Sitting of 5 February 1976

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

  BRITISH RAILWAYS BILL (by Order)
  BRITISH TRANSPORT DOCKS BILL (by Order)
  BRITISH TRANSPORT DOCKS (FELIXSTOWE) BILL (by Order)
  GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL (by Order)
  LONDON TRANSPORT BILL (by Order)
  Orders for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time upon Thursday next.

  WEST MIDLANDS COUNTY COUNCIL BILL (by Order)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time upon Wednesday next at Seven o'clock.

  RIVER MEDWAY (FLOOD RELIEF) [MONEY]
  Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
  Resolved,
  That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to provide for the relief of flooding in part of the catchment area of the River Medway, to authorise the Southern Water Authority to construct works and to acquire lands, it is expedient to authorise any increase in the sums payable out of moneys provided by Parliament under Section 55 of the Land Drainage Act 1930 and Section 38 of Land Drainage Act 1961 and Section 37 of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1968.—[Mr. Robert Sheldon.]

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  NATIONAL FINANCE

    Family Benefits
    Mr. Peter Bottomleyasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received from the TUC and CBI for increased family benefits.
    The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Joel Barnett): None in recent months, no doubt because there is general support for the new child benefit scheme, which is due to start in April 1977.
    Mr. Bottomley: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the child benefit scheme does nothing for one-parent families who are in receipt of supplementary benefit and that the introduction in October 1977 of an allowance for the first child will be far too late? Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that when the son of this incomes policy is put together during the next three or four months the interests of those 14 million parents and 14 million children, who amount to over half the population of this country, are taken into account just as much as the TUC's 10 million?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. It is just as well that the hon. Gentleman is asking the first Question. It is not fair to the House if we have long supplementary questions.
    Mr. Barnett: We shall take everything into account in coming to our views in the next round of the incomes policy.
    Mrs. Hayman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that April 1977 will be too late to help those children who are cold and hungry this winter? Will he look at the supplementary benefit scale with a view to helping the poorest families as soon as possible?
    Mr. Barnett: I appreciate my hon. Friend's long-standing interest in this matter. However,.it is a matter not for me but for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services. I am sure that she will take careful note of my hon. Friend's view.
    Mr. Beith: Does the right hon. Gentleman regard the reviewing of tax thresholds in relation to any increase in family

    1391
    benefits as at least as important? Does he recognise that those who are not in receipt of benefit and who are on low earnings compare unfavourably when most of any increase in their low earnings is taken in tax?
    Mr. Barnett: We are certainly aware of the problem and we shall also look at tax thresholds.
    Mr. David Howell: How much longer will the Minister tolerate a situation in which a man who has two children and who earns £45 a week can take home less money than if he had stayed out of work in the first place?
    Mr. Barnett: The hon. Gentleman overstates the case. There is only a small number of such people.

    Dividend Restraint
    Mr. Norman Lamontasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to abolish dividend restraint.
    Mr. Joel Barnett: The future of the dividend control will be considered in the development of counter-inflation policy as a whole.
    Mr. Lamont: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that dividend restraint helps the rich private investor who wants capital accumulation and not income from his investment? Is it not the case that the Diamond Commission pointed out that the only beneficiaries from abolishing dividend restraint would be small investors, pension funds and charities? Why do the Government continue to penalise them?
    Mr. Barnett: I do not entirely accept the hon. Gentleman's case. As I am sure he will recognise, successive Governments have believed some form of dividend restraint to be necessary in the context of any counter-inflation policy. If we ask those earning incomes to have some restraint, it is not unreasonable to include dividend recipients, too.
    Dr. Bray: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, if we have dividend restraint for the reasons he stated, the natural accompaniment is an effective wealth tax?
    Mr. Barnett: As my hon. Friend knows, we shall be introducing an effective wealth tax.
    Mr. MacGregor: Is the Chief Secretary aware that one of his colleagues in a previous reply on this subject said that the Government would take decisions in the light of the Diamond Commission's Report? As that Report is riddled with arguments and facts in favour of the abolition of dividend restraint unconnected with any pay policy, does not the right hon. Gentleman feel that now is the time to act?
    Mr. Barnett: We shall be looking at the subject of dividend control in the context of our review of the next stage of the counter-inflation policy.
    Mr. Skinner: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, although in theory corporation tax has not been abolished, in practice we collect hardly anything from it? Will he explain why that is and take measures to see that the appropriate amount is collected?
    Mr. Barnett: The Question is about dividend restraint, but I can tell my hon. Friend that his assertion is not entirely correct. We are still collecting substantial sums from corporation tax.

    £ Sterling
    Mr. Trotterasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the 50p coin was introduced; and what has been the fall in the value of the pound since that time.
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Robert Sheldon): The 50p coin was introduced on 14th October 1969; the internal purchasing power of the pound fell by 52 per cent. between October 1969 and December 1975.
    Mr. Trotter: As the pound in our pocket has been so obviously devalued in this period, would it not be realistic for the Government to accept that and to introduce a £1 coin, which might be distinguished from other coins by a large hole in the middle?
    Mr. Sheldon: The hole in the value of the pound is the responsibility of the several Governments who have held office since 1969. I have no firm views about the introduction of a new coin to replace the £1 note. If there is a demand for it, it will be considered.

    Public Expenditure
    Mr. Aitkenasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has any plans to implement the proposals of the Expenditure Committee with regard to the Financing of Public Expenditure (ref 69–1) published on 11th December 1975.
    Mr. Joel Barnett: I am still considering this Report and a reply will be given in due course.
    Mr. Aitken: Is the Chief Secretary aware that that is a disappointingly slow response to the Committee's criticisms? Does he accept that they were a devastating indictment of the Treasury's inability adequately to control public expenditure? What specific steps does the Chief Secretary intend to take to make sure that there is not another £5,800 million of unplanned expenditure and will those steps include cash limits?
    Mr. Aitken: Is the Chief Secretary aware that that is a disappointingly slow response to the Committee's criticisms? Does he accept that they were a devastating indictment of the Treasury's inability adequately to control public expenditure? What specific steps does the Chief Secretary intend to take to make sure that there is not another £5,800 million of unplanned expenditure and will those steps include cash limits?
    Mr. Barnett: We shall be introducing cash limits. It is not true that the response is slow. We hope to give a reply to the Committee in the next week or two. The allegations about the so-called £5 billion are wholly untrue and were answered by the Treasury in evidence to the Committee.
    Mr. Ridley: The Chief Secretary will know that one reason for the £5·8 billion was the very high increase in the price of land and houses. Now that the price of land and houses has fallen, to what great saving in public expenditure may we look forward?
    Mr. Barnett: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman can control himself sufficiently to wait for the public expenditure White Paper. As he rightly said, part of the £5 billion to which Mr. Godley referred arose from the rather uncontrolled growth of the money supply during the period when the Conservative Government were in office, a Government whom the hon. Gentleman sometimes supported.
    Mr. Lawsonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer by what date, at the latest, he expects to publish the public expenditure White Paper; and whether that White Paper will contain the promised publication of the various cash limits for expenditure 1976–77.
    Mr. Joel Barnett: My right hon. Friend expects to publish the White Paper on
    1394
    public expenditure on 19th February. It will not include details of cash limits for 1976–77. As announced in the debate on the Address on 25th November, details of the cash limits would be published around the beginning of the financial year.
    Mr. Lawson: I am grateful to the Chief Secretary for his announcement of the date of the public expenditure White Paper. Presumably that means that for the time being at any rate the differences within the Cabinet have been resolved, and I am delighted to hear it. Will the Chief Secretary assure the House that the system of cash limits will mean a great deal more than the mere allocation of the relative price effect among the component parts of the public expenditure programme? Will he further assure the House that public expenditure in 1976–77 will not materially exceed the figure envisaged at the time of the Budget, when cuts of £900 million were announced?
    Mr. Barnett: The hon. Gentleman will have to wait until he sees the White Paper, which will give him all the information he requires on cash limits. Expenditure for 1976–77 will be disclosed on 19th February in the public expenditure White Paper.
    Mr. Lane: Will the White Paper give clear evidence that the Government are in earnest about shifting resources from the public sector into more productive channels?
    Mr. Barnett: We shall set out in the public expenditure White Paper the Government's policy for public expenditure both for 1976–77 and the years thereafter.
    Mr. Michael Lathamasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is now in a position to announce detailed proposals for public expenditure levels in the next financial year.
    Mr. Joel Barnett: These will be included in the White Paper on public expenditure to be published later this month.
    Mr. Latham: Will the White Paper confirm or deny the extensively leaked report that one cut in public expenditure will be in Civil Service manpower?
    Mr. Barnett: I cannot confirm or deny anything. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be happy to wait until 19th

    1395
    February to see precisely what the White Paper contains.
    Mr. Frank Allaun: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that unemployment is now so widespread and so serious that, unfortunately, there will not be enough resources and manpower to cover both necessary public expenditure and the investment in industry which he requires?
    Mr. Barnett: I know that my hon. Friend will agree with the Government's policy, announced some time ago, of not cutting public expenditure now for precisely the reasons he gave—namely, the present level of unemployment, about which he and I are concerned. That is why we shall not be cutting public expenditure for 1976–77.
    Mr. Henderson: As the right hon. Gentleman has been generous enough to take us into his confidence about the date of publication of the White Paper, will he tell us when the Budget Statement will be made?
    Mr. Barnett: I am happy to do that as well—6th April.
    Mr. Cow: Will the Chief Secretary allay the fears of the public and the foreign bankers by telling the House that the amount of money which the Government intend to borrow next year will be significantly less than the £12,000 million they are borrowing this yar?
    Mr. Barnett: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be happy to wait in patience both for the public expenditure White Paper and for other statements in the Budget on 6th April which will make everything clear to him and everyone else.
    Mr. Helfer: As 200,000 construction workers are out of work, will more finance be made available to local authorities to enable them to bring out of their pigeon-holes construction plans which are temporarily held back? Would not that be a great boost for the construction industry and help to bring down unemployment?
    Mr. Barnett: I entirely share my hon. Friend's concern. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be making a statement next Thursday dealing with certain aspects of that matter.

    Money Supply
    Mr. Luardasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the average monthly percentage increase in the money supply—M1 and M3—between June 1970 and February 1974, and the corresponding figures for the period since March 1974.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Denis Healey): Monthly series for the money supply going back to June 1970 are not available. On the basis of seasonally adjusted quarterly figures, the average annual rate of growth of M1 was 8·8 per cent. from end June 1970 to end March 1974 and 17 per cent. from end March 1974 to end September 1975. The comparative figures for M3 are 20·2 per cent. and 11·3 per cent. respectively.
    Mr. Luard: Is it not surprising that the figure for M3—which is generally regarded as being the significant figure—is given such inordinate importance by the Opposition when my right hon. Friend's achievement is so much better than was the achievement of the Conservative Government?
    Mr. Healey: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. For those who are interested in controlling the money supply, the fact is that my achievement on M3 was four times superior to that of the Conservative Government, which allowed M3 to increase in their last year of office, 1972 to 1973, Q4 to Q4, by 29 per cent. as against a 13 per cent. increase in money GDP. The figures for Q3 1975 on Q3 1974, showed an 11 per cent. increase in M3 as against a 21 per cent. increase in money GDP over the same period.
    Mr. Powell: To what causes does the right hon. Gentleman attribute the inverse contrast between those two pairs of figures?
    Mr. Healey: Primarily to the far superior fiscal probity of the present Administration.
    Mr. Hordern: Does not the right hon. Gentleman recognise that the only reason for the money supply figures that he has given being lower than they were during the Conservative Administration is that investment is now declining and the rate of increase of consumption is falling dramatically? Is it not clear that during

    1397
    the next two years, if the Chancellor's policy of encouraging investment is to be possible, the money supply must grow unless he proposes to reduce public expenditure within the next two years?
    Mr. Healey: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman's latter point. As regards the money supply figures, he will recall that in the year to which I was referring, 1972 Q4 to 1973 Q4, investment was still falling under the previous Conservative Administration. Growth came to a total halt in the middle of that year.
    Mr. Nott: As the right hon. Gentleman has laid all his stress on the M3 figures, will he undertake to concentrate entirely on M3 during the course of the next year as being the only real indicator of the money supply?
    Mr. Healey: No, I shall publish both figures. I have made them clear this afternoon. The hon. Gentleman will know that there is great dispute among theologians who profess the theory of monetarism as to which is the best indicator. The United States Administration takes the view that the M1 is the better indicator.
    Mr. Batesasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the growth of the money supply on the M3 definition in the last full year for which figures are available.
    Mr. Denis Healey: Over the 12 months to mid-December 1975 M3 rose by 7·9 per cent. seasonally adjusted.
    Mr. Bates: Is not my right hon. Friend's careful handling of money supply one of the most optimistic features for the future continued decrease in the rate of inflation? Is it not typical that Opposition Members, having called for such a policy, do not now seek to applaud it? Will my right hon. Friend reiterate his view that it is not necessary to make public expenditure cuts?
    Mr. Healey: I am always grateful for support from my hon. Friends, or indeed from any part of the House. I used to have support on these matters from prominent Opposition Front Bench spokesmen. I ask the House to recognise—I apologise, Mr. Speaker, for answering at this length; I have your rebuke very much in mind—that people tend to
    1398
    exaggerate the importance of the money supply. I think it is important to keep the matter under control and I have done so. However, I do not think that that aspect is as important as many hon. Members believe.
    Mr. Alan Clark: Does the Chancellor agree that the principal objection levelled against following a so-called monetarist policy was that it would lead to a million or more unemployed? Is it not a curious and dangerous paradox that the moment our unemployment figures rise, the right hon. Gentleman suddenly discovers this new technique of financial probity which is to be imposed on top of our other economic stresses?
    Mr. Healey: I cannot fully track the intricacies of the hon. Gentleman's argument. The fact is that I started to control money supply the moment I came to office two years ago. The country that uses money supply control as a main instrument of policy is the United States. There unemployment is very much higher than it is in Britain and, according to official forecasts, will remain higher than in this country for the next five years.

    Value Added Tax
    Mr. Loydenasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what revenue has accrued from VAT on television repairs and maintenance during the last six months.
    Mr. Robert Sheldon: I regret the information is not available.
    Mr. Leyden: Does my hon. Friend agree that this rate of tax has an adverse effect upon low income groups, and especially pensioners, in the maintenance of television sets and other electrical goods? Does he agree that it has had an indirect effect upon the television tube industry? Is it not now about time the tax was reviewed so as to relieve that area?
    Mr. Sheldon: I do not see the connection between the television tabe industry and VAT on television repairs and maintenance. I understand my hon. Friend's natural concern about those with limited means who have to get such repairs carried out. My hon. Friend must be aware that this situation is inherent in the application of VAT to all goods.

    1399
    There can be no distinction between VAT charged on goods and VAT charged on repairs and maintenance. Very often one is a substitute for the other.
    Mr. Marten: Will the hon. Gentleman reconsider what he has just said, as it does not make much sense? Will he further consider the 25 per cent. VAT charged on the maintenance of electrical goods? It is a high rate and it encourages people to carry out their own repairs on electrical goods, which is often highly dangerous. I should not like to think that the hon. Gentleman was responsible for the death of anyone by electric shock.
    Mr. Sheldon: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's concern. This is an argument that we explored in some detail in the Finance Bill debates last year. I have waited since then—it has been almost a year—for further evidence about the problems to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. I am pleased to say that I have not seen any evidence about accidents of the kind that the hon. Gentleman is asserting.
    Mr. Dempsey: Will my right hon. Friend agree that a washing machine is not a luxury but an indis"ensable piece of equipment?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's difficulty, but the Question concerns television repairs. If the Minister wandered into the realm of washing machines, he should not have done so.
    Mr. Dempsey: Will my hon. Friend agree that as a television set, for example, is a desirable part of household entertainment and education, so washing machines are of equal value in another context? Why should they be so bard hit by VAT?
    Mr. Sheldon: I shall go as far as to say that both articles are desirable. In view of what you have just said, Mr. Speaker, I do not think I should say any more than that.
    Mr. David Howell: Does the hon. Gentleman have an estimate of the number of people thrown out of work by the high rate of VAT that is applied to what he himself calls socially less desirable goods?
    Mr. Sheldon: No. Let me take this opportunity to correct what was said in an earlier debate—namely, that 20,000 jobs were at stake. I think that there is a little confusion in that the figure of 20,000 was the result of the demana effects of the whole of the Budget of last year. If the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Nott) cares to go into this matter in a little more detail, I think that he will find that my statement is correct.
    Mr. Edwin Wainwrightasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in view of the recent drop in the home market of the purchasing of home produced electric hair-dryers and toasters, he will now reduce the VAT down to 8 per cent. on such goods.
    Mr. Robert Sheldon: I cannot anticipate my right hon. Friend's Budget Statement.
    Mr. Wainwright: That is the usual statement, Mr. Speaker. May I impress upon my hon. Friend—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. No. This is a time to receive information. Impressions can be left until later.
    Mr. Wainwright: When my hon. Friend studies the effects of the Budget, will he take into account that the Hotpoint factory in my constituency is on very short time? Will my hon. Friend do something to ensure that demand increases for these necessary household goods? Or does he want the British people to dry their hair before an open fire and to toast their bread on a toasting fork as of old?
    Mr. Sheldon: My hon. Friend knows that I shall be happy to take into account everything that he asks me to take into account, especially regarding his constituents. [HON. MEMBERS: "0h."] I would say the same for almost any hon. Member. My hon. Friend must remember that the 25 per cent. rate of VAT cannot be held responsible for the fall in demand for electric hair driers and toasters. I am extremely concerned about the large number of imports of these items, for they show that demand is certainly holding up, and that cannot be laid at the door of VAT.
    Mr. Wyn Roberts: Is the Minister fully aware of the extent to which we

    1401
    are faced with foreign competition in the domestic appliance industry? Is he aware that these are low-priced imports and that the 25 per cent. VAT discrimnates against the home-produced high quality product?
    Mr. Sheldon: As the hon. Gentleman knows, VAT was introduced as a broad-based tax without discrimination. It is a tax that I reluctantly inherited. It is not a tax that I should have thought was ideal for any of the hon. Gentleman's purposes. My task is to administer, however reluctantly, the rather inadequate tax that we have. However, the domestic electrical appliance industry will be very much advantaged by the removal of the hire-purchase and credit restrictions. Indeed, this action has been well received by the industry as a whole.
    Mr. Michael McGuire: Will not my hon. Friend agree that although there are other factors that have led to the extenguishing of the Thorn factory in my constituency, the 25 per cent. VAT rate has crippled the industry? Will my hon. Friend further agree that the Treasury needs to think out more deeply the effects of a 25 per cent. VAT rate? Will he take on board the electrical appliance industry's plea that if it is to survive the rate must be substantially reduced?
    Mr. Sheldon: I read the Adjournment debate which my hon. Friend initiated on this subject. He will recall from that debate that there were a large number of other factors involved, notably the failure of the industry to take account of the particular demands that were then in evidence. I understand the important point which he has subsequently raised. Following the monitoring exercise which I mentioned earlier and which I should be receiving within the next few days, all these matters will be available for consideration before the Budget judgment is determined.
    Mr. Hannam: Does the Minister agree that, if the object of multi-rate VAT is to increase revenue and if the result is unemployment in and the breakdown of those industries affected, he is achieving the worst of both worlds?
    Mr. Sheldon: I do not accept the lion. Gentleman's premise. The higher rate of VAT was a straightforward measure to increase the revenue at a very difficult time when all sources of revenue needed
    1402
    to be considered. It has been extremely successful in that respect and has involved a small number of civil servants. As far as other matters are concerned, we shall await the results of the monitoring exercise.
    Mr. Torney: Is the Minister aware that the Thorn electronics factory in my constituency has already suffered considerable redundancies and more redundancies are feared? If my hon. Friend could see his way clear to reduce the 25 per cent. VAT rate to 8 per cent. On coloured television sets it would make a considerable difference to the employment situation in Bradford.
    Mr. Sheldon: I understand the problems of the hon. Gentleman's constituency. Unemployment problems are very serious. My hon. Friend will be aware that the major problem for that industry arose with the reflation which occurred in 1972 and which produced an enormous demand for television sets, a demand which could not be met by production. Consequently there was a massive inflow of imports which established a firm footing. In my view, that is the most important and most serious problem of all.
    Mr. Farr: What evidence does the Minister have that many foreign imports are being dumped here below the cost of manufacture?
    Mr. Sheldon: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade is always anxious to have details of dumping. However, the hon. Gentleman will be aware from the comments and debates on this subject that no allegations have been sufficiently well proved for my right hon. Friend to take the type of action that he would be only too happy to take were the evidence available.
    Mr. Michael Marshallasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what revenue is available to the Treasury as a result of the imposition of 25 per cent. VAT on galvanised straining eye bolts.
    Mr. Robert Sheldon: None. These items remain chargeable at the 8 per cent. standard rate of VAT.
    Mr. Marshall: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that under pending legislation these items will be charged at 25 per cent.

    1403
    whether or not they are provided free of charge and whether or not they are purchased from a hardware store and handed over to the boatbuilder? I believe that Section 18(4) of the Finance (No. 2) Act 1975 is applicable. If that is so, it demonstrates that the Government have a total lack of understanding of the problems of the boat-building industry and the evils of multi-rate VAT.
    Mr. Sheldon: As I have said, the items remain chargeable at the 8 per cent. standard rate of VAT. If the hon. Gentleman has any information from constituents who may have been overcharged, I shall be happy to look into the matter.
    Mr. Wrigglesworth: Will my hon. Friend enlighten the House by telling us what galvanised straining eye bolts are?
    Mr. Sheldon: They are items that have wide industrial use and application. They are used in the boat-building industry and elsewhere.
    Mr. Adley: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the boat-building industry is especially hard-hit by the anomalies of this tax? Will he give an assurance that when he reviews multi-rate VAT he will take account of the reduction in employment in many industries, a reduction which can be traced directly to the increase of VAT on many items to 25 per cent.?
    Mr. Sheldon: The hon. Gentleman will know that, following last year's Budget, I set in train a monitoring exercise for certain aspects of VAT. The report of that exercise will be coming to me within the next few days. It will obviously be considered before the Budget is decided.

    Income Tax (Higher Incomes)
    Mr. David Mitchellasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will bring forward legislation to reduce the rate of income tax on higher incomes so as to bring down the rate of emigration from the United Kingdom of able and revenue-producing citizens.
    Mr. Robert Sheldon: The hon. Gentleman will not expect me to anticipate my right hon. Friend's Budget proposals.
    Mr. Mitchell: Will the hon. Gentleman give the House an indication of the
    1404
    revenue lost as a result of people leaving Great Britain because of excessive taxation?
    Mr. Sheldon: It is very hard to give details of the increase in revenue that is obtained by taxing those who have very high earnings and who decide to stay here. We are grateful for the Diamond Report, which shows that it is unlikely that many higher income earners emigrate from the United Kingdom. That is a finding that will illuminate all our debates on the subject.
    Mr. Ronald Atkins: Would it not be better for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to devote any available resources to the lower end of the income scale, especially to old people in need of fuel, thereby reducing their rate of emigration to the Kingdom of the Almighty above?
    Mr. Sheldon: There we have it. There is the voice of those who rightly say that certain advantages claimed for higher earners should be considered in the light of those who are less well-off. What we are trying to achieve—I think that we are being successful—is a fair balance between the competing claims.

    Retirement Pensioners (Part-time Earnings)
    Mr. Molloyasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will seek to exempt from tax part-time earnings by retirement pensioners.
    Mr. Robert Sheldon: The age allowance already provides a measure of tax exemption for pensioners over the age of 65 who supplement their State retirement pension with small earnings. I do do not think it would be fair to other taxpayers to go further in the direction which my hon. Friend suggests.
    Mr. Molloy: Is my hon. Friend aware that those who now receive old-age pensions stood by the nation in strenuous and difficult times and gave no thought to emigrating because they were not making enough money? Is it not now time for their earnings to be uplifted? If he cannot end the rule completely, will he raise its ceiling so that we can give as much consideration to pensioners as we do to inefficient capitalist entrepreneurs?
    Mr. Sheldon: I share my hon. Friend's concern for retirement pensioners and I appreciate their contribution to the nation. It is fully recognised by the fact that elderly people have a considerably higher tax starting point then do young people—almost 50 per cent. higher in the case of married old-age pensioners and more than 40 per cent. higher for single persons. This takes account of their special needs, which will always be in the forefront of our minds.
    Mr. Ridsdale: Is the Minister aware that one of my constituents aged 70, a serving servant of this House, received in overtime £40 gross two weeks ago but earned in total a net sum of £10? Is that not an absurd situation and will he examine it?
    Mr. SheldonThere must be a number of special factors relating to a tax bill of that kind. It does not appear to be consistent with the income such a person would expect to have. If there are any problems which the hon. Gentleman would like me to examine in regard to that constituent or anybody else, I shall be happy to do so.

    International Monetary Fund (Conference)
    Mr. Canavanasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he proposes to make any changes in the policies of his Department as a result of his attendance at the International Monetary Fund conference on 12th January.
    Mr. Denis Healey: As I told the House on 12th January, the outcome of the meeting was very satisfactory. I do not anticipate that any changes in my economic or financial policies will be necessary as a result of the meeting. A Bill will, in due course, be submitted to the House to implement the increase in our subscription to the IMF and to ratify amendments to the IMF's Articles of Agreement.
    Mr. Canavan: Does my right hon. Friend remember that in his letter of 18th December to the IMF he referred to the Government's policy of increased economic growth and a reduction in unemployment? Do not the bureaucrats in the Treasury realise that we have 1½ million unemployed? Would it not be a
    1406
    good idea to use some of our increased borrowing rights to create jobs by channelling investment into industry through the National Enterprise Board and the Scottish and Welsh Development Agencies?
    Mr. Healey: My hon. Friend should know that the unemployment figure of 1½ million—I think he meant nearly 1½ million—was due to the presence on the register of over 100,000 students, all of whom have now returned to college. Therefore, as I said last week, the figure is now nothing like as high as he suggested. Seasonally corrected, the figure is 1,200,000. The right hon. Lady the Leader of the Opposition is president of a body that put the figure at 800,000, ridiculously lower than the true figure.
    I am deeply conscious of the level of unemployment and of the fact that it is still rising. However, it would have been very much higher had the Government not been prepared to accept a large public sector borrowing requirement this year. I shall be announcing to the House in a week's time a series of measures to try to bring down the rate of increase in unemployment in the immediate future.
    Mr. Lawson: To what does the right hon. Gentleman attribute the fact that over the past year unemployment in the United Kingdom has risen by about 85 per cent., whereas in the rest of the European Community it has risen by about 30 per cent.?
    Mr. Healey: I imagine that the situation in the rest of the European Community depends on averaging figures in the tiny countries and the larger countries.
    Mr. Lawson: No, that is not so.
    Mr. Healey: The level of unemployment as a percentage of employable people in Britain on the same calculation as is used in other countries is lower than in France and Italy, very much lower than in the United States, and about the same as that in Western Germany where in a single month there was an increase of 10 per cent.
    Mr. Hoyle: Does my right hon. Friend agree that married women are not included in the unemployment figures and should be added to them? Does he not agree that what is needed is something more extensive than the measures

    1407
    which he announced last week? Will he reconsider the imposition of import controls?
    Mr. Healey: I do not recall announcing any measures last week. I then said that I should be announcing a series of measures in the near future, and I shall be announcing them next Thursday. I also made clear that reflation of domestic demand, whether brought in by tax cuts, increases in public expenditure, or import controls, would have no effect on the unemployment figure this year. The risk is that we might repeat the tragic blunders made by the Conservative Administration when excessive reflation in 1971 and 1972 brought about a seizure of the whole economy in 1973, as is now recognised by the Opposition Front Bench.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that the request I made a little earlier also applies to the length of Ministers' answers.
    Mr. David Howell: As the level of unemployment is falling in every OECD country other than Belgium and the United Kingdom, should not the Chancellor of the Exchequer correct the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) and avoid misleading the House and the country about figures, which at times he is rather inclined to do?
    Mr. Healey: Characteristically, the hon. Gentleman is attempting to confuse the House. The hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) referred to the rate of increase in the past year. The hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) is talking about what is happening at present. In Germany, the rate of unemployment is increasing; there are some signs that it is also increasing in France. It is our objective to bring down the rate of unemployment as fast as possible and on current policies we look like doing so at least as successfully as other major European countries.

    PRIME MINISTER (VISITS)
    Mr. Townsendasked the Prime Minister when he next intends to visit the east coast of Scotland.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): I have at present no plans to
    1408
    do so, Sir, although as the House knows I have arranged a series of meetings on industrial problems in Scotland in the spring.
    Mr. Townsend: When the Prime Minister next decides to visit the east coast of Scotland will he take a personal interest in the defence plans for Britain's vital and vulnerable North Sea oil/gas platforms, because those plans have been criticised by numerous independent defence experts? Will he try to achieve better co-ordination between the numerous Government Departments, the four separate police authorities and the commercial operators involved? Secondly—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. It is not fair to other hon. Members if the hon. Gentleman puts half a dozen supplementary questions.
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman has raised an important point. As he will know, the Government's policy on measures for the peacetime protection of our offshore oil interests was announced in the House on 11th February 1975 by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence. During subsequent debates there have been further additions to the information already available to the House. New Royal Navy ships will begin to enter service and a number of other protection methods are being added. It is of course the fact that the Home Secretary—in Scotland the Secretary of State for Scotland—is responsible for dealing with onshore terrorism, but I think the hon. Gentleman will find that the offshore position has been fully explained by my right hon. Friend.
    Mr. Gordon Wilson: Will the Prime Minister bear in mind when he eventually makes a visit to the east coast of Scotland that, because of the Government's economic failure, expenditure on the social services, old folks homes, home helps and other services of that sort has been savagely cut back in the Tayside region? Will he further bear in mind that, because of the temperature differences in Scotland compared with the South-East of England, in Scotland it costs 14 per cent. more to heat houses to the temperature level of houses in the South-East? What will he do about dealing with that situation?
    The Prime Minister: These questions are very much in the mind of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I do not accept at all what the hon. Gentleman has said about the cutback in the social services in the Tayside region, because since this Government came into office there has been a substantial increase. We have had to rein back further increases. However, in view of the proclivity of the Scottish National Party to vote with the Conservatives, who want to cut back the social services by several billion pounds, I think the hon. Gentleman might study his own record in this matter.
    Dr. M. S. Miller: When my right hon. Friend visits the east coast of Scotland will he also take his official car to the west coast of Scotland and visit the constituency and town of East Kilbride? I am sure that he will receive a very warm welcome in that town, which nurtured William and John Hunter, who contributed so much to medicine and—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. This is all very interesting and I am willing to learn, but this is Question Time.
    Dr. Miller: With all due respect, Mr. Speaker, I should like my right hon. Friend to visit the town—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Let the hon. Gentleman now ask a Question.
    Dr. Miller: The question is: will my right hon. Friend visit the town of East Kilbride?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. My hon. Friend knows that I have done so very many times. It does not strictly arise from the Question, because even I know that East Kilbride is not on the east coast of Scotland, but it arises perhaps out of my Answer. I said that I had
    "arranged a series of meetings on industrial problems in Scotland in the spring",
    and they will be principally in West Scotland.

    CHANCELLOR OF THE FEDERAL GERMAN REPUBLIC
    Mr. Arnold Shawasked the Prime Minister what plans he has to meet the Chancellor of the Federal German Republic.
    The Prime Minister: I have invited the Chancellor to talks at Chequers on 7th February, Sir.
    Mr. Shaw: As France at this time is so firmly committed to one side of the Arab-Israeli dispute, when he meets Herr Schmidt will the Prime Minister endeavour to secure his co-operation within the EEC for an even-handed commitment concerning the Middle East?
    The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary and I have repeatedly had the opportunity of discussing with the Heads of Government and the Council of Ministers matters concerning the Middle East. Regrettably, there have been differences when these matters have come up—for example, at the United Nations. We have done our best consistently to work for a joint contribution by the Nine in the search for a just settlement in the Middle East. I shall be surprised if we do not discuss this matter on Saturday as we have on previous occasions when I have met the Federal German Chancellor.
    Mr. Jasper More: When the Prime Minister meets the German Chancellor, will he draw his attention to the recently reported statement of the Belgian Defence Minister—that Western European countries must either do more about their own defence or risk losing American protection? Will he assure the German Chancellor that the United Kingdom Government will increase rather than reduce defence expenditure?
    The Prime Minister: I have not said that we will increase defence expenditure. This comes badly from a party pressing for thousands of millions of pounds of cuts at this time. I have told the House—the Federal German Chancellor is well aware of what is said in this House—that any reductions, any economies, will not fall on our contribution to the teeth element in NATO.
    Mr. Roy Hughes: Would it not be more appropriate for the Prime Minister to visit Italy, bearing in mind that that founder member of the Common Market is now nearly bankrupt in both financial and leadership terms? If the—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. How on earth the hon. Member links that question with the Chancellor of the Federal German Republic I do not know.
    Mr. Hughes: I shall try.
    Mr. Speaker: If we are to wander all round the globe on a specific subject, the House will get nowhere.
    Mr. Hughes: I was about to suggest that if we further integrate our economy with that organisation, we could eventually suffer the same fate.
    The Prime Minister: At least my hon. Friend, unlike the chunnerers opposite, will note the significant improvement in economic prospects announced by the CBI and the Financial Times as well as by other indices. If I am to meet the Federal German Chancellor on 7th February, I cannot be in Italy at the same time. Neverthless, as I have made clear, there are plans for a meeting of the so-called European Summit—the European Council—in Luxembourg at the end of April.
    Mr. Amery: Will the Prime Minister explain to the German Chancellor that the recent attack by a British official, Ambassador Ivor Richard, on a retired American official, Ambassador Mr. Moynihan, was unprecedented, regrettable and will not be repeated? Will he also explain to the Chancellor that our German Allies need not fear that their representatives will be treated with such a gross lack of diplomatic propriety at any time?
    The Prime Minister: The Federal German Chancellor has no responsibility for what might have been said by Mr. Moynihan or by Her Majesty's Ambassador at the United Nations. I certainly intend to give no explanation of these matters to the Federal German Chancellor. Our Ambassador was entitled to say what he did in this matter. Obviously we all appreciate the frankest possible speaking at the United Nations and elsewhere, but it is not necessarily my view that that kind of speaking is good for either the Western Alliance or the United Nations.

    TUC
    Mr. Skinnerasked the Prime Minister when he last met the TUC; and if he will make a statement.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave him on 25th November, Sir.
    Mr. Skinner: Will my right hon. Friend remind the TUC that he is currently leading an army of 1½ million unemployed workers which is costing £1 billion in unemployment and related benefits and another £1 billion in lost tax? Will he take its half muted advice to impose import controls on a wide range of goods and direct investment to stop this degradation of 1½ million workers?
    The Prime Minister: The TUC, when it meets myself or my right hon. Friends, is always capable of briefing itself and of deciding what it will say to us. I am sure that if my hon. Friend sent the TUC any supplementary briefs, it would consider them very carefully, though it might want him to get his figures right the first time round.
    My hon. Friend will be aware that the TUC is repeatedly on record as being against any general system of import controls of the kind proposed several times by him both in the House and outside.
    Mrs. Thatcher: Will the Prime Minister discuss with the TUC the enormous increase in the amount of tax taken out of the pay packet by this Government? Is he aware that this year the average household in Britain will pay £335 more in income tax than in 1974? Is not this the intolerable cost of Socialism?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Lady will know that these figures have been referred to by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer both inside and outside the House and that he has expressed his anxiety and even given some hints as to his intentions in these matters. However, she will know that the figures she quotes would have to be much increased if we increased defence expenditure by £4·8 billion, as she has been advocating. There would also be a further very big increase if this Government were to fulfil the frivolous election promises which she made in 1974 regarding mortgages.
    Mr. Duffy: Has the Prime Minister noticed that the indications that the Government are getting inflation more under control continue to strengthen business confidence and that this revival in optimism is due not only to a feeling that the recession is bottoming out, but as this

    1413
    week's Financial Times survey of business forecasts points out, to the more favourable response of the trade unions to the economic situation, a response of which we have just been given an indication?
    The Prime Minister: In an earlier answer I referred to both the CBI and the Financal Times monthly survey being the most optimistic since the middle of 1973 when the Conservative Government were in charge. They also confirm absolutely what the Opposition always deny—that the sheer fall in production, productivity, turnover, profitability and capital investment began in the summer of 1973, which was even before increased oil prices and the three-day week. That destroys the whole of their argument.
    Mrs. Winifred Ewing: In any discussions with the TUC will the Prime Minister give high priority to the growth of unemployment among the young as reported in an EEC Commission Report published yesterday, which shows that in Britain 35 per cent. of the unemployed are between 15 and 25 years of age?
    The Prime Minister: We are all concerned about the percentage of the young unemployed. In Scotland, where there is a different school-leaving pattern from that south of the border, it is particularly acute. The hon. Lady will be aware of the proposals and the decisions announced and now put into effect by my right hon. Friends the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for Employment at the turn of the year about help specifically for school-leavers.
    Mr. Atkinson: Does my right hon. Friend recollect that the last time he met TUC leaders to discuss general economic matters he assured them that resources would be made available for the manufacture of capital goods for stock? Will he reflect on the debate on unemployment when the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that there was a continuing argument with the EEC Commissioners about whether Britain would be allowed to do that? Therefore, will he announce to the House his determination to ensure that these resources will be made available in line with his promise?
    The Prime Minister: The Chancellor of the Exchequer has informed the House of his intention to do more in regard to
    1414
    taking stocks off the market. He has indicated that he will make a further announcement in the very near future about further action—not on the basis of a general, wild reflation, but on relevant measures to help with employment—and I had better not anticipate anything he may say.

FALKLAND ISLANDS (RRS "SHACKLETON")
Mr. Tugendhat Mr. Tugendhat (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on the attack on a British vessel by the Argentine destroyer.
The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Edward Rowlands): At 12.30 GMT on 4th February, an Argentine destroyer, the "Almirante Storni", fired shots across the bows of the Royal Research Ship "Shackleton". The Argentine destroyer threatened to fire into the hull of the "Shackleton" if she did not heave to. Subsequently the destroyer ordered the "Shackleton" to proceed to the port of Ushuaia near Cape Horn. The Governor of the Falkland Islands instructed the captain to continue steaming towards Port Stanley, which he did and arrived at 20.45 GMT.
The incident took place 78 miles south of Cape Pembroke as "Shackleton" was returning from a period of scientific work in the South-West Atlantic under an international programme.
On learning of the incident, my right hon. Friend immediately instructed the chargé d'affaires at Buenos Aires to deliver the strongest protest to the Argentine Government and to request that the Argentine destroyer immediately be ordered to stop harassing the "Shackle-ton". I also protested to the Argentine chargé here in equally vigorous terms. The Argentine Government have been left in no doubt of the serious view we take of this incident.
Mr. Tugendhat: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that we are very worried about the position of the Falkland Islanders, who are almost entirely dependent on the Argentine for their external communications and wholly so for their air communications? Can he confirm that there

1415
are only 37 Royal Marines on the islands and that the only naval vessel there is HMS "Endurance"? While we do not wish to exacerbate the situation in the Argentine, is the hon. Member not aware that in these circumstances a display of weakness is likely to precipitate precisely the kind of crisis we wish to avoid? Does he think that it would be appropriate to strengthen the garrison and the naval presence in the Falkland Islands? Can he also assure us that it is not the Government's intention, as has been reported in the Press, to withdraw HMS "Endurance" in March?
Mr. Rowlands: I have made very clear to the Argentine Government that we do not expect a repetition of this incident and that any further incidents will call into question the basis of our commercial and political relationship. I am sure the House will not expect me to think aloud about action we might have to take in the light of further incidents. I can confirm that there are 37 Royal Marines on the island. HMS "Endurance" is in Port Stanley and her helicopters proved useful in reconnaisance work in yesterday's incident. We shall obviously consider what further action is required in the light of developments and the response to our demands from the Argentine Government.
Mr. Conlan: Does my hon. Friend recognise that this is the second provocative action by the Argentine in a matter of weeks and that the Islanders will be extremely worried about the situation? Does he agree that it is far better to play it cool in this situation in order to remove the obvious anxieties and tensions that exist? Will he ask the Foreign Secretary to have discussions with his counterpart in Buenos Aires in order to cool the situation?
Mr. Rowlands: We shall do everything possible to cool the situation because, like my hon. Friend, we appreciate the worries and concern of the Islanders. I am not quite sure what our next course of action should be or what steps my right hon. Friend should take, especially in view of the fact that we have no ambassador in Buenos Aires and the Argentine does not have an ambassador here. However, we shall take every possible diplomatic initiative to cool the situation.
Mr. Thorpe: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that as the Falkland Islanders wish to remain under the sovereignty of this country, we realise and accept all the responsibilities and liabilities that that carries with it? When the hon. Gentleman saw the Argentine chargé d'affaires, was he given any explanation or attempted justification for their action?
Mr. Rowlands: We are conscious of our responsibilities to the Islanders, as previous Governments have been. The chargé d'affaires did not give me an explanation when I saw him last night. They have served a note upon us saying that they claim the waters for 200 miles around the Falkland Islands as part of their claim for the Islands and dependencies themselves.
Mr. Hooley: While an attack on an unarmed vessel like the "Shackleton" is clearly indefensible, does my hon. Friend not realise that, as long as we continue to hold on to 19th century colonies all round the globe, we shall get into this kind of complication?
Mr. Rowlands: The position of the Government is very clear. We respect the wishes of the Falkland Islanders.
Mr. Luce: As it is Britain's primary responsibility to protect the interests of the Islanders, can the hon. Gentleman give us an assurance that the Government will not scrap HMS "Endurance" in the defence review, as has been suggested in some quarters? Will the Government also use their influence with those Latin American Governments with whom we have close and important ties to urge them to press the Argentine Government to stop bullying the Islanders?
Mr. Rowlands: No decision has been taken to scrap HMS "Endurance", which is in Port Stanley at the moment. Of course we shall take every diplomatic opportunity to make representations and to ensure that the views, feelings and wishes of the Islanders are understood throughout Latin America.
Mr. Farr: This incident has highlighted how important it is to have an effective naval presence in that part of the world, so can the hon. Gentleman assure us that if HMS "Endurance" is not to be scrapped, it will be maintained

1417
in service at that station, which is of growing strategic importance?
Mr. Rowlands: In present circumstances, the presence of HMS "Endurance" is obviously important to allay the anxieties and fears of the Islanders. Everyone will recognise and acknowledge the difficulty of a complete naval presence in waters so many thousands of miles from home. We shall clearly take into account all factors when looking at the future naval disposition in the area.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mrs. Thatcher: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will state the business for next week?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Edward Short): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 9TH FEBRUARY—Consideration of Private Members' motions, until seven o'clock.
Afterwards, motion on the Select Committee on Abortion.
Motions relating to Community Land Orders and the Landlord and Tenant Regulations.
TUESDAY 10TH FEBRUARY—Second Reading of the Dock Work Regulation Bill.
WEDNESDAY 11TH FEBRUARY—Supply [8th Allotted Day]: There will be a debate on the Government's guidelines on State investment in the motor industry, which will arise on a motion to reduce the salary of the Secretary of State for Industry.
At seven o'clock, the Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed Private Business for consideration.
THURSDAY 12TH FEBRUARY—Second Reading of the Water Charges Bill.
Motion on EEC Documents on Agriculture.
FRIDAY 13TH FEBRUARY—Private Members' Bills.
MONDAY 16TH FEBRUARY—Second Reading of the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Bill [Lords] and of the Road Traffic (Drivers' Ages and Hours of Work) Bill [Lords].
Mrs. Thatcher: As I understand from Treasury answers this afternoon that we are to have a statement from the Chancellor of the Exchequer on Thursday but that the Budget is not to be until 6th April, can the Leader of the House assure us that we shall have one or two days to debate economic and public expenditure matters before the Budget? As fishing matters are now becoming very urgent, can he promise us a day soon to debate this very serious topic?
Mr. Short: On the last point, I said last week that I would bear this in mind and see whether anything could be done. In my reply to the first question from the right hon. Lady last week, I said that in view of the date of the White Paper on expenditure and the date of the Budget, which has been announced, it would be reasonable to have a debate on public expenditure between the two. We missed that opportunity last year, but the gap between the two is longer this time.
Mr. James Johnson: May I ask my right hon. Friend to give favourable consideration to the request last week by the Leader of the Opposition for a fisheries debate? Is he aware that at least three completely new and mortal dangers are facing the industry compared with the situation which existed the last time there was an Icelandic dispute? There is the financial crisis, the question of the 200-mile limit, and, even more important, the common fisheries policy.
Mr. Short: I note my hon. Friend's concern about this issue, which is shared by many hon. Members, and I shall bear the point in mind. Of course, by far the greater proportion of the days available for general debate are in the hands of the Opposition, and it would be an appropriate subject for a Supply Day debate.
Mr. Cyril Smith: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the exchanges that have been taking place in Private Business during the last two days between myself and the Government Deputy Chief Whip concerning the appointment of Members to the Committee of Selection? Is he also aware that those exchanges are likely to continue unless we and the other minor opposition parties are given the opportunity to have a seat on that Committee? The Committee directly affects

1419
each of our members. Will the Leader of the House make a statement about this and possibly consider having a debate on the matter next week—unless, that is, he can give us an assurance that the Government will suggest that the membership of the Committee might be increased?
Mr. Short: I have taken a very great interest in the exchanges that have gone on, but this, of course, is Private Business which comes up at the beginning of business each day. I shall continue to watch the position with interest.
Mr. Greville Janner: When does my right hon. Friend intend to provide the promised time to introduce the Bill to make compulsory the wearing of seat belts?
Mr. Short: I assure my hon. and learned Friend that I have not forgotten the Bill. Indeed, I would not be allowed to. When there is a gap in the timetable I shall put it down again for Second Reading.
Mr. Maurice Macmillan: The Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs appears to regard as irrelevant for discussion by the Council of European Ministers such matters as Soviet breaches of the Helsinki Agreement, Soviet intervention in Angola and the potential threat to the security of supply of our raw materials. Will the Leader of the House therefore give some indication that the Government recognise the seriousness of these matters by arranging for an early debate on them, and particularly that the debate should take place before the Budget? In that way they might recognise the economic as well as the political importance of what is going on.
Mr. Short: I replied to a number of questions on this subject last week. I pointed out that the Leader of the Opposition had generated the controversy in this respect and—
Mr. Macmillan: That is not true.
Mr. Short: I suggest therefore that she uses one of her days for such a debate. There is a debate on Monday on a Private Member's motion which I suppose will go until seven o'clock. It is on foreign policy and morality, and it would seem to be the appropriate
1420
occasion on which to raise questions of this kind.
Mr. Henderson: Does the Leader of the House recall that three weeks ago in replying to a question I put to him he promised to arrange for a debate on the steel industry as soon as possible? In view of the developments since then which affect the livelihood of people in the industry, will he give some indication when "as soon as possible" will be?
Mr. Short: The hon. Gentleman never allows me to forget what I say. I said that I would bear this matter in mind. A borrowing powers Bill will be coming along at some time and that will be the occasion for a debate on the steel industry. I note the concern of many hon. Members on this matter, and I shall bear that in mind.
Mr. Kinnock: When shall we have a chance soon to debate and make a final decision about radio broadcasting of the proceedings of the House?
Mr. Short: I am pleased to tell my hon. Friend that the report will be coming from the Services Committee in the very near future. I shall certainly put it on the Order Paper and arrange a short debate at the earliest possible moment.
Mr. John Davies: Has the right hon. Gentleman noticed the report of the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs yesterday on the subject of future business for the Council of Ministers? If he has, he will have noticed the extraordinary concentration of subjects dealing with energy, all of which are of fundamental importance. As there has not been one of the six promised days this Session for a debate on European matters, would it not be appropriate to devote one such day to consideration of energy matters as they affect the Common Market?
Mr. Short: I realise the importance of this subject and I shall do the best I can about it. The House will spend the greater part of one day next week dealing with EEC matters.
This aspect of our business was discussed on Monday in the debate on procedure. It gives rise to complications. I have noticed the right hon. Gentleman's motion on the Order Paper. [That this House deplores the inadequacy of consideration of important EEC

1421
measures, both in Standing Committee and on the Floor of the House; and calls upon the Government, as a matter of urgency, to improve the timing, form and nature of such debates.]
It is easy to put such a motion down, but much more difficult to find time to discuss such matters. He has tabled a very criticial motion, but he has made no suggestion about how to find the additional time. This was one of the purposes of Monday's debate. I hope that it will be one of the matters dealt with by the Committee of Inquiry into Procedure and Practice. The right hon. Gentleman has raised an important question and I shall do the best I can to arrange a debate.
Mr. Heffer: The House quite rightly has found time to debate devolution and economic problems in Scotland and Wales, even though there are Committees which could deal with these matters. We have a Standing Committee on Regional Affairs which tends to lead to subjects being displaced from the Floor of the House. Will my right hon. Friend consider having a debate at the earliest possible moment on regional matters, economic and otherwise, in the North and the North-West? These regions are suffering very high levels of unemployment.
Mr. Short: I cannot promise such a debate in the very near future. It is generally agreed that the Regional Committee has permitted a great many more regional debates to take place. I believe that it debated the North-West only recently—
Mr. Heffer: It is a talking shop.
Mr. Short: If the Committee is a talking shop, the House is, too.
Mr. Kershaw: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been drawn to Early-Day Motion No. 69 standing in the name of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook) to which an amendment has been tabled?
[That this House regrets the decision of Her Majesty's Government to increase fees for overseas students attending British universities and colleges; recognises that this will provide only a derisory increase in net revenue, but will cause serious hardship, particularly to students from developing countries and students in mid?
1422
course; notes that other European countries admit a higher number of overseas students and yet charge them no discriminatory tuition fees; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to take positive action to end the discrimination against overseas students.]
The motion deals with fees paid by overseas students. In view of the deep differences which exist on this important matter, will the right hon. Gentleman give time for a debate before long?
Mr. Short: I cannot offer time for a debate but, as I have said, I am proposing to have a debate on the White Paper on Public Expenditure between publication of the White Paper and the Budget. That would be an appropriate occasion on which to raise this matter.
Mr. Hardy: Does my right hon. Friend recall that last Friday a motion standing in my name on the subject of steel was not reached, largely because of repetitive contributions by Opposition Members—and that did not include the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Henderson)? Many of my hon. Friends are extremely concerned about the steel industry. May we have an assurance that the borrowing powers Bill will be before the House within a reasonable time?
Mr. Short: I realise the importance that my hon. Friend attaches to this matter. I have discussed it with him. I cannot say when the Bill will appear. It will certainly be before Easter. I shall do my best to make it as soon as possible so that we may have a debate on this important subject.
Mr. Peyton: I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's forthcoming words to my right hon. Friend the Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies) at the conclusion of his remarks in reply to the question about a European debate. May I take him back to the question of debates on economic affairs? Am I to understand that there is to be a debate first on the Chancellor of the Exchequer's statement which is expected on Thursday? Secondly, may we have a clear assurance that we shall have a debate on public expenditure at a decent interval before the Budget?
Mr. Short: I have already answered the right hon. Gentleman's last question

1423
twice this afternoon. On his first point, I cannot offer a debate next week on the Chancellor's package. I understand that it will not require any parliamentary action. The debate on public expenditure will not be long after that, and I would have thought that it was there-fore an opportunity to debate its proposals.
Mr. Peyton: Will the right hon. Gentleman take note that we should like to await the Chancellor's statement and then we should almost certainly want a debate on the subject?
Mr. Short: That is fair enough. I think that the sensible thing to do is to await the Chancellor's statement. The right hon. Gentleman has a great many days in his pocket as well. Perhaps if we provide one day for public expenditure, he could also provide one.
Mr. Geraint Howells: Will the Leader of the House consider providing time for a debate on agriculture, in view of the latest estimates released by the Meat and Livestock Commission, which indicate that we shall be producing 17 per cent. less beef in this country in 1976 and 7 per cent. less lamb?
Mr. Short: There is to be a debate on agriculture and EEC matters next week.
Dr. Edmund Marshall: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the Written Answer given to me on 3rd February by his right hon. Friend the Minister for Planning and Local Government, who expressed the hope that the Yorkshire and Humberside Regional Strategy Review would be debated by the Standing Committee on Regional Affairs? Will the Leader of the House ensure that this debate is held soon?
Mr. Short: I certainly realise the need to have a debate on this matter, and I shall arrange a debate on it. However, I think that we want a little time to allow hon. Members to study the Report rather more carefully.
Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: Will the Leader of the House arrange to put down a motion next week to set up a Select Committee on Procedure, bearing in mind what he said in the debate on Monday—that if there were matters requiring attention he would set up a Committee—
1424
and the reference that I have made to him, which your predecessor in the Chair, Mr. Speaker, said was a suitable matter to go to a Select Committee on Procedure?
Mr. Short: The hon. Gentleman has had correspondence with me about this matter. I shall certainly look at it. If there are matters to be referred to a Select Committee on Procedure, I shall propose setting up such a Committee.
Mr. Madden: Will my right hon. Friend say when the Secretary of State for Trade will make his promised statement on further measures designed to reduce the dumping of cheap foreign goods in Britain?
Mr. Short: No, Sir, but my right hon. Friend is on the Government Front Bench at present, and no doubt he has heard what my hon. Friend said on this occasion and last week and, I think, the previous week, too.
Mr. Boscawen: As the Government do not seem to be aware of the particularly grievous situation facing the construction and building industry in the South-West, will the Leader of the House allow a debate on this industry on the Floor of the House as early as possible?
Mr. Short: No, Sir. I cannot offer time in the near future, but this again would be a very suitable subject for any of the days that the Opposition have for general debates.
Mr. Rose: In view of the urgent problems highlighted by the Runnymede Trust and others, will my right hon. Friend say when the forthcoming Race Relations Bill will be introduced into the House, and will he give some sort of time scale for the fusion of the Race Relations Board with the Equal Opportunities Commission?
Mr. Short: That is part of the new arrangement under the Bill, but certainly the Bill will be introduced before Easter. I am sorry that I cannot give the precise date, but it will be before Easter.
Mr. Paul Dean: Does the Leader of the House recollect that the House passed a resolution last Friday calling for measures to alleviate the burdens on the self-employed and the small business? May I ask him on what day next week we can

1425
expect a statement from the Government with a view to implementing that resolution of the House?
Mr. Short: I have announced that there will be a statement on Thursday, when we shall announce our measures to alleviate the burdens on the unemployed. Certainly the Chancellor of the Exchequer will bear in mind the resolution that was passed last week.
Mr. Lipton: Will the House be given an opportunity of discussing the Report of the Services Committee which recommends the removal of Members' secretaries who are at present working in Westminster Hall to the Interview Floor, where they will never see daylight during working hours?
Mr. Short: As I understand it, this was approved a very long time ago, and the work is in hand now.
Mr. Tim Renton: The Lord President will be aware that in the debate on procedure on Monday a number of comments were passed on the public service. Will the Lord President find time for a debate in the House on the Civil Service—on its growth, its pay and pensions, and its relationship with Ministers?
Mr. Short: I cannot promise any time for that, but I notice that a Select Committee is about to carry out a study of the Civil Service.
Mr. Spriggs: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Regional Affairs Committee, to which he referred earlier, is not attended by chief Ministers and that this is one of the main reasons why many of us feel that it is a waste of time to attend that Committee?
Mr. Short: These are Committees to which any Member of the House can go. The whole membership of the House can go along, and the debate is always answered by a Minister. However, if there are special difficulties about that, perhaps my hon. Friend will talk to me, and I shall be happy to see what I can do.
Mr. Grylls: Will the Leader of the House arrange for the Secretary of State for Employment to make a statement on the Linwood settlement, because many hon. Members and people outside the House are curious to know how that is alleged to fall within the £6 limit?
Mr. Short: I shall certainly pass on to my right hon. Friend what the hon. Gentleman has said.
Mr. Torney: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the many reports in the Press and the report on the radio this morning about the dumping of over 10,000 men's suits into this country from East Germany, at the ridiculous rate of £4·80 each? Is he aware of the effect on employment in West Yorkshire in the clothing and textile industries? Will he arrange an emergency debate on this matter next week?
Mr. Short: I cannot offer a debate about it, but my right hon. Friend has certainly seen these reports and he is investigating the matter urgently.
Mr. Lawson: Will the Lord President try to persuade his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to publish the cash limits for public expenditure in 1976–77 before we have the debate which he has promised on the public expenditure White Paper, so that that debate can be a fully informed debate?
Mr. Short: I think that the debate will be certainly a fully-informed debate. When the hon. Gentleman reads the White Paper on public expenditure he will be very fully informed.
Sir Frederic Bennett: The right hon. Gentleman will have heard the earlier exchanges about the Falkland Islands. I wonder whether next week, on a topic that was not touched upon, he could arrange for a very short statement to be made about the completion of a genuinely international airport there, capable of taking international traffic, which would do a great deal to cool the situation and would be a method of maintaining communications other than by sea. One could think of no quicker way to establish a better situation. May we have a short statement saying how close we are to establishing there a genuinely international airport?
Mr. Short: I know that the hon. Gentleman has been interested in this matter for a long time. I shall pass on to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what he has said.
Sir George Young: When is it proposed to re-establish the Select Committee on Violence in Marriage?
Mr. Short: I am looking at this matter at present and at the possibility of making it rather wider, but certainly I hope to have something to say about it in the very near future

CONCORDE
The Secretary of State for Trade and President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Peter Shore): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on Concorde operations to the United States. As the House will be aware, the United States Secretary of Transportation, Mr. Coleman, announced yesterday his decision on the application by British Airways and Air France for up to two flights each per day to John F. Kennedy Airport, New York, and one each per day to Dulles International Airport, Washington. He allowed their application in full, for a trial period not to exceed 16 months. This will start from the date of the first flight. He has specified a number of conditions for these services, but none of these appears to present any substantial difficulty.
Mr. Coleman has reached this decision following the most exhaustive scrutiny of the arguments for and against allowing Concorde into the United States. He himself chaired a public hearing on 5th January, in which my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Industry and a senior representative of the French Government took part. The decision, which runs to some 60 pages of closely argued text, is an impressive and balanced assessment of the environmental aspects of Concorde's operations. I have placed a copy of the decision in the Library.
I am sure the House will welcome this decision to permit Concorde to fly direct to New York and Washington from London and Paris. The way is now open for regular supersonic services across the North Atlantic. I believe services during this period will demonstrate that they will have a minimal effect on the environment.
British Airways have made formal application to the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey today and have reminded them of the great importance of speedy decision. They are also arrang-
1428
ing immediate discussions on the practical details of the operations with the Federal Aviation Administration.
British Airways aim to begin service in May—provided, of course, that there are no new obstacles. Officials will be discussing early next week with the Department of Transportation and the Federal Aviation Administration the monitoring programme on noise and ozone, which Mr. Coleman has said should be carried out. We are already working with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration on a programme to measure chemical constituents of the stratosphere, using Concorde for this purpose.
Concorde entered commercial service to Bahrain and Rio de Janeiro on 21st January. We now look forward to Concorde carrying people across the North Atlantic in just over three hours—half the time of present subsonic services.
Mr. Higgins: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the decision of the Secretary of Transportation will be widely welcomed on both sides of the House and by people outside, just as the technical achievement of those responsible for Concorde has caught the imagination of the public?
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that Mr. Coleman's statement that the rules of fair play demand that Concorde be given a chance to disprove its critics is important, and that it is to be hoped that the New York authorities will now take an equally balanced view on this subject?
Will the right hon. Gentleman clarify whether any necessary court action in the United States will be the responsibility of Her Majesty's Government or of British Airways?
Does the right hon. Gentleman expect that the decision will help negotiations on other routes?
Finally, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that a supersonic scheduled service, in the bicentennial year will strengthen the traditional commercial links between the United States and this country, and, indeed, assist our trade in other products?
Mr. Shore: Concerning the hon. Gentleman's last point, it is indeed a

