Sitting of 2 March 1983

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
  SCOTLAND

    Job Creation
    Sir Hector Monroasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many new jobs have been announced in Scotland during the three months ended 31 January.
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. George Younger): There is no obligation for all employers to report new jobs created on a monthly basis, but, taking those associated with selective financial assistance alone, there were 1,436 new jobs created between November 1982 and January 1983. A further 1,321 existing jobs were safeguarded.
    Sir Hector Monro: That is good news. Does my right hon. Friend agree that no previous Government have provided such schemes of assistance for small businesses and industry through the Scottish Development Agency and the Scottish Economic Planning Department? Can he now forecast any more jobs in the pipeline?
    Mr. Younger: I thank my hon. Friend for what he said. He may not have noticed that it has been announced today that there will be an important and large new development at Glenrothes where Applied Computer Techniques will provide 400 new jobs. I am sure my hon. Friend is aware that it is a mistake to think that, because we have had many problems with redundancies and unemployment, employment exchanges have no jobs to offer. Since November, for example, employment offices in Scotland have assisted with placing 39,552 people in jobs.
    Mr. Millan: We welcome any new jobs that occur, but are they not overwhelmed by the massive numbers of redundancies that occur day by day? Does the Secretary of State agree that the rundowns at Timex, Alcan, Crompton Parkinson and the 900 job losses at Rolls-Royce in my constituency have increased unemployment in Scotland by no fewer than 20,000 in one month? Does he agree also that unless the Budget in a fortnight's time is predominantly directed towards helping industry it will be a complete betrayal of the people of Scotland?
    Mr. Younger: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman had the grace to welcome those new jobs. He might like to know that the figures for industrial production in Scotland have been by no means discouraging. Whereas from the end of 1981 to the beginning of 1983 total
    226
    industrial production in the United Kingdom fell by 0·1 per cent., in Scotland it rose by 2·5 per cent. Therefore, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that, although there are many difficulties, some of which he has outlined, many people are working hard to reverse the trend and are beginning to succeed.
    Mr. Grimond: Has the Secretary of State made an estimate of the effect of the fall in oil prices on Scottish employment? I understand that it is an important factor.
    Mr. Younger: I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman' s point. There is a complex of factors that will be affected by the fall in oil prices. As we are high-cost oil producers we must have some worries about the effect that low oil prices will have on the production side, but there is no doubt that the reduction in our prices will have a major effect in boosting world trade. We have more to gain from that than most countries.
    Mr. Henderson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many new jobs are provided without any assistance from public funds? Will he examine the circumstances where private enterprise efforts have created factory space and where they could do more? Is he aware that that has been happening in my constituency, where only marginal extra public assistance has been given?
    Mr. Younger: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. My original answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) shows that many more new jobs are created than are recorded in the statistics because there is no obligation on employers to record the number of new jobs that they produce. Moreover, productivity in Scotland has been improving faster than in the rest of the United Kingdom recently. Whereas productivity as measured by output per person improved by 4·1 per cent. in the United Kingdom in 1981, it improved by 8·1 per cent. in Scotland. That means that Scottish industry is better placed to benefit from the recovery.
    Mr. Gordon Wilson: May I counsel the Secretary of State—Scotland's economics Minister, so-called—to beware of complacency? The figures of jobs gained could be put into deficit almost immediately by contrast with what is happening in Dundee alone. What immediate action does he intend to take to try to safeguard watchmaking in Dundee and to prevent Crompton Parkinson taking its battery manufacturing operation south to Darlington?
    Mr. Younger: We are passing through a world recession and there is always a danger of many redundancies occurring. They occur extremely frequently. The picture is not one-sided. I am concerned to hear about the Vidor battery operation in Dundee. My Department has made it clear to the company that many forms of incentives and grants would be available if it were to put new investment into the factory. We are informed that the company, having taken all that into account, still sees no prospect of making the operation viable.

    House Building and Improvement
    Mr. Carmichaelasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many public sector houses were built and how many improved in 1978 and in the latest year for which figures are available.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Allan Stewart): Reported public sector completions in

    227
    1978 were 11,316 and 8,915 in 1981. The numbers of dwellings for improvement in tenders accepted were 46,217 during 1978 and 27,858 in 1981.
    Mr. Carmichael: Are these not depressing figures in the light of question 1 and the current unemployment, especially when we consider the state of the building industry, which is really on its knees? I accept that not all new jobs can come from public expenditure, but do the Government not realise that the building industry is screaming out for some form of public expenditure? Does the Minister appreciate that that would be a way of starting to provide the people of Scotland with decent houses and of getting the industry into good shape?
    Mr. Stewart: For 1982 I expect tenders accepted for improvements in the public sector to increase by 50 per cent. over the 1981 figures. In the private sector, I expect the number of grants to increase by 34 per cent. over the 1981 figures. That shows the priority that the Government attach to improvements. The construction industry is benefiting considerably from the continuing upsurge in private sector house building.
    Mr. Ancram: Does my hon. Friend agree that the many empty houses in the public sector in Scotland represent an enormous waste of available housing resources? Will he continue to encourage the programme of renovation and other schemes, such as homesteading, as the most efficient and quickest way of making an impact on Scottish housing waiting lists?
    Mr. Stewart: My hon. Friend is right. The figures show that more than 20,000 public sector houses in Scotland have been empty for more than three months. That is the equivalent of a town the size of Kilmarnock or Clydebank.
    Mr. Dewar: Does the Minister accept that, despite all the special pleading, there will be a continuing decline in the public sector building programme up to 1985–86 as announced in the public expenditure White Paper? Does he further accept that, in real terms, as opposed to cash terms, which reflect a 9 per cent. decline, there will be a further decline of over 20 per cent? Is it not time that he did something to reverse that trend rather than continue with the dishonest and irrelevant nonsense to which he referred during the previous Scottish Question Time, when he made the remarkable statement that the sale of council houses had no effect on the prospects of those seeking houses or transfers?
    Mr. Corrie: That is true.
    Mr. Stewart: What I said previously was absolutely true. Since 1970, 62·5 per cent. of Scotland's public sector housing stock has been improved or built. That shows the changing role of the public sector in Scottish housing.

    Public Transport Services
    Mr. Home Robertsonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will undertake a review of public transport services in Scotland in the light of the recommendations of the Serpell report on the railways.
    Mr. Younger: These services are kept under regular review. The Select Committee on Scottish Affairs examined rural road passenger transport and ferry services last year. I see no need for a further review now.
    Mr. Home Robertson: I am a member of the Select Committee. Does the Secretary of State recall the reply that was given on 20 January by his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport to his parliamentary private secretary, the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. Pollock), in which he described the Aberdeen-Inverness line as a branch line? Does that not reveal that the Department of Transport knows little and cares less about Scottish transport services? Will the right hon. Gentleman give a categoric assurance that the basic Scottish rail network is guaranteed.
    Mr. Younger: After the hon. Gentleman's first remarks I feel that I should congratulate him on being appointed to the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs. It sounded as if he was expecting that. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport has made it clear that he is closely concerned with the entire rail network. It is not the Government's intention to seek substantial reductions in its size. The Serpell report is a contribution to the discussion of the issues involved, and that is what should now proceed.
    Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is time that we spent more money on the Scottish railway system and commissioned fewer reviews? Is he aware that the Strathclyde passenger transport executive is conducting a review, not because it wishes to reduce railway services in the region, but because it is under financial pressure to do so? Is that not wrong?
    Mr. Younger: I cannot agree with the implication of the right hon. Gentleman's question. The public purse, to which everyone contributes, is providing nearly £1,000 million a year to keep the railways going. Surely the right hon. Gentleman, with his known economic knowledge, will recognise that that is a sound contribution to keeping the network going.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is unfortunate that Scottish railway workers should suffer because of the restrictive practices that are being operated in the south that will not allow new technology and equipment to be used? What is more important is that, with so many Scottish Conservative Members of Parliament representing constituencies north of Edinburgh and Glasgow, it is extremely unlikely that the lines will be closed.
    Mr. Younger: I am not aware of any new restrictive practices in Scotland that are preventing the proper operation of the railways. I should deplore any that were introduced. It is in the interests of all railway men in all parts of Britain to welcome new techniques and procedures in running the railways. When all is said and done, the railways are in competition with other forms of transport and they have their own future to think about.
    Mr. Dewar: Does the Secretary of State remember the interesting interview that he gave to the Sunday Standard that was published on 9 January? He was reported as saying that there was no way—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will paraphrase it.
    Mr. Dewar: I was paraphrasing deviously, Mr. Speaker. If I may say so, "paraphrase" has a very proper ring to it. I shall paraphrase on this occasion.

    229
    Does the right hon. Gentleman remember that he said that there was no way in which the Government would agree to a drastic reduction of the present railway network and that by and large he intended to keep the system as it is? Will he confirm that that is Government policy? If so, will he explain that to his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, who continues to refuse to rule out the drastic and unpleasant options canvassed in the Serpell report?
    Mr. Younger: With respect, the hon. Gentleman has got it wrong. All that I have said, including that which he has paraphrased, is consistent with what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport has said. The hon. Gentleman knows that my right hon. Friend has frequently re-emphasised that the Serpell report is not Government policy. It spells out a number of different options that have not yet been adopted. There should now be general discussion on the basis of the information that is contained in the report. As I and my right hon. Friend have made clear, the Government are not envisaging a new programme of substantial cuts in the network.

    Lewis Hospital
    Mr. Donald Stewartasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress has been made with a replacement for Lewis hospital.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. John MacKay): My Department has agreed that the Western Isles health board should prepare a submission for approval in principle of a first phase comprising geriatric accommodation. The board, with the assistance of the building division of the common services agency, is investigating possible sites.
    Mr. Stewart: Is the Minister aware that that is extremely disappointing as negotiations for the replacement of the Lewis hospital have been going on for over nine years? It seems that the call for plans for a green field site will postpone the project to the unforeseeable future. Will he visit the area and have talks with the Western Isles health board to ascertain whether it can assist in overcoming the serious problems that exist in the area?
    Mr. MacKay: If time permits within the next few months, I shall be delighted to visit the board. Difficulties have been encountered in the proposal for the redevelopment of the existing Lewis hospital. The board is now considering the possibility of utilising a green field site. This inevitably and unfortunately means a delay in the preparation of the submission, but that has to be set against the background of the problems attaching to the development of the existing site.

    Lothian Health Board
    Mr. Ron Brownasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will increase the resources available to Lothian health board in order to maintain hospital standards.
    Mr. MacKay: My right hon. Friend announced on 15 December that additional resources would be provided in 1983–84 for the improvement of hospital and community health services. Lothian health board will obtain a share of these resources, as determined by the Scottish health
    230
    services allocation of resources redistribution formula. I shall inform boards soon of their financial allocations for next year.
    Mr. Brown: Does the Minister accept that his financial straitjacket is creating particular problems for the Lothian health board? I refer specifically to Leith hospital, the future of which is in doubt. Does he appreciate that there is talk about restricting the hours of the accident and emergency service, which is important to the people of Leith? Above all, does he not understand that he can save not only money but lives, which is more important?
    Mr. MacKay: The hon. Gentleman should bear in mind that the Government have increased the resources to the Health Service in Scotland, and in fact to the Lothian health board.
    There are two large hospitals within three miles of Leith providing full-scale accident and emergency services. The residents of Leith are better served than the residents of many other parts of Edinburgh. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman should look at it from that point of view and in the light of the resources available to the health board to man a 24-hour accident and emergency service.
    Mr. Ancram: Since the children's hospital in Edinburgh is likely to remain for some time at its present site within my constituency, will my hon. Friend assure me that he will review the requirements of that vital hospital to ensure that it can meet the needs of children in the area into the foreseeable future?
    Mr. MacKay: I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. The health board is prudently looking at the replacement of this hospital, but at the moment it provides, and will provide for some years, a full and satisfactory service to the children of Edinburgh.
    Mr. Harry Ewing: Is the Minister aware that health boards, including the Lothian health board, are complaining bitterly that he is starving them of funds for much needed equipment? Against that background, why did the hon. Gentleman spend the weekend being so offensive to the people in Scotland who are raising money voluntarily to purchase an ultrasonic scalpel, which is needed not only in Dundee but in the Lothian region? Will the hon. Gentleman now take this opportunity to apologise to all those who are taking over the responsibility that he has shed since he became the Minister?
    Mr. MacKay: The hon. Gentleman should know, although I cannot expect everything, that the Government have increased resources in real terms to the Health Service in Scotland by about 5 per cent. I hope that the hon. Gentleman, as a former Health Minister, will agree instead of attempting to disagree that when people want to raise money for something in a hospital—I welcome their keenness to do so—they should talk to the board and to the medical staff in the hospital to see what type of machinery and help the medical service wants as a priority.

    Sibcas Holdings Ltd., Bathgate
    Mr. Dalyellasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many contracts for relocatable housing his Department has entered into with Sibcas Holdings Ltd. of Bathgate, West Lothian, as referred to in the letter from the hon. Member for West Lothian of 16 February.
    Mr. Allan Stewart: Since the Government came to power the Scottish Office has placed no contracts with Sibcas Holdings for relocatable housing. The firm was, however, successful in securing a contract for non-housing accommodation.
    Mr. Dalyell: What advice would Ministers give to contractors in Scotland about the best way of getting their snouts into the trough of what Sibcas Holdings is told by Bulldog Publicity Services is the lucrative Falklands business? [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear".) What is the Secretary of State's position in the Cabinet Sub-Committees when they are discussing the £880 million contracts for Stanley airport? Do we not have priorities in Scotland?
    Mr. Stewart: The award of the contract to which the hon. Gentleman has referred is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence. The hon. Gentleman has, of course, received a reply from my hon. Friend and fellow clansman the Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement making it clear that his Department has had no procurement contacts with Bulldog Publicity Services. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government's purchasing policy is to award contracts on the basis of fair competitive tendering.

    Prestwick Airport
    Mr. Lambieasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is now in a position to reply to the recommendations contained in the report of the Committee on Scottish Affairs on the future of Prestwick airport.
    Mr. Younger: I did so on 23 February.
    Mr. Lambie: I thank the Secretary of State and his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Trade for their sympathetic replies to the Select Committee report on the future of Prestwick airport. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many people will not accept that these landing and navigation charges do not form a serious deterrent to airlines using the airport? Will he reconsider his rejection of the Select Committee's recommendation that there should be a three-year standstill on these charges? Now that the Treasury working party has agreed in principle on free ports, will the right hon. Gentleman guarantee that we in Scotland will have his full support for the establishment of a free port at Prestwick?
    Mr. Younger: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and to his colleagues for their valuable report on this subject.
    Landing charges represent an important aspect of the economics of the airport. As the hon. Gentleman knows, that matter is clearly within the responsibility of my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State for Trade. I shall see that the hon. Gentleman's remarks are drawn to his attention.
    The free ports idea is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I have no doubt that he will have noted carefully what the Select Committee said.
    Mr. Russell Johnston: Does not the Select Committee report and the earlier references to the Serpell report show the need for more effective co-ordination of public transport in Scotland? Has the Secretary of State given any thought to the Scottish Office fulfilling that role?
    Mr. Younger: To some extent the Scottish Office does fulfil such a role. The Scottish Office has responsibility,
    232
    in one form or another, for most forms of transport, and even indirectly for other forms of transport, which give it United Kingdom responsibilities. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Scottish Office takes a close interest in trying to co-ordinate transport, which, after all, is an important part of Government policy.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the creation of Aviation Industry park and the Prestwick airport development company could decisively assist with aviation-related industrial activity in the west of Scotland and be of substantial advantage to Scotland?
    Mr. Younger: I welcome the Scottish Development Agency's initiatives in proposing that a study of Aviation Industry park should be commissioned. I wish it well in achieving results from that study. I agree that the Prestwick airport development company is an important suggestion, but a decision on it will have to await the outcome of consideration of the free port issue.
    Mr. McKelvey: Does the Secretary of State share the disquiet of other Members of Parliament in the Ayrshire area when we read in The Scotsman that the working party considering the free port issue seems to favour Aberdeen as a forerunner, possibly to the exclusion of all other areas in Scotland? Will the right hon. Gentleman join us in underlining the importance of the role of Prestwick, particularly its future as a free port?
    Mr. Younger: The details of what may emerge from that study are very much a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I am well aware of the importance of this aspect for Prestwick.
    Mr. Gordon Wilson: Will the Secretary of State draw to the attention of his right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer the letter in The Times from Mr. Clive Sinclair, in which he says that if Dundee gets a free port another thousand jobs might be created to manufacture his products? It would seem that Prestwick should not be the only site for a free port in Scotland.
    Mr. Younger: I know that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is well aware of that point.
    Mr. McQuarrie: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his recommendation, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Lambie). Has not the tourist industry to be heavily involved if there is to be any question of Prestwick airport ever being viable?
    Despite what the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. McKelvey) said, will my right hon. Friend, when discussing free ports with our right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, bear in mind that a free port would be most effective in an industrial area, such as Aberdeen, as jobs are being lost daily, despite the fact that it is supposed to be the golden city?
    Mr. Younger: I appreciate my hon. Friend's latter point and I agree with what he said about tourism. It is worth emphasising that the British Airports Authority, in conjunction with the Scottish Tourist Board and the British Tourist Authority, has started a campaign to increase awareness of Prestwick in Canada and the United States. I warmly support that campaign and hope that it will produce results.

    North Lanarkshire (Unemployment)
    Mr. George Robertsonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what has been the increase in unemployment in North Lanarkshire since May 1979.
    Mr. Alexander Fletcher: Seventeen thousand, six hundred and seventeen.
    Mr. Robertson: Is the Under-Secretary aware that not long ago north Lanarkshire was the industrial heartland of Scotland? Do not the statistics to which he has confessed today—despite the fiddling to which they are subjected —represent a disgraceful indictment of the cackhandedness of the Government's economic policies and the cynical indifference of Ministers to their effects? Will the Government now recognise that there must be an end to the constant bleeding away of the industrial base of north Lanarkshire, before there is no industry there at all?
    Mr. Fletcher: North Lanarkshire is especially suffering from job losses in the steel industry. But the Government have made tremendous efforts to help, by designating it a special development area, by the £60 million Scottish Development Agency project in Motherwell and by the £22 million SDA project in Coatbridge. Those and other activities have helped to bring substantial orders to north Lanarkshire during recent weeks.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Does my hon. Friend agree that in north Lanarkshire, as elsewhere, the best contribution that the Government have made has been the reduction in inflation and interest rates? Will not that, more than anything, help to make firms in north Lanarkshire and elsewhere more competitive? We must live in a competitive world.
    Mr. Fletcher: My hon. Friend is absolutely right.
    Dr. Bray: Is the Minister aware that production of steel in Ravenscraig is back to a level of more than 30,000 tonnes a week and that most of the steel for the Metro and Maestro comes from Ravenscraig? Nevertheless, is he aware that steel redundancies are continuing at an increasing rate in Lanarkshire? Does he accept that there has been a total and catastrophic failure of the Government's industrial policies in that area? If either of the strip mills at Ravenscraig or Gartcosh were closed, would not that be as economically stupid as it would be socially disastrous? When will the Government make a statement on that matter?
    Mr. Fletcher: The Government made a statement on the future of Ravenscraig in December, and the position is still the same. I cannot accept the hon. Gentleman's criticisms of the Government's economic policies. However, we very much appreciate the constructive attitude that he takes towards the problems and the important contribution that he makes to our discussions.
    Mr. Millan: Will the Minister comment on the disturbing news that the headquarters of the plates group is to be moved from Scotland to Sheffield, with all the implications of that for the existing plate mills in Scotland? As there is continued uncertainty about the future of Ravenscraig and Gartcosh, will he make it absolutely clear that any further rundown at either plant has been completely ruled out by the Government?
    As there are so many difficulties in the steel industry, is it not absolutely deplorable that not a single Tory
    234
    Member accepted the invitation to be present at last Friday's STUC meeting in Scotland. They all apparently took the view that it was not of sufficient importance to merit their attendance.
    Mr. Fletcher: The Government have already taken steps to ensure the immediate future of Ravenscraig. Its long-term future depends on its performance internationally and on its competitiveness. There have been press reports about the relocation of staff in British Steel, but I understand that the plans that BSC is considering will have no effect on operations at Dalzell, Glengarnock and Clydebridge.
    Mr. Millan: Will the Minister confirm that any further rundown at Ravenscraig or Gartcosh is completely unacceptable to the Government, as it is certainly unacceptable to the Opposition?
    Mr. Fletcher: I am surprised at the right hon. Gentleman's remarks. He knows from his conversations with the trade unions at Ravenscraig that they are willing to contemplate any steps that will improve the competitiveness of the Ravenscraig steelworks.

    Ayrshire (Job Creation)
    Mr. Corrieasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many jobs are estimated to be in the pipeline for Ayrshire over the next 12 months.
    Mr. Alexander Fletcher: There is no obligation for all employers to report new jobs created on a monthly basis. However, some 2,893 jobs in Ayrshire were associated with offers of selective financial assistance made since the end of 1981, and in addition to the recent Hyster announcement companies such as Volvo Trucks, Caberboard, Roth International and Prestwick Circuits have all announced expansion plans.
    Mr. Corrie: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Is he satisfied that sufficient small units are being built in north Ayrshire—and, indeed, in the whole of Ayrshire—to accommodate those wishing to participate in the enterprise scheme? Is he aware that there have been more than 100 applications to go into the Ardrossan, Saltcoats and Stevenston enterprise trust scheme, and that, even if the small units have only two or three men per unit, it will create hundreds of jobs in that area?
    Mr. Fletcher: I am happy to say that about 450 new jobs have been announced in the ASSET scheme. These will occur during the next two years, and there are further prospects in the pipeline. My hon. Friend will know that the SDA is active in the area, but if he is aware of any shortfall in the number of small factory units I will be grateful if he will bring them to my attention.
    Mr. Foulkes: Will not the Minister confess that many, many more jobs have gone down the drain than are in the pipeline in Ayrshire? The Government hailed British Aerospace as one of the growth industries, but is the Minister aware that it recently paid off almost 100 men? What representations has the Scottish Office made to the Ministry of Defence to ensure that it orders some Jetstream 31 aircraft immediately, to replace its aging communications aircraft?
    Mr. Fletcher: British Aerospace currently has under way a first-class marketing campaign for Jetstream. I

    235
    assure the hon. Gentleman that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is constantly in touch with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence.
    Mr. Lambie: The Minister has mentioned 1,000 jobs being promised by Hyster during the next five years. Can he give a categoric assurance that money allocated to Hyster by the Government will not be paid until the jobs are brought to the area? Is he aware that many people in Irvine believe that Hyster's will take the money and leave the area?
    Mr. Fletcher: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's contribution to my discussions with the Hyster company. I assure him that no money will be paid out for jobs that do not materialise. The offer of Government assistance is directly related to the provision of new jobs.
    Mr. Dewar: Does the Minister accept that job prospects in the constituency of his hon. Friend the Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Mr. Corrie) depend, to some extent, on the tourist industry? Has he considered the problems of carrying calor gas cylinders to Arran? Is he aware that Department of Trade regulations prohibit closed deck vessels from that trade, with the result that special vessels must be used at additional cost, which could threaten jobs in the tourist industry? It is a small, but important, point. Will the Scottish Office intervene to try to find a solution to that tricky problem?
    Mr. Fletcher: I have seen reports on that matter. I promise the hon. Gentleman that I will investigate it and ensure that he is contacted.

    Community Services (Finance)
    Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the resources to be made available in Scotland in 1982–83 under the support financing scheme to finance community services.
    Mr. John MacKay: A total of £2 million is available in the current financial year for allocation to health boards under the support financing arrangements.
    Mr. Hamilton: Is the Minister aware that the concept of community care is generally accepted, but that it is a cruel and useless confidence trick if the resources are not provided to translate that concept into practice? Does he recognise that because of the demographic changes taking place in Scotland and elsewhere, the sums provided are wholly inadequate? Is he further aware that Shelter, when providing briefs for the Committee considering social security and other matters, said that it regarded the sums not only as wholly inadequate, but as extremely bad when compared with provisions south of the Border?
    Mr. MacKay: Perhaps to the hon. Gentleman's surprise, I agree with his general point about the need to look after the elderly in the community, as far as that is possible. The Government scheme in Scotland has been in operation for three years. Unfortunately, all the money available has not been taken up. However, 38 projects are under way. I hope that local authorities and health boards will continue to consider the scheme and to use all the money that I am making available.
    Mr. Henderson: Does my hon. Friend accept that, while one welcomes the thrust of his intention to improve
    236
    care in the community, that would not be as welcome if it meant a reduction in the distribution of total resources in the National Health Service through the SHARE system? Is there not an argument for those arrangements to be done at a more local level between health boards and regional councils?
    Mr. MacKay: My hon. Friend has put his finger on one of the real problems of support financing. It means taking money away from the health boards and perhaps putting at risk the continuation of the SHARE distribution in order to pass it to the local authorities. I should like to think that the local health boards and local authorities could work more closely together to move the finance locally rather than expecting the Government to do the moving for them.

    Housing Associations (Rented Houses)
    Lord James Douglas-Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the latest number of rented houses belonging to housing associations in Scotland sold to sitting tenants; and why progress has been slow in view of the demand.
    Mr. Allan Stewart: Further to the written answer that I gave to my hon. Friend on 2 February, the number of houses sold by housing associations to sitting tenants is now 20. However, I have no reliable means of estimating demand.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Link housing association has a large number of tenanted houses in my constituency and that a decisive majority of the tenants would wish to buy those houses if a reasonable discount were offered on the same basis as under the tenants' rights legislation for council house tenants?
    Mr. Stewart: I appreciate my hon. Friend's point, but we have taken the view that a voluntary approach to sales by housing associations is appropriate. However, I can assure my hon. Friend that we shall continue to monitor the position closely.
    Mr. McQuarrie: Surely my hon. Friend will appreciate that if he allows the housing associations to retain a voluntary approach to the purchase of houses that will handicap those who wish to purchase their houses under the Tenants' Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Act 1980, which applies also to—[Interruption.]—
    Mr. Dewar: What about the private sector tenant? He would welcome the right to buy with a discount.
    Mr. McQuarrie: If the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) wishes to say something during my question, he should speak up. Those who are handicapped include prison officers, who at present are located away from the prison. This is detrimental to the interests of keeping the family together within the community rather than within the confines of the prison.
    Mr. Stewart: With regard to my hon. Friend's second point, I have recently announced the extension of the sales scheme to all prison officer housing, with few exceptions. I appreciate his first point. That is why we continue to monitor the situation closely.
    Mr. Robet Hughes: Why does not the Minister's passion for home ownership extend to tenants in private

    237
    rented property, especially when, over many years, the owners have recouped 10 to 100 times the cost of the house in rents?
    Mr. Stewart: Because local authority and housing association housing is financed by the Exchequer. As the hon. Gentleman's party wishes to nationalise virtually everything, I am not surprised that he cannot tell the difference between public and private property rights.

    Young Persons (Unemployment)
    Mr. Douglasasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the total number of young people aged 16 to 18 years who are currently unemployed in Scotland; and, of these, how many are aged 16 to 17 years and 17 to 18 years, respectively.
    Mr. Younger: On 14 October 1982 the total number of young people registered as unemployed at employment offices and careers offices in Scotland was 51,800. Of these, 30,608 were under 18 years of age and 21,192 were aged 18 years.
    Mr. Douglas: Will the Secretary of State concede that those are disgraceful figures? The Government, who have been in power for four years and have been managing our economic affairs, have brought about that disastrous state. There is no prospect of a job for young people. Through the training initiative young people are given training for a year but are then disillusioned at the end of the year because no jobs are available. Will the Secretary of State take cognisance of what his right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sir I. Gilmour) said? Does he agree that we are suffering more than any other Western industrialised nation?
    Mr. Younger: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman's point, but I agree with him that one of the worst features of the extremely difficult recession that the country is going through, in common with all its neighbouring countries, is the effect on the young unemployed. However, I do not think that the hon. Gentleman would be so unfair as to ignore the fact that the Government have made huge resources available to try to put that right. I am sure that he will be more aware than most that the new youth training scheme is, in its own right, the most exciting new development for young people for many years and brings Britain more into line with what has been done in other countries for a long time.
    Mr. David Steel: Welcome though the new youth training scheme is, will the Secretary of State acknowledge that it has created an anomaly, in view of the amount of money that is available to 16 and 17-year-olds who stay on in further education? Will he look at the inadequacy of the grants available to 16 to 18-year-olds and encourage more to engage in further education?
    Mr. Younger: That matter is under discussion, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, but the fact is that if we have to concentrate our resources, the right group on which to concentrate them is those who have left school and are unemployed, who could do with a new form of proper training, not just a youth opportunities programme. As a result of the Government's schemes all unemployed minimum age school leavers will be guaranteed not six but 12 months' training in future. That is a great advance.
    Mr. Corrie: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a major problem with hotel staffing in the islands and
    238
    tourist areas in my constituency? Is there any way in which young people in the scheme can be used there? As the minimum wage is the same in those country areas as in the middle of London, the hotels are finding it impossible to take on young people.
    Mr. Younger: I appreciate what my hon. Friend says. Greater flexibility might mean that many more people would be employed. Better training and more training is essential if young people are to be able to take up those jobs in the tourist industry. The most important factor that underlines the youth unemployment figures is that our industry should once more become more competitive and be able to take on more people. Huge strides are being made, as I mentioned, and productivity is improving more rapidly in Scotland than in other parts of the United. Kingdom.
    Mr. Harry Ewing: Does the Secretary of State accept the point that was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline (Mr. Douglas), that the figures are a national disgrace? Despite the new youth training scheme, is it not a fact that at least 21,000 people of 18 years of age will not come under the new training scheme and so will have no training? Is the Secretary of State aware that, with respect to the 52,000 total to which he referred as being unemployed now, there is a strong possibility that those young people have never had a job since the day they left school? How does he feel, having condemned 52,000 Scottish youngsters to a lifetime of unemployment?
    Mr. Younger: There is a problem but it has been grossly overstated by the hon. Gentleman. He should be very careful about making such overstatements, Dearing in mind that the party that he supports has proposals which we understand it intends to bring in which would have a devastating effect on the employment of all youngsters for many years to come, such as withdrawal from the European Community. The hon. Gentleman should think hard about the future before he makes such remarks.

    Dental Hygiene Students
    Mr. Lennox-Boydasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether his Department provides grants for English students studying dental hygiene in Scotland.
    Mr. Alexander Fletcher: Only if the student is ordinarily resident in Scotland on 30 June of the year in which the course begins.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Is my hon. Friend not concerned about the situation faced by my constituent — and no doubt many others — who has been denied a discretionary grant by his local education authority, is unable to obtain a grant from the Department of Health and Social Security because the course is not in England—he would be able to obtain a grant if it were—and is denied a grant by the Scottish Office because he is resident in England? As that must apply both ways, should it not be carefully looked at? Is it not absurd that that position exists while both England and Scotland remain part of the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Fletcher: The problem does not exist both ways. Students in Scotland can receive a grant from my Department for the courses that my hon. Friend has brought to the attention of the House. The difficulty is that the Department of Health and Social Security gives grants

    239
    for such courses to English students living in England but not to English students attending such courses in Scotland. My hon. Friend should pursue the matter with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services.

    Apprenticeships
    Mr. Tom Clarkeasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many entered apprenticeships in each of the past five years in Scotland.
    Mr. Alexander Fletcher: The total number of persons entering craft and technician apprenticeships approved by the construction, engineering, road transport and shipbuilding industry training boards in the five years, September to August, from 1977–78 to 1981–82 were, respectively, 7,305, 8,607, 8,251, 6,493 and 5,295.
    Mr. Clarke: Do not those figures show a shameful betrayal of Scottish youngsters? Does the Minister agree that if we ever enjoy an upturn in the economy we might not have the skilled workers to deal with it? Why are the Government betraying Scottish youngsters in this shameful way?
    Mr. Fletcher: The figures for the past three years are encouraging. One must take into account the world recession and, at least as important, the fact that there is a reduction in demand for some traditional craft skills in Scotland and elsewhere because of the introduction of new technology. That cannot be ignored by the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends.

  SOLICITOR-GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND

    Vandalism
    Mr. Ancramasked the Solicitor-General for Scotland what proportion of reports to the procurators fiscal of offences relating to the crime of vandalism have resulted in prosecutions in the last year.
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland (Mr. Peter Fraser):No figures are kept for the number of such cases where no proceedings are taken. However, in 1981, of those offences of vandalism made known to the police, 8,610 were cleared up in that one or more persons were apprehended, warned, cited or traced for the offence. Procurators fiscal took proceedings against 2,619 persons and approximately 91 per cent. of those were convicted. In addition, 1,332 children were referred to the reporters to the children's panels for such offences.
    Mr. Ancram: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for that reply. Is he aware that many such cases are not prosecuted because some witnesses, after they give evidence, suffer harassment and intimidation in their communities? That means that witnesses are less likely to come forward in future. Does he agree that that is a most insidious way of undermining law and order, and will he assure the House that he will direct procurators fiscal and the police to give proper protection to witnesses in such cases?
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: Interference with witnesses, especially before trials, is a very serious offence in Scotland. If my hon. Friend has any information for the police, I shall ensure that prosecutions are mounted.
    Mr. Michael Martin: Is the Solicitor-General for Scotland aware that my constituency has the highest multistorey flats in Europe and that in the Red road area there have been incidents of wilful fire-raising? Tenants have been fortunate in that no one has been hurt, although property has been severely damaged. The tenants believe that it would be helpful if there was proper security for those multi-storey flats. Does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that he should meet his colleagues at the Scottish Office to discuss giving help to local authorities which would be willing to carry out such security measures and thus reduce vandalism in those flats?
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: As the hon. Gentleman said, not only must we prosecute those who perpetrate such offences but every step must be taken to prevent such offences being committed. Security arrangements, more policing, and arrangements made in blocks of flats and tenements are important in avoiding such crimes.

    Breach of the Peace
    Mr. Foulkesasked the Solicitor-General for Scotland whether he will give advice to procurators fiscal on the criteria to be used in prosecutions for breach of the peace.
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: The policy governing the initiation of prosecutions for breach of the peace is the same as for any other crime—to consider each reported case on its merits having regard to all relevant circumstances pertaining to it and to reach a sensible and humanitarian decision without fear or favour. Those matters are basic to the work of procurators fiscal, and my noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate is satisfied that the policy is fully understood.
    Mr. Foulkes: Does the Solicitor-General for Scotland agree that this catch-all alleged crime is so capable of misinterpretation that it is likely to be open to abuse? Will he reconsider his decision and discuss with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State the possibility of giving some guidance to procurators fiscal, based on the experience of many years?
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: The offence covers a wide variety of circumstances. Conduct in some circumstances may be acceptable, but wholly unacceptable at other times. I realise that the hon. Gentleman is worried about the matter, but in more than 90 per cent. of the cases brought before the sheriff courts and the district courts for breach of the peace the person prosecuted is found guilty.
    Mr. Canavan: As one of the biggest threats to peace in Scotland is the Government's plan to locate the Trident nuclear weapon on Scottish soil, would it not be in the interests of law and order in Scotland if a summons for a breach of the peace were served on that warmongering woman at 10 Downing street?
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I might have expected that the hon. Gentleman did not have a serious question.

    Matrimonial Homes (Family Protection) (Scotland) Act 1981
    Mr. Ernie Rossasked the Solicitor-General for Scotland if he will make a statement on the working of the Matrimonial Homes (Family Protection) (Scotland) Act 1981 with particular reference to exclusion orders.
    Mr. Dewarasked the Solicitor-General for Scotland whether he is satisfied with the operation of section 4 of the Matrimonial Homes (Family Protection) (Scotland) Act 1981.
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: Since the Act came into operation only on 1 September 1982, it would be premature to draw firm conclusions about its effectiveness at this stage.
    Mr. Ross: Does the Solicitor-General for Scotland accept that the spirit and intention of the Act was to protect women from violence in the home? Is he aware that the overwhelming majority of exclusion orders granted under the Act have been against women? Does he accept that some guidance must be given or that the Act must be reexamined to ensure that its spirit and intention are followed?
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: This was a complex and radical reform of the law that affected the property rights of many people. The courts have made several decisions, the most recent of which was in the first division of the Court of Session, when the Lord President granted an interim exclusion order in favour of a wife. Some of the fears expressed to the effect that the power under section 4 was useless have now been laid to rest.
    Mr. Dewar: Does the Minister accept that the decision in the case of Bell, especially Lord Robertson's legal judgment, has raised genuine fears that the exclusion order under section 4 will be undermined by introducing the immediacy test? Will he guarantee to consider the matter sympathetically, to monitor it constantly and to keep the House informed, because many of those involved—including the women's rights movement and those in legal circles—believe that that judgment means that the battered spouse will not receive the protection that Parliament intended when the Act was passed?
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: It is important to remember that the background to the introduction of this change in the law was that the interdicts regularly used were ineffective. There was no disagreement in the case to which the hon. Gentleman referred. It was accepted that the interdict was there and that it had not been, and would not be, breached. I invite the hon. Gentleman to consider the decision in the case of Ward—I have not had the opportunity to examine it in great detail—where the first division said that information contained in a report on the custody of children may make it much easier for the court to grant interim exclusion orders.
    Mr. Gordon Wilson: Has the Solicitor-General heard of another impediment to this legislation, whereby a spouse with children who has raised matrimonial proceedings and obtained legal aid has been refused a further allocation of legal aid to secure access to the family home through the courts? Will he examine that problem?
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I was unaware of a problem about legal aid, but if the hon. Gentleman writes to me I shall consider it.

    Diligence (Law Commission Report)
    Mr. David Marshallasked the Solicitor-General for Scotland when he expects to receive the report of the Scottish Law Commission on diligence.
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: The Scottish Law Commission has received and considered a number of comments on its consultative memoranda 011 diligence and is preparing a report. Top priority is being, given by the commission to its work on diligence but it is not yet possible to say when the report will be published.
    Mr. Marshall: Is not the length of time this report has taken to produce a scandal? Will the Solicitor-General for Scotland wring from the Scottish Law Commission a deadline for the production of the report, so that the House can get down to the serious business of promoting the necessary legislation to abolish the nauseating spectacle of warrant sales in Scotland?
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: The hon. Member may recall that the Lord Advocate made a speech recently in Glasgow giving his views on warrant sales. The law of diligence is not concerned only with warrant: sales. It is a complicated and difficult business.
    Mr. Canavan: The hon. and learned Gentleman has been saying that for years.
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: The hon. Gentleman may wish to reflect upon the fact that at a late stage the Scottish Council for Civil Liberties submitted information and evidence to the Scottish Law Commission which showed that, contrary to all the views that lave been expressed, the arrangements made for warrant sales may not be as iniquitous as is sometimes suggested.
    Mr. Maclennan: Is the Solicitor-General aware that the resources of the Scottish Law Commission compare exceedingly unfavourably with the resources that are available to the English Law Commission? The ambit of the Scottish Law Commission is no less than that of the English Law Commission. Will the Solicitor-General examine this as a matter of urgency and do something to increase the output of the Scottish Law Commission?
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I accept that the Scottish Law Commission has a wide remit, but it is in no way hindered in its consideration of the law of diligence by a lack of resources. There may be other matters that it wishes to proceed with on which it is held back, but it is giving great priority to this matter. It is an extremely complex area of the law.
    Mr. Millan: We have been told for about 10 years that great priority is being given to the problem of warrant sales—
    Mr. Myles: That goes back to a Labour Government.
    Mr. Millan: Yes, I agree that it goes back a long time, but we want action now. Many sensible proposals have been prepared and produced from several different sources, including the Scottish council of the Labour party. There is no further excuse for delay in this matter.
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: It would probably be simple enough to abolish warrant sales overnight. As the SCCL has pointed out, that may have a greater effect in getting credit for those who need it most. The point that the right hon. Gentleman should appreciate

    243
    is that in ensuring the repayment of debt we wish to ensure that those who can pay are made to pay and those who cannot do not find themselves left in the impossible and embarrassing position of suffering warrant sales.
    Mr. Maxton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As you are aware, Scottish Question Time is extremely difficult because the Labour party is the majority party in Scotland
    244
    and the Government are the minority party. That makes it extremely difficult for Back Benchers in that majority party to be called at Question Time—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. That applies not only to Scotland but to Wales. It has applied for a long time, ever since I have been in the House. I can take no points of order about the way in which I call hon. Members to speak.

Nuclear Disarmament (Publicity)
3.35 pm
Mr. Bob Cryer: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the creation of a propaganda unit inside the Ministry of Defence to combat the peace movement, as announced in a front page article by Peter Hennessey in The Times."
The issue is important because the Government should not spend taxpayers' money on a political campaign. The Government are fully accountable to this House. That is why I am asking for a debate on this important matter. It is not as though the Ministry of Defence does not already spend a considerable amount of money on public relations. In 1981–82 it spent £586,000, which does not include the cost of the hundred staff employed there on this work. It produced two films at a cost of £150,000 and spent many thousands of pounds on pamphlets, some of which came close to party political propaganda. An example is "Nuclear Defence Key Points". It cost £7,000 and appears to have been available—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) must not make the speech he would make if I granted his application. He has to justify, as he understands, the urgency and the other factors involved.
Mr. Cryer: I am grateful for your guidance, Mr. Speaker. I point out the importance of this additional factor over and above the existing expenditure of the Ministry of Defence. That makes it more important to hold a debate. There is dubious expenditure which appears to have gone already to the Conservative party or Conservative party front organisations. This is urgent because the Government are accountable to the House for their expenditure. It is especially important in an election year, but at any time, to ensure that the Government do not use taxpayers' money for a blatent political propaganda purpose on behalf of the Conservative party. If the Conservative party wishes to combat the campaign
246
for Nuclear Disarmament and the rising peace movement, it should have the guts to stand up and put its own case and not depend on taxpayers' money for the purpose.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer), gave me notice before 12 o'clock midday that he might seek to make an application under Standing Order No. 9 this afternoon.
The hon. Gentleman asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
"The creation of a propaganda unit inside the Ministry of Defence to campaign against the peace movement",
As the House knows, under the revised Standing Order No. 9 I am directed to take account of the several factors set out in the order but to give no reason for my decision.
I have given careful consideration to all the representations that have been made, but I have to rule that the hon. Gentleman's submission does not fall within the provisions of the revised Standing Order; therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR FRIDAY 18 MARCH
Members successful in the ballot were:

Mr. Arthur Bottormley,

Mr. Dick Douglas,

Sir John Eden,

BILL PRESENTED
  CROWN ESTATE (FORESHORE AND SEABED) (AMENDMENT)
  Mr. John Home Robertson, supported by Mr. George Foulkes, Mr. Donald Dewar, Mr. John Maxtor, Mr. David Marshall, and Mr. Frank Dobson, presented a Bill to provide for planning controls over developments on the seabed; to establish a register of owners of seabed rights; to amend the Crown Estate Act 1961; and for connected purposes; And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 22 April and to be printed. [Bill 96.]

Social Security Payments
3.29 pm
Mr. Allen Adams: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to set up a Committee of Inquiry into the use of discretion by the Department of Health and Social Security in regard to withholding social security payments in the light of income or capital possessed by applicants.
The Bill is something like myself, modest and unpretentious. Although you will be well aware, Mr. Speaker, that the Government have not listened to the advice they have received from me in presenting my six previous ten-minute Bills, I am sure that on this occasion they will embrace this legislation with open arms and act upon it immediately.
The Bill seeks to establish an inquiry into the workings of the Department of Health and Social Security, especially at local level, with special attention to the discretion or the lack of discretion exercised by local managers of the Department of Health and Social Security.
The title of the Department of Health and Social Security shows most people that it is a Department that should be caring for the health and welfare of the people. However, no other Government Department in my experience invokes such hatred and bad feeling among the populace as a whole.
One group of people in particular feel greatly aggrieved by the attitude they meet at the local Department of Health and Social Security office. This is the group that the Prime Minister and the Government hold up as paragons of virtue, as people who should be emulated and copied. I refer to the self-reliant individual; the individual who has taken out a private insurance policy; the individual who has made sure that he receives a pension, and the individual who has tried his best to take care of himself and his family in the event of losing his job. Those are the people to whom I refer, and it is they whom the DHSS singles out.
A man aged 55 who loses his job may receive £10,000 redundancy money. However, his unemployment benefit will last for only a year and when it runs out he will be turned away from the door of the DHSS office. He will get nothing and he will be forced to use that £10,000 simply to maintain himself and his family. That is disgraceful and negates the principle of the Redundancy Payments Act, which was to give people a little additional money and a small reward for 40 or 50 years' work. That principle is being negated by the DHSS, and by the Government, who refuse to do anything about it.
The same thing applies to someone who has had the foresight to subscribe to a private pension scheme or to belong to a private insurance scheme. If a person receives
248
more than £4 a week, any supplementary benefit will be taken from him. That is quite appalling and disgraceful. If someone has more than £2,500 in the bank, the DHSS will not want to know him. However, £2,500 is not very much these days. Indeed, even £10,000 would hardly amount to two years' salary, and the man made redundant at 55 could have worked for another 10 years. It is time that the Department considered such issues.
Another problem causes a great deal of trouble. It arises when a middle-aged chap is made redundant when his wife has a part-time job. In my constituency, most wives in their forties and fifties have part-time jobs in shops, as home helps or as cleaners at the sheriff court or municipal buildings. The average take-home wage for such women is probably £45 to £50 per week. Once the husband has claimed his year's unemployment benefit, he is debarred from claiming any supplementary benefit. That has caused enormous domestic trouble and friction in homes that were happy and united for many years. It is high time the DHSS considered that problem seriously and divorced the man's position from that of the woman. The man is entitled to something after a year, and should not be told at the DHSS office, "Your wife is working and she's getting £45 a week, mate, so you'll get nothing."
The point is that the whole concept of social security payments is wrong. In 1983 the population should surely be insured against age and unemployment. In my area, men usually lose their jobs in middle age. Such men should not be flung on to social security after having received unemployment benefit for a year. They should be insured, as of right, and should receive unemployment benefit until they are 65 and eligible for retirement pension. Surely that is a sensible and practical proposition, and would only cost a little more. The present situation simply makes beggars of honest men who have worked for 30 or 40 years. It is time that the House stopped it.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Allen Adams, Mr. Bill Homewood, Mr. John McWilliam, Mr. William Hamilton, Mrs. Helen McElhone, Mr. David Winnick, Dr. Jeremy Bray, Mr. Ron Brown (Leith) and Mr. Alec Woodall.

Social Security Payments
  SOCIAL SECURITY PAYMENTS (INQUIRY INTO DISCRETION)
  Mr. Allan Adams accordingly presented a Bill to set up a Committee of Inquiry into the use of discretion by the Department of Health and Social Security in regard to withholding social security payments in the light of income or capital possessed by applicants: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 11 March and to be printed. [Bill 97.]

Parliamentary Constituencies (England)
3.44 pm
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. William Whitelaw): I beg to move,
That the draft Parliamentary Constituencies (England) Order 1983, which was laid before this House on 14th February, be approved.
The Boundary Commission for England submitted its third periodical report on 11 February and I propose that its final recommendations should be implemented without modifications. Article 2 of the order substitutes the constituencies described in the schedule for the present constituencies in England. If the draft order is approved by both Houses, I shall submit it to Her Majesty in Council to be made. Article 1(2) provides that the order comes into operation on the 14th day after the day on which it is made; but the new boundaries will not take effect until the next general election. This means that any intervening by-elections will continue to be contested on the existing boundaries.
The commission's report is the culmination of almost seven years' hard work, a reflection on the size of the task which faced the commission when it announced its intention to proceed on 17 February 1976. During this period, it was able to fulfil the extra duty of making recommendations for the first European Parliament constituencies in accordance with the European Assembly Elections Act 1978. The fact that the commission has managed to complete its extremely onerous and unenviable task before the statutory deadline of 21 April 1984 despite its many trials and tribulations is a tribute to the qualities and dedication of the deputy chairman, Mr. Justice Walton, and those who have served as members of the commission since 1976.
The 95 local inquiries which have been held and the degree of public consultation which has taken place during the last seven years exemplify the great care which the commission has taken in formulating its final recommendations. I am sure that the House will join me in thanking all the members of the commission, both past and present, and the assistant commissioners who held the local inquiries, for the meticulous conduct of this review.
The results of this seven-year review are set out in the recommendations in appendix E to the commission's report. It is these recommendations that are contained in the draft order before the House.
The draft order contains no modifications in the commission's recommendations, although many suggestions for modifications have been made to me. I have considered all these modifications and have decided to make none. The reason is that I believe we must retain the public's trust in this vital part of the democratic process. The temptation for Parliament to tinker with a parliamentary Boundary Commission's recommendations will always be there; and sometimes, as in 1948 and 1969, Governments cannot resist it. But every time this happens we damage public confidence in the integrity of our constitutional procedures.
Parliament has created the parliamentary Boundary Commissions as impartial bodies to do this difficult and sensitive work. We would devalue not only the
250
commissions but ourselves if we sought to substitute our own inevitably partial judgment for that of the commission.
Mr. Christopher Murphy: I understand my right hon. Friend's comments, but does he not agree that the names to be used for the new constituencies might be something about which Members of Parliament might have a point of view? Will he therefore comment on the amendment in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans (Sir V. Goodhew), which refers to Welwyn-Hatfield? Under the new Boundary Commission proposals the constituency does not have the same boundaries as the district council but retains the same name. Is that not unfortunate for the people of the village of Wheathampstead, which becomes part of that constituency, and for the ward of Northaw, which leaves the constituency?
Hon. Members: Absurd.
Mr. Whitelaw: If my hon. Friends will cease telling me to answer, I will have a chance to do so. Many points can be made about both the names and the sizes of various constituencies, and about the problems connected with them. There is a considerable problem in my own area in Cumbria because a number of the constituents of my right hon. Friend the Chief Whip are passionately opposed to being placed in my constituency. I can understand why that is so, but I have not thought it right to propose a modification. I have decided to make no modifications and, although I understand my hon. Friend's point of view, that decision must apply to the names.
On a more practical level, I remind the House that power exists in section 2(3) of the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Act 1949 for the commission to undertake interim reviews. Any changes to local government areas which take place in the near or distant future can be looked at by the commission, which is empowered to make recommendations for adjustments to constituency boundaries.
Implementation of the final recommendations will increase the number of seats in England to 523, seven more than at present, and alter all but 48 constituencies in electorate size or area.
Mr. John Stokes: Before my right hon. Friend proceeds further, could he please answer a question that repeatedly cropped up yesterday but was not answered? Why is England so under-represented when compared with the rest of the United Kingdom? If the sums were done fairly, England should have 18 more seats.
Mr. Whitelaw: An agreement was made with Scotland many years ago about the minimum number of Scottish seats. So far, Parliament has not decided to change that requirement. Until Parliament changes the situation, we must accept it.
There will also be a reduction in the number of borough constituencies from 304 to 279 and an increase in county constituencies from 212 to 244. This reflects significant movement of the electorate from mainly urban to mainly rural areas since the last review.
Members of this House, more than any other body, will appreciate that this is perhaps the most radical redistribution of seats that England has ever seen. There are two main reasons for this, as the commission makes

251
clear in its report—first, alterations to local government areas and, secondly, growth and movement of the electorate. The local government reforms of 1974 created new districts, some new counties and six metropolitan counties. As a result, 49 constituencies crossed county boundaries at the start of the commission's review. Then the London boroughs and the new districts outside the capital were re-warded and as the commission had decided to use district wards as the building blocks for new constituencies, changes to a large number of existing constituencies became inevitable.
At the same time, the electorate had increased—chiefly through the lowering of the voting age from 21 to 18 in 1969—and had shifted, so that some very marked disparities in electorates had appeared. At the start of the review there were 46 seats with electorates more than 30 per cent. larger than the average electorate or electoral quota and 28 seats with electorates more than 30 per cent. smaller. By 1982 those figures had become 55 and 47 respectively. In other words, about one fifth of existing constituencies have electorates which vary by more than 30 per cent. from the average. To give a practical example at both ends, my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Benyon) now represents five times as many voters as the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cowans).
Those were the problems that faced the commission when it began its review. In setting about its task the commission is bound by the rules for the redistribution of seats contained in the second schedule to the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Act 1949. Those rules provide that England should not have substantially more than 507 seats. County and London borough boundaries must be followed so far as is practicable without causing an excessive disparity between the electorate of any constituency and the electoral quota or the electorate of a neighbouring constituency, but subject to those requirements electorates must be as near the electoral quota as possible. The commission may depart from those basic rules if there are special geographical considerations, including in particular the size, shape and accessibility of a constituency.
Section 2(2) of the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Act 1958 absolves the commission from the need to give full effect in all circumstances to all the rules in the second schedule to the 1949 Act but requires it to take account, so far as it reasonably can, of the inconveniences attendant on alterations of constituencies, other than alterations made for the purposes of rule 4 of those rules, and of any local ties which might be broken by such alterations.
Mr. Tony Marlow: Has it been possible or would it be possible for the commission to do anything about the quota of Irish voters in a constituency, in view of the danger that a constituency with a large quota of Irish voters might cause red Ken Livingstone to go across and talk and negotiate with terrorists and traitors in Northern Ireland so as to get himself nominated for such a constituency?
Mr. Whitelaw: I do not think that I should allow myself to be drawn too far down that road. I shall content
252
myself with saying that the present rules do not require the Boundary Commission to consider that matter in reaching its conclusions.
The combined effect of the rules and of section 2(2) of the 1958 Act is to give the commission a wide discretion. The report makes it clear that the commission nevertheless had some difficult decisions to take at the beginning of the review. In particular, the commission had to decide to what extent local government boundaries should be observed.
The disparities between the electorates of the constituencies in Greater London apparently led the commission to consider crossing the borough boundaries, despite rule 4. As the commission points out in chapter 3, paragraph 2, of the report, however, the crossing of borough boundaries would have had serious repercussions, resulting in the breaking of extremely strong local ties and a ripple effect which might have led in the end to the fragmentation of nearly all boroughs. That is why the Conservative, Labour and Liberal party representatives in 1978 asked the commission to observe London borough boundaries.
In the metropolitan counties, the earlier requirement to observe county and metropolitan borough boundaries had been repealed by the Local Government Act 1972, but the commission decided to try to avoid the crossing of metropolitan district boundaries because of the importance, large electorates, history and sense of identity of those districts. This decision was in keeping with the informal advice which the Home Office gave the commission about the observance of district boundaries following the debate on the amendment of rule 4 in 1972 and was again accepted at the outset by all political parties. I say this merely to illustrate the care which the commission has tried to take in balancing the need to redress disparities with the strongly held views in some areas, such as London and Liverpool, about the need to preserve local ties and communities as much as possible.
Having decided on which local government boundaries to observe in greater London and in the metropolitan and non-metropolitan counties, the commission allocated each area the number of seats justified by its theoretical entitlment—that is, the number obtained by dividing the area's electorate by the 1976 electoral quota of 65,753. The detailed criteria and calculations used by the commission to do this are set out in Appendix B to the report. As its next step the commission tried to ensure that the electorates of all the constituencies allocated to each area were as reasonably close to the average electorate for that area, and to each other, as practicable.
In two areas, the Isle of Wight and the London borough of Haringey, the commission considered that local circumstances made this inappropriate. In the Isle of Wight, where the theoretical entitlement was to 2x00B7;38 seats, the commission decided that special geographical considerations pointed to the retention of the one existing constituency. In Haringey, although the theoretical entitlement was to 2·43 seats, the commission did not feel justified in allocating three seats because the electorate had decreased by nearly 20,000 between 1965 and 1976 and a continuing decline was projected—which has taken place. In three other areas, Cumbria, Lancashire and Northumberland, the commission allocated each county one extra seat because of special geographical considerations.

