Sitting of 28 June 1977

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

  WEST MIDLANDS COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [Lords]
  As amended, considered.
  Amendment made: In page 5, leave out lines 28 to 41.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
  Bill to be read the Third time.

FIDELITY TRUST BILL [Lords]
  KENSINGTON AND CHELSEA CORPORATION BILL [Lords]
  Read a Second time and committed.

  UNIVERSITY OF LONDON BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time upon Thursday.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

    Secondary Reorganisation
    Mr. Arnold Shawasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what action she proposes to take in relation to the proposals submitted by the Redbridge Council under Section 2 of the Education Act 1976.
    Mr. Budgenasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what replies she has sent to those local authorities which had submitted incomplete or provisional proposals for comprehensive secondary reorganisation by 25th May.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Miss Margaret Jackson): First, Mr. Speaker, may I apologise for the absence of my right hon. Friend, who is in Strasbourg today leading the United Kingdom delegation at the Council of Europe Conference of Education Ministers.
    My right hon. Friend is considering the interim reply she has received from Essex. Letters have been sent to the other seven authorities, including Red-bridge, that were due to submit schemes by 24th May. I shall publish copies of the letters in the Official Report.
    Mr. Shaw: While welcoming that reply, may I ask my hon. Friend whether she is satisfied that she has done enough? I understand that no date has been given to Redbridge for a reply. Is she aware that Redbridge has been procrastinating in the hope that there will be a change of Government? Does not my hon. Friend think that she is helping this authority in its delay by not putting a date to the reply?
    Miss Jackson: No. The letter which has gone to the Redbridge authority in response to its proposals asks when it intends to discharge its statutory duty and to explain the present delay. If a protracted delay occurs in receiving a reply to that letter, we shall take further steps.
    Following are the letters:—

    THE LOCAL EDUCATION AUTHORITY BEXLEY
    Our reference: S303/4/018
    Date: 20th June 1977
    Sir,
    EDUCATION ACT 1976, SECTION 2
    I am writing to acknowledge receipt of the authority's formal proposals for the completion of the reorganisation of secondary schools in their area enclosed with Mr. Green's letter of 24th May.
    It appears to the Secretary of State that the proposals for county schools are unsatisfactory in three respects:—

    (a) the mixture of 11 to 16 and 11 to 18 schools

    (b) the proposed date for the elimination of selection

    (c) estimated capital costs.

    THE MIXTURE OF 11 TO 16 AND 11 TO 18 SCHOOLS
    A scheme for secondary reorganisation which envisages the retention of a mixture of 11-16 and 11-18 schools would not in her opinion be a satisfactory long term solution unless the authority could demonstrate that no other scheme was feasible. The Secretary of State appreciates that, for a variety of reasons, it would not be possible or desirable to organise all the secondary schools in Bexley as 11-18 schools. But she believes that two other schemes deserve consideration:—

    (i) a scheme providing for 11-16 schools and sixth form or tertiary colleges; and

    (ii) a scheme providing for some 11-16 schools linked to sixth form or tertiary colleges and some 11–18 schools.

    TIMING
    The authority propose to admit the first comprehensive intake to all its schools in 1988 when it expects to have completed all the changes necessary in all schools for them to cater for children of all abilities at all age levels. The Secretary of State does not consider it necessary to wait for all schools to be fully adapted for all age levels before they admit a comprehensive intake in the first year. Adaptation and extensions can take place, if properly planned, as the all ability intake progresses through the school without detracting from the education provided for the children. Such planning would allow the principle set out in Section 1 of the Education Act 1976 to be achieved much more quickly than the authority's present plan.
    Further, the Secretary of State does not accept that it is necessary for all the schools in the whole of the authority's area to admit pupils of all abilities simultaneously. The Secretary of State can see no reason why the first all ability intake should not be admitted to most secondary schools in 1978 and to all schools within 2 or 3 years of that date.
    COSTS
    It seems from the authority's figures that capital expenditure not essential to reorganisa-
    216
    tion has been included. While some improvement in buildings is desirable as a long term objective, such expenditure should not be included as part of the cost of reorganisation; and it is unlikely that resources will be available in the next few years to enable the authority to carry out their proposals to eliminate split sites or to reduce the size of schools, such as those put forward by the authority for Erith at a cost of £500,000. It follows that proposals of this kind are not acceptable to the Secretary of State.
    FURTHER ACTION
    The Secretary of State requires the authority, under Section 2(4) of the Education Act 1976, to submit within 4 months of the date of this letter further proposals in substitution for those previously submitted which take account of the observations above and which:

    (a) eliminate the mixture of 11 to 16 and 11 to 18 schools unless the former are linked with sixth form or tertiary colleges as suggested above;

    (b) provide for the progressive elimination of selection from 1978 and its complete elimination not later than 1981;

    (c) provide for the better use of existing resources and include no proposals involving expenditure which are not related to the introduction of comprehensive education.

    A separate letter will be sent to the authority about their proposals for voluntary schools.
    Officers of the Department are available to assist at any time.
    I am Sir
    Your obedient Servant,
    R.W.J. Mitchell.

    THE LOCAL EDUCATION AUTHORITY BUCKINGHAMSHIRE
    Our reference: S904/4/011
    Date: 20th June 1977
    Sir,
    EDUCATION ACT 1976, SECTION 2 PROPOSALS
    I am directed by the Secretary of State to thank you for your letter of 16th May with which was enclosed the Buckinghamshire County Council's draft proposals for the reorganisation of all secondary schools in the County (excluding Milton Keynes) so as to give effect to the comprehensive principle.
    I note that the authority have offered one set of proposals for each of the areas listed below:

    (a)Buckingham/Winslow area

    (b)Bumham and Iver

    (c)Beaconsfield

    (d)Chesham, Great Missenden and Holmer Green

    and that for the following three areas the authority have prepared alternative proposals:

    (a)Aylesbury, Wendover, Wing, Waddesdon

    (b)Amersham, Chalfonts and Denham

    (c)Wycombe

    The Secretary of State understands that formal proposals will be submitted as soon as possible after the consultative processes have been completed. The Secretary of State is certain that the authority have no wish to disobey the law or to indulge in any deliberate procrastination and she is aware of the importance of adequate consultation. However, the duty laid upon the authority must be carried out with all reasonable speed even if this means accelerating processes of consultation that the Council may wish to conduct. I am to say that the Secretary of State would therefore expect the authority to complete its consultation processes including those required by Section 2(2) of the 1976 Education Act, in time to enable it to submit formal proposals in respect of all areas after the meeting of the Council which it is understood takes place on 28th July.
    If for any reason the authority believe themselves to be unable to meet this date they should inform the Secretary of State at once giving reasons.
    I am to remind the authority that officers of the Department are available to assist at any time.
    I am Sir,
    Your obedient Servant,
    A. H. Prosser.

    THE LOCAL EDUCATION AUTHORITY KINGSTON UPON THAMES
    Our reference: S314/4/05
    Date: 20th June 1977
    Sir,
    EDUCATION ACT 1976, SECTION 2 PROPOSALS
    I hereby acknowledge receipt of your letter of 17th May with which you submitted to the Secretary of State your Council's proposals for giving effect throughout the authority's area to the principle in Section 1 of the Education Act 1976 that education is to be provided only in schools where the arrangements for the admission of pupils are not based (wholly or partly) on selection by reference to ability or aptitude, as required by the Department's letter of 24th November 1976.
    I am to remind the authority that under the provisions of Section 2(2) of the Education Act 1976 the authority are required, before submitting their proposals, to consult the managers or governors of every voluntary school which is in their opinion affected by the proposals and, if the managers or governors so request, to transmit to the Secretary of State with their proposals any proposals made by the managers or governors for the purpose of giving effect to the principle in Section 1 of the Act. I am to ask the authority to confirm that this has been done. Still outstanding are proposals for the two Roman Catholic Schools: I am to ask the authority to say when proposals for these schools are to be submitted.
    The Secretary of State wishes to proceed with all speed to the examination of the proposals submitted with your letter. To ensure
    218
    that no misunderstanding exists as to the nature and detail of the authority's proposals I am to invite the authority to send officers to attend a meeting with officers of the Department to discuss them. I shall be in contact with the authority within the next few days in order to arrange a suitable date. If any further examination of the proposals is then thought to be necessary the Secretary of State will consider whether or not to take advantage of your suggestion that a meeting with members of your authority should be arranged.
    I am Sir,
    Your obedient Servant,
    R. W. J. Mitchell.

    THE LOCAL EDUCATION AUTHORITY REDBRIDGE
    Our reference: S317/4/06
    Date: 20th June 1977
    Sir,
    EDUCATION ACT 1976, SECTION 2 PROPOSALS
    Thank you for your letter dated 12 May.
    The Secretary of State notes with satisfaction that your authority now intend to implement in September 1977 proposals which have already been approved under Section 13 of the Education Act 1944 in respect of the schools listed below and acknowledges receipt of such proposals to cease to maintain Gearies secondary modern school for boys as from August 1978.

    Ilford County High School for Girls

    Gearies Secondary Modern School for Girls

    Fairlop Secondary Modern School for Girls

    Fairlop Secondary Modern School for Boys

    Gilbert Miles Secondary Modern School

    Mayfield Secondary Modern School for Boys

    Mayfield Secondary Modern School for Girls

    I am directed to draw your attention to the duty laid on your authority by paragraph 2 of the Department's letter of 24 November 1976 and to the direction in paragraph 3 of that letter regarding the submission of proposals in pursuance thereof. It appears from your letter of 12 May (which, it is recognised, does not purport to be more than a progress report) that your authority intend to continue to admit children to Woodford County High School for Girls and to Ilford County High School for Boys under arrangements based (wholly or partly) on selection by reference to ability or aptitude. I am to ask you when the authority intend to discharge their statutory duty, under Section 2 of the Education Act 1976, to submit the proposals required by the Department's letter and the reasons for the present delay.
    I am to remind the authority that officers of the Department are available to assist at any time.
    I am Sir
    Your obedient Servant.
    W. J. Stewart.

    THE LOCAL EDUCATION AUTHORITY SUTTON
    Our reference: S319/4/09
    Date: 20th June 1977
    Sir,
    EDUCATION ACT 1976: SECTION 2 PROPOSALS
    I hereby acknowledge receipt of your letter of 24 May with which you submitted to the Secretary of State your Council's draft proposals, as cleared by the Education (Schools) Sub-Committee, for giving effect throughout the authority's area to the principle in Section 1 of the Education Act 1976 that education is to be provided only in schools where the admission arrangements for pupils are not based (wholly or partly) on selection by reference to ability or aptitude, as required by the Department's letter of 24 November 1976.
    The Secretary of State is pleased to note that the authority intend to comply with the requirement in the Department's letter and to submit in July, after the draft proposals have been considered by your Council, formal proposals for ending selection in the authority's schools. She wishes to proceed with all speed with examination of the formal proposals as soon as they are received and, to that end to ensure that no misunderstanding exists as to the nature and date of implementation of the proposals, I am to invite the authority to send officials to attend a meeting at the Department with her officers within two weeks or so of the formal submission to discuss the proposals. I am to ask the authority to suggest some date and times for the meeting which would be suitable to their officers.
    I am, Sir,
    Your obedient Servant.
    R. W. J. Mitchell.

    THE LOCAL EDUCATION AUTHORITY TAMESIDE
    Our reference: S351/4/06.
    Date: 20th June 1977.
    SIR,
    EDUCATION ACT 1976, SECTION 2
    I am directed by the Secretary of State to thank you for your letter of 20th May and to say she welcomes the authority's repeated assurances of their intention to comply with the duty laid on them under Section 2 of the Education Act 1976. She is, however, perturbed by their failure to submit proposals for her consideration by the date specified in the letter of 24th November 1976. The duty laid on the authority must be carried out with all speed— even if this means accelerating the processes of consultation that the Council may wish to follow. The time limit of six months was fixed by the Secretary of State after she had carefully considered the circumstances of the authorities concerned and it should have been possible for your authority to comply with it.
    Consequently, the Secretary of State now wishes to receive from the authority within seven days of the meeting of their Council on
    220
    5th July a report describing in detail the progress made by the authority towards complying with the duty laid on them by the letter of 24th November including the following:

    (i) the terms of reference of the working party mentioned in your letter of 10th May

    (ii) the number (and dates) of meetings the working party has held

    (iii) the alternative schemes of secondary reorganisation which are the basis for consultation within the area

    (iv) the nature and extent of consultations so far undertaken

    (v) a summary of the relevant discussions and decisions of the Education Services Committee, its sub-Committees and the Council.

    The Secretary of State would also wish to receive by 12th July a detailed description of what remains to be done before formal proposals are submitted to her. Finally, the authority are asked to tell her at the same time the date by which they expect to be able to submit formal and complete proposals.
    Officers of the Department are available to assist the authority at any time.
    I am Sir,
    Your obedient Servant,
    P. J. Hunter.

    THE LOCAL EDUCATION AUTHORITY TRAFFORD
    Date: 20th June 1977.
    SIR,
    EDUCATION ACT 1976: SECTION 2 PROPOSALS
    I hereby acknowledge receipt of your letter of 26th May with which you submitted to the Secretary of State your Council's draft proposals, as cleared by the Education (Schools) Sub-Committee, for giving effect throughout the authority's area to the principle in Section 1 of the Education Act 1976 that education is to be provided only in schools where the admisssion arrangements for pupils are not based (wholly or partly) on selection by reference to ability or aptitude, as required by the Department's letter of 24th November 1976.
    The Secretary of State is pleased to note that the authority intend to comply with the requirement in the Department's letter and to submit in July, after the draft proposals have been considered by your Council, formal proposals for ending selection in the authority's schools. She wishes to proceed with all speed with examination of the formal proposals as soon as they are received and, to that end and to ensure that there are no misunderstandings as to the nature and date of implementation of the proposals, I am to invite the authority to send officials to attend a meeting at the Department with her officers within two weeks or so of the formal submission to discuss the proposals. I am to ask the authority to suggest some dates and times for the meeting which would be suitable to their officers.
    I am Sir,
    Your obedient Servant,
    P. J. Hunter.

    Overseas Students
    Mrs. Bainasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what estimate has been made of the number of overseas students likely to attend British universities in the session 1978–79; and how this compares with sessions 1976–77, and 1977–78.
    The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mr. Gordon Oakes): The provisional number in 1976– 77 is 33,000. A modest reduction in numbers is likely in 1977–78 and 1978–79.
    Mrs. Bain: Is the Minister aware that overseas students are currently concerned about the implications of the Suthendran judgment of July 1976 for those currently at British universities? Does he not think that any reduction whatever in the number of students from overseas countries goes very much against the whole policy of aid to developing countries, particularly against the background of the North-South dialogue?
    Mr. Oakes: I am aware of the concern expressed particularly on behalf of the students who are already here. A hardship fund was set up for the purpose of helping students both at universities and in the public sector who are already here. With regard to the general policy, I think the House accepts that some limitation of numbers of overseas students is essential, otherwise they would be taking up places at the expense of home students.
    Mr. Flannery: Will my hon. Friend relate the question of the drop in the number of overseas students to the increase in fees? Does he not think that the increase in fees militates against the poorer students coming here and ensures that the students who are fairly wealthy come here as opposed to the poorer students? Is not that something of which we ought to take great note?
    Mr. Oakes: I am concerned with poor students from all over the world. However, the House should realise that many overseas students are by no means poor, nor are their countries necessarily poor.
    Dr. Hampson: Will the Minister admit that a year ago in the public expenditure White Paper the Government said that they would raise an extra £42 million out of overseas students' fees in the finan-
    222
    cial year 1977–78? On the latest figures, they seem to have raised about £28 million. Are they still committed to raising fees to get another £14 million, or are they not?
    Mr. Oakes: We are looking at this at the moment. I hope that further increases, apart from an increase for ordinary inflationary purposes, will not be necessary.

    Further Education and Training
    Mr. Hooleyasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what special fund will be made available to further education colleges in 1977–78 to assist in the training of unemployed boys and girls in the 16 to 19 years age group.
    Mr. Oakes: The report of the Manpower Services Commission's Working Party on Young People and Work proposes that further education and training should be an integral part of an expanded programme of opportunities for the young unemployed and that local education authorities should be reimbursed for the additional provision required in colleges of further education. The Government's response to the Manpower Services Commission's proposals will be announced shortly.
    Mr. Hooley: Does my hon. Friend agree that further education colleges have unique facilities, such as buildings, equipment and trained manpower, to help with the problem of the younger unemployed? However, they must have cash if they are to give all the help that they can give. Will he give an undertaking that the cash will be forthcoming?
    Mr. Oakes: I am indeed aware of the considerable job that is done by colleges of further education. I must ask my hon. Friend and the House to be patient until an announcement is made on the Government's response to the Holland proposals. I assure my hon. Friend and the House that this will be made shortly.
    Mr. Freud: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the 16 to 19-year-old unemployed students are still held by DHSS offices to the availability criterion? Will he commune with that Department so that there is a chance that someone may have attendance at a college of further education and still get unemployment benefit?
    Mr. Oakes: We have tried to make it clear—and, indeed, we have issued a circular to local authorities to this effect— that an unemployed youngster is still entitled to supplementary benefit although he is attending a course for three days a week. It has to be limited to three days. But we are trying to draw that to the attention of young people so that they do not waste their time when they can be attending a limited form of further education.
    Mr. St. John-Stevas: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one way of keeping down the number of unemployed school leavers is to encourage young people to stay on into the sixth form? In view of the excellent sixth form at St. Marylebone Grammar School—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I am afraid that that matter is sub judice. It is before the courts. We cannot refer to the St. Marylebone School today. I have looked at this matter this morning and gone into it very carefully.
    Mr. St. John-Stevas: I accept your ruling, of course, Mr. Speaker, but my understanding was somewhat different from your own. My understanding was that the matter had been disposed of in the lower court and that no decision had been taken yet to take it to the Court of Appeal.
    Mr. Speaker: The advice which I received this morning was that it was going to a higher court. My advice is that it is sub judice.
    Mr. Baker: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Does that mean that an hon. Member cannot raise the decision made in the lower court yesterday that the ILEA should not close the school?
    Mr. Speaker: We are taking up time for Questions. But I can answer the hon. Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Baker) quite easily. The answer is no, not if the matter is sub judice. It is sub judice. Mr. Christopher Price.
    Mr. Christopher Price—
    Mr. St. John-Stevas—
    Mr. Speaker: I apologise. The hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) was in the middle of a supplementary question.
    Mr. St John-Stevas: I had in fact concluded the relevant first part of my supplementary question, and you, Mr. Speaker, seem to have disposed effectively of the second part of it.
    Mr. Oakes: With regard to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, of course the Department encourages a further education provision at the age of 16 whether in schools or in further education colleges. With regard to the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question, Mr. Speaker, I bow to your ruling.
    Mr. Christopher Price: Since tomorrow's statement—or whenever it is to come—on the Holland Report will be made by the Secretary of State for Employment, it is important that we should question an Education Minister about this matter. Is my hon. Friend satisfied that the arrangements between the MSC and the further education colleges can do proper justice to both the training and the education elements in the needs of young people in this age group? Secondly, how long does my hon. Friend think it will be before we can offer to all school leavers at the age of 16 an opportunity guarantee which will make sure that they never need to go on the dole at all but can engage in some form of education and training straight away?
    Mr. Oakes: I cannot anticipate statements which will be made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment, whether it be tomorrow or at any other time. I assure my hon. Friend that there has been close co-operation between my Department and the Department of Employment and that even closer co-operation is envisaged for the future. With regard to co-operation at college level, again my hon. Friend asks me whether I am satisfied. I am never satisfied that it is close enough, but I feel that co-operation does exist.
    Mr. Hall-Davis: In formulating proposals in response to the Holland Report, will the Department look carefully at the position of students who have embarked on courses and who, perhaps because of the higher charges, may have to discontinue them, bearing in mind that many of them are not well placed financially? Will the Department also look at the

    225
    availability of discretionary grants for students who wish to pursue reputable courses but who may find themselves unemployed because they are unable to do so?
    Mr. Oakes: My answer to the second part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question is certainly "Yes". With regard to the first part, the Holland proposals really deal with the unemployed and not those already on courses.

    Examination Passes
    Mr. Hardyasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what was the number of students in their final year of statutory education who passed O-level examinations or obtained grade 1 passes in the Certificate of Secondary Education in 1976; and what proportion of the age group this number represents.
    Miss Margaret Jackson: This information is not available in precisely the form requested as the data collected by my Department relate to pupils at the time they leave school and not specifically to the final year of statutory education. The provisional figures for 1976 indicate that 707,000 left school of whom 341,000— about 48 per cent. of school leavers—had gained at least one O-level grade A to C or a CSE grade 1.
    Mr. Hardy: Does my hon. Friend agree that that regrettably partial answer suggests that extensive and substantial achievement is being secured by our schools? Does she agree, further, that the proportion of our young people who have secured success is now very much higher than many Opposition Members expected and certainly a great deal higher than those responsible for the Black Paper would care to admit?
    Miss Jackson: My hon. Friend is correct. The figures which I have quoted compare favourably with those for 1966, when the comparable percentage of school leavers was only 38.
    Dr. Boyson: Is the Minister aware that The Times Education Supplement on, I think, 15th April published figures showing that, although in 1971 18·76 per cent. of school leavers received five O-levels or CSE grade 1 equivalents, by 1975 the figure had fallen to 17·14 per cent., which is a fall of 8 per cent. in
    226
    four years? Does not that indicate some form of decline which has been clouded only by the huge bulge of numbers going through schools which must be brought out by some form of comprehensive introduction?
    Miss Jackson: No, I do not agree. Furthermore, I shall be happy to write to the hon. Gentleman on this matter. He has quoted these figures before—
    Dr. Boyson: I have not. They are new.
    Miss Jackson: If not these, he has quoted very similar figures. I must tell him that according to my Department's statisticians he has got his figures wrong.
    Dr. Boyson: They are from The Times Educational Supplement.
    Mr. Hodgsonasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what percentage of children who took the CSE examination in 1976 achieved a pass at some level.
    Miss Margaret Jackson: The information is not available in precisely the form requested as the data collected by my Department for 1976 relate to school leavers and is not confined to pupils having taken CSE examinations that year. Of the 484,000 school leavers in 1976 who had taken the CSE examination at some time in their school career, 473,000 —nearly 98 per cent.—had gained at least one grade 5 or better.
    Mr. Hodgson: I thank the hon. Lady for that reply. Does not the very high level of passes—98 per cent. obtain a pass at some level—indicate the futility of holding examinations if everybody passes and virtually nobody fails?
    Miss Jackson: I am at a loss to follow that argument. If fewer people had passed, the hon. Gentleman would complain about the failure of the education system.

    School Curriculum
    Mr. Anthony Grantasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what discussions she is conducting with local education authorities, teachers and parents concerning the curriculum in State schools; and if she will make a statement.
    Miss Margaret Jackson: My right hon. Friend has recently completed a series of meetings with educational organisations and associations during which the outcome of the regional conferences on education was discussed. The school curriculum was one of the four main topics considered during these conferences and meetings, and a Green Paper outlining the Government's proposals will be issued shortly.
    Mr. Grant: Is the hon. Lady aware that there is little evidence of even the most elementary law and commerce being taught in our schools, despite the fact that most children will be involved in commerce in one form or another and certainly all will be subject to the law? While preserving the rights of local authorities to decide, why will not the hon. Lady urge them to encourage these subjects?
    Miss Jackson: I have some sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's remarks. These are the kinds of issues with which children may have to deal, and they should be familiar with them. However, there is considerable concern whether we have not already widened the curriculum a little too far with a certain increased emphasis on some of the basic subjects. I take the hon. Gentleman's point, but these are very difficult issues for both schools and local authorities to resolve.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: Is my hon. Friend aware that it might be more helpful to give children a greater involvement in civic affairs? I know from my own school experience that all that my generation was taught was how to be a lady. It has never been particularly helpful to me in politics.
    Miss Jackson: I had the same experience, and it has never been very useful to me either. I take my hon. Friend's point. Again, this is an area where we are very concerned to see that children have a reasonable education and are taught the facts of political life. But, again, it is an area involving great pressure on the school curriculum.
    Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: Although I agree entirely with the idea that basic subjects must have first priority, will the hon. Lady bear in mind that, by the overwhelming wish of the British people since the referendum, we are now members of the Common Market? Will
    228
    she, therefore, seek to encourage courses such as those at St. Martin's College of Education in Lancaster to further the co-ordination of European educational teaching in our schools? Will she give that every possible encouragement so that we do not go off half-cock in this regard?
    Miss Jackson: That is just one of the many pressures on the school curriculum that schools have to resolve for themselves.
    Mr. Flannery: Does my hon. Friend agree that the aims of education are to give a broad general education as a basis for life? Throughout the ages employers have wanted sheer utilitarianism in schools which is the enemy of real education. This trend should be fought against.
    Miss Jackson: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I was dismayed to learn that at a recent conference in my county one employer slightly facetiously but most unfortunately said that he wanted obedient robots.
    Mr. St. John-Stevas: Whatever the form of the common core curriculum and whatever its scope, does the Minister agree with the Opposition's view that it should include religious education?
    Miss Jackson: I cannot anticipate the Green Paper.

    Recycled Paper
    Mr. Sainsburyasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether she can now report on the consideration by the Joint Advisory Committee on Local Authority Purchasing of the increased use of recycled paper in schools; and what advice she is giving to local education authorities in this respect.
    Mr. Oakes: I understand that the Joint Advisory Committee on Local Authority Purchasing has yet to consider this matter. Meanwhile, my right hon. Friend sees no need to supplement the advice made available to local authorities in 1975 through their own consultative machinery.
    Mr. Sainsbury: Will the Minister encourage rather more urgent consideration of this matter? Is he aware that encouraging the use of lower-grade papers

    229
    is an effective way of reducing resources demand and the effects of pollution? This would be increased if lower-grade papers included a greater proportion of recycled fibre. Will his Department look at the British Standards to ensure that these do not present obstacles to education authorities' use of recycled paper?
    Mr. Oakes: The hon. Member will know of my special interest in this matter as the first Chairman of the Waste Advisory Council. The LAMSAC Committee's 1975 report on waste recovery asked local authorities to consider the question of recycled paper, particularly sugar paper, which is used extensively in art work and which is 100 per cent. recycled.

    Adult Education (Television Programmes)
    Mr. Gouldasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what financial provision is to be made for the BBC adult education programme for English as a second language.
    Miss Margaret Jackson: My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and I recently agreed that late applications may be accepted under the current phase of the urban programme for expenditure incurred before 31st March 1978 from authorities wishing to expand their provision of English language classes for adult members of ethnic minorities. Some priority will be given to applications related to the forthcoming BBC television programme of English language teaching aimed at Asian women. A letter will issue shortly to the local education authorities with a substantial interest.
    Mr. Gould: Is my hon. Friend aware that, if this excellent scheme is to be as successful as is hoped, it will have to be supported by financial and other resources on the same scale as the adult literacy programme? Will she allay the fears held in some quarters, particularly in Southampton Community Relations Board, that these programmes will stimulate a demand so great that it cannot be met?
    Miss Jackson: We hope that that will not occur. It is our intention that funds should be made available which will help local education authorities to expand their programmes in order to meet the
    230
    additional demand generated. So far, we have not had cause to suspect that the demand cannot be met. The House will recognise the valuable role of the BBC in putting forward this programme.
    Mr. Fell: Will the Minister ensure that a little money is spent on teaching the BBC education staff English first?
    Mr. Christopher Price: While the Minister is looking into the BBC arrangements for teaching English as a second language, will she look, side by side, at future arrangements for helping the BBC to continue its arrangements for its excellent adult literacy programmes of the past few years? Will she ensure that, even if the adult literacy grant Is changed to a different arrangement, the BBC arrangement can nevertheless continue and will not be brought to a halt next year?
    Miss Jackson: We shall consider the Adult Literacy Resource Agency's recommendations for the future which will be made to the Department shortly. I hope to look at these recommendations favourably.
    Mrs. Bain: Given that most local education authorities are working under severe financial strictures at present, does the Minister agree that it would alleviate a great deal of fear among Asians, particularly Asian women, if they could be told exactly what sum of money will be made available for the scheme?
    Miss Jackson: I cannot tell the hon. Member that today. It is our hope that the programme will prove useful. It is not our understanding that they are likely to expire for lack of funds.

    Student Grants and Benefits
    Mr. Loydenasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she will review the operation of the Education Act 1944 in relation to the eligibility of mature students for various local authority grants and benefits.
    Mr. Oakes: Local education authorities make grants to students under the Education Act 1962, as amended. On 28th March my right hon. Friend announced a number of changes for the academic year 1977–78 which included some improvements for mature students. She also said that the structure of student support

    231
    would be reviewed again as soon as circumstances permit.
    Mr. Loyden: Does not my hon. Friend agree that mature students, given the present level of grants, find it difficult, if not impossible, to take advantage of further education? Will he confirm that in Liverpool mature students are disallowed or debarred from taking advantage of rent rebate schemes, which adds to their problems?
    Mr. Oakes: On the level of grants and their availability, my right hon. Friend has asked for a survey to see which authorities are making discretionary grants at present. Normally the level of these would be the same as that of the mandatory grants. With regard to the Liverpool housing authority, I am not aware of the situation which my hon. Friend has mentioned. If he will write to me, I will look into the matter.

    Teachers' Council
    Mr. Michael McNair-Wilsonasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what considerations she has given to setting up a Teachers' Council.
    Miss Margaret Jackson: My right hon. Friend remains ready to consider, in consultation with other interests, any agreed proposals which the teachers' associations may put forward.
    Mr. McNair-Wilson: May I press the Minister and ask her whether there is a strong case for a disciplinary body to control the standards of those entering the teaching profession and for the general disciplining of the profession?
    Miss Jackson: It has always been our view that it is possible to make progress on the proposals which have been outstanding since the working party's report in 1970. Unfortunately, it has not been possible for the parties concerned to reach agreement among themselves about the form the council should take. Until that is done, there is little purpose of any further meetings on the subject.
    Mr. Marten: Would the council be able to deal with the strike action of Oxfordshire teachers? This industrial action of the Oxfordshire teachers has caused great trouble in the education
    232
    service and has affected the education of children. Will she use her influence to ask them to call off their action?
    Miss Jackson: Since there are no proposals for a council, I cannot say whether it would be able to assist in such a case. Although the dispute is a matter between the local authorities and the teachers, we hope that it will be resolved, and we are willing to see people from Oxfordshire at any time if they want to come to the Department.

    Mathematics Teachers
    Mr. MacKayasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she is satisfied with the recruitment and training of mathematics teachers.
    Mr. Oakes: The shortage of specialist teachers of mathematics goes back many years. Details were announced last month of a new scheme financed by the Exchequer for training additional mathematics teachers in the coming academic year, and recruitment under this scheme is now proceeding. There has been a good response to an earlier request by the Government for an increase in the number of one-year courses available for retraining teachers in the subject.
    Mr. MacKay: I am pleased to hear that, because parents in Birmingham are very concerned about the annual report of the management committee of the structured mathematics scheme which suggested that over 400 mathematics teachers in Birmingham were not, in fact, qualified. Is this correct? If so, what action do the Government intend to take in Birmingham to get qualified mathematics teachers?
    Mr. Oakes: I cannot offhand give the exact position in Birmingham, but the latest figures that we have show that there was a shortage in 1976 of 1,859 graduate mathematics teachers. This has been a long-standing problem for many years which has eluded both Conservative and Labour Governments. We are trying to resolve the situation by introducing the scheme which was announced last month.
    Sir A. Meyer: Does the Minister agree that if any subject lends itself to simplification of syllabus, it is mathematics? Does he agree that diversification is

    233
    absurd, and will he exert pressure to try to secure harmonisation?
    Mr. Oakes: That is not a matter for the Department. I would not entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman that things are as simple as he makes out. That, however, is a matter for the Schools Council and for examination boards.
    Dr. Hampson: After the call in February for special scholarships to draw the brightest pupils in appropriate courses to industry, the Minister promised a decision on Jubilee scholarships, as he called them, at about Easter. What has happened to them? Will they be in the limited system of mechanical engineering courses or will they be incorporated in mathematics, which is fundamental to industry?
    Mr. Oakes: Certainly it will include mathematics because it is the foundation of most technological subjects. I am sorry about the delay. The matter is proceeding and we hope to make an announcement on it before the recess.

    Unemployed Teachers (Retraining Grants)
    Mr. Steenasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she will issue guidance to local education authorities to make grants available to qualified teachers who cannot find teaching posts and who are compelled to seek alternative means of livelihood by undertaking further training.
    Mr. Oakes: Discretionary awards of this kind are entirely a matter for local education authorities, but unemployed teachers may be eligible for grants from the Manpower Services Commission or the Training Services Agency in the same way as other unemployed persons.
    Mr. Steen: Is the Minister aware of a case involving one of my constituents who is a teacher and who cannot find work but has been accepted for a course of training at a university, yet he cannot receive a grant and instead draws weekly in unemployment benefit more than the amount he could receive if he were a full-time student? Is the Minister content with that situation?
    Mr. Oakes: It is a difficult situation. I think that the hon. Gentleman is refer-
    234
    ring to a matter on which he has recently written to me and to which I replied on 28th June. There is a discrepancy at present on the subject of grant. This is even more forcefully felt not at university level but at school and further education level. We expect a statement on the Holland proposals to be made shortly.
    Mr. Thome: My hon. Friend will recognise that there is concern about the problem of teachers who face possible unemployment, but is it not true to say that the allocation of resources to the whole of the 16 to 19 age group represents a considerable priority?
    Mr. Oakes: It does indeed, and as well as there being an undesirably high number of unemployed teachers my hon. Friend will agree that unemployment is high across the board generally.

    Schools (Holiday Periods)
    Mr. Greville Jannerasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether she will seek powers to forbid county education authorities from requiring city schools to remain open during traditional industrial holiday weeks.
    Miss Margaret Jackson: No, Sir.
    Mr. Janner: Is my hon. Friend aware of the disgraceful decision of the Tory-controlled Leicestershire County Education Authority to keep schools open for one of the two weeks when traditionally they close in the holiday, thus forcing parents to give up half their holiday with their children or to keep their children away from school? In the circumstances, will she reconsider her decision or will she give advice to that authority to the effect that it should take account of the ordinary needs of working people?
    Miss Jackson: As my hon. and learned Friend knows, it has long been the case that local education authorities decide the dates and terms of school holidays on the assumption that they best understand local needs. Occasionally the system breaks down, but we do not believe that it would be right to seek to change the law on this matter. However, I understand that the full council is proposing to reconsider this decision, and it may be that it will be able to satisfy my hon. and learned Friend.

    Cartrefle College, Wrexham
    Mr. Wyn Robertsasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if, in her final proposals for teacher training, she will confirm that teacher training will continue at Cartrefle College, Wrexham.
    Mr. Oakes: The planning of teacher training in Wales gives rise to complex issues, to which my right hon. Friend and I have been giving very careful attention. We hope to announce our decisions shortly.
    Mr. Roberts: Is the Minister aware of the grave consternation caused to the staff of this college and the local education authority following persistent rumours that the Minister and his Department will revise their earlier proposal as a result of pressures elsewhere in Wales? Will he give the House an assurance that, whatever his final decision about the future of the college, it will not be the product of the pressures to which I have referred?
    Mr. Oakes: I assure the hon. Gentleman that it will not be the result of pressure. I must examine all the colleges of higher education in Wales, as in England, before announcing our decisions. I promise that we shall make an announcement before the recess.
    Mr. Tom Ellis: Is my hon. Friend aware that I am deeply grateful to the hon. Member for Conway (Mr. Roberts) for the solicitude he is showing in the matter of Cartrefle College in my constituency, although it is regrettable that he did not see fit to tell me that he was tabling a Question on the subject? Is my hon. Friend also aware that I am grateful to him for the protracted negotiations which I have had with him, both orally and in correspondence, and will he further agree to meet a delegation from the college led by me if decisions are made which may possibly jeopardise the future of the college?
    Mr. Oakes: I am very much aware of the solicitous way in which my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Mr. Ellis) has been concerned with this matter. I promise him that I shall meet him and representatives from the college
    236
    should it be necessary to do so, but it may not be necessary.

    Teacher Training (Yorkshire)
    Mr. EdwinWainwright asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she will ensure that, in the Government's strategy in the review of the teacher training system, sufficient teacher training places are available in the Barnsley, Doncaster and Rotherham areas so as to make certain that these education districts receive their fair share in comparison with the rest of the country.
    Mr. Oakes: Under the arrangements announced by my right hon. Friend yesterday, there will be 5,340 teacher training places in the Yorkshire and Humberside region by 1981, of which 1,000 will be in South Yorkshire.
    Mr. Wainwright: In considering the South Yorkshire area, did my hon. Friend include Sheffield? My original Question related to the Rotherham, Doncaster and Barnsley areas. Will he ask his right hon. Friend to look at the Doncaster School of Higher Education to see whether he can keep that college open?
    Mr. Oakes: I saw a delegation, of which I believe my hon. Friend was a part, from that area. It was with considerable regret that Doncaster had to remain in the proposals for closure. But when one looks at the region as a whole within South Yorkshire county, it is true to say that teacher training provision will be at Sheffield Polytechnic, although I would point out that there are many whole counties which have no maintained colleges in them at all.
    Mr. John Mendelson: Will the Minister bear in mind that in talking of overall figures in Yorkshire he is not meeting the point of the original Question? This is an area which has much responsibility for modern technology and science and is one of the most important industrial regions of the United Kingdom. Will the Government bear in mind the fact that the need for greater provision in higher education for South Yorkshire remains imperative, whatever happens in the whole area of Humberside and Yorkshire?
    Mr. Oakes: We tried in proposing closures to examine the matter from a

    237
    regional and county point of view as well as from many other points of view. I am aware of the nature of this area, but, regrettably, the announcement was made only yesterday and there is no possibility of reopening the subject of teacher training in England.
    Mr. William Shelton: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I and his hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser), the Minister of State, Department of Prices and Consumer Protection, were grateful to him for listening to us so sympathetically about the Philippa Fawcett College and that we were surprised and dismayed yesterday—at least, I was surprised and dismayed—to find that it was being closed? Is he aware that he is missing the opportunity for a reorganisation of teacher training in London based on the excellent performance of the Philippa Fawcett College—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. It would not be fair if I allowed the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question. If I did so, we could go round the United Kingdom today.
    Mr. Hardy: Although I am grateful for my hon. Friend's consideration of the position of the Lady Mabel College in my constituency in the Rotherham metropolitan area, may I ask him to reassure us that the 1,000 places that will remain in South Yorkshire will include continuingly a proportion at the Lady Mabel establishment?
    Mr. Oakes: As my hon. Friend knows, negotiations are now taking place between the polytechnic and the Rotherham and Sheffield authorities. I would hope that that would be the position.
    Mr. Baker: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that facilities for bright children and the development of their abilities are not all that great in the London area? Is he aware that there is a school in my constituency—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. When I was a schoolmaster I used to write "Trying— very" in reports.

    Comprehensive Schools (Gifted Children)
    Mr. William Sheltonasked the Secretary of State for Education and
    238
    Science whether she is satisfied that the exceptionally bright student's abilities are being developed to the full in most all-through comprehensive schools.
    Miss Margaret Jackson: I am satisfied that, in general, schools of this type succeed as well as other schools in meeting the special needs of exceptionally gifted children. I am encouraged by the interest shown in the national conference on the gifted to be held in November and by the evidence that schools at large are becoming more aware of what they can and should do for these children.
    Mr. Shelton: Is the hon. Lady aware that I am grateful to her right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the concern that she has shown recently about the lack of adequate provision at sixth form level of options in many all-through comprehensive schools, especially in deprived urban areas such as in London? What is the hon. Lady or her Department going to do about it?
    Miss Jackson: We hope that over the years as staff become more available, especially with pupil numbers falling, it will be possible fairly speedily to remedy this situation.
    Mr. Pavitt: Is my hon. Friend aware that in my constituency the comprehensive school which took over from the grammar school has had an exceptionally fine record in what it has been able to do with bright students? Not only that, but is she aware that it has a multiracial background and an integration record that is second to none and that the successful students are not necessarily all of one ethnic group?
    Miss Jackson: Yes, I am aware of both points that my hon. Friend makes. He has made the point clearly that these children can be helped in comprehensive schools. The common assumption that they can be helped only in grammar schools is erroneous. There are many case histories of gifted children not being helped in grammar schools and there are cases of gifted children who failed 11-plus selection tests.
    Mr. Baker: I am glad that I have caught the headmaster's eye. When it comes to a question of the education of bright children in central London, does the hon. Lady realise that facilities are

    239
    extremely limited? Is she aware that at a school in my constituency the 73 boys who took A-level science all passed? Is that not a remarkable record? Is it not therefore outrageous that that school— namely, St. Marylebone Grammar School —should be threatened with closure by ILEA?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask the Under-secretary of State to ignore the part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question relating to the St. Marylebone Grammar School. I ruled earlier—maybe the hon. Gentleman was not present— [Interruption.] Order. I believe in giving the benefit of the doubt. It is sub judice.
    Miss Jackson: I can repeat the answer that I gave earlier—namely, that in many parts of London more facilities are becoming widely available as school rolls fall.
    Mr. Arnold Shaw: Will my hon. Friend tell me how it is possible to judge in my constituency how well the exceptional child can do when he is already being creamed off by selection processes?
    Miss Jackson: My hon. Friend is correct in deploring creaming, but, as he will be aware, it is only a small percentage of children—about 2 per cent—that we are discussing when we talk of the really gifted child. There is no question that the whole grammar school population consists of such children.
    Dr. Boyson: Is the hon. Lady aware that, although we welcome the Secretary of State's concern for the exceptionally gifted child in the comprehensive system, many of us are also concerned for the gifted child? Has the hon. Lady read yesterday's article by John Izbiki in the Daily Telegraph which shows that the Polish Communist Party is far less doctrinaire in education than are the so-called moderates in the Labour Party?
    Miss Jackson: I must dispute the hon, Gentleman's argument. In many Communist countries it seems that they are more doctrinaire and less considerate than we are of the needs of the child, including the child's emotional needs and his need to be able to fit into society rather than merely developing his brain for public use.

    GOVERNMENT LEGISLATION (CABINET RESPONSIBILITY)
    Ql. Mr. RifKindasked the Prime Minister if he will waive the constitutional practice of Cabinet responsibility in relation to the passage of Government legislation through the House.
    The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Michael Foot): In the absence of my right hon. Friend, who is attending the Silver Jubilee Review of the Fleet, I have been asked to reply.
    I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply which my right hon. Friend gave to the right hon. Lady the Leader of the Opposition on 16th June.
    Mr. Rifkind: Is it reasonable to assume that the Lord President will be fighting for the same right for his colleagues to vote against his devolution Bill as he has extracted from the Prime Minister in relation to the direct elections Bill?
    Mr. Foot: I do not think it would be reasonable either to make that assumption or to make assumptions that appear to be indicated in the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question. I refer him again to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave on this subject. I think it is right that Cabinet responsibility should be sustained as a general rule, but there have been some occasions in the past when that rule has been relaxed in the case of previous Governments. If the House looks back to those precedents, it will see that that is the situation.
    Mr. Jasper More: Does the Lord President recollect the Cabinet rule as laid down by Lord Melbourne that it does not matter what we say provided that we all say the same thing? Now that the Government have apparently abandoned the second half of that rule, can we assume that they still adhere to the first part— namely, that it does not matter what they say?
    Mr. Foot: Despite my eagerness to retain good relations with the Liberal Party, I hope it will not be thought offensive if I say that I am not sure that Lord Melbourne's rule was a very good one for all subsequent Governments to

    241
    have followed. However, if hon. Members look a little more recently in history they will see that there was a relaxation of Cabinet collective responsibility at the time of the agreement to differ in 1932 proposed to the Cabinet at that time by another Lord Hailsham. At an earlier period before 1914 there was a relaxation of Cabinet collective responsibility on the important constitutional issue of women's suffrage. That was a relaxation that was approved at the time by the whole Liberal Party.
    Mr. Dalyell: How comes it that sauce that is considered suitable for the direct election goose is not considered suitable for the devolutionary gander?
    Mr. Foot: I know of my hon. Friend's special interest in this matter. I think that he should have declared it when he put his supplementary question. I am sure that no one is better aware than my hon. Friend that the proposals for devolution that we shall be resubmitting to the House in the next Session have been fully supported in our manifestos and at our conferences. I am sure that that will weigh with him strongly.
    Mr. Gordon Wilson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, although the fleet might be afloat with the Prime Minister, the devolution Bill has sunk? How does he plan to discharge his responsibility to the Scottish people rather than waste time wondering what the Cabinet will do?
    Mr. Foot: The devolution Bill has not sunk. HMS "Phoenix" is going to rise again. I hope that we shall have the hon. Gentleman and his party enthusiastically on board at the time.
    Mr. Whitelaw: As the right hon. Gentleman seems to be so well briefed on various matters of history this afternoon, may I ask whether he has reminded himself of the occasion in 1971 when he preached to the Parliamentary Labour Party on the need for collective responsibility in leadership as the only basis upon which his party could follow a coherent strategy? Does He still believe that today?
    Mr. Foot: I am certainly prepared to look at any of my speeches to which the right hon. Gentleman refers. I am glad that his only instruction has been to follow along those lines. If he looks up what I said on these matters, he will find
    242
    that I also agreed that the Common Market legislation was put to the House in a manner which I thought at the time, and still think today, did not permit the fullest discussion of many of these matters, including proper discussion of the relationship between this Parliament and the European Assembly. I said that at the time and I repeat it now.
    Mr. Dalyell: Just like devolution.
    Mr. Whitelaw: However much the right hon. Gentleman talks, he is really saying that when collective responsibility is abandoned the party immediately lacks a coherent strategy. He knows that the Government of which he is a member lack any coherent strategy today and that he bears a great deal of the responsibility for that situation.
    Mr. Foot: I could not quite detect a particular question among those assertions. However, I repeat that I believe that it is strongly necessary, in the interests of proper constitutional government in this country, that collective Cabinet responsibility should be sustained. It is a most important principle. I also believe that there are occasions—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!"]—when certain rights of this House are involved, when there has to be some relaxation. There are good precedents for that. I recommend to the right hon. Gentleman the history lessons that I am casually offering to the House at this moment.

    WOLVERHAMPTON, SOUTH-WEST
    Mr. Budgenasked the Prime Minister if he will pay an official visit to Wolverhampton, South-West.
    Mr. Foot: I have been asked to reply.
    My right hon. Friend has at present no plans to do so.
    Mr. Budgen: Will the Lord President ask the Prime Minister to visit Wolverhampton, South-West and to take the opportunity to make a speech about immigration, which for people in that area is one of the most important political subjects although it is seldom discussed in this House? Will he also asked the Prime Minister to explain to the people of Wolverhampton, South-West why the rate of immigration has risen from 32,000 in 1973 to 60,000 in 1976?
    Mr. Foot: The chief factors accounting for the increase were the honouring of pledges to United Kingdom passport holders and their families and to the wives and children of people already settled here, the measures taken to speed up the issue of entry certificates to these women and children of people already settled here, the measures taken to speed up the issue of entry certificates to those women and children, the change in the immigration rules in 1974 to allow men already married or who marry women already settled in this country to remain, and the removal of the time limit on people immune from deportation through five years' residence in the United Kingdom. In other words, the reasons for this increase are matters of humanity and honour.

    PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
    Mr. Canavanasked the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for 28th June.
    Mr. Foot: I have been asked to reply.
    My right hon. Friend is today the guest of Her Majesty the Queen at the Silver Jubilee Review of the Fleet at Spithead.
    Mr. Canavan: Will my right hon. Friend tell the Prime Minister that this is the second time within a fortnight that he has escaped answering my questions? When the Prime Minister gets back from Spithead, will he make a clear statement about the 10-point proposal for a renewed deal with the Liberals, because in industrial relations, for example, the Liberal proposals would, in effect, mean taking more power from the trade union movement and handing it over to undemocratic Right-wing organisations, such as the National Association for Freedom, which are more concerned with protecting the freedom of people such as the tyrant employer Ward of Grunwick?
    Mr. Foot: Whatever criticisms may be made of the Liberals and their policy on industrial matters, I am sure that they have no desire, wish or intention to hand over these matters to the so-called National Association for Freedom. I certainly acquit them of any desire there.
    I am interested in my hon. Friend's additional reason why my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister might have
    244
    arranged to go to Spithead today, and I shall discuss it with him when he returns.
    Mr. Viggers: Unlike the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan), I am delighted that the Prime Minister is in my constituency, as I was this morning and will be again this evening I should like to put to the Lord Preside at a point which the Royal Navy will be too courteous to put to the Prime Minister— namely, that the last Services pay review was shabby and would not have been tolerated for one moment by the right hon. Gentleman's more militant allies.
    Mr. Foot: I certainly do not accept that the last Services pay agreement was shabby. I do not believe that it would be accepted by the overwhelming majority of people in the Services, whatever complaints they may have, who are also willing to join the rest of the workers in this country in trying to sustain a decent policy.
    Mr. Watt: I appreciate that the Prime Minister is very busy today, but will the Lord President ask him to spare time to reflect on the political situation in Scotland and particularly on the position of the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), who has languished on the Back Benches long enough? Will he use his power of patronage to give him a job where his talents can be used in some better way, so that in a by-election in Kilmarnock we can test the temperature of politics in Scotland?
    Mr. Foot: I do not accept any reflections on my right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) from any part of the House, least of all from the hon. Member for Banff (Mr. Watt). My right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock has given great service to this House and greater service to Scotland than the hon. Member for Banff and his party will ever know.

    GOVERNMENT LEGISLATION (CABINET RESPONSIBILITY)
    Mr. Blakerasked the Prime Minister whether he intends to waive the doctrine of collective Cabinet responsibility in relation to the passage of Government legislation through the House.
    Mr. Foot: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer the hon. Member to the reply which my right hon. Friend gave to the

    245
    right hon. Lady the Leader of the Opposition on 16th June.
    Mr. Blaker: Is the Leader of the House aware that the answers that he gave to supplementary questions on Question No. Ql were extremely shifty? Will he now give a clearer reply? Is he personally prepared to accept collective responsibility for the proposals which will be included in the Government's programme at the request of the Liberal Party?
    Mr. Foot: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is referring to some reports in the newspapers of discussions between my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Liberal Party. Obviously those discussions will proceed before any comment needs to be made upon them either here or elsewhere.
    If the hon. Gentleman is referring again to the question of collective Cabinet responsibility, I repeat, so that he along with the rest of the House may understand what I said, that the maintenance of the principle of collective Cabinet responsibility is a matter of supreme importance for the good government of this country. However, I again repeat that there have been occasions in our recent history and over the past 20 or 30 years when it has been thought perfectly right by the House of Commons that those rules should be relaxed. I believe that this is pre-eminently such an occasion because of the relationship between the House and any Assembly in Europe.
    Mr. Roy Hughes: Irrespective of what Lord Melbourne may have said, does my right hon. Friend agree that the allegedly dissenting members of the Cabinet are far more representative of British public opinion at this time than the Brussels psychopaths on the Opposition Benches?
    Mr. Foot: I have much too bashful a nature to respond to the temptation offered by my hon. Friend.
    Sir D. Walker-Smith: With regard to the precedent of 1932, on which the right hon. Gentleman so confidently and consistently relies, does he recall that those members of the Cabinet who sought and were accorded the indulgence to differ at that time very speedily left the Cabinet altogether? Will he undertake that that precedent will be followed in that respect on this occasion?
    Mr. Foot: If only the right hon. and learned Gentleman's history were as good as his law—and that is not a tremendous compliment—he would know that the reason that led to the departure of the Liberal Ministers and the Labour Minister on that occasion following the earlier agreement to differ was a further breach of faith by the then Conservative Government.
    Mr. Heffer: Does my right hon. Friend recall that during the period of the Heath Government—the last Conservative Government—there was a free vote on the question of entry to the Common Market? Are we to assume that that free vote applied to the Cabinet, since if it did not there was obviously discrimination against Cabinet members? Did not the majority of the Heath Government totally agree with entry? Could my right hon. Friend clear this up, because many of us are intrigued by the argument that is being put by the other side of the House in relation to free votes and collective responsibility?
    Mr. Foot: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. This was a most important issue and we were told during those important discussions that there was to be a completely free vote. It is true that it was only at the last moment before the debate that the announcement was made, but none the less, if members of the Cabinet had wished to exercise their right under that free vote, I assume that they were entitled to do so.
    Mr. Whitelaw: Is it not a fact that all the members of the Cabinet voted for entry to Europe, and does that not completely destroy the whole point that the Leader of the House was making?
    Mr. Foot: That only confirms the charge of full-hearted sycophancy against that Cabinet.
    Mr. Whitelaw: What the Leader of the House has said proves the collective responsibility of that Cabinet compared with the total collective irresponsibility of this one.
    Mr. Foot: The right hon. Gentleman is mistaken in the matter. There have been free votes in the House and they are not entirely a novelty in the House of Commons. They have applied throughout the whole range. To have a free

    247
    vote which applies to some hon. Members of a governing party or of the House and not to others seems to be a denial of the principle of the free vote itself and is, indeed, an unfree vote. In these circumstances, we are following the principle—of which I have spoken before and which I now repeat—that it is possible to sustain the importance of collective Cabinet responsibility, as we have done, but it is also important to acknowledge that there have been occasions in British history when that has been legitimately relaxed in the interests of the House.

HOUSING (ENGLAND AND WALES)
The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Peter Shore): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on housing policy.
The Government are today publishing a Green Paper on housing policy in England and Wales, together with the first two parts of a supporting technical volume. Copies of these documents—the Green Paper, I regret, in typescript form—are available in the Vote Office. The third and last part of the technical volume will be published next month. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is today making a similar statement about housing policy in Scotland.
Although the House has had in the past many White Papers on housing, this is the first time that any Government have sought to review their housing policy in a comprehensive and detailed way and to publish the results as a basis for further discussion.
The Green Paper enables us to take stock of the whole national housing situation: to record what has been achieved in the past as well as to judge what needs to be done in the future.
The main conclusions that the Government draw from the review are these:
First, housing conditions have been immensely improved in the last 25 years. Since 1951 we have completed 7½ million new homes, and renovated nearly 2½ million more. In 1951 more than two out of three households were living in physically unsatisfactory conditions or
248
were sharing. Last year the figure had fallen to one in seven.
Secondly, substantial needs remain— not least in respect of those one in seven—2·7 million households—the bulk of whom live in unsatisfactory conditions, and new problems, particularly those of the elderly, the disabled, the single and the mobile, are emerging.
Thirdly, it is no longer sensible to consider housing as a single national problem but as a series of local ones requiring attention area by area.
Fourthly, now that the clearance of irredeemable slums is approaching its end, greater emphasis should be placed upon the renewal and modernisation of property wherever this is sensible. But a substantial level of new house building will still be needed, to deal not only with the backlog of bad housing but with the rising number of households over the next decade.
Fifthly, there remains a demand and need for an adequate supply of rented accommodation, which will be met overwhelmingly by the public sector. But, equally, there is a strong and growing desire for home ownership which should be met.
Against these general conclusions we have looked at arrangements for housing finance. The present general subsidies to tenants and owner-occupiers have been much criticised. Many proposals for change have been made, but the effect of most of the alternatives—when stripped to their essentials—would be significantly to increase the cost to the tenant and to the home owner of renting or buying his house. We reject this approach—first, because such increases would place an additional and unnecessary burden on millions of families, and, secondly, because they would act to check the increase in the supply of decent homes.
We therefore intend to maintain mortgage tax relief and the general subsidy to the public sector. But we do believe that the present housing subsidy system— established on a temporary basis in 1975 —should be recast and made more sensitive to the needs of those authorities with the most pressing housing requirements. On rents, we have in mind that increases should over a run of years keep broadly in line with money incomes.

