With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall make a statement about Ocean Island and the Banabans. I apologise for its length but the issues are complex. On 24th January the House was told of the Government's intention to seek a settlement of the problems connected with Ocean Island and in particular the future of the Banaban community. To assist in achieving a solution Mr. Richard Posnett, the former Governor of Belize, was asked to visit the area. I am most grateful to Mr. Posnett for his valuable report on this long-standing and difficult problem. Copies of the report are now available in the Vote Office.

May I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement and say that the House appreciates the fact that he has come forward at this time to make it, for many Members of the House are, as he knows, deeply anxious about the situation of the Banabans and their relationship with the Gilbert Islands and with phosphate production on Ocean Island?

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. It is an extremely difficult judgment to make and it is difficult to remain even-handed in this complex issue. Consultations with the Banabans will take place. We are always available for further consultations. As I made clear in my statement, there will be a constitutional conference.

May we welcome the fact that this is at least some recognition of the claims of the Banabans, who unsuccessfully petitioned the House nearly 50 years ago? Having expressed that welcome, may we assume that it will be the right hon. Gentleman's resolve that this will be the last time that a small dependent people will have to pursue the British Government in the courts before their moral claims are met?

I am grateful for what the right hon. Gentleman said. I do not think that anyone looking back on history would claim that at all times all the right decisions have been made. We had to keep the matter in balance against a record of very difficult decision making. When the Vice-Chancellor delivered his five-and-a-half day judgment—it was a very long judgment—he paid tribute to some of the decisions which had been taken. It is a question of balance. The exact way that the money will be used is obviously for consultation with the Banabans. We hope that a trust fund will be established and that we shall be able to safeguard the money to ensure that it will be used for the benefit of the Banaban community in future and not in any way squandered. This is for further discussions.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the sum of 10 million Australian dollars appears rather low, as he told me on 24th February last that the Banabans had about 4 million Australian dollars in a single year—1974–75?

I agree with my hon. Friend that we need to look at the South Pacific as a whole. I acknowledged in my statement that other islands had contributed to the Ocean Island phosphate industry and energy.

Whilst acknowledging the Foreign Secretary's desire to make amends for the sordid and shameful treatment that the Banabans have suffered for many years, may I ask whether he does not realise that the sum that he has mentioned is only about one-fifth of what the Banabans would have earned from their phosphates if they had been given proper advice and information in 1947 and if there had not been grave breaches of trust by Her Majesty's Government, and that the sum will do very little to right the injustice?

The hon. Gentleman has taken a very great interest in this area, and I pay tribute to that, but, as he knows, his views are not shared by all hon. Members on his side of the House nor on the Government side of the House. The fact is that it is a question of judgment between the constitutional position in particular and the Banabans, and whether it is a relationship with Fiji or with the Gilbert Islands is very controversial, and people genuinely hold different views. What the Government have tried to do is to bring about an honourable compromise on this subject.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that what we are talking about is the grossest and, one hopes, the last instance of imperial exploitation in this century, and that any settlement that we come to is very important for Britain's whole reputation in the whole of the South Pacific area? Is he aware that any financial arrangements that are made for the distribution of the money should not smack of British smug paternalism of the kind which, even in present negotiations with many islands in this area, is all too often present?

I have mentioned the special autonomous position. This has yet to be negotiated but, for instance, it could include an Ocean Island Council, elected fully by the Banabans, as the local government of Ocean Island, representation in the Gilberts House of Assembly, Gilbertese citizenship if the Banabans wished and the Government of Fiji agreed, special guarantees for Banaban rights on Ocean Island and for their share of the remaining phosphate revenue, and safeguarding all the Banabans' interests in the Ocean Island phosphate industry. This issue will have to be discussed. There will have to be a constitutional conference. When my hon. Friend has had the opportunity of reading the Posnett Report, I think that he will see the complexity. I know that he has raised the matter himself over the years.

I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's statement and the obvious co-operation from the Australian and New Zealand Governments in bringing about what seems to me to be a reasonable settlement for the Banabans. May I put two points to the right hon. Gentleman? The first concerns the financial arrangements. Will he give an assurance that the financial offer which is to be made to the Banabans will in no way adversely affect aid to the Gilbert Islands and the other countries in the area, including, of course, Tuvalu, Fiji and the Solomons?

There is no question of an ex gratia payment being at the expense of the Gilberts. Our aid programme for the Gilberts is a continuing one and is increasingly directed towards revenue-earning projects, against the time when prosphate revenue ceases. Our capital aid on projects totals £2·2 million in the current financial year. In addition there is a substantial programme of about £1·5 million for technical co-operation.

I also welcome the part being played by Australia and New Zealand in the settlement, but does it not fall far short of the generous payment that is called for in the circumstances, following many years of exploitation? Will he carefully consider allocating some of the settlement to the Gilbertese, who have a very strong case?