1429
happy coincidence that the first transatlantic supersonic services should come into effect in this bicentennial year of the formation and independence of the United States of America. It shows that we are perhaps closer together than ever before—at least in one sense, and a very welcome one.
I also thank the hon. Gentleman for giving voice to the broad welcome—which I know is shared very generally in the House—at Secretary Coleman's decision. I entirely agree that the rules of fair play have obviously been honoured in that decision. Those who have had the chance of going through the judgment will, I am sure, concur with that.
I very much hope that all other authorities in the United States which will be concerned with subsequent decisions affecting the operation of Concorde will bring to bear on their decisions the same scrupulous objectivity and judgment that Secretary Coleman himself has shown.
It is not for me to anticipate any court actions, but I think that British Airways would be the main party to any actions if they were brought against the airlines themselves. On the other hand, it is possible that actions might be brought against the decision of Secretary Coleman, in which case it would be presumably for the Federal Transportation Department to justify its own decision.
I am quite certain that the determination of Secretary Coleman will be helpful in assisting us in negotiations with other countries in order to obtain landing rights.
Mr. Penhaligon: The House welcomes the decision that Concorde may land, after so much money has been spent on achieving flight. Will the Minister comment on the United States' restrictions on supersonic flight? Will he confirm that £8,000 was paid to residents in Cornwall during the supersonic test flights which took place? Consequently, will he ban commercial supersonic flight over the land mass of the British Isles? Will he also confirm that the South-West is likely to be in Concorde's flight path to the United States of America?
Mr. Shore: I cannot answer the second question yet. Obviously, the London to New York and London to Washington routes do not involve any supersonic over?
1430
flying of the United Kingdom. If routes are developed which affect the United Kingdom—in that overflight of a part of the United Kingdom is an essential part of such flight—clearly we shall have to examine the situation more closely. I would not declare a closed mind—it would be quite wrong of me to do soon that possibility.
As to the United States, the judgment concerns the right to land in two airports in the United States. It does not include supersonic flight over the continent of the United States.
Mr. Russell Kerr: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the news he has just formally announced to the House will be widely welcomed by the great mass of the British people, who, unlike the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon), are much more concerned than he is with the health of the British aviation industry and also of British industry in general?
I also express the hope that the excellent Mr. Coleman will be emulated very shortly by the new governmental authorities in Australia.
Mr. Shore: I thank my hon. Friend for giving his own endorsement of and welcome to the decision. I believe that it is not only extremely important for the future development of Britain's air services but also very helpful for the whole future of the British aviation industry.
I join my hon. Friend in his wish and hope that the Australian authorities—who are also considering the environmental impact and effects of Concorde—will have the opportunity to look at this very careful American judgment before coming to their own conclusions.
Mr. Tebbit: May I put three questions to the right hon. Gentleman" First, will he consider posting to the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon) one of the published routes of the flight paths to the United States proposed for Concorde, so that the hon. Gentleman will be able to find out whether it goes over his constituency? Everybody else knows the answer.
Secondly, may I press the right hon. Gentleman again on the issue of who would pay for any legal actions which might arise in the United States as a consequence of Mr. Secretary Coleman's decisions? It would seem improper to

1431
many of us if the burden of seeing Concorde operate into North America were to fall upon British Airways in terms of legal costs.
Thirdly, I put it to the right hon. Gentleman that, in the remarks he made about not having a totally closed mind on the subject of supersonic overflying routes in the United Kingdom, he has broken some new ground. Will he confirm that that was indeed what he meant to do and that he is saying that he would be prepared to look on its merits at any application to overtly the United Kingdom supersonically?
Mr. Shore: I was not expecting this to come as an immediate issue, but I certainly confirm that it would be the duty of any Government to look carefully at any proposal put forward. I shall say neither more nor less on that subject at the present time.
As for the hon. Gentleman's request that I should send the published routes of Concorde to the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon), I am willing to see that the hon. Member receives that information. In view of the comments he made, the hon. Member would be very well advised to read the report, which contains an enormous amount of information, particularly dealing with many of the anxieties which, no doubt, he has expressed on behalf of his constituents as to the actual effects of Concorde flying over land and coming in over built-up areas.
Concerning legal expenses and who should pay for them, I shall not give a commitment at the moment but I assure the hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) that I shall look sympathetically at this problem.
Mr. Palmer: Is my right hon. Friend aware not only of the pride that the achievement of Concorde's flight to the United States will give to the country generally but of the great satisfaction it will give to the Concorde workers in Bristol—which, I may say for the benefit of the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon), is also in the South-West?
Will my right hon. Friend also say whether he thinks that this gives any prospect for the future of extra Concordes now being manufactured?
Mr. Shore: The fact that we have, through Secretary Coleman's judgment, opened the gates to the North American continent is the most important single step that has yet been taken in establishing the success of Concorde. Therefore, the possibilities of the general success of the Concorde programme are increased. I shall not be taken further on that road at the moment because I do not believe in looking too far ahead, but obviously we shall all feel great satisfaction at this further step forward. We certainly share the pride that my hon. Friend has expressed—a pride shared also by all those who have been engaged in building this remarkable aeroplane.
Several hon. Members Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Will hon. Members be as brief as they can? I hope to call them all, but there is a Ten-Minute Bill to come before the short Welsh debate and then there is a short Scottish debate, so the House should be fair.
Mr. Warren: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that he will give the widest possible publicity to the findings of the technical studies that he has mentioned so as to alleviate public concern as rapidly as possible about the environmental impact of Concorde?
Mr. Shore: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that suggestion, which is a very good one. In view of the many exaggerated and unnecessary anxieties expressed and built up about Concorde, we have a public duty to make that information available.
Mr. MacFarquhar: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that, whatever happens in the case of New York, there will be no further legal obstacles to prevent Concorde from flying into Washington? Can he explain the significance of the odd period of 16 months for the experiment? Third, can he convey to British Airways the fact that, while many of us are glad that they will be able to fly Concorde into the United States, we are a little puzzled that after so many years of anticipation it will still take three months to initiate services?
Mr. Shore: First of all, I can give no guarantees about legal obstacles. There is

1433
great ingenuity in the resort to legal remedies and I have no doubt that people are studying the possibility in the United States at present. However, I hope that they will be overcome.
The reason for the period of 16 months is made clear in Secretary Coleman's judgment—one year for a real period of operation in all seasons of the year, followed by a period of appraisal in the light of the information gathered during that 12 months' operation. As for the question of the three months' delay in initiating services, obviously a number of important matters have to be arranged with the FAA and the airport authorities. In addition, we are having a build-up of Concorde deliveries. We shall receive the fourth Concorde in July or August of this year.
Mr. John Davies: Will the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge—I am sure he will—that this is a major milestone on a triumphant industrial co-operative project beween France and ourselves? In that light, would he kindly reassure the House that any action which is being taken to further the interests of Concorde in the United States or elsewhere is taken in the fullest agreement with, and with the fullest help of, the French Government?
Mr. Shore: I think that it is a milestone in the onward journey of Concorde, which has been a long one and by no means an easy one. I certainly subscribe to that view and also to the view expressed in the Financial Times editorial about a major triumph not only for BAC but for British Airways and Air France as well. We shall, of course, keep in close touch with the French as our partners in this endeavour.
Mr. Pattie: Taking the onward journey of Concorde a stage further, would the right hon. Gentleman care to tell us what the situation is at the moment in the achievement of overflying rights for Concorde's routes to Johannesburg and Melbourne?
Mr. Shore: Johannesburg is not one of the priority routes. The next step for Concorde is from Bahrain to Singapore, and Singapore to Australia. We are having discussions with all those concerned in the overflying and landing rights on that route.
Mr. Cryer: Does my right hon. Friend accept that for some people this decision merely puts off the evil day when we shall have to decide what to do when the 16 Concordes have finished production? Will he not accept that this is a huge financial disaster and not a technological triumph at all and that our ability and expertise, great though they are in this matter, should be put into other affairs so that we can develop things which people will really use? Since this decision to permit Concorde to enter America is only a temporary one, has he considered what will happen after the 16 months if the aircraft is not allowed to enter America again?
Mr. Shore: There can always be arguments about the best way of using £1,000 million worth of resources or whatever it may be. But having made the decision and produced this splendid aircraft, as it undoubtedly is, I can see no point in my hon. Friend's observation at this stage. I genuinely believe now that the prospect has been greatly enhanced of the success of Concorde in commercial service. I believe that Mr. Secretary Coleman's judgment in this respect has been a milestone.
Mr. Jessel: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the American decision will not be universally welcome among communities living around Heathrow, which already suffer acutely from aircraft noise? Will the Government take the interests of those people rather more seriously in future than they have done in the past—for example, with their abandonment of the Maplin plan? Will he give a categoric assurance that in no circumstances will Concorde be allowed to take off or land at night—a condition being imposed by the Americans at their end, bearing in mind that their night hours are slightly different? Will the Government do what they can to get the aircraft industry to produce a quieter type of Concorde?
Mr. Shore: Let me first give the categoric assurance for which the hon. Gentleman asks. There will be no night landings or take-offs by Concorde from Heathrow. We have already made that clear and I wish to re-emphasise the point today. Of course, I understand that those living close to airports will always react

1435
against what they fear to be an increase in aircraft noise, but I put it to the hon. Gentleman that, in the judgment of all those who have studied this matter carefully, the actual impact of Concorde, as distinct from the general impact of aircraft noise at these airports, is indeed minimal.
Mr. Adley: While one congratulates the Secretary of State on his robust activities recently and Mr. Coleman on his refusal to be brow-beaten by the inspired fantasies of the United States anti-Concorde industry, will the right hon. Gentleman apply his mind to the problem which will be faced shortly if there are court cases as to whether British Airways and Air France can fly into the United States while those cases are pending, if they are brought, or whether the flights will be in danger of being held up indefinitely while the anti-Concorde industry deliberately prolongs that activity? Finally, will the right hon. Gentleman remind my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) that on the inaugural flight of Concorde his Department received two complaints about the noise?
Mr. Shore: I am sure that the House will be interested in that last point, which I confirm. As for the question of court actions which might be taken in the United States, we are still dealing with a hypothetical circumstance but we hope that any court would deal with the matter expeditiously. It does not necessarily follow that all operations would be sus-
1436
pended pending a decision by any such court.
Sir T. Kitson: How many flights will be flown by British Airways and how many by Air France? Will they be split fifty-fifty?
Mr. Shore: The rights which have been accorded are entirely equal as between Air France and British Airways—two Concordes each daily into JFK and one each into Dulles, Washington. How the airlines use those flights is something which they will obviously discuss; it has not yet been finally determined.
Sir Raymond Gower: Following the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Sir T. Kitson), may I ask the right hon. Gentleman what arrangement or agreement has been entered into between British Airways and Air France about future applications for routes in North America and South America or, indeed, in other parts of the world? Has an arrangement been made whereby each organisation will apply in one part of America—one in South America, say, and the other in North America—or is this all unplanned?
Mr. Shore: There have been considerable discussions on this matter over a long period. The submission to the United States Administration was a joint submission by British Airways and Air France to Secretary Coleman. Certain routes have attracted the French Government and Air France, and others have proved more attractive to British Airways and to us. But we are in touch with each other on these matters.

SWIMMING POOLS (SAFETY REGULATIONS)
4.21 p.m.
Mr. Stephen Ross (Isle of Wight): I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide safety regulations covering the use of privately owned swimming pools made available for public use.
I wish to do this quite simply by extending the powers of local authorities under Section 233(1) of the Public Health Act 1936 so as to require the proprietors of swimming pools used by the public in what I describe as an ancillary capacity, but for which no separate charge is made, to abide by the model byelaws now applying to public swimming baths.
The typical example that I wish to cover is a pool at an hotel or holiday camp. I have no doubt that the vast majority of pools at these establishments are well managed and properly supervised but, regrettably, there are exceptions, and too many fatal accidents have occurred in the past few years for the present situation to he allowed to continue.
Unfortunately, the exact number of deaths is not officially recorded, as I found when I tabled a Question in the autumn of 1973, but the total for all types of pools is no fewer than 59. Of this figure, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents has calculated that seven occurred in school, hotel or purely private pools, and as many as 29 in pools not classified as open to the general public. This is, therefore, a serious matter. and one that ought to be tackled.
I should like to quote from a pamphlet issued by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents. Referring to hotel and holiday camp pools, it says:
"Generally speaking hotel and holiday camp management seems to take scant regard of the need for trained pool supervisors and rules to be laid down. This especially applies to open air pools in hotels, where guests may be few in number at any one time … It is the view of RoSPA's Water Safety Organiser that legislation which would enable local authorities to make byelaws in respect of this type of pool should be considered. In the case of one such recent drowning accident the manager admitted that there had been no organised supervision in operation."
1438
The pamphlet goes on to say that the Medical Officer of Health of Great Yarmouth reported:
"The particular tragic accident of which you write occurred in cloudy water. The pool has had problems recently with algae and it would seem as though this was the cause of the turbidity. The matter is, at the moment, being energetically discussed with the Public Analyst, as there is some controversy about the chlorine levels that we require in pools, including pools in the town with no problems, and this particular pool",
which was in a holiday camp.
This paragraph of the pamphlet concludes:
"My personal view is that many pools are left in the care of people who, however willing, do not realise that a certain amount of expertise is required in their management."
I am aware that since as long ago as July 1974 the Home Office has had a working party considering the whole aspect of water safety, including swimming pools, but in view of the increasing number of tragedies, and as no solution has been reached, and because I suspect that it may be some time before any decision is made, I wish to introduce the Bill. I also understand that the Department of the Environment accepts that new legislation is required to extend the byelaw control to cover the kind of semi-private pool that I have described.
I have been prompted into action by one local authority in my constituency which attracts a large holiday trade in the summer months. This is the South Wight Borough Council which reacted promptly and rightly following a tragic death in my constituency at a holiday camp last summer.
Here I would like to pay tribute to Mr. T. E. Payne of Erith in Kent, the father of the unfortunate boy who drowned, who particularly requested that measures be taken to bring about greater control of the management of such pools. He has personally drawn up a list of 17 matters which he considers should be the minimum standards required by law of the proprietors of these pools, and I hope that in due course every one of these provisions will be included in the regulations.
In the hope, however, that the Government will give favourable consideration to my Bill today, I seek as an interim measure purely to extend the model byelaws relating to safety under Section 233

1439
of the Public Health Act 1936 so that they cover the pools that I have described and thus go a long way to meet the points made by Mr. Payne, including proper supervision, regular cleaning, provision of handrails, and life-saving apparatus.
I also seek to provide that the responsibility for seeing that these byelaws are honoured falls directly on the environmental health officers of district and borough councils throughout the country.
Finally, let me make it abundantly clear that my Bill does not affect the purely private pool within the curtelage of a private residence.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Stephen Ross, Mr. A. J. Beith, Mrs. Lynda Chalker, Mr. Patrick Cormack, Mr. David Penhaligon, Mr. Cyril Smith, Mr. John Tomlinson and Mr. James Wellbeloved.

SWIMMING POOLS (SAFETY REGULATIONS)
Mr. Stephen Ross accordingly presented a Bill to provide safety regulations covering the use of privately owned swimming pools made available for public use: and the same was read a First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 14th May and to be printed. [Bill 55.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY
  SUPPLY
  [7TH ALLOTTED DAY]—Considered

  WALES (ECONOMIC INFRASTRUCTURE)
  4.27 p.m.
  Mr. Gwynfor Evans: I beg to move,
  That this House deplores the failure of successive Governments in not creating an industrial infrastructure for Wales which includes a road, rail and air communications system and which would make possible the development of a balanced Welsh economy.
  The situation that we hope to uncover in this short debate on the Welsh economic infrastructure is a sorry one. There are few features to lighten the record of misgovernment in Wales, unless one includes good intentions. We have had endless promises of jam tomorrow but scarcely ever jam today. So it was in the 1920s, 1930s, 1940s, 1950s, and so it is to this day.
  For two decades Wales was submitted to a policy of transference of labour which uprooted 500,000 Welsh people and provided work for them in England. Our rich little country has for two generations been depopulated and bled white of her people, and still after generations of ruinous migration unemployment in Wales is worse than in any region or country in this island. Between 1925 and 1975 the population of England grew by 28·9 per cent. The population of Wales grew by 0·8 per cent., and that despite the influx of scores of thousands of retired people from England.
  The London Establishment will not face up to the basic cause of a situation that has been destroying a nation, because the cause is in the structure of this unitary, centralist metropolis-dominated State which it is determined to maintain. It has always claimed that the Welsh situation was a temporary distortion. Everything in the Welsh garden will be beautiful, so the story has been, when the great upturn in the English economy comes, or when we have true Socialism, as we still hear from some supporters of this eighth Labour Government. As we saw in the devolution debate, Left and

  1441
  Right are united in defence of the present State structure. The first of many to congratulate the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) on what he called his splendid speech "was the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Grist). When it comes to fundamental structural change, Members of the Government party can claim that they are all conservative unionists now.
  The structural change that Wales needs is a radical decentralisation of power. If the declaration made in Cardiff by Lord Rosebery as Prime Minister in 1895, and by this House three months later, in favour of home rule for Wales as well as for Ireland and Scotland had been implemented, the economy of Wales today would probably be as strong and the civilisation of Wales as secure as those of any one of the five Scandinavian countries. Wales today would be living a full national life.
  It pays the Establishment to pay lip service to Welsh nationhood, to acknowledge that Wales is a nation. But what the Establishment is determined to do is to prevent Wales acting as a nation, making her own decisions, taking her own initiatives, fashioning the conditions of her national environment. If Wales is a nation, here economy should be designed to provide a strong basis for the life of the national community, and the Welsh people should have the political power to design their own economy. Economics should always be subordinate to politics, and politics should also be surbordinate to social needs, such as creating in Wales a national community that is fair, just and Welsh.
  Sir Anthony Meyer: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that if he and his party achieve what they are setting out to achieve Wales will have for the foreseeable future a one-party, Socialist Government? Has he reflected on the economic consequences of that for the Principality?
  Mr. Evans: I have stated my belief in the House before that within 10 years the strongest party in Wales will be Plaid Cymru, and the Welsh Labour Party—
  Mr. Donald Anderson Mr. Donald Anderson (Swansea, East)rose—
  Mr. Evans: Just as the Labour Party replaced the Liberal Party, we are due to replace the Labour Party.
  The Welsh nation is today, as it has been for centuries, subordinated to English economics and politics. Economically, the function of Wales has been to supply England with raw materials and the products of heavy industries and to be a pool of labour. Geographically, it has been to provide the citizens of the English conurbations with a lung in her beautiful but depopulated countryside. Politically, her function has been to contribute to England's might and prestige. Welshmen were treated as economic men, as mobile, abstract beings. But they are not abstract beings. They are Welshmen, members of a Welsh nation which lives where it has always lived in the ancient homeland of Wales. The people of Wales have their roots, their identity, their history, their traditions, values, and civilisations, all of which are essential to fullness of human life.
  We in Wales should be in a position to create a balanced economy which would adequately sustain the people, the community and the civilisation of Wales, but this has never been attempted by the British State. Until recently it scorned the very idea of a Welsh economy. What it has done in the past 50 years is to respond to chronic Welsh deprivation by the palliative of regional planning. What is the result of this palliative? It is our scandously high unemployment rate and our scandalously low economic employment activity rate. The measure of the success of 50 years of regional planning in Wales is that there are today 115,000 fewer jobs for men in the country than there were 10 years ago. But still we hear the parrot cry that it will be much better in the future. Where is the evidence that centralist, metropolitan-dominated Government is anywhere near a solution?
  Wales has for generations been conned into a belief that this old, imperial, centralist structure serves her best interests. The time has come when the conning will have to stop. The only effective planning that Wales will ever see is planning by the Welsh people through their own elected Government. They alone have sufficient incentive to do the job.

  1443
  Basic to a balanced economic development is economic infrastructure. The condition of the Welsh infrastructure demonstrates conclusively that London has never had the will to create a strong Welsh economy. Nothing in the infrastructure is more vital than transport communications. The Government's current attitude to Rhoose Airport typifies the attitude to communications in Wales. Wales has not even the sketchiest air transport system. Rhoose should have been built up as a national airport, but in the Government's view it is not
  "indispensable to the national air system".
  That is, of course, a reference to the British system. From the standpoint of the Welsh national system there is no more indispensable airport than Rhoose. It should he the focal point of the network of domestic services linking Southern Wales with the other main centres of population and industry throughout Britain.
  Between 1964 and 1974 the seven civil aerodromes received £25,150,000 in financial aid from the Government. Sumburgh received £6…8 million. In 1974 and up to October last year the Government made grants of £15,864,000 to airports in Scotland, but not a penny went to Wales.
  Mr. Fred Evans: We have all fought for the preservation of Rhoose Airport, but with the new development proposed at Newport will the hon. Gentleman's party be backing Newport or Rhoose?
  Mr. Gwynfor Evans: I am speaking now of the needs of Rhoose as a national airport for Wales, but it is not only Rhoose that should be helped. A number of airports in Wales should be helped, including some smaller ones such as Swansea, Haverfordwest and Valley, and there should be a small airport in Aberystwyth.
  Mr. Geraint Howells: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Evans: The matter is very important for the movement of freight and passengers. Nine out of 10 potential air passengers in Wales have expressed through a public opinion poll their desire to use a Welsh airport.
  1444
  The road system is almost equally inadequate. Investment in Welsh roads lags far behind that in English roads, and still more behind investment in continental countries. The system is so inadequate that Welsh industrialists more often than not state it as one of their biggest difficulties. Wales has about 10 per cent. of British road mileage but it has never had a bigger proportion of expenditure on Britain's roads than about 7 per cent. The proportion in 1964 was 5…5 per cent. and since then it has been 6…6 per cent., 6…6 per cent., 6…8 per cent., 4…6 per cent., 4…8 per cent., 4…5 per cent., 4·8 per cent., 6…6 per cent., 7…3 per cent. and, in 1974, 6…2 per cent.
  Mr. Michael Roberts: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that successive Governments have been right to develop east-west communications—for example, by road across the Severn Bridge—in the interests of the economy of South Wales, rather than north-south communications?
  Mr. Evans: I believe that if the money spent on the Severn Bridge had been spent on a road from Cardiff to Merthyr Tydfil that would have been of much greater benefit to all Welsh valleys with their half a million people.
  Mr. Roberts: Where would the M4 go?
  Mr. Evans: Expenditure per mile on Welsh roads during the past 10 years has been about half, or a little above half, that on English roads.
  The motorway situation reflects the Welsh road situation as a whole. England has 1,045 miles and Wales has 27 miles of motorway. For Britain one mile in every 211 is motorway. In West Germany the figures are one in every 84, in Belgium one in every 92, in Holland one in every 61 and in Italy one in every 57, and in Wales one mile in every 726 is motorway. Holland is exactly twice the size of Wales. It has 850 miles of motorway in its 31,296 miles of trunk roads as compared with the 27 miles of motorway and 1,018 miles of trunk roads in Wales.
  Wales has about the same mileage of trunk roads as it had mileage of Roman roads 1,800 years ago. The estimate for 1973 for dual carriageway trunk roads was 80 miles for Wales. England has

  1445
  14 times our length of dual carriageway trunk roads. In addition, our roads are not always designed to ensure the kind of balanced economic development that we need in the Welsh economy. The close relationship between the two needs no emphasis. For half a century the Government have been pressed to build a major north-south highway which, as a spine road, would unite Wales and have other major roads running off it from east to west.
  In 1968, in answer to a Question which I tabled, the Government estimated that the cost of a dual carriageway running from Cardiff via Merthyr Tydfil to near Wrexham and across to Caernarvon would be about £110 million. The first part of that road as far as Cilfyndd has been splendidly built.
  Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that to impose the kind of urban motorway system he has described on Wales, which is a quite different country geographically from England, would completely destroy the kind of society that he so insistently claims to defend?
  Mr. Evans: I am not seeking to impose an urban system on the whole of Wales. I am speaking currently of a road from north to south. I remember contesting a parliamentary election in 1945 in the county of Merioneth when the Labour programme included two points. One was to establish a Welsh broadcasting corporation and the other was to establish a major north-south highway. Such a highway is necessary to the development of the depopulated hinterland of Wales. However, the idea has now been dismissed. The Government, speaking of the parts of Wales which they in their policies have denuded of people, say that there are no industries there and, therefore, there is no justification for a major road.
  How different was the vision in Italy which caused the Autostrada del Sole to be built over barren hills from the North to the poverty-stricken South of Italy. The authority said that there was no industry there and, therefore, it must have a great road. That is the right way of looking at the situation. I hope that the coming of the national Assembly to Cardiff will provide an additional reason, apart from ease of transport, for building
  1446
  this major road between the north and the south and that the Government will re-examine the reasons for this long-needed road.
  Lastly I turn to the railways, where the decimation of what was once a fine national system speaks for itself. In the early sixties, when I gathered the figures—possibly it is true today—the Southern Welsh Region was the most prosperous region of the whole of the British Rail network. That did not prevent it from being savaged at least as badly as any other region and perhaps worse than most. However, no one can honestly doubt that if Wales had had a Parliament in those days, or even a national transport authority, the attacks would have been far more restrained.
  There is nothing that we need more in relation to Welsh transport than a Welsh transport board committed to the integration, modernisation, expansion and revitalisation of the Welsh transport system, both freight and passenger. The welfare of Wales would dominate the thought and policies of a Welsh board. However, it is very far from the thoughts of the gentlemen sitting in London on the British Railways Board or in Whitehall, where the road lobby has such complete domination.
  I take the matter of electrification of lines as typifying the situation. Britain is not in the vanguard of railway electrification. Only some 17 per cent. of the British Rail network is electrified. It lags behind almost every other Western European country. France is ahead of us with 24 per cent., Western Germany has 28 per cent., Italy has 48 per cent. and mountainous Switzerland has 98·4 per cent. of its railways electrified. However, for the purposes of this debate the most relevant question is: how many of the nearly 2,200 miles of electrified railway on this island are found in Wales? The answer is that there is not one mile of electrified railway in Wales. There has not been one mile since the old Mumbles line closed down.
  Wales is a great exporter of huge quantities of electricity but not one mile of Welsh railway line has been electrified. Yet there are some people who claim that this centralist, unitary, metropolitan-dominated Government do better for Wales than a Welsh Parliament would.

  1447
  Have they realised that since the Euston to Manchester and Liverpool route was electrified in 1966 the time was cut by an hour and a half and the traffic has increased by about 200 per cent.? Non-electrification of Welsh railways is reductio ad absurdum of the system which misgoverns our potentially great little country.
  What can Wales look forward to under central control? What other than more closures and further decimation of our surviving fragments? I appeal to the Government not to allow one further mile of railway line in Wales to be closed until at least we have a Welsh Assembly on our soil and a Welsh Development Agency to review the situation.
  4.47 p.m.
  Mr. Donald Anderson: We all like the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Evans) but it is difficult to take him seriously as a politician when he suggests that within 10 years his party will be the leading party in Wales. I recall first seeing him in 1966 when he came to this House and when he made the same claim. It is said of Billy Graham that he has many texts and one sermon. The same must apply to the hon. Gentleman, because whichever peg he has in the House it is the same dreary old sermon that is pulled out of the rather travel-stained bag.
  It is good but difficult to follow the hon. Gentleman, because he has his feet firmly planted in the air and is far from the realities of Wales and the real needs of Wales which we see around us. Certainly the motion that he moved is correct in stressing the importance of communications as part of our industrial infrastructure and, by implication, the key rôle of communications as an industrial investment incentive. I recall being impressed by a survey of industrialists carried out by the Swansea District Council, which showed that access to a good transportation network was one of the major factors for those industrialists in terms of investment decisions.
  South Wales is the closest development area to London. The theme of all reports on the Welsh economy—I have checked from the first Report in 1920 by the Ministry of Health South Wales Regional Survey Commit?
  1448
  tee to "Wales: The Way Ahead" and the Welsh Council Report for 1972—is the vital impact of the roadway system on the economy. "Wales: The Way Ahead" in 1967 stated that
  "Good roads are one of the keys to the future prosperity of Wales."
  Financial investment incentives can be given and can be taken away. Roads are there for good and, therefore, have a major and permanent impact on investment decisions. I join the hon. Member for Carmarthen in asking for greater public investment in Wales in both roads and railways, because of our greater need in employment terms, our lower activity rate, and other factors.
  I ask, too, for greater co-ordination of transport facilities within the Principality and a greater awareness of the social implications of communications for our communities. Just as in our debates on devolution the possibility of rational discussion is complicated by the separatist framework within which the hon. Gentleman and his Friends operate—thinking of Wales as a siege economy, a self-contained unit, and naïvely suggesting self-government as the answer to our deep-seated problems—so is rational discussion of Welsh problems complicated by that unusual perspective.
  We all understand the fear of railwaymen about future services in Wales—fears on which the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends trade. Yet the railwaymen of my acquaintance have a deep-seated trust in the Labour Government They know, for example, that between 1964 and 1970 only five miles of railway track in Wales were closed, compared with 800 miles over the 13 years of the previous Conservative Administration. There are no hard facts on which to rely in relation to the future of the rail network, and it is wrong to fan the fears of railwaymen by speculation. When the new proposals are made, my hon. Friends and I will insist that full consideration and due and proper weight shall be given to the social and environmental factors.
  The hon. Member for Carmarthen deplored the Rhoose decision, and so do I. The Welsh Labour Group of Members of Parliament pressed the Government very hard on that. The Welsh Labour Group is also convinced that the decision on the Bristol West Dock Scheme has

  1449
  been adverse to the future of the docks in the Bristol Channel.
  Mr. Roy Hughes: Is my hon. Friend fully acquainted with the facts? Does he recall that, despite several applications from Bristol, the then Labour Government rejected the scheme on social and economic grounds. When the Conservative Government came to power in 1970, they gave the go-ahead for the scheme. Now that costs are escalating, the Bristol ratepayers are worried and wish that they had never gone ahead with the scheme. When the scheme becomes fully operational every port on Severnside will be in jeopardy. That is the disaster that has been caused by that decision of the previous Conservative Government.
  Mr. Anderson: I know what a strong fight has been put up by my hon. Friend the Member for Newport (Mr. Hughes) for all the South Wales ports. It is sad that he should have been proved right after his long and hard-fought opposition.
  Sir Raymond Gower: I do not dissent from the main view held by the hon. Member for Newport (Mr. Hughes), but is he aware that the Bristol scheme is the result not of a Government decision but of a Private Bill which was introduced by the Bristol Corporation and supported by the former Secretary of State for Industry, the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn)?
  Mr. Roy Hughes: That is not true.
  Sir Raymond Gower: It is true. The hon. Gentleman should refer to Hansard if he is in doubt.
  Mr. Roy Hughes Mr. Roy Hughes rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): Order. I remind hon. Members that the debate was originally planned to finish by about 6 o'clock. We shall obviously have to extend that time, but it will assist in time allocation if hon. Members who seek to catch the Chair's eye do not make interventions.
  Mr. Anderson: The Bristol development went ahead with the blessing of the then Government, and the large-scale investment that has to be recouped is causing considerable difficulty in South Wales ports.
  1450
  The word "balance" is stressed in the motion. I fear that "balance", in Welsh National usage, is defined as "unifying the nation"—this was stressed by the hon. Member for Carmarthen—and, therefore, distorting the needs of Wales. For me, "balance" principally means speeding up communications with our major markets. For the Welsh Nationals north-south links are important, whereas for those who are concerned with the economy of Wales the east-west links are important. I accept the conclusion contained on page 20 of the Welsh Council Report of 1974, "Roads in Wales" which says:
  "We look for simultaneous application of resources on the two major areas requiring attention, namely, the east-west communication line in North Wales and the east-west communication line in South Wales. We consider that the connection between North and South Wales should be a second priority."
  Our real problems lie in achieving a social balance. I am especially concerned about the balance of public expenditure on subsidising bus routes serving new estates away from city centres in South Wales, and also the problem of isolated communities. We need to look carefully at the isolation of low-income rural communities in the Principality. The South Wales Transport Company has applied for a fourth increase in bus fares in the past year. Surely that cannot go on. Again, there must be a balance in assisting communities that are away from the valley mouths—where the main economic developments must come—with their long journeys to work. As an incentive for existing communities we must consider either direct subsidies or a tax allowance for those who have to travel, to make sure that the communities in our valleys are maintained.
  The balance between public and private investment is wrong. For example, nationalised industries in tinplate and coil traffic to and from Tostre, Velindre and Abbey use private hauliers instead of British Rail.
  The theme of the motion is neglect. I shall put forward what I believe to be a contrary and positive case. I salute the wisdom and the courage of the Secretary of State in giving priority to the M4 at the expense of expenditure on other major trunk road schemes in Wales. Swansea Bay City, as opposed to the former separate townships of Neath and

  1451
  Port Talbot, with a population of more than one-third of a million people, is possibly further away from the national motorway network than is any other unit of comparable size in the United Kingdom. That is particularly important because of the potential development of Celtic Sea oil. We need immediate action, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has ensured that.
  I ask my right hon. Friend whether he will update the timetable of the M4. Will he tell us what he now believes to be the target date, and will he confirm that "full steam ahead" will be ordered on the M4 development proceeding into South Wales and opening up the area for industrial development, in spite of the climate of cut-back in public expenditure?
  The picture painted by the hon. Member for Carmarthen, of the railways in Wales being a neglected backyard of the rail system, is far from the truth. I shall briefly give one or two facts in support of that contention. In October this year high-speed trains are to be introduced between Swansea and London. It will be the first scheduled service of high-speed trains anywhere in the United Kingdom. The journey time from London to Newport will be one hour 32 minutes, which, with the Coldra junction of the motorway network between the Midlands and South Wales, will make the Newport/Cardiff area an excellent one for industrial development. The London-Cardiff journey time is one hour 46 minutes, and the journey time from London to Swansea is 2 hours 44 minutes. We heard nothing about that development in the hon. Gentleman's speech.
  A development of major importance to the area that I represent took place in March 1975, when the new airbrake network in South Wales was introduced on three important routes—namely, Swansea to Warrington, Swansea to East Anglia and Swansea to Willesden. The airbrake network is operated by a new type of general freight vehicle which operates at speeds up to 75 m.p.h. Far from Wales being a neglected backyard, it is the second area in Britain to see the introduction of this key technological change. Further, it is hoped to introduce next month the largest freight train on the whole of the British Rail network. It
  1452
  will run from Port Talbot to Llanwern. It will consist of 27 wagons of 100 tons gross weight. It is hoped that it will be hauled by three locomotives. It is a development of major importance to Wales in both passenger and freight sectors. It was neglected in the partial view that we heard from the hon. Gentleman.
  The developments to which I have referred are important, in that they allow us to demonstrate to prospective industrialists how much shorter the journey time now is between the major markets in Wales, and how much easier is access to those markets. Road and rail barriers have been overcome as a result of these developments.
  Of course, we can criticise failings. My right hon. and hon. Friends have deplored Rhoose and the dock development. But Wales needs more St. Pauls, and all we have are Jeremiahs from Plaid Cymru. Too many people are raising scare stories and relying on speculation. It does a grave disservice to Wales to paint such a negative picture. If Plaid Cymru Members are concerned about our economic and social future they should join us as ambassadors for Wales, publicising the positive advantages of Wales to industrialists, such as the shortening of journey times. Let them cease selling Wales short.
  5.2 p.m.
  Mr. Wyn Roberts: Like the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson), I find it difficult to comment on the speech of the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Evans). I notice that the hon. Gentleman gave us no word of explanation as to where the resources were to come from for the isolationist development of communications in Wales that he envisages.
  The motion attacks the Conservative Party among others. My party, in government and in opposition has consistently stressed the importance of improving the Welsh infrastructure both as a means of promoting the existing economy and in atracting new business enterprises. Therefore, we cannot accept that the charge of failure should be levelled at the Conservative Administration. That administration had a first-class record of achievement in improving the infrastructure and establishing communication systems.

  1453
  During our period of office expenditure on roads in Wales was nearly doubled, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Thomas) anticipated when in the Welsh Grand Committee on 15th December 1971 he said:
  "The total expenditure on Welsh roads, which was £37·8 million in 1969–70—and that is at 1971 survey prices—is now expected to increase from over £53 million in 1971–72 to nearly £62 million in 1972–73, and will reach nearly £70 million in 1975–76. I repeat that all those figures are at 1971 survey prices. I think that the Committee will agree that this is a pretty big increase."—[Official Report, Welsh Grand Committee; 15th December 1971, c. 5.]
  Indeed, it was a very large increase in expenditure on roads.
  If the hon. Gentleman considers the relevant figures for the Conservative Government that were in office until 1964, he will find that per capita expenditure on roads in Wales was nearly twice as much as in the rest of the United Kingdom. During our years of government between 1970 and 1974, expenditure turned out to be very much as my right hon. and learned Friend anticipated. Tremendous progress was made in the development of Welsh roads. For example, there was the A470 from Cardiff to Merthyr, and roads leading to Wales, notably the M4 and its associated routes.
  Our period of office saw the establishment of the western territorial headquarters of British Rail, in Cardiff. That provided 2,000 jobs. Grants for station improvements were given for the first time by a Secretary of State for Wales. Only one line—Bridgend to Treherbert—was closed, compared with 240 miles of line closed by the previous Labour Government.
  My right hon. and learned Friend also gave financial support to the Welsh Council's decision to set up a major research project on passenger transport needs in Wales. We now have the result in the invaluable report of Professor Graham Rees and Richard Wragg. Similarly, the Conservative Government took a close interest in civil aviation in Wales. During our tenure of office the Welsh Advisory Committee for Civil Aviation produced its stratgey for Wales, which has provided the foundation for a great deal of subsequent thinking, as my
  1454
  hon. Friend the Member for Barry (Sir R. Gower) will testify. My hon. Friend now chairs a Conservative Party committee that is concerned with the future of Rhoose Airport.
  The ports, which are not mentioned in the motion, flourished greatly during our period in Government. These matters did not happen by accident but were the beneficial outcome of deliberate policy, which was admirably summed up at the beginning of the Welsh Grand Committee to which I have referred. I do not think we can improve on my right hon. and learned Friend's words. He said:
  "We need an efficient transport system with a network of services for passengers and freight covering every part of the Principality. This is essential to the proper maintenance and development of our social and economic life. To achieve this is—and must continue to be—one of our first priorities."—[Official Report, Welsh Grand Committee: 15th December 1971, c. 3.]
  We totally reject the charge of failure that is levelled against the Conservative Government. I suggest to the supporters of the motion that they would not have made the charge had they familiarised themselves properly with the achievements of our Government in improving communications in Wales. So much for the past and our honourable part in it. I apologise for having had to dwell upon it.
  If the signatories to the motion had chosen their words more carefully and abstained from casting aspersions on our period in Government, they might have had our support in the Lobby if they decide to divide the House. As it is, they cannot expect us wrongly to condemn ourselves. However, Plaid Cymru has never been renowned for its careful choice of words. The harsh truth is that while there may be some selective improvement to the industrial infrastructure in terms of communications, many people fear that the existing infrastructure will be severely curtailed and damaged in the years immediately ahead.
  In so far as the communications infrastructure is the responsibility of local government, anticipated curtailment has already been spelt out by Welsh Circular No. 228, issued on New Year's eve. Under the heading "Local Transport Services", paragraph 46 states that
  "local authorities will need to reduce expenditure on road construction and maintenance:

  1455
  increase car parking charges with the general objective of meeting a substantially larger proportion of the total costs of car parking … from that source; increase in many cases bus fares at a rate in excess of general movement in prices …; hold down administration costs to current levels and implement economies wherever possible."
  It is anticipated that there will be a standstill in central Government spending. With all the nationalised transport industries losing ever-increasing sums—British Rail will lose between £400 million and £500 million this year, according to The Times today, and British Waterways, British Airways, the National Bus Company and the National Freight Corporation are also losing large sums of money—it is very difficult to see the present investment being maintained in real terms, let alone being increased.
  The railway unions are under no illusion about the present situation. They state, in a letter sent to all Members of Parliament:
  "We have learnt, following discussions with the Secretary of State for the Environment, that our fears that the Government is planning to freeze rail investment at a level of £328 million (at 1975 prices) for five years from 1976 onwards are justified. This is substantially lower than the levels accepted by the previous government in November 1973. We believe that this policy, in conjunction with the freezing of revenue support at the 1975 level, will do irreparable damage to the railway system."
  Now we know that the Government's reply to the implications of such a freeze—which are, of course, cuts in services—is to deny present awareness of proposals to close passenger lines in Wales. How naïve do they think we all are? The writing is on the wall. The Government pretend that it is not there. We can see it but they cannot. They are blind to the consequences of their own policies.
  No doubt the Minister will say that we should await the outcome of the current review of transport policy as a whole. Such an answer will not quell the fears of the railway unions and others who are deeply disturbed about the grim prospect that lies ahead.
  I hope that the Minister will "come clean" on the situation as he sees it developing in Wales and will tell us what is in store for us in terms of road, rail and air communications. The sooner we know the worst, the sooner we can make
  1456
  constructive criticisms of Government policies to deal with the situation, and the sooner hon. Members will stop asking for the moon—as the hon. Member for Carmarthen, in view of the present economic situation, tended to do.
  Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not wish to create unnecessary alarm and despondency in Wales, because the consultative document will shortly appear and will be the subject of wide consultation over a period of months before decisions are taken. The hon. Gentleman referred to the standstill on local government expenditure—a standstill that is unpalatable to every hon. Member. Will he outline his party's policy on that standstill and the circular to which he referred?
  Mr. Roberts: I have no wish to create alarm and despondency in Wales, but I can only point out that that alarm and despondency already exists and needs no promotion from us.
  On the question of the standstill in local government expenditure, the Government released the circular on New Year's Eve, and last year they released a similar circular two days before Christmas. My personal view is that central Government do not take their full share of responsibility for the cuts in rate support grant as they affect local authorities. I am trying to be helpful to the Government and I think that as my speech progresses they will see where we stand on that issue.
  I wish to make other criticisms of the motion. In the first place "infrastructure" includes far more than a question of communications. As the motion stands, the implication is that the signatories have concluded that communications as defined are more important and have a higher priority than do housing, education and other amenities normally comprised in the term "infrastructure" in present political parlance.
  Secondly, there is no mention of direct incentives to regional development such as those available under the Conservative legislation introduced in 1972. Perhaps I am wrong, but the implication of the motion is that incentives are not as important as is infrastructure development in the promotion of the Welsh economy.

  1457
  It is important to get right the relationship between infrastructure development and direct incentives. Judging by the Report of the Expenditure Committee, published on 13th December 1973, one view is taken by industrialists and another by academics. I believe that improvement of the infrastructure has a vital part to play in regional policy and largely determines the effectiveness of other measures. It is a view shared by the OECD as set out in its document "The Reappraisal of Regional Policy" published in 1974.
  Infrastructure development is expensive. In an effort to be helpful to the Government, I suggest that in future they look carefully at infrastructure development proposals and try to assess their value as closely as possible in terms of the promotion of economic growth. There is only a limited amount of money available and it is vital that we obtain the maximum benefit from whatever investment the Government make in Wales. There is a strong case for applying cost-benefit techniques across the whole spectrum of demands for Government support.
  In this context the Government's top priority—the completion of the M4 and the dualling of the A55—is absolutely right. Those were our priorities as stated in our election manifesto "For Wales and her people" in 1974. Both roads are lifelines to the Principality and it would be fatal to our future if they were not proceeded with as quickly as possible.
  Sir Anthony Meyer: Is my hon. Friend aware that I have been unable to extract from the Government any commitment about work on the A5 and the completion of work on the M4? The time scale laid down by the Conservative Government for the connection between the two roads seems to have vanished. Will my hon. Friend press the Government to give the House the present time scale?
  Mr. Roberts: I am sure that the Minister has carefully noted what my hon. Friend said. I shall certainly add what weight I can by asking the Minister to comment, in his concluding speech, on my hon. Friend's observations. There were other proposals in our manifesto for improving communications in Wales. However, today we face a harsh reality. As much as one would like to press the
  1458
  Government for the implementation of our proposals I believe that at this stage it would be totally unrealistic to do so. We are living in a recession, not in a time of prosperity. We are living in a time of contraction and not of expansion. We are living under a Labour Government and not a Conservative Government.
  As a responsible Opposition who will be called upon to govern before long, we must face the facts as we find them. We shall not delude the people and hold out promises that we cannot fulfil. Honesty is the best policy in this as in other matters. It is because we find this motion fundamentally lacking in realism that I cannot advise my hon. Friends to support it in the Lobby this evening. At the same time, I cannot advise them to support the Government, who have largely brought the present situation upon them-selves by encouraging the disastrous wage inflation of 1974 to win the October election, and by their spendthrift and profligate policies on Government spending.
  In my view it is a crying shame that the British people must learn the hard way that Socialism undoubtedly means high and enduring unemployment. For the thousands who still have a job it means uncertainty for the future as well as hardship and a lower standard of living for the present. A Government who land the British people in this predicament cannot conceivably merit our support.
  5.22 p.m.
  Mr. Fred Evans: A few weeks ago there was a large lobby of railwaymen. I did not see any of the Welsh Nationalist Members present, but perhaps I missed them. However, I am certain that they would have been interested to hear about the type of fantasy world outlined in the speech of the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Evans), which clearly adumbrated a separate Wales. Indeed, if we follow the hon. Gentleman's example, we may even have different railway line gauges to keep some people in and other people out.
  The major issue in this debate is investment. The whole of the British railway system will depend entirely on investment. The Labour Party is committed by its annual conference decision

  1459
  and by its manifesto—so many people insist on the sanctity of manifestos—to an integral transport policy and to the offloading of much of the road traffic back on to the railway system.
  Reference has been made to letters from railwaymen. The contents are largely rumour, and have been denied by the Government. They are merely impressions. At a period of high inflation we should really be saying that we shall consider the position, in the light of the economic situation, at the most year by year. Railwaymen's real fears have found their legitimate expression in letters of that kind. However, when we are being reported in the House we should be careful about sowing further despondency and holding out, as the hon. Gentleman said towards the end of his speech, the spectre of massive further unemployment leading to further railways cuts.
  Wales suffered pretty severely under the Beeching cuts. It is arguable that if there are further cuts it is not likely to suffer to the same degree. I know that is a pessimistic argument and that I should be saying, in support of the railwaymen, that the railways should be reassuring the doubtful. What I have just said seems to be an acceptance of the fact that as we have already lost so much on a percentage basis we stand to lose not so much in the future.
  Many Labour Members will press for further investment in the Welsh railways. If the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) had been present at the railwaymen's lobby he would know of the attitude taken by Members of Parliament who are closely linked with the various unions of British Railways. If he had attended the meetings in the Grand Committee Room and heard many of us speak to gatherings of 300 or 400 railwaymen at a time, he would know of the commitment, given by many Labour Members who are not railwaymen, to support railwaymen and their future.
  Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Our fears are based on the answer that was given by the Secretary of State for the Environment yesterday at Question Time, when he confirmed that the investment rate would be £238 million per annum. We are concerned that if that holds true,
  1460
  and the amount is not for example, £350 million per annum, there will be repercussions in Wales and elsewhere.
  Mr. Evans: That is for the current year. During the period when the Government tackle these problems the whole situation will be subject to constant review.
  I committed myself to the support of the railwaymen's case at the meeting which took place a few weeks ago. We must not fail to recognise that investment in the totality of British Railways is bound to benefit Wales. There is an overflowing benefit even from investment in the English side of British Railways. That benefit is in the form of communications and movement of freight and people. We must recognise that with two countries so closely linked as England and Wales, development cannot take place in only the larger of the two partners without providing a psychological stimulus to the whole system. Whether the Government are willing or unwilling to invest, pressure will ensure that the system is evened out throughout the whole country.
  The major road developments that the Government envisage have been recognised and accepted, certainly by the Conservative Party. In the major populated areas of Wales, and certainly in the area in which I live, there is the major problem of road transport from one narrow, twisting valley to another.
  To supplement the infrastructure of the major developments which are taking place we need a whole series of new trunk roads covering South Wales, giving access to the ports, to the airport, up and down the valleys, and even transversely, to make transport far easier than it is at present. Within my own constituency it would take one of my constituents longer to visit me than for Members of Plaid Cymru to travel from Cardiff to that distant, remote, impersonal and non-caring place called London.
  It was interesting today to read that some naughty people in Newport, who do not accept that the fight for Rhoose has failed, intend to come out with their own plans for an airport there. We want a balanced system of regional airports. However, the hon. Member for Carmarthen seemed to be arguing for a system of regional airports which amounted almost to one in every back

  1461
  yard, or certainly a helicopter service of that nature. I am sure that the Newport question will loom large when the idea is developed.
  We live in a world of shrinking communications. We are conscious of events in India and China, for example, and we can get to those places easily. If we make appreciable sacrifices of our transport system, we shall drive communities back into themselves, unless people have motor cars. However, they will then have to cope with the difficult roads throughout the Welsh valleys to which I have referred. Driving the community back into itself will effectively rob Wales of the richness of its cultural life which attracts so many tourists. It will erode the sense of togetherness and the genuine warmth of communication which is found in Welsh communities. This will create more damage than some of the matters mentioned by the hon. Member for Carmarthen.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) said that a frozen transport system will encourage the development of a siege economy. People in Wales are now vividly beginning to realise that Wales could not subsist on its own economic resources. We shall always depend on a reciprocal interchange with other parts of the United Kingdom. Some Members of Plaid Cymru seem to think that we are having everything taken from us and are given nothing. There would be no educational system in England—it would be a nation of illiterates—were it not for the valuable export of Welsh teachers. Certainly we want industries and regional development in Wales. This is part of the pattern of a reasonable interchange between nations and is to be highly valued.
  We must bring pressure on the Government to honour their commitments. Benefits will then flow into Wales. We should avoid a siege economy and the prospect of a miserable economic future for the Welsh people. We should put off the assertion made by the hon. Member for Carmarthen for 50 years, not 10 years.
  5.36 p.m.
  Mr. Geraint Howells: Having listened with interest during the last hour, I should compare the comments made by right hon. and hon.
  1462
  Members of the two major parties with two bad dogs licking their wounds after a fight. Right hon. and hon. Members on both sides are trying to cover up for their inept transport policies over the past two decades which have failed to safeguard the interests of the Welsh people.
  One of the most notable failures of Governments over the years has been in the co-ordination of transport in Wales, and this underlines many of the economic difficulties we are experiencing today. It has had an adverse effect not only on the traditional industrial areas, but on the gradual depopulation of our rural areas to which it has been almost impossible to attract industry over the years. Parts of West and North Wales, which are badly in need of additional revenue and job opportunities, have suffered as a result.
  Public transport in Ceredigion, as in most other rural areas, is very limited. Indeed, many villages have no means of transport, apart from the private car. Young people living in these villages find it difficult to get to the towns for work or pleasure. Consequently, there is a trend towards depopulation with its economic and social problems.
  I know that many right hon. and hon. Members disagree with the sentiments I express, but they are facts. It is essential, therefore, that all interested parties—
  Mr. Eric S. Heffer: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Howells: No. I have taken the advice of Mr. Deputy Speaker not to give way during this short debate. It is essential, therefore, that all interested parties in Wales should get together to discuss the possibilities of improving transport and building new roads where suitable. It could be suggested to British Railways that they were too hasty in closing down some of the lines and that certain routes should be reopened. Certainly no more lines should be allowed to close. Schemes for improved bus services suiting the needs of communities should also be investigated. It is clear that action must be taken soon if we are to revitalise our rural communities and give them some of the advantages of modern life.
  Many of my constituents, and many councillors, are worried. I have a copy

  1463
  of a letter written by the Chief Executive Officer of Ceredigion District Council, Mr. Kendal Harris, to Mr. F. W. Young, the divisional manager of British Railways. In that letter, dated 2nd February 1976, regarding railway services, he states:
  "There has been much talk recently, as you know, about the reduction in the size of the railway network and the Divisional Manager at Cardiff wrote recently to the Chief Exectuive of Dyfed County Council denying 'that any proposals exist to reduce the system size on the scale which has been widely suggested in the press and the media'.
  Separately from this has been the publicity about the negotiations with the trade unions about the reductions in services.
  What definite information is available about these two matters as they affect the rail services here? It would be appreciated if you could make some informed comment to clarify the position."
  Referring again to my constituent, I understand that British Railways have less than 10 miles of track in Ceredigion, except for the narrow gauge Vale of Rheidol Railway, and the roads were certainly not designed for swift moving or heavy traffic.
  There is no easy way to get from North to South Wales. It is a standing joke that if representatives of Welsh institutions want to get together they have to go to Shrewsbury, because that is the only place they can all reach. It is very unfortunate that they cannot get together in places like Aberystwyth and other parts of mid-Wales. Wales has never been an easy terrain on which to travel. Perhaps that is why we have kept our rugged individuality for so long. But it should be possible, with some foresight and intelligent application, to make use of existing facilities and adapt them to the needs of Wales today.
  For example, it is important not to make hasty decisions about further cuts in rail services. I am particularly pleased to have been assured in the House that the Government consider rail services in Wales should make a maximum contribution to the transport system and that the rail system is important to Wales. I shall be reminding them of that statement as often as I can and asking them to fulfil their obligations by ensuring that the services are not only maintained, but improved.
  1464
  It has become increasingly obvious to me that if we do not solve our transport and communication problems in Wales, we shall never solve our economic problems. In Ceredigion, we have several nursery factories lying idle. Despite many efforts to fill them, no industrialist has been tempted to move in. The main reason is that there are no direct rail or road links between many towns in Ceredigion and firms, potential markets in England. On a recent visit to Scotland, I was very impressed with the air services operating there. This is an aspect of communication which has been neglected in Wales. I flew from Glasgow to the Isle of Skye and found that the air strips in Wales at places like Anglesey, Merioneth, Aberporth in my constituency, and Rhoose, some of which are owned by the Ministry of Defence, would be ideal for the kind of small aircraft that could be used. I wonder whether any research has been done into the possibility of an air link between Cardiff, North and West Wales?
  No mention has yet been made of the facilities we have in Wales. For instance, we have many ports, including Aberystwyth, New Quay and Cardigan. The right hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Hughes) is not here at the moment, but I know that he is very worried that liners from Ireland are not able at present to come into Holyhead. This could have a disastrous effect on the agricultural economy in that area. Our ports could be improved if we could persuade more tourists to make use of these facilities.
  Successive Governments have sadly neglected a transport policy in rural areas, particularly in Wales. The top priority must be an extensive road building programme with motorways linking North and South Wales and Aberystwyth and Shrewsbury, giving easy access to the Midlands. The railroad between Aberystwyth and Carmarthen should be reopened to provide a rail link between North and South Wales. Co-ordinating the traffic flow system in Wales would be one of the most important functions of the Welsh Development Agency. Top priority should be given to improved communications in Wales.
  Unless this Government are prepared to take
  action they should make way for the Liberals, who have more foresight and sympathy with the economic plight

  1465
  of our nation. Wales is only a small nation in comparison with many others in the world, but it is the Land of my Fathers and it is our duty to look after her interests to the best of our ability. Because of the inept Government policies to deal with the urgent problems facing the Welsh nation, my party will vote for the motion.
  5.45 p.m.
  Mr. Neil Kinnock: For one moment I thought the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Howells) was going to burst into song. As all but three of the hon. Members in the Chamber at the moment are Welsh we would have felt obliged to join in. Perhaps we could use the services of Max Boyce at Westminster.
  It is strange that this debate was immediately preceded by a statement from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade about the great success in gaining access for Concorde to Washington and New York and cutting the time for very expensive transatlantic travel from eight hours to three hours—which is about the time it takes me to get from Cardiff to Hereford or Llanbedr on a good day. I have taken that long to get across the Island of Anglesey at peak time during the summer.
  I have consistently supported the development of financing of Concorde, but I wonder whether we have slightly twisted priorities when we consider that a part of Great Britain with 2½ million people, a pre condition of whose economic survival is an adequate communications network, has been regarded by successive Governments as having less precedence than the dramatic and attractive technological development of cutting the time taken to cross the Atlantic.
  Debates like this, if they do nothing else, at least remove us from the cockpit of the pro- or anti-Concorde argument and permit us to reassert the elementary necessity of improving out of all recognition the communications system in Wales and to balance this priority against the priorities that have been adopted in the past.
  My historical sense was titillated by the remarks of the hon. Member for Cardigan who spoke of the failure of successive Labour and Conservative Governments to make provision for communications in Wales. I do not remember
  1466
  it, but we had a Liberal Prime Minister and Government in this country for a fairly considerable time. Their contribution to the task of improving the communications system in Wales was to give highly lucrative licences to private rail company operators some of whom were later rewarded with hereditary peerages—for a price. Whatever contribution the Liberal Party has to make to the general debate, comparisons with the records of past Governments are not the most fruitful line for them to pursue.
  Wales does not have an adequate communications network and this is part of the reason for the sensitivity of the Welsh economy to the difficulties of other economies. It appears that, far from an excess of Socialism, as the hon. Member for Conway (Mr. Roberts) said, causing unemployment, the cause is the almost total absence of Socialism or of a consistent approach to the planning of industrial opportunities and support for industrial development. More specifically, of course, the catastrophic cuts in railway services, the neglect of road-spending programmes and the lack of imagination in trying to improve the existing road network in Wales to meet the increasing demands upon it, whether for industrial, tourist or general purposes of social intercourse have been at the root of the trouble.
  Demands are made for a motorway to run from North to South Wales. It would be the safest motorway in the country. It would be the only one in the world on which the children could safely play marbles for most of the year. It would be the most incredible waste of public money. That would not be the axis of industrial development in Wales. I do not think anyone who manifests a particular loyalty to Wales or even understands the Welsh economic problem would advocate such a prospect.
  What we need is a major improvement of the road between Hereford and Bangor. If that road were brought up to main trunk road standard within Gwent to Abergavenny and beyond into Herefordshire, that would significantly improve the diagonal, and most important, communications link between North and South Wales. If we were to consider not this glamorous and appealing slash of communication down the centre of Wales,

  1467
  but, instead, the true needs of Wales, we would be talking, nationalist prejudice aside, of an improvement of all the border routes, road and rail, and of the network of routes coming off them. Essentially we are talking about an improvement of the A49, about a regular North-South passenger rail service to replace the charming safari which is involved in getting from Cardiff to North Wales and, in addition, essentially extending the three routes to provide a good chance of industrial development in North, Mid and South Wales.
  That is a logical route plan for Wales. It is not that it just has an appealing logic. For the retention of population and for industrial development this kind of idea should have taken precedence over the galaxy of industrial inducements, bribes and cajolery that has existed in the last 10 or 15 years—
  Sir A. Meyer: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Kinnock: The hon. Gentleman may say "Hear, hear", but his party has a policy of the most general parsimony on public expenditure. It thinks that it sounds virile to be careful with the public purse. However, public expenditure cuts have extended from being its general philosophy to being its only economic policy. It has been the case ever since countrymen of ours destroyed the toll system in Mid and West Wales—heaven bless Rebecca and the ladies—that all road investment in this country has been public investment. We cannot, therefore, on the one hand identify the difficulties of Wales as resulting largely from the inadequacy of the road system and simultaneously advocate even a restraint on public expenditure, far less the kind of cuts the Conservatives would like.
  Sir A. Meyer: I am sure that the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) did not deliberately seek to mislead the House, but he must be aware of the sharp distinction which exists between the large cuts which are possible on current expenditure and transfer payments, and cuts in investment. That is quite a different story and something we have never advocated.
  Mr. Kinnock: If we could count on those whose business confidence we are told is so vital to our economic survival
  1468
  adopting, the hon. Gentleman's understanding attitude towards cuts in public expenditure we could get away with what he is advocating. We could get away simultaneously with increasing investment while trimming transfer payments and current expenditure. Unfortunately, these matters are not seen that way. If we were to increase expenditure on the scale which would be demanded by an improvement of the Welsh communication system, whatever long-term benefit it might bring to industry, tourism, commerce or domestic life, it would still be seen as an increase in public expenditure. I support it just the same. The difficulty is that there appears to be on the Conservative Benches no advocate who could explain it to those whose confidence is said to be so necessary.
  Perhaps I could make a relevant projection about the changes that are taking place in our way of life in Wales. I have in recent memory—for some of us it is an unforgettable memory—the proposition for major devolution of powers to a Welsh Assembly. The devolution debate has taken place, and it would not only be boring and repetitively odious to rehearse the arguments again, it would be out of order. It is fair, however, in considering a motion about the future of the infrastructure in Wales, and specifically about the communications infrastructure, for us to consider all the possibilities which exist for drawing up a systematic and coherent communications policy in the event that the devolution propositions should come to fruition.
  Under the proposals either there would not be a single farthing more for investment in communications or, whatever the arguments advanced in the Assembly or here, those in Cardiff would not enjoy an atom of extra discretion in seeking to improve the roads in Wales. Under those arrangements we should not be justified in seeking a debate like this because these matters would already have been thoroughly and comprehensively covered in an alternative semi-legislature. If we ever came to the situation which Plaid Cymru envisages tonight, of having to vote on the matter, the strange fact is that no Welsh or Scottish Member could justify himself, in democratic terms, casting the determining vote about communications, because it would not be Parliament's business.