253
These, then, are the steps which culminated in the final recommendations for 523 consituencies which are before the House. Clearly, they will not all find favour with every Member of this House. However, before leaping in to criticise individual recommendations, we should acknowledge the overall achievement of the commission; one simple statistic exemplifies it: at present 198—nearly two fifths of constituencies—vary by more than 20 per cent. from the 1982 electoral quota of 68,534. Under the commission's recommendations only 24 constituencies will so vary. I commend these recommendations to the House.
Mr. Speaker: No amendments have been selected.
4.3 pm
Dr. Edmund Marshall: The Home Secretary has described the redistribution proposed in this draft order as one of the most sweeping that England has ever seen. I agree that it is the most sweeping since 1832. Only 48 parliamentary constituencies are left without modification. As the Home Secretary said, one reason for these sweeping changes is the rapid movement of population within the country since the last redistribution. The people of Great Britain are increasingly on the move, by choice and economic necessity, from the inner cities to the suburbs and rural areas and from the depressed areas in the north to the south.
Secondly, the redistribution is sweeping because it is the first since the reorganisation of local government in 1974, which made wholesale changes to local authority boundaries and in many areas introduced new counties unrelated to previous local authority boundaries. Furthermore, the reorganisation of local government abolished the previous distinction between county boroughs and county districts with the result that the previous requirement for county borough boundaries to be taken into account when proposing new parliamentary constituencies no longer applies. 'Therefore, existing county borough seats in towns such as Preston, Luton, Northampton, Norwich and Lincoln are now extended by these proposals to take in surrounding dormitory and rural areas at present in county constituencies.
Furthermore, the Local Government Act 1972 had a far-reaching impact on the rules for parliamentary redistribution. The number of English local authorities whose boundaries are to be taken into account under rule 4 was reduced by that Act from the 1,243 applying at the time of the last Boundary Commission report in 1969 to 77 only today—45 counties and 32 London boroughs. Such a great change alters the balance of priority within the redistribution rules. The constraints imposed by rule 4 have been relaxed so greatly by the change in local authority boundaries as to make the achievement of the electoral quota required by rule 5 much more practicable.
This review provided the opportunity to achieve a pattern of electorally equal constituencies such as had never been proposed in England before. Such an opportunity has been grasped fully in Northern Ireland, where the separate Boundary Commission operates under virtually the same set of rules for redistribution. The experience of the Boundary Commission for Northern Ireland has some relevance to England.
Paragraph 5 of appendix 4 to the third periodical report of the Boundary Commission for Northern Ireland, which was made last October, reads:
254
"In applying the statutory rule that the electorate of any constituency is to be 'as near the electoral quota as is practicable' having regard to other statutory rules governing their work, the commission have followed the established practice of regarding a tolerance of 10 per cent. above or below the quota figure (viz. 61,206) as being acceptable."
When the chairman of the Boundary Commission for Northern Ireland, Mr. Justice Murray, was asked about the basis for the established practice of a 10 per cent. tolerance, he replied in a letter dated 18 January 1983 1:o my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees), who is hoping later to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, from the Back Benches:
"I recall that soon after I took over as Deputy Chairman of the Northern Ireland Commission on 17th February 1976 I was told by the then Secretary to the Commission that there was a practice of working on an acceptable tolerance above and below the quota figure, and she has recently said that this information was passed on to her by her predecessor, or one of them. It seemed to me and to my colleagues that the tolerance practice was an eminently sensible and workable one since (a) the statute says 'as near the electoral quota as practicable' and (b) it clearly is impossible to hit the precise quota figure. My further recollection is that the acceptable tolerance was said to be 10 per cent. above and 10 per cent. below the quota.… In my time we used the 10/10 formula to test and compare the various schemes we considered, and I do not see how we could have done our job without some such tool."
The result of the Northern Ireland Boundary Commission's review was that none of the new constituencies differed from the electoral quota by more than eight per cent. While the Northern Ireland Commission certainly believed that it needed this 10 per cent. tolerance tool to do its job, the English Boundary Commission, working under basically the same rules, went ahead without even thinking that it needed such a tool.
According to the table on page 147 of the English Boundary Commission's report, a quarter of the constituencies proposed in the draft order had 1976 electorates differing from the quota by more than 10 per cent. The proportion had grown to 30 per cent. or three tenths by 1982. In other words, already 30 per cent. of the proposed new constituencies differ from the quota by more than 10 per cent. I venture to suggest that the constituencies proposed in the draft order will very soon tend to have electorates as disparate as the present constituency electorates. Within the lifetime of the proposed new constituencies, which could extend for 15 years or more, we shall see the shortcomings of the recommendations of the Boundary Commission.
Mr. John Watson: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves the analogy of Northern Ireland, may ask him whether he agrees that the analogy is not completely accurate, because the powers of local authorities in Northern Ireland are substantially smaller than those of local authorities in the rest of the United Kingdom? It was therefore sensible for the English Boundary Commission to pay more attention to local authority boundaries than was felt to be the need in Northern Ireland. Does he further agree, because he and. I share the unique distinction in the House of representing constituencies which span no fewer than four counties and in my case five district authorities, that when one is representing such a constituency the task of accurately representing the interests of one's constituents in so many local authority areas is not easy?
Dr. Marshall: On the Northern Ireland analogy, there are only 17 seats there. Therefore,, in many respects

255
Northern Ireland can be compared quite easily with an existing English county. Under rule 4 there are no statutory boundaries within the English counties. Therefore, the analogy of Northern Ireland is fair.
Of course, I recognise some of the difficulties that arise when constituencies cross county boundaries. The hon. Gentleman has rightly said that he and I represent four counties. No doubt he will agree that we still manage to do our job and that the really important factor in determining the work load of a Member of Parliament is not so much the boundaries that his constituency crosses as the number of constituents he represents.
Already the proposed constituency electorates in the draft order—I have the latest 1983 figures—vary from 47,426 in Surbiton to 95,358 in the Isle of Wight. That second figure is more than twice the first. Here I would correct the Home Secretary, who said that the Isle of Wight is entitled to 2·38 seats. According to the report of the Boundary Commission, it is entitled to 1·35 seats. Leaving aside the Isle of Wight, I can see no good reason why Surbiton man should have twice the voting influence of an elector somewhere else.
Even if we restrict attention to the mainland of England, we see that the range is from Surbiton up to Crosby with 84,359. The position is highlighted most dramatically in Greater London itself, with a 1982 range from 47,313 in Surbiton to 82,028 in Feltham and Heston, yet those two constituencies are only five miles apart.
Those figures show that the Boundary Commission could have done a much better job. Such malapportionment of constituency electorates cuts across the basic principle of democratic equality. We may have had universal adult suffrage since 1929, but its full effect will be obscured until we move closer to the equal electoral districts to which the chartists aspired 140 years ago.
Mr. Robert Adley: I listened to part of the hon. Gentleman's speech yesterday and I have heard what he has said today. Whether inadvertently or otherwise I know not, but he appears to be giving the impression that the Boundary Commission has not done its job properly. Does he agree that if there is a fault in the work of the commission the responsibility probably lies in the House because of the instructions which the House, in this or previous Parliaments, gave to the Boundary Commissions? Will he make that clear?
Dr. Marshall: That sentiment was expressed yesterday in the House by many hon. Members, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley). It seems that before long the House will have to turn its attention to how we can improve the rules that are given to Boundary Commissions to carry out their work.
In dealing with the details of the constituencies proposed in the draft order I want to highlight two or three areas and to mention a few others in passing. I invite the House to consider the proposals for the north London boroughs of Barnet, Haringey and Harrow, which are shown together on page 3 of the useful volume of maps which accompanies the report of the Boundary Commission. For the eight constituencies proposed in those three contiguous boroughs, the 1976 electorates ranged from 53,565 in Hendon, North to 84,401 in
256
Hornsey and Wood Green, while the 1982 electorates ranged from 54,490 in Hendon, South to 80,359 in Harrow, East, just across the Edgware road.
Particularly marked is the contrast between Finchley, with 56,098 in 1982, and Hornsey and Wood Green, with 76,970 in 1982, two constituencies which, as the map shows, dovetail into one another geographically and where it is hard to know when one is passing from one constituency to the other at Fortis Green. Such an excessive disparity between two constituencies cheek by jowl has arisen because of the decision of the commission not to use its discretion to recommend that constituencies should cross London borough boundaries and because of the method of allocating seats to different boroughs.
Mr. Sydney Chapman: As the hon. Gentleman will know, I represent a constituency which covers part of the borough of Barnet. There may be some point in what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but surely the commissioners are not at fault. He has no point to make simply because, as I understand it, all the political parties, including the Labour party, specifically asked that the new constituencies should not be drawn across London borough boundaries.
Dr. Marshall: That point was raised several times yesterday and was effectively dealt with by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook. I simply add that the Boundary Commission, in adopting its policies in a matter of such great national importance, is not beholden to meetings of officials from party headquarters, from whatever party they may come. The Boundary Commission has to devise its policies in the interests of the public as a whole. When we saw the way in which the proposals of the Boundary Commission were working out, which was long after the meeting with party officials to which the hon. Gentleman referred, there should have been another look at the position throughout Greater London.
Mr. Gary Waller rose—
Dr. Marshall: I was criticised yesterday for speaking for too long, but I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Waller: I must stress that there is no way in which the Boundary Commission could have avoided disparities other than by cutting across London borough boundaries. Part of the Labour party was clearly against the proposal, and it is no good the hon. Gentleman saying that part of the Labour party said one thing but another part believes in a completely different proposition. The public are extremely suspicious when one part of the Labour party says one thing and the other part says another. Is the Labour party so divided about what it believes in relation to boundaries?
Dr. Marshall: Two gentlemen in the Labour party ventured the views which the Boundary Commission assumed were the views of the Labour party as a whole.
On the arithmetic, the borough of Barnet was entitled to 3·45 seats in 1976, declining to 3·32 seats by 1981. Following the algebra that is set out in Sir Raymond Walton's appendix to the report, the commission provisionally recommended four seats for Barnet, which closely corresponded to the existing four seats. At the public inquiry the case was put that Barnet should have

257
only three seats. In his report the assistant commissioner at that inquiry, Mr. G. Hodgson, endorsed that case and tentatively suggested three such seats.
The commission was obviously piqued to have its provisional recommendations overturned in that way. Instead of revising its proposals to produce three new constituencies, it simply decided to hold another inquiry on the first proposals. In effect, it was telling the assistant commissioner, Mr. Hodgson, that it thought he had done a bad job, and it sent in another assistant commissioner, Mr. M. E. Lewer, to come up with the answer that it wanted, which he duly did, enabling the commission to recommend its original proposals. The status of that second public inquiry in Barnet is somewhat doubtful and the commission's treatment of Mr. Hodgson was less than gracious.
Meanwhile, for the neighbouring borough of Haringey, the 1976 electorate produced an entitlement of 2·43 seats, which would, if one follows Sir Raymond Walton's algebra correctly, lead to three seats being proposed for Haringey. The average electorate of three seats in Haringey in 1976 would have been numerically closer to the electoral quota than the average of the two constituencies now proposed. So the commission failed to observe its own rule of thumb in that instance. The sauce that was good for the goose of Finchley was not good for the gander of Hornsey. Consequently, after three sets of proposals for Haringey and two inquiries there, the commission still recommended two seats, which, electorally, are excessively large. A similar situation arises in the borough of Harrow, which adjoins Barnet on the western side across the Edgware road.
The obvious answer to those difficulties in north London was to propose at least one constituency—only one—crossing a London borough boundary. The commission could certainly have done that in order to remove an excessive disparity between the electorates of neighbouring constituencies. The electorates of the three boroughs together have a clear joint entitlement to eight seats on both the 1976 and the 1982 figures.
What is more, when, at the public inquiry in Harrow on 7 and 8 July 1980, there was a suggestion for a constituency crossing the Harrow-Hillingdon boundary further to the west of Harrow, that suggestion could not possibly have received proper consideration by the commission, because it published a notice on 9 July 1980, the day after the Harrow inquiry and long before the Harrow assistant commissioner could have reported. That notice stated that the Boundary Commission proposed no further changes in its provisional recommendations for Hillingdon. It is interesting to note that one of the amendments on the Order Paper is in the name of the hon. Member for Harrow, Central (Sir A. Grant). That demonstrates the sort of difficulty that has arisen in one locality from the way in which the Boundary Commission conducted its review in Greater London.
A similar picture occurs in Lancashire—a very different part of the country. The proposed constituencies for Lancashire can be seen on map 39 in volume 2. In 1976 Lancashire had a theoretical entitlement to 15·47 seats. According to the algebra, that should have produced 15 seats, but the commission proposed 16. It tried to justify the allocation of an extra seat to Lancashire on the ground of sparsity of population. That is strange, as the population density of the county of Lancashire is more than five times
258
that of neighbouring North Yorkshire, and North Yorkshire will be somewhat under-represented in the proposals before us.
The constituencies proposed for Lancashire have 1976 electorates, which vary from 52,156 in Morecambe and Lunesdale, about 54,000 in Lancaster, and nearly 56,000 in Ribble Valley, to 72,611 in Rossendale and Darwen and about 76,000 in Blackburn. What is proposed in Lancashire is blatant rural weighting in favour of the north of the county; rural weighting such as we believed had disappeared from constituency boundary considerations long ago.
What is more, two of the proposed constituencies that I have mentioned—Ribble Valley and Blackburn—are contiguous, and the excessive disparity between their electorates could have been removed by transferring two wards—Billinge and West Rural—from Blackburn to Ribble Valley. That point simply demonstrates the inadequacy of the Boundary Commission's proposals far Lancashire and how it could have done a better job.
One could continue in detail around the country. It cannot be right, for instance, that in South Yorkshire there should be a disparity between the 1976 electorates of Barnsley, East with 52,000 and Sheffield, Central with nearly 77,000 simply because the commission did not see fit to have a constituency crossing the metropolitan district boundary between Sheffield and Barnsley when such a constituency is already in existence represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. McKay)
Similarly, my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. Stoddart) yesterday expressed grounds for concern because, among other things, in his area the Boundary Commission failed to consider the possibility of creating a constituency crossing the county boundary between Oxfordshire and Wiltshire. Such a constituency would have helped to remove the excessive disparity between the 1976 electorates of the proposed constituencies on either side of that boundary—Wantage with 58,262 and Devizes with 77,717, but Devizes having grown since to nearly 83,000. When such a possibility was suggested to the commission, by representation before the inquiries, the least it could have done was to hold a joint inquiry for those two counties.
Likewise, the commission failed properly to consider the possibility of deliberately creating a constituency crossing the county boundary between Avon and Somerset, even though witnesses at the inquiries in both those counties pressed for such consideration. The difficulty in that part of the country was that the Somerset inquiry was held on 18 October 1977—more than three years before provisional recommendations were published for Avon—but the report was not published until 15 April 1982, six months after the Avon inquiry had been held.
The assistant commissioner who conducted the Avon inquiry, in paragraph 84 of his report, commenting on the possibility of creating such a cross-boundary constituency, said:
"The usefulness of any comment I may make upon this question of a possible crossing of county boundaries is limited because I do not have before me all such relevant material in relation to Somerset as would enable me to evaluate adequately the arguments put forward."
In paragraph 87, he said:
"With due regard to my limited knowledge of all the possible factors I do not feel able to recommend the crossing of county boundaries although I accept that to do so could simplify matters in many ways."

259
In other words, by holding separate public inquiries in watertight compartments in these two counties, and also because the publication of the Somerset inquiry report was delayed, the commission effectively prevented the exercise of its discretion to recommend that a constituency should cross the county boundary to remove electoral disparities.
Several of the proposed constituencies for other parts of the country have unusual shapes, as can be seen from the volume of maps. The boundary between the proposed north Colchester constituency and the proposed south Colchester and Maldon constituency cuts arbitrarily across the historic town of Colchester, represented as an integral unit in this House since the early days of Parliament. Other constituencies are divided into two parts, with poor or no roads between those parts. One has only to look at Rossendale and Darwen, Billericay or Rugby and Kenilworth to see that.
I imagine that there will be some confusion in the House when we have hon. Members for Wyre in Lancashire and for Wyre Forest in Hereford and Worcester, or for Tyne Bridge in Tyne and Wear and Teignbridge in Devon. While talking about names, it seems odd that the two Luton constituencies should be called North Luton and Luton South. I can understand how that has come about. None the less, it seems very strange.
On points such as these, the House really should have had an opportunity to amend the proposals. Some amendments appear on the Order Paper, but rightly, according to the rules of procedure, you, Mr. Speaker, were unable to call them. It is monstrous that our procedure prevents them from being called and separate decisions being taken on them. There should have been a better opportunity to discuss the details of particular areas by having separate orders, as was arranged by the Conservative Government in 1954 and 1955. The proposals could have been divided among 50 different orders.
Mr. Bob Cryer: Does my hon. Friend accept that the eagerness with which the Government have placed this massive comprehensive order before the House has prevented the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments from having the opportunity to call evidence, have it printed and provide it to the House? If the Committee had called for evidence, there would not have been time to present it, unless the Government had been prepared to defer the order.
Dr. Marshall: I bow to the knowledge of my hon. Friend in his capacity as chairman of that Committee, but I see that there is a note on the Order Paper and a document on the Table of the House indicating the views of the Joint Committee on this particular order. No doubt my hon. Friend, if he is able to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, will wish to expand on those points.
It really is too much for these proposals, with all their imperfections, to be foisted on the House in one great block. When one considers the parliamentary importance of these proposals, it is constitutionally draconian for the future composition of this House to be decided by a Boundary Commission with discretion so wide that it cannot be challenged in the courts and then by a
260
Government unwilling to take account of suggested modifications and with sufficient Lobby fodder to force their will upon the House.
Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: I am sure we all understand the point that the hon. Gentleman is making. It is, however, far too late when it comes back before the House for individual changes to be made. The statutory rules and order do not provide for it, but if a change were made in one constituency it would have a chain reaction on many others. Is not the answer to this problem for the matter to be challenged much earlier—at the time when a person is appointed to inquire into a particular boundary area? It might be possible at that time for Parliament to say that there should be certain rights of further appeal at that stage to enable particular community interests to be taken into account. Once it has got beyond that stage and become an overall national proposal, it is too late to change it, is it not?
Dr. Marshall: The hon. and learned Gentleman raises wide considerations which will no doubt need to be examined over many months. When the recent litigation was being conducted, it was repeatedly said in court that this was ultimately a matter for Parliament to decide. Therefore, when the hon. and learned Gentleman says that when the matter comes to Parliament it is too late to do anything, we are in an awkward situation: it was too early to make changes earlier and now it is too late. The magic moment seems to have been when the Home Secretary decided straight away not to make modifications to the order but to table the draft order, imposing the Boundary Commission's recommendations, at the same time as the Boundary Commission's report itself was printed.
Mr. Adley: What the hon. Gentleman is saying is, with respect, ridiculous. If he thinks about it for a moment, he may agree with me, privately if not publicly. He said that the parts of the order should be debated in the House individually and in groups. Leaving aside the valid point of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Thanet, West (Mr. Rees-Davies), is the hon. Gentleman seriously suggesting that the work of the Boundary Commission should be subjected to partisan voting in the House on the basis of individual constituencies or groups of constituencies? Does he really think that such a proposition would be fair and that the people of this country would regard it as fair?
Dr. Marshall: The hon. Gentleman was obviously not here for the debate yesterday. Parliament must retain final sovereignty over its own composition.
Mr. Adley: Answer my question.
Dr. Marshall: I am answering the question perfectly. It is for the House to decide how it should be composed, and we should have every opportunity to decide upon the details of that proposition. All the signs point to the fact that this issue has been rushed through hastily by the Government, who have used every opportunity to speed up the process.
The Boundary Commission has presented its report nearly 15 months ahead of the statutory deadline of 21 April 1984, whereas the last report in 1969 was made within six months of the deadline. [HON. MEMBERS: "What happened to it?"] I am making a comparison with

261
what happened to the deadline. The House of Commons was able to have its say at that time, but it is being denied that opportunity on this occasion.
All the signs show that since the Government came to power, the Boundary Commission's statutory deadline of 21 April 1984 has been replaced by the aim of getting the proposals implemented for the next general election. Among all the evidence pointing to that conclusion, I mention two major considerations, both of which are referred to in the 14th report of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) has drawn attention.
First, let us look at the effect of the draft order on the relationship between parliamentary constituencies and European assembly constituencies. If the draft order is approved tonight and by another place, the next Westminster general election will be held on new and very different constituency boundaries, but there will be no change at the same time in the European assembly constituencies. According to the Home Secretary, when he spoke to the House on 3 December 1980, it will take the Boundary Commission about another 15 months to review the European assembly constituencies. I understand that the date for the next European elections has recently been fixed for 17 May 1984. Consequently, the assembly constituency boundaries at that election will be the present Euro-boundaries based on the present Westminster constituencies. We are therefore faced with the prospect of more than five years during which there will be much overlapping between Westminster and European constituencies.
For example, in my part of the country, the new Boothferry constituency will overlap with three assembly constituencies—Yorkshire North, Humberside, and Lincolnshire—while the proposed Doncaster North constituency will lie in both the Yorkshire, North and Yorkshire, South European assembly constituencies. We may also discover, when the European constituencies are being reviewed, that the proposed Westminster constituencies are not the most suitable building blocks for constructing European constituencies.
That crazy situation arises because of the European Assembly Elections Act 1981, which was hastily introduced by the Government when they saw that the previous arrangements prevented them from having the redistribution of Westminster constituencies in time for the next general election. Had that enactment not been made, there is now no reason to suppose that the Boundary Commission would not have been able to complete its review of both the Westminster and European constituencies together before the statutory deadline of 21 April 1984.
A second consideration, which demonstrates how the commission's statutory deadline has been replaced by the aim of having new Westminster constituencies at the next general election, is the Boundary Commission's failure to take account in its proposals of changes in local authority boundaries that have been made by statutory instruments since April 1982. I know of 10 such statutory instruments—there may be more—that have made the proposed constituencies in the draft order already out of date.
Three of those statutory instruments have altered county boundaries. As a result, there are five proposed constituencies—Stockton North, Sedgefield, Keighley, Wells and Weston-super-Mare—which from the outset
262
will cross county boundaries, contrary to rule 4 of the redistribution rules. They do so without removing any electoral disparities.
It is interesting to note that, of the other statutory instruments under this heading, two are mentioned by the Boundary Commission on page 77 of its report. There are strong hints in paragraph 4 on page 77 and paragraph 464 on page 146 that the Home Secretary should use his power to modify the commission's recommendations to take account of those changes. The marker is clearly in the Boundary Commission's report inviting the right hon. Gentleman to make those modifications. No one could have accused the Home Secretary, had he made those modifications, of tinkering, because he would have been doing so at the behest of the Boundary Commission. [Interruption.] When I use the word "tinker", I am simply echoing the word that the Home Secretary used. So desperate is he to get these new boundaries through that he has failed to carry out that responsibility.
Mr. Waller: The hon. Gentleman seems to b: suggesting that my right hon. Friend should not have used his good offices to bring these deliberations to a conclusion, but should have allowed them to continue almost until the end of time. Does he not realise that were these proposals not to be implemented before the next general election, proposals based on demographic data of 1976 would not come into effect until the late 1980s? Would not the hon. Gentleman criticise anyone who allowed that to take place?
Dr. Marshall: Were that situation to arise, it would still be within the rules guiding the Boundary Commission. The statutory deadline for the commission's present report does not arise for another 14 months. The other interesting thing about existing constituencies is that it was only nine years ago last Monday that they came into existence. That does not complete the 10-year cycle to which the rules refer.
However much the Government are now rushing through this redistribution, history has a cautionary note for them. A curious feature of modern political history in this country is that Governments who introduce electoral reforms and redistributions are rarely rewarded for doing so at the ensuing polls. The second Reform Act of 1867 led to the defeat of the Conservative Government the following year, and so too did the extensions of the franchise in 1884, 1928 and 1969, as well as the redistributions of 1949 and 1970. In all of those cases, the Government who made the changes lost ground at the next election. In all but the 1949 case, the Government lost power. So it will be with this redistribution.
The entire Labour party takes up the challenge that the Government have given in the draft order to fight the political battle on the ground of the Government's own choosing. We shall take the policies and principles of our democratic Socialist faith to areas of new parliamentary power—rural areas, new towns, dormitory villages and suburbs—and we shall demonstrate that there is a real alternative to this Government. We shall bring hope to the people where the Government bring only despair. We are determined to succeed.
4.50 pm
Mr. Fergus Montgomery: I shall not attempt to follow the hon. Member for Goole (Dr.

263
Marshall), who has given us a geographical tour of England and taken almost 50 minutes in which to do it. It seems much longer to those of us who have listened to him. The hon. Gentleman also made a speech yesterday. I am thankful that I was spared that speech—apparently it went on for almost 40 minutes. I cannot help feeling that my poor right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, who has had to endure both of those speeches, must qualify for the title of masochist of the year for sitting through the punishment that has been inflicted on him by the hon. Member for Goole.
Boundary changes always cause enormous heartache for Members of Parliament and constituents. Not only do Members of Parliament who have represented a constituency for a long time move areas and lose their political supporters; they lose constituents who may have become personal friends. Moreover, there are battles for nomination between members of the same party. There can be enormous difficulties when sitting Members from the same party have an equal claim to a new constituency.
Someone once said that civil war is the nastiest of all wars as it sets brother against brother. The same applies to politics. Some of the squabbles have caused enormous bitterness. I speak with some feeling because I was involved in that type of battle during the previous boundary changes. That was the nastiest period of my political life. Nevertheless, it gave me an insight into the type of problems that hon. Members on both sides of the House now face over the English Boundary Commission's report.
It is worth noting that only 48 of the present 516 parliamentary constituencies in England are left unaltered by the report. With the extra seven new seats, there will be 523 constituencies in England. Compared with the rest of the United Kingdom, England is under-represented. My hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Stokes) pointed that out in an intervention in the speech of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. I understand that the average size of electorate in England will be about 68,000, whereas in Ulster—it will be about 62,000, in Wales it will be about 56,000 and in Scotland about 54,000.
I cannot help but feel that rather than have four separate Boundary Commissions—one for England, one for Wales, one for Scotland and one for Ulster—it would be fairer to have just one to deal with the problems of the United Kingdom as a whole. Perhaps the English would then have a fairer proportion of the seats. We have Welsh nationalists, Scottish nationalists and Irish nationalists. Who knows, if the mood against England having its rightful share of parliamentary seats continues, an English nationalist party might emerge.
Although I sympathise with the many hon. Members who are adversely affected by the boundary changes, no one can argue against the aims of the boundary commissioners. No one can justify the enormous discrepancy between the constituency of Newcastle upon Tyne, Central, which has an electorate of 24,000, and Buckingham, which has an electorate of over 100,000. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary stressed that point. As the hon. Member for Goole said, that coincides with the drift of population away from cities to suburbia and rural areas. That factor must be taken into account because
264
matters cannot be left as they are. We cannot leave some constituencies that are getting smaller and others that are getting so large as to be almost unmanageable.
The drift away from cities and the fact that those cities are to have fewer Members of Parliament creates problems for the Labour party. Nobody can deny that. I am sure that that is why the Labour party took legal action, first in its challenge to the High Court and then its appeal to the Law Lords. However, the Labour party has never been happy about Boundary Commission reports.
Mr. Martin Flannery: Or Law Lords.
Mr. Montgomery: The hon. Gentleman is entitled to say exactly what he thinks. The hon. Member for Goole was foolish to refer to 1969 when his right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) was Home Secretary. We all know what happened then. The right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East introduced a Bill to postpone the bulk of the recommended boundary changes indefinitely. When the House of Lords rejected that Bill, the right hon. Gentleman tabled four draft orders that implemented the commission's reports. When those orders came before the House, he solemnly urged the Lobby fodder, in the form of his right hon. and hon. Friends, to vote them down.
Mr. Cryer: The hon. Gentleman will be in the Lobby supporting this draft order tonight.
Mr. Montgomery: I am not an expert, but surely the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) cannot justify what happened in 1969.
Mr. Merlyn Rees: I can justify voting against this order.
Mr. Montgomery: If the right hon. Gentleman can justify what happened in 1969, I hope that he will do so publicly. It should at least be accepted that the reports are made by an independent body. They are therefore worthy of consideration.
Mr. Adley: I do not know what stand the Liberal and Social Democratic parties take on these orders. I believe that they support them, but it might be useful for us to know, so that we can identify the fact that it is only the Labour party that is trying to oppose them, for reasons that are known to everyone.
Mr. Montgomery: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I have noted that no Opposition Member has tried to justify what happened in 1969. I cannot help feeling that the Opposition's squalid manoeuvres about the Boundary Commission's proposals come ill from a party that once fought an election on the slogan "Fair Shares for All". Where the fair shares exist in constituencies of about 20,000 as compared with those of more than 100,000 is past all comprehension.
I do not want to deal simply with the overall circumstances as they affect England. I should like to deal also with the ways in which the proposals affect the area that I represent. We had hoped in the borough of Trafford that we would have three parliamentary constituencies. However, the Boundary Commission has recommended that we have two constituencies contained entirely within the borough of Trafford and that the third constituency, which is to be called Stretford, should consist of five wards from Trafford and two wards from the city of Manchester.

265
Two constituencies, one called Davyhulme and the other called Altrincham and Sale, are to be contained entirely within the borough of Trafford. I find that curious, because the Davyhulme constituency, which I hope will be represented in the next Parliament by my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford (Mr. Churchill), will contain three wards from Sale. The total electorate of the old borough of Sale is 42,731, some 26,924 of whom are to be transferred to the Davyhulme constituency. In other words, more than half the electors of Sale are to be transferred to a constituency called Davyhulme. Moreover, the main shopping area of Sale will be in the Davyhulme constituency.
I hope that my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State, who will wind up the debate, will consider that problem. I realise that if the order is passed the boundaries of the new constituencies will have been finalised. Nevertheless, I should like my hon. and learned Friend to tell me whether there is still any way in which the constituency names can be changed. I am sure that my hon. and learned Friend realises the confusion that will be caused to the almost 27,000 electors who regard themselves as residents of Sale. Will not their natural reaction be that they must live in a constituency that includes Sale in its title? Perhaps Altrincham would have been a more appropriate name for the new constituency.
The constituency will include four wards from Altrincham plus four wards from Sale and the Bowden and Hale wards which are now in the Knutsford constituency. I ask my hon. and learned Friend to bear in mind that boundary changes cause enough confusion to electors as it is, without the added confusion of misnaming constituencies. I assure him that I am not raising a niggling point on behalf of my constituents and I hope that he will deal with it when he replies.
5.1 pm
Mr. Merlyn Rees: This is the first time that I have spoken from the Back Benches since, I think, 1964. In so doing I shall speak for myself. There have been some interesting altercations, both yesterday and today, about the Boundary Commissions having consulted the political parties. When the 1979 election was imminent and it was decided that the local elections would take place on the same day as the general election, because of problems about ballot boxes and other arrangements, all the major political parties were consulted. That does not mean that the parties should be consulted on the implementation of the commission's reports. That includes their functionaries and anyone else. However, what they say should be taken note of but not if it is felt that they are going against the spirit or the rules of the report.
The hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough (Mr. Waller) missed the point when he said yesterday that there were people with differing views in the Labour party. What is said by representatives at the Labour party's headquarters, the Liberal party's headquarters or at Conservative Central Office is interesting but no more than that. The job of the Home Office and that of the commission is to implement the law and not to listen to party functionaries. The hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough was being too clever by half.
We provided in 1969 that candidates in elections could state their party affiliation. The first cockshy of the Home Office was to say that there should be a registration body
266
and that all parties would have to register their name. That meant that the registration would have been ruled upon in the courts if someone has used the name of a party other than the party to which he was affiliated. The late Dick Sharpies, who later was to be a Minister of State, Home Office and who was vice-chairman of the Conservative party—sadly he was murdered years later; he was a very fine man—approached me as a junior Minister and said "We cannot do it this way. The Conservative party does not exist in law." He explained the way in which the Conservative party had grown up and reiterated that there was no Conservative party which was a body in law.
It was proper to consult the political parties on that issue. If the registration system had been taken any further, we might have found that what applied to the Conservative party applied also to other parties. Let us listen to what the political parties have to say about redistribution but that is as far as it should go. The fact that someone in the Labour party in the London area wanted it to be done in a certain way should not have been called in aid by the commission.
I shall talk about the redistribution of my constituency of Leeds, South while fully understanding that nothing can be done about it now. I appreciate that over the past 150 years consideration has been given to these matters in the light of a changing population. It is right that account should be taken of population movements. No one can justify small inner city seats, large rural seats or large new town seats. It is the method that I shall question and not the principle.
I was not involved in the recent case that went before the courts. However, I noticed that the judiciary always said, "This is a matter for the House of Commons." That may be, but the way in which the law is drawn and the rules are drawn means that there is precious little that the House can do once the commission has ruled. We are neutered and we cannot even influence the names of constituencies.
Mr. Peter Hordern rose—
Mr. Rees: In 1969 the commission's report was not to the advantage of any one party. Regardless of what the newspapers said, it was about even. I was a junior Minister with responsibilities for these matters at that time. The officials told the Home Secretary and me that there would be major local government reform in the following three or four years, whichever party formed the Government. It was explained that the reform would have a profound effect on the local government map. London had been dealt with in local government terms, but for the rest of the country we were told that it would be better to hold the commission's report until the reform of local government had been enacted and implemented. That is the fact and it is set out in the papers.
Inevitably, there were cries of "Gerrymandering". That proves that a Government cannot tell the House that they are not accepting the commission's report. The judiciary seems not to understand. In my view, it is impartial when dealing with the law, but it does not understand the nature of the House of Commons or the way in which it works. Many of my right hon. and hon. Friends say, "Of course the Conservative party wants to implement the report." The newspapers tell us—I do not know how they know—that it will lead to a Conservative advantage of 20 seats. They do not have the faintest idea. Someone said at

267
some stage that there would be a 20-seat advantage for the Conservative party, and that is the view that the newspapers have adopted. Everyone says that the Conservative party wants it because it will be to its advantage and that anything the Labour party says is based on the potential disadvantage that it will suffer. Would that the House were able to consider this issue in the way that the judiciary believes it can. There is no way of doing that but there are other ways in which it could be done.
The redistribution will be to the advantage of the Labour party in Leeds and wider Leeds. I have and will have a large majority, and politically there is no skin off my nose. However, the way in which the commission has dealt with my constituency is plain daft. The methods that were used were not in the spirit of the commission's rules.
Early in 1982 I attended an inquiry at the civic hall, Leeds. It appeared that my constituency had been left alone in the commission's provisional report. I learnt that a part of the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. Roberts) was to be added to it. The addition of that one ward would have made Leeds, South a large constituency. There were 84 objections to the wider scheme. Only two of those objections concerned Leeds, South and only about the addition of Rothwell. I sat in the civic hall for two days listening to the inquiry and the issue of my constituency was not raised. When the final report appeared three months later, I found that the commission had split my constituency down the middle.
We never had a chance to argue our case. I wrote to the commission and said that we needed a public inquiry, but the commission gave us two months to allow us to put in written criticisms. My criticism is that my constituency has been broken in two in the daftest way with no mention of it in the public inquiry. There was no right to have an inquiry. There was plenty of time, whatever may be said about the April deadline next year. In August or September last year there could have been another public inquiry.
No matter to whom one speaks, be it the Labour party, the Liberal party, the Conservative party the police, or spokesmen on education, no one can understand what the Boundary Commission had in mind in south Leeds. It is too late now to change what the commissioners have done this time, but when there is another major redistribution we should write into the rules that there should be a public inquiry whenever a major change is made, and not leave it to the commissioners to say, "We do not know the area; a public inquiry has taken place but that is the end of the matter apart from written submissions." My constituents are not ones for writing large numbers of letters and marshalling arguments.
Mr. Murphy: You are lucky.
Mr. Rees: Many people come to me about their problems but my constituents do not read establishment newspapers such as The Times, The Guardian, the New Statesman or Tribune.
Mr. Murphy: Establishment newspapers?
Mr. Rees: There are four wards, all of which link together, where, because of the clearance that has taken place over recent years, people have moved southwards on to new estates—thankfully, not miles away. The river Aire may be narrow geographically but it is wider than the
268
Volturno, the Garigliano and the Tiber put together. North of the river is a foreign area for most of my constituents. South of the river, a vast clearance about a mile wide has taken place. All the old slums have been demolished. The Boundary Commission does not know about that, and so when the commissioners came up with their proposals they crossed that river with impunity. They must have sat in London with a map of an area about which they know nothing at all. The new boundary which crosses the river and goes right up to the university shows that it was drawn by someone who does not know the area.
I made an inquiry. I tried to find out whether anyone from the Boundary Commission came to Leeds and asked the city council or its staff if he could have a look at the area which was about to be divided up in this way. Perhaps what I was told is wrong, but I was told that the answer was no. I was told that one of the commissioners involved had a sister living in Horsforth and that he visited her from time to time and so he knew the area. That may have been the cynicism of people living in the city, but what has been done is so daft that people in the area cannot believe that the Boundary Commission has drawn the boundary in that way.
As ever, the south Leeds constituency has the worst end of the stick. The Boundary Commission has had the nerve to say that 87 per cent. of the people of Pudsey and 78 per cent. or so of people in the west Leeds constituency have been kept together. In south Leeds, the figure is 50 per cent. South Leeds always gets the worst end of the stick on anything that happens, and has done in the past. I shall not develop that point, but what has happened has proved that to be the case. I hope that next time when the rules are drawn up it is done differently. The hon. and learned Member for Thanet, West talked about a permanent Boundary Commission. I think that it would be better if it were done that way. There should be a permanent Boundary Commission whose responsibility would include the local boundary aspect. Local and parliamentary boundaries should be considered together.
I should like to suggest changes which I hope will be taken into account. How does the Boundary Commission work? I know that the distance between the Home Secretary and the Boundary Commission is as great as the distance between south Leeds and north Leeds. In other words, there is no connection at all. Perhaps the Home Secretary has met the deputy chairman once, but that is all. How does the Boundary Commission work? I hope that I can say this with deference to you, Mr. Speaker, but you should not be the Chairman of the Boundary Commission. That leads to people outside and the judiciary to believe that, although you are described as ex officio, you play a part in the procedure in the neutral way in which you act as Speaker of the House. The Speaker plays no part in the commission's work and it is phoney to put the name of the Speaker at the head. I do not know how Mr. Speaker feels about that.
Some of my best friends are members of the legal profession. My hon. Friend the Member for Goole (Dr. Marshall) quoted the deputy chairman of the Northern Ireland Boundary Commission. I think that I appointed him. We have had the Gardiner report in Northern Ireland, the Scarman report, and there is room and a role for judges, but what do they know in England about the local areas on which they are sitting in judgment? Perhaps they visit these areas on circuit, but what do they know about them?
Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that the judges had to apply their minds to points of law and to whether the criteria given to the commissioners have been followed? They were not interested in the geography of the place. They had to apply their minds to the legalities of the matter, which they did.
Mr. Rees: We should, by all means, have people on the commission who consider points of law, but if that is the way it is being done it explains some of the daft things that have happened. Perhaps there is a role for a member of the legal profession. I should like to ask the Minister who is to reply—it was only today that I realised that I did not know the answer to the question, so I am not asking just for the sake of it—whether the members of the legal profession who are appointed to the commission are judges and are they there in a judicial capacity or are they members of the Boundary Commission because they are members of the legal profession but are carrying out their role in a wider context? I should be interested to know.
Yesterday, the Home Secretary revealed something that I would never have revealed, but that is the way it sometimes goes with the right hon. Gentleman. I was once responsible for removing a judge from the Boundary Commission. I do not think the Home Secretary knows that, for I recall that he did it after the general election. In the argument that took place beforehand, I was told that I would be reported to the Lord Chief Justice—well, bully for both of them in that case. I had a duty to do in the context of the Boundary Commission. If, as the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Dickens) says, the judges are appointed purely as lawyers, that may explain why there is something wrong with the judgments made locally, not in terms of fairness but in the way that they are carried out.
Who produces the provisional boundary report? I understand that it is someone sitting in London with a map. It is a cockshy designed to give people something to get their teeth into. What happens after the provisional report has been produced? What happens to south Leeds? The assistant commissioner performed an excellent task in the civic hall. But do people then sit round a table in London and say "We should put Hunslet with Middleton"? Does anybody really know anything about the matter? Was the assistant commissioner present, or did they sit in London and say "The assistant commissioner does not know much about it, so let us do something different from his suggestions"?
What part is played by the judiciary? Did they visit Leeds—the Dewsbury road, the Elland road, the Mafekings and the Longroyds—and consider the whole nature of the constituency? It is so different from many of those in the south, and people have belonged to it for generations.
Mr. Robert Atkins: Will the right hon. Gentleman explore the difference in attitude in Britain to that in the United States, where local knowledge has led to all sorts of gerrymandering because it is defined on the basis of party affiliation? I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's point, but if he follows it through he will reach a conclusion that will worry me.
Mr. Rees: I intend to end my speech soon. I am unused to speaking from the Back Benches. The House should examine the way that redistribution is handled in other
270
countries. We should not pat our backs and clap ourselves to death for being impartial. We should not think that we do not need to examine how other countries handle the matter.
The Home Secretary was helpful yesterday when he gave the House a history of what had happened. It is part of the investigation process. When I was Home Secretary, I visited a country which handled redistribution for party advantage. It did not mess around with commissions.
Mr. Whitelaw: Where was that?
Mr. Rees: Wild horses could not drag that information from me. However, the party involved was wrong and lost the next election. That is the way of the world.
It is time that the whole matter was examined in detail, Not a Royal Commission, but a Select Committee of the. House should be set up to examine the whole process. It could call people rather than give the matter to someone else. I am not interested in the recent judgment; I simply want to know what hashappened. I do not want to summon somebody and say "You have messed up my constituency". I want to ask about the procedure, the facilities in the office and what part the various people play. I want to know their relationships with the city council and how they allow for population changes.
I understand that the commission worked on population figures for 1976. Various people believe that the base should be the 1983 population figures, but the statute says that it must be 1976. Therefore, we are already seven years out of date. A Select Committee could look at membership, the role of the assistant commissioners and aspects of local government.
It has been suggested that there should be a permanent boundary commission. Its chairman should be a respected Member or ex-Member of the House. The party to which he or she belonged would not concern me. Members who have been in the House for many years would use their judgment in the proper way, as has been probed many times. We should not opt out and give the responsibility to others. By all means, judges, anthropologists and others could be included to give an air of respectability.
It is too late to make any changes—indeed, the House could not do so. If, in 1969, the Labour party had been in Government it would have used the same gerrymandering argument as the present Government. However, it is too important a matter to deal with in our Oxford Union-type method. We must accept that events have killed stone dead any idea by the judges that the House can consider the matter. We view it from party advantage, and nothing else.
My constituency is to be split. The Home Secretary and I played a part in having the single transferable vote in Northern Ireland. We were probably right to do so, but it went against the grain for me. I believe that hon. Members should represent a constituency of people whom they know, of all sides of opinion. Once we represent notional areas that constantly change, we lose something of great value.
I am only in the House because I am a member of the Labour party—
Mr. Albert Roberts: Does my right hon. Friend agree that a large number of his constituents are being rehoused in my constituency?
Mr. Rees: My hon. Friend is right. It proves a point about what the boundary commissioners should have done. However, that is water under the bridge.
I am in the House, unashamedly, as a politician. There are some newspapers, especially the clever newspapers, whose writers earn their living from politicians, while denigrating them. They should learn that something would be missing if we were not politicians. I am unashamedly a politician, and proud to be a member of the Labour party. I represent a wide variety of people. I speak in this Chamber on their behalf, and must take their views into account. I wish that the Boundary Commission understood that and did not play a game of chequers. I know that it gets its numbers right, as it must do in some places. I know also that my hon. Friend the Member for Goole (Dr. Marshall) argues that it has the numbers wrong.
When we next consider the boundaries, for goodness sake let there be a senior politician involved who can explain what politics is all about—which is not Prime Minister's Question Time twice a week.
5.28 pm
Mr. Robert Adley: Few hon. Members are more respected throughout the House than the right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees). I think that many of us will have listened to him with a great deal of sympathy with the belief in our hearts that there was much common sense in what he said. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, who listened to the right hon. Gentleman, will also be uneasy about some of the things that have happened. The right hon. Member for Leeds, South was extremely sensible when he did not try to refight the battles that had just been fought, but I am certain that we would be wise for the future to listen to what he has said and to the general expressions of concern by others.
I disagree with only one point that the right hon. Gentleman made. My hon. Friend the Member for Preston, North (Mr. Atkins) dealt with the same point. I entirely accept that many lawyers do not understand the way in which Parliament works and the problems that should concern them when they are creating parliamentary constituencies. However, I argue against the proposition that local people with local knowledge should be intimately involved in the creation of local constituencies because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Preston, North said, that could result in local knowledge being abused and partial rather than impartial views being put forward.
Mr. Jim Marshall: I accept most of what the hon. Gentleman has said, but it would be advantageous to the Boundary Commission to have an input of local knowledge when it is making its provisional recommendations. When the three new provisional constituencies were formed in the city of Leicester, the commission put a ward in the new Leicester, South constituency which it had intended to put in the new Leicester, West constituency. Local knowledge gained before publication enabled the Boundary Commission to withdraw the provisional report and rectify the mistake. That shows what can happen in the absence of local knowledge. It would help to have the input of local knowledge.
Mr. Adley: I accept the hon. Gentleman's point.
One of the points that has come out of the debates yesterday and today, to which I have listened, appears to
272
be the disparity of energy and diligence shown by some of the assistant commissioners. I attended two public inquiries—those for Hampshire and for Dorset. It was clear that the assistant commissioners had done much homework and taken the trouble to inquire into the geography, if not the political geography, of the areas. Perhaps a discrepancy arose in the way in which individuals tackled their tasks because they were inadequately briefed. I do not know whether that is so, but it is one other feature of this whole operation that should be looked at. My hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State, when he replies, might advise us of the instructions on acquiring local demographic knowledge that are given to assistant commissioners before they start their job.
I strongly agree with one point made by the right hon. Member for Leeds, South. It was the political point that the assumptions made by the media about the number of seats that will be gained or lost by the political parties are probably erroneous. At the time of the last redistribution, assumptions were made that, for example, Coventry, South-West and Derby, North would be Tory gains. Both seats were won easily by the Labour party. Therefore, the assumptions that are made in the media about the extent of gains or losses are, as far as I am aware, not shared by many in the House. I do not believe that they are the deeply held convictions of the party political organisations either.
The two demon words in this operation have been "wherever practicable". They have been interpreted by the Boundary Commission as tablets of stone. I do not believe that when the words "wherever practicable" were written down and presented to the Boundary Commission in its instructions to proceed it was intended by the House that they should be regarded as absolutely inviolable. The commission chose to regard them as inviolable. That has been the cause of most of our problems.
In my intervention in his speech, I did not extract from the hon. Member for Goole (Dr. Marshall)—I should like to do so now at least via a nod, as it is important that he should do so—his preparedness to accept and state openly that he does not allege that the Boundary Commission has been partial politically. It would be extremely damaging and would do none of us any good if the impression were deliberately put about that somehow there has been an inbuilt party political bias one way or the other in the work that the Boundary Commission has done. I do not believe that there is. I know that the right hon. Member for Leeds, South has never suggested any such thing and is not doing so now.
Mr. Merlyn Rees indicated assent.
Mr. Adley: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his nod. I would welcome a nod from the hon. Member for Goole to show that he is not suggesting that the Boundary Commission has been partisan. The hon. Gentleman is not prepared to nod. I have to draw my conclusion. That insinuates an unfortunate—almost disgraceful—allegation against the Boundary Commission that it is politically biased. Perhaps his constituency of Goole has been respelt Ghoul. It is a poor show that someone in his position, speaking from the Opposition Front Bench, should allow to go on record and remain unrefuted the allegation that the commission's proposals have been made in a partisan way.
My hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Montgomery) referred to constituency names. I shall

273
touch on that point as I do not know how Mr. Speaker and his successor in the next Parliament will cope with the geography. I am interested in geography and in maps. I have looked at the proposals in some detail. Many new constituencies are unknown places with names that mean nothing to me. I have more than a passing interest in geography. I am reminded of the marvellous recording made by Mr. Bernard Miles, who told the tale of the railway porter in the last war who, in order to obey the instruction not to let out the name of the place where the train was stopping, used the words in ringing tones, "'Ere you are for where you're going—all you in there for 'ere, get orf." I have a suspicion that that may apply to some of the names that the Boundary Commission has come up with.
As I said in an earlier intervention, if there are faults in the way in which the Boundary Commission carried out its work, they probably lie here in Parliament with the instructions given to the commission. I strongly share the view of the right hon. Member for Leeds, South that something must be done to marry political nous on the one hand with legal impartiality on the other in order to come up with a better proposition than we appear to have.
Mr. David Crouch: I was extremely interested in the observation by the right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) that there should be an input of local knowledge. My hon. Friend has also referred to local knowledge. I should have thought that my hon. Friend would agree that, when he is leaning over backwards to ensure the impartiality of the Boundary Commission, he may have to accept some lack of local knowledge for that very reason. I do not share the criticism of the right hon. Gentleman or, as I understand it, of my hon. Friend of the Boundary Commission not knowing enough about the local situation. It learns enough from the political representations that are made to it. One should lean over backwards to ensure its absolute impartiality by virtual ignorance of the political situation.
Mr. Adley: I must have been unclear in what I said. I started my speech by saying that the one point in the speech of the right hon. Member of Leeds, South with which I did not agree was about the need for local knowledge. I agree with my hon. Friend, and I said that I agreed with the intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Preston, North that local knowledge can be dangerous. We should not try to have local knowledge as a major factor in the appointment of assistant commissioners.
Mr. David Ennals: Will the hon. Gentleman justify his point? Surely, apart from size and numbers, community interests, how people look at themselves in the area in which they live, whether there is a centre and transport facilities are the essential issues. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that it is best to have no knowledge and to do it all on a graph?
Mr. Adley: I was not saying that. I made a passing polite reference to a point that was made by the right hon. Member for Leeds, South and have now got myself into terrible trouble. I do not want to labour this point. I was saying that I do not believe that it would be right to select as commissioners or assistant commissioners local people with detailed local knowledge who live in the area. It is, however, important that, once they have been selected,
274
they should make a point of understanding something about the area upon which they will pontificate. I said that in Hampshire and Dorset both the assistant commissioners appointed for the public inquiries had done much homework to enable them to comprehend some of the geography of the area and the socio-economic background. That could not be described as local knowledge in the way in which the right hon. Member for Leeds, South described it. I do not wish it to be suggested that the commissioners should be totally ignorant and deliberately unaware of the features of the areas that they are judging.
The effect of the Local Government Act 1972 upon this redistribution has been responsible for almost all the problems that we are discussing. Although my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said that the present Boundary Commission started work in 1976, the instructions upon which it started were issued before the coming into effect in 1974 of the Local Government Act 1972.
Mr. Merlyn Rees: The history books for 1969 are now written, but civil servants put the point to us in 1969 that it would have such a profound effect. It was not their decision, but the Minister's, and it was not their fault. The hon. Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley) is correct to say that our present problems are caused by local government reform. I understand that the Conservative party and the Labour party are talking about introducing further local government reform. The effect on boundaries will be great and we shall face such problems for ever. Fortunately, in 15 years' time, shall be watching steam engines at Lymington.
Mr. Adley: In that case the right hon. Gentleman will unfortunately be just outside my new constituency. I follow the right hon. Gentleman's point. It may not be realised that, under the terms of the Local Government Act 1972, the Local Government Boundary Commission will start its review of county and district boundaries in 1984. That commission will sit in perpetuity.
It is unnecessary and undesirable to require that all of the United Kingdom is considered simultaneously. My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Benyon) feels especially strongly about that because Milton Keynes is in his constituency. It cannot be beyond the wit of Members of Parliament to devise a system that gives the future Boundary Commission much more flexibility in its timing. It would avoid all the charges that have flown back and forth across the Chamber since time immemorial that Boundary Commission reports are either gerrymandered away or rushed out to suit the political parties.
The right hon. Member for Leeds, South talked about Lymington in my constituency. The change in the Hampshire-Dorset county boundary is responsible for the changes in my area. They are not traumatic for me and will go through without great heartache, so I have no special case to plead one way or another. We shall regret saying farewell to old friends, but, equally, we look forward to making new friends.
In Dorset, in which my new constituency will be wholly sited, there will be three borough constituencies and four county constituencies. The former chairman of the West Moors Conservative Association, whose branch has been transferred from the present Dorset, North constituency into the new Christchurch constituency, asked me to mention the name of the new seat. Three of the four county constituencies in Dorset will be called Dorset, North,

275
Dorset, South and Dorset, West but the fourth will be called Christchurch and not Dorset, East. I am content with that arrangement, but not everyone is. Indeed, the new Conservative association has already seen fit, understandably, to designate itself the Christchurch and East Dorset Conservative Association, which is more acceptable. It may be asked "What is in a name?" To lawyers the name is meaningless, but it is important when creating these constituencies to form a consensus so that those who are brought together in a revised constituency feel at home together as partners, and do not feel that area A is taking over area B. Names mean more to party workers, who do most of the work, than to lawyers to whom a name is a name is a name.
The right hon. Member for Leeds, South and my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale were both frank. I shall lose Lymington and other areas to my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest (Mr. McNair-Wilson). I am going into hospital next week, and it is my birthday today, so I hope that my constituents will be indulgent and not throw things at me for what I am about to say. In any case, I shall be out of their reach for a few days. I am looking forward to living four or five miles outside my new constituency. When in future I am accosted on a Saturday afternoon while shopping in Lymington high street, I can say, "I am sorry, but you must talk to my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest"—whose name I am not allowed to mention in the House. I can disclaim responsibility for any points that they may wish to raise.
In future we should have a running commission that is not charged with the task of carrying out an all-or-nothing job in the United Kingdom. I urge my hon. and learned Friend to listen to many of the points made by the right hon. Member for Leeds, South, who commands the respect of many hon. Members. Many of our constituents have raised points that concern them, but are not considered by lawyers to be important.
I know that I carry many hon. Members with me on one final point. The report has been published and everyone is talking about the new constituencies. However, Members of Parliament will continue to represent all their present constituencies until the general election. I regret the impression given by the media that people will be left without a Member of Parliament for maybe a year. That is not true, and I am sure that everyone wishes to join me in making that point clear. All of us, whatever happens to be our constituencies, will continue to represent all our constituents, whatever their politics, to the best of our ability until the next general election.
5.47 pm
Mr. Clement Freud: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley) whose birthday today seems to have given him a new maturity. We congratulate him and wish him well in hospital.
It was generally thought that this debate would be two days of whingeing, and it is good that there has been less whingeing than many of us had feared. It is natural that Members of Parliament, used to coping with the volatility of the electorate and the selectivity of their party political executives, feel badly about having their security threatened even further, this time by faceless functionaries. I say that advisedly, because the assistant
276
commissioner for my constituency, who was in full view, recommended something that was overruled; we know not by whom—hence faceless functionaries; one wonders who and why.
In an earlier intervention, the hon. Member for Christchurch and Lymington asked how other Opposition parties felt about this matter. We on the alliance Benches accept the Boundary Commission's report and we accept that it is not party political in its execution. However, it must be recognised that it is completely party political in its date of implementation. I was interested to hear the hon. Member for Christchurch and Lymington say that he would like to see a permanent Boundary Commission. I agree, though he should not implement all the decisions throughout the country at one time, because that would do a great disservice.
I read Hansard today because I was away when the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) spoke and noted his wish that "the weight of each vote should be as equal as possible." That is a statement with which no hon. Member in the House would argue. However, let me remind the House that at the 1979 general election it took 40,500 votes to elect one Conservative Member of Parliament, 43,000 to elect one Labour Member of Parliament and 390,000 votes to elect one Liberal Member of Parliament. If the House thinks that means that the weight of each vote is the same then the House must think again. Is it not high time that an element of proportional representation was introduced?
No Boundary Commission report will be generally acceptable. Boundaries made by man are never popular nor easily understood, unlike the boundaries made by God, consisting of seas, mountain ranges or rivers. If boundaries cannot be politically popular, then at least let them be easily understood.
The important point about the name of a constituency is not the pride with which a Member of Parliament brings it to Westminster but the ease with which constituents identify with it. Dorset, comprises the constituencies of Dorset, North, Dorset, South, Dorset, West and Christchurch and the people know roughly whether they live in the north, south or west.
I wish that Cambridgeshire had been similarly placed. Cambridgeshire had, and it seemed eminently sensible, the cities of Cambridge and Peterborough. It had Huntingdon, which was a recognisable area, and the Isle of Ely, which was similarly so. Both were historic, identifiable and recognisable. The county seat was called Cambridgeshire—which was a cumbersome seat, but people were used to it; they knew that if they were not in the Isle of Ely, Huntingdon or one of the cities they were in Cambridgeshire.
The boundary commissioners decided that they would keep Cambridge and Peterborough. For some reason, the commissioners said that they would keep Huntingdon, although they changed it around a bit, but the other constituencies are to be called South-East Cambridgeshire, South-West, Cambridgeshire and North-East Cambridgeshire—designations to two points of the compass when the people most in need of their Members of Parliament tend to be those least able to work out where they live to two points of the compass. As a Member of Parliament for 10 years, I have never met anyone who said to me "I live in north-east Cambridgeshire." Indeed, the parliamentary constituency of North-East Cambridgeshire

277
now stretches about 10 miles further west than it stretched before when it was called the Isle of Ely and was identifiable.
The assistant commissioner recommended that the old Isle of Ely—it is to be deprived of the city of Ely—should change its name. He recommended that it should be called Fenland which was an eminently sensible decision given the nature of the land. However, he was overruled. The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook will know that at the beginning of the century his constituency was called South-East Birmingham. In its wisdom, the Boundary Commission in the early 1900s changed the name from something which people did not understand—South-East Birmingham—to the identifiable constituency of Sparkbrook.
I am not whingeing—and nothing can be done this time—but I wish that the boundary commissioners and their assistants would bear in mind that the important aspect in the naming of a constituency is that people living therein should know what it is called and be able to identify the name.
I attended the inquiry by the Cambridgeshire boundary commissioners. I have great respect for the QC, who seemed an eminently fair person but I greatly shared the view of the right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) that a boundary commissioner should be an ex-Member of Parliament who not only understands the law, which I am sure is important, but knows something about the loyalty and the relationship that exists between a Member of Parliament and his constituents. The assistant commissioner in my area knew nothing of that. He had a vague notion of Cambridgeshire, because among the documents that were sent to him was a letter from his son who had been up at Cambridge university, and who had been asked by the Labour party to write a letter. The assistant commissioner asked us whether we thought that that would disqualify him from sitting. Rightly and properly, we said that it made no difference at all.
The hearing took place in shire hall, Cambridge, in a week when the roads were so icy that it was impossible to get there other than by parking one's car and using snowboots to ascend or by sliding down the hill. Attendance was thus limited. We were principally concerned because we did not know what was going to happen. It is no service to the people of a county if an inquiry is held that has no apparent ground rules. We sat around. When the assistant commissioner arrived, rather late, he told us who he was and, after a while, he asked us to give our names. We, as a nation, are not keen to jump up and say "I am me, and that is him".
There was a long silence until one of the secretaries to a district council stood up and said that he was a secretary to such a district council. By and by, the rest of us said who we were. Out of modesty, one waited for a while and then gave one's name. We did not know that the people assembled to give evidence would be called in the order in which their names were inscribed in the book. By the time it came to me—and I was probably most involved in the boundary changes—they had taken the evidence from all the people who had been quicker than I in giving my name to the assistant commissioner.
However informal an inquiry may be, it would be of enormous assistance if all inquiries were held in a specific way so that those who attend know what is to happen.
The assistant commissioner said to the people at the inquiry that he would look at whatever villages or towns
278
he was asked to look at and at one point in the inquiry I said that the village of Manea, which is in the Isle of Ely and was to remain in North-East Cambridgshire, was so totally different from the village of Farcet that the inhabitants seemed to speak a different language. Would he care to visit these places? I do not know whether he did so, but in the report I found that this had been changed. Instead of Farcet I now have three villages that I had not looked at during the hearing and that were outside my constituency. However, by then, it was too late to do anything about it.
If one criterion is the numerical similarity of constituencies, surely another and more important criterion must be the convenience of the electorate. Most of our complaints about the report stem from the fact that that was ignored. When professional footballers retire, they tend to become referees. When hon. Members cease being Members of Parliament, they might well become assistant commissioners, if only because they know that there is more to constituencies than a patch of land.
I share the views of many of those who have spoken. We shall desperately miss those constituents whom we lose, because no amount of politicking or advertising will make up for the years of representation, in which our constituents knew where we lived, who we were and what we represented—and, of course, representation went across political boundaries. One is political for the three weeks of an election and, after that, one represents. I am not at all sure whether assistant commissioners, with the input that they get from political parties, are sufficiently aware of that.
6.1 pm
Mr. Peter Hordern: I agree with the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud) in one respect at least. I refer to the very close association that every Member of Parliament naturally has with his constituency. It is inconvenient for Members of Parliament that between one Boundary Commission report and another the nature of constituencies can change quite considerably. We are discussing proposals that are based on the electorate in 1976. Since then I believe that the population in my constituency has grown at a faster rate than that in any other part of the country. I refer to the fact that part of Crawley and Horsham is dependent, to some extent, on the growth of Gatwick. Thus, the increase in population has been considerable both because of Gatwick and because of internal growth factors.
I have always represented a very large constituency. At present it has an electorate of about 110,000. Even now, under the Boundary Commission's proposals, Horsham will have an electorate of about 80,000, which is a considerable figure. In response to the right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees), I should say that it is of advantage if the boundary commissioners take account of local issues. I know that they are enjoined to do so, but it is not always easy. As it seems certain that the order will be passed, I can say now that it is not always easy for one Member of Parliament to represent a very large constituency that may cover different interests. One must be aware of those interests. I represent Crawley new town, and those who live there do not always have precisely the same interests as those who live in Horsham and the rural areas. For example, the growth of Gatwick is fax more likely to be welcomed in the new town than in Horsharm and the rural areas, because they have to suffer the

279
aeroplanes flying over and the noise at night. It is not always easy to represent two diametrically opposed views in one constituency, but one has to do one's best.
When the Boundary Commission reports, it should have more up-to-date figures for the electorate available to it. I am sure that that must be possible and the recommendations could then be based on up-to-date figures rather than on figures that are fully six years old. That point particularly affects those areas in which the population is growing quickly or dwindling rapidly.
It is essential that the Boundary Commission should be seen to be impartial. With respect to the views of others about judges, it is impossible for any other body of people satisfactorily to carry out the job that the House requires. I was amused when the right hon. Member for Leeds, South said that the House could not alter anything that the Boundary Commission did. I remember when he introduced the 1969 proposals. The House was invited to turn down the Boundary Commission's proposals en bloc, which it subsequently did.
Mr. Merlyn Rees: Whatever I felt before 1969, I think that it is impossible for a Government to alter anything, because their motives would immediately be suspect. I offered that as a reason why it cannot be done.
Mr. Hordern: I accept that point. I remember the occasion well, because mine was one of the five constituencies exempted from that request.
I turn to an important constituency point. As the Minister will know, the Boundary Commission made positive recommendations for every constituency bar two. There are two constituencies in which there is what I would call a permissive right for the Home Secretary to make a change. That change can be found on page 77 of volume one of the Boundary Commission's report. It states:
"There have been two exceptional cases where orders implementing the Local Government Boundary Commission's proposed changes to local government boundaries with effect from 1 April 1983 have been made subsequent to our having completed our consideration of those particular areas."
One of them concerns the boundary affecting a very small part of my constituency called Bewbush. It lies completely within the local authority boundary of Crawley. However, because of rapid growth, the Crawley area has now taken in what was within the local government area of Horsham.
The end of paragraph 4 in the Boundary Commission's report states:
"The Home Secretary may, however, in all the circumstances of these cases, wish to consider whether to make the necessary modifications to our recommendations prior to laying them before Parliament."
Therefore, my right hon. Friend was invited to consider changing the recommendations. However, he did not do so, for the best of all possible reasons. He said long ago that he would place the orders before the House just as they reached him. The report adds:
"We would only add that the assistant Commissioner who held the inquiry in West Sussex was aware of the imminence of the second Order and recommended that, if it was made in sufficient time, his proposals (which we adopted) should be modified in the above sense."
In those circumstances, it is only reasonable that a change should be made. I understand all the difficulties involved, but both the Crawley and Horsham councils have strongly put it to me that the change should be made
280
as soon as possible, and preferably within the order. The reason is that local government elections will be held on a register that will be different from that used for parliamentary elections. The issue affects only a comparatively few people. About 2,500 people will be directly affected. The Minister will be aware of the relevant paragraphs in the report which make the recommendations that I have mentioned, and I should be obliged if he would refer to them at the end of the debate.
I shall refer to only one other part of the report. Paragraph 19 on page 158 states:
"The Commissions may also conduct other reviews affecting just two constituencies or a group of constituencies between their general reviews."
It therefore seems that it would be possible to hold an interim review before the next time the commission reports generally. However, in view of the specific nature of the recommendation and the fact that the assistant commissioner and the commissioners themselves recommend that that small change should be made, I do not believe that a review is necessary in this case. A simple order would do. I therefore ask my right hon. Friend to invite the Boundary Commission to make an interim order as soon as possible to make that change in local boundaries as it affects that part of Crawley and Horsham.
6.12 pm
Mr. David Ennals: We have heard some excellent and thoughtful speeches from both sides of the House, including the speech by the hon. Member for Horsham and Crawley (Mr. Hordern). We cannot tell who will represent which constituency after the next election, but whoever represents Horsham and Crawley will have 80,000 electors. That suggests to me that the Boundary Commission ought to operate on up-to-date figures instead of ancient ones. It is quite wrong that, when new constituencies have been formed, we should find ourselves with constituencies that vary enormously in size. That case has been made in the courts and was made from the Opposition Front Bench by my hon. Friend the Member for Goole (Dr. Marshall).
There is something very unsatisfactory about this debate. We know that there is nothing that we can do. We cannot change a single jot or tittle. We cannot change a title or a shape. The order must be accepted or chucked out as a whole. Clearly we cannot chuck out the lot and start all over again. I must therefore tell my hon. Friend the Member for Goole that I am not prepared to vote against the order, even though the Boundary Commission report has the weaknesses that he has pointed out.
Sir Raymond Gower: There were many faults in the days when we used to vote on individual constituencies. That was absurd, because most hon. Members know little or nothing about the issues in a particular constituency.
Mr. Ennals: I warmly agree with the excellent point made by the hon. Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley) that the House should not be confronted, as it is today, with an overall change for every constituency in England. Changes should be made successively over years so that we are able to look carefully at each region. It is absurd that Parliament cannot do anything about the proposal except to support or oppose it.