249
In recent years there has been much comparison between assistance going to council tenants, on the one hand, and that going to homeowners, on the other. A great deal of analysis has been done on this aspect of housing finance in the course of the review, and this is published in the technical volume. This shows that to arrive at an incontrovertible balance sheet is impossible because the systems are so different and the assumptions so debatable. But the analysis does explode the myth that there is a clear imbalance of benefit one way or the other, and the new subsidy system gives us the opportunity to introduce more formal measures that would be regarded by most as broadly fair between the two sectors. To do this, we are suggesting that the minimum rate of general subsidy towards local authority housing interest payments should be related to the basic rate of tax relief on mortgage interest.
At the heart of our approach to meeting the housing needs of the next decade lies a new role for local authorities in developing effective local housing strategies which must embrace both public and private sectors, in partnership with all concerned—the building societies, housing associations and the housebuilding industry. These strategies will take into account the whole range of authorities' housing activities, including policies for the sale and acquisition of houses.
At the core of an authority's direct contribution to its local housing strategy will be a four-year rolling housing investment programme appraised annually with Government. To co-ordinate national and local policy, I propose to establish a Housing Consultative Council for England with the local authorities and to maintain existing national machinery with the building societies and the house builders. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Wales will be developing existing relationships with the Council of the Principality.
To help the programme of renewal we propose that the emphasis should go on bringing more unsatisfactory houses up to a basic standard, rather than fewer houses to a higher standard. Repairs-only grants will be made more widely available, and we are considering increases in existing cost and rateable value limits for improvement grants. Grants
250
will be made more readily available for houses in multiple occupation and to private tenants.
On empty houses, we intend to speed up procedures for dealing with compulsory purchase orders. We shall also be urging local authorities to take more leases of empty privately owned homes and to reduce vacancies in their own stock.
As a Government, we welcome the clear desire of many to own their own homes, and we wish to facilitate this wherever we can. We intend to clear the path for home ownership for more people more quickly by special Government assistance for first-time purchasers. We shall introduce legislation for a Government savings bonus and for a matching Government savings loan of £500 interest-free for the first five years.
Building societies have a key rô1e to play. We make proposals for them to lend more down market to people with modest incomes and on older property. We also want to build on the steps we have already taken to secure a reasonably stable and adequate flow of mortgage funds. Partnerships between local authorities and building societies should be developed, with local authorities complementing the work of building societies, through topping-up loans and other measures. The local authorities will be enabled to bring their home loans rate into line with the building societies' rate.
Although it is unrealistic to think in terms of reversal of the secular decline of the private rented sector, it will remain important in London and other cities for some years to come. We are studying the problems of the sector in a special review of the Rent Acts, but in advance of this we propose to take measures to encourage letting by resident private landlords and the letting of accommodation over shops and other businesses. We shall also enable private tenants to apply for improvement grants.
So far I have spoken of proposals designed to improve the supply of, and access to, the right kind of housing. But we also propose a tenant's charter—a code of principles and practices designed to protect the rights of public sector tenants, with legislation to give them security of tenure. Tenants will be encouraged to carry out improvements and

251
reimbursed for substantial improvements when their tenancy ends.
We also want to see wider experimentation with new forms of tenure, lying between home ownership and renting—equity sharing, co-operatives, co-ownership—and we wish to encourage the housing association movement, to which the Government have given so much backing already.
Last, but certainly not least, there are special groups of people who deserve separate attention—the elderly, the disabled and handicapped, the homeless, one-parent families. Proposals in respect of all of these are made in the Green Paper. Our policies will also help the single and the mobile.
We intend to hold consultations on the Green Paper with all the major bodies concerned and to allow until 1st November for comment. The proposals put forward have been conceived as a whole. The Green Paper should enable us henceforth to conduct a far more informed debate on housing policy, and it should enable us to meet more sensitively and accurately the wishes and needs of our people, for whom few things are more important than their home.
Mr. Heseltine: Will the right hon. Gentleman recognise that there is much in his statement and the Green Paper that I can greet with a cautious welcome. Half of the Green Paper is a package that abandons the more doctrinal obsessions of the Left-wing of the Labour Party, such as the commitment to cut £160 million of mortgage interest relief, and the other half embodies the policy of the Conservative policy as set out in "The Right Approach".
May I ask the right hon. Gentleman three questions? First, would he agree that, as rents are to rise in line with money incomes, this will represent a significantly higher rate of rent increases than those in recent years and certainly a faster rate than that laid down in the Housing Finance Act 1972?
Secondly, will the first-time buyer deposit scheme be available to council tenants wishing to buy their homes? Thirdly, will he recognise that in removing security of tenure in specific cases of private letting he is recognising the adverse effect that this has had on the
252
provision of accommodation in the private rented sector?
We shall seek to use any legislation that the right hon. Gentleman produces to give a much more urgent and generous dimension to the policies to which he referred, such as the first-time deposits, flexibility in private letting and council house sales.
Mr. Shore: I note what the hon. Gentleman has said. I find far less doctrinal obsession in my party than I do among Back Benchers opposite. On this side of the House, we are addressing ourselves seriously to the problems of housing and all kinds of tenure. We are not seeking to single out one form of tenure for special adverse treatment while treating another even more generously than at present. That is the essential difference between us.
I can give the hon. Gentleman one assurance that will delight most people in the country but may disappoint hon. Members opposite. I do not envisage that increases in rents will be higher under the future formula than they have been in the past two or three years. I hope that this assurance will give the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) some satisfaction.
It would be invidious to restrict the opportunities for taking part in the loan scheme and to exclude particular categories who may wish to become home owners. Therefore council tenants will have the opportunity to take part in the scheme. The question whether, as we have acquired an extra sum that we hope will make home ownership available to more people, the scheme should lead on to the purchase of council houses is a different matter and will depend very much on the policies of individual councils.
I believe that security of tenure in the private rented sector must be sustained and maintained. There is no question about that. However, I think that we need to look a good deal more carefully at those cases where there is a resident landlord and where there is vacant residential accommodation over a shop or business premises. We have to give special attention to these categories.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Before I call the next hon. Member, may I make an appeal

253
to the House? If questions and answers are brief, I shall be able to call more hon. Members than would otherwise prove possible.
Mr. Frank Allaim: I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's refusal to give in to the pressure from Conservative leaders to cut council house subsidies, which would mean higher rents, but is he aware that the Labour Party will continue to press for a restoration of the cuts in public expenditure, including the cuts in housing? Is it not now possible and desirable to restore those cuts in view of the remarkable improvement in the financial situation and the fact that 250,000 building workers are unemployed?
Mr. Shore: I thank my hon. Friend for his general welcome. With regard to the cuts in public expenditure, I hope that I have already given evidence that I shall be seeking to find ways, as the situation improves or, in the meantime, by using sources of finance other than those that directly contribute to public expenditure, not only to sustain but to increase the public expenditure programme in housing. The extra £35 million given to the housing corporations, of which the House took note only a week ago, is an earnest of that intention.
Mr. Gwynfor Evans: As there are 100,000 houses in Wales that are still unfit for human habitation—a higher proportion than in the rest of the United Kingdom—will the right hon. Gentleman consider using the job creation scheme to supplement and speed up some of his proposals?
Mr. Shore: I take note of the hon. Gentleman's suggestion and will consult my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment about it. I am aware of the higher proportion of unfit houses in Wales and I believe that the new approach of myself and other Ministers, including my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Wales, of dealing with housing problems on a local basis and increasing the possibility of balancing public expenditure between new building and improvements will contribute to the end that the hon. Gentleman has in mind.
Mr. Freud: I do not wish to indulge in instant politics on a document that has only just been lodged in the Vote Office,
254
but my right hon. and hon. Friends, the majority of whom seem to be at Spithead, will welcome the general approach in the statement, especially the acceleration of compulsory purchase orders and the devolution of power to local authorities.
Will the Secretary of State now seek to end the discrimination against rural districts in rate support grant, such as occurs in Cambridgeshire, which has had the worst of all possible deals? While encouraging local authorities to make available short-term lettings, will the Secretary of State give similar directives to the Services, which are sitting on a large number of empty houses that could be used in the short term by local communities? Will the Secretary of State also look into the growing malaise of environmental health officers who are unable to deal speedily with unsuitable housing?
Mr. Shore: I welcome the hon. Member's general argument that perhaps we would be wise to study the document before committing ourselves to too many instant judgments. That is the general mood of the House. I have noted his questions, which were not directly focused on the statement but which I suppose have a relationship to it. The purpose of the statement was not to discriminate against rural areas. Our purpose is, above all, to try to identify needs and to meet them—in both town and country—in as generous way as possible.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence is well aware of the problem of the short-term letting of Service housing. There have already been disposals of surplus Army dwellings, and no doubt that will continue. The matter is one of judgment. We do not want to reach the absurd situation where we are disposing of houses that we might need later.
Mr. Douglas-Mann: Does my right hon. Friend not agree that although the proposals in the statement are likely to be helpful, the rejection of any proposals for a fundamental financial change is likely to result in our housing problems being substantially worse in 10 years' time than they are today? Can my right hon. Friend dispute that through mortgage tax relief we are able to borrow 50 per cent. more than we could otherwise borrow? Does he not agree that that must have influenced the escalation of

255
house prices in the last 15 years? Does he agree that we are spending too much public money on subsidising incomes and far too little on bricks and mortar? Does he agree that we are spending too much on those who have houses and too little on those who need them?
Mr. Shore: I pay great attention to my hon. Friend, who has a great knowledge of housing matters. He has contributed to all the debates on housing policy since I have been Secretary of State for the Environment. But I do not of course agree with the propositions that he has put forward. Of course, I do not agree that there would be an advantage to our people if we were to allow, across the board, unnecessary increases in house prices; I do not believe in that. What purpose would that proposition serve? Is it supposed to bring about a better distribution of housing resources? Are we to treat housing simply as another commodity influenced by the market laws of supply and demand? Can my hon. Friend convince himself that by reducing public assistance to both main forms of housing —local authority and owner-occupied housing—we would make further and swifter progress in making up the backlog of need that still exists in our society?
The great difficulties that we have had in the last three years have been tackled mainly by increases in housing subsidies. The increase in public sector housing investment has not only been maintained but has been increased substantially over the years.
Mr. Michael Morris: Can the Secretary of State spell out exactly where are the incentives to further owner-occupation? Will he explain to the local authorities how they are to top up mortgages when they have so little money available? Does the 1st November date mean that there is no chance of a change in the improvement grant situation until November?
Mr. Shore: I shall examine the hon. Member's last question. On the generality of the proposals it is not unreasonable to allow a period to enable people to give us their views and to enable us to consult the many organisations and authorities concerned. I believe that there will be an incentive to owner-occupation of an
256
additional character, which is aimed specifically at the first-time purchaser.
I agree that local authorities' mortgage lending has been curtailed. That was one of the ways in which I sought to mitigate the cuts in public expenditure. We have been able to bring the building societies into a relationship with the local authorities, although it is not wholly satisfactory as yet. This is bound to assist. Nevertheless, the local authorities will be able to operate by topping up the mortgages, which will make home ownership available to more people.
Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Will my hon. Friend allow me the instant judgment of saying that the Green Paper seems to be a sensible compromise of many of the difficult issues that he has had to consider, particularly in relation to local housing strategy? If capital is to be allocated according to the housing strategy prepared by local authorities, is it not essential that they should propose that strategy on a common basis? Does he not agree that the housing lists should be on a common national basis so that they are similar in each area?
Mr. Shore: The sensible thing is to build upon the success, by and large, of our housing programme. The trend of success is to be seen in the figures. We have to work out in more detail with the local authorities how the strategy is to operate. We must have an assessment of needs on a common basis, otherwise we shall not be able to relate our assistance and programmes to them in the sensible way that we would wish.
Mr. Arthur Jones: Further to the question posed by the hon. Member for York (Mr. Lyon), is it true that in the new arrangements the amount of resources going to each local authority will be determined by the Government and will not, as hitherto, be open-ended until July?
Mr. Shore: That is so. But I believe that a change from a general and national shortage to a clear position where some local authorities have made progress and are in a better position than others means that we should concentrate on those areas where the needs are greatest. That means that we must assess with local authorities how great are their needs.
Mr. Watkinson: Will my right hon. Friend accept that his proposals for the public sector will bring great satisfaction to council house tenants? Does he accept that they will be particularly satisfied with his proposals for security of tenure and the introduction of a tenants' charter? Will that tenants' charter be of an advisory nature or do the Government intend to ask local authorities to adopt a specific charter?
Does my right hon. Friend accept that if he wishes to bring older properties into private ownership he will have to liaise closely with building societies in order to secure mortgages on older properties because at present they refuse to lend against them?
Mr. Shore: I agree with my hon. Friend's last point. That is what I am trying hard to do not only on a national level but locally. I am trying to establish a continuing relationship with particular building societies and local authorities. Without that we shall not achieve what my hon. Friend would wish —a greater number of older properties being purchased for owner-occupation.
In the first instance it would be sensible to make the tenants' charter something that is advisory and strongly recommended by us, without closing the possibility of legislation at a later stage. With regard to security of tenure, I believe that that requires legislation.
Mr. Hordern: Will the Secretary of State confirm that it is no longer the Government's policy that council rents should cover 50 per cent. of housing costs, as set out in the public expenditure White Paper last year? Will he say how the saving of £180 million, which would have followed, is now to be found from his Department—or is it to be added to the borrowing requirement?
Will he confirm that if rents had risen as fast as incomes during the last three years, they would have risen far more than they have in fact risen over that period?
Mr. Shore: Yes, they would have risen faster, but they would have risen at a very moderately increased rate and in a regular and orderly way and would have been related to people's actual incomes as they increased.
258
I think that the House has got into something of a muddle about the 50 per cent. target. This figure appeared in the last but one public expenditure survey committee White Paper It was, as it were, an estimate of what was to happen, not a target, and because the interest rates and interest payments are so important in this set of figures, it is, frankly, a rather meaningless figure to put forward as an indication of what rents should be. For example, it may well be that if interest rates went up far faster than incomes, we should find an even lower percentage than 50 being covered by income. On the other hand, if interest rates, and therefore housing accounts, were to be relieved, with falling interest rates, of a substantial part of their burden, it is possible that the 50 per cent. figure could be exceeded.
Mr. Cartwright: Is my right hon. Friend aware that we very much welcome his willingness to experiment with new forms of tenure, particularly equity sharing and various forms of co-operative housing, with which we have made nothing like as much progress as we ought to have made?
My right hon. Friend referred to the need to enable local authorities to lend for owner-occupation at the same interest rate as is charged by the building societies. In view of the importance of this issue to many thousands of less-well-off owner-occupiers, will he take urgent action on this and not wait for the fairly lengthy consultation procedure on the rest of his proposals?
Mr. Shore: I welcome what my hon. Friend said about the increased effort that should be put in, but a great effort has been made by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction in developing alternative forms of tenure or of ownership, half-and-half equity sharing, and co-operative housing in this country. We shall continue with these efforts.
As quickly as I can, I shall try to make it possible for local authorities to end at the same interest rate as that charged by building societies. I am advised that this requires legislation. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] I understand that it would be excluded from the housing revenue. The difficulty is that at present they are not able to do

259
this, and therefore we must change the law accordingly.
Mr. Michael Latham: Is the Green Paper a menu without prices or does it carry clear estimates of by how much public expenditure will be increased and in which places, and where it is to be saved and by how much?
Mr. Shore: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the expenditure proposals are set out in considerable detail in the PESC forecasts, which appear at regular intervals. The implications for housing and the breakdown of the housing budget in the PESC forecasts will continue in the ordinary way. That will give the hon. Gentleman all the precision that he needs.
Mr. Joseph Dean: Taking into account that my right hon. Friend has said that the future rent increases will be geared to increased incomes, will he bear in mind that almost 50 per cent. of existing council tenants receive financial support in some way or other, either by rent rebate or by social security repayment? Will he give an assurance that the increasing amount of money that is needed to finance an increase in building programmes will not be loaded too heavily on the remaining 50 per cent. who already pay substantial rents?
Mr. Shore: What I am concerned to do, as I am sure my hon. Friend would readily detect, is to link rents in the future in a sensible way with the capacity to pay. But obviously those council tenants —and there are very many of them—who are today receiving rent rebates and other forms of social security assistance will continue to do so.
Mr. Sainsbory: Will the Secretary of State recognise that there would be a general welcome for a statement which reflects the abandonment, albeit belatedly, of a belief that massive public sector programmes of construction and munici-palisation can solve all problems?
Is he further aware that there will also be a welcome for his greater emphasis on renewal and modernisation? But in that context, after all this time, is it not rather unfortunate that he is considering increases only in eligible cost limits? Will he bring forward proposals before the
260
House rises and include in improvements such matters as improvements in insulation as well?
Mr. Shore: We are looking at this, and in particular areas of the country we may move ahead of the general easement ci the present limit. But I think there is a danger of exaggerating too much the elfect of the eligible cost limits on the take-up of improved investment grants. I accept what the hon. Gentleman said about the emphasis on renewal and modernisation. It is not all that new. I have been saying it ever since I have been at this Dispatch Box, and my predecessors have also done so.
I think that the mood in the country has changed significantly and is now against massive redevelopment and very much in favour of renewal and modernisation. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I have not abandoned my belief that the public sector and the public sector programmes have a very important, indeed crucial, part to play in the provision of housing for our people.
Several hon. Members Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: I intend to call two more speakers from each side, Mr. McCrindle.
Mr. McCrindle: Will the Secretary of State confirm that the policy of maintaining tax relief on mortgage interest will extend to those houses at the upper level of the mortgage scale?
Secondly, will the Secretary of State tell us whether the savers' bonus for first-time buyers is likely to include a cash grant from the Government? Is he able to say in which ratio this would be to the couples' savings?
Mr. Shore: I do not intend to change the present system of tax relief as it relates to owner-occupiers. In other words, the house limit still remains, as my predecessor announced it, at £25,000, and relief will not apply to second homes.
I was asked about first-time buyers and the savings scheme. I think that it would be more sensible for the hon. Gentleman to have a chance to study the document, because it is fairly detailed.
Mr. Loyden: Will my right hon. Friend not agree that one of the main inhibitions of local authorities in building is the high rates of interest which they have to pay when borrowing on the money market?

261
Will he indicate whether there will be any fundamental change in this in order to assist local authorities in carrying out building programmes?
Will my right hon. Friend not agree also that his plans for positive discrimination will certainly assist the areas of great housing stress, such as Merseyside, and, indeed, other areas in the United Kingdom?
Mr. Shore: It is certainly my intention to concentrate assistance and aid and housing resources on the areas where the needs are revealed clearly. Certainly Liverpool, in my judgment, is one such area, and there are many others.
I certainly agree with my hon. Friend on the great importance of interest rates, and therefore I am sure that he, like myself, greatly welcomes the change in the general trend of interest rates. This is not only helping, and will continue to help, owner-occupiers but makes it easier for builders to raise finance for building, which is very important. The rate was very high indeed on the loans they had to negotiate six months ago, but it has been coming down very helpfully.
Mr. Costain: Does the Secretary of State appreciate that giving more security of tenure to council tenants makes it more difficult for local authority housing committees to overcome the under-occupa-tion of council houses? What is the sense of giving security of tenure to a couple whose family has grown older but who are continuing to live in a large council house, so denying a young family a house which they should be occupying?
Mr. Sbore: The great majority of local authority tenants enjoy security of tenure. We all know that. Nevertheless, there are certain cases in which in my view it would be right for them to enjoy and have the sense of security that can come only with a statutory enactment. I can only deduce from his question about under-occupation that the hon. Gentleman's knowledge of the real world of council tenants is not as great as his knowledge of the real world of the construction industry.
Mr. Urwin: In replying to an earlier question, my right hon. Friend indicated that one of his objectives in making his statement was to improve the activity rates in the construction industry. Does
262
he really believe that this statement goes far enough to produce that effect? If so, how soon does he expect that the intolerably high levels of unemployment in the construction industry will begin to fall?
Mr. Shore: The major purpose of the statement is to deal with the longer term, to deal with housing policy from now on. The statement addresses itself to the general questions of tenure and the general questions of financial support to the two sectors. But I believe that with the improvements that we have seen in interest rates, it is possible to envisage an improvement in the pick-up of private sector building, and we are ourselves sustaining a high level of new building and expenditure in the public sector.

HOUSING (SCOTLAND)
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Bruce Millan): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement on the consultative document on Scottish housing which is being made available today. This Green Paper is complementary to that which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has just announced for England and Wales. It is the outcome of a comprehensive review of housing in Scotland. It draws together the several developments on which we have been engaged over the past two years and further proposals which add up to a strategy appropriate to Scotland's housing need.
The paper describes the great progress made in overcoming housing shortages in Scotland, particularly by the local housing authorities. But it also stresses the continued housing needs, with new problems arising as the old ones are solved. Too many people are still living in inadequate houses and depressing environments. We must take more account of people with special needs—the elderly and the disabled, for example, and single people of all ages. We must also give people better opportunities to obtain the kind of house they want—whether they rent or buy.
In consultation with the Scottish local authorities we have agreed arrangements for housing authorities to devise strategies based on local needs. Accordingly, all authorities will be submitting their first housing plans to me this summer to cover

263
the five years beginning 1978–79. These plans take account of the whole range of housing needs, including the private sector.
In parallel, we have been discussing a new single housing subsidy for local authorities. The Government will continue to give substantial financial support for authorities' housing expenditure. But I intend to distribute this support in a way that will reflect fairly the different burdens in different areas. The new arrangements should begin to operate in 1979. They will provide a better and fairer subsidy system. The level of assistance I have in mind will enable the local contribution to housing costs—rents and rate fund contributions—to keep broadly in line with changes in money incomes.
As well as continuing support for the public sector, the Government want to ensure that the growing demand for home ownership can reasonably be met. To this end, the special measures to help first-time buyers announced by my right hon. Friend—the savings, bonus and loans schemes—will apply equally in Scotland. They will help many young peope to acquire their first homes. But for some people alternative forms of tenure are what they want—equity-sharing schemes, tenant co-operatives, and so on. We shall encourage more of these to meet the demand for a wider choice of tenures.
For the vast number of people for whom renting a public sector house is the most appropriate tenure we shall be exploring with the local authorities the development of a model agreement for tenants so that the responsibilities of both tenant and the authority are clearly set out. Public sector tenants should be secure in their homes and they should not have to suffer outmoded and irritating restrictions. But they should also be able to take on more responsibility, if they wish, for the management and maintenance of their homes.
I hope that hon. Members and all interested housing organisations in Scotland will now study the paper closely and let us have constructive reactions. On the policy foundations we. have already been laying the outcome should be a coherent and responsive strategy to meet
264
the housing needs of the people of Scotland. Our aim remains
"a decent house for every family at a price it can afford ".
Mr. Teddy Taylor: Is the Minister aware that while the very limited loan facility for first-time buyers is welcome, it is not enough to reverse the situation in Scotland, where the rate of owner-occupation of 31 per cent. is about the lowest in the free world and lower than in Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia? Did not the Minister try to obtain a special deal for Scotland in view of our special problems and the very low rate of owner-occupation?
Have the Government shifted their position on sales of council houses to sitting tenants? Can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that the Conservative-controlled councils, which now cover more than half of Scotland's population, will not be frustrated in pursuing the policy on which they were elected?
Does the proposed single housing subsidy mean that subsidies pledged to councils under past legislation of the present Government and the previous Government—for example, the rent rebate subsidy—will be cut off? Which authorities are likely to lose out? What steps do the Government propose to deal with local councils that ignore the Government's advice on rents?
Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that the number of unemployed building workers in Scotland now exceeds 30,000? Is there anything in his statement that will bring about an improvement?
As the outcome of three years of the right hon. Gentleman's policies on housing is a declining housing programme, record unemployment in the building industry and savage cuts in council mortgages, does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that he does not have much to be proud about in this inadequate statement?
Mr. Millan: The hon. Gentleman's description of the present housing position in Scotland is absolutely grotesque and bears no relation to the actual situation. The level of owner-occupation is now about 33 per cent. and it is increasing. I think that the measures I have

265
announced today will provide for a continued increase in the percentage of owner-occupation.
Council house sales are strictly controlled at present and will continue to be, although proposals by local authorities with regard to council house sales will form part of their housing plans in the future and will be considered in that context. The first priority must of course be an adequate supply of houses to rent for those for whom that is the most appropriate form of tenure. But within that policy there will be a limited opportunity for a modest programme of council house sales. That is described in the Green Paper published today.
The subsidies at the current level will not be affected by what I am proposing today for council housing. They would have been severely affected in a few years' time if the subsidy system had not been altered as I propose to alter it, because by 1982-83 there would have been a substantial and precipitate reduction in housing subsidies to local authorities in Scotland resulting from the provisions in the Tory Housing Act of 1972.
The House will be glad to know that, far from our reducing the subsidies on rent rebate, the subsidy on rent rebate and rent allowances paid by the Government will be increased from 75 per cent. to 90 per cent. We expect the rent and rate contribution paid by local authorities to rise over the next few years largely in accordance with general rises in money incomes. That will be pretty well the same as our experience in recent years.
I turn to the building industry. We recently announced proposals to help the construction industry in Scotland, and there is much in my statement, particularly the increasing emphasis on maintenance, renovation and the rest, that will give opportunities to the building industry.
Mr. Gourlay: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his statement will be generally welcomed in Scotland today? In view of his reply to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) about rent and rate rebates, will they be made retrospective to the beginning of the present financial year? Secondly, what proposals does he expect to receive from Scottish housing authorities about meeting the uigent needs of battered wives?
Mr. Millan: One of the points made about housing need in the Green Paper is that local authorities should give more attention to the needs of special categories of people. We mention particularly the elderly, the handicapped and the single homeless. Certainly I have in mind also in that respect battered wives and other wives who have left horn;: and have to establish themselves in separate accommodation. I hope that local authorities will give every attention to that. I cannot make the change in subsidy retrospective, but I know that local authorities will welcome the increase in the rate from 75 per cent. to 90 per cent.
Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that there is still a continuing need in oil development areas, such as the North-East of Scotland and the Moray Firth area, for a continuing housing programme? Will he acknowledge also the need for the support of these programmes and the provision of basic facilities such as water, sewerage systems and so on? What priority is he giving to a continuing housing drive in those areas?
Mr. Millan: It is part of the emphasis in the Green Paper that we should be looking at housing needs locally in a comprehensive way on a district basis. It is no longer sensible to look at problems of national housing shortage in Scotland, because although some areas have an overall shortage, obviously, or have developing needs because of increasing population or economic development, other areas are not in that situation. Therefore, the new housing plans are intended to provide the framework within which local housing authorities can consider the needs of their areas as a whole—and not, incidentally, restricting their examination to public sector housing but considering also the contribution of the private sector and the contribution which renovation as distinct from demolition can make. We therefore have the framework in these new proposals to deal with local needs, whether in the oil areas or anywhere else in Scotland.
As the new housing plans get into full operation and as we are able to introduce the new subsidy arrangements, the housing finance allocations to local authorities will no longer be made in

267
the form of a number of separate slices of money. We want to have a comprehensive allocation within which the local authorities can determine their own priorities for new building, renovation, local authority lending and the rest. As soon as we can change the subsidy arrangements in a way that will provide a single subsidy, we can move to that more comprehensive assesment and give more power to district authorities to determine their priorities with less interference by Government.
Mr. Speaker: I would remind the House that I shall be able to call far fewer hon. Members if we are to have very long questions, and very long answers.
Mr. Lambie: Although today's Green Paper will be known as the owner-occupiers' charter, may I remind my right hon. Friend that the majority of Scottish people and the overwhelming majority of Labour voters in Scotland are council tenants, who will still face ever-increasing rents for older and older houses? When will a Socialist Government take the construction of housing out of the money market and give local authorities loans at nominal rates of interest, such as I and 2 per cent.? Then we shall solve the problem without all these aids to individuals and groups.
Mr. Millan: My hon. Friend has not read the Green Paper—
Mr. Lambie: A lot of people have thrown it up.
Mr. Millan: When he has read it, I shall be surprised if he can still describe it as simply an owner-occupiers' charter. Yes, there are certain proposals in it intended to help owner-occupiers. There are also many proposals in it intended to help tenants in the local authority and the public sectors. Our point is that there is a variety of housing need in Scotland and a variety of tenures and that any attack on Scotland's housing problem has to take account of that fact and provide solutions for all the varying problems.
Mrs. Bain: May I raise two brief points on housin;; for the elderly and the disabled? Will the Government do everything possible to encourage the development of sheltered housing complexes for
268
the elderly, since they are much advocated by the old-age pensioners' associations in Scotland? Secondly, in the realm of adaptations of houses for the disabled, I note that the Government are looking at the subject of improvement grants. Could they also consider awarding charitable exemption from rating for houses adapted for the disabled?
Mr. Millan: The hon. Lady will find mention of that latter matter in the Green Paper. On at least one subject— rating relief—we have already made a separate statement, which I hope she will find satisfactory.
As for disabled people generally and special needs, we have emphasised that area in the Green Paper. However, the hon. Lady will know that, although we can give and have given guidance, at the end of the day it is local authorities, in their own housing allocation schemes and building programmes, which must take care of that. But the new framework will, I think, provide increased opportunity for looking at the special needs.
Mr. William Ross: With the permission of the hon. Member for Banff (Mr. Watt), may I ask my right hon. Friend a question or two? First, he described the Green Paper as a consultative document, yet I have gained the impression from listening to him that his mind is made up about some things. Exactly what is for consultation, what can be done administratively and what will require legislation? I think that we all approve of his idea about freedom for local authorities. Will this include those district authorities in the proximity of new towns, which are at present considerably inhibited by interference from St. Andrew's House?
Mr. Millan: I hope that we shall be able to reduce unnecessary interference from St. Andrew's House. That situation has improved, I understand, in the last year or so. It is true that there are certain things in my statement that are beyond the process of consultation reached in England and Wales. For example, the housing plans arrangements are coming into operation now and have already been agreed by the local authorities in Scotland. The housing subsidy system, which will require legislation, is largely agreed already with the local authority associations in Scotland.

269
However, there are other aspects of the paper that are still open for consultation, as indeed is the whole paper. In that respect much of what is in my paper is on a par with England and Wales, but on a number of matters I am glad to be able to tell my right hon. Friend, with all due modesty, that we are rather further forward.
Mr. Younger: If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to reduce interference from St. Andrew's House, why is he refusing permission to Kyle and Carrick District Council to sell a small number of council houses to its sitting tenants, which it was plainly elected to do? Is he aware that many people are disappointed that there is no direct reference in his statement to housing improvements, which is running at a fraction of what it was under the previous Government? Will the new subsidy arrangements make it more worth while for councils to keep their housing stock up to date?
Mr. Millan: The hon. Gentleman's latter claim is not true. There has been an increasing emphasis on improvement in the public sector in recent years, and that emphasis will continue. The new subsidy arrangements will provide an encouragement. As for sales of council houses, I recommend the hon. Gentleman to read what I have said in the Green Paper. They have been controlled and they will continue to be controlled but they can be looked at in a much broader framework once the housing plans are in operation.
Mr. William Hamilton: Since my right hon. Friend has referred to the needs of special minorities, is provision made for consultation and financial co-operation between health boards and local authorities where it is possible that residential accommodation can be provided by either local authorities or new town development corporations, thereby relieving bed occupation in, for instance, mental hospitals? A particular case in my constituency is of great relevance in this respect.
Mr. Millan: In the preparation of housing plans it will be open to local authorities to have consultations with the local health authorities, and I would expect them to do this. The problem is not always so much moving from hostel
270
accommodation to sheltered housing accommodation. There is sometimes a question of residential accommodation in between, involving old people's homes and hostels and the rest. This is rather more difficult. The framework will provide, I hope, better opportunities for looking at these problems.
Mr. Gordon Wilson: Will the Minister agree that the proposals in the Green Paper for dealing with the rehabilitation of problem housing areas in the public sector seem to be restrictive? Would he care to say what proposals the 3ovem ment have in mind for dealing with areas, sometimes of modern origin, which are posing a lot of problems to the tenants living in the area?
Mr. Millan: I would not accept that the proposals in the Green Paper are restrictive. We have been encouraging local authorities, but there is a fixed programme at the moment, in which priorities have to be determined. With the housing areas, when we get them fully in operation it will be possible for local authorities to choose to place increasing emphasis on rehabilitation rather than on the building of new houses. In many areas I believe that that is now what is required, because the overall demand fur new housing has reduced. In other areas we have the serious problem of deteriorating houses in the public sector, some of them quite recently built. I hope that some of the proposals made today will help in tackling that issue.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to call four more hon. Members and then to move on.
Mr. Dalyell: Referring to the question of my right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) dealing with new towns, is my right hon. Friend aware that there was a NALGO lobby yesterday, albeit to do with English affairs, which included some representatives from Livingston who expressed fears about the rate at which the Scottish Office wished to expand new towns? Can my right hon. Friend give us his views on the future of new towns?
Mr. Millan: Not so much in the con text of this statement. I was at Livingston New Town as recently as last Saturday when I met the development corporation and the local authorities. My right

271
hon. Friend the Minister of State recently had a meeting with the local authorities and others concerned on this point.
Mr. Craigen: If the Secretary of State is proposing that there should be less Government busybodying over the individual housing policies of the local authorities, may I ask how he is hoping to encourage housing authorities to develop more sheltered housing and to cater for the needs of the growing proportion of elderly people in various communities? Dealing with the new subsidy arrangements, will provision be made for the importance of environmental factors in the public sector housing, although I recognise that my right hon. Friend has taken account of this in his inner city proposals?
Mr. Millan: The answer to my hon. Friend's second supplementary question is "Yes". The answer to the first supplementary question is that we have sent out a considerable amount of guidance. We shall be giving housing allocations in future, as the housing plans develop, very much more closely related to overall need in a particular area. In some of these matters we can give guidance and make suggestions, but ultimately local decision-making is the important consideration. It is part of the Government's intention to have an overall view on housing and to have local authorities looking at it in their own districts on a comprehensive basis, making their own decisions about priorities. I think that that is the right way to proceed.
Mr. Canavan: Would my right hon. Friend agree that the indiscriminate sale of council houses, as proposed by the Tories, would lead to the creation of ghetto areas in many districts and also to a situation in which the allocation of houses is based not so much on need but on free market forces, which very often operate against those who are most in need?
Mr. Millan: There are a considerable number of irresponsible propositions concerning council house sales, apparently supported by Tory Members, including the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr Taylor), which would have absolutely disastrous effects on Scottish local
272
authority housing. I do not intend to see those proposals go through.
Mr. Buchan: Would my right hon. Friend have a look at two minor but important points? One concerns the inter-changeability of council housing and housing owned by the Scottish Special Housing Association. Is he aware that in some areas a great deal of dis-harmony is often created because the exchange provisions are operated in such a harsh fashion? Secondly, while not interfering with local authorities, would he perhaps suggest some guidelines to them in relation to matters affecting women? Is he aware that local authorities are often loath, when a couple has split up for any reason and the woman has the children, to let her have the tenancy of the house? Will he encourage authorities to be more forward-looking?
Mr. Millan: There is a section in the Green Paper dealing with transferability generally in the public sector. I agree with what my right hon. Friend has said. We ought to try to facilitate exchanges more than we do. It is a theme of the chapter on housing choice that in the public sector people ought to be able to move around more freely. There is also a passage in the Green Paper about housing allocation policies. What is said there is in terms of a liberal outlook on this issue, which is very much in line with my hon. Friend's proposition, with which, as a constituency Member, I agree 100 per cent.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY (COUNCIL OF MINISTERS MEETING)
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Bruce Millan)The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Bruce Millan) rose—
Mr. Teddy Taylor: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the Secretary of State—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I have had notice of a point of order on a different matter.
Mr. Teddy Taylor: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is not the Secretary of State under an obligation to explain to the House why, at the last minute, he has decided not to make a statement on the meeting of the Council of Ministers yesterday when there are notices in

273
every part of the House saying that a statement is to be made? I ask this particularly since this is of serious concern in Scotland in view of the apparent abandonment by the Government last night of the 50-mile limit policy. Could the right hon. Gentleman at least tell us that the Government will not back-track on the herring ban?
Mr. Millan: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am rather surprised at the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor), because I told him this afternoon, before the House sat, that I intended to say something on a point of order on this very matter. That is what I was rising in my seat to do when the hon. Gentleman pre-empted me.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, it was originally intended to make the fisheries statement today, but it will be more convenient to make that statement tomorrow. I shall be making it tomorrow. In the meantime, none of the implications that the hon. Gentleman, or anyone else, might seek to draw from the day's delay should be drawn.
Mr. Marten: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Could the Secretary of State kindly explain to whom it will be more convenient if the statement is made tomorrow?
Mr. Speaker: Order. Points of order must be directed to me.
Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Since the statement has been announced to the House, is not the House due a fuller explanation rather than one of convenience? Could you, Mr. Speaker, by using your good offices, put pressure on the Government to explain slightly more fully what is behind their actions?
Mr. Millan: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. There have already been two statements today and I would not have thought that it would be terribly inconvenient to the House if the statement is delayed until tomorrow. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and I came back from Luxembourg only this morning. If I had been allowed to make my statement in my own way, I had intended to include—and perhaps I may now remedy the omission—an apology to hon. Members for the announcement appear-
274
ing on the annunciators that a statement was to be made. If this has caused any inconvenience to any hon. Member, I apologise to the House for it.
Sir D. Walker-Smith Sir D. Walker-Smith rose—
Mr. Younger Mr. Younger rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that we are not about to pursue mythical points of order, since the statement is to be made tomorrow. I have no doubt that some hon. Members, perhaps not the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith), will be trying to catch my eye tomorrow.
Sir D. Walker-Smith: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. This matter, of course, raises rather wider implications in respect of the procedural aspect and the efficiency and proper conduct of the business of the House. It is because you preside, Mr. Speaker, with such skill and dignity over our proceedings that I address you in this context.
It will be apparent to hon. Members that all the considerations to which the Secretary of State for Scotland referred were clearly known to him and to those responsible for Government business beforehand. These considerations must have been known to them when this matter was scheduled to be included in the business of the House today.
Will you therefore advise us whether there is any limitation on the discretion of Ministers in this matter? Is there any point at which, after business is tabled, the Government are not able to change the business because to do so would cause great inconvenience to the House? Apart from considerations of courtesy, considerations of the efficient conduct of the business of the House are also involved. I should greatly value your ruling on this, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has great experience in the House. Obviously the Leader of the House will be aware, as are all other hon. Members, that there is difficulty if I inform the House that a statement will be made and hon. Members make arrangements to be here only to find that it has been postponed to another day. I can say only that I shall look at this question and discuss it with the usual channels.
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Michael Foot): As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has already said, when notice of the statement was put on the annunciators we thought that a statement would be made today. I fully acknowledge that it has caused considerable inconvenience to many hon. Members that the statement is not now to be made. We shall do our best to see that such an occurrence does not happen again. The statement will be made tomorrow, as my right hon. Friend has indicated. I agree entirely that it would be wrong if the practice grew whereby notice of a statement was given and the statement was not made. We shall take every step we can to see that that does not recur.

AID CHILDREN (LEGAL STATUS)
4.43 p.m.
Miss Joan Lestor): I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide legal status for children born as a result of artificial insemination by donor; and for connected purposes.
The purpose of my Bill is to write into the law that children born as a result of artificial insemination with the consent of the husbands of the women concerned shall be deemed to be legitimate. It may come as a surprise to many hon. Members that children conceived and born in this way are not recognised as legitimate in law. The actual legal proposition that I make is simply that the definition of legitimacy shall be extended to include a child born as a result of artificial insemination by a donor if the husband of the mother has consented, and that for the purpose of registration of the birth of such a child the husband shall be deemed to be the father of the child.
It is 17 years since the question of AID was before the House, when a departmental report commissioned by the Home Office made recommendations to improve the position of AID children but did not recommend that the law of legitimacy should be changed. The report contained a minority recommendation along the lines I am now proposing.
In 1975 Lord Kilbrandon moved an amendment to the Children's Act in another place to do what I am proposing, but his amendment was withdrawn on the promise that a working party of the Law Commission would be set up to look at this and other matters related to legitimacy. It took two years for that committee to be set up and it has only just begun its investigations.
I contend that we do not need to wait for the results of that committee before making this minor change in the law. I do not believe that we should have to concern ourselves with the legitimacy or illegitimacy of children.
In the past few years the House has passed much legislation on family law and other matters to try to rectify this situation. How a child conceived by AID can be illegitimate is beyond my understanding, but that is the present position.

277
It is an offence for the husband of a woman who has borne a child as a result of AID, with the husband's consent, to register himself as the father of the child.
The instructions from the Registrar General's office were that in law, since the husband knows that he is not the father, he must leave blank the space on the form for the name of the father. It is argued that he should fill in his name only if he is the father or if he has no reason to believe that he is not the father. Since with artificial insemination the husband knows that he is not the father, he cannot register himself as such, and in law the child is technically illegitimate.
Members of the medical profession whom I have consulted, recent articles in medical journals, and an article on fostering and adoption agree that for obvious reasons most doctors who are aware that artificial insemination has taken place will advise the couple to register the husband as the father of the child. It is clear that this is done in almost all cases, but the difficulty is, as demonstrated by American experience, which is the best experience available, that such action has been contested in law. Whether the grounds of the case were heredity or maintenance, the fact is that where a baby has been born as a result of artificial insemination by a donor, that child has been held in law to be illegitimate.
From that it has followed that the child has not been allowed to inherit or, in some instances, has not been able to claim maintenance if the marriage has broken down. According to my researches, such cases have not yet reached the courts in this country, but we must clarify the position for reasons that I shall give briefly.
In the 1960s the Home Office's departmental report claimed that among the reasons for not legitimising such children were that very few children were born as a result of artificial insemination and that, for reasons I do not understand, the practice was to be discouraged anyway. The report stated that, because the number of children involved was not likely to grow, there was no need to change the law. Other reasons were given, but those were the main ones.
Now, 17 years later, the situation is very different. The number of babies available for adoption has fallen con-
278
siderably. In 1967 12,000 infants under 12 months old were adopted by parents who would not otherwise have had children. In 1976 3,608 infants were so adopted. There is a shortage of babies for adoption—most people who want to adopt want to adopt a baby. With the advance of medical science it has been possible to establish in a large number of cases where a marriage is childless that it is the man who is infertile. It has also been possible to establish that there are certain illnesses from which a man may be suffering and which make it unwise for him to father a child.
It is the view of the British Medical Association and most people involved in adoption, and it appears from the evidence of the Department of Health and Social Security, that the practice of artificial insemination by donor is increasing greatly. The Department says that it has no figures, but I am endeavouring to obtain figures, and the House will appreciate the difficulties.
In America it is judged that roughly 10,000 children have been conceived as a result of artificial insemination. I regard this matter as urgent because, although AID has been practised for the past 50 years—but not to a very great extent in the past—we may be entering a period in which the legal battles that have taken place in America may begin to take place in this country. At least seven states in America have already legitimised AID children in this way. It is therefore important for the House to consider that this should be done without any further delay.
I do not wish to delay the House, because I know that there are important matters to be discussed. However, if we go back 17 years, much of what I am saying was said in the minority report to the Home Office. Medical science has improved. The number of children available for adoption has gone down and it is confidently expected by almost every industrialised country that the number of children conceived as a result of artificial insemination by a donor within marriage will increase. I therefore believe that it is not right that we place on all those children the stigma of illegitimacy while that stigma still exists in this country.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Miss Joan Lestor, Mr. Neil Kinnock, Mr. Neil Carmichael, Mr. Robert Hughes and Mr. Norman Buchan.

AID CHILDREN (LEGAL STATUS)
Miss Joan Lestor accordingly presented a Bill to provide legal status for children born as a result of artificial insemination by donor; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 144.]

ENERGY
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Coleman.]
4.52 p.m.
The Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Anthony Wedgwood Benn): I welcome, as I am sure will the House, the opportunity to have a debate in the rather easy atmosphere of an Adjournment motion covering the whole range of energy policy issues. I think that all would accept the importance of energy and energy policy for the United Kingdom.
It is wide ranging and complex. Forecasts in energy policy are uncertain. Long-term factors are involved. There are international ramifications. Energy policy affects technical matters, environmental questions and financial, industrial and social problems. It is, therefore, difficult for anyone opening a debate to know exactly where to start.
If it is agreeable to the House, my intention is to make a progress report under various headings and to identify particularly the current problems rather than to emphasise the points where things are going well. That will give the House an opportunity for focusing on those problems which are not yet fully decided. I shall also say one word about Community energy policy, as our presidency ends on Thursday. I shall also say something about the international aspects and something about energy and energy investment in our domestic economy.
I, therefore, begin by saying something about coal, where the development of the investment programme is going well. The tripartite committee, which, in a sense, oversees the coal industry, is a very fine forum for discussion. The coal reserves are good. The Coal Bill has now been passed by the House and is on its way to another place. That will allow the National Coal Board to engage in further activities, particularly in refining and in extending itself internationally.
There are three problems with regard to the mining industry to which I wish to turn the attention of the House. One is the problem of production. I think that everyone who follows what is said both by the National Coal Board and by the NUM will recognise that the levels of

281
production have been disappointing. It is not a matter in which the judgment or exhortation of a Minister is of much value. It is not unconnected with the problem of pay and productivity in the context of phase 3. That is certainly one of the factors that we have to take into account, but perhaps some hon. Members will wish to comment upon that.
Another problem concerns the markets for coal, both domestic and international. The House will know that there have been special problems of getting the Scottish coal-burn negotiated. I would pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie), the Under-Secretary of State, who chaired the Scottish working party with a result which is known to the House and where the Government, in order to prevent short-term fluctuations from changing the long-term prospects for the industry, have arrived at certain arrangements which we think are satisfactory. In effect, they have involved bridging the gap between what the SSEB says is a reasonable price and the level at which it was practicable to sell coal from the Scottish pits. In South Ayrshire, to which both my hon. Friend and I devote a lot of attention there are special problems which are as yet unresolved.
In Wales there has been a similar problem, although the difficulty has arisen because of technical difficulties, indeed explosions, at the Aberthaw B power station. Repair work is in progress, but we must see that the Welsh mining industry does not suffer for reasons entirely unconnected with itself, namely, that it was not yet practicable to burn coal at the rate anticipated when Aberthaw B was built.
The third problem in the coal industry to which I wish to refer is the access for coal that would be created by the Drax B power station. As I mentioned in the House in answer to a Question, Drax B has been a part of the CEGB programme since 1969 when it brought it to my attention as Minister for Power and Technology. There has never been any argument about the place for a Drax B coal-fired station. The question has been whether the special problems of the turbo generator industry and the boiler makers merited or justified the advancement of the order for power stations.
282
I know that I shall carry the House with me in saying that under the previous Government the Ince B power station was advanced with public compensation for reasons not dissimilar from the reasons advanced now. Whether it is right or wrong to spend public money for these purposes is therefore not by itself a matter of controversy. The energy case for Drax B is not historically a matter of controversy. It is a matter of judgment in each individual case whether it is right or wrong.
The argument is not an argument on energy grounds because with the Selby coal becoming available I was advised that the CEGB felt that Drax B burning Selby coal would be the cheapest option open, including the nuclear option.
The question is whether it is possible to find a way—here I move into territory which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry occupies—of getting an industrial restructuring that will make this possible. This has been a problem which the House will breathlessly follow day by day in the Press stories put out by those who are interested. It is a difficult problem. It is a problem to which the CPRS devotes its attention and it is a problem that has concerned the CEGB because it is being asked to provide a steady home ordering programme as a basis for the turbogenerator industry.
That, of course, has been the reason that the negotiations have been so long in being conducted. There are difficult problems that I should like to put on record, but the question over Drax B has been a matter of timing.
Mr. Peter Rost: The Secretary of State has made a most important statement in saying that Drax B is the cheapest option, cheaper than nuclear. Would he tell us on what basis of coal prices he has made that calculation?
Mr. Benn: The argument is about the timing. The House has followed this closely and it is easy to give the facts because they are pretty widely known. The argument is about the timing of the Drax B station. The CEGB favours a 1979 order. But the question is whether a 1979 order would leave an unacceptable gap for the turbogenerator industry. But

283
on Drax B itself, as a power station, the argument about compensation derives from the prospects of advancing the date and not from the uneconomic nature of the operation.
Mr. Mike Thomas: I welcome what my right hon. Friend has said about this matter. It is very helpful in clearing up the energy case for Drax B. As he will know, five of the last 10 power station orders for turbogenerators have been made by single tender, and the last one, under the Conservative Government, was on employment preservation grounds. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the question of timing is not an uneconomic one? I am not suggesting that he thinks that it is. In fact, next week, C. A. Parsons in my constituency will begin to talk with its employees about the process of individually identifying the first of 1,600 redundant men, with all that that means for Tyneside. I accept that it is not strictly my right hon. Friend's affair, but will he convey to the Government the urgency of that position since it will lead to industrial unrest, bad industrial relations and problems in exports which in my view the delays over this matter have exacerbated greatly?
Mr. Benn: I appreciate the concern. In the course of a chequered Ministerial career, I have sat on both sides of the table, first as Minister of Power originally when the CEGB was demanding the maintenance of competitive suppliers, later as Secretary of State for Industry where I was concerned with the future of the industry, and now as Secretary of State for Energy, with these responsibilities. The House is well aware of the problem.
The reason why I emphasised that the economic argument was one about timing and not about the economics of Drax was that I do not want anyone to think that there was any doubt about Drax being, as a coal-burning station, an economic proposition. Everyone recognises the interests of my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Thomas), but he recognises, as do other hon. Members who represent Babcock and Wilcox, Clarke Chapman and GEC constituencies, that these are very complex problems and that they relate to
284
the problem of industrial restructuring, because that is the core of the problem.
Mr. Nigel Forman: The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the interesting bit of information that coal, used in the way that he described, as between Selby and Drax B would be cheaper than any available alternative. That seems to fly in the face of the information which he gave me in a Parliamentary Answer on 26th May about average generating costs. Can the right hon. Gentleman enlighten us further about the figures on which he based his statement?
Mr. Benn: All estimates are based on forecasts which have to take account of great uncertainties, including the cost of oil, the cost of all alternative fuels, the cost of coal, and the capital cost of building, say, nuclear stations and what inflation might do to capital construction costs. I am only telling the House—and it is nothing new—that the argument about compensation is not an argument about compensation for building an uneconomic type of power generation system but an argument arising from what would be the additional cost of advancing. That is a different argument. I hope that I have clarified that, though, as I say, everything is based on forecasts.
I am afraid that I have a great deal to say, and clearly I have hit the right note in respect of coal. I turn now to electricity, where the problems of the industry are not unfamiliar to the House. They are problems of over-capacity, not entirely disconnected from the matter that I have just been discussing.
There is a general view worldwide, which I share, that the switch from oil-fired and gas-fired stations to coal and nuclear energy as base load carriers for the generation of electric power is right. That is the view expressed in the United States, where they are boosting their coal production to 1 billion tons, in the Soviet Union, again to 1 billion tons a year, and, of course, here with our own plans for the expansion of coal production and nuclear energy, to which I shall come separately.
The main problem at the moment is the organisation of the electricity supply industry. The House will recall that over the years there have been a number of examinations of this matter. There

285
was the so-called Mason Bill, which had not quite reached the statute book in 1970 when we left office. The Plowden Committee was set up and reported 18 months ago. Plowden identified, as I think is widely understood in the industry, that the Electricity Council and the boards and the separation of the CEGB did not provide the focus necessary to give a central sense of direction to the electricity industry.
Plowden recommended a CEB to undertake this central rôle. There has been considerable consultation with the unions, with the Electricity Council, with the CEGB and others and, although I am not able today—I wish I were—to make a definite statement about this, it may be helpful, especially to the industry where the uncertainty has caused problems, which I recognise, if I indicate that there is no dissent in the Government's mind from the desirability of having a unified central electricity board capable of providing just that degree of central focus for the purpose of investment and management.
I shall come to decentralisation in a moment. But central questions must be determined centrally. I have the problem, as does any Minister, of getting legislation into the legislative timetable, and I cannot anticipate what may be coming forward. But at least the discussions have now narrowed down to some fairly simple points.
First, it should be said that we are generally agreed—and I hope that, when the House looks at the Bill, it will agree with it—that it would be a mistake to try to concrete every detail of the organisation of a great industry into a primary statute and that it would be better to aim for a Bill that provides for basic matters and for organisational changes to be capable of being carried through by Statutory Instruments brought before the House to take account of changing circumstances. This is very much in our mind as we approach this problem.
There are other points—and I mention one. There is the question whether it is right, as part of what is necessary to get a unified direction of the industry, that all the local boards should disappear so that we end with an organisation rather like the Gas Corporation which is not as deeply rooted in the localities as the present area electricity boards are.
286
I have said that it would be strange if, in the new Session, on Tuesdays and Thursdays, we were devolving power through Scottish and Welsh devolution Bills and, on Mondays and Wednesdays, we were centralising the organisation of the electricity industry. We have to strike a balance here, and this bears upon appointments, who should make them and how the structure should develop. This is not entirely resolved in discussion yet, but it is a matter of great importance in which Ministers have a legitimate interest. A Minister talking to a statutory official is quite different from talking to an employee, in that the relationship between a statutorily-appointed local chairman and a Minister is a much more open relationship than having matters on a wholly centralised basis.
In fairness to Plowden, he did not want centralisation. But devolving management is rather different from retaining some local vitality. I mention that as one of the factors.
Mr. Tom Ellis: It is to be hoped that the same will not happen to the electricity industry as happened to the gas industry over the years 1967–68, in de facto terms being formalised with the 1972 Gas Act.
Mr. Benn: I am not persuaded that that is necessarily the right way to do it. But I am also reporting to the House that Ministers who have to consider these matters collectively have not reached a final view, otherwise I would simply be making an announcement today.
There are a couple of other matters which have been discussed based upon possible experience from other industries. I have mentioned them in public speeches. For example, in the case of the British National Oil Corporation, just to take one other energy industry, there are two civil servants on the board and there is a power of specific directive which is of a character which permits a relationship to be rather more open than it has been by the historic method of arm-twisting, in which all Ministers have engaged and which I dislike intensely. The hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet) may laugh, but my relations with the nationalised industries have not been so secret as to constitute examples of closed government. They have all come out

287
openly, and I have never been ashamed or arguing my case with those concerned.
Mr. T. H. H. Skeet: The Secretary of State has a right to give a special directive to the BNOC. Does he intend to have the same power in respect of the CEB?
Mr. Benn: What I am doing is exploring matters not yet resolved. In doing so, I am providing the House with an opportunity to consider these matters and to give its judgment on them. There are parallels, and not only with the National Enterprise Board. The Industrial Reorganisation Corporation operated in a much more open way than in the old historic relationship. Herbert Morrison's Acts provided for general directives which, when the lawyers examined them, they decided could never be used. Apart from saying "Be good", I do not think that I could send a directive to anyone under the Morrison doctrine. "Be good, be efficient or be quick" is not a sufficient form of directive under which to conduct a sensible energy policy.
On the question of oil, I shall not go into the subject of PRT, or the establishment of the BNOC, or the fifth round. The House is familiar with it all, But, as I came into the Chamber I was given a Press release from my Department which shows that during May, North Sea production was running at an average of 836,417 barrels a day—about half our domestic requirements. It is a total coincidence that I can say this to the House today—
Mr. Tom King: It has nothing to do with the right hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Benn: No doubt in the course of his speech the hon. Member will describe the contribution that he has made to our energy supplies—the coal that he has dug, and the other achievements he has made in the development of energy policy. But it is very satisfying to know that we are now producing about half our requirements.
I now come to the essential British interests in oil policy. There is no doubt that if this oil which is available in the North Sea is to yield the benefit required for this country, certain things must be agreed between us all.
288
The first is that the powers under the Act must be capable of being enforced. That is a test of will. Secondly, the BNOC has to operate both its commercial and advisory functions and it must have the capacity to be a sole licensee in the North Sea. This wholly new factor was not available to previous Governments and has become available to us only recently.
Thirdly, the landing rights provision for our policy, that the oil must be landed in the United Kingdom, is an essential interest, as is our option that oil should be available to us. The sale-back provision in the participation agreement should be such that we should be satisfied on a number of points to which the companies have given their word on the participation agreement — namely, the optimisation of the balance of payments and the optimisation of the use of United Kingdom offshore oil. In the development of these policies, the "short-term contract" approach provides the Government with a way of having meaningful discussions with the multinational companies covering refining and a whole range of issues relating to its relations with the oil companies.
The House knows—and I stress this because it is important—that we absolutely reject the idea of confiscation or whatever the OPEC policy may be. We also reject the idea of burdensome and cumbersome litigation which characterises oil policy in the United States. We are seeking a working relationship with the oil companies on the basis of a treaty relationship for safeguarding our interests. I would like to feel that in advancing British interests we are seen to be agreed between ourselves because, frankly, without that agreement these revenues and benefits may not accrue to us. The mere existence of oil resources docs not guarantee benefits to the country in which they are found, as the long history of the Middle East shows. Any idea that abandoning our policy of defending United Kingdom oil interest would benefit any part of the United Kingdom is out of the question and I expect hon. Members in the Scottish National Party to support the Government in defending our interests.
Mr. Gordon Wilson: I accept that the Secretary of State feels

289
that the benefit from oil and gas found in the northern basin of the North Sea should go to the country as a whole, but could he say what proportion of the benefit Scotland will receive?
Mr. Benn: If Yorkshire coal were sold at marginal prices it would close every pit in Scotland. Also, the hon. Member knows that gas comes from the southern North Sea. Any attempt to divide the people of the United Kingdom in their determination to get the most from our resources is condemned to failure. I understand that the hon. Member has a right to put his point of view, but he would not find much support from the Scottish miners, who recognise and welcome the tremendous support given to them in the campaign for the Scottish coal-burn from miners in other parts of the United Kingdom, who happen to be working in pits that are more economic.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Would the Secretary of State make it clear that the Cabinet is not toying with any ideas from certain quarters that oil revenues or a proportion of them should be hypothecated to a possible Scottish Assembly?
Mr. Benn: The very word "hypothecating" would send many shivers through the Treasury. I cannot imagine the Chancellor hypothecating. It is a very unlikely solution to any problem.
I wish also to identify clearly the essential British interests—the right to develop as best we can the jobs coming from the oil industry. There will be 100,000 jobs altogether, most of them in Scotland, and as the inspection, maintenance and repair market develops from the £50 million a year to the £300 million market a year there will be more jobs, and we expect to be able to use revenues to help create more.
Miss Harvie Anderson: On the point about refining, will the Secretary of State bring his statement up to date?
Mr. Benn: I do not know which statement I should bring up to date. The Minister of State argued forcibly in the Community Council of Ministers the importance of general consultation, without being tied to specific consultation which might slip into
290
Community control over refineries. We are becoming the tenth largest oil producer in the world and we expect that our refining policy should remain under our own control. I think that that is a non-controversial policy between us.
Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: Before my right hon. Friend leaves the question of oil, he is aware that there has been drilling in the Celtic Sea for some weeks and hon. Members from Wales are very hopeful that he will make a statement on the results of the drilling. I emphasise that if oil or gas is found in the Celtic Sea, we shall regard it as British oil or gas.
Mr. Benn: To be candid there has been some disappointment over the drilling in the Celtic Sea, but on the other hand the discovery of the Fulmar field recently indicated that some oil structures are more hopeful than we thought. I am certainly hopeful that more British oil and gas will be found in the Celtic Sea. My hon. Friend the Minister of State will deal with that matter.
On gas, there has been a great deal of Press comment in the last couple of days about the Price Commission's comments on the outturn of the accounts of the Gas Corporation. This is a matter for the Price Commission and the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection. It is something for him to decide. Having read some of the leading articles before I saw the report from my Department on this matter, I should make it quite clear that there would be no veto by me on the collective decision about gas profits that will be taken.
Dr. King's report on gas explosions was also published today. I had an opportunity to thank him before his Press conference. The report is systematic and serious, and I am sure that the House will want to consider it. Important recommendations have been made. The report has been published and is available.
I turn now to nuclear matters. We were the first country to engage in the development of nuclear power, and 13 per cent. of our electricity is now generated by nuclear power. This will increase to 20 per cent. when the advanced gas-cooled reactors in the process of construction are completed.