  1469
  Debates such as this offer us a practical opportunity to discuss openly what all of us would like to see in Wales, and not simply to make parochial complaints but to bring what, we hope, is collective wisdom to bear on these problems, and to try to set our demands against the realities of the time and the calculable changes of the future. It appears to me that in the proposals for devolution there is one calculable change of the future which would be detrimental in respect of attaining the ideal that we all want—a useful economic and fully developed public transport and communications system in Wales.
  Finally, I return to a point made by the hon. Member for Conway. He seeks to prove—I can understand why—that our difficulties in Wales at present in communications and other matters, most specifically, unemployment, are the consequence of Socialism. I think that it was Lenin who said that Socialism was Marx plus electricity. In the case of the problems of Wales, Socialism would mean a Labour Government plus the willingness to undertake a vast extension in public investment. It would mean the kind of reflation for which we have called previously, and not simply money going in the form of tax rebate into private pockets to be spent—as President Ford has tried to do it or as others have advocated—but in the form of directed public investment, nowhere better than in communications, which would remain under the control of and directly responsive to the public will through publicly elected representatives.
  6.2 p.m.
  Sir Raymond Gower: I shall try to be brief. The hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Evans) displayed once again his passionate love for Wales. We acknowledge that feeling. However, I hope that he will acknowledge that there are others in other parties—all of us, probably—who share his love of the Principality but who nevertheless have different ideas about how we can best ensure the prosperity and future well-being of Wales. I hope that the hon. Gentleman accepts that proposition. Indeed, some of us fear the very dangerous effects, as we see them, of the possible break-up of the United Kingdom and the consequences which could arise therefrom for the economy of Wales.
  1470
  The hon. Gentleman and his party have put down this motion which deplores the lack or inadequacy of the infrastructure, and they mention especially transportation by air, rail and road. We cannot quarrel with that. Obviously, all of us can say that the infrastructure and transport could be better. It would be foolish to deny that. However, this is a very difficult time for making a case that this is the appropriate moment in history to embark on a major programme of improving that infrastructure.
  As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, the economy is in a particularly delicate state of balance at present. I should have thought that what we can do to improve the infrastructure in the next year or so must be of a particularly selective nature. Some of the sort of expenditure involved would of necessity be rather large. It would not necessarily be labour intensive. It would certainly not necessarily provide a remedy for unemployment in certain areas. Expenditure on improvement of the infrastructure would have to be particularly carefully designed and, at the same time, very selective.
  I share the views that have been expressed about the need to improve the roads of Wales. However, I say to the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) that I do not think that it is possible to improve the roads without incurring consequences for other forms of transportation. The hon. Gentleman implied that we could improve all these things at the same time. I apprehend that the improvement of the M4 has meant a considerable loss of business for British Rail. I hope that hon. Members appreciate that this is one of the difficulties. Similarly—to take an English example—the improvement of the rail service between Manchester and London has meant serious losses for British Airways. We cannot look at these matters in isolation. We must look at them all.
  I see a need for improving the motorway and extending it to the west, for industrial reasons as well as reasons of personal transport. I share the anxieties which have been expressed about the failure—I acknowledge the failure—of past Governments to do more for airway development in Wales. That is

  1471
  one of my hobby horses, naturally, because Rhoose Airport is in the constituency which I have had the honour to represent for some years. I sincerely hope that the Government will look at this matter again.
  The hon. Member for Carmarthen gave some of the figures for relative expenditure on civil aviation in different parts of the United Kingdom. I do not see how any Government can get away from the fact that the amount of expenditure by Government—I use the word "Government" in general terms—on civil aviation in Wales has been negligible, while in other parts of the United Kingdom it has sometimes been on quite a substantial scale. Therefore, in all fairness, I believe that there is a case for some help to the very hard pressed consortium of local authorities which is now bearing the cost of the upkeep of the airport at Rhoose.
  I found the recent report of the committee that has been studying the regional airports in the West of the United Kingdom somewhat unrealistic. It talked about the ideal airport which could be created at Bristol. It gave as an alternative a combination of the airport at Rhoose and the airport at Exeter. But it ignored the fact that the airport at Rhoose exists, while a suitable airport at Bristol certainly does not exist. That, too, is an additional reason for help to the consortium of county councillors. That help is very much needed. We can argue the merits of the expenditure on which they embarked, but the fact is that this has been done. The runways have been extended and the facilities have been created. It would be very wrong if those admirable facilities were now not to be fully used.
  I tend to share the views expressed about the railway network in Wales now being of such a nature that any further cuts would perhaps cause fatal injury. The problem is related to road traffic problems in the more thickly populated parts of South Wales, and possibly in North-East Wales and certainly in the Glamorgans and in Gwent. One cannot look at the railway situation in and around Cardiff and Swansea without considering the effect of the railway system being reduced. There is certainly a large amount of commuter traffic by rail in
  1472
  and out of Cardiff, and it is tending to increase in some ways. This is an encouraging factor. I hope that the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary, who will be replying to the debate, will emphasise this factor. I am referring now not to the general picture but to the particular nature of the commuter traffic in and out of the larger regions—and particularly Cardiff, in South Wales. It is relieving the very heavy road traffic, which had almost come to a standstill.
  This evening I make this special plea on behalf of civil aviation and on behalf of one aspect of the railway traffic. That is as much as I can and should attempt to do in the short time available. I have abbreviated my speech in the interest of other members.
  6.10 p.m.
  Mr. Roy Hughes: It so happens that there are two debates in the House today—one on Wales and one on Scotland. Perhaps this is the forerunner of what is to happen in Cardiff on Saturday. I feel quite convinced that on Saturday evening I shall be singing Mae hen wlad fy nhadau—and hymns and arias as well, but one plea I make is that on Saturday we shall not find that we have a Glasgow referee.
  On a more serious note, there has been another link between Scotland and Wales this week—the announcement of the dispersal of Ministry of Defence personnel. I say quite clearly and categorically this evening that this is a disgraceful decision announced by the Ministry of Defence. I know what is behind it. I also know who is behind it. I give the Government fair warning this evening that in the weeks and months ahead I intend to see to it that they will hear much more about this question.
  When we examine the problems facing Wales at the present time, it is necessary to bear in mind, first, that 80 per cent. of the people of the Principality live in the two counties of Glamorgan and Monmouthshire. We know that the economies of those two counties were originally largely based on the coal industry.
  Coal is mined where it is found. The coal industry of South Wales employed many thousands of men and was essentially a sort of male-dominated community. With the closure and the run-down of the mining industry in the

  1473
  last 15 years, considerable diversification has had to be brought about in relation to the employment of people who formerly found their work in the mining industry.
  A few days ago the Gwent County Council brought out a very important report. One of the principal aspects of the report was to draw attention to the huge acreage of land available in the south of the county of Gwent. It is flat land—not very good agricultural land—and would be ideal for industrial development purposes.
  Such a development would have considerable virtue, for, in the first instance, the land adjoins the great Llanwern works—now the cornerstone of the whole economy of Gwent, employing nearly 10,000 work people.
  One of the linking aspects of such development in this area would be port development. My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) has already briefly referred to this matter.
  One of the great disappointments concerning the Llanwern project has been that it has not had its own iron ore terminal. Some development of this kind in the south of Monmouthshire would be of considerable assistance in making this a fully integrated works, and in boosting the morale of the work people.
  The British Transport Docks Board, in the course of this Session of Parliament, will be introducing a Private Bill to extend its option for development. It has a port project in this area which could take in also the Uskmouth terminal, and would serve the Llanwern works. I have always been convinced of the merit of such a scheme, and I hope that eventually the Government will give it the go-ahead.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East has, as I have said, referred to the South Wales ports. They are going through a difficult time at the moment. The prospects do not look good, because of the West Dock scheme at Bristol. But the interesting point is that, whereas the West Dock scheme has been highly speculative in character—in other words, it involves the building of a port without any trade—the Uskmouth project, which I have repeatedly advocated, has a guaranteed in-built trade
  1474
  with the great Llanwern steelworks and the supplying of its iron ore.
  Concerning general development in the south of Monmouthshire, the people at the heads of the valley have nothing to fear at all. The more major projects that are sited there, the more the smaller types of projects will flow quite naturally up the valleys to places like Abertillery and Ebbw Vale.
  We need better communications to our valleys. Certainly we need much better roads. It was a regrettable step when the railway communications to those valleys were closed some years ago.
  There is a need in this period of economic depression to concentrate on the infrastructure of Wales. In this sense the Keynesian remedy is still highly relevant. It was relevant before the war, when we should have improved our infrastructure. Now that there are thousands of construction workers, among others, drawing unemployment benefit, when they should be employed on these vitally necessary projects for the future wellbeing of the people of Wales, it is equally relevant.
  6.19 p.m.
  Mr. Geraint Morgan: I shall be brief and confine myself to certain specific queries relating to communications in Wales.
  My first general question concerns us very much in North Wales. Why are there no proposals for a motorway route in North Wales when the traffic volume would clearly justify its provision? It is true that some progress has been made with the A55. Many years have elapsed since a former distinguished Member of this House was driven to hitch a lift as a pillion passenger on a motor cycle to attend a function on the Welsh side of the Dee. The Government have now given priority, very rightly, to the A55.
  I have a specific query to put in relation to this. In view of that priority, why is it that the proposed extension east of Abergele is not being allowed to proceed immediately? The fact that an inquiry about the North Wales Expressway is going on in Colwyn Bay is not material, because whatever route is ultimately approved there is no reason why this scheme should not proceed.
  The A5, as the Minister may be aware, is also a trunk road, even though it does not now carry anything like the weight

  1475
  of traffic that the A55 does. It is regrettable that there is no major works programme for the A5. I understand that there is no development in respect of the Corwen Bypass, and there has, on the other hand, been a considerable waste of time and money over the proposed bypass for Llangollen. As I have advised the Welsh Office over and over again, there is universal opposition locally to this project. It is unlikely that this line will be developed anyway and if one is adopted it is likely to impede development for many years to come. That has been the unhappy history of Llanrwst, another town in my constituency, where a line was adopted as far back as 1958 but no bypass has been built. The existence of this line has been responsible for at least one firm leaving the town.
  I have some sympathy with what has been said by the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Evans) about the north-south trunk road. I shall not be tempted into any remarks about devolution in this context, but, whatever our views about that cr about a proposed Welsh Assembly, we must all agree that Wales is an administrative unit and that lack of such a major highway is serious.
  I dismiss immediately, as most of us would, the unrealistic suggestion of the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Howells) of a motorway from north to south, but there is a very good case for the completion of the spine road or trunk road, whatever one calls it, to join North and South. The former Socialist Government were quite right to give priority in 1965 to east-west communications, but the time has now come to give priority to this route.
  Have the Government ever considered reintroducing a statute similar to the old Agriculture (Improvement of Roads) Act of 1955, a little known but very useful measure introduced by a Conservative Government—and regrettably allowed to lapse by a later Conservative Government in 1962—which was of great benefit to Wales in regard to the improvement of rural roads? Half of the money provided under that statute was spent in the Principality and was of considerable benefit there.
  I am one of those unfortunate Members of Parliament—there are many of
  1476
  us—whose constituencies were virtually denuded of railways under the Beeching axe more than a decade ago. That makes us all the more jealous to preserve such remnants of the former rural railway system as still exist. I should like a firm undertaking that the Vale of Conwy branch line will not be closed. This is a matter of considerable local concern.
  I hope that my queries will be dealt with. I do not expect the Minister to answer them off the cuff, but perhaps he will deal in correspondence with what he cannot answer in the debate.
  6.24 p.m.
  Mr. Dafydd Wigley: In bringing to a conclusion the remarks from this Bench, I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge the half Supply Day that we have been accorded and express thanks to those who made it available—even though we should always be grateful for more.
  This has been a wide-ranging debate, possibly too wide-ranging for the time available. That is something that we shall bear in mind for our next opportunity. It is odd, when everyone agrees on the importance of infrastructure for the economy of Wales and other places, that we are unsuccessful in getting the necessary action on the things which need to be done.
  This is essentially an economic debate, but like so many other matters the social and cultural aspects depend so much on the economic aspect. It is absolutely essential for a country like Wales, which suffered so much depopulation and unemployment, to get the economic base right if we are to overcome our other problems.
  Economic development depends on two broad considerations. The first is the market forces in general, which depend largely on demand management. This is an international aspect. As the Prime Minister said recently, that may be well outside the control of the United Kingdom. The second consideration is supply management, involving locational determinants for industry. This debate concerns mainly that subject.
  Our objective should be to stimulate self-regenerative economic growth. That has been the subject of many studies in many countries, and many different

  1477
  solutions have been put forward. Four categories of thought apply to this general area of consideration. The first is the use of the carrot to induce industrial and economic development. The analysis here is divided between those who believe in making an area attractive for industry and those who want to compensate industry for the basic weaknesses of any area. The second category is the whip, in which area also there are two sub-divisions—the philosophy of those who want to use prohibitive measures like industrial development certificate and that of those who want to use positive measures such as, possibly, the direction of industry. There is a fundamental debate there.
  The third category to be considered is the dispute between planned and sporadic development. Wales has suffered more than most places from too much sporadic development and too little planned development. But if we are to have planned development the argument must turn on whether we will do this in terms of concentrated growth centres or in a diffused manner. There are countries which have succeeded in both methods. I prefer the growth centre technique, but I should have liked to hear much more discussion today of points like this, because they are important for developing a communication network.
  The fourth group of considerations centre on the question whether the industrial development should be mainly companies which are locally rooted—in other words, organic growth, an aspect much favoured in the more rural areas, where they want many small companies to grow—or whether there should be transplanted economic growth, under which large supranational or international companies are induced to enter an area.
  All those four categories must be considered. I suspect that Wales has tended to miss out on all four. The use of the carrot of compensation has been unfortunate. We should have done much more to overcome the basic weaknesses in our economy—in other words, we should have provided better roads and a better communications network generally rather than compensated companies for having to suffer the present network.
  I want to take up next—I accept that Conservative Members will disagree with
  1478
  this—the refusal of successive Governments to direct industry. There may be difficulties in doing this in the private sector, but in the public sector—more and more of the economy has come into that sector—there is considerable scope for additional direction of industry to areas of severe unemployment. We have suffered sporadic development here, too, with virtually no pattern of economic planning.
  One of the problems with the transplanted companies that we have had is that often, at times of economic recession, they have closed down branch factories and moved out of Wales again. If it is possible to root industrial development in an area, that is much better for the area.
  These considerations are the bases of this debate. It is important to create the right positive attractions for industry and to do so on a planned basis. We may ask what the locational determinants are for an industry going to an area. I acknowledge the 1972 Industry Act as a step in the right direction. It has not done everything, but it has probably taken as far as it can be taken the use of incentives as pure bait. To talk of taking it much further is to become unrealistic.
  But although that approach went far along the road towards giving as much bait as possible, it has proved unsuccessful. We need to develop the positive attractions of Wales as a location for industry. That means an economic plan, a subject to which I have referred in the past; I will not go over old ground again. One of the things that it means in an economic plan based on growth centres is that we need a better transport system.
  A paper produced by the Wales TUC on this matter of transport in Wales said:
  "Transport in Wales in the post-war period has been characterised by a combination of cutbacks, under-investment and official procrastination … The Wales TUC feel that the decimation of the transport system in Wales has gone on unchecked for too long."
  Those are important words, and we should take note of them.
  I believe also that a valid comment has been made in this context by the

  1479
  Welsh County Committee in a memorandum which it submitted to the Secretary of State in 1972. Referring to the road network, it said:
  "Thus England's road programme has the two basic ingredients lacking in the Welsh strategy. Namely, the urgent improvement, to dual carriageway standard, of a selected number of routes which will give good interurban links and secondly, the completion of this route network within a specified time period.
  There is no reason why this could not be done for Wales."
  The specified time period is important bearing in mind that the promises made by successive Governments have not come to fruition.
  This is a point which has been made by the Development Corporation for Wales. It produced a report on road communications in North Wales. It said that a road network would be necessary to take up the traffic projected for 1981 which included dual carriageway for the A55 and the A5 and a link road between the A55 and the A5 in the Wrexham area. That was regarded as a necessary development to cope with projected traffic needs but, unfortunately, it has not taken place.
  May I, Mr. Speaker, congratulate you on your appointment to the Chair and say how pleased I am to be making this my first speech with you in charge of our proceedings.
  We need a co-ordinated transport system. In fact, we need more than just that. We need co-ordination between the road and rail network, and this is an interesting point which has been made strongly by the Wales TUC. It said in the paper to which I referred earlier:
  "We need an urgent and fundamental reappraisal of the total transportation system of Wales. This should be urgently instituted. Moreover we feel that radical changes should be made in the planning and decision-making framework so that future transport policy will be more sensitive, responsive and accountable to the opinion of the people of Wales. Our principal aim should be the creation of an integrated network of road, rail, sea and air transport systems."
  That is something for which I press strongly.
  Reference has been made to the investment programme of British Railways over the next few years. If the investment programme is retained at £238 million per
  1480
  annum, which the Minister for Transport referred to at Question Time yesterday and said he could see that that did not necessarily mean there would be a reduction of services in the long term, I must inform the House that that is not the opinion of many people involved in the railways in Wales and elsewhere. I appeal to the Government to reconsider their investment programme if the £238 million is intended for more than one year.
  In the context of integrating services in Wales, we need the development of a passenger transport authority and an authority for freight. Under the 1968 Act it is possible for the Secretary of State to bring about a Welsh passenger transport authority by means of a Statutory Instrument. This is a possibility which has been developed in the larger metropolitan-dominated areas. If that Act is not used for the circumstances in Wales, people are bound to fear that it was not designed for Welsh needs.
  In a letter dated 21st July 1972, the Welsh Office acknowledged that circumstances change from time to time and said that it would reconsider the possibility of a Welsh passenger transport authority as circumstances changed. I appeal to the Under-Secretary to give further thought to that now in view of the possible cutbacks in Wales in terms of a railway transport system.
  We need air links. I was sorry to hear the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Evans) refer to the possibility of an aerodrome in every backyard. We do not regard Valley, Aberystwyth or Swansea as backyards. It is essential to have air transport facilities if those places are to develop as possible centres for economic growth. That is essential, as is the need to link them to an airport of international magnitude as we would wish to see at Rhoose.
  The situation with regard to the ports is that we have a huge boundary along the South Wales coast consisting of deep water facilities but these have not been developed to the fullest extent possible. There is a project at Port Talbot which could bring about 1,000 jobs in ship repairing but this has been turned down because one public corporation passes the buck to another. This has gone on for more than a year. There is a possibility of 1,000 jobs being provided at a time when they are needed, and I

  1481
  urge the Minister to consider again the possibility of ship repairing in the Port Talbot area. I press, too, the needs of Holyhead and the future of this port because it is essential to the whole of the industrial base of Gwynedd.
  The Welsh Development Agency has started work, and we wish it well. One job that it will need to do is to develop industrial parks. We recognise the importance of improving the infrastructure, and we need industrial plants. We need centres with facilities for industrial development. We need gas supplies. We fail to get industrial development in some parts because there is no gas supply there. Wales Gas has been unable to do anything about that. We need industrial parks with full electricity facilities. We need industrial parks with common services such as transport, administrative and even canteen facilities, because that can help small companies to set up in those areas.
  It is important, in a way that transcends party divisions, to get the right incentive to develop jobs in Wales. We need much more emphasis on business and technical education. We should bring the University of Wales into the work of the Welsh Development Agency. Work is going on at Bangor in the Industrial Development Unit. Ideas put forward there have been developed elsewhere, but they should be used to benefit the local economy. I hope that the Under-Secretary will pass that message on to the Welsh Development Agency.
  We want to encourage entrepreneurs as well as development in the public sector. All these aspects underline the need to develop the infrastructure of Wales. We have an opportunity, if we put our minds to it, to overcome the problems that have bogged Wales down for decades. We have lost people because we have not had the jobs for them. If there were a co-ordinated approach and an economic plan with the right investment, we should be able to overcome our problems. I hope that the Government will accept what we say. I suspect that they will not, and if they do not the people of Wales will have to pay the price.
  6.38 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Barry Jones): May I too, Mr. Speaker, congratulate you on your election to the Chair. I am glad to catch your
  1482
  eye in this the first Welsh debate over which you are presiding. Perhaps it is not inappropriate that I catch your eye, because at one time I was your PPS when we were in Opposition.
  Mr. Speaker: In that case, perhaps the hon. Member will bear the Scots in mind as well.
  Mr. Jones: I take that broad hint.
  I anticipated this debate with a high degree of optimism. The experts who seem consistently to deplore the failure of successive Governments in whatever field one cares to name were going to show us how to create an industrial infrastructure which would make possible the development of a balanced Welsh economy, an infrastructure which included a road, rail and air communications system, no less—though I presumed from the terms of the motion that the well-known insularity of Plaid Cymru Members precluded the use of the sea.
  I regret that my optimism was ill founded. From the Opposition Benches I have heard much that would provide the motive power for that well-known means of transport the hot air balloon but little to suggest that the supporters of the motion, and particularly the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Evans), have developed their planning one millimetre beyond the realms of fancy. The hon. Member for Carmarthen made an extraordinary speech, consisting of a number of rhetorical questions and even hyperbole. There was stale prophecy, and it seemed altogether a Cassandra-like speech. It contrasted strangely with the speech of the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley).
  I find it strange to hear the exponents of a balanced economy talking as though there were a bottomless pit full of gold upon which the Government could call to provide an endless pattern of rail, road and air communications, and suggesting that if such a system were produced all the problems of the world's economies would be solved. The hon. Member for Conway (Mr. Roberts) made that point effectively, although the rest of his speech was a smooth apologia.
  Good communications are a vital part of an infrastructure within which an industrial economy can develop, but they are not the total infrastructure. There

  1483
  are choices that have to be made, and they have to be made within the financial constraints that we face. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has carefully chosen policies that will help to develop a better system of communications and a better industrial infrastructure in Wales while concentrating on the immediate target, which must be the attack against inflation.
  The Welsh Office seeks to view transport as a whole. My right hon. and learned Friend has therefore in part reorganised the Department. He has just formed a new Transport Policy Division. It will advise Ministers upon the whole of the transportation system in Wales and its part in the total system of the United Kingdom.
  Hon. Members know that the recently allocated transport supplementary grants were extremely favourable overall to the Welsh counties. Hon. Members know also, I am sure, that the Welsh counties have considerable freedom to decide their own roads priorities. It is for them to decide how to spend the allocation. The allocation of the transport supplementary grant in Wales has been particularly favourable to the sparsely-populated areas. Gwynedd and Powys benefited most of all from the new formula which indirectly helps, in these areas, to maintain the jobs of those employed in transport.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Roderick) fought very hard to get an allocation which would safeguard the jobs of his constituents. I know that he welcomes the allocation to Powys.
  Mr. Jeffrey Thomas: I thank my hon. Friend for mentioning the transport supplementary grant. On behalf of the people of North Gwent I should like to say how grateful we are for the help we have had from the Welsh Office over the A467 from Crumlin to north of Aberbeeg, locally known as the "Khyber Pass". As a result of the grant it is hoped that we can start on the road either this year or next.
  Mr. Jones: I can confirm that that is the situation so far as the Gwent Transport Committee is concerned. I
  1484
  know the situation better since I took a journey along the "Khyber Pass" and saw the horrific dangers. I pay tribute to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Abertillery (Mr. Thomas) for the conscientious and diligent campaign he has conducted. I hope he can now say that he has realised his objective.
  It is folly to presume that the road building programme can escape the need to contain public expenditure. But top priority has been given to the M4. This will be followed by the dualling of the A55 from Chester to Bangor and the improvement of the A48 to Carmarthen and the A40 beyond.
  Sir A. Meyer: Can the Minister insert a date into that sentence?
  Mr. Jones: I wish that I had not given way to the hon. Gentleman, not because I cannot give him a date but because I hope later to give dates for some areas in which he is interested.
  There are some 30 miles of the M4 currently under construction in Wales at an overall cost of about £100 million. We are determined to follow an east-west road strategy. The M4 will make a dramatic contribution to the economy of all of South Wales. When it is completed, priority will be given to improving the A48 and A40 across Dyfed. This will include bypasses of St. Clears and Carmarthen on which work should start in 1978 or 1979, subject to the satisfactory completion of all the usual statutory procedures. The schemes which I have just mentioned should cost a total of about £9 million.
  In order to make sure that funds are used to the best effect, my right hon. and learned Friend has recently carried out a detailed review of the relative priorities to be accorded to schemes under preparation so that resources are concentrated on those which are needed first. He has taken the opportunity to consider whether changing circumstances have shifted the balance in favour of deferring some schemes so that others, for which there is a greater need and a greater likely cost benefit, can be included. In all, 17 schemes worth an estimated £128 million have been added to the preparation pool and further preparation work on nine schemes worth about £14 million in total has been deferred. This does not involve an increase

  1485
  in planned public expenditure since we are talking of preparation, and expenditure at this stage is low for some years.
  This redirection reflects our determination to improve the system in North Wales. For example, the Queensferry Flyover has been added to the firm programme and, subject to satisfactory completion of the necessary statutory procedures, I hope that we shall be able to start work on this important and urgent scheme costing £2½ million before the end of the 1977–78 financial year. The hon. and learned Member for Denbigh (Mr. Morgan) presented a list of queries, and I must write to him about them.
  The complicated and long public inquiry into the proposals for the Colcon scheme is now virtually over, and I hope that it will be possible to find a satisfactory solution to the very difficult problems involved so that work can start on the first stage in 1978–79. I also hope that we shall be able to start other major schemes on the A55 in the St. Asaph-Bodelwyddan-Abergele area costing nearly £5 million at about the same time, together with the Caernarfon inner relief road at a cost of £5½ million.
  Apart from the schemes which I have mentioned, work is proceeding on the preparation of proposals for completing dual carriageways for the whole of the A55 from Chester to the Britannia Bridge. We hope to start work on this bridge costing a total of about £10½ million in 1978, provided that the financial situation does not deteriorate further. Work is also virtually completed on the dualling of the road from Drome Corner to Cheshire at a cost of £2 million. The road, which should be open on 1st March, will considerably improve access to the Shotton steelworks and the newly-designated industrial estate at Sealand. I am sure that there is no need for me to remind the House of the severe financial constraints under which we are working and that these forecasts of starting dates depend upon there being no further worsening of this situation.
  Many hon. Members, including my hon. Friends the Members for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) and Caerphilly (Mr. Evans) and the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Howells), raised questions concerning the railways.
  Mr. Geraint Howells Mr. Geraint Howells rose
  Mr. Jones: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman but he should know, as Mr. Speaker has warned me, that another tribe and another race have the next debate and if I give way I shall take time from that debate.
  Mr. Howells: In his summing up the Minister made no mention of Mid-Wales. Does he have any plans to improve the roads system in Mid-Wales?
  Mr. Jones: I shall write to the hon. Gentleman telling him the plans for roads in Mid-Wales.
  As far as railways are concerned, a great deal of discussion recently, both within this Chamber and elsewhere, has centred on rumours of cuts in the network. I can only repeat that the Welsh Office takes the keenest interest in the functioning of the railway in Wales, that we regard it as vital and that we are not aware of any proposals to close lines in Wales. The House will know that a consultative document will be published. The hon. Member for Conway did not press his luck too far in this regard because he knows that round his side's neck is the great albatross of the railway closures which were scheduled under the now famous Dr. Beeching reports. We shall always have those in mind when he makes his speeches on railways in the months ahead.
  I shall deal now with South Wales generally. We are concentrating on the M4 and the A48, which already include good road links with the Midlands and the rest of England, as well as a much improved A470 serving as a route to North Wales—not that we have any intention of dualling from Cardiff to Wrexham as the hon. Member for Carmarthen said. The mind boggles at the consequences of that and I am sure that on reflection he would not wish to drive a dual carriageway right through the Brecon Beacons. He would know the hornets' nest that he would stir up if he thought of doing that through that beautiful park.
  A major development on the railways has been a substantial investment of some planned £40 million, which must be shared with Bristol as well as with South Wales, on the development of the high-speed passenger train which will come into service between South Wales and London later this year. There will be a

  1487
  full service, I am told, in May 1977, cutting the fastest journey time by half an hour. The line to Paddington will be the first to enjoy the considerable benefits from this exciting advance in railway technology.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East certainly knows his railway industry and, I dare say, his timetables. It is clear that he had the details of the railway industry in his mind from the shrewd remarks that he delivered to us.
  I shall deal briefly with West Wales. It has suffered from relative remoteness. This must decline as the M4 is completed, as the high-speed train reaches Swansea and as the Carmarthen bypass and improvements in the St. Clears area materialise. There has been an encouraging development in the establishment of a licensed aerodrome at Withybush near Haverfordwest. This was licensed in February 1974 and is making a useful contribution to communications in that area. There has been an encouraging growth in traffic and there are grounds for hope that before long there might be regular third-level services between Withybush and Rhoose Airports as well as other parts of Wales and the rest of the United Kingdom.
  The hon. Member for Cardigan mentioned Mid-Wales. I well understand the transport problems of ordinary people in sparsely populated rural areas and recognise the importance of the railways in providing the main public transport links with other parts of the country. In addition, the Government are taking a lead in experimentation with less conventional systems in order to find a cheaper and more effective means of satisfying the needs of the more remote communities. Special projects are being set up—one will be in Wales—to test various possibilities on the ground, and the Government will bring forward a Bill to test under controlled conditions modest relaxations of the bus licensing code in the selected areas, one of which will be in Wales. I know that this will be of interest to the hon. Members for Cardigan and Caernarvon.
  I turn briefly to North Wales. I am very pleased to see in today's Liverpool Daily Post that Clwyd County Council feels it can look forward to an increased
  1488
  road-building programme because of the approach that the Welsh Office has taken on transport supplementary grant. It seems that a start can be made on the Holt-Farnden bypass in 1978–79 and that the Ffynnongroew bypass and Bangor-on-Dee bridge, costing about £1½ million each, can be started in the coming year. I think that this go-ahead council is to be congratulated on the way it gets on with the job of solving its transport problems. Industrialists in that area will, I know, welcome the attention being paid to improving access to the M6.
  In North Wales, too, the port of Holyhead clearly has an assured future, although we were all disappointed by the decline in the container traffic and the troubles to do with Ireland. However, British Rail has already undertaken major investments in the port and is building a new multi-purpose ship to come into operation next year which will help to make a better and more efficient use of the facilities at Holyhead. I know that that would be of interest to my right hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey (Mr. Hughes), who has over the years fought like a lion for that port. I understand that a private group is negotiating with British Rail with the objective of reopening the cattle traffic at the port. I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey supports efforts in that direction.
  In that part of the world—in Gwynedd—in civil aviation and with the permission of the commanding officer a good deal of use is made of RAF Valley aerodrome for special charter and business executive flights. The recent establishment of an air taxi firm will do much to encourage a better use of the facilities available in the area.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Newport (Mr. Hughes) has for a long time made his position clear on Newport Docks. I can well understand the natural concern of hon. Members who represent South Wales constituencies about the decline in trade at Newport, which largely reflects the general recession. The British Transport Docks Board is confident that new traffic will be attracted to the area and that the group as a whole will quickly recover its prosperity and continue to serve not only its immediate hinterland

  1489
  but a much wider area as efficiently as it has done in the past.
  A few words are required from me about the important matter of Rhoose Airport. I am well aware of the keen interest of all hon. Members representing constituencies in South Wales, the local authorities and many others in the future of this airport. I recollect the remarks of hon. Members for Barry (Sir R. Gower) and Carmarthen, and my hon. Friends the Members for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) and Swansea, East. Strong arguments are being advanced in support of the consortium's application for Government financial assistance. However, the case did not meet the strict criteria applied to such cases.
  The grant decision does not in any way prejudice the claims of Rhoose in the Government's present consideration of future civil airport strategy, because its capacity and considerable potential to handle modern aircraft and a much greater volume of traffic, both passenger and freight, are well known and will be taken fully into account. A consultative document will shortly be issued by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade.
  The motion is somewhat melodramatic and, in the true sense of the word, irresponsible. The National Party will not have to grapple with the difficult problems inherent in government in these times. The record of the Government and previous Labour Administrations in 1964 and 1966 is very creditable. Indeed, the hon. Member for Carmarthen could not speed his way along the St. Asaph Bypass, the Abergele Bypass and the Mold Bypass had it not been for the decisions made by the then Secretary of State for Wales, my right hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey. Nor could we have seen the great industrial estate of Wrexham which was planned and started under the previous Labour Administration in the late 1960s.
  Again, a Labour Government initiated work on the M4 and the Severn Bridge which led to untold advantages. One inference that could be drawn from what was said by the hon. Member for Carmarthen was that he did not want the Severn Bridge but would have preferred the reincarnation of the old Mumbles tram service. That is a wretched order of priority for Wales. The hon. Gentleman should be ashamed of his speech. It was silly and totally inappropriate for what Wales requires in the decades ahead. When he reads his Cassandra-like speech tomorrow he will flush with shame. All Wales will heave a great sigh that a leader such as he should be leading the National Party and not controlling the fortunes of our country.
  To sum up, I shall set out our priorities. The first must be, at a time of economic crisis, to use all moneys most effectively. We shall continue to pursue an east-west strategy in North and South Wales, while not neglecting the north-south links We appreciate the importance of our existing rail network and we shall greatly benefit from the service of the high-speed train. Because of the importance we attach to transport, and because we know that communications are vital to safeguard and create jobs, we have set up a new Transport Policy Division in the Welsh Office.
  No real grounds have been advanced to persuade us to accept the terms of the motion, and I hope that the House will utterly reject it.
  Question put,
  That this House deplores the failure of successive Governments in not creating an industrial infrastructure for Wales which includes a road, rail and air communications system and which would make possible the development of a balanced Welsh economy:—
  The House divided: Ayes 19, Noes 242.

  Division No. 54.]

  AYES

  [7.02 p.m.

  Crawford, Douglas

  Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

  Welsh, Andrew

  Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

  MacCormick, Iain

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)

  Penhaligon, David

  Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

  Farr, John

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Freud, Clement

  Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Grimond, Rt Hon J.

  Thompson, George

  Mrs. Margaret Bain and

  Hooson, Emlyn

  Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)

  Mr. Douglas Henderson

  Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

  Watt, Hamish

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

  George, Bruce

  O'Malley, Rt Hon Brian

  Allaun, Frank

  Gilbert, Dr John

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Anderson, Donald

  Ginsburg, David

  Ovenden, John

  Archer, Peter

  Golding, John

  Padley, Walter

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Gould, Bryan

  Palmer, Arthur

  Ashton, Joe

  Gourlay, Harry

  Park, George

  Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

  Graham, Ted

  Parry, Robert

  Atkinson, Norman

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Bagler, Gordon A. T.

  Grocott, Bruce

  Pendry, Tom

  Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

  Hardy, Peter

  Perry, Ernest

  Bates, Alf

  Harper, Joseph

  Phipps, Dr Colin

  Bean, R. E.

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

  Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

  Hart, Rt Hon Judith

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Hayman, Mrs Helene

  Radice, Giles

  Bishop, E. S.

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Richardson, Miss Jo

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Hooley, Frank

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Boardman, H.

  Horam, John

  Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

  Booth, Albert

  Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

  Huckfield, Les

  Rodgers, George (Chorley)

  Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

  Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

  Rooker, J. W.

  Bradley, Tom

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Rose, Paul B.

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Hunter, Adam

  Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

  Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

  Sandelson, Neville

  Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)

  Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Buchan, Norman

  Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

  Selby, Harry

  Buchanan, Richard

  Janner, Greville

  Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

  Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)

  Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)

  Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)

  Jegar, Mrs Lena

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)

  Campbell, Ian

  Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)

  Short, Mrs Renee (Wolv NE)

  Canavan, Dennis

  John, Brynmor

  Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

  Carmichael, Neil

  Johnson, James (Hull West)

  Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

  Sillars, James

  Cartwright, John

  Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

  Silverman, Julius

  Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

  Jones, Barry (East Flint)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Clemitson, Ivor

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Small, William

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)

  Kelley, Richard

  Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

  Cohen, Stanley

  Kerr, Russell

  Snape, Peter

  Colquhoun, Mrs Maureen

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  Spearing, Nigel

  Conlan, Bernard

  Kinnock, Neil

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

  Lambie, David

  Stallard, A. W.

  Corbett, Robin

  Lamborn, Harry

  Stoddart, David

  Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

  Lamond, James

  Stonehouse, Rt Hon John

  Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Stott, Roger

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Litterick, Tom

  Strang, Gavin

  Cronin, John

  Luard, Evan

  Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.

  Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

  Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

  Cryer, Bob

  McCartney, Hugh

  Swain, Thomas

  Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)

  McElhone, Frank

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

  Davidson, Arthur

  MacFarquhar, Roderick

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

  McGuire, Michael (Ince)

  Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

  Mackenzie, Gregor

  Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

  Davis, Clinton (Hack ey C)

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Tierney, Sydney

  Deakins, Eric

  Maclennan, Robert

  Tinn, James

  Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

  Tomney, Frank

  Delargy, Hugh

  McNamara, Kevin

  Torney, Tom

  Dell, Rt Hon Edmund

  Madden, Max

  Tuck, Raphael

  Dempsey, James

  Magee, Bryan

  Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

  Doig, Peter

  Mahon, Simon

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

  Dormand, J. D.

  Marks, Kenneth

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Marquand, David

  Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

  Dufty, A. E. P.

  Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

  Ward, Michael

  Dunn, James A.

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Watkins, David

  Eadie, Alex

  Mason, Rt Hon Roy

  Watkinson, John

  Edge, Geoff

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Weetch, Ken

  Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

  Meacher, Michael

  White, Frank R. (Bury)

  Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

  Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

  White, James (Pollok)

  Ennals, David

  Mendelson, John

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

  Mikardo, Ian

  Whitlock, William

  Evans, loan (Aberdare)

  Millan, Bruce

  Williams, Alan (Swansea W)

  Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

  Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

  Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

  Farr, John

  Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Flannery, Martin

  Molloy, William

  Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Moonman, Eric

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Woof, Robert

  Ford, Ben

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Wrigglesworth, Ian

  Forrester, John

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Young, David (Bolton E)

  Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

  Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

  Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)

  Newens, Stanley

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Freeson, Reginald

  Ogden, Eric

  Mr. James Hamilton and

  Garrett, John (Norwich S)

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Mr. Donald Coleman.

  Question accordingly negatived.

SCOTTISH ECONOMY
7.14 p.m.
Mr. Donald Stewart: I beg to move,
That the salary of the Secretary of State for Scotland should be reduced by the sum of £1,000.
First, I convey to the Conservative Party the thanks of my hon. Friends and myself for making a Supply Day available to Plaid Cymru and the Scottish National Party. Although it could be argued that damage is done to the democratic process of the House of Commons when the minority parties are denied Supply Days, I fully accept that by the existing procedures the Conservative Party could have maintained its exclusive position. Therefore, its gesture is all the more appreciated.
I should draw attention to an alteration in the wording of the motion. Originally it called for the reduction of the Secretary of State's salary by 50 per cent. It now seeks a reduction of £1,000. That change does not imply any shift in our attitude to the Scottish Office or the Government. The change has been made because we have been informed that the Secretary of State has already drawn over half his salary for this year and that next year's salary has not been voted.
It is my intention to deal with the Scottish economy, but I hope that the House will not feel that I am narrowing the debate if I refer for a moment to my constituency. The current unemployment figure is over 21 per cent. I can appreciate the anxiety of right hon. and hon. Members when they see unemployment figures climbing to 10 per cent., but if we could achieve that sort of unemployment level in the Western Isles we would regard it as unprecedented prosperity. I do not think that anyone living in the Western Isles has seen the figure as low as that.
What urgent steps are the Government taking to deal with that problem? It seems that they are taking precisely none, except for vague references to the Highlands and Islands Development Board and its powers. I asked the Secretary of State in a Written Question what plans he had for assisting the building of township roads in the Western Isles. I raised
1494
the matter because many roads do not now exist, and many others are in urgent need of repair. The construction of township roads would be a step towards relieving the unemployment figures. The Minister of State, Scottish Office replied:
"Schemes put forward by the Islands Council within the framework of its approved transport policies and programme will be eligible for the grants which are available for this purpose."—
[Official Report, 21st January 1976; Vol. 903, c. 474.]
With indifference on that scale the Government should be obliged to declare their lack of interest.
The Labour Party in Scotland has issued a document that purports to show why an independent Scotland would be worse off than the present Scotland. I do not intend to deal with that document in any detail, but there are several fundamental questions that could be asked in challenging the proposition. For example, why are the Scandinavian countries, with fewer resources than Scotland, enjoying a higher standard of living? Why have they enjoyed that situation for a long time? Why should Scotland be in its present plight when official figures show that compared with England the Scots export more per head and save more per head? Why should the depressing forecast have validity when it is clear from official figures that Scotland can feed its own people? I regret to say that that is now beyond the capacity of England.
It is a fact that a basic resource is in strong demand in the modern world. Does not the oil situation, make a nonsense of the Government's scenario? We have been assured by the Government that oil will be the salvation of the United Kingdom economy, but, according to the Government, for oil to be recognised as a Scottish resource is a snare and a delusion in economic terms.
Would a Scottish Government have supported the plans of the British Steel Corporation to close down plants showing a profit? That is what took place when steel was nationalised on a British basis. It was clear that when the day came for retrenchment it would be the Scottish end of the industry that would suffer the highest cuts. Would a Scottish Government have shelved the Oceanspan project? Would a Scottish Government have acquiesced in the gross underdevelopment at Hunterston? Would they have

1495
accepted the EEC fisheries policy? Would a Scottish Government have sat supinely over the sort of deprivation that has been confined almost entirely to the west of Scotland?
I desist from asking further questions because I could take up the whole of this debate. As The Scotsman wrote in an editorial:
"The fruits of dependence are sour."
The case for self-government rests on political, not economic, grounds. Some may argue that self-government is better than good government, but the choice which confronts Scotland now is between self-government and bad government. Nowhere is this more evident than in the mismanagement of the Scottish economy—the failure over the years to provide an environment for economic growth, and thus to provide continuing employment and a rising living standard for our people. The record is so poor that, to put it at its lowest, it is safe to say that no Scottish Government could do worse.
In the long run the standard of living of a society is the product of the effort, skill and judgment of its members, but in a modern economy the Government set the environment within which procedures in both private and public sectors operate. Today, all Western European Governments exert a good influence on their economies, their taxation, regulation of pricing and investment, controls of bank lending and of hire-purchase, and in various other ways. These Governments accept the responsibility for the performance of their economies, and the British Government cannot escape from their responsibility for what has happened in the Scottish economy since the war.
Let us take Japan as an example. It is a country with few raw materials, defeated in war, many thousands of miles from the world's markets, and yet it is the third largest industrial Power in the world. That has occurred because Japan's Government and people have had the intention of making a go of things. That is what Scotland could do if we had a Scottish Government.
Successive British Governments have totally failed to provide an environment within which the Scottish economy could develop a capacity for self-sustaining growth. The consequence has been record
1496
levels of emigration, record losses of jobs, and the lowest rate of economic growth in any country in Europe. Within Scotland the combination of exceptional deprivation with grim employment prospects underlines the particular failure to come to grips with the problem of the West Central Region despite 30 years of trying within the framework of the Union. Successive British Governments have failed to prompt growth in the Scottish economy because they have never tried. There are no special secrets or mysterious ingredients in the process of economic growth. All the other small countries of Western Europe have successfully set in motion programmes of economic growth.
Dr. Jeremy Bray: The hon. Gentleman is developing a most interesting argument, but I am not entirely clear whether he is arguing that the British Government have failed in the management of the British economy, or whether, in managing the British economy, the Government have discriminated against Scotland. Will he make the situation clear?
Mr. Stewart: I agree with the hon. Gentleman's comments about the attitude of the British Government. We are saying that in a free Scotland we would make decisions for the Scottish people.
As a result the other small countries in Western Europe have overtaken us in their standard of living. The Scandinavian countries have long ago left us behind, while the Republic of Ireland will overtake the United Kingdom within five years. Since the war successive British Governments have carried out sporadic measures which they call "regional policy". These measures are not designed to promote economic growth but simply to alleviate unemployment—unemployment incurred by the British Government's past failure to promote economic growth. The car factory in the 1960s and the aluminium smelter in the 1970s were installed not for the economic benefit of Scotland but for the political convenience of the party in power.
In the devolution debate the question of Dounreay was raised. The answer to that question was provided by Sir Christopher Hinton, a former chairman of the Atomic Energy Authority. He said that that plant would not go to

1497
Caithness because there was a certain degree of danger. Therefore, many of these projects have come to Scotland because of factors other than any attempt to float the Scottish economy.
Mr. Malcolm Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman raises the interesting subject of Dounreay. Will he inform the House whether it is official SNP policy to seek the removal of Dounreay from that sphere of operations in an independent Scotland?
Mr. Stewart: No. It is not. The point I make is that that was the reason given by the then chairman of the AEA rather than any idea of providing jobs.
On the contrary, the loss-making sectors of the Scottish economy have expanded all the time—from coal and shipbuilding to steel and motor cars. It is a measure of the Government's contempt for the Scottish people that they should suppose that the greater the subsidy the greater the benefit. In perpetuating low productivity and low-wage fixing the Government are doing the greatest harm to the Scottish economy. Needless to say, the Government have done nothing whatever to develop within the Scottish economy the capacity to generate new jobs in the high productivity high-wage bracket.
Periodic deflation in the 1950s and 1960s whenever the south-east of England overheated meant substantial unemployment in Scotland. On those occasions we had to take the medicine for any weakness that hit the South-East of England. If the economic consequences of the Union were allowed to continue, all viable economic activity in Scotland would die out and the whole population would come to depend on Treasury subsidies. No doubt we should all be expected to be extremely grateful for that generosity.
We want the right to earn our own living by putting our own resources to work. Freed from the strategy of Whitehall, we can do it. That will come from our own freedom to choose the policies that suit our own needs, a freedom which only a sovereign Government can possess.
Contact between Stockholm and Oslo is a matter of daily routine, but at present consultation between civil servants and Ministers in the Scottish Office and their
1498
Whitehall counterparts is a one-way dialogue.
The Labour Party has suggested that no further economic powers can be devolved to a Scottish Assembly
"without endangering the essential economic unity of the United Kingdom".
Nobody in Scotland will allow this empty, meaningless phrase to stand in the way of badly needed rebuilding of our economy.
All that the Government have to offer is the Scottish Development Agency, whose powers in relation to the desperate situation in West Central Scotland are as helpful as are the powers of a bandage in curing a cancerous growth. Office jobs, though welcome as a stopgap, do nothing to aid the economy to grow.
Nobody should underestimate the boost to the Scottish morale of a Scottish Government. We should show the world what the Scottish people can plan and bring to fruition for our people. Westminster rule means stagnation and decay. A new Scotland under a Scottish Government is essential if our country is to have any reasonable existence for its people.
7.28 p.m.
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. William Ross): I am disappointed at the enthusiasm displayed by the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) in seeking to reduce the salary of the Secretary of State for Scotland. I assure the hon. Gentleman that, if the motion succeeded tonight, it would be very much harder on the taxation department than it would be on the Secretary of State.
I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman and his party got the motion wrong. I excuse them for that, but I regret the lack of judgment shown by the hon. Gentleman in his analysis of the situation he sought to survey.
In the middle of the hon. Gentleman's remarks I began to wonder what country he was talking about. On other occasions the hon. Gentleman has spoken of the fascinating prospect of a Scottish army, a Scottish air force and a Scottish navy. I thought that one day Scotland might even hear "Donald, where's your 'cruisers'?" In a recent debate the hon. Gentleman also mentioned Scottish customs posts.

1499
The House tonight is ostensibly debating the Scottish economy, although it will be a somewhat truncated discussion. Let there be no doubt that the real purpose of the SNP is to air yet again its slogans of separatism and its glowing promises of what is to happen. The SNP would have us believe that under an independent Government Scotland would be considerably healthier. No doubt SNP members are convinced that under their policies Scotland could have been isolated from the world recession.
What policies do the SNP put forward to deal with the situation? I defy anyone to tell us what their policies are.
Mr. Gordon Wilson Mr. Gordon Wilson (Dundee, East) rose—
Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman can give way as much as he likes but I shall take my dictates from the Chair.
Anyone who listened to the well-read speech of the hon. Member for Western Isles will know that he did not indicate the policies of the Scottish National Party or the consequences of separation. I have heard nothing from the hon. Member for Western Isles or his colleagues to indicate that they have any credible policy. It is time they produced a White Paper—a tartan one if they like—giving the Scottish people the facts about separatism, its consequences and its dangers. I challenge them to do so.
Mr. Gordon Wilson Mr. Gordon Wilson rose—
Mr. Ross: I have not finished yet. I shall deal with the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson). He was on his feet denying the existence of certain documents when his hon. Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Crawford) was rising to tell us what was in these documents. Why will they not publish these documents? It is most interesting. Only the other day the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire made a speech telling us about the strong pound, and so on. He expressed his confidence in financial management after self-government and said:
"We are strongly of the view that it will be advantageous, initially, to try to keep the Pound Scots at parity with the Pound Sterling."
1500
He said that because he knew that otherwise unemployment would result. He continued:
"the reason for keeping the rate aligned to sterling would be to protect Scotland's principal labour-employing manufacturing industries from the effects of an effective upward revolution on their export prospects".
Mr. Douglas Crawford: Read on.
Mr. Ross: Why not? The whole of Scotland can read on. Why did the Scottish National Party not publish the document? It did not do so because it would be far too embarrassing. Indeed, hon. Gentlemen say that they do not know Scotland's trade position with the rest of the world; they expect us to find it out for them. Tonight they tell us nobly and bravely about Scotland's export position when in this document, produced by a working party of which the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire is a member, they say that they do not know. They are conning the people of Scotland into tartan chaos. The people of Scotland will give them their answer.
Mr. Gordon Wilson: I am not sure whether the Secretary of State was making the offer seriously, but as the Government these days tend to use the Post Office for propaganda purposes and for issuing their own White Paper, will he assure us that if the Scottish National Party produces a White Paper as he evidently wishes us to produce, he will give it the same distribution as that for Labour Party propaganda.
Mr. Ross: We hear that from the hon. Member for Dundee, East, who said in the House that these papers did not exist. The embarrassment is obvious. I know that the hon. Gentleman and his party are mixed up.
We must face the facts of the situation. We need to look away beyond Scotland. The origins of high unemployment are to be found in the economic difficulties which almost all industrialised countries, including the whole of the United Kingdom, have had to face. Hon. Gentlemen compare Scotland—a country with concentrated industries and centuries of tradition and older industries—with Norway. They should be ashamed to suggest that that has any relevance to our

1501
situation. These difficulties began with mounting world inflation, later aggravated by the tremendous rise in oil prices which began in 1973. Hon. Gentlemen must face the fact that they have to tackle this problem from their present position. These factors led to an economic crisis in the Western world and resulted in the most serious world recession that we have seen since the war.
With falling domestic demand and a 9 per cent. drop in world trade—the first absolute fall for 30 years—unprecedented post-war unemployment rates were reached in almost all Western countries. In Canada the unemployment rate rose as high as 7·2 per cent., which is higher than the present rate of unemployment in Scotland. In the United States, it reached almost 9 per cent. and in Denmark almost 14 per cent. It would be idle to suppose that the Scottish economy could be insulated from such development. Indeed, it has not been, and I am well aware of the seriousness of the present situation, especially with regard to unemployment in west and central Scotland. Nevertheless, it should be noted that the increase in unemployment in Scotland has been substantially less than in most other parts of the United Kingdom.
The unemployment relative—which expresses seasonally adjusted unemployment in Scotland as a percentage of the comparable Great Britain rate—has fallen from 143 in January 1975 to 120 at present. Many of us remember when it was double that of the United Kingdom. The present level is the lowest since this series was first recorded in 1954. This is in stark contrast to the 1971–72 recession, when no such favourable movement was recorded. Despite the widespread nature of the current recession, seasonally adjusted unemployment in Scotland is still below the levels reached in that recession. In 1971 there were no balance of payments difficulties, no world recession and no rise in oil prices.
The reasons for the slower rise in Scottish unemployment are important. North Sea oil has obviously been a major influence, with about 50,000 jobs created directly and indirectly. Those who advocate a slower rate of depletion—the Scottish National Party, which tabled this motion—should bear in mind the employment consequences. It would also affect the employment viability of
1502
exploiting some of the smaller finds. Therefore, the members of the Scottish National Party change their tune from one part of the country to another, and from one constituency to another. What they are suggesting is not to the advantage of Scotland.
Another factor underlying the relative strength of the Scottish economy during this recession has been the effects of regional policies which have done much to create a greater resilience. I did not hear the hon. Gentleman the Member for Western Isles say anytthing about that. I bet he does not say to the Highlands and Islands Development Board the same scathing things as he said here tonight. Those who support the case for a separate Scotland would do well to bear this in mind. Regional policy and separation are incompatible. We cannot have regional policies as we know them under a separate Scotland.
The outlook for the Scottish economy depends to a large degree on developments in the United Kingdom and the world economy. There are now signs that output is recovering in many industrial countries and that this is being accompanied by a recovery in the volume of world trade. In the United Kingdom, the recession appears to be reaching a bottom, and output seems to be stabilising, although in view of lags between changes in output and changes in employment it is fair and right to say that it may be some time before the effects are seen in terms of reduced unemployment.
Mr. lain MacCormick: I am interested in the Minister's statement that we could not have regional policies under any type of devolved power or separate Government. The present Government have introduced a Scottish Development Agency to Scotland, yet they have retained the Highlands and Islands Development Board which, I agree, is an excellent institution. Why could we not continue to have that with an independent Scottish Parliament?
Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that basic to regional policy is the fact that we must control developments in the more prosperous parts of the United Kingdom. Industry must be steered directly. We must have incentives to that end which are both positive and negative. A Scottish independent Government sitting in Edinburgh could

1503
not have such control throughout the rest of the country.
This, then, is the situation that we face. It is certainly not a situation which allows of complacency. We know that the Scottish people are dissatisfied with the situation, and have a right to be, but we also know that the improvement that everyone wants will not be brought about by the simple act of separation or the deceptive benefits that are said to flow from it.
As a Government we are pledged to reduce unemployment. But industry cannot thrive or expand unless it is competitive in price. The first priority, therefore, must be to reduce inflation from its present level which, though it now shows signs of reducing, together with our serious balance of payments difficulties, has ruled out immediate general reflation. However, we are working towards that position with success.
Our policies have been directed towards these fundamental problems in the economy, but we have introduced selective measures to protect employment and maintain industrial capacity. The House is well aware of these—the temporary employment subsidy, the recruitment subsidy for school leavers, the job creation programme, aid to the construction industry, and the provision of increased funds for training, particularly of the young.
These measures have been in operation for only a short time, but from them have come 6,000 jobs which would otherwise not exist in Scotland. A week ago the Chancellor told the House that he would shortly be bringing forward further measures.
The only long-term solution to our problem lies in increasing our investment substantially in new types of industry and increasing productivity to match that of our competitors. That is what we have been doing in Scotland. We have been changing the whole pattern of Scottish industry over the past 10 to 15 years, and with considerable success, which the SNP should not ignore.
The Government's regional policy has a large part to play in this matter. Independent research has shown that 70,000 jobs were created in Scotland in the 1960s under regional policies.
Mr. Crawford: How many were lost?
Mr. Ross: There would have been more difficulties regarding unemployment if we had not introduced our regional policy. The hon. Gentleman proclaimed the merits of our policy when he was endeavouring to attract industry to Scotland.
Since the Industry Act came into force in 1972, selective financial assistance of £60 million has been offered for 500 Scottish projects, involving over £500 million of investment and 48,000 jobs. As well as enhancing job opportunities, these policies have helped to improve the wage differential. I have heard SNP Members constantly refer to low wages in Scotland. That gap has been closed. I gather that the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire may speak later. He embarrasses me, because he calls himself a Scot.
Too many people refuse to recognise the benefits of regional policy and of the jobs created. Regional policy, successful as it has been, is incompatible with independence. Therefore, those people ignore the facts.
With the whole of Scotland a development area, we have been able to use the full benefits of regional aid. As my right hon. Friend the Paymaster-General said in the debate on the Devolution White Paper, there has been a substantial transfer of resources from the prosperous parts of England to Scotland and Wales. Identifiable public expenditure per head in Scotland amounted to £636 in 1974–75, compared with £545 in England. To have maintained this level of expenditure in an independent Scotland would have meant higher taxation. Who should know better than the hon. Member for Western Isles that it costs far more to maintain standards of education and of health services in his remote areas. I have heard it whispered by some SNP Members that they would not get the same deal from an independent Scottish Parliament as they would from elsewhere. The fact is that they would have to accept lower standards of education, roads, health services and industrial support.
Even with the enormous difficulties that we have faced in the general world recession, we have scored some significant successes. In the past nine months decisions have been made by the Digital Equipment Corporation to bring about

1505
500 jobs to Ayr; by Singers to transfer about 300 jobs from West Germany to Clydebank; and by General Motors at Newhouse to expand by 400 to 500 jobs.
Mr. Douglas Henderson: What about Honeywell?
Mr. Ross: What about Honeywell? Sneers and rumours. I take the advice of my hon. Friend who represents the area, not the hon. Gentleman. There is Tannoy Products, with 200 new jobs at Coatbridge; Borbe Wanner, of Switzerland, with employment for about 100 at Irvine; Metal Box, involving about 100 new jobs at Springbum; and Air Products, with 100 new jobs at Cumbernauld. I could go on with the list of successes in regional policy which the SNP would destroy.
Over 50,000 jobs have been created in the last few years in Scotland, with the oil developments. Let no one belittle what has been done. The evidence of the success of the Government's regional policies as part of the United Kingdom framework is there for everyone to see. That work is going on.
The Government have made their direct contribution with the dispersal of 31,000 Civil Service jobs from London, announced in July 1974. I think that we should publish some of the letters we get from hon. Gentlemen opposite asking that some of these dispersals should go to their areas. The dispersal of 31,000 Civil Service jobs from London, announced in July 1974, is the biggest dispersal exercise undertaken in peace time. With 7,000 jobs coming to the Glasgow area, Scotland will get 23 per cent. of the jobs involved.
On Tuesday we announced that we had decided to locate 4,500 of the jobs from the Ministry of Defence in a new office block at the St. Enoch Station site, in central Glasgow. If SNP Members do not appreciate that, I assure them that the people and the Lord Provost of Glasgow do. There will be 650 jobs from the Ministry of Overseas Development at East Kilbride. This will help to regenerate the centre of Glasgow and provide a boost to commercial life there and in East Kilbride. It will bring benefits to the whole of West Scotland. Decisions on the remainder of the 7,000 jobs will be taken soon. [Interruption.] The hon.
1506
Member for Western Isles was not all that good on his feet; I wish that he would shut up now that he is sitting down. These are additional to our earlier decisions to locate the British National Oil Corporation, the Offshore Supplies Office and the headquarters of the Scottish Development Agency in Glasgow. Taken together, all these decisions in the public sector are bringing many thousands of jobs to the Strathclyde Region and will help Glasgow and the west of Scotland to become an even more important centre of Government administration.
Would these jobs have come to Scotland under separation? The Ministry of Defence would not have come to Glasgow; the National Engineering Laboratory would not be at East Kilbride; and the Post Office would not be at Cowglen. These decisions are the direct result of United Kingdom Government policies, which we shall continue to pursue.
Separatism would not be an answer to the major problems of Scotttish industry. We have not heard the Scottish National Party's policy on coal, for instance. What about the problems of the railways under a separate Scotland? The future of steel, motor cars and shipbuilding is bound up with the economy of the rest of the United Kingdom and with international competition.
The present production from Scottish steel plants represents about 12 per cent. of total United Kingdom output. Only about 8 per cent. of the United Kingdom's consumption of steel is used in Scotland. I have heard calls for a separate Scottish steel industry. The United Kingdom steel industry is an integrated one. In my view, a withdrawal into a separate Scotland would be a distinct disadvantage leading to loss of markets and would put a question mark over the whole modernisation programme.
That programme is going ahead, but the developments at Hunterston, at Clydesdale and Ravenscraig are dependent on an integrated United Kingdom industry. Equally with special steels. Without that integration we could forget Hunterston, because the big new development there is related to the needs of the United Kingdom, not Scotland. Indeed, the SNP has a past in relation to Hunterston.