281
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud) is not present. He has ably prepared for himself his next job after the next election. He would make an admirable member of the Boundary Commission.
I am opposed to the ideas put forward yesterday by the Liberal party and the Social Democratic party, and developed briefly by the hon. Member for Isle of Ely, about multi-Member constituencies. I am prepared to support proportional representation for elections for the European assembly, whose Members do not have the same relationship with, or responsibilities to, their individual constituents as we have to ours.
I feel very deeply about this matter. Our task as Members of Parliament is to identify with all those whom we represent, whatever their political party. As has been pointed out, the vast proportion of our time is spent not on party political issues, but in seeking to serve the interests of our constituents. I believe that that applies to Members in all parts of the House.
Essentially, it is possible for us to do that because our constituencies are not too big and we know a large proportion of our constituents. We meet them and they come to see us. The hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Sir P. Hawkins) is no doubt waiting to contribute to the debate. If there were a multi-Member constituency of Norfolk with nine Members, people would have to decide whether to go to him or to me. That would be thoroughly unsatisfactory. We must retain the identity and the link between individual constituents and their Member of Parliament. Once elected, we loyally serve the interests of all our constituents. They do not have to agree with us. We do our best to serve the interests of all of them. Unlike those of my right hon. Friend the Member of Leeds, South (Mr. Rees), my constituents not only write to me but flock to my advice bureau.
I should prefer my constituency to remain as it is. A constituency of only 47,000 electors suits me very well. I feel that I can give better service to that number than to the 67,000 proposed for the new constituency. However, we cannot have a House of Commons with 900 Members. Indeed, I believe that there are too many already. I name no names, but there is a short list of 300 whom I should be happy to get rid of straight away. Therefore, I accept that there had to be a change for Norwich, which has two Members of Parliament each representing about 47,000 constituents. It was for the Boundary Commission to consider what the change should be. Nevertheless, it seemed unfair that people living just outside the city who work and shop in the city, who come into the city for their entertainment and culture, whose homes are in the Norwich postal district and who see the city as their centre, should find themselves suddenly part of a rural constituency when their interests are best served in the Norwich constituency of which they feel that they are part. My purpose in saying that is not, of course, to argue for further local government change.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South asked whether the commission examined the constituencies on the ground. Certainly, its first proposals for Norfolk, especially those affecting the constituency of Norwich, North, suggested that it had not. The first proposal was ludicrous. A hunk of five Norwich city wards was thrown on to the end of a long sausage, the rest of which was rural. There was no community of interests.
282
There were no common transport facilities. It was simply a ragbag, and we sensibly challenged the proposal at an inquiry.
The commission's other mistake was to propose only one seat for Norwich. It certainly underestimated the feelings of the people of Norwich, whatever their political parties. The city has had two Members of Parliament since 1265—since the first Parliament. The suggestion that the number should be reduced to one was therefore received with great anger. It was opposed by the city council, the chamber of commerce, individual traders and business people, citizens advice bureaux, church leaders and all kinds of other organisations. Thank heavens for the system of inquiries. The assistant commissioner who held the inquiry did a good job and a sensible constituency was constructed.
I am sorry to refer once again to the hon. Member for Isle of Ely in his absence, but as he is not here I cannot do otherwise. My modesty was greater than his. He explained his modesty and said that he raised his voice and was one of the last to admit who he was. I was so modest that I did not even go, because I thought that someone might have thought that I had a political motive.
Sir Paul Hawkins: Never.
Mr. Ennals: I thought it best that these issues should be argued by local people and organisations. However, I watched what happened with interest. The proposals made by the city of Norwich were accepted in full after examination and were welcomed enormously by all except the Conservative party, for reasons that I do not understand. Most of its supporters were glad to see that Norwich would continue to have two Members of Parliament.
I welcome warmly the addition to Norwich, North of those who come from Hellesdon, Sprowston, Thorpe St. Andrew and Catton. They are, in a sense, all suburbs of the city. As I said when I criticised the original proposal, the people come into the city to work, travel, park their cars, go to cinemas and theatres, and so on. I believe that they welcome the proposal and look forward to being represented in Parliament by someone who also represents the city. They form part of the postal area and community of interests of Norwich.
It will be a great relief for me—provided that I am renominated a week on Friday, as I hope I shall be—because, instead of having to pass on letters written to me by people outside my constituency who think that they are in my constituency, I shall now be able to deal with their problems. It will save me an enormous amount of time and give much more satisfaction to those who communicate constantly with me. As a result of the assistant commissioner's wisdom, we shall have a compact, balanced constituency with a common interest and centre. I believe that the vast majority of people, whatever their political affiliations, welcome the change.
I confirm that Members are elected not just to serve their party followers. It is a tragedy that the country does not always understand that. People write and say, "I do not want to get in touch with that Member because he is not of my party." That is wrong. Constituents receive good service because Members seek to represent them as well as they can. That is the message that should go to the country. Members of Parliament—there may be a few

283
exceptions but I do not know or see any—are hardworking people who represent the whole of their constituency.
I welcome warmly the changes made by the Boundary Commission. I believe that they will be to the advantage of the people who have been brought in to the new constituency of Norwich, North.
6.24 pm
Sir Paul Hawkins: I am pleased to follow the right hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Ennals), and I agree with a good deal of what he has said, in particular the last few sentences. It is my proud boast that we represent all our constituents. I hope that I give as good a service to a person whom I know to be a Labour supporter as I do to the one who writes across the bottom of his letter, "I have always voted Conservative."
I have great admiration for the speech of the right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees). A great deal of his speech should be read and read again, particularly when we consider, as I hope we shall, some revision of the way in which the Boundary Commission goes about its work.
I agree with what the right hon. Member for Leeds, South and other hon. Members have said about proportional representation. There is a tremendous community of interest and feeling between a Member and his constituents, which must be maintained. I cannot agree with the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud)—if he is elected, it will be for North-East Cambridgeshire—who said that proportional representation would give Norfolk eight or nine Members of Parliament, to whom anyone, from Yarmouth to Downham Market, can write. A Member elected in those circumstances would not have the opportunity of seeing all those people.
Everyone works his constituency differently. A few years ago I gave up surgeries in the accepted sense because I found sometimes that so many people turned up without appointments that I was there until 7 o'clock, and on other occasions I sat there for three hours and never saw a soul. A great deal of money was spent advertising the surgeries. I try now to see my constituents on Friday afternoons and Monday mornings if I cannot settle matters over the telephone or by writing to them. One would have to travel all over Norfolk and one could not have surgeries, in the accepted sense, bringing people from Yarmouth, Norwich and so on. I am against the effect of proportional representation, which results in a Member of Parliament having responsibility for no particular area, but responsibility for every elector who wishes to take up a matter with him.
I was born and bred in my constituency. I was a county councillor on my patch and then chairman of my association, candidate and Member of Parliament. The process started in 1947 when I was sitting sound asleep at the back of a hall at an annual general meeting to which I had never been before when someone said, "What about Paul Hawkins, why not make him vice-chairman?" That is how it all started. Under our present system a Member and his family are known by a tremendous number of people and the Member knows them and their families. That means a great deal.
This boundary revision will mean that some 30,000 people will be taken from my constituency and another
284
30,000 will come from another constituency. It will be traumatic, not just for the Member involved but for many of his constituents. Thank goodness, in my case the name of Norfolk, South-West is being retained. That means that coming into Norfolk, South-West are three villages, two of which—Upwell and Outwell—are split down the middle by a canal. Part of them is in the Isle of Ely and part in the county of Norfolk. Despite the fact that they are divided only by a little water, one half is totally loyal to Norfolk and the other half is totally loyal to the Isle of Ely. I, too, am sorry that the name "Isle of Ely" is going, because the constituency has been represented by some fine men, including an old colleague, Harry Legge-Bourke.
I cannot agree with what the Home Secretary said about the commission having done a good job. As has been pointed out by many hon. Members, that may not have been the fault of the commission. It is probably the fault of the House for not having laid down better ground rules for the commission's procedure or the appointment of commissioners who understand how Members of Parliament work. Even though it may be said that it is a question of jobs for the boys, it would be better if in a new commission advantage were taken of the knowledge of Members who are respected on both sides of the House.
In the 1969 revision a constituency called Norfolk, Central was removed. Now a similar seat, called Mid-Norfolk, is proposed. It is the most peculiar seat I have seen. It runs from Swaffham in my constituency, right round to Acle, going round the top of Norwich towards Yarmouth. I pity the poor Member of Parliament who will have to represent that area. It is like a sausage and it will be difficult to manage. However, I hope that the 30,000 of my constituents who will be in that constituency will have a good Member of Parliament and will be as happy as they have been in Norfolk, South-West. To remove a seat from Norfolk and then to return it in 10, 12 or 15 years' time is wrong. It should never have happened.
In future my constituency will contain three market towns—Downham Market, where I live, Swaffham, which is in the constituency now, and Watton, which is just outside the constituency. I know like the back of my hand the road between Swaffham and Watton. In the original proposal four villages which overlap the road joining those two towns were being removed from the constituency. Obviously someone in London drew a boundary on the map and took those four villages out of the constituency because the main road, not the road that everybody uses, goes somewhere else. However, the commissioner understood the point and brought the four villages into the new constituency. There are too many mistakes like that. There has been too little feeling for constituents and their relationship with their Members of Parliament. Improvements should be made in future.
I felt it would be wrong for me to oppose the proposed change in my area, although it has destroyed a constituency with which I have had the closest relationship for a long time, because the commission was giving back to Norfolk a seat which had been wrongly taken away. The commission was righting a wrong which had been done in an area represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. MacGregor), who has the task of looking after 105,000 electors in an area 65 miles long by 40 miles wide. Adjoining that constituency were the two

285
seats in Norwich, the closely knit centre of Norfolk. Historic though they may be, each has only about 46,000 electors.
We have heard three or four good speeches about how boundary revision might be carried out in future. I hope that something will be done early in the next Parliament so that there will not be a similar traumatic experience, not only for Members but for many of their constituents. It is the elderly, the ill, those who cannot write very well, those who do not have telephones and those who live in isolated villages who most often want the help of their Member of Parliament. They feel lost for a time when they are in a new area. As many distinguished Members have said, I hope that the whole process of the revision of boundaries will be examined again in the near future.
6.39 pm
Mr. Robert Litherland: I, too, should like to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) who gave us the benefit of his immense knowledge and expertise on the subject; he also brought refreshing honesty to the debate, because it is about politics and the composition of the next Government.
In yesterday's debate hon. Members spoke about the effect of the changes on the prospects of the politicial parties, in particular at the next election. The report was accepted by Parliament. As almost every hon. Member has said today, the draft order will be passed. It is a fait accompli. We can do nothing about it. The general debate yesterday covered the overall effect on seats. There was vested interest. If we accept what the pundits are predicting, it is the Labour party which will be the loser as a result of the proposed changes. It is thought that 20 to 30 seats may be at issue. Therefore, it is in the Government's interest to get it through as quickly as possible.
Today's debate involves a more detailed discussion of the effects of the Boundary Commission's report on individual constituencies. Everybody who takes an interest in politics will realise that the new boundaries will have a far-reaching effect, especially in inner city areas. As the majority of those constituencies are Labour-controlled, it is in the Government's interest to have the matter dealt with as quickly as possible. Today's debate is an academic exercise. After the Law Lords decision all hon. Members know that the matter is a fait accompli.
I criticise the commission for treating voters as numbers rather than considering their needs. As has been demonstrated, there are vast discrepancies in the report's figures. What has not been taken into consideration are the discrepancies in the problems of different areas—especially inner city areas. I have listened this afternoon to hon. Members talking about their interests in geography, mathematics and so on, but very little has been said about people and the problems of inner city areas. It is not politically expedient to consider the problems of inner city areas at present. The effect of determining constituencies purely by number rather than by need will only be experienced in the future and then by individual constituents.
Cities such as Manchester have for several years experienced a mass exodus of young, able people, strong in wind and limb, to the suburbs and the new towns in search of employment. In the north-west we talk of the drift to the south-east of England. It has often been shown
286
that the people who remain in inner city areas are those most in need of support—the elderly, the semi-skilled, the young unemployed, and single parents. Those people need the advice of Members of Parliament and councillors. Their predicament makes them the most vulnerable sections in our society. The inner city areas have a heavy concentration of poverty and poor housing conditions and a great need for welfare facilities. How can we compare the lot of the people who live in inner city areas with that of better-off constituencies that do not have such problems?
Visitors to my advice bureaux do not have to make an appointment. I have four advice bureaux a month, at the Labour club or the library, and people queue up to see me. I can work from 10 o'clock in the morning until 3 in the afternoon and all the problems with which I deal are personal matters. That has not been considered at all in the boundary changes. We cannot blame the Boundary Commission for that but its dependence on the numbers game will eventually harm a great many needy people in the inner city areas.
The main objection to the report in my constituency is to the new size of the electorate. The commission has almost doubled the electorate in the inner city area of Manchester. I know that it is a small electorate and we knew that there would have to be changes, but the electorate has been increased to 74,750 in an area with one of the highest levels of deprivation. Yet in neighbouring affluent areas such as Cheadle, the Boundary Commission has established an electorate of 62,000, and in Hazel Grove—another affluent area—one of 60,000. How on earth can it be justified that two suburban affluent constituencies should have electorates of almost 15,000 fewer than the inner city of Manchester? To the layman, it just does not make sense. As has been said, it is absolutely daft. The disparity between needs and numbers should have been considered by the commission.
Mr. John Wells: The House will note what the hon. Gentleman says, but can he give some idea of the trend of the decline in the inner city area about which he is speaking? Might it not be that the Boundary Commission has looked forward and that the 75,000 of which he has spoken will be down to the 60,000s in a few years?
Mr. Litherland: I am grateful for that intervention. I shall deal with that point later. At the moment I am trying to deal with the disparity of need which has not been recognised in the report or by previous Governments.
Inner city areas suffer from disparity in aid programmes. Different Governments have directed aid to inner city areas because they know how deprived they are. The most socially and economically marginal groups, such as ethnic minorities and single-parent families, are concentrated in the inner city areas and they are the people who mainly come to my advice bureaux for assistance.
A Member of Parliament will have great difficulty in representing such an electorate of 74,000. If I have an advice bureau on a Saturday and my wife acts as my secretary she does not finish typing until Thursday because there are so many problems to be dealt with.
Manchester, Central is a massive inner city seat at the top end of the electorate quota while the suburban areas that I have mentioned are at the bottom end. That does not make sense to a layman like me. There could have been

287
scope in the interpretation of the statutory requirements for bringing about a fairer and more acceptable outcome to the inquiry. As it is, the electorate will suffer and the Member will have such a vast case load that it will become extremely difficult to provide the service required. I am sorry to say that in the inner city areas it will become far more pedestrian and some of us may finish up as mere letter writers.
People are not just numbers. They all have varied needs, none more than those in constituencies such as mine. Nevertheless, with all the representations that have been made by interested parties, including the local authority, little consideration has been given to this basic need and the commission has never been allowed to give it.
The Boundary Commission worked on the assumption that the population of inner city areas, including that of Manchester, would fall and that this would equalise the discrepancies. This appears to be a false assumption when this Government, with all their rhetoric, predict a regeneration of inner city areas and when the policy of local authorities is one of renewal to counteract the decline.
In other words, what we are doing in Manchester is trying to bring people back into the inner city area instead of the city going dead at night when people commute to surrounding areas. National and local policy, therefore, is to regenerate the city. If this is successful and more people come back into the city, that will contradict the commission's forecast of a decline in population.
My constituents will be getting a raw deal from the boundary change. The only concession given by the commission, funnily enough, was to revert to the title Manchester, Central. I am sure that that is some consolation to the electorate in my area.
I can see no good reason why Manchester, Central should be penalised in comparison with the more affluent constituencies that I have mentioned, in both case load and electoral numbers. The fault may lie with the House in laying down the remit for the commission, but it will be the inner city constituencies which have to pick up the pieces. The Boundary Commission should have been given the greater flexibility when considering the problems of these constituencies.
We have heard about cockshies, and they are unacceptable. We are talking about people and their problems and it is their interests that we must have at heart. It is too late now. We are going through an academic exercise and the debate this afternoon is rather farcical.
6.53 pm
Mr. Matthew Parris: The hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Litherland) has raised a very real problem when he says that 65,000 inner city constituents present a Member with a greater work load than do 65,000 rural constituents. That is probably true. I work hard but I am not overworked. I am not sinking beneath an unmanageable work load. Some of my colleagues would be if they did not work until midnight every night. On a slack day I have five or six letters to deal with; on a busy one I have 15 or 20. Once, for an exercise, I compared my work load with that of my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Stevens) and we found that he had three times as much constituency work as I have.
288
Unfortunately, a Member of Parliament's pastoral and consultative or social work is not his only job. He also has another—some would say more important—function, that of taking part in the political process in the House. I am driven to the conclusion that constituencies ought to be about the same size, otherwise constituents in small constituencies have a greater weight in the democratic process than those in larger constituencies. I say "about". The commission should be allowed a certain leeway where there are special local considerations.
I agree too with what the hon. Member for Manchester, Central said about the need to come to terms with the party political nature of changes of this kind. The commissioners themselves are not influenced by those considerations but the report that they produce has party political overtones, so I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley) and my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Benyon) that it is worth looking at a system of roving boundary commissioners who would deal with a few constituencies or a county or two at a time, so that changes would be made constantly and we would not have a long period with no change, followed by a sudden, very large, change, with all its political ramifications and the accompanying ill feeling. I suggest to my right hon. Friend that this is something well worth looking at and I am sure that we are not the first to have thought of it.
I agree with the right hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Ennals) in his opposition to the point put by the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud), to the effect that we should have multi-party constituencies, for all the reasons that the right hon. Member put forward. I am sure it would be a grave mistake. Neverthless, I agree with the hon. Member for Isle of Ely on the importance of names and of a link, which means something to constituents, between the name of their constituency and something significant in the community. As he said, it is not the pride with which we bring some name tag to this place that is important but the link that the constituent himself can make.
The right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) amused us all by reporting that he had discovered that the Conservative party existed in fact but not perhaps in law. I could put it to him that his own party suffers from the opposite defect, as does my constituency, Derbyshire, West. It exists in law on a map but it does not really exist in fact. It means something to me and to the West Derbyshire district council but although most of my constituents know that they live in West Derbyshire they do not know who else does, where it starts or where it stops, because it is not really a place. It is like the east midlands. It does not exist.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Isle of Ely is not here. I wish he would make the speech he made to us to his colleagues in the Liberal party and the Social Democratic party, who have some idea of a regional local government based on such units as the east midlands. For all the reasons that he put to the House this evening, that would be a disastrous idea.
In my maiden speech in this Chamber, remarking on the fact that my predecessor had left the House to join the European assembly, I said,
"It could only be a sense of duty that leads a man to take Europe before West Derbyshire. I could weigh the whole of Holland against Hartington and Hathersage and the whole of Denmark against Doveridge, and find them wanting. Tideswell

289
and Bradwell may have their rivalries, but they are on a higher plane than the rivalries of Strasbourg and Luxembourg."—[Official Report, 25 July 1979; Vol. 971, c. 658.]
There must have been some unhappy prescience in my remarks because, before two years were out, the boundary commissioners were suggesting that Tideswell, Bradwell Hathersage and Grindleford should all be taken away from West Derbyshire.
I understand the complaint formally put by the Labour party that the commissioners have played the numbers game too exactly, but my complaint is the opposite one and rather closer to that expressed by the hon. Member for Manchester, Central. In my constituency and in Derbyshire as a whole the boundary commissioners have played the numbers game rather too exactly when there was scope for greater leeway. They have succeeded in creating in the new West Derbyshire a constituency of about 65,000 electors, which is about right, but in doing so they have divided communities and have separated villages and towns from the market towns in whose hinterland they lie. They have aggravated a serious error made by local government boundary changes and they have destroyed the simple and helpful identity that we used to have between the West Derbyshire district and the West Derbyshire constituency.
It may be argued that I and others had the opportunity to put those considerations to the boundary commissioners while they were sitting and that the commissioners could have considered those objections and, possibly, have accepted them. We did so, and I am happy to say that as a result of representations Monyash, Taddington, Chelmorton, Eyam and Stoney Middleton have, on appeal, so to speak, been allowed to stay within the constituency.
I cannot blame the boundary commissioners for the fact that most of the alterations we would have liked were not made. It was not their fault. They were acting on instructions. My right hon. Friend suggested that in some sense the boundary commissioners were acting on the instructions of Parliament. Constitutionally speaking, they were, but, in every way in which we as Back Benchers have been involved in the process, they were not. I do not feel, now that we are debating the order, that our instructions are likely to count.
At present, my constituency has only 52,000 electors. That is below average, although in my view it is near enough to 65,000. The hon. Member for Manchester, Central spoke of the problems of constituencies in which the work load on the Member of Parliament was likely to be very great because of inner city difficulties. The problem with my constituency is that it is 40 miles long, and communications are difficult. Although I have only 52,000 electors, representing them in a constituency 40 miles from end to end is pretty hard work, particularly at weekends. My constituency has been enlarged greatly at one end and diminished slightly at the other. I am not happy about the diminution.
I am particularly sorry to see the large village of Tideswell go. Unfortunately, from the point of view of the boundary commissioners, Tideswell is on the way to nowhere, so it is hard to say that it belongs to anywhere in particular. However, in my view, and the view of the Tideswell villagers, the fact that it is on the way to nowhere is one of its chief charms.
Tideswell has belonged to the West Derbyshire constituency since 1884. It continues to belong to the district in every practical way. Its identity lies with us, and
290
for the sake of a few thousand extra votes that it will transfer to the High Peak constituency it is a shame that it had to go. I do not believe that it need have gone.
Had my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Mr. Le Marchant) been planning to stand again at the next election, I could part more willingly with those parts of my constituency that will go into High Peak. He is known and liked as much in my constituency as he is in his own. My constituents would have been happy to go in the knowledge that he would have been their Member of Parliament.
They will now go into a new constituency which will have very little meaning to them and which is allied much more to Manchester than to Bakewell, Matlock or Sheffield. They will also have a new Member of Parliament. I doubt whether the people of Tideswell are any happier about that than the people of Bradwell, which lies even more on the outskirts of my constituency.
Hathersage, which has a similar problem, looks entirely to Sheffield and to Bakewell. It does not look towards Buxton, Manchester, Chapel-en-le-Frith or those other centres of population associated with High Peak. We are sorry to see Hathersage go as well.
A particular problem is the village of Grindleford, which, due to a seriously mistaken local government boundary change some time ago, is now tied in with Hathersage. Because Hathersage had to go, Grindleford had to go, because so far as practicable the boundary commissioners were not allowed to divide wards. There is no argument for Grindleford being in any parliamentary constituency other than West Derbyshire.
We shall lose the identity between the West Derbyshire district and the West Derbyshire constituency. Some people will be living in the district of West Derbyshire but voting in the High Peak constituency. Others will be living in the Amber Valley district and voting in the West Derbyshire constituency. That was a simple identity that people found easy to understand, and it is a real loss, as well as expensive in terms of the confusion that it will cause. This is particularly worrying, because, although I know that the local government boundary reviews are not obliged to follow parliamentary constituency boundary reviews, there will always be some pressure to draw the new West Derbyshire district along the same lines as the West Derbyshire constituency.
I ask the Minister to confirm beyond any doubt that local government boundary reorganisations need pay no heed at all to parliamentary reorganisations. I like the identity between district and constituency. The district of West Derbyshire is right as it is, and just because the parliamentary constituency has changed—unnecessarily in my opinion—that does not mean that the district should change.
Change is always exciting. We in West Derbyshire know and like Belper town, Duffield, Quarndon, Kirk Langley and all the other towns and villages that wall come into the West Derbyshire constituency. We welcome them, and are pleased to have them join us.
I have no axe to grind, because the changes will make my constituency safer for the Conservative party. However, I cannot allow the loss of Tideswell, Bradwell, Hathersage and Grindleford to pass without remarking that I do not feel that their loss was necessary. Whether or not they miss West Derbyshire, we shall miss them.
It is important that we say, and that our constituents realise, that up to until the next general election we are the

291
Members of Parliament for our old constituencies. The voters in those parts of my constituency which will go should remember that I remain their Member of Parliament. I am pleased and keen to look after their interests right up until the next general election. I do not want them to go. They have not gone yet. They do not go until the next general election. It is important to make that plain.
7.7 pm
Mr. Albert Roberts: I am pleased to have this opportunity to comment on the Rothwell area. I was delighted by the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees), who hit the nail on the head when he talked about the boundary commissioners making decisions although they were completely devoid of any local knowledge and ignored the evidence put to them.
I shall not be standing at the next election. Therefore, I have no political axe to grind. I was born and bred and have lived for 74 years in my constituency. I can therefore claim that no hon. Member or no one in my area has a better knowledge of that part of the country than I. That also goes for my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South.
I have been told in the last 18 months "We shall be sorry to lose you, Albert, but our next Member will be Merlyn." Not long ago my right hon. Friend rather than I was asked to open a new club. That is why I wish to put certain facts on record. First, the boundary commissioners reported that the Rothwell area, which is part of the Normanton constituency, should go into the constituency of Morley and Leeds, South. An inquiry was held, and Mr. Hindle of Liverpool was chosen to conduct both the Wakefield and Leeds inquiries.
My hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Handsworth (Miss Wright) and for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Harrison) put tremendous pressure on the Wakefield inquiry for west Yorkshire to have another Member of Parliament. There was to be another seat in Rothwell. There is no doubt that at that time the commissioners were nodding in agreement. My right hon. and hon. Friends thought that they could take it for granted that we would get the extra seat. That was before the Leeds inquiry.
Mention has been made of housewives giving evidence. A housewife did give evidence. She was a member of the Liberal party. The Liberals believe that they can do well if Rothwell is linked with Normanton and Ossett, which is miles away. That is a political consideration. I am not speaking in those terms because I have no political axe to grind.
I have already said that I was born and bred in Rothwell. Before the 1950 redistribution, the Rothwell constituency included part of the Leeds, South constituency. There was an electorate of more than 80,000. That redistribution broke up Normanton and left just Normanton urban district council. The present Normanton constituency comprises three urban district councils—Normanton, which has a population of 17,000; Stanley, which has a population of 18,000; and Rothwell, which has a population of 28,000.
292
I became a member of the local council in the late 1930s. I was a member for 15 years and the chairman in 1948–49. I know well that we were an advanced urban district council. We exercised delegated authority from the West Riding county council. We ran our own welfare services and our own immunisation programme against diphtheria. That is going back quite a bit.
All those sub-committees and connections were tied up with Leeds. We were completely Leeds-oriented. The new constituency, after the 1950 redistribution, was called Normanton and it was nearly twice as large as the urban authority. That was an injustice to the people of Rothwell, which was the largest. I am not speaking of the Normanton people. They have supported me well and I have served them well, but I still have a divided loyalty. In the final analysis I can speak with more authority and authencity about Rothwell.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) is to have dinner in Normaton on 18 March, but I shall not be there, owing to another engagement. He referred yesterday to breaking inter-county boundaries. There has been an incision by taking Rothwell from the Leeds, South constituency. The commissioners are taking in to Leeds, South areas that are three miles closer to Ossett than we are. There are none so blind as those who do not wish to see. I am convinced that the commissioner who conducted the local inquiry did not look at the map that shows that the bulk of the population in Rothwell is flowing over into Leeds.
I have a moral right and duty to raise this issue tonight. After the Leeds inquiry I wrote to the commissioner. I pointed out the developments in the Rothwell area. We had dusk-to-dawn lighting long before most other county boroughs. We provided excellent services. Why they should have been ignored on this occasion is beyond my comprehension. I know that the boundaries are a fait accompli now. Nevertheless, I appeal for the name of Rothwell to be appended to the Normanton constituency.
The Home Secretary said that Parliament instructs the boundary commissioners. Nevertheless, the issue of names has been raised many times today. Some may ask why I did not make this appeal at the inquiry. The answer is that we did not know that this would happen. It came out of the blue. That is why some of the points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South are especially cogent. I am dissatisfied. I hope that something can be done to recognise the people with whom I have been brought up and lived for 74 years.
There should be more consultation with local people. In spite of what some people have said, we have all been disoriented. Nevertheless, the evidence has been completely ignored by the commissioner. When I sent proposals and information to the commissioner, I said that I was prepared to be cross-examined on what I had said. I knew that I could give him a week's start and lick him in a fortnight. He used the words that suited him in the report. He never referred to the services and links between us and the county borough. He merely said that he could take Rothwell and put it with Normanton and Ossett, thereby producing the extra seat with which everyone would be happy.
The Home Secretary said that we must consider people and their attitudes. That has not been done. According to the structure plan for Leeds, which the commission never mentioned, we are to absorb 10,000 people from South Leeds. It takes me 10 minutes to drive from my home to

293
Leeds, yet we are to be put with Ossett, a textile town, that is miles away. The people of Rothwell do not want that. If that is an example of justice, I do not know what justice is. The Rothwell people have a right to be recognised. I hope that the Government will say what steps can be taken so that the name of Rothwell can be appended to Normanton.
7.18 pm
Mr. Hugh Dykes: The hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. Roberts), who is to retire from the House at the next election and will be missed by hon. Members on both sides of the House, expressed an objective frustration that many hon. Members feel about some of the recommendations that have been made by the Boundary Commission. Although we all appreciate that this exercise must take place every so often and that it must be conducted entirely independently and properly, I must echo, on behalf of Harrow, many of the frustrations about the decisions that have been made.
Unfortunately, I missed the beginning of the debate, and I apologise to the occupants of both Front Benches for my absence. I had unavoidably to attend other meetings. In reciprocity and fairness to the House, I shall keep my remarks brief.
I agree with the remarks that were made yesterday by my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Morrison) in the general debate on the Adjournment of the House. In a remarkable suggestion he proposed specifically that boundary considerations should be determined with the modern technology of computers, information technology and all the fascinating techniques with which hon. Members are now beginning to grapple—we have them installed in the Library—which are designed to obtain information and to enable decisions to be made quickly. My hon. Friend suggested the detailed computer mapping of all areas that would take account of the human, social, geographical and historical factors of different areas as well as the numbers as easily but more competently, more scientifically, more thoroughly and with more justice and fairness than the present procedure. Above all, the result would be achieved with more rapidity, which is the main factor when consideration is given to the present exercise.
When the House debates orders of this character we expect the resentments of various hon. Members to be expressed, including their personal fates. We also hear about the misjoining of different areas or the separation of areas which were hitherto joined. Reference is made to the imbalance of social factors and disparity in numbers. Reference was made to all these resentments and frustrations against the background that the exercise is already out of date. The present exercise mirrors the 1976 position, not the current one, and it appears to be quite arbitrary.
There is some substance in the argument that the commission should not be required to give detailed individual reasons for its final decision. However, I have some hesitation in accepting that principle when the commission goes against the specific and tangible recommendation of the inspector or assistant commissioner. That has happened in a number of instances in the report. Although the conventional wisdom of the press and the demonology of the newspapers tell us that the proposals will assist the Conservative party and cause it to benefit by about 20 seats, that issue is separate from the detailed debates
294
that will take place. That opinion is based on conjecture and speculation, and none of us can be sure about it. I echo the feeling of my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes and others that the boundary exercise is not conducted in the right way for modern conditions—that is putting it mildly and modestly—and should be undertaken in a more modern manner, notwithstanding the successful way in which the commission has exercised its responsibilities over the years.
During yesterday's general debate my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, Central (Sir A. Grant) referred to the nonsensical and deplorable decision of the commission in respect of the London borough of Harrow. It has adhered to its recommendation that the representation of Harrow should be reduced from three seats to two, notwithstanding the strong and unequivocal recommendation of the inspector that three seats should be retained. I have great sympathy with my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, Central in seeing, to use a military phrase, his horse shot from under him. I have enormous sympathy for the anger and resentment of all local groups, especially those which represent residents of Harrow, Central, as well as the entire borough.
The borough is well known to the right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees), who was once the Labour party's parliamentary candidate for Harrow, East. The conventional line—this is a common feeling—is that the Labour party in the London borough of Harrow is in favour, for its own reasons, of a reduction to two parliamentary seats, but that is not strictly so. The anger and resentment of the Labour candidate in Harrow, Central is as strong as that of anyone else. That is the view of those who see the seat disappearing arbitrarily and without logical justification.
Reference is made on page 27 of the commission's report to the inspector's report. In paragraph 121 there is a long list of reasons why the inspector took careful note of the arguments advanced by many individuals and interested parties during the two-day inquiry that took place. They sought to advance arguments in favour of the retention of the three seats. Before the war there was only one Harrow constituency. There were two seats immediately after the war and, following the 1948 recommendation, there were three. Account was taken of the increase in population.
The arguments and reasons that have been enunciated by hon. Members in respect of their own constituencies have similarly been expressed in Harrow, but an additional element has been included. It is one of increasing validity because it draws attention to the influx of new populations into the outer as well as the inner London areas, which has led to a great deal of additional work when Members attend their surgeries. The "welfare" work has much increased. It is right that that has happened, and I am not complaining about it, but it has added to the normal work that hon. Members undertake. There has also been an increase in the number of elderly citizens in the outer London areas. These people have their own special problems, and they add to the burden. I am not indulging in any excessive special pleading about the extra work that Members undertake in the outer London areas. It is a factor that is much more evident in all our large cities than in the rural areas.
Much more important even than that is the respectable statistical, constitutional and local boundary basis on

295
which the inspector made his main recommendation to retain the three Harrow seats. Paragraph 122 on page 27 states:
"Turning to the matter of the re-warding of the borough, the inspector found that their number had been adjusted on the assumption of three constituencies and that, if the present proposals had been foreseen, different adjustments would have been made."
Paragraph 123 confirms the illogicality of the commission's conclusions. I am not making that up, because I have read a number of these reports. Normally we do not read the reports at any great length, because they are extremely wearisome, especially when the conclusions are not relevant to our own areas. However, I have read a number of them and I consider paragraph 123 to be the strongest inspector's report that I have ever seen in favour of retaining three Harrow seats.
One of the proposed two constituencies had to have about 7,000 more electors than the other to accommodate the 21 wards that had already had their frontiers reconstructed. These are the two new seats of Harrow, East and Harrow, West. Based on the 1976 figures, Harrow, East will have 79,705 electors while Harrow, West will have 72,890. They will not come anywhere near the 65,000 electoral quota datum line. They will be miles apart with a built-in major discrepancy. This is because of the illogicality of trying to achieve equality of population in the constituencies. This represents an effective negation of the whole exercise without any explanation.
Under existing law the commission is entitled to say "Despite what the inspector said"—despite it being one of the most powerful reports that I have read—"we shall adhere to our recommendations." That is a sad reflection on the inefficiency of the present exercise. Perhaps it is accidental, but an unfortunate unfairness is imposed on many constituencies, especially when one seat disappears in a cluster of three.
In paragraph 124 the report states:
"We observed that the assistant Commissioner had assumed that the departure from the 1976/77 ward review was probably unique and the degree of resulting imbalance in a high-electorate borough was certainly unique."
How can that admission be made when the commission is empowered under existing arrangements arbitrarily to go ahead with what it had decided hitherto?
My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, Central was right yesterday when he said that the worst aspect was the commission's response when the borough acted on the advice that it, the commission, could receive further representations after the inspector's report, which itself had received tremendous support and enthusiasm within the entire borough. The borough council, on behalf of all interested parties and in an entirely non-party political way, made further representations. It merely received an acknowledgement card from the commission. There was no further response, and a couple of weeks later the arbitrary announcement was made that the commission was adhering to its decision.
Harrow is now obliged—this has happened arbitrarily and unfairly—to accept a reduction from three parliamentary seats to two. Almost everyone has protested and that has not been done in a party political manner. The local groups in Harrow, Central have been forced to dissolve their committees. The Labour candidate for Harrow, Central—he is perhaps beginning a political
296
career, but I do not mean that in terms of Harrow, Central if it were to continue to exist—will be forced to go elsewhere. Perhaps that personal inconvenience for him is a minor matter compared with the global solution for the London borough of Harrow, but it is a disturbing reflection of the accidents and wrong results that can be produced by the nature of this exercise as it now stands. It must be modernised and made ready for the 1980s.
Once again I should like to state my feelings of sadness and regret that the people of Harrow, Central have to lose their local party formation and that my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, Central will see his seat disappear after such a long and distinguished career. We hope that better procedures in future will avoid this most unfortunate and disagreeable result.
7.30 pm
Mr. Martin Flannery: I shall be brief. Our comments about the review of boundaries are relevant only in so far as they concern what happens in future because the die is cast and there is nothing that we can do about it. That fact gives an air of lethargy, unreality and even hopelessness to the debate. What is happening in Member's constituencies should be told only if it has an impact on what happens in future.
The debate, both yesterday and today, has underlined the necessity for a complete change in how the review takes place. No longer can we go on in the old way. Although contributions so far in this debate have emanated largely from hon. Members who are dissatisfied for one reason or another, there is something wrong about what has happened in the past and is happening now which makes a larger number of people dissatisfied than hitherto. They are dissatisfied not necessarily for personal reasons. My hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. Roberts) has said that he will not seek re-election, yet he still feels deeply about what has happened. A grand tour of our constituencies does not necessarily do much good.
I listened with immense interest to the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Parris) who told us about the beauties of his constituency. As a lifelong rambler, I ramble regularly through that lovely constituency. The difference between us is that he runs through it. He knows a great deal about the area, as I do. I also know a great deal about my area. My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) spoke of his lack of dissatisfaction with what has happened in Birmingham and his dissatisfaction with what has happened in south Yorkshire. We were both born in Hillsborough. Indeed his mother, our former lord mayor, is still a constituent and an old friend of mine. I, like him, feel dissatisfied not with individuals but with the Boundary Commission. I believe that it is outdated, that it does not do a proper job and that we must think a great deal more about it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Litherland) described the Boundary Commission as a farce. Although I hesitate to use such a word about it, that word does come to mind. Without blaming anyone individually or collectively, there are so many and such massive irregularities in its findings that, no matter how the commissioners try to do their job, especially with the criteria they use, all types of wrongs emerge that are bound to make hon. Members think more deeply about this.
When one thinks about the size of the commission and the unknown people who work for it, one is bound to

297
conclude that it cannot possibly do a proper job. Even we politicians do not know how many people work for the commission, how they go about their work and how they come to their conclusions. We do not know whether any form of democracy is involved or whether their decisions are completely arbitrary. We do not know how decisions are made by these powerful individuals who, in their normal lives, probably have nowhere near the same power as they have on the Boundary Commission.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) pointed out that the chairman of the commission is not a chairman at all. That we give a nominal chairmanship to Mr. Speaker, thus conveying the impression that it is a democratic body, when he plays no role at all underlines what a farce the commission is. My hon. Friend the Member for Goole (Dr. Marshall), who is hardly a mob orator, made a thoughtful, knowledgeable speech in which he underlined many wrongs that could be construed by the Home Secretary to be criticisms of him. But the way the whole thing is organised means that seemingly dishonourable things are done because the results are so wildly astray from any form of democracy. Virtually no one, even the Chamber, apart from those deeply involved, understands exactly how these forces come into play and how the commissioners arrive at their conclusions.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook pointed out that the review in West Yorkshire was conducted completely differently from the review in South Yorkshire. God knows why—I do not. In West Yorkshire there was one inquiry and one inspector. In South Yorkshire, there was one inquiry for each district. I went to the inquiry in my area. I was virtually the only person there because people feel that inquiries can have no democratic impact. I went out of interest, because I wanted to know what would happen to my constituency and how and why it would happen. It is disgraceful that there should be one inquiry in West Yorkshire but four in South Yorkshire. It meant that the interplay of ideas between the four districts in South Yorkshire could not take place. We had to discuss the Sheffield area without any interchange of ideas with Barnsley, Rotherham and Doncaster. Those areas were satisfied but those areas that were not satisfied had no opportunity, because of the lack of democracy, to argue democratically about what was happening. Meanwhile, just over the border in West Yorkshire, there was one inspector. Such a thing should not be allowed because it is wrong and undemocratic. I do not know whether that has occurred in other areas. Something is drastically wrong with the whole business.
The procedure is partisan in its impact, whether the commissioners intend it or not. It allows people to say that things have gone wrong but it allows one party to emerge with a whole group of new safe seats. We should not have to argue about that. We should not have a system imposed on us that allows that to happen. Any system that allows that to happen and causes unnecessary friction, hardship or strife is wrong and therefore should be examined with great care with a view to changing it and to ensure that it does not occur again.
My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central said that a constituency that included an inner city, where there are many problems, should have a smaller electorate. I profoundly disagree with that view. The main raison d'etre of the commission is the old Chartist demand of equal electoral areas. They fought for that with a great
298
petition many, many years ago, together with their struggle for suffrage and so on. But we still do not have that. It is time that we had equal electoral areas, and not the disparity that now exists.
Three seats have been created in Barnsley—one with 58,000 electorate, one with 53,000 and one with 52,000. That is an average of 54,000. Sheffield has six seats with a total electorate of 420,326, which is an average of 70,000 a seat. One seat in Sheffield has an electorate of 77,000, and another of 76,000, yet the smallest seat in Barnsley has an electorate of 52,000. That is a difference of about 25,000. Such a disparity is absolute nonsense. It shows the utter failure of our method of dealing with the problems that confront us.
Even were Sheffield given another seat, the average would still be more than 60,000 per seat, compared with an average of 54,000 per seat in Barnsley. It is nonsense to tolerate a position where the frailty of human decisions and the imposition of criteria that can be blatantly violated without criticism are bound to make us think that the system should be changed. We must recognise that we are in the 20th century and produce a method of computerisation that includes a large element of humanity.
During the recent court case the Labour party put forward the view that there was ample time to do as I have suggested. However, the die is now cast and nothing can be done. The disparity in numbers is appalling, and no one can defend that. There will always be partisan reasons for saying "I am all right, my party is all right". That is had counsel and anti-democratic. It has nothing in common with the reason why we are in this Chamber. We are here to carry out the democratic will of those who elected us. I want there to be one man, one vote. I do not want one vote to be more important than another vote. We must abolish the undemocratic system of the present Boundary Commission and institute a completely new method of review based on modern approaches and, more than anything else, on the old Chartist demand of equal electoral areas. That lesson must be learnt, even though the die is cast.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook raised the fundamental point about the idea of not crossing boundaries. People have sought refuge in the neat business of keeping boundaries intact. If boundaries are not crossed, and that results in a disparity in the number of electors per constituency, the boundaries become undemocratic. We must democratise the whole system by ensuring that the boundaries are not the raison d'etre of the commission. There is far more to the matter than that, and we must think about computerisation.
Mr. John Wells: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it might be a better service to democracy if local government boundaries were changed by tie same commission, although not necessarily at the same time? If there were a single commission, using computer techniques, we could achieve a far more democratic system.
Mr. Flannery: There is a great deal of good sense in the hon. Gentleman's remarks. The matter should be considered in the context of what we all want, which is real democracy and new methods.
The lesson to be learnt from the debate is that there is dissatisfaction with the present method, which allows a partisan and wrong approach to the problem. There must

299
ultimately be new legislation so that people can see that real democracy is operating and that all the arguments that arise because of the wrong methods now being used are rendered wholly unnecessary in future.
7.46 pm
Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: What's in a name of a constituency? A number of hon. Members have asked that. The hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud) said that "North-East Cambridgeshire" was meaningless. My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Parris) said that a name carried little understanding to the people. I wish to show that when there is a total misnomer, as in the case of Thanet, it is going too far.
For more than 1,000 years Thanet has remained the Isle of Thanet—from the days of the Wansom with the Fleet going from Richborough through to Reculver along the coastline. It was, and remains, an island. It still becomes an island when there are floods. It is cut off from any outside area. Yet the recommendation of the boundary commissioners is that there should be two new seats—one covering Herne Bay and Thanet, West and the other Sandwich and Thanet, East, and that they should be known as Thanet, North and Thanet, South. But Herne Bay has not the remotest connection with Thanet, and Sandwich has even less. Neither of them forms any part of Thanet. No one recognised that fact when the new names of Thanet, North and Thanet, South were proposed.
If I have the privilege of representing one of those seats, which would be Herne Bay and Thanet West, I would wish it to be known by that name in the House. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, East (Mr Aitken) will share the view that his constituency should be called Thanet and Sandwich, rather than Thanet, South.
I am the only hon. Member of all those who have spoken so far who had the task of representing a whole constituency on the previous occasion, 10 years ago, when the boundaries were considered. We had a hilarious time. The size of Thanet was about 88,000. Hon. Members will know that when split the two seats were under 50,000—about 44,000 and 46,000. There was a strong view on the provisional case to split it up and put Sandwich into Thanet together with some of the surrounding villages. There was no question about Herne Bay at that stage.
I was briefed on behalf of the Isle of Thanet. I then represented the whole of the Isle of Thanet. I was to attend the inquiry and present the case for Thanet that it should remain one and indivisible, and that if and when it was split it should be split within the boundaries of Thanet—with Ramsgate and Broadstairs making Thanet, East; and Margate, Westgate, Birchington and the villages making Thanet, West. There was one important body to be considered—the burgesses of Sandwich. So to Sandwich I went to meet the mayor and burgesses. I went into their magnificent medieval hall and started by saying, "The people of Ramsgate are not at all keen that the people of Sandwich should join Thanet." The laughter echoed throughout the hall. I am sorry to say that the people of Sandwich had no great inclination to join the people of Thanet. They wanted, then as now, to retain their independence.
As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary knows better than anyone, Sandwich is the greatest golfing centre
300
and one of the greatest social and entertaining centres in England, certainly on the south coast. The people of Sandwich are an independent crowd. They did not want to join Thanet. They still do not. They wanted to remain where they were before in the constituency of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dover and Deal (Mr. Rees). However, because of the numbers game, there was no hope.
When we considered the matter 10 years ago the figure of 54,000 or 55,000 was regarded as perfectly normal for a seat. Note that the magic figure now is 65,700. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) mentioned that in the proposals there are seats of 53,000 and 54,000 as well as of 65,000 and 70,000. However, I am sorry to say that there are none under 50,000. Both Thanet, East and Thanet, West are under 50,000.
I was advised that there was no way that we could successfully oppose splintering the Isle of Thanet. We then had to consider how the matter could be dealt with. The Boundary Commission has reported that Sandwich plus some villages go into the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, East (Mr. Aitken). Herne Bay joins us. Let us put ourselves in the position of someone in Herne Bay when we are asked to join Thanet, which we may visit from time to time. Incidentally, there are some happy aspects. Both towns are strong tourist centres. Herne Bay has a good road to Birchington and Margate. Communication is not too bad. However, communication from Sandwich and the villages to Ramsgate and Broadstairs is negligible.
The commissioner presenting the case is usually a silk, a Queen's counsel, and has, apart from knowledge of the law, an appreciation of how to take evidence properly. In the case to which I have referred I presented and called the evidence. First, on communications I called the traffic manager of the area to give the evidence about the buses to show that there was no communication, as there is now, between Sandwich and Ramsgate or Sandwich and Broadstairs, and that the villages faced not in the direction of Thanet but the other way. That is relevant evidence. Then the evidence was given of whether the people have clubs and other community facilities that hold them together. Hon. Members have said that that is an important aspect. It is true that one cannot possess the precise numbers. There must be a greater difference than 1,000 to take account of the community aspects in different areas.
It is fair to say on behalf of those who sit to take the evidence that they sift it and listen to the community case, the transport case and other local aspects without considering the party political aspects that are naturally pressed upon them by those who give evidence on the different cases.
I agree that the matter must be looked at carefully again. With the computer additions that we have, we must consider what the right size is. How was the magic figure of 65,700 arrived at? Is it the right figure? Should it be less? Should it be more? Having represented nearly 90,000 and representing now only half that figure, I think that probably around 60,000 is right. I do not feel overworked with a constituency of about 45,000. However, the numbers game is not the prime consideration. One must look after the areas. One must consider the problems that arise in those areas. It must be true to some extent that the inner cities raise more problems than the county and rural constituencies.

