imprisonment would not enable the court, as I see it, as the magistrates see it and as the justices' clerks see it, to issue a warrant for a person to appear in court in respect of an offence with which he had been charged. What the position would be with regard to the endorsing of licences in such circumstances is open to question
1714
because the licence would not be before the court. One could not compel an accused person to bring his licence to court. I do not want at this stage to call upon the Government to make long statements or to give explanations, but this is a point which has to be carefully considered between now and the Bill's next stage in another place.
I ought to explain to your Lordships that, unfortunately, I was out of the country during the debate at the previous stage of the Bill in this House. I want to thank my noble friends who spoke in the debates on the Committee stage and the Report stage for having done so and for the admirable way in which they presented the case. I would have been prepared to remain until the early hours of the morning, when the Committee stage was on the Order Paper, but I did not think that that would be courteous to the House; nor would it have been appropriate for me to insist upon the matter going further that evening. Unfortunately, after that I had to leave the country on an important matter and I hope the House will appreciate that it was not out of any discourtesy to the House that I was not here.
The Bill will now proceed to another place. I feel that the magistrates do such splendid work and are so experienced in the work that they carry out that we cannot afford (it would be quite wrong) to disregard their views. We should only act if we are thoroughly satisfied that the contentions that they are bringing forward are unreasonable; and if there is a question of doubt at all in so far as their view is concerned, the balance should be put in their favour. They are people who do not want to impose harsh sentences. But it would be silly of us to take away from them their feeling that they are doing something to cure and remedy a position and ensure that there will be no repetition of the offences concerned.
Of course, the effect of fines being raised is sheer nonsense. It does not matter a hoot (if I may use the expression) to a man who has plenty of money whether he has to pay a fine of £20 or of £100. The person who cannot afford to pay could never be called upon to pay. I do not know how on earth we should be able to get money from a person who had been fined heavily but was not in a position to pay because his means were