291
We have some important decisions ahead, and I should like to explore them for a few moments. The Atomic Energy Authority having advised me last summer that in its opinion the SGHWR should not be proceeded with, we were driven back to a choice involving the AGR— which was not available for consideration in 1974, because it was not on stream and was thought to be too uncertain— the light water reactor, and the SGHWR, which remains in process of examination. I aim to reach a conclusion on reactor choice rapidly because I believe that it is important that that should happen. I emphasise that delay is not of the Government's making. It was advised that the matter should be re-examined, and it would have been wrong if I had declined to examine it.
The factors on both sides are well known. One is that the light water reactor has shown itself to have the largest world export possibilities and that is the strongest arguments in support of it. On the other hand, all our experience has been in gas-cooled reactors. It would be a big decision to take if we were to seek to wipe away that experience in the interest of export possibilities in favour of a system of which we have no experience. This is a matter on which we shall move quickly, and all information will be made available before a decision is taken.
I also wish to comment on the fast breeder. I have read with a great deal of interest the speeches made on this subject on both sides of the House. The hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) who had responsibility as an Opposition spokesman, has made some trenchant speeches of this matter. The House will understand that a decision of this magnitude must be taken after consideration of all the factors—economic, safety, environmental and so on.
I make no apology whatever for having allowed this decision to be made in a measured way, in due time. The rate of spending on preliminary work on the fast breeder—and I had this information from Sir John Hill—has been such that it cannot be argued that the time we have taken has delayed development. Therefore, we are using the time that is available to us to consider the question: if, when and how a CFR-1 should be built.
292
These matters are being given lengthy consideration not only in this country. We know that there has been a great deal of discussion in other nations. President Carter has cut back sharply on resources for the Clinch River fast reactor. The hon. Member for Bedford appears to dissent. The German Government may have their own reasons for freezing funds in this connection. The French are proceeding with Super Phoenix, but it is generally believed that our Dounreay station is better than Phoenix. Therefore, we are not losing out in taking time to consider the matter. It is also a matter on which the Flowers Committee reported.
I wish to say to those who have a strong interest in the matter that nothing I have said or done has been designed to pre-empt a decision either way. I believe that in nuclear policy there must be absolute ministerial control. It is notable that President Carter, in one of his many initiatives, has drawn nuclear policy back to the heart of Government, instead of allowing it to be determined in the technical and industrial margins of Government.
The magnitude of the issue is such that it cannot be seen as other than a test, in its own way, of the democratic system. I speak as a layman in these matters but also as somebody who has spent 11 years, on and off, dealing with nuclear policy. This must be accompanied by openness in publishing facts and figures. We have made as much information available as we could. Indeed, we have published everything. We have published information on nuclear safety, choices, performance, techniques, and the various technologies. All this is known by anybody who wishes to take advantage of that published material. The Windscale inquiry is an example of how we handle these matters. I think that all nuclear policy should be handled in that way.
Mr. Frank Hooley: Does that include all the terms of the Japanese contract?
Mr. Benn: There is always a question of contractual confidentiality on commercial arrangements. Obviously, there is an openness in certain respects that would not be possible in certain commercial matters. I was dealing with the main

293
ingredients of energy policy. However, I shall look again to see whether there are matters not yet revealed that should be revealed. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding me of that point.
Mr. Norman Atkinson: In respect of the Windscale inquiry, does my right hon. Friend agree that we are likely to get into a confusing and contradictory situation if we regard that inquiry as a factor in the public debate dealing with whether we should go for a fast breeder reactor? A body consisting of a lawyer, a chemical engineer and an expert in radiological matters is not the ideal forum to which we should submit basic questions of this kind. Therefore, my right hon. Friend should be alerted to the fact that Windscale should not be allowed to assume such prominence in this matter that it may pre-empt any ministerial decision. In other words, my right hon. Friend should take that decision on the basis of expert advice and should not allow Windscale to pre-empt the situation.
Mr. Benn: My hon. Friend knows that Windscale is the subject of a Department of the Environment inquiry and is not a Department of Energy matter. He also knows that in such inquiries ministerial power is always reserved. Occasionally Ministers take a different view from their inspectors, and those Ministers are then accountable for the decisions they take.
I am saying that in respect of the fast breeder reactor, which is not the subject of such inquiries but which certainly creates a great deal of public interests, the facts should be made available before the Government reach a view. I was not trying to make a comparison directly with the situation at Windscale.
The Downing Street Summit dealt with some other matters of proliferation arising from the possible dangers of reprocessing and other matters. The House will find it comforting to know that among the nuclear powers—the three signatories of the nuclear proliferation treaty; the United States, the Soviet Union and ourselves—there is a strong commitment shared by other countries to the use of nuclear power for peaceful purposes to be designed in such a way as to prevent as far as possible the proliferation of nuclear weapons. This aspect cannot be left out of account.
294
I wish to say a few words to those who work in the nuclear industry. They have been through a period of considerable uncertainty. I have a great deal of sympathy with those who have experienced it. In asking Dr. Walter Marshall to return full-time as Deputy Chairman of the Atomic Energy Authority—he is a man with immense experience of nuclear policy and of other matters with his capacity for scientific management— I felt that I should indicate the rôle which he could play in restoring confidence—[Interruption.] I shall come to other arguments about my desire for a full-time scientific adviser, but I used the same language when I spoke to Dr. Marshall as I have used in the House today. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Since it was I who appointed Dr. Marshall as Deputy Chairman a few months ago, hon. Gentlemen should not smirk and giggle at my desire that he should play his full part in working within the AEA.
I have known Dr. Marshall since 1966 when he was responsible for non-nuclear work at Harwell. He is an outstanding scientific manager and a nuclear expert. Therefore, we are fortunate to have him in the public sector. I very much resent the suggestions which have appeared in print today, and I want the House to be in no doubt as to the high regard in which I hold Dr. Walter Marshall and the rôle which he can and must play in the decisions which must be reached in the nuclear industry within the AEA.
Mr. Skeet Mr. Skeet rose—
Mr. Benn: The hon. Gentleman must allow me to continue. I should like to continue on this basis for a couple of hours but there is a great deal more that I wish to say.
There is a substantial and growing interest in the potential of alternative sources of energy. A £10 million programme has been announced. Dr. Marshall has done much to make that possible. There is solar wave energy and geothermal energy, and tidal energy may well have its part to play. One of the recommendations in the Flowers Report, to which the Government have not yet given their minds in great detail, is whether the capacity of building within the AEA a sort of ERDA like the American Research and Development

295
Agency may be the proper way of using our skills to ensure that they are not pre-empted by the large budgets inherited from past traditions in energy development. Beyond the year 2000, which is not so many years away, the potential for alternative benign and renewable resources could greatly exceed the 10 per cent. that is forecast for them, without the associated environmental hazards of other sources of energy. No one should think that environmental hazards are limited to the nuclear sector. We have only to consider the Ekofisk blow-out, the Duke of Rutland and the Vale of Belvoir to realise that all energy sources involve some environmental damage. I am not sure whether it is the Duke of Rutland— I am not very good on dukes. It is my understanding that it is the Duke of Rutland. Good luck to all those who live in another place.
Similarly, conservation must not be seen as just a matter of pricing policy, with which I know monetarists will find it attractive to deal. It involves a systematic capacity to compare the benefits from conservation investment with generation investment. We estimate that a 6 per cent. saving was achieved in 1975. If we take major insulation measures, which are well within the range of present technology and labour-intensive in character, there is a possibility that substantial investment might be justified on the most harsh economic criteria. It might create jobs as well. I hope that the House will go with me on this issue. It is a matter that I specially asked the European Council to discuss in March. We have much to do in this area.
Mr. Neil Macfarlane: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that one of the most attractive feasible alternative sources could well be the Severn Barrage in South-West England? I attended a conference during our Jubilee Recess, as did one of the right hon. Gentleman's officials, and, like about 150 experts who were also present, we went away very concerned by his reaction. There is already doubt as to the depth of the right hon. Gentleman's Department's determination accurately to review all alternative sources.
Mr. Benn: I mentioned tidal energy, as Hansard will reveal. The reports that
296
came out, including the Dutch engineering report and the Wallingford Report from the Hydrological Research Station, indicated that further work needs to be done. I have now decided to spend more time personally on this subject, partly because I have an acquaintance with the area but partly because the Severn Barrage has been discussed since 1925. I am not of the view that some take, that it does not have a substantial offering to make, but the capital investment would be enormous. I believe that it is £3 billion to £4 billion. Further, my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Palmer), who is Chairman of the Select Committee, has not yet made his final report.
I turn to consumer interests. Any comprehensive energy policy must ultimately be based and be tested against the question whether people have enough heat and light at home. It is easy in the stratosphere of energy policy to forget that. Energy policy is as much about people being warm and able to enjoy energy as about future forecasts of various sorts that are conducted at a high level. Because of the nature of energy and the imperfect nature of the market, to use the jargon, competition of itself does not provide an answer. If coal becomes cheaper, the man who is locked in the all-electric flat who does not have a flue cannot do much about it. Similarly, those with investments in a particular energy systems cannot shift. We must provide much more formidable consumer protection in energy matters than we have yet achieved.
I cite some modest beginnings although I make little claim for them. There was the stopping of disconnections for old-age pensioners over a year ago. There was the code of practice that we hammered through. That was one of the most difficult things to achieve. My hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven (Dr. Cunningham), the Under-Secretary of State, undertook that work last summer. The publication of factual information about alternative costs and the winter fuel scheme were modest but helpful beginnings. These advances are just the beginning of what must be achieved. There must be proper consumer representation.
I turn to those who work in the industry. Whatever the decision on the

297
Bullock Report may be, progress is possible within the publicly-owned fuel industries. The tripartite coal arrangement is in my opinion one of the finest ways of bringing to bear the management and trade union interests and allowing them, together with the Government and the Treasury, who are represented, to review the development of the industry. I attach the highest importance to industrial democracy.
How are all these ingredients to be put together in an energy policy? It must be done by an open method, partly because of, as a Secretary of State, I reach decisions privately, I am denied the benefit of the advice of those who do not know what is about to be decided and who cannot contribute to the discussion. We must proceed by discussion.
In answer to a Question this afternoon —the House will not have had the opportunity to read it as it has not yet appeared in Hansard—I announced that we have decided to proceed with a view to establishing our Energy Commission with the following terms of reference—namely,
"To advise and assist the Secretary of State for Energy on the development of a strategy for the Energy Sector in the United Kingdom; and to advise the Secretary of State on such specific aspects of energy policy as he may from time to time refer to them."
The Commission will have seven representatives of the energy industries, seven representatives drawn from the six General Council members of the TUC Fuel and Power Committee and their secretary, and seven others, including industrial and consumer interests. I shall make a further announcement about the allocation of the non-producer seats as soon as possible. I shall take the chair. My hon. Friend the Minister of State, Scottish Office, will be a full member because of his supervisory role in respect of the SSEB. Other Ministers, including those from the Treasury and the Department of Prices and Consumer Protection, will be able to attend. We shall seek to form an agreed view on major energy policy issues, especially of a strategic nature, as they arise. My answer states
"… and perhaps annual reports on the energy situation prepared by the Government, setting out decisions taken and other developments and renewing current prospects and the matters likely to come up for decision. The setting up of this Commission will not affect the existing executive responsibilities, nor will it in any way diminish the responsibility of Ministers to
298
Parliament for decisions taken in the energy field."
As there are so many interests that would like to be involved, it seems that the only practical way of dealing with the matter is to ensure that the documents for the Energy Commission are made public so that others can get hold of them, feed in their views and make representations.
Mr. Rost Mr. Rost rose—
Mr. Benn: I feel that I should not give way. I apologise for having taken so long. I shall have taken very nearly an hour if I do not quickly conclude.
Mr. Rost: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that an executive will be assisting the team?
Mr. Benn: There will be secretarial facilities but this is not a way of developing a corporate state in the energy sector with Ministers becoming spectators of a great energy sector. I must remain accountable to the House for the decisions that are taken. The Treasury, with its financial responsibilities, must continue to have a proper function in dealing with investment decisions.
I shall devote one or two words to EEC energy policy. Recently we have had two debates and there have been two Council meetings. I have appeared twice before the Energy Committee of the Assembly. We have taken a solid, serious and constructive approach to try to involve Ministers more directly and to have an informal atmosphere. I failed entirely to achieve open meetings of the Council. Vital interests in the EEC must be respected, but I believe that there is a serious possibility of making progress. If we consider President Carter's difficulties with Congress, the problems of the North-South dialogue and the fact that the East-West discussions on energy have not really begun, I do not think that we have done too badly.
Internationally, energy will be a major factor beyond the Community. I have referred to the United States and to North-South relations. We must one day open up discussions that extend East-West. There must be a world forum. It is astonishing that so many forecasts should be published and that there should be no place where they can be assessed internationally. The role of the United

299
Nations in all this will no doubt fall for active consideration. We are in a unique position. We are the only industrialised power in the West that will be self-sufficient and we have a range of unrivalled fuel experience. Therefore, our role in the discussions would seem to be of very great importance.
Finally, I should like to refer to the relationship of all this to the central problem of our economy, which is the capacity to get investment and to create jobs in our society. Energy alone does not guarantee benefits, as anyone knows from a superficial study of the Middle East which has had all the energy in the world and yet its people have lived in poverty without industrialisation.
We must use the oil revenues to create jobs and to deal with the deep-seated problems caused by unemployment. We must do that through the agency of public investment. We are fortunate in having publicly-owned energy industries. Therefore, we have the capacity to do what has not been possible in many parts of the private sector.
Huge revenues are available. They are certainly sufficient to meet our international capital and debt repayment obligations. The Chancellor of the Exchequer and I are working on this matter together. It seems to me that the use of the oil revenues for the reindustrialisation of British industry through the agency of public investment will be the key question for this country in the 1980s. The reindustrialisation of Britain by the use of energy, as we industrialised in the nineteenth century upon coal, seems to me to be the question that is bound to absorb the House and the country. I hope that in presenting this report on our achievements we shall win some understanding and support for what we have done.
5.43 p.m.
Mr. Tom King: I must say that the last words uttered by the Secretary of State about achievements took our breath away. The right hon. Gentleman has made a long speech lasting 50 minutes. We make no criticism of that, because, as he rightly said, we are dealing with a major issue which has been too little debated in the House. We are dealing with a wide-ranging series of
300
matters. The Secretary of State honestly said that he did not feel that he knew where to begin. I am not sure whether he really knew where he was going in parts of his speech.
Indeed, he seemed to pick a random selection of topics and to make a "Little England" speech. The matter with which we are dealing has enormous international implications. There is no way in which the United Kingdom will be able, for all its resources, to stand aside from the problem of shortages which may exist whether in Europe or throughout the rest of the world.
I knew that we were in for a fairly long speech when the right hon. Gentleman said that he would be exploring matters not yet resolved. There is quite a list. I realised that would take some time. The right hon. Gentleman said that, as the Minister responsible, he must remain accountable for decisions taken. He said that in an aggressive sense. I hope that he will also be accountable for decisions not taken, because that is far more the hallmark of this Administration.
We are debating energy policy. The first question is: should there be an energy policy at all? That carries with it the implication of precise, dogmatic forecasting by the Government of what fuels and energy sources will be available. Plans made on Government forecasts can often lead to problems which we all wish to avoid. At the same time, it is clearly madness to approach a very serious problem without identifying the possibilities and ensuring that a range of options is at least open so that the problems can be met.
I think that it is common ground between us that the most flexible approach must be adopted towards the uncertain future facing the world. The corner-stone of that flexible approach must be the maximisation of known recognised sources of energy and the most energetic pursuit of possible novel, benign renewable sources of energy which may be still some years ahead. That is no reason not to pursue them as quickly as possible throughout the world if we are to achieve some of the benefits from them.
Whatever policy we pursue, I suggest that at the top of the list should come conservation. There can be no excuse

301
particularly with the knowledge that we have of the problems that we could face, for energy to be wasted in any country. There is clearly no time to lose.
The Secretary of State may have felt that such was the circulation of energy information nowadays that he might in this House be preaching a little too much to the converted on the problems of the potential energy gap, but it is a shock to realise that that gap could be as little as three to four years away. That may sound surprising but, indeed, it may be less.
I think perhaps that I should point out how much the free world supply of oil in particular depends on the Saudis' willingness to maintain their current levels of production. Even if the Saudis hold production at current levels there will be a considerable impact due to United States imports which are scheduled to be 50 billion dollars next year and which have already risen by more than 8 per cent. this year since President Carter made his announcement. If there were any curtailment of those supplies—barely a month ago there was a fire on the pipeline service out of Saudi Arabia along which came 60 per cent. of American oil imports from that country—that crisis could be upon us even earlier than we think. We are conscious of the acute interest being taken by Washington in the world's energy problems. Clearly, the Americans are in an acutely difficult situation.
Superficially, our position is more favourable than others. I say "superficially ". We are in an unusual situation. Historically, we think of America —particularly Texas—as a great source of energy. America is one of the great energy-rich countries of the world. Now America is moving in the opposite direction to us. We are moving into a period of freedom from dependence on imported oil, whereas America is moving directly into a period of much greater dependence on imported oil. Again, we possess over half the total energy resources of the Community. So we are in a much happier position than our partners.
I referred to our superficially more favourable position. I believe that it would be unsustainable to remain in an energy-rich situation if the Community or other countries, through being desperately short of energy supplies, were unable, as the Secretary of State rightly said, to give
302
their people heat and light and the ability to lead normal lives. We may in the short term be better off, but long-term we shall have to face similar problems. Therefore, the relevance of those problems must be faced now.
Let us consider the magnitude of some of the decisions that must be taken. I do not want to dwell on the Government's conduct for too long. However, we take precious little encouragement from the failure of this Administration to take decisions in a whole range of areas. We are overwhelmingly impressed by the sense of lack of urgency in relation to energy. There is the question of reactor choice and the Plowden Report. We had the world-shattering announcement that we are narrowing down the options in the Plowden Report. That is indeed headlong progress after 18 months.
The industry is in some confusion and disarray, not knowing what its management structure will be. I should have regarded the decision that must be made on the electricity industry as a minor one compared with the major energy decisions that must be taken. Such a record of progress does not give much optimism for the bigger issues. Today is a red letter day because there has been a decision on the Energy Commission. That has now been announced, and even if the debate has not achieved anything else we should be grateful that one decision has been taken.
There has been a lack of impetus towards any announcement of a positive programme of energy saving measures. I listened to the Secretary of State's speech but, with great respect, one feels that the only matter in which the right hon. Gentleman takes any positive and urgent decisions is in sacking people who disagree with him.
Mr. Dalyell: Could we have two concrete examples of what the Opposition spokesman would do if he were Secretary of State?
Mr. King: Is the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) referring to the lack of decisions? I can give a list that includes reactor choice and the Plowden Report. I promise that if I had had the responsibility of the office of Secretary of State I should have decided the future structure of the electricity industry, based on the report submitted by Lord Plowden,

303
in less than 18 months. By any standard that would not be outrageously impetuous decision taking. Within his Department the Secretary of State has had to deal with a range of issues, and they have gradually been put out for consideration and consultation. I agree that there is no need for immediate choice over the fast breeder reactor. I disagree about the method of allocation of funds for the research and development, but that is merely a small point. However, nothing is being held up there. There are other matters, such as the reorganisation of the electricity industry—which is causing great difficulties within the industry—on which decisions should have been taken.
Mr. Jim Marshall: The hon. Gentleman said a few moments ago that he had just returned from Washington. A number of hon. Members from both sides of the House preceded him there. I assume that, during his visit, the hon. Member discussed the Carter energy programme intently. Surely, even he must admit that, if that programme is compared with the British energy policy, which has not been enunciated in the same way, and if one is absolutely fair, in spite of the political points that the hon. Gentleman must inevitably make, we in this country, and particularly the Secretary of State, foresaw some two and a half years before the Americans the problems concerning conservation, coal and the need to have nuclear power. We faced those decisions and are now continuing to pursue those policies.
Mr. King: I cannot agree, and I shall spell out the reasons for that in detail later.
The Secretary of State understandably had to take some time to introduce the debate. I do not wish to take up so much time. There have already been two statements and a Ten-Minute Bill, so we must make progress.
However, I make this point in reply to the intervention of the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall). Energy policy cannot work without a lead from the top. The first point about President Carter's energy package was that it was President Carter who introduced it. The package covered the whole field of energy, industry, transport, the
304
environment and the interior. The Secretary of State also made the point that that package brought together a whole range of interests and concerns. There is no way in which the Secretary of State for Energy—and I say this without any disrespect—could bring to the House a comprehensive energy package without bringing with him in support a number of other Ministers with responsibilities in those areas. I should like to see an awareness and confirmation by the Prime Minister that he shares the concern about the seriousness of the matter that is felt by hon. Members attending the debate today, and I should like to see him take a lead in this matter.
I said earlier that I put conservation at the top of my list of matters of importance. The Under-Secretary of State for Energy has been working hard to try to get across the message about the importance of conservation. In a speech last week he said that a barrel saved should be as good as a barrel produced. The hon. Gentleman was quite wrong. It is better by far to save a barrel of oil, because there is a tendency to believe that, if one can have sufficient supply to meet demand, the energy problem is met.
However, the problem is not just a matter of supply. Environmental issues are involved. It is not just a matter of having an additional number of power stations or an additional distribution grid. There are other issues involved, including the benign sources of energy, such as windmills. One must consider the environmental impact of such energy sources. No energy sources are without an environmental impact, and the benign effect of conservation cannot be understated.
There is also the matter of capital costs. I am sure that hon. Members and the Secretary of State appreciate that the demands that could be made on capital in future for energy production and research may drain away enormously resources that could have a much more beneficial use in other directions.
In considering the fuels available the Secretary of State referred first to coal. I have just returned from the United States. The production target there is 1 billion tons of coal a year. One must recognise that the Americans have geological advantages and with opencast mining they have clearly a far better

305
possibility of achieving such a target than we have of achieving our targets.
The Secretary of State referred to declining productivity. The matter has been referred to frequently recently by Sir Derek Ezra and the Coal Board. Production this year was lower than last year and last year it was lower than the year before. Production in the first eight months of this year was lower than in the first eight months of the previous year. That means that we are now facing a decline in coal production, and that is totally contrary to our plans for the coal industry.
The Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Alex Eadie): The hon. Gentleman has just said that he found during his recent visit to America that that country's target was 1 billion tons of coal a year. The hon. Gentleman said that the opportunities for America to reach its target were better than those for this country. Did the hon. Gentleman, in the course of his visit, deal with the colossal environmental problems that are associated with this in relation to State legislatures? Is the hon. Gentleman confident that America can overcome that problem—which is one that we do not yet have in this country?
Mr. King: It was my impression that it could. However, I accept that there are real environmental problems, not merely in the production of coal but in the burning of it in power stations—particularly high sulphur coal.
I was dealing specifically with the matter of production. I am sure that the Minister was not challenging the concern that is felt by Sir Derek Ezra, by me, generally, and, I am sure, by the Minister about declining coal production. I should have thought that that would worry the Minister greatly. This is not an attack on the Coal Board or the NUM. It is a matter of fact over which Sir Derek Ezra and Joe Gormley have both expressed concern. I share that concern to the full.
One of the messages that I brought back from the United States was the Americans' great admiration for the technology of the NCB. There is no doubt that our skills in this area are recognised in the United States, and I was delighted to note the award of a contract to ERDA
306
on a joint project with the NCB for the gasification of coal.
Oil and gas have been the great success stories of recent years. The Secretary of State may not have been claiming the credit, but I was quick to point out that it was not all his work. I am delighted that we have reached the 50 per cent. figure. This is a great achievement by private enterprise in the North Sea.
We do not agree with all the right hon. Gentleman's policies and we do not think that he has tackled the North Sea in the best ways in every respect, but I can assure him that when the Conservative Party has responsibilities for these matters —and I hope that this will be shortly— we shall defend British interests as vigorously as any other party and any changes will not be at the expense of British interests
Mr. Benn: The hon. Gentleman has made a very important statement of policy. It is the first time since he left office that he has been prepared to admit the truth that not one gallon of the oil coming ashore under the fourth round of licensing would have been available to the United Kingdom under the legislation that we inherited from the Conservative Government. Every gallon would have been under the control of the oil companies.
Mr. King: I am surprised that the Secretary of State should even bother to repeat that canard because he knows that it is totally untrue. It was part of the licence terms in the fourth round that the oil had to be landed in the United Kingdom. The one field that was not properly covered— and, my God, it might have been a bad mistake—was the Forties field that was licensed by the Labour Government of whom the right hon. Gentleman was a member. In different circumstances or with another oil company, that could have been a disastrous blunder. I am staggered that the right hon. Gentleman has the nerve to raise that point. He has done so before and we have answered it before. I hope that I have given him a clear answer today.
Mr. Benn: The oil was to be landed here because the pipes are here, but the oil would have been owned entirely by the multinational oil companies. The Government of the right hon. Member for Sidcup

307
(Mr. Heath) had no power over the oil landed in the United Kingdom under the licences granted by that Government.
Mr. King: How, then, does the Secretary of State explain the position of those fields in which the oil did not come ashore through pipelines, but was loaded into tankers at sea? The right hon. Gentleman should know the terms of the licences granted in the fourth round. Let him read them again and also read the licence terms issued by his Government for the Forties field. We shall then look forward to hearing further from him.
If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to indulge further in this matter, may I suggest that we leave it to our Scottish collagues who are to wind up the debate? My hon. Friend the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Gray) is an expert in matters concerning oil and gas and takes a close interest in them. He will be saying more about these aspects later.
Turning to nuclear energy, we have to recognise that this is a time of crucial decision for this country. The Secretary of State recognises that we are facing two crucially important decisions on thermal reactors and on reprocessing and fast breeder reactors.
President Carter's statement has been taken by many to be anti-nuclear. In fact, it is much more precautionary on reprocessing and the fast breeder reactor, but involves a massive increase in the programme for the thermal reactor PWR. Does the Secretary of State share that view? In a speech that was delivered on his behalf last week because he was kept here by a three-line Whip, he said that the question on a thermal nuclear reactor programme was not "whether" but "how many". Can he confirm that this is his view?
On the fast breeder reactor and reprocessing, the whole House understands the concern expressed by President Carter. No one can be ignorant of the risks of proliferation, but we are entitled to ask whether the method proposed by the President will deal with proliferation or whether there is not a risk of it making the situation worse.
We also have to look at the two main planks on which the President's policy
308
depends. First, there is the assumption that there are massive spare supplies of uranium in countries from which it could be obtained. This is far from certain, and even the American Administration does not maintain that it is definitely so. More research will have to be done to establish whether this is the position. This is an important premise of the whole policy.
Secondly, there is an assumption that there will be an acceptable area for the large increases in the amount of storage required for unprocessed waste. The remarkable conclusion of the Ford Foundation document, which has been carefully considered in the preparation of President Carter's statement, is that America should be prepared to accept other people's unprocessed waste. This is a generous theory, but I wonder how realistic it is in political terms. It would certainly give a new meaning to the inscription on the Statue of Liberty:
"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free ".
I checked the rest of the inscription and discovered that the Statue of Liberty had even anticipated current events because the inscription continues:
"The wretched refuse of your teeming shore".
That may be quoted again if this becomes a serious possibility.
There is a real problem over where radioactive nuclear waste would be stored, if it were not processed, in the quantities that may emerge.
Turning to United Kingdom's response to President Carter's initiative, I noted that the Secretary of State said that it was essential that decisions on reprocessing and the fast breeder reactor programme should remain with Ministers, but I agreed with the intervention of his hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson) who said that, realistically, the decision on whether there will be reprocessing and a fast breeder programme is not in the hands of the right hon. Gentleman or of his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, but rather in the hands of Mr. Justice Parker and his assessors. The findings of their inquiry will have a tremendous effect on future decisions. I do not propose to ask the Secretary of State

309
what he thinks future policy will be because it is out of his hands. His statement that decisions will remain with Ministers is technically true but is no longer true practically.
Mr. David PenhaligonIs the hon. Member against the Windscale inquiry?
Mr. King: The difficulty is that it is a narrow inquiry. We supported the setting up of the Windscale inquiry, but the Secretary of State said that the decision must remain in the hands of Ministers. We must recognise the implications of the actions that he has taken.
Dr. Jeremy Bray: Is the hon. Member giving away his own position or that of the Opposition? Personally, he has not got a leg to stand on on this important question.
Mr. King: I am not clear about what the hon. Member means. I am making a statement of my assessment of the present situation. The reality is that it will be extremely difficult for Ministers. There may not be a clear judgment, but the House should realise the implications of the Secretary of State's decision. I cannot claim to be original in this line of thinking because the point was first made by the hon. Member for Tottenham.
The Minister of State, Department of Energy (Dr. J. Dickson Mabon): My hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson) did not say that. He complained to the Secretary of State that he must assert that Ministers, in the last analysis, have the right of decision. My hon. Friend asked an important question. We do not take the view, whatever the results of the inquiry, that we must absolutely abide by every letter of the finding. I hope that the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) would say the same if he were in office.
Mr. King: I make a distinction between making a commitment on action and making an assessment of the situation at the moment. It depends on the outcome and the exact form of the findings. Perhaps no categoric or clear statement will arise from it.
We must recognise the need to take into account public opinion when making
310
energy policy decisions. We must see that public opinion is informed. This is not a matter that arises out of the Windscale situation alone. It will come up again and again.
For instance, we are looking to Canada for further supplies of uranium. The Canadians intend to attach further conditions to the reprocessing of uranium in support of President Carter's initiative. Canadian public opinion must, therefore, be taken into account. We are hoping for supplies of uranium from Australia. The Australian Prime Minister, Mr. Fraser, has been touring Europe discussing these matters, but he has problems on his own doorstep. There have been demonstrations about supples at the port in Sydney. Not only have there been demonstrations at Seabrook in the United States but at a nuclear plant in Germany. There is a need to ensure that the public really understands the issues.
One of the greatest benefits of our energy surpluses and affluence in the country at the moment is the opportunity it provides for our industry to learn new technologies and to develop new opportunities in this country and abroad. For instance, I pay tribute to Coal Board technology. I am delighted with the orders that it has obtained from ERDA. I hope that that will continue and that our new technology will not be lost to the United States at some stage so that we have to buy it back later.
I hope that we shall use North Sea technology and exploit it to the full in every possible market. I hope that full support will be given to British suppliers in the North Sea. There is misguided information about some of the activities in the North Sea. I see from a report in The Scotsman that at the Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions conference Mr. Gavin Laird, a director of BNOC, accused foreign companies of blackballing British offshore equipment companies in supply contracts. I wonder if the Minister of State might care to point out to Mr. Gavin Laird that BNOC does not employ a single British ship in its area of the North Sea. Nor does BODL. That is scandalous. Those organisations are serviced by Norwegian vessels. Mr. Laird might look at the beam in his own eye and do something about it.
Mr. Gordon Wilson: BODL is largely composed of American expatriates. Is it not right to point that out, along with the amount of employment provided through BODL to the area?
Mr. King: No doubt the hon. Member can pursue that later. It would not be an attractive function for BNOC if one of its purposes were to be contractor for overseas services.
Anyone who has travelled abroad as I have recently and who has looked at the energy situation in the wide international sense would appreciate the importance in which energy is regarded at the highest level of Administrations throughout the world. All Governments are considering what to do about shortages, or how to make best use of supplies. One is conscious that research into new processes, whatever they are, will be enormously expensive. One wonders at the capacity of even the United States to cope with the scale of development.
There have not been enough attempts at collaboration in sharing out the costs of many of the ventures. There is an important role in that context in Europe. We deplore the failure to agree on a site for the JET project. That is an important matter and it would be sensible to share the costs. When I visited the United States Senate one of the first things that I heard concerned the cost of the United States' fusion project. Is it sensible for us to spend enormous sums of money on parallel projects? The Government should consider that further. There is still much to be done. It will require leadership and co-operation. The risks of failing to achieve our targets and ambitions are great.
Last week Mr. Dean Rusk, the late Secretary of State, said in a speech that the energy crisis was
"a new cause of war coming down the road that will set nations at each other's throats".
The conclusion of the Workshop on Alternative Energy Strategies sums up the situation by saying:
"The interdependence of nations in the energy field requires an unprecedented degree of international collaboration in the future. In addition, it requires the will to mobilise finance, labour, research and ingenuity with a common purpose never before attained in times of peace. And it requires it now."
6.19 p.m.
Sir Geoffrey de Freitas: Unlike the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King), I found my right hon. Friend's speech interesting and an important contribution to the study of this subject. I shall refer to it not only tonight but on many occasions in the future.
It was right of the hon. Member for Bridgwater to draw attention to the precarious nature of the supply lines for oil. My right hon. Friend said that President Carter, from the beginning of his Presidency, has put a great deal of emphasis on energy, as indeed he should.
Let us examine the domestic energy situation in the United States. Houses there are made artificially hotter in the winter than anywhere else. In the summer they are made artificially cooler. Some houses are so cold that one has to put on a pullover when the summer sun is shining outside. American cars are most inefficient and consume enormous amounts of petrol. Although the United States imports a considerable amount of oil, the President has already met resistance in Congress to his plans to reduce the consumption of oil.
I too, was in Washington last week, and all the talk among Senators and Representatives was about energy and President Carter's initiative in trying to get his fellow countrymen to abandon their habit of wasting oil. Yet, as we know, a recent Gallup survey in the United States showed that a very large number of Americans did not even know that the United States imported oil.
Dr. Colin Phipps: Sixty per cent.
Sir G. de Freitas: I did not know that it was as high as that, but certainly it was a very large number indeed.
I am told that many other countries in the North Atlantic Alliance have also had similar parliamentary debates in recent times. There is no doubt that these national debates are important—of course they are—but how much more valuable would be joint debates between Members of Parliament from 14 countries and Members of Congress from the United States—parliamentarians from both sides of the Atlantic.
By good fortune, there is a forum which can be used for such a debate.

313
In the North Atlantic Assembly there are 172 parliamentarians. There is the annual conference in September, and this year there will be a debate on energy. Not everyone can go there, but there will be 172 Members of Parliament from both sides of the Atlantic debating energy.
Last Friday I had the great honour of being received in the White House by President Carter. Since only the two of us were present, it was possible to discuss a great deal in the 15 minutes that I was with him. He had not invited me because he thought that I was to take part in the debate this afternoon—in fact, he was not aware of it, nor was I at that moment—but because I am President of the North Atlantic Assembly.
The most important point that the President made to me was in reaffirmation of his belief in the value of the North Atlantic Alliance, but he then covered the full range of the activities of the North Atlantic Assembly, and it was with the economic problems and especially energy, that the President was most concerned. That is the energy of the whole of the Atlantic community, that is to say, the 15 industrialised nations in this part of the world.
I was able to assure the President that since the Assembly would be meeting in September and would be discussing economic problems it would be easy to give special attention to the international problem of energy, whether derived from traditional sources or from nuclear power. Like my right hon. Friend, I believe in open debate such as this. It is important that we can exchange ideas with Members of other Parliaments on these subjects.
As an illustration of the documents which will be before the Assembly in September, I shall refer to a report by a German member on the various aspects of our energy problems. The Assembly will also have before it the Hansards, or the equivalent, of all the debates which have taken place in the national Parliaments on this question.
My right hon. Friend regretted that there is no world forum for discussing energy. I also regret it, but at least there is a forum of parliamentarians from our 15 industrial countries, and that is better than nothing. In this forum we can learn from each other. For example, I
314
have not met any continental Member of Parliament or Member of the United States Congress who realises the enormous physical and financial problems attaching to winning oil from the North Sea, or who realises what we are doing about sources of energy other than coal and oil.
I recall the speech made last month by the Under-Secretary of State for Energy, in which he stated that it is estimated that by the year 2000, 8 per cent. of our energy would come from the sun and the waves. Yet Sir Martin Ryle pointed out early this year that in this country we allocate less than 1 per cent. of the budget for energy research and development to the non-nuclear programme of alternative energy. Yet even if the figure of 8 per cent. were to be raised far higher, coal would still be our principal source of power in the future.
I can understand people resenting the intrusion of collieries into the beauty of rural England, but we must be realistic. We need the energy and we have these coal resources. We have accepted motorways, we have accepted suburban houses and we have accepted factories. We must also accept the collieries. They can be sited only where the coal is, so that there is a limited choice of area. We are fortunate in having the coal, and we must use it.
There are all sorts of ways of conserving energy. I shall not touch on them now, because of the time, except to say that we could have smaller and more efficient cars, and that better insulation is very easy to achieve. But such technology cannot solve our problems, although it can make a valuable contribution. We must look at the positive aspects and at our coal resources.
Sir William Hawthorne, of Cambridge University, has reminded us that Governments and businesses plan only five to 10 years ahead. For this reason, as he put it
"the problem of shortage could become critical before it becomes serious".
If in 20 years the Atlantic countries were to run out of oil a crash project in the United States would be far too late to have any influence whatsoever. By that time, of course, those developing countries which do not produce oil would not be able to buy any oil at all.

315
The President of the United States must, of course, be aware of the power of the elected legislature. He is more aware of this than is any other Head of Government in the Alliance. For this reason President Carter, more clearly than any other Head of Government, can appreciate the part that can be played by parliamentarians in debating these problems in a common assembly and exchanging views on them.
Mr. Macfarlane: Like the right hon. Gentleman, I have been on a pilgrimage to Washington in the past two or three weeks, with hon. Members from both sides of the House. I hasten to add that this was during the Jubilee Recess and not in parliamentary time. I wonder whether, during this very interesting exchange of views with the President of the United States, the right hon. Gentleman asked about American public opinion. It is all very well for the President to introduce a package of ideas for conserving energy over a wide range, but is it not a fact that many American Congressmen are coming up for re-election next year, and that this is bound to be a pressure point for the President?
Sir G. de Freitas: I think that question has a very obvious answer. It was not necessary for me to tell the President of the United States about that, and I did not.
The North Atlantic Assembly, which has been meeting since 1955, was originally concerned principally with military and political matters, and concentrated on them. Over the years the Assembly has dropped "NATO" from its title and has become much more concerned with economic matters. I have always felt that the Assembly had an important role to play in matters such as this, and it is beginning to play it.
We shall have a big discussion on energy in the Assembly. I have argued in the European Parliament for open meetings of the Council of Ministers and I well remember my right hon. Friend, last March, encouraging publicity for what the Ministers of the European Community were talking about. On that occasion he used words to the effect that there is nothing particularly secret about energy, anyway. I fully endorse that view, to which my right hon. Friend referred
316
again today. The more open the discussion, the better it is.
I was greatly encouraged to find that the President saw in the Assembly an important instrument for the conduct of political affairs in our 15 parliamentary democracies. He saw that it could bring together parliamentarians from both sides of the Atlantic to discuss common economic problems. In a matter such as that which is the subject of this debate, we Members of Parliament would reinforce one another. The decisions in the energy battle are too important to be left to the technocrats.
6.30 p.m.
Miss Harvie Anderson: I am glad to have the opportunity of speaking in this debate, since certain aspects have a profound effect on part of the area which I have the honour to represent. I also declare an interest through my connections with Babcock and Wilcox, as registered.
It is impossible to cover the full range of matters involved, as the Secretary of State made clear at the outset of his remarks. I wish to concentrate on one part of the power supply aspect and in doing so to set out what I believe to be necessary and immediate moves.
It is ironic to think that this debate finds much of the industry concerned with power supply in precisely the same position of uncertainty as it was in in May 1974, when we debated the subject here—so much for the dwindling influence of the House under a Government controlled by external factions and factors.
The indisputable fact is that there will be nuclear reactors and that there is no avoiding the use of atomic power. When the environmental lobby becomes as eager as it is over some matters today, I am very glad to find myself with a strong ally in Sir Jack Rampton, as reported in the Financial Times on 23rd June.
In our debate in May 1974 I set out— the Hansard reference is column 1385—what I believed then to be the position of the AGR.
Mr. Tom King: My right hon. Friend has referred to Sir Jack Rampton's speech. She will know that I referred to that as well. I think that we may take it, since the Secretary of State did not

317
intervene, that that was in fact his speech which he was intending to deliver but which, owing to his detention, Sir Jack Rampton delivered, and that he endorsed every word of it.
Mr. Benn: I should make it clear that it consisted of notes prepared by the office. I did not actually see the final text of what Sir Jack Rampton says, but speeches I deliver I am responsible for. Sir Jack Rampton very kindly filled my place, as I was tied in the House by a three-line Whip. It was his speech that he delivered.
I have always encouraged my officials to make speeches publicly, and the attempt to try to make something of the fact that I was tied in the House by a three-line Whip is confusing. I think it is important that it be known that I asked Sir Jack Rampton to make a speech, as he often does; he did so, and it was his speech. It was not a speech that I had either written or agreed to deliver and asked him to read; it was a speech delivered at lunch when he kindly took my place.
Miss Harvie Anderson: I am still happy with my ally. I do not think that the House would expect me to interfere between views, which may or may not please me, exchanged between the Front Benches.
I return to my own theme. The Secretary of State was kind enough to say earlier in his speech that the lay view was not necessarily the only view. There are a great many laymen, including myself, who seem to have strong views, and I intend to express mine, which I believe I have, Mr. Deputy Speaker, with your permission, a perfect right to do.
I have said that in May 1974 I expressed certain views about the AGR. Happily—it is not always so—I am not at all ashamed of what I said then, because I said that I thought there was potential in this system, and all the evidence since then has gone to prove my point.
If we look at the actual performance to the extent that we know it, I think I am right in saying that both AGR stations are running at approximately 60 per cent. capacity, and that they are running to schedule. This was what I predicted at the earlier date. I am merely
318
saying now that I am very glad that that has been proved.
There then arises the importance of timing of ordering, to which the Secretary of State referred. But, of course, there are many facets to timing. The point that I want to make is that the delay in ordering is now so serious that it is doubtful whether this country can retain its boiler-making capacity. There may be some who are content with that prospect, but it looks sheer madness to me, because if the argument runs that we have no need for additional power stations now, we must look to the future.
There are three questions that I would like to put. First, are we going to rely increasingly on obsolete stations without any idea of a replacement programme?
Alternatively, are we going to rely on the sun or the waves at an earlier date than the predictably possible year 2030? The Secretary of State mentioned the year 2000, as did the right hon. Member for Kettering (Sir G. de Freitas). That may be so. But I was very interested to hear the right hon. Gentleman emphasising the restrictions on research and development in this field, which are inevitable in view of the very small amount of money allocated to it.
Much as I would like to accept the earlier date, I feel that it is optimistic, and that it is more realistic to assume that we must go on without this method for a longer period than has been suggested.
The third alternative is to buy from abroad to fill the undoubted gap that will be evident by 1990, while a huge work force remains unemployed in this country. It is perhaps appropriate to remind the House that it costs many thousands of pounds to create a job to re-employ one man made redundant. It is, therefore, a very costly business.
I turn now, as the Secretary of State did, to the question of the work force. I would like to place on record—and I know that I have the support of the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) in this—that at the firm of Babcock and Wilcox, which for many years was in my constituency, the redundancy position is tragic, and that is only one firm. One thousand three hundred men have already been made redundant

319
in this one firm alone. Unless there is an immediate order for Drax B a further 1,300 will have to go.
When I spoke earlier of the likelihood of this industry being able to carry on in this country, I was speaking in real terms. I have seen, week by week and month by month, a labour force skilled in these matters cast aside. I repeat that unless Drax B is ordered immediately the capacity in this industry will no longer exist in this country. These redundancies are from a works industrially harmonious, modern in equipment and well led in both managements and unions. I pay particular tribute to management and unions with whom I have worked in that works and throughout the industry for a long time, and whose sense of responsibility is, in my view, second to none.
Mr. Dalyell: Suppliers such as the North British Steel Company in Bathgate are equally concerned about the fate of Babcock and Wilcox and the need for the order for Drax B.
Miss Harvie Anderson: I do not want to digress, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I am trying to be as brief as possible, but it is true to say that unless this great company had had the capacity that it has, through diversification, it would have been unable to sustain even until now its present work force. I merely repeat for the third and last time that unless the Drax B station is ordered immediately it cannot be expected to sustain that work force much longer.
A regular ordering programme is essential, in the first place to enable the building capacity to remain at all and in the second to enable this country to supply its own needs in generating power in future. Drax B is, therefore, only a starter, and in terms of cost this is a very serious matter. But it must be followed up without the delay experienced now, because that delay has lasted literally for years. The follow-up must, of course, meet the time scale essential for the industry as well as for the efficient generating of power.
I repeat that to delay this order for the ideological reasons that are put forward—I do not want to go into this,
320
because the Minister of State knows more about it than I do—places in jeopardy much more than those dedicated to rationalisation seem to acknowledge. There is the strongest case for this work to reach the shop floor and even today there is a terrible timelag.
The programme needs to be clear. I recognise that it has to be bold, but for the reasons which I have given we have to utilise the know-how and the capacity which still exists in the country. What it means is an immediate order for Drax B. It means, as time will soon show, the ordering of another AGR station. I know the difficulties and the cost and the arguments that we shall be saved by the sun and the waves, but I do not think that the time scale fits. The AGR is essential and the performance of the AGR with the knowledge that we have of the method suggests that that should be the choice.
Then I come, of course, to the fast breeder reactor. Here, the area of doubt and controversy is inevitably wide. I am sorry that the Secretary of State did not refer to the fact that the work at Doun-reay has gone on broadly on schedule and with immense success. That team cannot be expected to go on forever in a vacuum. It wants some assurance not only about the exceptional quality of its work but about the potential for the future. There are other countries which would much like the experience, indeed the genius, of those men. I hope that the Minister of State will tonight send a message to those people that we in this country value their contribution and that we intend to form our policy so as to ensure that we retain their skill.
To fail in this length of vision now and to be diverted by environmental prejudice as uncharted as the nuclear prospect and despite scientific support of the highest order is to condemn this nation to shrink still further in the industrial race. It is for that reason that I hope, that, even at this eleventh hour, the Government will move forward and place an order.
6.44 p.m.
Mr. Ronald Brown: I am broadly in agreement with the right hon. Member for Renfrewshire, East (Miss Harvie Anderson), particularly in her conclusion

321
on what should be the current reactor choice.
Energy is a subject which lends itself to almost infinite discussion without coming to a positive conclusion. The Secretary of State ran true to form today. My criticism of the Government is that they have an almost negative energy policy. We have had much open government, with much detail given, but at the end of the day decisions must be made, and my criticism is that the Government will not make them.
Attention has been riveted on energy since 1973, when the prices of oil were increased by three or four times and for the first time people realised that it was an important factor. But the energy crisis is in itself a long-term problem, which must lead to a complete reshaping of world patterns of energy supply and consumption. How we do that will seriously affect the future of the world's economy and the nature of our society for the twenty-first century.
Economic expansion is possible only with cheap and plentiful supplies of energy. The Industrial Revolution was based on cheap coal and the post-1945 expansion has been based on cheap imported oil. Today, neither coal nor oil is cheap and the best assessments of world supplies of oil and natural gas are that they will be exhausted in 30 to 50 years. Unless growth in consumption is checked, that will be a disaster.
Therefore, we are left with trying to define alternative energy sources and expanding and developing them quickly, together with more stringent energy use. The prospect of continued economic growth or even of maintaining existing production appears extremely doubtful. I listened to the argument about coal, which I have heard rehearsed in other parts of the world. I am in some difficulty, because I have listened to the pleading that we should now revert to the use of coal as our major energy source, but I cannot forget that, by design—not because of the energy crisis, but because we did not regard this energy source as of the best performance—we have cut back on the use of coal in gas works, on the railways and in the domes- tic and industrial sectors.
Certainly, at the present extraction rate and together with the new coalfields,
322
supplies could be assured for well into the next century, but we decided to cut back because the commodity itself is so poor. It is expensive to burn, it contributes enormously to pollution, it is difficult to extract from a hostile terrain, and it endangers the health and well-being of those who mine the coal. That last was the major argument. So much so, that we are now arguing that miners should be permitted to retire at the age of 55 on full pension because of the hazards which they have to face.
I, therefore, do not understand how we can all talk about the anxiety to produce more coal while forgetting, apparently, that in the end the people who must produce it are losing their lives and suffering other hazards and that they are demanding the right to retire earlier than any other section of the community.
I do not go along with the argument that coal is the great saviour. It happens to be here, but I have yet to hear it argued that the filth and squalor of this commodity has now been removed and that it is marvellous for chaps to travel three miles down into the earth and live that kind of life. I am still waiting for an explanation of our sudden change of attitude and of our belief that coal is now so marvellous. Perhaps the Minister of State will say whether his family will be going down the mines to earn a living.
Talking about coal gives me an opportunity to ask the Minister of State to answer a question for me. I put this question to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State when he visited Paris some weeks ago. He was then telling us about what he called one of his great achievements during his period as President of the Council of EEC Energy Ministers. He was describing the introduction of a monitoring scheme to keep out cheap coal. He was not of the view that the housewives of this country ought to enjoy cheap coal. He encourages cheap food, but apparently draws the line at cheap coal.
The monitoring system would protect the Community from imports of cheap coal, said my right hon. Friend. I listened to him with interest, because it struck me as a little odd that my right hon. Friend, who is titular head of BP—which is very proud of the fact that it is now

323
diversifying its activities by buying into coalfields in the cheaper areas in other parts of the world, such as South Africa and Brazil—should take this line.
I asked my right hon. Friend to explain the apparent paradox. If BP is buying into coal-bearing areas in other parts of the world, presumably so that it can make money by exporting that coal from those areas, and if my right hon. Friend, who is head of that organisation, is busy setting up a protection scheme to prevent cheap coal entering the Community, what is the virtue of BP diversifying in that way? My right hon. Friend said that I had drawn to his attention something which he could not at once answer. He promised to let me know the answer. I realise that he is very busy and that we have had three-line Whips, but I have not yet had his letter. I presume that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State will be in a position tonight to explain this apparent paradox.
Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: I know that other hon. Members will comment on what my hon. Friend has said about mining. I have done some coal mining and I would not recommend it to anyone. That is not the view of the miners. My right hon. Friend will certainly write to my hon. Friend—I give him that assurance—reminding him, no doubt, that the Bradbury and Bridges letters define the relationship between BP and the present Government and preceding Governments, dating back to 1914. They do not mean that the Secretary of State at any moment is the titular head of BP. That is not the relationship of BP with any Government.
Mr. Brown: I am sure that, following the Secretary of State's assertion that Ministers must be in final control—he said that quite clearly—my right hon. Friend will want to think again about that intervention.
I confess that I have little faith in the proposals to develop what are now called "other sources of energy", such as wind power, wave power, solar energy and geo-thermal energy. These are now being canvassed as if we had suddenly discovered the sun—as if we had, for the first time, wind and waves and hot rocks. I am bound to say that I thought the House knew, as I knew a long time ago, that
324
these were always available. I thought the House was also aware that we had spent a great deal of time in research, trying to assess what the final value of those resources would be to the economy. I thought that those who were employed as technologists had come to the view that while such things would make some contribution, the overall contribution would be of little value because we would still have to spend a vast amount of money on putting in the primary source.
Now, apparently, we are going round the track for the second time. No doubt my right hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Sir G. de Freitas) was so anxious to tell us what President Carter told him and what he told President Carter that President Carter was still being chased around the track. Perhaps being a peanut farmer, President Carter feels that the sun ought to be used for more than growing peanuts.
I am not converted to this view and I have yet to hear arguments put to me which will show that in some way these methods will make anything but a minor contribution. I hesitate to think of what windmills on all of the high spots of the country would look like. I am told that if there are enough of them it is likely that they will contribute 5 per cent. of our total energy demand.
Mr. Forman: May I put one argument to the hon. Gentleman to suggest how his view may be changed? As real energy prices rise, the potential contribution from these so-called alternative sources can be, and is likely to be, much more substantial.
Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman and I have a meeting very shortly on the Select Committee dealing with this issue. We can joust about it then. I do not believe that his argument is impressive. I do not believe that it will be possible to replace the basic primary requirement by these rather fringe issues, which are attractive because we are talking of them against a background of high-price oil.
We have to put our faith in the provision of nuclear power plants. I make no excuses for being in favour of such plants. I came to this decision 25 years ago, after much discussion. I taught the subject for a living, I still believe that I am right, and I repent not for the sins

325
of my time in this House. The Secretary of State rightly pointed out, with pride, that we are providing 13 per cent. of our needs from nuclear power plants and that by 1980 we shall be providing 20 per cent. That is a tremendous record— one of the best in the world. I am convinced that a major contribution to solving the energy crisis lies in research and development of fast breeders.
Mr. Jim Marshall: I hesitate to prolong my hon. Friend's speech, but may I put a point to him related to this issue? He is arguing that nuclear power can make a great contribution to our energy needs. Can he explain the speech made last week by the civil servant—who we are now told did not make the speech on behalf of my right hon. Friend—in which it was said that nuclear power will not make one iota of difference to the so-called energy gap which we shall face by the year 2000? It is an energy—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): Order. The hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) has indicated that he would like to try to catch my eye later in the day. If he is to make lengthy interventions his chances of being called will be so much more remote. In any case, as he said, such interventions lengthen speeches. If we go on at this rate fewer than half of those hon. Members anxious to take part in the debate will be able to do so.
Mr. Brown: I take your strictures to heart, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am trying hard not to take too long. There is a straightforward answer to my hon. Friend. It is being advanced regularly. This is one of the criticisms that I have made of my own Government and the previous Tory Government. The Opposition Front Bench spokesman was a bit cheeky— when we think of the delay of the previous Conservative Government in reaching any decision at all—to have the effrontery to complain that this Government had not made a decision yet. Within almost six weeks of taking office the Government decided to support the steam generating heavy water reactor. That was a decision which the Tory Government could have made at any time they liked in the previous three years but failed to do.
That is one of the answers to the question why there is likely to be an
326
energy gap. One way of filling the gap is by going ahead with research and development on fusion and with the development of the fast breeder reactor, together with continuing work on safety requirements to reduce the hazards. It was, therefore, disappointing to me to realise that the Secretary of State did not intend to explain his rather extraordinary behaviour as President of the EEC Energy Ministers over the joint research centre programme and the JET.
I do not know whether the House is aware of the fact, but my right hon. Friend followed an extraordinary course of action with which I hope the Minister of State will be able to deal. When we held discussions with our partners in the EEC about where the joint research programme should take place the general consensus was that it ought to be at Ispra. My right hon. Friend took the view that that was not the place that he would select, and he was not sure that the amount of work being given to Ispra was necessarily the right amount.
One does not know everything about what happens at these meetings because, although my right hon. Friend is in favour of open government, he could not get the council meetings open. I understand that when the discussion took place the opinion of Ministers was taken in turn, but when it came to the turn of my right hon. Friend he said that he would enter an ad referendum. That is a means of saying that one accepts in principle but that one will go back to discuss it with one's own Government. By custom and practice, an answer is given in two or three days confirming it. However, in this case the answer was not given.
My right hon. Friend has now entered reservations of some description. It is understood that the reason for doing so is that he feels that this must be connected with JET. The view of my right hon. Friend, which I share, is that Culham is the right place for JET to be located, but we have yet to persuade our friends in the Community that this is so. My right hon. Friend has apparently now taken the view that he will refuse to free money for the joint research centre pending a decision on JET. I think that that is unsatisfactory. I understand why he has done that, and some of the arguments

327
that he is putting forward, but it means that we have left our colleagues in Europe in a very angry state. That is not the best way of doing business.
If we had reservations it was right to put them on the table and to argue the decision. But after we had used the means of an ad referendum knowing that a decision was expected within two or three days and that we were regarded as having accepted the idea in principle, it seems unreasonable that we should then adopt a further position of reservation. I invite the Minister of State, in winding up, to set out the current situation. Are we still blocking funds for the joint research programme? Is my right hon. Friend sure that he intends to continue blocking the project until a JET decision is made?
Abundant energy is an important factor for economic growth. Our aim must be to ensure sufficient energy supplies at a reasonable price to permit a level of economic activity which will enable us to obtain growth and a return to full employment. We must step up the conservation programme to ensure economic utilisation of our oil and natural gas. Our experience with fast breeders is very encouraging and the major thrust of our research and development should be towards this end. Much work needs to be done on storage and disposal techniques, and the reprocessing of fuel must be improved.
I do not have time to enter into arguments about Windscale. It was my right hon. Friend who authorised the first development of Windscale back in 1967. He assessed its value, urgency and the hazards then. Now, when the question of an extension has arisen, he has refused to make the decision. Once more he has used a technique—in this case a planning technique—to try to resolve the problem. That is the sort of thing that I reject. If we want to go ahead let us say so, but do not let us use some obscure planning device for not extending Windscale and say that that is the end of reprocessing, because reprocessing is wrong. That will not be the conclusion of the judge who is to decide on this issue. Therefore, we must step up our work in this area. We cannot continue blowing with the wind, never really
328
making up our minds on anything, in the hope that somehow it will all come right in the end.
Our decisions today will have a major effect on our country in the year 2000 and I hope that my right hon. Friends will realise that it is up to them to accept this challenge and have the guts to make decisions. Let us see whether we can make this country great.
7.5 p.m.
Mr. John Hannam: I agree with the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Brown) in his description of the Secretary of State's speech as somewhat lacking in clear decision and being rather woolly. There was enough flannel in that speech to keep ue warm during this cold summer and probably next winter, too.
This is a valuable debate, because it allows hon. Members to make contributions on the question of energy that may assist the Government when they make crucial decisions that are now being delayed and that should be made more urgently. During my years in Parliament I have listened to a great number of experts and scientists and people from all sectors. We have heard from the coal and gas industries, from those concerned with the alternative sources of energy, and from the nuclear industry. I have attended many seminars, as no doubt many hon. Members have. Throughout that period, which in energy terms stretches from about 1972, I have seen many forecasts come and go and many assumptions get washed away by subsequent events.
I recall a luncheon with the vice-president of the Exxon oil company early in 1973, when he grandly informed us that there was no need for politicians and Governments to take any role in Middle East affairs because it was perfectly all right to leave the oil companies to decide matters. Six months later there was the explosion of Middle East oil prices.
Over the years I have become ever more convinced that two things would happen in the last quarter of this century. The first was that as the era of cheap world commodities came to an end so energy, upon which modern civilisation depends, would rocket in price as the shortfall in the supply of oil became apparent. The second factor was that not

329
only would energy costs rise dramatically, eating into our standard of living, but that the growing energy shortage would force us into considering new energy production systems. The conclusion that I arrived at was that although there might be a limited period of, say, five to 10 years when a small surplus of oil, gas and coal would exist, we should very quickly move into substantial deficit from 1990 onwards. With the best will in the world the various attractive alternative sources of eneregy will not and cannot be developed quickly enough to satisfy that shortfall.
I made this point during the Second Reading of the Coal Bill on 2nd March, when I declared my support for investment in our coal industry, especially in regard to the development of new techniques of extraction and use for industrial feedstock purposes. But I linked with that statement my belief that nuclear power with coal would be our energy backbone in the future, and today I want to develop the nuclear theme in the context of the post-North Sea oil era.
I believe most strongly that we politicians have a grave responsibility being thrust upon us—a responsibility to succeeding generations not only to provide safe industrial processes but to provide the basic energy needs of a society growing in numbers and expectations. By that I do not mean a growth society based on the materialistic type of growth witnessed in the 1960s. I have in mind a society in which such growth has reached a plateau but in which we shall need to provide reasonable heating and mobility levels, fertilisers for agriculture and horticulture, and essential industrial production to maintain the standard of living of the British people.
I believe that notwithstanding all the efforts to find new oil and gas reserves and to increase coal production, plus the introduction of new systems of power from the sun, the wind and the waves, we in the Western world—and probably the Communist bloc as well—will face a grave shortage of fuel and power before the end of the century.
It is in that context that energy is so relevant, for no one can deny that energy policy, although not likely to send political temperatures soaring, is vital to our economy in human terms and from the point of view of industrial costs.
330
Although when thinking of energy we are prone to think only of electricity for domestic heating and cooking, 75 per cent. of our electricity comes from coal generation only 10 per cent. from oil. But in terms of the overall primary use of energy for industrial and domestic use oil provides the largest share—41·1 per cent., compared with 37·7 per cent. from coal.
Energy is a vital part of economic planning. I am the first to accept that there are no easy answers to some of the questions that I have asked. Until 1965 it was just a question of using as much cheap oil as possible. Coal mines were being closed as uneconomic and electricity was made so cheap to the consumer that we all fell over backwards to close up the chimneys, install oil-fired burners, electric cookers and night-store heaters.
All the forecasts were then proved completely wrong by the 1973 oil price explosion, when the price of oil went up from $2 a barrel to $9 a barrel within a matter of months. I estimate that by 1985 the price of oil could be around $25 a barrel and by the end of this century it could be $100 a barrel. The result of that price hike in 1973 was that we suffered a substantial fall in demand and had an over-capacity of electricity supply.
Nevertheless, I take the view that it is still better to err on the side of over-provision, because the costs of capital construction are always left behind by inflation and provided that we have the money to pay for that capital investment the subsequent electricity will turn out to be cheaper. The one thing we cannot do, unfortunately, is to take all the alternative paths at the same time.
Looking back at the 1965 White Paper one sees that it was reasonable at that time to go for a cheap fuel policy. This meant that despite the charge on the balance of payments the cheap oil that we were able to obtain could be used, together with nuclear power, to produce low-cost electricity. The coal industry was rationalised, with the closure of uneconomic collieries, leading to higher productivity, with a rundown of about 35,000 men a year. The result was that coal production fell from 207 million tons in 1956 to 112·6 million tons last year, plus 10·2 million tonnes opencast.