1507
Turning to shipbuilding, the reduced demand for tankers and the drop in the level of world trade has thrown up substantial yard capacity, world-wide, which can be used for building new merchant ships. When we realise that the present capacity of Japanese shipyards alone is capable of meeting total current world demand, the size of the problem can be gauged. Anyone who thinks that a separate Scotland would deal successfully with that problem is just not in this world.
The difficulties facing Scottish shipyards in securing orders are not unique. There is a need to consider the solutions to these not on a Scottish or United Kingdom basis, but perhaps on an international basis. We have recently added the Scottish Development Agency to our armoury of weapons, though I do not remember getting full support from the SNP for its establishment. The hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire voted in Standing Committee against putting back into the Bill powers taken out by the House of Lords.
Mr. Crawford: The Labour Party and its Conservative allies in the Committee voted against giving the SDA more than the paltry sum that it has at its disposal at present.
Mr. Ross: The hon. Member did not deal with the point I raised. He voted with the Conservative Party to keep out of the Bill new powers that we had put in but which had been removed by the House of Lords.
The SDA will have a formidable task before it. It is not going to perform miracles, but it will be another means of assisting industrial development and environmental regeneration in Scotland. The Agency is in its infancy, but let no one think that the work has not already begun. It came into being only in December, but has lost no time in getting down to the tasks that face it. Already in these few weeks, it has announced its first programme of 18 advance factories. It is undertaking schemes for environmental improvement at Govan, Airdrie, Galashiels, Galafoot and Greenock. It is devising its overall strategy and assembling manpower resources to implement the strategy. The Agency will be able to provide investment capital, create new
1508
industrial enterprise and enter into joint ventures—all the things that the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire voted against.
There has been criticism, largely ill-informed, of the adequacy of the Agency's budget to enable it to tackle the tasks ahead. I assure the House that the effective functioning of the Agency will not be impaired by lack of finance.
It is inevitable that in any debate on the Scottish economy there should be a mention of North Sea oil. This is now a reality, with two fields already in production and more expected to come on stream this year. We estimate that the total output from these fields will meet between 15 per cent. and 20 per cent. of the United Kingdom needs in 1976. We are still on course to meet our target of self-sufficiency by 1980.
The nationalists have a fixation about North Sea oil, but they have overplayed their oil card and certainly their oil posters. Those posters were a disgrace to Scotland. One showed a picture of an old lady with the words:
"It's her oil. Why should 5,000 old people die of hypothermia?"
The actual figure is nine.
Mr. Gordon Wilson: Does the right hon. Gentleman not know that the figure of 5,000 was extrapolated from the British figure produced by Age Concern? It is the view of that respected organisation that this is the number of people who die from hypothermia.
Mr. Ross: The Registrar-General's figures are produced in Scotland, by Scots, from death certificates signed by Scottish doctors. I shall give hon. Members the true figures. Last year the number of people who died from hypothermia was nine. The year before it was four.
Mrs. Margaret Bain: Some of us are getting a bit cheesed off, to put it mildly, with the right hon. Gentleman's semantics. We all know that hypothermia is a secondary cause in many cases of death from bronchitis, pneumonia and influenza and this has been stated by members of his own party, including the Convener of the Lothian Regional Education Committee.
Mr. Ross: I shall give the hon. Lady the figures produced by the Registrar-General for Scotland. Deaths from hypothermia last year totalled nine, but figures are also given for those cases in which it was a secondary cause. I think they totalled 181. Where does this figure of 5,000 come from? It really is disgraceful. That is why I say they have over-played the oil card.
Superficially, oil and its revenues may appear to give séparatism a certain economic credibility, but, as my right hon. Friend the Paymaster-General demonstrated in the devolution debate last month, there are important economic arguments which the nationalists choose to ignore. To stake Scotland's future on limited reserves of a single commodity that is subject to fluctuations in world prices would be a gamble with Scotland's future. The Scottish people will not respond to the nationalists' demands for separatism. We have made clear that we shall use the oil revenues for the benefit of Scotland and of other areas of the United Kingdom in need of development. Scotland's future lies in the future of the United Kingdom, and the Government will press forward in making it a success.
Mrs. Winifred Ewing: I remind the right hon. Gentleman that when I was the sole SNP representative in this House many hon. Members on the Government Benches said that they would agree with me but for their worry about whether Scotland could afford independence. Now the argument appears to be that we are too rich for independence.
Mr. Ross: I think the hon. Lady's point answers itself. We have heard a tale of woe about Scotland having no hope at all at present. I understand that one of the great supporters of the SNP is Sir Hugh Fraser, who has one or two interests outside Scotland. He founded the Fraser of Allander Institute which issued a quarterly economic comment last month, saying:
"it is now conceivable to argue that the effects of oil on the Scottish economy, allied with the longer-term structural changes which have occurred over the last decade, have effected a more lasting improvement in the underlying resilience of the economy. There is evidence of a permanent improvement in Scotland's relative economic position."
1510
We must build on that, using the whole strength of this country. I do not want to see Scotland belittled by the kind of politicking we have had from the SNP. Hon. Members in the SNP have asked if I was embarrassed. The answer is "Yes". The sort of things that that party parades and preaches around Scotland embarrasses any patriotic Scotsman.
7.59 p.m.
Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith: When the Scottish National Party first put down its motion, I had great sympathy with the wish to reduce the salary of the Secretary of State by 50 per cent. We have learned tonight that it can only be reduced by £1,000 because that is all he has left of this year's salary. I commiserate with him, but this is typical of the Government. He is obviously living beyond his means if that is all he has left at this stage of the year. I would be rather worried if my household budget was spent at the same rate as the Secretary of State's salary has been spent.
I wish to express my personal appreciation to the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) for the remarks he made at the opening of his speech in thanking the official Opposition for making this Supply Day available to the minor parties.
However, I fear that this debate is getting away from the realities of the Scottish economy. The hon. Member's speech was nothing but a greetin' speech. It was an absolute tale of woe from beginning to end, and if that is the kind of Scotland that the hon. Member wants he is welcome to it. It is not the kind of Scotland I was born into and brought tip in. The Scotland we want is one which enjoys good prospects, but the narrow introspection and selfishness which typified the whole of the hon. Gentleman's speech is the one thing that will encourage people to leave Scotland and will encourage the kind of emigration which he was condemning. The Secretary of State dealt with the speech very well and showed what a lot of poppycock the hon. Gentleman was speaking.
I turn now to what really matters and what worries us, and that is the state of the economy. I appreciate some of the points the Secretary of State made about

1511
employment and new developments and new industries in Scotland, and I share his view that all in Scotland is not bleak. However, all in Scotland is not well. For that reason we are right to have this debate tonight.
The fact is that the situation in Scotland is at neither one extreme nor the other. It is not the woe of the SNP, and neither is there room for complacency in any sense. The Secretary of State mentioned the report from the Fraser of Allander Institute. Our debate is taking place against a background of unemployment at 160,000 in Scotland, although the hon. Member for Western Isles scarcely mentioned that fact. The institute's report drew attention to the number of good prospects in oil for long-term development both of industry and jobs, but there were other immediate matters to which it drew attention.
First, the report pointed out that new domestic orders for industry in Scotland had deteriorated, that the outlook for exports by Scottish industry was bleaker than in the rest of the United Kingdom and that capital expenditure in Scotland was expected to decline faster than in the rest of the United Kingdom. As a thermometer of optimism in Scottish industry, applications for regional aid, the report said, were declining. That gives cause for concern and is perhaps a much better reason for further debate than was advanced by the hon. Member for Western Isles.
We also have the benefit of the CBI survey which was published only last week, which tells a similar story. It says that employment in manufacturing industry is expected to fall, that plans for new investment are lagging and that forecasts for exports by Scottish firms are disappointing. No one, least of all the Government, can feel complacent about the situation in Scotland. In spite of what was said by the Secretary of State, a lot of the responsibility for this situation lies with the Government.
Tonight the right hon. Gentleman spoke about world influences as though he had only just discovered them. He referred to exploding oil prices in 1972 and 1973. Why did he not talk about them in 1973 when we were the Government? At that time he and his hon. Friends simply
1512
denied that these factors existed. They denied that there were problems with world food prices. They simply said that if anything was wrong it was totally the fault of the Conservative Government. Now the right hon. Gentleman is using those same factors to excuse the performance of his Government.
I shall be fair to the Secretary of State. One of the difficulties of any Government, whether Socialist or Conservative, is that they must deal with a difficult world situation. I only wish that this Government had faced up to that and tackled it, and not added to our problems by making such a mess of the economy at home. Just look at their mismanagement of the economy. Take inflation. The Chancellor told us in October 1974 that it was running at 8 per cent. Of course we did not believe him, but it was not until afterwards that we found that the true figure was nearer 25 per cent. Look at the autumn of 1974 when the Government won the General Election. They had let the economy rip for political reasons since the preceding February when they took office. We ended up in one of the most difficult periods of industrial unrest that Scotland has known for a long time.
As a result of a transport strike, 50,000 people were laid off. At one time 24,000 people were on strike in Scotland in 24 disputes—
Mr. Norman Buchan: What about the miners' strike?
Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Indeed, what about the miners' strike? Just consider how many people are unemployed today compared even with the time of the three-day working week. The figure now is nearly double, and production is at a lower level than it was then.
Oil offers great prospects for Scotland, but the right hon. Gentleman should go to Aberdeen as I do and talk to those in the industry. The optimism and confidence of a year ago have gone. It is all the fault of the Government. They have interfered with the oil industry and tried to nationalise it. They are taking over interests and they are dithering over licences. There is also the difficulty of platforms. In the white heat of a newly-elected Labour Government there was a great rush to build the platform sites to

1513
meet the tremendous expansion that was expected from the North Sea industry. The sites are now complete, but there are no orders. That is the fault of the Government's mismanagement, interference and dithering.
This difficulty cuts right across the backbone of Scottish industry. It is not the big firms but the smaller concerns which have been bled to death by the Chancellor's taxation policies. I question whether the Government's strategy for Scotland is the right one. Take their policy for the power industry. The House has voted £162 million to Chrysler, part of which will go to Linwood. I accept the need for some resources to deal with the difficult situation. That, however, was why we did not hear enough from the SNP Bench.
What about new jobs in new industry in Scotland? If we are honest, all of us in this House who come from Scotland know that the tragedy of the Scottish economy has been that as a result of two world wars, in which Scottish heavy industry in shipbuilding and engineering contributed to the national effort for national survival, we perpetuated in Scotland an out-of-date industrial economy, for the sake of helping the whole United Kingdom and our own survival, in continuing the support of what I describe as the modern declining industries. Are the Government really giving Scotland the break that it deserves in getting away from the declining industries and getting its economy more strongly and firmly based on the new and expanding industries?
Here we run into the hypocrisy of the SNP. Tonight the hon. Member for Western Isles referred to the car industry as part of the loss-making sector of the Scottish economy, yet he went into the Lobby with the Government to vote on that. Again, the hon. Member for Banff (Mr. Watt), in questioning last Thursday the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, said:
"Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the £1624 million recently granted to save Chrysler would have planted nearly a million acres of timber? Does he not agree that there is an urgent need for a rethinking of our entire economic policy?"—[Official Report, 29th January 1976; Vol. 904, c. 647.]
1514
We saw the rethinking when SNP Members went into the Lobby with the Government.
SNP Members talk with two voices—one in the north-east of Scotland and another in the industrial west of Scotland. Let them be honest. When they talk with these two voices, the people of Scotland see them for what they are worth. That is why one sees the results in the by-election in the Grampian Region this week, which shows that people are now taking them for their true values and are no longer being taken in.
Mr. Buchan: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. SNP Members speak not with two voices on Chrysler but with three voices. The hon. Member for Banff (Mr. Watt) said that all of the money should go to Linwood and that Coventry should go to the wall.
Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I agree. I apologise for doing the SNP a disservice in relation to the plurality of voices.
My final point is in relation to the policy and the whole strategy of the Government towards industry. First, are they getting the priorities right in doing this massive propping up of what I describe as the modern declining industries instead of using that money for better value to the people of Scotland in reorganising and helping the industries which are in difficulties but making sure at the same time that we do more to help the modern new industries in Scotland?
Here I turn to the Scottish Development Agency. In relation to the regeneration of industry and jobs in Scotland, I hope that this body will be effective. Tonight we have the Secretary of State's assurance that the effective functioning of the SDA will not be impaired for lack of funds. That is all very well but he is talking merely in generalities. People in industry in Scotland want to know the colour of the SDA's money. In the Act it is specified as £300 million. A circular from the Scottish Office said that this was to be spent over about five years. Never since the Second Reading of the Bill, however, have the Government actually told the House of Commons and Scotland what the budget of that body is to be.
This is not a body that is simply to be used to generate new jobs. It is taking

1515
over jobs from other agencies, such as local authorities, the Scottish Industrial Estates and others, and about £20 million a year will be used to take account of its own running expenses. That is already spoken for in jobs and work already done by other bodies. How much will be used by the SDA to try to encourage new jobs and industry in Scotland?
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) has questioned the Minister of State on this matter. The Minister of State said that we had to wait for the public expenditure White Paper. I have written to the Secretary of State about it. I am still awaiting a reply. The whole of Scotland is waiting to know precisely whether this body will be just another white elephant or whether it will be given the tools and the means to do the job.
I believe that the Government are getting matters wrong as regards Scotland. They must not only look fundamentally at their industrial strategy. They must change it towards developing more strongly the resources and money behind the new developing industry, investing in Scotland's future and not in Scotland's past.
It is for those reasons that I believe that the Secretary of State's salary must be reduced.
8.15 p.m.
Mr. David Lambie: In listening to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State this evening, I found that I was in agreement with him. I accept that the policies of the present Labour Government, given time, will be successful in Scotland. I accept that the Government have been unfortunate, in this time of severe economic restraint, in meeting an oil crisis that is outside our own control, and with one of the downturns in capitalist economies.
However, at the end of the day when we go back home to Scotland we find that there are still 162,000 unemployed there. As Labour people, we find great difficulty in justifying that figure. The same must apply to my right hon. and hon. Friends who represent areas in the north-west and north-east of England, where unempolyment can be higher than it is in Scotland.
1516
I accept all that, However, my criticism of the present Labour Government is not that their long-term policies are not correct; it lies in the fact that their short-term policies as a Government—and the Secretary of State for Scotland, as a member of the Government, must carry his burden of responsibility—involve trying to run the capitalist system better than the Tories do. We are trying to do it as we did it from 1964 to 1970, and we shall get the same result that we got in 1970—the defeat of the Labour Government at the next General Election—unless we can show results. Such a defeat would not be of any advantage to the people of Scotland, because since the war we have suffered under the Tories more than we have suffered under the policies of any Labour Government.
If the Government want to retain the confidence of the Scottish people, they must examine their short-term financial policies. They must change them. They must realise that we are a Socialist party and are not here to repair the faults in the capitalist system. We are here to introduce a Socialist system of economy. If we do that we shall solve the problems of Britain as a whole.
Although in some respects I agree with certain of the policies of the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) in relation to the devolving of power within the United Kingdom, I would never advise anyone in Scotland who is a Socialist and a supporter of the Labour Party to support the SNP. Although the SNP believes in devolving power from Westminster to Edinburgh, its members are still the main supporters and exponents of the capitalist system, because the majority of them are Conservatives. The hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Gray) is quite a decent Tory. Sometimes when I look across the Chamber at him I realise why he does not seem to be such a Tory, compared with some of the reactionaries such as the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson). Therefore, I can well understand the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) wondering about the policies of the SNP.
The people in Scotland, especially in the west of Scotland, are being led up the garden path. Because they are dissatisfied with the economic performance of the Labour Government, they are

1517
voting for people who are more reactionary than some Tory Members. One has only to look at the voting record of SNP Members in Parliament, and to read the speeches they have made outside Parliament, to find justification for that statement.
I want to make only two points that affect my area. I represent one of the growth areas of Scotland, where we find difficulty in getting support from Government agencies. They always ask what we are worrying about, when everyone is doing well. But the latest figures show that in this so-called growth area in the west of Scotland there are now 1,652 people unemployed, of whom 1,268 are males. This is an unemployment rate of 14 per cent. in a so-called growth area.
In the Garnock Valley, which will soon be affected by redundancy in the steel industry, the January figures from the labour exchange show 624 unemployed—a rate of 11·3 per cent.
My constituency is not only a growth area; many people living there are now working in Hunterston, in the constituency of the hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Mr. Corrie)—or they hope to get jobs there, having had their jobs in the Garnock Valley area, Kilmarnock, and so forth, made redundant. In the Saltcoats area there are 2,250 unemployed—a rate of 10·4 per cent. These are unemployment figures for a growth area in Scotland.
In our area we are finding great difficulty in achieving any improvement, because of the fact that the infrastructure—the sewerage, drainage and so on—is still comparable to what existed at the end of the last century. The roads of Ayrshire are not much more than modifications of the tracks of over 100 years ago. That is in spite of the fact that within the past 20 years or so we have been lucky enough to have representatives from Ayrshire constituencies in both Conservative and Labour Governments. The hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) was in the last Conservative Administration. We have had the longest serving Secretary of State for Scotland representing an Ayrshire constituency. Despite this, we are the only major industrial county in Scotland without a connection to any motorway.
It is impossible to build a growth area without a good road system. I ask my
1518
right hon. Friend—or whoever makes the winding-up speech for the Government tonight—to give us an assurance that we shall have motorway connections from the so-called growth areas of Irvine and North Ayrshire to the main motorway system.
We are also affected—as is everyone outside the Glasgow conurbation—by the proposals contained in the Strathclyde Regional Council's regional plan. It will be putting forward a policy under which all the resources in manpower and finance will be spent on the Glasgow conurbation, and suggesting that the Ayrshire people should be prepared to go easy in terms of resources and manpower inside the Strathclyde area, in order to divert resources to the Glasgow area.
As a Socialist, I cannot deny that the Glasgow conurbation is one of the main areas of urban deprivation in the United Kingdom, but my right hon. Friend cannot expect the Labour people in Ayrshire, Lanarkshire and all the areas outside the conurbation to have their standards cut down in order to maintain development in the Glasgow conurbation. Glasgow is not a Strathclyde question. Glasgow, with its urban deprivation, is a British question. My right hon. Friend is always advising me of the advantages of the United Kingdom. I do not want the people in Irvine to have to divert much-needed development in order to help solve the problems of the Glasgow conurbation. I want the whole of the United Kingdom to help solve the problems of the Glasgow conurbation.
The Secretary of State must tell the Strathclyde Regional Council that we shall not accept these policies of spreading the help around while at the same time taking the crumbs away from areas like central Ayrshire and putting them in the Glasgow area. The Glasgow people need help, but it should come not from the surrounding areas but from the main area of the United Kingdom.
I was interested in the statement of the Secretary of State that we need increased investment in new types of industry. A week ago the Convener of Planning in the Strathclyde Regional Council, at a meeting between the new town boards and representatives of the district council, stated that 70,000 jobs will be lost in the Strathclyde area in the next few years. I suggest to my right

1519
hon. Friend that it is all very well telling us about the jobs coming in, but if we are to lose 70,000 jobs simply in order to stand still, there will have to be a greater emphasis on development than we have at the moment.
We need a new industrial base in the west of Scotland. Those who have the magazine Clydeport News will see that in the January issue, under the heading "Photonews", it states that:
"Trans-shipments of oil from VLCCs are commonplace nowadays in Clydeport—which is hardly surprising when the deep and sheltered estuary provides such ideal conditions for this kind of operation."
The report goes on:
"The 326,000 dwt. 'Universe Korea' was discharging 41,000 tons of her crude oil cargo into the smaller tanker 'Tasman Sea'. The camera went aboard the Adrossan tug Ardneil', which was handling the large buoys ranged along one side of the 'Tasman Sea'."
Here we have a situation in which oil tankers are arriving from all over the world to discharge and trans-ship their cargoes in the best sheltered estuary in Europe, and the only jobs we are getting involve sending a wee tug into Ardrossan harbour.
We are lucky if we get any jobs. The people getting the work are those who are taking part in the refining process, whether in England, in the east of Scotland, in Grangemouth, or in European ports. Why should we give this unique facility of a deep sheltered estuary that only we in Scotland have, to the multinational oil companies, when the only jobs we are getting in our area in Scotland are those connected with a small tug leaving Ardrossan harbour?
The Secretary of State has still not given a decision on the planning application of the Chevron Oil Company in relation to planning developments to build up an oil terminal or oil refineries in the Hunterston area. If my right hon. Friend wants investment, why stop these companies putting millions of pounds into the Hunterston area? This is where he is falling behind the Secretary of State for the Environment, who, on 1st January, when all the Scots were drinking or recuperating from the New Year, gave planning permission for another oil refinery in the Thames area. If that had been built at Hunterston, it would have
1520
provided 3,000 jobs in construction immediately, and eventually a new industrial base.
ICI has said that if it gets a closer source of supply as the byproduct of an oil refinery, it will extend its nylon plant at Ardeer, thus creating another 6001,000 jobs. But that is not happening, because my right hon. Friend has listened co SNP members in North Ayrshire and a handful of Tories in the constituency of the hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire.
My right hon. Friend should live up to his word. We need new investment and the industrial base that petrochemicals could give us. Scotland should be not a source of exploitation for the trans-shipment of oil—that is not where the jobs are; she should be an integral part of the oil industry in refining and in the spin-off of petrochemicals. The only future for the west of Scotland is in petrochemicals. I hope that my right hon. Friend will give the go-ahead for the building of the terminal and the refinery, which will go a long way to replacing the 70,000 jobs that the west of Scotland will lose between now and 1981.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Codman Irvine): Order. The closing speeches will start at 9.20. More than 20 hon. Members still wish to speak. I leave the matter in the hands of the House.
8.31 p.m.
Mr. Russell Fairgrieve: In what I hope will be a brief intervention, I shall have the temerity to give some personal background. Many hon. Members have had careers in other activities before they came here. Although I have been here only two years, I spent over 20 years in line management in Scottish industry. I do not know how many other hon. Members can say that.
It is proper nowadays to make a declaration of interest. During those 20 years I have been a director of two Scottish-registered firms—William Baird of Glasgow and Dawson International of Edinburgh. Both have branch factories in England. I am also on the executive of the Scottish Council (Development and Industry), a body made up of employers,

1521
trade unions, local authorities and many other facets of Scottish life. The hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Crawford), who will be winding up the debate for the SNP, also had an honourable career with that body. In view of his knowledge of Scottish industry, I am at a loss to know how he will get through the bogus speech that he will undoubtedly make.
Like the hon. Gentleman, I too believe in devolution to Scotland of matters like education, local government and transport, but he knows as well as I do that industry and matters relating to the economy cannot be devolved. That is the weakness of the separatist case. The other things have been with us for hundreds, if not thousands, of years, but industry as we know it started after the Union. The Industrial Revolution happened after the Union. There is no Scottish, English or Welsh economy, but only a British economy.
The list of firms registered in Scotland includes Scottish and Newcastle Brewers, Coats Patons, Stenhouse Holdings, Burmah Oil, House of Fraser and the Distillers Company. With separation, the current trading pattern of these British firms south of the border would be impossible. Therefore, industry and economic matters cannot be devolved to any part of Britain. We have only a British economy.
If it were not for that fact, there would be no motor industry in Scotland. Also, the largest concentration of electronic firms outside America is in Scotland—because we are part of the British economy. We in Scotland can have a separate Church and legal system but not a separate economy: there is only one British economy.
8.35 p.m.
Mr. John Robertson: I shall not take up the comments of the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Fairgrieve). As this is a short debate I want to concentrate on one subject only, but an important one affecting the whole of the Scottish economy and its ability to prosper, and that is the steel industry, which is in a state of manifest crisis.
Without a viable steel industry geared to the needs of manufacturing industry in Scotland and continuing to serve its traditional customers throughout the
1522
whole of the United Kingdom as well as abroad, there can be no Scottish economy worth discussing. It is a fundamental fact that the steel workers of Lanarkshire and Ayrshire have been trying to register that on the Government's mind for more than a few years. At present there is a large question mark hanging over the steel industry in Scotland. Continuing uncertainty, conflicting rumours and statements by the Government and spokesmen of the British Steel Corporation have reduced the morale of the steel workers to such an extent that they seem anxious only to get out of the industry, and to get out quick.
If the BSC were to offer redundancy pay, the queue would be so long that it is doubtful whether anybody would be left in the industry, and small wonder. The plans which the Corporation has put forward for discussion consign this industry to the scrap heap. Any scheme of rationalisation on a United Kingdom scale immediately threatens the existence of the Scottish plants, because they are the plants that have been woefully neglected and starved of investment where it matters most, and that is in retaining the general product character of the industry—its flexibility.
Because the Corporation—and therefore the Government—has willed it so, the Scottish plants are less efficient. They have the least modern plant. This is death by a process of slow strangulation. The Scottish steel industry was built up over a period of 100 years to become the most flexible and most diversified in the country, and it was able to meet the needs of its customers not only in Scotland but throughout the United Kingdom. It had an experience and skilled work force at all levels of operation, and there was a complex of steel-using industries in the surrounding areas all but a tiny fraction of whose raw material needs were being met by local Scottish steelworks. It was what the BSC now calls a jobbing industry.
The Corporation has been bitten by the bug of bigness, and yet even today it is the small flexible mini-steelworks that are the most successful. Any alteration to the pattern of production must not only mean a reduction in the number of steel plants and jobs but must put steel users in Scotland at a grave disadvantage.

1523
Without the wide range of steel products previously available from Scottish works, it will become exceedingly difficult to convince steel users to locate a factory in Scotland. The argument used by the Corporation for closing the works at Craigneuk was that most of that works' customers were in the Midlands and south of England and, therefore, there was an obvious advantage to both steelmakers and steel users in moving the production south. But the extension of that logic would leave Scotland without a steelworks and without a steel user.
The logic used by the Corporation is too narrow, and when applied causes excessive damage to communities and defies a rational Socialist, humane approach to economic management. The mandarins of the Corporation, the Treasury and the Government forget that industry is meant to serve people, not the people to serve the narrow objectives and myopic outlook of industrialists.
We can understand the Corporation's viewpoint. Since the pricing point system came into being, there are advantages in being located close to where steel is being made. If, however, there is no mill in Scotland producing any given product, the nearest mill is probably 250 or 300 miles away and a Scottish steel user has to transport the steel that distance and pay for the transportation. That is why it is so important to maintain an industry capable of producing a wide range of steel products.
We need a two-stage strategy. In the short term we must ensure the continuation of existing furnaces and mills. Some investment will be called for here to make the plants as efficient as possible. The re-routing of orders from Scottish works to works south of the border must stop. There must be a firm commitment by the Government that the Hunterston site will be fully developed as a major centre of crude steel production. With the development of Hunterston and the development of new electric are furnaces, the existing open hearth furnaces can be phased out. There must be a significant investment in more up-to-date rolling mills on existing inshore sites.
Mr. James Dempsey: My hon. Friend is making an
1524
interesting case for the development of a modernised steel complex, but can he say how many jobs would be lost in the process of phasing out?
Mr. Robertson: I cannot give the number of jobs, but it would be a good deal less than could be lost under the present strategy, as my hon. Friend will know, because almost the whole of the steel industry in Coatbridge and Airdrie has been lost.
There is a false belief that development at Hunterston will eliminate the Lanarkshire industry and that, conversely, development in Lanarkshire will cripple the Hunterston development. That need not be so. We need a strategy that uses both the potential of Hunterston and the generations of skill in Lanarkshire. My picture of a Scottish steel industry is one of the production of raw steel in quantity at Hunterston and the routing of primary mill products from there to the new finishing mills to be situated in the existing steel-making centre.
It is not necessary that Scotland should produce only for her own needs. It never was so. Luxembourg is an example of what is possible. Big is not always best. The importance of saving skill is more often than not overstated. That is why the emphasis for Scottish steel must be on flexibility and diversity of product. That is how we can create a basis for industrial expansion in Scotland.
It is easy to speak of regional plans during periods of industrial boom, but the real test of regional policies comes during periods of recession. If industry does not stick then, regional policies are a failure. If there is to be any industrial future for Scotland, the investment plans for the steel industry should be in operation now. They are needed now. We need firm decisions now, based upon a strategy that acknowledges the key rôle that steel plays, and always will play, in the Scottish economy. This strategy and the decisions based upon it have been lacking so far.
The Government can start laying the foundation for a Scottish economic recovery by showing the will to establish a new and up-to-date industry in Scotland. That is the test that the Scottish steel workers are setting the Government. We hope that they can pass it.
Mr. John Stokes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As Scotland is part of the United Kingdom, is it possible for an English Member to catch your eye?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon Gentleman must wait and see.
Mr. Dempsey: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As this debate is exclusively a debate on the Scottish economy, perhaps you will give preference to those Scottish Members who are anxious to take part in the debate?
8.45 p.m.
Mr. Russell Johnston: One of the unforutnate aspects of much of the debate so far is that it has been on a fairly acrimonious level. It is not that I do not agree entirely that the situation we face is very grave and difficult, and causes annoyance to a great many people. Unemployment is wholly unacceptable. In Scoltand it is at a serious level and it is understandable that people should feel strongly about it. Nevertheless, it is wrong to pretend that this situation can be wholly attributed to the previous Conservative Government, or to any one Government. It is inevitably composed of different factors, many of which have been mentioned already—for example, the effect of world-wide inflation and recession, the huge external borrowing requirement, the long legacy of non-investment, and so on.
However, it is insufficient for the Government, through the mouthpiece of the Secretary of State—whom I am sorry to see is not here, having taken 30 minutes out of a two-and-three quarter-hour debate, which is not reasonable for Front Bench speakers—simply to say that we are in this position because of the external situation. Undoubtedly the external situation has an effect, but it is by no means the only reason for Scotland, as a part of the United Kingdom having its present unemployment level and a decreasing degree of competitiveness not only in the steel industry, to which the hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. Robertson) referred, but also in many other industries.
It is not good enough for the two major parties—if I am to accept the definition that the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith)
1526
bestowed upon me as "a member of a minority party"—to disclaim responsibility when they were in the seat of power during the period which led up to our present circumstances—a situation in which Britain, Italy and Ireland are the poor men of the European Community, which we entered 15 years late. In face of that sort of record, it is hardly surprising that many Scots—it would appear from opinion polls, the majority of Scots—are beginning to question the Government's insistence that total control of the Scottish economy must remain in Whitehall and that any departure from it is absurd. Paragraph 131 of the White Paper, which deals with housing, says that rents must be controlled because general economic policy makes it necessary. I hardly think that changing the rents at Achiltibuie will bring down the British economy. This over-insistence upon central control is increasingly unpersuasive to many people, because of what has happened in the past. It was the Scottish National Party that called for this debate and it was right to do so, just as it is right to lament the economic record of the past.
However, we are compelled to ask whether the solutions that the Scottish National Party has to offer are more likely to succeed. It is not enough to demand independence for Scotland and then to say that the land will flow oil and honey.
There are two major problems. First, if we have large amounts of money—and the Secretary of State has already said that the whole basis of many of the poster campaigns is that we shall have large amounts of money and distribute them to various sectors of the community—the sudden distribution of that money in that way would have an immediate and possibly alarming effect on inflation in any economy. That fact has been overlooked.
Equally, and perhaps more importantly, if one has access to a large amount of investment, one cannot believe that it is possible to introduce new systems of economic and social management to improve industrial relations about which we are all concerned. That approach underestimates both the complexity of the problem and the tme scale necessary to resolve it. It will take some time for the problem to be absolutely resolved. It is foolish to suggest otherwise.

1527
While nationalism and emotionalism may work in politics—they seem to have done so far—they do not necessarily work in international industry and commerce, which require logic and results. I do not understand the argument advanced by the Secretary of State for Scotland that regionalism and independence are incompatible. If that is so, how can a European regional policy operate when it involves an institution in which several independent States work together?
It is true that there has been a decline in the ratio of unemployment in Scotland and in the rest of the United Kingdom. If North Sea oil had not been discovered, one wonders what would be the unemployment rate today in Scotland. North Sea oil has nothing to do with any Government. It is a fortuitous fact. At the early stage of the discovery and extraction process in the North Sea there was a failure—partly by private industry and partly by the Government, who take upon themselves the responsibility of trying to run the economy—in forecasting the needs of the oil industry, with the result that pipes, tubes, valves and pumps had to be ordered from overseas.
There is urgent need to reach agreement with the oil companies about the manning of oil platforms—a need that will remain until the end of the century. That is the stable fact of British industry. Where can school leavers look for an industry that it likely to have a settled, safe, fairly confident and expanding future? There are not many such industries. The oil industry is one industry in which a large number of people will be employed, and if we are not careful the oil companies will be left to bring in overseas labour to man the platforms.
These opportunities exist. It is not enough to say that regional policy will sort them out. Regional policy has been in operation for 30 years. The Highlands and Islands Development Board has been in operation for a decade, and the areas in the Highlands that were difficult 10 years ago are still difficult. The areas of high unemployment then are still areas of high unemployment.
One must be led to the conclusion that while, indubitably, these policies have mitigated the worst effects, they have not supplied the answer which many of us
1528
hoped and which Government spokesmen of the day suggested they might.
Time is against me. I have a great deal more that I should like to say, but I content myself by saying that all political parties should concentrate their energies and time on making the Government concentrate on creating retraining programmes for the new industries rather than dealing with the alleged successes of yesterday and the weaknesses of other political parties.
8.55 p.m.
Mr. Norman Buchan: I, too, shall attempt to be brief. I was prepared to make an hour-long speech but no doubt I shall have to confine myself to a few minutes. I shall pick up one or two points that have already been made and some other matters that are relevant to the present situation.
I have never heard a debate on the Scottish economy initiated by any party so ineptly. The hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) made various comparisons and asked certain questions. For example, he asked why the Scandinavian countries enjoyed a higher standard of living than Scotland without making an analysis of the different Scandinavian conditions. He asked why Scotland exports more per head than England without referring to the weak balance of trade situation. He spoke about Scotland being self-sufficient in food, but, as any farmer will know, that is another distorted picture. Although I rather like the hon. Gentleman, I must say that his speech was unadulterated rubbish. I am sorry to have to say that. I regard him rather as a good Hebridean nationalist than as a member of the Scottish National Party. If the Leader of the SNP represents his party's economic thinking, heaven help Scotland if it ever comes to power.
I deal briefly with the hon. Gentleman's Catch 22-type comments. No doubt it was prepared for him by the SNP research department. The comment is made that if something is done for Scotland in the way of jobs, such action is being taken for crude political reasons. However, if nothing is done and jobs are not provided, Westminster is in the wrong because it is neglecting Scotland. I reject the nonsense of that kind of view. It

1529
may be a very effective catch, but it is no more than a catch.
Along with that I deplore the 13-to14-year old level of behaviour that is displayed on the SNP Bench. It has been exhibited over the past year or more, but it was especially apparent during the speech of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I have heard more intelligent comments from heckling 14year-olds. SNP Members must learn to think. Of course, they have failed to do that from the beginning.
It is difficult to determine the economic thinking of the SNP. It is difficult partly because SNP Members speak not with forked tongues but with triple tongues. They are all things to all men. On the one hand they say that we should conserve oil by limiting production to 50 million tons. However, they base their analysis of the use of these oil resources on 100 million tons. When we point out that if they grab all the oil for Scotland they cannot expect those who have helped them and have been willing to trade with them to continue to do so on the same terms, they say that they would negotiate the oil resources. However, that would further limit the amount of oil at their disposal. It may well be that they would reduce the 50 million tons to a negotiated level, but the resources which they put forward in their documents still stand at about 100 million tons.
The SNP is becoming a dishonest party,—deeply philosophically dishonest. It is regrettable that this is the best we can get, bearing in mind the great tradition of democratic intellect in Scotland. We even have an obscurity in the triple tongue because we are unable to find any economic analysis. At one stage we are told that it does not exist, that documents do not exist, but then we are told that the documents exist although the analysis will not be put into practice. I think that that was what the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Crawford) said in an earlier debate. He said that he doubted whether the SNP's economic analysis would ever be put into practice. When, however, his party's documents filtered through into the public consciousness, it was he who said that he stood by the documents and would defend them. Apparently the economic spokesman of the SNP was
1530
prepared to defend an economic policy that was not going to be put into practice. What worse kind of policy does the SNP intend to put into practice if it is not prepared to defend even this one?
I wish to take up two points that were made by my hon. Friends. My hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Lambie) said that we could not expect other areas of Strathclyde to help in the great problem of the Glasgow area. He said that this should be a British problem. He was right in that view, because while saying that it is a British problem, to be solved with the aid of British resources, one cannot at the same time maintain a separatist viewpoint. My hon. Friend also recognises—he is a man of independent views—that when defending his own constituency on the subject of the aviation industry, he must support a proposition involving a totally British solution. If we were to have that kind of honesty from SNP Members, that would at least be one step forward.
My hon. Friend the Member for Paisley (Mr. Robertson) stressed the importance to Scotland of the steel industry. He, too, takes up a separatist viewpoint. We already know that the Scottish steel requirement is less than 10 per cent. of the total United Kingdom production.
Mr. Robertson: The figure is 8 per cent.
Mr. Buchan: I said that the figure was less than 10 per cent. It is a matter of asking whether, when one takes away their share of oil resources, one can expect the steel workers in Scunthorpe to become unemployed in order to help the steel workers of Scotland.
Mr. Robertson: The use in Scotland in steel terms amounts to some 8 per cent., but before nationalisation the figure was 15 per cent. That percentage has been reduced only because of the rationalisation plans of the British Steel Corporation.
Mr. Buchan: This is a reflection of the basic problem of the Scottish economy and relates to the major heavy industries running down in the past. We know that in the decade 1961 to 1971 the heavy engineering, steel and shipbuilding industries lost 72,000 workers through natural reasons rather than as a result of

1531
deliberate Government policies. In that same period, with the aid of massive public expenditure, we managed to pull into the motor vehicle industry 19,000 jobs. At the same time we were running down heavy industry in a ratio of four to one to new industries. This is a basic problem and it is subject to the rapid change of events.
The Scottish National Party has suggested in one of these documents that the SNP wants to see Scotland developing as a Switzerland rather than as a Detroit. That kind of argument appears to envisage a Scottish economy based on the production of a kind of cuckoo-clock economy in which there is a limited use for steel. One cannot on the one hand fight for an expanded steel industry and at the same time try to develop an economy based on that kind of industry. The SNP must face up to facts.
I should like to take up one or two arguments on the question of devolution. It has been said that the Labour Party has broken its manifesto pledges on devolution in respect of the economy. I resigned from the Government because I disagreed with their policies; I am an expert on broken pledges. I do not know of any pledge in the manifesto or the White Pager in this connection which has been broken. I ask the Scottish Labour Party Members to point to the truth in their statement that the Government have broken their pledge. If they cannot do so, I ask them to withdraw their statement now. The answer is silence. I hope my hon. Friends will not associate themselves with the myth-making that has been practised by the Scottish National Party. It is not true to say that the manifesto pledge concerning the devolution of the economy has been broken by word or spirit.
Mr. Robertson: My hon. Friend is much cuter than I. He knows that if he says something in his constituency he will be held accountable for it. During the election campaign the official spokesman of the Labour Party in Scotland made pledges on television and radio. One of the official spokesmen for the Labour Party in Scotland was my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars).
Mr. Buchan: That is right. The only pledge which could be said to have been
1532
broken was given by the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars).
Mr. Robertson: That is not true.
Mr. Buchan: I do not know—
Mr. Robertson: My hon. Friend knows it is not true.
Mr. Buchan: I ask the simple question—
Mr. Robertson: My getting an answer.
Mr. Buchan: The answer which I was not given was to the question what pledge was broken in the manifesto.
Mr. Robertson: My hon. Friend is playing with words. Anyway, he calls it a bit of paper.
Mr. Buchan: That is totally untrue. The pledges were not broken, as has been amply demonstrated. However, it could be said that they did not go far enough or too far. It could be said that the manifesto was bad or wrong. However, it cannot be said that pledges were broken.
I turn to the argument that more devolution is better. There comes a point at which more economic devolution turns upon itself. That point comes when we break away any Scottish influence or control over the United Kingdom economy. A good example is Chrysler. We could not have saved Chrysler in Scotland if we had not retained control over aspects of the total United Kingdom economy. We would lose 2,000 defence jobs in Bishopton tomorrow if we lost control over the United Kingdom economy. The Scottish National Party must face this situation.
I have no time, because of the length of necessary interventions about the truth, to develop what I believe is the basic malaise in the Scottish economy, a problem which is not divorced from the English and Welsh economies. We must start now on industrial reflation and investment. We must give guidelines to the banks regarding loans and the right guidelines for the best multiplier spin-off effects. We must have import controls for both Scotland and England. We must help to expose the myths and the lies which we hear so often from the Scottish National Party.
9.4 p.m.
Miss Harvie Anderson: In view of the time I shall make only a few comments, in the hope that someone else will have an opportunity to speak. My first point concerns the importance of the regional concept to Scotland. My second point concerns the myth of the exaggerated value of oil to Scotland.
Against the background of heavy industry which has had to be translated to more modern industry the Chrysler works were brought into Scotland as part of a regional policy. It may be that they are in severe trouble today but most hon. Members who are present tonight have no idea of the circumstances that existed in that part of Scotland at the time. The decision was made by the then Conservative Secretary of State. It was an exceedingly difficult political decision. I believed it to be right then and I believe it to be right now.
Let no one in this House, let alone this new and temporary party that is taking part in the debate, make any mistake; it is essential to operate a regional policy if we are to maintain the improvement in the economy which we have seen in recent years.
My second point concerns oil. In the recent difficulties regarding Chrysler, there has been more totally irresponsible reference to what oil and the finance flowing from it can do for Scotland than I could have thought possible. There are extremely difficult problems facing Chrysler today. Many of my hon. Friends deeply regret, as I do, the fact that the vast input of public money should still not be accepted as the last chance to manufacture motor cars in Scotland. The vast proportion of the work force wish this industry to continue and flourish. I hope that all workers in the Chrysler Corporation at Linwood and throughout Scotland—and the few ancillary undertakings—recognise that it is upon their performance alone that this industry will continue.
Mr. Buchan: And management.
Miss Harvie Anderson: And management. I said "the work force". Curiously enough, when I use that phrase I include management, unions and the men on the shop floor. To tell the work force that it does not matter what happens because the proceeds from oil will main?
1534
tain employment in the car industry is absolute nonsense. The work force knows that is so. Those who use that argument so irresponsibly appear to be totally unaware of the investment requirement of an industry of this magnitude.
Let us be under no illusion. We in Scotland must maintain regional policy, and it can be sustained only through a United Kingdom effort. It is not possible for us to go it alone on revenue from oil.
9.13 p.m.
Mr. William Hamilton: want to take up immediately the point made by the right hon. Member for Renfrewshire, East (Miss Harvie Anderson) about regional policy. Indeed, I take it a little further. We want not only a United Kingdom but a European regional policy. Indeed, the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mrs. Ewing) and I are members of a European Committee that is seeking to work out a European regional policy.
A few days ago I was approached by representatives of the Glasgow Herald, which is planning a £10 million extension. They asked me to contact Mr. George Thomson to see whether they could get aid from Europe. This evening I have put into the hands of the Lobby correspondent of the Glasgow Herald three letters from Mr. George Thomson indicating that aid might be obtained from Europe for extending the activities of the Glasgow Herald in Glasgow. This is the context in which we should see both the Scottish and the British economy.
We should get away from the parochial rubbish to which we were subjected at the beginning of the debate. We heard references to Scotland being self sufficient in food—like bananas, I suppose, and coffee and cocoa. I suppose we could produce it all if we wished to do so. One can produce everything at a price. But to use that kind of nonsensical argument is to insult the intelligence of the Scottish people.
Scotland is suffering from what the United Kingdom is suffering from—a world recession, created principally by the determination of the Third World to get fair returns for its natural resources, especially oil. The quadrupling of oil prices and increases in the prices of raw materials on which the British economy depends have thrown

1535
us out of joint. No matter what machinery of government is evolved in Edinburgh, or Cardiff, or anywhere else, there will continue to be a relentless redistribution of the world's wealth.
An international conference is now taking place on this theme. The Third World, on which industrialised nations have been so dependent for their raw materials and energy over the last 100 years, is determined to ensure that the days of exploitation are over. We have to see that Third World countries get their fair share, and that means that our standard of living cannot go up as fast as we have been accustomed to, if at all. If it is to go up, we must make ourselves more efficient. Every worker in every factory and industry must put his shoulder to the wheel, whether he is a Scot, an Irishman, or a German—because the Europeans have similar problems. They have unemployment and inflation. When SNP Members talk about the Norwegians, they should remember that boatloads of Norwegians come to Newcastle and Norwich every weekend to buy our cheap goods.
Even if oil revenue were flowing for Scotland tomorrow, the country would still have the problems that we face today. Inflation is a world problem, and we are doing as well as, if not better than, many of our competitors. There is irrefutable evidence that we are slowing down the rate of inflation which had been unacceptably and devastatingly high.
It is easy to berate the Government about the level of unemployment and say what a social and economic outrage it is, but we should remember that there are more than 5 million people unemployed in the EEC. To pretend that by some manipulation of the machinery of government or by setting up an institution in Scotland, whether a Parliament or an Assembly, we shall automatically or dramatically change the situation is simply to deceive people.
I do not believe that any responsible body in Scotland or anywhere else believes that these problems can be solved by cutting the United Kingdom into little bits and pieces. Over the past few weeks I have had interesting talks with the CBI
1536
in Scotland and with employers in Glenrothes, and with trade unions and Chambers of Commerce. None of them wants the kind of separation that the SNP stands for. They know that it is an integrated economy which simply cannot be split asunder.
I had an interesting experience a month or two ago at a meeting with the Scottish NFU. I now have the most enthusiastic supporters in the NFU in Central Fife, and I would not miss that meeting with the farmers for anything. I asked them what they thought about devolution and they said, "God forbid!" So the Scottish CBI, the Scottish TUC, the Scottish chambers of commerce and the Scottish NFU, all of them responsible bodies, all look at the national interest and all say that we need to stay together. And, by God, we do, more than ever.
We do ourselves an injustice by pretending that everything is black. The latest figures in the Department of Employment Gazette for January 1976 show the percentage rates of unemployment for the development areas and the special development areas. There are 14 of them throughout the United Kingdom. The table shows that Scotland has come out second best. Worst off is the North-West Wales special development area with an unemployment rate of 12·2 per cent. That was exactly twice the figure for the Scottish development area. The south-west of England development area has unemployment running at 10·4 per cent. Girvan has 9·3 per cent. and Merseyside 9·9 per cent. Those figures show that Scotland has nothing to be ashamed of.
I get the quarterly figures for Glenrothes in my constituency. The new towns have been the most successful social and economic experiment in Britain since the last war. Glenrothes is a glaring example of what can be done through regional policies applied on a United Kingdom basis. The National Coal Board spent £20 million at Glenrothes but then found that because of the geology it could not get one ton of coal out. People described it as a disaster area, but in retrospect it was the best thing that could have happened.
We have a greater diversifiction of industry there than almost anywhere in Scotland. As a result of the successive

1537
regional policies of United Kingdom Governments, there is a greater concentration of electronics industries in Fife than anywhere else in the world apart from California. Hardly anyone in this House knows that.
I received a letter from Brigadier Doyle of the Glenrothes Development Corporation which said:
"t am enclosing herewith the quarterly return for the end of September. The interesting thing about this is that despite the fact that some 214 people have been laid off from GEC our own loss over the quarter has only been 43. I think this is in line with the hope I expressed to you when you were up here last as I expected some of the other firms to expand and take up the slack. I think to have only lost 43 at this particular time is a good omen."
And so it is. Nobody will deny the seriousness of the unemployment problem. Equally, I hope that no one will try to deceive the Scottish people into thinking that there is an easy way out. There is not. There is neither an easy way out nor a short way out in solving these problems.
We can talk about oil as we like. The Arabs will decide the value of that oil. Neither the Scots not the British Government in London will decide it. Who knows? We have tried to keep a floor price in Europe designed to protect our oil from the deprivations that can be imposed on us from outside by the Arabs. No mucking about with the machinery of government can deny that fact.
I have done my duty. I shall now sit down.
9.25 p.m.
Mr. Douglas Crawford: The very fact that we are talking about the Scottish economy is in itself an advantage. A few years ago in Scotland the argument raged as to whether such a thing actually existed. The fact that we all agree now—apart from the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Fairgrieve)—that a thing called the Scottish economy exists is a major step forward. It is a result of the excellent work done by the Scottish Council's research institute and the SNP and its research department.
I think that the existence of the United Kingdom economy, or a United Kingdom-managed economy, is largely a myth. The United Kingdom economy has been
1538
run as though the United Kingdom consisted of the area between Brighton and Birmingham and all other areas were categorised as misfits which needed to receive only grudging attention.
The Daily Mail said a month or two ago that the one thing that united the Conservative and Labour Parties in this House was the sight of an SNP Member on his or her feet. That is what it has been like tonight. The Conservatives have been quoting from a document which serves to prove the SNP case. It is a pity that the rules of the House suggest that the major Opposition party cannot sit on the Government Benches. That would have been the best place for Conservatives to sit tonight.
Mr. Lambie: The hon. Gentleman is on the Tory Benches.
Mr. Crawford: There are two types of Unionists. There are those who are serious in their belief that the Scottish economy benefits from the fact that it is run from London and that it is under the thumb of the Treasury. They are woefully naive economically. Perhaps the tragic speech—I use the word "tragic "advisedly—of the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Lambie) exemplifies the tristesse of the Scottish economy today. Here is a man happy with the British connection but whose pleas fall on deaf ears, and his dreams for his constituency turn to nightmares.
Mr. Lambie: I am sure the hon. Gentleman will realise that the only reason why there is not prosperity in my area is that at the public inquiry on the developments at Hunterston the SNP gave evidence against the developments taking place.
Mr. Crawford: I was taking up the hon. Gentleman's point about a motorway from Irvine and the fact that he was not getting his request granted by the Secretary of State. I shall come to Hunterston shortly.
There are others in the House who pay lip service to the supposed benefits under the United Kingdom unitary economy. That is fair enough, but they should be designated as Britons and not Scots, because if they are doing down the Scottish economy in that way they do not deserve the name "Scots" and they are Britons and should be proud to be British for that reason. [Interruption.]

1539
It is important to get back to the initial meaning of the word "economy".
Mr. William Hamilton: Racialist.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that terms of abuse will not be thrown around the Chamber.
Mr. Crawford: I am not a racialist, Mr. Speaker. I think you are well aware of that.
Mr. Lambie: Just a Tory.
Mr. Speaker: I hope that no one will be called a racialist in this Chamber. Whatever anyone else has ruled, I consider it to be an unparliamentary expression.
Mr. Harry Gourlay: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. From a sedentary position I said "That was a racialist statement". I did not call the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Crawford) a racialist.
Mr. Speaker: That is what in Wales we would call a second cousin.
Mr. Crawford: It is important to get back to the root of the word "economy", which comes from the Greek word for housekeeping—oikonomia—the business of feeding, clothing and heating ourselves. If we can feed, clothe and heat ourselves, our economy will be basically in balance. To have sufficient meat is more important than being able to understand the mysteries of M1 and M3. In spite of what hon. Gentlemen on the Government and Conservative Party Benches have said, we can feed ourselves. This is confirmed by the Edinburgh Junior Chamber of Commerce—hardly a mouthpiece of the Scottish National Party. It says that England has too large a population and has lost the cheap markets of empire—
"Lo, all thy pomp of yesterday
Is one with Nineveh and Tyre"—
but the Scottish economy is basically in balance, and it was on an essentially balanced economy that the Scottish economy developed.
Mr. Ian Sproat: How can the hon. Member say that the Scottish economy is in balance when the Paymaster-General told us only two weeks ago that the deficit produced was roughly 10 per cent. of the GDP and that this means there was a deficit of £537 million?
Mr. Crawford: The Paymaster-General did not take into account the expenditure on English interests in Scotland, or agricultural subsidies, or higher social security benefits—of which we are not proud—or several other things. If the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) is on the side of the Paymaster-General, so be it, but Scotland had what was an essentially balance economy. It was on an essentially balanced economy that Scotland developed, but Scottish Labour did not, hence the ILP and Home Rule. Today's Labour Members in Scotland are a poor shadow of the Clydeside Home Rulers.
There may have been executive devolution both before and since then, and we have had the creation of the office of Secretary of State, and St. Andrew's House, as well as the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries. But these have always been under the thumb of the Treasury. In later years the executive devolution was more than counterbalanced by the centralisation of nationalised and multinational industry.
The Report of the Scottish Council in 1969, on centralisation, is well known. The sad fact is that the Scottish Council has recognised that the situation has worsened since then. Increasingly, the effective decisions about investment in Scotland are made in London.
Private investment may not commend itself too much to Government Members, but at least Scotland was built up by Scottish enterprise. Today for Scottish enterprise we have substituted London bureaucracy and over-costing. Even today, Smiths Industries are bidding for McLellans of Glasgow, and the offer has been accepted.
It would be much better to have a Scottish oil corporation, a Scottish steel corporation, a Scottish electronics advisory authority, Scottish control over British Rail in Scotland, and a Scottish coal board. Then these nationalised industries would be accountable to the people of Scotland, who could do something about them.
The figure for unemployment in Norway is 1·3 per cent., and in Sweden it is F6 per cent. The Conservative Benches may not be interested, but we in Scotland are. The figure for Finland is 2·1 per cent., and for Austria, 2 per cent., but for Scotland it is 7 per cent.

1541
What kind of Government is it that is creating in Scotland a society for school leavers who cannot get an apprenticeship for two years—a society in which young men of ability and heart are having to emigrate? If this is regional policy, little can be said for it. No self-governing Scotland could do as badly as that.
I ask the people of Scotland whether they are happy with 7 per cent. unemployment or with short-term redundancy payments. They would, I am sure, rather have jobs that will give meaning to their lives. I am sure that they do not want an unemployment level of 7 per cent.
The Secretary of State for Scotland says that Scotland cannot be isolated from a world recession. His complacency, in the light of the Scandinavian, Austrian and Swiss figures, is shocking. Other hon. Members have said that this Government are using unemployment as a weapon against inflation. Shame on them, if that is the case. Shame on the party which, in 1974, said "Back to work with Labour."
If we are to be castigated for comparing Scotland with the English regions, we would say that both Scotland and England are nations and that we want to be compared with other nations. There are regions in Scotland with far worse unemployment than any region in England. I would ask the business community, the entrepreneurs, the company directors, the CBI and the chambers of commerce in Scotland whether they would rather have a bank rate of 10 per cent. or more or the rates prevailing in Europe, which are roughly half that. Do they want to pay more for the money they need for investment and employment? If they do, their shareholders and employees will want to know about it.
Dr. M. S. Miller: What is the solution?
Mr. Crawford: I am coming to the solutions—
Dr. Miller: Do not just keep rehearsing the problems.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Interruptions from a sedentary position spoil a debate.
Mr. Crawford: I realise that the hon. Member for East Kilbride (Dr. Miller) must be rather impatient these days.
Mr. Donald Stewart: His time is coming.
Mr. Crawford: The Secretary of State for Scotland has said that the SNP has claimed that a self-governing Scotland would have a strong Scottish pound. Would any business man rather have a health currency or a weak one? Is a healthy pound desirable or not?
I come now to the main point. In the debate on devolution my hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Reid) said that the fault with the Scottish economy was that it was the catspaw of the central demand management of the United Kingdom economy. If central demand management works at all—which is doubtful—it does so only where a country's geographical structural, commercial and industrial antennae are highly geared and industrial decision-making is properly decentralised. It works less badly in smaller economies than in large.
Whenever England caught an economic cold, Scotland got pneumonia. Scotland was so beat in any London-led recession that even when London got out of it, artificially or otherwise, Scotland had not pulled out of it by the time the next one came. It is not much better now. The hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) referred to the CBI survey in January. I refer him to its survey in January 1971, when his party was in power.
There has been too much talking about the Scottish economy, too many working parties, feasibility studies, study groups and cliches. On the committees of the Highlands and Islands Development Board and the Scottish Development Agency we see the same tired old faces.
We in the SNP are sick, tired and fed-up with hearing the Scottish TUC, the Scottish Labour Party and the CBI saying, whenever the unemployment figures come out "Something has to he done. Let us go to London and see the Prime Minister." Let us stop acting like Uriah Heep. The hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) preened himself on the fact that representatives of the Glasgow Herald had approached him and asked whether they could raise £10 million in Europe. Should they not do it for themselves? Can we in Scotland not stand on our own feet for a change?