301
That is the general picture. In considering the matter, one must see that the community aspect is dealt with properly. In my constituency there is a delightful little village called Minster. It has a lovely old church, very attractive pubs and so on. It is charming. For some reason, which I fail to see, it has been taken out of my constituency of Thanet, West and put into my hon. Friend's constituency of Thanet, East, so it will join the new constituency of Thanet, South. However, it will cut straight across the local authority boundary. The county council will have to represent Minster and the villages in Thanet, West. The numbers involved were only about 2,500. It was singularly unfortunate that the decision was made to move Minster from Thanet, West to Thanet, East, which will become Thanet, South.
I revert to the name. It is extraordinary that one can invent a name and put into a geographical entity that has existed as one for 1,000 years towns from outside and call them part of Thanet, to make up Thanet, North and Thanet, South, when they are nothing of the kind. I am not prepared to accept that, whatever is said. I shall always take that view.
I hope that in due course the necessary amendment can be made. Woe betide the first person, if I am returned, who calls me the hon. Member for Thanet, North. I shall say, "No. The hon. Member for Herne Bay and Thanet, if you please." That is my view.
The matter must be looked at carefully again. We must consider how the numbers game is to be worked out. It is for us to give the guidelines on whether the numbers should be 65,000 or 75,000. Then it is for us to say what the margin will be—for example, 5 per cent. or 10 per cent. A 10 per cent. margin is more than enough and is probably necessary.
If we ensure those two matters, we must then have a good method of ensuring that evidence is given properly. I was surprised that the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud) was so humble—it is contrary to his general pugnacious nature—as to allow other hon. Members to speak first. In presenting the case, the existing Member of Parliament should speak first. I have used that right and would use it in future if I was presenting such a case. We must present the evidence to someone who is totally objective and impartial in his consideration of such matters.
8 pm
Mr. Bob Cryer: The cost of the Boundary Commission report at nearly £50 and the cost of the order are prohibitive for the vast majority of those who may wish to examine them. As they are part of legislation, the Government should use their best endeavours to keep down the cost of all Government reports and statutory instruments to a minimum because those affected have the right of access to the legislative process.
I shall divide my speech into two parts, the first being concerned with the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, of which I am Chairman. The order that we are discussing was first considered on 22 February, a week ago yesterday. The Committee decided to ask for a memorandum from the Home Office. However, it meets weekly, and the Home Office needs time to provide all Members with such a memorandum. It is a convention of the Committee to allow a Department a minimum of a week to produce memoranda. We received the memorandum, and the Committee decided against
302
obtaining evidence from officials who were standing by. I shall return to the questions that I wished to ask in a moment, but I have little doubt that the Committee believed that, had it taken evidence yesterday, there would have been great difficulty in presenting it to the House. It is worth recalling that the House set up the Committee to carry out a job. Whether an instrument is controversial or not, the Government, in their organisation of the timetable, should allow the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments enough time to do that job. The only evidence that would have been available would, at the best possible speed, have been uncorrected evidence from the cross-examination of officials.
The position with the Scottish order, which we shall debate tomorrow, is even worse. There would not have been time for the Committee to obtain a report from the Scottish Office for assessment and presentation to the House, which means that the Government are deliberately and calculatedly setting aside a Committee that they helped to set up and that acts as a watchdog in the process of delegated legislation on behalf of the House, and therefore on behalf of the people of Britain. It makes the Committee a travesty of what it could and should be. It was established following complaints about the use of delegated powers by Ministers. The fact that a member of the Opposition chairs the Committee shows that, along with the Public Accounts Committee, the House wishes to see some zealous scrutiny rather than the supine acquiescence that might occur if a Member of the governing party chaired the Committee.
The Committee was so dissatisfied that it agreed that I should write to the Leader of the House generally, but especially about the Scottish order, urging the Government to allow one week between the consideration by the Joint Committee or the Select Committee and the instrument being debated either on the Floor of the House or in a merits Committee. In case hon. Members believe that I am partial about this order, may I say that I raised the question on the Floor of the House about three weeks ago. The Joint Committee had pushed a report, as fast as it could, into the Vote Office to help a merits Committee to debate an instrument. The Committee criticised the Joint Committee for not providing the information earlier, but the true culprits were the Government, who decided the timetable and who did not provide enough time between consideration of the instrument by the Joint Committee and consideration by a merits Committee or by the House.
The evidence that the Committee did not consider is the relationship between the Boundary Commission and the Local Government Boundary Commission. For example, it is claimed that this order is not affected by other orders because the local government units are those existing on 1 February. That removes from consideration the many orders that come into effect in April and May and that are listed in the memorandum supplied by the Home Office. However, some orders come into force on 1 February. One example is the North Yorkshire and West Yorkshire (Areas) Order 1982, which came into operation for the purposes described in article 2 on 1 February 1983. Article 2 refers to the Local Government Area Changes Regulations 1976, as amended. That instrument provides that immediately after the coming into operation of this order a new register of electors can be compiled. If that had happened on 1 February, the electors of Kildwick, which is at present in the Keighley parliamentary constituency, will be in the Skipton parliamentary

303
constituency. Therefore, the order is not composed of the local authority wards that the Boundary Commission believed, but is qualified by the order.
The House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Act 1958, in section 4, states:
"Where a Boundary Commission revised any proposed recommendations after publishing a notice of them under … Part III of the First Schedule to the principal Act, the Commission shall comply again with that paragraph in relation to the revised recommendations, as if no earlier notice had been published."
Having knowledge of the alterations to the North Yorkshire and West Yorkshire (Areas) Order and the knowledge that it gives a power under the 1976 statutory instrument, should the commission have published a notification of the changes under the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Act 1958? That disparity and confusion exist because of the separate natures of the Local Government Boundary Commission and the Parliamentary Boundary Commission.
It has been suggested that the two commissions and the legislation should be combined so that that disparity and apparent conflict may be eradicated. The argument that can then arise is that the Government have been over-hasty in their considerations of the procedure to a point where they are accused of fixing Parliament to get the order through because it gives the Government a parliamentary advantage. It is quite wrong that the position is such that it can give rise to that accusation.
The workings of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, which is not at the glamorous end of parliamentary business, do not come to public attention week after week. The last occasion on which the Committee came to public notice was when it discovered that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office had failed to provide immunity for the participants in the Lancaster House conference. Indeed, Bishop Muzorewa could have been arrested at any moment on a certain date because the Foreign and Commonwealth Office had not done its work. That was years ago.
I understand from a report in The Guardian that the Conservative Whips were furious and that the door of the Leader of the House was open because it had "melted" because the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments had so arranged its business as to call for a memorandum, whereas the Whips, it was claimed, wanted everything to slide through smoothly. I would be very disturbed if such allegations were true, because it would be interfering with the proper consideration by the Joint Committee of the statutory instrument concerned. That would lend weight to the suggeston that the Government were determined to steamroller the order through irrespective of the proper parliamentary procedures. That is a serious charge.
Coupled with the question raised not by myself or the Committee but by another hon. Member about the relationship with the European assembly seats, there are real grounds for supposing that the Government are only too eager to get this legislation through. As my hon. Friend the Member for Goole (Dr. Marshall) pointed out, it is a patent absurdity that Conservative Members should flock into the Lobby to vote for the legislation to allow for simultaneous presentation of parliamentary and European assembly seats—that is sensible because the building blocks of the European assembly seats are the parliamentary constituencies—and then subsequently go
304
into the Lobby in support of the 1981 Act which removed the requirement from the Boundary Commission that both the European assembly seats and the parliamentary constituency seats should be presented simultaneously. The memorandum makes the point that while we should fight parliamentary seats on the new boundaries, the European assembly seats should be on the old boundaries. That is a patent absurdity. That gives rise to severe criticisms against the Government. The Government should not be surprised if people make the charge that this is a gerrymandering process to give them an advantage.
While there have been cash limits on education, on local authorities and on nationalised industries, there have been no cash limits on the Boundary Commission. There have been expressions of dissatisfaction from both sides of the House, not just from the Labour Benches. The Boundary Commission's future must be established as an independent body. It must be seen to be independent and separate from the Government, and not, as in some people's minds, as yielding to the Government's pressure for speed to present the report. The position in my constituency demonstrates to some degree the subservience of the Boundary Commission to the wishes of the Government.
In my view, and that of many others, the assistant commissioner's report on the Keighley constituency was badly written and judged. We suggested that Bingley should be substituted for Ilkley in the proposal, in order to bring Keighley nearer the target figure. However, we were concerned that there was no clear refusal to hold a second public inquiry, despite a major decision about the Aire valley trunk road—running from Keighley to Bingley and finishing almost on the edge of the old Bingley urban district council—being announced in May, well after the assistant commissioner's recommendation had been made to the Boundary Commission in February. For the sake of brevity, I shall not go into some of the other factors.
After an exchange of letters between myself and the secretary of the Boundary Commission, the commission agreed to accept further written representations. Point by point I refuted the commissioner's attempt to downgrade Ilkley and to upgrade Keighley. Keighley is entirely different, is nearer Bingley and is a textile and engineering town like Bingley. It is not the sort of declining spa such as the commissioner inaccurately described Ilkley.
Nearly £50 of heavyweight documentation has been provided to all too few people. From the complexity of the report and documents, it is clear that the printing process must have been well under way when my representations were made, approximately in the middle of December. Therefore, contrary to what had been implied, the Boundary Commission could not have closely considered my representations. That underlines the point that the Boundary Commission was more concerned about the Government's pressure on it to finish the report and to present it to Parliament than about the fact that there were bound to be people of all political persuasions who would be dissatisfied, because the work had to be seen to be done as scrupulously and fairly as possible. However, that is not true of the preparation, printing and presentation to the Government of this report.
The report demonstrates the Conservative Government's ruthlessness. They have pressed this issue through Parliament. They have trampled on the rights of Parliament and set aside the proper processes of Committees set up by the House. The Minister has just

305
wandered in, and he knows that that is so. I hope that later he will tell us why the Government did not allow adequate time for the reports of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments to be made. Do the Government accept that there should be seven days between the Committee's consideration of an instrument and consideration in the House?
It is said that the Conservatives will gain a number of seats as a result of the Boundary Commission's report. When the Conservatives wanted to get rid of London county council and to bring in the stockbroker belt, they enacted the London Government Act to end Labour rule in London. With the GLC shaped by the advent of the stockbroker belt, it was thought that London would never see Labour control. However, it did. Because Labour controlled the county boroughs, the Local Government Act 1972 was introduced, under which the posher suburban areas were brought into the big county boroughs to form metropolitan district councils and district councils. Labour was supposed not to have much chance. However, we now happen to have control, in the most part, of the former big county boroughs. The Boundary Commission will not provide rule for the Tories either. We shall win not because of reshaped boundaries, but because of political ideas that will bring hope to the people of our country.
8.19 pm
Mr. Michael Mates: I should like to talk about two separate but closely related matters. The first matter concerns the problems facing the Boundary Commission in its consideration of constituencies for Hampshire and the second is the considerations that led the commissioners to construct the proposed new constituency of East Hampshire from most of my present constituency.
The task facing the Boundary Commission was very difficult. The commissioners had to make a number of fundamental decisions at the outset and did not find them easy to make, constrained as they felt themselves to be by the rules that governed their conduct and their decisions. At present, as can be seen from table 5 on page 76 of volume 1 of the report, there are 12 seats wholly within the county of Hampshire and two that are mostly within the county but fall partly outside it because the local government reorganisation removed Christchurch and a small part of the New Forest and added them to Dorset.
That anomaly had to be corrected but, roughly speaking, there were 14 seats. The first problem facing the Boundary Commission was to decide how many seats there should be in Hampshire, with the newly drawn map of Hampshire and the constituencies therein. According to table 5, the theoretical entitlement on the 1976 electoral roll was 15·38. The Commission decided to allocate 15 seats. That sounds sensible until one considers the problem of the Isle of Wight, which is in most respects a separate county. It now has the status of a county, although it used to be part of Hampshire and still shares the Hampshire police authority and does not have its own county health authority.
In their preliminary remarks, when they set out the parameters within which they felt that they should operate, the commissioners stated that they would not cross county boundaries unless there was a compelling reason to do so. They mentioned the Isle of Wight as one area where there
306
might be a compelling reason to do so. They therefore had the option of taking Hampshire and the Isle of Wight as one entity.
In the recent past, the Isle of Wight has always been represented by one seat. It was one of the larger seats in the country, and under the current proposals it will be by far the largest. According to table 5, the Isle of Wight's theoretical entitlement was 1·35 seats. If one takes Hampshire and the Isle of Wight together and adds together Hampshire's entitlement of 15·38 seats and the Isle of Wight's entitlement of 1·35 seats, one gets a total theoretical entitlement of 16·73.
Had that figure been announced for any other county, there is no doubt that the Boundary Commission would have given it 17 seats. There would have been no argument. However, as in the end the commissioners declined to look at the two areas as an entity we have only 15 seats for the new Hampshire constituencies and one for the Isle of Wight. We are one seat short. That under-representation of the electors in that part of the country ought to be questioned before it is tolerated.
In addition, the commission felt that it was bound, except in exceptional circumstances, to work on the basis of the 1976 figures. The figure for Hampshire was then 1,011,505, but in seeking to justify its argument the commission itself states in paragraph 209 on page 108 of its report:
"The assistant Commissioner who held the inquiry reported that the preliminary issue was whether the county should have been allocated sixteen, instead of fifteen, seats. A number of authorities and bodies of electors argued that there was a strong case for sixteen seats, based on the substantial growth in the electorate to 1,082,521, with a theoretical entitlement to 15.93, at the time of the inquiry in 1981."
I should have thought that 15·93 was as close to 16 as one could expect to get. The commission then made the following powerful statement:
"The assistant Commissioner accepted the merits of this proposal but considered that the Rules for the Redistribution of Seats provided no basis on which to grant Hampshire an extra seat."
I shall not detain the House with the long and controversial arguments that were made on an earlier occasion for an additional seat in Lancashire, but the assistant commissioner who presided over our inquiry decided that the situation was not the same and that there was no justification within the terms of reference for him to do that which, according to his own clear statement, he felt that it was right to do.
The growth in population in Hampshire between 1976 and 1981 was just over 70,000 electors. Not only could that increase have been accommodated through the allocation of an extra seat to the county without any effect on the entitlement of that seat, but it means in effect that more than a constituency's worth of people collectively have no vote in the House. Because the assistant commissioner felt unable to do what he knew was right, a whole constituency's worth of electors has been denied the right to representation in the House.
One must add to that the even greater population growth in the Isle of Wight, where the figure was 88,460 in 1976 but is now, I believe, knocking on 100,000. This means that there has been even greater distortion of the level of representation of the people of Hampshire and the Isle of Wight in this House. That is not right and it is too big a difference to be tolerated.
We cannot blame the assistant commissioner or the Boundary Commission. Ultimately, we must blame

307
ourselves. I have gone into this in some detail because—here I agree with the hon. Members for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) and for Keighley (Mr. Cryer)—we must ensure that on the next occasion we give the Boundary Commission or whatever we call the new body enough scope for sensible variation of the terms of reference to meet the needs of people rather than being tied by boundaries that we ourselves have set for quite different reasons. We must ensure a reasonably even representation of the people of this country in this place by the Members who come to this place.
There was great disappointment in Hampshire. First, more than 70,000 people have been robbed of representation in the House. Secondly, the result of that has been the compulsion upon the commissioners to divide the county into seats, many of which made no sense whatsoever either with what had gone before historically or with the community of interests, generally, within the county. We have all had to shuffle around and ties have been broken. I shall not go into the details of the other parts of the county because the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Mitchell) spoke a length yesterday about the divorcing of parts of that borough into the Eastleigh constituency, which has no local or county tie with the city of Southampton.
The same thing has happened in Portsmouth. It has happened in Fareham, a borough constituency which everybody understood, with an almost total community of interest. A large part of the southern area of my rural constituency will now be taken into that largely urban one with, I think, dismay on both sides. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Mr. Lloyd) has no cause for dismay; he will be getting some very good, sound, sensible and loyal country people who will be a credit to him and to the new constituency of Fareham.
Of course, to create a new seat there has been a fundamental change in Christchurch and Lymington, which have always looked together but have had to part because of this arbitrary change in the county boundary. It has happened in the New Forest, Winchester, Basingstoke and Aldershot, all because the assistant commissioner said, "Yes, we should have an extra seat in Hampshire, but, no, I cannot allow or direct myself to do it because the rules for the redistribution of seats provide no basis on which to grant Hampshire an extra seat."
Let us note this, and when we come to consider, as we must, what to do next, let us, for goodness sake, not again tie the hands of the boundary commissioners so that they cannot make decisions which they have confessed in their report would be sensible and for the good of the people whose welfare they are seeking to serve.
What actually happened in Hampshire was that the commissioners started in Gosport, which they considered the fulcrum. There were great difficulties because of the water barriers at Southampton—the river divides Southampton—the Hamble, and the water barriers in Portsmouth. Gosport was a little island on its own that could not conveniently be coped with, so they started there and worked their way round doing the mathematical calculations, trying, obviously, to keep communities together but not succeeding because of the limits that they had set themselves. When they found that the jigsaw puzzle was all but complete they said, "Well, the rest will have to be East Hampshire".
308
The assistant commissioner was quite frank about this when he spoke to us at the inquiry. Petersfield, which I have had the great honour to represent for the past nine years, is a fine closely knit rural community with a complete district council and part of another. Instead of that, we have now been left with a long, thin sausage stretching from north of the M3 practically to the borders of Portsmouth; with the district council cut in half; with one third of another district council added and with the two major urban communities within that district arbitrarily split, after we had spent seven or eight years following the local boundary commission review of local government in 1974, knitting the two communities of Alton and Petersfield together and getting people to work together, because they had been fiercely independent urban and rural district councils before local government reorganisation.
Having just achieved all that, with great efforts having been made by the district council itself and with tremendous help from the county council to get the whole thing working as a unit, we find that the work that we have all been doing together over the years is arbitrarily destroyed because the constituency is cut in half. Alton has been pushed into the Winchester constituency, to which it looks for absolutely nothing, leaving the rest of the district council, of which Petersfield is now the largest part, and part of the Hart district, which has always looked to Aldershot and indeed further north than that, put into that semi-urban conglomerate that is the corner of north-east Hampshire.
The assistant commissioner said, according to paragraph 213 on page 109:
"Objectors to our proposed East Hampshire constituency were mainly divided between those who objected to the drastic alterations to the present Petersfield seat and those who wanted an East Hampshire constituency coterminous with the district boundary. The assistant Commissioner accepted that the seat we had recommended was less than ideal"—
I may say that he used rather stronger words when he was speaking to us at the inquiry—
"and considered a counter proposal in respect of East Hampshire and the remainder of the county. He concluded, however, that a coterminous seat in East Hampshire would produce ripples in Eastleigh and North-West Hampshire".
More than ripples have been produced in Petersfield. They have been damned great waves and they have practically destroyed a very close-knit and highly united constituency. Nothing can be done about this. I toyed with the idea of putting down amendments. I notice that some of my hon. Friends have done so. Clearly, because again of the system which we ourselves have determined, nothing can be done about this. We cannot agree that one bit of the report ought to be changed, because it stands or falls together.
Mr. Cryer: Would the hon. Gentleman not agree that it would not have been helpful if three or four orders, instead of one massive order, had been put down for the different regions? The legislation provides that if any order is rejected the Home Secretary is entitled to bring back an amended order. In that way, instead of having all or nothing, which is the ordinary characteristic of delegated legislation, we could have had a shot, without massive changes in primary legislation, at producing the sort of changes the hon. Gentleman has in mind.
Mr. Mates: There may well be some merit in what the hon. Gentleman says. I have not studied the whole thing

309
closely enough to be able to give a judgment on that. There may well be merit, as has been suggested, in having a rolling look at what the Commission is doing. These are complex matters and I expect there are many disadvantages, as there would be advantages.
It cannot he right that a report of such importance and complexity, although it can be debated, cannot properly be amended even when the arguments are overwhelmingly in favour of change. We have to like it or lump it. It would have been intolerable if my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary had sought either to change the report or to send it back. Because there would have been absolute nonsense made of any form of change in the parliamentary representation, he has had to accept it, unlike one of his predecessors who knew that he had only two choices—to accept or to reject the report. He came to the Dispatch Box as Home Secretary and, in one of the most shameful episodes in gerrymandering, recommended his hon. Friends to reject a report which had been independently arrived at.
Mr. Merlyn Rees: The hon. Gentleman should have been here earlier when I fully explained what happened. The hon. Gentleman genuinely does not know what he is talking about.
Mr. Mates: I was referring to the fact that the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) made remarks that in my view were totally shameful.
Having talked briefly about the Hampshire problem, I should like to make one more comment about my constituency. One of the threads which has run through many of my hon. Friends' arguments is the way in which the constituencies have been named. We had before in Hampshire 14 seats, all of which had names which were focal points that people understood and with which they could identify. Furthermore, people who were not members of the constituency or from that part of the world had some idea that the Member for Winchester had Winchester at the heart of his seat. The same applies to Christchurch and Lymington, Fareham, Eastleigh and Gosport. They all rang a bell with people and therefore one was able to identify oneself with the people that one represented.
There are two fundamentally changed seats now in Hampshire. What have the commissioners done? Instead of keeping to the well-tried and trusted habit they have called one North-West Hampshire and the other East Hampshire. I shall not say much about North-West Hampshire; it is largely a new seat and I do not suppose that many hon. Members will be able in the twinkling of an eye to say that they know where it is. However, right at the heart of it is Andover and everybody knows where that is, because it is the market town. So why on earth call it something as amorphous, as meaningless, as North-West Hampshire? There can be no reason behind that except bureaucratic tidiness and that is something that the House ought to be able to do something about.
My constituency is now to be called East Hampshire. I argued in front of the assistant commissioner at the inquiry that that was nonsense because not only does it fly in the face of history but it will create rather than prevent confusion and doubt in electors' minds. It is sad to have to say that there will not be a Member in the House representing Petersfield after the next election because for 676 years there has been a Member here for Petersfield.
310
The first Member came here in 1307 when Henricus de Celario and Ricardus atte Brouke were summoned to attend Parliament which was meeting at Carlisle. From that date until 1553 the same situation applied and from then until 1832 there were two Members for that constituency. The electorate seems to have varied from about 70 in 1754 to some 40,000 or 50,0000 in the latter stages.
Mr. Waller: Is my hon. Friend aware that one of his great predecessors was known as "one-speech Hamilton" and in his great maiden speech in 1755 he spoke from 2 o'clock in the afternoon until a quarter to 5 the next morning? Would my hon. Friend like to emulate him? I am sure that there are many hon. Members who would be delighted to hear him make a speech of a similar length.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): Order. An equally large number of hon. Members would not wish to hear such a speech.
Mr. Mates: I take the point, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was not going to mention "one-speech Hamilton". He never spoke again. I fear that if I were to try to emulate him I might find it somewhat difficult to catch your eye in the future.
Although I seem to be ending on a slightly light-hearted note, it is with a heavy heart that I say that it is an absolute shame that after more than 600 years, just to please some bureaucrat, Petersfield will not be represented in the House. I hope very much that this will be only a temporary lapse, because next time round one will want to fight even harder.
The practical reason why I object to the change in the constituency is that we now have a parliamentary constituency of East Hampshire, which is this Long, thin sausage that I have described, an East Hampshire district council, half of which is not now to be in that parliamentary constituency, and an East Hampshire Euro-constituency. Thus, we have three different levels of representation, local, national and international, all with the same name. Is it any wonder that electors become more rather than less confused about who represents them to do what?
I very much hope that when we look at this in the future we will be able to arrive at some more sensible decisions and that the system will allow us to ask questions and argue in this place about the sort of anomalies that I have mentioned.
8.46 pm
Mr. Robert Parry: Like my right hon. and hon. Friends, I rise to speak against the proposals of the Boundary Commission and to support the argument put forward by the Labour party in the courts for a fairer and more equitable distribution of seats. Before discussing the problems of Members of Parliament who represent inner city constituencies, I must say that I was not present when my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Litherland) spoke. His constituency has many problems similar to those of my own and I may repeat points already made by him, but from a Liverpool point of view.
Hon. Members will be aware that publication of the census review in November 1981 showed that male unemployment in Liverpool, Scotland Exchange approached 43 per cent., the highest level of

311
unemployment in the United Kingdom. Since then unemployment in Liverpool has increased by several thousand. We have seen more factories close and more people moving from the inner city areas into the suburbs. The census survey also highlighted the problem of poverty. Scotland Exchange has probably one of the lowest figures for car ownership in inner city areas in the United Kingdom.
Tógether with the rising level of unemployment, we have seen an increase in crime. At Question Time in the House only a couple of weeks ago the Home Secretary accepted that increases in crime are linked with high levels of unemployment. As in most city centres, we have in the Liverpool, Scotland Exchange constituency a number of night clubs and social clubs. We have a large concentration of public houses, Yates's wine lodges and things of that nature.
Mr. John G. Blackburn: Hear, hear.
Mr. Parry: These establishments cause great problems for the police—it is the old question of law and order—and the hon. Member for Dudley, West (Mr. Blackburn) will agree with what I say because for many years he served as a police officer in the city centre and he is aware of the problems of trying to maintain law and order in areas such as inner Liverpool.
As if this were not enough for any constituency, the Boundary Commission in its wisdom has proposed that Liverpool, Scotland Exchange, with all its problems, be merged with Liverpool, Toxteth. We all know what happened in the summer of 1981 during the riots in Toxteth. We are aware of the multiple deprivation and high levels of unemployment in that area. There was racial discrimination and, until recently, much police harassment.
Based on the 1976 figures, the proposed new constituency will have 74,000 electors, although it will be far less when the general election is fought on the new boundaries. That gives a clue to the feeling of the commissioner who put forward the proposals. At times I feel that such people should serve as a Member of Parliament, if only for a short time, and try to serve such constituencies with multiple deprivation and social problems. I am sure that the gentleman concerned is on a much higher salary than I, but I am certain that he works fewer hours.
The inner area of Liverpool, particularly Toxteth and Scotland, Exchange, has an aging population. Among other things, it suffers from the problem of adult illiteracy. As a result, the work load placed on the Member of Parliament is enormous. Nowadays, there are large numbers of supplementary benefits claimants, such as the long-term unemployed, yet at the same time there has been a reduction in the number of DHSS civil servants. The extra work involved will, therefore, be placed on the Member of Parliament.
The person who made these proposals should, even for a short time, sample the problems faced by a Member of Parliament. I shall be the candidate at the next election for the new Liverpool, Riverside constituency. I feel that the person who rushed these proposals did so at the request of the Home Office rather than the Government. It is quite
312
obvious that the Government wish to fight an early general election on the new boundaries, which will benefit them by 15 or 20 seats.
Many hon. Members have argued that as far as possible we should retain old and established constituency names. We from Liverpool have argued that ancient names such as Wavertree and Toxteth should be retained on the ground that such constituencies are recognised by the local communities and the electors who were born and have lived there most of their lives.
In Scotland, Exchange, there is an area called Sandhills. With an address such as Sandhills, Riverside, Liverpool, one has visions of sandy beaches and palm trees. In fact, the area is an industrial desert, caused by the Government through the closure of the Tate and Lyle refinery with the loss of 2,000 jobs.
The Scotland and Exchange constituencies, prior to amalgamation in 1974, were formed in 1885. The Scotland constituency was responsible for two Fathers of the House in succession—Mr. David Logan and Mr. T. P. O'Connor who between them served more than 80 years in the House. The Liverpool, Exchange constituency was represented for 25 years by the late Mrs. Bessie Braddock, who will still be remembered with affection by many hon. Members.
The constituency is recognised by the people. Although the name Scotland may, sadly, not be included in the new name of the constituency, it would be appropriate to retain the name Scotland Exchange. In the city centre, we still have the cotton exchange, the fruit exchange and the stock exchange. We also have the site of the old Exchange hotel and the old Exchange station. If the name Exchange cannot be kept, a more appropriate name would be Liverpool, Central.
The commissioner has botched up the names of the new constituencies in Liverpool, he has not made an equitable distribution of the voters and he has made a mockery of democracy and good sense. For Liverpool, the report is a charade.
8.55 pm
Mr. Jim Lester: I congratulate the hon. Member for Goole (Dr. Marshall) on a painstaking speech. If there were a prize for mentioning the most constituencies by name in a speech, he would win. The hon. Gentleman gave us some valuable advice. One such gem was that only nine years ago last Monday, the previous review was implemented. As my amendment has not been accepted, I shall be the first, the only and the last hon. Member for Beeston. Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Petersfield (Mr. Mates), who has a long parentage, nine years for an hon. Member for Beeston is like a comet across the parliamentary sky. Nevertheless, it is still a matter for sadness.
Although my point may seem to be a constituency one, it underlines what many hon. Members have said. It has much wider connotations. Yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said that the whole point of the boundary review is that
"a balance has to be struck between the need to ensure equality of representation and the need to respect natural communities."—[Official Report, 1 March 1983; Vol. 38, c. 143.]
One thing that is important to a community is its name and the association of that name with a real place on the map, as my hon. Friend the Member for Petersfield said.

313
I understand the feeling of other hon. Members who face the same problem. Moreover, continuity, wherever possible, is of immense help to constituents. Therefore, any change of name, especially where it affects a natural community, should be logical, sensible and lead to a real improvement in communications.
The change of name of my constituency fulfils none of those conditions. Until the end of the second world war, seven-eighths of my constituency was called Rushcliffe. Then my hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Health, the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), took one-eighth of the constituency and the name and crossed the river. The constituency was then renamed Beeston. Beeston happens to be the local town and the centre of the constituency. The constituency is also coterminous with the district council of Broxstowe. The name Broxstowe was called back from history to try to satisfy local problems about the council called Beeston, another part of the district called Eastwood, and the arguments between the two about which should take priority. Therefore, the ancient Danish wapentake name of Broxstowe was called up.
If the Boundary Commission had not concluded its work, there would be some logic in changing the name of my constituency from Beeston to Broxstowe if the boundaries remained coterminous. However, the Boundary Commission has changed the boundaries, so the areas are no longer coterminous. Although I have no objection to the substance of the review—it only goes to make my seat safer—I regret that I shall no longer be associated with Eastwood and D. H. Lawrence which were the subjects of my maiden speech. It seems illogical that when the boundary changes concentrate the constituency around the town of Beeston, the Boundary Commission proceeds to change its name to Broxstowe, in spite of the many representations that have been made.
In future the district council of Broxstowe will be represented by two Members—the hon. Member for Broxstowe, whoever he might be, and the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes). One can understand the confusion of the Beeston electorate. It has become used to the name of Beeston and it will remain in the district of Broxstowe with an hon. Member for Broxstowe who will act with the hon. Member for Ashfield. One can foresee what will happen.
A further complication is the commission's apparent lack of local knowledge. In Nottingham the name Broxstowe refers to a housing estate in the constituency of the hon. Member for Nottingham West (Mr. English). If anyone in Nottingham says that he comes from Broxstowe, he is not referring to anywhere in the district that I represent. If someone comes from my district, he talks about his natural community, which is Beeston, Chilwell, Cossall or wherever. If someone says that he comes from Broxstowe, we all acknowledge that he comes from the housing estate in Nottingham, West which is a separate community. The commission's conclusion will lead to tremendous confusion.
Without any prompting from me I received a letter addressed to the hon. Member for "Broxstowe, Notts". The letter arrived on my desk. Written on it was "Try Michael English MP", who is the hon. Member for Nottingham, West. The hon. Gentleman's secretary opened the envelope, read the letter, and suggested that it should be sent on to the hon. Member for Ashfield. After two other hon. Members had handled it, the hon. Member
314
for Beeston, myself, received the letter addressed to the hon. Member for Broxstowe. This means that we are talking not about what might happen but what has happened and will happen even more in future.
I understand that the change will be made, although submissions were presented to the commission. In future, as the constituency is likely to be concentrated even more on and around Beeston, the change of name will become even more illogical.
The debate is taking place because of our desire to improve the present system. We require maximum support from those outside the House as well as those within it. It is important that the rules that we set are impartial and that they lead to progress in boundary reviews. It is essential that they make sense. Meaningless and pointless changes of name will cloud the real issues. The detriment is not necessarily to hon. Members who will soldier on whateve:7 their constituencies may be called, and even though my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Thanet, West (Mr. Rees-Davies) will continue to refer to himself by that title and not as the hon. and learned Member for Thanet and Sandwich.
The confusion that is likely to arise will affect and harm our constituents. They do not identify themselves with new names. Parliamentary democracy will be damaged. That means that the contact that is so essential between ourselves and our constituents will likewise be damaged.
When my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State, Home Office replies, I ask him to tell us whether he has been able to discover any logic in the change of name of my constituency. I confess that I find nothing logical or sensible about it. I ask him to give the assurance to all those who have spoken on this issue, not only myself, that changes will be designed to link names with communities so that the balance between numbers and communities will be safely preserved in future.
9.5 pm
Mr. Gary Waller: I apologise for not being present in the Chamber throughout the day and for missing the contributions of a number of hon. Members. I remained in the Chamber throughout yesterday's debate, but I am sure hon. Members will understand that I have had to attend to other duties both inside and outside the House.
Many points made, mainly from the Opposition Benches, seem to have contained an inherent conflict. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) referred both yesterday and today to the need to retain equality of representation. At present, equality of representation is the paramount consideration it the eyes of the Opposition. I am bound to say to the right hon. Gentleman and to other hon. Members that the complaint most often made to me about boundary changes is not that equality of representation has not been achieved but that the boundary commissioners have played the numbers game. I hope that the hon. Member for Goole (Dr. Marshall) is listening carefully because I know that he, too, has put forward that argument. I am sure that he has heard, as he has gone from one inquiry to another, the complaint put to the assistant commissioners that inadequate attention was being paid to local communities and that the commissioners were interested only in getting the numbers right.
I strongly believe that there must be a compromise between the need to get the numbers right—that is

315
essential if we are to have a properly democratic system—and the need to consider local community interests and local geographical factors. I do not complain that one of those considerations is not regarded as paramount. I believe that the commissioners must be left to make up their own minds as to which of those factors is the most important in individual circumstances.
In York, the boundary commissioners originally decided that, in the interests of equality of representation, a part of York should be hived off and placed in Selby. When the inquiry took place, it was put to the assistant commissioner strongly that to take that piece of York and place it in another constituency would do a grave injustice to the unity of York. After long deliberation, the assistant commissioner accepted that strong argument even though it meant that York ended up with an electorate of more than 80,000. I would defend that decision, but those who have argued that we should consider numbers above all would have allowed that part of the city to be removed from the other parts. Those who argue in favour of equality of representation must face that fact, which they have not yet faced during this debate.
A similar conflict has emerged between those who wish to see more formality in the procedure followed by the Boundary Commission and those who argue that informality is the best way to proceed. I believe that there is great advantage in continuing with a considerable degree of informality because the position varies from one inquiry to another. I have attended an inquiry at which only 12 people with short contributions came forward. There were opportunities for them to cross-examine others. That inquiry took only half a day to complete. In other cases, inquiries have gone on for two or three days. Clearly one cannot have the same procedure for both. If at those inquiries where a great many people were interested in giving evidence cross-examination of each witness by each individual attending were allowed, the inquiry would go on not for three days but probably for three months. It is important that some information should be given beforehand to those attending inquiries so they know what the procedure will be and whether, for instance, there will be an opportunity to cross-examine those who come forward with arguments. Unless one knows in advance, one cannot come best prepared to present one's case as strongly as possible.
The argument has also been put forward that the boundary commissioners should have crossed county boundaries, that county boundaries were not impenetrable barriers. That argument should be considered. I very much regret that county boundaries were rejigged in 1974. As a Yorkshireman, I sympathise with those who, by a strange quirk, found themselves in the county of greater Manchester or in Humberside. Many of those people have now thus had to be transferred from one parliamentary constituency to another.
This is to be the largest boundary change for a long time, not because of population changes from one area to another—although that has been considerable—but because they are the first parliamentary boundary changes since the local government boundary changes took place.
It has been argued that the commissioners should have been willing to consider whether a county should have a constituency which crossed into another county. How could that be achieved? Enormous numbers of
316
permutations would have to be considered to determine whether a county should contain a constituency that crossed into another county. That would lay the groundwork for inquiries taking not three days, but three years. Arguments could be put forward ad infinitum that boundaries should be crossed and other counties included in a constituency. There must be basic units that can be considered separately, and it is sensible that they should be the counties.
Some hon. Members have suggested that Parliament should intervene. One hon. Member even suggested that Members of Parliament should be represented on the commission to put forward their views. The hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) suggested that the Boundary Commission should be cut off from Parliament altogether. People putting forward such arguments should recognise their implications. There are no good precedents for intervention in the work of Boundary Commissions. The intervention of the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) has been mentioned, and there have been other cases. Shortly after the war the Government determined that an additional 15 constituencies should be created, which went beyond what the Boundary Commission suggested. Such intervention is bound to throw doubt upon the way in which we conduct our democracy, and I deplore it.
The hon. Member for Keighley also said that it was extraordinary that additional resources had been allowed to the Boundary Commission for its work when the Government had made cuts in other areas. That is nonsense. Whether the Boundary Commission completes its work within three years with considerable and adequate resources or within six years with fewer resources, the eventual cost will be the same. It is advisable and preferable for Parliament and the Government to allow the commission sufficient resources to complete its work quickly. That will ensure that the boundaries are not too out of date.
Many hon. Members have expressed regret that the boundaries are based on demographic data and electorates for 1976. There is a conflict between the argument that Parliament should move quickly and the argument that the Government have brought forward the Boundary Commission report with unacceptable haste. What the Government have done is absolutely right. They have allowed the Boundary Commission to complete its work expeditiously and carefully. They have done their best to ensure that the boundaries will not be too out of date and that they can be put into effect for the next election, and not for a subsequent election in the late 1980s.
It has been suggested in the debate that the Government wanted to move more quickly because there would be an advantage if the Boundary Commission's work were implemented. In a sense the Government have an advantage, but only in a sense. They have an advantage in that a grave injustice that existed at the time of the last general election will be put right. At the election, the majority in terms of votes that the Conservatives succeeded in obtaining was one of the greatest since the last war, but because of the inbuilt advantage that the Labour party had the majority in terms of seats was considerably smaller than it should have been. It is only in that sense that the Government will have an advantage. The injustice will be corrected.
It has been suggested that certain areas should have more Members of Parliament and that the quotas should

317
be smaller so that the areas are better represented. That argument has been put forward on behalf of rural areas because they are more difficult to cover. It has been put forward also on behalf of urban areas on the ground that they have greater problems. It is true that hon. Members who represent urban constituencies have more problems to deal with, but I suspect that hon. Members who represent rural constituencies receive many letters from people who write about complicated issues expecting a reply. It probably evens out in the end. The casework of some hon. Members may be greater, but others have to spend a great deal of time responding to queries from their constituents in more general terms.
Sir Albert Costain: My constituency is half urban and half rural. I get the same amount of letters from constituents from either side, particularly if it has been a wet Sunday.
Mr. Waller: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's point. I shall devote some time to nomenclature. I am delighted that other hon. Members have discussed the matter because it is important and our constituents regard it as extremely important. The Boundary Commission in its report declares that it has a preference for local authority names. That is where it went badly wrong. It applied that policy patchily. Where it was applied, it was often applied badly.
It is worth recalling how many of the names came about. When several local authorities were amalgamated in 1972 the steering committees made up of representatives of the former authorities were given power to choose the name because local jealousies and civic community pride often meant that the obvious name, because of the dominance of a certain town, would be unacceptable. I do not deplore local pride, which to me is a noble thing. However, that meant that many of the local authorities chose artificial or concocted names instead. They offended no one but meant little.
My hon. Friend the Member for Beeston (Mr. Lester) mentioned how the new local district of Broxbourne was named. It is not the name of a town with which people could identify. Many people found it a strange name to be saddled with so suddenly after local government reorganisation.
To illustrate that important point I shall mention how my local government district of Kirklees came to be named. The main centre of the district of Kirklees is Huddersfield, but the autonomy of other towns in the area, such as Dewsbury, Batley and Spenborough, was destroyed by local authority reorganisation. As there was resentment about the dominance of Huddersfield, the steering committee in its wisdom rejected the obvious name. It was presented with a list of alternatives. It chose Kirklees, perhaps because it believed that it had a slightly superior tone. It did not seem to matter that, when the reorganisation came into operation, the Kirklees estate, which was on the edge of the district, was placed in the Calderdale district. But by then it was too late to change the name. Many residents of the area must be astonished that they live in a district called Kirklees. No one considers himself a resident of Kirklees, and anyone who refers to Kirklees is speaking about the council. The names of other local areas have, I dare say, evolved in much the same way.
Constituency names are supposed to represent real places, and many decisions of the Boundary Commission
318
are especially unhelpful in achieving that objective. How many hon. Members know that Halton is Widnes or that Copeland is Whitehaven? Ilkeston will disappear from the political map to be replaced by Amber Valley, and Kidderminster will be replaced by Wyre Forest. We can forget about Clitheroe and must learn to talk about Ribble Valley. Accrington is no more. We are under orders to refer to that constituency in future as Hyndburn. Leek becomes the awkward Staffordshire Moorlands, and for Dorking and Leatherhead we are expected to say Mole Valley. I pity the person who must represent Mole Valley. He will have to be a Minister so that we need not refer to the name of his constituency in the House.
I would not wish to represent Erewash—[Interruption.] I understand that I have mispronounced the name. The officers of that authority, who are no doubt proud of the name, must get used to the fact that it will be pronounced incorrectly. They are so keen to advertise the name that if one travels up the MI one sees that the river Erewash is named alongside more famous waterways such as the Trent. It is not regarded as an important waterway, but because it is not possible to signpost local authority names on the M1 the authority decided to get round that rule by putting up a sign with the name of the river.
There is a lack of consistency in the reports on the various counties. In his report on Oxfordshire, the assistant commissioner ignored the supposed rule that local, authority names are used and, because he ignored the rule that the commission chose to adopt, he came up with the right names.
The electoral map of Oxfordshire had to be redrawn substantially to accommodate an extra seat. Two new constituencies were created that were proposed to be called Witney and Wantage. Witney coincides almost completely with west Oxfordshire district, so when objectors argued that the constituency narrie should be changed to West Oxfordshire it seemed likely that that alteration would be accepted, especially as Witney would be one of the smaller British towns to have a constituency named after it. Yet the assistant commissioner, in an exemplary way, rejected the argument and the commission's rule. Paragraph 387 of chapter 5 of the report states:
"Suggestions that the names of the Banbury, Henley and Witney constituencies should be changed to North Oxfordshire, South Oxfordshire and West Oxfordshire respectively were also rejected because Banbury, Henley and Witney were all ancient towns and the boundaries of the constituencies were not coterminous with those of the districts whose names he was urged to adopt. We concurred with the assistant commissioner's conclusions".
The excellent assistant commissioner for Oxfordshire applied common sense and used the name of another small town, Wantage, in preference to an unwieldy district name.
Faced with exactly the same issue, the assistant commissioner for Bedfordshire came to precisely the opposite, and surely misguided, conclusion. The assistant commissioner changed the name of an existing constituency—that is a good reason for not making an unnecessary change—of Bedford to North Bedfordshire, even though the new North Bedfordshire constituency is not coterminous with the district of the same name. Thus the name of the county town disappears from the map.
Perhaps the worst examples are in the new county of Avon. The commissioners relied almost exclusively on district names and they have taken decisions which I regard as quite mad. The practicalities will be nightmarish

319
for the Members of Parliament for those seats who will for ever be writing to electors to tell them they are not their constituents, though they live in a district with the same name.
The new constituency of Northavon, formerly known as Gloucestershire, South, does not contain within its boundaries all of the Northavon district. Much, much worse is to come. The Woodspring constituency contains only one-third of the Woodspring district and half of the Wansdyke district. The small community of Woodspring, after which the district is named, is for good measure not in Woodspring at all but in the adjoining Weston-superMare constituency. The Wansdyke constituency contains half of the Wansdyke district but also part of Kingswood district. The Kingswood constituency contains a small part of the Kingswood district but a rather larger part of Bristol. Avon hon. Members will need a special allowance for research assistants to direct electors towards their Member of Parliament.
Consider, however, what occurred at the Northamptonshire inquiry. In chapter 5, paragraph 340, it is said:
"There were a number of suggestions that the proposed Corby constituency should be renamed East Northants or East Northamptonshire. These were opposed on the grounds that the traditional practice"—
and I stress the words "the traditional practice"—
"was to name a constituency after the name of the largest town in the area, and the assistant commissioner concluded that there was no compelling reason to alter the name of the proposed constituency".
In following the traditional practice the assistant commissioner followed common sense. Unfortunately, his example was not emulated by the decision to change Oswestry to North Shropshire.
Having spoken to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, I know of his regret that the name Oswestry is to be lost from the political map, to be replaced by the anonymous name of North Shropshire. My hon. Friend the Member for Petersfield (Mr. Mates) is to have his constituency renamed East Hampshire.
Some of the examples are of more recent origin. The name Bracknell would be the obvious choice for a new constituency containing that town. Bracknell is a major town. However, it is to be called, anonymously, East Berkshire. Confusion will reign in this House as the number of seats named after compass points rises, for the most part quite unnecessarily.
There are two counties where the nomenclature decided on can only be described as perverse. In Humberside, it was decided to name a constituency Boothferry, even though it contains not only the Boothferry district but parts of the East Yorkshire district and the East Yorkshire district of Beverley. The renaming of those two districts by the people of Humberside shows just how strongly they feel that they are still part of East Yorkshire and not in the new anonymous county of Humberside. It is a mischief that the constituency should be named in this way.
A worse mischief is to come. The assistant commissioner accepted the argument that Scunthorpe should be renamed Glanford and Scunthorpe merely because a small part of the Glanford district lies in the new constituency. That decision can only be described, again, as perverse.
320
In Suffolk, it was decided to name a constituency somewhat inelegantly Suffolk Coastal, instead of, say, Woodbridge. But in an even more eccentric mood the commission changed Mid Suffolk to Central Suffolk to avoid confusion with the mid Suffolk district, with which it is almost completely coterminous. In so doing, it uniquely went against an ancient rule that county constituencies are prefixed by "mid" and borough constituencies by "central". To do so when so much confusion has been caused elsewhere by deliberately and unnecessarily choosing a district name can only be described as adding insult to injury.
I have been rather hard on the commission, because it went badly off course when it came to the names of constituencies. I could go on for a long time and name 60 constituencies in England to which this criticism applies, but I shall not do so. It is a pity that the confusion thereby caused to hon. Members, the media and the electorate may give the impression that a bad job has been done overall. That is not so. However, I hope that I have shown that many things need to be considered carefully. Although there is no opportunity to reconsider them before the scheme is implemented, I hope that there will be an opportunity in the not too distant future to correct some of the errors that we have allowed to creep into this boundary review.
9.32 pm
Mr. Sydney Chapman: I hope that I speak for all hon. Members when I say that we immensely enjoyed the political tour d'horizon given by my hon. Friend the Member for Brighouse and Spenborough (Mr. Waller). Several hon. Members, including the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) yesterday, have said that we all approach this issue subjectively. Some hon. Members are literally seeing their constituencies disappear, or exploding in different directions. Others find that their constituencies are considerably modified.
I belong to that rare breed whose constituency is not being changed. Therefore, I must begin by being immediately prejudiced in saying that I welcome the Boundary Commission's report and fervently hope that my constituents do so as well. Not only is my constituency not changing, but the name will remain the same. For the benefit of some hon. Members whose geography may not be as good as that of my hon. Friend the Member for Brighouse and Spenborough, Chipping Barnet does not nestle in the Cotswolds, but sits easily in north London, between the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, which is immediately to the south, and, perchance, that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South (Mr. Parkinson)—the chairman of the Conservative party—which is immediately to the north. After every ministerial reshuffle, my wife reminds me that I am always being overlooked.
The commission has done its job well within the rules, guidelines and the specific request which I shall refer to later that was made to it. It started its work in February 1976. I am told by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary that it expected its work to take three years. However, it has taken seven years, although it has completed its work one year before it was statutorily bound to do so. I understand that its work was delayed because the Local Government Boundary Commission's review was delayed, and it was not, for example, until the spring

321
of two years ago that the last district—Manchester—was, to use its phrase, re-warded. During that seven-year period it was involved, for the first time, in drawing up the European assembly constituencies.
The hon. Member for Goole (Dr. Marshall) referred to the unfairness—as he perceived it—of the way in which the boundary commissioners had dealt with the London borough of Barnet and the London borough of Haringey. That was in line with the journey up Finchley road made by the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook yesterday. I nearly intervened then to mention that if he went further up the road, he would come to the glorious pastures of my constituency.
In the report, London is to be reduced from 92 to 84 seats. Its theoretical entitlement is only 80. That gives some idea of the tremendous movement of population in recent years out of London into the home counties or beyond.
I should like to remind the House of the procedures of the Boundary Commission. I believe that the commission has acted impeccably. Paragraph 16 on page 3 of the report refers to the procedures. The commissioners tell us that they began by formulating provisional recommendations from a neutral position. They did not, at the outset, invite suggestions for changes from outside or interested parties. Incidentally, like other hon. Members, no doubt, I received advance notification of the provisional recommendations just before they were announced and I was grateful for that courtesy.
The second stage of the process was to consider the provisional recommendations in the light of representations made. The commissioners took particular notice of all the reports and recommendations of the assistant commissioners who conducted the local inquiries. I understand that an inquiry could be held if one of the local authorities in the area wanted one or if 100 electors in the area declared an interest in having an inquiry. In all, 95 inquiries were held.
The policy of the boundary commissioners was that if an assistant commissioner's recommendations were in accordance with the statutory requirements and carried local support they were accepted. Paragraph 26 of the introduction concludes:
"We never differed from the recommendation of an assistant Commissioner save after anxious consideration."
I ought also to quote the beginning of paragraph 27, which states:
"The representations received in writing or at local inquiries have, sometimes, clearly been inspired solely by political motives."
That brings me to the question of how the commission has dealt with the London borough of Barnet. By the statistical method, Barnet's theoretical entitlement was 3·45 seats. At present it has four seats—Chipping, Barnet, Finchley, Hendon, North and Hendon South. Under the boundary commissioners' initial proposals, and under their final proposals in the report, I am glad to say that there are still four seats. I understand that the figure has been rounded up because the commission always gives figures to one decimal place, and in the case of a "5" the figure is always rounded up rather than down. Thus, 3·45 becomes 3·5 and 3·5 becomes 4. I must say that I agree with that formula.
I gather, however, that the main reason why Barnet retains four seats, despite a theoretical entitlement of 3·45, is that four seats are closer to the electoral quota than three
322
would be. In Buckinghamshire, for the same reason, despite an entitlement closer to five seats, the number was raised to six. Lest any false conclusions be drawn from the fact that Barnet is a Conservative area and Buckinghamshire is scarcely a centre of Socialism, I should add that Greenwich, which I gather is prone to take a different political view, retains three seats despite a theoretical entitlement of 2·45.
Therefore, I do not believe that any allegation of unfairness or gerrymandering can be sustained.
Barnet was in the unique position of having not one but two local inquiries, although there is some doubt as to whether the second was an extension of the first. The reason for that was that the local Labour and Liberal parties amassed their 100 electors and demanded an inquiry. If we were all prejudiced in favour of our own boroughs, we might have expected them to fight for the larger number of seats. It may therefore surprise the House to hear that the leader of the opposition on Barnet borough council led the Labour party case before the assistant commissioner and vigorously argued that Barnet should have not four but three seats. Incidentally, I should point out to the hon. Member for Goole that their argument was not that Barnet should have four seats but that one or more of them should cross the borough boundary. I do not speak for the commissioners, but in fairness to them I must respond to the hon. Gentleman's comments by quoting part of paragraph 14 on page 7 of the report. I assure the House that, in quoting only part, I in no way take the passage out of context. It reads:
"We discussed the situation with the representatives of the political parties. They were of the unanimous opinion that none of the constituencies in London should cross a borough boundary, despite the disparities which currently resulted from this arrangement."
I therefore believe that the commissioners acted logically, impeccably and with the utmost propriety.
We must now look to the future. I wish to suggest one or two changes in the rules and guidance that might be given to the commissioners. As a preface to the next review, they should consider the county and London borough boundaries, with power to alter them marginally or, to put it another way, in parochial detail. I do not for a moment argue that there should be another vast local government boundary change, but the fact remains that there are some absurd anomalies. I shall mention just two which affect areas adjacent to my constituency.
My constituency includes a beautiful part of north London called Arkley. Arkley is divided from the developments of the southern part of Hertfordshire by two to three miles of pleasant, open, green land. However, because an old parish boundary has been adhered to, one road and two half roads, which in every sense belong to Barnet, are put in Hertfordshire while all the main properties around are in the London borough of Barnet. It is absurd for that to continue. Equally, the old parish boundary of Arkley runs parallel to, but 150 yards to the west of, the A1, which is one of the main roads leading into London. To the west of the A1 is Boreham Wood, but a 150-yard sliver immediately adjacent and parallel to the A1 belongs not in Boreham Wood, which is Hertfordshire, but to Arkley parish in the London borough of Barnet. That seems absurd also, particularly as electors have to cross that busy road and walk, if they have no means of public or private transport, about a mile to their polling station.

323
I hope that the local government boundary commissioners will iron out those absurdities and anomalies, even if it means crossing county boundaries. I hope that the next guidance notes or rules given to the boundary commissioners will be more explicit. I have a great deal of sympathy for the point of view expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House that, so far as practicable, the number of electors in each constituency—as I put it in an intervention to the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook yesterday—should be equal. While I believe that that could be achieved in the main without crossing county boundaries, there is a case for giving instructions—if that is the right word—to the commissioners that they should be prepared to cross London borough boundaries, although to the minimum degree necessary. In other words, I share the view of the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Milian) that, at least within London, rule 5 should take precedence over rule 4.
My third recommendation is that the boundary commissioners should be allowed to make an intelligent assessment of future population trends. Some hon. Members have suggested the use of computers. I do not know whether a computer can achieve that, but it seems wrong that we hope to change the boundaries in England tonight based upon figures in the electoral register of seven years ago. I suggest that the commissioners should be allowed to judge electoral population trends and then, before submitting their report to the Home Secretary and the House, should look at the latest electoral register available and, if necessary, make last minute press revisions to their original proposals.
The aim must be to have numerically even electorates so that—this is important—ties can be forged by Members of Parliament and there will be a greater likelihood that constituencies will remain within the same boundaries for longer.
I finish on a rather emotional note. We all agree, whatever our views on the report or our political differences, that it is a privilege to serve our constituents. The strength of the service that we are able to give to our constituents depends very much on the personal relationships we can build up. One of the things that gives me immense satisfaction is that, generally speaking, constituencies are still small enough geographically and in the number of electors to enable us to give that personal service. That is why I support the existing electoral system. Long may it survive, in spite of the anxieties which arise from time to time because of changes in constituency boundaries.
9.50 pm
Mr. John G. Blackburn: During this lengthy debate the House has been less than charitable to the Boundary Commission. I must remind the House that it was Parliament itself which laid down in clear terms the instructions to the Boundary Commission to carry out the review which started seven years ago in 1976.
Many hon. Members have given examples yesterday and today of the inequality of electoral areas. Paragraph 10 on page 7 of the report says that one of the conditions laid upon the Boundary Commission was that it would seek to get equal electoral areas.
324
There have been many interesting speeches about the identity of constituencies. Having the honour to represent the constituency of Dudley, West, I have perhaps got the best or the worst of both worlds in that I am identified with Dudley but the western part is probably unknown to most people outside the west midlands. The Minister of State should note the opinions expressed about the titles of constituencies and the retention of identity. Many right hon. and hon. Members who have served the House with distinction are associated with their individual constituencies. That is a relationship we all want to foster.
The report highlights in paragraph 16 on page 154 the movement of the electorate. The figures in the report relate to 1976. To give a personal illustration, since 1976 4,700 planning applications have been approved for the development of houses in my constituency. So the 1976 figure as a base rate for my constituency is completely distorted by the amount of new housing development.
There is a great desire for equal constituencies in the boundary commissioners' report that many hon. Members have missed. If it is true that constituencies are created by the building of bricks—if I may use that expression—which are actually local authority wards, to ensure that the constituencies are built correctly one must look at the ward level to see that they form the correct component of the constituencies that are to be represented in the House.
Apart from the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), I think that I am the only Member from the west midlands who has spoken today. I should like to direct the attention of the House to the parliamentary constituencies in the west midlands. They have certainly seen tremendous population changes, particularly since 1976. There is no doubt at all that they have become completely out of balance. I see hon. Members who represent constituencies with electorates in excess of 80,000. My hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove and Redditch (Mr. Miller) represents an electorate in excess of 100,000. There are also smaller constituencies. It is in that spirit that I welcome the report because it brings a more even balance to the constituencies.
The borough adjacent to my constituency has four Members serving in the House. I must, in the spirit of honesty, compliment the Boundary Commission on the size of the electorates of those four Members. Warley, East has an electorate of 58,000; Warley, West, 58,000; West Bromwich, East, 60,000; and West Bromwich, West, 58,000. Three of the four constituencies have an electorate of 58,000 and one of 60,000.
It is ironic—this is my real criticism of the Boundary Commission—that the borough of Dudley, which has three Members in the House, will, as a result of the report, have the remarkable electorate of 75,000 in Dudley, East, 77,000 in Halesowen and Stourbridge, and, with the will of the electors, I shall be representing the largest constituency in the west midlands. In order that I may achieve that I need not only the grace of God but 16,000 more votes than the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook, whose constituency has an electorate of 54,000. I do not complain about the right hon. Gentleman on that score. I know his constituency well and I know that it is nice and compact within the city of Birmingham. However, there is an overwhelming case for four hon. Members to serve the borough of Dudley in this House.