331
How do we recreate the expansion of coal production? The NCB talks about producion of about 150 million tons of competitively-priced coal in 1985. This would allow 100 million tons for electricity generation. But I am afraid that all the indicators—this has been pointed out in previous debates—like the present level of coal productivity and the intentions of earlier retirement, lead me to the conclusion that the coal industry will not reach those targets until a radical technological revolution takes place in coal extraction and coal use.
Coal productivity has fallen from 45 cwts. per manshift in 1973 to 43·8 cwts. last year, despite hundreds of millions of pounds of investment in recent years. Regardless of that, I am convinced that the tremendous coal reserves that we possess will be of great value to us when we have properly developed the new methods of liquefication and gasification, fluidised bed combustion and oil from coal refining processes.
When I talk of our future energy needs being satisfied by coal and nuclear power I am referring to the post-1990 era, for which we should be planning and making decisions now. When I assume an energy crisis of the 1990s I know that there are those who believe that as prices rise so other sources of energy will be developed. I accept that, just as I believe that a lot of North Sea oil would not have been developed in a pre-1973 situation. One can foresee some new marginal oil extractions being viable as basic prices rise. But costs will also rise, in proportion. Even with all the shale oil, tar sands and new discoveries, I contend that a shortage of oil necessitates a major nuclear power construction programme.
There is, of course, a great deal of controversy surrounding nuclear power, just as there is around any great new technological breakthrough. Those who now campaign so vigorously against nuclear power would, I believe, have led the anti-car campaign in the early part of the century, despite the warning by Hohler that unless the growth in the number of horses was halted we should all be submerged 'neath horse manure in 50 years.
Nuclear power will be our main source of electricity during the next century. It will be made safe by man's ingenuity and
332
in time it will be non-polluting. Our problem is how to ensure a proper acceptability of the next stage of nuclear power. It behoves all of us in this House to make a careful appraisal of the facts and figures. Then, if we agree on the conclusions, we must present the case to the British people.
The immediate problem is not one of "if" but of "which"—which type of thermal reactor should constitute the nation's ordering programme? I regret that wrong decisions were made in 1974 and could be made again this summer by the Secretary of State. Britain was a pioneer in nuclear power with her Magnox reactors back in the 1950s. The AGR programme of the 1960s has slipped behind schedule but is now well under way and proving a success. Nevertheless, 13 per cent. of our electricity, at lowest cost, comes from nuclear plants, and this will become 20 per cent. if a proper ordering programme is instigated.
Mr. Macfarlane: Did I understand my hon. Friend to say that the Secretary of State will make his decision this summer? I do not believe that the Secretary of State indicated that during his speech. Although I should like to think that a decision was to be made this year, I believe that my hon. Friend is indulging in wishful thinking if he thinks that ever the populist Secretary of State will make a decision this summer.
Mr. Hannam: Having heard the right hon. Gentleman's statement today about the urgency of the decision, having heard the announcement at the Sunningdale conference about the urgency of making decisions, and having read newspaper reports, I have come to the conclusion that we can expect a decision from the Secretary of State sometime during this summer. But, as my hon. Friend pointed out, the Secretary of State has dithered and dathered on this point for so long that we may be coming back this time next year wondering whether the decision will be made.
The objective in making this decision must be to design a reactor that we can export if possible and that can be built by our construction industry. But in the mistaken belief that we could achieve this export potential we went ahead with the SGHWR design. We could have had a winner in 1974 and could have been well

333
under way had we chosen the right model —I spoke against the choice of the SGHWR—but we have wasted two or three years. Since then we have run down the construction industry almost to a point of no return. [An hon. Member: "With hindsight."] This is not hindsight. It was a view expressed by a number of hon. Members at the time which received some sympathy from the then Secretary of State for Energy, who wrote to me personally about it.
The same prevarication is likely to delay the development of our fast breeder technology and it is to these two points that I wish to address my closing remarks. First, on nuclear power in general, can we do without it? I believe that it is something that we cannot do without and we shall therefore have to establish our future energy needs on the basis of a substantial nuclear power programme. If energy demand continues to increase by 3 per cent. a year from 1980, Western Europe's energy demand will increase from last year's 1,190 million tons oil equivalent to 2,730 million tons oil equivalent by the year 2000. I agree that, in fact, we ought to aim for a nil increase in energy demand, but these are the realistic appraisals of what the energy demand is likely to be. Oil demand in Europe will increase from 665 million tons oil equivalent to 1,235 million tons oil equivalent by the year 2000, with a massive increase in oil imports into Western Europe. Gas production will be greater than hitherto forecast, but after 1990 a gap will open up which we shall have to meet by coal gasification and further liquid gas imports.
Hydro-power will probably remain roughly as it is. Coal production will probably remain constant at 360 million tons from 1980 to 2000, but coal demand will increase dramatically if we start using coal to produce gasification in order to meet the gap in gas demand. There will be a further need to import this amount from outside Europe. These figures give some idea of the gap that will emerge in Western Europe. It is a gap that is also affecting Japan, the United States and other major industrialised sectors.
There must be a major new supply of nuclear power in Western Europe. If one analyses the amount of nuclear
334
power that we shall need, this comes out at something like 22 gigawatts in operation at the moment and a further 80 gigawatts under order, and we shall need about 20 additional power stations each year between 1985 and 2000. This is only half of what the OECD forecast as being the actual amount of nuclear power that Western Europe would be producing.
Dr. Phipps: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman appreciates that there are many hon. Members who think that any kind of nuclear programme, and the fast breeder reactor, should be avoided altogether. He said that it must be nuclear power. Does he agree that what he is saying is that in investing the enormous sums of money that will be required to fill that energy gap he prefers that it should be nuclear power? I would prefer to see that enormous investment spent on other forms of energy.
Mr. Hannam: If any hon. Member or, for that matter, any scientist, could show that by making that investment now we could produce a solution to the energy gap by any other means, I should be happy to fall in with that suggestion. I look forward to hearing what the hon. Member for Dudley, West (Dr. Phipps) suggests as the solution. I have seen no evidence that there is any other solution to this problem. One either assumes that there will be an energy gap, in which case it must be nuclear power that fills it, or one puts forward the hypothesis that there will not be an energy gap, and that is one that quite a number of people put forward, and one that we have to consider.
But we in the United Kingdom can see ourselves in a much more favourable position than most other European countries. We have large reserves of oil, coal and natural gas, and we should be self-sufficient during that limited period of the 1980s. So the non-ordering of more nuclear power stations since 1970 will probably not rebound on us. However, in the longer term we shall probably find ourselves in a similar position to that of most other Western European countries, except, perhaps, Norway. We shall have to import energy at a time of declining world availability of oil. We cannot, therefore, isolate ourselves from the global energy situation when determining our energy policy.

335
When the Secretary of State was speaking I had the sensation that he was talking like a little Englander. However, we shall require substantial oil imports and gas imports in the late 1990s. Solar and alternative sources are not a major solution to our problem.
If nuclear power is to provide the balance of our requirements in the 1990s, we have to increase installed capacity from the five gigawatts that we have now to 55 gigawatts by the year 2000. That will include the existing five gigawatts of Magnox plants that we have, plus the six gigawatts of AGRs curently coming into commission, plus four gigawatts of new thermal reactors by 1985. Then we shall require a further three stations a year throughout the 1990s.
It is vital, therefore, that the Secretary of State makes a decision soon on the ordering programme for these thermal reactors. The SGHWR decision was wrong, as I forecast at the time. The question is which reactor will now give Britain a chance to achieve a good export stake as well as having a safe and economic system for the country.
Since 1974, I have heard a great deal of evidence from leading scientists, energy experts and members of the Safety Inspectorate, and all that I have heard confirms in my mind the view that the choice between the light water reactor and any other form of thermal reactor does not rest on safety grounds. That aspect is purely one of additional costs to bring any reactor up to the necessary safety requirements of the Safety Inspectorate, which is admired and respected throughout the world. I am sure that the NNC assessment will confirm that only a marginal increase in costs will be required.
With 90 per cent. of the world's reactor production being in the mass-produced PWR, making it cheaper and more effective, it seems to me right that we should choose one which will give export potential for our manufacturing industries and the greatest opportunities for a viable British construction industry with £1,000 million to £2,000 million of exports available for the light water reactor. We shall be able to create a new British-designed light water reactor industry. Therefore, I take the view that
336
it is not a question of choosing a reactor that will allow our finances and expertise to go abroad. It is one that will enhance the existing technologies that we are providing already for the French and the Tennessee reactors being built in America. We can have a British light water reactor design which is better than the existing Westinghouse design, and using a better fuel.
Miss Harvie Anderson: Can my hon. Friend put a time scale on what he is suggesting, making reference to the overcapacity of components for the light water reactor at present and, therefore, the unlikelihood of a vast export programme?
Mr. Hannam: In whatever programme we embark upon, we are talking in terms of building up a successful industry again for the massive ordering programme which is certain to take place throughout the world in the 1980s and the early 1990s. Therefore, decisions made now will enable confidence to return to the construction industry.
I hope, therefore, that the Government will cease to maintain their present posture of standing back from these decisions and answer the minority opposition to nuclear power in this country. We have a wonderful record for safe nuclear development, and the chances of a nuclear accident involving 100 deaths in a country with 100 nuclear stations is about once in 100,000 years, according to a Massachusetts Institute of Technology study.
Mr. Penhaligon: Did not experts of similar calibre give West Country Members of Parliament an assurance that if the Concorde flew up the middle of the Channel to Paris there was no chance of anyone living in Cornwall or on the south coast of Devon ever hearing a sonic boom?
Mr. Hannam: I did not hear that assurance. I know that there has been a rebound problem from the Concorde, which is now being adjusted by a movement of the flight path by the French some 15 miles further away, but I do not think that has any relevance to the scientific assessment of the likelihood of injuries caused by major industrial explosions, dam failures, or whatever it may be. In fact, the death damage that

337
we face from dam failures is about one in every 15 years. So one can get a totally different proportion by looking at all the various factors that determine hazards in the present day.
Dr. Phipps: Did the same experts give statistics about the likelihood of just one additional hydrogen bomb being dropped on people over the next 15 years, due to this process?
Mr. Hannam: I do not want to go into the realms of fantasy with this. We have to take the factors as they are known at the moment. There are a large number of nuclear power stations in existence. They have been in existence for a long time. Many other industrial fatalities have occurred. The evidence has been assessed, and that is the conclusion that has been reached. It must be quoted, therefore, to answer some of the irresponsible charges made against nuclear power by the minority opposition in this country.
I turn finally to the fast breeder reactor. We have here a very difficult problem. He would be a foolish man who pretended that we could now go ahead with a construction programme of operational fast reactors. But that is not what is being asked for. We have produced a successful prototype at Dounreay, but for a year our development team has suffered uncertainty and falling confidence. Even our research and development programme is approved only on a three-monthly basis. This must be changed if we are to retain confidence amongst our scientists.
First, we must declare our faith in the skilled British technology that we have created. We must give it an assured annual research and development budget and press ahead with the solutions to plutonium proliferation, transportation and disposal.
The big question marks raised by the Flowers Commission are those of waste disposal and the proliferation of plu-tonium. I believe that we can look forward to the successful solution of these major problems. Our scientific technology will overcome them. It is right that we should advance along this path and answer many of the fears that have arisen before we embark upon any major ordering programme.
Conservation and new uses for coal are vital parts of our policy, but the de-
338
cision that I want to see made is one that needs the full support of the Secretary of State and the backing of this House. It is a declaration of faith in our nuclear power industry and our Safety Inspectorate, and a decision to order four light water reactors based on a British design.
In my view, we must follow that up by international co-operation on reprocessing and on the fast breeder. If we do that, our energy problems of the 1990s have a good chance of being overcome and we shall also be playing a very important part in the global energy strategy, which, in the final instance, means heat, light and mobility for British people and for people throughout the world, and jobs for our workers.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Unless there is a drastic reduction—and I mean drastic —in the length of speeches, fewer than half of the 12 hon. Members present who are anxious to take part in the debate will be able to do so.
7.30 p.m.
Mr. Jim Marshall: I take note of your rebuke, Mr. Deputy Speaker, which you made on my intervention a little time ago. In the light of that, perhaps I should not follow the speech of the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam).
I start by saying that while many adverse effects have arisen from the oil embargo and the consequential price increases since 1973, there has been an increase in one particular industry as a result. In fact one might call it the biggest growth industry in the world today—that is, the proliferation of experts on energy matters. If one looks at their differing and diverse views one is driven either to the optimistic extreme of believing that there is no problem or to the pessitimistic extreme of believing that if we continue to waste energy at the present rate by the year 2,000 we shall be back to a cave-type economy. The speech of the hon. Member for Exeter falls somewhere between those two extremes. I am not sure whether this is the best position to occupy in this debate.
My own position is that I am certainly not pessimistic about the future. In fact, I am optimistic. We must set the record straight—the world just does not have

339
an energy shortage. What the world is facing is a relative decline in the contribution of oil and natural gas to our economies.
Having said that, I hasten to point out that there still will be substantial—I hesitate to say vast—amounts of oil and natural gas remaining. We have vast quantities of coal and we do not know the extent of coal resources in the world. The uranium resources of the world are probably substantially higher than the present known reserves.
In the longer term, despite the observations of my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Brown), I believe that solar power, wave power, tidal power, possibly geothermal power and probably fusion power and other benign sources will give us plentiful supplies of energy. What we face in the longer term is not an absolute shortage of energy but an increase in the price that we have to pay for it.
Despite the doom scenario painted by experts both inside and outside this House, the effect of high energy costs on Western economies, while certainly serious, is not catastrophic. It does not mean, as the hon. Member for Exeter said, that there will be zero or even negative economic growth.
If one looks at the developed economies of the Western world, one sees that energy inputs are small enough to ensure that any reasonable changes will not make any major impact on our economic and social future. Anyone who pretends otherwise is misleading the House and the country.
The difficulties arise in the less-developed countries, which have no indigenous sources of coal, oil or natural gas and are attempting to build a firm industrial base. In these economies, energy inputs are of such magnitude that they affect disproportionately the development of their economies. We must try to ensure that in these countries there is some kind of compromise over commodity prices, and that the consequential adverse effect of increasing energy payments on the balance of payments is ameliorated as much as possible.
In the Western developed world there is no reason why economic growth should not continue despite higher energy costs.
340
We must put that point across repeatedly. Why is there this scramble within Western Europe and the United States to formulate national and international energy plans? It is perhaps interesting that the Secretary of State for Energy has been criticised for scrambling more slowly than his colleagues in Europe and America. While my question may be naïve and the answer may be obvious, I think that I should reiterate the reasons for it.
The world, which prior to 1973 enjoyed cheap and apparently limitless and secure supplies of oil, has found that since 1973 energy has become expensive and supplies apparently insecure. There have been projections about the excess of demand over capacity for certain fuels between the years 1990 and 2000. I do not deny —and I am not in a position to do so— that there will be an excess of demand over supply in certain fuels, but I draw the House's attention to an observation by Mr. Gladstone in his 1866 Budget speech. He arrived at the conclusion that the United Kingdom would require 331 million tons of coal in 1900, 2·6 billion tons in 1960 and 3 billion tons by 1970. That estimate was based on a growth rate of 3·5 per cent. The growth was out, as was his basic assumption that no substitute for coal would be required and that it was doubtful whether it could be found even if it were required.
Mr. Macfarlane: Some two years after that Budget speech a Conservative Government came into office in 1868. Therefore, it is significant that those figures probably were not accepted by the electorate.
Mr. Marshall: I am pleased to hear that petty party squabbles went on even in 1868. But we are dealing with more serious matters today. I made the observation in order to indicate the kind of uncertainty in following any long-term assessments. I do not deny that there may be an energy gap and that we must take steps to try to overcome it, if and when it arises. But we must not be mesmorised by assuming that it will arise in 10 or 15 years.
For the plans of this country, the United States, and other parts of Western Europe there must be three main aims which I reiterate because so far they

341
have not been articulated in this Chamber today. The first is the optimum use of expensive fuels; the second is the attempt to protect supplies; and the third is the development of alternative fuel sources.
The hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) apparently came here today just to regale the President Carter energy plan. He seems to be imbued with the enthusiasm of the President and Mr. Schlessinger. But the enthusiasm of those two is not shared by all Congressmen and senators. I think that President Carter will be very lucky to obtain a great deal from his original energy plan.
This country, in formulating its energy plans, has made one of the best starts in the developed world. We have also made a good start in conservation, which is the best short-term method of reducing the rate of increase in energy consumption. But we must seek to maintain the momentum. Will my right hon. Friend consider the possibility of linking conservation, particularly on the insulation side, in planning terms, so that local authorities are given responsibility to ensure that minimum insulation standards are maintained throughout the country?
We have also laid increasing emphasis on other fuels, particularly coal and nuclear power. Apparently we have a limitless supply of coal. I support "Plan for Coal" and the Coal Industry Bill, which is at present in the other place. If the coal industry takes advantage of the situation, I believe that it has a golden future. The miners will be in a position to contribute to our future well-being as they have done in the past, and perhaps they will even surpass what they have done in the past. Coal must continue to be the backbone of the electricity supply industry. In the coming years conversion into gas and petrochemicals will also make a contribution. Those of us who took part in the proceedings on the Coal Industry Bill have had an opportunity to pursue these arguments at greater length. I believe that coal has a good future in generation terms and in conversion to synthetic natural gas and petrochemicals.
Those hon. Members who joined the parliamentary delegation on energy to the United States will remember that the term used there was that the coal indus-
342
try is a "reactive" industry—a dreadful word which the Americans use often. In other words, so far the coal industry has sought to find reserves to meet only the current demand. I believe that that situation is now being reversed. The coal industry throughout the world will go out to discover new reserves and I believe that they are immense.
I should like to say a few words about nuclear power. I support the nuclear power industry because it will be required for the generation of electricity, but we must seek to separate the question of thermal reactors from the topic of reprocessing and the subject of the fast breeder reactor. I believe that the thermal reactor will stand by itself.
The hon. Member for Bridgwater referred to a publication issued by the Ford Foundation. That document said that America would be prepared to act as the dustbin for atomic waste but made the point that reprocessing should not be dealt with in isolation. The document from the Ford Foundation stressed that on a long-term or short-term basis of waste one can safely dispose of it from the light water reactor. I agree with the hon. Member for Exeter that we should have a commitment to more thermal power stations.
If we have to make a choice soon, I believe that we should come down on the side of the light water reactor. I say that for two reasons. The first is that it is the considered view in some parts of the industry that if we continue with the present advanced gas-cooled reactor, there will be no nuclear power construction industry in this country in 10 years' time—that is, unless we choose the light water reactor. Secondly, that reactor will give us for the first time an opportunity to enter into a growing export market.
There are many other points I could have made in this debate, but I shall refrain from doing so because I know that many other hon. Members still wish to speak. I merely wish to emphasise in my concluding remarks that on the international front we cannot isolate ourselves from the rest of the world, but we must work together, whether through the United Nations or the EEC institutions, to arrive at a coherent international energy policy.
7.45 p.m.
Mr. Peter Rost: I am pleased to be called to speak following the remarks of the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) because my approach is similar to his, although I shall develop a strong variation from it.
I subscribe to the view that there is no shortage of energy, as is patently obvious, and that there is now a surplus of energy. It takes a brave man to forecast what the energy scene will be in 10, 20 or 30 years' time. I would not attempt to predict the energy mix at the turn of the century, but I maintain that there is no shortage of energy, nor will there be in the future. I cannot accept that there could possibly be an energy gap any more than that there could be a caviare or champagne gap, since supply must balance demand. It will mean that there will be a high price to pay in real terms in relation to gross domestic product. Our energy may cost more, but there will not be a gap.
Provided that the normal laws of supply and demand are allowed to operate, we shall not wake up one day and suddenly find that oil or gas or coal have run out. It will not happen in that way. There will be a long process of evolution. Indeed, it has already happened. The only way in which there will be an energy gap, and the only circumstances in which we or any other countries in the world will suddenly face an energy crisis, will be if politicians create one. There is a serious risk that political interference will create an energy shortage or an energy crisis. We must learn from the mistakes of the past and must not allow them to be repeated.
Dr. Phipps: The hon. Gentleman seems to be expounding an astonishing thesis. Is he suggesting that when the last barrel of oil disappears, the mere fact that people are prepared to pay an exorbitant price will, in some miraculous way, produce a non-existent barrel of oil?
Mr. Rost: Of course I do not suggest that, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will do me the courtesy of allowing me to develop my argument. I shall be happy to hear his response when he catches the eye of the Chair.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not this evening, I am afraid.
Mr. Rost: The mistakes of the past must not be repeated if we are to avoid creating an energy gap or crisis by political meddling. One of those mistakes involved the subsidisation of electricity. That has resulted in a distortion of the market that is now leading to a higher price for electricity than would otherwise be the case. It is one of the causes of the confusion in the distorted energy scene from which we are still suffering. If electricity had not been so heavily subsidised, it would not have been possible to continue to produce electricity so inefficiently. Without that subsidisation, we should now have a far more efficient system of electricity production with combined heat and power, which would be in the long term and, I believe, in the current term, not merely a more efficient way of converting our energy but a relatively cheaper process.
There are other examples of where we are in danger of repeating the mistakes of the past by political intervention in what should be a far more free market operation. If market forces are not to be allowed to operate in this crucial area of energy supply and demand, we are in a serious danger of creating problems for ourselves that need not otherwise arise.
The evidence is that there have already been adjustments in the supply and consumption of energy since the Middle East oil price increase which have not yet been allowed to follow through but which will do so in future years. For example, who would have predicted a great acceleration in demand for solar panels in this country? Anyone who made that suggestion two or three years ago would have been laughed out of court, or would have gone bankrupt in trying to market such panels, yet already there has been a great increase in their use for heating. That is because it is proving economic to do so. The use of solar panels is making only a marginal contribution to the supply of energy but it is an illustration of the point that I am trying to make—namely, that if market forces are allowed to operate, the supply will come forward.
The same can be said about the incentive that now exists for thermal insulation. There was no incentive before. It did

345
not pay to invest even £200 to £300 to have one's house properly constructed or insulated because the return in terms of cost saving were so low that it would have taken more than the life of the house to meet that cost. The position has changed and the cost saving takes place within two to three years. There are other examples that demonstrate that if we did not have political meddling and intervention the energy problem would not go away but would solve itself.
There are already economic processes of secondary and tertiary oil extraction that have not been bothered about before. Most of the oil wells that have been abandoned in the past have had only about a quarter of their oil extracted. We know that there is technology that would enable us to extract a higher proportion if it were only worth while.
We are making the same mistake in the North Sea by imposing a penal system of taxation. The Government are being too greedy and are trying to make too much. That is now proving a disincentive for the optimum extraction and development of oil fields. We shall pay the price for that in later years. That is a good example of where we are making mistakes by political intervention instead of letting the market forces operate.
Another example of where the meddling in the free operation of the market forces is having an adverse effect is in the application of coal technology to the processes of the oil industry. If we had not had artificial subsidies in the coal industry as in other energy industries, I believe there would now be a greater impetus for the development of the fluidised bed process. This has come to the fore, but only slowly. Development could be much faster if the Government provided the right incentives rather than interfering in the market place.
A final example of where market forces are already operating in a direction that will make a major contribution to the longer-term solution of our energy problems lies in the internal combustion engine. It is only over the past year or so that there has been any real financial incentive for the motor industry to spend on developing and marketing a more efficient motor car or other forms of transport. It is happening now only because the consumer is demanding it. The
346
consumer is doing so because the price of energy is rising.
As the process continues, the first car manufacturer who is able to put a car on the market that does 60 miles to the gallon while being of the same quality and size to which we are accustomed will scoop the market. That is quite feasible but it has not been worth while to work on it hitherto. We are now getting to the stage where for the first time the incentive exists.
I am well aware that there are many hon. Members who still wish to contribute, and, therefore, I am not able to develop my argument as I would wish. However, I shall attempt to summarise the point that I am trying to make.
If market forces are allowed to operate, we can go a long way towards producing the extra energy that we need through stimulating alternative sources of supply. As the price of energy rises the incentive will exist for the more rational use of energy, for the better utilisation of energy in industry, for more efficent processes of production and for the more efficient use of energy throughout the system.
Although the Government must not intervene and prevent the normal and natural evolution of the market place from solving our problems, they have a rôle to play that they are not playing at the moment—namely, to remove the disincentives and restrictions so that we may have a more rational use of energy. There are many areas in which the Government should take action to create the right economic climate and the right incentives so as to get the problems solved. They will not do so by imposing controls or restrictions.
We shall not solve the energy problem unless we can remove some of the monopoly powers that are now inhibiting the efficient use of our energy. We shall create an energy gap only if we do not remove them. The electricity supply industry is a monopoly that has proved a very powerful disincentive for the more efficient production and conversion of energy. The coal industry, because it is a State monopoly, has been a disincentive for more efficient productivity in the industry. The processes of coal technology have not gone ahead as fast as I believe they would have done if the industry were not a State monopoly.

347
I believe that the gas State monopoly is acting against the best long-term interests of a more rational use of our energy. It will help to create an energy gap in future unless we get it right. It is a controversial subject to be raised, especially by a Conservative Member, but I believe that gas is too cheap. The fact that it is being flared in the North Sea is evidence that it is under-priced. At the moment it is not economic to pipe it all inshore. It is not being sold at the world market price. The gas that we are now getting from the Frigg field could be sold at a higher price in the European market.
The return on the capital of the gas industry is quite inadequate. If the industry were not a State monopoly but were operating in the same climate as that in which the oil companies have to operate, I am sure that gas would be priced at a level that would build up the reserves that will be required to develop more high-cost gas in future from the more expensive fields.
I fear that the consumer is being fooled and tricked into believing that gas is cheap and plentiful. He is falling into the same trap as the consumer of electricity who was encouraged to install all-electric space heating in the 1960s. The more we develop the domestic market for gas on the assumption that it is cheap and plentiful, the more the consumer will find in 10 years that that is not so and he will feel cheated.
Investment in the provision of and more rational use of energy can be proved cost effective if market forces are allowed to operate. I believe that there will be a gap and a crisis only if we mismanage our own affairs, prevent realistic pricing and do not provide incentives for conservation, substitution and innovation.
Therefore, we need less Government intervention and a greater opportunity over the long term for the market forces of supply and demand to go a long way to solving these problems.
8.2 p.m.
Mr. Albert Roberts: I am pleased that this debate is taking place. My intervention will be brief, because I want to deal with something which is germane to my constituency.
348
I agree with the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) that we should have more debates on energy.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will recall that my opinion is that the position that he holds is the most important in the Cabinet, because without energy life stops. That is one of the great problems which leads us to make speeches some of which are pessimistic while others are sanguine. I agree with speeches which have been on the light side, because there is no fuel crisis at present.
What worries miners is the stocking of coal. I am a great believer in supporting the mining industry. I belong to it, and I believe that more could be done for it.
My right hon. Friend referred to the Bullock Report. He had great hopes about that report. It is for him to get the National Union of Mineworkers and the National Coal Board interested and to sort something out.
I am alarmed about the fall in deep-mined coal production which has taken place during the last two or three years. Miners want wages and conditions commensurate with the job that they do. Reference was made to recruitment. If we offer the right conditions and guarantees, we can get young men to go into the mines. My hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Harper) and I, if we were young men, would not hesitate, if given the wages commensurate with the job and conditions, to go into the mines again. Unfortunately, we were in the mines at the worst possible time in the 1920s and 1930s. However, we understand the industry.
I take a keen interest in the mining industry because I am local born and homespun, I am concerned about the wellbeing of the industry. I am not afraid to criticise either the NUM or the NCB. Criticism can be levelled at both sides. Therefore, I ask my right hon. Friend to get both sides together to see whether something can be worked out for the good of the industry. There will always be mining Members who support the industry. The Minister knows that we are anxious for its well-being.

349
Despite increasing demand, there are coal reserves in this country for at least 500 or 600 years. But, in the meantime, why should not millions of pounds be spent on more research? I am referring to the money which has been expended on nuclear energy. I should like to know how much has been spent on research into nuclear eneregy since 1940. I have heard many forecasts over 25 years— indeed, my right hon. Friend has made forecasts—but many of them have not come true. I think that at the end of the day we shall still be dependent in large measure on coal. Electricity generation is obtained as to 70 per cent. from coal. It has been at that figure for between 10 and 20 years. I suggest that it will probably continue at that rate. If oil or natural gas takes up the slack, I have no objection. For example, I hope that there will be more research into gasification in the near future.
I turn now to Drax B. My right hon. Friend must understand that I am not concerned whether the plant is built in the North-East or the North-West. However, we must understand that it will take eight years to construct when we eventually make a start. By that time many of our conventional power stations will be inefficient. I agree with what the Secretary of State said about this matter. However, I disagree with the Chairman of the CEGB who said that there will be no need for it. I suggest that there will be a need for it within the next few years. I am sure that Drax B should be started in the near future. It will provide employment, and that is what concerns me in those areas in need of work.
There is controversy between certain or my hon. Friends whether Drax B should be constructed in the North-East or the North-West. That does not concern me. I am concerned that coal will be produced at Selby within four to five years. Therefore, it is incumbent that Drax B should be well on the way to take it. If it is on the spot, it will provide the efficiency that we want and that the industry needs.
Mr. Joseph Dean: My hon. Friend has touched on the very thorny subject of Drax B. As an ex-employee of the CEGB, turbine division, I am not aware that this is a North-East versus North-West battle. The point
350
expressed by some is that if the order for Drax B is to be placed, it should be beneficial to the industry as a whole, not just to one sector located in the North-East. That is the argument. It is not a battle between the North-East and the North-West.
Mr. Roberts: I accept what my hon. Friend said. We are concerned only about the efficiency and benefit of Drax B.
I am coming to the point which is germane to my constituency—opencast coal. The chairman of the NCB said that he wanted an extra 5 million tons of coal. The late Sir Albert Braithwaite helped to get opencast mining going some years ago. At that time opencast mining was in private hands and restoration was very bad through lack of experience. Opencast mining has been going on in my constituency for well over 30 years. Now Sir Derek Ezra is asking for another 5 million tons of coal. We have been living with opencast mining for more than 30 years.
I must point out on behalf of the Opencast Executive that its restoration work is first class. Many farms have benefited tremendously, while some farmers have been given compensation and gone on three or four years' holiday. There has been good restoration of farms and new hedging has been provided. That used not to be the case and it has happened in only the last 10 to 15 years.
I now come to the important point, and I ask the Secretary of State to take note. If I want to emphasise the point in the way in which it should be emphasised, I must say that my constituents are bloody sick of opencast mining and they are being threatened with it for the next 10 to 15 years. I can give a good reason for opencast mining being stopped in some areas. I have lived with opencast mining for more than half my life.
There are now threats to open four or five more sites in my constituency or in areas contiguous to it. The Leeds City Council and the West Yorkshire Metropolitan Council will offer strong opposition. Temple Newsan, the home of the Wood family, has been in the hands of the National Coal Board for a number of years and there has been opencast mining there since 1940. It has

351
been mined several times, and now the National Coal Board is returning to the same area for the fourth time and going still deeper. In the Yorkshire Post there was a huge picture recently called "The Rape of Temple Newsan". This has continued for 30 to 40 years.
Why should the coal all be taken out now? It can wait for another 30 to 60 years. By then we may have gasification. There is a campaign now going in in my constituency about opencast mining. People will object to it and obstruct it. Opencast mining reaches almost to the houses, and those sites are open for at least five to six years. Many retired people live in the area, and they will suffer from noise and dust if open cast sites are opened up. I agree that the executive responsible for opencast mining has stopped night working, but the muck and dust remains, and we have suffered from this since almost 1940. We are now threatened with the same problem for the next 30 years.
The Act dealing with opencast mining states that those responsible must consider the flora and fauna, features and buildings. In the area which we refer to as the Swillington and Methley there are many rare plants and birds. The ecology of that area is extremely important. The area is also important for educational purposes in the Leeds and Wakefield district. If those points are taken into consideration, we must decide that there should be no opencast mining at all. The Secretary of State has said that in dealing with coal and energy we are dealing with people. That is exactly the point.
The coal will not be destroyed. It can wait. We should not use all the coal in one generation. Let posterity have a little of the noise and dust. If we wait for another 30 years there may be gasification. I am not totally opposed to opencast mining provided that the area is convenient. However, the Minister must take more interest in the matter. He must be selective, give more support and listen to the pleas of those people who are threatened with additional opencast sites near their homes.
I have been obliged to mention the subject on behalf of my constituents and other people living close by because a
352
tremendous campaign is now being built up about opencast mining. It may lead to some rather difficult scenes. I hope that that will not happen. However, I also hope that my plea to the Minister tonight has done something to counteract the force of the Opencast Executive.
8.15 p.m.
Mr. David Penhaligon: Unfortunately, the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Brown) has now left the Chamber. He made one of the most interesting comments when he said that 25 years ago, when he was a technical teacher, he made up his mind about nuclear power and that he had seen nothing since to make him change it.
I can well imagine that someone interested in science and technology would, 25 years ago, have envisaged that nuclear power was the be-all and end-all for the world energy problems. It appeared to offer limitless energy on tap. It seemed to be clean and it did not involve mining. However, that was 25 years ago, and the problems that existed then largely still exist. Quite honestly, there has been little or no progress. The problems have not been mentioned on one occasion in the whole debate. There seems to be an enormous confidence that the next 25 years of technology in nuclear power will solve the problem that we have failed to solve during the last 25 years. I do not share that optimism.
There are some questions that I should like to put to the Minister. While the Windscale inquiry is continuing, are we still importing the Japanese rubbish? If the Windscale inquiry says "No" to reprocessing, what shall we do with the rubbish? If the answer is that we shall keep it, does that mean that the agreement we have made with the Japanese— which we are not allowed to see—means that the United Kingdom is prepared to become the nuclear dump of much of the Western world?
What progress has been made on glassification? I have been assured on a number of occasions by many people that this is a simple problem. We are told that the waste from nuclear power stations can successfully be absorbed into glass. It was done 10 years ago, but nobody has succeeded to my knowledge in doing it on a commercial basis. What

353
has happened during the last 10 years? I have asked that question in several recent debates, so could the Minister say what progress has been made since my last opportunity of asking it?
What progress has been made with the heat transfer experiments in Cornwall? One of the worrying aspects of the energy business is that even if the waste can be put into containers and put down holes, there has been so little research in the last 25 years that nobody knows what effect the heat transfer from the containers will have on the characteristics of the local rock strata. I understand that experiments are taking place in Cornwall, so will the Minister say what progress has been made? Even if putting the waste under granite is a final solution and, even if the heat transfer is satisfactory, what progress has been made in finding a site in which to dump it? In the final analysis, that is obviously what is required.
I was interested to hear the Minister of State observe that he could see how the Windscale inquiry could in any way affect fast breeder reactors. He thought that they were totally separate issues. I stand to be corrected, but I cannot accept that. We are told that plutonium will come from these reactors. However, fast breeder reactors are misnamed. They should be called slow breeder reactors, because although they breed plutonium it takes 31 years to double the quantity. That means that if one has enough plutonium for one reactor and if one does no reprocessing it will take 31 years to have enough for two reactors and 62 years to have enough for four reactors. If the Windscale inquiry says "No" to reprocessing, that in reality will also make the decision on fast breeder reactors. That might not be a bad thing.
Proliferation is a word that has escaped from the lips of one or two hon. Members today. I cannot say that they gave it much credence, but it did escape. We understand that for a fast breeder reactor one needs 1·1 tons of plutonium. I have received assurances that a catalogue will be kept on plutonium in future and a guarantee that the catalogue will be accurate within 1 per cent. However, 1 per cent. is 22 1b of plutonium, which is enough to make three bombs at one go, because we under-
354
stand that 7 lb of plutonium is required for one bomb.
If this country and the Western world go for the fast breeder reactor as the solution to our energy problems, there will no logical argument to deny the lessadvanced nations their share of that technology. It appears that everyone agrees that we shall have to share the oil, so how can we not share the technology of fast breeder reactors if we are using them for ourselves? If this comes about during my lifetime, virtually every nation in the world will have some form of sophisticated nuclear explosive device at its disposal.
Before the House laughs off this suggestion, might I remind hon. Members that an American company recently admitted that it had lost 200 lb. of enriched uranium material. It hopes that the material leaked out of pipes, but it is not sure. Hon. Members should consider how much more could be lost in the world with the amounts of nuclear power that have been mentioned in this debate.
Mr. Peter Hardy: The hon. Gentleman suggests that the House may be laughing, but this is a serious matter and he seems to make the same serious point every time he speaks on this subject. If he is sincere, why is this topic not included in the Lib-Lab pact?
Mr. Penhaligon: We investigated the possibility but learned that we were outnumbered by about 622 to 13. It appeared that, if it came to the crunch, the Government could look elsewhere for support and rather more votes than we could offer.
Mr. Forman: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that some of us share his deep and genuine concern about proliferation and have spoken about it in public on many occasions? I echo the point made by the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Hardy). The Liberal Party should have attached this as one of the many conditions to the Lib-Lab pact.
Mr. Penhaligon: I shall investigate the possibility. We have asked at least for money to be provided so that the opposition argument at the Windscale inquiry and those presenting alternative arguments are not short of cash. No doubt this request is going through the system.

355
I did not want to talk too much about nuclear energy. My views on the subject are fairly well known. I want to concentrate on conservation. It was said earlier that we were doing a good job, and I am looking forward to hearing the Minister outline the great progress that has been made in recent years. All we have done is to change a few building regulations. On the inside wall of double cavity houses there must now be grey bricks instead of the white bricks that most people use or the red bricks that we use in Cornwall.
We have improved the insulation characteristics of wall materials, there has been a lot of money spent on advertising and the cost of fuel has been greatly increased, but no thought has been given to an insulation programme. With 1½ million unemployed, such a programme offers the best labour-intensive public works that we could provide.
Many houses in my constituency need insulation—not sophisticated work, but making the windows fit and putting in simple loft insulations. For many properties it is that crude and simple, but it could make a huge contribution towards solving many of our problems.
I was disappointed that so little emphasis was put on fuel economy in the recent White Paper on transport. I may be about to upset a substantial number of hon. Members with what I have to say. If I take a train from my home to the House, someone provides me with a ticket that costs £33. If I drive to London and back, the Government give me £72 for doing so. In such circumstances it has been tempting, when faced with a major repair bill, to drive to London and back, and many people are tempted to drive their cars for miles on journeys that are not really necessary.
Some hon. Members make far longer trips than I do. If my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) had a bridge at the end of his journey from London he could solve the Liberal Party's financial problems in two or three trips. Our rate of 12 pence a mile is tied to a Civil Service rate and we must assume that many civil servants use their cars on the same basis. I know from my experience in industry how such schemes work. Great pressure is applied by the employee to be allowed
356
to use his own car rather than go by public transport becase he knows that mileage is a second source of money. The 12 pence per mile cannot be justified. There is no justification for anything more than a first-class rail fare to the House for hon. Members. If such a policy were applied throughout the country it would have two substantial effects.
Mr. Skeet: The hon. Gentleman's argument is totally unjustified. A large part of the mileage allowance covers depreciation. In addition, if one buys a car costing £1,700 one may have to pay all the energy that goes into it, that is one has finished paying for it. It is a nonsense for the hon. Gentleman to refer solely to running costs.
Mr. Penhaligon: If the hon. Gentleman chooses to drive a car costing £4,000 with all the energy that does into it, that is his problem. I drive a 10-year-old Ford Cortina that has done 136,000 miles. If any hon. Member chooses to have a better car, that is his decision and I am not criticising him.
Mr. J. Grimond: My hon. Friend has made the interesting suggestion that perhaps I could live on what I could get by driving to London from my constituency. In reply to the intervention of the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet), would my hon. Friend not agree that hon. Members buy cars regardless of whether they are going to use them to drive to the House?
Mr. Penhaligon: That is precisely the point.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): Order. I must draw attention to the fact that a lot of energy is being expended on a subject that is not strictly in accordance with the terms of the debate.
Mr. Penhaligon: I am suggesting a way of saving energy, and I am the first hon. Member to make such a proposal in the debate. A great deal of driving is done just to make a profit out of mileage expenses. Every hon. Member knows that—although it is obvious that no one will have the courage to admit it.
What progress has been made with the heat pump? That is relevant because

357
there are two basic kinds of energy— high-grade energy which provides light and low-grade energy which provides warmth. Low-grade energy is wasted from our power stations. It becomes little more than warm air. Saving that could make a major contribution towards putting off the evil day of the energy shortage, if that day arrives. Saving that energy would require the CEGB to build smaller power stations near where people live. It is worth remembering that two-thirds of the fuel used in our power stations is wasted because of the inefficiency of the operation.
If the basic thermo-dynamic law of the efficiency of engines is correct, there is no way in which we can further increase that efficiency. The development of that type of energy, together with tidal and wind power, must be worth mere than £10 million. I remember opposing £400 million being allocated for the Windscale reprocessing equipment. The sum of £10 million is chickenfeed compared with that. I hope that the Minister will say that that sum will be reviewed as a result of the debate. If he does, it will have been worth while.
8.30 p.m.
Mr. Gordon Wilson: The energy crisis will come. We have learned that from the debate. Today we are dealing with the situation that will arise when oil doubles in price in 10 years' time. The argument is about how to deal with that event. The age of cheap energy will end. No one can see far into the future. Five or six years ago people argued about whether we would ever reach the five-dollar barrel. We have now gone well past that mark.
My worry is that if we do not prepare for the scarcity that will occur and that will generate high prices, we may end up with severe economic troubles. The last three or four years, since the oil prices went up, have been traumatic. We are facing problems of unemployment and inflation which have arisen partly from that increase in prices. One of our worries is that the rapidly rising energy prices could increase inflation, exacerbate balance of payments problems, produce negative growth rates and increase unemployment. We should attempt to avoid that.
358
We can expect prices for energy to grow over the years in real terms, but our economic systems will suffer from severe stress if there is a sharp increase in the price of oil. We would find a quick change difficult to take without causing economic and social stresses.
One could argue that there is plenty of time and that it is early days yet. One could say that there is plenty of energy. No one doubts that. The trouble is that we may not obtain the necessary energy soon enough. Even if one invests thousands of millions of pounds throughout the world trying to obtain energy which one knows is there one may fail to get it because of the time involved.
We are trying to find ways of dealing with that problem in advance in order to cushion the shock. The United States is particularly worried about it, although it neglects to stress some of the national security situations that arise in connection with its external sources of oil— Saudi Arabia, for instance.
If the United Kingdom is wealthy in energy, as the Under-Secretary of State said at the NUM conference on Friday, Scotland is super-abundant. We have a population of 5 million people. The total of between 3,000 million and 4,500 million tons of possible reserves in the North Sea would last for between 300 and 450 years, based upon Scotland's current 10 million tons a year consumption. However, we must deal with the real situation. The oil is coming out at a rate of five times our consumption and it will soon be 10 times and possibly 15 times our consumption. Nevertheless, it puts the amount of oil into perspective in terms of our population, and also in relation to coal, of which we have some 200 years' supply.
I have never denied that, compared with some sources of coal in England, Scottish coal is relatively expensive, but in the European league Scottish coal is very competitive. We have a resource of coal that will be very valuable as and when the world price of oil goes up. All things are relative. English coal is extremely expensive compared with some American coals, or with South African coal. I understand that coal could be imported into England from South Africa at a price much cheaper than that at which

359
it can be produced in England. As to natural gas, there are ample supplies for a very long period to come.
When doing some research I was interested to notice the different profile in Scotland, in relation to the production of energy, as compared with that in England. A very dramatic difference in electricity generation has emerged over the last year. If we combine the latest figures for both the South of Scotland Electricity Board and the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board, we find that 49·9 per cent. of the production is coal-fired, 8 per cent. is oil-fired, and hydroelectric power contributes 19·7 per cent. Nuclear power contributes up to 19 per cent. and there is a minor element of gas turbine power amounting to 3·1 per cent.
This is quite a different pattern from the reliance upon coal for electricity generation in England, where the figure is between 70 per cent. and 75 per cent. It shows the different profile in electricity generation which is to be found in Scotland. I shall deal later on with other types of renewable energy in which Scotland is extremely well placed, but the one type that does not really suit our winter climate and our short days is solar energy. We would probably accept that, apart from its limited water heating purposes, we must discount solar energy at an early stage.
It has been noted, from what the Secretary of State said, that Scotland is unlikely to benefit from the oil revenues that have been generated from my country. I am sure that the Scottish people will take note of that threat. It would be rather interesting to find out whether the Minister of State still believes as he was once quoted as saying that a proportion of the oil revenues should be made available to the Scottish Assembly. I wonder whether his elevation to his present important position has inclined him to change his views. Some clarification might be of interest to the House.
But whether we approach the production profile of the North Sea from a Scottish basis or a United Kingdom basis, it is high time that we had a much more active oil depletion policy. I am worried that the Government do not seem to be taking any action at all to prevent over-production, which could
360
cause disruption in the future. It is far better to have a level plateau for a longer period of time than to have a dash up to about 140 million tons production per year and then to drop off afterwards. It must be accepted that if we retain a higher proportion of oil under the ground it will still be there at a time when oil itself will increase in value, and that would make it a much more bankable commodity.
On the choice of nuclear technology, I was interested to see the way in which the United Kingdom has oscillated—if I may use that word—from system to system. Very few countries have indulged themselves in the luxury of darting from one system of nuclear reactor to another. I notice—here I am talking about the type of preference of each country and not just the type that it produces—that Canada has preferred at different stages two, France has three, Germany two, and the United Kingdom four. The United Kingdom is now considering the light water reactor, which would make five. The United States, with all its resources, has preferred only the boiling water reactor and the pre-surised light water reactor.
At some stage one has to say that enough is enough. How much money is being wasted in unnecessary research? What attempt is being made to produce a workable nuclear system, only to have it abandoned when it is coming into effect?
The same can be said about the advanced gas cooled reactor. I know that there were serious engineering problems which kept it from coming into effect, but I am informed by the South of Scotland Electricity Board that it has been surprised by the unexpectedly high contribution made by Hunterston B AGR station, which is expected to increase its capacity by the end of the year. In that Board's area it is estimated that nuclear power will contribute one-third of the requirements by the end of 1977. Therefore, it would appear that after a very slow start the AGR has begun to make good.
The same argument could perhaps be applied to the breeder reactor. I know that there are many arguments against the plutonium cycle and that there are worries about its safety. But one person observed to me "We now have a workable prototype. It is just at this time that

361
a British Government will seek to suspend operations on it. It will say that it has proved to be workable and therefore there is no point in going any further." We are now hearing these arguments for the abandonment of the fast breeder reactor. I am not suggesting that it is an argument that the present Government in particular have adopted, but the track record of United Kingdom Governments over a period of time is that they have gone into too many technologies and abandoned them perhaps just at the point when the investment has begun to come good.
I should like to tell the Minister what I wish to see in the Scottish context. There is no rush, because of the slow pick-up in the demand for power—it is beginning to accelerate, but it is still quite slow—for an immediate programme of power stations. I should like to see an investigation of the possibilities of a pump storage station at Craigroyston, on Loch Lomond, which is being considered for hydro-electricity generation to provide the peak load to the high-base load now being produced by the AGR stations of the SSEB.
Before there is any decision on Torness, which was intended to be an SGHW station, it would be wise to see whether coal might be the more suitable fuel, in view of the recent large discoveries in the Musselburgh area.
Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: I do not follow the hon. Gentleman's arguments. He complains that money has been spent on different projects which have not come to fruition, and about the diverse numbers of different systems. Which am I to take as the serious argument? Does the hon. Gentleman want us to go ahead with the fast reactor because we have spent a great deal of money on it, or to invest in the AGR system because, as he says, it is successful, or to have the SGHW? I do not understand.
Mr. Wilson: If I am given time to answer, I shall. If a nuclear power station is required in theSSEB area, I should prefer that the SGHW reactor be not used and the AGR be chosen instead. But before that decision is taken, when the choice is made between nuclear and some other means for the Torness station, which was to have been the next power
362
station on line in Scotland, coal should be considered.
I regard the fast reactor as still being experimental. So far as I recall, the first prototype has been remarkably successful. When I recently visited Washington the Americans were surprised to hear just how successful it had been at Dounreay. There was not much competition from Germans in the party to put forward their own model of fast breeder reactor as having reached the same stage of development as the Dounreay reactor. As it is experimental, my wish would be that a commercial fast reactor be considered, but on a European basis.
It is ridiculous that three separate experiments in fast breeder technology are being conducted by members of the EEC. If the price is the abandonment of the JET scheme at Culham—I am inclined to think that the fusion technology is so much a thing of the future that it is almost pie in the sky—that is one thing that could be put in the balance in order to obtain common agreement on shared investment in the commercial fast reactor.
The Flowers Commission Report suggested, on page 120:
"There are, however, other safety measures that can be resolved only in the design process itself and thus the design and construction of a first FBR on a commercial scale is an important step in assessing whether the required level of safety can be achieved."
I turn now to conservation. We have been concentrating unduly on the supply side in the energy industry. We have been delaying taking a look at the prospects of change. If one good thing came out of President Carter's programme it was the incentives by way of tax allowances and grants which he intended to make available in the industrial and domestic sectors for a large-scale policy of insulation. It is ridiculous that, in Scotland, if one puts in double glazing or improves one's house one becomes liable to an increase in gross annual value. I know that that does not immediately apply in England, but assessors in many areas in Scotland are entitled to, and do, place increments on properties which have been improved to save fuel. In America they are approaching the matter from the other side. They are prepared to assist domestic consumers in saving energy.
Mr. Forman: Perhaps I could amplify the hon. Gentleman's remarks by way of brief criticism of the Government. When I asked on 18th May whether the Secretary of State for the Environment would list the various forms and amounts of financial assistance so far provided by his Department towards the cost of insulating and draught-proofing local authority dwellings and any private dwellings, referring to the private sector, the Minister said:
"Prior to the issue of Circular 38/77, which abolished the need to obtain the consent of the Secretary of State to the making of such grants, consent was given in three cases, covering 10 dwellings."
That is a pitiful record.
Mr. Wilson: It requires no further criticism from me, and I certainly agree with the hon. Gentleman. It compares badly with President Carter's intention to cover 90 per cent. of American dwellings.
One interesting idea that the Americans came up with was that the electricity companies should be enabled to do much of the improvement work and to collect by instalments from the consumers thereafter. That is an excellent idea—save now and pay later. It is a pity that our electricity boards seem far too keen to sell expensive current to help people to conserve it.
My constituents face many problems arising from the insulation of houses, particularly modern houses, which give rise to condensation. I am told often enough that this is due to a lack of ventilation, but when the advice of my local house factor is to burn electric fires during the day when people are out and leave the windows open, words fail me—particularly when he said that he could make no comment on whether people could afford to follow such a policy but that it would help to keep out condensation. If we have reached that stage, perhaps some of the vast resources made available for improvements in technology ought to be devoted to the simple purpose of making the insides of the houses much more comfortable for our constituents. At the same time we would save money. If we follow that precept we shall be in a far stronger position.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. As I understand it, only 20 minutes remain
364
before the Front Bench speeches begin. Perhaps the time could be split equitably between the two sides of the House.
8.50 p.m.
Dr. Colin Phipps: Most speakers today have been more or less convinced that the world is abundantly supplied with energy. I believe that this is a true statement of the facts. Unfortunately we are talking about finite sources of energy. There is no system of market forces or Government intervention which will produce more of a finite source when that source is exhausted.
I have worked for pretty well all of my working life in the energy industry, particularly within that part of it dealing with extraction of finite fossil fuels from the earth. I refer the House, as usual, to my interest on this matter, which are on the Register.
I can remember even in 1966, with respect to oil and gas, writing articles pointing out that just as the United States had run out of new sources of oil in 1963, sufficient to replace the amount of oil it was using —its discoveries were not as large us its internal domestic use—so this would happen sooner or later in the rest of the world. It was thought that this would happen about 1990. This was a figure known in 1966. I can remember talking about it then, and I have made umpteen speeches in the House since pointing this out. I am glad that now we are beginning to have debates upon this problem.
The central problem of finite resources is one of cost. Unless we address ourselves to that it will be extremely difficult for us to solve the overall problem. I shall deal specifically with the costs of oil and gas. Like other hon. Members I have recently visited the United States and tried to press this point strongly in Washington. There seems to be a general idea that the price of oil is something controlled exclusively by Saudi Arabia. The truth is that the price of oil is controlled both by the greatest producer, Saudi Arabia, and by the greatest consumer, the United Stales. The United States uses an enormous quantity of the world's oil.
The fascinating thing about world oil prices is that outside the United States, on the international market, oil is $14 a barrel, give or take, whereas the average price of oil produced in the United States

365
is about $7 a barrel. The rest of the world is subsidising the American consumer, because as Jong as the price of indigenously-produced oil in the United States stands at between $5 and $8 a barrel as opposed to $14 a barrel on the international market, the United States will consume more oil than it otherwise would. The United States is sucking in imports, which is helping to keep up the world price. Not only that, because it has relatively cheap oil, the greatest industrial nation, the richest nation in the world, is not putting the kind of money and investment into finding new sources of energy that it ought to be putting there. As a result we are suffering.
In a diabolical way, the United States, because it has cheap internal oil, can produce some manufactured goods more cheaply than we can and thus compete with us in international markets. This is bad enough for us. For the Third world the situation is tragic. The gas-guzzling United States motorist is effectively maintaining a high price of oil in the Third world and the United States is effectively producing goods at a cheap price which the Third World countries are purchasing. They are caught in a pincer. Unless we in the West do something to stop this exploitation of the world oil market by the United States that has taken place since 1973, I fear that all predictions about our coming to a world economic crisis, with wars and so on, are only too likely to be fulfilled.
Mr. Skeet: The United States imported 7·3 million barrels of oil per day in 1976. The most reliable estimate is that in 1985 it will be importing 11·8 million barrels a day. President Carter's assumptions will never be reached. What effects will that have on the world price?
Dr. Pbipps: The more the United States demands, the higher the world price will go. This will be extremely dangerous for the world as a whole. It may be argued that this is a good thing for the United Kingdom because we shall have an oil surplus and therefore the higher the price for oil, the better for us. But I think that that is a mistaken policy for us to follow.
World oil prices are likely to be at a level sufficient to provide a decent return from the North Sea. The more the United States pulls in, the faster our
366
resources will be depleted, along with the resources of the rest of the world— which is a very bad thing—and the more dangerous becomes our way of life in terms of the pressures which will be developing in the Third World.
I suggest that in this, the central problem of the world economy, Britain is in a remarkably fine position to give some moral leadership. We have a vested interest in a high price for oil and therefore we are in a unique position to say that the price should not go higher.
How shall we bring pressure to bear on the United States to stop it guzzling gas in this way? I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State has considered this aspect of our policy. We have to consider Britain, if not becoming a member of OPEC, at any rate joining OPEC in considering how to insist that the United States uses less oil. It is only by the producing nations—of which we shall become an important and significant member—getting together and insisting to the United States that it must not continue to use the world's oil at the current rate that we shall achieve three objectives. These are, first, the reduction of consumption in the United States; secondly, keeping the price of oil at a reasonable level for the Third World; and, thirdly, getting the great industrial and economic machine of the United States to put the necessary resources into finding other suitable renewable sources of energy which can be used not only by the United States but for the benefit of the whole world.
This seems to be one area where Britain's moral leadership in tackling the central problem facing the world today could be of utmost importance. We have a unique position, and I hope that we shall use it.
8.59 p.m.
Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson: Running through our debate has been a worrying complacency by some hon. Members who assume that the world is full of energy. That may be so, but the energy is not evenly spread throughout the world and in many cases it is in areas of great political instability. The Secretary of State told us that this country is almost half self-sufficient in oil. The other half of our oil comes almost entirely from the Arabian Gulf, however.