1543
The people should see that the only way to get something done is to do it themselves. We have the resources and the expertise and the labour in Scotland.
So what is to do? I agree entirely with the hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. Robertson) about steel. He is more knowledgeable about that than I am. I admired his speech. He may or may not agree that one of the ways to achieve what he wants is to establish a Scottish steel corporation. British Rail, another nationalised industry, should become the agent of the Scottish Assembly, just as in the case of trunk roads the regions are the agents of the Secretary of State. There should be no more rail cuts. The Perth-Inverness line should be double-tracked. There should be regional rapid transit systems in Tayside, Edinburgh and Aberdeen. The Glasgow-Ayr route should be electrified.
There is no problem in Scottish coal. As soon as the oil price goes up, as it assuredly will, coal will become competitive again. Scotland has no shortage of coal reserves at Airth and under the Forth.
The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West said that Scotland would not have an electronics industry but for the fact that we were part of the United Kingdom economy. That industry came to Scotland in spite of, not because of, the United Kingdom connection. It came because of the Scottish Council and the Ferranti electronics scheme in the late 1940s and early 1950s. We need to develop in Scotland an electronics components industry, possibly under a Scottish electronics advisory authority.
I say to the hon. Member for Bothwell (Mr. Hamilton) that we need more oversight of takeovers and partial takeovers. As the hon. Gentleman knows, Honeywell in his constituency has had its computer interests taken over by G. E. Bull, and there could be redundancies as a result of that.
Mr. James Hamilton: I do not think it right that a statement should be made by someone who does not know the first thing about the situation in my constituency. The hon. Gentleman has made a statement for which he will be sorry, and he will be required to withdraw it because it is untrue.
Mr. Crawford: My reply to the hon. Gentleman is "Just wait and see". I am as sad about the situation as he is.
I was pleased to hear the Secretary of State for Scotland say in his opening remarks that the headquarters of the Scottish Development Agency would be in Scotland. I am delighted to hear that the SDA will not be impaired by lack of finance, and I hope that the Minister of State will be able to endorse that and say categorically that the SDA will have £300 million per annum.
We think that the SDA should have its operations decentralised throughout Scotland and internationalised throughout the world. We take up the point made by the lion. Member for North Angus and Mearns that there should be an arm of the SDA that would act as a venture capital fund. In that way we shall get new jobs and new industries under our control in Scotland.
Those are brief outlines of the vigorous, vibrant, mixed, socially aware and socially accountable economy which a self-governing Scotland will enjoy, and before them the murky, dim Scottish economy of today pales into insignificance. If Scotland's growth rate had shown a 1 per cent. improvement per annum more than it did over the past 30 years' our gross domestic product would have been up by about 33 per cent. Per capita it would mean that the gross domestic product in Scotland, instead of today's £1,400, would be approaching about £2,000. We could not have made a bigger mess of our own economy than London has made of it for us.
To London we say "Let us do our own thing". Let us, as John F. Kennedy said in his inaugural speech on the United States economy. [Interruption.] I am surprised that lion. Gentlemen are laughing at the name of John F. Kennedy. Let us in Scotland, as he said, be inspired by the lift of a rising dream. To the Government we in the SNP say "Resign. You have been abject failures, raising unemployment and depressing investment levels in Scotland to an unprecedented degree. Do the honourable thing, resign, and let the SNP put its economic plans to the judgment of the people of Scotland. Resign and let us have a General Election on the issue of the Scottish economy."
9.43 p.m.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Mr. Bruce Milian): I thought that the speech of the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) in opening the debate was hardly equal to the occasion. He seemed to be reading somebody else's script. The trouble with the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Crawford) was that he was reading his own script.
I start from the point that unemployment in Scotland is far too high. It is a matter of the most serious concern. The latest figures are inflated by the inclusion, on a temporary basis as it happens, of students and a large number of school leavers, but even taking account of that we have very serious unemployment and I do not think it is any use anyone on the Government Bench pretending that that is not the case.
It is true, and it has to be said, that we are facing a deep world-wide recession, and it is not possible—I think the House has to accept this—for the United Kingdom economy to be completely isolated from that.
It happens that the Scottish record relative to the United Kingdom has been very good over the last 18 months or so. It is not true that there are some magical formulas, apparently the discovery of small countries in other parts of the world, which can isolate us from the present world recession, although that has been argued by the SNP spokesmen. The current Barclays Bank economic reports for a number of small countries have the following things to say about the present position:
Denmark:
"depressed level of activity … high unemployment."
Finland:
"stagnating output … large foreign trade deficit … high rate of inflation."
Eire:
"rapid inflation … rising unemployment … heavy trade deficit."
Netherlands:
"general slowdown in activity … rather high unemployment."
Norway:
"recessionary trends caused by fall in foreign demand … economic activity at a fairly low level … unemployment has risen significantly … large current account deficit."
1546
Switzerland:
"weakening of demand … deterioration in balance of payments …"
I could go on to give a number of other examples.
The argument that if we created a separate Scottish economy we should solve our economic problems by that step alone is an economic absurdity. It pays no regard to the history of the Scottish economy. It also ignores the serious problems that all countries are facing today. That includes small independent countries as much as the United Kingdom. We shall not find a solution to the Scottish problem except in the context of United Kingdom reflation. My hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made the point, and I repeat, that no one would be happier than this Government if we were able to reflate. But we have serious economic problems, including the balance of payments and inflation, which must be solved before we can have the expansion which is the ultimate answer.
We have taken a number of measures to deal with the difficulties of unemployment. My right hon. Friend has mentioned some of them—the temporary employment subsidy, the recruitment subsidy, the job creation schemes and aid to the construction industry. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has said that he will be announcing further measures soon, and I understand that the announcement will be towards the end of next week.
The answer to our difficulties in Scotland, as well as the United Kingdom, must be to achieve a strong economic position which will enable the Government to take reflationary measures. It is true that the Scottish unemployment position has been strong compared with the rest of the United Kingdom. Relatively we have suffered less than other parts so that the unemployment relative between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom, at 120, is the lowest it has ever been. We should take a certain amount of satisfaction from that. It is also true that over the years the gap between Scottish wages and United Kingdom wages has narrowed and has now virtually disappeared.
Why have we achieved these results? First, a good deal of the credit must go

1547
to regional policy. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made the point—this was not apparently wholly understood by some hon. Members—that we cannot have a regional policy except on a United Kingdom basis. Of course we can give incentives on a fragmented basis, but we cannot get the direction of industry, which comes from the negative control of investment certificates and the rest, without a United Kingdom policy on these matters. Anyone who has studied the post-war years and looked at the figures—my right hon. Friend the Paymaster-General gave some interesting figures in a Written Answer today—will realise that without the negative powers as well as the positive incentives we would not have been able to achieve the improvements in the relative economic position of Scotland that we have achieved since the end of the war.
Between 1960 and 1971, regional policy in Scotland generated between 70,000 to 80,000 new jobs.
Mr. Eric S. Heller: I am sure my right hon. Friend is aware that during the period even of this Government London and Midland Members of Parliament have (made tremendous representations and complained bitterly that regional policy has sent industry to Scotland, the North of England, the North-West and so on. The truth is that we kept to our policy because we thought it was right.
Mr. Milian: Yes, and we should pay tribute to the London Members of this House who over the years have voted for regional policies which have been, in a sense, detrimental to their areas.
At present the relative disparities between different parts of Scotland are much greater—in any of the economic indicators that we care to choose—than the disparities between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom. Although Scottish Members have always been complacent and enthusiastic about the proposition that industry should be diverted from England and that there should be special assistance to direct economic activity from England to Scotland, I find very little enthusiasm among Scottish Members for the idea that priority should be given to particular parts of Scotland. Yet it happens to be
1548
the case that priority now has to be given to particular parts of Scotland. That is why, for example, the Government have said that the Scottish Development Agency must give priority to West-Central Scotland. I hope that that will be widely accepted in Scotland.
The second reason why we are in a relatively better employment position in Scotland today than in the past is the impact of North Sea oil. The number of jobs in Scotland, taking account of the multiplier effect, that have been generated both directly and indirectly as a result of North Sea oil is between 50,000 and 55,000. A good number of them have been a result of deliberate Government policy and the stimulus and encouragement through for example, the Offshore Supplies Office.
Although North Sea oil is the cornerstone of the political appeal of the Scottish National Party, it is ironic that its policy of reducing the exploitation of North Sea oil would automatically wipe out at a stroke a large number of the 55,000 jobs. If the rate of oil exploitation was slowed down to, say 50 per cent., which is the sort of figure we hear mentioned, there would be more than a 50 per cent. reduction in the number of jobs. I reckon that we would lose at least 30,000 North Sea oil jobs in Scotland if we adopted SNP policy.
Despite the relative improvement in unemployment, we still have formidable industrial problems in Scotland. But there is no major industrial problem in Scotland that can be solved solely in a Scottish context. That just cannot be done. That is not the point of view only of the Government. It is a point of view that is accepted by industry and the trade unions in Scotland. I meet representatives of the trade unions frequently to discuss industrial problems.
The description of what has happened in the steel industry by my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley (Mr. Robertson) was a grotesque account and quite unrealistic. There are plans for significant expansion of the industry in Scotland—which rest on Hunterston—and they would not make any sense and would not be possible except in the United Kingdom context. The adoption of a separatist policy for the Scottish steel industry would give us the run-down of

1549
the old plants—that is inevitable—but would not give us the build-up of Hunterston.
I take another recent industrial problem—Chrysler. It was impossible to solve the Chrysler problem through a Scottish solution alone. Members of the SNP do not understand that proposition, but the workers in the Linwood plant understand it very well. It was possible to solve the Chrysler problem only in a United Kingdom context.
To say, as the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire said, that Scotland could have a separate coal industry of great prosperity is to fly in the face of the facts. The Scottish coal industry has been one of the least financially prosperous areas of the National Coal Board for a long time. That is an unfortunate fact that would not go away because there was a separate Government. The financial and economic position is not magically transformed by a separate Government. The same is true of British Rail and of the Post Office. I understand that only yesterday Members of the SNP voted in favour of fragmenting the Post Office when they supported a Ten-Minute Bill.
With all these problems we have, of course, been concerned about the immediate difficulties. The Government cannot simply be concerned with long-term planning and ignore the immediate position. We have also had very much in mind the long-term needs of the Scottish economy. That is especially so in the case of the steel industry and is illustrated by the way in which we have developed our selective assistance policy generally. It is also illustrated by our policy of dispersing Civil Service jobs from London, confirmation of a major dispersal having been announced this week. That again makes sense only in the United Kingdom context and would be lost to a separate Scotland.
The need for long-term policies applies also to the Scottish Development Agency.
The hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire may bluster as much as he likes, but in Committee on the Scottish Development Agency Bill he voted against industrial powers being given to the SDA. I think that he was subsequently rebuked by his party for doing that. The hon. Gentleman put forward several slightly absurd propositions in Committee, some of which I gather he repeated this evening. Nothing that he said about the SDA, or about anything else, gives the slightest indication that the SNP either understands or has any solution to offer of Scotland's long-term economic problems.
Scotland's economic problems cannot be solved simply by North Sea oil. We repudiate the suggestion that the benefits of North Sea oil should go to Scotland. alone. Incidentally, that suggestion would cut out the Welsh, of which I hope Plaid Cymru has taken due account. Apart from the vulnerability of North Sea oil to price fluctuations, there would be major industrial problems. No one is suggesting that North Sea oil is other than a major resource which will be of great benefit to Scotland as well as to the rest of the United Kingdom.
Mr. Gordon Wilson Mr. Gordon Wilson rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put, but Mr. SPEAKER withheld his assent and declined then to put that Question.
Mr. Milian: I was about to say that the policy of the Scottish National Party on North Sea oil is basically the politics of resentment, and that is a very dangerous basis on which to govern Scotland or any other country.
Question put,
That the salary of the Secretary of State for Scotland should be reduced by the sum of £1,000:—
The House divided: Ayes, 213, Noes 235.

Division No. 55.]

AYES

[10.00 p.m.

Alison, Michael

Benyon, W.

Braine, Sir Bernard

Amery, Rt Hon Julian

Berry, Hon Anthony

Brittan, Leon

Arnold, Tom

Biffen, John

Brotherton, Michael

Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

Biggs-Davison, John

Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

Bain, Mrs Margaret

Blaker, Peter

Bryan, Sir Paul

Baker, Kenneth

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Buchanan-Smith, Alick

Banks, Robert

Bottomley, Peter

Budgen, Nick

Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)

Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

Burden, F. A.

Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)

Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

Carlisle, Mark

Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

Raison, Timothy

Chalker, Mrs Lynda

Jessel, Toby

Rathbone, Tim

Channon, Paul

Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)

Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Jopling, Michael

Reid, George

Clegg, Walter

Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

Cockcroft, John

Kaberry, Sir Donald

Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)

Cope, John

Kershaw, Anthony

Ridley, Hon Nicholas

Cormack, Patrick

King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

Ridsdale, Julian

Corrie, John

King, Tom (Bridgwater)

Rifkind, Malcolm

Costain, A. P.

Kitson, Sir Timothy

Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

Crawford, Douglas

Knox, David

Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

Crouch, David

Lamont, Norman

Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

Crowder, F. P.

Langford-Holt, Sir John

Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)

Lawrence, Ivan

Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

Lawson, Nigel

Sainsbury, Tim

Dodsworth, Geoffrey

Le Merchant, Spencer

St. John-Stevas, Norman

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Lester, Jim (Beeston)

Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

Drayson, Burnaby

Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

Shelton, William (Streatham)

Durant, Tony

Lloyd, Ian

Shepherd, Colin

Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

Loveridge, John

Silvester, Fred

Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Luce, Richard

Sims, Roger

Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

McAdden, Sir Stephen

Sinclair, Sir George

Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)

MacCormick, lain

Skeet, T. H. H.

Fairgrieve, Russell

McCrindle, Robert

Speed, Keith

Farr, John

Macfarlane, Neil

Spence, John

Finsberg, Geoffrey

MacGregor, John

Stanley, John

Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

Steel, David (Roxburgh)

Fookes, Miss Janet

McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)

Madel, David

Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)

Fox, Marcus

Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

Freud, Clement

Marten, Neil

Stokes, John

Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

Mather, Carol

Stradling Thomas, J.

Gardiner, George (Reigate)

Maude, Angus

Tapsell, Peter

Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)

Mawby, Ray

Tebbit, Norman

Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Temple-Morris, Peter

Glyn, Dr Alan

Mayhew, Patrick

Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

Godber, Rt Hon Joseph

Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)

Goodhart, Philip

Mills, Peter

Thompson, George

Goodhew, Victor

Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

Townsend, Cyril D.

Goodlad, Alastair

Moate, Roger

Trotter Neville

Gorst, John

Moore, John (Croydon C)

Tugendhat, Christopher

Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

More, Jasper (Ludlow)

van Straubenzee, W. R.

Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

Morgan, Geraint

Vaughan, Dr Gerard

Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

Viggers, Peter

Gray, Hamish

Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

Wakeham, John

Griffiths, Eldon

Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

Walder, David (Clitheroe)

Grist, Ian

Neave, Airey

Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)

Grylis, Michael

Nelson, Anthony

Wall, Patrick

Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

Neubert, Michael

Walters, Dennis

Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

Newton, Tony

Warren, Kenneth

Hampson, Dr Keith

Nott, John

Watt, Hamish

Hannam, John

Onslow, Cranley

Weatherill, Bernard

Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

Oppenheim, Mrs Sally

Wells, John

Hawkins, Paul

Page, John (Harrow West)

Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

Hayhoe, Barney

Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

Wigley, Dafydd

Heseltine, Michael

Parkinson, Cecil

Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

Hicks, Robert

Pattie, Geoffrey

Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

Higgins, Terence L.

Penhaligon, David

Younger, Hon George

Holland, Philip

Percival, Ian

Hordern, Peter

Pink, R. Bonner

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Howell, David (Guildford)

Price, David (Eastleigh)

Mr. Andrew Welsh and

Hunt, John

Prior, Rt Hon James

Mr. Douglas Henderson.

Hutchison, Michael Clark

NOES

Abse, Leo

Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

Cartwright, John

Allaun, Frank

Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

Castle, Rt Hon Barbara.

Anderson, Donald

Bradford, Rev Robert

Clemitson, Ivor

Archer, Peter

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)

Armstrong, Ernest

Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

Cohen, Stanley

Ashton, Joe

Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

Coleman, Donald

Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)

Colquhoun, Mrs Maureen

Atkinson, Norman

Buchan, Norman

Concannon, J. D.

Bagier, Gordon A. T.

Buchanan, Richard

Conlan, Bernard

Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)

Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

Bean, R. E.

Callaghan, Rt Hon J. Cardiff SE)

Corbett, Robin

Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

Catlaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

Bidwell, Sydney

Campbell, Ian

Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)

Bishop, E. S.

Canavan, Dennis

Crawshaw, Richard

Blenkinsop, Arthur

Carmichael, Nell

Cronin, John

Boardman. H.

Carter, Ray

Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony

Booth, Albert

Carter-Jones, Lewis

Cryer, Bob

Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)

Kinnock, Neil

Rooker, J. W.

Davidson, Arthur

Lambie, David

Rose, Paul B.

Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

Lamborn, Harry

Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

Davies, Denzil (Lanelli)

Lamond, James

Rowlands, Ted

Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

Leadbitter, Ted

Sandelson, Neville

Deakins, Eric

Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

Sedgemore, Brian

Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

Lipton, Marcus

Selby, Harry

Delargy, Hugh

Litterick, Tom

Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

Dell, Rt Hon Edmund

Luard, Evan

Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)

Dempsey, James

Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Dormand, J. D.

McCartney, Hugh

Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)

Douglas-Mann, Bruce

McElhone, Frank

Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)

Duffy, A. E. P.

MacFarquhar, Roderick

Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

Dunn, James A.

McGuire, Michael (Ince)

Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

Eadie, Alex

Mackenzie, Gregor

Silverman, Julius

Edge, Geoff

Mackintosh, John P.

Skinner, Dennis

Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

Maclennan, Robert

Small, William

Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

Ennals, David

McNamara, Kevin

Snape, Peter

Evans, loan (Aberdare)

Madden, Max

Spearing, Nigel

Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

Magee, Bryan

Spriggs, Leslie

Flannery, Martin

Mallalieu, J. P. W.

Stallard, A. W.

Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

Marks, Kenneth

Stoddart, David

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

Stonehouse, Rt Hon John

Ford, Ben

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Stott, Roger

Forrester, John

Mason, Rt Hon Roy

Strang, Gavin

Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)

Maynard, Miss Joan

Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.

Freeson, Reginald

Meacher, Michael

Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

Garrett, John (Norwich S)

Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

Swain, Thomas

George, Bruce

Mendelson, John

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

Gilbert, Dr John

Mikardo, Ian

Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

Ginsburg, David

Millan, Bruce

Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

Golding, John

Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

Gould, Bryan

Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)

Tierney, Sydney

Gourlay, Harry

Molloy, William

Tinn, James

Graham, Ted

Moonman, Eric

Tomney, Frank

Grant, George (Morpeth)

Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

Torney, Tom

Grocott, Bruce

Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

Tuck, Raphael

Hardy, Peter

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

Moyle, Roland

Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

Hart, Rt Hon Judith

Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

Hayman, Mrs Helene

Newens, Stanley

Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

Heffer, Eric S.

Ogden, Eric

Ward, Michael

Hooley, Frank

O'Halloran, Michael

Watkins, David

Horam, John

O'Malley, Rt Hon Brian

Watkinson, John

Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Weetch, Ken

Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

Ovenden, John

White, Frank R. (Bury)

Hughes, Roy (Newport)

Padley, Walter

White, James (Pollok)

Hunter, Adam

Palmer, Arthur

Whitehead, Phillip

Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)

Park, George

Whitlock, William

Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

Parry, Robert

Williams, Alan (Swansea W)

Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)

Pavitt, Laurie

Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

Pendry, Tom

Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

Janner, Greville

Perry, Ernest

Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

Phipps, Dr Colin

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

Woof, Robert

Johnson, James (Hull West)

Price, William (Rugby)

Wrigglesworth, Ian

Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

Radice, Giles

Young, David (Bolton E)

Jones, Barry (East Flint)

Richardson, Miss Jo

Jones, Dan (Burnley)

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Kaufman, Gerald

Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

Mr. James Hamilton and

Kerr, Russell

Rodgers, George (Chorley)

Mr. Joseph Harper.

Kilroy-Silk, Robert

Rodgers, William (Stockton)

Question accordingly negatived.

NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE CHARGES
10.15 p.m.
Dr. Gerard Vaughan: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the National Health Service (Charges) Amendment Regulations 1975 (S.I., 1975, No. 1945), dated 27th November 1975, a copy of which was laid before this House on 5th December, be annulled.
Mr. Speaker: I understand that it will be for the general convenience of the House to take at the same time the following motions:
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the National Health Service (Remission of Charges) Amendment (No. 2) Regulations 1975 (S.I., 1975, No. 1946), dated 27th November 1975, a copy of which was laid before this House on 5th December, be annulled.
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the National Health Service (Charges) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 1975 (S.I., 1975, No. 1987), dated 1st December 1975, a copy of which was laid before this House on 11th December, be annulled.
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the National Health Service (Remission of Charges) (Scotland) (Amendment No. 2) Regulations 1975 (S.I., 1975, No. 1988), dated 1st December 1975, a copy of which was laid before this House on 11th December, be annulled.
Dr. Vaughan: I do not intend to go into great detail on these Regulations. We have put down the Prayer to obtain information from the Minister regarding the Government's attitude towards charges generally in the National Health Service. It is not clear from the Government's history and the speeches of Labour Members, including Ministers, what attitude they have towards charges in this area. There is an extraordinary contradiction between what they say and do. It is a matter not of practising what is preached but of preaching one thing and then, in Government, practising something quite different. I saw a sign recently which read "'Do not adjust your mind. There is a fault in reality." That seems to be the message of the Labour Party.
Even on a narrow subject like charges for health care, the Labour Government do not seem able to say and then do
1556
the same thing. In 1949 a Labour Government passed the Act allowing charges to be made. In 1951 a Labour Government imposed charges for the first time for dentures and spectacles. At the 1964 General Election the Labour Party, it seems, had no difficulty in saying "Our aim is to provide as rapidly as possible a completely free health service." It depends what is meant by "as rapidly as possible". The reality was quite different from what the Labour Party had been saying.
When Labour left office in 1970, every charge had not only been abolished but was far higher—not a little higher—than in 1964 when Labour took over. The prescription charge was up by 25 per cent., dental treatment was up by 50 per cent. and dentures and spectacles were up by 25 per cent. Labour did exactly the opposite of what it said it would do.
Not surprisingly, as soon as the Labour Government were out of office, out came the pledges again. In 1973 the Labour Party said that it would phase out all National Health Service charges. In February 1974 we heard it again. It was not "phase out" then, but "abolish", suggesting by the use of that word some greater decision and action. A month after the election the Secretary of State, who was here a few moments ago, was in full cry saying "Our goal is a free health service."
In October 1974 the Labour Party manifesto, not in any way disturbed by past actions, stated that a Labour Government would strengthen the
"provision for dental care"—
whatever that means—
"by freezing the level of dental charges for patients".
Then comes the inevitable catch-phrase—to
"continue the progressive elimination of prescription charges".
It was a case of shouting "Onward" while walking backwards. Now we have exactly the opposite of what they said they would do. They are putting up charges yet again.
The Minister should admit that a completely free service is not only undesirable but unrealistic and not in accord with any sensible system of priorities for the National Health Service.

1557
He knows the view of myself and many of my colleagues that some sort of charging system is necessary from the demand point of view and in terms of financial common sense. Will the Minister confirm that the Labour Party's policy of abolishing all charges is an utter and total nonsense and explain why the Labour Party manifesto is Holy Writ when it comes to pay-beds but can be totally ignored on dental and spectacle charges?
What was meant when the official Press hand-out of 20th November described these charges as a "New, improved system of dental and optical charges"? How, on Labour's past policies and statements, can getting an extra £16 million from people be described as an improvement? Perhaps, like Humpty Dumpty, words mean anything the Minister wants them to mean. The improved system is to make patients pay the full cost of dental treatment up to a maximum of £3·50 or, for dentures, £12.
What is the effect of this likely to be on patients? That is what concerns us. The Government are right to put up charges a little. These Regulations are probably right, but will they not mean that people who need a comparatively small amount of treatment—say, one or two fillings—will have to pay more than before and will have a disincentive to go to the dentist? Will these charges be a disincentive to people having regular small services from dentists? The argument is that the deterrent effect for those having a good deal of treatment will be reduced, but the Minister should consider the effect on people having a small amount of treatment. They will have to pay more.
I know that some of the spectacle charges do not apply to children, but will the dental charges discourage children from the joy of attending the dentist? We should bear in mind the British Dental Association's statement that dental decay often occurs in early childhood and the survey by Winter and others in 1971 that 25 per cent. of children between the ages of one and four have at least one decayed tooth needing treatment.
There may also be disincentives for people getting help with spectacles. The main effect of these charges is that the majority of patients who require rela?
1558
tively simple lenses will have to pay £2 or £3 more than previously.
I hope that the Minister will tell us his estimate, after taking account of these increased charges, of the total revenue to the NHS from charges in a full year. He may not wish to tell me, but I want to know how this figure is expected to be made up between prescriptions and dental and spectacle charges. I estimate the total for a full year to be about £150 million, but I should be glad if the hon. Gentleman would confirm that figure.
On what will the extra revenue of £16 million which the Minister hopes to raise be spent? I would like to see some of it going towards preventive dentistry and dental education. We also need increased use of dental auxiliaries and, now that we have received the report of the Royal College of Physicians, an extended use of fluorides. The total annual revenue from all these charges will be far in excess of the £38 million which the Government think is essential for the mentally sick but which, they claim, cannot be found for them.
I hope that tonight the Minister will ignore his Left-wing extremists and confirm that these charges are consistent with the Government's real view, which is that they are a necessary element for financing the National Health Service. I hope he will now admit openly and honestly that charges of this kind are here to stay and that it would be totally dishonest for the Labour Party to continue to promise at each General Election that it will reduce or abolish the charges only to do precisely the opposite when it is elected.
10.31 p.m.
Mrs. Lynda Chalker: I wish to intervene only briefly in the hope of getting an assurance from the Government. I have always been concerned that the high basic rate of charge for dental care, which is what these Statutory Instruments amount to, will deter regular check-ups by young people. We have been trying so hard to instil this habit in young people in the hope that they will carry the practice through into adulthood. I am concerned that we should extend—not contract—preventive dentistry. Yet in spite of all the verbiage I have seen in the newspapers and other journals on this subject, we have heard very little from the Government about it.

1559
I am also concerned about the problems of accessibility to dentists and the numbers of dentists in certain areas. In 1974 there was a great deal of talk about the shortages of dentists. Before the second General Election of that year the Government were even talking about what they would do to meet this shortage. We heard that there would be additional remuneration. In August 1974 it was stated in The Guardian that newly-qualified dentists in selected areas would be offered rent-free, fully-equipped surgeries and guaranteed minimum salaries. This issue seems to have gone very quiet since then and since a number of Questions were put down to the Secretary of State on the subject.
We have no idea whether the Government's promises of 1974 held good once they had managed to win the second General Election that year. Perhaps we may be told by the Under-Secretary this evening. Do the Government intend to make sure that city centres which have been short of dentists will get special attention in order to cut back, by preventive dentistry, on the enormous wastage incurred on giving dental care to people suffering from dental caries?
It amazed me to read in the British Dental Health Federation paper "Preventive Dentistry" that dental health was second only to mental ill health as the most costly single item in the nation's health budget. That expenditure is out of all proportion to the amount of attention we devote to providing preventive care. We have always accepted that it would be right to encourage and promote the health, particularly the dental health, of the public. Numerous Government speakers have said so on public platforms. But what we have heard and what we have seen in terms of firm decisions and a timetable of when it might be carried through are two entirely different matters. If we are to save money, which we know we desperately need to do, we have to set about preventing dental caries through greater efficiency and greater availability of treatment at an early age when decay begins its attack.
Already my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, South (Dr. Vaughan) has mentioned the 25 per cent. of pre-school age children, aged one to four, who have an average of more than one decayed
1560
tooth each. But when it comes to 75 per cent. of five-year-olds having at least one decayed, missing or filled tooth—I mean missing by extraction, and not missing because it has been pulled out for a sixpence under the pillow—we know that right at the bottom of the scale we are still not getting through in terms of preventive dentistry.
When we consider the adult figures of 19·2 decayed, missing or filled teeth, we begin to see how the size of the problem in regard to secondary teeth is one to which we pay little attention in a preventive way as compared with other aspects of health care.
Whatever the Government may or may not do, information about diet and the effect of sugars on teeth can be made more widely known at little expense. We know that eating habits are ingrained in many sections of our population. However, if we can educate people about all the other free services which the present Government wish to give away—I do not quarrel with them about some of these services—we ought also to be able to give out information about what happens if one does not take care of one's teeth.
It is indicative of the way that the present Government are thinking that they are setting a minimum charge which is high and which is likely to stop the regular preventive visits to the dentist, yet they are doing nothing, on the other hand, to increase health education in relation to teeth. There are a number of things that we need, and not only health education techniques.
After a lot of thought, I have decided that I shall put my vote to adding or allowing people to add a very small part of fluoride to our water, because that can prevent the bill that we now face by reducing caries in teeth by one-half. To those who say "No, it should not be mass medication"—a topic that we often hear about—I say that there are other ways. There are mouth washes. There are tablets. Some school dental clinics and some dentists now give their patients regular mouth washes with 0·5 per cent. sodium fluoride in them. This undoubtedly, as is proved by research, is helping to reduce the amount of dental caries.
When I first started in the research world I was amazed to learn that back

1561
in 1952 less than 50 per cent. of our population used toothpaste. I could hardly believe it. I regret to say that north of the border the figure was even worse. Things have improved. We have gone some way to increasing dental care, but by no means have we gone the distance that is required if we are to prevent the cost of £140 million per annum that we spend on dental care—not preventive care, but all the fillings and extractions and all the "nasties". It is not just a question of the money. We also lose 600,000 working days a year just through bad teeth.
Therefore, if we are really to change our system of charge, the Minister should look again at the question whether there should not be a minimum charge for regular check-ups, because it is through regular check-ups that much of the decay is prevented. It is also prevented through regular teeth-cleaning—which his Department could promote if it had the will rather than just the word—and through regular descaling of teeth. By these means we should be preventing what has become a major scandal in wasted money, because we do not prevent the decay when it sets in.
This may seem a small subject. However, it involves a large amount of money and a lot of pain and misery. Therefore, when the Under-Secretary considers altering charges he should also consider his wider responsibility for prevention.
10.35 p.m.
Mr. David Penhaligon: I am grateful for the opportunity to talk about dentistry but it will not take long since my knowledge of the subject is limited.
The hon. Member for Reading, South (Dr. Vaughan) used some amusing phrases. He said that the Government were going forward while moving backwards. However, he only adds to my confusion by moving the annulment of an Order with which he agreed. But I am new to the House, and no doubt I shall understand its peculiarities before long. I understand that those of us who would like to vote against the Order will now not be able to do so. Perhaps someone can explain that to me later.
The Liberal Party has always been against charges to any recipient of
1562
medical services. The hon. Member for Reading, South apparently considers the so-called lunatic Left of the Labour Party to be the only people who now agree with us on that. If so, then on this subject at least I say, more power to their elbow. I only wish a few more had been here to force a vote.
What is the net income from these charges, after allowing for administration, which must be substantial? Has there ever been an investigation of the long-term effect of charges? Like many others, I have long criticised these charges because they put people off seeking help for a minor problem and wait until the treatment is extensive and therefore expensive. I have always suspected that the only saving achieved by charges is in putting people off seeking the initial medical services when required. If that is the reason for them, the Government should admit it. If it is not, I should like to know what the reason is.
The hon. Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker) drew attention to the variation in dental services between different regions. I recently asked the Minister for the number of people per dentist in each of the area health authorities. I was staggered at the discrepancies—from just under 2,500 in London, which seems to have the best services in just about everything, to 5,000 in the Trent area. In my area and the North-East, the figure was 4,500. In the worst areas, are people's teeth in a terrible state? Are there enormous queues for even minimum attention? If not, what do London dentists do for a living?
I understand that the Order also covers National Health Service lenses. An optician in my constituency considers it foolish to recommend anything but toughened lenses for the children he sees. He considers that there is a substantial risk of injury from the non-toughened glasses, and contends that there is a reduction in risk by having toughened glasses. He assures me—I do not know whether it is true—that toughened glasses result in a charge to my constituents. Will the Minister comment on that?
I only wish there were some way in which we could cast a vote at the end of the debate, but I suspect that this will not be possible.
10.41 p.m.
Mr. George Thompson: The hon. Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker) pointed out that the position in Scotland concerning dental health and care is worse than that on this side of the border, and I am afraid we have to admit that that is the case. We have poor teeth, and a larger number of people left with no teeth earlier in life than in other parts of the United Kingdom. I am quite sure that wrong diet and an addiction to sugar and starchy materials play a role here.
I do not know much about the use of toothpaste in the past, but when I was in the Army I had a friend from the Glasgow area who cleaned his teeth—I suppose very effectively—with carbolic soap. I believe that Scout masters are sometimes addicted to ordering their charges to wash out their mouths with carbolic soap when they have used language considered to be against the Scout law. People probably cleaned their teeth in the past, though perhaps not in the right way.
However, the real problem, on which I should like to have some assurance from the Under-Secretary, is how he assesses the chances of this increase in charges discouraging younger people from having the dental treatment that they should have as soon as they need it. This is the real problem.
There are people who, after they leave school, simply stop having dental treatment at all. This was certainly true in the past. Their view was that the sooner all the teeth were bad and and out and a denture inserted, the better off they would be. I am sure that this view has changed, because I have observed among ordinary working people at home a far stronger desire to go to the dentist now than in the past. I suppose this is partly because many of them, through their trade unions, have agreements which allow them to have time off for treatment. I should like to have an assurance on this point from the Under-Secretary.
10.43 p.m.
Mr. David Crouch: We are talking about dentistry and dentists, and the problem of dental care and the care of the teeth. I should like to ask the Minister, as we pray against this Statutory instrument, whether he is satisfied that the dentists have a sufficiently
1564
strong voice in the new reorganisation of the National Health Service.
As the Minister knows, I serve on the South-East Thames Regional Health Authority, and I have heard concern expressed—certainly within England—that the dentist's voice is very much less powerful than that of the ordinary doctor.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker) made an extremely interesting, constructive and thoughtful speech, lifting the problem of the care of the teeth and the preventive care of the teeth out of the general medical problem.
As the Minister seeks—as I am sure he will—to answer some of the questions, will he also state whether he is satisfied that concern about the care of teeth is being expressed administratively at district level, area level, regional level, and in his Department?
I know that dentists feel that their particular specialised knowledge of this aspect of medical care is sometimes rather low in the queue of priorities, and that their voice is overpowered by the voice of the medical man and the medical administrator in our reorganised health service.
In my own region we are rather lucky, in that the senior medical administrator of the region, the regional medical administrator, is qualified both as a medical man and as a dentist. We are rather fortunate in that he qualified, as my hon. Friend did, at Guy's. We are lucky to have a man with a dual qualification, and in this region that satisfies both sides of the profession. It means that the administration is taking care of these two aspects of our health care.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey mentioned a figure of £140 million for dental care. I think that that must be the figure for England and Wales. She said that it was a small sum, and it is small compared to the total vote of the National Health Service, which is approaching £4,000 million. I should, therefore, like to think that the voice of the dentist is heard and that what we have said tonight will be taken into account by the Minister and reflected upon after the debate. I hope that the views that have been expressed will be covered in a note from the Department to the authorities to be aware that there is this concern among

1565
all those connected with the administration of the Service both in this House and on the various boards of management.
I agree with what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, South (Dr. Vaughan), as I do with the thoughtful remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey. I hope that the Minister will take on board what I have said about the absorption of the dentists' voice in the administration of the Health Service.
10.47 p.m.
Mr. Robert Boscawen: I should like the Minister to explain these increases very carefully, because I consider them to be pretty high. Fortunately, we do not often have increases in charges for dentures and optical equipment, but when we do the increases are apt to be fairly steep. My researches show that the increase in 1971 amounted to 121 per cent. What is the average increase, particularly for dentures, on this occasion? It is a fairly steep increase, particularly where a full set of dentures is required.
Reality has come through to the Government. They have to make these increases to give them room for manoeuvre in other parts of the Service. I recall in 1971, early in my career in the House, listening to the debate in which my Government sought to increase the charges, not because we wished to do so but for no reason other than to enable the then Secretary of State to do more in other directions within the Service.
We were pilloried at that time. We were told that the increases would be resisted by the then Opposition with all their strength. The right hon Lady the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection called it "death by a thousand cuts" of the National Health Service, and she went on to pillory us for the method of proportional charging for dentures. I should like to know the method of proportional charging for dentures on this occasion.
I hope that we shall hear from the Government a fairly contrite explanation of these increases. I hope, too, that the Government are being realistic and not overcharging for teeth, because I feel that many people will find these charges particularly hard to meet at this time.
10.49 p.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Michael 'Welcher): This has been a valuable and interesting debate. Although it was rather short, important questions have been raised, and we have heard some curious anecdotes such as the one about the use of carbolic soap for cleaning teeth.
The hon. Member for Reading, South (Dr. Vaughan), who opened the debate, normally makes constructive speeches, and his speech tonight was constructive. Even if there were one or two lapses, he asked a number of reasonable questions, and I shall try to give him a number of reasonable answers.
I am rather surprised that the Opposition should pray against the Regulations, because there is no question but that the changes we have made are generally welcomed by the relevant professions. They have ended the damaging system introduced by the Conservatives, which not only led to an automatic increase in dental charges as costs rose but in certain cases, such as when patients needed extensive dental treatment, led to what can only be regarded as a real disincentive to treatment.
The hon. Gentleman made a mistake, and the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Thompson) made the same mistake, when he suggested that there might be a disincentive for children. Dental treatment for children up to the age of 21 is exempt from the charges.
I also take issue with the hon. Gentleman on his general philosophy about charges, in one very important respect. The hon. Gentleman said that he believed in the necessity for charges, and not only from the financial point of view. That is an important consideration for any Government who are pressed financially as much as we are, and as much as most Governments normally are. But the hon. Gentleman also said that charges were needed from the demand point of view. That seems to suggest that charges are imposed with the aim of rationing the meeting of need. We in the Labour Party have resolutely set our face against that. If what the hon. Gentleman said were correct, there is a real difference of philosophy, because we do not believe in a system of charges. It is still our clear intention to move

1567
away from them when economic forces permit.
The decision to increase the revenue from dental and optical charges at the same time as we revert to what we regard as a much fairer system of charging was not easy for the Government, because charges of any kind in the National Health Service are alien to our philosophy. But we faced an extremely difficult problem of soaring costs, with substantial increases both in the cost of supplies and labour and in the remuneration of dentists and opticians at a time of rapid inflation. Over the past two years, for example, the overall effect has been to increase the items on the dental scale of fees by an average of more than 50 per cent. Unless some contribution were obtained from increased patients' charges, the extra costs could be found only at the expense of other Darts of the National Health Service, at a time when we face the greatest financial stringency.
The gross cost of the National Health Service in Great Britain has increased from just over £3 billion in 1973–74 to an estimated £5 billion in 1975–76. The combined gross cost of the general dental and ophthalmic services has increased by 66 per cent, over the same two-year period. Those are masive increases.
When the Labour Government came to office in 1974 we decided against any further increases in lens charges, despite increases in costs. We also froze the charges for spectacle frames. In October 1974, when dentists' fees rose by 23 per cent., we froze dental charges at the 1973 level, and we thus protected all patients from any increases in charges for more than a year. Even though it has not been possible to maintain the "freeze "against the rapid rate of inflation that we have seen recently, the proposed increases in what are only occasional items of expenditure are still modest.
I was asked by the hon. Member for Reading, South to give the reason for the increase in charges and how the charges are determined. Our purpose is simply to restore the proportion of the yield from charges to the total costs of services to that which obtained when dental charges were frozen in 1974, that is, 18 per cent. of the cost of the dental services, leaving aside the cost of sight
1568
tests which have always been free to the patient, and 54 per cent. of the cost of ophthalmic services. The increase in dental charges imposed under the Order is £8 million to £9 million a year and in optical charges it is £5 million to £6 million a year. The total revenue, taking into account these estimated increases, for optical and dental charges in a full year is about £66 million, which is substantially short of the figure which the hon. Gentleman mentioned.
Dr. Vaughan: I was asking for the total revenue charges for the whole of the National Health Service and what proportion of those charges came from prescription charges, dental charges and ophthalmic charges.
Mr. Meacher: I shall certainly give the hon. Gentleman the figures for prescription charges in writing. Tonight we are debating optical and dental charges and I have given the total revenue, including the increase under the Regulations, which is about £66 million. I have indicated the purpose for which we believe this increase is required.
The hon. Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker) made a number of comments about the purposes for which she would like to see the increased revenues used. Although I am at one with her on most of her objectives, I want to comment on one or two matters. She mentioned the scheme which has been announced to encourage dentists in certain areas because the distribution of dentists is far from uniform throughout the country. Dentists are independent contractors under the family practitioner committees and, as such, they are entirely free in that capacity to accept or decline any patient for National Health Service treatment even in an emergency. Under the present system they cannot be compelled—and I do not suppose that the hon. Lady is recommending any change—to take part in any rota to be on call or other emergency arrangement, or even be directed to practise in any particular part of the country.
We are concerned about this and I assure the hon. Lady that following the report of the working party on the dental services, consultations are progressing at present between the Health Departments and the British Dental Association which are aimed at setting up several experimental emergency services to examine

1569
whether such services can be justified. The object is to determine the true extent of the problem by an experiment which can be properly designed and monitored. I can at least give the hon. Lady an assurance that we are concerned about the distribution of dentists and are seeking measures to improve it.
Mrs. Chalker: The question I asked was: what happened to the proposals announced at the end of July 1974 by the Secretary of State in reply to the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Short)? The Secretary of State said that the Government would provide rent-free fully-equipped centres for dental care in the deprived health areas. That proposal gave hope to the people who were fighting a battle for the deprived areas. Since that promise was given nothing has happened.
Mr. Meacher: As I said, negotiations with the British Dental Association on that scheme are still continuing. I am as concerned as is the hon. Lady that we should find an effective means to improve the distribution of dentists, but a number of complex financial and administrative problems have to be studied. I hope that we shall be able to make an announcement before long.
If the Regulations were to be annulled, as is proposed by the Conservative Party, it would be necessary either to cut expenditure on other parts of the NHS or to raise revenue from the charges in a different way. If we were to revert to the cost-related system introduced in 1971 by the then Conservative Government, it would mean an increase in lens charges of about 100 per cent., making the cheapest single-vision lens about £2·30 and the most expensive single-vision lens a staggering maximunm of £6·40. By contrast, these Regulations provide for one standard charge of £2·25 for a single-vision lens whatever its type or power.
To give the House an independent view, I will quote the judgment of the optical profession as expressed by the Secretary of the British Optical Association in the journal Ophthalmic Optician last November. He said:
"Cost-related charges"—
those introduced by the Conservative Government—
"acted unfairly against those most in need clinically, and complicated the administration
1570
at both practice and family practitioner committee level, to say nothing of confusing the patient."
That was said of the system we are proposing to change tonight. That view shows the desirability of making these changes, quite apart from the cost aspects.
If we were to revert to the Conservative system of dental charges it would mean that all dental charges would increase by an average of 53 per cent., and many patients would have to pay the £10 maximum for a course of treatment. By restoring the system followed by the previous Labour Government, whereby the patient pays the full cost up to a much lower maximum, we ensure that the patient can seek dental treatment in the certain knowledge that he will not have to pay more than £3·50 for a course of treatment, except where dentures are supplied. The Regulations provide a real improvement for those who are most in need of either dental or optical treatment. We have reverted to the flat-rate system of charges in force under the previous Labour Government.
The Government regard health charges in general as entirely alien to the philosophy of a National Health Service which is free at the point of need. If at a time of desperately scarce resources we must have charges, we believe it makes a mockery of the concept of the NHS to impose the highest charges on those most in need of treatment. That was the principle of the 1971 Conservative system. That is why we have always condemned it vigorously and why we have changed it. The Regulations do away with the cost-related approach under which those who needed the most expensive treatment and the highest-powered glasses had to pay most.
For dental treatment we have returned to the system under which the patient pays the full cost—that is, the current authorised fee—but only up to a maximum of £3·50. That compares with the maximum charge under the previous scheme of £10. The charges for the supply of dentures, or a bridge replacing the same number of missing teeth, vary from £5·40 to £6·60, with a maximum charge of £12 per course for more than one denture. Where a course includes both treatment and the supply of denture or dentures, the charge is the total of the cost of treatment, subject to the maximum of £3·50, the

1571
appropriate fixed charge for the denture, subject to an overall maximum of £12. That is basically the system we are proposing.
The hon. Member for Wallasey said that people will be discouraged from seeking regular treatment because they will have to pay more for less extensive courses of treatment. I agree that that is the position, but I do not believe it will have the consequence she said. The initial examination is still free. The people who already attend their dentists regularly appreciate the value of regular checks. I do not see any reason to suppose that they will be discouraged by the possibility of paying a little more than previously to ensure that their teeth are kept in good order. On the other hand, patients who require more treatment certainly do not need any kind of monetary disincentive. They do not need to be put off by any fear of escalating cost.
It is not true to say, as some Conservative Members seem to imply, that only people who neglect their teeth need extensive treatment. The patient may have a defect in general health, or there may be a defect in the treatment that is given for a medical condition. Either situation can give rise to caries or gum conditions which require extensive dental treatment. Unlike the scheme introduced by the Conservative Government, the charges embodied in the Regulations will ensure that many unfortunate people, through no fault of their own in many cases, do not have to bear a disproportionate burden of charges. I believe that that is an important improvement.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: I appreciate the point that my hon. Friend is making about the scheme, but as regards what he said earlier about not being able to compel dentists to work within the National Health Service, is he aware that in East London, where there is a great deal of call upon dental services and where dental facilities are not as extensive as they should be, many dentists who are faced with patients requiring extensive treatment are refusing to take them under the NHS? Those patients are thereby forced to pay very much higher fees than those which my hon. Friend is quoting under the regulations.
Mr. Meacher: I know that my hon. Friend has taken a close and enduring in?
1572
terest in these matters in the East End of London. However, the fees that are paid to dentists are reviewed and updated regularly on the recommendation of the Dental Rates Study Group. That body consists of representatives of the dental profession, including practising dentists, and members of the Health Department in equal numbers under an independent chairman. I believe that my hon. Friend will agree that dentists have an important say in what is decided. Therefore, it is difficult to argue that fees should not properly represent what dentists or their representatives believe to be necessary for certain courses of treatment.
The fees that are arrived at—this may be one of the sources of complaint—are an average for a particular item. There may be an element of swings and roundabouts because extra time and cost may be involved in difficult cases which is not necessarily proportionately remunerated. But that has to be seen against the cases which are less time consuming and less costly than the average, which are equally well remunerated. I do not think that there is a case for saying that that is a reason for there not being a suitable level of care in the East End. The matter has to be tackled in other ways and we are in close consultation with the British Dental Association in seeking to improve the situation.
I turn to the optical side of the Regulations. The Regulations provide for three flat-rate charges: a single charge of £2·25 per lens for single-vision lenses—the most popular—instead of the variety of charges ranging from £.1.20 to £3·20 per lens under the previous scheme; and two rates of £4·25 and £5 for bifocal lenses, depending on the type of lens. These compare with previous charges ranging from £2·45 to £3·50 per lens. Here again, we are introducing flat-rate charges for spectacle lenses in place of the Conservative cost-related charges because the latter lose most heavily on points in the most serious eyesight problems.
There is no charge for a sight test or a dental examination, and some items of dental treatment—for example, arrest of bleeding and repairs to dentures—continue to be free.
I turn to exemptions and remissions from charges. I have already said that people up to the age of 21 are entirely exempt. I emphasise that many patients

1573
—not only children but those on low incomes, expectant mothers and women who have given birth to a child within the previous 12 months—are wholly exempt from charges. In about 60 per cent. of courses of dental treatment no charges at all are paid by the patient.
In introducing the new charges, we have made a special effort to protect those most in need. The increases in supplementary benefit rates and the doubling of the earnings disregard from £2 to £4, both of which came into effect last November, will ensure that more patients will pay no charges at all or will qualify for help with their charges. To increase even further the numbers who will get this help, we have raised from £1·50 to £2·50 the margin, known as the tolerance margin, above the supplementary benefit level which is taken into account when assessing whether a person can afford to pay charges.
Finally, we have announced that we intend to exempt altogether from optical charges a group of people with special visual needs, namely the registered blind and partially-sighted, many of whom can be helped by spectacles. This exemption cannot take effect immediately because it needs legislation, but I assure the House that we are working out the necessary procedures, in consultation with the profession and others involved, and the necessary legislation will be introduced as soon as possible.
Mr. Penhaligon Mr. Penhaligon rose —
Mr. Meacher: I am about to come to the point that the hon. Gentleman mentioned dealing with toughened lenses. These lenses are available under the general ophthalmic services on the payment of an extra charge of about £1 or £2 per lens, depending on type. But if people have a clinical need for such lenses, they can obtain them free of extra charge under a hospital or school eye service. I am referring to the case where there is a clinical need rather than a preference not based on clinical need.
Mr. Penhaligon: I find it difficult to understand the difference. My optician tells me that the clinical reason of which he takes account in deciding whether children should have spectacles with toughened lenses that in childlike play
1574
glasses break and there is a strong clinical danger involving substantial damage to eyesight. If the hon. Gentleman does not regard that as a clinical reason, will he say what is? Indeed, in such circumstances could not every child claim toughened glasses?
Mr. Meacher: If the doctor believes that they are clinically necessary and if they are prescribed under the hospital or school eye service, there is exemption from any increase in charge. I hope that those observations meet the hon. Gentleman's point.
Mrs. Chalker: I should like to raise one matter which bears particularly on the observations of the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon). Has the Department examined the saving which could be made by the provision of 80 per cent. hydroscopic lenses in place of the toughened lenses which are obviously dangerous for some children but which are probably better than the normal type of lens? Hydroscopic lenses would cut out the problem and would probably be cheaper. What has the Department done?
Mr. Meacher: The hon. Lady did not warn me that she would ask me about hydroscopic lenses. I shall be only too pleased to make inquiries of the Department as to how far we have examined whether it would be cost-effective to have hydroscopic lenses as opposed to toughened lenses. I assure the hon. Lady that I shall write to her.
In making these charges we have also announced other, long overdue, improvements in the ophthalmic services which I am sure the House will welcome. They are improvements for which the increased revenue from the charges will help to pay.
First of all, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State told the House last November, we want to improve the range of spectacle frames which are available under the National Health Service so that patients have a real choice between National Health Service frames and private frames. At present over 50 per cent. of persons obtaining lenses under the National Health Service have them fitted into new private frames, often at considerable expense. This has been for a long time a weakness of the service and

1575
we are now taking action to try to remedy it. My right hon. Friend has invited the industry and the profession to discuss together how we can provide a range of attractive, modern frames at reasonable cost under National Health Service arrangements for people who do not want, or cannot afford, to pay high prices privately for attractive good quality frames. I am glad that the hon. Member for Reading, South believes, as we do, that this is a valuable and important initiative.
Secondly, we are making some small but important improvements in the services for children. We propose to add the most popular plastics adult frame to the range of frames which can be supplied free to children. At present the only frames available to children free are wire or wire-ended frames. I am sure that all hon. Members will agree that a great deal of distress is caused to children who feel self-conscious in such frames but whose parents in many cases cannot afford to buy the more attractive frames. We are discussing the timing of necessary adjustments in production with the industry. However, I hope that the frame will be available free to children by the end of this year.
We are also proposing to provide children who have very poor sight needing strong correction with free plastics lenses as an alternative to glass. I think this point will interest the hon. Member for Truro. Glass lenses which incorporate powerful corrections can be very heavy and uncomfortable—these are the so-called pebble lenses. Plastics lenses can provide the same correction but without the disadvantage of weight. We are discussing with the industry how quickly the necessary adjustments in production can be made so that these can be supplied free to children.
In addition, we have removed, as from 1st January this year, the charge made for supplying under the hospital eye service contact lenses to children who have a clinical need for them. A clinical need is a necessary qualification to impose but it should not in any way deprive children who have a real need of them.
Much as we deplore the necessity to levy any charges for National Health Service treatment, a substantial rise in costs could not be contained within the
1576
Health Service budget and we, therefore, had to find a means of making these charges in such a way as to distribute them more fairly.
The revised system of charging has been welcomed by the optical profession as a fairer and simpler system of levying charges on patients and of reducing administrative work. The dental profession, which was opposed to the previous cost-related system, has given a cautious welcome to the revised system.
I am convinced that the charges we have introduced, together with the extra provision which I have briefly sketched to protect those on low incomes, will not place an unduly high burden on any patient or group of patients. I believe that people will understand the need in our present economic situation for these charges and that, where they face higher charges for the care of their eyes and teeth, they will be prepared to pay the small increases we feel constrained to impose.
On that basis, I commend the Regulations to the House.
Dr. Vaughan: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS
Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 73A (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
DIPLOMATIC AND INTERNATIONAL IMMUNITIES AND PRIVILEGES
That the OECD Financial Support Fund (Immunities and Privileges) Order 1976, a draft of which was laid before this House on 20th January, be approved.—[Mr. Thomas Cox.]
DIPLOMATIC AND INTERNATIONAL IMMUNITIES AND PRIVILEGES
That the Inter-American Development Bank (Immunities and Privileges) Order 1976, a draft of which was laid before this House on 20th January, be approved.—[Mr. Thomas Cox.]

DIPLOMATIC AND INTERNATIONAL IMMUNITIES AND PRIVILEGES
That the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (Immunities and Privileges) (Amendment) Order 1976, a draft

1577
of which was laid before this House on 20th January, be approved.—[Mr. Thomas Cox.]

DIPLOMATIC AND INTERNATIONAL IMMUNITIES AND PRIVILEGES
That the European Free Trade Association (immunities and Privileges) (Revocation) Order 1976, a draft of which was laid before this House on 20th January, be approved.—[Mr Thomas Cox.]

DIPLOMATIC AND INTERNATIONAL IMMUNITIES AND PRIVILEGES
That the International Organisations (Immunities and Privileges) Miscellaneous Provisions Order 1976, a draft of which was laid before this House on 20th January, be approved.—[Mr. Thomas Cox.]
Question agreed to.

CYPRUS
Ordered,
That Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine be discharged from the Select Committee on Cyprus and that Sir George Sinclair be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Thomas Cox.]

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

CIVIL SERVICE
11.21 p.m.
Mr. Ian Wrigglesworth: I am grateful to have this opportunity to comment on some of the criticisms of the Civil Service which have been made over the last six months. I think the House knows well my interest in the Civil Service as parliamentary adviser to the Civil and Public Services Association.
Civil servants, like mothers-in-law, are stock-in-trade for second-class comedians. Nobody worries very much about that, save perhaps the very sensitive civil servant, and even he probably enjoys the occasional episode of "The Men from the Ministry." However, civil servants are also stock-in-trade for those editorially in charge of the various organs of the media. Again, the occasional outburst, particularly by the more choleric Right-wing editor or the more irresponsible politician, can be borne with fortitude. However, the attacks by the media and by some politicians over the last
1578
six months have been virtually unparalleled. Their persistence has been exceeded only by their misinformation and distortion.
In a democratic society it is only right that the instruments of Government should be scrutinised closely, and at the present time no one should attempt to prevent a public debate both in this Chamber and throughout the country on current and future levels of public expenditure. But a debate about public expenditure is essentially a political debate. It is not furthered by an ill-conceived attack on the agents who carry out the will of Parliament. Those who refuse to face the real arguments about public expenditure—what proportion of money should be spent on the old, the sick, housing, the disabled and all the other costs associated with the development of a civilised society because they are afraid to talk in real terms—often take the cheap way out by attacking the Civil Service.
It is impossible, in the brief time available to me this evening, to deal with the vast amount of distortions and innuendoes which have been perpetrated on the public over recent months. Indeed, my purpose in raising this issue is to encourage Ministers and Members to spend more time defending their servants who, apart from their unions, have no other effective way of offering a defence. We expect of our civil servants a measure of circumspection in public affairs but the price of that should be an expectation that they will be defended against irresponsible or political attack.
There are three areas where attacks have recently been concentrated. First, there is the attempt to persuade the public that civil servants are grossly overpaid in relation to the rest of the community and have been feather-bedded against the economic difficulties experienced in recent years. Loaded statistics have been used and senior civil servants' salaries have been bandied about as if all civil servants are paid at this level. This has naturally caused some resentment among dedicated people in the lower ranks. A separate case can be made on top civil servants' salaries—and the salaries of Ministers—but I have not the time to develop it now.

1579
The facts are that since 1964 the average civil servant's pay has increased by 196 per cent. while the average national wage has increased by 239 per cent. The permanent secretaries, whose pay and pensions have been quoted so much in recent months, number just 42 out of a total of 719,000. I hope that these figures help to put the matter in perspective.
Over 20 years ago, the Government of the day decided to take a long hard postwar look at Civil Service pay and conditions of service. The Priestley Royal Commision was appointed. Most of its recommendations were accepted by the then Government and have been faithfully followed, with the occasional hiccups because of incomes policy, to which I will return. Chapter 4 of the Report is well worth re-reading, because the arguments advanced there are not just of historical interest but are as relevant now as they were then. The Report stated:
"We believe that the State is under a categorical obligation to remunerate its employees fairly and any statement … which does not explicitly recognise this is not adequate."
It went on to express the need for:
"the maintenance of a Civil Service recognised as efficient and staffed by members whose remuneration and conditions of service are thought fair both by themselves and by the community which they serve."
The Commission made it clear what it meant by fairness in relation to pay:
"The primary principle of Civil Service pay is fair comparison with current remuneration of outside staffs employed on broadly comparable work."
Such comparisons, it argued, would be fair to the taxpayer and fair to the civil servant.
But more important, however, was the Commission's firm view that this principle safeguarded the Civil Service from political pressure. We are now rapidly approaching a situation in which the Civil Service could be used and is being used by a few people in a devious way for possibly unscrupulous political ends. Those on the Opposition Benches who feel so inclined should remember the words of the Royal Commission:
"principles are needed to govern Civil Service pay and they must be principles that can be applied consistently by successive Governments of different political complexions."
1580
Otherwise
"the non-political character of the Service might well be impaired."
These principles have been the consistent thread running through pay negotiations in the Civil Service for the last 20 years, through boom and slump. Anyone who criticises it might remember that the very principle of comparisons means that Civil Service pay inherently lags behind outside pay levels and that, as direct employees, civil servants bear the brunt of any Government incomes policy. Awards for various groups were delayed or cut by policies operating in 1961, 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1973 and 1975. Awards following pay research exercises were modified as a result of Government incomes policies in 1966, 1968, 1973, and the procedure is at present suspended.
I accept that it is not satisfactory merely to argue that because these principles have existed for so long they can never he changed. I do argue, however, that it behoves those who criticise to offer an alternative method of pay determination which can be consistently applied. Not one critic has so far presented such an alternative. Unfortunately, I suspect that, by their very nature, the critics would not want to involve themselves in serious discussion.
I must now turn briefly to pensions. A comprehensive and, until 1972, a statutory scheme for superannuation has existed in the Civil Service since the beginning of the nineteenth century. It was the forerunner of practically all occupational pensions schemes in the country and for well over 100 years it led the field. In the late 1960s, however, it became clear that it was falling behind in a number of respects the occupational pension provisioning in this country. There was a lengthy review by the National Whitley Council and in 1972 a revised non-statutory scheme was introduced.
It is relevant to note, first, that the revisions and the associated annual pension increase provisions were proudly announced by Members of the Opposition then in Government and widely welcomed on all sides of the House. There were some criticisms in the Press, but most of these devoted themselves to areas, particularly provisions for widows, where they felt that the Civil Service scheme was less than generous compared with some private sector schemes.