325
As a result of the reports, a public inquiry was held, with an assistant commissioner. I must speak warmly of the service that the assistant commissioner gave the borough of Dudley. The inquiry lasted for three days and I know that he visited the constituency privately to see the situation at first hand. The report was produced and the subsequent changes levelled off the constituencies at about 77,000 each. The demand for a fourth seat was rejected—I think unfairly—and we will not have the opportunity in the coming election of having four Members of Parliament.
Everyone is prepared to allow a margin of error. Life is not so perfect that every constituency fits into a little box with exactly the same number of electors. I think it was the hon. Member for Goole (Dr. Marshall) who said that he could, in certain circumstances, accept a margin of 10 per cent. but that anything above that was unacceptable. That is my view also. Here, however, we have a disparity of over 20 per cent., which I find quite unacceptable.
It is in that spirit that I welcome the report of the Boundary Commission. It is obvious to anyone who reads it that it has brought about a more equal distribution of seats in the west midlands. It has not done so in Dudley, where the case for a fourth seat was, in my view, overwhelming.
The most important thing is that we spend some time thinking not about Members of Parliament but about the electorate. The national electorate are often confused about the new boundaries, they have been dismayed by some of the titles and they are experiencing considerable difficulty in associating themselves with a constituency and with the Member who will serve it as a result of these boundary changes. If these changes are to be approved by the House, they must be right. For the electors' sake, it is important that they understand clearly the boundaries which have been created and the Members who will serve them, because of the difficulties—I say this without a vested interest because my constituency, although changed, remains within the borough of Dudley—referred to in the debate, of the elector who finds himself in one local authority area and the Member of Parliament who covers another local authority area. I ask the Minister of State to pay particular attention to these difficulties. To add to the problem, there has been a loss of identity.
Mr. Charles Irving: My hon. Friend has made a splendid and constructive speech. The whole House is grateful to him for all the information that he has imparted, which will help us to reach a firm decision. His last point is one of great importance—that parliamentary divisional boundaries and local government boundaries may not be coterminous. In my own leafy and pleasant pastures of Cheltenham there is a great problem because we are a close-knit community, just as Dudley is, as I remember from former visits to that splendid constituency which my hon. Friend represents. Is it not rather absurd that, although we represent one parliamentary area, 80 per cent. of the complaints that come to us are on local government matters, perhaps arising from a slightly different area? I sometimes think we are the most sophisticated and under-paid social workers in Europe. Is it not a fact that most of those complaints touch on local government matters? Therefore, if local government and parliamentary boundaries were coterminous it would be simpler and easier for the Members to know exactly to whom they referred. I make no—
Mr. Speaker: Order. With every respect to the hon. Gentleman, is he addressing the House or interrupting his hon. Friend?
Mr. Irving: I thought that it was helpful to asist the House to come to the view suggested by my hon. Friend—that it would be wiser to have coterminous boundaries than to have the elongated, bastard situations that are created at present and which are quite unacceptable.
Mr. Blackburn: My hon. Friend has served the constituency of Cheltenham with distinction. He is absolutely right about the number of complaints generated in the local authority sector. That creates another problem for hon. Members. No hon. Member serves his constituency as conscientiously as any other. We all work hard on behalf of our constituents, but some work harder because they have more electors to care for. It is in that spirit that my hon. Friend is perfectly right.
I offer a warm acceptance of the Boundary Commission's report. In many respects, it is entitled to our congratulations. Some aspects of the report do not please all hon. Members. In particular, we have a responsiblity to create as little confusion as possible for the electorate, and my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Irving) has given a classic example of the problems that can be created. Let us therefore accept the report in a spirit of service to our constituents.
10.8 pm
Sir Peter Mills: I welcome this opportunity to say a few words about the effects of the order on Devonshire, the county in which I live and am privileged to serve.
For me, this is the third constituency change in my career as a Member of Parliament. I first represented Torrington, then Devon, West and it will now become Torridge and West Devon. Many hon. Members have grumbled about the names of the new constituencies, but I am proud of the new name of Torridge and West Devon. Torridge comes from the lovely river Torrington that flows through the constituency, and West Devon is a beautiful part of the county. I am completely happy with the name that the commissioners have given to this new constituency.
South Hams is the new constituency in Devon. That is a lovely name, given all that it means in that area. The Teignbridge constituency is also new. The river Teign has plenty of salmon in it and nice people all round it. It is the right name for that area. We also have such constituencies as Torbay. Everyone knows what a lovely place Torbay is. One could have called the constituency Paignton, Torquay or Preston, but most people know Torbay as the centre of the holiday industry in the west country. It has plenty of sunshine, which is conjured up by that pleasant name.
In Plymouth, we have such lovely names as Plymouth, Drake. Everyone knows what that means. We think of the great sailor of the past. We are fortunate in the west country, and especially in Devonshire, that the new constituencies are being named so well. I have nothing to grumble about in that regard.
I accept that changes are inevitable. I Jo not like change—once one has grown used to an area, one likes to stay with it. Change causes quite a few problems and

327
upsets people. It also involves the loss of those whom one knows, especially one's enemies. Once one gets the hang of one's constituency, it is useful to know who one's enemies and supporters are. When it changes, one has to start all over again. That is not easy, either for the candidate or the constituents.
Of course, changes must come. The population in Devonshire is growing and it is impossible to remain static. My area has had a tremendous influx of retired people from other areas. We welcome them, but they have pushed up the size of the electorate considerably. Because of the increased population, an extra seat has had to be provided in Devon. That involves a switch. We shall have 11 rather than 10 seats. I do not wish to be to frivolous, but every time there has been a change in Devonshire it looks as though the commissioners have sorted out the other seats and then say "Oh well, Millsy can look after what is left." That is what has happened. The two constituencies that I have had the privilege to represent—Torrington and Devon, West—have been among the largest in England. With help and a little work, I might represent the Torridge and West Devon constituency as well.
I hope that I am not using the wrong expression, but it is sad for me to lose the bottom end of my constituency. I lose the pleasant Ivybridge area. That causes me great sadness, but I gain the northern area and take over a large chunk of the Devon, North constituency around Bideford, Appledore and Westward Ho. They are lovely names where lovely people live.
I do not suppose that there are many hon. Members who will take back a large part of a constituency that they once held. Many years ago, when I first started out, I had the privilege of being the Member of Parliament for the Bideford area. The circumstances are difficult for an hon. Member, because if he says that he is delighted to represent the new constituency, the constituents whom he will no longer represent will say "He never did like us." It is difficult both for the hon. Member and the constituents.
I should like now to deal with the important problem of the community aspect. I do not wish to be rude to urban and city Members or their constituencies, but I believe that it is difficult for a constituency to have what I call a rural and city mix. I think that most people will understand that I am a rural man. I should find it difficult to be a Member representing a city. It is important clearly to define rural areas and city areas and to retain the community aspect where we can.
There was quite a considerable problem in my area that stemmed from Plymouth's wish to expand. The city wished to have three Members of Parliament and it wanted to take over quite a large village in my constituency called Wembury. Naturally, the people of Wembury were unhappy. They did not dislike Plymouth or the Plymouth people but they lived in a rural area—many of them had chosen to live there in retirement and peace—and they did not wish to be included in a city. Fortunately the commissioners took the point and Wembury has now been saved, as it were, from the fate of being included in Plymouth. It is now to be included in the new South Hams area.
The sense of belonging is important. People have firm views about where they should belong. In north Devon
328
there has always been a certain amount of rivalry between Bideford and Barnstaple. In the previous change Bideford and Barnstaple were put together. I do not think that Bideford was ever very happy about that. However, it is now being returned to the Torridge and West Devon area. The people of Bideford will be very welcome in that area and I am sure that they will fit in well. They will have a sense of belonging to their own area because Bideford looks to the west and Torridge. To marry two towns or two areas that have always had a sense of rivalry is not always very wise.
I do not wish to grumble, but a serious amount of hard work is imposed on a Member whose constituency is 60 miles long and 20 miles wide. I hear that some of my colleagues can cycle around their constituencies. That is very fine, right and proper but it would take me a long time to cycle between the five towns in my constituency.
Mr. Kenneth Carlisle: I always bicycle around my constituency and I advise my hon. Friend to take up the practice as it is an ideal way of meeting one's constituents and understanding their problems.
Sir Peter Mills: If I set off from my home, which is about two miles outside my constituency near a village called Bow, and cycled south-west towards Wembury—the journey takes me about one hour and 10 minutes by car and so the return journey is two hours and 20 minutes—I should not be fit to address my constituents let alone get off the bicycle after such a journey. I do not think that bicycling would be very helpful to me. Distances are a real problem.
The commission does not seem to realise that in a constituency such as mine most of the roads run from east to west. Very few of the roads run from south to north. This means that it is extremely difficult to travel around the constituency, especially during the summer months when hundreds of thousands of holiday makers come to the area. They are very welcome but the population doubles in the summer months. That makes it difficult for hardworking Members of Parliament who are trying to get from the south to the north. Distances and the position of roads in a constituency are important.
Finally—the House will be glad that I have come to the end of my speech—the commissioners have wisely seen to it that in the new constituency two complete district councils are included. It is difficult for a Member of Parliament to have only a part of a district council in his constituency. While I get on very well with my colleagues and neighbours in west Devon, and those district councils bordering west Devon, the new position is much more satisfactory. I now have a complete district council. I am sure that you will be interested to know, Mr. Speaker, that His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales is coming to confer that status on west Devon in a few days time, which is a great honour for my constituency. His Royal Highness stayed on a farm at Chagford in my constituency for more than a week, to study the problems. I am sure that he will understand what I am saying.
It might be wise to have smaller, more frequent adjustments, and there should be real concern for the community aspect. I am very much in favour of constituencies being composed of rural areas or city areas rather than having too much of a mixture. I hope that the commissioners will remember, long after I have gone,

329
always to ensure that the roads go the correct way, as, otherwise, it is extremely difficult for Members of Parliament to operate in their constituencies.
10.21 pm
Sir Albert Costain: I have listened to the debate with a certain amount of nostalgia, appreciating that when all this is over I shall not have the honour of representing my constituency.
It is a matter of great joy that the commissioners, in producing their report, have not altered a single thing in my constituency. Those who have studied these matters carefully will appreciate that Kent is the only county which has five parliamentary constituencies the boundaries of which are exactly the same as those for local authorities. We should thank those who went before us, in the reorganisation shortly after the war, for setting those boundaries. It is a great advantage for any Member of Parliament to be able to represent an area which has the same boundary as the local authority. No problem arises about which local authority to deal with.
I represent a very attractive constituency. I shall not follow my hon. Friend the Member for Devon, West (Sir P. Mills) with a commercial, but we have one port, two airports, four castles, several holiday camps and a coastline which is similar to the coastline of Belgium. Very few people appreciate what an advantage that is. We also have three fishing fleets, and a private enterprise model railway which even takes the children to school. We have five towns, two of which are Cinque ports.
We always had difficulty with names. The only problem has been the decision whether to keep the name Folkestone and Hythe or adopt the name Shepway. When the reorganisation of local towns took place, alas, the three important towns had to concentrate on one name but could not agree on what it should be.
Fortunately, I still have the honour of representing Folkestone and Hythe. Hythe had two MPs at one time. I am afraid that one of them was debarred for bribery. He bribed the electorate with his own money—unlike others who use taxpayers' money. One should not spend one's own money on bribery. That took place in the 1400s. I understand that it cost that gentleman £20 to buy his seat.
My constituents are delighted that the Boundary Commission has kept the existing boundaries. They are also delighted that Kent will have an additional seat, which will cover our increased population. Other hon. Members have not been as fortunate as I, and their boundaries have been changed. That has caused them some anxiety. I wish to put on record the fact that the Boundary Commission has done a proper and thorough job in Kent, and we appreciate that.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. It is hoped that the Front Bench replies will begin at 10.40 pm.
10.27 pm
Mr. Frank R. White: I will not attempt to follow the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Sir A. Costain) other than to say—I am sure on behalf of both sides of the House—that, following the implementation of the Boundary Commission's report and the subsequent general election, it will be a sad loss to the House to see the retirement of the hon. Gentleman, who has contributed so much to our deliberations. I am a new
330
Member joining the Opposition Benches. I have appreciated the hon. Gentleman's chairmanship of Committees and valued his expertise and advice. I am sure that all hon. Members wish him a happy, successful, prosperous and long retirement.
I have been motivated to rise to my feet by— —
Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: By the Whips.
Mr. White: The hon. Lady is wrong on this occasion, although she is right on many other occasions. I have been motivated by the comments of the hon. Member for Dudley, West (Mr. Blackburn), who spoke about the failure of the commission to relate the tradition, heritage and history of various seats to the new seats proposed in the report. My constituency of Bury and Radcliffe is to be split asunder. The metropolitan district of Bury must have been the Boundary Commission's dream. It has 16 wards split down the middle, with eight wards to the north and eight wards to the south. It retained the identity of Prestwich, Whitefield and Radcliffe in Bury, South, and the identity of Bury, Tottington and Ramsbottom in Bury, North. But it failed to reflect in the titles Bury, North and Bury, South the traditions and history of the respective communities. It must have been a dream. The commission succeeded in meeting its yardstick. Bury, North has 65,365 electors and Bury, South has 63,494 electors. However, in calling the two constituencies Bury, North and Bury, South, it imposed on the geographical communities a title that eliminated their traditions from history.
I have made it clear in my constituency that I intend to fight Bury, North, so unfortunately the people in Radcliffe and I will part. However, we join in the public appeal about the name. Radcliffe is named in the Domesday Book. It is an ancient and honourable establishment and community in British history. People talk about coals from Newcastle. In Radcliffe we would dispute the fact that coals originally came from Newcastle. We would say that coals came from Radcliffe, and that the failed elements of coalmining might have been shoved over the border to Bury and called black puddings.
Radcliffe—it has a long and ancient history. There is a paper mill in our area that is 304 years old, built before the industrial revolution was conceived. There is tremendous pride in the name of Radcliffe. For the first time, as a result of the report, the name of Radcliffe will be removed from the annals of the House. No Member of Parliament will represent the name of Radcliffe.
One could say that Radcliffe is taken care of in Bury, South. It would be a brave person who would go to Radcliffe and say that it was now Bury, South. One may say it once, but one would not get out of Bury, South, or Radcliffe, twice.
I cannot go the whole hog with regard to my party's position in my area. The geographical location is right, the numbers are right, the communities are right, but the name imposed on it is wrong. People in Radcliffe will not accept the title of Bury, South. They wish the constituency to be known as Radcliffe.
On a wall in the Chamber is a plaque to Captain Richard Porritt, who was the first Member of Parliament killed in the second world war. He represented the constituency of Heywood and Radcliffe. Before that, Radcliffe figured in the names of other constituencies. Radcliffe and I are at

331
the parting of the ways, but I would fail in my duty to those constituents who loyally supported me—I hope that I have returned that loyalty—if I did not raise the fact that the Boundary Commission has failed in the small way of reflecting a community spirit and name in the title of the new constituencies.
In technical terms I cannot argue about the proposals for my area. The 23,000 people whom I have had the privilege of serving, and who I hope will continue to be served by a Labour Member of Parliament, will feel that the House and the Boundary Commission have failed them when, for the first time since the Domesday Book and William the Conqueror, the name of Radcliffe will not be in the annals of the House of Commons, the mother of Parliaments. We may say "the hon. Member for Bury, South" in future, but for the people of Radcliffe, it will be "the hon. Member for Radcliffe".
10.34 pm
Mr. R. C. Mitchell: My main objection to the Boundary Commission's report is that it plays the numbers game, and that that, and not communities, is its greatest priority. In my constituency the ward of Woolston is taken out of the city and placed in Eastleigh. The hon. Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price) and I put down an amendment, which we did not expect to be taken, to alter the order and to retain Woolston in my constituency.
The change was made simply to equalise numbers. It does not matter in an urban constituency such as mine whether I represent 65,000, 75,000 or 80,000 people. I could do all three. It is absurd that, in a major city such as Southampton, one removes a ward and places it in a county constituency with which it has no connection. It is ironic, because you, Mr. Speaker, may remember the old floating bridges in Southampton that were pulled across the river with chains. A few years ago we decided that those bridges, which linked the city of Southampton with Woolston, were not suitable in a modern age, so we spent £10 million of our own money, with no Government help, to build a bridge across the river Itchen linking the main part of Southampton with Woolston. Now the ward on the other side of the bridge is being placed in the Eastleigh constituency, with which it has no relation. No one from Woolston shops in Eastleigh, and there are no cultural ties with Eastleigh. Woolston is an essential part of Southampton. Many old people from Woolston have written to me asking whether they will lose their bus passes because they have been moved to another constituency. I must assure them that, for local government purposes, they remain in the city of Southampton and that they will receive the bus passes provided by that city. Eastleigh does not provide bus passes.
The position is made even more absurd by the fact that when Woolston is moved to Eastleigh, the latter will become very large. The electorate will be well above average. Had it stayed in my constituency, where it belongs, there would have been little difference in the total. There is no reason why that ward, which used to be part of the county borough that was destroyed by the Local Government Act 1972, should be moved to a neighbouring rural constituency. Almost everyone at the public inquiry objected to the change. I, as the sitting Member, objected to it. The Labour party and the Eastleigh Conservative
332
party objected to it, but it went through only because it makes the numbers slightly more equal. It is interesting to note that the numbers are more equal only if one takes the older electorates on which the Boundary Commission operated.
If one considers the 1982 or the 1983 electorate, which is the reality of today, the Eastleigh constituency, which this ward goes into, becomes a large constituency, well above the norm. The Boundary Commission has looked at these matters wrongly. It has ignored communities and looked purely at the numbers game. The hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James), even more than me, has found that to be so in his constituency.
The Boundary Commission has gone into the silly little numbers game, which is relatively unimportant in the present situation. I, for one, shall vote against the Boundary Commission's report tonight.
10.41 pm
Mr. Roy Hattersley: My one regret about today's debate is that I unavoidably missed the speech made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees). I was at a meeting that he would have attended had he not been speaking in the House. It has been repeated to me in detail. Indeed, every speech that followed from both sides of the House for the next two hours praised its significance and quality. I suspect that the Minister will have something to say about its contents and proposals. It may well have been one of those rare speeches that influences the House when it is being made and afterwards. It clearly fell on one side of the line that has inevitably divided most of today's speeches into two principal categories.
A third category of speeches that occurred late this evening bore evidence of careful preparation during the past 10 days or fortnight and took the House on guided tours of new constituencies.
The speeches that were made earlier in the debate fall under two headings. There were those—I am in no way being disrespectful in describing them as such—which were expressions of frustration, with descriptions of boundaries that were believed to have been drawn capriciously and arbitrarily and could neither be approved by the individual Members who described them nor understood by the people who have to live within them.
Although the problems were described in trenchant and positive terms, I describe those speeches as expressions of frustration because hon. Members were clear that, as far as this Boundary Commission is concerned, there is nothing that they can do about it, irrespective of the inadequacy of individual proposals and the future of individual constituencies.
The criticisms of the Boundary Commission have been simple and severe. They have with one exception involved the methods by which the commission attempted to describe and delineate the new constituencies. The exception was the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Mitchell), who accused the Boundary Commission of playing the numbers game. That is the most extraordinary accusation that has been made in the two-day debate. Almost every speech in the debate has described the Boundary Commission as making the numbers obligation its second priority. Some hon. Members regard that as a mistake on the part of the commission. Some hon. Members have regarded it as the right course.

333
The idea that the Boundary Commission might be accused of playing the numbers game could be advanced only by someone who has not read either the report or the rules by which the Boundary Commission is required to act. Had it played the numbers game, it is highly probable that it might have been taken to court and the action against it might have prevailed. It is clear from the way in which the rules must operate that numbers are to be regarded as less important than local authority boundaries.
Mr. R. C. Mitchell: Rubbish.
Mr. Hattersley: The hon. Gentleman says "Rubbish". I urge him to read the report and the description the report gives of the legal obligation that has been placed upon the Boundary Commission. When the hon. Gentleman has completed that task, he may care to read yesterday's debate and most of today's debate, which he did not attend, and he will discover that the real argument is whether it was right or wrong to ignore the attempt to equate numbers. No other hon. Member chose to argue against that simple fact.
Those who offered criticisms did so in terms that were both simple and severe. The hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) described some of the commission's decisions as deplorable. My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Litherland) said that some of the commission's decisions were a farce. Until 10 pm not one hon. Member had simply applauded what the commission had done. Many of the speeches echoed the message of my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South. That message was surely that, although the commission had worked within its existing terms of reference and had done—in its view—what it was required to do, it must do better in future, and avoid, as it can avoid, the criticisms that have been levelled against it by both sides of the House.
I want to end my part in this two-day debate by describing briefly the improvements that could be made. I hope that I do not cause offence when I say that some of the criticisms levelled against the commission are of secondary importance. I cite the example of names—or nomenclature, as the hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough (Mr. Waller) chooses, for some reason, to call this subject. I am glad that he has returned to the Chamber. No doubt he has been away lengthening his words. However, I hope that he will forgive me if I describe nomenclature as names.
I do not underestimate the importance of names to sentimentalists such as me, and clearly, the hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough. However, while it is interesting to say that a major criticism of the Boundary Commission is that it once, in 1918, changed Birmingham, South to Birmingham, Sparkbrook or that it abandoned the historic names, it is not a point of primary and overwhelming importance. Great names pass easily from our memory. The hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough could not even pronounce—for he had never heard of—the Erewash valley, on whose banks both D. H. Lawrence and the Midland railway were born. If such a name is not memorable to the hon. Gentleman, it must be accepted that names are transient. If the Boundary Commission had only got the names wrong, it would not be accused of performing its task inadequately. Names are of secondary importance and so—if I may say so, with absolute, total and overwhelming respect—is the convenience of Members of Parliament.
334
It is vital to discuss the commission's recommendations in terms that do not concern our convenience. The speeches that worried me most—I am far too craven to identify them—were those that were made in terms of constituency correspondence and miles travelled. A Boundary Commission's job is not to equate the burdens on Members of Parliament. Indeed, that equation is impossible. The hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Parris) spoke of varying degrees of constituency responsibility, although I do not, for one moment, accuse him of saying that a Member of Parliament's interests are paramount. He suggested that perhaps there should be some way of building into the formula the different levels of burden. That is impossible. There is no way that we can balance inner city concentrations with shire county sprawl the demanding middle classes with the determined ethnic minorities; the number of surgeries that we are expected to take; the amount of our correspondence or the sort of people whom we represent. Members of Parliament must take such things as they find them. That is an obligation that the Boundary Commission cannot build into its considerations. That is a Member of Parliament's point. We should be thinking about the interests of the constituents, the constituencies, and democracy.
A Member of Parliament may be tempted to confuse what seems important to him or her with what is important to his or her constituents when talking about natural and normal communities. In a rural area, a town which has been discrete in the statistical sense, if not discreet in the social sense, for 500 years may take the view, to suggest an appropriate example, "I am Cambridge, and I do not want to be Cambridgeshire". A town on the border of two counties may think of itself as a town in one county and may not wish to be associated with a small rural area in another. I understand that feeling of community. In cities, however, boundaries can be drawn in a way that does not disturb natural communities because outside the constituencies the natural communities do not exist.
In Birmingham—the example that I know best—half of Sparkbrook is in the Small Heath postal area, and part of Small Heath calls itself Sparkbrook. The lines between those constituencies in the south of Birmingham can be adjusted without the constituents feeling that they have been upset in any way or that their lives have been disjointed. I humbly and respectfully suggest that we should not concern ourselves about such issues. We should concern ourselves with fairness, because the issues of fairness are the issues of genuine democracy.
I return to a point that I made yesterday. I believe that in these matters the issue of fairness is served best of all by giving constituencies as equal a number of voters as possible. Yesterday that was rather meaninglessly called the tyranny of numbers. I am not sure what the various hon. Members who used that phrase meant by it, but what I mean by equality of numbers is the knowledge and understanding that a vote cast by an elector in one constituency has the same weight as a vote cast in another constituency. That should be the aim of every Boundary Commission. That aim of near-equality must be pursued. I do not suggest that the numbers can be exactly equal, even within England. Clearly they never have been and never will be exactly the same throughout the United Kingdom. But the aim must be pursued in a consistent manner. Hon. Members have drawn individual complaints to the attention of the House. What has caused most complaint today—and yesterday, when we discussed the

335
theory behind the Boundary Commission's operation—is inconsistency between one area and another. If there had been a common pattern of procedure, much of the disturbance and disquiet could have been avoided.
I can give an example of what I mean. My hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. Roberts), having informed the House that I would be attending a dinner in his constituency in a month's time and then remarked that he would not be present at it, seemed to take exception to what he believed to be the praise that I had offered the Boundary Commission for allowing Wakefield and Leeds to be examined by a single examiner and then disturbing one constituency in such a way that part of each borough was included in it.
I do not make any impertinent judgment about whether that decision by the commission was right or wrong. My complaint was that the willingness in West Yorkshire to consider two areas together and therefore eventually decide on an overlap was not duplicated in South Yorkshire, where the appellants actually wanted several boroughs to be considered simultaneously so that proposals for overlap could be made to the commission. My complaint both then and now is that the commission and especially its inspectors have behaved differently in different areas. That has inevitably produced the disquiet that we have heard expressed time after time.
That disquiet is in no way allayed by those hon. Members who jumped up during my speech and the excellent speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Goole (Dr. Marshall) to say that in arguing against the commission refusing to cross county boundaries I am arguing against the case forcefully made by the London Labour party when the matter was first considered. No doubt that is true, but I believe that the London Labour party was wrong, just as I believe that the split in the west midlands Labour party was wrong when the Sutton Coldfield part of that association took one line about county boundaries and the Birmingham part took a quite different line.
In my view, our duty today is not to endorse the views of political parties or sections of them but to describe what we believe is the best way for the Boundary Commission to proceed. I believe that it would have proceeded much better if it had given more consideration to equalising numbers and less to the problems of crossing boundaries.
Having made that criticism, I must put it into proper perspective. I certainly do not accuse the individual members of the commission of any kind of political bias, nor do I suggest for one moment that they behaved in a way inconsistent with the rules and instructions, but I believe that the rules by which they were governed and which they properly operated could do with revision. I shall therefore use my last five minutes to explain why I believe that now is the correct time to consider such changes and what some of them might be.
I believe that now is the appropriate time, because I do not withdraw for a second what I said at the beginning of my speech yesterday. When boundary commissions reach their conclusions and report them to the house and we vote upon them, we are all unavoidably—and, in my view, not improperly—biased by the political implications of what is suggested. As I said yesterday, one's enthusiasm or
336
distaste for a boundary commission recommendation is unavoidably influenced by its political effect on one's own seat or one's party's fortunes.
Assuming that the commission's proposals are approved today, we can then examine the working of the commission without worrying about its political implications for the next 10 years. Now is the time to decide what should be changed, free from the political pressure of fearing that what the commission does next week, next year or even next decade will influence us as individuals or our parties. I therefore offer four proposals that I believe it is our practical duty to suggest to the commission.
First, I believe that rule 5 should take clear precedence over rule 4 in the next redistribution. In other words, the principal, primary and overwhelming aim of the commission should be equality of numbers, with local government boundaries relegated to second place.
Secondly, I absolutely share the view of my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South that if we are to go through the long and complicated business of a second report, a public inquiry into the second report is essential, not least because the second report sometimes bears little relation to the first or to any of the evidence given at the first inquiry.
Thirdly, an obligation of consistency of some kind must be placed on the commission—not an obligation to achieve exactly the same numbers, but an obligation to operate in exactly the same way and to apply exactly the same techniques in inquiries.
Fourthly—I believe that this would solve many of the problems—the commission should be required to explain the reasons that led it to the conclusions that it offers to the House. We can only guess why boundaries have been drawn as they have. We may sentimentalise about roads or rivers or we may believe that the lines have been drawn abitrarily on a map without visiting the area, but whatever the real reasons, we do not know them.
Mr. Adley: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Hattersley: I fear that I cannot give way. I must allow the Minister the full half hour that he needs and deserves.
If the commission were required to describe how it had reached its conclusions, that would concentrate its mind wonderfully on arriving at sensible conclusions.
When the report has been considered by the House, we must consider how improvements can be made. I accept entirely that such improvements can properly come about only if they have the unanimous, near-unanimous or collective approval of all the parties. I hope that the Minister will consider how those collective views can be brought together. That is the way to approach these matters. In the hope that that process can be encouraged, I do not intend to urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote against the Boundary Commission's recommendations. However, some of them may wish to do so.
I remember that when I was an undergraduate complaining about education services, Dame Florence Horsbrugh, whom I had been picketing earlier, voted against the Boundary Commission report shortly after she ceased to be Minister of Education. It is a Member's right in a free Parliament. I shall not vote against the recommendations in the hope that some mutually agreed system of improvement can be introduced.

337
I sit down in lively anticipation that the Minister will respond in the spirit in which the Opposition have tried to conclude the debate.
11 pm
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Patrick Mayhew): Yesterday, we debated the general topic of the parliamentary Boundary Commissions. It was an arrangement that permitted a discussion about many important points of general principle which, hitherto, could be discussed only when draft constituency orders were discussed—in other words, when it was much too late to do anything. Anyone reading the speeches in yesterday's debate will conclude that it was a valuable exercise.
No one familiar with the House, and alive to the delicate and often painful nature of these considerations, could possibly have expected that all references to any of those general matters would be set aside in the speeches made today, and nor were they.
It is right that the application of the recommendations to hon. Members' individual constituencies should be able to be explored. It tends to be those who are injured, if not aggrieved, by the proposals of the Boundary Commissions who lead the exploration. The House always has considerable sympathy for those who will lose their seats or whose seats are altered substantially, if the proposals are carried.
I know enough about the diligence and assiduity of right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House who will lose their seats, or have them changed severely, to know that many of their constituents will, on personal grounds, share the regret of those hon. Members at what is and has been proposed.
Even if there were no other reasons, and there are, it is our sympathy with our colleagues in those circumstances that should underline the wisdom of earlier Parliaments in setting up non-political and impartial commissions to carry out the periodic reviews that we all know to be necessary to take account of changes of population and so forth.
The task of these commissions, as we all recognise, is far from easy. Listening to the speeches today, I began to think that if the commissioners had to be elected I doubt whether anyone would stand for the post and none would be re-elected whatever the wisdom of their proposals, because they are called upon to carry out an immensely difficult act of judgment. The rules that we have imposed upon them do not make it any easier.
At least those impartial commissions are not burdened with the natural claims of party allegiance, partisanship or indeed friendship of which the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) spoke so fairly and realistically yesterday, and the right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) today. The latter has courteously explained to me why he can no longer be here.
My hon. Friends the Members for Altringham and Sale (Mr. Montgomery), Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley) and for Norfolk, South-West (Sir P. Hawkins), the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud) and other hon. Members have spoken movingly and realistically of the allegiances and friendships that are generated by the relationship of a Member of Parliament to his constituency.
I echo wholeheartedly what has been said about the importance of territorial responsibility and the territorial
338
link between a Member of Parliament and those whom he serves, of whatever party colour he may be. It was there that I, with others, parted from the hon. Member for Isle of Ely when he spoke of the need for proportional representation in Westminster seats.
It is vital that there should be no partiality involved in the decisions that we place upon the Boundary Commissions. The fact that the House recognises that the commissions are utterly impartial and independent stands out strongly from yesterday's debate. I do not think that any imputation to the contrary would have found much favour in any quarter of the House.
Now we have debated today at some length the draft English order. Perhaps I may say that all of us have noted and have greatly appreciated the exceptional length of time for which you, Mr. Speaker, have found it possible to be present today—plainly, of course, in recognition of your ex officio position as chairman of the Boundary Commission.
I have taken careful note, as has my right hon. Friend, of the views expressed by right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House tonight. Not least have I noted that although there was general recognition that we are tonight unable to make changes to the proposals of the Boundary Commission—it is an all-or-nothing debate—there was also a strong body of dissatisfaction, variously expressed, with the rules which Parliament has imposed upon the commissions, taking a number of bites at the cherry as it has.
Many hon. Members have used the debate, properly and valuably, as a means of putting down, as it were, markers for a subsequent debate upon the revision of the rules. If anybody had any doubt about the difficulty of the commission's task beforehand, the debate would have dispelled it.
I shall try to deal with the majority of the points that have been raised during this wide-ranging debate. They ranged from criticism of the commission for following too closely the requirement that electorates should be as near the electoral quota as possible to criticism of it for recommending electorates either too far above or too far below the quota. It is not unfair to say that for every rule that Parliament has laid down for the commission, the commission has been accused at one time or another during the debate either of a breach of that rule or its observance. Many Opposition Members have complained that the commission has not given sufficient attention to equality of numbers, but the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Mitchell) accused it of simply playing the numbers game.
Mr. R. C. Mitchell: One of the criticisms is of inconsistency in different parts of the country. In my area I accused the commission of playing the numbers game. In other parts of the country no doubt the accusation would be of playing the local authority boundary game. It is the inconsistency in different parts of the country that worries many people.
Mr. Mayhew: That is another point to which I shall come.
It is plain that there is little agreement as to the importance in relation to each other of equal representation and the preservation of local ties, or as to whether, and if so how, a combination should be made of urban and rural areas. Yet we know that we would not support each

339
constituency having exactly 65,753 electors with no account taken of local ties or affinities. Nor would we settle for every non-metropolitan district, for example, forming a constituency of its own, when the electorates vary between 200,000 and 20,000 at the other end of the scale. In the end, after it has paid proper regard to local circumstances and feelings, the commission must surely apply the far from simple statutory discretion that Parliament has conferred upon it so as to achieve the best result it can.
In the event, we should be ready to recognise, when due weight has been given to all the criticisms that have been made, that the commission has, despite all the difficulties, achieved a remarkably high standard of representation. On the 1976 figures, 75 per cent. of its recommended constituencies fall within 10 per cent. of the electoral quota, while only 37 per cent. of existing constituencies do so. The commission has also improved on its predecessor—notwithstanding that the review has taken far longer. At the end of the second periodical review—this is the third—on 1968 figures 48 per cent. of the recommended constituencies fell within 10 per cent. of the electoral quota, whereas by the end of this review on 1982 figures 70 per cent. of recommended constituencies fall within that 10 per cent. band.
Of course, there is always the question whether the Home Secretary should seek to make modifications to the commission's recommendations in the draft order. The difficulties that we all recognise as being present when such a decision is made that may be potentially politically partisan but cannot be seen unequivocally not to be have partisan influence behind it, must weigh heavily with any Home Secretary when he asks himself whether to make or propose a modification to a Boundary Commission's recommendation.
Mr. Cryer rose—
Mr. Mayhew: So must the inevitability of what are called "ripple effects". But the Home Secretary must consider whether to propose modifications. My right hon. Friend did so consider and decided against it. In that connection I should mention in particular the constituencies of my hon. Friends the Members for Devizes (Mr. Morrison) and Horsham and Crawley (Mr. Hordern) and the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. Stoddart).
I give way, much against my better judgment.
Mr. Cryer: If the Minister wishes to stir up the debate, perhaps he will answer the point that was made not only by Labour Members but by his hon. Friends. It was said that there ought to be some way of amending what is a massive order. The Home Secretary need not amend the Boundary Commission's report but he could have produced four separate orders for England, so that if hon. Members had decided to reject one of them the Home Secretary would be perfectly entitled under the legislation to accept the decision amend the order and bring it back to the House. Can the hon. and learned Gentleman explain why that was not done?
Mr. Mayhew: That confirms my judgment. It is a matter for the House whether it chooses to amend its procedures so that amendments may be tabled and debated. It would be possible to have a separate order for
340
every constituency. It is open to me to claim that we are following the precedent established in 1969 when we took the whole of the English order as one. Smaller orders would take much longer and debates would go on week after week. When I come to the speech of the hon. Member for Goole (Dr. Marshall) I shall explain what could happen if one were to deal with the matter county by county.
My hon. Friend the Member for Horsham and Crawley raised a question about his constituency and a recommendation or hint that was made in the Boundary Commission's report about modification. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has carefully considered the modifications that the commission invited him to make to its recommendation for west Sussex and Wiltshire. Those modifications were intended to take account of the effect that the two orders made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment would in due course have on the boundaries of Crawley, Horsham, Mid-Sussex and on the district boundaries in Thamesdown near Swindon. The modifications invited by the commission would have affected the proposed constituencies of Horsham and Crawley on the one hand and Swindon and Devizes on the other.
Although the issues in each case did not seem contentious, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary decided to make no modifications, because he knew that, had the commission decided to modify its recommendations to take account of those orders, it would have gone through the detailed procedures for public consultation laid down by law. He saw no reason why the proposed modifications, which involved relatively few electors, should be implemented without the process of consultation. He was also aware that there were other orders, not mentioned by the commission, which will affect other district and even county boundaries.
The right way to deal with all these forthcoming changes to local government areas is by means of an interim order by the commission under the powers conferred upon it by section 2(3) of the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Act 1949. Although it is not open to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to propose an interim review, it is open to the commission to conduct one. I do not doubt that it will consider very carefully what has been said by him today and, in the light of what it has said in its own report, I would expect it to deal very sympathetically with the request my hon. Friend has made.
Mr. Hordern: Can my hon. and learned Friend give me any idea of when such an award may be made?
Mr. Mayhew: It is open to the commission at any time, on its own motion, to conduct an interim review, and therefore there is no time limit, for example, that has to elapse after the making of a general order of this nature before it can take that step.
The hon. Member for Goole said that it would have been very much better if the Boundary Commission had adopted a 10 per cent. tolerance either way. My right hon. Friend dealt with this suggestion yesterday. He said that when, in 1917, Mr. Speaker's Conference first laid down rules for ensuring a mathematical equality of constituency representation, it was quickly realised that strict rules made the system inoperable, and Parliament has had to

341
relax them. It was decided that a variation of 30 per cent. below and 70 per cent. above the electoral quota was acceptable.
Much the same thing happened when Parliament returned to the problem 30 years later. Under the recommendation of the 1945 Speaker's Conference and the ensuing Act, it was proposed that a much smaller—25 per cent.—tolerance would be the maximum acceptable, but in 1946 Mr. Chuter Ede had to tell the House that the 25 per cent. formula had forced the commissions to recommend the complete dismemberment of many united communities, and the idea of attempting to enforce strict mathematical equality between evenly distributed broad limits was abandoned.
The hon. Gentleman went on to complain about the conduct of the commission relating to the Barnet and Haringey seats. I think he has been very fully and justly answered by my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman). I was disappointed to hear the hon. Member for Goole make a slighting reference to the commission, saying that it had sent in another assistant commissioner, Mr. M. E. Lewer, QC, to come up with the answer it wanted. That was an unworthy remark and one which was quite unjustified. If the hon. Member reads paragraph 35 on page 16 of the report—which I will not read at this hour—he will see how unworthy that suggestion was.
The hon. Gentleman then said that what was proposed in Lancashire was a blatant rural weighting. Again, if he reads the report at paragraph 285 on page 120 he will see that the commission stated the reasons that led it to make that recommendation. He will also note the rule that permits it to take special account of geographical considerations.
The hon. Member for Goole also complained of the haste of the Government in laying this order. I point out that the enumeration date on which the electorates are taken was back in 1976. The electorates upon which this is prepared are already seven years old. It is astonishing to me that the hon. Gentleman's criticism should be that we are hurrying to get the order through. He apparently regards it as eccentric that the Government should believe it to be in the national interest for the next general election to be fought on modern rather than on thoroughly out-of-date boundaries. He said that there were 15 months to go before this need be done. What he was proposing was that the Boundary Commission should have been much more seriously delayed. Anyone who looks at this matter dispassionately will be sceptical about his motives.
The hon. Gentleman was acquitted of being a mob orator, and I readily agree with that. It was, however, disappointing that he did not follow the lead of his right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South by acquitting the Boundary Commission members of any political partiality.
I am aware of the anxieties of my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale about the name of his constituency. Perhaps he will recall what the Boundary Commission said, and also that at the inquiry others took a contrary view to him. I fear that not everyone can be pleased, and I am only sorry that it should be my hon. Friend and his constituents who are not.
The right hon. Member for Leeds, South made an important speech. He asked why a judge was deputy chairman of the commission and why so many lawyers were involved. The commissioners are there to apply the
342
rules that Parliament has said shall apply to their task. It matters not if they are judges or anything else, save that the Act requires that the deputy chairman shall be a High Court judge appointed by the Lord Chancellor. It is desirable that, whoever they are, they should, beyond question, be people of integrity who are well able to elicit, weigh and assess evidence and interpret and apply the law to the evidence before them. It is, therefore, natural that senior lawyers of judicial rank should tend to predominate among those whom successive Home Secretaries have chosen to be members of the commission and why, when it comes to conducting inquiries as assistant commissioners, it is the practice that nominated lawyers are always asked for by the commission and appointed by the Home Secretary.
The law they must apply, and the rules governing how they shall apply it, are made by us in Parliament. We are now familiar with the rules. How they inform themselves to take account of all the relevant factors is left to them and to the commission, as it must be. It is for Parliament to decide whether it wishes to ensure that people with any particular experience should be on the commission, but any changes that are made to the rules would have to be made with all-party agreement if we are to adhere to our traditions and win general acceptance. My right hon. Friend has taken careful note of what has been said in that regard, but I believe that there is general agreement about what I have said.
Interim reviews can be conducted, as I explained in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham and Crawley. I must tell my hon. Friend the Member for, Christchurch and Lymington that the commission accepted the view of the assistant commissioner, who said in his report:
"It would be unthinkable to omit any reference to Christchurch in the name of the constituency. Accordingly, I am of the view that the constituency should be as named by the Commission"
in other words, Christchurch.
I have already referred to the speech of the hon. Member for Isle of Ely. I am happy that the right hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Ennals) was in favour of what the commission has done. My hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West has explained why he cannot be here. His speech illustrated the difficulties that confront the Boundary Commission. He found much to complain of, but also found something to be pleased about. That reflects the problems with which the commission has had to cope.
My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Parris) attached much importance to names, as did many other hon. Members. The point was made time and again that a selected name must bear some significance to an identifiable locality. I thoroughly agree with that as must everyone.
I was sorry to miss the speech of the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. Roberts). He criticised the crossing of a borough boundary between Leeds and Wakefield. The commission says that Rothwell is part of the existing Normanton seat, which straddles the borough boundary, and there was support for such a seat at the local inquiry.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) spoke with feeling. I can understand that in the light of the recommendations concerning Harrow. He asked whether it was right that an assistant commissioner's report could be over-ruled without explanation. It is for the

343
Boundary Commission to decide whether and, if so, how to explain the reasons. I am sure that the Boundary Commission will want to study what has been said, not least by my hon. Friend, both today and yesterday.
I paid careful attention to what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Thanet, West (Mr. Rees-Davies) said. My hon. Friend the Member for Petersfield (Mr. Mates) spoke movingly of the loss of the name Petersfield from the annals of the House. Everyone will agree with him that it is an absolute shame that, after 600 years, the name of Petersfield will no longer exist. The Hampshire seats illustrate the difficulties that the Boundary Commission faces. It has to marry what are often conflicting considerations. There has been special difficulty in Hampshire. The issue turns on whether the Isle of Wight should be given a status of its own or whether it should be lumped with the remainder of Hampshire to provide the 17 seats for which my hon. Friend argued. The commission chose to give the Isle of Wight a separate identity. The result, I am afraid, is that Hampshire came out less well than my hon. Friend and many of us would have liked.
My hon. Friend the Member for Beeston (Mr. Lester) described himself as a comet crossing the parliamentary sky. The great thing about comets is that they come back. He spoke sadly of the loss of the name and asked about the logic of the change. The commission said that it had adopted the policy of giving a name to a new constituency that matched the name of the largest local government area that it contained.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brighouse and Spenborough (Mr. Waller) spoke with much passion about the way in which the commission had dealt with names. I must ruefully acknowledge that there is nothing that I can say in support of the commission's policy on constituency names that can match the onslaught that my hon. Friend launched on some of the names that the commission has preferred. I can only, much more prosaically, draw his attention to what the commission said at paragraph 28 on page 10 of its report.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet made a most helpful and thoughtful speech. He felt that the commission had performed impeccably, that it had prepared its provisional recommendations from a position of neutrality, that it had gone on to take account of the reports of the assistant commissioners and had a duty to accord with the law. He felt that it had taken the right course in Barnet by making four seats there, as that came closer to the electoral quota than would have been the case if there has been only three.
I have not been able to deal with the speeches of my hon. Friends the Members for Dudley, West (Mr. Blackburn), Devon, West (Sir P. Mills), who treated us to a marvellous roll of the names of glorious Devon, and Folkestone and Hythe (Sir A. Costain), whom we shall be sad to see no more in the next Parliament but to whom the hon. Member for Bury and Radcliffe (Mr. White) paid a most gracious tribute for which the whole House was grateful. I noted the points that the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook made. I have not dealt with all of them, but I think that I have dealt with the spirit of them.
As a result of this long debate, we must all be left with one overriding consideration—the importance of preserving the independence and impartiality of the Boundary
344
Commission. I invite the House to approve the draft order giving effect to the commission's final recommendations without modification.
Question put:—
The House divided: Ayes 297, Noes 47.

Division No. 82]

[11.30 pm

AYES

Adley, Robert

Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

Aitken, Jonathan

Eggar, Tim

Alexander, Richard

Elliott, Sir William

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

Emery, Sir Peter

Amery, Rt Hon Julian

Eyre, Reginald

Ancram, Michael

Fairgrieve, Sir Russell

Arnold, Tom

Faith, Mrs Sheila

Aspinwall, Jack

Farr, John

Atkins, Rt Hon H.(S'thorne)

Fell, Sir Anthony

Atkins, Robert (Presfon N)

Fenner, Mrs Peggy

Atkinson, David (B'm'th.E)

Finsberg, Geoffrey

Baker, Kenneth (Sr.M'bone,)

Fisher, Sir Nigel

Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'gh N)

Banks, Robert

Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Fookes, Miss Janet

Bendall, Vivian

Forman, Nigel

Benyon, Thomas (A'don)

Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

Benyon, W. (Buckingham)

Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh

Berry, Hon Anthony

Fraser, Peter (South Angus)

Bevan, David Gilroy

Gardiner, George (Reigate)

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Gardner, Sir Edward

Biggs-Davison, Sir John

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Blackburn, John

Glyn, Dr Alan

Blaker, Peter

Goodhew, Sir Victor

Body, Richard

Goodlad, Alastair

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Gorst, John

Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)

Gow, Ian

Bowden, Andrew

Gower, Sir Raymond

Boyson, Dr Rhodes

Grant, Sir Anthony

Braine, Sir Bernard

Gray, Rt Hon Hamish

Bright, Graham

Greenway, Harry

Brinton, Tim

Grieve, Percy

Brittan, Rt. Hon. Leon

Griffiths, E.(B'y St. Edm'ds)

Brooke, Hon Peter

Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

Brotherton, Michael

Grist, Ian

Brown, Michael (Brigg & Sc'n)

Grylls, Michael

Browne, John (Winchester)

Gummer, John Selwyn

Bruce-Gardyne, John

Hamilton, Hon A.

Bryan, Sir Paul

Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

Buchanan-Smith, Rt. Hon. A.

Hampson, Dr Keith

Buck, Antony

Hannam, John

Budgen, Nick

Haselhurst, Alan

Burden, Sir Frederick

Hastings, Stephen

Butcher, John

Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

Butler, Hon Adam

Hawkins, Sir Paul

Carlisle, John (Luton West)

Hawksley, Warren

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Hayhoe, Barney

Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (R'c'n)

Heath, Rt Hon Edward

Chapman, Sydney

Heddle, John

Churchill, W. S.

Henderson, Barry

Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)

Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

Hicks, Robert

Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

Clegg, Sir Walter

Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

Cockeram, Eric

Holland, Philip (Carlton)

Cope, John

Hooson, Tom

Cormack, Patrick

Hordern, Peter

Corrie, John

Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Costain, Sir Albert

Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldf'd)

Cranborne, Viscount

Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)

Critchley, Julian

Hunt, David (Wirral)

Crouch, David

Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

Dickens, Geoffrey

Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

Dorrell, Stephen

Irvine, Rt Hon Bryant Godman

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

Dover, Denshore

Jessel, Toby

du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Dunn, Robert (Dartford)

Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

Durant, Tony

Kaberry, Sir Donald

Dykes, Hugh

Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

Kershaw, Sir Anthony

345

Kimball, Sir Marcus

Newton, Tony

King, Rt Hon Tom

Onslow, Cranley

Kitson, Sir Timothy

Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.

Knight, Mrs Jill

Osborn, John

Knox, David

Page, John (Harrow, West)

Lamont, Norman

Page, Richard (SW Herts)

Lang, Ian

Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

Langford-Holt, Sir John

Parris, Matthew

Latham, Michael

Patten, Christopher (Bath)

Lawrence, Ivan

Pawsey, James

Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

Percival, Sir Ian

Lee, John

Peyton, Rt Hon John

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Pink, R. Bonner

Lester, Jim (Beeston)

Pollock, Alexander

Lloyd, Ian (Havant & W'loo)

Porter, Barry

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

Loveridge, John

Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)

McCrindle, Robert

Proctor, K. Harvey

Macfarlane, Neil

Rathbone, Tim

MacGregor, John

Rees-Davies, W. R.

MacKay, John (Argyll)

Renton, Tim

Macmillan, Rt Hon M.

Rhodes James, Robert

McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)

Ridley, Hon Nicholas

McQuarrie, Albert

Ridsdale, Sir Julian

Madel, David

Rifkind, Malcolm

Major, John

Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

Marland, Paul

Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

Marlow, Antony

Rossi, Hugh

Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

Royle, Sir Anthony

Marten, Rt Hon Neil

Rumbold, Mrs A. C. R.

Mates, Michael

Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus

St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.

Mawby, Ray

Scott, Nicholas

Mawhinney, Dr Brian

Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Mayhew, Patrick

Shelton, William (Streatham)

Mellor, David

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Shersby, Michael

Miller, Hal (B'grove)

Sims, Roger

Mills, Iain (Meriden)

Skeet, T. H. H.

Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

Smith, Sir Dudley

Miscampbell, Norman

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

Speed, Keith

Moate, Roger

Speller, Tony

Monro, Sir Hector

Spence, John

Montgomery, Fergus

Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)

Moore, John

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Morgan, Geraint

Sproat, Iain

Morris, M. (N'hampton S)

Squire, Robin

Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

Stainton, Keith

Mudd, David

Stanbrook, Ivor

Murphy, Christopher

Stanley, John

Myles, David

Steen, Anthony

Neale, Gerrard

Stevens, Martin

Needham, Richard

Stewart, A.(E Renfrewshire)

Nelson, Anthony

Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

Neubert, Michael

Stokes, John

346

Stradling Thomas, J.

Waller, Gary

Tapsell, Peter

Walters, Dennis

Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

Ward, John

Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

Warren, Kenneth

Temple-Morris, Peter

Watson, John

Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

Wells, Bowen

Thompson, Donald

Wells, John (Maidstone)

Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)

Wheeler, John

Thornton, Malcolm

Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Whitney, Raymond

Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)

Wickenden, Keith

Trippier, David

Wiggin, Jerry

van Straubenzee, Sir W.

Wilkinson, John

Vaughan, Dr Gerard

Williams, D.(Montgomery)

Viggers, Peter

Wolfson, Mark

Waddington, David

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Wakeham, John

Younger, Rt Hon George

Waldegrave, Hon William

Walker, Rt Hon P.(W'cester)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Walker, B. (Perth)

Mr. Carol Mather and

Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.

Mr. Robert Boscawen.

Wall, Sir Patrick

NOES

Alton, David

Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

Atkinson, N.(H'gey,)

Newens, Stanley

Bennett, Andrew (St'kp't N)

O'Halloran, Michael

Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

Parry, Robert

Canavan, Dennis

Penhaligon, David

Cox, T. (W'dsw'th, Toot'g)

Pitt, William Henry

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

Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

Crowther, Stan

Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

Duffy, A. E. P.

Skinner, Dennis

Evans, John (Newton)

Spellar, John Francis (B'ham)

Freud, Clement

Stallard, A. W.

George, Bruce

Steel, Rt Hon David

Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

Stoddart, David

Heffer, Eric S.

Tilley, John

Home Robertson, John

Torney, Tom

Howells, Geraint

Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

Huckfield, Les

Wainwright, E. (Dearne V)

Hughes, Simon (Bermondsey)

Welsh, Michael

Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

White, Frank R.

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Woodall, Alec

Lamond, James

Young, David (Bolton E)

Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson

McGuire, Michael (Ince)

Tellers for the Noes:

McKay, Allen (Penistone)

Mr. Bob Cryer and

Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

Mr. Martin Flannery.

Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Parliamentary Constituencies (England) Order 1983, which was laid before this House on 14th February, be approved.

Rate Support Grant (Cornwall)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Archie Hamilton.]
11.44 pm
Mr. David Penhaligon: It is always a pleasure to bring before the House problems that affect my remote part of the world. On this occasion I bring to the House's attention the dilemma that faces Cornwall in this year's rate settlement. I am sure that the Minister does not need to be told that Cornwall is a poor county that has had substantial economic difficulties for some time. The average wage there is 20 per cent. below the national average, and unemployment has been endemic for some time and currently represents about 20 per cent. of the adult male population. However, to be fair, Governments of all colours have recognised that fact during the years to a greater or lesser extent, and they have implemented policies to try to reverse the difficulties. Cornwall county council has tried to compensate the people by fulfilling its responsibilities as economically as possible. It has a good record of co-operating with various Governments' requests to reduce expenditure in keeping with the economic targets. Requests for reductions in local government expenditure have been made by Governments other than this one.
The county council believes that it is now paying the penalty for such co-operation and that the position that it faces this year is fundamentally unfair. This debate enables me to explain to the House why the council feels that way. The council spends £29·19 a head on social services provision, whereas the average for the English shire counties is £31·61. That difference underestimates the problem. The county has an above average elderly population, and we are told that during the next decade the number of those aged over 85 will double. The infra structure problems that that presents are frightening, and those who consider the long-term future of the county have good reason to be worried about the encroaching difficulties.
Expenditure per head on education is more or less the average for the shire counties. The county has some real problems because of its rural nature. It has many small schools that some may allege should be shut, but if they were shut that would involve enormous transport bills. One must spend the money either on maintaining small schools or on transport. I am sure that the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Mudd) and the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Hicks), who are present this evening, would opt for maintaining the smaller school. Cost-wise it does not make much difference. Our primary schools are in poor condition, although I do not argue that the only thing that gives a good education is the state of the school buildings. One cannot help but recall the words of the Prime Minister, when she was Secretary of State for Education, when she said that there would not be a single primary school in the United Kingdom that was built before 1900 that would not be replaced before she finished her term of office. At the current rate of progress, we shall be well into the next century before Cornwall can replace all its pre-1900 primary schools.
I do not suggest that Cornwall county council has never wasted money, but by United Kingdom standards it has not wasted much. It is now in an amazing position. The cause
348
of the difficulty is the Government's grant-related expenditure. I have obtained from the Library a document that explains those words. It states:
"The basis of this is the 'assessment of the cost to [an] authority of providing a comparable standard of service to other authorities, allowing for differences in the characteristics and needs of the different areas'."
Those hon. Members who have been foolish enough to try to understand how this works cannot help but admire the enormous work that has been done. One suspects that it is a reasonable estimate by central Government of what is a reasonable amount for a local authority to spend.
The GRE for Cornwall is £138·2 million. The proposed expenditure by the county this year is £133·1 million. That is £5·1 million below the GRE, or 3·83 per cent. The county expected an enormous pat on the back for such an achievement. It expected to be held up to the nation as an example to other authorities as to how it is economically possible to carry out responsibilities fairly and efficiently. What is certain is that the county this year will be the lowest or the second lowest spending county authority in the United Kingdom relative to the GRE. This GRE is prepared with great care and effort but it has nothing to do with how much a local authority is allowed to spend. The Government have another figure for that, called the expenditure target. This is a crude operation which boils down to little more than taking whatever the authority spent last year and adding 4 per cent. to it. That was the original proposal. In the end it was 3·3 per cent., because the Government recouped the savings the authority would have made through national insurance contribution reductions. That gives a figure of £130·5 million. Relative to that figure, the county council was alleged to be overspending by £2·6 million, but relative to the GRE, which is the Government's calculation of what is reasonable to spend, the authority is under-spending by £5·1 million. This is not the simplest of matters to explain to an audience when one tries within one's own county.
It was interesting to note how the council reacted to this dilemma. Three councillors voted to reduce expenditure. I know that the Cornwall county council is an independently controlled council but I am not sufficiently optimistic to believe that the supporters of the Government on that council number three. There are 15 Conservative elected members on that council. The council recognised that there was little it could do.
The truth is that in Cornwall there is no fat that can be easily cut. As a result of a parsimonious, or sensible, history of expenditure, the county finds itself in the position of not being able easily to make economies. If the pupil-teacher ratio had been high in Cornwall, it could have been cut, but it was not. If the old folks' homes had been overstaffed, they could have been cut, but they were not overstaffed. If the county had been over-generous in discretionary grants, it could have reduced them, but it was not. The county faces this year a financial penalty for overspending of £800,000. That is a useful sum. It could build a primary school. It would employ 100 teachers. It is twice this year's county budget for providing books for our schools. It could have provided the major part of the financial contribution to an old folks' home.
The ratepayers of Cornwall face an increase in their rates of 14·2 per cent. The Government have often stated in the House what effect such increases have on the business community as well as the obvious effects they have on one's constituents who have to find that money.

349
That is the background. I cannot understand the Government's policy, and nor can a large number of people within my county.
Those counties that are below the Government's GRE—that are below the Government's estimate of what it is reasonable to spend—should suffer no penalty. How can the Government fine a county that is so low-spending? How can the Government justify applying a penalty to the council such as Cornwall, which is one of the lowest-spending authorities in the United Kingdom? As the position appears to exist, it is just not fair. I look to the Minister, just as most of the county is doing tonight, to offer us some relief. The problem is, indeed, serious. The county feels insulted by what has happened. The sad thing is that if any Government were to go to Cornwall again, and beg it to reduce expenditure in the national interest, it would be a fool to take that advice. If cash limits were introduced in future, the county would be bound to overspend.
It is not too late to say that counties that have such low spending records as Cornwall should not be fined for overspending. The situation is remarkable, and I look forward to the Government relieving my county from its agony.
11.56 pm
The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Giles Shaw): I admire the cogent way in which the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon) has put the case for his county with his customary energy. I do not expect my response to satisfy him fully, but this debate at least gives me the opportunity to explain why we continue to attach such high priority to the restraint of local authority expenditure. It also allows me to put the record straight about some of the misunderstandings that have been expressed by the hon. Member and others about our policy towards local authorities and the rate support grant system.
The hon. Gentleman was concerned that Cornwall was not receiving a fair deal from the Government in the rate support grant settlement for 1983–84, which my right hon. Friend the former Secretary of State for the Environment announced on 16 December. Let me make it clear at the outset that we fully recognise that Cornwall county council is a responsible local authority, which has made real efforts—as the hon. Gentleman said—to adhere to the Government's guidelines on expenditure, including those on public sector pay. Cornwall has in the past played its part, and in the current year budgeted to stay well within its target. That is a responsible attitude, which I greatly welcome.
In recognition of that, we have set Cornwall an expenditure target for next year of £130·5 million which is a 4 per cent. increase on its budget for the current year. With inflation and interest rates at such low levels that does not seem an unreasonable figure. I am glad too that the local authority manual workers' pay settlement vindicates the Government's view that this is realistic. The 4 per cent. increase—I stress this point to the hon. Gentleman and to my hon. Friends—is the most that any major spending authority has been allowed in 1983–84, and the maximum that the country can afford in the present economic circumstances.
I understand that Cornwall's objection to its expenditure target for 1983–84 is based not on the fact that it has been increased by 4 per cent. but on the baseline which has been chosen. That is the burden of the hon.
350
Gentleman's case. Cornwall argues that, because it budgeted to spend below its target in 1982–83, its target for 1983–84 is more onerous than for authorities which took full advantage of the expenditure allowed by their 1982–83 target. But if, as I have argued, the 4 per cent. increase on budget allowed for is reasonable, the budget baseline will present a problem only if it is not a true reflection of what the authority expects to spend in the year.
Cornwall argues that its budget is not in fact a fair reflection. It says that the budget allowed for only the Government's assumptions about the increase in pay and prices throughout the year while other authorities allowed for higher inflation figures. That may be. But Cornwall was certainly not alone in budgeting on the Government's pay and price assumptions. More than 50 other authorities including 12 other counties did exactly the same.
But the real point is not whether the baseline established—at this time last year—was as high as it could have been on other assumptions but whether it is a reasonable reflection of the likely outturn of expenditure for the year. We cannot know that—because the year is not yet over—and even Cornwall cannot yet be sure. But we cannot overlook the fact that since budgets were set last year interest rates have fallen and the annual rate of price inflation has dropped below 5 per cent.
The hon. Gentleman suggested that Cornwall was being unfairly treated in the RSG settlement—indeed, that it was perhaps being classified as a profligate authority like some of the major overspending councils in the big cities, and being penalised through the target system. Those authorities which overspent their target in the current year have a target for next year which is 1 per cent. in cash terms below their 1982–83 budget.
That is indeed a tough target to meet and of a quite different order from Cornwall's, whose cash is increased by 4 per cent. But we are determined that overspending authorities should have a strong incentive to do so, and that is why we have introduced a tough scheme of grant holdback for 1983–84, which the House approved on 20 January. For each of the first two percentage points of overspend, authorities will lose grant equivalent to a penny rate. After that, each percentage point of overspend will lose them grant equivalent to a 5p rate, and so on up the scale, so that there will be a continuous incremental penalty attached to those who overspend deliberately.
I think that my hon. Friends the Members for Bodmin (Mr. Hicks) and for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Mudd) will recall that one of the greatest pressures by my hon. Friends has been to ensure that shire counties are not made the scapegoats for the relatively few, usually Labour-controlled, authorities that seem to spend willy-nilly without regard to Government targets. I am sure the hon. Member for Truro recognises that that has been at least strongly suggested by a number of people from time to time.
We also recognise that many authorities, including Cornwall, had benefited from the grant-related expenditure exemption in 1982–83, which allowed them to spend up to their GRE without incurring financial penalties. We simply did not feel that this exemption could be continued in 1983–84 without serious risk to the Government's whole policy on restraint of local authority spending.
The House will recognise that with so many billions at stake—about 18 per cent. of the gross national product—a policy for the containment of national expenditure must

351
also include a policy for the containment of local authority spending. But the gentle lead-in to holdback is designed to help those authorities which come close to meeting their targets but narrowly fail to do so. They will not incur the heavy financial penalties which are aimed at the truly profligate authorities.
Mr. Robert Hicks: I am sure the House recognises the need for the Government to try to control those local authorities which in the past have acted with financial irresponsibility. But the essential point made by the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon)—who put our case very fairly—is that Cornwall is a poor county, and that we feel that we are being penalised for the essential prudence that we have pursued in the past. It is the baseline from which we begin that is causing great local concern.
Mr. Shaw: I understand my hon. Friend's point. It is frequently perceived that the GREA system or the target system has not been presented to local authorities in a way that allows them to feel fairly treated while at the same time wishing to control their own expenditure to the greatest extent possible. We are here dealing with the balance that Government must inevitably strike between the amount of central financing—the 52 per cent. or 56 per cent., as it has been over the years—and what the local authority seeks to go through its own resources year by year. If my hon. Friend will allow me to continue, I think that he will understand some of the problems that are reflected in the point that he makes.
As the hon. Member for Truro fairly pointed out, Cornwall's expenditure target for 1983–84 is 5·5 per cent. below its grant-related expenditure assessment. The problem is not unique to Cornwall. It applies to many other shire counties. In Kent, the target is 6·3 per cent. below, and in West Sussex 4·1 per cent. below, the GREA.
To make a direct comparison between GREAs and actual expenditure levels is to misunderstand the nature of the GREA. As the hon. Gentleman stated, the GREA is a notional measure of the cost of providing a standard level of service. It is not a budgetary tool or a financial instrument, but a base averaging out what would be the notional cost of achieving a comparable level of service.
Individual local authorities must inevitably make individual decisions about spending needs on particular services in their areas, and I fully appreciate that in a county such as Cornwall, where many problems are related to distance and small communities, there are bound to be individual decisions on expenditure which truly reflect local needs.
As the hon. Gentleman said, Cornwall has traditionally been an economical and low-spending authority. There is therefore no reason why it should now budget to spend up to its GREA.
However, Cornwall is helped in another way because the level of its GREA goes into the calculation which determines the amount of block grant that the county receives. Cornwall's GREA for 1983–84 is £325 per head. That is by no means the lowest for a shire county. Neighbouring Devon and Somerset, for example, will receive £312 per head next year. The GREA is reflected in Cornwall's block grant entitlement, which compares very favourably with that of other counties.
If the council budgets to spend at target, its block grant in 1983–84 will be £72 million—an increase equivalent to
352
a 2·8p rate on the grant that it will receive in the current year. That compares very favourably with the average shire county which will suffer a decrease in grant equivalent to a 1·2p rate. I put it to the hon. Gentleman that that is not a bad position for a county to be in—receiving an increase when most will suffer a decrease.
Mr. Penhaligon: What is the purpose of working out a notional level of expenditure, as the Minister described it, if when a county spends substantially below that it finishes up being fined for overspending? That is the point that is not understood in the county.
Mr. Shaw: Overspending relates to target spend, so a county can be penalised if it exceeds its budgeted expenditure and its targets. The GREA is a way in which central Government, in determining what block grant is to be used for, uses a central calculation to try to arrive at what the figure should be for each of a range of services. As the hon. Gentleman knows, about 60 different elements make up that calculation. Nevertheless, I realise that there is some confusion—the hon. Gentleman is certainly not alone in this—because GREA is assumed to be a budgetary instrument and a target when in fact it is a notional method of calculating expenditure and it is the actual targeting, which the county does, that is the trigger which determines whether the penalties apply.
The rate support grant settlement for 1983–84 can only be described as a good one for Cornwall. Cornwall is being treated more generously than most other shire counties which are, none the less, generally going for single figure rate increases. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that Cornwall is not being so unfairly treated as he suggested today.
Why, then, did Cornwall county council agree last week to a 14 per cent. increase in next year's rate when most counties are going for single figure increases? First, Cornwall was able to cushion its rate rise this year, and keep it in single figures, by drawing on its balances. I believe that the hon. Gentleman recognises that. It is an exercise that it plainly cannot repeat next year, and accounts for about one third—around 5p—of the proposed rate increase in 1983–84. Another third is due to allowing for the likely effects of inflation in 1983–84.
The rest of Cornwall's proposed rate increase is the result of its expenditure plans, which allow for real growth in a number of areas. It is something over 2 per cent. of target. It is entirely a decision for the county council. If that is its priority, the Government can hardly be blamed for the size of Cornwall's rate increase.
I hope that I have been able to make it clear that the Government are not treating Cornwall as an extravagant authority. I commend it, as I said at the outset, for its efforts over past years to contain expenditure and help the fight against inflation. As a result of those efforts, Cornwall managed in 1982–83 to levy the lowest rate poundage—117·5p—of any county, and I believe that the size of next year's rate increase needs to be seen in that context. Cornwall must be congratulated on those efforts. However, I regret the prospect of a 14 per cent. rate increase next year, even though it is 14 per cent. on a low base.
If shire counties all meet their expenditure targets—that is the crucial point—in 1983–84, they are entitled to block grant which amounts to 43·6 per cent. of their total

353
expenditure targets. Cornwall, by comparison, would receive grant equal to 55·1 per cent. of its target. That is a substantial level of taxpayer support, reflecting, as the hon. Gentleman wished to see reflected, the Government's view that Cornwall deserves a significant increment because of the problems it faces. The rate support grant
354
system is a strong incentive for Cornwall to continue to strive for greater efficiency and economy in its future expenditure plans.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman and the House will agree that it has been a fair RSG settlement for Cornwall.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at eleven minutes past Twelve o' clock.