367
The storm clouds are once again gathering in the Middle East. I can speak with some authority on that part of the world, since I have been trading there in a business capacity for over 20 years. Only two years ago I had a business association with OAPEC, the 10 Arab oil producers. I know something of how they feel. I can assure the House that they will use their position of power, in energy terms, in any storm that may ultimately break out in that area. They are well aware of the strength of their position. When people happily talk about the fact that the world is full of energy they ought to bear in mind that political considerations could well overturn any complacency that might flow from that view.
Those oil producers will not be satisfied merely with Mr. Carter or any Government raising the prices of energy in their own countries by taxation in order to have conservation. They will want to see that energy conserved by themselves so that the producers have the benefit of any increase in price that may take place. They will not be satisfied, as they see now, with Governments throughout the Western world putting on taxes in order to cut down consumption.
The point that I am making is that in energy terms, particularly in oil terms, the producers still have an enormously strong position, and the Saudis have a dominant position, with regard to the United States economy.
Mr. Skeet: If the Americans keep up their imports to a very high figure and the Saudis put a ceiling on their output to nine barrels a day, does my hon. Friend agree that the effect on prices will be catastrophic?
Mr. McNair-Wilson: Yes, I agree with that. Having pointed out the dangers that exist, I want to move on to argue that we cannot rest on our laurels and say "We have masses of oil and gas, the whole thing will find its own market level and everything will be happy ". It will not be like that, and we should be crazy to think in those terms.
I urgently want to address my remarks to nuclear power, because that is an essential ingredient in our energy equation. We have coal in abundance. Everyone in the House knows my views about the coal
368
industry. I am a total supporter of it. However, in spite of the excellent news given us today, the nuclear industry has attracted so much criticism and anxiety in the past as to make people wonder whether we are committed as a nation to nuclear power. We are certainly not in the same position as the French, who do not have a great coal industry. Therefore, we shall not be in that league in nuclear terms.
But I very much hope that we are not going to drag our feet. We were told that by the time that the new AGR stations are in, 20 per cent. will be the figure of nuclear generation. I very much hope that we can resolve this design, this systems option, and go AGR. I make my own plea here. Everyone else is entitled to his own view. It is British technology. We know how to do it. It would be crazy to throw that down the drain. Those who talk about exporting are throwing a red herring across our path. I want to go for a system that we understand and for which we have the technology to make work.
I want to put in a plea for the fast breeder. I know that the campaign for nuclear disarmament could get involved in this campaign over all again. We shall not stop the spread of nuclear technology by burying our heads in the sand. The fast breeder reactor has a number of advantages. It uses the relatively plentiful uranium 238 and would thereby stretch out uranium reserves by 50 times. Let us not forget that uranium is a finite resource. Many of the places where uranium exists are in those unstable areas to which I referred before. I would very much like to see the fast breeder given sanction.
I turn to Windscale. This is where we could use British technology in terms of getting overseas currency. We have a lead in reprocessing, but President Carter's decision to limit plutonium and to start exporting in rich uranium will create a situation that could damage that industry. I very much hope that the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister, along with others who meet the American Administration, will point out that Wind-scale is a world leader, which could be of benefit not only to this country but to many others.
We must also remember that in 25 years of nuclear power there has never

369
been a fatality. That is more than one can say about almost any other energy system in this country.
With those words, which I kept brief because I want other hon. Members to have a chance to speak, please let us not be complacent. Let us push on with what we know and understand. Nuclear technology can be an absolute bridge to the future.
9.5 p.m.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: I rise to speak in truncated and question form.
What have the Government learned from the Ekofisk blow-out and the Red Adair team?
My second question is to the Secretary of State. What is being done both by national Governments and by the Council of Ministers in relation to the safety of transport of nuclear materials? This is not the occasion to go into the detail about the so-called Plumbat affair, involving the loss of 3 tons of uranium oxide. But various questions arise out of it. For example, when my right hon. Friend came to Paris first, he said that this had happened before Britain became a member of the EEC. At a later stage, he said that the first thing that he did was to look to his files to see whether he had been told.
This is very legitimate. The question which arises out of it is twofold. First, in relation to the transport of not only uranium oxide but now plutonium, who has the responsibility? Is it national Governments or Euratom and the Commission? There is a grey area which should be defined.
The second matter which concerns very many of us is that it now appears that, when this happened, Ministers in the various countries of the Community were not told. My right hon. Friend was not told. I thought that there was a Euratom obligation to tell him. Signor Colombo in Italy says that he was not told. In fact, it is impossible to find a Minister who was told. Has this situation changed?
My next question is truncated to the point of abrasiveness. I hope that there will be an answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shore-ditch (Mr. Brown) about JET. To put it in a sharper form than I had intended, it looks to many of us as though the
370
whole JET episode illustrates a dangerous tendency towards a generalised blackmail in the Community. It is impossible to operate a Community energy policy on a basis of tit for tat.
Together with this question, I ask about the obligations to the JRC employees. There are some of us who think that every decision should be made on its merits and not interlinked with other decisions.
Then I put a rather less abrasive question to my right hon. Friend the Minister of State. Does he think, in the light of the last six months, that a change in presidency on a six-monthly basis of a basically technical department is a sensible way to operate? One can understand the political changes, but is this the way to get the best kind of energy policy?
I ask my right hon. Friend also to say why he thinks that the efforts which the Secretary of State made towards open meetings failed. As a Member of the European Parliament, let me say sttaight away that many of my colleagues have a great deal more responsibility than my right hon. Friends on the Front Bench. But it would be interesting to hear their view of what I believe was a brave and good attempt at open government.
Finally, I ask two domestic questions. Do not the Front Bench think that the kind of speech that we heard from the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon) and the kind of propaganda that is poured out from do-good organisations is extremely damaging to the British nuclear industry? If I can put in a word of doubt, I am a little unhappy, as are some of my hon. Friends, about this system of having an inquiry. In theory, open government may be fine. But these inquiries are to find an excuse to make nuclear mountains out of molehills and to blow up all sorts of incidents to the disadvantage of a British industry which is going for exports. When I hear remarks about "Japanese rubbish", I know that that is the real rubbish which is so damaging to an industry with a safety record second to none. This is deeply resented by people in the industry whose technique is second to none.
On the issue of North Sea oil, I ask the Government to get some legal information as soon as possible about how much of the oil would belong to

371
a hypothetical separate Scottish State and how much would belong elsewhere. It is time that we had some information about that argument put in a legal fashion.
9.11 p.m.
Mr. Hamish GrayI think that the last two speakers, my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest (Mr. McNair-Wilson) and the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell), have illustrated just how easy it is to pack a great deal into a very few minutes' speaking time. I hope that those in charge of the affairs of this House will read Hansard very carefully and take the opportunity to note what those two hon. Members said.
We were perhaps a little disappointed with the speech of the Secretary of State. He spoke for 50 minutes and with his usual charm he made a very interesting speech on energy, but at the end of the day we were no wiser than we were at the beginning, and we got no indication of any decisions at all. Despite the support which the Secretary of State had from the right hon. Member for Ketter-ing (Sir G. de Freitas), his contribution was rather less than that which was expected from a Minister of the Crown in a Department as important as Energy, with so many issues of great international and national importance to be discussed and so many decisions to be taken. We were sorry that he decided to tiptoe through the issues rather than face up to them and give an indication of his Department's thinking.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, East (Miss Harvie Anderson) spoke of Drax B. She came to the debate hoping to hear something firm about Government thinking, but the Secretary of State gave no indication of his thinking. He talked about Plowden, but gave no indication of the Government's reaction. On reactor choice, he outlined the various actions but gave no indication. He said even less about the fast breeder, and very little about alternative sources of energy.
There was one gem in his speech. He gave some conclusions about his Energy Commission. If this is the best we can get from the Secretary of State at the end of a 50-minute speech, it is just not
372
good enough. He should take a lesson from his hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian and make his remarks shorter but include something in them that is worth listening to.
I wish to consider a few of the problems facing Parliament and to look ahead to those that we have to tackle in planning and programming our energy requirements for the next two decades. Experts in every field point to the likelihood of an energy gap which will probably occur in the 1990s. While there are some voices advising us that such predictions are exaggerated and that such a gap may not even materialise, we as a responsible Opposition and the Government as a responsible Government should proceed on the basis that it may occur.
The Brown Book, which is virtually a bible to energy committees, tells us that proven oil resources have risen to a total of 1,300 million tons. That is an increase of 30 per cent. on the Brown Book predictions in 1975. But perhaps we should not go too much on those figures because to a certain extent they are book transactions. It is not oil that was not known about in certain areas, but with the exploitation it has become proven, and that may to some extent change the figure.
On the other hand, I do not think we can possibly go ahead without taking particular heed of the warning given to us by the Workshop on Alternative Energy Strategies. In its report of May 1977 it said that the West could face an energy crisis in 10 years' time. I also wish to refer to an OECD report of May 1977 in which it was stated that if the West were to pursue its present policies we could have an oil shortage as early as 1985.
Interesting arguments have been advanced from both sides of the House, some in support of that view and others disagreeing with it. It must be within the judgment of the Government of the day whether they place sufficient importance on such predictions.
What is an energy gap? What we mean by that term is an oil gap. Energy gaps in the past have been countered purely by an intensification of the exploitation and development of the oil resources of the world. In other words, oil has acted as a balancing fuel.

373
My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest in a good, short speech pointed out that the control of this sphere of activity in future is liable to lie in the Middle East. I remember a year ago last January visiting three Middle Eastern countries when I was part of a parliamentary group, including my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, where these matters were brought home to us in real terms. One would start to talk to Middle Eastern oil Ministers about energy problems and oil considerations, but within a few moments we would find ourselves talking about the Palestinian problem, This impressed our group, and it is a matter which we must not overlook.
The immediate future, however holds no comparable alternative to oil as a source of energy. Coal and nuclear power would be the only readily available balancing fuels, and their exploitation will be slow and expensive. Long lead times are inevitable, and there is no evidence of a breakthrough—certainly nothing to compare with the discoveries of Middle Eastern oil or North Sea oil.
Oil is no longer cheap, and alternative sources which may replace it by the end of the century will ensure, by their own expensive creation, that the price of oil will continue to rise. There seems to be no way in which energy prices will fall for a very long time to come. Indeed, all the indications are that they may rise by as much as 50 per cent. in real terms in the next decade. This has led the OECD to recommend the substitution of coal and nuclear fission for oil wherever possible.
The effect of North Sea oil on our balance of payments is likely to be very large and could raise the value of our gross national product by as much as A per cent. between 1980 and 1985, or by a figure of £7½ billion in each year, which is the equivalent of several years of economic growth at current levels of performance and represents a substantial bonus—a bonus not only in real terms but in terms of time. It gives that little bit of leeway during which we can make up our minds on how to pursue alternative sources of energy.
We must not lose sight of the fact that these are short-term advantages, although the prospects seem bright with the further oil discoveries recently
374
announced by Mesa Petroleum near the Moray Firth. More recently Shell-Esso made a discovery in the new Fulmar Field north of the existing Auk Field. Indeed, the Shell-Esso discovery in the Fulmar field shows for the first time that oil has been found in the Jurassic sandstone in the central part of the North Sea. This could have significant implications for the future.
I would point out that The Times of 24th June this year, in describing this discovery said:
"oil companies would want to re-evaluatc previously unsuccessful work on Jurassic drillings in the light of the Fulmar find."
This could make a difference to predictions about future oil reserves. Today's announcement by the Secretary of State that we are halfway towards self-sufficiency is welcomed whole-heartedly by the Opposition.
In the short time that is available to me in this debate I do not want to be led into any arguments about BNOC or the future of that corporation, or indeed about the progress that it has made so far. Suffice it to say that the fact that exploration and production in the North Sea has to such a large extent been achieved by the endeavours of private industry and by the investment of private capital should signify well for the future. As long as we can attract that capital from wherever it may come, the exploration of our resources in the North Sea can quickly be brought to fruition.
Production is likely to peak in the 1980s and decline thereafter. As we move into the 1990s an increasing proportion of our production is likely to come from marginal or near marginal fields, with a consequent lessening of the benefit to our economy.
The Government must guard against the temptation to have a spending bonanza for politically popular reasons. Although I agree entirely with what the Secretary of State said about re-industrialisation, our first two priorities in the spending of our oil revenues should be an adequate allocation of money for the research and development of alternative energy sources and the removal of this sector of energy planning from the political arena. I know that that is easier said than achieved.

375
Secondly, the reduction of the United Kingdom's net external indebtedness is of vital importance. There is little use in our reinvesting for the purposes of re-industrialisation if we have not already made provision for alternative sources of energy in the years ahead.
There is little purpose in reinvesting a great deal of money in our own country if at the same time we are not to reduce our overseas indebtedness. The second priority would, among others, help us to restore our national self-respect and self-confidence in the world while giving us a long-term foreign exchange benefit by reducing our debt service burden. It would reduce our public spending borrowing requirement and consequently reduce the level of domestic interest rates, thereby facilitating a substantial transfer of resources to private sector investment.
I wonder whether the Government have made any plans or have set a target for eliminating the cumulative balance of payments deficit. I wonder whether the Department of Energy has considered the implications of allowing the depletion of our oil resources to exceed the 110 million to 120 million tons per annum that is forecast by 1980. Alternatively, have the Government considered the possible effect of reducing that figure in the interests of conservation?
My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Rost), who has studied these matters to a great extent and who is an authority in the House on conservation, has made some interesting comments on the subject. In the event of a decision to reduce depletion, it is imperative that where major investment has already been committed it should be allowed to develop its commercial potential. In other words, any decision to restrict depletion in any particular field should be advised at the outset, in fairness to those exploring for oil. Exploration costs are expensive but production costs are even greater.
Gas will continue to play a major part in providing an alternative fuel. Like oil, it is uncertain for how long we can depend on it in quantity. The oil gap leads us inevitably to consider all alternative sources of fuel. There may be potential in solar, wave and wind power, or geothermal methods. Alternative
376
sources are essential in the long term, but in the short and medium terms coal must have a large part to play. The lique-fication and gasification of a certain amount of coal production in future is being researched fully by the NCB. Such researches have already taken place in South Africa and have been undertaken by the IEA. The Coal Industry Bill, which is at present in another place, provides a limited amount of finance to proceed with research on that sort of work.
We should not forget that alternative sources of energy are not cheap by any standards. For example, tidal power would cost three to four times as much as nuclear power to develop. Wind power can be operated only at a restricted level, and the resources are relatively small.
It is not surprising that much of the debate has revolved around the whole question of the nuclear alternative. I find myself in sympathy with the hawks on this subject. As my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) pointed out in his excellent contribution, it is not reasonable to expect that an alternative can be developed in time to meet the world demand for energy after we have used our resources of oil and gas. I shall be surprised if nuclear power is not developed on a major scale and on a worldwide basis. I agree entirely with my hon. Friend on this subject.
The debate on nuclear energy has been brought to the forefront of our discussions principally by two factors. The first is probably the publication of the White Paper on the report of the Flowers Committee in May this year and the second is the much-publicised speech of President Carter. The former we must treat with great seriousness, paying careful attention to the recommendations and ensuring that all the safety provisions are adhered to. The latter we shall perhaps be able to evaluate better after it has been digested and probably regurgitated several times by United States legislators.
The United Kingdom has always taken its own major decisions. I hope that on this occasion we shall examine President Carter's views with an open mind but in the full knowledge that we have a highly sophisticated scientific team which probably has a substantial lead on the Americans in research and knowledge of the fast breeder reactor.

377
Having said that, it would be quite wrong not to acknowledge that President Carter has done the world a service by his initiative. I think that as long as we can discuss the Carter proposals and at the same time bear in mind that we hold the initiative and the advantage with the fast breeder reactor, we can proceed carefully. I hope that before too long the Secretary of State will find it possible to take a positive decision on this subject.
Sir Brian Flowers wanted caution and debate. That has certainly been provided by the Government. I thought that The Guardian leader of Saturday 28th May got it just about right when, referring to the whole question of decisions in the nuclear industry, it said:
"These decisions nearly all revolve round the fast breeder reactor which, by converting uranium into plutonium, multiplies the working life of the fuel sixty-fold. In the ensuing debate it is important that real dangers should be separated from inflated ones."
With respect to those who have fears about the future of the nuclear industry, particularly about the development of the fast breeder reactor, I suggest that they, above all others, should pay attention to those sentiments because they are doing and can do the nuclear industry no good at all. Indeed, the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon), whose speech I heard frequently in Committee and who made it again tonight, does the nuclear industry no good at all by raising the kind of doubts which he raises, for what I am sure are perfectly sincere reasons, but which, put across in the way in which he puts them, can do nothing to help an industry which has a marvellous record in this country and which can be of tremendous value to us not only as a money earner but as helping with energy problems in future.
Mr. Penbaligon: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that the fears that I genuinely hold should be ignored?
Mr. Gray: Of course I do not suggest that the hon. Gentleman should withhold any fears that he genuinely holds, but when he expresses them, he should do so with a more responsible attitude. He should not try to stir up fears in those who listen to his remarks, because although perhaps we do not attach much importance to them, others may well do so.
378
In this context, one of the most important decisions that will have to be taken in the future is the siting of the reprocessing plants. The proposal to site such plants in close proximity to reactors must be eminently sensible.
I should like to pay tribute to those who work in the nuclear industry, and particularly those at Dounreay where, for the past 20 years, there has been great activity in nuclear affairs. Indeed, the prototype fast breeder reactor was built there and was highly successful. Dounreay holds a unique record of safety and it is a site which I commend hon. Members to visit. The nuclear area at Dounreay was built when nuclear power was completely new and great fears were expressed locally about it being sited there. I represent the neighbouring constituency, and wherever one may hear fears expressed about the future of the nuclear industry, one certainly does not hear them in the north of Scotland. People there have been living beside this for 20 years and are perfectly satisfied with the safety and the future of the industry.
We cannot do without the assistance of the nuclear industry. On a 2 per cent. growth rate we shall need during the 1980s no less than 2,000 megawatts a year of the new generating capacity increasing to 3,000 megawatts by the 1990s. That figure does not include replacement of our existing fossil fuel programme. The lead-in time for a new power station is seven to 10 years, and if we are to overcome the problems of future decades it is unlikely that we can do so successfully without the aid of nuclear power.
The stop-go ordering programme that has taken place over the years in the power generation industry has been disadvantageous to us, and every effort should be made to obtain wide agreement on an ordering policy, so that decisions taken today for final implementation perhaps 10 years ahead will not be subjected to political adjustments.
The question of Drax B is unavoidable. I was interested in a point made by the Secretary of State earlier and perhaps the Minister could clarify it. The right hon. Gentleman said that coal from Selby would ensure that the coal-fired Drax B would be cheaper than nuclear power. That contradicts the Central Electricity Generating Board's figures. It

379
may be that there is some misunderstanding here, because the latest CEGB figures that I have show that nuclear power would cost 0·69p per unit, coal 0·97p per unit and oil l·09p per unit. It may be that we are not comparing like with like, and I should be grateful if the Minister would clarify that point, because a number of my hon. Friends were worried about the figure that the Secretary of State gave.
It seems sensible to continue with the successful development of the fast breeder reactor which, after all, has been proceeded with in the United Kingdom for more than 20 years and in which we hold such a commanding lead. In that way, the fast breeder option for electricity generation will be available to us towards the end of the century if it is needed. It still has a major presentational problem, and the whole nuclear industry must look seriously at its image, because although many of us have complete confidence in it, its opponents will —to a certain extent and perhaps not intentionally—distort its purpose and alarm public opinion in a way that could be extremely serious for the future of the industry. I hope that we shall proceed with our nuclear programme, because I believe that we cannot exist without it.
9.35 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Energy (Dr. J. Dickson Mabon): We have enjoyed a sober and constructive speech from the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Gray), which contrasted vividly with the opening speech of the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King). The hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty made a very good speech, and I agree with what he said about practicalities rather than ideologies in oil policy. I hope that there is a consensus that the regime that we have established is sound.
The companies take that view and have proved it by where they have put their money and by their response to the Fifth Round. They would not welcome our chopping and changing a policy that we built up first in the Labour Government up to 1970, then with the Conservative Government, and now with us in power again. I hope that the points made by the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty will be endorsed by all hon. Members.
380
I noted the arguments of the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty and Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) about depletion. It is not fair to expect people who enter the exploitation of oilfields for a certain time and with considerable sums of money involved suddenly to have sprung on them requests for depletion. We have been scrupulously fair to the companies in warning those in any field where it is applicable that we have definite powers and will seek to use them, and I hope that our successors—if the country should suffer some misfortune— would try to do the same thing. Depletion must obviously be an important integral part of British policy in the 1980s, but it would be unfair to ask those in the fields to deplete earlier.
The hon. Member for Dundee, East's comments about figures were interesting. Our first objective is to get to 2 million barrels a day. Then we can consider how much oil we need to produce and whether a depletion policy should be brought into operation. So many things can change in such a short time. I was pleased to hear the hon. Member for New Forest (Mr. McNair-Wilson) explain how things can change so rapidly and so badly because of circumstances in the Middle East.
The hon. Member referred to the reduction of our overseas indebtedness. This is important. Our reserves in the North Sea are valued at very many times the size of our overseas indebtedness, so their is no question of our having mortgaged the oil, as is sometimes claimed by ignorant commentators abroad.
Having congratulated the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty, I must chide him for not thanking the Government for providing this debate. We appealed to the Opposition to give us a Supply Day for a full-blown energy debate, but this good Government have had to provide the day themselves, and we should have had some graciousness and thanks for what we have done. Having congratulated and chided the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty, I must now go on to commiserate with him for being one of what appears to be a minority of hon. Members who have not visited Washington in the past two months.
My hon. Friend the Member for Normaton (Mr. Roberts) spoke about

381
opencast mining, particularly in his constituency. He pressed on the Government the need to be selective. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will be writing to him on this important topic. My hon. Friend the Member for Normanton also asked how much we had spent on nuclear energy research since 1940. We believe that the net cost of nuclear research and development since 1945 has been slightly more than £1,000 million, which is a very good bargain considering what we have achieved in that time.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey (Mr. Hughes), who explained why he could not be here for the end of the debate, asked about the Celtic Sea. In a brilliant speech, delivered by myself at the University College of Wales at Aberystwyth—to which I was invited my my right hon. Friend—I said that of the seven wells that have been drilled in the Celtic Sea, six have proved to be dry. The results of the seventh well have not yet been released by the licensees. A total of 16 wells remain to be drilled by March 1978. I cannot hold out any hopes that Wales, like Scotland, will see a lot of oil. I am glad that my right hon. Friend said that if oil was discovered in Cardigan Bay it would be British oil as far as he was concerned.
The hon. Member for Bridgwater said that the 800,000 barrels of oil a day coming from the North Sea is a tribute to private enterprise. I say that it is a tribute not to capital but to labour. It is a tribute to men who have lost their lives and men who have worked hard. It is a tribute to managers and men, not just to money. Many workers in the North Sea are not involved in private enterprise. They work for companies some of which are publicly owned and some of which are partly publicly owned. I do not see why the hon. Member should bring in party politics. He should be like his hon. Friend the Member for Ross and Cromarty and rise to the occasion.
Mr. Tom King: I shall rise to the occasion. I was responding to the claim, frequently made by the Secretary of State and which he even made in Washington, that this was a tribute to and an achievement of State investment. By private enterprise I mean everyone who works in the North Sea. I am sorry that the Minister tried to distinguish in that way. The
382
achievement is a tribute to all concerned in the activity.
Dr. Mabon: I am glad that the hon. Member for Bridgwater said that. The sinner who repents is always more welcome. He might add a word about the National Coal Board and its early work in the Gulf-Conoco consortium and the British Gas Corporation's achievements. However, I shall not fall into the same trap. We should congratulate our country on a remarkable achievement.
I shall be fair to the hon. Member for Bridgwater. He referred to BNOC and BODL. I shall look into that. I do not have the facts at the moment. In fairness to BNOC, it acquired BODL by virtue of the Burmah transaction and inherited contractual obligations. However, I do not believe that that is a complete answer. I shall look into it. If true, it is not satisfactory, particularly when we are approaching the rest of industry and it is responding well.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Sir G. de Freitas), on the review that he gave in a brief speech. The right hon. Member for Renfrewshire, East (Miss Harvie Anderson) was concerned about Drax B. The decision falls on the Secretary of State for Industry or the Prime Minister. In the Energy Department we have made our views clear on the matter and naturally our colleagues are concerning themselves with the issue.
Mr. Joseph Dean Mr. Joseph Dean rose—
Dr. Mabon: I have a short time, dear friend, to reply to many things.
Mr. Joseph Dean: The Minister's statement is at odds with what some of us have understood. Will he say categorically that the statement that he is now making reflects the correct position? It was reported in the responsible Press at the weekend that claims were being made by the Secretary of State for Energy that it was his responsibility, and that he would decide how and when the order would be placed.
Dr. Mabon: The Government in the last analysis are responsible. The decision on this question is not an easy one. The right hon. Member for Renfrewshire, East demonstrated this well. It is not just simply a matter of building Drax B. It is

383
about the entire future of the industry. The Government value the contribution that all these firms have made. We value the skill of the workers and wish as many of them as possible to be retained in a vibrant industry with a future. That is what it is really all about. It is not simply about just another power station. It is about the future of the industry. That is why the whole matter is being so thoroughly ventilated and gone into with all those concerned—not just some but all those concerned. I hope that we shall have an announcement very soon.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Brown) made a very interesting and somewhat amusing speech in his own inimitable style. He tended to talk about people being against coal. Other hon. Members later on in the debate were against nuclear energy. No energy Minister is against any of these fuels. We are all for the development of the five principal fuel industries. We are, in addition, in favour of the development of renewable resources, which could contribute to the programme as much as 40 million tonnes of coal equivalent. That is not to be sneezed at. Maybe it is only 5 per cent., but 5 per cent. is 5 per cent.
With good conservation—the seventh weapon in the armament of energy—we do not think that we could get much more than 6 per cent. to 8 per cent. saving of consumption, but that is not to be sneezed at, either. All these sources can contribute at differing times in our national fortunes to the energy pattern of our country.
The Joint European Torus is not about today or tomorrow, but about the next century. We take it very seriously. We had a debate about it a month ago. I have looked it up and I am very glad that the terminology is now different and that the supportof all Members in the House is unqualified.
We, the British, believe that the right place for the JET is Culham. We have no principal activity in the Common Market. Everybody has something except the British. We have nothing. Therefore, we are legitimately entitled to something, and in this field we think we are the best. We have no qualms about saying that in the Council of Ministers.
384
I say to the hon. Member for Dundee, East that we shall not surrender one thing for another; the JET case stands on its own. He suggested that we might surrender JET to the German interest— the only dissenting voice—in order to get a fast reactor to the United Kingdom. It does not work in that way. The Germans already have an interest in the French Super Phoenix, and also have their own concerns. We believe that our fast reactor is as good as anybody's and perhaps even better than some others, and that it is well worth investing in by itself. It is a question of timing and not whether we shall or shall not.
Mr. Dalyell: In that case, ought not we, the British, to unblock the multi-annual research grants pretty quickly?
Dr. Mabon: We have a very important meeting of the European Summit, the European Council, this week. I do not want to go any further than that.
I think that the JET is terribly important to us and that we really should try to capture that for our own interest and for the interest of the EEC as a whole.
I was very amused—I think we all were—by the reference by my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) to Gladstone's speech of 1866 and the projections in it. I never thought that that wonderful old man could actually have stood in a place such as this—perhaps even literally here —and talked in 1886 about 1970. I think that that is taking Treasury forecasts just a bit too far. How absurd, anyway, it looks now.
I quite agree with my hon. Friend that the three issues in nuclear energy can be taken separately. We could discuss the thermal reactor and not have it confused with reprocessing. We could also discuss reprocessing, but reprocessing and the fast reactor are rather too difficult to separate like that.
The hon. Members for New Forest and Exeter (Mr. Hannam) both made very good speeches. The hon. Member for Exeter gave us his picture of the nuclear world in the post-oil phase, and with long lead times that is not ridiculous. We must get ahead with making decisions reasonably soon on the three matters that I mentioned.

385
I said a month ago that we hoped to receive the Nuclear Inspectorate report. I do not see the point in chiding my right hon. Friend or any of us for not having announced a decision when we do not have that report. The hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon) would rightly beat Ministers around the head for the audacity of making a decision without knowing whether the chosen system was safe. We cannot make a decision until that report is available.
In addition, the Nuclear Power Company is to give us its assessment—and its staff are professionals—of the thermal reactor, of the various options that we have. The AGR has certainly proved a remarkable success, even now. We know that the three more stations to be commissioned will be successful, based on the experience at Hinkley Point B and Hunterston B.
We were asked for a debate about the Flowers Report. The Government have issued their White Paper giving a response to the report. Hon. Members should read paragraph 508 of the White Paper. Flowers is not an alibi or an excuse for abandoning nuclear power. Paragraph 508 says:
"We have considered whether this country should seek to abandon nuclear fission altogether, but even if it could be confidently supposed that this could be done without risk of unacceptable restrictions on energy supply in the future, we should not think that such a strategy was wise or justified."
It could not be more definite. We believe that there is a continuing role for the nuclear industry in this country.
The hon. Gentleman was right to raise problems that are matters for the Wind-scale inquiry but also general matters that we can discuss concerning glassification or vitrification of the spent elements. We should see whether we can glassify and store that foul waste where it does nobody any harm. We are trying to do that, but the hon. Gentleman is right to persist on this matter. If I were in his position I should be banging the table all the time to get the scientists up to scratch on the subject. I should say "Give us all the assurances possible".
I join in chiding the hon. Gentleman a little for saying that the Japanese are bringing their rubbish here. We invited them a long time ago to participate with us in the matter, because we make money
386
out of it. We are not ashamed about that. We have our own waste to dispose of, anyway. It should be remembered that part of the contract—and this is public—said that if we could glassify they would take it back and that if we could not they would still take back offensive matter.
The hon. Gentleman uses pejorative words—he used them tonight—about our country being a nuclear dustbin. How often I see these remarks, particularly in tabloid newspapers! They are totally misleading the British people, trying to frighten them with bogy-bogy stories. This is nonsense.
As I have said, the hon. Gentleman is right to be concerned about these matters, but I hope that he will express his concern in mature terms, telling the people that it is our duty as legislators to make sure that the Government have done their job properly and that the industry is very concerned about safety and security.
The hon. Gentleman is right about non-proliferation. We are very concerned about it. The declaration of the Heads of Governments after the Downing Street Summit stated:
"Our objective is to meet the world's energy needs and to make peaceful use of nuclear energy widely available, while avoiding the danger of the spread of nuclear weapons. We are also agreed that, in order to be effective, non-proliferation policies should as far as possible be acceptable to both industrialised and developing countries alike."
As the hon. Member knows, we have agreed with all the other nations involved to set up an expert study group to do the preliminary analysis of the best means of advancing the objectives which have been established, including the setting of terms of reference for the international fuel cycle evaluation programme proposed by President Carter. The objective of that will be to examine which fuel cycle will most effectively contribute to non-proliferation objectives.
We shall join in that programme whole-heartedly because we are one of the most able nations in nuclear energy. We have an absolutely first-class record —perhaps the best record—certainly in safety. Others may argue about our technical competence or about this reactor against that, but we need make no apology for the fact that we have an industry as good and as safe as ours.

387
We take seriously the problem of radioactive waste. I hope that we can give good news to the House later about the successes of our scientists in that regard. We all wish them well, I am sure.
The Government have thought carefully about waste disposal. The strategy and management of waste disposal now concern four Ministers—the Secretaries of State for Scotland, Wales and the Environment as well as the Secretary of State for Energy. It will be at the behest of these environmental Ministers, with the involvement of the Department of Energy, that the public will be assured that environmentally we are treating this matter seriously. It is in that kind of way that we are trying to see a future for nuclear energy which meets the doubts of the critics of the industry, who criticise it not because they deny its success but because they are frightened of the so-called "plutonium society".
I cannot say much about energy conservation at this juncture. It is true that our programme has not been as substantial as those of other countries. On the other hand we have achieved something since 1974. It may be modest in some ways, but we have revised this matter not once but twice, and I hope that in the autumn my right hon. Friend and the Under-Secretary will be able to announce our additional proposals for our energy conservation effort.
I would say to the hon. Member for Dundee, East that one should not confuse financial assistance to individual householders with the old argument about valuation of properties. If one improves one's property, the valuation law provides—I do not see how it could be otherwise—that the valuation figure is raised. But that is an old one that I do not want to go into now.
We have just had a meeting in Oslo of all the so-called North Sea riparian countries to discuss the experience of the Norwegians and others in relation to the Ekofisk incident. We helped the Norwegians and they greatly appreciated the Secretary of State's direct efforts. We have agreed to meet again and to commission various studies. The Norwegian report—under their own system of inquiries—on the Ekofisk affair will, I hope, be known to us in September. It
388
is a blessing that no one was killed or hurt in that incident and that the leak was so short-lived. I pay every tribute to those who risked their lives and limbs in extinguishing it. However, we must learn the lesson of Ekofisk. I hope that we shall be able to make our conclusions known to the House in the new Session.
Mr. Dalyell: Before he sits down, will my right hon. Friend clear up one point? He said that JET was a decision by itself. My hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mr. Tomlinson), the Under-secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, told the European Parliament clearly that it was part of a package relating to many other things. Which is it?
Dr. Mabon: My hon. Friend must know that in discussions in the Council there are always arguments to and fro about different items on the agenda. I positively denied, in my speech in the House on 17th May, that our concessions on Euratom loans and so on at the March Council had anything to do with JET, and I stand by that.
Mr. Dalyell: My right hon. Friend had better tell the Foreign Office.
Dr. Mabon: I shall take my hon. Friend's advice and so inform the Foreign Office.
It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE (NORTHAMPTONSHIRE)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Frank R. White.]
10 p.m.
Mr. Arthur Jones: The serious position of National Health Service provision in Northamptonshire came to the notice of the general public towards the end of last year when it was dis closed that an overspending of £600,000 was predicted in the financial year up to 31st March 1977. The senior doctors in Northampton felt that the situation was so serious that they took the unprecedented step of issuing a statement so that, as they said:
"the public shall be fully aware of the circumstances."

389
The statement referred to the fact that medical service in the county had been historically under-funded for years, since 1952, as I understand it, and that the savings required to keep within the budgetary decisions of the regional health authority would have serious consequences, including the delay or refusal of acute admissions. Patients, the statement said,
"will be admitted only if they fall into the category of emergency."
The possibility of the closure of facilities was referred to together with the delay in completing phase one of the new district general hospital in the town. It is said that it cannot be operational until 1978. The medical staff committee, in a letter to Mr. David Woodrow, chairman of the Oxford Regional Health Authority, expressed:
"disappointment and disgust at the continued delay in completion of the project."
The Northampton Community Health Council had earlier drawn attention to a rapidly deteriorating situation, particularly to under-funding, which it attributed to the fact that population figures for mid-1975 were used in the allocation computation which fell short by 14,000 of the actual increase which had taken place in the two subsequent years.
This evening I have received a telegram from Northampton Community Health Council which reads:
"Please tell the Government that the people of an expanding Northampton find it incredible that despite forward planning and moneys made available for roads, houses, industrial estates, schools etc., there is no provision for up-to-date revenue allocation for the people who come to Northampton."
In addition, about 60,000 residents in North Buckinghamshire, from the rapidly-growing town of Milton Keynes, look to the Northampton district for acute geriatric and maternity services. I am pleased to see my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Benyon) in his place. I know that the people of Milton Keynes look forward to the time when a general hospital is built there.
Some of the treatment required in the Kettering district, arising principally from Wellingborough, is met by the services in Northampton, with accidents arising on the Ml at a contributory factor. The two districts comprise a county area health authority.
390
On the question of demands upon the Northampton district by residents outside the area, the Oxford Regional Health Authority said in a letter of 8th February to my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Morris), who is in his accustomed place this evening:
"We have not got adequate information about the total cross-flow of in-patients nor do, I think, have the area health authorities."
It appears that budgets in the health service have been built up year by year according to the services actually being provided, with modest increases for local developments. It was said by the regional health authority that
"Northamptonshire may require upward adjustments at the expense of other areas but certainly at this stage we cannot say with absolute assurance that this is the position."
Having regard to the fact that the National Health Service is the largest single employer in the country and one which makes tremendous demands on public resources, this is a confession of no mean significance.
In recent months an increasing number of complaints about the inadequacy of the service has been brought to my notice. A constituent involved in a motor accident which left him in considerable pain and discomfort has been told by his doctor that he will have to wait months for attention. There are two cases which are similar in character where replacement knee joints are required. I am informed that because the Northampton Hospital is desperately short of cash, the cost of the equipment makes it impossible to order them as required. The specialist particularly interested in replacement surgery finds himself in the position of possibly being forced to stop doing the operation altogether through the National Health Service. I am referring her to a letter from by constituent's general practitioner.
There is considerable concern over the Government's plans to phase out provision of three-wheeler or suitably adapted four-wheeler cars for the disabled and handicapped, with the substitution of a mobility allowance. The seriousness of the situation is demonstrated in the terms of a letter sent three months ago to one of my constituents by Mr. S. G. Hill, administrator for the Northampton district. He says:
"A crowded clinic involving long delays, inadequate and unsuitable accommodation,

391
overworked staff and the consequent increased risk of error, all derived from insufficient resources of buildings, staff and money to run the services on a decent and acceptable level."
That is a tremendous reflection on the service which is provided—[Interruption.] I believe that I heard the Under-Secretary say that it is a reflection on the state of the country. That may be the case, but I think there are particular circumstances in Northampton which require a particular approach.
The Secretary of State responded with commendable speed to the serious situation arising in Northampton. He visited the general hospital on Monday, 17th January, and heard first hand the problems, both medical and administrative. My hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker) visited Northampton General in March when she, too, had the opportunity of seeing for herself the serious situation to which I have referred. Continuing representations have been made since the turn of the year by the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Ms Colquhoun), my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, South and myself.
Following the Secretary of State's visit, it was announced that a further revenue allocation of some £153,000 would be made. It was at about that time that the three of us saw the Minister of State, presenting the facts to him in their stark reality. I regret to say that he could give us no comfort.
Subsequently, we visited the regional board at Oxford, which provided an opportunity to go into some detail with Mr. Woodrow, the chairman, and some of his senior executives. We came away still questioning the criteria upon which area allocations are made, and despite the submission of considerable material to us I am still of the opinion that hitherto a number of important local factors have not been given adequate weight in the calculations.
A particular difficulty in Northampton arises at the Princess Marina Hospital, opened by Her Royal Highness a few years ago. It is significant that although it has been in operation for seven years, only 13 out of the 19 wards have been opened, and as part of the economy drive the closure of the Bugbrooke ward was contemplated.
392
This hospital, purpose-built for the treatment of the mentally handicapped, is a showpiece to visitors from all over the world, providing unrivalled facilities both in the county and beyond. It is an example of advanced nursing techniques and training methods, and any reduction in the service would have severe repercussions not only for the patients but for those families unfortunate enough to have a mentally retarded child. In particular, the Bugbrooke ward for children fulfils a unique role, providing high dependency phase care and relief. Many families in its absence would find the strain intolerable and the withdrawal of facilities could not do other than lead to children being placed in permanent care.
My hon. Friend and I visited the hospital on two occasions and we have seen both parents and devoted members of staff. I was particularly impressed by the dedication of the young men and women in this vitally important sector of the National Health Service. Their personal commitment made a great impression on me. Happily the intended closure was lifted a few weeks ago.
The circumstances in Northamptonshire, particularly in respect of the Northampton District Health Authority, is extremely serious and deteriorating. It is no exaggeration to say that if savings have to be made to bring the area within its budget allocation, they could be achieved only by dismantling the health service in the county, with serious and disturbing consequences for the whole population.
This is in no way an exaggeration on my part but a quotation taken from a financial statement dated 17th June 1977 prepared by the county area health authority. This report points out that in the financial year 1976–77 there was a net overspending of £600,000–£750,000 for Northampton, and £50,000 for Kettering, with area based service underspent by £200,000. The estimated shortfall for this year including the overspending for 1976– 77, is £1,890,000 in a budget approaching £30 million.
The Authority has prepared two possible schemes. A saving of £444,000 involves the closures of the Margaret Spencer Hospital in Northampton, the Wellingborough Cottage Hospital, Pitsford House for geriatric care and the Corby maternity unit. Beds currently out of

393
use, including the Princess Marina Hospital, to which I have already referred, total 531. The area health authority is having to inform both Oxford and the Department that it will not be possible for the authority to live within its financial allocation this year.
It should be noted that while these and other recommendations were submitted to and approved by the area health authority so that the necessary consultative procedure could be commenced, by the end of the financial year none of these closures had been effected but the closure procedure had reached an advanced stage.
The second list indicates the very serious consequences for the service to bring the area within its allocation for this year, and it has been made clear that these would have such drastic effects that implementation would not proceed without specific instructions from the region and Department. The total closure and the discharging of patients home and declaring staff redundant would be necessary at Pitsford and Creaton, together with the John Greenwood Shipman Home and the Naylands family unit. It would involve the closure of the Kettering Rock-ingham Road Hospital, Wellingborough maternity unit, Hayway out-patient department at Rushden, two acute wards at Kettering and a general reduction of the provision of out-patient services. In addition, there would also be the closure of Rushden Hospital leaving the psycho-geriatric unit only and very limited provision of alternative facilities.
That is the measure of the serious position in Northamptonshire and the potential dismantling in the absence of additional resources. That is the point that I want to make in the gravest possible terms to the Minister. The right hon. Member for Kettering (Sir G. de Freitas), my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, South and myself had an opportunity of discussing the situation with Mr. Seddon, the vice-chairman of the area health authority, Mr. Burrell, the area administrator, and Dr. McQuillan, the area medical officer, yesterday when they stressed the gravity of the situation.
I am informed that allocations from the region have hitherto been on the basis of revenue consequences of capital expenditure but that more recently the criteria of assessments of relative health care
394
needs recommended by the Resources Allocation Working Party—RAWP, a very awkward abbreviation—led to a review of procedures. A letter dated 23rd May addressed to Mr. Softley, the chairman of the Northampton Community Health Council, written on behalf of the Prime Minister, says:
"The Oxford Region as a whole is assessed as being relatively well endowed with revenue funds … and is one of those which must make strenuous and widespread efforts to make better use of its funds and seek ways to redeploy resources to the localities in this area which are relatively deprived or under pressure."
This lends support to the case that I have tried to make earlier with regard to regional allocations and the shortfall resulting for Northamptonshire.
Those of us who went to see the Minister of State will remember that he said that the Department could not interfere in regional allocations. I question whether the maintenance of that situation is wise in the circumstances that I have tried to outline.
I welcome this opportunity to draw to the attention of the Government the circumstances existing in the National Health Service in Northamptonshire. This is not the occasion to consider ways and means of ensuring adequate provision for the National Health Service as a whole. I hold strong views on the profligate and irresponsible behaviour of this Government in the use of taxpayer's money both in this field and elsewhere.
The issues for Northamptonshire have been clearly identified and the necessity for additional resources substantiated. I hope the Minister will announce this evening that a departmental investigation will be carried out as a matter of urgency and give the five Members representing constituencies in Northamptonshire an assurance that their representations will be heeded and their submission acted upon without delay.
10.16 p.m.
Sir Geoffrey de Freitas: As I represent a constituency in Northamptonshire and the district covering Kettering and Wellingborough, I wish to say to the Minister that the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Jones) has my full support.
10.17 p.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Eric Deakins): I must congratulate the hon. Member for

395
Daventry (Mr. Jones) on securing a debate on the closure of National Health Service buildings in Northamptonshire and North Buckinghamshire. I know that these proposed closures have been causing anxiety to the people in the areas concerned, and I am grateful for this opportunity of putting the Government's view. However, before talking about the various proposals, perhaps I might sketch in the economic background against which the health authorities are having to take some very difficult decisions about rationalising the services they provide in order to make the best possible use of their limited resources.
I am sure that the hon. Member would agree that in considering the local pattern of hospital services, health authorities must have regard to the overall resource situation both locally and regionally. In spite of the economic difficulties facing the country, the Government have continued to give a high priority to the maintenance of services provided for patients in the NHS, and the total sums made available for current expenditure nationally on the hospital and community health services have increased from year to year in real terms. For the current financial year, the sums made available for these services represent a real terms increase of nearly 1½ per cent. nationally. Nevertheless, I recognise that this is a relatively low rate of growth compared to the recent past and in view of the need to provide for the growing number of elderly people and advances in methods of treatment. In considering how this 1½ per cent. national growth in resources for current services in 1977–78 should be distributed between regions, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State decided that the broad principles recommended by the Resource Allocation Working Party in its second report, published last September, should be followed.
The Oxford region is the fourth-best provided region in terms of resources for current services on the basis of the criteria recommended by RAWP, its actual revenue allocation being some 107 per cent. of the target allocation. Nevertheless, in deciding on a differential distribution of the growth money for the current financial year in favour of the deprived regions, we recognised that there were also difficulties facing the better-
396
provided, or above target, regions, and so they have received some, though necessarily very limited, growth over last year. Oxford's growth represents an increase of 0·4 per cent. over 1976–77. Two of the difficulties that we took account of in deciding on a minimum growth for the above target regions were the pressure of cash limits and the need for some room for manoeuvre to allow for redeployment of hospital resources into newly completed facilities.
I turn now to the situation as it affects the part of the country to which the hon. Member for Daventry has referred. The population there is expanding. Northamptonshire AHA is recognised by the Oxford Regional Health Authority as being amongst the needier of the areas in the region, and this has been reflected in the 1977–78 intra-regional allocations. The RHA provided for real terms growth in the allocation to Northamptonshire AHA of 0·4 per cent. while Buckinghamshire received no growth. The RHA has still not completed the studies which will make an objective comparison of the resources available to the four areas on the lines commended by RAWP, and, pending this, its caution in making differential allocations for the current year was justifiable on the grounds that drastic change could lead to perhaps unwarranted disruption of important services.
Mr. Arthur Jones: The Minister mentioned 0·4 per cent., but the population has increased by 0·9 per cent. Is it any surprise to any of us that the services are collapsing in that situation?
Mr. Deakins: I am coming to that point. The interim allocations have not been finally settled and the pattern still has to be finally implemented in the Oxfordshire region. When this has been done there will be an improvement in the figures. It depends on the total resources available to the Oxfordshire RHA in the first place, and then on the division between the various areas.
In Northamptonshire new hospital buildings have been occupied, and more are ready and waiting to be occupied; yet more are nearly ready for occupation. Notwithstanding the significant increases in revenue allocation which the area health authority received in the years following reorganisation, it has a

397
history of over-spending. In other words, in delivering health care to the community it serves it has consumed more resources than were allocated to it. So it has achieved a level of expenditure and a level of service which is greater than it can offord.
In the present economic climate it is imperative that all public bodies—and this includes all health authorities in general and Northamptonshire AHA in particular—keep their spending within the cash limits notified to them. Under the system any over-spending in 1976–77 is recoverable from the 1977–78 cash limit. Thus, any failure to deal with over-spending in one year comes home to roost in the next. So the AHA must find a way to bring its expenditure under control and within the allocation. Clearly they must give careful consideration to the less viable units which have been or which are scheduled to be replaced in new developments, or which are supplements to services which would be adequate, less costly or more efficient without them. These, then, are the economic constraints which the health authorities must bear in mind in managing and planning their services.
Against this background it must be clear that all health authorities have to ensure that their resources are deployed to the best possible advantage of the community. For example, authorities are increasingly having to look at the relative effectiveness and efficiency of the smaller, under-used and older hospitals. Some of these tend to be rather costly to run, especially when one considers the limited range of services they provide. The services offered in such hospitals can be provided more cheaply and effectively in the large district general hospital which has the benefit of readily available, wide-ranging support facilities. And, whenever possible it is only natural that health authorities should seek to rationalise their services by making closures and transferring facilities to the DGH.
The Northamptonshire Area Health Authority has two large new buildings which are opening or will be opening shortly; one is a 128-bed development at the Northampton General Hospital and the other is a 415-bed scheme at the Kettering General Hospital. It has an opportunity here for the sort of rationalisation
398
process I have been describing and it is proposing to take that opportunity. I shall say more about the precise nature of its proposals later.
People get used to having small, homely hospitals on their doorstep, and when they hear of proposals to rationalise services involving the closure or change of use of the local unit they naturally object to what they see as a withdrawal of a service they value. They see the hospital as their hospital, they have visited patients there or have been patients themselves, it is convenient and patients can easily maintain contact with friends and relatives during a long stay in hospital, and they may even know some of the staff. However, in these difficult economic times health authorities must put these sentiments aside and make sound rational judgments about the cost effectiveness of their services. When they have reached conclusions they must have the courage to face up to the fact that their implementation might prove unpopular in some quarters.
When people oppose closures they have to give careful consideration to the alternatives: if the staff, money and other resources cannot be made available both to open the new and maintain the old, the options at the extremes are clearly either to move into the new accommodation, vacating the old, or to leave the new unoccupied while the old accommodation and services—with their inadequacies— continue to be maintained.
Of course, the people affected by rationalisation proposals might find them a good deal more palatable if they are fully informed of the reasons the health authority has made them. It is important to keep the public fully informed and the local community health council, whose telegram we heard tonight, and whose duty it is to represent the views of the general public to the health authorities and to educate and inform them, obviously has a vital role to play.
Before coming to the central issue in the debate—the proposed closures in Northamptonshire and North Buckinghamshire—I should like to describe the procedures which my Department has asked health authorities to follow when they wish to close or change the use of a health building. And I should like to make it quite clear that both the

399
Northamptonshire and the Buckinghamshire Area Health Authorities have assiduously followed these procedures. Briefly, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services is required to take the final decision on a closure or change of use which is opposed by the community health council but which, nevertheless, the area health authority and the regional health authority wish to implement. However, where the community health council supports such a proposal the area health authority can implement it, notifying my Department and the regional health authority of its decision. But I should emphasise that before any decisions are taken health authorities must consult widely at local level.
I shall now deal with the proposed closures in Northamptonshire. The area health authority anticipates that it has overspent its cash limit for 1976–77 by about £600,000; its allocation of revenue funds from the Oxford Regional Health Authority for that year was a little over £30 million. For this year the Regional Health Authority has increased the area's allocation to just over £35 million. After allowing for inflation this represents an increase in real terms of 0·4 per cent. However, unless economy measures are taken, the area authority will undoubtedly have another large overspending this year—not as large as the hon. Gentleman said, but it could be considerable. There is, therefore, a compelling need for the authority to take a close look at its services, and seek ways of rationalising them. Furthermore, as I mentioned earlier, large new developments at Northampton General Hospital and Kettering General Hospital are becoming ready for use, and the money must be found to make the best use of this large capital investment by fully opening them. I have some more details, but I do not wish to go into them further.
In order to avoid a further overspending and to make full and proper use of these two modern hospitals the Northamptonshire Area Health Authority is proposing to close, at least temporarily, the Corby Maternity Unit, which has 24 beds; Wellingborough Hospital, 34 gynaecology beds; Pitsford House Hospital, 48 geriatric beds; and the
400
Margaret Spencer Hospital, 45 pre-convalescent beds. The authority has the future of various other hospitals under consideration, but no firm proposals have yet been made. I can assure hon. Members that before any decisions are taken about any other hospitals, full consultation will again take place. Services at Corby and Wellingborough, in the event of their closure, would be transferred to the new Kettering Hospital, with the benefits of a far wider range of support facilities and more intensive use of beds; the patients at Pitsford House would move to the Northampton General; and the service at the Margaret Spencer Hospital would be transferred to other hospitals in the Kettering health district.
I understand that at a recent meeting Northamptonshire AHA indicated that it was not prepared to proceed with the second group of closures.
"without specific instructions from the Regional Health Authority and the Department".
It is unlikely to receive such instructions.
My right hon. Friend has made it clear that he will make final decisions about closures opposed by CHCs, and he could hardly approach such issues impartially if his Department had directed that the closure should be proceeded with. But even if there were no such problem, neither the RHA nor the Department could have the initimate knowledge of services in Northamptonshire that is necessary to survey the options for making economies and to select from those options so as to maintain a satisfactory service. This is clearly a task for the AHA.
The community health council has opposed all of these proposals and, therefore, under the closure and change of use procedures, which I described earlier, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services will have to take the final decisions. At present he still has the future of these hospitals under consideration, and consequently I cannot comment on the merits of the proposals in case anything I might say is construed as prejudicing the issue.
I should now like to say a few words about the new town of Milton Keynes.

401
This rapidly growing town has few hospital facilities of its own and is consequently placing considerable strains on the services of Northampton and Ayles-bury to which its population looks.
The Northamptonshire area authority maintains that because the population of Milton Keynes looks to it, at least in part, to provide specialist hospital services its financial problems have been exacerbated. It must be remembered that Northampton itself is a rapidly expanding new town as is Corby. However, as far as Milton Keynes is concerned, I am pleased to say that a 102-bed community hospital is due to be completed there next year and a district general hospital is planned to start in 1979–80. These developments will undoubtedly case the pressure on Northampton.
Perhaps I might now say something about the closures which the Buckinghamshire Area Health Authority is proposing in the north of the county. Although the authority did not over-spend its cash limit in 1976–77, it does anticipate financial difficulties this year because of the rapidly expanding population of Milton Keynes and certain new hospital developments which are coming on stream. Therefore the authority, like Northamptonshire, is having to consider rationalising its services.
The only firm closure proposal which the authority has at present is that to close the geriatric unit at the Winslow Hospital. Like Northamptonshire, the
402
authority has the future of other hospitals under consideration but has not yet made any firm proposals. Once again I can assure hon. Members that before any decisions were taken about the closure of other hospitals in the country the area authority would conduct full consultations.
I am conscious of the complexity of the problems faving the health authorities in maintaining services for communities in North Buckinghamshire and Northamptonshire. There can be no doubt that there is an urgent need to bring levels of expenditure under control, and to redeploy services locally to this end. The hon. Member for Daventry has drawn attention to some changes which are regarded locally as placing services in jeopardy. I must stress that the target which the AHA is set is ne of some £35 million—a greater amount, even allowing for inflation, then has ever been made available for provision of health for the services to the community of the county population. It is for the AHA to deploy those resources so that the greater needs of the community are met effectively and ecnomically. I am confident in its ability to do just that. I hope that it can deepnd on the local community to take a rational and constructive view of its proposals.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Ten o'clock.