1581
A few years later, the Civil Service pension scheme is under attack, unfortunately by one or two leading Opposition Members who were a part of the Government who originally proudly proclaimed them. Any hon. Member who involves himself in the complexities of pension provisioning is a brave man. I therefore want to deal briefly with only two points.
First, the pension increase arrangements, which, it is pretended, apply only to civil servants, also directly or indirectly involve local government staff, teachers, firemen, policemen, National Health Service staff, the Armed Forces and, amongst a number of others, not least, retired Members. I find it very difficult to understand an argument in which the critics a few years ago welcomed inflation-proofing as a socially necessary arrangement but now decry it when it is most needed because real inflation has hit us. Perhaps they should have said at the time that they agreed with inflation-proofing but only when there was no inflation.
The second lie is that because civil servants have a non-contributory pension scheme they are not paying for it. The only time the Civil Service scheme was contributory was for a short period in the middle of the nineteenth century when the Government introduced it with the deliberate intention of cutting pay. It is necessary to state quite boldly and unequivocally that if arrangements were made to create a contributory pension scheme in the Civil Service, the resulting cost would almost certainly be greater. That is why the idea was rejected when the scheme was reviewed a few years ago. The salaries paid to civil servants are adjusted downwards on the independent advice of the Government Actuary to take into account pension provision.
There has been some very disturbing Press speculation in the last few days that the Government are considering breaking the commitment to increase pensions in line with inflation. Were that to happen, it would be a complete breach of faith and I should like an assurance from the Minister that it will not happen. The solution to the problem is for the Government to ensure the continuing success of their anti-inflation policy, and in this they will have my every support.
Finally, and this deserves and will undoubtedly get a debate in itself later, there is the question of Civil Service
1582
manpower. Here the media have a field-day. It is so easy to poke fun at the civil servant with his so-called safe job. In periods of prosperity he is treated editorially with contempt because he prefers a relatively secure job doing a worthwhile but often unrecognised public service instead of joining the thrusting, go-ahead rat race. In periods of depression he is treated with a mixture of envy and sometimes spite. It should not be a matter of scorn that the Civil Service does not hire and fire as peremptorily as some private employers.
Again, what are the facts? The Civil Service undergoes more staff inspection and manpower controls than any other comparable industry. This is necessary because hon. Members, including myself, are constantly scrutinising manpower figures. The plain fact is that the size of the Civil Service is almost precisely determined by the amount of work the legislature places upon it. Nothing could illustrate this more clearly than the Answers to the recent series of Questions I have asked Ministers.
Every Bill that comes up for discussion has the manpower and administrative implications detailed. Therefore, if the country wants to cut the Civil Service, it cannot do it by arbitrary measures, since the result will inevitably be that the legislation we pass will not be implemented. To cut the Civil Service will require a cut in existing services. Those who want cuts in the Civil Service should, therefore, join in the real debate about the size and nature of public expenditure and specify which functions should be abolished. They should not avoid the issues by choosing an easy and, unfortunately, popular target by blaming all our problems on the size of the Civil Service.
Again, there has been considerable speculation in the Press in recent days about massive cuts in manpower, with a figure of 100,000 redundancies being bandied about. Some security! I should be grateful if the Minister would comment on these reports and give an assurance that no cuts will be made without the fullest consultation with the unions and without the fullest implications being spelt out to the House.
The purpose of this debate is to take the opportunity to do the job that Members should all be doing—to defend their and the community's servants from the

1583
distortions that are now rampant. We have always claimed to have the best, the least corrupt and the most efficient Civil Service in the world. I think that that is as true today as it ever was. But if the morale of the Civil Service is continually undermined without any defence from us, that boast will no longer be true.
11.35 p.m.
The Minister of State, Civil Service Department (Mr. Charles R. Morris): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Thornaby (Mr. Wrigglesworth) for raising this issue tonight. Equally, I was impressed by the reasoned and responsible manner in which he presented his case. This is not a debate in which I shall need to argue with him about the facts that he has so eloquently set out.
Personally, I welcome this debate, in so far as it affords me the opportunity of giving a considered response to the recent sustained barrage of criticism of the Civil Service—to which my hon. Friend has referred—to comment on the controversy surrounding the pay and pensions of civil servants and to explain the background to the Government's declared intention to review Civil Service manpower and staffing levels. I trust that what I have to say on this last point will go some way to allay the anxieties in the minds of civil servants—anxieties that appear to have been heightened by recent Press speculation about the possible outcome of the studies which are currently proceeding.
As my hon. Friend has rightly indicated, everyone is entitled to his views about the Civil Service, because it belongs to everyone, but no one is served by views based only on a taste for colourful language and distaste for facts. Bashing the bureaucracy, clobbering the civil servant, despite the description that I heard given to it the other day as Britain's fastest-growing spectator sport, is by no means a new phenomenon. Over the years, civil servants have learnt to live with the caricature of the civil servant created by the cartoonists.
But the volume of sustained criticism that we have witnessed in recent weeks is beginning to have an understandable impact on the morale of the Civil Service. This is not because civil servants think that they should be immune from
1584
criticism, or are too sensitive to it. They accept that fair criticism is healthy and a necessary feature of our democracy. They know that their actions on behalf of Government must be subject to public scrutiny, that the taxpayer must get value for money and must be able to see that he gets it.
I remind the critics that civil servants are people, too. They, too, expect a fair day's pay for a fair day's work, and public understanding of the realities with which they, as public servants, are obliged to live.
In the short time available I cannot deal with every aspect of the pay and conditions of civil servants, but I should like to follow my hon. Friend's remarks on the subject of pay. I share his concern about the extravagant claims that have been made about special treatment given to civil servants, with no attempt to look at the history of Civil Service pay to see whether the claims are in any way related to the facts.
The truth is, of course, that for over 20 years Civil Service pay has been based on a system recommended by a Royal Commission. This Government and, indeed, all previous Governments since 1955 have subscribed to the Priestley Royal Commission's basic principle of fair comparison. Following the recommendations of the Royal Commission an independent pay research unit was set up to identify the comparable outside work and establish the facts of what was paid for it.
The Royal Commission stressed that the Civil Service rate should not reflect the best—or worst—rate in the field, but should be at about the middle level of rates paid, taking full account of differences in other benefits such as pensions or perks, so that the comparison was full and fair.
The pay research system is designed to achieve one simple purpose which ought to be understood. That purpose is to ensure that the Government treat their employees no better and no worse than other employers and that Civil Service pay truly reflects the middle range of what is paid elsewhere for comparable work. The principle of fair comparison is a necessary one to which the Government remain committed—though I should also emphasise and remind the House that, as

1585
my hon. Friend acknowledged, the pay research procedures are at present in suspense because the £6 pay policy applies directly to civil servants as to everyone else.
My hon. Friend also referred to pensions and their inflation-proofing. I am glad that he dealt with the criticism of this at some length, because it is a subject which has generated so much heat in recent months. As he has suggested, much of the criticism has been fanciful and unreasonable. In reality, of course, the average increase given to pensioners last year was under £3·50 a week. The cost in respect of Civil Service pensioners represented a small proportion—just 1½ per cent.—of the Civil Service pay bill. As my hon. Friend has indicated, inflation-proofing of pensions is not a benefit which is confined to civil servants. As he recognised, it is enjoyed by many others both inside and outside the public service. As I have told the House previously, the pensions increase review due later this year will need to take account of the economic circumstances which then apply.
I turn to the subject of manpower and staffing levels. Here again a sense of realism has been sadly lacking in some of the most recent comments. A singular exception, however, was the editorial in the Daily Mirror of 3rd February which, with a lucidity and brevity for which that newspaper has a well deserved reputation, recognised that we can make major savings in Civil Service manpower only by cutting the tasks which we expect civil servants to undertake. As that newspaper put it:
"What is certain is that we cannot have more Government activity … and fewer people to run it."
It is all to easy in this area to slip into a convenient contradiction: on the one hand, to press for more and more to be done by the Government for all sorts of groups in society and, on the other, to continue to press for less taxation and fewer civil servants. We really do need to recognise, as the Daily Mirror did, and as my hon. Friend did this evening, that these two propositions are incompatible and to set about the serious business of choosing what we do or do not want to provide—and pay for—in our society.
1586
There has been much speculation in the Press recently about the Government's current intentions about the size of the Civil Service, and I want to deal with this and the background. On 1st October 1975 there were a few over 719,000 staff in post in the Civil Service. The 1st January 1976 figures are not yet available. We shall not know the precise figures for a week or two. But it will be about 750,000. That is a big increase. I acknowledge that. But it includes something over 20,000 in the Manpower Services Commission who were reclassified as civil servants on 1st January 1976. The real rise since last April is about 30,000. On present trends the numbers will increase further.
The Government have decided that this rate of growth must be restrained. There are to be no arbitrary cuts. The Civil Service must be properly staffed to carry out its work. We shall continue to do everything possible to improve efficiency and encourage the economic use of staff, but any signficant reduction in the Civil Service must mean a reduction in the work load.
We are not, therefore, embarked, as some Press reports may have suggested, on immediate cuts in the Civil Service. For some time yet the number of civil servants is likely to increase. We are, however, reviewing thoroughly all aspects of the work of the Civil Service so that we may decide what changes can best be made to cut back on growth so that by 1978 the Civil Service is much more like the size it was last summer, including the Manpower Services Commission. This will involve difficult decisions which are likely to affect Government policies and standards of service to the public. Reductions will be made by wastage to the maximum extent practicable, but I cannot guarantee that there will be no redundant civil servants over the next two years or so.
While this manpower study is proceeding, it is too early for me to predict where the savings will be made. Once the necessary material has been assembled, the Government will be able to consider the options against the background of our priorities, and we shall then decide where the cuts will fall. I must, therefore, urge hon. Members and civil servants not to be misled by wild rumour or speculation.

1587
I can assure my hon. Friend that there will be full consultation as appropriate with staff side interests about changes that affect them. The precise pattern of consultation must be a matter for Departments to work out with departmental staff sides, but my own officials have been in touch with the National Staff Side and my right hon. and noble Friend is to meet it on Monday next.
I hope it is clear from what I have said during the course of this debate that what I think is most necessary in relation to the Civil Service at the moment is to get away from the excesses of recent criticism and to inject some reality into the discussion. I applaud my hon. Friend's initiative in raising this subject tonight because of the contribution I hope it will make to that objective. Indeed, if I were to quarrel with him at all it would be in relation to the title—Civil Service—that he has chosen for this debate.
I think that one of the reasons why realism sometimes fails to make itself felt is a concern with the rather abstract concept conjured up by the term "the Civil Service". The very words sound mysterious, stuffy and threatening. But if we think of the people up and down the country who are doing jobs the country wants done—in health and social security, environment or defence, or
1588
working as immigration officers, as prison officers, or printers in the parliamentary Press—a healthy breeze of reality blows in. It is much more difficult to talk glibly of
"axe men in every corridor in Whitehall"
when most civil servants are working diligently in the provinces and regions. It is much more difficult to propose cutting down on driving test examiners or re-training officers or Customs men than to talk vaguely of Civil Service cuts.
I would plead, therefore, for people to question the use of the term "bureaucrats" and to start thinking of the people and the work they do. More specific, informed, responsible criticism would be healthy. I hope that we can put an end to the vague, bilious hostility which simply undermines morale and mutual trust between civil servants and the public they serve.
Like my hon. Friend, I am only too conscious that civil servants make an essential contribution to many fields of our national life. They often face real difficulties in seeking to provide service to the public in the ways Parliament has willed. Their rewards are not excessive, but among them they have a right to expect that those they serve will judge them fairly.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at Eleven minutes to Twelve o'clock.

ENVIRONMENT
  Local Government Expenditure
  Local Government Expenditure
  Development Land
  Development Land
  Housing Co-operatives
  Housing Co-operatives
  Sports Councils
  Sports Councils
  Sports Centres
  Sports Centres
  Sports Centres (Working Party)
  Sports Centres (Working Party)
  Lorries (Load Quotas)
  Lorries (Load Quotas)
  Structure Plans
  Structure Plans
  Construction Industry Overseas Directorate
  Construction Industry Overseas Directorate
  Ancient Monuments Board
  Ancient Monuments Board
  Railways
  Railways
  Building Societies
  Building Societies
  Hertfordshire (Discontinuance Order)
  Hertfordshire (Discontinuance Order)
  Petrol (Lead Content)
  Petrol (Lead Content)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Television Licences (Refunds)
  Television Licences (Refunds)
  Aliens
  Aliens
  Work Permits
  Work Permits
  Fish and Chips (Sales Restrictions)
  Fish and Chips (Sales Restrictions)
  Local Authority Functions
  Local Authority Functions
  Brixton Prison
  Brixton Prison
  Police (Corruption Allegations)
  Police (Corruption Allegations)
  Metropolitan Police (Scotland Yard)
  Metropolitan Police (Scotland Yard)
  Drug Offences
  Drug Offences
  CLEVELAND INTERNATIONAL DRAWING BIENNALE
  CLEVELAND INTERNATIONAL DRAWING BIENNALE
ENERGY
  Electricity Generation (Scotland)
  Electricity Generation (Scotland)
  Opencast Coal (Fife)
  Opencast Coal (Fife)
  Departmental Staff (Structural Engineers)
  Departmental Staff (Structural Engineers)
  Occidental Group (Petroleum Production Licences)
  Occidental Group (Petroleum Production Licences)
  TRIBUNALS
  TRIBUNALS
  POLICE (CORRUPTION ALLEGATIONS)
  POLICE (CORRUPTION ALLEGATIONS)
  "INSIDE LINDA LOVELACE"
  "INSIDE LINDA LOVELACE"
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Public Lending Right
  Public Lending Right
  Further Education
  Further Education
  General Certificate of Education (Fees)
  General Certificate of Education (Fees)
  Costs (Pupils and Students)
  Costs (Pupils and Students)
  School Meals
  School Meals
  Postgraduates
  Postgraduates
  Examination Results (Publication)
  Examination Results (Publication)
  Primary Schoolchildren (Reading Standards)
  Primary Schoolchildren (Reading Standards)
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  United States Embassy (Staff)
  United States Embassy (Staff)
  Law of the Sea Conference
  Law of the Sea Conference
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Economic Prospect
  Economic Prospect
  Value Added Tax
  Value Added Tax
  Women's Income Tax
  Women's Income Tax
  Public Sector Borrowing Requirement
  Public Sector Borrowing Requirement
  Guardian's Allowance
  Guardian's Allowance
  Television Industry
  Television Industry
  Mobility Allowance
  Mobility Allowance
  Income Tax
  Income Tax
  TUC
  TUC
  Dividend Control
  Dividend Control
  Fuel Tax (Fishing Boats)
  Fuel Tax (Fishing Boats)
  Import Controls
  Import Controls
  Blind Persons
  Blind Persons
  Investment
  Investment
  Demand Management
  Demand Management
  Film Industry (Personal Taxation)
  Film Industry (Personal Taxation)
  Tax Thresholds
  Tax Thresholds
  Inflation
  Inflation
  Public Expenditure
  Public Expenditure
  £ Sterling
  £ Sterling
  Republic of Ireland (Duty-free Goods)
  Republic of Ireland (Duty-free Goods)
  Pensioners
  Pensioners
  Government Stock
  Government Stock
  Reserves (Calculation)
  Reserves (Calculation)
  Small Businesses
  Small Businesses
  Devolution (Scotland and Wales)
  Devolution (Scotland and Wales)
  Gold Coins
  Gold Coins
  Economic Information
  Economic Information
CIVIL SERVICE
  Ministerial Advisers
  Ministerial Advisers
DEFENCE
  Army (Nationality Descriptions)
  Army (Nationality Descriptions)
  D Notices
  D Notices
  HMS "Caledonia"
  HMS "Caledonia"
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Car Mileage Allowances
  Car Mileage Allowances
  Government Publications (Royal Arms)
  Government Publications (Royal Arms)
  Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons
  Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons
House of Commons
  Northern Ireland Committee
  Northern Ireland Committee
  Terrorist Offences
  Terrorist Offences
  Disabled Persons
  Disabled Persons
  Factory Premises (Newry)
  Factory Premises (Newry)
SCOTLAND
  Lawyers' Fees
  Lawyers' Fees
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Potatoes
  Potatoes
  School Building
  School Building
  Devolution
  Devolution
  Sheriff Ewan Stewart
  Sheriff Ewan Stewart
  Public Works Loan Board (Lending Rate)
  Public Works Loan Board (Lending Rate)
WALES
  Local Authorities (Wages and Salaries)
  Local Authorities (Wages and Salaries)
  Emigration
  Emigration
  Devolution
  Devolution
  Transport
  Transport
  Potatoes
  Potatoes
  Airports (Traffic)
  Airports (Traffic)
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Invalid Vehicles
  Invalid Vehicles
  Unemployment Benefit
  Unemployment Benefit
  Personal Incomes
  Personal Incomes
  Dried Milk
  Dried Milk
  Infant Mortality
  Infant Mortality
  Self-employed Persons
  Self-employed Persons
  PRIME MINISTER (VISITS)
  PRIME MINISTER (VISITS)
  POPULATION
  POPULATION
  Press (Royal Commission)
  Press (Royal Commission)
  CBI
  CBI
  NATIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL
  NATIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL
  PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
  PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
  POLICY UNIT
  POLICY UNIT
  BANK OF ENGLAND
  BANK OF ENGLAND
  CHANCELLOR OF THE FEDERAL GERMAN REPUBLIC
  CHANCELLOR OF THE FEDERAL GERMAN REPUBLIC
  FAMILY BENEFITS
  FAMILY BENEFITS
  CONCORDE
  CONCORDE
  EUROPEAN ASSEMBLY ELECTIONS
  EUROPEAN ASSEMBLY ELECTIONS
  SELECT COMMITTEES (MINISTERS' EVIDENCE)
  SELECT COMMITTEES (MINISTERS' EVIDENCE)
  D NOTICES
  D NOTICES
TRADE
  Industrial Democracy (Inquiry)
  Industrial Democracy (Inquiry)
  Aircraft Movements (Heathrow)
  Aircraft Movements (Heathrow)
  Zanzibar
  Zanzibar
  London and County Securities Ltd.
  London and County Securities Ltd.
INDUSTRY
  Financial Assistance
  Financial Assistance
  Development Areas
  Development Areas
  Job Creation
  Job Creation
  Aerospace (Organising Committee)
  Aerospace (Organising Committee)
  Aircraft Testing, Fairford
  Aircraft Testing, Fairford
  Chrysler United Kingdom Ltd.
  Chrysler United Kingdom Ltd.
  Small Businesses
  Small Businesses
PRICES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION
  Cables
  Cables
  Food Prices
  Food Prices
EMPLOYMENT
  Construction Industry (Scotland)
  Construction Industry (Scotland)
  Job Creation (Scotland)
  Job Creation (Scotland)
  Small Businesses
  Small Businesses
  Public Services, Industry and Agriculture
  Public Services, Industry and Agriculture
  Leicester
  Leicester
  Redundancies (Scotland)
  Redundancies (Scotland)
  Batley and Morley
  Batley and Morley
  Wives (Earnings)
  Wives (Earnings)
  J. D. Campbell and Sons, Warrington
  J. D. Campbell and Sons, Warrington

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
The Earl of Northesk—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

AUTHORS: PUBLIC LENDING RIGHT
Lord WILLIS: 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 when they expect to fulfil their long-standing promise to introduce legislation to provide for a public lending right for authors.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, as my right honourable friend the Lord President of the Council said in another place on 15th January, the Government hope to publish a Bill very shortly.
Lord WILLIS: My Lords, I hope that my noble friend will forgive me if I say that those words sound extremely familiar. Is the noble Lord aware that there is growing anxiety among authors, as well as growing distress, because the allocation to libraries has been severely cut down as a result of publishers cutting back on their lists and a great many authors are worried about the fact that this PLR Motion was put into the gracious Speech of 1974 and the gracious Speech of 1975 and we still hear the term "very shortly"? Could the noble Lord give me something more definite than that?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, the words I was quoting were those used
1410
by my right honourable friend in the other place. I cannot give my noble friend anything more precise; but as he knows, "very shortly" means as soon as possible.
Lord WILLIS: My Lords, may I ask, as soon as possible, whether it would be possible for the Bill to be introduced into this House first in order to save time? My noble friend will be aware, I am sure, that there is great pressure on legislation in the other place. Would not it be useful if my noble friend were to approach the Minister to see whether the Bill, which I am assured is already prepared and ready, could be introduced into this House, thus to save time?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, yes, this would be perfectly possible, if it is agreed through the usual channels. I will certainly see that what my noble friend has said reaches my noble friend the Chief Whip and my right honourable friend the Lord President of the Council.
Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTON: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that a Bill such as this may have a very rough passage indeed? It is a Bill to subsidise the rich author at the expense of the part-time author, and the part-time author is the one who ought to have encouragement.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I am aware of my noble friend's feelings from his speech on 4th July. All I can do is to ask him to await the Government's proposals.
Lord CHELWOOD: My Lords, now we know what "very shortly" means, may I ask what "hope" means?
Lord WILLIS: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that what my noble friend Lord Paget of Northampton has just said is absolute nonsense?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, in fairness to my colleagues I must say that a great deal of time has been spent on preliminary operational trials and other studies of practicability and that this will be time saved when the Bill becomes an Act.

ANGOLA
3.10 p.m.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether our representative at the United Nations, Mr. Ivor Richard, has made any representations to the Director General of that organisation to offer mediation in the present conflict in Angola.
The MINISTER of STATE, FOREIGN and COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (Lord Goronwy-Roberts): My Lords, the Government are extremely concerned about the conflict in Angola and have been active in promoting the withdrawal of foreign forces and reconciliation between the parties. In the light of inquiries we have made, we do not believe that it would be helpful at the present time to take the initiative suggested by my noble friend; but we shall continue to keep the situation closely under review, and I would not rule out such an initiative at some time in the future.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, I am obliged to my noble friend for that Answer, but it is not altogether satisfactory. Can my noble friend explain why it is that this peace-keeping organisation, the United Nations, and its co-partner or its superior, the Security Council, seem to be reluctant to take any action vis-à-vis Angola? Can it be that they are reluctant to offend the Soviet Union who are involved? In those circumstances, could not the United Kingdom Government take the initiative? Surely they are not afraid of the Soviet Union.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, the United Nations, and certainly this Government, have to have regard to one central fact. The African countries have made it clear that they consider that the Angola situation is their primary responsibility. If later they decided that the United Nations could play a useful role we would do everything in our power to support them.
Baroness ELLES: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether he agrees that the leverage of the Western Powers might be used against the Soviet Union regarding the question of Angola, and whether the Government have considered or are taking any steps for concerted action with our eight fellow Member States of the EEC and also with the USA?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: Yes, indeed, my Lords. The attitude of our partners in the Community is very much in accord with the attitude we have taken: that is to say, that we deplore any outside intervention from any quarter in the internal affairs of Angola.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that I entirely excuse him from any sentiment other than the correct one in a matter of this sort? But in reply to my Question he mentioned that the Organisation for African Unity seemed to be interested in the matter. Is there any evidence to that effect? Is it not extraordinary that the Organisation for African Unity also seems to be afraid of the Soviet Union? They have not moved an inch in the matter.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, those points raised by my noble friend represent his own points of view. I can only repeat that our information, which is based on very sound sources, is that the Continent of Africa, including important and influential States in that Continent, would deplore any initiative from outside Africa, either UN or otherwise. Until we have a consensus in Africa it would be foolhardy—possibly disastrous—for any other country to intervene.
Lord ALPORT: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the position in Angola has very serious implications so far as at least one Commonwealth country is concerned; namely, Zambia? So this is not a matter which can be left simply to the African countries of the OAU because they are almost equally divided on this matter. Is it not time that not only Her Majesty's Government but also other countries concerned with the development of Russian power in Africa took some initiative to try to resolve the present situation, which

1413
amounts to aggression by the Russians and the Cubans in Angola?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, what the noble Lord has said is that there are elements in this matter which have to be kept in mind, particularly when we consider how best and how productively to introduce into an African situation an initiative which is non-African. It is not an easy matter and Her Majesty's Government have taken the lead in consulting like-minded countries in the West as to how best to proceed.
Lord GISBOROUGH: My Lords, would the noble Lord not now think it appropriate that the large loans, at very special rates, for the provision of wheat to the Soviet Union should be reconsidered?
Lord LEE OF NEWTON: My Lords, would it not help to show our true feelings about Angola if we were to find some way of stopping mercenaries from going there from this country?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, there is an Act still on the Statute Book, the Foreign Enlistment Act 1870. I do not believe it has been invoked since the Jameson Raid in 1896, and it is not absolutely clear whether it would apply in the present situation, but this point is being urgently examined. We deplore, and we would seek to do everything in our power to stop, mercenary incursion from this country or any other country into Angola.
Lord BARNBY: My Lords, can the noble Lord give any indication as to whether the reticence of our representative at the United Nations, complained of by the questioner, was in any way related to the apparent inexplicable reticence and neglect of our representative when Israel was being branded as racialist in the UN Security Council?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, there was certainly not reticence in denouncing the infamous charge against Israel that it was a racialist country. In fact we took the lead in denouncing such a thoroughly unfounded assertion. In regard to what we have been doing about Angola, I repeat that we have been in close consultation with other countries in the democratic West
1414
to see how best to move in this very important and difficult situation in Angola.
Lord PANNELL: My Lords, reverting to the question of the mercenaries, is it not a fact that we have on the Statute Book the Foreign Enlistment Act, which I believe has never been used since the Jameson Raid?
A Noble Lord: The noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, has already said so.
Lord PANNELL: My Lords, can that Act be got out of the cubbyhole, dusted and an effort made to see whether it is applicable to this situation?
A Noble Lord: My Lords, the noble Lord might listen to the answers.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, clearly my noble friend listened very closely to what I said just now because he has reproduced it in almost identical words. He omitted the last clause of what I said; namely, that we are looking at the applicability of the Foreign Enlistment Act with urgency to see how it can be applied to the Angolan situation.
Lord GORE-BOOTH: My Lords, bearing in mind that the question of mercenaries, freedom fighters and others is rather beside the actual Question asked, may I ask whether the Minister would agree that despite the Government policy, for which I have respect, every time there is an international conflict of this kind—which this is—and the United Nations is not asked to intervene, that in itself weakens the United Nations? Further, is he able to tell us whether there has in fact been any discussion with the Secretary General about any possible intervention by him under Article 99 of the Charter?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I could not answer definitively the second part of the question asked by my noble friend. I should like to look at that and be absolutely precise about it. On the first point, indeed when the United Nations—the world authority—is incapable of moving, here or at any other point of disturbance and danger, it is a weakening of the world authority. I would add that it does not devolve upon this country to take the initiative.
Lord WIGG: My Lords, is my noble friend not aware that the United Nations

1415
has sent a representative to inquire into the difficulties in Mauritania with the Polisario, and could they not again make some efforts in the direction indicated by the questioner, always bearing in mind that the intervention which has been provoked in Angola came in the first instance because of the under-cover operations of the Central Intelligence Agency and South Africa? If, in fact, we keep our noses out and leave these countries to develop their own affairs, in the long run the same thing may happen in Angola as happened in North Vietnam, and they will join the non-aligned group, where I happen to think the future destiny of this country ought to lie.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, there is a great deal in what was said by my noble friend Lord Wigg with which I am in agreement, but I disagree with him about one or two things in the middle of his intervention. What he has said suggests that those who intervene in situations like this may find that, in the end, their intervention is counter-productive, and the country that is the subject of that intervention may opt for a quite different alignment from that which they hoped for.

EAST EUROPEAN REPRESENTATION IN UK
3.21 p.m.
Lord ORR-EWING: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what is the total of USSR personnel serving in the United Kingdom in diplomatic, trade and other posts; what is their estimate of the percentage of that total who have been trained by the USSR in espionage; and what is the total serving here in respect of the remaining Eastern European countries.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, the number of USSR personnel serving in the United Kingdom in a diplomatic capacity is 94, with the Soviet trade delegation, 53;representing Soviet commercial organisations and the media, 106; commercial inspectors number 60;
1416
and there are 16 Soviet employees of international organisations. The total serving here in respect of the remaining six Eastern European countries is 476. It would not be in the national interest to disclose the Government's knowledge of foreign intelligence services.
Lord ORR-EWING: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord the Minister for that reply, it is perhaps of some comfort to the House to learn that the present Government are maintaining the ceiling on USSR personnel set by my right honourable friend Lord Home of the Hirsel in 1971. But are not these numbers of themselves really rather alarming? Can the noble Lord tell us how they compare with United Kingdom personnel of similar situation serving in Moscow? How do the figures compare in size with the number of representatives of our democratic ally, the United States of America, serving in Great Britain?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I confirm at once that the ceilings negotiated by the noble Lord, Lord Home of the Hirsel, when he was Foreign Secretary, are being adhered to by this Government. They are, therefore, no more alarming in number today than they were then, when he negotiated them. On the second question of how many United States personnel represent their country in London, I have figures here which I should like to make available to the noble Lord, and in the appropriate form to the House. It is very difficult to compare the two figures, and I will not detain the House by attempting to do so. I should like to make the figures available to the House, and will circulate them in the Official Report.
My Lords, may I just say that the economic systems being so different in these two countries, a great many Soviet personnel in this country are representatives of State trade organisations, as I tried to show in the breakdown of the figures. Clearly, this is not so to any great extent in regard to a country like the United States of America. Therefore, in comparing like with like, I would prefer the House and the noble Lord, who is a former Service Minister himself, to have the two complete sets of figures before them.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, can the noble Lord the Minister

1417
say how the numbers of British representation in Russia, official, industrial or those representing private enterprise, compare with the total figure of 329 that the noble Lord has just given for Russian representatives here?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I gave a figure of 94 for Soviet diplomatic representation in this country. The British diplomatic representation in Moscow is 82. Then we come to the realm of the not easily comparable; namely, trade delegations on the one hand and the representatives of private enterprise firms on the other. The two figures I have given, 94 and 82—and I hope I am not being misleading as to the number of diplomats so defined in both capitals—will give the House some indication that the position is not all that dissimilar, having regard to population size and so on.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord for that answer. However, he mentioned other figures for the Soviet trade delegation, commercial people, and soon. There are British subjects living and working in Moscow and in other parts of the Soviet Union. Can the noble Lord give us a figure for that total so that we may see the number of British versus Russian representatives?—but perhaps he has not got the figure.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, given notice, I will do my best. Clearly, this is a different category from the official representation I have been asked about.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, if there were again to be a large proportion of Soviet officials in this country found to be carrying out intelligence or related activities regardless of their labels and within or going beyond the ceiling, will the Government, like my noble friend Lord Home of the Hirsel, arrange for some of them to leave? Might the Government add, as a reason, not only the Helsinki Agreement, but also that such officials have apparently not been very efficient if their reports have led recently to the surprising impressions in Moscow of some leading persons in this country?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, if they were that efficient, should
1418
we not perhaps encourage a greater number to come here? But seriously, this is a serious question, and I can give a double assurance. We are adhering to what I shall call the Home ceilings. Secondly, every proposal for an addition or a replacement at this level of representation in this country will continue to be scrutinised very carefully indeed.
Lord BARNBY: My Lords, is it to be understood from the reply given by the noble Lord the Minister that the Embassy here contains so many representatives of individual trading organisations that, in view of the very strong balance of payments running in Russia's favour, there may be disadvantage to us here in not reorganising the system of representation that we have in Moscow to meet something analagous to their advantage here?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, that is really another question. However, I would remind the House that in the last two years our exports to Russia have doubled.
Lord WIGG: My Lords, if my noble friend is carrying out an assessment in terms of espionage as indicated by the precedent, would he hazard a guess as to what value to the Russian intelligence service are those British nationals who are such distinguished members of the Diplomatic Service as Messrs. Philby and Blake? What value they should count against the accredited Russian representatives serving in the Russian Embassy?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, not without very long notice.
The figures referred to are as follows:
US based staff working for the United States Embassy in London, diplomatic, administrative and technical, 255; for the US Consulate-Generals in Liverpool, Edinburgh and Belfast, respectively, 3, 4 and 2.

NAMIBIA: UN RESOLUTION 385
3.28 p.m.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how the British representative on the United Nations Security Council voted

1419
on the resolution on South African policies in Namibia on 30th January, what was the result of the voting, and whether they will print the terms of the resolution in the Official Report.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, Security Council Resolution 385, to which my noble friend refers, was adopted unanimously on 30th January. The Government are pleased with this result, and we call on the South African Government to pay heed to it. The text of the resolution has been put into the Library of the House, together with the British Permanent Representative's statement and explanation of vote.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend the Minister for that Answer, and while expressing congratulations to the British representative on this matter, may I ask my noble friend whether it is not very significant indeed that this resolution was carried unanimously, since previously it has often been vetoed by America, Britain and France? —or they have abstained. Will my noble friend confirm that this resolution condemns the illegal occupation of Namibia, condemns the discriminatory laws there, and condemns the build-up of military power and aggression of neighbouring countries? In view of the fact that there is to be a further meeting to consider any reply from the South African Government, have the British Government any plans for action to enable this resolution to be implemented?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, the answer to the first four questions is, Yes. My noble friend has correctly summarised the contents of this excellent and constructive resolution. The answer to his second point is that we are already pressing hard with like-minded members of the world authority to ensure that South Africa implements as soon as ever possible the contents of this resolution.
Baroness ELLES: My Lords, is it not true that the explanation of vote given by the Permanent Representative at the United Nations include a reservation with regard to preambular paragraphs 5 and 6 of the resolution, which refer to the opinion of the International Court of Justice as to the right of South Africa to remain within Namibia for the time
1420
being? Is it not also true that these resolutions are not mandatory but only recommendations?—which I think should be borne in mind. Thirdly, is it not also true that the British Representative, in his explanation of vote, raised serious objections to the word "control" which was contained in the resolution, and very much preferred supervisory action of the United Nations with regard to self-determination of the people of Namibia?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: Yes, my Lords, to the best of my recollection what the noble Baroness has said is quite true. I do not, however, think that the reservations which our Permanent Representative advanced—certainly not the semantic one to which she referred at the end of her question—did anything but facilitate unanimous progress through the United Nations of a worthwhile and constructive resolution.

CONCORDE
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, with the leave of the House, at the convenient moment after 3.30 p.m., my noble friend Lord Melchett will repeat a Statement on Concorde.

LICENSING (AMENDMENT) BILL [H.L.]
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Harmar-Nicholls.)
Lord JANNER: My Lords, I hope your Lordships will forgive me for speaking for a moment or two, particularly in view of the fact that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London, who is very deeply concerned with this matter, is not present. I just want to ask the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, whether he will consider what was placed before him on a previous occasion. No one has any objection whatever to the Bill that he is proposing. I have had the pleasure and privilege of talking to him about the contents of the Bill. Anyone who suggests that anyone wishes to impede the progress of this Bill is making a very grave mistake.

1421
What is at issue here is the question of what happens in respect of the vicious and highly undesirable types of performance taking place in some of the public houses. The fact that the time will now be legitimately extended may mean, and probably will mean, that unless the magistrates who know the areas well are given an opportunity of examining the position, these performances of an indecent nature wil be carried on in the early hours of the morning. This is a very serious matter from the point of view of many people in the country. I am hoping that between now and the time when this Bill reaches the other place the noble Lord will take the opportunity of discussing this matter with the Bishop of London and with other people who are concerned. A suggestion has been made that one ought to wait until all the terms of the Erroll Commission are considered. Well, those of us with any experience, large or small, of the time that elapses between a Commission making its report and all the matters in that report being fully discussed in both Houses know that that consideration may be a very long distance ahead. I am hoping that what I have suggested to the noble Lord will meet with his approval and that he will have discussions, because the matter is sure to be raised in the other place.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I can assure the noble Lord that this Bill is a technical Bill which is merely carrying out a very necessary tidying up procedure. On the particular points made in the past by the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, the noble Lord, Lord Janner, and the right reverend Prelate, I have looked at all of them and I can reassure the noble Lord that the points raised can be looked after by the Act as it now stands. The section I am wanting to withdraw from that Act has nothing whatever to do with the particular points the noble Lord and his noble friends have raised. If it will help him, I will send him a letter explaining the sections of the existing Act which give the magistrates and the authorities all the powers they need to deal with the particular points that I quite understand are disturbing the noble Lord. I will see that he has that letter in his hands before the weekend.
On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

ENDANGERED SPECIES BILL [H.L.]
3.38 p.m.
Lord WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. This is the third time that I have come before your Lordships' House and asked that this or a similar Bill be read a second time. The first time was two years ago and after the debate your Lordships decided that the Bill should be read a second time. There was a General Election and naturally the Bill lapsed. During the short Parliament that followed I made inquiries to find out whether I should go forward with the Bill;I was given assurances that the Government would themselves be promoting a Bill. That was 18 months ago. In the following Parliament this Bill was presented again and was read a second time. I did not move for a Committee stage because the assurances that I had been given seemed to make it clear that the Government's Bill would be laid before Parliament. We are still waiting for the Government's Bill. Consequently, I ask your Lordships to look once more at this Bill and agree that we should go forward with it.
The Bill has as its purpose the protection of endangered species of fauna and flora throughout the world. It differs from other Bills which we have passed, which have also dealt with endangered species, in that it does not refer simply to species in this country but to the import and export of endangered species and therefore the control of trade in endangered species. The Bill is a consequence of an international convention adopted at Washington in March 1973. This convention, a copy of which is available in the Library, is one which is concerned with prohibiting the trade in these various species. The convention, when it was first put forward, was signed, I think, by 20 countries; by May 1973, 37 had signed it, and I believe that 57 countries throughout the world have now signed the convention. Our country has done this. But the signing of the convention is merely a statement that you favour the purpose of the convention. The ratification by a country is the operative step in order to ensure that the terms of the convention will be carried out. I believe that now 19 countries have ratified the convention. The convention was

1423
to become operative when 10 countries had ratified, so that the convention is now operative.
In this country we have always taken a prominent part in the control of trade in endangered species. This country can claim that it has always been active and has played a very good part in this matter. It is no criticism of the Departments concerned, it is no criticism of any Government, when we ask that a Bill should now be passed which would make the position absolutely clear. The reason for this is that, at the present time, the control of trade in these endangered species and their parts is covered in a very peculiar way. In 1939, at the outbreak of war, there was passed the Import, Export and Customs Powers (Defence) Act. This Act gave powers to the Government to control, by simple Ministerial edict, the trade in anything, because its purpose was to control trade in time of war. The Act still remains, and it is this Act which is now being used by Government to control the trade in endangered species.
There are two peculiarities about this. First one would have thought that it was stretching the meaning of the Act to use it in this way, but of course once an Act has been passed the question of what it means is not for Parliament to decide but is entirely a legal matter. The other difficulty is that, because it can be done by Ministerial edict, no order has to be laid before Parliament, and consequently we cannot discuss the terms of any restriction that is placed upon import and export. This seems a strange position, and one of the purposes of this Bill is to regularise this and to make it clear how, in future, we are to control trade in these endangered species.
The Department of the Environment, which is responsible for looking after this whole problem, has for some time worked—I know that it has worked very hard at it—to try to draw up proper regulations for controls. Anyone who thinks about this problem realises that it is quite a major job to control these activities of import and export, and to make certain that the way they are controlled is effective and, at the same time, not ridiculously onerous on importers and exporters. No one can complain at the Department taking time to look at the whole matter. In a notice to importers
1424
and exporters dated 15th December last, they produced what they called, Conservation Controls on Animals, Plants and their Derivatives. I believe that this was sent out on 1st January. This notice goes a long way, but those who have looked at it—and my advisers—do not believe that the proposals go far enough.
May I just call attention to one or two matters in connection with it. There are many animals, plants, and so on listed; but, although reptile skins are included in the ban on import and export, make-up reptile goods, such as crocodile skin handbags, are not included. This can mean that one has an enormous trade going on —a very profitable trade—which is not controlled, although it quite clearly strikes at the very heart of the matter. I could quote a number of others: for instance, otter skins are not included; lynx skins, and ivory goods, and so on. There may be a good reason for all this, but the important point is that none of this is open to discussion because this is merely a list drawn up by the Department and issued. No order is placed before Parliament, so no discussion can take place in Parliament on this, except on an occasion like this because the order is not subject to our approval. As I am sure many of your Lordships will appreciate, this trade is not on a small scale at all; it is on a very considerable scale.
I have just had called to my attention the current issue of the New Scientist, and there is an article headed, "The Superfatted Turtle Oil Hand Soap Shops". We all know that these marvellous expressions are used about superfatted soaps and so on, but, when one realises that they are using the turtle for the purpose, this seems quite astonishing, and when one realises that turtles are an endangered species, it seems utterly monstrous that this trade should go on. If we are to control the trade, it is important that we not only control the import and export of turtles but also of the products; that is why this Bill specifically refers to such matters.
I do not want to weary your Lordships with detail but I wish to point out certain matters connected with the Bill. The Bill covers both fauna and flora, and there are a number of clauses in the Bill. I would not for a moment pretend that every clause is word-perfect. In fact, I have noticed a number of misprints, and

1425
a number of inaccuracies for which I must take the blame. There are several matters which will require modification, but minor modification which can easily be done at Committee stage.
Taking the clauses as they are, Clause 1 allows the Government to control, by licences issued on the advice of a scientific authority or authorities, all import, export and transit of all rare animals and plants in their province. The important point is that it is proposed that scientific authorities should be set up, that the Government will act on the advice of the scientific authorities, but that every order made will be laid before Parliament. Clause 2 requires that all listed species can be dealt with only under import licences. In other words, there is not an absolute ban on the import of anything, but anyone who wishes to import one of the listed species must get an import licence. This import licence will be issued only if he is doing it for what is recognised as being a sensible purpose and not for commercial purposes.
The third clause in the Bill requires that all wild animals or plants which are imported shall be accompanied by a declaration of the species or, failing that, as accurate a description as possible and the place of origin of the item. The reason for this is simple. It may well be that a particular importer will claim that he does not know. If you look at the Bill you cannot blame him for that. The description in the Appendix is given in Latin and the importer does not necessarily know that the species he is importing falls into that category. But if he knows that it falls within a certain category and cannot describe it accurately he must give as good a description as possible in such terminology as he has available and he must state the place of origin, in which case the species can then be identified.
The proposal in Clause 4 is that proper records should be kept of all people dealing in rare animals and their progeny. If some rare animal is introduced into this country and used for breeding purposes—which can be quite legitimate under the Bill—there is no reason why the progeny of that animal should not be capable of being transferred to other people, but unless records are kept any one can claim that the particular animal he has obtained was the progeny of some
1426
animal previously brought into this country quite legitimately. By keeping records we know exactly what is happening and can control any trade of this type.
Clause 8 covers the extension of this Bill to any dependency. The point of this is that there may well be—in fact, we know there are—dependent territories which at the moment have no legislation covering this. They may be prepared to accede but this can only be done with their consent. If they consent to it, then when this Bill becomes an Act it can be extended to cover them. We have here a Bill which is attempting to deal as clearly and as well as possible with the whole of the trade in these plants and animals which it is internationally agreed, and no less by people in this country, should be controlled, and where species are endangered we should not by our own action add to the risk of those species.
It may be argued that many species disappear for causes which are not man made. A change of climate, over-stocking or famine can cause species to disappear, but over the last few hundred years more species have disappeared by man's action than by any other way. Most of the present situation is the result of what has been happening over the last 50 to 100 years where an enormous amount of hunting has gone on, much of it illegal, and the great traffic which has occurred. This has made it possible for whole species to be wiped out almost overnight. This is something for which all of us, particularly in the Western World, carry a considerable responsibility. If we make it possible for the commercial sale of these animals to be extremely profitable to unscrupulous people we are playing a part in it, and we can stop this only by taking action of the type proposed in this Bill. My Lords, I am satisfied that the Bill in essence will serve the purpose for which it is intended. I do not for a moment claim that the Bill is word perfect, but I suggest that it is worth while continuing and, there. fore, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Wynne-Jones.)
3.55 p.m.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, as my noble friend has said, this is not

1427
the first time that he has moved such a Bill. I am sure the whole House will wish to pay tribute to his tenacity and to the concern on his part that this reflects for the survival of the world's wildlife. At the same time, it presents me, a newcomer to this subject, with something of a problem. I must ask the House to bear with me as, inevitably, I go over some of the ground that has already been covered on previous occasions by my predecessors.
As has been said many times, both in this House and elsewhere, the Government wholeheartedly support the general aim of my noble friend's Bill and the objectives of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species to which it is related. The convention marked a great step forward in international co-operation in nature conservation, because the survival of the world's wildlife affects us all and it can be ensured only by the concerted action of many countries. The convention provides, for the first time, a framework for regulating trade in wildlife within which all countries can work to the same end. We in this country have traditionally been among the leaders in nature conservation. The British contribution to the negotiations leading up to the convention was notable, not only for its wide expertise but for its concern that the measures that emerged should really be made to work. The strength of public opinion here in support of the convention is probably as great as, if not greater than, in any other country in the world. The Government have repeatedly emphasised their support for the convention's aims and I am sure that the overwhelming opinion of this House is that the convention must be made to achieve its aims.
The Government have not only expressed their support for the convention; they have acted. As was announced in the House on 15th December, the convention was effectively brought into operation in the United Kingdom on 1st January of this year. We have introduced import and export controls covering all the species of animals and plans listed in the convention—and there are several hundred of them. Some idea of the complexity of the convention can be gained from that one fact. The convention
1428
requires different forms of control for the endangerous species in Appendix I from those for species in Appendix II which may become endangered if their trade is not regulated. It requires the control of readily recognisable parts and derivatives as well as of whole animals and plants. It sets out detailed requirements to be observed by scientific and management authorities, and those vary between exports and imports.
It has taken time to make sensible arrangements to deal with all those complexities and to ensure that the controls both reflect the aims of the convention and can be enforced. I know that many of your Lordships feel that it has taken too long and certainly there are others outside this House who have protested most vociferously about the delay. But time was needed to do a good job in this complicated field and I think we can take pride in the fact that, although some other countries may have implemented the convention before us, we are, I am sure, in the forefront as regards the effectiveness of our controls. I will not allow modesty to prevent me from saying that a number of countries have asked us for details of our control arrangements as a possible basis for their own.
I should like, if I may, at this stage to refer briefly to the international position on the convention. It came into force last summer when the first 10 countries had ratified it, and it has now been ratified by 22 countries. It is a source of regret to the Government that although we have implemented the convention we have not yet been able to ratify it. This is, of course, a reversal of the usual procedure. There are two reasons for this. We have been seeking agreement on the best course of action with the Commission of the European Community and our partners. Moreover, although we, in the United Kingdom, have the powers necessary to implement it, not all of our dependent territories are in the same position. We naturally wish as many territories as possible to observe the provisions of the convention in order to increase its effectiveness. Our discussions with them are well advanced.
We fully expect to be in a position to ratify the convention early this summer. This will enable us to play a full part in the first conference of the parties to the convention, which is expected to take

1429
place in the autumn of this year. The conference will consider the working of the convention and the amendments that should be made to the Appendices. This country with all its knowledge and experience of wildlife conservation, should be able to make a very positive contribution at that conference. Returning now to the domestic position, although the powers under the Import, Export and Customs Powers (Defence) Act 1939 have enabled us to implement the convention in the United Kingdom, the Government have many times made it clear that new measures, tailored to meet the convention's requirements, are most desirable.
The legislation that is required must provide for the fulfilment of the Government's obligations under an international treaty. With all respect to my noble friend, these are not usually matters that are appropriate to a Private Member's Bill. The convention itself is complex. New legislation must meet those requirements and fit in with our licensing system, which is already in operation and which has subsumed a variety of controls exercised under earlier legislation. It must also fit in closely with the existing powers of the Customs and Excise. I am very glad to say that my noble friend's tenacity has paid off and to be able to announce that the Government intend to introduce a Bill in this House next week. It will be designed to provide us with specific powers to operate the controls we have already introduced but, of course, there will be every opportunity for Parliament to examine it closely and to debate it fully.
I should like to conclude by thanking my noble friend for raising this issue once again and to express particular appreciation to him for his forbearance, tolerance and understanding. He has many times and most eloquently expressed to this House the need for this country and, indeed, for the world to strive to retain the richness of our natural heritage and the need for mankind not to squander irreplaceable resources. The Government share that view, have acted upon it, and will continue to do all in their power to ensure that those aims are achieved. Because the general aims of this Bill are so worth while, I hope the House will agree to grant it a Second Reading. But, in view of the undertaking I have given that the Government will introduce a Bill
1430
on the subject next week, I hope that my noble friend will then be able to see his way to withdrawing his Bill, rather than seeking to make further progress with it.

CONCORDE
4.5 p.m.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of INDUSTRY (Lord Melchett): My Lords, with the permission of the House, I shall repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a Statement on Concorde operations to the United States. As the House will be aware, the United States Secretary of Transportation, Mr. Coleman, announced yesterday his decision on the application by British Airways and Air France for up to two flights each per day to John F. Kennedy Airport, New York and one each per day to Dulles International Airport, Washington. He allowed their application in full, for a trial period not to exceed 16 months. This will start from the date of the first flight. He has specified a number of conditions for these services, but none of these appears to present any substantial difficulty.
"Mr. Coleman has reached this decision following the most exhaustive scrutiny of the arguments for and against allowing Concorde into the United States. He himself chaired a public hearing on 5th January, in which my honourable friend the Minister of State at the Department of Industry and a senior representative of the French Government took part. The decision, which runs to some 60 pages of closely argued text, is an impressive and balanced assessment of the environmental aspects of Concorde's operations. I have placed a copy of the decision in the Library.
"I am sure the House will welcome this decision to permit Concorde to fly direct to New York and Washington from London and Paris. The way is now open for regular supersonic

1431
services across the North Atlantic. I believe services during this period will demonstrate that they will have a minimal effect on the environment.
"British Airways have made formal application to the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey today and have reminded them of the great importance of speedy decision. They are also arranging immediate discussions on the practical details of the operations with the Federal Aviation Administration. BA aim to begin service in May provided of course that there are no new obstacles. Officials will be discussing early next week with the Department of Transportation and the Federal Aviation Administration the monitoring programme on noise and ozone which Mr. Coleman has said should be carried out. We are already working with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration on a programme to measure chemical constituents of the stratosphere, using Concorde for this purpose.
"Concorde entered commercial service to Bahrein and Rio de Janeiro on 21st January. We now look forward to Concorde carrying people across the North Atlantic in just over three hours—half the time of present subsonic services."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.8 p.m.
Lord LYELL: My Lords, from these Benches we wish to welcome in the warmest possible terms the Statement which has just been repeated by the noble Lord, Lord Melchett. The whole Concorde saga is a tribute to the skill, enthusiasm and ability of both British and French scientists and technologists. It is a notable achievement of co-operation between these two European nations and between their national airlines. We hope that the trial period of flights to John F. Kennedy Airport, New York, and Dulles International Airport, Washington, will be successful. We believe that a special word of congratulation is due to the team which has argued the case for Concorde before the United States Secretary of Transportation, Mr. Coleman.
We have only two minor points to raise with the noble Lord, Lord Melchett.
1432
First, are the Government in a position to give us any information on the joint researches with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration into stratospheric pollution, particularly as concerns Concorde? Secondly, will the Government indicate that they will give every support to British Airways when the court actions which we understand to be pending concerning pollution and noise are heard?
In general, this is a milestone in world aviation history and everybody here wishes Concorde all the success, both technical and commercial, which this outstanding aircraft deserves.
4.10 p.m.
The Earl of KIMBERLEY: My Lords, we on these Benches also wish to thank the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, for repeating the Statement made in another place on Concorde. As the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, has already done, we wish to congratulate the British team which went to see Mr. Coleman. In particular, we wish to congratulate Mr. Gerald Kaufman, the Minister of State at the Department of Industry. I feel that otherwise Concorde might easily have become a member of an endangered species. There was one omission in the Statement—no mention has been made of the fares. Would the Government be able at some time to give any indication of whether it will be possible not to have such a high surcharge on these fares across the Atlantic? Like the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, we too should like to know whether the results of the stratospheric tests being made between NASA and British Airways can be made public, particularly for the benefits of those who are detractors and who are anti-Concorde.
With regard to noise—which is one matter, I gather from the Statement and from Mr. Coleman's statement, that has caused most of the consternation in America—it may interest your Lordships to know that the other day a Concorde left Fairford with maximum weight on a normal take-off, and because the pilot employed the proper technique it reached only 107PNDB, which is well under the noise limits at London and New York. Therefore we should like an assurance that the pilots are specifically trained with regard to noise as this seems to be the greatest stumbling block. Can we have

1433
an assurance from the Government that if Governor Carey is very difficult about Concorde going into the John F. Kennedy Airport at New York we will, with the French, fight the engagement to a successful conclusion? I hope that possibly Her Majesty may travel in Concorde to the bicentennial celebrations.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I thank both noble Lords for their general welcome of the Statement, and in particular for their kind remarks about my honourable friend Mr. Kaufman. I shall certainly convey those remarks to him personally. I am sure that he and the rest of the team which went to America to appear before Mr. Coleman are very grateful for what both noble Lords have said.
Both noble Lords asked me about the tests, mentioned in the Statement, which we are conducting with NASA. As noble Lords will recognise, these tests, by their nature, are bound to take some considerable time and that, I should imagine, would be a matter of months at least, but I am quite certain that they will be published in some form once they are completed. Both noble Lords also mentioned the possibility of court actions in America. The airlines are the parties immediately concerned and, as I understand it, are already involved in those actions. If the Government have a right to intervene, and if we judge that our case would be best served by doing so, we shall do so.
The noble Earl asked me about the fares. It is essential not only that the Concorde operation should meet the conditions laid down by Mr. Coleman and pass this trial period with flying colours, but also that this trial period should enable the airlines to prove that it is a commercial success. In the first instance the fares will have to be agreed in the normal way with IATA and then by the Governments concerned, and I understand that they will involve some surcharge.
Lord ORR-EWING: My Lords, I apologise that I was listening to the original Statement and not to the echo in this House: but I did move into my place immediately afterwards. Could the Minister say whether, now that this has been achieved, as a result of a very careful appreciation by the United States
1434
Government, we could not pursue now with the Australian Government, in a slightly more robust way and with a greater sense of urgency, the completion of that route? We should not now sit back and depend entirely, important as it is, on the North Atlantic route. We should drive on now to clear the route from Bahrein over, or near to, India, on to Singapore, and on to Australia. Could the Government now give this a real sense of urgency so that Concorde is seen not only in the United States but all over the world as a great merit of British engineering and British aerospace industry?
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I trust that if the noble Lord had listened to the echo rather than the original he would have found it accurate. Certainly the Government have been pursuing, and will continue to pursue, the question of other routes for Concorde extremely robustly and with a great sense of urgency.
Lord GORE-BOOTH: My Lords, it is perhaps unusual for someone on these Benches to come into the discussion on a Statement. But from time to time I have been individually concerned with the diplomatics of this question and I have a couple of things to say which have not yet been said. There are three reasons why this is a great day for congratulation and satisfaction. The first is that in a period when we have had the most difficult relations, on occasion, with our French friends, there is one big project with which we have persisted throughout despite all criticism—and this goes for Governments of both major Parties—and that is the Concorde project. It will be a great asset in terms of Anglo-French relations that we can congratulate not only ourselves, but also each other, on what I have heard christened as an Entente Concordiale.
Secondly, there is another great source of satisfaction. The denigrators of the United States (of whom there are too many in this country), tend to assume that all American decision making, particularly quasi-judicial decision making, is prompted either by nationalism or by corruption. I think that we owe a great deal to the courage and objectivity of Mr. Coleman, and of the Administration, that he has made a courageous decision which does not coincide with a great deal of sentiment or with whatever there may

1435
be of nationalist pretensions. That is also a matter of great satisfaction.
Thirdly, there is a point which I have mentioned in your Lordships' House before. If we study the post-Second World War history of British aircraft construction we see that it has had some triumphs but it has had a terrible number of disappointments, whether due to technical failure or financial exigencies, or somehow just a failure of will to finish something which we have begun. It is outstandingly good for national morale, and for technical morale, in this country that, despite all the objections—some rational, some irrational—this project has been pursued to its, so far, successful end. May I add my congratulations to those of the Party spokesman, with particular congratulations to Mr. Kaufman? I wish to asks one question complementary to the last question. Will we also now redouble our efforts to convince those countries who are interested, but have hitherto doubted whether it really will be in their interests, also to buy the Anglo-French Concorde?
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, the only question I have to answer is the last one put by the noble Lord. I do not think that it is a question of redoubling our efforts, but certainly we welcome the opportunity which this decision gives Concorde to prove itself on what is an extremely important route.
Lord GRIMSTON of WESTBURY: My Lords, can the noble Lord say, once the service is started, what the frequency will be on the North Atlantic?
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, as I said in the Statement, Mr. Coleman's decision grants permission for up to two flights each per day to John F. Kennedy Airport, and one each per day to Dulles International Airport.
Lord PLATT: My Lords, I should like to ask a brief question. How many Concorde aircraft are at present flying, or are ready to fly immediately?
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I am afraid that I am not entirely certain of the answer to that; perhaps I could let the noble Lord know. In all, 16 aircraft will be built, but I am not sure exactly how many are actually flying at this moment.
Lord HYLTON: My Lords, I am somewhat reluctant to puncture the general atmosphere of euphoria and self-congratulation. May I ask the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, whether he himself has listened to Concorde? I live about 20 miles from Bristol and, from time to time, I am overflown by the aeroplane. It seems to me that when it is flying subsonically about as slowly as it can it makes a quite intolerable noise. Secondly, is the noble Lord satisfied with the fuel consumption of this aeroplane? Is it not the case that it wastes a very great quantity of fuel in relation to the number of passengers carried? I was glad to hear the noble Lord say that tests would be made into stratospheric pollution, but I should like to query whether the aircraft which may be causing the pollution is the right vehicle from which these tests should be carried out. Finally, my Lords, may I express the personal opinion that this aircraft is an example of misapplied ingenuity.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I have not listened to Concorde, but I was not aware that it was an absolute prerequisite for noble Lords speaking in this House on this subject that they should. Neither have I flown in it. I understand that since commercial services started from Heathrow there have been 47 complaints about the noise, but 14 people have also telephoned to say that Concorde is less noisy than other aircraft or that there has been an improvement inthe noise level since the endurance flying programme.

ENDANGERED SPECIES BILL [H.L.]
4.21 p.m.
Second Reading debate resumed.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, perhaps we can get away from this contentious "bird", Concorde, which may be endangered or not—I am not quite clear—and get back to our endangered species. I must thank the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, very much for having introduced yet another of these Bills to preserve the fauna and flora of the world. I have already had the opportunity to welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, to the transport side of our debates. It now falls to me

1437
to welcome her to this side of the environment, the conservation of species. She is having quite a rough time of it, what with horses as well!
However, I was very impressed when the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, talked about how, 18 months ago, the Government had given him some assurances that they were going to introduce a Bill. The lapse of time since then is not at all the fault of the noble Baroness personally. She was not in the Government then, and she has only recently come into the Ministry which she now graces so well. But, my Lords, for the Government to be working on something, to be sitting on something, to be cogitating on something, for 18 months really does seem to be an awfully long time, and it has meant that the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, has had to go to the length of putting in all the effort and work necessary to produce this splended little Bill. We may not agree with all parts of it, but it has taken a lot of work, a lot of effort; and now, my Lords, we are told by the noble Baroness that next week the Government will be producing their own Bill.
My Lords, this debate is a complete and utter waste of time. Nothing that we can say will alter one little jot what is in the Government's Bill. It is printed already. We have not been shown it, we have been told about it. We are therefore discussing a nice, hypothetical question of what might be, what could be and what actually is in this Bill, which, unfortunately, will perhaps go the way of so many other Bills of the same sort, which have suffered from old age, General Elections and things like that. So I should like to protest to the noble Baroness on that score. Let there be no doubt, however, that, like her and like her Government, we totally agree with and support our participation in these International conventions. Let us not be in any doubt on this point: we are all aiming at the same objective. We all agree that conservation is important; and if there is a doubt between trade and preservation, I think most of us would agree that preservation, rather than trade, should have the benefit of the doubt. I go along with the Bill in all those ways.
My Lords, let us discuss this Bill a little, because although many bodies such as the World Wildlife Organisation
1438
have refused even to comment on this Bill because they knew the Government had one of their own up their sleeve, I think that, as we have the Bill before us, the least we can do is to look at it, as we shall then know approximately what we will be considering on the Government's Bill on its Second Reading and its Committee stage. Obviously, we are not going to have a chance, in practice, to discuss further details on this Bill in Committee. I have every sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, in his production of this Bill. I think the work he has done has been remarkable.
As to the omissions from the Government's list which they produced in their order of the1st January, I should like to thank sincerely the noble Baroness and (if she would inform him) her right honourable friend Mr. Silkin for bringing in this order. Admittedly, I for one am not over-enamoured with the way it was brought in, in the form of an order. Had it been introduced in Parliament, where it could have been debated, questions might have been asked on its details. This is a detail, I accept; but the noble Baroness will remember that we had a case the other day when we protested that we thought that something which it was proposed should be done one way could be done more openly, with discussion. In that case the noble Baroness was very capable and clever, and was able to persuade her Government to agree to what we were suggesting. I think this is another case where this sort of Government order, by killing discussion, is not in the best interests of what it is trying to achieve. At the same time I would say that we are all grateful.
This Bill and the Government both envisage, as well as the Botanical Gardens, Kew, appointing a scientific authority for animals, comprising members with appropriate knowledge and experience. So far, excellent. What I would hope and wish is that the noble Baroness, when she comes eventually to produce her Bill, will be able to assure me that this will not lead to a further proliferation of civil servants. We all respect and admire the Civil Service. One would hope, though, that this new authority could be appointed from the existing body of civil servants. They are so clever and so able that I am always amazed that they go on recruiting new "bods" to their already efficient

1439
body. The new "bods" cannot be as efficient as they are themselves already; and I hope that the enforcement of the provisions of this or the Government's Bill will not lead to further recruitment.
I must tell the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, that one of the few matters in this Bill which I really do not like is Clause 4, with its recording and enforcement provisions. Would it not be better to have stringent controls—more stringent, perhaps, than are in this Bill—and to really enforce them? Increase the penalty, by all means; but I personally should not like to see the life of the Customs and Excise officers made harder than it is already. I know that anything coming into this country has to have a ticket of origin and certification of what it is, but here we are dealing with a Bill covering such a multitude of things. I was looking today, for instance, at some shoes which were on my wife's feet. I asked, "Are those crocodile shoes?" "No", she said, "they are sham". I said, "Could you tell the difference, quite honestly, if they were or not?" She said, If I took them off and handled them, yes. To look at them, no". There is so much of this sort of thing. I should hate to see the Customs and Excise officers' job made too difficult by too many complications.
"Manufactured goods" is, in theory, I accept, an ideal for conservationists; but is it practical? Let us take the case of ivory. In Africa, the elephant is under very great pressure from poachers, ivory thieves. It is considered in Africa that ivory is a great form of investment and it probably is. In India, there is another species of elephant which, so far as I know, is not in any great danger of extinction. It is usually harnessed for ceremonial, agricultural, or forestry work. Its tusks are not normally needed. They are, in fact, a considerable hindrance to the handlers and the people who work these animals. The Indians—and not just the Indians but the people on the sub-Continent including the Pakistanis—have developed a great art in manufacturing carved goods. They sometimes take years to manufacture small carved goods of great beauty which have great commercial, artistic and intrinsic value. If this Bill is passed as it now stands all that trade will vanish. I think that prob-
1440
ably that is going a little too far. Pity the poor excise officer who must identify whether a piece of ivory is African or Indian. I know that it is easy to pick holes; and I am doing so deliberately. We are going to be able to discuss this later and—
Lord WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, with regard to the point that the noble Lord has raised about goods which have been illegally imported, may I point out that Clause 2(2) reads:
"No one shall sell, or invite the purchase of, any scheduled item unless he can show that the item was not unlawfully imported."
In other words, the onus is there transferred from the customs officer to the person selling. The noble Lord referred, for instance, to shoes which may be made of lizard or crocodile skin. These are usually expensive shoes and are advertised specifically as being of that nature. Therefore, this clause would deal with that particular point. It would not necessarily have to be stopped at the port of entrance. It could be dealt with when it is put up for sale.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord He has elucidated one or two things. I am aware of what he said, but I still think that the onus of proof being put on people is going to add complications to life. I agree that life is complicated already and that the protection of endangered species should warrant a little bit of extra complication; but I had been suggesting earlier that perhaps "manufactured goods" ought to be left to be implemented in their own territories by those other countries who ratify the convention. I was rather suggesting that the Government, for simplicity's sake, might find it easier to impose more stringent controls of basic goods at the ports of entry. I am only putting thoughts forward. Any good law must be simple. As soon as one starts going into too much nitty-gritty of detail it becomes more awkward.
Again, on a small point, I should have liked to know the source of the scheduled list. I do not think the noble Lord told us; perhaps he can do so when he makes his summing up. It is an impressive list. I am afraid I am not able to identify more than a few of them. I looked to my wife this morning to identify them.