1715
not sufficient. So, in fact, when we look at the effect of the Bill we really must see that the magistrates are justified in feeling that the object for which they undertake their duties is being frustrated.
I hope that even at this late hour—and I believe, reading some of the statements made by the Government, that they have gone a little way towards considering possible Amendments in the other place—an opportunity will be given for the magistrates and for the justices' clerks to have further consultations with the Government. I hope that the magistrates will be received in a proper way (I am not suggesting they were received in any improper way before) and that proper regard will be given to their views. They want to be of use to the country, and they actually are of considerable use to the country. I hope that when this request is answered, as I hope it will be, and these meetings take place, careful consideration and a positive reaction will be accorded to the views of the Magistrates' Association and the justices clerks' organisation. I hope that Amendments will be produced—perhaps by the Government themselves—to comply with the proposals of the magistrates and the justices' clerks. Indeed, I hope that the right which has been spoken about here quite a lot—the right of any person who is charged to apply for trial by jury—will be retained. I personally consider that that is a right of considerable importance, and certainly it should not be altered before we consider the Report which is forthcoming in respect of this issue.
I could of course repeat very many of the strong arguments that have been used. I do not want to do that. I think that everyobdy here has heard or read them time after time. I am quite sure that the Government in their heart of hearts know very well that they are dealing on these issues with responsible people, and they are responsible people themselves. These people (I hope I shall be forgiven for saying this, but I believe I am entitled to) are very much more experienced than are Ministers—I say that without any disrespect—unless the Ministers themselves have been magistrates for a considerable time. It is really necessary to give effect to their views in a matter of this kind, where experience counts for so much.
7.19 p.m.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, I shall detain your Lordships for only one or two minutes. I do not want to follow the noble Lord, Lord Janner, in his arguments. I know that he passionately and sincerely feels the strength of them. There are one or two noble Lords on this side of the House who are magistrates who feel as the noble Lord does. I know that friends on this side, learned and right honourable, when in Government took the same view as the noble Lord the Minister and his Government on this point. It is a matter of sincere principles in what we are trying to do. We want to keep the prison population down just as noble Lords opposite want to. That has been argued with regard to our Bill last year; it has been argued on this Bill this year. However, I am speaking merely to thank the noble Lords. Lord Harris of Greenwich. Lord Garnsworthy and also Lord Wells-Pestell who helped on this Bill.
I hope that on this Bill we shall not have a repetition of what happened to our old friend, the Conservation of Seals Bill. I was given my first important task on the Front Bench in Opposition of looking after the Conservation of Seals Bill and the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, as Leader of the Party and Leader of the Government, added lustre to it by dealing with it for the Government. My noble friend Lord Cranbrook introduced it. For three years running it was introduced and for three years running it got lost. After three years I got to know the subject fairly well. This is the second time round for the Road Traffic Bill. It has a useful purpose to perform and I hope that something called "an election" will not interfere to disturb the natural, calm passage of the Bill through another place.
My Lords, with those words, may I thank the noble Lords for their helpfulness. We have had a very good debate and the points at issue have been well debated. Even the noble Lord, Lord Janner, would agree, I think, that all the points have been discussed. He will not, I know, agree with all that has been said. However, I think it is agreed that this is a useful Bill. I hope that it will go through, but if it does not, we shall meet again and we shall be able to repeat our phrases.
7.22 p.m.
LORD HARRIS OF GREENWICH: My Lords, may I deal first with the points raised by my noble friend Lord Janner. I am sure that the House is sorry that we were deprived of his guidance during the discussion of the issues which he has raised this evening. I know how strongly my noble friend feels about this particular issue. However, I may be able to reassure him on one point, although I suspect not on the other. The Government will always be prepared to talk to the Magistrates' Association or the Justices' Clerks Society on this or any other issue. I share his view entirely that they are an important and responsible group of people with substantial experience of the administration of the criminal law. On the other hand, the Government, like their predecessors, are determined to reduce substantially the number of people who, in our judgment, are sent to prison unnecessarily for offences under the Road Traffic Act.
We will be prepared to talk to the Magistrates' Association and the Justices' Clerks Society, but nobody should have any misunderstanding about this point. Our position was made clear by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor during the debate which we had 48 hours ago, and it would only be misleading these two important groups of people if I suggested that on the central question of principle there was any likelihood that the Government would move their position. On the other hand, on peripheral questions dealing with the endorsement of licences and matters of the sort raised by my noble friend Lady Wootton, we shall be prepared to look at the matter again, either with these two bodies or with others.
Apart from that, may I thank the noble Lord who has just sat down. Like the noble Lord, I hope that we shall soon see this Bill on the Statute Book. I say that without any political overtones; I think that is the safest way of putting it. I thank him and his noble friend Lord Aberdare for the helpful and constructive role which they have both played during the passage of this Bill. I thank particularly my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. I do that
1718
with particular feeling, because on the two issues upon which he addressed your Lordships he managed to persuade the majority of your Lordships that the Government were right. Next, may I thank my noble friend Lord Wells-Pestell, and, thirdly and particularly, my noble friend Lord Garnsworthy, who has carried the bulk of the work on this Bill as spokesman for the Department of the Environment. It is not only a question of speaking in this House but also of carrying out a substantial amount of correspondence with a number of your Lordships upon all the particular matters and issues raised in the debate.
LORD JANNER: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, I want him to realise that what I have been saying does not mean that I do not agree with many Parts of the Bill. On the contrary, I think that the Bill is a very good Bill. However, I do not want this to be the rotten apple in the barrel.
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

MORPETH COMMON BILL
Reported without amendment.

PORTLAND DEEPWATER QUAYS BILL [H.L.]
Report from the Select Committee, That the Committee are of opinion that it is not expedient to proceed further with the Bill; and that the Committee are further of opinion that the Petitioners have been unreasonably subjected to expense by the Promoters of the Bill and are therefore entitled to recover from the Promoters 25 per centum of the costs incurred by them in respect of their opposition to the Bill in this House, such costs to be taxed and certified by the Taxing Officer of this House.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes past seven o'clock.