DEFENCE
  Civilian Traffic Control
  Civilian Traffic Control
  Infantry
  Infantry
  Airfields
  Airfields
INDUSTRY
  Government Aid
  Government Aid
  Regional Employment Premium
  Regional Employment Premium
  Clothing (Grants)
  Clothing (Grants)
  Courtaulds Ltd.
  Courtaulds Ltd.
  Small Firms
  Small Firms
PRICES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION
  Lentils
  Lentils
  Kegs (Liquid Contents)
  Kegs (Liquid Contents)
ENERGY
  Energy Commission
  Energy Commission
  Nuclear Fuels (Reprocessing)
  Nuclear Fuels (Reprocessing)
  Windscale
  Windscale
  Central Electricity Generating Board
  Central Electricity Generating Board
  Oil Production Licences
  Oil Production Licences
  Gas Explosions
  Gas Explosions
  Gas Flaring
  Gas Flaring
EMPLOYMENT
  Disabled Persons
  Disabled Persons
  School Leavers
  School Leavers
  Newspaper Industry (Closed Shops)
  Newspaper Industry (Closed Shops)
  Wines and Spirits (Bottling)
  Wines and Spirits (Bottling)
  Shipbuilding and Allied Industries Management Association
  Shipbuilding and Allied Industries Management Association
  Hotel and Catering industry
  Hotel and Catering industry
  CIVIL LIABILITY AND PERSONAL INJURY (ROYAL COMMISSION)
  CIVIL LIABILITY AND PERSONAL INJURY (ROYAL COMMISSION)
TRANSPORT
  Motor Cars (Safety)
  Motor Cars (Safety)
  Road Accidents (Leek)
  Road Accidents (Leek)
  Driving Tests (Waiting Time)
  Driving Tests (Waiting Time)
  Wheel Spray
  Wheel Spray
  Western Avenue Flyovers
  Western Avenue Flyovers
  Brakes
  Brakes
  Vehicle Licences
  Vehicle Licences
  Bus Fares (West Yorkshire)
  Bus Fares (West Yorkshire)
  M3
  M3
CIVIL SERVICE
  Official Bodies (Appointments)
  Official Bodies (Appointments)
  Dispersal
  Dispersal
  Horticultural Glass (Imports)
  Horticultural Glass (Imports)
  SCOTLAND
  SCOTLAND
TRADE
  Europe
  Europe
  Steel
  Steel
  South Africa
  South Africa
  Multinational Companies (Directors' Perquisites)
  Multinational Companies (Directors' Perquisites)
  Aircraft Noise
  Aircraft Noise
  Tour Operators
  Tour Operators
  Computers
  Computers
  Hotel, Catering and Institutional Management Association
  Hotel, Catering and Institutional Management Association
  Hotels and Restaurants
  Hotels and Restaurants
  United Kingdom-United States Air Travel
  United Kingdom-United States Air Travel
  Performing Right Society Limited
  Performing Right Society Limited
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Immigration and Entry Staff
  Immigration and Entry Staff
  Illegal Immigrants
  Illegal Immigrants
  Asylum Applications
  Asylum Applications
  Parliamentary Electorate
  Parliamentary Electorate
  Parliamentary Constituencies
  Parliamentary Constituencies
  Police (Resignations)
  Police (Resignations)
  Police (Pay)
  Police (Pay)
  Meetings and Demonstrations (Police Supervision)
  Meetings and Demonstrations (Police Supervision)
  Immigrants
  Immigrants
  Police and Firemen
  Police and Firemen
  European Community Nationals
  European Community Nationals
  Police Houses
  Police Houses
  Postal Voting
  Postal Voting
  Dietetics (Broadcast Advertising)
  Dietetics (Broadcast Advertising)
  Obscenity (Prosecutions)
  Obscenity (Prosecutions)
  Au Pair Employees
  Au Pair Employees
  Supermarkets (Off-licences)
  Supermarkets (Off-licences)
  Drunkenness
  Drunkenness
  Fire Precautions (Hotels)
  Fire Precautions (Hotels)
  Miss Suzanne Southey
  Miss Suzanne Southey
  Drinking and Driving
  Drinking and Driving
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Grunwick Processing Laboratories Ltd. (Picketing)
  Grunwick Processing Laboratories Ltd. (Picketing)
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Whittington Hospital (Neurosurgical Unit)
  Whittington Hospital (Neurosurgical Unit)
  Mental Patients (Special Hospitals)
  Mental Patients (Special Hospitals)
  Mentally Ill Persons
  Mentally Ill Persons
  Mental Hospitals
  Mental Hospitals
  Fraud
  Fraud
  Quarrymen
  Quarrymen
  Psychiatric Units
  Psychiatric Units
  Walsall General Hospital
  Walsall General Hospital
  Clioquinol
  Clioquinol
  Telephones (Amplifiers)
  Telephones (Amplifiers)
  Birmingham Area Health Authority
  Birmingham Area Health Authority
  West Midlands Regional Health Authority
  West Midlands Regional Health Authority
  Practolol (Eraldin) Syndrome
  Practolol (Eraldin) Syndrome
  Hospitals (Expenditure)
  Hospitals (Expenditure)
  Maternity Benefits
  Maternity Benefits
  Smoking
  Smoking
  Area Health Authorities
  Area Health Authorities
APPOINTMENTS MADE SINCE APRIL 21ST 1976
  SOUTH EAST THAMES REGION
  SOUTH EAST THAMES REGION
  NORTH WESTERN REGION
  NORTH WESTERN REGION
  NORTHERN REGION
  NORTHERN REGION
  WEST MIDLANDS REGION
  WEST MIDLANDS REGION
  WESSEX REGION
  WESSEX REGION
APPOINTMENTS MADE WITH EFFECT FROM 1ST AUGUST 1977
  NORTHERN REGION
  NORTHERN REGION
  YORKSHIRE REGION
  YORKSHIRE REGION
  TRENT REGION
  TRENT REGION
  EAST ANGLIAN REGION
  EAST ANGLIAN REGION
  NORTH WEST THAMES REGION
  NORTH WEST THAMES REGION
  NORTH EAST THAMES REGION
  NORTH EAST THAMES REGION
  SOUTH EAST THAMES REGION
  SOUTH EAST THAMES REGION
  SOUTH WEST THAMES REGION
  SOUTH WEST THAMES REGION
  OXFORD REGION
  OXFORD REGION
  SOUTH WESTERN REGION
  SOUTH WESTERN REGION
  WEST MIDLANDS REGION
  WEST MIDLANDS REGION
  MERSEY REGION
  MERSEY REGION
  NORTH WESTERN REGION
  NORTH WESTERN REGION
REAPPOINTMENTS MADE WITH EFFECT FROM 1ST AUGUST 1977
  NORTHERN REGION
  NORTHERN REGION
  YORKSHIRE REGION
  YORKSHIRE REGION
  TRENT REGION
  TRENT REGION
  EAST ANGLIAN REGION
  EAST ANGLIAN REGION
  NORTH WEST THAMES REGION
  NORTH WEST THAMES REGION
  NORTH EAST THAMES REGION
  NORTH EAST THAMES REGION
  SOUTH EAST THAMES REGION
  SOUTH EAST THAMES REGION
  SOUTH WEST THAMES REGION
  SOUTH WEST THAMES REGION
  OXFORD REGION
  OXFORD REGION
  WESSEX REGION
  WESSEX REGION
  SOUTH WESTERN REGION
  SOUTH WESTERN REGION
  WEST MIDLANDS REGION
  WEST MIDLANDS REGION
  MERSEY REGION
  MERSEY REGION
  NORTH WESTERN REGION
  NORTH WESTERN REGION
  Rickets
  Rickets
  Departmental Offices
  Departmental Offices
  Nitrates
  Nitrates
  Young Chronic Sick Units
  Young Chronic Sick Units
  Autistic Children
  Autistic Children
  Ambulances (Alnwick and Belford)
  Ambulances (Alnwick and Belford)
  Health Authorities (Textile Purchases)
  Health Authorities (Textile Purchases)
  X-rays
  X-rays
  Social Workers
  Social Workers
  PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
  PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
  COUNTER-INFLATION POLICY
  COUNTER-INFLATION POLICY
  CBI
  CBI
  MIDDLESBROUGH
  MIDDLESBROUGH
  POWER PLANT INDUSTRY (TYNESIDE)
  POWER PLANT INDUSTRY (TYNESIDE)
  COLLECTIVE CABINET RESPONSIBILITY
  COLLECTIVE CABINET RESPONSIBILITY
  GOVERNMENT MINISTERS
  GOVERNMENT MINISTERS
  TUC
  TUC
  STOCKTON ON TEES
  STOCKTON ON TEES
  NUCLEAR TESTS
  NUCLEAR TESTS
  WOOLWICH
  WOOLWICH
  ABERDEEN
  ABERDEEN
  WALSALL
  WALSALL
  SHIREBROOK, NOTTINGHAMSHIRE
  SHIREBROOK, NOTTINGHAMSHIRE
  NATIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL
  NATIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL
  REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
  REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
  GRUNWICK PROCESSING LABORATORIES LTD.
  GRUNWICK PROCESSING LABORATORIES LTD.
  BIRMINGHAM
  BIRMINGHAM
  SOUTH YORKSHIRE
  SOUTH YORKSHIRE
WALES
  Regional Aid
  Regional Aid
  Regional Employment Premium
  Regional Employment Premium
  Urban Programme
  Urban Programme
  Port Dinorwic Bypass
  Port Dinorwic Bypass
  Apprentices
  Apprentices
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Dependent Territories
  Dependent Territories
  Embassy, Washington
  Embassy, Washington
  China (British Students and Personnel)
  China (British Students and Personnel)
  Uganda
  Uganda
  Chinese Students
  Chinese Students
  Cocos (Keeling) Islands
  Cocos (Keeling) Islands
  Commonwealth Heads of Government Conference
  Commonwealth Heads of Government Conference
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Standard of Living
  Standard of Living
  Money Circulation
  Money Circulation
  Hotels
  Hotels
  Departmental Vehicles
  Departmental Vehicles
  Value Added Tax
  Value Added Tax
  Overseas Visitors
  Overseas Visitors
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Further Education
  Further Education
  Corporal Punishment
  Corporal Punishment
  Student Grants
  Student Grants
  School Leavers
  School Leavers
  Teacher Training
  Teacher Training
  Teachers
  Teachers
  School Transport
  School Transport
  Secondary Reorganisation
  Secondary Reorganisation
  Literacy
  Literacy
  Medical Research Council
  Medical Research Council
  Museums and Galleries (Travelling Exhibitions)
  Museums and Galleries (Travelling Exhibitions)
  Expenditure
  Expenditure
  Bangor Normal and Cartrefle Colleges
  Bangor Normal and Cartrefle Colleges
  Alnwick College of Education
  Alnwick College of Education
  British Library
  British Library
  Schoolchildren (Cleveland)
  Schoolchildren (Cleveland)
  Albany Trust
  Albany Trust
  Sixth Forms
  Sixth Forms
  School Meals
  School Meals
  Student Fares
  Student Fares
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Caravans
  Caravans
  Marketing Boards
  Marketing Boards
  Farm Workers (Housing)
  Farm Workers (Housing)
  Policy White Paper
  Policy White Paper
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Strathearn Audio Limited
  Strathearn Audio Limited
  Agriculture
  Agriculture
  Leasehold Enfranchisement
  Leasehold Enfranchisement
  Disabled Persons
  Disabled Persons
  Gaelic Athletic Association
  Gaelic Athletic Association
  Hospitals
  Hospitals
ENVIRONMENT
  Local Government Expenditure
  Local Government Expenditure
  Marchington Camp
  Marchington Camp
  Derelict Sites
  Derelict Sites
  Waste Disposal
  Waste Disposal
  House Building (Eating)
  House Building (Eating)
  Thermal Insulation
  Thermal Insulation
  Squatting
  Squatting
  Fire Risks (Mattresses)
  Fire Risks (Mattresses)
  Community Land
  Community Land

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: the CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Norwich.
The Duke of Roxburghe—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

OCEAN ISLAND
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 what response they have received from representatives of the Banaban people to their offer of compensation for the devastation of Ocean Island.
The MINISTER of STATE, FOREIGN and COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (Lord Goronwy-Roberts): My Lords, the Statement by my right honourable friend in another place on 27th May envisaged an ex gratia payment of 10 million Australian dollars by the Governments of Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom to establish a fund for the benefit of the Banaban community. The response by the Banaban Council of Leaders accepted the payment provided that the administration of the fund was within their control and that Ocean Island was separated forthwith from the Gilbert Islands. As regards the division of phosphate revenues, which we regard as reasonable, the Banabans argued that these should all be paid to them, with none to the Gilbert Islands, from 1st April 1977.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, in view of the statement of the Vice-Chancellor in court, and indeed by the noble Lord himself, that the Banabans have been very wrongly treated, is not this proposal of compensation very meagre indeed? Will the noble Lord consider the point that the Banabans have the right to self-determination; that they were not included in the Gilbert and
1000
Ellice Islands when they were annexed but were added later without consultation? Should not something be done to amend this unfortunate colonial experience?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I could not agree that the proposed ex gratia payment is meagre. It is indeed very generous. I would once more express appreciation of the generous action of our Australian and New Zealand partners in the British Phosphate Commission in agreeing with us that a substantial ex gratia payment should be offered to the Banabans to enable them to protect their future.
As to the constitutional point, there are very deep feelings among the Banaban community in favour of separation from the Gilbert Islands, but there are equally strong feelings among the Gilbertese against the fragmentation of their territory, a feeling which is widely shared throughout the archipelagic Pacific communities. Whatever the original reasons, Ocean Island has been part of the Gilbert Islands for a very long time and the Gilbertese are strongly opposed to separation. It is for this reason that we have sought a compromise—to meet the Gilbertese feeling that the integrity of their country as they move to independence should not be fragmented further—and to meet, in some degree at least, the feelings of the Banaban community by fashioning a position of strong autonomy for Ocean Island within the independent Gilbertese State.
Lord KILBRACKEN: My Lords, would not the Minister agree that the compensation proposed represents an almost immeasurably small percentage of the vast profits that have been made out of these islanders over the years? Can the noble Lord give any indication of what percentage it does represent? Would he not agree that a far larger sum should be paid and that the British Government should do their best to see that such compensation is paid?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I must respectfully disagree. I think this gesture is a very generous one. Originally the sum of 7 million Australian dollars was proposed. I am glad to say that I had some part in persuading our partners to increase that figure to 10 million

1001
Australian dollars so that a per capita income might be derived from that corpus for the future of the Banaban community which compares favourably with the prevailing rate in similar circumstances in the Pacific generally. But the availability to the Banabans does not stop there. They will continue to receive substantial sums from the revenues from mining until mining ends some time in 1979. The sum does not in fact take account of the fact that the Banabans have received more than 7½ million Australian dollars in revenues over the last three years. It is true that they have not, unfortunately, been able to utilise part of that to build up a fund themselves, and it is partly in recognition of that fact that this ex gratia payment of 10 million Australian dollars has been put together. Moreover, if we look at the pace and proportion of payments to both communities—and they really are one—over a number of years past, I think that proportionately the Banabans per capita have benefited considerably more than the Gilbertese.
As to arrangements for the future for the two communities to work together and live together within the Gilbert Islands, I am very hopeful that discussions may take place between them, at which I shall be very glad to assist, constantly trying to put together some workable compromise on this basis so that they can move together as a unified independent State looking to the future. It will then be for them, in the light of their experience of a devolved system, to decide whether to continue that or to adjust it further.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, while I appreciate what the Minister has done in this matter to secure better terms, does his last reply mean that the matter is not now resolved and that there will be continuing discussions with the representatives of the Banaban people?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, as to the ex gratia payments, by definition, of course, they must be conclusive. We are well prepared to consider the Banaban suggestion as to the organisation of the fund. Indeed, we are willing to provide experts to organise the fund in a proper and fruitful way. As to the constitutional issue, my right honourable friend
1002
and I have always said that, although we see real difficulties in fragmenting this territory further, nevertheless we are prepared to listen to arguments for alternative arrangements. We think that the best hope for the future lies in the two communities working together within a devolved system, and we shall work for that. However, the final decision on the constitutional arrangements must, of course, lie with the pre-independence constitutional conference which in due course will be held and at which I have promised—and I repeat the promise today—that the Banabans will be fully represented and will once more be able to put their case.
Lord PARGITER: My Lords, I should like to ask the Minister whether or not the Banabans will be viable as a community when mining ceases on Ocean Island?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, it is at the least very doubtful, is it not? I do not want to prejudge the issue. There may be ways in which we can link the Banaban community—which for more than 30 years has lived on Rambi Island in Fiji—with the future of Ocean Island. I should welcome that, so that a viable future is possible on the island for the island in relation to the Banaban community and the Gilbertese. A great many options are possible once we can sit down and, with good will, talk these matters over. It has not been very easy to get that kind of discussion going.
Lord LEE of NEWTON: My Lords, having great sympathy both with the Banabans and the Gilbert islanders, I should like to know the terms and conditions under which the Gilbertese are now going to independence. My noble friend will know that many of the Gilbert Islands are purely coral atolls on which little in the way of food can be grown. If there is now to be a change in the conditions of independence, is there some other way in which revenue can be raised to sustain those on the Gilbert Islands themselves?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, my noble friend—who was himself Secretary of State for the Colonies and who speaks with authority on these matters—has put his finger on a very real problem. As with many other small

1003
dependencies moving to independence, the question of future viability arises no less with the Gilbertese as a whole as with the Banabans as a community. It is our duty to ensure the viable future not only of the Banabans but also of the Gilbertese community. We are working hard towards that end. As to the point my noble friend raised about the possibilities of economic development in the Gilberts, in the past few weeks we have had detailed discussions with the Chief Minister and his colleagues, and there are a number of projects and proposals which my right honourable friend the Minister for Overseas Development and my Department are actively considering with the Gilbertese Government at the moment.

JET PROGRAMME: EEC MINISTERS' MEETING
2.46 p.m.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will make a statement on the last meeting of EEC Ministers about the future of the JET (Joint European Torus) Programme.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, JET was not discussed substantively at the Foreign Affairs Council on 21st June but the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs informed his European colleagues that, in view of its high political content, the Prime Minister intended to raise JET at tomorrow's meeting of the European Council.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, in thanking the noble Lord for that helpful and informative reply, may I ask whether he is aware that there has been some criticism in Brussels, suggesting that we have rather overplayed our hand in this matter and have generated a good deal of irritation among the smaller countries, such as Belgium and Holland, through what they have been apt to call our rather crude tactics? Is the noble Lord aware of that criticism, and would he care to comment on it?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, the position is that at the Research Council on 29th March it was agreed that the choice lay between Culham and Garching, but the view was held that the choice of site could not be made until the basis of the organisational structure had been decided. The organisational proposals put forward by the Commission and the Council Secretariat, which we supported, proved unacceptable to some Member States and were remitted to officials for further work.
Lord BRUCE of DONINGTON: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that many of our EEC colleagues have not the slightest hesitation in pursuing their quite legitimate national interests and that for Her Majesty's Government occasionally to dig in their heels must sometimes be a cause of considerable satisfaction?
Lord WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether the Commission has reached any decision and put forward any proposal about the siting of JET? Further, can my noble friend say—if JET is to be sited at Culham—whether Her Majesty's Government are prepared to set up a European school at Culham?—which I believe was one of the original reasons why a long time ago the Commission proposed that Ispra rather than Culham should be the site.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, with regard to my noble friend's first question about the Commission's choice of site, I can confirm that Commissioner Brunner said at a Press briefing on 21st June that the Commission supported Culham as the site for JET and that he hoped Chancellor Schmidt would agree. With regard to the second question about the European school, we are prepared to set up a European school at Culham. This would need the agreement of the Board of Governors of the European schools, but we shall make a formal proposal to them immediately there is a decision to site JET at Culham.
Baroness ELLES: My Lords, while considering the best ways of getting co-operation among the other Member States of the European Community, particularly where large sums of money are to be invested in the United Kingdom,

1005
may I ask whether the noble Lord would agree that the Minister responsible for these negotiations is a Minister who undoubtedly has shown considerable anti-European sentiments? If there is an indication that he would like the United Kingdom to come out of the European Community, is it not rather odd that that Minister should be trying to get JET sited at Culham?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, the noble Baroness has her views on these matters and always, of course, tries to make Party political capital whenever she can. As I said in my original Answer, this matter is being raised by the Prime Minister himself at tomorrow's meeting.
Baroness ELLES: My Lords, would not the Minister agree that it is not a question of political capital but a question of the United Kingdom staying within the European Community in the future?
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, could the noble Lord add to what he said? Are we to understand from what he said about the structural basis that there is now no longer any question of the team at Culham being disbanded at the end of this week, which appeared to threaten at one time? Could he also tell us whether, indeed, it is the case that we are still blocking the approval of research and development funds for Ispra pending a satisfactory solution to the JET issue?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, if discussions on the site are still in progress we hope that the Commission will again extend the contracts of employment of the design team. Their basic salaries are paid, of course, by their parent laboratories. There is no evidence that they have been offered other contracts. With regard to the second point about Ispra, because the programme for the largest joint research centre at Ispra of course involves a substantial increase in its fusion role, we do not think it is sensible to decide on the Community fusion programme piecemeal, especially when there has been no decision on JET, which of course was intended to be its centrepiece. However, I should like to stress that there will be some fusion research at Ispra, even if JET is not sited there but at Culham.
Lord SEGAL: My Lords, would my noble friend bear in mind that an excellent teacher training college is now unfortunately being vacated at Culham and that this would form an admirable site for the proposed training college?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I am sure that that is a useful suggestion which I shall pass on to my right honourable friend. We have already earmarked a building. I am not sure whether it is the same one as that which my noble friend has in mind, but we certainly take note of what he says.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that his statement about the European school will be received with great pleasure by all those who want us to look at this matter as a European as well as a British interest?
Lord STRABOLGI: Yes, my Lords; and, of course, it is very relevant to the European personnel who will be working there and whose children need, when they go back to their own countries, to have taken the Baccalauréat if they wish to go to European universities.

BELGRADE CONFERENCE AND HUMAN RIGHTS
2.55 p.m.
Lord JANNER: 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 progress has been made at the Belgrade Conference on the question of the refusal by the USSR to comply with the Helsinki agreement by denying human rights, for example, refusing to permit applicants to emigrate, subjecting them to harassment and imprisonment, adopting Stalin-style methods by instituting false show trials against Jewish applicants and encouraging antisemitism.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, as I stated in the course of the debate in the House on 14th June, the CSCE preparatory meeting now being held in Belgrade is concerned only with

1007
preparing the organisational framework for the main review meeting in the autumn. Substantive issues related to the implementation of the Helsinki Final Act are not being discussed at the preparatory meeting.
Lord JANNER: My Lords, while appreciating what my noble friend has said, the Question, if I may say so in a humble way, is directed towards something which is extremely important and urgent. It is not a matter of waiting until the autumn. If you take such cases as the Scharansky trial, which is very urgent to some of us—
Several noble Lords: Question!
Lord JANNER: My Lords, I am asking whether my noble friend will take this into consideration. Will my noble friend take into consideration the fact that trials like the Scharansky trial are continuing, and that they are terribly distressing, and that vicious attacks are being made on people who the USSR know very well have not been in any way connected with the charge that is made against them? Would my noble friend say what possible steps can be taken before the autumn by him, by our Government, and by other Governments with which he is in contact, to see to it that these matters will be attended to without delay?
Lord GORON WY-ROBERTS: My Lords, may I, with equal humility, remind my noble friend of the terms of his Question. He asked, "what progress has been made at the Belgrade Conference on the question of", and so it went on. I tried to indicate that the Belgrade Conference, as such, has not yet convened. It will convene in September. What is happening in Belgrade at the moment is a preparatory practical meeting to arrange the agenda and other arrangements for the Conference itself. Therefore, substantive issues such as the ones my noble friend raised in his Question are not now being discussed in Belgrade. They will be. That is a point I made absolutely clear in the debate, and I do so again. The kind of case my noble friend quoted today, as with that quoted with great eloquence by the noble Duke, the Duke of Devonshire, during the debate, it is the intention of the Government to use in the proper
1008
prosecution of our views at the Conference itself in September and October, so long as it lasts. We shall seek a full examination of the progress made since the signing of the Helsinki Final Act by all the signatories. It is the intention not to confine ourselves to sterile polemics, but to look forward to see how everybody, ourselves and other signatories, East and West, can improve upon the progress made since the Final Act was signed. Matters which my noble friend has raised will most certainly figure in what we say in Belgrade.
Lord BYERS: My Lords, in view of the urgency, and the fact that the trials are now continuing, I wonder whether the preparatory conference could give consideration to advancing the date of the main Belgrade Conference? People could suffer very severely in the meantime unless something is done with some urgency.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I entirely take the point. It is most responsible. I do not know that it would, on balance, be wise to advance the date of the Conference, but the point of the supplementary I think is well made. We are very much seized of the urgency of this particular case and of similar cases. As I have said more than once, we take every possible opportunity, without engaging in possibly counter-productive activity—and that is always a possibility in these cases—of informing those concerned of the very deep feelings in this country, and indeed throughout the West, about cases of this kind.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, is the Minister aware that Ludmilla Alexeyeva, the representative in the West of the Orlov Committee, has assured a number of us that, in making representations on behalf of those who are being tried for offences such as slander of the Soviet State (offences which are unknown in the Western criminal calendar), we are not jeopardising their position any further than it would otherwise have been? Will the Minister therefore make such representations, particularly on behalf of Scharansky and on behalf of Professor Yuri Orlov, and will he tell the Soviet authorities that if these trials are proceeded with, and they are convicted of offences which are unknown throughout

1009
the Free World, this will seriously jeopardise the prospects of making any progress not only on the Helsinki agreement but also on détente?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I have no doubt that what the noble Lord says is true. It is, if I may say so, not in the interests of the Soviet or any other Government to engage in these practices. We have a duty to examine each case, however obnoxious or poignant, on its merits to see whether, in acting, we may not in that particular case or group of cases make it less possible for ordinary justice to be meted out to those people. It would be simple, even simplistic, to proceed on a basis of simple denunciation and protest. We do that on occasion, but I hope the House will join me in agreeing that we must examine each case on its merits, not as to its worthiness but as to the best way, in the interests of the person concerned, for us as a Government to proceed. Organisations and individuals in a free country like ours of course are free to speak out, and they do; indeed, I have no doubt that a number of embassies will by tomorrow morning have procured copies of the Official Report of today's proceedings in this noble House.
Baroness ELLES: My Lords, may I ask the Minister to assure the House that the European Community countries are co-operating together to get the draft agenda adopted? Are any East countries supporting the draft agenda which has been put forward by Her Majesty's Government in combination with other European Community countries?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, the answer to the first part is, definitely yes; and the answer to the second part is, hopefully yes.
Baroness HORNSBY-SMITH: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that while we welcome his statement that these issues will be discussed at the September conference, many of us have grave misgivings that the USSR, who are adept at arranging an agenda to suit their own purpose, will, by the arrangement of the agenda which is now pending, create a situation by which the individual discussion of these cases—of people who are suffering so much at the present time—
1010
will be denied under the rules of order because the agenda will have been drawn too tightly? Is he aware that this is the concern of many people who want a real discussion on how Helsinki has worked in practice?
Lord GORON WY-ROBERTS: My Lords, the noble Baroness is quite right to draw attention to that possibility. We are making our attitude on the organisation of the agenda very clear in the current discussions, and I see no likelihood of an agenda arrangements being agreed which would have the bad effects which she rightly reminds us could be possible. In fact, it is not only the countries of the West but, as was suggested by the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, others—others not normally associated with the West—who agree with us as to the kind of agenda that could usefully be put together for a useful conference in September.
Lord JANNER: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend not only for what he has said today for what many of us know he has been saying at the conference—I call it a conference, but I suppose it is considered a preliminary meeting that is being held at present—may I ask him to realise that we appreciate the manner in which he has been endeavouring to get this particular problem attended to at the conference which is to be held? Is he aware that many of us are worried lest before that conference is actually held the position becomes too serious? We hope that it will give him an opportunity to discuss with his friends from other countries how to deal with the situation, remembering that when the USSR realise that other nations declare their view that the USSR are doing the wrong thing, they themselves sometimes react favourably?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, we are well aware of the urgency of these matters and lose no opportunity in pressing forward the points that have been made in this House today.

HOUSING POLICY REVIEW
3.4 p.m.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, with the leave of the House, at a convenient moment after

1011
3.30 p.m. my noble friend Lady Birk will repeat a Statement on housing policy review. That will be followed by my noble friend Lord Strabolgi repeating a Statement on housing policy review in Scotland.

LOCAL AUTHORITIES (RESTORATION OF WORKS POWERS) BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
POST OFFICE BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
SHREWSBURY AND ATCHAM BOROUGH COUNCIL (FRANK WELL FOOTBRIDGE) BILL
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Leader of the House, I beg to move the Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That Standing Order No. 43 be dispensed with for the purpose of taking the Restrictive Trade Practices Bill through all its remaining stages this day.—(Baroness Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

TRANSPORT (FINANCIAL PROVISIONS) BILL
3.6 p.m.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of the Bill is twofold; to provide specific statutory authority for the payment of temporary grants to the British Rail freight and parcels business and to the National
1012
Freight Corporation, and to raise the statutory limit on the amount which the British Waterways Board may borrow from £12 million to £20 million.
The White Paper on Transport, which was published yesterday and which I introduced to the House, discusses in some detail the Government's policy towards freight transport, into which I need not go further now. The Bill now before us is a more modest measure; it makes limited and transitional provisions for the three industries concerned without prejudging the future of any of them. Each industry is conveniently the subject of a separate clause of the Bill and I will therefore preface my remarks about the detailed provisions of each clause with some explanation of how the need for it comes about.
I should therefore speak first about the rail freight and parcels business. The House may remember that the Railways Act 1974 introduced new principles of support for the passenger railway which the then Minister for Transport described not as a lasting solution to the railway problem but at least a step forward. One of these principles was that the costs imposed on the railway by the rail freight and passenger businesses were separately identified in a new way. The expectation was that the rail freight business on this basis would be able to break even. Unfortunately, the delayed effects of price restraint, increases in costs and the recession in the economy so combined that in 1975 the rail freight business proved to be incurring a substantial deficit. There was no statutory provision for meeting this deficit, which was threatening to undermine the finances of the British Railways Board.
The Board took short-term measures. But it was clear that, in order to establish the rail freight business on a firm basis and to give it an assured future, careful examination of the whole underlying strategy was needed. The White Paper will give the House some idea of the tenor of this review. Meanwhile, the Government announced in July 1975 support not exceeding £70 million for that year, and, last February, a further grant of up to £60 million for 1976. At the same time, the Board was asked to make substantial progress towards phasing out the deficit during 1976 and 1977.

1013
The rail freight business is heavily dependent for traffic on the heavy industries such as coal and steel, which are the most severely affected by a recession. But, with the co-operation of the unions, the Board has been able significantly to reduce its costs while, by careful marketing, it has also increased its revenue substantially. It has also been able to win much larger carryings of coal and steel than they expected, and in fact the Board eventually succeeded in containing their requirement for grant in 1976 to within £40 million—the precise figure still being subject to audit.
I come thus to Clause 1 of the Bill. As I have said, the grants available under this Bill are intended to provide transitional support while short-term measures are implemented and decisions about longer-term strategy can be taken. All that Clause 1, therefore, provides is specific statutory authority for the grant in 1977. Authority for grant paid to date already exists in the Appropriation Acts. The clause therefore identifies the terms and conditions of the remaining payments and enables my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport, with Treasury agreement, to provide a total amount not exceeding £30 million.
So far as the grant in respect of 1977 is concerned, this ceiling is consistent with the cash limit of £25 million for 1977 fixed in the White Paper on Cash Limits for 1977–78 published on Budget Day. Five million pounds of that sum has already been paid and will not therefore count against the £30 million limit in this Bill. The remaining £10 million authorised by Clause 1 is needed because of differences between the rate at which support accrues and the timing of actual payments to the Board. The precise amount due for 1975 and 1976 will emerge only when the grant audits now in progress have been completed. The sums which the Department has retained against possible adjustments will then be paid over and will fall within the scope of this Bill. So it will be clear that the provisions of Clause 1 do no more than reflect the decisions already taken on transitional support for rail freight.
I turn now to Clause 2, which provides authority for grants to the National Freight Corporation. The NFC have been receiving grant since January 1976, and
1014
Clause 2 fulfils the undertaking made last August by the then Minister for Transport to seek as soon as possible specific statutory authority for these grants. The NFC's financial problems stem largely from difficulties experienced by two of their subsidiaries, National Carriers Limited and Freightliners Limited. Both these companies were part of British Rail before the NFC was set up in 1968, and, like rail freight, both were badly hit by the combined effects of the recession in the economy and the effects of inflation.
The third problem area in 1976 was the Corporation's European subsidiaries. I know that this is a matter on which the Opposition expressed themselves very strongly in another place. I will however repeat the view of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport that the NFC properly took a risk in this instance. They have the statutory authority to acquire companies, and it is entirely right that they should have the same freedom as their private sector competitors to take commercial opportunities as they arise. The essence of the strategy was to bring together and rationalise existing companies. But the recession in Europe affected the whole operation, and the oil crisis in particular affected the two largest French companies which were in the tank haulage business. Early in 1976 the National Freight Corporation decided that the time, money and effort needed to carry through their European strategy could not be justified and that the right course was to close, or sell, their loss-making subsidiaries.
It is important to recognise that the need to make grants to the NFC arose from the particular problems in these three sectors of the business, which add up to about one-third of the total. The bulk of the business, the United Kingdom road haulage and associated companies, could have weathered the difficulties of 1974 and 1975. The overall position called clearly for vigorous management action to improve the immediate position, and a careful look at the structure and strategy of the Corporation.
The measures which NFC have already taken have brought about a considerable improvement. Here, again, they have been helped by the full co-operation which management have received from the unions. In the recently published 1976

1015
accounts the NFC as a whole record a trading profit of just over £4 million, as compared with a trading loss of £7 million for their United Kingdom companies in 1975. Nevertheless, when overheads and interest charges are taken into account, the NFC ended up with a total loss for 1976 of £15 million. Although this was half the corresponding loss for 1975, further cash flow support was needed, and Clause 2 therefore provides further transitional support within a limit of £30 million.
I must emphasise that this grant is a purely temporary measure. It will enable the Corporation to continue to meet its obligations while its future structure is under review. It is already clear that, because of the problems of National Carriers Limited, and to a lesser extent Freightliners, the Corporation cannot become viable on the basis of its present capital structure. A capital reconstruction will therefore be necessary, and the Government hope to introduce the necessary legislation in the next Session of Parliament. As the White Paper on Transport Policy says, a detailed Statement of the proposed changes will be published before legislation is introduced. Work is also proceeding on a business strategy designed to ensure that the Corporation will remain viable under its new capital structure, and the corporation will then be expected to pay its way without continuing help from the Government.
In the meantime the grant authorised by this Bill should be continued, and with care should be sufficient to meet the NFC's cash requirements until we can see these measures put into effect. My honourable friend has already announced in another place that the NFC have so far received a total of £42 million since January 1976—again under the authority of the Appropriation Acts—and that this further £30 million will, if required in full, bring the total level of support to some £72 million before the proposals for a reconstruction can take effect. But I would add that the payment of grant is monitored most carefully by the Department of Transport, and that not a penny has been, or will be, released without firm evidence of need on the part of the Corporation.
Neither Clause 1 nor Clause 2 offer open-ended subsidies; these are tran-
1016
sitional grants. As stated in the White Paper, the Government see no justification for long-term subsidies for any mode of freight transport. This policy has been constantly reiterated and has, I am sure, the support of the Boards of the two industries concerned, and the Bill is put forward strictly on these terms.
Clause 3 of the Bill deals with waterways. This Bill follows traditional practice in providing for the British Waterways Board within transport legislation, although the Government have now decided that it makes more sense to treat them as part of the water industry. Indeed, in the Green Paper on the review of the water industry, published in March 1976, the Government put forward the proposal that the Board should be merged with the proposed new National Water Authority. Response to that Green Paper is still under consideration, and the Government are expecting to publish a White Paper next month. In the meantime, Clause 3 is a technical provision needed to continue the present arrangements a little longer. Since the Board have a deficit on revenue account which is met by statutory grant, and since they obtain very little by way of depreciation on their heavily written-down assets, they need to borrow from the National Loans Fund for their capital expenditure. The limit on their borrowing was set in 1968 and has almost been reached. As an interim measure, therefore, we propose to raise that limit by £8 million. This should be sufficient to see them through until the review is complete, and any subsequent changes are implemented.
My Lords, this Bill is a modest measure to ensure that three public bodies are able to continue their important work while we reach and implement decisions about the way in which they should develop, particularly in the light of yesterday's White Paper. The Bill comes to us endorsed as a Money Bill, but that need not inhibit our discussion of it now. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Baroness Stedman.)
3.20 p.m.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: Yes, my Lords, a modest measure indeed—but how seductively introduced by the

1017
noble Baroness! She makes all these things sound so attractive. Anyhow, we thank her for her introduction and explanation of the Bill. I should also like to thank the Government for the way in which her right honourable friend met many of the points we made during the Committee stage in another place; and, because of all that, I shall not be very long today.
Having said that, I go on to slightly rougher waters when I say (I do not think I shall be surprising many people) that the Government's performance in some matters, however, must be criticised as being somewhat dilatory because, as I regretted only yesterday, the rather glaring omission—to which the noble Baroness has referred again today—in the White Paper on the financial reconstruction of the National Freight Corporation and her reply yesterday are hardly reassuring, especially when we bear in mind the many years that this matter has been under discussion. However, today we have her promise that it will be introduced next Session. Who knows?—perhaps we may then be introducing it from her present Bench. Anyhow, if they are by any chance in the same place, we are grateful that it will be done then.
As the noble Baroness said, in this Bill we are asked to make available to the NFC grants of up to £30 million. While appreciating the reason behind this, we wonder whether the Corporation has really turned the corner and got on to that well-known but all too rarely seen road to profitability. The noble Baroness told us of some of the measures taken with regard to their ventures in Europe, and I quite agreed with her right honourable friend when he said in another place that it was right that they should take a business risk if it looked suitable. I think that is correct; and they took what appeared to be a reasonable business risk in Europe which evidently did not come off. The only thought that springs to my mind arises in the light of that rather good letter, I thought, in The Times a few days ago from Sir Christopher Soames, in which he drew attention to whether some of our British organisations are as competitive as are our foreign friends in Europe. I do not know whether or not that is the case, but, man for man, we do not seem to be able to match them at the moment in efficiency and, therefore,
1018
in profitability. It is slightly saddening that a calculated risk did not come off.
Having said that, again I would be unfair if I did not agree with the noble Baroness and welcome the profit shown in the 1976 accounts of £4 million compared with the loss in 1975. I think the noble Baroness said that that loss was £7 million. If I am right—and I have a copy of the accounts here by me—the loss was £9 million in 1975, so it is even slightly better than she said; it is from a loss of £9 million to a profit of £4 million. But, having said that the operating loss of £9 million changed to an operating profit of £4 million, we must admit that the overall loss in 1976 was still over £15 million. Bearing in mind what I have now had a chance to read, paragraph 181 of the White Paper, I should like to ask the noble Baroness this question. Are the Government confident that it will be possible to carry out the assurances given in that paragraph? This is the point with regard to their now having to exist on their own muscle.
With regard to Clause 3, if I can take things in a slightly different order, enabling the British Waterways Board to increase their borrowing powers from £12 million to £20 million, I was also very glad to see in the White Paper this morning, in paragraph 191, that the Government consider that,
"the waterways have an important part to play in commercial terms since water transport is so economical a user of energy".
Can the Government tell us in which direction the British Waterways Board will be utilising these funds? In another place the Minister concerned hedged and said that it was for his honourable friend in the sports Department to deal with that matter. In this House, we cannot fudge like that: all Ministers answer for the Government, and not just for their Department, so perhaps I can pin the noble Baroness down. Will the funds be used mostly for commercial or pleasure purposes? A few weeks ago I was told by Sir Frank Price, the chairman of that Board, and by other members of his Board, how much they would like to do if only the funds were available. I should like to see them in a position to put to the test the truth of their claims as to the viability of some of their schemes; or

1019
whether, as the Government, in refusing them funds, as in the case of the Sheffield and South Yorkshire Navigation Scheme the other day, seemed to indicate, those claims are thought to be false. We must remember that a relatively small investment with the Waterways Board can pay high dividends to the wellbeing of our waterways—an asset which, if I might say so, has in the past been somewhat neglected.
To turn to the railways section of the Bill in Clause 1, let me state straight away that we consider that we are being asked to take so much on trust about the railway needs because of the continuing dearth of information on their actual losses on their freight operations. In the latest accounts of 1976. we see a partial recognition of the need for more comprehensive and detailed accounts in the Railways Board report. Can Her Majesty's Government give us an assurance that they will use their best endeavours to encourage the Railways Board to have a more meaningful breakdown of costs? Because only then shall we be helped to identify more easily where the particular problems lie. Bearing in mind the statements in yesterday's White Paper, am I right in assuming that the Government intend this to be the last of these Bills providing extra finance for freight? Continuing to bear in mind the on-going need to economise in public expenditure, and the White Paper's denial, which I was glad to hear the noble Baroness repeat today, of any case for subsidising freight, let us wish this Bill God speed and hope it will have no future progeny.
3.28 p.m.
Lord POPPLEWELL: My Lords, I naturally give wholehearted support to this Bill because it is absolutely necessary that this money should be available. I would make just one or two suggestions to my noble friend for future consideration in the drawing up of the legislation that she has forecast will develop, probably next Session, and also arising from the White Paper that was issued yesterday. Now we accept the principle that transport is a public service, will the Government have a very close look at whether it is necessary to continue the National Freight Corporation and National Carriers Limited? When these bodies were established the objective was that there should
1020
be the utmost co-operation with the railways in the carrying of goods and parcels traffic. What has in fact happened is that there has been intense competition which has developed with the railways, particularly in the case of National Carriers Limited, and instead of there being cooperation we now find that this competition is extending even to long-distance traffic. This is something which I think should be carefully looked at.
We are very pleased indeed that the Freight Corporation has made an operating profit of some £4 million in the last financial year, but, of course, it shows a loss of £15 million overall. Of course, one of the reasons why this loss has taken place is because of the establishment of so many different National Carriers Limited depots and the difficulty of them dealing just with local traffic. Now they are going into competition on long-distance traffic, it is having an effect upon both the Freight Corporation and also the railways. Prior to the passing of the 1968 Act, these were all under the purview of the Railways Board, and this was a big contributory factor, even with the difficulty of that time, in keeping the loss as low as it was. Now is the time to see whether this experiment is on the right lines or whether we should consider the Corporation as a public service for the local authority and the new line of action suggested by the White Paper. One knows that in various parts of the country there is great difficulty in getting parcel traffic collected and delivered. In the past one could be sure that there would be a collection or delivery service within a reasonable time. Now it is often necessary to wait some days, particularly in rural areas and with the cutting down of so many collecting stations. To have the National Freight Corporation collecting loads through National Carriers does not make for the greatest efficiency in dealing with parcel traffic. While I agree with the terms of the Bill and welcome my noble friend's suggestion, I put these points forward for further consideration when the White Paper issued yesterday is clarified, and in the desire to achieve greater efficiency for all concerned.
3.32 p.m.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, at least one thing is obvious, that when we come to have a discussion on the White

1021
Paper it will take a long time and range fairly wide, but this afternoon within the confines of this rather narrow Bill it has been a useful debate. I am delighted to know that noble Lords are starting to wade through the White Paper and to understand what it is all about. I appreciate the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, accepted the difficulties of the freight operations in Europe and accepted that the Corporation had in a sense taken a justifiable risk and had been unlucky. I am confident that we can carry out our scheme that there shall be no subsidies for freight. We have made it plain that after reorganisation this year there will be no subsidy for freight. Freight has to pay its way. I hope the noble Lord will accept my assurance that the Government are going to be firm about that.
So far as the British Waterways Board is concerned, my honourable friend Mr. Horam said in the House of Commons on 31st March that we were talking about borrowing money for warehouses, for land and for all commercial activities which needed vestment and which the Board undertake on a strictly commercial remit; that was why the additional powers of borrowing were being given to the British Waterways Board. It was not money with which they could start doing something for the Sheffield/South Yorkshire navigation however worthy some of us may think that would be.
I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Popplewell, for his suggestion. As I said yesterday, no decision has yet been taken about the reorganisation or restructuring of the National Freight Corporation, Freightliners and National Carriers. Before any legislative procedures are put into being there will be a Statement in this House and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Popplewell, will be in his normal place when that Statement is made and will be able to make a worthwhile contribution on our proposals on the restructuring of the National Freight Corporation, National Carriers and Freightliners.
This is a narrowly drawn Bill. It focuses on a cross-section of the problems which affect the public sector of the transport industry. It does not of itself solve any of the problems of parts of the
1022
industry, but it gives us the necessary breathing space while solutions are being developed, and as such I believe it is amply warranted. In the light of our discussion and the further explanation, I hope the House will be prepared to give the Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read 2a: Committee negatived.

HOUSING POLICY REVIEW
3.35 p.m.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of the ENVIRONMENT (Baroness Birk): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will now repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. The Statement is as follows:
"The Government are today publishing a Green Paper on housing policy in England and Wales, together with the first two parts of a supporting Technical Volume. Copies of these documents—the Green Paper in typescript form—are available in the Vote Office. The third and last part of the Technical Volume will be published next month. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is today making a similar statement about housing policy in Scotland.
"Although the House has had in the past many White Papers on housing this is the first time that any Government has sought to review their housing policy in a comprehensive and detailed way, and to publish the results as a basis for further consultation.
"The Green Paper enables us to take stock of the whole national housing situation: to record what has been achieved in the past as well as to judge what needs to be done in the future.
"The main conclusions the Government draw from the Review are these:—
"First, that housing conditions have been transformed in the last 25 years. Since 1951 we have completed 7½ million new houses, and renovated nearly 2½million more. In 1951 more than two out of every three households were living in physically unsatisfactory conditions or were sharing. Last year the figure had fallen to one in seven.

1023
"Second, however, substantial needs remain, not least in respect of those one in seven—2·7 million—the bulk of whom live in unsatisfactory conditions, and new problems, particularly those of the elderly, the disabled, the single and the mobile are emerging.
"Third, it is no longer sensible to consider housing as a single national problem, but as a series of local ones requiring attention area by area.
"Fourth, now that the clearance of irredeemable slums is almost at an end, greater emphasis should be placed upon the renewal and modernisation of property wherever this is sensible. But a substantial level of new housebuilding will still be needed, not only to deal with the backlog of bad housing but also with the rising number of households over the next decade.
"Fifth, that there remains a demand and need for an adequate supply of rented accommodation which will be met overwhelmingly by the public sector. But equally there is a strong and growing desire for house ownership which should be met.
"Against these general conclusions we have looked at arrangements for housing finance. The present general subsidies to tenants and owner occupiers have been much criticised. Many proposals for change have been made. But the effect of most of the alternatives—when stripped to their essentials—would be significantly to increase the cost to the tenant and to the home owner of renting or buying his house. We reject this approach. First, because such increases would place an additional and unnecessary burden on millions of families, and second, because they would act to check the supply of decent homes.
"We therefore intend to maintain mortgage tax relief, and the general subsidy to the public sector. But we do believe that the present housing subsidy system—established on a temporary basis in 1974—should be recast and made more sensitive to the needs of those authorities with the most pressing housing requirements. On rents, we have in mind that increases should over a run of years keep broadly in line with money incomes.
1024
"In recent years there has been much comparison of assistance going to council tenants on the one hand and the house owners on the other. A great deal of analysis has been done on this aspect of housing finance in the course of the Review, and this is published in the Technical Volume. This shows that to arrive at an incontrovertible balance sheet is impossible because the systems are so different and the assumptions so debatable. But the analysis does explode the myth that there is a clear imbalance of benefit one way or the other. And the new subsidy system gives us the opportunity to introduce more formal measures which would be regarded by most as broadly fair between the two sectors. To do this we are suggesting that the minimum rate of general subsidy towards local authority housing interest payments should be related to the basic rate of tax relief on mortgage interest.
"At the heart of our approach to meeting the housing needs of the next decade lies a new role for local authorities—in developing effective local housing strategies which must embrace both public and private sectors, in partnership with all concerned—the building societies, housing associations and the housebuilding industry. These strategies will take into account the whole range of authorities' housing activities including those policies for the sale and acquisition of houses. At the core of an authority's direct contribution to its local housing strategy will be a four year rolling housing investment programme appraised annually with Government. To co-ordinate national and local policy I propose to establish a Housing Consultative Council for England with the local authorities and to maintain existing national machinery with the building societies and the house builders. My right honourable and learned friend will be developing existing relationships with the Council of the Principality.
"To help the programme of renewal, we propose that the emphasis should go on bringing more unsatisfactory houses up to a basic standard, rather than less houses to a higher standard. Repairs-only grants will be made more widely available, and we are considering increases in existing cost and rateable

1025
value limits for improvements grants. Grants will be made more readily available for houses in multiple occupation, and to private tenants.
"On empty houses we intend to speed up procedures for dealing with compulsory purchase orders. We shall also he urging local authorities to take more leases of empty privately owned houses, and to reduce vacancies in their own stock.
"As a Government, we welcome the clear desire of many to own their own homes, and we wish to facilitate this wherever we can. We intend to clear the path for home ownership for more people, more quickly by special Government assistance for first-time purchasers. We shall introduce legislation for a Government savings bonus, and for a matching Government savings loan of £500 interest free for the first five years. Building societies have a key role to play. We make proposals for them to lend more "down market" to people with modest incomes, and on older property. We also want to build on the steps we have already taken to secure a reasonably stable and adequate flow of mortgage funds. Partnerships between local authorities and building societies should be developed, with local authorities complementing the work of building societies, through "topping up" loans and other measures. The local authorities will be enabled to bring their home loans rate into line with the building societies' rate.
"Although it is unrealistic to think in terms of a reversal of the long secular decline of the private rented sector, it will remain important in London and other cities for some years to come. We are studying the problems of the sector in a special Review of the Rent Acts, but in advance of this we propose to take measures to encourage letting by resident private landlords and the letting of accommodation over shops and other businesses. We shall also enable private tenants to apply for improvement grants.
"So far, I have spoken of proposals designed to improve the supply of, and access to the right kind of housing. But we also propose a tenant's charter—a code of principles and practices designed to protect the rights of public sector tenants with legislation to give
1026
them security of tenure. Tenants will be encouraged to carry out improvements, and reimbursed for substantial improvements when their tenancy ends.
"We also want to see wider experimentation with newer forms of tenure, lying between home ownership and renting—equity sharing, co-operatives, co-ownership—and we wish to encourage the housing association movement to which the Government has given so much backing already.
"Last, but certainly not least, there are special groups of people who deserve separate attention—the elderly, the disabled and handicapped, the homeless, one-parent families. Proposals in respect of all of these are made in the Green Paper. Our policies will also help the single and the mobile.
"We intend to hold consultations on the Green Paper with all the major bodies concerned, and to allow until 1st November for comment. The proposals put forward have been conceived as a whole. It should enable us henceforth to conduct a far more informed debate on housing policy, and it should enable us to meet more sensitively and accurately the wishes and needs of our people for whom few things are more important than their home."
My Lords, that is the end of the Statement.
3.45 p.m.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Baroness for reading out a long, important and detailed Statement, and we look forward to receiving the Green Paper on its publication. With this end in mind, the first question that I want to ask the noble Baroness is whether she believes that the date that she has given the House of up to 1st November for comment on the Green Paper allows a sufficiently long time in view of the fact that there are difficulties over publication? The cyclostyled version available from the Printed Paper Office, although satisfactory from our point of view, will never reach a wider public.
Secondly, there were references to the establishment of a Housing Consultative Council for England and the equivalent

1027
in the Principality of Wales. I wonder whether the noble Baroness can comment on when this will be established and say a little more about the aims of the body when it has been established. It is encouraging to hear that the Government have proposals for a review of the Rent Acts. We assume that this will follow upon the Green Paper which was published a short time ago. There was no specific reference in the Statement on homelessness, a subject to which your Lordships have devoted some time in recent months. I wonder whether the noble Baroness has any comment to make about this in view of its importance in the national scene.
My Lords, rather than comment at greater length, in view of the fact that there is to be a further Statement on housing policy in Scotland, I should like to leave my remarks at that for the moment.
3.47 p.m.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, we on these Benches are also very grateful to the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement which has been made in another place. Does she agree that, although there has been the substantial improvement that she mentioned from two out of every three households living in physically unsatisfactory conditions to one in seven doing so, that improvement is not reflected in terms of an equivalent in the ratios of people living in unsatisfactory accommodation? Generally speaking, there tend to be more people per household in unsatisfactory accommodation than in good housing. Therefore the improvement may not be quite as striking as the figures that were mentioned in the Statement appear to show.
The Statement indicated that no fundamental change was proposed in the system of housing finance, and it went on to remark that comparison between publicly-rented accommodation and owner-occupied accommodation was impossible because the systems were so different. Does the noble Baroness not agree that this is one of the fundamental criticisms that are being made of the system? The division of our society into council tenants on the one hand, and owner-occupiers on the other hand, perpetuates the class divisions of our society. Anything which
1028
Governments can do to assimilate them to some common system would be desirable.
Therefore, does the noble Baroness appreciate that some people will be disappointed that a way of assimilating the two systems on the lines of allowances which would be common to both owner-occupiers and council tenants cannot be found? Such a system might have been developed and would have maintained the total amount of the spending on the two systems.
With regard to the grants, is the noble Baroness aware that we would agree with the approach of spreading them as much as possible so as to bring as many houses as possible up to the basic standard? But is the noble Baroness aware that we should be disappointed if no particular emphasis is placed in the grants system on the need to improve insulation, a matter on which I have corresponded with her and one on which I know she agrees that more could be done. Something has been done in the way of improving insulation in dwellings occupied by the elderly and disabled; but we might have supposed, in view of the considerable interest taken in the subject in the Department, that something special could have been done there.
Is the noble Baroness aware that most people will support the idea of the special assistance for the first-time home buyers? This particularly imaginative proposal, to grant a matching Government loan of £500 interest-free, is one which I am sure all young people getting married will have cause to be grateful for.
Finally, on the question of private landlords, obviously one will have to wait to see what may be the outcome of this review of the Rent Acts; but in the meantime does not the noble Baroness agree that, if one is to avoid the private landlord disappearing altogether, at least the rents in the privately-rented sector should be permitted to increase in line with money incomes which, as the statement says, is to be permitted in the public sector. There is one further point. On the systems line between ownership and renting—equity sharing and so on—would the noble Baroness say whether there can he a transfer of properties from local authorities into these new forms of tenure as well as the use of those forms of tenure for houses newly constructed?
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, in reply to the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, may I deal first with his query of whether up to 1st November will be enough? I can assure him that, if the delay on publication continues, the consultation period can be extended. His next point was on the housing consultative council. This will only be established after discussion and this will also take part of the consultation period. It is a new national forum on which there will be representatives of the local authorities and central Government bodies and possibly other housing agencies. The review of the Rent Acts will be completed, we hope, by the end of the year. That matter will be dealt with. This is why the question of the private-rented sector just threads in and out of the Green Paper for we are awaiting the Rent Acts review.
Homelessness is discussed in the Green Paper. It is certainly one of the factors which will have to be taken into account in the new housing strategy at both local and central level. Although it was a fairly long Statement, I am sure the noble Lord appreciates that the consultation paper is a very long document with three annexes; and I could not cover every point in the Statement. With regard to what the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, said about the figures not being so good, in the Green Paper we were careful not to exaggerate progress by making too much of the surplus of houses or by doing more than really making an assessment of how the figures will improve. He would agree that there has been an improvement over the years. When he has had an opportunity to read the document carefully—and I appreciate that with a paper of this size it is not possible for him yet to have done so—he will see there is in it very much more detail about the problems that concerned him.
On his point about the division into council tenants, on one side, and owner occupiers on the other creating a class division, I am sure that when he reads the Green Paper fully he will appreciate that the Government have done what people have asked for and have queried for some time; that is, they have made it entirely clear that they support home ownership and recognise this is what so many people aim at and want. But, at the same time, they are keeping this balance of rented
1030
houses both for people for whom it is the preferred option and for people for whom it is the only one.
He made reference to trying to even that out by means—so I imagine —of tax credit. I think that that is probably what he had in mind. We have looked at this carefully and he will find a long passage in the Green Paper which goes into the arguments and explanations of why the Government have rejected it. Brefly, it is that the universal housing allowance looks attractive as a concept; but when you get down to considering how to put it into effect it was found to be quite impracticable. The evidence does not support the case for such a radical scheme which would disrupt the lives of many householders. It would also affect the tax system and there would be no certain prospects of major advantages to come from it.
I am grateful to him for his warm support for the help to first-time buyers—which we think not only will be helpful to young married people but also will be a fillip to the construction industry which is extremely important. That is one of the factors behind a great deal of it. Some of the other points he raised were the same as those raised by Lord Sandys. He referred to the Rent Acts. I think it better to await the review. I would remind him that the Statement mentions the role of the private landlord and it shows we are cognisant of that fact. This is referred to also in the Green Paper, but it is closely tied up with the review of the Rent Acts.
Lord ROBERTHALL: My Lords, perhaps it is rash to comment on a Statement that I have not seen, but the Statement seems to be encouraging in a number of ways in a field which is so chaotic and in many respects so unfair. There is the great gulf between the people who own their houses, the people in council houses and people with protected tenancies, on the one hand, and the rest on the other hand. The encouragement of the sale of houses is a help. May I ask whether the Government will make it clear to the local authorities that the policy will be in this direction? I am sure that the great difficulty about letting houses at the moment is the extreme security of tenure which is now given to almost all tenants. I could hardly expect the Minister to make a statement on this. But will the Government bear in mind that there is this

1031
conflict, that the degree of security given to the average tenant presents an enormous hardship to all those people who have neither council houses nor protected tenancies—especially in places like London where there is still a severe housing shortage?
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, on the noble Lord's first point, the gulf between the council house tenant and the home owner, the local authority associations will certainly be seeing the Green Paper. In fact, they will have had copies by today or by this week. They will know exactly what is the Government thinking on this and the balance that the Government are trying to bring in this area. I think the noble Lord should remember that the local authorities have considerable, almost complete, autonomy in their own areas for how they work out their housing assessment. Under the new system, they will be helped in this way, because there will be a housing investment programme, a strategy plan; and, within the amount they get, they will be able, themselves, to adjust as to whether they wish to build new houses or to spend more on improvements and repairs, and so on. There will be in this an encouragement to them which, in the end, ought to reduce gradually the amount of subsidy.
So far as security of tenure is concerned, the Government, as I have already said, are awaiting the review of the Rent Acts; but I think it would be misleading to the noble Lord if I were to indicate that the Government want to ease to any degree the question of security of tenure.