1441
She recognised only the bison and the gorilla. She asked whether we were really debating the protection of these animals and trying to stop them from coming into the country in large numbers. I said that I did not think that many licences would be granted for large imports of these particular animals but that others, no doubt, deserve every protection. I should like to know the origin of the scheduled list.
My Lords, the other question is this —and I have asked it before. Is the appointment of these scientific authorities going to need a support group of civil servants? I have emphasised this strongly and I hope that the answer will be, No. The Government list which came out on 1st January, and for which we are grateful, did not include, as the noble Lord said, the otter and the lynx. There is a host of other controls also not mentioned: the bobcat, the ocelot, the tiger cat and the Siberian tiger.
Perhaps there are so few of these animals coming in that they are mostly under the control of other countries. Are these to be considered in the Government's new Bill? Will the new authority be in a position of having a mandatory duty to advise the Secretary of State; or will they advise if they wish to do so? I should like to see them having a mandatory duty and occasionally to meet and give advice. I should not like it to be left to the Secretary of State to have to go to them to ask a particular question. I should like to think that they were a body rather like those splendid people who—I do not know whether they are still in existence—were paid £1,000 a year to think in their baths and to advise people. I should like to think that they should be able permanently to think in their baths of what species should or should not have more help; and when they meet they would have the onus of advising the Secretary of State.
This is basically a good Bill. It is going in the right direction. I think that that splendid society, the Friends of the Earth, who have so much interest in this cause have probably helped my noble friend Lord Wynne-Jones—if I may so call him. If I may say so, I think that they deserve the thanks of the Government for the work they have done. They have gingered the Govern-
1442
ment into producing a Bill of their own. It remains for me to say, with respect, that I think the Government could have produced their Bill earlier. With that, once again I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones.
4.38 p.m.
Lord SKELMERSDALE: My Lords, I stumble to my feet to crave your Lordships' indulgence for a maiden speech. There have been several of these in the last year since I first took my seat, many of them by the younger Members. I can only assume that they, like me, do not feel that at their age maidenhood rests very aptly on a noble shoulder. Indeed, when I put my name down to speak in this debate today I had not realised that it was scheduled for my wedding anniversary and I can only hope that today is as auspicious an occasion for a maiden voyage as was 5th February four years ago. In my opening remarks I mentioned the word "stumble". I seem to have stumbled also into a minor Parliamentary battlefield, not to say a minefield, for there would appear to be something of a difficulty in that what we are debating today we are also going to debate on another occasion in a few weeks' time. However, my remarks on today's Bill will apply equally to the Bill which I suspect the Government will ultimately produce and which will have its First Reading next week.
The Bill before your Lordships' House today might well be in danger of becoming a tired old horse chestnut—not because Aesculus hippocastanumis an endangered species but because this is the third time that the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, has promoted such a Bill in as many years. This year's version is considerably enlarged by two new clauses and one Schedule, namely, of plants and seeds to implement the Convention of International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, which has been signed by the United Kingdom but as I understand from speeches today, it has not yet been ratified. The Bill contains a phenomenal list of birds and animals universally considered to be in danger of extinction.
As an aside, I should like to put on record my feeling that the world is in a sorry state when one considers that man has so affected the ecology of the

1443
globe that one group of men—or perhaps I should say "persons" in view of recent legislation—has had to design a convention so that another group should be prevented from mistreating their fellow creatures. Nevertheless, there are hopeful signs. It was not long ago that the Press made much of the export of lions to South Africa, and there is no doubt that both private and public zoological gardens in this country are in the forefront of repopulating species to their homelands. This, on the bird front, is one of the main purposes of the Severn Wild Fowl Trust at Slimbridge in Gloucestershire.
However, it is neither animals nor birds that I wish to discuss today, especially as I regard myself as a total animal ignoramus. I am sure that this Bill is quite excellent in the case of animals and birds, but I am afraid that it lacks precision as far as plants are concerned. From this comment your Lordships will see that my interest is in the plant section. But before I go any further, I must declare a pecuniary interest in this subject. I am by training a horticulturalist and by employment a nurseryman. My nursery specialises in dwarf growing bulbs and corms, and pride of place in both my income and my interests is the genus cyclamen—a genus which appears in Schedule 2 as composed of endangered species. I also have a non-commercial stock of terrestrial orchids, some of which I have collected myself and others which have been given to me, some as rescues from road-widening where the donors suppose—I hope not mistakenly—that I am more likely to cultivate these plants successfully than they are.
There are two specific points that I should like to make. The Bill wishes to restrict the movement of endangered species of wild fauna and flora. Certainly nobody who knows the story of cyclamen mirabile in 1973 will object to this. Briefly, what happened is this: a well-known dealer in bulbs and plants applied to his agent in Turkey for a large quantity of cyclamen neapolitanum a species which is almost a weed in the eastern Mediterranean area. I do not know for certain what the agent's method of collecting may be, but I suspect that he employs peasants to dig the plants up. They would be told to go to a particular
1444
area and dig up plants looking like a type specimen. In this case they were obviously sent to a new area and carried out their task to the best of their abilities. The bulb merchant in this country received what purported to be thousands of corms of cyclamen neapolitanum as ordered but, on opening a case to examine the samples, found to his surprise a number of smooth coated corms with flat tops instead of the typical nobbly-coated dish-shaped tops of cyclamen neapolitanum. He suspected that they were a form of cyclamen cilicium, but they did not quite measure up to that species which he had dealt in for many years and knew very well. He then went through his other cases and found that he had some 10,000 of the strange corms.
It so happened that my nursery was short of neapolitanum that year, so I had ordered a few thousand from this particular dealer. When he delivered them he gave me some of the strangers to try. He also told me he had given some to the Botanic Gardens at Kew. I grew mine fairly successfully, but they failed to flower. However, Kew identified them as the very rare and almost legendary cyclamen mirabile which was first described by Hildebrand in 1906 but subsequently lost to cultivation. Once they had arrived in this country the damage was already done and it was essential to give the plants a good home. I—and I think one other nurseryman bought a few which was all we could afford, especially as we did not know how well they could be grown here. The dealer was left with the balance which were quite unsaleable under their proper name and they were finally sent to a well-known chain store and sold as cyclamen neapolitanum.
This is a cautionary tale indeed and the chances of this plant being imported would have been very much reduced if this Bill had been in force at the time. It would have been stopped entirely of course if all wild cyclamen were prohibited plants. Indeed, the Schedule is rather vague as to which species are to be included, as under Primulaceae it says, and I quote, "cyclamen species" Compare this with orchidaceae, there it states, "All orchid species".
My Lords, I had to stop and think long and hard—like my noble friend Lord Mowbray in his bath—when I saw

1445
araucaria auraucana in Schedule 2. This is a native of Chile and will, I am sure, be better known to many of your Lordships as that tree so beloved of our Victorian forefathers—the monkey puzzle. Even today this species is planted in English gardens and, though I do know that one can still buy it from nurserymen here, I would be surprised if it was grown in this country. It would be much more likely to be imported from a specialist nursery in Europe. In this case it cannot possibly be described as a wild plant, and it is surely wrong that the word "wild" is not clearly defined in Clause 7, as it seems to affect animals and plants in different ways. The propagation of the animals under discussion is practically unknown outside zoological gardens and in the wild, whereas the propagation of plants is comparatively easy and is carried on by both amateurs and nursery gardeners. When it is, the progeny can hardly be described as wild. As in the case of the monkey puzzle, the same would apply to many other species in the Schedule which are grown from cuttings or seeds.
This then is my criticism of the Bill: although it seeks to control the import of endangered species, what is in fact required is the control of species from their country of origin. I cannot see the need for umbrella controls, especially for those species which are already grown in specialist nurseries. I should mention here the subject of exports. So far as I can see the only species native to this country mentioned in the Schedule are terrestrial orchids. While I can see very good reasons for licensing the export of these particular plants, I fail to see how the export of the majority of the plants on the list affects their conservation. After all, my Lords, if you cannot import a particular plant, the only way you will be able to export it is by propagation from stock already in this country. In doing so, you can hardly be affecting the population of plants in the wild. Both Parliament and the Government are always concerned with encouraging firms to export, and any legislation such as that embodied in Clause 2(1) can only increase the price of the plants and the difficulty of firms in achieving this aim.
Having covered this point, I must now turn to another interest I have in this Bill, First however I should declare two other linked interests. Not only am I a
1446
supplier of plants, but I am also a consumer. In this connection I am a very minor Fellow of the Royal Horticultural Society and also a committee member of the Alpine Garden Society. Both these amateur gardening organisations have a considerable interest in this Bill, as many of their members enjoy holidays abroad. When they do so they naturally take a particular note of the flora of the country they are visiting, and some will wish to grow a few of the plants they see. Before they leave this country they obtain a permit from the Ministry of Agriculture allowing them either to bring in a packet of plants grown in the wild or to post it. In both cases, the consignment must not weigh more than 3 kg. and must be accompanied by the import permit. There are, of course, several conditions attached to this permit, one being that the plants must be available for inspection by the local plant health inspector of the Ministry of Agriculture, and another being that various plants likely to carry noxious diseases are prohibited. It would be very easy to add the species currently regarded as endangered to the list of plants that are prohibited.
Earlier in this speech I mentioned my private collection of orchidaceae, and some of these were acquired in this way. I feel very strongly that, even though a plant species is endangered to a greater or lesser degree, it is wholesale ravishing of plant stations that should be stopped, and amateurs should not be prohibited from bringing in one or two plants of any species that appeals to them. It is the commercial wholesale decimation of stocks that must be avoided. In this connection it would of course be up to any country to protect its own endangered species by passing such a Bill as the Wild Plants Protection Bill introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, last Session. Indeed, similar laws are in force in many areas of the Alps.
I should perhaps point out that many of the plants that we enjoy in our own gardens and greenhouses today have come from a very few selected plants, seeds or cuttings of a particular species taken from their natural habitat. Certainly I would not be dogmatic about a refusal to grant a licence for plants—I emphasise, plants—but I feel it would be definitely injurious to the future development of

1447
horticulture in this country to seek to control or even ban the importation of seeds or cuttings by the refusal of a licence.
I support this Bill, but I am afraid it looks as though it will be impossible for us to go through it fully in a Committee stage. However, the Government Bill will be getting the full treatment, I am sure, both in this House and in another place; and while not wishing to be controversial in my first speech to your Lordships, I give the Government fair warning that I am likely to tear into their Bill like a snow leopard! Nevertheless, I support the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, in his magnificent efforts to get the Government to work a little harder to implement the Convention and I hope very much that your Lordships will give the Bill a Second Reading today.
4.52 p.m.
Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY: My Lords, one of the endangered species which we sometimes hear being threatened is the hereditary peerage; but whatever may be its eventual fate, one of the great advantages of the hereditary peerage in your Lordships' House is that from time to time we get the benefit of speakers who come here with very special and specialist knowledge, which does us all a tremendous amount of good and is an immense help to the work of your Lordships' House. I am sure we all wish to welcome the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, and to congratulate him on his speech. Also, if I may say so, I am sure we should all like to wish the noble Lord and his wife many happy returns of their wedding anniversary. We hope we shall hear him speak often—and I, for one, shall not particularly repine if he is wading into the Government.
I think that at this time we also need to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, and the body which has done so much to urge this Bill—the Friends of the Earth—because I have no doubt that, whatever is said publicly and whatever disclaimers are made, they must be considered to be a bit of a nuisance by the Government. I reckon that any body of any people who are regarded as a nuisance by the Government on matters of conservation are worthy of congratulation.
1448
I do not want to go at any length into the merits and demerits of this Bill. We are delighted that the Government have at last produced a Bill. We shall look at it with critical attention and hope that something really worth while can come out of it. I think that our deliberations at all stages of the Government's Bill will be illuminated by some of the debates we have already had, and are having, in this House on the Bill produced by the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones.
I would mention only two detailed points. First, I think we must concentrate as much as possible on this business of making people keep records. It is a very difficult thing to control trade in the products from endangered species. Nevertheless, it is tremendously worth while. Although I agree that to put too much faith on records is not necessarily wise or sensible, this is one of the few ways in which we can try to stop those people who really want to get round these laws; let us make no mistake about it, there will be people trying as hard as they can to break any law that is made on this matter. So I believe that we should concentrate on the keeping of records. We must also bear in mind the necessity, in any question of doubt, of giving the benefit to the endangered species. After all, it is that which is at risk. It is much more important—as I had occasion to say to your Lordships' House during the consideration of the Wild Plants Protection Bill—that we should stop any species being exterminated or going out of existence than do a great many of the other things that Governments do.
I have one particular criticism of this Bill which I hope will not be copied in the Government's Bill, although I am sure it will not be. I think it is wrong that, as laid down in Clause 5(2), the Customs and Excise should be able to seize products if they are merely in the possession of someone, unless the possessor can prove that he got them legally. I think it is right, when buying and selling, that the burden of proof should be on the person who is buying and selling; but in the case of "possession" I think that seizure is an unwarranted interference with the liberty of the subject. I had the great good fortune some time ago to challenge this principle in another kind of Bill on the subject of opium pipes. If I may claim in any way to have altered

1449
the legislation of this country, it is that if any of your Lordships happen, quite innocently, to possess an opium pipe without using it, he will no longer be in danger of being arrested, as a Conservative Government at that time suggested should be done. I think, similarly, that people who are in legitimate possession of products, even if they cannot prove the ownership of some of these products should not be in danger of having them seized.
That, of course, isa minor criticism. There are others; and some of them have already been pointed out by other speakers today. I agree with some of them which I understand, and am quite sure that there are others that I should also agree with if I understood them more fully. This is a good Bill and it commands our support. As I said earlier, it is much more worth while than a great many of the things we do. It is much more important that we should preserve one of the endangered species which is flying about today in the Schedule of Birds than that we should preserve the endangered species we heard of earlier this afternoon, and which, so far as I am concerned, can stay endangered. At least the birds we are talking about do not make an unconscionable noise and they do not run the risk of causing damage to the ozone. What is more, they do not cost this country and the British Aircraft Corporation thousands of pounds every time they fly. So I am much more in favour of the birds. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, has campaigned so long and so successfully on this; and I very much congratulate the Government on having at last produced this Bill.
4.59 p.m.
Viscount MONCK: My Lords, with great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, I do not think this is merely a good Bill; I think it is a remarkable Bill. Those of your Lordships who have perused it from cover to cover will have noticed that 20 out of the 25 pages are in the Latin tongue. One would therefore have assumed it to have been sponsored by a great classical scholar; but not a bit of it. Its sponsor is an eminent professor of chemistry; so eminent that he was made Emeritus Professor of Chemistry at Newcastle Univer-
1450
sity in 1968. Despite this, I have no proof that he was the professor who said to a student: "What is HNo8?" The student was a bit nonplussed and began to stammer: "Er—I've got it right on the tip of my tongue, sir," "Spit it out at once!" said the professor, "it's nitric acid."
To return to our muttons, or rather the Bill, the Explanatory Memorandum states that Clause 3 says that at certain ports there will be specialist advice available on the identification of controlled—My Lords, I ask you to realise that I was in no way responsible for that interruption.
Lord WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord is not accusing me.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: My Lords, they are not friends of mine either.
Viscount MONCK: My Lords, does any other noble Lord wish to rise and disclaim responsibility? If not, I will continue. I was stating that the Explanatory Memorandum states that Clause 3 says that at certain ports there will be specialist advice available on the identification of controlled species. But there is no mention of specialist advice in Clause 3 unless "the proper officer of Customs and Excise" covers this.
With regard to specialist advice, and whatever the names of the people are, it appears that these must be persons who have taken an Honours degree in Classics, Biology and Botany. Even those of your Lordships who were educated at Eton, Harrow or Winchester could probably identify gorilla gorilla on page 10, though why the unfortunate animal has to be duplicated, I do not know. But what about pan troglodytes (satyrus) just below it, which is a chimpanzee? Possibly those educated at the schools I have mentioned could also say what canis lupus, on page 11, is. But what about dugong dugong on page 13, which is a sea cetacean and the origin of the myths about the mermaid; or pudu pudu on the same page, which is a Chilean deer? Also, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, in his very attractive and notable maiden speech, there is the araucaria auraucana, which, as he said, is a monkey puzzle tree. If this Bill, or the Bill of the noble Baroness, goes forward, I beg that in order to avoid a lot of confusion.

1451
trouble and headaches, or even heart attacks, the English equivalents should be printed in the Bill.
5.3 p.m.
Lord HALE: My Lords, I always listen to the noble Viscount, Lord Monck, with interest, I always expect to be entertained and I always expect him to say something worth listening to. But I am afraid that he is a little ungenerous to the people who have drafted this Bill and have conformed to an international convention. I agree with him that the whole of these classifications, the work of Buffon, the work of Carl von Linne and all the others, who are altering it day by day, are really quite fantastic. But if one looks into the difficulties, I think one will appreciate that at least they have tried to make these classifications on a reasoned basis.
The result is that of one variety—.I think it is the bowea—there is only one sample, and of the others there are a couple of thousand. The liliaceae—I do not propose to make any effort to pronounce these names properly, because that will arouse more division than does the Bill—includes onions, asparagus, lilies and tulips, although in the Schedule all of these are excluded and the Bill is limited to the species aloe. There are 200 different kinds of aloe. There are those used to produce medicine which my mother used to give me, but which is not now recommended quite so strongly as a purgative, and there is one which is definitely poisonous. But generally speaking, they are not a very exciting species, although they furnish supplies to many rock gardens.
The noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, who always sneaks well on any matter—I remember his speech in the debate last March—spoke, for one who is habitually courteous, with rather more force than he normally does and with something approaching indignation. Except for the fact that I wish the speech had been made—if that were possible—to a Minister whom I do not like rather than to a Minister whom I do like, I agree with every word. I really feel a sense of personal indignation, because I thought I was going to make a damn good speech today and I have not made one since, I came into this House. I
1452
spent days checking up the Schedules, because I know nothing about the subject.
It is just two and a half weeks since I was sitting in a bungalow at Amboseli watching half of creation going by. There were Malibou storks flying over, and an elephant ambling by the window and going to drink 35 gallons at one go of the water which was reserved for the birds. I saw in Amboseli at least four of the five animals listed as the kings of creation. The elephant is pre-eminent as number one and then there are the rhinoceros, the buffalo, the hippopotamus and theleopard—the leopard for its beauty no doubt, because it does not have the best of reputations—and I had the privilege of seeing all but the hippopotamus. I do not think I could have missed it had there been one there, then, but it was the dry season. I came back full of acquired knowledge. I will not try to deceive the House and say that I went to East Africa to prepare myself for this Bill. I went there at the invitation of a most distinguished Indian in East Africa, whose son is a managing director there, and the family is known to Members of both Houses.
So, having gone through agony last year, I have been persuaded, or invited, by the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, at very short notice, because the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, is ill, to stand up to support it. I have studied it and have personal experience of the grave penal effects of this Bill, because over 22 years ago I found myself on a brief but rather hectic visit of three or four days to Uganda. I was entertained to a sundowner, on my arrival, by my hosts who happened to be Mr. John Stonehouse and his charming wife. We met the Kabaka, who was worried about the proposals for the Federation of East Africa which would have left him a second-class citizen.
Also, I addressed a meeting of farmers who, to my intense surprise, on the eve of my departure, presented me with a leopard skin. It would not only have been a discourteous thing to ask where they had got it; it would have been a damn silly thing to do—or, in the language of this House, it would have been a work of supererogation. All I could do, fully, was to hand it over to Customs without having time to examine it care-

1453
who, very properly, confiscated it at once. I could not take any objection, but I still wish they had not looked quite so pleased about it as they did. So I have had experience both ways.
It was, therefore, with very real joy that the one lightning occasion today, apart from the able but almost desponding speeches which had to be made by those who have worked so hard on this matter, was the extraordinary speech of the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale. It is customary to pass facile compliments on the maiden speeches that are made in this House, but this is not an occasion for doing that. I thought his speech was a joy to listen to. I thought, here at last we have someone who knows something about a very difficult part of this subject—I know that we have other noble Lords with knowledge, too—who is able to put forward precisely the kind of case which has been in our minds as one of the problems, and who, if I understood him correctly (although I am a little deaf I heard what he had to say because he spoke with great clarity), said that even so his sympathies are rather with the objects of the Bill. That is where I think we all are.
Indeed, if I may say so to the noble Lord, I myself have been doing my homework on cacti. I find that there are 2,000 varieties of cacti. They all are cacti but they vary. Some grow 20 feet high and they now spread all over the earth. I unearthed the wonderful story about how the opuntia cacti fought against the whole of Australia with a zeal and determination which the West Indies have failed to display in the last few days. It went over there, I think, because of the phylloxera infection on grapes. Certainly it went to the Canary Isles on the same mission and to South Africa. Finally, it took over, over 40 years, 60 million acres of Australian land, half of it completely and half of it to such an extent as to render it difficult to use.
Each of the opuntia has many other virtues. It is edible and produces food which satisfies both hunger and thirst. Some of these opuntia can produce 50,000 seeds. Noble Lords may say that homo sapiens produces a million million according to Sir Aldous Huxley in his Fifth Philosopher's Song, but mostly they go to waste. However, the opuntia seeds
1454
virtually speaking, never go to waste. You plough them in and still they can come up after 20 years. One can try to destroy the plant—the Australians tried and bred insects, hatched three million eggs and imported more destructive insects, but the opuntia fought for something like 50 years before it was finally exterminated.
This was after the experience in France, where they first treated phylloxera with prayer. In the Rhone Valley they had services in the cathedral and the vine growers were warned that possibly it was their sins that had brought it about. They had a longer fight against phylloxera. The chairman of Bordeaux said that by 1888 the phylloxera fly, which is about six-hundredths of an inch, had cost France £800 million, which was about twice the indemnity that they had paid to the Germans after the war of 1870–1871. Of course, they had not got near the end of it. The methods which had been used up to then were the insecticides. In fact, an agnostic chemist came along with potassium sulphocarbonate, I think it was. Such insecticides were used and produced some results. The hierarchy held a special service of thanks to God for sending the agnostic with the black bag to do something about it. The phylloxera went on and meant the replacement of vines all over the world. In the meantime, in the Canaries where they had introduced the opuntia, they used it for the purpose for which it was imported. The opuntia is a host to the cochineal rearing fly, a scale fly. It prospered for quite a long time until somebody produced aniline dyes, and the Canaries replanted with bananas. It is an extraordinary story which I should have loved to tell but I have not got the time in which to do it. Therefore, it will have to go into the wastepaper basket, together with all the other undelivered speeches.
I will conclude with only a couple of questions, but they are important ones. First, although the noble Baroness spoke with very great clarity, and I congratulate her upon her speech, I missed the tiny explanation, which was quite extraordinary, of why we have not signed the convention. Why have we been mucking about for 11 months? Certainly the implication of the speech that was delivered last time by the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, was that one more signature would complete the bringing

1455
into force of the convention and that after that, but for a technical difficulty or two, we should be signing it without reservation.
The second question is, how were these orders to which the noble Baroness referred made, and when were they made? I have been searching the Vote Office for some days to find out. Let me say that every possible assistance was given to me by the Vote Office. There is no suggestion whatever of blame there. I gather that they were made under one of the Acts that was passed on 3rd or 4th September 1939, or thereabouts, when we were about to be at war. The Act has in brackets "(Defence)"as part of its Title. That gave power to make orders which need not have Parliamentary approval. I was going to say that this is an outrage. I am faced with the dilemma that, as a matter of fact, in cases of this kind I am strongly in favour of orders which do not involve lugging people to the petty sessions if this can possibly be avoided. The making of an order without punitive measures is an extremely good thing to do but it must be made with Parliamentary approval. It must be treated as a Statutory Instrument. We could not go on without that.
Finally, the noble Baroness was good and generous enough to say without hesitation that she hoped the House would give this Bill a Second Reading, at least, so that we may have a look at the Bill that is prepared for next week, or whenever it is produced. I am grateful for that assurance and I hope that at the conclusion of the debate the House will give the Bill an unopposed Second Reading.
5.19 p.m.
Lord CRAIGTON: My Lords, with the rest of the House may I thank the noble Lord for introducing this Bill and, as the noble Lord, Lord Hale, said, for giving us the opportunity that we all wanted: to ask, why has not the convention already been ratified? I know there has been a great deal of misunderstanding, and some of us know that there have been some very good reasons for it. We hope that in due course we shall have a fairly detailed statement of the reasons why we have not ratified. My noble friend on the Front Bench
1456
was rather forceful about the question of enforcement, but I should like for one moment to put forward the difficulties facing any Government, or even the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, in finding out exactly how to do these things. Some countries—not Britain—just sign anything. If we sign something, it has got to work properly. This has been the problem.
My noble friend Lord Skelmersdale, in a most excellent maiden speech—and I hope he will become a member of our conservation Committee—gave us an example of one of the difficulties. Let me give your Lordships another. As everybody in this House knows, a number of species are endangered in the wild, but they breed in zoos in sufficient quantities to ensure that they are either no longer endangered or will shortly be not endangered at all as home bred species. As the noble Lord said, this makes it very difficult to control the movements. Not to control the movements of the species if it is endangered and caught in the wild, is to do the wrong thing. If, on the other hand, you control its movements for breeding purposes, you are doing the wrong thing in keeping the species going. It is easy enough to say and very difficult to enact.
Another great difficulty confronting conservation is that someone somewhere will offer animals for sale. They will say that the animals are home bred and you can go and see them. This applies especially to spotted cats. One knows, however, that really the animals being offered were not bred there but were caught in the wild. For every one that is offered for sale in this country, four have died in the catching. This aspect must be caught up by the regulations.
I do not blame the Government. I think they have been doing a wonderful job. The Friends of the Earth have certainly put pressure on the Government, quite rightly, and so have all the conservation bodies; but the various conservation bodies—the Fauna Preservation Society, the World Wildlife Fund, the RSPB and many others—would be the first to admit that, being registered charities, they are not able to bring the open and public pressure on Government departments that can quite properly be brought by the Friends of the Earth. The Friends of the Earth play an essential

1457
part in the pressure for conservation, but I know that the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, and the Minister would be the first to admit that just as much valuable work has been done, not in the public eye, by bodies which are equally concerned but which are charities.
As the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones said, there are so many points to be discussed that I will not speak about any of them. It is a little difficult now because we are to get a Bill in a week's time, so anything I may say cannot alter what is already in print. But I liked two points in the Bill sponsored by the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, the first being that it controlled all the products of endangered species rather than listing a few products. I think he mentioned reptile skin shoes. In my view it is essential that all the products should be controlled. We cannot pick out one, because someone will find a loophole to the detriment of the species in some other way. The second point is that it prohibits the advertising and sale of any scheduled item, whether it is imported under licence or not. This puts the onus on the person so advertising and selling to say that the item has been legally imported. These are good provisions and I hope they will go into the Bill if not, we shall have to think about them.
My noble friend on the Front Bench referred to the penalties. I consider that in these days £100 is a ridiculous penalty, and I hope the subject of the penalties will be examined. I for one congratulate the Minister and her predecessor who is on the Front Bench. I know how much he and the Department concerned did behind the scenes. I know all they have done in moving fast to get as far as they have done. I accept the assurances given by the noble Baroness, and we shall study the Government's Bill with great care. Finally, I hope that when that Bill is drafted, we shall be able to correct the mistakes that will have been made. Let us have a Bill which will enable us to put things right, because in one short Bill we cannot solve all the problems that will arise over the next 20 years.
5.25 p.m.
Lord CHORLEY: My Lords, I rise to make a very short intervention in this
1458
debate, for the purpose of supporting my noble friend Lord Wynne-Jones in his admirable efforts which have continued over a very long time. I want to underline a point which he made and which I am rather surprised has not been more emphasised by other speakers in this interesting debate. The noble Lord mentioned that his earlier Bills had been, as it were, narrowly nationalistic, whereas on this occasion he had taken a wider outlook and the Bill had important international implications. That seems to me to be a most important aspect of this matter. We do not know what will be in the Government Bill about which we have heard, but I hope that they are taking a wide view of that kind.
Last night we had a most interesting meeting of the all-Party conservation Committee which the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, guides with such understanding and tact, at which the importance of the international aspects of this matter were raised very clearly indeed. I think we must make quite sure that when the Government Bill goes through it covers that particular matter, because clearly it is of great importance. At the meeting last night we had a speech from Sir Peter Scott, who I suppose knows more about this matter than anybody else in the country, and almost every sentence underlined the importance of the international controls which must be exercised if these species are in fact to be preserved for the world which, in regard to its splendid qualities and materials and wildlife, over the last years we have been doing so much to destroy. Therefore I hope your Lordships will make quite sure that in the new Bill the international aspects are properly looked after. On that basis I propose to vote for the Second Reading of this Bill today.
Viscount RIDLEY: My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, replies, perhaps he would like to know that a great compliment has been paid to him today in that the intervention which we heard recently was in Welsh.
5.29 p.m.
Lord BOOTHBY: My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones replies, may I say that there is one industry that is dying. It is in fact very nearly dead. It is the herring fishing industry of the North Sea. There is no

1459
cure for that except for international action by all the nations directly concerned—the Soviet Union, Norway, Denmark, Holland and ourselves—and we ought to summon an international conference. When I was a Member of Parliament there used to be great fishings off the Buchan coast in Aberdeenshire in the summer, and off the East Anglian coast—Yarmouth and Lowestoft—in the autumn. We used to export a million barrels of herring a year to Germany and Russia. That trade is dead. The herring is now becoming a precious fish. One used to be able to buy them, with old money, at threepence for six; now, they cost the equivalent of two or three shillings for one and they are becoming more and more scarce all the time. This is only one example of what is going on at the present time. I submit to your Lordships' House that there is only one answer, namely, international action, an international conference to decide what should be done to conserve this industry and, if possible, to revive it.
5.30 p.m.
Lord WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, I wish to thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, for his fascinating speech. I wish I had known of his interest earlier, because I might have learned something by talking to him about it. It shows how one can never cease in this House to shed a little of one's ignorance by making use of other people. Of course, the noble Viscount, Lord Monck, has been entertaining us all, and showing his great knowledge of the Latin tongue. He quite rightly assumed that my knowledge was not as great as his. Today's debate has shown very clearly a unanimity in this House on the matter. I should like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, for her remarks today. I completely accept that it is the intention of the Government to introduce a Bill. The noble Baroness will naturally appreciate that, as I have not seen the Bill and do not know at all what its contents are, I should prefer that this Bill should remain until we have had time to study the Government's Bill. However, I would like to thank the noble Baroness and her predecessor, and all those people in her Department who, to
1460
my knowledge, have put in a great deal of effort on this matter.
My Lords, reference has been made to the Friends of the Earth and other organisations. Without their help the Bill which I have been presenting would not be before your Lordships. I am sure all your Lordships understand perfectly well that I am the person standing as an actor presenting his part. I hope I have presented it reasonably adequately. I can assure your Lordships that, with all good luck, this is positively my last appearance in this particular role. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

RATING (CARAVAN SITES) BILL [H.L.]
5.32 p.m.
Report of Amendments received.
Clause 1 [Rating of caravan sites in England and Wales]:
Lord ELTON Lord ELTON moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 13, at end insert—
("( ) Where a valuation list has been altered by virtue of subsection (1) above so as to include an area of a caravan site as a single mixed hereditament and, by reason of a change in the value attributable to the domestic or the commercial part of the property, that area of that site ceases to qualify as a single mixed hereditament, then the valuation officer may, if, after consultation with the site operator, he thinks fit, alter the valuation list so as to treat each of the pitches in that area, together with the caravan sited thereon, as a separate hereditament.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is intended to deal with two matters on which we have briefly, and sometimes not so briefly, touched before. Your Lordships will recall that I was at some pains to explain that a situation could arise under the Bill as it is at present drafted whereby a sufficient number of caravan pitch occupiers decided to opt for individual assessment in a site which was globally assessed, to upset the balance between the domestic and the commercial values of the site to the extent that the commercial site would outweigh the value of the domestic site, and the site would no longer qualify as a

1461
mixed hereditament, thus attracting half of the domestic rate rebate. It was suggested to us by the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, on Second Reading, in col. 31 of Hansard—and I interpreted what she said to mean—that this option would only he exercised by pitch occupiers who were suffering from some sort of handicap or disability which would entitle them to a greater level of rate rebate than they would attract as of a mixed hereditament.
However, on Committee stage the noble Baroness agreed that under the unenviable circumstances in which I hypothetically placed her she would have little other recourse but to opt to go "individual" if she felt herself being harassed by the site operator. If that is the case, it is possible there will be rather more numerous applications for treatment in this way than she envisaged when the Bill was drafted. It seemed to me wise to put in a provision whereby the valuation officer could reverse his original decision, the option which he has taken under Clause 1 of the Bill as at present drafted, to value the whole site as a single hereditament. It was not clear to me that under the Bill as it now stands there would be an opportunity for him to do so. It seemed to be something of a one-way process, and therefore we put down this Amendment to provide an opportunity for the process to be reversed, and also to produce some sort of protection for those on the mixed hereditament who remain assessed with the mixed hereditament when it became commercially rated, because their colleagues, having had a difference of opinion with the site owner, had opted to be rated as individuals. I beg to move.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of the ENVIRONMENT (Baroness Birk): My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Elton, is concerned about the situation where the value of the commercial part of the composite assessment is more than half the total value. I accept that this situation could arise, for example on sites where there are only a small number of leisure caravans, but very substantial common facilities. Where representations are made to them—and here I include representations by individual caravanners—valuation officers may, in the exercise of their discretion, take such action as may be necessary to ensure
1462
that the caravans are separately assessed. Thus, the separately occupied caravans will be rated separately, and classed as domestic. The parts of the site in the occupation of the owner will be classed as commercial. If, despite the commercial rating, the caravanners still thought they would be better off as part of a single assessment, it would be open to them to approach the valuation officer and ask him to reconsider the position.
The noble Lord was also concerned about how domestic relief affects the caravanners. To underline what I said on Committee, I would say that in the majority of cases the sites will qualify as mixed by virtue of the fact that the domestic portion will be larger than the commercial. In these cases, the total rates payable on the site and the caravans may be up to 20 per cent. less than they otherwise would have been. In some cases, it is possible that the reduction may be even greater than this. We think that most sites will qualify as mixed, and there will be little incentive for them to opt for separate assessment, thereby tipping the balance in favour of commercial. In those cases which are commercial it is still likely that in most cases the caravanner will none the less be better off as part of the single assessment. I hope that clarifies the point for the noble Lord, Lord Elton.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, Iam much obliged to the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, for what she has said. It is perhaps worth commenting at this stage that we are not here a Chamber of revision, and that this Bill is going on to another place. Therefore, I think it would be proper to accept what the noble Baroness has said, to consider it, and if necessary to ask for it to be considered elsewhere. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness BIRK Baroness BIRK moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 16, leave out ("in any case where") and insert ("if, but only if,").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 2, with the permission of the House I will speak to Amendment No. 7. The purpose of these Amendments is to shift the burden of presumption when considering whether, for the purpose of this Bill, a caravan is rateable along with the pitch on which it

1463
stands. These Amendments are in place of Amendments moved in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Elton. On that occasion I said we were quite agreeable to the change of emphasis, but that for drafting purposes I would prefer to bring forward two Amendments. These are the Amendments.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, we have discussed the reasoning behind this. It only remains for me to say we are grateful to the noble Baroness for meeting us in this manner.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord ELTON Lord ELTON moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 3, line 6, leave out ("1976") and insert ("1977").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, another point which ought to be looked at at this stage is the question of timing. A great deal is being asked of valuation officers to get their valuation lists out in time to be effective in the next rating year, and a fortiori a great deal is being asked of the site operators to catch up with any ground which the valuation officers may lose in the matter of timing. As your Lordships will notice, the valuation officers have a month in which to give their notice after they have made their assessment. We felt that this would be an opportunity for the Government to give some reassurance to those concerned with the operation of the Bill, when it becomes an Act, about what they propose shall happen when there is not enough time for the equitable operation of the Act at the date proposed, and for that purpose I have put down Amendment No. 3, putting back by a year the effective operation of the Bill. I beg to move.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for explaining his purpose in moving this Amendment, and also giving me an opportunity to clarify again this slightly difficult point. On the point he raised. I still emphasise that I am quite sure that the vast majority of site operators who have already entered into agreements will be in a position to pass on the additional rate charge. The agreement that I read out during Committee was quite typical. However, I accept—as was pointed out on Com-
1464
mittee, and as I have written to the noble Lord—that there may be a few site operators who for some reason have committed themselves to fixed price contracts for the coming season. I think this is the crunch of the noble Lord's argument.
If a site operator makes this fact known to the valuation officer, he will be sympathetic to the situation and can be expected to delay the exercise of his discretion to create the single assessment. I hope this answers the noble Lord's point, because, although I wrote to him along these lines, he said, quite naturally, that he would prefer to have this point on the record. That is all I want to say at this stage.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for what she has said. If she could assure me that what she has said amounts to an authority for the valuation officers to take such steps, or that such authority already exists, I think there would be no purpose in my pursuing the Amendment. I take it that is what she intends.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, it would be quite wrong and misleading if I made out anything that was a hard and fast rule, because what we have here is a statutory discretion given to a statutory officer, and while it is a discretion I cannot make it mandatory on him to exercise it. But the discretion is there. The fact that this has been discussed and will now be on the record, that this is the intention behind the legislation, that the valuation officer should use this discretion where he feels that it needs to be used, is all that is necessary. He has that. It is a statutory discretion. If that is what the noble Lord means by "authority", he has the authority. I think this has now made it quite clear that we would expect him to use it in the circumstances he thinks proper. Leaving this flexibility is extremely important, as I think the noble Lord would agree.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Baroness. She has clarified the matter. I am sure that interested parties will be able to direct the attention of the valuation officers to the record. I, therefore, beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.48 p.m.
Baroness BIRK Baroness BIRK moved Amendment No. 4:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause:
Information for caravanners about first proposal under s. 1 as to caravan sites
.—(1) Where the valuation officer makes a proposal under section 1 above in the case of a caravan site, he shall within one month after the date on which the proposal is made give written notice to the site operator stating the number of caravans included in the hereditament proposed to be entered in the valuation list.
(2) On receipt of a notice under subsection (1) above the site operator shall display on the site a notice stating—

(a) the part of the site included in the proposed hereditament (or that the whole site is so included), the number of caravans so included and the rateable value proposed for that hereditament; and

(b) the rate in the pound at which the general rate for the rating area is charged under the General Rate Act 1967 in respect of the period during which the proposal is made.

(3) The notice required by subsection (2) above shall be displayed at some conspicuous place where it is likely to attract the attention of persons occupying pitches for leisure caravans which are included in the proposed hereditament, and shall be kept displayed for not less than four months.
(4) If so requested by a person occupying any such pitch as aforesaid at the time when the proposal is made, the site operator shall give him in writing the information required by subsection (2) above to be given by the notice under that subsection.
(5) If a site operator fails without reasonable excuse to display and keep displayed a notice as required by subsection (2) and (3) above, or to give information to a person as required by subsection (4) after a written request from that person, he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £50.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this Amendment is the result of a consensus of minds; my concern about what seemed to me to be a vacuum in the Bill and the contributions of various noble Lords at Committee stage. I explained then that I wanted to introduce my own Amendment which would provide that caravanners should be given certain information to enable them to judge the average rateable value accorded to each caravan included in the new single assessment. This is the purpose of this Amendment. I also explained during Committee that there were tremendous difficulties involved in this, and this has certainly
1466
proved to be the case. As always, one thinks one has a very simple point in mind and knows exactly what one wants until the lawyers get hold of it, and then one finds it is not so simple and the difficulties are enormous. To be fair to them, I should say that the difficulties are extremely real. I hoped that one would be able just to state the rate ingredient on the site charge notice, but as the whole point of the exercise is that the rating should be of a single unit or hereditament that made it practically impossible. So we have done as well as we could.
Noble Lords also, quite rightly, pressed me not to make it a complicated requirement, and I have, joyfully, so far as I could, borne this very much in mind, because I could not agree more that so many things get rather cancelled out when they are made more complicated. We have also kept in mind the need not to add unnecessarily to the information which the rating authority and the valuation officer have to provide to the site operator, because having cut down the work and expense of the local authority it would not make much sense if we then burdened them again the other way.
Where the valuation officer exercises his discretion to value the site as a single unit he will be required within one month after the date on which the proposal is made to give written notice to the site operator stating the number of caravans he took into account in making the assessment. The site operator will then be required to display a notice showing the part of the site included in the assessment; if it is the whole of the site he must say so; the number of caravans included in the assessment; the assessment itself, which is the rateable value; and the rate poundage levied by the local authority.
I am afraid, trying to cut it down, these seem to me to be the essential ingredients to have. I cannot see any way of cutting down this number of statements, which in fact comes only to four anyhow.
The notice is to be displayed in a prominent place for four months. As I understand it, there are usually central offices, or a place where people collect mail, on most of the sites. The caravanner can also ask the site operator for the information in writing. This is not only

1467
for those people who may not see the board or may not find it, but to safeguard those caravanners who may not visit the site before they take up residence there. If the site operator fails without reasonable excuse to comply with these requirements, he will be liable on conviction to a fine.
I hope noble Lords will agree with me that this goes a considerable way towards the goal we have in mind. I am equally sure it will not have escaped the notice of noble Lords that, in the clause as drafted, this requirement applies only in the year in which the valuation officer first values the site as a single unit, because clearly the problem for caravanners will be very much greater in the first year.
There is one other point I should like to add. It may be possible for the valuation officers to identify for the site operators the proportion of the total assessment attributable to the caravans and pitches in the occupation of the caravanner. This is a point which I, so far, have not included and it is not in the clause, because this is something we are still working on in the Department. If this is possible—we are not yet sure on this point but I am feeling a little more optimistic about it today—we would wish to introduce an Amendment in another place requiring the site operator to put this information on the notice, which then makes it even more specific.
Finally, I should briefly mention that the Scottish position on the question is broadly similar, which is why it is down as two Amendments, given the differences between two codes which, as noble Lords know, we are constantly encountering. That being so, I have put down a corresponding Scottish new clause to which I have now spoken, and I hope I shall just have to move it formally when we come to the appropriate point. I beg to move
5.52 p.m.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, although the noble Baroness alluded to this, as indeed did several of us at the Committee stage, this is new material to the Bill, and she has rightly explained it in some detail. I hope that your Lordships will understand that I shall speak to it with a certain hesitation, because I have not had the opportunity to
1468
examine it as closely as I should like, or with the depth of advice that I should like. My immediate reaction is to say that we sympathise with her desire for equity on the site. My second reaction is that I am not certain that she has fully justified the inclusion of subsection (4) of the Amendment, though she has gone a considerable way to do so.
She has told us that there are people who will be subject to new assessments as a result of the exercise of an option under Clause 1(1) of the Bill when it comes into effect, who will not be in residence at the time when this takes place. It occurs to me to wonder how they will know that the assessment has taken place, since they will not have seen the notice posted on the notice board or to the lamp post at the entrance to the site, which has to be displayed according to the regulations listed in the earlier subsection. One also wonders how long after the assessment is made is the site operator still liable to a fine of £50, if he does not comply with the request, and similar matters. These would be Committee points. I am not raising them now because this Bill will go through a Committee stage in another place and the noble Baroness has already given warning that it may contain further Amendments when it gets there.
It occurs to me also to ask the noble Baroness once more, not contentiously, whether she does not feel that having displayed to the site occupiers, the pitch occupiers, the very grounds upon which the assessments of their portion of the rates are made upon them by the site operator, she is still quite confident that there will not be great feelings of injustice among some of them, whether rightly or wrongly held, and whether it is altogether right to leave aside some form of appeal. Then one reflects that the purpose of the Bill is to reduce, as she put it, the work and expense of running the rating system. Her objections (which we share) are to burdening them up again, as she put it. These are matters to reflect upon, and we are at the point where, if legislation is drawn too precisely in the new clause, we may once more come up against the paradox that by doing something which we hope will reduce the burden of administrative duties on the local authorities and the inland revenue, we may be increasing them.

1469
Last time we were almost in the position where the noble Baroness advocated a free market economy on the site and I was advocating a regulated economy. I think now we are in the process of approaching each other in the opposite direction. I do not wish to confuse the House with such philosophic reflections. This is a point to be pursued in another place. It would be wrong of us to resist the Amendment here, since the other place has been alerted by what the noble Baroness has said of her intentions for that stage.
5.55 p.m.
Lord WAKEFIELD OF KENDAL: My Lords, this new clause is useful and desirable because it enables the pitch occupiers and caravan owners to know the reasons for the rate charges being made upon them. It also provides the site operator with reasons and justification for the extra charges which the caravan owner or occupier will be required to pay. However, it is not so simple and straightforward as may appear at first sight.
As the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, pointed out at Committee stage, the site owner on his site may have some pitches which, because of convenience and amenity value, are much sought after and therefore can command a much higher rental than other pitches which, because of their position, are not worth anything like as much. If, upon a best pitch a large modern caravan costing several thousands of pounds is positioned, then the rating of such a pitch and caravan would obviously be very much higher than a small and aged caravan upon a poorly placed pitch. What then is the site owner to do? If he divides the total amount of rate payable equally among all the caravan occupiers or owners, some will feel aggrieved. Indeed, the caravan owner occupying a poor site with a small and ancient caravan might seek an individual rating and find that the amount he has to pay is less than had been demanded of him by the site owner; others could follow suit, and what would happen then? Indeed, it may well be the kind of situation which my noble friend Lord Elton has warned may arise.
Again, if the site owner tries to charge varying amounts to different caravan owners and occupants, there is bound to
1470
be discontent and disagreement. In any case, he is not a valuation officer and ought not to be required to do his job. Surely it must be apparent, therefore, that this Amendment, which looks such an obvious and simple solution, is really nothing of the kind, as indeed the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, pointed out at Committee stage.
The work that ought to be done by the rating authority will now have to be done by the site owner at considerable extra administrative cost, and all the basic difficulties of frequently changing ownership and occupation of the caravans will continue as well as the replacement changes of new for old caravans, or the shifting of caravans from an inferior to a better pitch according to availability. Such changes, which are continual and normal, must lead in some cases to disagreement and dispute. Is it proposed that there should be any method of arbitration to settle disputes of this kind, which, inevitably, are likely to arise? Or should the dispute be taken to the courts, and, if so, on what grounds?
It seems to me that further clarification is needed upon all these points for obvious reasons. If it is not possible now for the Minister to make any further statement, at any rate these points having been raised here, I hope that perhaps some clarification may be made upon them in another place to make it easier for both the caravan site owner and the occupants than will be possible at the moment.
In conclusion, I wonder whether the Minister could state what will happen about the present position that has arisen as a result of the intensification of efforts by valuation officers last year to rate individual caravans and their pitches. I understand that there are about a quarter of a million caravans and pitches to be rated and the work of assessing them was almost completed at the end of 1975. But in the meantime many caravans will have changed pitches; some new ones will have replaced old ones and even where caravans have been assessed it has been found to be difficult, and indeed impossible in many cases, to identify the owners and, due to a variety of circumstances, to collect the money due. Also, I believe that there are 90,000 appeals, objections, still to be heard. This Bill will not alter such a situation. What is then going to happen? It would be helpful if we could

1471
have some idea how this chaotic state of affairs is to be cleared up.
Presumably all the work done last year by the valuation officers will have to be done again to meet the requirements of this Bill. It would seem sensible therefore to start afresh when this Bill has become an Act and not to go to any further expense and trouble in trying to sort out a state of affairs which is about to be changed in the immediate future and, in consequence, will have no lasting result. If the Minister could give some guidance about what is intended, I believe it would be greatly appreciated by all concerned. I hope that the present uncertainty may be resolved by a Statement, if not here at any rate in another place.
Lord LUCAS of CHILWORTH: My Lords, since my noble friend has drawn me back into this controversy, perhaps I might say that I am grateful to the noble Baroness for this Amendment. It goes quite a long way towards that objection which we had earlier; notably, how a pitch user, a caravan owner, would know what was being levied upon him and whether there was a share apportionment for him. However, I share the views of my noble friend on the Front Bench with regard to the four months' time during which the notice has to be exhibited. Many site owners may not be around the site at the appropriate time. It would seem to me that it may be necessary to ensure that the notice is displayed either for a longer period or for a period during which the normal season operates. One is concerned here not only with leisure caravans but with caravans used on a more permanent or residential basis.
Regarding the deeper points which the noble Lord, Lord Wakefield of Kendal, has raised, surely these do not come into the area of this Amendment. These are points which we raised outside the notification of the pitch users as to what is to be levied by the site operator and which go more into the general realms of the fairness and apportionment of the whole assessment breakdown. The noble Lord is quite right. Some pitches are more valuable than others, some caravans are more valuable, and at some stage—or it might have been in conversation with the noble Baroness—I
1472
intimated that some site owners may very well have a letting clause prohibiting a particular type of van on the site.
It may well be that, in order to get his rate more evenly distributed, he insists on a particular type of van being put on the site, one which may be outside the normal paying ability of his customer over the past five, six or seven years. He may specify that a particular van may be on the site for only a particular time; he may specify that the van may be purchased only through himself. He may do all sorts of things to enhance the pitch value which enables him to spread that amount of rate. I quite accept that these are not points which are taken care of in this Amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Wakefield, has raised them and I feel obliged to join with him in seeking clarification at some time on these points.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, I wish to refer to Amendment No. 11, the Scottish equivalent which the noble Baroness suggested for convenience should be discussed with Amendment No. 4. I am very conscious that the noble Baroness has undertaken the task of piloting Scottish as well as English legislation through your Lordships' House, because half of this Bill refers to the situation in Scotland. Amendment No. 11 is the Scottish new clause equivalent to Amendment No. 4. I appreciate the care which the noble Baroness has taken in dealing with the Scottish part of the Bill and I hope that the Scottish Office Ministers are grateful to her for what she has been doing.
As regards Amendment No. 11, I have been able to have only a few hours of consultation with those concerned in Scotland, but I understand that the Assessors Association has been in touch with the Scottish Office about this. They were a little surprised by the wording of paragraphs (a) and (b) and it might help those concerned if I said now what they would prefer in that part of the new clause. Instead of paragraph (a) they would prefer the wording:
"…the number of pitches at present separately entered in the 1975–76 valuation roll and the cumulo rateable value of those pitches"
I do not know whether the word "cumulo" appears in English legislation, but I am quite used to it in Scottish

1473
legislation. I think it might be helpful for those who are looking at the record of this Report stage to know that that is the suggestion, otherwise the clause is one which they expected and which I agree with my noble friends should be added to the Bill. These points can be considered in detail and no doubt will be considered at Committee stage in another place.
I have had the opportunity of making one point which officials and Ministers might be able to consider before that stage is reached. I am well aware that the Government are trying to get the Bill through quickly, because they want to meet a deadline and the Third Reading will probably come quite soon, and therefore these points must be left to another place.
6.9 p.m.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, if I may, I will deal with the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Wakefield of Kendal, which are slightly outside this clause. It is better to clear up the point about the present assessment and the appeals against them. I can only repeat what I said on Second Reading: it would be quite wrong to make the Bill retrospective to 1975/76. It follows from that that the appeals must be allowed to go forward, so that people pay no more or no less than the proper amount. This does not mean that every one of the appeals will go to hearing. Ordinarily only a very small proportion get as far as a court hearing because settlements between the valuation officers and the appellants are reached beforehand. We would expect the same to happen on these appeals. Moreover, given the change that is being brought about by the Bill, there will probably be a greater disposition on both sides to reach a settlement, so I do not think that the noble Lord need worry on that point. Everybody is aware that we are going into a new situation and, as I understand it, there is likely to be give and take on both sides.
On the clause itself, I can appreciate the points which noble Lords have raised. The noble Lord, Lord Elton, asked how people will know that the assessment has taken place. There are many ways. First, the people who are most interested in the Bill will be caravanners and site operators themselves. It will be reported
1474
and they will know about it. They will also know through the various associations and they will also be able to find out, once they know that a Bill has been passed, by writing to the locality. They will then be told what is the procedure.
The noble Lord raised the point of the length of time during which the notice will be displayed. It will be up for four months.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, I believe that the noble Baroness has misunderstood me. I was wondering how long the liability of supplying information to the caravanners (rendering him liable to a line of £50 if he does not discharge it) will rest upon the site operator. As I said, this is a Committee point and I do not wish to make much of it but, technically, the chap could be written to three years after the reassessment and still be required to deliver it. However, it is not a matter which need detain the House at this moment.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I believe I can answer that point straight off without a lawyer at my elbow. As the provision applies only to the first year, it would not make any sense for anybody to write to the site operator after that season. The point which I should like to clear up in order to place it on the record relates to the four months. We could have made the time longer but, since it will not go up until the assessment which is usually finalised in about April and since the operator is then given a month, that brings the start to about May. As the season generally finishes around September we felt that it would be unfair to put the operator in a position of committing an offence at a time when it was really no longer necessary to have the notice up because nobody was there.
The noble Lord, Lord Elton, and the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, raised questions regarding the fact that some pitches were more valuable than others and about possible feelings of injustice. I am grateful for the welcome given by noble Lords to this new clause, but I would point out that differences apply now in any case. If one is on a better site, one will be charged more and, since the site charges already include a variety of things, this will be just another ingredient. I was quite frank with noble Lords when I said that because of the

1475
difficulties all round it was rather a rough yardstick, but the clause will ensure that a firm indication is given to the caravanners, who will know whether their charges seem to have gone up disproportionately, and the site operator will be covered because he will be able to show something when, if necessary, he has to put the charge up.
As regards the differences between pitches and the differences in charges, the principle will be exactly the same as that which is operating at the present time. I believe that this is a question of disagreement and dispute. We cannot, in this Bill, bring in a question of methods of arbitration because the site operator, for the purposes of the Bill, is the ratepayer anyhow and he will distribute the rate. There are all sorts of ways in which people can express themselves. I am sure that there must be caravanners' site associations, like tenants' associations; we have a great deal of investigative newspaper reporting which takes up this type of case; and, no doubt, if anyone steps out of line as in some of the examples given by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, people will write to That's Life and we shall have Esther Rantzen bringing shame on the heads of the operators and justice to the people concerned.
Regarding the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, about Scotland, I understand that the Scottish Assessors' Association spokesman did not at all disagree with the new clause when he was hastily consulted. However, I have no doubt that the noble Lord's view will be taken into account in another place and that his suggestion will be looked at. Taking a terrible jump into Scottish waters with my eyes shut and my fingers in my ears, I suggest that it sounded as if the noble Lord was trying to bring this back to the previous year's level rather than basing it on a forward proposal. However, I feel that he is quite right and I do not intend to delve into the matter any further. I shall leave it to be dealt with in another place.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2 [Valuation and rating of caravan sites in Scotland]:
Baroness BIRK Baroness BIRK moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 3, line 18, at end insert—
("( ) Any alteration in the valuation roll under subsection (1) above shall have effect as from the beginning of the year in which the alteration is made or as from the date on which the caravan site becomes a site to which this Act applies, whichever is the later.")
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the Amendment covers the special case of the site which comes within the scope of the Bill after 1st April 1976 by making the valuation roll alteration effective from the date on which the site becomes liable to comprehensive assessment. I feel that I should reassure the House that there is no element of retrospection and that these timing rules are closely related to those which apply to other classes of property. I am sure that noble Lords who are interested—especially the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy—are very well versed in the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1975 and will be very clear as to what I am talking about.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, what I said just now about the care which the noble Baroness has taken in dealing with Clause 2 referred to this and subsequent Amendments because, following our debate a week ago, it was clear that the noble Baroness and her advisers had decided that some changes and additions should be made to the Scottish part of the Bill. We have no reason to dissent from the present Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
6.18 p.m.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, Amendment No. 6 is an Amendment which I moved at the Committee stage and to which the Government indicated that they would give attention. I thought it sounded as though it might be acceptable and I put it down again in the hope that the Government would accept it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved —
Page 3, line 25, leave out ("(and any area comprising it)").—(Lord Campbell of Croy.)
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I am very happy to accept the Amendment and to say that not only are the words unnecessary but that, on looking again at the provision, it appeared that they added

1477
confusion. We appear to have enough of that without adding to it gratuitously, so I am grateful to the noble Lord for drawing the point to our attention and I accept the Amendment.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, may I thank the noble Baroness for accepting the Amendment which, as she said, will help to make the Bill clearer?
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 7, to which I spoke when dealing with an earlier Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 27, leave out ("in any case where") and insert ("if, but only if,"). —(Baroness Birk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Baroness BIRK Baroness BIRK moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 3, line 38, leave out from ("if") to the end of line 40 and insert—

(" a) the references to the rateable value to be determined thereunder and to the occupier of the premises were references respectively to the rateable value of all the said pitches as a single sum and to the site operator;

(b) the words "gross annual value and" were omitted.

")
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Clause 2(1) of the Bill calls for valuation direct to net annual value and not, as is usual for non-industrial premises, a gross annual value which is subject to a statutory deduction. The Amendment ensures that Section 7(4) will not call for the determination of a gross annual value which in the context of these caravan sites would, I am sure noble Lords, will agree, be quite meaningless. The Amendment also removes the need to notify to individual caravanners details of any determination of rateable value. It is only the site operator who has an interest in knowing how much of the assessment will enjoy the domestic poundage reduction. In short, this links up with the ascertainment of domestic element which is determined in gross terms in Scotland and which would be quite unsuitable for this Bill. I beg to move.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, this appears to have been an
1478
improvement to the Bill, which we commend to the House.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Baroness BIRK Baroness BIRK moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 3, line 43, leave out from ("(1)") to end of line 44 and insert—

("(a) after the word "effect" there were inserted the word "a)";

(b) after the words "so included" there were inserted the words "or

(b) that lands and heritages consisting of a pitch for a caravan have been treated as part of a single unit of lands and heritages by virtue of section 2(1) of the Rating (Caravan Sites) Act 1976 and ought to be separately entered in such valuation roll; ".")