Solicitor-General For Scotland
  Government Contracts
  Government Contracts
  Speeding Offences (Radar Guns)
  Speeding Offences (Radar Guns)
  Court Trials (Delays)
  Court Trials (Delays)
  Seat Belts (Prosecution Policy)
  Seat Belts (Prosecution Policy)
  Poached Salmon (Prosecutions)
  Poached Salmon (Prosecutions)
ENVIRONMENT
  Rates (Statistics)
  Rates (Statistics)
  Environment Ministers Council (Meeting)
  Environment Ministers Council (Meeting)
  Local Arts Associations
  Local Arts Associations
  Local Authorities (Staff)
  Local Authorities (Staff)
  Rents
  Rents
  Rescue Archaeology
  Rescue Archaeology
  Housing (Croydon)
  Housing (Croydon)
  Merseyside (Ministerial Visit)
  Merseyside (Ministerial Visit)
ATTORNEY-GENERAL
  Divorces
  Divorces
TRADE
  Travel Agents (Surety Bonds)
  Travel Agents (Surety Bonds)
  Exports
  Exports
  Duty-free Manufacturing Zones
  Duty-free Manufacturing Zones
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Butter and Oil
  Butter and Oil
  Farm Improvement
  Farm Improvement
  Veterinary Medicinal Products
  Veterinary Medicinal Products
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Metropolitan Police (Suspended Officers)
  Metropolitan Police (Suspended Officers)
  Shotguns
  Shotguns
  Drug Offences (Horseferry Road Court)
  Drug Offences (Horseferry Road Court)
  Firemen's Pension Scheme
  Firemen's Pension Scheme
  Mr. Clive Moore
  Mr. Clive Moore
  Deportation
  Deportation
  Police Officers (Injuries)
  Police Officers (Injuries)
  Criminal Injuries Compensation
  Criminal Injuries Compensation
  Probation Service
  Probation Service
  Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1976
  Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1976
  Citizenship
  Citizenship
  Brixton Police Division
  Brixton Police Division
  Young Prisoners
  Young Prisoners
EMPLOYMENT
  Earnings
  Earnings
  Youth Training Scheme (Lambeth)
  Youth Training Scheme (Lambeth)
  Job Release Scheme
  Job Release Scheme
  Nurses and Midwives
  Nurses and Midwives
  Cremation Forms
  Cremation Forms
ENERGY
  Sizewell Power Station
  Sizewell Power Station
  Spent Nuclear Fuel
  Spent Nuclear Fuel
TRANSPORT
  Bicycle Paths
  Bicycle Paths
  Lorry Weights
  Lorry Weights
INDUSTRY
  Labour Productivity
  Labour Productivity
  Elderly and Disabled People (Communications Exhibition)
  Elderly and Disabled People (Communications Exhibition)
  Small Firms (Assistance)
  Small Firms (Assistance)
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Bangladesh
  Bangladesh
WALES
  Nurses (Pay)
  Nurses (Pay)
  Aggregate Relevant Expenditure
  Aggregate Relevant Expenditure
DEFENCE
  Departmental Land (Scotland)
  Departmental Land (Scotland)
  South Atlantic Fund
  South Atlantic Fund
  Combat Boots
  Combat Boots
  Argentine (Military Equipment)
  Argentine (Military Equipment)
SOCIAL SERVICES
  St. Wulstan's Hospital, Malvern
  St. Wulstan's Hospital, Malvern
  Peers (Pensions and Benefits)
  Peers (Pensions and Benefits)
  Prescription Charges
  Prescription Charges
  Cremation
  Cremation
  Hospital Building
  Hospital Building
  Death Certificates
  Death Certificates
  Private Health Insurance
  Private Health Insurance
  National Childbirth Trust (Exhibition)
  National Childbirth Trust (Exhibition)
  Disabled People (Social Integration)
  Disabled People (Social Integration)
  Rehabilitation Research
  Rehabilitation Research
  Kidney Patients
  Kidney Patients
  Dialysis (Costs)
  Dialysis (Costs)
  Kidney Research
  Kidney Research
  Supplementary Benefit
  Supplementary Benefit
  Nurses and Midwives (Pay)
  Nurses and Midwives (Pay)
  Irish Nationals
  Irish Nationals
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Business Start-up Scheme
  Business Start-up Scheme
  Tax and National Insurance
  Tax and National Insurance
  Britannia Building Society
  Britannia Building Society
  Fuel Oil
  Fuel Oil
  Hansard Sessional Index 1980–81
  Hansard Sessional Index 1980–81
  Charities (Scotland)
  Charities (Scotland)
  Building Industry
  Building Industry
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Workers Educational Association
  Workers Educational Association
  Student Grant
  Student Grant
  Kidney Disease (Research)
  Kidney Disease (Research)
  Scottish Universities (Staff-Student Ratios)
  Scottish Universities (Staff-Student Ratios)
  University Students
  University Students
  Vocational Courses (Art and Design)
  Vocational Courses (Art and Design)
  Secondary Examinations Council
  Secondary Examinations Council
SCOTLAND
  Experimental Enterprise Scheme, Kilmarnock
  Experimental Enterprise Scheme, Kilmarnock
  Rate Burden
  Rate Burden
  Fishing Industry (Processing and Producers)
  Fishing Industry (Processing and Producers)
  Pensioners (Standing Charges)
  Pensioners (Standing Charges)
  Multinational Firms
  Multinational Firms
  Timex Dundee
  Timex Dundee
  Community and Voluntary Projects
  Community and Voluntary Projects
  Anorexia Nervosa
  Anorexia Nervosa
  Young Persons (Unemployment)
  Young Persons (Unemployment)
  Sheltered Housing
  Sheltered Housing
  Health Schemes (Joint Funding)
  Health Schemes (Joint Funding)
  Bellshill
  Bellshill
  Greenock (Container Terminal and Airport)
  Greenock (Container Terminal and Airport)
  Private Outpatients
  Private Outpatients
  Airborne Fishery Protection
  Airborne Fishery Protection
  Unemployment
  Unemployment
  Ancient Monuments, St. Andrews
  Ancient Monuments, St. Andrews
  Housing Expenditure
  Housing Expenditure
  Housing Budget (Rate Fund Contribution)
  Housing Budget (Rate Fund Contribution)
  Orlit Houses
  Orlit Houses
  Highlands and Islands (Agricultural Development Programme)
  Highlands and Islands (Agricultural Development Programme)
  Employment Opportunities
  Employment Opportunities
  Medical Facilities, Dundee
  Medical Facilities, Dundee
  Binary System
  Binary System

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

Baroness Cox
Caroline Anne, Mrs. Cox, having been created Baroness Cox, of Queensbury in Greater London, for life—Was, in her robes, introduced between the Lord Trefgarne and the Lord Beloff.

SSSIs: West Sedgemoor
2.47 p.m.
Lord Melchett: 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 agree with the Nature Conservancy Council's decision to notify 2,500 acres of West Sedgemoor as a Site of Special Scientific Interest.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the identification and notification of SSSIs is a duty which Parliament has placed upon the Nature Conservancy Council. It is not for the Government to agree or disagree with the council's individual decisions, provided they are satisfied that they are properly exercising the duty placed upon them.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, why could not the noble Lord go on to say that in this case the Government are satisfied that the Nature Conservancy Council are properly fulfilling the duty which Parliament has placed upon them? So far, the Government appear to have been deliberately trying to avoid answering that question. Is the noble Lord aware that it is this prevarication by the Government which, at least in part, has led to the recent deplorable incidents on West Sedgemoor, when farmers were driven to burning an effigy of the recently retired president of the Country Landowners' Association?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am totally dismayed by the attitude which is being taken by some people, and I deplore the kind of demonstration to which the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, has just referred. However, I believe that these actions are based on unjustified fears and misunderstandings about the effects of the Wildlife and Countryside Act. Now that all the provisions of the Act are in force and financial guidance is available, I hope that matters can be brought back into reasonable perspective. Further to that, I have to announce that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is this Saturday to make his postponed visit, together with the Parliamentary Under-Secretary at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the chairman of the Nature Conservancy Council, to talk to the farmers on West Sedgemoor.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, I hope the noble Lord will agree to pass on to the chairman of the Nature Conservancy Council the hopes of us all that he does not go up in flames when he arrives in person on West Sedgemoor. But would the noble Lord answer the first part of my supplementary question: that if the Government had been prepared to state clearly in the past and were prepared to state clearly now that the NCC were acting properly in designating 2,500 acres as a site of special scientific interest in this area, a lot of this trouble might have been avoided?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I thought that we covered this point very well in the question and answer session that we had the other day. I have nothing to add to what I said then.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, I really must press the noble Lord. He did not cover this point in his previous answer. Is he prepared to say whether or not the Government feel that the NCC are acting properly in what they have done on West Sedgemoor?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I can repeat the second half of my original Answer. It is not for the Government to agree or disagree with the council's individual decisions provided—and this is the important point that should strike home to the noble Lord, Lord Melchett—the Government are satisfied that the council are properly exercising the duty placed upon them.

Consumer Credit Act 1974: Implementation
2.51 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Renton, and at his request, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in his name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government why the Consumer Credit Act 1974, which was supported by all parties, has not yet been fully implemented, and when is it to be so.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, my honourable friend the Minister for Consumer Affairs announced on Monday in another place that he hopes to lay before Parliament shortly the regulations necessary to implement the remaining provisions of the Consumer Credit Act 1974.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, while I thank my noble friend the Minister for that reply, is he aware of any impediment to the implementation of Section 60 of this Act—an impediment that has existed for some eight years, and which prevents the implementation of this section, which imposes a duty on the Secretary of State to lay regulations concerning the form and content of regulated agreements under this Act for the protection of consumers?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I am glad to be able to confirm to my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway that the two main areas in which the necessary orders and regulations have yet to be made, and which are

1135
forecast by my honourable friend in another place, cover the regulations for the form and content of the agreements, cancellation notices, default notices, and other documentation—all of which is necessary to give the consumer the full protection of the Act. To take one example which I believe might fall into the ambit of Section 60, consumers will have a right to cancel within the "cooling-off" period certain agreements signed off trade premises, which we call colloquially "doorstep agreements".

Arms Sales to Argentina
2.53 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: 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 it is true that Thorn EMI, who manufacture the "Ranger" anti-personnel mine, are discussing future sales with Argentina, either directly or through intermediaries, and if so whether they intend to take any action.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Belstead): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government have no knowledge of any such discussions. This equipment is, however, subject to export licensing control and we are confident that this will prevent any supplies reaching Argentina.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, is the noble Lord the Minister aware that I have in my hand the sales brochure for the Ranger system? Will he give the House some information about it? Is it true that the Government finance the production of this system through Thorn EMI—of the mine laying equipment at Woking and the mines themselves at Stringfield Road, Hayes? Secondly, is it the case that these mines were sold to Argentina before the Falklands war and that they are now the main agent for injuring British forces? Finally, since my Question was tabled, have the Government made any investigations into the alleged resumption of sales to Argentina by Thorn EMI, either directly or indirectly?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I was not aware of what the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, was holding in his hand. So far as the definition of this particular weapon is concerned, it is a means of laying a minefield very swiftly. The answer to the noble Lord's third question, about these mines being sold to the Argentine before the Falklands crisis, is that my noble friend Lord Glenarthur answered a supplementary question put by the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, on 23rd February, when my noble friend made it clear that 11 different types of mines, including antipersonnel, anti-vehicle and anti-tank mines, had been identified as coming from five different countries. But the five countries who supplied to the Argentine weapons which were used in the Falklands did not include this country. So far as the alleged resumption of sales to the Argentine by Thorn EMI is concerned,
1136
I am surprised that the noble Lord asks that question, because my original Answer made it quite clear what the situation is on that score.
Lord Bishopston: My Lords, in view of our commitment to the defence of the Falklands, which involves the lives of many of our forces in the Falklands area and also those of Falklanders themselves, and other resources, is the noble Lord the Minister really satisfied that the situation is logical and right in relation to recent events? The noble Lord must be aware that Members of both Houses, from all parties, and indeed the country, have expressed a concern about these matters. Does the noble Lord the Minister not agree that he ought to put a statement in the Library outlining the Government's policy, not only to reassure noble Lords but also to give guidance to the country on this very important matter?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I have given an absolute assurance to the House so far as the Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, was concerned. With regard to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Bishopston, I believe it would be right to point out two aspects. First, manufacturers of defence equipment keep in close and regular touch on overseas sales prospects with Ministry of Defence staff, and they are fully conscious of the risks of military equipment being transferred to Argentina by third parties. This is a serious point and it is important that I should make it in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Bishopston. So far as any direct sales from this country to Argentina are concerned, we have a total embargo on that respect.
Lord Bishopston: My Lords, will the noble Lord the Minister consider my question about placing a statement in the Library so that Members may be reassured about the policy in relation to our own country and also in relation to other NATO members?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Bishopston, knows that I try to be as helpful as I can be to him and his noble friends, but this is one of the very few occasions when I believe that my Answer is better than a statement in the Library.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, in the light of reports which have appeared since about arms being supplied indirectly to the Argentine, will the noble Lord the Minister repeat the assurance that he gave the House on 15th February-reiterating the undertaking given by his noble friend the day before-that it will not be possible, owing to the restrictive nature of the IMF conditions, for the £275 million advanced to the Argentine through the IMF by British banks to be in any way used for the rearmament of the Argentine?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, that is not actually what I said on 15th February. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, will not think that I am being unhelpful, but I have nothing to add to what I did say then.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, will the noble Lord the Minister be so kind as to answer my first supplementary question? Is it the case that the Government are financing the production of this main

1137
system through Thorn EMI? Secondly, in his first reply to my first supplementary question, I believe that the noble Lord the Minister slightly misunderstood what I was asking, when he told the House that these mines were subject to an export licence. Does an export licence apply to the sale through intermediaries, or is there any other way in which the Government can prevent the sale of these deadly weapons, through an intermediary country, to the Argentine, which we all know is now rearming?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I do not consider that the first question arises from the original Question, and I simply do not know the answer. The question was: is there Government help with the funding of the production of this particular weapon? So far as the second question is concerned, this is where the end user certificates come into play.
Lord Derwent: My Lords, is it in order for a noble Lord to ask five supplementary questions?
Lord Belstead: Well, my Lords, if each question is better than the last, then they are always welcome.

Accommodation for Single Homeless People
3 p.m.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what is their policy on the provision of accommodation for single homeless men.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, responsibility for assisting homeless people rests with local authorities under the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977. This Act gives priority to certain defined categories of people, including single people if they are considered to be vulnerable. The impact of homelessness is one of the factors taken into account in determining local authorities' capital expenditure allocations. It is for individual authorities themselves to decide how much they should spend on meeting the needs of single homeless people. The single homeless will also benefit from the substantial provision for hostels and other forms of shared housing in the Housing Corporation's approved development programme.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, would not the Minister agree that the Government have a responsibility under the Social Security Act 1980, which provides that the Department of Health has a duty to maintain and provide resettlement units at which persons without a settled way of life are afforded shelter? Is the noble Lord aware—I am sure he is—that three hostels in London, Arlington House, Tower House and Rowton House, may close as a result of their sale to private developers, rendering the 2,000 inmates homeless? Will the noble Lord say what were the results of the conversations last week between Sir George Young of the Department of the Environment and the three boroughs concerned with this matter? What is the
1138
Government's long-term policy regarding the accommodation of persons who use these premises, such as those who are mentally ill, alcoholics and persons with behavioural disorders?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, with regard to the general duty of the Department of Health and Social Security, as reflected by the Act the noble Lord mentioned, he is of course quite right, for those people who come within the meaning of that Act, which does not completely overlap with the Homeless Persons Act to which I referred in my original Answer. None the less, the housing stock as such is the responsibility of the local authorities; so to that extent I hope he will agree with the substance of my original Answer.
As far as the Rowton hostels are concerned, I am afraid I have no up-to-date information. We obviously share the noble Lord's concern at the possible closure of these hostels and have indicated that we see no objection to local authority acquisition if the parties concerned can reach agreement. As negotiations are still in progress, I feel that commenting further could possibly prejudice the outcome, which is in nobody's interest, including that of the people living in the hostels concerned.
So far as concerns long-term policy, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Services is looking at the various units that currently exist, namely, 23 in Great Britain, and grant-aiding 35 voluntary hostels providing a similar resettlement service. The future of these resettlement units has been under review for some time and indeed is the next stage of this project which the noble Lord asked about. I understand that my right honourable friend hopes to publish his proposals shortly.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, does not the Minister agree that there is a very uneven burden on local authorities in this connection, in that there are more single homeless people in some areas than in others? This does create local difficulties. Further, does the noble Lord not recognise that the mean level of supplementary benefit to homeless people because they have not got an address only perpetuates their homelessness? Without an address and without adequate benefit it becomes progressively more and more impossible for them to find anywhere to live. Finally, is there anything the noble Lord the Minister can do—I know he is sympathetic—to hurry this up? It is a disgrace to this country and to Parliament that there will be people sleeping in cardboard boxes outside Charing Cross station and other places tonight.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the Government regard this problem with the greatest seriousness, as I know the noble Baroness knows. I hope I have done nothing in answering this Question to detract from that seriousness. Of course we are fully aware of the problems of single people who are homeless, and we are taking action in the ways that I have already suggested in answering the supplementary questions of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. I said that decisions are going to be made shortly and I cannot at this moment go further than this. With regard to the allowances to which the noble Baroness refers, this is a new one to me, but I will certainly draw it to the attention of my right honourable friend.
Lord Shinwell: My Lords, do I understand the noble Lord the Minister to say that the shocking situation of vast numbers of homeless people in this country, including a large number of single persons, must be left to the local authorities to deal with? Does he maintain that they have the necessary funds for this purpose? Has he had the opportunity of reading the disclosure in, I think, the Sunday Telegraph of last week, about the shocking situation in the town of Oxford, the last place in the country where this sort of thing should happen, where multiple housing exists of a fashion which is not only shocking but atrocious? How can we describe our country as "great" in a situation of that kind?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, again I take the serious purport of the noble Lord's question. The Government make grants to local authorities; this is related specifically to the housing grants and also to the grants related expenditure, what one might call the supplementary rates, for ease of argument. So the Government are financially helping local authorities to do what should be done. The fact is that this particular housing problem is on a scale which I and the noble Lord most certainly deplore. If the local authorities take money from one part of the housing budget to put into another part, the first part of the housing budget necessarily suffers.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, is the noble Lord the Minister aware that when the Homeless Persons Act went on the statute book it was in the context of very much more housebuilding in this country than we have at the present moment? Would the noble Lord not agree that with the diminution of the voluntary housing areas, with the sale of the Rowton Houses-and I believe there is also one in Birmingham-the whole situation is getting worse and worse? Are the Government aware of the number of single homeless people; is it being monitored? Are the Government going to do something to enable the local authorities to provide accommodation? Without Government help and without voluntary organisations being able to keep up their level of assistance, the problem is going to increase and become worse.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I thought I had made it clear that the Government are already providing grant money to the local authorities and to the housing associations to fulfil this particular need. So far as housebuilding generally is concerned, it is my understanding that the figures of new building have risen consistently over the last three periods for which figures have been reported.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I know that my noble friend is a sympathetic person, but may I ask him whether he himself will go to Victoria Station, to Euston Station, or to the surroundings of one of these major stations where he will find these homeless people every day? The chances are that they will never have even a railway station glass roof over them; they are in abandoned rolling stock in marshalling yards. This is a most unfair problem for many of the local authorities because it is not evenly spread over the country or even the city of London alone. The
1140
problem is just pushed from one part of London to another, and is getting no better.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, so far as evenness goes, I must point out to my noble friend that the grant is not evenly spread either. The grant goes in a large proportion to those areas and to those local authorities which are seen to need it. As regards going to a particular station or area of the country, yes, I most certainly would readily do that. I remember some 10 years ago, not having been prompted but off my own bat, going very late, at about 2 o'clock in the morning, to Waterloo Station. As long ago as that I was very conscious of the problem.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, while totally supporting everything that my noble friends have said in this matter and stressing the need for additional local authority assistance, would not the noble Lord think it right that we should pay special thanks to the Salvation Army for the remarkable work they do in this respect?
Lord Skelmersdale: Yes, my Lords, most certainly, and I am grateful to the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition for that suggestion.
Lord Avebury: Does the noble Lord agree that in the event of a catastrophe occurring and hostels closing, with 2,000 people being added to the number who already have to sleep on Westminster Embankment or under the Charing Cross arch, the Government would have responsibility for providing accommodation for them under the Social Security Act 1980?
In the meantime, will he also verify that local authorities concerned have the power to put a control order on these premises enabling them to assume the responsibility for the management of the premises pending the submission of a request to the Secretary of State for the Environment for approval of a compulsory purchase order? In the long term, would the Minister not agree that this episode and the criticisms which have been made of the Salvation Army and the accommodation that they provide show that it is increasingly difficult for private agencies to assume the enormous task of accommodating the kind of people that we have in mind here and, therefore, that the Government must assume that responsibility? Will the statement he has promised shortly—
Several noble Lords: Speech, speech!
Lord Avebury:—cover all these enormously important problems?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I know that my right honourable friend, to whom I have already referred in answering this Question, and also my right honourable friend the Minister for Housing, will most certainly consider all the points that have arisen in the supplementaries to the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. As far as the Social Security Act goes, it is my understanding that should the absolute disaster threaten hostels that the noble Lord—I am not sure whether he anticipates or fears, but I rather hope the latter—there would be no question but that the residents would be rehoused.

Prohibition of Female Circumcision Bill [H.L.]
Lord Kennet: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to prohibit female circumcision. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Kennet.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Railway Finances: The Serpell Report
3.15 p.m.
Lord Marsh Lord Marsh rose to call attention to the Serpell Report on Railway Finances; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name, and at the same time to thank my noble friends for giving me the opportunity of speaking on this particular subject. I think anyone who has had the opportunity of working in any nationalised industry finds it interesting, and anyone who has worked in British Rail finds it particularly interesting. I discovered at a very early stage as chairman how different it was. When I returned back to Victoria Station after an overseas trip, having arrived at Gatwick, I was met at the station, as happens with British Rail, by the station manager and the deputy station manager. A large West Indian porter took my luggage, and we walked up the platform and stopped at the large chauffeur-driven taxpayers' car in which I travelled in those days. The porter put the luggage in the back of the car. I walked across, took out 30p and said, "Thank you very much indeed", to which he replied, "Man, I don't take money from people I work with." I think that gives one an indication that it is an industry of great interest.
On the other hand, I have long felt that there must be something missing in my emotional make-up. I adore my wife, I help old ladies across roads and I am extremely fond of animals, but while I regard the railway problem as an extremely important and fascinating problem, I must confess that I have never managed to become emotionally aroused by the sight of a diesel locomotive. I think this is one of the problems. I was born and brought up in Swindon, frequently known as the Athens of the West Country and the home of the Great Western Railway. It is the town in which both my father and grandfather worked for the Great Western Railway—still commonly known by railwaymen as "God's Wonderful Railway". Indeed, without wishing to brag, I think I can claim that as chairman of British Rail I probably declared more of my family and school friends redundant than anyone else I know. But I do not have a love of railways any more than I have a love of roads, buses or taxis. They just exist for the benefit, or otherwise, of the population.
I make this point in all seriousness because part of the railway problem is the enormous difficulty of obtaining any rational or objective examination of the role we expect from the railways. The mere fact that this afternoon we are discussing the Serpell Report and the rôle of the railways is in itself extraordinary since
1142
it underlines the fact that after about 40 years of nationalisation we still do not know what we want of them. If the Houses of Parliament do not know, I think that the management of British Rail may be forgiven for having a certain amount of doubt and uncertainty as to what is its rôle.
There are people who will declare their love and affection for the railway, and there are others who display an almost obsessive vendetta against the industry. That includes some civil servants and some academics. There are many railwaymen—they are in a minority—who strongly believe that it should be heavily contracted. But both sides—those who love the railway and those who think it is a thing of the devil—tend to blur the opportunity for any rational discussion.
The cost to the taxpayer is high. No one can shrug aside £926 million a year. That is a great deal of money. But one really needs to look at it in perspective. In the current year, against a loss of £926 million by British Rail, we are going to spend £1,163 million on subsidies to housing, quite regardless of social need (and it is almost sacrilege to question that); we shall be spending £791 million subsidising uneconomic coal mines; we shall be spending £770 million on agriculture and £818 million on grants to industry; and as the the cost of the tax concession on company cars alone—and here I declare an interest in that I hope the Chancellor never changes that since I and my wife each have one—in terms of lost tax revenue, which is nothing to do with roads, signalling or the police, is estimated at £1.4 billion a year. Of course there is a problem so far as the railway is concerned, but I wish that we could get it in the total context.
Indeed, we read only this morning that local authority overspending, which is becoming a national scandal, is in excess of £900 million. When one sees some of the causes to which that overspending is dedicated—Lambeth Lesbians Against Foxhunting, for instance—one is entitled to wonder whether all outlets of expenditure are equally desirable in the national interests.
None of those areas creates controversy on anything like the scale of any discussion on British Rail's finances, and yet a rational and informed debate is essential if we are not to have a railway system which continues to decline in quality and, paradoxically, increases in cost as it declines in the service that it provides. That is the paradox. The inability of successive Governments to make up their mind what they want of the railway has provided the public with neither a cheap nor a good railway. It has produced a declining railway at increasing cost. That cannot make sense.
I had hoped, my Lords, that the Serpell Report would make a major contribution to the debate. Sir David Serpell is an old friend who has a very distinguished record in both the Treasury and the Department of Transport. He is a man of considerable intellect. It gives me no pleasure to have to say that in my view this latest of very many studies of the railway is of no value whatsoever in enabling us to make up our mind what we want of the railway.
An extraordinary feature of the inquiry was the emergence of the minority report. None of us sitting

1143
on these Cross-Benches has ill-feelings towards minorities. We are a persecuted group with no home to go to. But I find it extraordinary that in a committee of four, which was established on 5th May, it was not until 9th December that Mr. Goldstein concluded that he could not sign the committee's report and intended to submit his own, not on some point of detail but because he was in fundamental disagreement with the committee's interpretation of its terms of reference.
In paragraph 2.10 of the minority report, Mr. Goldstein says that,
"direction is unclear … emphasis on the next few years is not consistent with our Terms of Reference and is an emphasis I was not willing to adopt".
In paragraph 2.15 he says, referring to his colleagues, to whom, I must say, he was singularly unfriendly:
"they say that our terms of reference 'included a requirement' to report 'on options for alternative policies … over the next 20 years'. In fact this was the only matter upon which we were required to report by our terms of reference".
My Lords, if 25 per cent. of the committee took eight months to find out that they did not agree with what they had been discussing, it must call in doubt the conduct of the whole exercise. But of course it was a rather unusual committee.
It was decided, quite understandably—I should be interested to know who was responsible for that particular exercise; it could not have been a Minister acting on his own—to provide the committee with the services of independent consultants, so Travers Morgan and Peat Marwick were appointed. There is nothing extraordinary about that, but I find it extraordinary that, having appointed two well-known companies to provide independent objective advice as consultants, they then proceeded to appoint two of the senior partners of those two companies to the committee of four which was making the objective appraisal. That is rather like inviting the Kray family to pass judgment on the twins. I find it quite extraordinary.
There has been considerable criticism of the methodology adopted by the inquiry. There is not time, or much point, to argue that now, but again an example is given in paragraph 12.23. If your Lordships will bear with me for one moment, I will seek to find it, if only to prove that I have read it. Both Houses are invited to determine the future course of the railway on the costings. The figures given are qualified, which is not surprising. It is a difficult exercise to do; but what are the qualifications?
"In arriving at these estimates, no allowance has been made for the transitional costs (eg of redundancy), which could be substantial,"—
I ask the Minister whether later on he will give us an indication of what "substantial" means in that case—
"or for any implications for revenue or for additional investment".
So, my Lords, the House can have total confidence in those figures, except that they take no account of the transitional costs, changes in revenue or increased investment. It is a most bewildering document.
As I say, I would ask the noble Lord when he comes to speak to give us some indication of those transitional costs. Part of the problem with changing the shape of the railway is precisely that; that the transitional costs of getting from a now till then
1144
situation must, in my view, be astronomical. The system has to be kept running in a safe and efficient condition right up until the day it is decided to close it.
We have only one railway company in this country. Therefore, if that company decides that it does not want the railway locomotives, there is not much more that it can do with them than write them all off. I would ask just for an indication of the figure to help the House in its conclusions; whether the transitional cost of a major contraction would be estimated at £10 million, £50 million, £100 million or more than that. I do not want to nit-pick over these figures, but I think that every time that we have a doubt about the odd £100 million or so it is reasonable to ask whether we could have an order of magnitude figure.
I also find it extraordinary that no evidence was invited from any other railway system. How you examine a railway without comparing it with other railways causes me some doubt or difficulty. Indeed, no experience of other railway systems was invited. That is extraordinary. Since the railways were nationalised, there have been seven different chairmen of British Rail and five Labour and five Conservative Governments. If the problem is really as simple as just making the system a bit smaller and cutting off the unprofitable bits, one would have thought that somebody might have noticed that before and perhaps moved in that direction.
The problem is much more complex than that, as noble Lords will agree. The curious and peculiar thing about it is that no passenger rail system anywhere in the world can break even. Countries as different as France, Germany, Japan, Italy, Switzerland and Canada—every one of them—face similar problems, and yet the committee did not think to ask any of them what they had been doing over the past 20 or 30 years with the same problem.
The blame lies in the terms of reference, which required the committee to produce options designed simply to improve the financial results over the next 20 years, but with no indication of the political and social objectives which that railway expenditure was supposed to achieve. That seems to me as sensible as seeking to define the optimum financial support levels for hospitals with no reference to the levels of health care expected. How can you judge whether you are getting value for money if you do not first have an idea of what it is you think that you are buying? I find the terms of reference very strange and of little help in this.
Economies can and should be made in British Rail. Some services, such as catering and shipping, should be hived off or franchised, but the basic problem of British Rail is not an accountancy one and nor is it susceptible to an exercise in first-year economics. It is partly the nature of the beast that the railway was built in a different age to service and to provide for a different pattern of population and a different shape of industry. The big problem that we have with British Rail is that of course if we were building it today we should build it very differently, but we have it as it is.
I am bound to say that only a non-politician could produce a report which envisages Ministers going to the nation in these heady electoral days and saying that they have a jolly good new plan and policy to put before the electorate; they are going to shut down all the railways north of Glasgow and Edinburgh and just

1145
have a link to join them up and they are going to shut down all the railways in Wales apart from a railway to Cardiff—I can see the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition becoming restless at the mere thought of it—or that they are going to shut down all the railways in the West Country. That is not politically feasible. It does not matter whether some academic believes that it might be a nice idea; we actually have the railways in their present shape and I suspect that unless they rot by neglect, their shape will not be fundamentally different in 10 years' time.
Of course the other problem is the level of inescapable cost. It is very difficult to get away from some of the fixed costs of a railway system. But the real problem, the basic problem, is a political problem. It is not a problem of economics; it is not a problem of management. I note with great pleasure that the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, will be making his maiden speech today, and he will possibly mention these matters. But the idea of politicians spending their days seeking to force reluctant nationalised industry chairmen to close railway lines, begging them to shut down coal mines, begging them to sack tens of thousands of people and to increase fares and costs by 40 per cent. or 50 per cent. is not borne out by the evidence of anyone who has ever been in the political world. The fact is that it is pure political hogwash.
During my period in the public sector I felt that John Peyton was the only Minister in five years who took any serious interest in the industry at all, and most of his efforts were devoted to trying to keep his colleagues off my back so that we could do our job. Under both parties I certainly experienced industrial disputes as regards which I was assured that the Government would stand firm, but then I was subsequently told to settle at higher levels than I could have settled at in the first instance. One has been dragged out of bed in the middle of the night by Ministers who had had, in those days, "a chat with Vic"—the late Victor Feather—and one was told, "It is not really for us to intervene but we have mentioned that the Government are not on your side, but we are on his". The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, might well recall those wondrous days when the Wilberforce Committee sat and pondered and how much that cost the taxpayer. The responsibility for that lay not with the management of the National Coal Board but with Ministers—and they do not get any better, whichever party you are in; I have tried both.
Let me give a few specific examples. At British Rail we had a proposal to reduce the white collar staff by 9,000 people. That proposal, the Field reorganisation, was virtually agreed with the union leadership. In the end the union leadership withdrew their support. They withdrew their support because Ministers and Members of Parliament were telling the membership of the union that they would oppose these reductions and it was impossible for the union leaders to be out front when their members were being suborned by professional politicians. So that 9,000 reduction was not made.
I turn to particular services. The Heysham/Belfast Shipping Service was a very big loss-maker because of the troubles in Ireland. We tried and tried to withdraw it. In 1974 that service was losing £850,000 a year. We were prevented by the then Government from closing
1146
it until in the end I wrote to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland at that time—an eminent and good politician—and told him that unless we received a written instruction from him we proposed to take the initiative and to shut the service ourselves. It was pointed out to me that out of courtesy I should first inform his private office. I rang his private office and I well remember the reaction of his private secretary when he heard our decision. He spoke most eloquently and said, "Oh crikey!". At that stage it was shut.
However, let us take the example of the Inverurie workshop. It is a very small Scottish workshop and it took 10 years to close. The Edinburgh/Hawick/Carlisle line was proposed for closure in the Beeching Report in 1963. We have not got over Beeching yet, but we are starting on the son of Beeching. Eventually the Minister of Transport agreed to the closure in 1968. There was still further pressure and the line was not eventually shut at that stage.
There is also the Central Wales line of Swansea to Shrewsbury. That railway line is 90 miles long. It has very few regular passengers. It would literally be cheaper to provide every single passenger with a chauffeur driven Bentley in which he could be driven wherever he wanted to go. When I was a young, naïve Minister I did a great deal of study on the economics of closure. I went to the Cabinet and delivered myself of a stirring speech. One Cabinet Minister, whom I shall not name because as an eminent Speaker he should not be named, was sitting at the end of the table, and when I sat back and waited for the applause for my argument for closing the line he said, "But Prime Minister, it runs through six marginal constituencies". Nobody else took a blind bit of notice of the rest of the discussion. It was made even worse by the fact that the Labour Party lost all six of them at the election.
As regards price rises, the report talks in terms of doubling the level of fares in some parts of the country. The case as regards that is a fascinating one. Under Conservative Governments and under Labour Governments we were specifically prohibited from raising prices. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, and I went together at one stage to lead a delegation to meet the CBI, the Prime Minister and some of his Ministers because we had stumbled upon the important statistical fact that if you froze prices in a nationalised industry when inflation was running in double figures, the likelihood was that the public sector borrowing requirement would increase. But in fact millions of pounds were lost as a result of all that.
I know that there are many noble Lords who wish to speak and so I shall draw my remarks to a conclusion. In my view one is entitled to ask: What is the Government's next step? What is their programme for action? We cannot go on saying that we do not know what we want in regard to the railways. How will they approach this matter? It is a decision which can only be taken by politicians; it cannot be taken by anybody else. I ask the noble Lord when he rises to speak to give us some indication of the Government's intentions and timescale as regards bringing this long, sorry issue to an end.
Finally, I should like to ask: What was the cost of this inquiry? I have heard it said that the cost of the inquiry was in excess of £600,000. I shall look forward

1147
with interest to hearing whether it was something much less than that, but if it cost anywhere near that figure it is quite extraordinary. Indeed, as one who has contributed over the years on many occasions, as have many other noble Lords in industry and commerce, to the Consultants' Welfare Benevolent Fund, I know that they are pretty pricey people. At the end of the day it failed and the taxpayer received no value whatever, not because of the fault of the Committee, certainly not because of the fault of Sir David Serpell, but simply because this Government, like their predecessors, have yet to make up their mind about what we want from the railway system that we have, which has cost us a large sum of money and for which all the political evidence shows that at the end of the day the people are prepared to pay. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.39 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, on two counts this afternoon: first, for raising this immensely important subject for debate; and secondly, for the humour and good nature with which he has introduced it. We are indebted, and will be for a long time, to the noble Lord for his contribution on matters of this kind where his experience is of so much value. Additionally this afternoon we have the privilege of hearing two maiden speakers, and I am quite sure that we shall look forward to that.
For me to participate in a debate of this kind from this particular position may come as a surprise to some of your Lordships. However, the House knows that I have long desired our transport system to prosper through modern, economical and efficient equipment and practices—and that, of course, includes the railways. At this stage, perhaps I may remind the House of what I said at column 1165 on 5th May last year when, speaking from the Back Benches, I initiated a debate on inland transport. I said:
"I have no doubt in my mind that the railway industry is a continuing business of great importance to this country. I believe that it has to be sustained and nurtured."
That afternoon I referred to the need for modernisation of equipment and working practice, and today I stand by what I said on that occasion.
In these opening remarks—because, by leave, later I shall hope to answer in greater detail some of the questions that will arise—I should like to set the scene, as I see it, with regard to Serpell and this debate. We must be absolutely clear about the status of the report, which is by an independent committee. Serpell is not Government policy; nor should we debate it as though it were. The Government cannot reach final decisions about all the issues raised by Serpell, nor, indeed, on the wider issues affecting the railways which Serpell did not consider. Decisions upon future policy for the railways cannot and will not be taken until all the facts and arguments have been heard, and part of that process is indeed this debate in your Lordships' House this afternoon. Serpell is an input to the debate: it is an important one, but it is not the only one.
The railways are one of our major industries and there are many dedicated people working within the railways. The present management, led by Sir Peter
1148
Parker, the chairman, and Bob Reid, the chief executive, have been praised for their efforts to improve British Rail's management arrangements, to reduce costs and to get rid of restrictive practices. We must bear in mind that the work they have done in recent years has been against an immense change in the industry and particularly in the manpower over the last generation or so, when the total number of staff has fallen from something approaching 600,000 30 years ago to something just over 200,000 now.
However, some of the public comments on the Serpell Report show that enthusiasm and appreciation for the railways can sometimes distract us from more rational and constructive thought. Some of the responses have been based on misunderstandings, particularly as to the content and even the very status of Serpell. From time to time every part of the economy requires an injection of fresh ideas, better management and innovation; it needs to examine restrictive practices with the aim of improving efficiency and moving towards meeting and attempting to solve the problems that will arise tomorrow and in the future. The railways are no exception to this. We cannot just stick our heads in the sand and pretend that everything in the railways is perfect and that there is nothing to do but to pour money in and the wagons will roll down the lines. It is not like that.
Certainly the finances of the railway—the subject of Serpell—have become a matter of great concern. Unit costs have risen fast and the costs falling on the taxpayer in terms of grant per passenger mile have risen in real terms by nearly 40 per cent. since 1975. So last year we reached a position where only half the real cost of rail travel was being met through the fare box—the fares paid by travellers. The gap between total costs and revenues in 1982 was over £1 billion. Grants from taxpayers and ratepayers were over £900 million, representing something like £40 per family in the country irrespective of whether they had travelled on the railways. It was an immense amount of money.
To return to the setting up of Serpell, it was in fact the Railways Board which asked my right honourable friend for a review of their finances. Against the background that I have just given, the British Railways Board also argued that their existing levels of finance were no longer sufficient to enable them to fulfil their duties and responsibilities. As a result, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State set up the Serpell Committee last May to consider the question of railway finances. That is what the Railways Board had asked for and that is what the Secretary of State agreed to.
The Railways Board welcomed the appointment of Sir David Serpell and his committee. The noble Lord, Lord Marsh, has spoken of Sir David, so it is not necessary for me to go further with his qualifications for that appointment. The Railways Board also agreed the terms of reference that the committee was to be given. The Secretary of State made clear, when he announced the committee's appointment, that he hoped for a report within five or six months, because the matter was urgent. An injection of urgency into the matter of British Rail's financing had to be brought to bear at that time. In the event, the committee took a little longer.

1149
Criticism that the terms of reference were wrong because they were too narrow, I reject. The requirement which was recognised by the board and the Government was, as I said, for an inquiry into railway finances, and that is what Serpell did. It is for Government and Parliament—it is not for Serpell—to put the outcome of that report into the context of wider railway and transport policy.
It is unfortunate that so much attention in the press and elsewhere has concentrated exclusively on the last few chapters of what is a long and fairly weighty report. The bulk of the report does not deal with the network—and I shall return to that in just a moment—but with potential improvements in efficiency and working practices within the existing system. The committee identified some £200 million-worth of potential savings, and that must be worthwhile by any standards. These savings are not dependent on changes being made to the network. The savings which Serpell identified—which would give a much better bargian to rail users and taxpayers—show how hasty and ill-considered it would be to consign the whole report to the waste bin or a shelf.
Serpell has not been an exercise which is a waste of time or money. My right honourable friend was told by Sir Peter Parker that there is much that is constructive in the report, and Sir Peter said that British Rail would be using the opportunity of the reports to make the most of the challenge in them. In relation to the key subjects of planning, investment, engineering and financial information, Sir Peter said:
"I am sure that the Committee's work, complemented by the work that we have put in hand, will enable us to accelerate the improvements that we had in mind in these fields and respond positively to new points raised by the Committee".
The noble Lord, Lord Marsh, referred to financing the transitional costs, and perhaps I may deal with this point now. Neither I nor the Government can put a figure on how much transitional finance would be available. The noble Lord, Lord Marsh, knows full well that that cannot be done in isolation, because at this time we do not know exactly how British Rail propose to tackle some of the problems. As a Government, we would consider any transitional financing expenditure request properly, but it would be on the merits of the case. For example, last year, the Government provided £33 million to help with the cost of additional initiatives to reduce manpower. That was through the increase in the PSO grant and the external financing limit. If there was a subsidy of £900 million in 1982, I frankly cannot conceive at this time of a figure that might be required over the next four or five years to meet transitional costs of improvements of the kind which may have to be considered.
May I turn for a moment or two to the so-called network options. The report makes it clear that the committee intended these options only as illustrations. They simply illustrate what the costs of a variety of particular networks might be in the view of the committee. The methodology and the computer models on which they are based are the responsibility of the committee and the consultants. Certainly from the point of view of the Government I emphasise that the networks are illustrations of what the costs of the particular networks might be on varying assumptions. They are not policy proposals. They are not options
1150
between what we can or should choose, and they are certainly not being treated in that way. And, I may add, there are no closure proposals arising from Serpell that are being considered by the Government.
My right honourable friend made it clear that he is not in the business of making hasty decisions on the long-term future of the railways. The value of the grant given to the railways each year, the £900 million of which I have spoken, is enormous, and we have to ask ourselves whether we are obtaining value for the taxpayers' money or whether there are alternative ways of meeting the needs of both traveller and taxpayer. Not only do we have to consider the questions raised by Serpell, but we want to have the broadest possible discussion on the best way to achieve a modern and efficient railway for the long-term future.
There is one particular point that I ought to mention, and that is the Government's belief not only in the long-term future of the railway but in the carriage of freight being part of that long-term future. There is no doubt that the railway is well suited on a number of grounds—we have discussed this before—to take a fair share of goods. Indeed, the Freight Transport Association, in their response to Serpell, said:
"There is no reason why rail freight cannot operate on a fully commercial basis without any financial support from the taxpayer … the key to this is the improvement in efficiency identified by the Serpell Report, rather than slimming the network".
That should dispel any fear that there is a huge road lobby being mounted against rail. We have discussed this so many times before: the two go hand-in-hand. It was the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, speaking in your Lordships' House only a few days ago, who said, "Never mind what Governments do; the mode of transport that is open to the consumer will be chosen by the consumer".
I think I have said quite enough to illustrate at this time how the Government see the report. Decisions will not be taken in a vacuum. We have to take account, now particularly, of wider transport, social (which includes the future of rural communities) and economic factors. I know that we shall hear more about these matters this afternoon, and I look forward to hearing your Lordships' views. I am quite sure that we share the common aim of a modern railway with a good, long-term future playing a proper part in the transport system. It is quite wrong if we start our debate on the basis on which the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, left us: that the taxpayer has received no value from the report. That depends on what we in Parliament do with the report.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, could he possibly answer the question that I raised? I want the taxpayer to get value from the report. Could he tell us how much the taxpayer has paid for the report?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I would in fact prefer to come to that point when I wind up, largely because I suspect that there may be other questions around the fringe of the costs and who, what and why, and it may be more convenient to the House if I attempt—I do not know whether I shall succeed—to embrace all answers of that kind at that time.
3.55 p.m.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I, too, should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, not only for bringing this subject before us but also for the amiable and informative way in which he introduced it. So much so that, although he and I have not always seen eye to eye on some issues in your Lordships' House, I find myself so much in agreement with the noble Lord that I would readily issue him with a card to come back to us. The debate has also attracted two maiden speakers. I am certain we shall hear from the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, points on what industry needs from the standpoint of freight carriage. I also look forward to hearing my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies, and I shall be surprised if he does not refer to some of the options as they affect the Principality.
When we had the Statement in your Lordships' House about Serpell on 20th January, after a cursory reading I was critical of aspects of that document. Having read it, re-read it and re-read it since, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, that it is a disappointing and unhelpful document in many ways. Although it has some suggestions which are worth following, it generally has a negative approach. There is nothing at all in the report about the possibilities of generating new traffic. There is little of a positive approach on the future of the railways. It concentrated on the financial audit, management and savings, and possible cuts.
There was no consideration of social consequences in the report; and there was little in the report about the environment. There was little about energy conservation, there was little about the problems of road congestion, and no real approach to public need. An indication is that there are just seven lines on electrification, and it just dismisses this and suggests that there may have to be another review. Surely we do not require any more reviews of rail electrification. The Department of Transport and the board itself issued an excellent document on the whole question. We do not need another review; we need a policy decision about it.
It also says that there is no case on energy grounds for subsidising railways during the next 20 years. I should like noble Lords who understand energy problems and scientific problems to tell me whether that is a fact. I should have thought that that point could be disputed. Along with the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, I was amazed to look through the report—and I looked through it again in case my eyesight was failing—and see nothing at all about international comparisons. It is just incredible. We ought to know what are the comparisons of costs, and what are the comparisons of public subsidies. I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, says: there is not a single industrialised nation's railway service that can run without public support. Other countries—and I have said this time and time again—seem to be proud of their railway services, but somehow we in this country seem to want to denigrate them.
There is nothing about productivity in comparison with other countries. I should have thought that this would be important. There is even no reference to points raised on transport problems in general in Armitage. I find that my reactions are endorsed—and one might say that of course this would happen—by
1152
the initial response of British Rail. British Rail have said:
"The reports contain some unreliable information, make few specific recommendations, mix policy and procedural matters and pay little attention to the need to maintain momentum behind current initiatives."
In the conclusion to the BR document on the report they expressed regret at the need to criticise the report so much, but went on:
"There was very little advice in either Report on the key questions of the nature and content of the long-term strategic objectives which BR and the Government should be pursuing."
That is the major criticism of the report.
No contribution is made by the report to our transport policy. That may be because, by its terms of reference, the committee were asked to concentrate on financial aspects. Indeed, that is made clear in paragraph 5 of the report:
"While we have paid close attention to the evidence, we have not by any means addressed all the issues raised with us. This is mainly because our review has been concerned with the railways' finances, not transport policy".
How can you consider the railways and not look at the whole question of transport policy? Whenever I read reports on transport, and there have been many of them—including BR's corporate plan and even Government legislation—it becomes more and more apparent that you must look at transport as a whole. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, that we must not be lovers of only the railways, or buses or coaches, and so on; we must urge an integrated transport policy. If somebody asks: "Why do you not do that?" my answer is that the Labour Party and the TUC have worked out their integrated transport policy, and the railway and transport unions have collaborated and agreed in that. It was adopted by last year's TUC and the Labour Party Conference, so there is a blueprint for an integrated transport policy.
The criticism by the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, of the consultants' engagement and the membership of the committee—without passing any personal comments on the two individuals—is valid. While the consultants are recognised to be very competent and experienced civil engineers, may I ask the Minister to say how much experience they have in the railway side of consultancy? There are grave doubts as to whether they have that sort of experience.
As for the figures in the report, can we afford to do without a sound railway system? The report tells us that, from Monday to Friday, 2 million passengers are conveyed daily; there are some 1,600 passenger trains daily calling at nearly 2,400 stations; and when referring to London and the South-East, which has 50 per cent. of all rail passengers, it says that 250,000 passengers travel on BR's London and South-East routes into the London terminals every rush hour Monday to Friday. What, indeed, would happen if they were not travelling by British Rail?
The report says there is no justification for the season ticket discounts which apply in London and the South-East. Serpell seems to treat the commuters of London as though they were captive passengers. Increased season ticket charges must surely follow the law of diminishing returns. Increased charges could affect employers and the whole question of London weighting. It is strange that, having made that comment, we wait a number of chapters in the report

1153
to find that they realise that if people were taken away from the railways in London and the South-East there could be problems of road congestion.
To cut my remarks short on that statement, I would only say that we did not require a £500,000 survey to tell us that if we took away the trains from people travelling by train in London and the South-East there would be road congestion. Of course there would, and, as I say, it took them several chapters to tell us that, after having said that attention should be paid to the discounting of season tickets. The report makes no suggestions as to how the level of demand could be increased.
Nor does it make any suggestions on how the railways could be dovetailed into the other transport services, and it says in paragraph 5.13 that BR has the temptation to retain the market without sufficient regard to long-term costs. Of course, we must have regard to costs and efficiency, but there are other matters to be taken into consideration in addition to costs alone. That is the very argument we have been having with the Government all this week in debating the Transport Bill. And that negative attitude is reflected in paragraph 5.4 of the report which, although commenting that schemes of reduced fares make sense and increase revenue by making fuller use of off-peak resources, it expresses doubts as to whether the various card system schemes introduced by BR are justified. Then they urge a long-term examination. Perhaps they want another £500,000 review to see whether that statement is correct.
There is no consideration whatever of encouragement for people to become rail passengers. There is no consideration of the social implications—of encouraging and helping people to travel by reduced fare schemes in order to increase the travelling public at off-peak periods—and the view is expressed that there is little prospect of increasing commuter traffic in London and the South-East. Then they make the suggestion that the congestion problem is mainly a London one. I wonder whether noble Lords from other conurbations take the view that, if the railway systems were abolished, there would be no problems of road congestion in their areas. I very much doubt whether many noble Lords would agree with Serpell on that.
They then say there is little hope of increasing passenger services on provincial lines, except in the areas of public transport executives. As we have one more day in Committee on the Transport Bill, I hope that comment of Serpell's will be borne in mind. There is the same negative attitude with regard to freight. While most noble Lords recognise that there is a limit to the amount of freight that can be carried by rail, some transfer—and I agree that it must be for the consumer to choose—would make a great deal of difference to rail finances and alleviate some of the road congestion.
This negative view is seen clearly in Serpell's comments on Speedlink. Although it is stated that BR believes there is a potential market for Speedlink—that is, in relation to the carriage of freight—paragraph 3.21 says it would be unwise to commit resources unless there is reasonable certainty that business will be won. I understand that BR has conducted surveys on that possibility. But how many
1154
undertakings will give a commitment to use Speedlink unless they know that developments will take place? Therefore, there must be some commitment in advance.
I would comment in passing that there is nothing in Serpell about the problem of rail transport—that is, if it were not there—for defence purposes. Overlooked also are the problems that would be faced on the roads if the 154 million tonnes of freight carried each year by rail was no longer so carried, and the fact that it requires 1,900 freight trains a day to cope with that.
The report questions the board's comments on track deterioration and the need for track maintenance In reply, the board has challenged Serpell's comments on that. The report quotes from the Chief Inspecting Officer's annual report for 1981, from which I will refer to only one sentence:
"The Railway's policy of putting safety before operational or commercial considerations has prevented any serious erosion of their traditionally high safety standards".
I am sure all noble Lords would accept that no railwayman would be prepared to economise on safety measures. That is why the safety of our railway system is so efficient.
We find the astounding suggestion in paragraph 6.9 that, instead of keeping to its practice of obtaining all steel rails from BSC—and we know the problems the steel industry is facing—BR should possibly consider overseas purchases. We find the same astounding suggestion made in relation to mechanical and electrical engineering in paragraph 6.37, in which it is said that there should be a full appraisal of the possibility of buying foreign components and locomotives.
There is a section dealing with British Rail's engineering services and criticism of the fact that they purchase only 1 per cent. of their materials from abroad. As we know, BREL obtains some 60 per cent. of their materials from private industry in this country, and that is very important. I hope that, whatever else they do, the Government will not listen to Serpell when they say that we should be obtaining steel rails and other equipment from overseas. The report stresses that the question of BREL must be looked at, and I was pleased to note that the Minister—not the Minister here today—emphasised the possibility of export work for BREL. It has been so sad to hear in the last few days of the huge reductions that are to take place at the British Rail engineering works at Shildon and Horwich. Such action could kill the home base from which it is possible to attract export orders, and the tragedy that would be brought to the communities concerned must be fully realised.
Reference is also made to the question of closing rural lines, and I would urge that this cannot be dealt with on a national basis. It is necessary to look separately at each line, or group of lines, and we must consider other factors in addition to the cost factor. It may be, as the report states, that in some rural areas buses may be more effectively substituted—and an amendment on that very point is to be considered tomorrow by your Lordships' Committee when it considers the Transport Bill. But in other areas routes could be kept open, particularly if there is further investment in radio-controlled signalling and the question of existing level crossings is dealt with. There

1155
may also be development following the experiments that have been conducted by British Rail relating to the light 141 two-car unit, and possibly development of the rail bus—the very light unit.
The report contains suggestions for management which British Rail says it has either carried out, or will look at carefully. But if noble Lords look at the report they will see that the section on investment is woefully inadequate, and the general impression is that the committee has concentrated on proposals for cutting costs, while increasing services and service demands seem to have been secondary considerations.
There is an interesting table on page 41 of the report. It shows that the actual drop in British Rail investment in 1981 was £180 million, compared with the figure for 1979. The point is also made that the level of investment fell below the actual investment ceiling, but the report states that that was due to the constraints of the external financing limit—a point that we have made time and time again.
Mr. Goldstein seems to be quite happy for the network to be cut down to about 1,300 miles. Nevertheless, in his minority report he urged on the Secretary of State the importance of determining the long-term task to be set for the railway and the financial support commensurate with it. He stated that he departed from his colleagues with regret,
"but the need for a long-term review of, and direction for, the railway is so compelling that I can take no other course".
I remind your Lordships that, in its annual report for 1981, published only last April, the Central Transport Consultative Committee for Great Britain expressed concern about the effects of the application of rigid financial targets on the quality of services. The consultative committee said that it was supportive of British Rail's efforts to obtain from the Government improved levels of investment, and that it had made representations to the Government. That committee is the watchdog for railway services in Great Britain.
I shall not spend much time on the question of network options, because the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, has made it quite clear that the report emphasises that these are no more than illustrations. When your Lordships look at the options, you will see that some of them are, frankly, absolutely ludicrous. Mr. Goldstein stated that the studies carried out show that, as services and network are reduced, costs fall faster than revenue. "Let's abolish the whole lot"—and that could be said of rural bus services too. It is such a simple thing to say; it is as easy as Mr. MacGregor smashing up the steel industry, instead of developing it. It is very easy to say those kind of things.
I was pleased to note what was said by Mr. Robert Adley in a Commons debate. I shall paraphrase his remarks, since I am not allowed to quote him. He said that the Serpell Report does not address itself to two fundamental questions: do we need a railway and how much are we prepared to pay for it? I shall add a further question: how are we to develop a co-ordinated, integrated, public transport policy? Those are the three issues, and we need answers from the Government.
4.14 p.m.
Lord Tanlaw: My Lords, I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, for using the Cross-Bench day to put forward a Motion which not only I, but many other noble Lords, have wanted to debate in your Lordships' House. The debate has attracted a wide list of speakers, including two maiden speakers, and I am privileged to be taking part on the occasion when my noble friend Lord Ezra will be making his maiden speech. In that regard I cannot recall having heard more references to a maiden speaker than were made by the noble Lord who moved the Motion today. I also look forward to hearing what the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, with his experience in the Principality, has to say.
The noble Lord, Lord Marsh, very amusingly, but with great authority, speaking from experience, explained the main criticisms of the Serpell Report, and perhaps the reasons why it came about. The noble Lord might not be too happy with my own criticisms of the British Rail Board, since obviously he knows what it feels like to be criticised, while I have not had that "luxury"; nor have I been a Minister of Transport, a post which equally attracts criticism. I hope that when the noble Lord the Minister replies to the debate he will not confine himself to the very narrow terms of reference that were given to the Serpell Committee, and that he will answer questions outside those of railway finances, since people have made a great point about not speaking in terms of figures in a debate of this kind. I agree with a number of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, and I hope to take up some of them later.
Meanwhile I should like to go back to the terms of reference, which were given by the right honourable gentleman the Minister of Transport, which forced the Serpell Committee to stick its collective head in the till. No one can expect to have a wide field of vision when in that posture, and the committee was no exception. I regret that I found the report difficult reading, and what vision it does embody has been bifurcated by the inclusion of the minority report. The significant details and implications are awkward to extract, and my intervention from these Benches is an attempt at a simple analysis of some salient points that I believe are relevant to the travelling public and the railway industry, but, regrettably, I, like many others, have come to the conlusion that overall the report was a great opportunity missed.
I should like to come back to the point taken up by the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, on the constitution of the Serpell Committee and the members' interests. I wonder what actually are the reservations and guidelines laid down by Her Majesty's Government on the practice of professional members of Government-sponsored committees using their own firms and consultants to serve those committees. In the particular case of the Serpell Committee, the chairman, Sir David Serpell, was a member of the British Rail Board which, after all, was the corporation under investigation, while Messrs. Butler and Goldstein were partners of the two consulting firms engaged, the fees and costs of which amounted to approximately £600,000—if that is a correct figure given by the noble Lord, Lord Marsh. For that sum of money British Rail could have purchased two two-car