HOUSING POLICY REVIEW (SCOTLAND)
4 p.m.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will now repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. The Statement is as follows:
"I wish to make a Statement on the consultative document on Scottish Housing which is being made available today. This Green Paper is complementary to that which my right
1032
honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has just announced for England and Wales. It is the outcome of a comprehensive review of housing in Scotland. It draws together the several developments on which we have been engaged over the past two years and further proposals which add up to a strategy appropriate to Scotland's housing needs.
"The Paper describes the great progress made in overcoming housing shortages in Scotland, particularly by the local housing authorities. But it also stresses the continued housing needs, with new problems arising as the old ones are solved. Too many people are still living in inadequate houses and depressing environments. We must take more account of people with special needs—the elderly and the disabled, for example, and single people of all ages. We must also give people better opportunities of obtaining the kind of house they want—whether they rent or buy.
"In consultation with the Scottish local authorities we have agreed arrangements for housing authorities to devise strategies based on local needs. Accordingly, all authorities will be submitting their first Housing Plans ' to me this summer to cover the five years beginning 1978–79. These plans take account of the whole range of housing needs, including the private sector. In parallel, we have been discussing a new single housing subsidy for local authorities. The Government will continue to give substantial financial support for authorities' housing expenditure. But I intend to distribute this support in a way which will reflect fairly the differing burdens in different areas. The new arrangements shall begin to operate in 1979. They will provide a better and fairer subsidy system. The level of assistance I have in mind will enable the local contribution to housing costs (rents and rate fund contributions) to keep broadly in line with changes in money incomes.
"As well as continuing support for the public sector, the Government want to ensure that the growing demand for home ownership can reasonably be met. To this end, the special measures to help first-time buyers announced by my right honourable friend—the

1033
Savings Bonus and Loans Scheme—will apply equally in Scotland. They will help many young people acquire their first homes. But for some people alternative forms of tenure are what they want—equity schemes, tenant cooperatives and so on. We will encourage more of these established to meet the demand for a wider choice of tenures.
"For the vast number of people for whom renting a public sector house is the most appropriate tenure, we shall be exploring with the local authorities the development of a model agreement for tenants so that the responsibilities of both tenant and the authority are clearly set out. Public sector tenants should be secure in their homes and they should not have to suffer outmoded and irritating restrictions. But they should also be able to take on more responsibility, if they wish, for the management and maintenance of their home.
"I hope that honourable Members and all interested housing organisations will now study the Paper closely and let us have constructive reactions. On the policy foundations we have already been laying, the outcome should be a coherent and responsive strategy to meet the housing needs of the people of Scotland. Our aim remains 'a decent house for every family at a price it can afford '."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.5 p.m.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, I am sure the House is grateful to the noble Lord for having repeated the Statement being made in another place. It is welcome, certainly to these Benches, to hear that the Government are declaring that they now recognise the demand in Scotland for home ownership. In the past, Labour Ministers at the Scottish Office and some local authorities in Scotland have taken little account of that, though it has been recognised South of the Border; and there is considerably less home ownership in Scotland in proportion to the population than there is in England and Wales.
I should like to ask the noble Lord two questions. The first one, which I
1034
recognise may not be easy for him to answer on behalf of his Scottish Office colleagues, is this: In these circumstances, will the Secretary of State for Scotland relax his present restrictive attitude in granting permission to local authorities to sell council houses in appropriate conditions, where everyone is likely to benefit, including those on housing application lists? At present, the Government have made it clear that they frown on the sale of council houses in Scotland.
The second question is this. The noble Lord made no direct reference to housing associations, although I realise there may be something about them in the Paper. Do the Government visualise a larger role for housing associations in Scotland over the provision of new and better housing?
4.7 p.m.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I am grateful for what the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, has said about the Statement. He asked me two questions. One concerned the demand for home ownership. The conclusions in favour of supporting in various ways the development of home ownership in Scotland are not, of course, based on any dogma that this is the "right" or the "natural" form of tenure. It is based essentially on the recognition that this is what an increasing number of Scots people, especially the younger ones, want. We acknowledge the sense in providing for choice in housing to suit the wide variation in what people are prepared to pay at different stages of their lives.
The noble Lord also asked me about council house sales. The sale of council houses is not a free-standing issue. The decisions are to be made essentially against a local background. We are not encouraging wholesale selling, but we are not against sales. What we demand is that the scheme should be carefully worked out as part of each local authority's housing plan. It is still necessary to ensure an adequate supply of houses for rent, and that it is not all the better houses which are sold or those all of the same type or all in particular areas. It should be seen essentially as a means of meeting a part of the need for home ownership and should represent no more than a
"modest shift of part of the rented stock into home ownership".

1035
That would not have a distorting effect, we believe, on the provision of an adequate supply on rented housing, particularly in the Scottish situation where over half the houses are rented from public authorities, as against only one-third in England and Wales.
Thirdly, my Lords, the noble Lord asked about housing associations. These are discussed in the Green Paper and, of course, they will play an important continuing role. There are options put forward for revision of arrangements for housing association grants. I hope I have answered the various constructive questions asked by the noble Lord.

SALE OF LORDSHIPS OF MANORS BILL [H.L.]
(formerly Sale of Manors Bill [H.L.])
4.10 p.m.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Kinnoull, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Sandys.)
Lord CLITHEROE: My Lords, before the Bill is read a third time, I should just like to thank my noble friend Lord Kinnoull and other noble Lords for the sensible Amendments which have been made to this Bill.
On Question, Bill read 3a.
Clause 6 [Powers of Councils consulted pursuant to section 4]:
Lord SANDYS Lord SANDYS moved the following Amendment:
Page 3, line 9, after ("acquire") insert ("the lordship of").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is very largely a drafting Amendment and, to some extent, is consequential upon the changes made at Report stage on 20th June. It seeks to clarify the purpose of Clause 6, and should be self-explanatory. My Lords, I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Sandys.)
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

CONSTRUCTION OF ROADS (TIME LIMIT) BILL [H.L.]
4.12 p.m.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Avebury.)
On Question, Bill read 3a an Amendment (privilege) made.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Avebury.)
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I have listened on behalf of the Government throughout the stages of this Bill, and I must confess that nothing has been said which leads me to change the view which I expressed on behalf of the Government on Second Reading, that this is a Bill with good intentions but we believe that it would injure rather than help the very people whom the noble Lord wishes to assist. Of course, we want to reduce the period of uncertainty during which people may be unsure when a road will be built, or whether it will be built at all. But, on the other hand, my right honourable friend is frequently asked to expand and elaborate public consultation before firm proposals are made for a road scheme, and even after a line is chosen a great deal of further consultation with individuals is needed about the siting of junctions and the acquisition of land.
Sometimes, I am afraid, problems arise after an order has been made, so causing unexpected delays before construction can begin, but these seldom affect the need for the road. I do not see how allowing an order to lapse, or even bringing it up for renewal by Parliament, could do anything to remove the blight and the uncertainty. It would simply prolong them, because the need for the road is

1037
not determined by the existence or otherwise of the statutory order. We must bear in mind, too, the right of property owners to require my right honourable friend to buy blighted properties, which would cease if an order was allowed to lapse. I am afraid, therefore, that I must advise your Lordships that, notwithstanding our sympathy for the underlying aims of the noble Lord, the Government cannot give their support to this Bill, or promise time for it in the other place.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, the noble Baroness has made her attitude quite plain on previous occasions, and she has repeated the Government's view of the Bill which she herself submitted at the time of Second Reading. But I, also, have not changed my opinion that a Bill of this kind is urgently needed in the interests of people whose properties are blighted along the lint of motorways that are no longer required. If I may say so with great respect to the noble Baroness, I think that it is insufferable arrogance for the Department—not the noble Baroness, because I would never accuse her of such a quality—to pretend that once they have settled on the line of a road, their judgment is so infallible that no second thoughts can be had; they must have been right in that, as the noble Baroness put it, the need for the road is not removed by reason of the fact that after five years, under myproposal the order would lapse. That assumes that, wherever they make an order, it is simply a matter of time before the growth of traffic both private and commercial catches up with the demand. So that, if it is not in five years, it may be in 10 or 15 years that this motorway or that trunk road is ultimately required.
I have been given powerful support by the Government themselves in the White Paper which was presented by the noble Baroness yesterday, and which I have now had a chance of looking at. In every line of the chapter on roads I find that there are references to a greater degree of flexibility, which I am delighted to observe. The White Paper states that we now have over 1,400 miles of dual carriageway, trunk roads of two or three lanes, and 1,360 miles of motorways, making 2,760 miles in all, and the original intention was to continue expanding these to a network of 4,500 miles by the mid-1980s. But that concept has now been abandoned.
1038
The noble Baroness's Government are already revising downwards their "planning assumptions for roads"—that is the phrase used in paragraph 246—and the fixed targets of so many miles are not being replaced by any new figure which is to be achieved in some specified number of years. The White Paper states in paragraph 248:
"The strategic network concept will be modified. As a matter of national transport policy, the Government intends to adopt a more flexible approach and to deal as urgently as possible with the most pressing needs in the ways most sensible for meeting them. This is a matter not of building to lines superimposed on maps".
That is precisely what I am saying to the noble Baroness, that some lines have been drawn on maps.
I need not remind her that the genesis of this Bill was a line drawn continuing the M23, along which many people are still living with blighted properties and suffering hardships. It is as a result of the initiative which was taken by the M23 Action Group, in consultation with many others up and down the country, such as Transport 2000 and so on, that this Bill came forward before your Lordships' House. The opinion of those who are living in these areas is that a mistake has been made by the Government, or by the transport planners in the Department of the Environment, and this is a line superimposed on a map which should now be struck off the map. If the Department really mean what they say in this admirable White Paper, about a greater degree of flexibility, now is their chance to demonstrate that there will be, as it is put in the following paragraph, "a more selective approach". The fact that:
"… there will still be instances where an entirely new road remains much the best approach in both environmental and economic terms"
implies that there are other instances where a new road is not the best approach in environmental and economic terms. Otherwise, the statement does not mean anything at all.
I am glad to sec that we shall be more cautious about making growth assumptions in planning the road network, and that account is to be taken of an uncertain future in which energy and oil, in particular, are likely to become scarcer and dearer. The corollary of that statement, as the noble Baroness has probably heard

1039
me say before, is that if one looks forward to the end of the 1980s, when world oil production will have reached and passed its peak—and this is not my opinion; I am talking about the prognoses of experts, such as those at British Petroleum, who all say the same thing—it will not keep pace with an increasing demand if the rate of increase in demand is anything like so great as it has been in the past. Of course, this will not happen. Because of the way these matters develop, one would expect the price to continue to rise, as it has done since the so-called crisis of 1973, and that one would come into a new balance between demand and supply at a lower level of production than had been expected when the forecast was made a few years ago. This means that road transport in particular is likely to level off much earlier than the Transport and Road Research Laboratory had thought.
We are not in a position to go into this question in numerical detail because we have not yet received the review, which is promised, of the system of making these forecasts. All we can say in general terms is that it is very likely that the saturation point, which has been one of the main features of TRRL thinking since 1960 when these forecasts first began, is likely to be reached in the late 1980s and not in the year 2015, or whenever was the final point in the TRRL figures. Because we are planning motorways and trunk roads 20 years ahead, even now in 1977 we are at the point where we are thinking about roads which will be coming into use in 1997 when we shall all be some 10 years past this point of inflection in world oil production and consumption and when it is very likely that road transport fuel by means of hydrocarbon oils will have levelled off in this country and started to decline. That is the reason why I say that one cannot draw lines on the map. Therefore I am delighted to see from the transport White Paper that there is beginning to be some recognition by the Government that oil supplies are not inexhaustible and that the internal combustion engine may be starting to level off and decline as a method of powering transport in this country.
For the very same reason—I will not go into it now because it is not the occasion—that means greater emphasis on rail
1040
ways. The assurances that are given by the Government in another chapter of the White Paper mean no major cuts in the rail network. All this adds up, to me, to justification for a Bill of this kind. The Government need a way to withdraw these lines that are drawn on maps when they turn out no longer to be required. If one takes the hypothesis which the noble Baroness outlined in her speech, that minor changes will be needed to the approach roads after the Statutory Order has been made and that this process cannot be completed within five years, I have given a let-out to the Government. They could produce an Affirmative Resolution which they would have no difficulty in getting through both Houses of Parliament because, ex hypothesi, the need for the road in that case still exists; it is only a matter of confirming side road orders.
Therefore, I beg the Government to have second thoughts about the Bill. I am very sorry to hear the noble Baroness say that when the Bill leaves here and goes to another place no time can be found to debate it. Even if her arguments were correct and mine were wrong, the other place ought at least to have an opportunity to look at them. If the Government refuse to find time and merely put up some stooge to shout, "Object" when the Bill comes up on a Friday afternoon, they will be stifling public debate of a matter which is of very great concern—the Minister, I am sure, will agree with me here—to tens of thousands of people up and down the country. Therefore, I beg her to go back to her colleagues in the Department of the Environment, to report what has been said this afternoon and to see whether or not a niche can be found, at least in the Parliamentary timetable between now and the beginning of the Recess, for a Second Reading debate in another place which would allow the views of elected representatives to be heard.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I do not know whether the noble Baroness intends to reply to what the noble Lord has said. If she does not, then I would say to the noble Lord that while it may well be that the House will not object to the Bill, I do not think that it will achieve very much if the Government do not intend to give it any assistance in another place.

1041
I would add—because, although I am not taking part in the discussion of the Bill I have listened to it—that I do not regard the Bill as having been fully debated in this place. I think that point should be placed firmly on the record before the Bill is passed so that nobody will think that this is the considered opinion of the House. If, however, the noble Lord wishes to go ahead with the Bill on those terms, then he is at liberty to do so.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, perhaps I may reply to the noble Lord's remarks. I think he will agree that every opportunity has been given to the House to debate the Bill. This is voluntary self-denial by noble Lords who have not taken part in the debate. However, it has had all the usual stages that any Bill goes through.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I agree entirely with what the noble Lord has said. However, had it been a Bill about which, the Government having indicated its opposition in the first place, a large number of Members of this House held a contrary view, I feel certain that they would have attended the debate.
On Question, Bill passed and sent to the Commons.

REDUNDANCY REBATES BILL
4.26 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 2 [Power to vary rebates in Northern Ireland]:
Baroness ELLES Baroness ELLES moved the following Amendment:
Page 3, line 8, at end insert—
("( )No order shall be made under subsection (1) above unless the Department of Manpower Services for Northern Ireland thinks it expedient to do so with a view to adjusting the level at which the Northern Ireland Redundancy Fund stands for the time being and having regard to the sums which may be expected to be paid from that Fund in any future period").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, as noble Lords will be aware, the Redundancy Rebates Bill is an enabling Bill. Under subsection (4) of Clause 1, the Secretary of State, while having powers to vary the rebates under the Bill, has to take into account certain considerations
1042
as to the size of the Fund and the possibility of future redundancies. The purpose of the Amendment is merely to give to the Department of Manpower Services for Northern Ireland the opportunity, under Clause 2, to take into account the same kind of considerations as those which have to be taken into account by the Secretary of State when making an order under the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: My Lords, I commend the noble Baroness for having moved this Amendment. As she has so rightly made very clear, it is consequential upon the Amendment to Clause 1 which was successfully moved in Committee of this House on 21st June. Since its sole purpose is to maintain parity between legislation governing redundancy payments in Great Britain and Northern Ireland, I do not propose to seek a Division. Having said this, I am bound to make it clear that the Government remain opposed to the principle underlying these Amendments, which are directly contrary to statements made about the intended first use of the enabling power to effect a reduction in rebate. It is therefore without prejudice to any future consideration of these Amendments, which may be necessary either here or in another place, that I am fully prepared on this occasion not to seek a Division.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

RESTRICTIVE TRADE PRACTICES BILL
4.29 p.m.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is to deal with a technical but none the less serious problem that has arisen in relation to the restrictive trade practices legislation which was extended last year to the supply and acquisition of commercial services.
May I begin by explaining how this problem has arisen. As your Lordships will know, the legislation provides for certain restrictive trading agreements to be registered with the Office of Fair Trading and for their subsequent investigation by the Restrictive Practices Court to determine their effect on the public interest. The features which make an

1043
agreement registrable under the legislation are that it is between two parties who carry on business in the United Kingdom in the supply of goods or of services and that certain restrictions are accepted by two or more parties to the agreement. By "restrictions" is meant that the parties accept some limitation on their freedom of action in relation to, for example, prices or charges, terms or conditions of supply, areas or persons to be supplied. The definition of "restrictions" is intentionally broad in its scope to cover the many sorts of anti-competitive arrangement that firms may enter into in agreement with each other.
The Restrictive Trade Practices (Services) Order which brought commercial services under the control of the legislation in March last year applied to, among others, banks and financial institutions. Thus any agreements between banks under which the sort of restrictions I have just described were accepted in relation to the lending of money had to be registered with the Office of Fair Trading. It was not the intention that normal loan financing operations should be made subject to registration. However, since the order was made, it has become increasingly clear that this has in fact happened. Many agreements for the provision of loan finance, credit facilities and so on are caught by the legislation because they contain restrictions on the freedom of action of borrowers, lenders or guarantors which are accepted by at least two parties to the agreement. This may arise, for example, where a consortium of banks provide loan finance for a project which is too large for any single bank to finance. Though these restrictions technically fall within the wide definition in the legislation which I have just mentioned, their purpose is not to restrict competition but to protect the security of the loan and the borrower's ability to repay. They may, for instance, prevent the borrower or guarantor pledging elsewhere assets which are directly or indirectly security for the loan, or limit the level of further borrowing.
It is clearly essential that banks and other financial institutions should be in a position to obtain adequate security for the loans they provide, without running the risk that in so doing they may be making a
1044
registrable agreement which may have to be defended before the Restrictive Practices Court. Quite apart from the administrative burden that would be imposed on the institutions concerned and on the Office of Fair Trading, the Government's view is that these are not matters which should be examined under the restrictive trade practices legislation. I have also in mind that many such agreements involve foreign borrowers who would be able to go to other financial markets for the funds they need and would no doubt do so if they had to face the hurdle of the restrictive trade practices legislation in this country. As your Lordships will appreciate, this could have very serious consequences for London as a financial centre and, in terms of lost invisible earnings, for the United Kingdom economy as a whole. The purpose of the Bill is therefore to remove loan financing and similar agreements from the scope of the restrictive trade practices legislation entirely, provided they do not contain restrictions which are harmful to competition.
I come now to the provisions of the Bill, which amends and supplements the Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1976 in a number of ways. I should point out that, as well as clarifying the position for the future, these changes have retrospective effect. This is necessary to remove doubts about the status of a large number of agreements which are already in existence. I hope your Lordships will agree that this is fully justified, since it was never intended that normal loan financing agreements should be subject to the legislation in the first place. The Bill is fairly technical in character, and I think it might be best if I explain broadly what the effect will be, rather than analyse in detail the legislative means that are used to achieve this.
The aim, as I have said, is to ensure that agreements for the provision of loan finance, credit facilities and so on, do not have to be registered with the Office of Fair Trading so long as they do not contain anti-competitive terms. The Bill does this by providing that if an agreement contains certain financing terms, there is no need to take account of any restrictions in it which are concerned solely with securing the loan or other financial liability, when considering whether it is registrable under the Restrictive Trade Practices Act. Thus, provided it meets these criteria, an

1045
agreement about loan finance et cetera in the United Kingdom will not be caught by the legislation; though, of course, if it contains other restrictions with an anticompetitive purpose it would still be subject to the legislation.
Clause 1 deals with the situation where restrictions in a loan financing agreement relate to the supply of services. It amends the relevant provisions in the Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1976 and the Services Order accordingly. Because, in agreements of this kind, there may also be restrictions relating to the supply of goods Clause 2 makes similar retrospective provision for exemption where the restrictions are concerned only with protecting the loan. Clause 3, in conjunction with Part II of the Schedule, deals similarly with provisions to exchange information about goods, so that these too will not be registrable under the legislation if their purpose is to secure the loan.
May I draw your Lordships' attention to two other aspects of the Bill's provisions. First, there is a broader exclusion from the Restrictive Trade Practices Act for agreements under which restrictions are accepted only by overseas parties and which relate to activities they are engaged in outside the United Kingdom. This has been included to ensure that foreign borrowers have easy access to the London financial market with less risk that the agreements they enter into here might be registrable. Secondly, the Bill extends, in the first three clauses, the order-making powers of the Secretary of State including, for the first time, a general power in relation to restrictions in goods agreements. This means that if experience showed in the future that agreements harmful to competition were being allowed to escape scrutiny as a result of the Bill, new orders would be made, subject of course to Parliamentary approval, to bring them back under the control of the legislation. The provisions could also be used to extend the exemption if this were found to be necessary.
My Lords, I hope that I have adequately explained the problem which has given rise to this Bill and the reasons why it is both necessary and urgent. The Bill has been given speedy consideration in another place. I hope that your Lordships will also agree that this unintentional effect of the restrictive trade practices
1046
legislation should be remedied as rapidly as possible and that this Bill should therefore be given a Second Reading. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Oram.)
Lord LYELL: My Lords, I think all of us on these Benches should be very grateful for the clear and speedy way in which the noble Lord, Lord Oram, has spelled out the complexities of the details contained in this Bill. As noble Lords will be aware, the subject matter is indeed complicated; I found it very difficult to understand until I obtained some information and the noble Lord, Lord Oram, spelled out all the implications of the difficulties in the Bill. I particularly enjoyed his reference to the various hurdles which had to be faced. Financial operations such as we have heard of being carried on in the City might have to jump over various hurdles. Looking down the margins of the Bill, I find the 1956 Restrictive Trade Practices Act and also one in 1976. There was one in 1968 and I understand that that has been replaced. There were various information orders, and, in 1973, the Fair Trading Bill. I concur with the noble Lord that there are a very large number of obstacles to a trade which is of great and paramount importance, as the noble Lord has explained.
We were pleased to hear that the restrictions which may be written into various agreements as far as financial considerations are concerned are there to protect the lenders' security in the types of loan which the noble Lord told us about. We were also encouraged to hear that the Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1976 inadvertently caught various of these loans, leases and large hire agreements. Clearly, it is in order to remedy some of the inadvertent errors with which the Bill presents us this afternoon. Of course it is right that various restrictions may be disregarded when deciding whether or not an agreement should or should not be registrable. It is all the more welcome that the Secretary of State may use the Affirmative Resolution mechanism in your Lordships' House and elsewhere to consider further disregard for some restrictions, especially when these might concern goods or information. We are interested also

1047
that the information agreements on goods are to be included in the Bill.
I take the noble Lord's point that the more swiftly we can deal with this Bill the greater the benefits. Finally, I would draw to the attention of the House and of the noble Lord the optimism of the Government in indicating in the Memorandum that no increase in central Government expenditure or, indeed, staff is expected. We are very encouraged by that, and we are encouraged by the Bill as it has been spelled out so clearly by the noble Lord, Lord Oram.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I should like to join with my noble friend in welcoming this rather abstruse piece of legislation. It would have been very surprising indeed if the extension to services of the provisions with regard to goods had given rise to no difficulties whatsoever. We always recognised that it was going to be a very "dicey" operation. Therefore, we would not in any way criticise the Government for bringing forward this piece of legislation. We would certainly congratulate them on the attempt—and I think it will be successful—to avoid having to bring forward another piece of legislation; they are taking order-making powers in this case, and that, for my part, I welcome.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, I should like to thank the two noble Lords who have spoken for the spirit in which they did so in accepting this Bill. As the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, said, there are quite a lot of complications in the legislation upon which this particular Bill rests. He quoted the 1956 Act, which reminded me that that was the first piece of legislation on which I cut my teeth in another place, and I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, was there doing that at the same time; we were both engaged in this sort of matter. As he said, with such a complicated subject it is not surprising that when changes do come about there are consequences from those changes which have subsequently to be caught up with. That, in essence, is what the Bill proposes to do.
On Question, Bill read 2a; Committee negatived.
Then, Standing Order No. 43 having been dispensed with (pursuant to Resolution), Bill read 3a, and passed.

CONTROL OF FOOD PREMISES (SCOTLAND) BILL
4.45 p.m.
Lord LYELL: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Lyell.)
On Question, Bill read 3a.
Clause 1 [Closure of food premises, stalls or vehicles dangerous to health]:
Lord LYELL Lord LYELL moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 13, leave out ("or vehicle") and insert ("vehicle or place").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in the earlier discussions on the Bill we had some difficulty with the use of the phrase "places which are not premises", and the purpose of the Amendment is to clarify that phrase. With the leave of the House, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 3, 5, 6, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 16, 18, 19 and 20. Those are the Amendments which stand in my name on the Marshalled List. I hope it will be for the convenience of the House for me to speak at once to all these Amendments. When we were discussing the Bill at an earlier stage, we had some difficulty with places which were not premises, and the purpose of this Amendment and all the later series of Amendments is to sweep in any activities of a food business which are carried on other than at premises, vehicles or stalls. An example would be a pavement cafe. Since these activities are covered by the Food Hygiene regulations, we hope and believe that it is right that they should also be covered by the Bill. The Amendments will have the effect of bringing "places" specifically within the ambit of the closure provisions of Clauses 1 and 2. I beg to move.
Lord GRAY: My Lords, I did raise points concerning definitions and interpretations in the Bill during the Committee stage. The Amendments before the House today do not in fact touch on what I was talking about, but I think they can be commended to the House as a distinct improvement and clarification of the interpretation clause of the Bill.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I should like, on behalf of the Government, to be associated with what the noble Lord, Lord Gray, has said. We commend these Amendments to the House.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Baroness Wootton of Abinger): My Lords, I have to call your Lordships' attention to the fact that if Amendment No. 2 is agreed to I shall not be able to call Amendments Nos. 3 or 4.
4.50 p.m.
Lord GRAY Lord GRAY moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 17, leave out sub-paragraph (i) and insert—
("(i) food continues or is likely to continue to be exposed to the risk of contamination at those premises or on, at or from that stall, vehicle or place; and").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it has been pointed out to the House that, if this Amendment is agreed to, Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 cannot be called. I should perhaps indicate that if No. 3 were to fall, this would not adversely affect Lord Lyell's series of Amendments, since the words he seeks to replace at line 19 would be similarly replaced by my Amendment No. 2. It may help t he House if I add that the seven Amendments standing in my name consist of two separate groups of linked Amendments which represent alternative courses by which my objective may be achieved. My objective is to put beyond doubt the fact that the closure order sanction which the Bill introduces can be used to stop a vehicle being used for the carriage or transport of food where such use represents a threat to public health.
The Amendment now before the House is linked with Amendments Nos. 7, 14 and 17. I believe that together they would achieve my objective. The alternative group of Amendments, to which I have just referred, comprises Nos. 4, 9 and 15. I believe that that group would also meet my point, albeit less attractively perhaps from a drafting point of view. It may be that a selective combination from the two groups would commend itself to the House and perhaps my noble friend Lord Lyell, who has indicated that he has some sympathy with my view that some sort of Amendment should be made,
1050
can indicate whether that would be a course to be preferred.
I hope that noble Lords will approve of my having explained the relationship of the Amendments. Perhaps I can now address myself in one speech to why I believe the Bill should be amended. Then, briefly, I shall demonstrate how the different groups of Amendments would achieve my purpose. If the House is agreeable, I shall then rest my decision on what course to follow until after the House has had the benefit of hearing from my noble friend Lord Lyell, then perhaps from the Front Bench opposite and maybe from any other noble Lord who may wish to intervene.
My Lords, in Committee it was established that the Bill should embrace all types and aspects of food business. As I have already said, the aspect on which my Amendment focuses attention is the transportation of food. Food businesses obviously can involve the carriage or transport of food in a variety of ways. Food can be moved by vehicle from one set of premises to another within a single business. The transport of food can be the sole activity of a food business; it can simply be the act of distributing by producers to retailers or the end-of-the-line delivery to the consumer. Perhaps I should advise noble Lords at this point that the activity of a common carrier is excluded by the terms of an exemption in Regulation 3 of the Food Hygiene (Scotland) Regulations 1959.
It is essential to the working of the Bill that each and all of these activities can be scrutinised at each stage of the procedure set out in the Bill, and that such scrutiny should take in not merely the premises associated with a vehicle but the vehicle itself, thus enabling prohibition of the use of that vehicle when appropriate. It is my contention that the Bill as drafted excludes from consideration a vehicle used to transport food, at a point in the sequence of provisions where it is a prerequisite that the vehicle is considered.
If I may, I should like to illustrate my point by examining the workings of Clause 1, and I invite noble Lords to examine each paragrah with me in order to determine whether transport is or is not catered for. For the purpose of this exercise let us say that a person has been convicted under the Food Hygiene Regula

1051
tions for having an insanitary vehicle. That conviction makes him a candidate for action by the Procurator Fiscal under the terms of Clause 1(1) if—and this is the point—the offence for which he was convicted included either one of the features set out in Clause 1(1)(a) or one that is caught under paragraph (b). The vehicle cannot be considered under paragraph (a) because that paragraph refers exclusively to premises which for the purpose of the Bill are a building or part thereof. So we must move to paragraph (b).
At the Committee stage I withdrew an Amendment which was designed specifically to introduce mention of transport at this stage. I argued that the context in which paragraph (b) refers to a vehicle suggests that the vehicle cited was of the mobile shop or fish and chip van type and questioned reliance of the draftsman on the word carrying a dual meaning. The case for the Bill as at present drafted is, I understand, that by employing the expression "food business", and specifically by employing it in paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (1), all varieties of food business and all aspects of food handling in the course of a business are brought within reach of the Bill's sanctions. That contention rests on the definition of "food business" set out in Regulation 3 of the Food Hygiene (Scotland) Regulations 1959—a definition which is imported into the Bill by Clause 6 and from which I quoted when the Bill was in Committee; and which cites the transport of food as constituting a food business. The tidying up of Clause 6through the series of Amendments that my noble friend Lord Lyell has tabled today does not alter that.
My Lords, I am prepared to accept this general premise as providing coverage of transport under the terms of Clause 1(1)(b) and submit that my noble friend and the Government are right if they ask us to read selectively from Clause 1(1)(b) as follows:
"the carrying on of a food business on …a … vehicle which is insanitary …".
So far so good. But at line 17 we come to the next stage in the sequence of controlling considerations. Here we must—as in his turn the sheriff must where a prosecution is involved—satisfy ourselves that the considerations spelt out in subparagraph (i), (ii) and (iii) can be used to catch the offending vehicle.
For the purposes of this exercise it is, first, best to look at sub-paragraphs (ii) and (iii) as these are quite simply disposed of, and it is sub-paragraph (i) that poses the problem. In the case of sub-paragraph (ii) I have already put the view that the reference to "vehicle" in the Bill covers a vehicle used for the carriage of food, so there is no difficulty there. In the case of sub-paragraph (iii), we have reference to a food business being carried on on a vehicle. In the light of what I have just said about subsection (I)(b), an offending vehicle falls to be considered here.
Now we come to the crunch. It is the wording of sub-paragraph (i) at line 17 that has prompted my Amendments. Under sub-paragraph (i) the sheriff is required to be satisfied,
"that food continues or is likely to continue to be prepared, stored or offered or exposed for sale at those premises or on, at or from that stall or vehicle".
If he is not satisfied, then the whole process grinds to a halt and the application for a closure order fails. I take the view that the sheriff cannot be satisfied that food continues, or is likely to continue, to be stored, sold or offered or exposed for sale on that vehicle when it is neither being stored, nor sold, nor offered, nor exposed for sale in a case where the food is merely being transported by that vehicle.
As I see it, it is the draftsman's selective use of the words describing the various types of activity which the regulations cite as constituting a food business which has created our difficulty. It has been suggested to me that the draftsman is looking to the word "stored" in subparagraph (i) to be construed as embracing "transported". Not only do I suggest to the House that this is stretching the possible interpretation of the word "stored" to take on a dual meaning beyond the reach of its elasticity, but in regulation 3 of the Food Hygiene Regulations (the interpretation of the expression "food business" upon which the Bill depends for its very lifeblood) the word "stored" and the word "transported" are adjacently and separately listed. Surely if, the two terms are quoted separately in the regulation and one patently therefore does not embrace the other, then one cannot embrace the other in the Bill.
I ask noble Lords to agree that we should today put beyond question the Bill's ability to catch with its sanctions the transportation aspects of food businesses. I appreciate that I have spoken at considerable length, but I was anxious to put my case in full, the better to explain my purpose and to try and show how transport is, and is not, in the Bill as it is drafted.
Before I resume my seat I must, as I promised at the beginning, briefly state how the two groups of Amendments achieve their purpose. One group simply introduces reference to transport in the key provision 1(1) and elsewhere where it is similarly appropriate. The other group, of which this is the first, follow in the draftsman's steps by using "food business" as he has done, and importing transport through that expression into those provisions in the Bill where I feel in consequence of my arguments it is required. I am told that either group, or some Amendments from one group or the other, might be used to achieve my end, and I will follow any such course should it be suggested. I beg to move.
5.3 p.m.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, perhaps it might be helpful if I said something at this stage. The Amendments put down by the noble Lord, Lord Gray, have been put down to meet his point that it needs to be put beyond doubt that the Bill extends to the transportation of food as a part of a food business. He contends (and has explained why in his speech) that either of two groups of Amendments would meet his point—either, as the noble Lord said, a group consisting of Amendments Nos. 2, 7, 14 and 17, or an alternative group comprising Nos. 4, 9 and 15.
I have discussed this with the Department this afternoon and I am advised that we accept Lord Gray's point, but we believe that the best way to achieve it, and indeed to improve the Bill, would be to accept Amendments from both groups; that is, Amendments Nos. 4, 7, 14 and 17. I would he prepared to recommend to your Lordships that these particular Amendments should be accepted, and I suggest that they be passed when we come to them.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: We then pass to Amendment No. 5. The Lord Lyell.
Lord LYELL Lord LYELL moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 1, line 20, leave out ("or vehicle") and insert (",vehicle or place").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I think I spoke to Amendment No. 3 when speaking to Amendment No. 1. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Amendment No. 6.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, we have just been dealing with Amendment No. I, which has been passed. I think now the House should move to Amendment No. 2.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: My Lords, I understood that the noble Lord, Lord Gray, had moved Amendment No. 2 and that we had accepted Amendment No. 2.
Lord LYELL: My Lords, I understood that the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, had suggested that, in order to achieve my noble friend's purpose, with which I am entirely at one, we should reject Amendment No. 2; we should not accept Amendment No. 2, but the other parts of the noble Lord's package of Amendments—I think that the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, spelled them out as Amendments Nos. 4, 7, 14 and 17—and that we could deal with them when we come to them. I understood that we were not content to accept Amendment No. 2.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: My Lords, I understood that Amendment No. 2 was to be put and I put Amendment No. 2 and I think that it was agreed to. If this was a mistake let us go back and I will put Amendment No. 2 again.
Lord GRAY: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 2. I am grateful for what has been said in response to my speech. In view of the offer made to accept some of my Amendments, I feel that the case is met, and I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 2.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord LYELL Lord LYELL moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 1, line 19, leave out ("or vehicle") and insert (",vehicle or place").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: We now pass to Amendment No. 4, which is an Amendment to Amendment No. 3.
Lord GRAY Lord GRAY moved, as an Amendment to Amendment No. 3, Amendment No. 4:
At end insert ("or transported on that vehicle").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is one of the Amendments which it has been indicated to the House would be acceptable to the Promotors and to the Government. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment to the Amendment agreed to.
On Question, Amendment No. 3, as amended, agreed to.
Lord LYELL Lord LYELL moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 1, line 20, leave out ("or vehicle") and insert (",vehicle or place").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this Amendment earlier on when speaking to Amendment No. 1. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord LYELL Lord LYELL moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 2, line 2, leave out ("or vehicle") and insert (",vehicle or place").
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: My Lords, I have to inform the House that if Amendment No. 7 is agreed to I shall not be able to call Amendments Nos. 8 or 9.
5.10 p.m.
Lord GRAY Lord GRAY moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 2, line 6, leave out from ("the") to ("and") in line 8, and insert ("carrying on of a food business at those premises or on, at or from that stall, vehicle or place").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is another Amendment which, it has been
1056
indicated to the House, is acceptable to all concerned. I would reassure the House on the question of Amendment No. 8 falling that I have included in the wording of my Amendment the words which my noble friend Lord Lyell would include by his Amendment No. 8.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: My Lords, I am informed by revised brief that r can call Amendment No. 8.
Lord LYELL Lord LYELL moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 2, line 8, leave out ("or vehicle") and insert (",vehicle or place").
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord LYELL Lord LYELL moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 2, line 17, leave out ("or vehicle") and insert (",vehicle or place").
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord LYELL Lord LYELL moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 2, line 24, leave out ("or vehicle") and insert (", vehicle or place").
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2 [Interim order for closing food premises, stalls or vehicles where imminent risk of danger to health]:
Lord LYELL Lord LYELL moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 2, line 38, leave out ("or vehicle") and insert (",vehicle or place").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, would it be convenient to the House if at the same time I moved Amendment No. 13?
Several noble Lords: No.
Lord LYELL: In that case, my Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 12.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord LYELL Lord LYELL moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 2, line 39, leave out ("or vehicle") and insert (",vehicle or place").
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
5.13 p.m.
Lord GRAY Lord GRAY moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 2, line 39, leave out from ("for") to ("involves") in line 40 and insert ("the carrying on of a food business").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is the third Amendment which, it has been indicated to the House, is acceptable both to the Government and to;my noble friend Lord Lyell. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord LYELL Lord LYELL moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 2, line 44, leave out ("or vehicle") and insert (", vehicle or place").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I understand there has been an error and I think it is my fault. The noble Baroness the Deputy Speaker called Amendment No. 8; I understood that the House had accepted No. 7, which, inadvertently I believe, pre-empted No. 8. Is that the case?
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: My Lords, would the noble Lord kindly repeat that?
Earl ST. ALDWYN: Perhaps I can help, my Lords. It would appear that Amendment No. 8 was out of order and should not have been moved because No. 7 had been moved and carried. That is the advice I have received and I do not quite know how this matter can be put right. Would it be proper for the noble Baroness the Deputy Speaker to put Amendment No. 8 again so that we may say "Not-Content" and negative it? Would that be in order?
Lord GRAY: My Lords, the words in my Amendment No. 7 include those desired to be inserted by my noble friend Lord Lyell. Perhaps it is I who did not make that adequately clear to the noble Baroness the Deputy Speaker. If so, I apologise to the House and I hope that a simple remedy can be found.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, the position is that we have recommended that Amendment No. 7 should be accepted, and No. 8, which is consequential, we have also recommended should be accepted; one does not pre-empt the other. I under-
1058
stood that the noble Baroness the Deputy Speaker put the Questions relating to those Amendments perfectly properly, but if the noble Earl, Lord St. Aldwyn, feels that she did not, then perhaps they could be put again, but both Amendments can be accepted.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: My Lords, my original brief was that those Amendments were pre-empted. Subsequently I received a later brief which said that Amendment No. 8 was not pre-empted. Would it be convenient to the House if I were to put No. 8 again?
Lord LYELL: My Lords, may I remove the confusion by allowing the situation to stand as it is at the moment? We have accepted Amendment No. 7 and perhaps we may leave No. 8 as it is, it having also been accepted. May we now proceed with Amendment No. 16?
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: My Lords, if the House is satisfied with that, the decisions will stand and I can now put Amendment No. 16.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord GRAY Lord GRAY moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 2, line 44, leave out ("those purposes") and insert ("that purpose").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I understand that this is the last of the Amendments which have found acceptance. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to
Lord LYELL Lord LYELL moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 3, line 10, leave out ("or vehicle") and insert (", vehicle or place ").
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord LYELL Lord LYELL moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 3, line 18, leave out ("or vehicle") and insert (",vehicle or place").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this; I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment, agreed to.
Clause 6 [Interpretation]:
5.19 p.m.
Lord LYELL Lord LYELL moved Amendment No. 20:
Leave out Clause 6 and insert the following new clause:
Interpretation
("6. Expressions used in this Act and in the regulations mentioned in section 1(1) of this Act shall, unless the context otherwise requires, have the same meaning in this Act as in those regulations.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is simply an Amendment for clarification. I understand that, as drafted, Clause 6 could be unclear and might seem a little confusing. The purpose of the Amendment, along with the Amendments to Clauses 1 and 2 which the House has accepted, will correct any lack of clarity. I do not think I need explain the Amendment further: the new clause removes certain ambiguities and difficulties and makes for greater clarity.
Lord HUGHES: My Lords, I do not want to speak to this Amendment; I want to make matters more complicated than ever. It has taken a little time to understand what was going on regarding Amendments Nos. 7 and 8. The noble Earl, Lord St. Aldwyn, was perfectly correct; Amendment No. 8 could not possibly be in order because it purports to take out from line 8 words which had already been taken out by Amendment No. 7 and replaced by something else. So how can there be added to the Bill something to remove words which are no longer there? There must be some way of dealing with this matter. I should have thought that there should be some administrative way of dealing with such a palpable error.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord STRABOLGI Lord STRABOLGI moved Amendment No. 21:
Insert the following new clause:
"Effect of Order in Council under Section 52 of the Food and Drugs (Scotland) Act 1956
For the avoidance of doubt, the making of an Order in Council under section 52 of the Food and Drugs (Scotland) Act 1956, applying regulations made under section 13 of that Act to the Crown shall not have the effect of applying the provisions of this Act to the Crown."
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 21. This is a technical Amendment included to clarify that the provisions of the Bill will not apply to Crown properties. The Food and Drugs (Scotland) Act 1956, and the associated food hygiene regulations, do not apply to Crown properties either, although there is power in Section 52 of the 1956 Act whereby an Order in Council may be made so applying them. This is a longstanding power which has never been invoked, and there is no question now of it being used before the 1956 Act is updated and consolidated, as the Government intend. The provisions of this Bill would be included in that consolidation, and in the meantime it is appropriate to clarify that its provisions, like those of the 1956 Act, will not apply to the Crown. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: My Lords, as there is some confusion about Amendment No. 8, with the permission of the House, I should like to call Amendment No. 8 again. The question is that Amendment No. 8 be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion will say, "Content"—
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I should explain that I have just received advice that Amendment No. 8 is not necessary, and therefore it is not moved; it is withdrawn.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Amendment No. 8 is not moved.
5.25 p.m.
Lord LYELL: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Lyell.)
Lord GRAY: My Lords, I am reluctant to detain the House any longer, but during our Committee stage I raised certain points: one general point, which at the time could not be answered, and one other, to which I was, inadvertently on the spur of the moment, given an answer which appears to be inaccurate. I expressed concern as to what would happen in a case where a person had his premises closed down and his food business put

1061
out of action, even where he had done nothing wrong himself and it was merely a case of the situation, or juxtaposition, of his premises in relation to other premises belonging to a third party. It was suggested at the time that the third party could he dealt with under the Bill.
In fact, the provision drawn to my attention on that occasion does not, I understand, touch it, and I would ask the Government if they would be good enough to bear in mind that it would be extremely unfair in certain circumstances that a man put in this position, who had done nothing wrong, and who had done his best to prevent something wrong happening on his premises, should be left with as his only recourse the bringing of a civil suit against the person who offended him. When I raised other points, I understand that the Government said that they might be looking at the 1956 Act, and it may be that when they do that, or when they look at the regulations being I understand, 'currently redrafted, they can deal with this point. The other point which I raised at the time, and which could not be fully answered then, was a general question as to whether the Bill's provisions as written covered aircraft, trains, and oil rigs, and I should be grateful to know whether or not any view on this has been reached.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Gray, has raised three interesting points, and I should like to take this opportunity of thanking him for all the great trouble he has taken over the Bill, and for the various Amendments that he has suggested, some of which we have felt it useful to accept. The noble Lord asks about the question of the closure of premises resulting from the acts or default of a third party. I am advised that, for the purposes of civil law where a person whose food business is affected as a result of the fault or negligence of a third party, the ordinary civil remedies for nuisance or negligence on the part of that third party will be available to him, depending upon the circumstances.
For the purposes of criminal proceedings, Clause 4(2) of the Bill provides that Section 45(2) of the 1956 Act shall apply in relation to proceedings under this Bill as it applies in relation to proceedings under
1062
the 1956 Act. Section 45 of the Food and Drugs (Scotland) Act 1956 provides for the acquittal of a person, who, charged with a contravention, is able to satisfy the court that he has used all due diligence to secure compliance with the requirements, and that the contravention was attributable to someone else's fault. A defence is therefore available to the operator of a food business charged with a contravention of the regulations under the criminal law, where he can show that he used his best endeavours to comply with the standards imposed, and that a third party was responsible for the breach.
The noble Lord also raised the question of aircraft. So far as aircraft are concerned, legal advice is that they are not one of the subjects within the scope of the Food and Drugs (Scotland) Act 1956 or the associated food hygiene regulations, and that the Bill will therefore not apply to them in any case. The need for control of food hygiene on aircraft is not pressing, since catering arrangements are based on pre-packed food supplied from establishments which are covered by statutory control, and further, the crockery and utensils are usually of the throw-away variety, but we take the point that the noble Lord has raised.
With regard to oil rigs, the Food and Drugs (Scotland) Act and associated food hygiene regulations would appear to apply by virtue of Section 3(1) of the Continental Shelf Act 1964, and contraventions in the Scottish area will be governed by the law in force in Scotland under Article 2 of the Continental Shelf Jurisdiction Order 1968. While it can be said, therefore, that the Bill also extends to oil rigs, again the mechanism for enforcement may present difficulties, but, as for trains, it is a separate question.
Lord ALPORT: My Lords, before the Bill passes I wonder whether I might put a point. The difficulties which have arisen, and which arose over a different Bill on a previous occasion—last week, in fact—where the instructions to the Lord Chairman or Speaker do not actually direct him or her as to the procedure to he followed, places the Speaker in a very difficult position indeed. I wonder, having listened to this part of the debate, whether it is in fact right for us to pass this Bill, in case there may be some misunderstanding still extant in the Amendments which have

1063
been made which, if the Bill is passed, we shall not have another opportunity to correct in this House. I did not follow this in any detail, but I know very well the difficulties which the noble Baroness had to face in putting the various Amendments to the House. It seems to me not only that there would be arguments for preparing the procedures rather more accurately, perhaps, than appears to have happened on this and on previous occasions, but also there may be misunderstanding with regard to the final form the Bill takes now, at Third Reading. Therefore, I wonder whether the formality of the Third Reading and of the Motion that the Bill do now pass should not he delayed, at any rate until another occasion, when it would not occupy any of the time of the House and would give an opportunity for any changes to be made which are necessary as a result of any misunderstandings.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, particularly for his kind words about the difficulties of the Deputy Speaker. I think everybody in this House recognises perfectly clearly that the difficulties we got into this afternoon were in no way the fault of the Deputy Speaker. Indeed, contradictory briefs have been raining down on her during the afternoon, and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Alport, for raising that point.
As to his further point, on the best advice I have I think the Bill is now clear and correct, and that when we read it in Hansard tomorrow we shall find that it would be quite correct to go on now. And if indeed we are finished with this part of it, perhaps the Question, That this Bill do now pass, can be put.
Earl ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I had in any case intended to say a word on the Motion, That this Bill do now pass, but what has happened this afternoon has to my mind made it even more important that I should say it. Yesterday we had the Report stage, on which there were no Amendments. I appreciate that this was done for the convenience of various Members of your Lordships' House, but I think I am right in saying that, although it is not strictly set out in the Companion,the Procedure Committee has deprecated the moving of Amendments on Third
1064
Reading other than for the purpose of tidying up matters which were not entirely clear at preceding stages, particularly the Report stage. If these Amendments had been put down on Report, then, although an error had inadvertently taken place, it could have been put right on Third Reading. I hope that the House will take careful note that it is highly undesirable that Amendments should be moved on Third Reading except, and only except, for the purpose of tidying up something which is found to be wrong after Report.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, with the leave of the House perhaps I may entirely endorse what the noble Earl has said. When we were discussing these matters in the Select Committee of your Lordships' House on Practice and Procedure, it was agreed by everybody that business could be expedited, could be made more efficient, if only noble Lords would stick to our own rules and customs—and customs are just as important as rules. This is a perfect example: that at Third Reading we should have only corrections. If we had done all this on Report, today's business would have been very much easier for the whole House, and I am indeed grateful to the noble Earl for raising this matter. I endorse what he says. Of course I agree that the business managers always consult the convenience of your Lordships, but what is to the convenience of some noble Lords is not always to the convenience of others. On that note, I think perhaps the Question might be put, That this Bill do now pass.
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

EEC ENVIRONMENT POLICY: ECC REPORTS
5.35 p.m.
Lord ASHBY Lord ASHBY rose to move, That this House takes note of the following Reports of the European Communities Committee on EEC Environment Policy:—

Sixteenth Report (HL 87) on organochlorine compounds—R/1628/76.

Thirty-first Report (HL 139) on plant protection products—R/2027/76.

1065

Twenty-second Report (HL 93) on water standards for freshwater fish—R/2005/76.

Thirty-second Report (HL 140) on water standards for shellfish—R/2641/76.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. Your Lordships' Select Committee on the European Communities is charged with reporting on matters which come from the Commission which raise issues of policy or principle. The four reports which are before your Lordships this afternoon have been before the Sub-Committee presided over by the noble Baroness, Lady White, and we decided that they raised matters of principle which should be debated in your Lordships' House. I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for giving me the privilege of opening this debate.
The questions are important because they confront Her Majesty's Government with a dilemma. On the one hand, if the Government were to comply with the proposals in one of these Directives before your Lordships today we would be obliged to incur what the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, described as "astronomical" expenditures, and, as I shall explain in a moment, expenditures which are totally unnecessary for the purpose of the Directive. If we comply with another one of these Directives, we shall be committed to a prodigious and almost useless programme of monitoring, using scarce manpower and resources. On the other hand, if the Government do not comply with the Directives on environmental issues, without giving compelling reasons for their dissent, then we create the impression—the false impression—that Britain is querulously unto-operative in environmental matters, that we are dragging our feet in this campaign and that we are encouraging pollution havens where people can dump waste on the cheap. It is a dilemma between totally unnecessary expenditure and totally unjustifiable tarnish of our public image in Europe, and your Sub-Committee hopes that this debate may help to clarify these issues.
Two of these four Directives are about pesticides; and, fortunately, the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, is here, and will
1066
speak upon these with far more authority than I can. All I should like to say is that there is in the United Kingdom a surveillance of the use of pesticides and fungicides under the Pesticide Safety Precautions Scheme. It operates a voluntary phasing out of dangerous, persistent pesticides. How successful is it? The simplest way to find out how successful it is, is to find out how much of these pesticides accumulates in the bodies of human beings. This has been done for organo-chlorine compounds, which are the most notorious of them, since 1963. Over these last 14 years there has been a steady decline in the levels of these in the fatty tissues of human beings in Britain. They never were a threat to health, and today we are almost at the bottom of the league table for concentrations of pesticide residues in human beings—and, for that matter, in many animals, which are monitored, too. So the only real point of contention in these two reports is whether to substitute some legal ban for the voluntary process which is being operated at present; and there is in any case provision for doing this under the Control of Pollution Act 1974.
The other two Directives I shall have to say a little more about. One is on the quality of freshwater for fish, and the other is on the quality of salt water for shellfish. I would remind your Lordships of what is in these two Directives, and why the proposals cause such disquiet. Then I should like to put the facts very briefly into a perspective which I hope will persuade Her Majesty's Government to make strong representations, not only against these two Directives but against the general philosophy which lies behind them.
I begin with the Directive on water standards for freshwater fish. Its purpose is unambiguous. It is to impose quality objectives which—and this is a quotation from the Directive,
"aim at allowing fish…to live in favourable conditions".
It applies only to waters already capable of supporting fish. Its intention is clear: it is for the sake of the fish, not for the sake of the fishermen or for the sake of those who eat the fish. This policy—to protect nature for its own sake not just for the convenience of man—was in the declaration made by the Heads of State of the

1067
Community when they met in 1972, and it is one wholeheartedly supported in the United Kingdom. But from the beginning Her Majesty's Government made that attitude clear. They prepared a memorandum about the draft declaration to come from the Heads of State of the Community, and they said this:
"…the important thing is to agree on objectives. When it comes to implementation, the most effective and acceptable means of making progress should be employed".
This is the gist of the matter. It is not over ends that Britain finds herself in disagreement with the environmental policies of the Commission; it is over means.
The objective of the proposals for freshwater fish is to allow the fish to live in favourable conditions. It would seem to me that a reasonable way to reach this objective would be to ask the fish—in other words, to monitor fish populations. But this is not the way the Commission is tackling the problem. The Commission's Directive prescribes 16 parameters—levels of temperature, oxygen content, acidity and concentrations of a number of chemicals—all of which have to be monitored regularly. If these levels were proposed merely as guidelines, or for information, they would be quite interesting and ueful, but ten out of these 16 levels are mandatory. If they are adopted by the Council and we do not comply with them we shall be breaking Community law; if we comply with them, we shall be committed to a monstrous expenditure.
May I pass on to your Lordships what the National Water Council stated in evidence: they said that if all rivers and streams which presently support fish life need to be designated under Article 4, which specifies which rivers are capable of supporting fish, then:
"…water authorities collectively might have to spend thousands of millions of pounds on sewers and sewage treatment works to comply".
If expenditure on this vast scale were essential in order to keep fish in our rivers, the case would at least be arguable. But the plain fact is that many of our rivers carry flourishing populations of fish and yet do not comply with the mandatory standards prescribed in this Directive. Let me put on record one or two facts. Eighty-nine per cent. of the rivers in
1068
England and Wales carry fish. But just over one-third of these fish-carrying rivers (36 per cent.) do not comply with all the mandatory standards prescribed by the Commission. Here are a couple of examples supplied to your Sub-Committee by the Severn-Trent Water Authority. The Afon Garno is a salmon nursery and trout fishery. It carries no contaminants, except those from natural sources and yet it fails to comply with two mandatory and four guideline standards imposed by the Directive. The Severn at Trimpley is a coarse fishery used extensively by match anglers. This river fails to comply with seven of the quality standards proposed in the Directive. Indeed, the Severn-Trent Authority told us that no fishery in a river in their region would wholly comply with the conditions of the Directive.
If the Directive becomes law, one of the common disqualifications in English rivers would be too high a temperature. The mandatory maximum in the Directive is 20 degrees. We were told that this is a misprint for 25 degrees, but I notice that it reappears as 20 degrees in the First Report on the State of the Environment published only two or three weeks ago. However, 20 degrees (or perhaps 25 degrees) is the maximum for summer and in winter 10 degrees. If this standard were to be applied to the Trent, the power stations there, which generate 25 per cent. of the Central Electricity Generating Board's total capacity, would either have to close down or spend millions of pounds a year to cool the water below the present level which is just under 30 degrees; and yet the Trent—our Sub-Committee was assured—is used by hundreds of thousands of anglers every year.
In England and Wales there are some 12,000 kilometres of river which carry fish, but which do not comply with the standards prescribed in this Directive as being favourable to fish. The fish are unaware of this disqualification and I suggest that it would be unreasonable to ask Her Majesty's Government to ban them from these rivers. I would ask instead another question: as we can afford only limited resources for the improvement of rivers, would it not be better to employ these resources on rivers which at present are too polluted to carry fish? May I now direct your Lordships'

1069
attention to another of these Directives, one which sets water standards for shellfish. This Directive too is explicitly stated to be for the sake of the shellfish, not for the sake of those who sell or eat shellfish. Like the Directive for freshwater fish, this Directive too prescribes quality requirements for the water rather than evidence that the fish are living happily in the environment where you find them. In this case, if you include a list of nine metals which have to be monitored, the total number of parameters to be kept under surveillance is 19. Among the quality objectives are some which are astonishingly unrealistic. Thus, there is one that the temperature variation within six hours must not exceed five degrees. To achieve this standard, it would be necessary to control the rain, and the water and the sunshine; feats which are at present beyond the capacity not only of Her Majesty's Government but of any Member State in the Community. Another quality objective is to keep the bacterial coliform count below 300 per 100 millilitres for 90 per cent. of the samples and below 500 for the remaining 10 per cent. This objective has nothing to do with the welfare of the shellfish which will flourish in colicounts thousands of times higher than this. It would be relevant only if the shellfish were to be eaten without any further treatment. This could be achieved by chlorinating the water, but that would lead to other harmful effects. That shellfish should be safe to eat is obviously essential; but that is not what this Directive is about and the efficient way to ensure that shellfish are safe to eat is to do as we do already, to insist on treatment between harvesting and marketing.
This confusion between the desire to promote the wellbeing of shellfish and the desire to protect public health has been criticised also by another Member State of the Community. On May 6th 1977 the German Bundesrat had a number of adverse comments to make about the Directive and declared that it needed amendment. But apart from this confusion, the main objection to the Directive at present is its reliance on the monitoring of 19 parameters as the means to ensure the health of shellfish. To do this would put an intolerable burden upon the scientific services which are employed to protect the environment.
The Lancashire and Western Sea Fisheries Joint Committee reckon that it would need some 400 manhours of field and laboratory work per annum to monitor one average-size shellfish bed; and the Shellfish Association of Great Britain reckon that some 10,000 sampling stations would be needed if this Directive were to be complied with. At a rough guess, therefore, compliance with this Directive might commit well over a million man-hours, perhaps up to 4 million manhours per annum for monitoring shellfish beds.
My Lords, it would be a pity to put these criticisms before your Lordships it' there were no remedy—and I speak as a committed pro-European. Britain is as anxious as are any of her partners to provide favourable conditions for the growth and flourishing of freshwater fish and shellfish. The simple way to work towards this objective is not to prescribe long lists of parameters in the water—some of them, as you see, quite demonstrably unrealistic—which have to be complied with: it is to monitor the fish. So I hope that one outcome of this debate may be that Her Majesty's Government will bring pressure to bear on the Commission to give up this cumbersome and misguided method of trying to protect the environment and to put in its place three very simple principles. The first is to let the fish and shellfish decide whether the waters are favourable for them; the second is to monitor very carefully their health and growth and—very important—to publish the results of that monitoring and to ask the other Member States in the Community to publish their results, too. The third is to act promptly to treat the environment at the first sign that the fish or the shellfish are under strain.
This brings me to the last point I want to make to your Lordships. How did these misconceived Directives come to be composed? And what steps can be taken to prevent in future the embarrassment—to the Commission, I am sure, as well as to the Government—which follows the criticisms which have to be made of these Directives and not only these; but similar criticisms have had to be made on two other Directives, one on effluents from wood pulp mills and the other on the waste from titanium dioxide plants.
Before issuing a Directive, the Environment and Consumer Protection Service in Brussels invites a panel of experts, drawn from Member States, to give advice. For freshwater fish there is a wealth of sound advice available, because the Food and Agriculture Organisation has a body called the European Inland Fisheries Advisory Commission (EIFAC) which is a body of experts who have published an impressive series of reports on the conditions favourable for fish. The convenor of EIFAC is one of our own authorities on fish, Mr. J. S. Alabaster, who is at the Water Research Station at Stevenage. The Commission's panel drew heavily on the report of EIFAC. They gave good advice to the Commission. But when the Directive appeared, it was quite inconsistent with the experts' advice on several very important points including the levels of oxygen which are tolerated by fish; and no reason for this was given.
There is a similar inconsistency between the advice given to the Commission by its panel of experts on shellfish and the terms of the Directive which purported to be based on the experts' advice. So I hope that a second outcome of this debate may be that Her Majesty's Government can persuade the Commission's Environment and Consumer Protection Service to set out clearly the scientific evidence upon which they base their Directives and, in particular, to state their reasons when their Directives differ from the advice that their own experts have given to them.
My Lords, those of us who have been to Brussels to discuss these problems with members of the Commission have the impression that part of the difficulty is that the Environment and Consumer Protection Service has much too small a staff and not a sufficient spread of expertise to deal with the demands made upon it. There is a mismatch between the heavy obligations to fulfil an ambitious programme which was set out by the Council's Declaration of 1973 and the resources given to this part of the Commission's staff to do that job.
I wonder whether Her Majesty's Government, during this period when Britain's influence can be most easily exerted in Brussels, could encourage the Commission to strengthen the staff who have to draft these difficult and highly technical Directives; because misguided
1072
Directives of the kind before your Lordships this afternoon and of the kind that have been before you before, are going to make, if they are approved, a waste of millions of units of account in Member States; not to mention the awkward controversies they cause which strain good relations between Britain and the Commission.
But the most important expression of opinion which, I hope, may arise out of this debate concerns what one might call the "philosophy" of policies to protect the environment. The foundation of these policies is, again, in the Declaration of the Council in 1973. The Commission's present policy of harmonisation is not consistent with this Declaration of their own Council. There are two passages in it which have been over-looked in most of the environmental Directives with which your Lordships' Sub-Committee has had to deal. One is the statement that concern for the environment should be—and I quote—"at the lowest cost to the Community". To spend huge sums of money to make water favourable to fish when it is already so favourable that people pay to fish in it, does not seem to me to be doing something "at the lowest cost to the Community". The other phrase is that in setting objectives—and, again, I quote from the Declaration—allowance should be made for "the specific regional conditions". To spend huge sums so that you get exactly the same water quality standards in Italy and Scotland does not take account of "specific regional conditions". I should hope, therefore, that Her Majesty's Government could persistently press this point when they are negotiating Directives with the Commission.
So, my Lords, I come back to what I said at the beginning. Over ends, there is no fundamental conflict between Britain and the rest of the Community. Over means, Britain has great experience to offer her partners because we were in the business of protecting the environment long before any other European country; for 114 years ago the noble Earl, Lord Derby, made a speech in this House which initiated the first really effective means of controlling one of the kinds of pollutions of the air, the acids coming from alkali works. Ever since then, this House has played an important part in legislation on the protection of the environment. There is still much to be put right; but our

1073
pragmatic approach has been a proven success over more than a century. I believe, therefore, that we have much to offer our European partners towards a genuine harmonisation of laws to protect the environment; but, my Lords, we still have to persuade the Commission that there is a difference between harmonisation and homogenisation. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House takes note of the following Reports of the European Communities Committee on EEC Environment Policy:—

Sixteenth Report (HL 87) on organochlorine compounds—R/1628/76.