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, subsection (7) is a protection to the individual caravanner. The Bill requires the assessor to make a comprehensive assessment on the site and leisure caravan pitches together, but the assessor might be mistaken in his view of a particular caravan and pitch, or the caravanner simply may not agree with him. Subsection (7) affirms the right of the caravanner to complain—to the courts if necessary—about the omission from the valuation roll of his caravan as a separate entry in its own right. He might wish to do this if, for example, the absence of a separate entry made it difficult to pursue a claim for rate rebate.
The Scottish Assessors' Association has pointed out that subsection (7) is drafted so widely that the extended right of complaint which it affords may have unintended and undesirable effects on property other than caravans, and it is in order to make the desired limitation that I am moving this Amendment. I beg to move.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, again this is an Amendment which is welcome to the Scottish clause, and I commend it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
6.23 p.m.
Baroness BIRK Baroness BIRK moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 4, line 9, at end insert—
("( ) In this section "rate" includes a domestic water rate and "rateing" shall be construed accordingly".)
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment to make

1479
clear that the provision of Clause 2 will apply to the levying of any domestic water rate which may be payable on caravan sites, as well as to regional, district and general rates. This applies only to Scotland where water supply is the responsibility of the regional councils and the islands councils and their net expenditure on water supply is met partly out of the ordinary rate. Domestic water rate is calculated on the net annual value of the premises. This rate is payable by most occupiers of premises supplied with water for domestic purposes by the water authority, but for some people the supply is metered and they pay according to the water consumed.
Caravan sites will, in general, have metered supplies and will therefore be exempt from domestic water rate; but in any case where supplies to a caravan site are not metered, domestic water rate will be payable and will have to be based on the valuation of the caravan site as a unit in the occupation of the site operator, provided for under Clause 2. The Amendment now makes it clear that this is what is intended. I beg to move.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, it is necessary to have an Amendment of this kind and I am sure that the Government were right to put it in. Again, it illustrates how different the system is, as the noble Baroness has described it, in Scotland from that in England. I should like to take the opportunity of this last Amendment on the Scottish Part of the Bill to say that because of the short time between the Committee and Report stages—and we understand the reason for that; namely, that the Government wished to get the Bill through quickly—it has not been possible for me to receive in time all the comments I should have liked in consultation, following an examination of Hansard of the Committee stage a week ago. I received some points only today, when it was too late to put down Amendments. I think that it would be helpful if I gave notice, bearing in mind that the Third Reading will be quite soon, I understand, that I will not try to put down Amendments on Third Reading, because that would give very little time for your Lordships' House. However, there will be two or three points which will be found to come up in another
1480
place on the Scottish Part of the Bill, and I hope that the noble Baroness and those who advise her on the Scottish clause will be glad to have this notice that I myself do not intend to put down these Amendments for consideration at Third Reading.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, as we leave the Scottish part of the Bill I should say that at the Committee stage the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, and myself were of one mind on one point. I was concerned, as he was, to prevent the Bill from affecting the caravanner who is disabled. While we have covered this point for England and Wales, we have not yet covered it for Scotland. I said that I would hope to bring forward an Amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell, will probably be aware that your Lordships' House in its Judicial capacity considered the case of Mr. Vandyk, which turned on this very question of the rating position of structures for a disabled person. This happened very recently and was a matter of extreme complexity. Unfortunately, in the time available I have not been able to table a suitable Amendment but I hope that I shall be able to bring one forward on Third Reading. I think the noble Lord will agree that if we can bring it forward there will not be much dispute, and I hope that it will be fairly straightforward.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down. I wish to say that I was aware of that fact. I have here an extract from The Times recording the case of the disabled person concerned. I understood that, in the light of that, the Government would not have been able to take action in time for today. I am glad that the noble Baroness has taken this opportunity of making that clear.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 11, to which I spoke when dealing with an earlier Amendment.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 2 insert the following new clause—
Information for caravanners about rating of caravan sites mentioned in section 2
.—(1) Where the assessor alters the valuation roll under section 2(1) above, he shall

1481
send to the site operator, along with the notice which he is required to send to the site operator under section 3(2) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1975, a statement of the number of pitches for leisure caravans which he has included in the single unit of lands and heritages by virtue of the said section 2(1).
(2) On receipt of a notice under subsection (1) above the site operator shall display on the site a notice stating—

(a) the number of pitches included in the said single unit, and the rateable value of that unit; and

(b) the rate in the pound at which rates are levied in respect of that unit.

(3) The notice required by subsection (2) above shall be displayed at some conspicuous place where it is likely to attract the attention of persons occupying pitches for leisure caravans which are included in the said single unit and shall be kept displayed for not less than four months.
(4) If so requested by a person occupying any such pitch as aforesaid at the time when the valuation roll is altered under section 2(1) above, the site operator shall give him in writing the information required by subsection (2) above to be given by the notice under that subsection.
(5) If a site operator fails without reasonable excuse to display and keep displayed a notice as required by subsections (2) and (3) above, or to give information to a person as required by subsection (4) above after a written request from that person, he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £50.—(Baroness Birk.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 3 [Interpretation and application]:
Baroness BIRK Baroness BIRK moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 4, line 16, after ("if") insert ("paragraph 4 and").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, with the permission of the House I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 12 and 13 together because they are linked. The purposes of these Amendments are to include within the provisions of the Bill additionally those sites which may be exempted from holding a site licence under the terms of paragraph 4 of Schedule 1 to the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960. These are sites which are used by an organisation for the purposes of recreation, and are both occupied and supervised by that organisation. Those who have gained such an exemption include such bodies as the Boy Scouts and Girl Guides, and the Caravan Club. As noble Lords will
1482
probably recall, these Amendments were originally moved, in a slightly different form, in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, and I undertook then to bring them back as Government Amendments. I beg to move.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, I must again thank the noble Baroness for having put down the Amendment which I tabled at the Committee stage—No. 12. I am grateful to her for having looked into this question and reached agreement.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 13 formally.
Amendment moved —
Page 4, line 17, after ("exemption") insert ("of certain land occupied and supervised by organisations concerned with recreational activities and").—(Baroness Birk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

EEC: EIGHTH AND FIFTEENTH REPORTS ON AGRICULTURE
6.30 p.m.
Lord RAGLAN Lord RAGLAN rose to move, That this House takes note of the Fifteenth Report of the European Communities Committee on the EEC Farm Prices Review 1976–77 and on High Yielding Wheats (R/2020/75 and R/2021/75), and on Marketing of Agricultural Products (R/2157/75), and the Eighth Report on Milk Fats (R/1944/75 and R/1991/75). The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. In introducing these Reports I want first to pay tribute to members of your Lordships' Sub-Committee D. We are, I am sure, getting better at coping with a steady stream of proposed regulations from Brussels, but they are often so fast-moving, and touch upon so many different specific problems about which the Committee has to obtain quick and detailed knowledge, that at times we have been boggled (I should say that I am speaking for myself) with the volume of evidence, and occasionally puzzled by the complexity of the issues. That this is not in the end shown in our Reports is due to the fact that the members of the Committee have given generously of their time, even at short notice, arid, undismayed, have continually risen to the challenge.
I should also like to thank your Lordships' small and hard-worked secretariat for all their help and guidance, and offer my own special thanks to our specialist adviser, Professor Josling, whose vast knowledge of agricultural economics and of the working of the Common Agricultural Policy has been invaluable to us. I am also most grateful for the co-operation which we have had from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, who, often under difficulties, bring out their translations and explanatory memoranda very quickly and in good, comprehensible English. I think that in our turn, both in our Reports and in our taking of evidence from diverse organisations and specialists, we have been of help to them. In all our activities we feel the presence of the chairman of the Select Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Tweedsmuir. We who work with her marvel at what she gets through, and are continually filled with admiration for her sure and sympathetic touch.
My Lords, the first part of the Fifteenth Report, which is before your Lordships, contains our comments on this year's EEC farm price proposals. There are two main points to which I wish to advert here. The first is the 1 million or so tons of surplus skimmed milk powder, which is also referred to in our Eighth Report. I am certain that we should always plan for a surplus of agricultural production, and many times in past debates I have declared as much. This is our insurance against lean years. If it were all left to the law of supply and demand, we would be very erratically provided for, with prices sky-high one year and absurdly low the next. Agricultural produce is particularly sensitive to market supply, mainly because it is so bulky and perishable. A small surplus, and nobody wants it: a small shortage, or threat of a shortage, and prices rise beyond all reason. The market must be managed for a surplus to prevent producers going broke one year and consumers going without the next and in an organisation which is as large as the Community, what appears to be a huge surplus can in fact represent only a tiny proportion of total production. So it is important that we always keep this surplus in perspective.
In the case of skimmed milk powder, however, the 1 million tons or so surplus represents a large proportion of production. This is quite unofficial, but using my own mathematics applied to available figures, I reckon that the 1 million tons surplus of skimmed milk powder, which is a cumulative total over several years, represents 4 per cent., perhaps 5 per cent., of total Community production of liquid milk over these years, which is too large. Dried milk skim is often, of course, termed a by-product of butter and cheese production. I think it would be better called a co-product; but the fact is that there is a surplus of butter, and for that reason the Commission has been pressing us to abrogate our contractual treaty with New Zealand for the importation of butter—and we refer to that in paragraph 5. My guess that the Community is now producing 4 per cent. or 5 per cent. too much milk appears to be confirmed by the figures of Community liquid milk consumption, which has dropped by about 4 per cent. this year. That is a verified figure. The Commission is trying to tackle this surplus by all sorts of means, like school milk subsidies and exporting dried milk, and under its new principle of consumer co-responsibility which was propounded in May last year it is insisting that animal feed should contain a proportion of dried milk.
Now, though, as an extraordinary measure, and lumped in at the last minute with these price proposals, is a proposition which the Committee believe to be quite unworkable and which we refer to in paragraph 7. It is to deter smaller farms—and "smaller farms" we calculate to be those which have 29 cows or less—from delivering milk which they produce. The Committee believe that the best answer to the reduction in milk consumption is to promote the sales of liquid milk, which has been done very successfully in this country by the Milk Marketing Board and which it seems to us could be done in other EEC countries if the producers were better organised.
My Lords, the only other matter in this first part of the Report which I think I have time to speak to at the moment is that of the beef premia, which is referred to in paragraph 9. It is, of course, in the interests both of producers and of consumers that beef producers are assured

1485
against market collapse. Much pressure has been put on our Minister to abandon the system of premia which we obtained in 1973 after prices dropped disastrously owing to the relatively insensitive working of the intervention system. The Commission thinks that because the market is now firm the use of intervention is unlikely; but, if intervention is unlikely, why, we ask, abolish the premia, which at present are costing nothing and yet remain as an assurance against another possible and unpredictable collapse of confidence? I hope your Lordships will give your support to our Minister in Brussels in his efforts to retain the beef premia system.
One more point which I think will be of particular interest is that we are, as your Lordships know, taking another transitional step this year to align our prices with the rest of the EEC. I am told that its implications have been swallowed up in greater rises and other inflations, and the estimated effect of both this and last year's transitional steps will be adding only 1 per cent. to consumer prices. For those of your Lordships who may be confused by the Community jargon such as "guide price", "reference price", "support price", "intervention price" and so on, may I commend the minutes of evidence taken from Mr. Williamson, of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and published as an appendix? At the beginning of his evidence your Lordships will find what amounts to a glossary of these terms given, as I may say was the whole of Mr. Williamson's evidence, very clearly and concisely.
With regard to the next Report on marketing proposals, the Committee have taken a lot of evidence and have questioned at length the head of the Central Council for Agricultural Co-operation, Mr. John Morley. This is a very big subject. It is fundamental to the whole structure of a Common Agricultural Policy and we feel at the moment that the Committee can only comment generally on the proposals. Some of them relate to the financial control of the budget, about which the Committee will be taking more evidence at a later date. I should like to endorse the Committee's commendation of the admirable document on Community marketing by Mr. Ralph Howell, MP, which shows what
1486
a long way the Community has to go in this respect.
Our Report on wheat suitable for breadmaking reduces the complicated problem to the simplest terms possible, but those of your Lordships who are interested in the subject will be greatly helped by reading the evidence beginning at page 29. At first, one could not imagine that such a prosaic subject could be so fascinating; but it reads like a detective story—and our solution is to be found at the foot of page 11and at the top of page 12 of our Report. Our commendation has been conveyed to the Agricultural Commissioner Mr. Lardinois by my noble friend Lord Walston who is a member of our Committee. Our conclusion is nearly the same as that which was reached by the Commission itself except that the Sub-Committee are recommending that wheat used for breadmaking should be allowed to command its own premium in the market, without a reference price or other kinds of support prices, rather in the way that malting barley does at the present time.
We learned that countries had very different ideas on what types of wheat were suitable for making bread. British-type bread is not made from the same kind of wheat as French-type bread. Moreover, one variety—for example, the famous Mans Huntsman—sometimes produces samples suitable for making British-type bread and sometimes, when grown in other areas under different conditions, it does not produce the right kind of grain. We found that there was no quick test which would detect the difference. In other words, for breadmaking wheat there are differences of criteria throughout the Community and difficulties of testing against these criteria. It is the opinion of the Committee that if the intervention price of wheat were lowered to reduce the risk of a surplus expensively bought, various agencies would, or should, combine to initiate a scheme to promote more orderly marketing of wheat suitable for breadmaking, including the setting of adequate premia.
In this country the Home Grown Cereal Authority are on their way to designing such a scheme. If they can get going, it would be helpful to the balance of payments of this country with North America. Working against the inclusion of more homegrown grain in home-made

1487
bread in the United Kingdom, is not only this lack of homogeneity in homegrown lots, of which we heard evidence, but the fact that since the milling trade has grown up on the use of imported grain, the mills are themselves concentrated at the ports and it is simply much more convenient for the millers to import shiploads of suitable grain than to fiddle about with a multiplicity of homegrown lots, relatively small ones, on offer at home. If the Home Grown Cereal Authority can encourage an orderly home market, producing what the millers require, it seems to me that they would be performing a very valuable function. One last point impressed on us from the evidence submitted is that if in future any new grain régime is instituted by the EEC, we must be mindful of the people who grow and market the seed required as they cannot switch from growing one variety to growing another in under about two years.
My Lords, not least of the benefits which have accrued from the establishment of the Sub-Committee is that there are now a number of Peers who are kept exceptionally well informed about the Common Agricultural Policy and about what goes on in Brussels. Certainly, I, myself, am very conscious of continuously being educated in all sorts of agricultural matters. In turn, there are two short but important observations which I wish to make on the working of the system, of which we have been made particularly aware as a Committee. We have the opportunity of scrutinising the price proposals before they are decided, which Parliament never had the chance to do in years gone by under the old British system; under the EEC we have a more open type of government. But it would greatly help effective scrutiny if fewer proposals were rushed through and if they were not bunched together as they sometimes are. We, as a Committee, had very little time to consider price proposals and have done as well as we have only because our specialist adviser managed to get hold of half a copy of the French version. The English language translation, in spite of supreme efforts by our own Ministry, came out a whole month after the French. It seems to us, in conclusion, that, granted that the CAP is a very complicated thing to run, it could do with some oil applied
1488
to the machinery in certain places. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That this House takes note of the Fifteenth Report of the European Communities Committee on the EEC Farm Prices Review 1976–77 and on High Yielding Wheats (R/2020/75 and R/2021/75), and on Marketing of Agricultural Products (R/2157/75), and the Eighth Report on Milk Fats (R /1944/ 75 and R/1991/75).—(Lord Raglan.)
6.48 p.m.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, I think that the House owes the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, a great debt of gratitude for introducing this debate this afternoon with such enormous skill. It reflects not only the skill of his Committee but the great expertise developed over the last two years by the noble Baroness, Lady Tweedsmuir, and her colleagues in digesting the volume and complexity of European Community regulations and proposals. To follow what the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, has said in regard to the production of documents, I should like first to reinforce what he said in going over the timetable, because your Lordships may not be aware that the proposals on price levels for CAP products—the English document R/166/75—were published only on 13th January. The document came to Westminster on 16th January. It is before us today, will be debated in another place next week, I believe, and it will be debated in the European Parliament on 10th February. It will be discussed in the Council of Ministers between the 16th and 18th February, and their resolution will be published around the 19th or 20th of this month. This is a helter-skelter programme and it is, we are told, necessary; nevertheless, I think it is most commendable that the scrutiny has been carried out with such skill and expertise by the Committee of your Lordships' House under such very great pressures of time and lack of documentation.
My Lords, this is inevitably a two-stage review. So far as the products not subject to CAP are concerned—that is, potatoes, wool, et cetera—there will be a British Price Review around 14th and 15th February. For the products with which we are concerned in the discussion today publication will be around 19th or 20th February.

1489
The noble Lord, Lord Raglan, referred to the beef premia, and suggested your Lordships should support the Minister. I am sure your Lordships are of one mind about this, and perhaps I could quote Sir Henry Plumb of the National Farmers' Union in what he said in answer to the question:
"Why do you support the Minister in his efforts to keep variable premiums?"
Sir Henry Plumb replied:
"I think their workability and flexibility have been demonstrated in the United Kingdom in the past year, and that they have played a central part in restoring confidence in the meat sector".
Could you have a more direct statement of confidence in what the Minister is doing at the present moment regarding the beef premia?
So far as prices are concerned, we are under some difficulty here. COPA (the co-operative organisation of European farmers) recommended rises of 10 per cent. at least; but we have the following target prices (and I regret I have to quote some percentages): wheat, a rise of 9.5 per cent.; barley, a rise of 9 per cent.; sugar, a rise of 8 per cent.; milk, a two-stage rise of 2 per cent. and 4.5 per cent.; beef, a rise of 8 per cent.; and pig meat, a rise of 8.5 per cent. It does not measure up in the present prices to anything like what the COPA hoped it would.
Perhaps the most useful role of this debate is that it provides the opportunity to stocktake the Government's own White Paper Food from our own Resources (Cmnd. 6020) as published last April. Paragraph 50 gives the "projection of higher output by 1980"giving a pattern of continuous growth of the agriculture industry of about 2½ per cent. per year, and Table 2 on page 15 of the White Paper refers to this paragraph. But what is the harsh reality? Total agricultural production— as your Lordships may be only too well aware—has fallen by about 6 per cent. or 7 per cent. It is difficult to determine to what extent the wet spring of 1975—which prevented timely drilling—and the hot summer—which created fodder problems and reduced yields—contributed towards this. However, one is at the same time well aware that the exceptionally mild autumn helped to ease the fodder situation and greatly helped in the problem regarding stock.
1490
In paragraph 23 of the White Paper we read:
"If farmers are to invest in expansion, they need a degree of assurance about their future returns."
What do we find, my Lords? In the year 30thSeptember 1974 to 30th September 1975, there was a 41 per cent. decline in the number of applications for capital grants, representing a substantial drop in investment in fixed equipment. We may attribute this to various causes: one would clearly be the lack of confidence; another, almost certainly the delay factor in the handling of applications, and the rate of inflation running at a higher rate than the grant. As your Lordships will remember, the rate of the grant on fixed equipment was reduced to about 20 per cent., and this was no doubt reflected in the lack of interest which farmers have shown.
But to come to the nub of the matter, the lack of expansion in agriculture may be set towards a cleavage in the Government's mind between their desire—which we heartily endorse—to improve farm production, and their equal and opposite desire, through their fiscal policies, to extract cash. These are two so diametrically opposite desires, although at least to some extent outside the precise wording of these documents we have before us, that we must lay some stress upon them. This really lies at the heart of the dilemma of the industry. The NFU policy on this is quite simple. They have said:
"The taxes we pay must be related fairly to what we earn. They must not destroy our productive assets or our earning potential".
Could there be a fairer point of view?
There is no doubt that this is going to continue until such time as the Government issue their proposals regarding wealth tax. There will not be the degree of investment which the industry needs until we know what is to be proposed. At the same time, the Government's proposals on capital transfer tax have made a real difference to farmers in what they consider to be the likely future for the next 10 to 15 years. The centre of so many difficulties of individual farmers is how they see the world in 1985–86, rather than simply in terms of this year's production.
My Lords, I am not going to make a long speech because my noble friend Lord

1491
Vernon is a much better versed member of the Agricultural Committee than I. It is an important factor that no less than three members of the Scrutiny Committee are contributing in this debate. I note that the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, has beside him a prodigious pile of documents. While I hope this does not suggest he is going to make an excessively long speech, it indicates the amount of paper that we are attempting to consider. My Lords, I commend the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, brought this issue before us; it is timely that he should have done so.
6.58 p.m.
Lord MACKIE of BENSHIE: My Lords, although I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, has said about the taxation factor, I am going to confine myself to the job I greatly enjoyed, the scrutiny of the papers and proposals coming out of the Commission under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, and the close supervision of the noble Baroness, Lady Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie. It has been extremely interesting and rather complicated. I see signs of sense appearing in some of the documents which we received, and the Committee have striven to introduce some simplicity into our thinking which has been transmitted to Brussels. This may be because we are simple people; but these matters needed simplifying.
Regarding the proposals for wheat, we thought a great many complications were entirely unnecessary; we thought a lot of political angles had entered into the proposals from the Commission for a separate set of premia regarding wheat for bread-making. We thought the traditional French regard for the "noble grain", which they held above everything else, had come into the matter. Therefore we had a good, hard look and we listened to a great deal of evidence, as the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, said. Eventually we came out with the sensible suggestion that we could not do anything to stop farmers from growing the new wheat which could produce some very large quantities of grain required in this country for feeding animals, if it was not suitable for feeding to humans in the form of bread. And we noted that our millers who used to bring in the grain straight from the prairies, the
1492
No. 1 Manitobas and so on. were willing to pay a very large premium for this.
It was quite obvious that since the war, as techniques improved, they have been using more and more home-grown wheat and this was saving them a great deal of money—because on one particular day the chairman of the Committee and I looked at the price of No. 1 Manitobas, and it was £96 a tonne, whereas the price of home-grown wheat was £67, or some such figure. We thought that if they could do that for wheat off the plains of Canada they could do that for more suitable home-grown wheat and still save themselves a great deal of money. The simplicity of putting in a bottom price and leaving it to the market to pay the premium, we regarded as right and proper, and there is every sign that the Commission are thinking the same way. As a pointer to the common sense of this view, I can say that Maris Huntsman—your Lordships may not know the name —is one of the new wheats of which many farmers are growing four tonnes an acre in this country today—and a very good crop in the past has been considered to be three tonnes. So this proposal is excellent and can save a great deal of money in imports to this country.
Referring to the Price Review, I should like to talk about the price of milk. It appears that as a result of their stocktaking the Common Market have started a review of the whole of the Common Agricultural Policy and to look at prices in relation not only to supply and demand in the Market but also to the competence of a number of farms to which they refer. This appears to us to be sensible, but we do not think that the process has gone very far. It is very curious that although the rate of increase in the price of milk has been lowered in the CAP proposals, it is going up a bit in spite of the fact that it is the commodity most in surplus in the Community at the present time.
We think that the Commission must now begin to think in terms of using the price mechanism where a commodity is in too great a surplus. But in saying this, we also appreciate that there must be a surplus if we are to avoid the situation we have today in this country regarding the potato. If you want to have level prices you must pay for a surplus; and, as I have said many times, that surplus

1493
is not too expensive. The whole of the Commission's budget for the support of agriculture is £2,500 million, and we ourselves in this country at the end of the war, when the pound was worth a great deal more, were spending nearly £500 million in subsidies for food in these Islands alone. So I do not think we should get this out of perspective.
The rate of increase in the countries of the Six is disguised in this country because of the "green pound", or by the deliberate reduction of our prices because of the rate of exchange as against the unit of account. I think that as regards milk we must be very careful over Community legislation. The noble Lord, Lord Raglan, has already referred to the regulation and the offer of help to farmers who might well have up to 29 cows and may go out of business—an offer that could go up to £6,000 as a bribe to go out of business. At the present moment we are getting a distortion between the main countries of Europe and this country. In fact, we are a much more suitable dairying country and our farmers are getting something like 10 per cent. less for their milk, and the Continent is going to rise again. Therefore we must be very careful to reject this proposal applying to this country. My noble friend Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran is particularly perturbed at the effect of this on the small farmers in Wales who are producing milk very efficiently from 30 cows. If they were to go out of business he thinks it would be very upsetting for the whole economy. Our recommendation there is, I think, very sound; and the sooner we are on all-square terms with the rest of Europe on pricing the sooner' we shall achieve one of the objectives of the Community—that is, the production of food where it is most suitably achieved, in the case of milk.
I do not wish to prolong my speech unduly, but there is one important point which goes far beyond the specific proposals which are before us for the improvement of marketing and processing. There is a long document, and a very large number of comments upon it. These proposals are made by the Commission for the improvement of marketing and processing, and in the main they set out a number of criteria which simply express a very wide range of methods for obtaining grants and they set out a number of other conditions, one of
1494
which is that approval and a grant must be obtained from the member country. It goes on at great length and contains a number of very interesting things. I should like to refer at this point to the grave danger of appalling and increasing bureaucracy. I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, that the reason why I have brought such a great pile of documents with me is not that I wish to speak about all of them, but I should like your Lordships to observe that this is the amount of literature I have accumulated in three months on one Sub-Committee of your Lordships' House, examining EEC regulations. I have spent my life on various committees, and never before has such a glorious accumulation of "bumf" come my way. I think a great deal of money is being wasted because of this.
I have friends who have received FEOGA grants for improvements in Scotland, and they have been very glad to get them; but they have regarded them as a bonus. They have made their plans for an improvement or project, applied for grants and got permission here, and then applied to the EEC. All their financing plans were done in the hope of getting the EEC grant, although they did not care whether or not they got the grant. But, of course, they liked it if they got it.
There are many things wrong with the present set-up, and one of them is the amount of time involved. I should like to read from Article 13 of the Proposals, which says:
"Applications for aid from the farm shall be submitted to the Commission each year before the 1st October. The Commission shall decide on the merits of such applications before the 31st December the following year."
This is not planning. How can you plan for this amount of time before you decide on a project? It can only be a bonus with that sort of nonsense going on. I think that, as a major item of policy, this country should try to put the view that the Commission in Brussels should be a sort of "Monty's caravan headquarters" and not the source of money and grants or a place where we are creating an enormous bureaucracy.
Our own Ministry of Agriculture is rather efficient, and I see no reason why the administration of policy decisions taken in Brussels should not be supervised by our own competent civil servants in

1495
this country, because at the present moment the FEOGA grants are a bonus and they are not helping production one little bit. That is the major point which I am contributing to this discussion, as a member of this Committee. It is a point far beyond our remit, but it deserves the attention of this House.
7.10 p.m.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: My Lords, the House is indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, for introducing this Motion. Certainly, I am indebted to all the speakers who are practising farming and know what they are talking about. But at last, thank Heaven!, people are beginning to realise that some of us who pointed to the bureaucracy before we went into the Common Market, and some of us who had been to Brussels 10 or 11 times to try to understand, had foreseen the difficulties. The noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, paid tribute to our Ministry of Agriculture. I think the work of that Ministry stands out as some of the best in the world, and I truly believe that, whatever the criticism of small farmers and others.
I had the privilege for 26 or 27 years of representing a constituency with 3,000 small farms. They were marginal, up on the contour line and, on average, were at about 600 ft. It is a little ambiguous talking about the "small farmer", because many of them have the stature of the noble Lord, Lord Mackie. They were not small by any means, but their acreage was small. They really worked and earned what money they got, as I knew because I saw many of their bank accounts when I went to their aid.
I am sorry that this debate is so late, but because of that I will try to spoke-shave my speech and make it not too long. I also want to pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, who is helping us more and more to understand the operations—I was going to use the ugly word "machinations", but that would not be fair—at Brussels. I thank her for the Reports from these Committees, which I try to read among all the other stuff. I have given up the ghost, as regards going to the Printed Paper Office and getting the papers sent to me, because my wife threatened to leave me if the place got in a bigger mess and made more work for the poor girl who
1496
comes in to clean up. I reached the point where I had more of these papers during the Christmas period than I had letters and cards.
I said that jocularly, but the documentation is beyond human endurance to follow. It is the apotheosis of bureaucracy and, with that and the divine right of computers in the world in which we live today, the ordinary flesh and blood human being is unable to swim through the flood of material that is put before us. I think that the British Price Review was evolved, after years and years of give and take, on a non-political basis and we understood it. We have now ruined that edifice. We have the example of a farmer putting in an application in October and getting a reply 12 months or more later. There can be no planning on that basis.
I should now like to talk about something which has been my bête noire all my life. The English in this Report is pedantic and terrible. I can imagine a poor little British farmer reading this:
"The major policy change suggested for the butter market is to increase the maximum FEOGA".
When I first looked at that—and I speak Welsh among other things—I asked myself: what is FEOGA? I know what it is now, because I take the trouble to find out. It is another of these damned acronyms. I am putting this on the record. I found these words:
"FEOGA represents the French acronym for European Agriculural Guidance and Guarantee Fund."
There should be a dictionary of acronyms used in EEC Reports. They become loaded with acronyms and lose their substance.
Paragraph 7 states:
"The Commission has outlined 'a conversion plan',
I remember conversion plans when I was a small boy; we used to have evangelists, because we Welsh were always being converted—
"for 'small' dairy farms."
This does not mean conversion at all. If we are not careful, the man with a small acreage will disappear and a farmer of the magnitude of the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, who knows what he is talking about and has six strapping sons whom he is looking to start off in farming, will not be able

1497
to find any little farms. In other words, we shall have the disappearance of one of the most hardworking contributors to British agriculture. I am not weeping for him. He does not want us to weep; he is fit and strong and willing to work.
It is all very well for people to say things like that in Brussels, when they are sitting in their swivel chairs; and that is swivel chair agriculture, as opposed to speeding the plough with the flesh, blood and muscle of young men who are willing in farming to pit their understanding and strength against nature. Just as we are losing miners, we shall lose people who will develop not in universities or colleges of agriculture, but through struggling with nature, trying to bend nature to the service of man. We shall lose young men who are willing to do that in summer, in winter and in all seasons, if we follow such things as these conversion plans. I have taken six minutes so far, and I propose to take 10. But I believe that the whole machine is cumbersome.
I come now to milk expansion. Today, I cannot get an honest-to-God ice-cream cone. Sometimes I get a few kids around when I am cutting my hedges, and they offer to do it for me. I know that it will cost me ten times more in ice-cream than if I pay a man to do a proper job, but they ask whether they can help. I tried one of the ice-creams but it was nothing like they used to be. Even the food we eat, with its percentages of first class contents, is worked out by bureaucrats sitting in swivel chairs. You do not create gladiators by giving them ice-cream cones based on skimmed milk, and without the real fats and other goods that should go in. Consequently —the nation has voted, so it is my duty to try to make a "go" of it—I hope that those who know what they are talking about in agriculture will stick to their last, mixing my metaphors, and see that some common sense is put into the Common Agriculture Policy which, at the moment, is a failure.
I shall not go into the absurd story of mountains of butter, Himalayas of beef and Lake Superiors of wine, but in 1931 —and I had to struggle through that year —I saw the misery, poverty and disease. They used to pray in the churches for God to help them not to be so wicked as to waste food. We now have the econo-
1498
mists justifying the destruction of surpluses, and what do we do? I hear everybody talking about the menace of the Soviet Union, especially in supplementary questions, yet we sell the Soviet Union fresh butter, good milk and best beef cheaper than we ourselves can buy it, so as to get rid of our surpluses. How daft can mankind become? This is a fact.
I may say, "Ah, this is the Common Market struggling to find the answers". Well, this is not the way to struggle to find the answers. As somebody who always reads with interest the reports of the International Wheat Council, I was going to ask (although my noble friend on the Front Bench has been kind enough to tell me that we are not now importing any wheat from Australia) whether the reopening of the Suez Canal will do anything to cheapen agricultural prices inside the EEC, and whether it will have any effect upon them. But nothing seems to come to us through the Suez Canal these days. Finally, in the Maritime Agreement which was made despite our talks, the United States and the USSR have agreed that for six years from January 1976 one-third of the grain is to be carried in American ships to the Soviet Union at 16 dollars a tonne.
I have one small question and then I will sit down, because the 10 minutes are showing on the geiger counter! Have we in the EEC any policy about freightage for agricultural products, about shipping from overseas or about importing and exporting? Has this problem of world freightage and its cost been discussed? Apart from that, it would be remiss of me to be pontifical or didactic since I do not possess the expertise of the noble Lord, Lord Vernon, who is to follow me. All I want to do is to say that I think this debate has been worthwhile and to pay tribute to the Committee for bringing this Report to the House.
7.22 p.m.
Lord VERNON: My Lords, I am not sure that I am going to be didactic, but all of us who are interested, as I am, in the concept of European unity, with ultimately monetary union and a unified defence and foreign policy, are desperately anxious that the CAP should work, and I believe that we should play our part in

1499
trying to help that policy to work. In saying that, I go along entirely with what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, and the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, about the bureaucracy and the amount of paper which pours out of Brussels and which it is really almost impossible to digest. We are having this debate tonight—one debate—when in fact, if we were to do this properly, the amount of material could easily spill over into another two debates.
As a relative newcomer to the Community and in order to achieve the harmonisation which is the objective of the policy, I believe that sometimes we may have to make sacrifices and adapt our procedures rather more towards Community procedures than vice versa. Of course we must protect our own national interests, but we cannot expect all the regulations which come out of Brussels, which have to cater for different climates, systems and products, necessarily to be beneficial to us. We have to ensure that, in total, we get out of the CAP as fair a deal as the other eight countries, and I believe that we do.
That is one part of my thinking. The other is a belief that we as a nation should become more self-sufficient in agricultural produce. Indeed, our economic position and vulnerability to change in market prices demands this. In this respect, the United Kingdom compares very unfavourably with all the other members of the Community. An interesting table has recently been published by the Commission—it is, no doubt, in the pile of papers which was produced by the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie—and it appears at page 5 of the 1975 Report on the Agricultural Situation in the Community, R/3271/75. The table compares population levels with usable agricultural area and with percentage value of agricultural produce.
I do not wish to weary the House with figures, but may I quote the example of Germany which has a higher population density that the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom has 20 per cent. of usable land and it produces 12·4 per cent., by value, of the Community's final product. Germany, on the other hand, with 14·3 per cent. of usable land, produces 21·7 per cent. of the final production. In the case of the Benelux countries, the dis-
1500
crepancies are even more startling. Even allowing for extraneous factors such as the importation of feedingstuffs which can obviously affect the final result, the figures are, I would suggest, extremely disquieting. They demonstrate what tremendous scope there is for us to improve our agricultural performance.
Of course, the Government agree that we should become more self-sufficient, and they have said so in their White Paper to which my noble friend Lord Sandys has referred. Unfortunately, they have not, as yet, shown that they mean what they say, nor have they implemented the policy objectives which they themselves have set out. British agriculture has not been given the incentives either as regards capital—and it is a highly capital-intensive industry—or as regards end price, which is necessary to re-establish confidence. At the same time, the Government watch with equanimity while 75,000 acres a year are taken out of agriculture.
I have made this point before and I make no apology for doing so again. How many times at the Dispatch Box have not Ministers said, "Oh, well, we do not take the best quality land". What is not generally recognised is that there is very little grade 1 and grade 2 land in this country. The vast majority is grade 3, and it is grade 3 land which is taken. Yet 75,000 acres of grade 3 land could, if properly farmed, produce every year at least 150,000 tonnes of wheat—rather more on the figures given by the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie—or 50 million gallons of milk. That is the measure of what we are losing, and we are losing it out of irreplaceable capital.
To return to the question of performance, as I have said, the farmer is not going to increase his output, with all the risks involved, unless he is guaranteed a higher end price. This price is fixed partly in Brussels and partly by our own Government. Here, I should like to refer to paragraph 14 of the Fifteenth Report on the price proposals. I believe that one way in which the Government could help immediately and give a much-needed boost to British farming would be to follow the Italian example last year and revalue the so-called green pound so that it approximated closer to its real value. It is grossly inequitable that the British farmer, because of this arbitrary

1501
and artificial value of the green pound, should receive so much less for his produce than his European counterpart. I recognise that the devaluation of the green pound would involve higher prices for the consumer, but we cannot go on living indefinitely in the make-believe world of cheap food.
So far I have spoken in generalities and I shall not continue for too long, but I want to say something on the specific subject of milk. Our habits as regards milk are different from those of the other countries in the Community. Our milk is sold straight from the cow with fat content unaltered, and the vast majority of it is consumed in liquid form, the average fat content being 3.7. On the Continent, on the other hand, milk is sold with a minimum fat content of 3.5 and fat is added or taken away in order to achieve this result. The two systems, of course, have quite different objectives. Our system of distribution through the Milk Marketing Board ensures the maximum consumption of liquid milk, and in this it is extremely effective because we consume more than twice as much liquid milk as any other country in the Community, with the exception of Ireland. Perhaps it is too effective, because it means that we pour down our throats large quantities of milk and butterfat which might otherwise be used for manufacture. At the same time, we import huge quantities of butter and cheese and other dairy products.
Just consider for one moment the difference between this country and the Netherlands—a country which, incidentally, is even more densely populated than we are. In 1974 the United Kingdom imported 327 million pounds of dairy produce and exported 37 million pounds; in the same year the Netherlands imported 117 million pounds and exported 396 million pounds. The question which I suggest we should consider is not whether our system is efficient. As I have already indicated, it is very efficient for the purpose for which it was designed. The question is, can we really afford it? Do we need to drink so much liquid milk? Is the health of our children so superior to the children of other countries in the Community who drink half the milk that we do? I doubt it. Would we really notice the difference if the fat content
1502
were reduced from 3·7 to 3·5? I think that, too, would be unlikely.
I will not discuss the Commission's proposals under which each country can choose which of the two systems it adopts. The point I would ask the House and the Government to consider is whether our system is necessarily the best. The dairy trade in England seem to think so. But I understand that in Scotland opinion is divided and I tend to agree with those Scots—I hope the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, will be among them—who think that it would be more logical and in our longer-term interests to move over gradually to the continental system.
I had intended to say something about bread and wheats, but that has already been covered, so I will omit my reference to it. Finally, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, who, if I may say so, chairs our sub-Committee with so much charm and skill, for having introduced this debate and given us an opportunity to discuss these interesting matters.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: Before the echo of that neat little speech disappears in this Chamber, may I ask the noble Lord a question: would he not agree that for the British farmer the school milk and meals—particularly the school milk after the war—gave a massive increase in average height to the child, and also weight, and from the dietician's point of view it proved excellent, and was also of great benefit to the fanner? I take it, therefore, the noble Lord is not advocating that we should abandon school milk because the British schoolboy is drinking too much of it?
Lord VERNON: My Lords, I am not suggesting that at all and the Commission in Brussels are suggesting that they should adopt our system as regards school milk. I was saying that I should like to see evidence that our people as a whole are healthier as a result of the amount of liquid milk that we consume.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: I thank the noble Lord.
7.37 p.m.
Lord COLLISON: My Lords, I hope your Lordships will forgive me for getting on my feet. I did not put my name on the list because it was quite impossible for me to know when this debate would

1503
take place and whether I should be able to get here. However, now I have managed to get here I should like to make a few comments. At the outset, I should like to say that I follow the noble Lord, Lord Vernon, in his attitude towards the Commission. I have not changed my opinion about the advantages which will accrue to this country by our becoming members of the Common Market. Having said that, I recognise, as so many people do, that there are problems so far as we are concerned in relation to agriculture and our previous system of giving support to agriculture, and the system operating in the Common Market, which is largely based upon intervention.
Certainly, we have to find a solution during this interim period. I should like to place on record my personal appreciation of the very great success that my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has already achieved in this respect on the Continent. I appreciate that the conditions on the Continent are the concern of the other members of the erstwhile Six and are rather different from our own commitments and our own requirements. However, I feel sure that we shall eventually arrive at a common solution which will satisfy everyone. It may take a little time.
I should like to make a few staccato comments on the Reports before your Lordships, starting with the Fifteenth Report. On the question of milk powder, it is part of the consequence of pursuing an intervention policy that the so-called mountains of milk powder and beef and lakes of wine occur. It is the natural consequence of the policy and the Commission are seeking to find ways and means of reducing these mountains and lakes. It does not necessarily follow that what they are proposing to us will satisfy us in our own circumstances.
With regard to the milk powder, on a broader front I should like to see it made much easier for the surpluses to be exported to those countries where one finds recurrent famine. One knows what has happened in the past few years in Bangladesh, for example, and in other places. It is heart-rending, and here is this food which is virtually being stored and not being used. But the Commission are proposing certain methods of reducing this surplus of milk powder. One of them
1504
has been mentioned; that is, that we are going to be asked to put into our animal feedingstuffs 2 per cent. of milk powder.
I asked the witnesses who appeared before our Committee what this would mean in terms of feedingstuffs prices. I was told it would mean an increase of £4.l0 per ton—quite a considerable increase. The consequences will be quite wide. It is like throwing a stone into a pool; the ripples spreading out will affect the cost of all kinds of animal products, which in turn will have an effect on prices to the consumer. I thought that this point should be made. This ties up with the proposal made in the Eighth Report on the situation in the milk products market.
We considered this, and the proposal contained in this Report is that certain restrictions should be put upon the manufacture of non-milk products. The Committee were with me, I think, in the sense that I did not like this proposal. If products can be produced by the manufacturing and processing industries which are of good nutritional value, their content of milk products, or otherwise, should not be objected to. What is objectionable is that when these non-milk products are advertised people are given the impression that they are in fact milk products. I entirely agree with those who say there should be a review of the advertising and the statements placed upon the labels which are affixed to these products, so that people know what they are buying and consuming. In questioning witnesses to the Committee, this was agreed by the Milk Marketing Board, who have an interest in another direction; but this is so.
On the subject of milk, I must say that I found the proposal that there should be a conversion plan for small producers completely out of court. I must agree with my noble friend Lord Davies of Leek when he says that this would have the effect of putting out of business a large number of small producers. In this country, the small producer has had to rely upon his herd of dairy cows. This is what has kept him going. If there was a movement into this Scheme whereby payments were made based on past production, they could not go on for ever, and because of the smallness of their units they could not change over to some other form of production; so

1505
the small producer would be seriously damaged. I hope that point is properly understood, and will be properly understood by those who have to deal with this matter.
My Lords, I would now comment on the problem of beef. I regret the proposal to end the beef premiums. The farming industry has become used to the beef premiums it likes them. The premiums are equitable and work well. If they go what is the safeguard for the farmer if the market collapses? I know these proposals are based on the assumption that the beef market will firm up. One cannot be so sure, because variables in agriculture are so great and the import situation is so changeable. But if prices declined the farmer can rely only on the intervention price to help him maintain a proper income on his beef products. The danger is that, instead of reducing the beef mountain, the beef mountain would grow larger if that situation occurred. One must look closely at a proposal of this kind.
I should also like to make a comment on the proposals for improvement of marketing the reallocation of FEOGA grants to assist those Government-sponsored and Government-supported enterprises to improve the marketing of agricultural products. I entirely agree with this proposal. We do not know its precise form, and are waiting further information. But I imagine there is in this country quite a large number of co-operatives, for example, who can, and perhaps ought, to develop their own marketing machinery, who could be helped by the allocation of funds of this kind. I am also concerned with the possibility of developing agricultural experts. I am a member of the Advisory Council on Agriculture and Horticulture. On that Council, we have been intensively studying the possibilities. We have been to a number of countries in Europe. We have also been to the Commission, and discussed these possibilities. As I understand it, such a grant would be available to help the development of marketing arrangements, marketing procedures and marketing projects of this kind. I do not think this project can do any harm at all it can only do good. It is not yet finalised, and I am hoping that the further information which we need will be forthcoming fairly soon.
1506
My Lords, I turn lastly to the bread problem. I must confess that a large number of farmer producers in this country will become confused. In this country we talk about hard wheat and soft wheat, the hard wheat being the type that we use to produce the type of bread we consume, bread that will keep. EEC nomenclature talks about durum wheat on the one hand, which is used for making semolina and pasta only, and the other wheats which are soft wheats. Within the category of soft wheats we have those which, in this country, are termed hard wheats. I think the farmer will find himself confused. With regard to the procedure for maintaining a proper price, certainly this has to be done. The proposal that the bread range should be based on the barley intervention price may work. On the other hand, it is fairly clear that in order to determine what are in fact the bread wheats one will have to devise a proper method of testing. So far we have not been able to find one. The only method which is possible, so far as we know to this day, is the actual baking of bread, which is a long and tedious process and clearly not available for use at the farm gate.
We also have to take into account the difference between the types of wheat used in this country for our own types of bread, and those used on the Continent. I am sure a solution could be found, but I am equally sure that all those concerned with developing this programme should really understand it, and that in particular farmers and the industry should not be led into further confusion by the two types of definition before us. I understand that the milling trade understand this, but I must confess that, as my noble friend the Chairman of Committees knows, I was myself confused and I venture to think that if with my knowledge of agriculture I was confused, other farmers will be too.
My Lords, I am sorry I have spoken for 12 minutes—I did not mean to. However, I would end by offering my congratulations, and expressing my very great appreciation of the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, deals with the work of this Committee. The pile of papers is there we are all suffering for it, and the noble Lord has to suffer most, because he has to read every word of every one in order to be able to direct

1507
people like myself when we go astray. I am very grateful to him, and wish to congratulate him.
7.49 p.m.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, as a farmer, I am particularly grateful to the Select Committee for their hard work. I have certainly learnt a great deal from reading their Reports. I do not think the noble Lord, Lord Collison, was right in saying that it is only noble Lords serving on the Committee who learn a great deal as a result of their work. I include myself among those who have done. My noble friend Lord Davies of Leek complained about acronyms in the Select Committee's Report, but I hope he will agree that we should be extremely grateful to the Select Committee for reducing the huge pile of papers which the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, has shown us to the short, clear and very readable Reports that we are discussing tonight.
I should like to start with the 1976–77 Farm Prices Review. The Commission's proposals are wide-ranging and complex, as I think everyone who has spoken has acknowledged. It is a tribute to the Select Committee that they have been able to produce so quickly a Report that is both comprehensive in its coverage but selective in its comments. I take the point that the Select Committee makes about the delay in the supply of the English text of the price proposals. This year the situation was aggravated by the intervention of the Christmas and New Year holidays, but, fortunately, I understand that the Ministry of Agriculture were able to prepare and submit their explanatory memorandum from the French text and to make available advance copies of English versions in time for the meeting of the Select Committee immediately after the Christmas Recess. I can assure noble Lords that we are again pressing this matter with the Commission with a view to their providing English versions of the proposals more rapidly in future.
The annual negotiations on CAP support are always a major event. This year's negotiations are possibly even more important than usual. They are the first opportunity for improvements to be made to the Common Agricultural Policy following the Council's stocktaking dis-
1508
cussions last year. They are also the first such negotiations since the Government set out their strategy for agriculture in Food from our own Resources. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Vernon, will judge our intentions from the success of my right honourable friend in the negotiations; as I say, they are the first since the publication of the White Paper.
The United Kingdom agricultural industry had a difficult year in 1975. Inflation and unfavourable weather created major problems. However, with two green pound changes in August and October and substantial increases in the guaranteed price for milk, the Government provided very large increases in support during the year. This, combined with a fine autumn and the mild early winter has led to a welcome improvement in the state of the industry. I was glad to see the Select Committee's conclusion that the EEC Commission's price proposals for 1976–77, with our next transitional step, should be enough to give confidence to the industry to plan ahead.
At the same time, I am sure that the House would agree that success in the Government's efforts to curb inflation and improve our economic performance are as important to the agricultural industry as they are to the rest of the community. Much as I am tempted, I will not follow the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, into the field of taxation. I think it would be discourteous to the Select Committee not to concentrate on their Reports in the short time we have available.
Lord SANDYS: I hope your Lordships will acquit me of any discourtesy.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I leave that to the Select Committee.
The points made in this afternoon's debate will be fully taken into account in the further negotiations in Brussels. I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, that two meetings of the Council of Ministers are now scheduled for this month. The Council will, I am sure, aim to reach decisions at the second of these meetings on 23rd-24th February, because some of the 1976–77 support prices are due to take effect from 1st March. I noticed that the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, referred to our National Annual Review

1509
decisions being announced on 14th-15th February, if I understood him aright. To avoid confusion, I should perhaps say that it has not yet been decided when these determinations will be announced, though they will be announced as soon as possible.
I appreciate that so far as the EEC price proposals are concerned we are working on a very tight timetable. Nevertheless, there has been time for quite substantial discussions since the Commission tabled their proposals in mid-December. By the end of this month the Council of Ministers will have had four meetings at which the Commission proposals have been discussed. At the same time we have managed to have our debate today in goodtime before the Council begins the really substantive negotiations which will no doubt occupy much of both their February meetings.
As regards the Commission's actual price proposals, I read with interest the comments of the Select Committee on what is known as the "objective method". Like the Committee, I welcome the Commission's efforts to improve this method. It is an important contribution to our wish to see support prices related to the needs of modern farms. At the same time other factors must obviously also be taken into account, especially the state of the market for particular commodities. The Commission have proposed increases in support prices averaging 7.5 per cent. in EEC units of account. These increases are smaller in the Six in terms of their national currencies because of the Commission's monetary proposals. Even so, given the current economic climate and the problems of overproduction facing the Community, the Commission's proposals seem to us to be on the high side. We shall be looking for support prices generally no higher than the Commission have proposed and, in some cases, lower.
The Select Committee comment specifically on the Commission's monetary proposals, and the noble Lord, Lord Vernon, mentioned in particular the problems of the green pound. The proposed changes in the representative rates for Germany, France, the Benelux and Italy are primarily for the countries concerned to consider. As regards the green pound, I do not think it is surprising that the Commission have not proposed a change.
1510
We have made four changes since October 1974. The present sterling monetary compensatory amount is only 6.4 per cent. The net effect of the support price and monetary proposals together is to give a bigger increase in common prices in sterling terms than in most other Member-States in their national currencies. A number of factors have to be taken into account in considering changes in the green pound, including, as the Select Committee say, the need not to endanger the living standards of consumers. However, I can assure noble Lords that the Government continue to keep sterling's representative rate under review; and our record shows that we are ready to act when the need is there.
Lord MACKIE of BENSHIE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether it is the fact that any proposal to change the value of the green pound lies largely with our Government and not with the Commission?
Lord MELCHETT: Yes, my Lords, certainly that is my understanding.
The House will recall that last year the Community adopted a series of measures designed to reduce surpluses of milk products. I hope my figures on this section agree with those of Lord Raglan; I am not entirely sure that they do. As I understand it, Community liquid milk production for 1975 was 91.2million tonnes while that of skimmed milk was 1.877 million tonnes. There are at the moment 1.135 million tonnes of skimmed milk in public storage in the Community, of which 0.025 million tonnes is stored in the United Kingdom. The proposals that the Community adopted last year covered temporary private storage aid, arrangements to permit increased sales to developing countries and incorporation in animal feed, and suspension of inward processing arrangements for butter oil and skimmed milk powder.
A further element in the package, namely, the proposed prohibition of the use of non-milk fats and non-milk proteins in manufactured milk products, encountered serious criticism, not least from the United Kingdom, and is still under discussion. In this connection I can assure noble Lords that the Government have taken careful note of the reservations

1511
expressed in the Select Committee's Report about the effectiveness of this element of last year's proposals. My noble friend Lord Collison referred to the Committee's interest in the forthcoming labelling legislation affecting milk products. We will ensure that details are made available when the Community proposals begin to crystallize.
Turning to the Commission's proposals for milk in the current Farm Prices Review, the Commission have proposed a below-average support price increase. They have also suggested that it should be implemented in two stages—2 per cent. in March and 4.5 per cent. in September. In principle, like the Select Committee, I welcome the two-stage increase. The actual size of the support price increases must be looked at against the current serious over-supply within the Community.
The Commission also propose that the fixed price intervention arrangements for skimmed milk powder be abolished in September, and replaced by a tendering system. This could be an important change towards a flexible intervention. As such it would be in line with our stocktaking objectives. While I know there is some concern among producers about the possible implications, I think we must recognise the need for some such action to discourage production for intervention. It would not however be realistic, in my view, to go as far as the Select Committee suggest and halt all further intervention purchases. Producers are entitled to some support. The new scheme of premiums for the non-delivery of milk has also attracted comment, particularly in the debate tonight. Clearly there are serious administrative problems which would have to be sorted out. I also fully share the doubts expressed by the Select Committee and by noble Lords tonight about applying the scheme to farmers producing as much as 120,000 litres of milk a year.
I also recognise the problems of principle and practicality in the proposal to make compulsory the incorporation of about 600,000 tonnes of skimmed milk powder in animal feed. The problem is that the alternative outlets for this powder are limited. There are doubts whether even the Commission's proposal to raise the Community's skimmed milk powder food aid programme from 55,000 to
1512
200,000 tonnes is practicable. Sale of powder for animal feed is inevitably expensive and the question is how the cost should best be borne—whether by users of animal feedingstuffs or by Community funds. I can, however, assure the House that the points which have been made in our debate and by the Committee will be borne in mind in the course of the further consideration of the proposed scheme.
I also accept many of the points which have been made today by my noble friend Lord Raglan, about stimulating consumption. The Commission's idea of helping national school milk schemes, mentioned by my noble friend Lord Davies, and the noble Lord, Lord Vernon, is certainly worth further examination. I share the disappointment which has been expressed concerning the Commission's proposals on the butter subsidy. We have pointed out in Brussels that our butter subsidy helps to maintain consumption here to the benefit of the Community as a whole.
I should now like to leave milk, and turn to beef. The Government have already made absolutely clear their rejection of the phasing out of beef premia. I welcome the Select Committee's support. My right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture has pointed out how wasteful and ineffective large-scale support buying of beef can be. The Commission have put forward proposals which do not meet our requirements, although they have recognised that premium arrangements might be needed again in different market circumstances. Our system of support which relies mainly on premia, with intervention as a fall-back, has worked well, to the benefit of consumers and of producers. It has been good value for the Community as well as for this country. My right honourable friend has made clear that we need provision for premia. He has also argued, like the Select Committee, that the Commission's price proposals for beef seem to be on the high side.
I have left the cereals sector to the end of my comments on the price proposals, not because they are unimportant but because of course the Commission's proposals for this sector reflect the Council recommendation and resolution in R/2020/75 and R/2021/75 on which the Select Committee has reported separately.

1513
I agree with the Select Committee's conclusions, but 1 think we must remember that the proportions of breadmaking and feed wheat produced in the various Member-States differ. In this country we have traditionally fed about half our wheat to livestock. In the last year or two there has been a tendency, more marked in other member countries than here, to increase production of high-yielding wheats as compared with those used for breadmaking. It seems right that these high-yielding wheats, which in the main go for feed, should be supported at feedgrain level. This avoids imposing unnecessary costs on Community livestock producers and should be a step towards a better balance in Community cereals production. We must, however, ensure that any support arrangements for breadmaking wheat are fair and practicable and set at a sensible level, avoiding unnecessary increases in the cost of our strong wheat imports. Moreover, we shall continue to press the Commission for clear indications of the need for a special reference price for breadmaking wheats and on the method by which they are to be tested in order to distinguish them from feed wheats. We would certainly share the views expressed by my noble friend Lord Collison that at the moment the only reliable method of identifying breadmaking wheats is to test bake, a lengthy and expensive process.
Finally, I would like to say a word about proposal R/2157/75 on aids for marketing and processing of agricultural products. As the Select Committee has pointed out in its Report, much can be done to improve the standard of marketing in the Community. This is therefore a subject of considerable importance which I am glad it has been possible to include in today's debate. We fully accept the Committee's view that the Commission proposal is far from clear on a number of points. We hope that they will be preparing a revised text, but unfortunately we cannot be sure that this will be done. On the basis of the present version my understanding is that the proposals to improve the marketing and processing of agricultural products is intended to take over from the Individual Project Scheme although, as the Select Committee points out, the limit of 80 million units of account per year may mean that less rather than more
1514
money is spent in this area. While we are taking a full part in the detailed examination of the proposals in Brussels, we still need to be convinced that this proposal represents the most effective way of achieving the objective of ensuring that producers obtain a fair return through efficient marketing. I was interested to see that similar doubts are expressed in the penetrating report prepared by Mr. Ralph Howell for the European Assembly's Committee on Agriculture, a report which the Select Committee rightly commends. In particular I recognise the danger that any increase in the size and economic strength of marketing or processing concerns might actually weaken the negotiating position of producers. I also share the Select Committee's concern that the problem areas and priorities have not been adequately identified, and we are by no means satisfied that the proposals as they stand make the best use of the limited resources of the Community's Agricultural Guidance Fund.
The Committee also pointed in its Report to difficulties caused by the imprecise drafting of the proposal. We share this view, especially as regards doubts concerning the criteria by which projects would be evaluated which makes it difficult to see precisely how the scheme would operate. I understand that the Commission are now considering ways in which they can speed up the decisions on those projects which would be eligible for grant aid. We hope that they will be able to suggest ways to overcome another problem to which the Select Committee has drawn attention; namely, the effect of the delay in taking decisions, which weakens the effectiveness of the grant scheme proposals, as was so ably pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Mackie.
In the continuing discussions on the proposals at Brussels, we shall have in mind all the problems outlined in the Committee's Report, and we shall be seeking to ensure that all necessary modifications are made to overcome difficulties and to avoid the distortion of proper patterns of investment as well as securing real benefits for producers.
I apologise for going on at some length at this late hour. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Vernon, said that the proposals and the Reports we had before

1515
us would be enough for certainly two if not three debates, and I thought it only right to do justice to the considerable amount of work which the Select Committee must have done by seeking to comment on the main points which they made in the various Reports. In conclusion, I should like to reiterate my thanks on behalf of the Government for the extremely useful and constructive work that the Select Committee has done in producing these Reports.
8.9 p.m.
Lord RAGLAN: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Melchett, and pleased that so much accord has been found between the opinions of the Committee and the opinions of the Government. There is one point on which he touched; my estimate of what proportion of the Community milk output was represented in a million tonnes of surplus milk powder. I have the figures. I believe we got them from the Ministry. They are certainly printed in our Report, and I said that it was a guess. If you get down to it and guess how much milk is represented by a million tonnes accumulated over three or four years, you come to something like 4 per cent. or 5 per cent. of the total output of liquid milk in the Community. That, as I said, agrees with the known percentage by which liquid milk consumption has been reduced in the Community as a whole.
I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Collison for the nice things he said about me, but he missed the nice things I said about the Committee, since, unfortunately, through no fault of his own, he was a little late. Some of these proposals—like the one that one might call "the 29 cow proposal"—are just "try-ons". I have the feeling that they try them on and put them forward just to make people think, and then they correlate the sum of people's thoughts and have another think. Of course this is one way of forming a policy—perhaps not a bad one. My noble friend Lord Collison mentioned the matter of hard and soft wheat. I thought we made it clear in our Report that Community wheat is not referred to as hard and
1516
soft wheat; it is durowheat and common wheat, so we have avoided that trap. I see no reason why British millers should not go on calling it hard and soft wheat if they like, so long as they do not confuse it with duro.
Lord COLLISON: My Lords, will the noble Lord allow me? I am grateful to my noble friend, because I raised this matter in Committee and it has certainly been dealt with in our Report. When I indicated that I thought people in the industry would be confused, I meant those farmers who probably will not read the Report and have a background of talking in terms of hard and soft wheat.
Lord RAGLAN: My Lords, it was owing to the intervention of my noble friend in Committee that we revised the draft and I think it is now clearer. As my noble friend Lord Davies of Leek criticised the Common Agricultural Policy, I found myself warming to it. It is not really such an unfriendly set-up It employs far fewer bureaucrats than the Scottish Office. I would welcome my noble friend to the Committee. He has every right to attend. He would thereby get a better understanding of what the Common Agricultural Policy is about. The great heap of paper which the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, quite rightly showed us, indicated how hard he has been working and how hard we have all worked. A great deal of it was something we wished upon ourselves in pursuit of the truth and of clarification. I should think at least half of that is evidence which we have asked for and which has been given to us by various organisations.
We are undertaking a task which we have no need to undertake and which under the old British national system we had no opportunity of doing, but which under the Community we can do. May I give members of my Sub-Committee advance warning that we are going to take some evidence on a new potato regime in the near future; we shall be looking at marketing and asking questions regarding the financial control of CAP.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

  BANKRUPTCY: BLAGDEN COMMITTEE AND JUSTICE REPORTS
  BANKRUPTCY: BLAGDEN COMMITTEE AND JUSTICE REPORTS