1157
rail buses, or half of a new Southern Region electric train, and in the eyes of the travelling public either of those options would have been more use than what has come out of the report. I say that for the reasons that I am about to give. It would be interesting to know what method of selection was employed in the case of the consultants to the Serpell Committee, and perhaps the noble Lord will enlighten us in his winding-up speech.
I now come to the question of the terms of reference. A review of the nation's remit to British Rail was considered desirable by almost everybody, but surely such a review cannot take place without the framework of a national integrated transport policy. Both noble Lords who have spoken have said that, and no Government that I can recall have ever taken a position beyond vague Green and White Papers on the subject. We know that the options put forward in the report were meant to be illustrative, but regrettably, though inevitably, the general public has interpreted them as proposals. While clearly that has been embarrassing for Her Majesty's Government—after all, that was the object of the leak campaign—I now understand from what the noble Lord the Minister said quite categorically that it is still the case that the options under the terms of reference are entirely illustrative and are not in any way proposals. No doubt he will confirm that in his winding-up speech.
There has been much criticism of the report, and a great deal of it has been unjustified, or misinformed, or both; in particular with regard to the minority report written by Mr. Goldstein, which was submitted at the eleventh hour, without the prior knowledge of his colleagues on the committee. Apart from the obvious discourtesy of that procedure, I do not share in the general criticism of the substance of Mr. Goldstein's approach. In fact he was the only member of the committee who tried to meet the terms of reference laid down by the right honourable gentleman the Minister of Transport. It is the terms of reference, more than anything else, that should be criticised, because, if they were fully understood by the right honourable gentleman the Minister of Transport and his department, then surely the period of five to six months allotted to the committee was ridiculously short, even when the remit was limited to railway finances.
I come now to the integrated railway which was touched upon by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill. I wonder whether the noble Lord will state quite categorically that he now believes that an integrated transport system is right for this country. At least one of his noble friends gave quite the opposite view from the Front Bench in a recent debate in this House. We believe from these Benches that the local experience and professionalism within the PTEs of the metropolitan counties reflect the views and needs of their communities and strengthen the case for the power of local transport authorities to be increased, rather than decreased through centralisation by the Department of Transport. Road/rail integration, which is dealt with in chapter 16 of the report, is a case in point. The benefits to the passenger of integrated bus and rail services are apparent to the user but not, it seems, to the present Government or to Sir David Serpell and his colleagues. As Tyne and Wear has
1158
shown, the integration of local bus services with a new metro has produced an increase in ridership in an area hard hit by the recession, compared with the national trend of falling transport usage. Would the noble Lord not agree that there is a lesson to be learned here which can be applied throughout the network?
Chapter 16 of the report goes into detail of how bus substitution could replace the cut in rail services. This part of the report implies integration; but it is worrying to note that the committee feel that a great deal of work would have to be done before bus substitution could occur on any scale. I assume that here they are indirectly referring to potential difficulties over agreements with the unions involved, transferrable ticketing and relationships with the local bus companies. I find this concept exciting and imaginative, provided that British Rail has the responsibility of running the combined service which would replace a reduced railway network. Nevertheless, in spite of the Serpell reservations, I cannot understand how there can be too many difficulties in arranging the arrival of a bus to coincide with that of a train for a nation which mounted a sucessful task force to the South Atlantic within a matter of three weeks.
My Lords, in contrast to the public transport executives, the true rural services are suffering as much from lack of policy as from inadequate finance. At present, the remit under the 1974 Transport Act is to provide a level of service comparable with that being provided when the Act was passed. The procedure on closures is based on 1962 legislation. Clearly, a new remit is long overdue—and one which should include British Rail integration with local bus services. Will the noble Lord not agree that rural services are a true social service just as much as the supply of electricity to a remote Highland village or a telephone kiosk in rural Wales? No doubt the noble Lord, Lord Prvs-Davies, will have something to say about this in his speech, to which I am looking forward.
It is not just the railway lines which are lightly used in rural areas. Thousands of miles of country roads have traffic densities which fail to reach double figures when measured in vehicles per day. Yet local authorities maintain these roads to excellent standards, even though they might probably earn more for the nation if they were ploughed up for growing crops or grazing sheep. It might be as well to remind the House, while comparing road and rail, of the horrifying safety statistics of the two different modes of travel. On 3rd February Mr. Robert Adley—who, in my opinion, made one of the few sensible interventions on the Serpell debate in another place—stated that over the past 14 years, 526 people have been killed by accidents on British Rail of whom at least 300 were apparently suicides; 2,660 people have been killed by violence in Northern Ireland and 105,000 people have been killed on the roads.
These grim statistics are confirmed by the International Union of Railways which claims in its latest brochure that throughout Europe the railways are by far the safest means of transport. For example, in 1976 the number killed in traffic accidents on European railways amounted to only 0·5 per cent. of the slaughter on the roads. For similar levels of traffic in Europe, there was one fatal accident on the railways

1159
for every 2,300 road deaths. As railways and roads in the United Kingdom provide a similar service, it would surely make sense for the maintenance of the railway track to become the responsibility of the state with British Rail providing the train service. While this might justifiably be seen simply as moving public money from one purse to another, it would give the transparency of accounting at present lacking in the comparison between the various forms of private and public transport. Are Her Majesty's Government going to pursue this line or will they continue to maintain that the road and rail systems should have separate disbursements governed by different criteria from the central Exchequer?
This brings me to the cost-effective railway which was mentioned in the report. It has been an obsession with finance rather than with cost-effective railway service which has neutralised much of the report. I am sure that other noble Lords will have much to say on this matter. That is why the Serpell Report is so incomplete. It lacks the appreciation that, to succeed, a product must provide more, not less, of what the customer buys it for. Passengers and the nation are not going to pay for the cheapest railway they can have; they are paying for the best railway they can afford—the high speed train, the electric commuter services in the great conurbations and the daily miracle of bringing (I make it) 400,000 Londoners to and from work. It is a pretty good railway at that but an expensive one. Serpell should have provided, but did not provide, a range of new remits for British Rail on the railway the country wanted.
A vision is required of how good a cost-effective railway could be. The nation cannot wait forever. It has already been said the Government have gone so far and have got to go further to do something about it. British Rail claims, on the basis of comparisons, to be the most cost-effective railway in Europe. Unfortunately, I may disagree with Lord Marsh on this but I believe that this is largely meaningless because each nation has a different heritage in terms of transport infrastructure, different attitudes to railways, to investment and to industrial locations. Therefore I do not think comparisons are fair. The need is for a vision of a cost-effective British railway for which the travelling public will be prepared to pay because they see it as value for money.
Then I come to what I call the social railway. One of the main criticisms that we have from these Benches of the report is that the committee looked only at how the railway network could be cut down to cost less. It completely ignored the social and commercial dimension of railways, and when the Central Transport Consultative Committee wrote to Serpell suggesting that the inquiry's terms should be extended to include the interests of passengers, Sir David Serpell replied that passengers were only another relevant consideration. Liberals cannot and will not accept this view. This, again, is where the report has made a great failure of omission. The British Rail chairman, Sir Peter Parker, who has been an excellent front for so many of the board's shortcomings, spoke recently of 1983 as a watershed year for the railways. He was referring in particular to the social railway, still an ill-defined part of Britain's transport system dependent
1160
on state subsidy and which most directly affects the greatest number of rail users.
But the social and commercial dimension should not be applied to the railways only. I refer back to my statement on the need for a fully integrated transport policy, and it is in this context that the costly social role of British Rail should be clarified. In a developed nation such as our own, the infrastructure for all basic services has been built up during the past 150 years. For the public transport service it is not unreasonable to make a general policy statement that, for example, every community of more than 4,000 people should have available a regular, time-tabled transport service connecting them to every other community of a similar size in the country. The Dutch Government enacted such a policy shortly after the war in 1947. In 1910, the British railway system offered this and the need is still there today, albeit no longer necessarily in the railway form. With the aid of computers and integration of public and private transport, it should be entirely possible to make this a social and cost-effective reality.
There are two sectors of British Rail management which make up Sir Peter Parker's social railway. The larger of the two (which has been mentioned) is the South-East, which ranks in turnover with Inter-City. Bringing 400,000 commuters to work in London each day makes it more of a necessity than a social service. While the finance and organisations of London's rail services may be debated endlessly, the need for them is undeniable at this time. In future, however, this may not be the case if the microprocessor revolution, combined with new developments in telecommunication and home terminals, begins to affect travel patterns. This aspect was not looked into by Serpell but a special study should be made as soon as possible, because these effects go far beyond the problem of assessing the volume of commuters coming to London every day. They will affect the whole working of the metropolis.
That leaves what British Rail calls the provincial services. Unlike the other sectors, this is far from homogeneous and is suffering the most from out-dated or inadequate remits. While the popular impression of these provincial services is the rural branch line, this is misleading. This sector also has responsibility for rail services in the metropolitan counties, the main-line services within Scotland, the stopping services on main Inter-City routes and also inter-regional services such as Cardiff-Portsmouth and the trans-Pennine route.
Each of these subgroups has its own problems and opportunities but it is in the metropolitan counties that the monolithic image of British Rail is at its weakest. Each of the metropolitan counties has a Passenger Transport Authority charged with responsibility for an integrated transport system. The policy established by the authority is implemented by the Passenger Transport Executive. Some noble Lords know about this but some may not know, and so I think it is worth explaining this for a moment or two.
The Public Transport Executives "buy" their rail services from British Rail under a formula laid down in Section 20 of the 1968 Transport Act. They also specify service patterns and fare structures. The responsibility of each PTE for all transport in its area has also resulted in considerable progress with the

1161
integration of public transport. However, all this could be endangered by the latest Transport Bill if the Secretary of State does not agree with the integration plans of the local public transport system, as interpreted by the PTEs in the seven metropolitan counties. That would be a great pity, but we can come back to it on another night.
Two more examples illustrate this point. The highly successful Tyne and Wear Metro has had an extremely flexible one-man operation under radio control for several years and it makes use of some sections of former British Rail lines. In the West Midlands the PIE has taken an active part in the long-running problem of how to replace the ageing diesel multiple-unit trains which provide commuter services in many conurbations. The concept of PTEs is already a success story, although I doubt very much whether the intervention of the Secretary of State for Transport under the new Transport Bill will improve conditions for the travelling public, for reasons of management.
This brings me to the subject of business and commercial management of BR and BREL. This is something on which my noble friend Lord Ezra may be able to speak with equal experience to the noble Lord, Lord Marsh. The railways board has clearly lacked a coherent business approach for many years. Financial forecasting has been poor, and that has already been mentioned. Cost identification has been quite incomplete. That the Serpell Report was needed in the first place is an indication of the poor quality of top-level rail management, although this is now being remedied in part by the sector management system. Unfortunately, the board's hasty and underhand response to the document did nothing to dispel this general view. Figure 4.1 of the minority report on page 118 illustrates the British Rail matrix of management, which is a complex cube of corporate activities, with the chairman and the board balanced on top.
What Mr. Goldstein did not emphasise was the mirror-image structure which exists within the Department of Transport, for which the Minister and his advisers are responsible. The report, apparently, does not recognise that this means duplication of all procedures and decision-making machinery pertaining to railway businesses. This situation has created a double matrix of management that explains to a large degree many of the muddles, defects, missed opportunities and high costs of the railway transport system in this country. Add to this a similar complex structure of trade union management, as described by Mr. Sid Weighell in the latest edition of Rail News, and we have the ultimate recipe for perpetual inertia. Therefore, it comes as no surprise to read in the same edition of Rail News that no further progress has been made on the manning levels of the new rolling-stock which is still lying idle among the weeds in a Bedfordshire siding. Those responsible for negotiations over this issue should read Mr. Weighell's words carefully. He said:
"Nobody owes the railway a living. If we don't harness technological changes and bring in modern working practices the industry will die. Others will do our job for us. The heavy lorry, inter-city bus services, internal airways, even the private car—all are operated by people who are trade unionists themselves and accepting new technologies. Railways will have to survive by their own efforts".
He went on into further detail, but I think those words
1162
should be heeded by all who have an interest in the future of British Rail.
Problems with investment are another side-effect of the monolithic image of British Rail. The success or otherwise, with productivity agreements on London commuter services, has unfortunately coloured attitudes to investment in rural railways where flexible rostering is the least of the local managers' worries. All the services, both long distance and rural, must be suffering from the increase in British Rail administration costs. Since 1977 loaded train-miles on British Rail have declined by just over 3 per cent., but over the same period administration costs per loaded train-mile have increased by 14 per cent. to 96·4p in 1981. Virtually a pound a mile may not be a heavy imposition for a well-loaded Inter-City train but in the provincial service, where cost reduction will be the key to survival, such rising overheads, when all else is being cut back, cries out for action. No commercial organisation can afford to increase its overheads during the current world recession if it wishes to stay in business. The British Rail Board has done so without a blush or an explanation and, according to Serpell, is, not surprisingly, about to go out of business.
What, therefore, is the way ahead? Vague talk of millions for electrification and a better railway mean nothing to many people. Specific projects, detailed improvements in journey times, reliability, frequency, and time-keeping on a particular route can mean much to fewer people. It is therefore hard to understand the board's obsession with electrifying the King's Cross to Edinburgh route, which already has a highly efficient and popular train service with trains barely five years old. In contrast, the midland main line from St. Pancras has suffered from lack of investment and management attention for many years. Yet the recent introduction of high-speed trains running at only 90 to 100 mph has increased passenger revenue by as much as one-third. Electrifying the London to Edinburgh route would disturb a world-class Inter-City service. On the other hand, electrifying St. Pancras to Derby, Nottingham and Sheffield, the first 50 miles of which have already been completed, would provide a major improvement in the transport infrastructure of the depressed areas in the East Midlands and South Yorkshire. Will the noble Lord undertake to make representations to his right honourable friend the Minister to see that this electrification scheme is completed without further delay?
Defensive thinking may have caused the board to overlook some of British Rail's better achievements. Freight business shows what can be done—yet freight is largely ignored by Serpell, except in the most severe option, where it shows a profit despite having most freight customers disconnected from the railway.
Ten years ago the board wanted to get out of wagonload freight altogether. It was the far-sighted freight managers in the working railway who retained their vision of what was to become Speedlink. This was a new-look overnight wagon-load freight business, with wagon-loads—the same as truck-loads on the roads—running up to 75 miles per hour overnight under computer control. Speedlink is the antithesis of the old-fashioned wagon-load system where wagons got lost for weeks in marshalling yards. This new

1163
business has grown rapidly and the costs of the old marshalling yard system have been stripped out with remarkably little fuss or industrial reaction.
Speedlink is a growth business and it is entering the distribution business, in partnership with road and warehousing concerns. It is a commercial success and this has come about by providing better services that companies are willing to pay for; not because it has concentrated on cutting costs.
I think that most political spokesmen on railways see the manufacture of railway equipment in terms of British Rail Engineering. Unfortunately, this is misleading, I think, because the main task of British Rail Engineering has always been the maintenance of British Rail equipment, even when there was a substantial new build. Now, Government, British Rail and rail union spokesmen rightly emphasise the sales of railway equipment overseas by BREL but have failed to put it in the context of the railway industry as a whole.
For the private railway industry, exporting has since 1840 been a way of life on which its survival has depended. On the other hand, BREL, which was formed in 1969, becomes interested in export only when the home market dries up. The railway industry has suffered far too long from overspecification by the main domestic customer, and this point, at least, was highlighted in the Serpell Report. Such overspecification is totally inappropriate for most commercial railways overseas, which means costly redesigning for export.
The whole industry has, up to now, been severely handicapped by the regular attempts by BR, as customer, to get as much equipment as it can built in its own workshops, regardless of cost or known costing procedures. A prime example of this is the case of the Advanced Passenger Train and the £50 million of taxpayers' money that has disappeared on its design and development. There is a pressing need for a separate report or public inquiry on this subject, would the noble Lord not agree? Therefore, can he specify what action Her Majesty's Government are intending to take in this regard?
I want to conclude as shortly as I can. In the short-term—that is, up to the general election—the Serpell report is so bad that it will probably freeze any sensible discussion of British Rail's future policy. Alternatively it will be put away on the pile of past railway reports, where it will gather dust with all the rest. Nevertheless, it has shown the taxpayer, perhaps for the first time, what the extreme options could be and the country clearly has not liked them. But there is growing concern that, if the present Government were by chance re-elected, one of the lesser options—the series designated C1to C3 in the report—might be adopted, on the assumption that there would be no general outcry except from those affected.
It would be quite wrong to conclude without saying that according to the Serpell Committee it would appear that the summation of British Railways Board policy has been a preoccupation with self-perpetuating procedures designed solely to maintain the status quo of the British Railways Board. The same conclusion can be applied with equal force to the present
1164
leadership of the two rail unions, the top management of BREL and the mirror image management structures that exist within the Department of Transport.
Until public demand replaces this self-interested attitude and its attendant high costs with a vision of an integrated public transport system that works, British Railways must inevitably decline under the Serpell formula, to the detriment of the travelling public and all those who are employed in the railway business. This debate on the findings of the Serpell Committee, if it is to have any meaning at all, should be the first step in awakening the travelling public to re-create that vision of a fully integrated, cost-effective transport system, and to turn it into a reality.
4.43 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Durham: My Lords, after a speech of that comprehensiveness and authority, what is a poor bishop to do? Clergy are traditionally supposed to have a rather romantic attitude towards railways, of the kind disavowed by the noble Lord, Lord Marsh. I do not think that I have a romantic attitude towards them, but I am conscious of serving a diocese which is steeped in railway history. When I travel home from your Lordships' House, I travel along the oldest railway route in the world: at least, part of it. I now see that it also contains part of the newest railway system in this country. I am also conscious as I speak that this afternoon there has been a mass lobby in another place by many people in my diocese living in the town of Shildon, whose railway works are threatened. So where I come from railways are an emotional subject, and this makes it all the more important to look for the basic principles on which decisions on this subject have to be made.
That is why, when I opened the Serpell Report, I turned with particular interest to Part II, the section labelled "Longer-Term Options" on page 61, and, in particular, to the part labelled "Travel and Subsidy", which should be at the heart of the whole of this debate. That particular section consists of just over one page and is so unbelievably superficial that I could scarcely believe what I was reading. I do not blame the committee for this. Mention has already been made, more than once, of the very narrow brief that they were given. But the fact that this was treated so superficially surely makes it all the more important to set the report in a very wide context.
Let me take up one of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, in reference to that section, when he raised the question of energy. All that the report says is that, at the moment, energy costs on the railways and other forms of transport are, in terms of efficiency, very similar. But what, in heaven's name, has happened to all the discussions that we have been having for years about long-term energy policy? What about all those considerations concerning long-term energy resources? Surely, if one is trying to look at this subject from a broad perspective and in the long term—which one has to do—one has to recognise that, whatever our major source of energy in the long-term future, it is virtually certain that it will have to be distributed in the form of electricity. And if our major form of energy is distributed in the form of electricity, that means, almost inevitably, railways, for all but

1165
very short journeys. It is therefore incredible, I should have thought, in trying to take that sort of perspective, to think in terms of running down a system which is likely to become increasingly important as the change-over to other fuel resources begins to take effect.
In this same meagre section the report talks about the justification of subsidies in terms of providing cheap public transport for various members of society. Indeed, the whole thing is biased towards subsidising customers, rather than towards subsidising the system. In a sense, this is fair enough so far as it goes, but it ignores the extent to which a cheap public transport system benefits the whole of society—and this even in a society where freedom and competitiveness are given a very high value.
It is a platitude to say that the exercise of freedom depends upon the existence of an underlying order. But it does not seem to be recognised that economic freedom and fair competition equally depend upon the existence of an underlying order and, in particular, the existence of substructures in society which provide the framework for that market to operate, and which spread the opportunities fairly. One of those substructures of a fair, competitive society surely ought to be an efficient and reasonably priced public transport system. Such a system ought to become one of the means of ensuring that different parts of the country relate to one another without being penalised.
Let me put this in very concrete terms. We hear a great deal nowadays about the need for mobility in search of jobs. Again, fair enough. But one of the great disincentives to mobility is the high cost of public transport. People are simply not willing to uproot themselves if that will mean disintegration of their communities and disruption of their family lives, with little chance of remaining in contact with those whom they have left. I know this from personal experience, because one of the greatest single problems that I have in attracting young clergy to come to the North of England is that they cannot afford to travel home to see their families. I wonder whether anybody in Government circles puts side by side the current concern about the family, and the current concern about the mobility necessary for job seeking, and asks what these mean in terms of a transport policy? These are the questions which have to be answered if there is to be any sensible response to the immediate financial problems facing British Rail.
Let me take up one specific issue on my own doorstep, the proposed closure of the Shildon wagon works. Shildon is a railway town. The wagon works is its only major employer for men. The town already has a higher unemployment rate than any other town where there are British Rail workshops. If the works closes, unemployment among men in a community of some 20,000 will rise to approximately 50 per cent. Last year, the Shildon wagon works won a temporary reprieve. I quote from the statement of the British Railways Board. It was reprieved, "against the background of possible wagon export orders and the uncertainty surrounding the Serpell inquiry". A few days ago, as noble Lords know, the closure was reaffirmed.
What, then, does Serpell say which might help the people of Shildon? As we have heard already, there is strong discouragement of any idea that there could be
1166
a recovery of markets by BREL. I am glad of the assurance already given by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, upon the commitment to freight traffic in the future. But as one looks to possible areas of expansion in the manufacture of freight wagons—this is basically what Shildon is all about—there seem to be two options. One of these has already been discussed: namely, Speedlink. I will say no more about it, except to add to the sorrow that Serpell has been so dismissive of this particular possibility.
The other area of expansion is in the manufacture of private wagons. This seems to be the growth area where individual firms are encouraged to have their own sidings made, to buy their own wagons and to run these on the railway network. Here there is a large potential market, but it is one which for the most part has been captured by private industry—and captured for two reasons. First, it has been captured because BREL was very busy re-equipping British Rail at a time when more freight wagons were needed. Secondly, it was captured because many of those who wished to have freight wagons wished to lease them rather than to buy them outright, and BREL is hampered by not having the power or the capital to enable such leasing to take place. I am told that it has no borrowing capacity, so the market is more and more slipping away from it.
This is why it becomes possible to produce figures which show the sort of fall-off in demand for wagons which then seems to justify the closure of a works like Shildon. But this is not fair competition. This is to tip the balance against the public sector and then use the consequent damage to the public sector as an argument for privatising BREL altogether. This is the direction in which Chapter 7 of Serpell is leading. In fact, the report goes further. It seems to look with positive equanimity at a state of affairs in which heavily subsidised overseas manufacturers could corner the market. We have already heard of this in relation to rail, but it is now happening in terms of wagons. Shildon is an efficient works. It is a loyal works. It is a trouble-free works. But I am told by those who belong to it that overseas competitors are now in a position to offer wagons for sale on the British market at less than the cost of the steel required in Britain to build them. If this is true, it seems to me to be disgraceful.
I am not competent to argue the detailed financial case, nor would your Lordships expect me to do so. Those directly concerned will do it for themselves. I simply want to ask the question: what kind of responsibility should the Government have for their nationalised industries? And given the powers which the nationalised industries have to plan not just for particular areas but for the good of the nation as a whole, ought not financial considerations to give place to social considerations when a good enough case can be made? In the case I am talking about, we are not thinking about just the closure of a works. We are thinking about the death of a town.
I do not like making a case in your Lordships' House for a particular works, because I am sure that many others of us might do the same for things which are of particular local concern to us, and in this House we ought to be above local interests. However, what I am really pleading for is a spirit of responsibility and a

1167
spirit of fairness: fairness within British Rail itself which I fully recognise has got to make cuts. But a nationally responsible body ought in my view to take account of the places where those cuts will hurt most. Also I am pleading for fairness between the public and the private sectors of industry, fairness which seems to be noticeably lacking just at the moment in this particular sphere and which is the source of much bitterness. I am also pleading for a broader vision of what the railways of the future could be—a much broader vision than we find in this report.
4.57 p.m.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, it gives me particular pleasure today to be speaking in a debate on the railways which has been introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Marsh. He and I have worked very closely together in a variety of ways since 1966 when he was Minister of Power in a previous Government and subsequently when he was chairman of British Rail. I have always found him stimulating, witty and practical. His speech this afternoon fully justifies that view.
Having been in the coal industry since it was nationalised in 1947 until last year, 1982, I was able to develop a very close and continuous connection with the railway. This began in the late 1940s, when it was my task to sell them coal to run the locomotives, something which does not occur (some would say with regret) these days. They were then very big users, but they also negotiated very hard. I remember visiting the railway buyers, two gentlemen of sombre mien who received me in a stark office near King's Cross and conditioned me by showing me charts which demonstrated conclusively that all rail delays were due to poor quality coal. I am not quite sure what they would say today.
When I knew that the report on the railway which we are debating today was about to appear, as someone from the outside who had been so much involved in railway affairs, I looked forward with great anticipation to studying the report, hoping to find within it how we could develop the great railway system which we had inherited and which, after all, was the basis of the Industrial Revolution. Like other noble Lords who have spoken in this debate, I must say that there was a degree of disappointment. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, said that it was not for the committee but for the Government and Parliament to consider this issue in a wider context. Clearly, we must do so but it would have been helpful if such an eminent committee, producing a report that happens to he the twentieth major report on the railway system of this country since it was nationalised in 1947, had given us the wider view on which we have to make our decisions.
I would have preferred the committee's terms of reference to have been something like the following, if your Lordships will allow me to make this suggestion:
"To examine the prospects for the railways in the light of all the relevant circumstances; to report on the action needed to provide Britain with an adequate, efficient and technologically advanced railway over the next 20 years; and to consider the financial implications of so doing."
I believe that, if we had given answers addressed to that question, we could have had a much more informed
1168
and constructive debate today. As it is, this eminent group of people were limited to certain aspects of the problem. In their report, which had to address itself necessarily and almost exclusively to the financial options, they were unable—as they themselves stated, and as noble Lords have indicated—to address themselves to the wider issues.
I happen to know most about a certain aspect of the railway system, as someone from outside; that aspect is the freight side of the operation. I have been in an industry which represents the largest element of the railways' freight traffic. If your Lordships will address yourselves to the table on page 21 of the report, you will see that the vast proportion of freight traffic moved on the railways is bulk traffic—90 per cent., as the report states, of which 60 per cent. is coal, a large proportion iron and steel, with petroleum and chemical products representing another proportion, and aggregates and building materials representing yet another.
Over the years, the railways have developed a most efficient way of moving bulk traffic. That was really sparked off by the movement of coal being the largest single element of traffic. This started in the days of the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Beeching, and was taken up by his successors Sir Henry Johnson, the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, and the present chairman, Sir Peter Parker. Throughout that period, a skill was progressively developed in handling bulk traffic, and in my opinion leads the world in that concept. I myself, as chairman of the National Coal Board working with the railways, have been party to it, and have received visitors from abroad who wished to see how this system worked—bulk loading at the colliery; the rapid transport to the power station, the steel works, the cement works, or the port; the rapid discharge; and the excellent economy and handling thrughout. It is a great pity that, at this stage in the development of the railways, this great achievement—and it is an achievement—was not recognised. I do not know why we in this country seem to ignore that which we achieve and concentrate unduly on that which remains to be done. Of course things remain to be done, but let us give some encouragement to those people who have worked hard to develop a system over the years which has paid dividends, and which will continue to pay dividends.
When I look at this report, I see that it veers towards Option A. It does not come down in favour of Option A but it seems to veer towards it. Certainly it does so in the minority report. In the minority report we are told that under Option A, freight traffic will show an increase of revenue compared with costs of something like 40 per cent. What it does not reveal, and what one has to look elsewhere in the report to find out, is what absolute level of freight one is talking about that will give that advantageous financial position. When one examines this point, one finds that one is talking about reducing the amount of freight carried by the railway to 25 per cent. of what it is today.
I cannot conceive of a reason why, in this country's present predicament, we should even be contemplating the possibility of cutting off from the railways a form of freight transport in which they have excelled themselves. So I suggest that when we have the yet further inquiry into the railways which I am afraid the

1169
present report leads one into holding, these factors should be taken into account.
My noble friend Lord Tanlaw and the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, and other noble Lords, have referred to Speedlink. Here, the railways have shown a remarkable initiative. They have recognised that the main freight they could carry would be bulk freight but have said also, "We will not be defeated by the problem of carrying manufactured goods". So they have worked very hard to devise a system whereby, in the appropriate circumstances, such goods can he carried. They have already made a big dent into that market. It is perfectly true that in this report tribute is paid to that initiative. But, as other noble Lords have indicated, that tribute is severely qualified by great caution. If we are to express extreme caution every time that the management of a publicly-owned enterprise shows desirable initiative, then we shall not get those people to do anything like what they are capable of doing. I hope that we have come to the stage at which we shall have a report that will tell us about the positive things we can do with our railway system.
May I just conclude on this note? There are signs at the present time—particularly in the United States, and this might be spreading to other countries—that the present world recession may be nearing its end. It is to be devoutly hoped that this is true. No doubt recovery will be slow, but it looks as though recovery is coming in the course of the next year or so. Our objective in Britain must surely be to prepare for that eventuality and to obtain a major share of it. We must create the circumstances in which our manufacturing enterprises can expand on a competitive basis. We must ensure that they are served by an adequate and efficient infrastructure. My Lords, there is no doubt that in that infrastructure the railway plays a crucial role.
Several noble Lords: Hear, hear!
5.10 p.m.
Lord Somers: My Lords, it is the custom in your Lordships' House when one follows a maiden speaker to give him all the usual congratulations, and one is never absolutely certain, of course, with what sincerity one does so; but in this case I can say that I do congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, from my whole heart and say that I only hope, as I am sure your Lordships feel, that we shall hear him many times, particularly on the subject of railways and transport when it arises.
My Lords, I feel a little diffident in joining in this debate after two such speakers as the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, and my noble friend Lord Marsh, who are really experts on the subject, but I shall try and contribute a a little something, or convince myself that I have contributed something: perhaps that is more to the point. This is certainly a very exhaustive report, and after wading through it I realised that it showed us in detail what are the sources of financial difficulties in the railways, but it did not say much about the way to avoid them; there was nothing really very constructive. I feel that the railways are an essential service, and I can say to my noble friend Lord Marsh that I am not speaking from any emotional point of view; I used to have it as a boy of course, but that has gone now. I am speaking because I feel it is an essential service to the
1170
country, even though many people, I know, would like to do away with the railways and transfer everything to the roads. But, my Lords, that is impossible. The roads are already grossly overcrowded and to do away with the railways would make them practically unusable. So the railways must be kept.
The question is how to avoid the dreadful drain on the public purse that they are causing. There is one thing in which roads can never compete with the railways; I say one thing, but there are really three: one is speed, one is safety and the other is volume in goods traffic. However, we must do something to try to remove this frightful loss at which they are running. But the report says something about making them run at a profit. The railways, one must remember, are a public service, they are not a business, and therefore it is not really essential that they should make a profit. In fact I think it is impossible in any case. But we must try to reduce the loss.
I do not think that cutting the network is the way to do it. Not everybody in the country has a car today, though when one looks at the roads one might think that they had. There are many country districts which depend entirely on the railways, and there are many people everywhere who do not drive a car—being one myself I can speak with authority on that—and who depend entirely on the railways for their ability to move about. Therefore, to cut down the network would be depriving a lot of people of the ability to move from one place to another. So I do not think we can do that. At the time when the Beeching Report was issued and there were some cuts in the branch lines, we were all comforted by statements that the lines would be replaced by bus services. Well, many of them never were; there were no buses at all. In fact I think it was impossible to provide them because the roads were so narrow that it would have cost more to improve the roads then to keep the railway running. Therefore the inhabitants of such an area were absolutely stranded. So I do not think that cutting the network is the right answer.
May I deal with goods traffic, a subject which has just been spoken upon with such authority by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra. I was very glad to hear him speak of the efficiency of Speedlink, which I think can be developed into one of the finest and most efficient goods services in the world. I am old enough to remember the days of the old loose-coupled freight trains, slow-moving, which were far from efficient, but now we have come into quite a different era. What I suggest is that many factories which are near the railways or within reasonable distance should have their own sidings, and possibly even their own trucks, as the right reverend Prelate suggested, though I do not know that that makes a great deal of difference. In that case the cost of building the sidings could be divided between the firm, the factory, and British Rail; and could we perhaps hope for a Government grant, which I think would make it a workable proposition? Then the large goods termini in the big towns need modernising; they need more modern loading and unloading mechanisms. I also think that traffic would be speeded up a good deal if only we could go over more widely to the container packing system.
Dealing with passenger transport, I think here the problem is more a psychological than an engineering

1171
one. When everybody or nearly everybody owns a car—I have just said that not everybody owns a car, but is is quite certain that a very large percentage do—people need to be persuaded that it is much to their advantage to travel by train. Of course, the car has one advantage that no other form of transport can ever have and that is that it is door to door. On the other hand, the railway can offer many advantages in the way of safety, speed and comfort. Safety does not really need to be discussed; it is so absolutely obvious. Railway accidents are so rare that when they occur they create large headlines in the newspapers, whereas road accidents are happening not only every day but every hour. When we once had a debate on road safety I remember being given some data by, I think it was, one of the motoring organisations, that a fatal accident happened on the roads every hour. Of course, I cannot prove this data. Therefore, I can only say that that was my impression at the time.
Comfort includes comfort at each end of the journey, and that involves the stations. The average London terminal station today is rather a bare and barren place, and the waiting rooms, when there are any, are something like I should imagine a prison cell to be, with hard wooden benches to sit on and nothing to look at. You just sit and wait. If you have any thoughts you think them, but if you have not, you just sit and wait. I know, of course, that vandalism is ever with us and the process of the law seems to be entirely incapable of stopping it, but would it not be possible in some of the larger termini in London, or in the provincial cities for that matter, to have a small bar with an attendant who could check these activities? I know that this would cost a little more but I think that in the end it might pay for itself by attracting more people to rail travel.
There is another matter. There are no porters nowadays and one has to walk a long way before finding a trolley, which is the only way of conveying one's heavy luggage. That is a great disadvantage. As for information, it is practically unobtainable. One can ask the ticket inspector sitting in his little booth, staring into space, what time one's train is going and from what platform, but he merely looks at one, shakes his head and says, "I don't know"—if he looks at one at all. Naturally there is an information bureau but it is probably on the other side of the station and a long, long walk. By the time one has got there and stood in the queue for several minutes and then got back to the patform one has probably lost the train. So what is the use of that? The trouble is that no one seems willing to help and it is willingness to help that makes for comfort in travel nowadays. I am sure that that is what would draw people to the railways far more than even the high speed trains or things of that nature. They are, of course, a great achievement, and I do not deny that for one moment, but people would be far more apt to travel by train if they felt that they were to be looked after and comfortable.
Another suggestion which was made in the report was the installation of automatic ticket barriers, such as in the Underground system. I think that might be quite a good idea. It would save a great deal of travelling on false tickets, which is unfortunately one of the habits of today. In certain cases—there are very few of
1172
them—where there is a branch line which is looked upon as being unprofitable, would it not be possible to rent that line to a private undertaking which could run a railway bus on it? If only one rail bus is used a single line could be operated which would do away with the signalling apparatus. That would be helpful. It would be possible to keep the entire network running if only one could do such things. All these suggestions I have made would possibly reduce the expenditure to a small extent; but beyond that I am afraid I cannot hope to see much result.
5.25 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I can quite truly say that it is with no small degree of awe that I rise to address this distinguished House for the first time. I am the more diffident in that I am intervening in a debate to which so many of your Lordships have so much to contribute and I have so little.
A few miles from where I live there is a plaque to commemorate the first railway line, built by Richard Trevithick; though I seem to recollect that a similar claim to be the first railway is made by Darlington, where, as we are all aware, a different contest is about to begin. But in our Welsh communities within sight and sound of this first railway there are today very real fears that soon there will be very little left but plaques and sad and empty shells. They are afraid that they will have another raw deal. Indeed, next month the Mid-Glamorgan County Council is convening a Welsh conference of Members of Parliament, councillors, railwaymen and representatives of the CBI, Transport 2000 and consumers to consider the implications of this report, which they fear.
I believe it is true to say that most observers consider the report to be too negative, not offering opportunities so that the public will come back to the lines, but merely signalling varying degrees of decline. We have heard a great deal about one end of the spectrum of options illustrated in the report. We appreciate that these options are illustrations and not proposals, but what we are offered at the extreme end of the spectrum is a railway system which will produce a theoretical profit of £34 million a year. I think we are all aware that the £34 million is a theoretical profit. It does not take into account the additional and unprofitable burden which will inevitably be thrown on the road system, which itself is often inadequate. Let us not forget that the Severn Tunnel has proved more durable than the Severn Bridge.
So this extreme option, revised or modified, by implication questions the need for railways except to serve a handful of cities, none west of Cardiff and none north of Edinburgh. Is not this option out of touch with reality, or is its slender outline a shadow of what is to come? Indeed, lop a few more miles of railway route off this option and British Rail will cease to be British Rail.
On the other hand, I accept that it is sometimes claimed that we should continue to go along with the existing pattern unchanged. However, I think that history suggests that the old order always changeth, and I would be a little worried about maintaining the status quo because the acceptance of the status quo provides too little incentive to make the present system more efficient, convenient and reliable.

1173
There must be somewhere a balanced view as to the amount of taxation a country is prepared to invest in its public transport. I would have thought that most of us, if not all, would accept that expenditure on public transport cannot be open-ended. There is a long list of new pressures on tax revenue, and I am very conscious of the demands made by the old, the cronically ill and the sick. We also heard earlier today about the needs of homeless persons. Those are a few of the deserving causes. There are other hidden needs which will be slowly converting themselves into demands. It seems to me that we cannot be blind and deaf to such demands. There is a lot that can be done for deserving groups of people with half a billion pounds—yes, even a third of a billion pounds—per annum.
I will not be controversial. I do not have a particular love for the railways, and neither do I have a particular love for the road system; but in an industrialised country there must be an essential place for an efficient and reliable railway system somewhere in between the more extreme option of cut-back, which is illustrated in the report, and the status quo.
There have been many references to the terms of reference of the inquiry. I find myself in sympathy with the many commentators who consider that of its own volition the committee adopted too restrictive an interpretation of its terms of reference, and in the result failed to tune into the main debate. It was content to consider railway finance in isolation from the wider aspects of transport and related policies; but we have been in that position before. That is the very criticism that was aimed at the Beeching Report by the late Lord Morrison in your Lordships' House 20 years ago
Again, the committee failed to explore the alternatives to a range of closures and a reduction of services. It failed to identify the opportunities for radical innovation, creativity and development which could make British Rail even more efficient, even more economical and even more convenient to the traveller. Furthermore, I wish that the committee had had something to say about the defects and weaknesses which flow from the size and structure of the British Rail organisation. I wish that it had had something to say about the need for flexibility in applying the principles of a United Kingdom policy. The organisation is so very large, and its decision-making so centralised. I readily acknowledge the significant contribution of the present chairman of British Rail; but I am not surprised to read in the report that the 1982 rail plan was either not known or not understood by many of the staff up and down the country.
Many of the decisions about transport policies in Wales, Scotland and the English regions should be made in Wales, Scotland and the regions. It seems to me that a decision that may be suitable for one part of the United Kingdom may damage the interests of the consumer elsewhere. Thus, for example, experience of rail traffic in south-east England is a poor guide in the context of the valleys of South Wales or of rural Wales, because the problems of the areas are so different and specialised. It seems to me that we have to accept as a fact of life that within the United Kingdom we have different geographical problems and population patterns which call for different solutions. That implies that within an overall United Kingdom transport
1174
policy regional variations are required and should be allowed within an agreed framework.
That brings me to the last point that I should like to make. There is a need not only for a substantial degree of decentralisation within British Rail but also to open up firm lines of communication with the Welsh Office and the Scottish Office and to consider the possible assumption by the two territorial Secretaries of State of financial responsibility for the support of bus and rail operations in Wales and Scotland within a total transport budget and within a global industrial, environmental and social strategy for their respective countries.
I conclude by acknowledging that, obviously, British Rail is big business—very big business indeed. But it is more than a business. It is one of the most important of our public undertakings, and its goal must be to serve travellers and the communities. Although I accept that its demands on the public purse cannot be open-ended, it would be unreasonable to demand that it must show a profit on every mile of railway route.
5.35 p.m.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: My Lords, it is a very great honour and pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, who has just made his maiden speech. I think that everybody who heard him must have been deeply impressed by the calm, accurate and interesting manner in which he presented the point of view of someone living in Wales and in different parts of Wales. He described the rural area so very graphically. As I live in a rural area in Scotland, I can endorse every word that he said about the vital importance of recognising that the railways must meet the needs of rural, as well as urban, communities. I hope very much that we shall hear many more speeches from the noble Lord on different subjects. I am sure that we shall all listen with very great interest indeed.
My Lords, this is the second debate on railways which we have had. The last time that we had a debate on railways—in May last year; I have here the Hansard report of it—the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, was sitting behind me. He and I have shared a great interest in the railways, I think always. I was very interested in what he said. If I disagree with some of the things that have been mentioned in the Serpell Report, I hope that he will not think that this is my attacking him or the Government. I simply agree with almost everybody who has spoken today that the report which we are discussing is very disappointing.
The noble Lord, Lord Marsh, said that some people may be enthusiastic about railways in a sentimental way or a practical way and that others thought that railways were out of date. I am an enthusiast for railways, partly because I like them and I like travelling that way but also because they serve a purpose which no other form of transport serves. I admire enormously the way that Lord Marsh opened this debate. I think that he said everything in the most delightful and entertaining way, and I agree with everything that he said.
My Lords this is a very important subject indeed. I feel that the Serpell Report is very disappointing.

1175
Whether it was the terms of reference, the way that it was handled or whatever else it was that turned it into so unsatisfactory a report, I do not know, but it is interesting that in your Lordships' House this afternoon I do not think that anyone has failed to criticise the way in which the report has been presented. I am afraid that I am one of those critics. It is no good, if you want to revive or to alter and change—which we must do—an industry, to start denigrating it and making it almost impossible to see where the future lies. That is one of the things which the Serpell Report has done. I am not attacking the chairman; indeed, I have never met him in my life. I am sure that he is an extremely able gentleman, but the net result of what he has put out is to me extremely disappointing.
The real point about the report is that it concentrates on railway finances in the short term and it neglects the real question of the long term role of the national railway network in a co-ordinated way with other services. That is a great mistake. One cannot improve a service unless one knows what one wants it to look like at the end, when one has spent the money and when people are using it. The present recommendations in the report, such as they are, in my view are very disappointing.
I was glad to hear the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, say that the Government were not intending at the moment, anyway, to follow any of the plans or diagrams set out in the report. The one that brings in Scotland is so devastating that I can hardly bear to look at it. If it were to happen that some people thought that they would cut off all the railways north of Glasgow and north of Edinburgh, the Highland risings in 1983 and 1984 would be much bigger than any Highland risings that took place in past centuries. So I hope very much that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, will see to it that nothing as devastating as is described in one or to two of these diagrams will be ever likely to take place.
I agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Somers, when he listed the items that make the railways such a vital part of our economy. As has been said, we read every day of the dangers on the roads and of the number of people whose lives are lost on the roads. Safety on the railways is eight times as great as safety on the roads. The new trains in which I and many people travel between the north and the south are very fast, clean and quiet. I should like to see electrification covering a much larger area than it does at present. Electrification of the railways is very important indeed and I hope that that will be one of the matters upon which the Government, when they make their plans, will concentrate.
We have heard, quite rightly, about the carriage of freight. One freight train is equal to 30 or 60 lorries on the roads. I do not travel a great deal by road because I use my motor car purely for local travelling. I travel almost exclusively on the railways. But when travelling on the roads, I have very often seen vast lorries in bad weather or slippery conditions, jack-knifed on the roads and the motorways. That is extremely dangerous. In my view, we should get more freight on to the trains. As the noble Lord, Lord Somers, has said, an easy way of carrying freight is to put it in the
1176
great containers that can travel on the railways. I should very much like to see such a system develop.
Another point that was made to me when I discussed this subject with some of the railway people was that if we electrify the railways we shall have a much better service. Moreover, the actual manufacture of the electric equipment and so on will be of enormous help here in this country. Electrification on a large scale would result in 90 per cent. of the goods and services for that electrification coming from British companies. We are looking for capital investment. We know that there is an enormous amount of capital in this country waiting for investment. Why can it not be put into the railways, and particularly into the development of electrification?
When I read the Serpell Report it seemed to me to ignore the fact that an enormous number of the population still want to travel by rail and still do travel by rail, and that more would travel by rail if the facilities were improved. I also learnt that 60 per cent. of the population do not have driving licences and therefore cannot drive motor cars. That is quite a large proportion of the population. They are the people who want to travel on the trains. Why should they not go on the trains? We should encourage them to do so.
Stress has been laid, and probably quite rightly, on the costs of the railways. The noble Lord, Lord Marsh, gave us some figures regarding the comparable cost between the subsidising of various other industries and the railways, and it turned out to be less than in some of those other cases. According to my figures, 5p per head per day is what is being contributed by the public to the railways. Indeed, 5p per head per day is not a very large sum of money. One would of course prefer that there was much less subsidy; that is something that we should all obviously prefer. But the fact is that there is not a railway in Europe, perhaps not even in the world, that is not subsidised; there is certainly not such a railway in the United States. If we can keep the subsidies under control and as a result do something that all the public want, it will be worthwhile. It is something that we can afford to do and something that we should do.
As I have said, I looked—as I always do—at what effect this report might have on Scotland. It seemed to me to be an unmitigated disaster. In my view we should not allow anything like the proportion of cutting down of the railway services that is proposed. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, when he spoke of having closer associations with the Scottish Office and getting the Scottish Office interested in the development of the railways. I am sure that that would be absolutely excellent. There is an electrified line to Ayr which has been opened recently and which is a tremendous success. Much more electrification on short routes could also be done. The difficulty is that it is expensive and that there is great competition with other forms of transport.
However, I am perfectly convinced that there is a real place for a first-class railway system in this country. We have had it in the past and I see no reason why we should not have it again. I am quite certain that it would serve the interests of the public and the interests of industry as well as anything we can do in this country today. I hope very much that this report

1177
will not be acted upon, but that something much more enterprising and far more useful will come out of the debate and the discussion which will obviously take place throughout the whole railway industry.
5.48 p.m.
Baroness Stedman: My Lords, I, too, would like to congratulate the two maiden speakers on their contribution to our debate this afternoon, and, as other noble Lords have said, I hope that we shall hear them in our deliberations and debates in this House very frequently for a long time to come. I should also like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, for giving us the opportunity to debate the Serpell Report in this House. I believe that because the report was so hastily prepared it is superficial and muddled. The Government laid down a timescale which was such that the terms of reference were very narrowly drawn; and, as other noble Lords have said, we have missed an opportunity for a thorough examination not only of the railways but of the possibility, at last, of an integrated transport system.
Successive Governments have tried to create an efficient railway system, and none of them has succeeded. On these Benches we are concerned about the proposals and the options for the removal of subsidies. We are concerned about the safety options, and we seek assurances from the Government and from the Minister tonight that safety will remain a prime factor in operating the railways.
There is an assumption in the report that the present recession will continue ad infinitum. The report gives no comparisons at all with other countries; it does not recognise the importance of safety standards being maintained; and it makes no allowance for replacements or transitional costs. Like the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, whatever the Minister may say about transitional costs you cannot have a proper review of railway finances without there being a good estimate or "guesstimate" of what those transitional costs are likely to be. What we should like to know is which of the options have been firmly ruled out by the Government. The Government may say that the options are purely for illustrative purposes and that, for example, Option A is an example of a purely commercial railway. But Option A also illustrates the need for subsidies to maintain an adequate railway service and network, and the need for considerable investment in our railways.
We want value for money for the subsidies that we pay and I believe must continue to pay. The report says that many of the provincial services represent poor value for the public. It says that the provincial sector's average load factor is only 20 per cent., and I find that both disappointing and depressing. I accept that on the face of it the options given only illustrate the type of network that we would have if certain cuts were made in the Government contribution; but as the years go by I get more and more nervous about this Government and their overriding desire to cut spending and to sell off the profitable parts of our nationalised industries.
We do not want to see massive cuts or swingeing fare increases, but the report points to some of the facts that we should recognise in seeking value for money in future. I come from a railway town—Peterborough.
1178
Both my grandfathers worked on the railway. I grew up in the railway part of that city in the days when railwaymen walked tall and were proud of the job they were doing. I represented a railway constituency on my county council; and I want the railways to have a proper and a secure future. I want to see investment in electrification; but the report is negative on the prospect of main line electrification. But we must also be sure that that investment is productive, and that management and unions work together to use that investment to the best effect.
I was attached to the Department of Transport when the decision on the St. Pancras/Bedford line was taken. I hope that we have no more unhappy stories like the St. Pancras/Bedford line, because there is no justification whatever for those new trains not running on that line today. It is an indictment of management and unions alike, and both sides must work together in the knowledge that, as Peter Parker said:
"To reject change is to reject a future: to accept change is to secure it".
On these Benches we seek an integrated transport policy. We would accept some bus substitution with adequate safeguards for the service. We would agree to much more regional autonomy, and we would accept the financing of social lines. But we would not accept a reduction in safety standards; nor would we agree to any deterioration in maintenance or replacement costs. All these and other factors must be considered, and I believe that we must accept that if we want to preserve a national railway network then there must be a subsidy.
The noble Lord, Lord Marsh, referred to the fact that we have never made up our minds what we expect from the railways. He is right. The Government, answerable to Parliament, must decide the type of railway service that they want and the terms on which it should exist. We believe that there must be a substantial subsidy. The noble Lord, Lord Marsh, referred to the fact that this year we are spending £791 million on the coal industry, £770 million on agriculture, £1,163 million on general housing subsidies and £862 million on the railways. So what we are now spending on the railways is not generally out of line with the other subsidies.
However, what we cannot have is an open-ended financial commitment. The Government and Parliament must decide what they want the railways to do. They must agree the size of the subsidy that the Government are prepared to pay, and then they must give the British Rail chairman and board freedom to get on with the job.
I would praise the leadership of Sir Peter Parker. I believe that his identification with and his commitment to the railway system has been outstanding. I hope that his successors in years to come will be given managerial independence and will be able to give stability to the industry. For a long time British Rail has been seeking an update of the strategic transport decisions on the size and quality of the rail network. Only when this is clearly defined can the other major issues, such as the funding of the future network, be settled.
Both the main and the minority reports seem to accept that the only reason for subsidising the railway is for the relief of congestion in London. There are

1179
strong economic and social grounds for more general support by the Government all over the country. Neither report discusses any reasons why almost every other country in the world has to subsidise its railways. We all know that if the free market was left to itself it would not produce a socially desirable outcome in transport, because private investors would be concerned only about the profit return from their investment.
The losses to local economies and to local communities would be disastrous if the rail links were withdrawn and if they were not replaced by other means of transport. If subsidised public transport is not accepted, many people will lose all mobility. They will be deprived of any social life; and this would affect the children and the elderly most of all. The majority of the population do not hold a driving licence, and for many of them the rail subsidies can provide a reasonable standard of mobility.
The Serpell Report, if accepted totally by the Government, could destroy the railway service. If it is implemented, it would result in widespread closures, in thousands of jobs lost and in severe damage to British industry, which uses the railways to carry freight. This must not be allowed to happen, and my party will fight any major cuts that are proposed to the rail network.
The acceptance of the Serpell options would bring disaster to the travelling public. In some places it could mean no railways; in others, huge fare increases of more than 40 per cent. This drastic action would hit people who have to earn their living by commuting to the City, not only from outer London but from places like my home town of Peterborough. For them, the railways are a lifeline—they are not a luxury.
The Government must repudiate the Serpell options now. The success of the railways depends on greater investment in new equipment and the electrification of all the main lines. We also need commitments from the unions on higher productivity and industrial peace. There is still time for the Government to offer a new deal to the railways, and a new beginning. The alternative is the rapid decline of the present network.
On this Bench we believe in the vital importance of a modern and extensive railway system, sustained by adequate investment, with efficient working practices, good industrial relations and a significant level of public subsidy. We regret the hurried Serpell Report, and I urge the Government to produce a plan for British Rail that takes account both of the wishes of the passengers and of the needs of industry.
6 p.m.
Lord Bancroft: My Lords, I am happy to oblige the noble Baroness in the sense that I shall be striking a discordant note. I shall be striking a note which will not be in entire agreement with some of the remarks made by noble friends on the Cross-Benches. That, I think, is a happy privilege of being a Cross-Bencher. We are indebted to my noble friend Lord Marsh for introducing the debate with enormous expertise, experience, great wit, great eloquence, and considerable extravagance. I agree with some of what he said but by no means all.
1180
I agree with him particularly in his thought that we really need an informed public debate on the future of the railways—informed by facts and by figures and not, as he said, by sentiment and prejudice. Then, when we have had the great public debate, and the Government, in the light of the advice given by Parliament, having taken decisions, let action follow, let the board get on with it and let the Government get off its back. No doubt these were the board's intentions in asking for an urgent inquiry and an early report, and no doubt similar good reasons moved the Secretary of State for Transport to agree to the board's request.
We have been told that there was agreement with the board on the composition, the terms of reference and, as it might seem to some of us, the rather absurdly tight timescale that was set the committee. It is therefore odd that during the four weeks between the Secretary of State's receiving the report and his transmitting it to the board forthwith, the media should have carried stories about it virtually every day, stories which were obviously the result of heavy, mischievous and, as it turned out, inaccurate leaking. Those leaks were obviously designed to discredit the report in advance. Indeed, it was argued in another place that they were designed to bury it. In that event one could perhaps give the leaks an epigraph:
"Cover the report's text:
Mine eyes dazzle:
It died young".
But I do not think it is going to.
It seems to me discourteous not only to Parliament but to others that the leaking encouraged the media, understandably enough, to, as it were, "camp it up" at the expense of the report. After the pitch had been so carefully rolled, or after the patch had been so heavily manured, it was only to be expected that even before publication, let alone immediately on publication, before anyone had a chance really to read the document, there were remarks such as "horrifying", "grotesque", "disastrous", "burn it", "insensitive, cruel, out of touch and anti-British". These are the very words. Were they referring to a coven of witches, or to an army corps of the Queen's enemies? It was Churchill—Charles, not Winston—who wrote:
"Though by, whim, envy, or resentment led,
They damn those authors whom they never read".
When eventually your Lordships were allowed to read the report for yourselves I emphatically do not recall reading a piece, as we were rather led to expect, from the manifesto of, I think it is called, the Official Monster Raving Loony Party. Instead, we read a document—and I am referring to the majority report—which devoted nearly 50 pages to an analysis of possible cost savings on a railway broadly at its present size. Just over 20 pages consisted of illustrative options for reductions in the size of the network. Of these 20-odd pages eight were entirely given over to maps and a diagram. The reality was very different from the pre-publication fantasy.
As some noble Lords have recognised, the committee faithfully—who knows?, some noble Lords clearly feel too faithfully—observed their agreed terms of reference, whatever one may think of those terms. They were charged to look at finance against a very tight timetable, but they were mindful of wider considerations, as they mention:

1181
"Our report is concerned with railway finances, in accordance with our terms of reference. But we hope it will be considered in the context of wider transport and other policies. Indeed, we consider that to be essential if the grounds for providing financial support for the railways are to be made clear.
"Our function, in the 7 months available to us, has been to mark Out opportunities and options, not to develop them in detail".
As I have said, there is a recognition that the committee were observing these terms of reference. They were not required to look at the social value of the railway—that is very much a matter for political judgment—and in any case they had no time. Nor were they required to make recommendations, plans, or proposals about network size, but rather to set out options. On reflection, I myself believe that the use of the word "options" in the terms of reference was a mistake. It would have been better if they had simply been described as "illustrations". Again the committee seem to have recognised that, when they say on page 66:
"To avoid misunderstanding"—
though clearly they have not been successful in avoiding misunderstanding—
"(e.g. the use of particular figures and diagrams out of context), we should emphasise first that the 1992 Network Options are no more than illustrations".
My own view is that some of the illustrations have a useful educational effect in demonstrating to those who wish to cut the railway network drastically that such large cuts are simply not on. Some of the diagrams and maps here make that abundantly plain. They are ludicrous.
Many other criticisms of the report have been made. Most, if I may say so, have been dealt with in another place. The report does not recommend reductions in safety standards. It does not recommend the 40 per cent. increase in commuter fares. It does not come out against further mainline electrification. It is not anti-British. It is all here. I have it flagged up, but I shall not weary your Lordships with the details. As to the appointment of the consultants and whether or not that was a breach of propriety, no doubt the noble Lord the Minister will answer that when he comes to reply. It is not my duty tonight to defend the Government at all.
Many of the facts and figures are not new. As many noble Lords will recall, particularly my noble friend Lord Marsh, there was the 1976 consultative document on transport generally, but it covered the railways, too, by Mr. Crosland and published by Mr. Shore, and the 1977 White Paper published by Mr. Rodgers. But this report at any rate draws together up-to-date facts and figures in a pretty comprehensive way, to provide yet again a stepping stone—one of a number—towards a real debate and real decisions about the future of the railway, instead of, alas, as has happened all too often, pretend debates and decisions. These have not been the fault, I hasten to say, of successive board chairmen or Secretaries of State but, rather, of the unwillingness of the public and interested groups affected to approach this important subject with the rationality and objectivity it deserves and demands. Despite what my noble friend Lord Marsh and others have said, there is still a great deal of understandable emotion lying about.
The report asks us to face a number of nasty facts, such as the need to look for cost reductions, even more
1182
than revenue increases, because the elasticity of demand is very high; such as the need to note that of a mixed bag of cost reductions totalling £200 million mentioned in the report relating to 1986, no less than £147 million were put forward by the board and £74 million by the committee; such as the need, for example, to be aware that the taxpayer stumps up £900 million a year so that railways can carry 6 per cent. of total passenger miles each year, and that on provincial services the average subsidy per passenger mile is 22p.
Is all this value for money? I do not know. Cannot the country discuss it sensibly and come to reasonably lasting decisions, taking into account a number of factors which are mentioned in the report, like the guaranteed bus services, if there are to be any more closures; like special Government help on transitional costs, whatever they may be, and we shall no doubt hear what they are going to be, with more decentralisation and local choice? Need there be—thank goodness, not in this House—wounding attacks on the competence, patriotism and integrity of men appointed to draw these unpleasant facts to public attention?
Earlier I used the phrase "rationality and objectivity" but I wish to add a further word, "speed". I confess that my heart sank slightly when I heard the Minister say that the Government were not going to be rushed into hasty decisions, or some such hallowed phrase. There has been an enormous amount of debate about the railways. As the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, remarked, there have been no fewer than 20 reports since the railways were nationalised. It is time to end the uncertainty from the point of view of management, staff, public and all. So let us have an informed debate, let us have some decisions, sooner rather than later, let us have some action, and then, as I said earlier, let the board get on with its job.
6.13 p.m.
Lord Ferrier: My Lords, with others, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, for introducing the debate in the way he did. It was a relief to me because I did not know which way he was going to bounce, and I was only too glad to find that I could largely agree with his remarks about the report. I was surprised and sorry that he said he had no sentimental attachment to the railways. The remark of my noble friend Lord Nugent about the magnificence of the railway engine made me look up my Rupert Brooke and read again his line about there being among the things he had loved,
"the keen, unpassioned beauty of a great machine".
I admit that that is sentimental, and we are adjured not to let sentiment enter into the matter.
The noble Lord, Lord Marsh, deplored the terms of reference of the committee, although my noble friend Lord Lucas did not agree on that. The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, in his interesting maiden speech, gave an idea of what he thought the terms of reference should have been. I did not go quite all the way with what he said on that, but they would have been better than those which led to the report we are discussing.
In the course of my Indian career I had a close association with railway staffs, finance and operations, but I shall return to that before I conclude. I have an