Thirty-first Report (HL 139) on plant protection products—R/2027/76.

Twenty-second Report (HI, 93) on water standards for freshwater fish—R/2005/76.

Thirty-second Report (HL 140) on water standards for shellfishR/2641/76.—(Lord Ashby)

5.59 p.m.
Lord SKELMERSDALE: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Ashby, has given us several valuable pointers as to the way we might well conduct ourselves and the points that we might well follow throughout the course of this debate. He has made particular reference to his two reports on fish: the quality of water for shellfish and the quality of water for freshwater fish. I am a little unsure of my ground on these two; and I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to the two papers on pesticides as reported in the EEC Sub-Committee G's 16th and 31st Reports concerning organo-chlorine compounds and plant protection products respectively.
I have been especially interested in these linked subjects from the time they first appeared as Consultative Documents last summer, not only because they refer to chemicals that I use in my work as a horticulturalist—and here I must declare a pecuniary interest—but also because the chemicals affect the air we breathe and the food we eat to such a marked degree that anyone who takes the slightest interest in the quality of life on this planet cannot fail to be interested and, moreover, concerned that very dangerous chemicals are used in agriculture and horticulture, and indeed in such unlikely industries as carpet making I will refer to this briefly later.
1074
Although we are debating the two Papers together—and in fact they arrived in Westminster almost simultaneously—they arise from two different directorates in Brussels. The Report R/1628/76 is an interim one to the council on some persistent organo-chlorine compounds and is a Health Directorate document, whereas the draft Directive emanates from the Agricultural Directorate. For convenience, I will be referring to them as the Report and Directive respectively throughout my remarks.
Let us take the Report first. Although this suggests that legislation will be needed in the future, it does not deal with any of the Directives currently under consideration. As it is a Report and not a draft Directive, it is probably not a proper subject for debate at all, but the Sub-Committee, on which I serve in a minor capacity under the very strict though fair chairmanship of the noble Baroness, Lady White, thought that it was so important that our own Report (No. 16) needed verbal underlining.
It sometimes seems to me, as a comparative newcomer to your Lordships' House, that some subjects do not get the treatment in Parliament that they deserve, that the Official Report loses something by not being able to use capital letters, red ink or quotation marks, making it very difficult to stress points that really are important. I know that this is quite impossible, that there are both technical and visual difficulties and that there are Parliamentary techniques for emphasising particular points; but, my Lords, this Report deals with poisons and here you can imagine that the word is in the biggest capital letters that it is possible to print—or, in this case, not to print.
At the risk of being contradicted by noble Lords who are much more scientifically-orientated than I am, I would define a persistent organo-chlorine as a chemical based on the chlorine atom, which is so constructed as to enter the sap of a plant, making the whole plant toxic to animals—including man—for a certain period. This period may be anything from a few days to several weeks. One can take for example Dicofol as an acaricide for the control of mites on apples and strawberries where the minimum interval to be observed between the last application and harvesting of the crop is seven

1075
days. DDT, as we are all well aware, is still used on a whole range of pests on agricultural and horticultural crops, and here the minimum interval to be observed between the last application and the harvesting of edible crops is two weeks.
There are of course many other examples, but I hope that I have made my point that these chemicals are highly dangerous for some considerable time after application. In many cases they are also dangerous while they are actually being applied and, as an employer, I have often had to insist on the wearing of face masks and gloves while they are being handled. It is even more alarming to know that organo-chlorines can persist in air, water and soil as well as in foodstuffs.
I meant to paint a frightening picture—and this goes some way to explaining why the use of these chemicals is, it would appear from evidence that we have received, on the decrease and not, as may be deduced from the Commission's Report, on the increase. Indeed as we say in our conclusion under paragraph 13(a), on page 5, we know of no organochlorine pesticides currently used in the Community which are likely to be used increasingly in the future. It is our view that these chemicals are so dangerous, both to the user and to the end consumer of the product, that it is next door to impossible that either manufacturers will wish to increase their production or farmers to increase their use.
It is in everyone's interest to phase them out completely; but—and this is most important—food must be produced economically and this means that pests must be adequately and cheaply controlled. This cannot be achieved while there is no alternative chemical on the market that works as well as, or better than, the persistant organo-chlorine. Therefore the "considerable amount of research" to which the Commission refers would be far more justified in developing alternative chemicals than, as they propose, that:
"this should be directed towards those organochlorine compounds which are likely to be increasingly used in the future".
I do not think that it would serve any useful purpose to emphasise the rest of our Committee's conclusions and opinions on the Report, which are what one might
1076
term the theoretical side of the argument. The practical side then would be the Commission's Draft Directive on Plant Protection Products. These include all inorganic mercurial and many organochlorine pesticides, and the points I have made already on the Report refer equally well to the Directive. However, theory and practice do not always go together, and practical considerations very often outweigh the theoretical ones to such an extent that the theory has to be re-thought and re-written.
I was fortunate enough to be able to go to Brussels earlier this year with the noble Baroness, Lady White, and the noble Lord, Lord Ashby, who briefly referred to this excursion to the EEC capital. I was able to meet M. Bartholemy, the Director for Agricultural Legislation, and his colleagues. As the Sub-Committee had already decided that the key to the whole problem was the legislation that may be required to implement the Directive, one of the first points raised was the suitability of the Pesticides Safety Precaution Scheme (the PSPS for short, to which the noble Lord also referred). In all other EEC countries it is necessary to introduce legislation to control or ban the use of plant protection chemicals. In the United Kingdom, however, we have an anomalous situation where the use of pesticides is controlled by the non-statutory PSPS. This controls the pesticide products which are put on the United Kingdom market and the precautions to be observed in their use.
Under the Scheme the manufacturers concerned agree not to market a product containing any new chemical for use in agricultural or food storage plants or to introduce a new formulation which could show an increased hazard until recommendations for safe use have been agreed with Government departments concerned.
It would appear to be part and parcel of the Agricultural Chemical Approval Scheme, under which proprietary brands of horticultural chemicals can be approved; and if not, it must be very closely allied to them. It is, I understand, the only voluntary scheme there is and, although it is backed up by sections of various Acts of Parliament, for example, the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, the Pharmacy and Poisons Act 1933 and, most important, the Health and Safety (Agriculture) (Poisonous Substances) Regulations 1975,

1077
the Commission, it appeared, are extremely unhappy about its being able to enforce the Directive in question. This is a point on which I am slightly at variance with some of my colleagues on the Committee, who believe that no harm would be done to have a mandatory scheme, and that the United Kingdom should in this matter operate consistently with the rest of the Community.
One of the main problems as explained by M. Bartholemy is that it does not cover third party imports and retail sales outlets. However, there is a suggestion by the newly-formed Trade Association covering the distributors of agricultural chemicals that there should be a parallel scheme for them. So far as imports go, there seems to be no reason why a section of one of the Customs and Excise Acts should not be used for this purpose.
I am very afraid, though, that a recent Government decision may well put the seal on the argument or, indeed, completely invalidate it. The operators of the Agricultural Chemicals Approval Scheme—that is, the Ministry of Agriculture—have published a booklet called Approved Products for Farmers and Growers annually since the very beginning of the scheme. This contains a list of approved products and gives guidance on the efficient and safe use of agricultural chemicals. Every year it has been free to farmers and growers and, indeed, everyone directly concerned with the working of the scheme. This year, however, the Government have decided that the charge shall be£2 per copy.
I fully realise that this is in line with current thinking that users of the Ministry of Agriculture's services should pay an economic charge. To a certain extent I feel this is the right attitude, and it is right to charge for such things as growing season inspections and soil tests. These are going to be used in any event especially by certain seed producers and exporters who will not be able to carry out their normal business otherwise. The situation however, is even worse than I thought, because when I went to Quantock House —our new prestige agricultural office in Taunton—yesterday, I discovered at the door not only a huge orange notice advertising the booklet, but also the information that it was available only from Government bookshops—in other words,
1078
by post at£2·17 a copy. Furthermore, I was told that the staff were not allowed to sell it at all.
My question, therefore, is this: by charging£2 for this booklet, which lists such plant protection products as are available and approved in this country, many of them being included in the annex to the draft Directive, have the Government considered that many small-scale and perhaps not so small-scale producers will, at worst, not now bother to get it or, at best, have out-of-date copies and therefore will not be acquainted either with the new or better products or, more seriously, will continue to use chemicals for purposes which are not now recommended or are indeed illegal? If I am right in my assumption—and I hope I am not—do the Government agree that the whole scheme will break down so far as the users are concerned and could ultimately become a danger to the health of the whole community? I believe there are still free individual leaflets on particular chemicals, and I hope those will remain and will remain uncharged for.
However, I am straying slightly from the Directive. As I have said, I agree with witnesses from the Ministry and therefore hold slightly differing ideas from some of my colleagues on the Sub-Committee as regards the operation of the draft Directive; but I do not differ at all from their other findings. I agree entirely that so far as possible one must minimise the risk of using any chemical, but I am among the first to say that, in order to ban a chemical totally, an efficient substitute must not only be found but must be tested and approved for general use. For example, Dieldrin is still recommended in this country as a dip to control cabbage root fly simply because, although there are other products, they are not as efficient. Even so, in the annex to the Directive, it is listed as a product which should be banned for this purpose and used only for certain purposes, mainly in non-edible plants, from 1979. That is only two years away, and I doubt whether it would be possible to perfect an alternative and have it tested and approved in that time. Incidentally, Dieldrin is also used in the carpet industry to control carpet beetle and will continue, presumably, to be so used since the draft Directive covers only plant protection products and not the uses of what I term

1079
to myself toxic, mainly agricultural, chemicals which perhaps would be more appropriate.
Again, it is recommended that inorganic mercury compounds, with the exception of mercuric oxide, which has a partial derogation, should be banned immediately. One such is mercurous chloride, perhaps better known as calomel. This is a widely used chemical, both commercially and by amateur vegetable growers, as a dip for seedlings to control diseases of brassica crops, particularly club root. That is an extremely important pest which could destroy a cabbage crop completely. It is also used as a seed dressing to control white rot on onions. So far as I know, it has not yet been effectively superseded. My Lords, I could continue giving examples, but I hope I have shown that many of the proposed banned and partially banned products have uses which it would be a mistake to withdraw. So long as they are carefully used, following correctly the directions on the labels and in the PSPS booklet, they are perfectly safe. I hope, therefore, that derogations from the list will be applied for and given.
Lastly, my Lords, Sub-Committee G has a general comment which has come up before in these debates. This is the subject of a bibliography which we feel should be appended to any Directive or report. It is the old "niggle" on which the noble Lord, Lord Ashby, has very outspoken views, although he did not comment on it this afternoon. I could hardly, then, refrain from discussing it very briefly with M. Bartholemy. We feel that it is not only desirable but requisite for those concerned with the detailed surveillance of the reports to be able to read the background and, especially in the case of your Lordships' Scrutiny Committee, to be able to check this with facts as they appear in the United Kingdom.
I got a very interesting reaction to this proposal; I learned that it was not the practice of the Commission at any level to question experts who have been asked for their opinions. Indeed, I had the impression that it was a practice to be avoided at all costs—and, my Lords, I still fail to understand it, despite the earlier remarks of the noble Lord, Lord
1080
Ashby, and in spite of the possible lack of expertise among the Commission staff. Surely, in order to report fully on a particular matter, it is absolutely necessary to get all the facts. One is that any piece of scientific data can frequently be interpreted in more than one way. Is it not possible for a committee of your Lordships' House to form a valid judgment when different views are expressed? I think it is, especially when several members of the committee have the scientific expertise required to judge between differing views. Even if this was not the case, it would be much easier to find and approach the appropriate witnesses after one had read the background information and decided which points needed to be followed up. I also feel that it would be a great help to the civil servants who are concerned in each particular case. Often they have their own channels of communication and know the background, but I am assured that that is not always the case, or indeed adequate.
My Lords, I have spoken for far too long and I must apologise for taking up the time of your Lordships' House to quite such an extent; but I hope your Lordships will realise that this is a subject dear to my heart and one about which I am pleased to be able to say that I am a tiny cog in a gigantic machine. If any of my remarks today have fallen on even slightly fertile ground—I hope not completely sterile—I shall be amply recompensed.
6.16 p.m.
Baroness WHITE: My Lords, I am sure that all Members of your Lordships' House will join with me in congratulating, first, the noble Lord, Lord Ashby, for a masterly presentation of these reports which are before us today and, secondly, the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, who indeed showed a considerable knowledge as well as a very deep concern with the two reports on which he spoke. We were very glad indeed to have his company in Brussels and to feel that we had someone with us who, in his own practical life, had direct experience of these matters and therefore could speak with knowledge as well as conviction.
As the reports have been dealt with so competently and so comprehensively, I do not wish to retrace the ground, but I

1081
think it is of some interest that this very week the United Kingdom ceases to hold the presidency of the Commission and it is perhaps of some significance that the six months during which for the first time we have occupied that role have not been entirely happy ones either for us or for the Commission. I am not now speaking of some of the major matters of difference between ourselves and our European partners, because I doubt whether any different presidency could have influenced some of the really deep divisions of interest which persist, but I had frankly hoped that during this period we might perhaps have been a little more successful than I think we have been in persuading our European colleagues at the official level, in the European Parliament and in the Economic and Social Committee which examines some of the matters which come to our Select Committee, that our United Kingdom difficulties were well-founded and not, as I am afraid they sometimes consider, due simply either to some antipathy towards the Community as such or to some peculiar insular obstinacy on our part.
It is therefore distressing to those of us who are certainly not antipathetic to the Community as such and, I hope, not unduly obstinate, that we have not made as much progress as we would have wished in increasing mutual understanding on these matters, in spite of the best endeavours on our part and, I am sure, on the part of the Commission in Brussels—and also, I should like to stress, the quite excellent personal relationships between ourselves and the staff of the Commission. But I think that the matter must be taken a little further if our debate today is to be of any real value, and I propose to do so with regard to the two reports on freshwater fish and on shellfish.
However, before I do so, I am under an obligation to draw to the attention of your Lordships some remarks in the Sixteenth Report on organo-chlorine compounds, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Shackleton. He had very much wished to be here when we discussed the two reports on organo-chlorine compounds and pesticides, but he is abroad and is not able to be here. But he wrote to me, because, as a dedicated ornithologist and naturalist himself, he felt that we had not given due weight to the concern which had been felt when some of the substances
1082
referred to in the report, and in the draft Directive, were used to a far greater degree than they are at present, particularly during the 1960s.
He said that our reference in the Sixteenth Report to the effect of pesticides on birds, in which we said that this had been the cause of some concern, was entirely inadequate. He said that these particular substances had,
"…a very serious effect indeed on several species of wild life and not just on falcons",
to which we had particularly referred.
"If it had not been for a great deal of agitation…the effects would almost certainly have been much more serious…These paragraphs are very misleading since it looks as if it was simply a matter of ornithological interests against those of gardeners".
I can very well understand the feelings of my noble friend Lord Shackleton in the matter; I promised that I would refer to it in this debate.
We took the matter up with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and they, of course, entirely concurred that the changes in the practice in this country were due to the concern felt from about 1956 onwards, when large numbers of seed-eating birds were found dead in cereal growing areas in the spring, and that it was certainly true that the activities of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and the British Trust for Ornithology, in particular, were to influence Her Majesty's Government and the advisory organisation of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, with the effect that we have, as the report makes perfectly clear, very considerably diminished the use of a number of these products. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, has complained that it took the Government quite a while to reach this conclusion. Public interest was aroused by the American book Silent Spring, but I think we owe it to the organisations concerned, as well as to my noble friend Lord Shackleton personally, to admit that perhaps we might have been a little more emphatic in our reference to this point. I do not propose to say any more about those two reports, because the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, has dealt with the details most adequately.
However, I should like to say just one or two words about the fish reports,

1083
partly because I must confess that it was very gratifying to find that one of them was the subject of a feature article by David Wood in The Times newspaper of 30th May, which I am sure a number of your Lordships saw, headed, "Cockles and mussels, alive, alive-o!" My noble friend Lord Ashby has made plain why it is that we are so much concerned with these two reports. Nevertheless, I wonder whether perhaps some of the misunderstanding which has undoubtedly existed between ourselves and Brussels has been due to the United Kingdom's attitude to the way in which these draft Directives are really intended to be carried out; that we take them much too literally.
This had not occurred to me, because they seem to be specific enough. But I have been looking at the report of the very brief debate which took place in the European Parliament last February on the draft Directive on freshwater fish. I am sorry to say that, in spite of all our feelings about shellfish, this Directive was simply passed "on the nod", although there were absolutely glaring difficulties about it. But it simply went through with no debate whatsoever on 6th June, so far as the European Parliament was concerned. Of course, fortunately, that does not mean that it is legislatively enacted.
But in that very revealing debate in the European Parliament on 7th February, when the rapporteur, Mrs. Kruchow, presented her report, she was aware, because of a brief amendment which was subsequently withdrawn, which had been put forward by a Conservative Member from another place who is a member of the European Parliament, that there were some reservations about this draft Directive. So she said, rather tartly, that she could not commend the proposed amendment—innocent and insignificant as I felt it to be—because it was based on a misunderstanding:
"The directive we are discussing today does not deal with the existence of fish in fresh-water areas capable of supporting them, but with the fresh-water areas in which the individual governments have decided fish should be able to survive".
This is an attitude of mind to which we, I am afraid, as my noble friend Lord Ashby, has already indicated, find it extraordinarily hard to adapt ourselves. I raised both eyebrows when I read that.
1084
But then I read further the contribution of M. Noè, who spoke in that brief debate. He took the same line as the rapporteur and was urging Mr. Spicer to withdraw his modest amendment, which he also felt was based on a misunderstanding. He said that Mr. Spicer's anxieties can,
"…have no real foundation if one considers the criteria on the basis of which the water-quality classifications have been and will be applied—namely, according to the particular stretch of the river concerned".
He went on to explain that the parameters, which worried all of us so much, would be expected to be applied, in effect, only in the,
"…upper reaches of rivers, that is the section near to the source, for which conditions permitting fish to thrive are laid down. But bit by bit as one descends towards the river mouth these criteria are retained only where possible. A high level of industrialization, of course, makes retention scarcely possible".
He then went on in further detail.
But it appears to me that what is intended by these Directives, if one takes the stance of the members of the European Parliament, is not that they should be absolutely binding upon Governments of the Member States, and all one has to do is to indicate: "Here we have a reach of the river which does not cause us many problems. We will designate this and for the rest, so far as the draft Directives are concerned, we will quietly ignore their existence." Similarly, applying the same principle to the shellfish, which were not debated, it appeared to us, when we were considering this in the Sub-Committee, that there was at least a possibility that one need designate nothing at all. Therefore, if one designated no areas the Directive would not be operative.
My noble friend Lord Ashby very properly raised the moral dilemma in which one would be placed when one knew quite well that one was marketing shellfish from a certain area, or, mutatis mutandis, that in certain rivers fish were living, but decided that it would be much more convenient not to designate rivers unless they were already up to standard, or not to designate shellfish beds unless there was no doubt at all that they met all possible water-quality parameters, and that therefore, in effect, the Directive would be inoperative.

1085
If this is really true—I find it hard to believe, but the indications in this debate and in the European Parliament are that it may be—why are we all wasting our time? While we are doing all this work, why are our officials going to and fro between here and Brussels? If all that is intended is to devise a set of standards which in some few, almost ideal situations may be attained but for the rest one just shrugs one's shoulders and says, "All right, we will get along as best we can and we won't worry too much about it", then obviously we have been under a complete misapprehension. I believe that I gave the House a wrong date. The freshwater fish debate was on 14th January.
In perusing the brief debate, I turn next to the intervention of Mr. Tugendhat, who is a member of the Commission and who, therefore, was speaking officially for the Commission. The first point which worries me about his intervention is that he suggested that our objections to the scientific basis of this and various other draft Directives is misplaced, in the sense that the scientific data in any absolute form is not, as yet, available. Mr. Tugendhat proceeded to suggest that the data so far available upon which the Commission is working are based on studies conducted in artificial conditions. This is quite absurd. Through the water authorities and others, we in this country can provide the Commission with reams of data based not upon laboratory, artificial and simulated conditions but upon the actual conditions in the rivers.
It seems to me that Mr. Tugendhat was under some misapprehension as to why it is that we object constantly and urge constantly that the data upon which the propositions are made should be public and manifest, with all the various authorities properly quoted. He seems to regard the fact that the Commission are proceeding to make draft Directives on inadequate scientific evidence as an unfortunate fact which cannot be helped. However, I am sure that in particular those noble Lords who have been working in the Sub-Committee will agree that this is just not the case. Ample evidence is available, most particularly in the case of freshwater fish, from which proper scientific conclusions can be drawn.
Mr. Tugendhat then proceeded to say that,
1086
"…what the Commission is trying to do is to set a quality objective, but it will be up to the Member States themselves, each individual Member State, to decide how it should be achieved: it will be up to the Member State to say whether it should he one stretch of river or another, whether it should be the total river or just a part".
This is not what we in the Sub-Committee had understood to be the position. Had this been simply a question of quality objectives and not standards, and had these standards to be applied only to particular stretches of water which could be designated at will, then I repeat that we should not be worrying ourselves too much. The quality objectives would be something to aim at, but we should not be unduly harassed by the feeling that we were in breach of some international Community obligation.
At the end of that paragraph from which I have just quoted Mr. Tugendhat goes on to say that,
"…the overall objective standards will be imposed by the Community".
What does he mean? I do not know whether my noble friend Lady Birk, who is to reply to the debate, can clear up what appears to be quite plainly a confusion of thought, one which I must admit has not been made plain to us even after more than one visit to Brussels and the most interesting conversations we have had with members of the appropriate Directorate in London. It appears to me that since we feel that this is entirely unjust we are being put in the doghouse, because members of the European Parliament, which is only an advisory body but which nevertheless has to be listened to, certainly take a quite different view of the obligations which would be imposed upon us by these draft Directives.
It is worth drawing the attention of your Lordships' House to what seems to me to be a situation which we must indeed endeavour to clear up. I do not wish to stress unduly something which is referred to incidentally in our reports to the House but to which we find no satisfactory answer; that is, the economics of these proposed draft Directives. My noble friend Lord Ashby referred to the astronomic costs involved if we took the draft Directives literally and carried them out in every detail. It is not a matter only of the economic costs of the particular proposals in the draft Directive. As the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, made plain in his evidence to

1087
us, the fact is that if you are concerned with the total management of a freshwater system you have to balance one interest against another. One of the gaps in the Brussels administration seems to be that they put forward individual Directives. Even if they were more satisfactory than we normally find them to be, there is still no obligation upon the administration to consider these Directives in their totality as affecting the management of our water systems.
Finally, I could not help being struck by reading a brief report of the recent United Nations Water Conference held in Mar del Plata, Argentina, in March of this year, where the United Nations pointed out that they were considering, "Water for better quality of life and life itself". I quote from the United Nations pamphlet:
"Only a fortunate few (one-fifth of the world population) can get water simply by turning a tap. For the remaining four-fifths securing water is part of the daily struggle to exist. When contaminated, which happens all too often, water can be a source of disease and death".
Do we really have to spend all the money suggested in these draft Directives if we carry them out in the sense in which we supposed at least that they were to be carried out, when resources of both money, effort and skilled manpower should surely be diverted to the far more pressing water problems of other parts of the world?
6.37 p.m.
Lord ZUCKERMAN: My Lords, first I should like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Ashby for his brilliant review of the considerations which have led to the opinions expressed in these reports, and then I should like to focus on that part of his address in which he expressed the view that the expert advice which had been given to the bodies in Brussels who are responsible for producing these draft Directives had not been completely taken into account. From there may I turn to the real problem, as it seems to me: the difference between mandatory and voluntary standards and regulations.
I suspect that the main reason why the Commission has gone further than the expert evidence warranted, and why it has shown so much zeal in trying to do good, is to be found in the gulf which separates the body of scientifically established fact from the advice and
1088
opinions which different scientists can be expected to tender. We all know that scientific fact has to be accepted until it is proved to be false. Scientific advice, however, particularly when it is based upon very slender evidence, varies according to the judgment of the individual scientist. We must never forget that fact. The amount of scientific knowledge in the spheres of toxicology or ecology which underlies these draft Directives is extremely limited. In toxicology, where there are real facts, decisions can be taken.
I was the chairman of a Government Committee in 1951 and, although it was set up by the Government, I was an independent. That committee dealt with organo-phosphorus compounds. It did not take us more than four weeks or so to get the facts, and it took the Government of the day no longer than about two months to have legislation forbidding the use of organo-phosphorus compounds except under the most rigid controls.
On the other hand, in the vast area which we were then looking at we were dealing with "grey" facts. We did not know whether we were dealing with real risks, or possible risks, and out of the recommendations of a further committee which followed the first and which I also chaired, the present Pesticide Safety Precautions Scheme came into being. In my view it has had a brilliant record of success.
On the ecological side the situation is far more a case of "we do not know". Those people who suppose that they can exactly predict the ecological consequences of doing this or that are mainly fooling the public. It is usually a matter of intuition. In one of these reports one reads, for example, that the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds wants to see DDT banned—and I quote—"as a major step forward". That may be right, but I do not know what the evidence is on which it is based. Usually when people talk about preserving an ecological balance they are speaking intuitively, and not on the basis of scientifically established fact.
In saying this I want to make it quite clear that I believe warnings about the possible dangers of agrochemicals are necessary. Obviously they have had an effect. The spring which Rachel Carson warned us—was it 10 years ago?—would

1089
soon become silent is still filled with the melody of birds. This may be partly because of the warnings that have been given about the possible dangers of agrochemicals. It is true that the use of agrochemicals on the farm has affected some species of birds in the wild. But overall it cannot be said that the general scene has changed over the post-war years as a result of the use of agrochemicals as much as it has from the drainage of land, the removal of hedges and climatic changes. This also is referred to in the report on persistent organo-chlorines.
It was inclement weather, not the use of agrochemicals, which decimated the wren population in this country in 1963. Today the wren is one of the commonest birds in the country. I do not know what the true facts are about the peregrine falcon. I am prepared to accept that that bird and the sparrow-hawk have declined in numbers, possibly because of the build-up of chemical residues and consequently of changes in the food chain of which they are part. On the other hand, hen harriers, bearded tits and many other species have spread. I was talking to a farm labourer only this week and he told me that in the part of the county in which I live the lark is more common this year than the locals had ever known it to be. Nobody knows why.
What I found significant when I was reading the current literature is that in recent years the gains have far out-numbered the losses, which through the exercise of a vigilant monitoring service have clearly been kept down. I was also surprised to read in a work which gave the chronology of the extinction of birds, namely the New Dictionary of Birds—which was edited by Sir Landsborough Thomson, a conservationist and ornithologist if ever there was one, who has only recently died—that many more species disappeared in the first half of the century when modern agrochemicals were not being used than have disappeared since. I read, too, that no bird has become extinct since 1945. Clearly the fact is that we do not have sufficient background information about the natural secular changes which are taking place in the fauna and flora of the world—not only of our own island—to judge of the significance of such changes as may be due to the use of agrochemicals or of any of the substances about which we are warned in these Papers.
1090
Nor do we know enough about toxicology or risk-benefit equations to impose statutory or mandatory controls to the extent suggested by the draft Directives. We need to remember that the world must have more food; it cannot get it without the wise use of more agrochemicals. Starvation and poverty can damage the fauna and flora of the world and the quality of life every bit as much as can the misuse of agrochemicals. We must remember that what the tourist finds picturesque in some underdeveloped country where the balance of nature has presumably not been disturbed, is often paid for by the misery of people who are still deprived of the benefits of modern farming practice.
I now turn to the Pesticides Safety Precautions Scheme, which was described by the noble Lord, Lord Ashby, and which has operated now for some 20 years. It has remained essentially a non-statutory scheme although, as I have said, certain supporting provisions—for example, the organo-phosphorus compounds—notably in relation to workers, have now got a statutory basis and in fact have had it since 1951. The scheme itself however remains a non-statutory but formally agreed and utterly binding concordat between industry and Government. It lives and prospers without legal basis because both sides benefit. The industry, in getting a PSPS clearance, has a seal of safety second to none, and from my own experience and observations I can assure your Lordships that the quality of work that is done in the major industrial laboratories in this country which are concerned in producing new and effective pesticides and herbicides, is second to none. I have not seen work as good in university laboratories. This is not surprising in view of the amount of money that is available to some of the industrial laboratories in comparison with what appears now to be the lot of the universities.
I must confess to a fear of statutory schemes. They presuppose a depth of knowledge about toxicological and environmental matters which seems almost like a scientific conceit. Where is the knowledge whereby the absolute standards which statutory schemes would demand could be set? I do not want to suggest that some earlier speakers in this debate have, as it were, made fun of some of the mandatory conditions which have been

1091
laid down for fish. As the noble Lord, Lord Ashby, has said, it would be necessary for us to clear the fish from our rivers because they are living where they should not be living. We do not have the knowledge to make these statutory demands.
Think of the nonsense which has flowed from the Delaney amendment to the Pure Food and Drugs Act on the American Statute Book, as a result of which industry and scientists who serve industry and Government have to prove negatives; they cannot prove that if you drink 100 gallons of water a day you are not going to die, even though the water is pure. Common sense ceases to be a basis for prediction. The fact that our fish are able to survive in rivers which do not abide by the standards in these draft Directives means of course that we have to shut our eyes to the real facts.
I remember when the Council of Environmental Quality was established in the United States of America, I was told that within five years every river in the United States was going to carry fish. I asked what would happen if, on the day before the five years was up, there were not fish in every river. I asked: "Are you going to call out the National Guard and are they going to carry their tin hats and a bowl of water with tiddlers in and pour the tiddlers into the streams to make quite certain that what has been stated as an objective is met?" This is the kind of nonsense into which we are led by absolute mandatory demands.
We must remember that legislation and mandatory controls can drive judgment out of the window. Ill-considered regulations can destroy initiative and make the whole process of innovation too costly and too risky. I am not speaking here about trying to see how shellfish or other creatures conform in their behaviour with the controls which are now suggested in these draft Directives. If too many regulations are made statutory on the basis of presumed scientific evidence, it inevitably turns out that there are not enough scientists to help in their enforcement, a point that the noble Lord, Lord Ashby, has already made. As the record of the Environmental Protection Agency of the States shows only too well, lawyers and writers of draft Directives are always
1092
ready to step in where real scientists fear to tread.
It is disturbing that we in this country are always under pressure to make statutory what can be dealt with rationally and voluntarily. We have to try to spread our view, our way of doing things, in the Council of Brussels. It is the only sensible way. Statutory controls will not prevent mistakes and absolute toxicological standards are not going to prevent the occasional death. I wish it were possible to approach this whole problem in a scientific and rational way; that is, to compare our records, based upon a voluntary scheme of approval, and on full cooperation of Government and industry and the user, with what happens in those countries where statutory controls are demanded. If it turned out that life was safer and cheaper and better in those countries with statutory controls, we might re-consider, but until then it seems to me that the Government would be well advised to try to press our way of doing things on Brussels, and, if they fail, to persuade Brussels—given that these Directives do become final Directives—that our way of doing things conforms with what Brussels wants.
6.52 p.m.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, as a fellow member of this Sub-Committee which has formulated these reports, I should like to express my admiration to the noble Lord, Lord Ashby, for the way in which he has presented them to your Lordships and to confirm that I very much support all that he had to say. I also associate myself with the noble Baroness, Lady White, as regards the difficulties and doubts that we feel over the question of balance and priorities and interpretation. But I would prefer to dwell in my own remarks, which are of a more personal character, on the underlying philosophy and what I believe to be the basis of some of the faults and failings of the present situation, the frustrations that it seems beset us all the time in the present way of proceeding in European environmental matters.
It seems to me that, in addition to the defects which have already been cited in respect of these particular Directives, the present approach which the Commission,

1093
and this particular Directorate, have adopted does so little to harness the popular concern and care that already exists in Europe for the environment. It does very little, not enough, to develop public understanding of the environment. In fact, the more it makes the kind of mistakes that have been mentioned, the more it tends to confuse the public, public opinion in the schools and the colleges and among citizens at large. It does not seem to me to do enough to mobilise public opinion for environmental improvements. It is not really enough for environmental purposes to have a Treaty, the Treaty of Rome, which is fully conscious of one or two industries, notably agriculture, but, if you read it literally, virtually unaware of the environment which provides the setting for agriculture.
It is not enough to have a Council whose only resolutions on the environment, so far as I can discover and so far as I am advised, perceives the environment merely as a source of energy and a sufferer from pollution and ignores innumerable other aspects of far greater significance to the average European citizen. Nor does it seem to me to be enough to have a European environmental programme, which we have, which is merely a set of principles—though I admit that they are well expressed—approved for the guidance of the Commission in preparing its programme of work over a five-year period —a set of principles which, as it were, would be the basis of five Speeches from the Throne on environmental issues.
It seems to me that, in addition to debating Directives, we Europeans need to fashion an environmental ethic which we can all embrace, to which we can all aspire, a code of conduct towards the environment to which we can all subscribe, a standard of everyday environmental behaviour and responsibility by which we are all prepared to be judged by our contemporaries and our fellow European citizens, and a compact for the environment which will ensure that we hand over Europe in better shape than we found it to succeeding generations; in fact, a sort of charter for the Continent, the Continent which has already been the cradle for the civilisation we live under and which is already the workshop for nearly half of the world's trade. It seems to me important that we should work towards
1094
that, and sad that we have not got anything approaching it.
Of course, there is much, as the previous speakers in this debate have already shown, about which we would disagree, and we do disagree and will continue to disagree, within nations and among nations, in some of our aims. We do disagree, and I think we would continue to disagree, among the member nations and within member nations, about some of our priorities. We disagree and will continue to disagree among nations and within member nations, particularly about ways and means. But I believe that what we can agree about is far greater and far more significant than what divides us, particularly about aims, and would, therefore, be well worth stating more plainly, more boldly and more clearly than is already done, worth expressing in terms which can affect European behaviour right across the board, public bodies, private enterprises, individuals, and worth giving a status that will command respect and inspire support. I believe that in this way we could do something to establish and emphasise the wide agreement about aims which the noble Lord, Lord Ashby, has said in fact exists, and I agree with him.
If we could do this, in what form might it be promulgated? Of course, ideally and logically it should go in the Treaty, in the basic, comprehensive, simple kind of terms that set out the aims for European agriculture. But I recognise that to talk of amendments to the Treaty is to talk unrealistically. Failing that, possibly a Council Resolution or another Directive, or a statement by the European Environmental Bureau. The important thing is that such a charter should aim to reach down so as to affect everyone, as much as, say, the Highway Code affects road users in this country, or the Countryside Code affects visitors to the countryside, and not just in a document which is, as it were, an agenda for the Commission in Brussels.
Such a charter, of course, would need to be comprehensive. It would need to embrace, for instance, among its aims the following: the conservation of natural resources; the protection of natural flora and fauna; the safeguarding of landscape; sensitivity towards the cherished character of places where people live; raising the quality of life, both in terms of living and

1095
working conditions; and the thing we are chiefly concerned with, the reduction of harmful pollution. A comprehensive charter helps to set these things in perspective and in balance. Above all, it would also need to include and to emphasise the important principle which we are always stressing on the Commission and which the noble Lord, Lord Ashby, quite properly dwelt on so much; namely, the need to make proposals which are economical and to secure what is required in the improvement of the quality of life and the protection of the environment at the least possible cost—a factor which is clearly set out in the restated objectives of the Commission. That would be entirely in line with what in Britain we have long known as the best practical approach.
Some would say that there is scarcely any point in formulating and publishing such a basic, sweeping and unenforceable charter as that. Certainly every international conference on the environment, from Stockholm through Vancouver and many other places, is full of such aspirations, and that I acknowledge. I certainly recognise that it would not obviate the need for some environmental legislation of the right sort that bites at particular points. But I very much agree with the noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman, that the kind of Directives which we are now having, which would either be monstrously expensive to apply or which are based on unsound scientific evidence, will not help us.
I think that a charter could help to harness, inspire and focus all our diverse aspirations, and not least the whole range of non-statutory and voluntary effort which is available, for the sake of the environment of Europe. I believe it would help us somewhat to resolve the technical difficulties which have been raised in this debate and in all previous debates on these issues. I also think that it would be well worth attempting in itself, and the debate upon it would help to clarify some of the issues which at present are so confusing.
7.2 p.m.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of the ENVIRONMENT (Baroness Birk): My Lords, the Government very much welcome the opportunity to hear the
1096
views of the House on the Commission's proposals and also the opportunity to put their own views on record. I, personally, have found it incredibly interesting and stimulating to have had the opportunity of hearing so many Members of the Sub-Committee, including my noble friend the chairman of the Sub-Committee. We are all very much indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Ashby, for what has been a short but extremely stimulating debate about these two particular areas of environmental protection. The issues are complicated, but the broad view of the House, expressed by those who have participated, is one that the Government share.
Before I go any further, I should like to express the Government's gratitude for the work done by noble Members of the Committee in producing these valuable reports which, as always, are clear and authoritative. I was also interested in the extension to this, about which almost every noble Peer spoke. The noble Lord, Lord Ashby, referred to the philosophy of policies to protect the environment and that seemed to be exactly the right context in which to set these rather more difficult propositions.
My noble friend Lady White certainly raised a response in me when she asked whether we perhaps take the draft Directives too literally. The contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman, that there is a wide variety of factors that affect our quality of life outside the area of pesticides or even pollution, was a very healthy input into these particular subjects. Also, as always the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, put it in a wider environmental context, and the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, made an extremely interesting contribution in the particular area in which he has practical as well as committee experience.
First, I shall deal with the interim report on organo-chlorides. The Government basically agree with the Scrutiny Committee's criticisms and these will be recorded when the report comes to the Council of Ministers. In particular we support the Committee's view that the report does not justify further detailed Community action to control these substances.
I now turn to the proposal on plant protection products. As the noble Lord,

1097
Lord Skelmersdale, has acknowledged, successive Administrations in the United Kingdom have consistently aimed propressively to reduce the use of persistent pesticides by withdrawing them from the market as soon as effective alternatives become available. That policy has throughout been based on the scientific judgment of the Government's Advisory Committee on Pesticides. I very much took the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman, when he differentiated between scientific facts and scientific advice.
In principle the Commission's draft Directive therefore follows a policy practised with great success in the United Kingdom for many years. But what we question is the Commission's view that there is evidence of any health hazard here. We are certainly satisfied that there is no such hazard in the United Kingdom; what we do believe is that chemical accumulations of this kind should be reduced, and, where possible, avoided altogether even though they may not present any human health risk. However, there are several features of the Commission's current draft where we have reservations.
First, we do not think that the "derogations" list of permitted uses of these compounds is adequate and we do not agree that some of these derogations should have set time limits. I believe that that is very much in line with what noble Lords have said. We cannot accept that our agricultural and horticultural production should be jeopardised by abandoning necessary pesticides prematurely. Although we hope that research establishments will come up with effective substitutes, it would be unrealistic to dictate in advance the time scale, and here we are not alone. Other Member countries have parallel reservations on the adequacy of these lists and they share our misgivings about time limits.
Secondly, the Committee note that the proposals at present would allow further bans to be imposed by majority voting. Whatever the merits of majority voting—and I do not intend to extend this into another area—it is surely not a sensible method for deciding measures which will have quite different effects depending on the particular methods of farming in individual Member States and depending
1098
also on the various pests or diseases to which crops are exposed.
Finally, the Scrutiny Committee noted that the Control of Pollution Act 1974 provides a broad legal framework within which proposals of this kind could be operated. The Government will, however, continue to use the Pesticides Safety Precautions Scheme. We shall do this because, as the Scrutiny Committee acknowledges—and the noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman, also spoke strongly for this—the scheme works and works very well. With others, the Nature Conservancy Council have testified to the scheme's success in their recent publication Nature Conservation and Agriculture. The Treaty of Rome leaves it to individual Member States to decide for themselves the "form and methods" for the implementation of Directives. The Government see the current safety scheme as a natural vehicle for operating our safeguards within the overall European régime which would flow from proposals agreed under this draft Directive.
Before I get down to the actual proposals for Directives setting quality requirements for waters capable of supporting freshwater fish and for those favourable to shellfish growth, I must emphasise that whatever criticisms the Government may have of these drafts, we entirely support the idea of defining quality criteria for water according to its use. The United Kingdom has always been in favour of flexible controls—and here the key word is "flexible" —designed to produce an acceptable quality of the environment rather than setting uniform standards for discharges. However, we are concerned that any obligations imposed at Community level should be scientifically soundly based and realistic. I have the feeling that in answering other debates, and one of the debates initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Ashby, I seem to have been saying the same words and that the same theme runs right through so much of this environmental policy.
So far as freshwater fish are concerned, the Government basically agree with the Committee's admirable report. One of the criticisms we share with the Committee is that it might be taken to imply designation of all rivers which support any fish life at all, or which could do so. I am glad to tell my noble friend Lady White that the Commission has now made it

1099
clear that they do not want our discretion to be so limited and that clearer wording should now be adopted, as I am sure she already knows. Once the objectives have been clarified, it is important to ensure that the technical standards should be both relevant and realistic. Unfortunately the Commission's proposals are neither.
This Directive is not addressed to human health, nor to the protection of the consumer. Yet the standards specified go far further than those required for the survival of freshwater fish. In fact, some seem to relate to the plant and bacterial life in the water and others to the taste of the fish. The Commission state one objective but the proposals certainly go far wider.
A more serious criticism—which the Committee report on at length—is that the standards proposed are often far more stringent than are needed to achieve the Directive's objectives. I think my noble friend Lady White made this point extremely succinctly. Many United Kingdom rivers which presently support fish life would not meet the standards in the draft Directive; the figures provided by the National Water Council in the Committee's report show that while fish thrive in nearly 90 per cent. of rivers in England and Wales, only a little over half of those rivers currently comply with the mandatory values proposed by the Commission, and only 30 per cent. comply with both the guideline and mandatory values. This means taking the philosophy of perfectionism extremely far. So, if all the rivers and streams which at present support fish were designated, we should be forced to incur very substantial unnecessary expenditure, as noble Lords have pointed out. In an ideal world we might like to have rivers up to this standard, but setting targets that are unrealistic now is both wasteful and counter-productive.
As the Committee noted, the proposed values are more stringent than those recommended by the group of scientific consultants who were consulted by the Commission. We fully endorse the Committee's view that where the provisions of the draft Directive are based on scientific advice, and the Commission want to depart from that advice, then they should state clearly their reasons for doing so. Here I take particular note of Lord
1100
Ashby's remarks—he took the trouble to write to me in advance about the points he was going to raise, for which I am grateful—about the inadequacy of the Commission's staff. There is no doubt that the staff of the Service is not very large in relation to the tasks imposed in the First and Second Environment Programmes, but I do not think that anybody could suggest that the size alone of the programme should govern the size of the Commission staff. In the past we have been critical of the over-ambitious nature and the unrealistic deadlines of the First Environment Programme.
In November 1974 we told the Council of Ministers that more might be achieved if less were in fact attempted. We have long argued that it is fundamental to the success of the programme to establish clear priorities. I would say that this is still the case. The most effective use of the resources of the Community as a whole, and the relative importance and urgency of the work at national and Community level, are among the most important factors to take into account. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, made that point although in rather a different way.
It is obviously important to avoid duplication at Commission level of work already, and perhaps better, done in the Community as a whole. As the noble Lord, Lord Ashby, knows, the Commission makes extensive use already of national experts and consultants and of the information available within Member States. As he said, he himself and other members of the Sub-Committee have given their services not only here but in Brussels. What is important is that that information, once given, should be used wisely. Few are better qualified than the noble Lord to judge this and none, as I am sure the House will agree, could have worked harder on behalf of the Committee.
The noble Lord has criticised the Commission's disregard of the advice it sought. It does not follow that increasing staff will necessarily improve the quality of their judgment. The Commission is jealous of its independence in the development of its proposals. It consults and takes advice as it chooses. It is absolutely free to put in—or leave out—what it likes in its draft Directive. For our part, we send qualified and expert officials to Brussels to meet particular needs as they arise. They do their homework before they go. They

1101
give the Commission scientifically sound and forcefully argued advice—so they tell me! We cannot be blamed when the Commission has failed to take it: it is not, after all, bound to do so And the United Kingdom is only one voice among nine. We will continue to do our best but we cannot absolutely guarantee that our opinion will prevail. But it still is essential that we put it, and put it strongly.
The noble Lord, Lord Ashby, spoke about the cost-effectiveness of the Commission's proposals and the need for flexibility to meet local circumstances. We shall continue to press the Commission on these points, and I shall be very glad of any help that the noble Lord, or his colleagues, can give us. Taking account of local environmental circumstances is at the very heart of our quality objectives approach, and I freely acknowledge that we have still a long way to go in convincing our colleagues in the Community of the rightness of this. Like the noble Lord, and I think probably all noble Lords who have spoken, I am, and always have been, a very strong pro-European, but that does not mean that we do not have to argue in order to get things the way we think are right, certainly for us over here.
I also agree that in the past the Commission's proposals have lacked any really adequate assessment of cost-effectiveness. But the Second Environment Programme now contains a clear commitment to assessing the costs and benefits of proposals to improve the environment. We shall he looking hard to see this assessment in the new proposals from the Commission as they come forward.
The noble Lord, Lord Ashby, suggested that we should bring pressure on the Commission to adopt a different approach; that is, biological monitoring of the fish themselves rather than chemical monitoring of the water they live in. I have much sympathy with this idea, because apart from giving self-determination to the fish, which seems to me to be a good plan, it would, as the noble Lord suggests, save much effort and money.
The possible monitoring burden is one aspect of the Commission's proposals which has caused the Government concern; that is why we are convassing, during negotiations in Brussels, the idea that Member States should be able to waive the monitoring requirements for rivers
1102
with good fish populations which are unlikely to be at risk from preventable pollution. But there are, however, two reasons why I cannot support the noble Lord's ideas in their entirety. First, the Commission, and other Member States, would say that the Community has already adopted an Environment Action Programme which provides for EEC quality objectives for water capable of supporting freshwater fish. Second, discharge consent conditions have to be set in chemical terms and, since they must be derived from environmental quality objectives, it seems inevitable that those objectives must also be set in chemical terms. So biological monitoring should be sufficient for most of our relatively unpolluted rivers, though chemical standards will be needed where fish might be at risk. There is probably not so very much difference between us on that question.
Member States would have only five years in which to bring designated rivers up to the prescribed standard if the time-scale of the Commission were to be followed. It is hard to see why it should be as tight as this when, for instance, the bathing water Directive allows 10 years. We shall be arguing here for a more practical time-scale in the negotiations. The same goes for the shellfish proposal, which is still at a very early stage. Again the Government broadly agree with the Committee's criticisms. Most important, it is hard to see just what is the aim of this proposal. According to the Commission it is concerned with encouraging shellfish growth, not with protecting human health. But the bacterial levels proposed relate only to human health.
We need to clarify just what is meant to be the scope and application of this Directive. I am glad to say—I know that my noble friend Lady White feels the same—that the Commission has confirmed that it will be up to the individual Member States to decide which waters to designate. Such discretion is important here because otherwise there seems no limitation on how far the Directive is to apply geographically.
The proposed bacterial levels appear to be aimed at letting us crop shellfish directly from the water for sale for human consumption. Shellfish from many of our growing areas would not meet the proposed standards, but they can be

1103
made perfectly safe for human consumption if, as Lord Ashby said, they are cleared in accordance with our regulations operated by local authorities; we are pressing for the Directive to take account of United Kingdom practice.
The Commission has suggested that Member States should designate reference areas to give them standards of comparison for nearby shellfish-breeding areas. Like the Committee, however, the Government foresee practical difficulties in the application of this concept and we are anxious to find out how far Member States would be required to specify such areas, and what the Commission wants to do about those cases where no such areas can be found.
I am being as brief as I can, but this is a big subject and noble Lords will agree that a full reply is necessary so that the Government view may be on record. I want to say something about the idea that the purpose of the Directive could be achieved more simply by a strategy based on monitoring of the shellfish directly, rather than the water in which they grow.
This is interesting but it does have limitations. Direct examination of shellfish can give us an immediate impression of their state of health. But I am told that shellfish are generally most sensitive to pollution in their early stages. While certain environmental conditions would allow the adults to survive and grow, they might not be good enough for the larvae. So, if the aim was to protect shellfish, we would set standards for the water quality and monitor that as well as the shellfish themselves.
Such has been the reaction of the Member States to this proposal that the Commission has been forced to think again. The Commission will have to make radical changes to its proposals before they stand a chance of success and I can assure the House that we will be pressing for the revised proposals to be firmly based on reason and practicability. The noble Lord, Lord Sandford, has made some interesting suggestions about a European Charter based on some aspects of British experience and legislation. This obviously needs to be looked at in greater depth than we can give it today, and I will write to the noble Lord about it.
1104
Although we have been discussing some highly technical Commission documents, the general lessons to be learnt seem very clear. Once again we have proposals that are well-intentioned and probably desirable in principle, but there is a complete air of unreality surrounding many of them. We are indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Ashby, for drawing attention to the scientific failings of the Commission and we will continue to do all we can to ensure that the Commission has the benefit of our experience and knowledge, and, hopefully, it will take advantage of it. The Commission proposes, but it is the Member States themselves who, through the Council, adopt the proposals and implement them. The Member States are best placed to judge what is reasonable and practicable on the ground.
The negotiations in Brussels provide us with the opportunity to make sure that the Directives we finally adopt are reasonable and practicable, with due regard of course to the interests of our Community partners; I do not think we can be absolutely single-minded on this. We have managed to do so in the past and, I can assure the House, we shall not be prepared to adopt anything on this occasion that we cannot implement in good faith and with some confidence as to its results.
I have found the debate interesting and certainly instructive. I have tried to give the Government's view on the particular points of concern on these complicated subjects, and, while I have given rather a lengthy reply, if I have missed any points—I am sure there are some—I will be glad to write to noble Lords on the points they have raised. The Government take great encouragement from the support they have received for their policy and will make every effort in negotiation to secure their objectives.
7.24 p.m.
Lord ASHBY: My Lords, I do not intend to detain noble Lords from dinner and I hope that your Lordships will not be deterred from eating the fish course as a result of this debate. I am sure noble Lords would not wish me to sit down without expressing gratitude to your Lordships for taking part in this debate and to the House for considering, even

1105
at this comparatively late hour, such a complicated but, we think, very important subject. I would again like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady White, for allowing me to open the debate and to say that the debate has obviously been worthwhile because there seems to be so much consistency between the views which the Sub-Committee have reached and the views of the Government. Where we differ there is still time for argument. I well understand that our views cannot always prevail in Brussels, but it is excellent that in this House if our views do not prevail our dissent can be recorded.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

  RATES AND CAPITAL VALUES
  RATES AND CAPITAL VALUES
  COMMISSION FOR RACIAL QUALITY: REMUNERATION OF OFFICERS
  COMMISSION FOR RACIAL QUALITY: REMUNERATION OF OFFICERS
  OBSCENE PUBLICATIONS
  OBSCENE PUBLICATIONS