1183
anecdote which I feel is apt to the debate. It fell to me on one occasion to accompany a senior, highly responsible Indian, with a background of government service and ministerial experience in finance, who joined the board of the company which I was serving. He came with me to look at a cement factory in the centre of India, never having had anything to do with heavy industry. It represented a panorama of heavy industrial plant, with busy roads, railways and quarries, and he exclaimed, "How very expensive!" I recall my reply, "No, sir. Costly but not expensive". I repeat that anecdote because it led to many interesting discussions with him in the following years.
That is a distinction which we should bear in mind as it applies to the report that we are discussing. Is the £960 million of subsidy to the railways costly? Yes. But is it expensive? I doubt it. It is not money down the drain. It cannot be. There must be some contra-entry, and it would be interesting to find, as the researches that arise out of this debate go forward, if other countries have managed to extract any factor in regard to that contra-entry, the value of the contribution to society which the railways make. We all agree that there is not a country in the world that does not have to subsidise its railway system. What do we mean by that? It means that they have to pay more than the railway itself intrinsically produces in net revenue. As our thinking goes on, I should like to see if we cannot arrive at some arrangement so that we do not regard this subsidy to the railways as money down the drain, because it is not. We have not devised—and certainly Serpell has not devised—an estimate of that contra-entry from the railways, and I shall apply my mind to the terms of reference which the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, indicated might have been more suitable.
In the original presentation of the report to the other place, as repeated by my noble friend Lord Lucas, the object of the exercise has been to regard a number of options and produce additional discussion and research. I regard the report as being a rather myopic exercise carried out from a metropolitan standpoint. Certainly that is the feeling I got when, like my noble friend Lady Elliot, I looked at Options A and B. But where do we go from here? That is what we are debating.
What about the £150 million-worth of rolling stock and locomotives intended for the St. Pancras/Bedford line, but now lying idle? Is that costly, or is it expensive? I should call it expensive—grossly expensive. It is nearly incalculable, and such incidence varies directly with distances from the metropolis, and is difficult to measure from area to area.
Personally, I regard the report as valuable work in recording and attempting to analyse the relationship between finance and the present railway system, which is what the committee was asked to do. As I have said, it is a pity that Option A and Option B gave us all such a shock, but they are only illustrations. The oft-declared object of the exercise is to provide an opportunity to debate the matter.
Try as I can, I can find only one completely uncertain factor that to my mind has a vital impact on the whole consideration, and that is the paramount influence of the trade unions on the whole problem. When the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, held up a copy of Labour's plan for an integrated transport system, I
1184
thought of my old friend, the late Lord Stonham. I recall 20 years ago his speaking from the Front Bench here, introducing with enthusiasm his party's plan for an integrated transport system. I had only recently joined your Lordships' House, and I well remember thinking, "By jove!—if that is the thought of the party that is opposite, I am going on the Cross-Benches". But it never came off. It was ruined by the trade unions, the influence of which Lord Stonham had discounted.
We must realise that the question of the trade unions is a problem that is an integral part of the considerations that we have to face. I think your Lordships will agree that, judging from what we saw in the paper this morning, the trade unions' influence is in a very fluid state. There are now five or six unions connected with the railways. As I see it, no adequate assessment of the future of the railways can be made until the proper place of the trade unions has been, as it were, crystallised. I look forward to the debate which my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter is to initiate on the 16th of this month on the Green Paper, Democracy in Trade Unions. This democracy must be established beyond a peradvanture before the development of the railways can be assessed; at any rate, that is my view.
In presenting the report to the other place my right honourable friend the Minister said that if there were to be a change of policy it would be after informed debate—which confirms what we have just been saying here. In criticising the unions, as I have done, and in saying how important is a settlement with them in considering the matter that is before us today, I am not "union bashing". When are we going to get rid of this silly, rabble-rousing catch-phrase? How many thinking people suggest that we can do without trade unions? We cannot, and we do not want to.
Nor is expressing such a view "Thatcherism", nor "Tebbitism", nor "Ferrierism"; but it is "man-in-the-street-ism", and "woman-in-the-kitchen-ism". The trade unions themselves want some rearrangement, and that is why there are now six unions in the railways, instead of four. The policy in regard to unions is the policy of Her Majesty's Government presided over by the Prime Minister, Mrs. Thatcher, and I trust that we can look forward to at least another five years of this situation. In my view a reference to "Thatcherism" is unqualified claptrap. Let us have done with the term.
Before I sit down I propose to put to your Lordships one or two minor matters, bearing in mind that I am not only an enthusiast for the development of transport in general but that, like my noble friend Lady Elliot of Harwood, I am a regular traveller on British Rail, covering many miles a week. I have often collaborated with the noble Lord, Lord Lucas—to whose winding-up speech I look forward—in promoting road development and road safety. Transport is of overpowering importance, and the railways have a vital part to play in the whole set-up.
How can we recapture the sense of pride which used to attach to the railwaymen? The noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, has talked about how the railwaymen "walked tall". Of course they did. Why do they not still "walk tall"? Is it perhaps because respect for them has been so impaired by the recent strikes? Are the uniforms, especially the awful headgear that they

1185
wear, sufficiently distinctive? Should not the élite—the engine drivers—be more distinguishable from their mates? I think of the drivers of the "crack" trains on the continent, dripping with gold lace and "scrambled egg". This all has some bearing on the railwaymen's approach to their trade.
Can we develop further the names of our "crack" trains—the "Brighton Belle", the "Master Cutler"? There is a "Flying Scotsman"; and I think I am right in saying that on the west coast route there is the "Royal Scot". It seems to me that that is an important factor in our affection for the railways, though I wish that the "Flying Scotsman" left Waverley and King's Cross at 10 o'clock, as it has done for about 100 years. It now leaves at 10.25, or some equally unattractive-sounding time.
There now seem to be more or less ample supplies of passengers' luggage trolleys. This has been a great advance in recent years. But cannot the public address systems in the stations be improved, and the operators better trained? What about recording some of their announcements in the stations with noises off, and then playing them back to the men who have made them, so that they can hear what they sound like?
I said that I would return to railway development, with which I have been associated. Could the private financing of "feeder railways" be considered? The system that we had in India might be adopted in this country, and if I can assist in this I am at the Minister's disposal. Can we look forward to an increase in the establishment of rail buses? When I put that point to one of the British Rail people who kindly came to see me, he said, "There are 20 already being manufactured. Two are already at work in Yorkshire", and I think he said that there was one in Shrewsbury. We had a diesel-electric rail car system on one of our narrow-gauge "feeder railways" in 1934. It was a very interesting design. Metropolitan Vickers built it. It had a driving unit which was easily removable and replaceable with a unit which we kept in good trim at the base headquarters of the line.
I still think that we could do without any more expenditure on the Channel Tunnel. There are so many other things that have to be done. Further, I think the APT has done its best for a time. Again, there are plenty of things to do in other ways. I have had a complaint from somebody who was at the investiture at Buckingham Palace yesterday. They came down by train on Monday. On the way down, they wanted to see the Islands of Lindisfarne and so on, but they could not see out of the windows because they were so dirty. Perhaps British Rail might have been more careful about that, though it may have been the water shortage to blame.
Finally, have we had enough time for the whole problem to be debated? I think not. It is only six weeks since the report was presented to the other place. I am only too glad that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, has said that he would regard this as the beginning of further discussions. If we are going to have to settle with the unions, then there is going to be plenty of time for our discussion of other matters. I close by quoting part of what Mr. Eyre said in the other place when he wound up the debate:
"The real task of the House now, as well as of the Government, British Rail and, indeed, the country at large, is to look to the future
1186
in a constructive spirit and address themselves to … the kind of railway we neat and can afford".—[Official Report, Commons, 3/2/83; col. 510]
6.32 p.m.
Lady Saltoun: My Lords, I love my husband, my children and my cat, but, unlike the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, I love trains. Some of the happiest moments of my childhood were spent either in them or playing with them. I find them intensely romantic, unlike aeroplanes, so I find the decline of the railways in the last 25 years very sad as well as extremely inconvenient. It is rather like seeing an old boyfriend become senile. As the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, has asked the Government to make up their minds on what they want from the railways, I propose to tell the House what I, as a frequent traveller, want from my railways—and am not getting. When the ordinary passenger like me does not get what he wants, then he travels by other means where they exist; and that is what a great many people, including myself, have done. They have travelled by air instead, and other means available.
What do they get when they travel by air that is so attractive? Airports provide car parks, porters, trolleys, seats. They are warm, have clean loos, a variety of shopping facilities, banks and so on, and reliable, if not gourmet, refreshments. They provide better help for aged or disabled travellers, facilities for babies and small children and care for children travelling unaccompanied. If an airline keep you waiting, they apologise and sometimes tell you why. If they keep you waiting long enough, they even give you a free meal or a drink "on the firm". They welcome you aboard the aircraft with a smile, look after you in transit and bid you farewell in the hope that you will have enjoyed your journey. They keep their aircraft clean so that you do not arrive at the other end feeling as if you had either been up a chimney or down a sewer. Should you have to change or cancel your journey, they cheerfully change your ticket or refund the price without demanding a certificate from your overworked doctor to say that you had bubonic plague that day and without treating you like a naughty child. If you telephone to book a seat or make an inquiry, not only is the telephone usually answered properly but they are even helpful.
If British Airways and other airlines can do this, why cannot British Rail? I will not harrow your Lordships with details of the suffering endured by some of those who fall into the hands of British Rail. The noble Lords, Lord Somers and Lord Ferrier, have already mentioned a good many of these appalling horrors. For years past, British Rail's attitude to passengers has been rather like that of the Master of an Oxford college who said, "The place would be fine if only there were no undergraduates". They have done all in their power to get rid of passengers by freezing or boiling them, starving them, herding them like cattle, making them so late that their journey sometimes became not only unnecessary but totally useless. They have deprived them of trains by the well-known means of running the trains at times when they were of no use to anyone and then axing the service on the grounds that no-one used the trains. And very successful they have been in getting rid of the tiresome passengers.

1187
The trouble is that it is much more difficult to regain customers that you have lost than it is to build up a clientéle in the first place. I wonder to what extent it would now be possible to claw back the custom that has been lost in the past. Be that as it may, this country must have a system of public transport which will serve the whole country properly; and by "the whole country" I mean to include places like the north of Scotland (where I live) which some Englishmen have never heard of.
For us in the north, where, in winter, trains can still operate in conditions which make road and air travel difficult or impossible, the railways are vital if we are to be able to carry on business as usual all the year round. Of course they will run at a loss, but, if the country cannot afford it, it will come very hard on a large area which is not inhabited only by sheep but by people, many of whom are taxpayers, too. Buses are all very well, but try taking three small children on a long journey in a bus with no loo and you will have problems.
There is just one other point which worries me. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, can say something about this in winding up. To what extent is the Ministry of Defence dependent upon the railways to move men and freight in the event of war? In the second world war they were vital—and, of course, there were then alternative routes so that should one be unusable through enemy action the train could go round by another route. Now, there are not alternative routes to the same extent. I think that the demands of defence should be considered carefully before any decision is made about the future of the railways. The Serpell Report did just touch on this. It is very important.
Lord Ferrier: My Lords, before the noble Lady sits down, on her reference to war, I suggest that that is part of what I meant by "conra-entry". The railways should be paid something for that provision.
Lady Saltoun: My Lords, that sounds a very good idea
6.39 p.m.
Viscount Buckmaster: My Lords, I must declare an interest, a very personal one. From the age of eight onwards, and perhaps it may have been even from the age of six, I have been crazy about railways, unlike my noble friend Lord Marsh. Although I have spent a great part of my life abroad, I have kept in close touch with developments at home through the admirable columns of the Railway Magazine and I do not think that I have missed a single issue since the early 1930s. I hope, therefore, to offer a few comments and suggestions from the standpoint of the dedicated railway enthusiast and amateur historian. But before doing so, I should like to say a few words about us railway enthusiasts.
One rather interesting thing is that, so far as I am aware, railway mania is confined to the male sex. With the greatest respect to my noble friend Lady Saltoun, I have never met a single lady who could distinguish one railway engine from another. But I am delighted to tell your Lordships that British Rail have recently
1188
engaged the first woman train driver—indeed, the first woman ever to drive a train on a British railway. That is, after all, a tremendous achievement.
We railway enthusiasts—whether we be little schoolboys with our grubby notebooks and stubby pencils, furiously recording the numbers of the engines as they whizz through a station, or perhaps sophisticated connoisseurs of railways, gazing through a murky carriage window to record the passage of the mileposts with a stop-watch, or perhaps collectors who are prepared to pay literally hundreds of pounds to buy the nameplate of a steam locomotive long since dead—all of us, including poets like Betjeman, who have written so admirably about the railways, other writers, photographers, artists and so on, not forgetting the spendid connection between the railways and the Church, tend to overlook one very important fact: that our great pride and joy, the railway, is a very greedy animal. He requires a great deal of money to keep him going—and that, after all, is what our debate this evening is all about.
I will not produce any comments on the Serpell Report itself. My noble friend Lord Marsh and many other noble Lords who have spoken have done so in great detail. But, if I may, I would recommend to your Lordships what I think is quite the finest commentary on this extraordinary report, and that is one published in the Railway Gazette for March, produced by a man who is an acknowledged expert in the technical field. Seen through the eyes of a railway enthusiast, the Serpell Report is a horrible hotch-potch of ill-considered ideas and it makes no attempt to chart a course for the future. To my mind—and this has been touched on by many of your Lordships this afternoon—the most damaging feature of the report is that it gives no indication of how the railways can attract more passengers and therefore bring in more revenue.
I wish to examine four spheres in which I think there is scope for considerable improvement. They are: speed, the reopening of certain stations, the provision of information, and staffing. Let us take speed first. This is to me a wholly wonderful subject. I must confess to your Lordships that travelling fast in a train gives me the same sense of elation as, and perhaps even greater than, I derive from listening to great classical music. But of course this afternoon we must consider practical and not aesthetic arguments, and, as your Lordships are very well aware, every railway system, from the year 1825 onwards, has realised that the best way to attract passengers is by providing fast trains. The French do it now with their train de grande vitesse, travelling at nearly 200 miles an hour on a specially constructed track. The Japanese have their Bullet train, which takes only three hours to cover the 300 miles from Tokyo to Osaka. Even the Egyptians are now ordering a Turbo-train, which will cut the timing between Cairo and Alexandria (a distance of 130 miles) to one and a half hours.
As has been clear from the past, when railway systems have found their fortunes failing they have adopted revolutionary measures to restore their battered finances. I am thinking particularly of three examples. In October 1914, Holden introduced on the great Eastern Railway the famous Radical Alterations Timetable, which completely transformed the whole

1189
timetable by introducing magnificent suburban services. Then in 1932 we had the introduction of main line electrification on the Southern Railway, and in 1937 there was the introduction of the high speed steam trains, made possible by the wonderful work of Sir Nigel Gresley with his A4 Pacific which hauled the "Coronation", which, as some of your Lordships may remember, covered the journey of 393 miles from London to Edinburgh in exactly six hours.
Since then we have had more recent developments, some of which have been mentioned by your Lordships—the introduction of the 3,300 horse-power Deltic locomotive, the electrification of the West coast main line and, above all, these wonderful High Speed Trains. Your Lordships may like to know—I hope that my noble friend Lord Marsh will correct me if I am wrong—that there are now no fewer than 95 of these high-speed units in operation, representing an investment of £300 million, and they are 40 per cent. of all Inter-City journeys. But—and this is the point—while so much development has been put into these High-Speed Trains, many lines are still lamentably a bit slow, and indeed some of the services are even slower than they were before the first world war.
If your Lordships will allow me to cast one last, longing look behind, I would invite you to examine the timetables for 1910. Indeed, if any of your Lordships suffer from insomnia I can recommend no better remedy than the 1910 Bradshaw. Brighton, as you probably know, is 51 miles from London, and in 1903 the journey was accomplished in an hour. What is the time now, 80 years later?—58 minutes. Aylesbury, of course, has lost its express service and the time is now 58 minutes as compared with 54 minutes in 1910. But the most fantastic example of all—one which I feel is of tremendous importance—is the case of Stratford-on-Avon. What greater tourist attractions have we in this country outside London and Stratford? How do we get there? How indeed! The only rail service advertised is from Paddington via Oxford and Leamington Spa. It takes between one and a half and two hours, and often involves two changes.
What was the situation in 1910? We then had no fewer than three different routes to travel from London to Stratford-on-Avon: from Euston, from Paddington and even from Marylebone, travelling by a carriage which was slipped at Woodford Halse. 'What a glorious thought! And that marvellous train took only two hours and six minutes, which is something like 27 minutes faster than the present timing. It is true, of course, that you can reach Stratford by bus, but the service is bad. I know there are operating problems and I will not weary your Lordships with those; but I feel it is questionable whether we should concentrate to such an extent on high-speed rail to the detriment of the slower cross-country services.
I would say that Beeching did a good job, but he was a judicous pruner, whereas Serpell, especially in his more extreme options, is a slasher and even an uprooter. What I would very strongly recommend to the noble Lord the Minister is that he gives very careful consideration to the restoration of the rail link between Coventry and Stratford-on-Avon, which would then connect with the express mainline electric services from Euston. Possibly, this line could be operated, as
1190
several noble Lords have suggested, by a private company.
Let me turn to the reopening of stations. There are, in the West of England, four very important towns with a very considerable tourist potential, which have no railway services at all. They are Wells, with its famous cathedral, Tewkesbury with its abbey, Oswestry and Shaftesbury. They are famous towns and all four are tourist attractions. The problem with Wells and Tewkesbury is that they were on branch lines, which it would not be practicable to reopen, but the same does not apply to Oswestry and Shaftesbury. They are on railway lines which are now used, not by fast trains but by stopping trains, and I should be most interested if the noble Lord the Minister could tell me why such stations are not reopened.
There is also the possibility of reopening some rural stations as unmanned halts. I am thinking, particularly, of the reopening of Needham Market on the main line from Ipswich to Norwich. It is a fascinating little village, which I visit quite frequently. When that station was reopened about seven years ago, the whole of the population of that part of East Anglia benefited enormously. So there is a considerable possibility for the reopening of stations, not on main lines where there is a continuous passage of fast trains and where the flow would be disrupted, but on the smaller lines. They could be reopened as unmanned halts.
The third area which I want to examine is information. Several noble Lords have mentioned this subject. I shall not deal with staff, because that aspect has been dealt with quite extensively, but perhaps I may say a few brief words about railway indicators and the labelling of trains. I have looked at railway indicators all over the world and it is a fascinating subject of study for me. Of the big ones in London, by far the best is Euston. It is quite superb. It displays all the information clearly and accurately and is capable of coping with any problem.
King's Cross is quite good. Paddington is adequate, but it has a horrible habit of displaying the information only when the train is actually at the platform, and one often gets a whole horde of travellers gazing anxiously at an empty board only a quarter of an hour or so before the departure of their train. Waterloo has a very serious defect; the arrival indicator is totally supine. During the great frost of 1981–82, it packed up completely, only to announce at one time that the 0840 train from Bournemouth would arrive at Platform 99 at 001 hours. But even in normal times, this indicator is totally unreliable. Many times I have arrived at Waterloo up to a quarter of an hour late, only to find the indicator smugly announcing a punctual arrival.
Now for train boards or destination boards. One thinks of those glorious train boards that we had before the war on the Cornish Riviera and other trains. Very few railways now provide proper boards, with the great exception of the Western Region, which has little labels. How comforting, reassuring and helpful they are; in particular, to our anxious Aunt Agnes, who can comfort herself by knowing that she is, in fact, bound for Paignton and not Penzance.
I shall not range over staff. I do not want to criticise British Rail staff, many of whom do an admirable job.

1191
But I wonder whether they all have the dedication which their predecessors had before the war, or, indeed, the dedication of many of the staff on the Continent. I remember once asking a member of the staff on a French train which was running late whether we would arrive on time, or would be late. He said, referring to the possible late arrival, "Mais c'est impossible" One does not get the same feeling in Britain.
Perhaps I may mention, very briefly, the tremendous dedication to service which the staff of those early railways had. When Sir Nigel Gresley introduced the "Silver Jubilee", which travelled at over 90 mph, covering the distance from London to Newcastle in four hours, the whole project, from its inception to the inauguration of the service, took exactly six months, whereas British Rail's high-speed train took six years. If there is any lack of morale among British Rail staff today, the Serpell Report will do nothing to cheer them up.
As I look at the clock, I feel like the driver of a British Rail train running against time, but I can assure your Lordships that the home signals of the terminus are in sight. Perhaps I may take this opportunity, since I have not had the opportunity of doing so before, to apologise to your Lordships for the inordinate length of my maiden speech last year. But I could, perhaps, say in my defence that all my last six speeches have been in the region of 10 minutes.
Even if one is not a railway enthusiast, a railway can still be a great and glorious thing. It is, after all, a reflection of national pride and industrial skills, and it fulfils vital social and economic needs. We gave the world railways and, for many years, we led the field in every sphere of railway development. What we need now is a feeling of pride, and there is no lack of energy and enthusiasm among the staff. But what we lack is vision, and I fear that vision is totally lacking in that lamentable Serpell Report.
If any of your Lordships lack vision for the future—and, after all, we have been told that without vision a people perish, and I would say that without vision British Rail will perish—I would recommend that you look not at the great railway works of the past, such as St. Pancras Station, Brunel's Saltash Viaduct, and so on. I would recommend you rather to look at the southern portals of Primrose Hill tunnel, situated a mile and a half north of Euston on the main electric line. If you look at those portals now, neglected as they are, still encrusted with the smoke from those gallant steam engines which toiled up the Camden Bank, you will say, no doubt, "What a ridiculous extravaganza! What a futile folly!" But what a superb symbol of confidence in the future!
7 p.m.
Lord Auckland: My Lords, two excellent maiden speeches and the most stimulating speech of the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, who opened the debate, have turned this into a very thought-provoking session. I join other noble Lords and noble Baronesses in my love of trains. My mind goes back to the journeys from Euston to Kingussie in Inverness-shire or from Euston to Sterling, particularly in the days of the steam train.
1192
Oh, how they are missed, in my view! But that is another matter.
I should like to deal with two aspects of the report: first, Scotland, and, secondly, commuter traffic. As I look around your Lordships' House at this relatively late hour, I see here some of those who debated the Beeching Report. That was a much more workmanlike and much better thought-out document than Sir David Serpell's report. Nevertheless, Sir David Serpell, within the terms given to him, has undoubtedly done his best, although not a particularly convincing best.
Turning to Scotland, the Highlands and Islands Development Board has spent a great deal of money upon developing, north of Glasgow and north of Perth, districts like Lochaber, the Aviemore Centre, Ross and Cromarty and other districts as far up as Caithness. One needs no knowledge of geography to recognise that when the weather is bad one cannot get coaches, buses, cars or lorries along the roads. But one can get through on the railway. It is not only passenger traffic with which we are concerned; it is also a question of freight traffic. The Dounreay power station at Thurso is an example in point. To keep our export and home production going we must have good public services, particularly good railway services, to Scotland and to Wales, particularly to North Wales. Places around Barmouth and Dolgellau have a great deal of industry. It is essential that there, too, there should be good railway facilities.
I turn now to the commuter, to use that rather ghastly American word. Since 1954 I, along with many others, have been travelling from Surrey to London. An annual season ticket from Epsom to London costs now in the region of £600. This is roughly the cost of a return flight, in somewhat more comfort, to San Francisco. At page 16, paragraph 2.18, Sir David Serpell says that half of the revenue of the south-eastern region of British Rail comes from season ticket sales. He argues that the season ticket holder is subsidised, and continues:
"We doubt the economic justification for the size of the present season ticket discount. In our view, it warrants thorough examination, the results of which could benefit the revenue of the sector".
Of course it would. Those who work in the City of London or in the West End and who travel from Basingstoke, Box Hill, Weybridge, or Hampton Court can of course travel by motor car, but we are constantly exhorted, quite rightly, not to cram the roads of London with motor cars, particularly when there is only one person in the car. People must therefore travel either by rail or by bicycle. In bad weather, however, those of advancing years, in particular, find this to be a rather frustrating experience.
Since 1948 I have spent all of my time in commerce. If our essential workers in commerce are to get to their destination, they must rely upon public transport. If, as Sir David Serpell seems to suggest, the subsidy were to be removed or drastically cut, this would have a very adverse effect on our balance of payments in such industries as insurance, banking and accountancy. People travel from the commuter belts of Surrey. Essex, Hertfordshire, Kent and Hampshire—to name just five—in order to carry out that kind of job. Sir David Serpell's reckoning is not, therefore, particu-

1193
larly logical. Season tickets will go up further in 1984. Therefore, the cost of travel will go up further. British Rail's 1981 report showed the number of passengers carried: 2 million passengers on 18,000 long-distance and short-haul trains.
Although I have condemned Sir David Serpell's report, as has practically every speaker so far, I believe that we must try to improve the bad industrial relations on our railways. Whether this is the fault of the railway unions or of the railway management is not the question. We have to face the fact that on certain occasions it is the fault of both. Much is made by certain sections of the media of the bad industrial relations which exist on our railways and, indeed, in other parts of the public and the private sectors. One remembers the very serious strike last year when British Rail lost a number of passengers. Consequently, revenue suffered. Therefore, it is absolutely necessary that there should be some improvement along these lines. Unless we can improve industrial relations, not only on the railways but elsewhere, reports such as those produced by Sir David Serpell may not receive acclamation—rather the opposite—but they do bring about a certain amount of fact-facing, unpleasant though it might be. But if we are looking at this from an economic point of view, it nevertheless contains realism.
I shall conclude by quoting from a report from Sir Peter Parker, who has done a superb job as chairman of British Rail. He has had his brickbats and his shortcomings, but taken as a whole he has been an outstanding chairman. To use his words:
"As I have said, productivity alone is not enough to generate the funds we need but is the key to unlock our potential and the public confidence to put money into a growing concern".
Those who operate our railways and those who use our railways have a large responsibility to carry out those very wise thoughts.
7.11 p.m.
Lord Mountevans: My Lords, I do not know whether it is a unique experience, but it is certainly a happy one for me this evening to be able to begin my contribution to a debate on a nationalised industry by having a chance to congratulate two maiden speakers when one of them—the noble Lord, Lord Ezra—was for many years that very nationalised industry's largest customer. The other—the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies—brought to his remarks perhaps a more parochial but nonetheless specialised and appealing point of view. I hope that it will be my privilege to be led down those tracks by them again on many occasions in the future.
I am interested in public transport in all its facets. I am a firm believer in railways, as well as a confirmed non-motorist; by choice, I hasten to add, and not as a result of the penalty points system. I welcome the opportunity given to us today by the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, to debate the Serpell Report and the wider context of British Rail. Several noble Lords have asked me whether I intended to put a British Tourist Authority point of view. I hastened to reply that I did not intend to do so. If I had any interest to declare, it would probably be that of a taxpayer and, I suspect, one of the last of British Rails's full-fare passengers. I have not aged fast enough to share with a number of
1194
noble Lords the benefits of a senior citizen's rail card—and yet I have aged too fast to qualify for a student's rail card. I am not gallant enough for a serviceman's card and my family does not qualify me for a family card. So what do I do? I pay the full fare.
As a non-motorist and a full-fare passenger, I reflect the interests of those many people who feel that we need a railway system, and that that system still has a major part to play in the life and fabric of this country. My interests in the report of Sir David Serpell and the majority of his committee have inevitably focused on the passenger side of British Rail's business, although I fully realise that one cannot look at passenger business in isolation. The board must, after all, find its revenues where it can.
I welcome this report as one of a number of documents which could—and I stress the word "could"—form the basis for sensible discussions, at the end of which a meaningful transport policy for this country might conceivably emerge. In the time scale available, Sir David and the other members of his committee did an impressive job of putting together data. As a source of information on British Rail in the early 1980s, I believe that both the majority and the minority reports will prove important. There is, however, more than just the gathering of data to any review. The data should be meaningfully evaluated before recommendations—or options, as they are called in the committee's terms of reference—can be made.
Furthermore, the committee should not have been asked to look at the railways in isolation. There are many other modes of transport, both public and private, available to the consumer and it is only by evaluating them all that Governments will arrive at a practical transport policy; a policy which, in the demands it makes on public resources, will satisfy the criteria posed by the myriad other calls being made on those resources.
The committee's terms of reference made specific reference to
"railways in Great Britain over the next 20 years".
It seems to me that 20 years is a magical number, for it was in 1963 that Dr. Beeching, as he then was, produced what I consider to have been the last definitive review of British Rail in his first report, The Reshaping of British Rail. This was prepared against the background of the establishment of the British Railways Board in 1962, with its remit to run a commercially viable railway, breaking even after a transitional period without the aid of grant. By 1968 circumstances had changed. Viability was no longer believed possible and so the Transport Act 1968 enabled the Transport Minister to pay grant for unremunerative services—retention of which was justifiable on social and economical grounds.
Even this power proved inadequate in the fullness of time and the unpublished 1974 review led to the 1974 Act, which effectively subsidised the system as a whole. This is the situation in which we find ourselves today, save perhaps the contention made by Ministers on both sides that they can see no valid reason for subsidising inter-city transport. Meanwhile, the network had shrunk considerably and substantial route closures had created in the period 1964 to 1974 what I like to call the post-Beeching network.

1195
Britain invented railways, and ever since Stockton and Darlington, private enterprise and nationalised railway undertakings have lived with the historical legacy stemming from this fact. As far as I can establish, our railways were also among the first to have trade unions. Throughout this century, or at least from the time of the Taff Vale judgment, successive boards of directors and Ministers of Transport have watched our railways wax and wane against the infrastructure facts and operational practices which stem from the railways' heritage and history. It is today that we live in, and today's question should not be one of options, but one of whether we are willing to pay today's prices for what I call the post-Beeching network. If we are willing to do so, then we must face facts; facts such as the one that estimated figures for last year suggest that revenue from consumers covered only 60 per cent. of British Rail's costs. Perhaps that was a bad year to take. Remember, 1981 was a year not distorted by industrial action in defence of outmoded and inflexible operating practices. Even then, revenue covered only 68 per cent. of operating costs.
On the passenger side of the business, the load factor in 1981 amounted to only 38 per cent. That was a "normal" year. Put another way, revenue income and grant paid by central Government and local authorities contributed to the funding of 62 per cent. of the passenger service product offered by British Rail but left unutilised by its customers. As users or taxpayers, we are all "customers" of the railways, whether we like it or not. Is the product we are being offered an adequate one? Is the price we are being asked to pay acceptable? How do we resolve this perhaps unanswerable question?
Although I disagree with many of the cost-saving proposals detailed on both the majority and minority reports, I do feel that the former, in Chapter 10, Section 14, went some way in pointing the way ahead. It suggests that the Secretary of State must specify the extent of the rail network and set strategic objectives for each of the management sectors that British Rail have now set up. It was also suggested that he should make clear his intentions as to financial support and the rationale under which he was providing that financial support. If this were to happen, British Rail would have a defined and strategic framework within which to operate. The onus would be placed fairly and squarely on the board to get on with the job, instead of taking day-to-day decisions or proposing longer-term policies, only to be told that the former were unacceptable or unfundable and that the latter must be rethought in the light of new rules laid down by the department, as happened in the joint study on electrification. The onus will be firmly placed on the board to justify its decisions and this will in turn hopefully lead to much tighter control and monitoring of day-to-day activities and operations.
Where the level of service offered far exceeds demand that level should be cut. What was right in 1967 is not necessarily right in 1983. If open stations save manpower and thus cut costs without loss of revenue, then open stations, perhaps with automatic barriers, must be another answer, but only if there is a cost-saving rationale and a better value railway. If
1196
there is to be capital investment, supported by grant, then that investment must justify itself in the short to medium term. Without a defined framework set by the Government and considerable enhancement of management performance by the board within that framework, the price of our railway network will, I think, cease to be acceptable to us, either as consumer or taxpayers. It is not inconceivable to me that we shall end up with Serpell Option A, the commercial railway. I should hate to see this happen but I do believe it is a possibility, and I believe it will remain a possibility until this country has a comprehensive transport policy, something which it has been lacking for far too many years.
7.22 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, we have had a long,very interesting and comprehensive debate today. Some may come to feel, after they have had the opportunity of perusing the proceedings in another place, that perhaps we in this House have gone far more deeply into the whole question than may have been possible, for a variety of reasons, in another place. For this opportunity we are, of course, indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, whose expertise in this field is very well-known, and whose evident sense of humour is deeply appreciated in a world that sometimes has a grimmer and more sombre aspect. We on this side of the House found his speech most attractive and we considered that it provided a very useful springboard for the remainder of the extremely good debate that has followed.
It was also a privilege for the House, and particularly for us on this side of the House, to have the opportunity of listening to the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, whose long and distinguished public service is certainly appreciated in all quarters of the House and indeed outside. I myself found that with regard to most of his speech—I trust it will not act as a bar to his political advancement—I was in considerable agreement with him. We also had the pleasure of listening to the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, making his maiden speech, and of him I could perhaps say that his speech enhanced the already high standard of speeches which we expect from noble Lords who have the advantage of coming from the Principality of Wales, and whose eloquence is a by-word not only in this House but also in another place.
My Lords, I find myself considerably puzzled by the attitude of Her Majesty's Government to the whole question of the Serpell Report. It rather seems to me, having read the proceedings in another place as well as listening to the noble Lord this afternoon, that the Government are at pains, almost imperceptibly measured in terms of days, but in miles when it comes to weeks, to distance themselves from the Serpell Report. Indeed they rather seem to me already to be bowing to the storm, of which we have had some precursors perhaps this afternoon expressed in more subdued terms.
I ask myself, and I invite your Lordships to ask, why, if the report requires to be given long and careful consideration, the committee in the terms of reference were required to report within six months, and it was agreed eventually to have another month in order to complete the work. This sounds like a matter of

1197
extreme urgency. I would tend to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Bancroft, in one respect; that is to say, that to expect a comprehensive report in so short a time places very considerable difficulties on the members of the Committee and indeed upon those firms of consultants, fortuitously connected with two of the members, who were entrusted with a good deal of the detailed work. Why, therefore, the sense of urgency?
Well, my Lords, the noble Lord can easily give a reply: because the Government are committed to saving large sums of money; they want to achieve savings for the public purse, and these are matters which are being pursued, from their point of view, quite properly with great rigour. Therefore, if opportunities for economies, opportunities for reducing Government support for the railways, arise, these should be pursued with all possible speed. I can understand the logic of that argument, but clearly it is not of universal application.
When I say that the amount of the United Kingdom's net contributions out of the Treasury into the European Community, largely for the support of the farmers, exceeds the amount of support for the railways, one wonders why the same urgency, the same sense of utmost public importance, should not be attached to giving highly trained professional firms, or a high-powered committee, the urgent task of examining just how it is that this waste of money, or this very large expenditure of money, can be reduced. One does not get quite the same sense of purpose behind it when it comes to expenditure within the European Community, which, as the noble Lord knows, goes very largely to the farming community, whose incomes last year, we are told by the Secretary of State for Agriculture, increased by 45 per cent.
I am not arguing the case that there should be forthwith a detailed investigation into these matters. All I am saying is that when it comes to a nationalised industry there seems to be a sudden rush to the head of complete financial soundness. And indeed the terms of reference were couched in this way:
"To examine the finances of the railway and associated operations, in the light of all relevant considerations, and to report on options for alternative policies, and their related objectives, designed to secure improved financial results in an efficiently run railway in Great Britain over the next 20 years".
The terms of reference were therefore very restrictive. They were not invited to consider social needs. They were not invited to consider the social consequences of any actions that might or might not be taken in regard to the railways. Their remit was financial, and the members of this committee followed their remit faithfully.
A firm of distinguished chartered accountants took part, and, as the noble Lord will be aware, firms of accountants, generally speaking, when they are asked to act and give financial advice upon an undertaking tend to regard the achievement of a profitable operation as being a very laudable objective. And why not? Indeed, the whole report has been couched with that in mind. Page 61 of the report gives their subjective attitude towards the whole matter. They say:
"Those seeking to justify public transport subsidies often rely on an assertive 'need' for transport. Demand is determined by people individually. The concept of need, however, is an elusive one which cannot be defined objectively or without contention".
1198
So we know what it is all about. It is a report which confronts the Government with the steps that the Government would have to take if they were to achieve financial profitability. It takes no account, save where it can be assessed in terms of money or the saving of money, of social need.
We have great responsibilities, and it is interesting to see how other countries approach this same problem. From the published statements that are made by members of the Government from time to time, and from the media, particularly the printed media—75 per cent. of which supports the policies of the Government—one gets a continuous diatribe against all nationalised industries. The very fact that they are nationalised means that they are subjected to continued abuse, to continued criticism, and the railways are no exception to this. One thing that hurts the normal mentality of those who support the party opposite is that any subsidy should be paid at all. Each new subvention by the Government is viewed with horror. Yet in other countries in Europe we find that the financial support expressed as a percentage of their gross domestic product is in many cases double that of the United Kingdom, and in some cases treble. I have the figures here, but I shall not weary your Lordships with them.
Why is it, therefore, that we refuse to take knowledge of this fact? Why is it that we seem to think that a loss to a nationalised railway system is something that has to be avoided at all costs, whereas our colleagues in Europe and in other parts of the world take an entirely different view?
Something must immediately be said. The main network of the railways in the United Kingdom was established over a half a century ago, perhaps even more than that. Great changes have taken place during that period. Even in the last 10 to 15 years great changes have taken place. The number of people who take holidays abroad, for example, is now much greater than it was even 30 years ago. There is no longer, for thousands of people, the annual trek to the seaside resorts. The age structure of the population of this country is now much different from what it was a long time ago. Many people live to far older ages and become more heavily dependent on railways. The whole industrial structure of the country has changed. Industries have moved, some are being established in new places and some have closed down. The movement of the population from country to town and the partial decentralisation into new towns has been accomplished during this period, so it would be wrong to expect that the railways of this country should be fossilised even into the condition in which they remained after they accomplished the main recommendations of the Beeching report. Clearly there has to be flexibility. We must not remain ossified.
Most of the speeches in your Lordships' House this afternoon have underlined the point that it is possible to be able to know the cost of everything but the value of nothing. Indeed, the speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham brought very vividly to our minds the social consequences, let alone the financial consequences, of a closure in that part of the country with which he has an intimate connection. For that instance there can be detailed thousands of

1199
instances all over the country where closures will produce social consequences, the financial effect of which is difficult to quantify. One does not know the extra cost even to the Exchequer of many of the disastrous events that are taking place in the country at the moment, let along those that are connected with the railways.
I shall not touch or elaborate on those many points that have been made by your Lordships this afternoon because to do so would be repetitious. But I venture to suggest to your Lordships that sooner or later—and I hope the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, will concur with me in this—a body of people, preferably representative of all kinds of people in our country and with a full knowledge of them, will have to sit down to determine the future of the railways within a fully integrated transport system. Sooner or later that has got to be done.
The last time there was a comprehensive inquiry was, I believe, in 1917. There have been a number of specialist inquiries since then, and there was the Beeching inquiry which took three years and came out in 1963. What I do think is that the Government should commit themselves to holding a really full-scale inquiry. I hesitate to suggest a Royal Commission but nevertheless the expertise which would be available to such a commission involving practically every interest in the country would at any rate produce a far more constructive whole than that to which the Serpell Committee report has been deliberately confined.
There is an alternative to that, and there are many precedents for it. The Government could agree to the setting up of a Select Committee with full powers to examine all witnesses within very wide terms of reference (possibly even wider, and perhaps a little more general, than those put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra) to consider, for example, the role of British Railways within the needs of British society. This might be one purely general term of reference. But we as a country cannot and ought not to allow action to be taken only on the basis of the financial considerations that have been discussed at length in the Serpell Report. Other considerations will have to be taken into account.
I hope that we can have an undertaking from the Government that they will make no decisions about the future of British Railways or the railway transportation system generally without a far more detailed and, indeed, public inquiry into their future role and the consequences of any particular steps that the Government may be encouraged to have in mind as a result of this report.
I repeat that what we want within modern society is the railways to play their full part within a fully integrated transport system, but we require that they shall not only meet effective financial demand—because that is what consumer demand really means—but also the needs of that 40 per cent. of the population who in the past three years have borne most of the costs of the Government's experiment with monetarism. I am referring to the poorer and less privileged sections of our community to whom mobility is still important and to whom the ability to travel is still a release very often from the drudgery in
1200
which their circumstances compel them to exist. The term "effective consumer demand" smacks very much of the old competitive society: if you have the money, you can travel, but if you do not have the money, you cannot; if you have the money you can have your car and, if necessary, two cars, and you have complete mobility, but if you have not or if you live in a difficult part of the country, you are to be restricted. It is like saying, judged by the same token, that you should truncate the telephone service because in this country no rural telephone pays at all. The easiest way to make the telephone system more profitable would be to cut off a good number of its rural connections and abolish rural call boxes. Mercifully, nobody thinks of that yet because those connections provide a service.
It is to the objective of service, as has been emphasised by so many of your Lordships this afternoon, that we have to turn our attention when considering the future of British Rail. That is not to say that we should not provide the service as economically as possible, with the minimum financial burden not only upon the state but upon the user; but the objective should be to provide a service, not merely to take part in the commercial battle which was epitomised by Marx in the phrase, "the naked cash nexus twixt man and man". We should aim to serve, and our efforts, deliberations and, I hope, our conclusions should be directed to that end.
7.44 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to make some attempt to respond to the very large number of questions and points that have been raised this afternoon. As, indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, said, and as I think we all expected, we have had a very interesting and wide-ranging debate. I am most grateful to all Members of the House who have taken part in this debate and can assure them that, whatever shortcomings I may display in not being able to respond to every one, due note will properly be taken of everything that they have said. My Lords, too, pay tribute to the two maiden speakers, the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, and the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies. I would wish to come back, perhaps a little later, to some of the remarks that they made. I welcomed what Lord Prys-Davies said about the status quo and the need for flexibility in British Rail in the light of its size.
I set out in my opening speech the general background to the establishment of the Serpell Committee and some of the issues which the Railways Board, the Government and, indeed, Parliament now have to face. Picking up some of the main points, I hope that I shall make it clear that the Government do not intend to come to any hasty decisions on questions of long-term railway policy. I can give no instant comprehensive and final answers—nor, I think, in truth do your Lordships expect me to this evening—but the points raised will, as I said, be taken into consideration.
The first point that was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, was how much Serpell cost. That point has rolled around this afternoon. Subject to audit, the figure is £627,342.
Several noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I heard an exclamation of surprise, perhaps, or astonishment. Let us just look at the figure in context. It is a huge amount of money, but in 1982 the British taxpayer paid £900 million to British Rail in support and subsidy, which is about £100,000 an hour. Just over £627,000 for a consultancy represents less than half a day's subsidy and that does not seem to me to be an unreasonable price to pay to get a review of finances and an identification of £200 million savings which, with energy and efficiency, can be achieved within the very short term. Speaking purely as a business man, I like the return. It sounds quite good to me if I get my £200 million savings over the short period.
The noble Lord and a number of other noble Lords asked about the appointment of the consultants. Noble Lords know that this question has been answered in another place. The best thing that I can do is virtually repeat what my right honourable friend previously said. The procedures for the appointment conformed with the code of practice that was published in 1980. That provides for departures from the procedures of appointment in special circumstances. This was clearly justified in view of the special problems presented by the review of railway finances and the need for urgent and clear advice on complex financial and engineering issues in a field where few consultancy firms have the necessary expertise.
The noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, and others, I think, asked particularly about the experience of R. Travers Morgan and Partners on railway consultancy matters. The department is very familiar with the way in which they have worked on highway schemes and railway matters because they have carried out work on railways in Australia, Latin America and for British Rail. The noble Lord, Lord Marsh, questioned the appropriateness of appointing to the committee members whose firms were providing consultancy advice. The noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, pointed out that Sir David Serpell was a member of the Railways Board. I should like to correct that impression. Sir David Serpell was a member, but he relinquished his membership immediately and, therefore, at the relevant time he was an ex-member of the British Railways Board—quite a proper situation.
My right honourable friend the Secretary of State decided that the committee should have the benefit of the personal contributions which both Mr. Butler and Mr. Goldstein could make towards the consultancy support of their firms. He judged that this arrangement would best ensure that the committee received advice of the highest quality quickly and with the minimum risk of misunderstanding between committee and consultants.
The noble Lord, Lord Bruce, asked in particular about haste. Yes, there was some haste because the review was first requested by the board in autumn 1981. They argued then that the levels of finance being made available to them were insufficient to enable them to meet their responsibilities in the longer term and there was a need, they felt, for a thorough review of their finances. They argued in particular that existing levels of investment were insufficient to maintain quality of service over the network. The position was somewhat complicated by the discussions
1202
on the PSO grant to be paid in 1982, but certainly by March 1982 the Secretary of State announced his grant and at the same time appointed Mr. Butler to have a look at the rail budget and the board's plans. In May the committee itself was announced and it was hoped that its work would be undertaken in six months. Yes, there was some haste about the matter; it was necessary to get the matter under way as quickly as possible.
The noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, introduced the rather interesting question as regards track maintenance being the responsibility of the state. Of course, we would wish to consider that type of situation, but in doing so we would have to bear in mind the argument discussed in the report that separating operating and maintenance decisions might be harmful. The noble Lord spoke also of the Tyne and Wear Metro scheme, about which we have heard a fair amount in the last few days. We welcome that form of integration which is exemplified in Tyne and Wear. That type of planning, if properly implemented, can provide considerable benefits. However, the costs involved in that scheme have been very, very high indeed, and continue to be very, very high. The operation is not a fully economic operation—I do not think that anyone thought that it would be. However, that is the type of service that must be looked at when one is talking about integrated service in terms loosely encapsulated in the phrase "value for money".
Let me apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, for not being in my place at the beginning of her speech. I am quite sure that my colleagues have told me that which I missed. The noble Baroness and others raised questions about safety. The Serpell Report did not advocate reductions in safety standards. It did, however, raise questions as to whether the board could run the engineering activities more economically without jeopardising the standards. It raised a number of points that would have to be considered. Let me make it quite clear and give the positive assurance that neither the Government nor British Railways would contemplate in any way reducing the high safety standards which British Railways customers have come to expect.
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, and others talked about British Rail engineering as also did the right reverend Prelate, and I should like to return to the points that he made in a moment. The Serpell Report argued that vehicle specification and design processes needed to be restructured to provide a more coherent approach to specification, design and construction. Rather more specifically, it said that the board should focus their attention on the selection of design concepts leaving the detailed design to vehicle builders. The APT £50 million project was an example—at least it was in my view—of fixing the specification before the objective had been recognised. In terms of engineering practices that must be wrong.
So far as the close-down of Shildon is concerned, the Government cannot accept or substitute their own commercial views for that of British Rail. It is for British Rail as the commercial company to make decisions of that type—that is, ordinary management and commercial decisions. There are, of course, social implications, and the board are very well aware of

1203
their responsibilities within that area. But there has been an over-capacity in a number of British Rail engineering establishments. The close-down does not arise in any way whatever from Serpell; it is purely a commercial and necessary management decision to maintain those other establishments which might be in even greater danger.
I enjoyed very much the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, who said—and this point was also brought out by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington—that he would have liked to have terms of reference rather different from those which the committee had been given, and he read out his preferred terms of reference. The noble Lord, Lord Bruce, said that he wanted the grand inquiry. I must say that the terms of reference which the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, has described, and indeed any grand inquiry, would have seen another three or four years of indecision, because that is what it would have taken. I do not give the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, any guarantee or any assurance whatever that decisions with regard to railways will not be taken before any kind of inquiry. We have to make decisions, and decisions have already been made and are being undertaken by the British Railways Board as a result of Serpell.
The noble Lord, Lord Auckland, the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, and I think the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, raised in very general terms the relationship between the Railways Board and the trade unions. I do not want to go into that matter at great length. Sir Peter Parker has said several times lately that the machinery of negotiation, which dates back to 1956, has not proved adequate to keep pace with change. But of course it is absolutely up to the board, with the unions, to make any changes in their negotiating machinery. The Government have no standing in that matter, but I am quite sure that many of us would in fact like to see changes. When I referred to changes in our May debate, I was really looking for changes in attitudes. Some of the attitudes go back to those Victorian days, the days which the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, relished with such joy—the edifices and the ramblings through Wells in Somerset. So, indeed, does some of the thinking with regard to what has to be done for the 1980s, the 1990s and the mystical year 2000. One would really look forward to that.
Two themes have dominated this afternoon's debate. One is the need to put the policy of the railways in the context of transport generally, and the other is the transport needs of particular areas, especially the countryside and places remote from the main centres of population and industry. It was the noble Lord, Lord Bancroft, who made it quite clear—and I was encouraged by most of what he had to say about the report—that there are important issues of Public expenditure in relation to value for money which must be faced and which Serpell has rightly brought before the public, Parliament and Government. That is exactly what we are looking for.
My right honourable friend made it quite clear to Parliament that the debate had to be broadened beyond the finances of the railway. It involves a reexamination of objectives for the Railways Board, the structure of the railways, and other questions. He said:
"Such is the relationship between road and rail and subsidies for
1204
public transport generally, the introduction of private capital, the relationship between British Rail and the private sector".
The noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, asked for the Government's views on the options that she had read in the report. She said that she did not want massive cuts, but wanted expenditure to be cost effective, and that is what we want. We can agree with her there.
Lord Tanlaw: My Lords, if the noble Lord the Minister would give way, on a point of clarification, when he quoted his right honourable friend in another place, and in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, he made a clear statement that they are not even a basis for decisions. Was he referring to the options to which the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, referred, or was he referring to possible ways in which to reduce expenditure? Because in another place the Minister seemed to say that the report is no basis for decisions of any kind whatever. That seems to be contrary to what the noble Lord has just said to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce. I should be grateful if he could clear it up.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, if I can clear it up I shall be delighted to do so. I do not have that Hansard at my elbow. When I was talking about the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, concerning terms of reference, I said that if one adopted those terms of reference the inquiry would take very much longer. I coupled that with a reply to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce. He was talking about a Royal Commission or a grand inquiry—a far deeper-reaching inquiry. He asked me to give him an assurance that no decisions would be taken with regard to the railways until that inquiry had taken place. I believe that was the question he asked me.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, if the noble Lord would give way, no, I did not intend to convey that. I asked for an assurance that until full inquiries had been made with full information being made available—I did not necessarily mean either a Royal Commission or, indeed, a Select Committee—no decision would be made. I certainly did not limit it to the appointment of a Royal Commission.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I am very much obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, because we can certainly clear that up. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has made it clear that Serpell forms an input to a major debate in both Houses of Parliament, with the public and with all the interested people. He wants that debate. When that debate has been completed—and I would not want to put a timescale on it—decisions might be made. But it does not mean to say that all decisions will be held up until that time, because that would be quite wrong. Certain decisions have already been taken by British Rail, which have come within the ambit of the report; they concern cost savings and so on. I trust that that answers the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw.
The noble Lords, Lord Somers and Lord Tanlaw, and the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, asked about bus substitution. The Government want to look at these ideas carefully—perhaps rather more carefully in the light of the Beeching bus arrangements, which were not perhaps entirely satisfactory. I shall return to

1205
that a little later when I talk about "integrated" transport systems.
Perhaps it was the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, which raised the fresh idea of involving the separate offices—the Scottish Office and the Welsh Office—in discussions of this kind. That is just the kind of suggestion which we are looking for. My noble friend Lord Ferrier asked whether privately financed feeder lines could be considered. Having known him for a number of years and having heard accounts of his activities in India, I wonder how much of his past experience we can draw on. The answer is that the Government would consider any practical possibilities if they would help to make the railways, as part of a transport system, more modern and more efficient. The Government are always ready to look at closer involvement with private finance.
The noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, asked me a question which I could not foresee and I have no answer at all. The Ministry of Defence, as a principal customer of the railways, has not advised me about what their requirements might be. I shall find out and I assure the noble Lady that she will have an answer. I very much enjoyed the tour of the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, round the country. Although I might have expected the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, to have raised the question of tourism, certainly his noble friend sitting near him has illustrated that.
Time is getting on and I want to be quite quick. The noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, and others have argued that we must have an "integrated" transport policy. We hear this frequently. I should like to get quite clear exactly what we mean by "integrated". Is this the great buzz word of 1983: "integrate" this and "integrate" that? I am all in favour of integration if it means a more rational organisation of the different modes of transport at local level, so that buses serve trains, trains serve buses, buses serve ferries, airports, and so on, and they all have dovetailed timetabling. I am in favour of integration if it means breaking down the barriers between different modes and not sticking for ever to one mode because it has always been there; just because the railway line has always gone to Little So and So in the Marsh and has done so since 1890, there is no necessity for it to continue to do so. It need not be the most responsive or economical means of meeting any local need.
However, if integration were to mean—as some people would have it to mean—directing traffic, removing freedom of choice from customers or investing or subsidising without regard to effectiveness and value for money, then I am against integration. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, means exactly what I mean; that is, a dovetailing, a coordinating, of services to meet needs.
Lord Tanlaw: My Lords, if the noble Lord will give way, just so that there is no misunderstanding, I did explain very simply that a bus should meet a train and that there should be interchangeability of ticketing, and so on. I think that we are in complete agreement with that kind of integration. However, I totally disagree with the other interpretation.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, at least we agree on some part of the interpretation of "integration".
1206
I set out earlier this afternoon the Government's response to the Serpell options. I recognised that considerable fears were aroused in some rural areas before, and at the time of, the publication of Serpell. I fear that some noble Lords still have a lingering doubt with regard to these options. I repeat that these are illustrations of what could happen given certain circumstances. If we went back to Serpell and got them to wind up their little machine all over again we could get another series of them to illustrate under other assumptions.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, could the noble Lord tell us whether we should have to pay another £600,000 for that?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I would not expect to pay £600,000 for a repeat performance. I believe that repeat fees are somewhat lower than the original. I have repeated that the Serpell options are illustrations, and it is right that people should understand that, particularly so far as the network is concerned. What we want to do is to widen the context in which we look at these rural and other transport services. I can put the matter no better than did my right honourable friend in the debate in the other place on 3rd February when he said at column 443:
"When considering rural transport needs it cannot be right to set our face against the best use of resources, new technology, alternative and different forms of service that are cheaper for the passenger and which, if they are applied, will save rural services that might otherwise be threatened."
After 30 years with a single nationalised industry we have to consider from the top right through whether we have the right structure for modern conditions. We have to cultivate an open-minded approach to the possibilities of reform and innovation, however darling are the big engines of the 1900s and the timetables and railway stations of yesterday. We want a modern and efficient railway system. It has to play its part in the nation's transport system. We believe that railways have a good long-term future, but no one can guarantee forever any role of any mode. The railways can ensure that they make their contribution by running efficiently, achieving cost savings, maintaining safety, being responsive to customers, and being businesslike in their approach, giving customers and taxpayers value for money. They have done a lot, they can do more, and they themselves recognise that more needs to be done.
In this half-hour I hope I have covered many of the really important points. This is not to say, if I have not covered them, that they are not important. I again reassure all noble Lords that everything they have said, every point they have made, every suggestion will be taken note of most carefully. In conclusion, may I again thank the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, for initiating the debate. The Government have made it clear that they want a wide-ranging debate. They want to hear all the facts and arguments before long-term decisions are made. In that respect I am sure that this debate has been of great value and a great contribution to the wider debate.
8.14 p.m.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, I am conscious of the lateness of the hour, and I shall be brief. I should like

1207
to express my thanks to all those who have taken part in what has been a fascinating debate, highlighted by two first-rate maiden speeches from two colleagues whom we shall all enjoy having in our midst. It has indeed been a fascinating debate. At the beginning the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, asked whether people were prepared to pay what was effectively £40 per annum per family for the railway system roughly as it is. The evidence of this debate is, yes, they would. I think it is overwhelmingly the case. While it is possible for boffins in the Treasury and graduates in our great universities to produce econometric models which prove otherwise, heaven help the politician who tries to impose that policy. I should also like to express some sympathy with Sir David Serpell, who was trapped by the terms of reference and to some extent has been unfairly pilloried. Indeed, I carry that sympathy to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. To say that he made the best of an unhappy job is to underestimate the sheer heroism of the role he played today.
The noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, drew a lot of comparisons with the airlines. In British Rail's defence, it is a long time since any train leaving Euston finished up in Havana, and the same sort of guarantees are not normally given by the airlines. The big problem—and it underlines the difference—is that no airline is running 30-year-old transport vehicles from stations 150 years old. The moment you try to change that you are into the question of investment and spending more money to try to produce a service which people will use. I am not surprised that in these modern days people are not attracted by trains which are sometimes not only just dirty but clapped out, to use the phrase. They are old-fashioned. There is a question there of possibly the need for more investment.
On this question of the cost of the report, I share the anxiety of noble Lords in this House who want to see greater control of public expenditure in many areas. It is no joy trying to sit on top of a nationalised industry with a bottomless bucket, and nobody believing that you can ever go bust. One of the things that the Government can do, and have done so far in relation to the nationalised industries, is to stop, as previous Governments have over and over again, frustrating their desires to make economies when they could. One of the great things about the last railway dispute was that the Prime Minister stood firm. It is in that way, giving the backing of Government to employers in the public sector, that gradually one can get rid of practices, which cannot be justified by anybody, whatever their political views, which exist in many of the nationalised industries. Therefore, I am in favour of that control.
But I come back to the point that £627,000 for a consultants' report for that job is scandalous. I give the noble Lord the credit of believing that he cannot have dreamed up that answer himself. Whoever did, whoever sits nursed away in some dark corner in Whitehall believing that the bigger the bankruptcy the more you pay the consultants, should be kept carefully a long way away from anything larger than possibly a village store—and I am not too sure about that. You pay consultants for the work involved, and that fee is
1208
outrageous in relation to any conceivable work which could have been involved here.
I also question the propriety—and I say this as no criticism of the individuals involved at all—that 50 per cent. of an independent inquiry is comprised of two senior partners who come from the very firms actually providing the advice and submitting the invoice at the end of it. No businessman, including the noble Lord, would have met that bill. He would have negotiated it, as one would any bill. Nobody ever pays the first bills that come from firms of accountants, with the greatest respect to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce. It is an immoral suggestion.
I am grateful to all noble Lords for taking part in the debate and for giving me the opportunity to introduce it. I think that the answer in this House from all different shades of view, different positions—there has been no political line at all—has been remarkable in the unanimity it has shown. It is high time that that unanimity was taken by Government and translated into action. I hope that those people who sit dreaming—mostly in the Treasury—of a day when they will be able to get rid of this monster and stop this enormous outrun of public funds will realise that that is an impractical aim. I was impressed with what the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, said. I had not realised that there had been 20 different examinations of the railway finances. The one thing I am quite clear about, having seen this report and participated in this debate, is that there is no conceivable case for a 21st examination of the financial state of British Rail.
I hope that the Government will come forward in due course and begin to face up to the need for a railway to continue into the future, and do so on the basis that it is one of those rare areas in British industry where it is quite clear that it can be taken out of the political arena. All it requires is ministerial courage to to do it. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.
House adjourned at nineteen minutes past eight o'clock.

  THE HEATHER AND GRASS BURNING REGULATIONS: REVIEW
  THE HEATHER AND GRASS BURNING REGULATIONS: REVIEW