This is a subject for further consideration. I recognise the need for keeping a balance between the need to settle the Banaban issue honourably and the need to discharge our obligation to the whole South Pacific area—trying to set any ex gratia payment in relation to the economies of the countries and the per capita income of the people of the area and the very dire poverty that exists in some of the islands. It is a question of balance. We have tried, with the Australian and New Zealand Governments, to achieve the right balance. I hope that the House will agree that we have at least done our best.

Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the views expressed by my hon. Friends are held on both sides of the House? There is considerable anxiety over this matter, even on the part of those who have not studied it as closely as the right hon. Gentleman. Does he not agree that it is vital that on this matter he gets the wholehearted support of this House and that failure to do so would prejudice the rapid and successful passage through this House of a Gilbertese independence Bill?

I readily acknowledge that. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Mr. Lee), who went out there with the hon. Gentleman to review this situation, would share many of his views. Of course there are different feelings about this. All I would ask is that hon. Gentlemen make a judgment on the ex gratia payment in relationship to the problem in existence in the South Pacific. I would urge hon. Gentlemen before forming a final judgment to read the Posnett Report. It is a very valuable and balanced account of the complex problems that we are dealing with, some of which were inherited and some for the future.

With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement about the Government's response to the Sixth Report of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, entitled "Nuclear Power and the Environment", Cmnd. 6618. The response is published today in the form of a White Paper, copies of which are available in the Vote Office.

Will the Secretary of State recognise that this is a subject of massive public concern? The need for a wide public debate is probably not best served by a statement on a Friday before the recess. Will he urge upon his right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, as part of the process of the wide public debate, that there must now be an early debate in this House on the profound issues raised by the Flowers Report and which are covered by his statement and the White Paper today?

I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman this is a subject which requires intense and continuing public debate. I look upon the White Paper and my statement today as only the beginning of such a process. I shall certainly undertake to discuss with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House what I agree is a clear need for a debate in this House.

May I suggest to my right hon. Friend that some parts of the Flowers Report are ambiguous and occasionally contradictory? It appears to accept a much larger nuclear programme than we are now providing. Will my right hon. Friend give the House an assurance that this proposed new machinery—I accept its good intentions—will not be another impediment in the way of the British nuclear industry doing the job which the country badly needs to be done in the interests of our industrial future?

I accept that on certain matters dealt with in the Flowers Report there is almost an inevitable ambiguity, given the complexity of the subject, but that should not detract from the great value of the report. If the report has done nothing else it has justified the existence and establishment of the Royal Commission seven years ago.

Is the Secretary of State aware that we generally welcome his statement today, which seems particularly pertinent following reports in yesterday's newspapers that there had been 22 leakages and spillages in atomic waste in the first three months of this year—information which emanates from the Health and Safety Executive? Will the right hon. Gentleman's Department be represented at the Windscale inquiry, and will it be prepared to be examined on the White Paper? We welcome the right hon. Gentleman's comments about examining the possibility of achieving wider public debate before the first fast reactor begins, but will he consider setting up a public inquiry planning commission? Will that be one of the alternatives?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for the general welcome he gives to the statement. I agree with him that the matter of leakages and spillages is important. I find it reassuring that the new machinery of the Health and Safety Executive was able to report to the public on these minor matters. This is not a confidence-destroying way of proceeding; it is confidence-building.

May I thank the Minister for his statement? May I join with him in paying tribute to the Chairman of the Flowers Commission for producing what some of us regard not as an ambiguous report but as one of the most fateful reports, probably, in our generation? is it not clear from the report that the escalation into a plutonium economy by this country, with all the current dangers of sabotage and terrorist theft which would undoubtedly result, would involve the most severe encroachments on civil liberties which have ever taken place in this land if anything like adequate security arrangements were to be made? Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is essential, in involving the public and taking them into the Government's confidence, that we stress again and again that the price of being lured into a plutonium economy means that our democracy will change qualitatively and that we may well be subject to the era originally envisaged in Orwell's "1984"?

My hon. Friend was absolutely right to pay tribute in the way he did to the Flowers Commission and the great importance of its report. The Commission was concerned with two major issues. One involves the implications of a plutonium economy in any country that goes in for large-scale nuclear energy, and particularly for fast breeder reactors. The implications of that decision stretch the mind. The implications of dealing with highly active waste, which has a life that goes far beyond our history, means that we are entering an era in which we have a duty to the future to provide the utmost care before we make decisions in this sphere. I accept that.

May I thank my right hon. Friend for the care and intensity with which he is approaching this subject? May I remind him that there is a wide and growing feeling, not only in Great Britain but throughout the Western world, that this drift into the plutonium economy not only involves a danger to civil liberties but could involve a drift into the dangers of nuclear war? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the time will come when we have to make a decision whether to pull back or whether to go irrevocably forward? Can he assure us that when that day of decision comes the Government will make clear that an irrevocable decision is being taken and will not allow the sort of drift to take place whereby, later on, an announcement is made that it is too late to abandon the plutonium economy and rely on other more humane sources of energy?

I assure my hon. Friend that I have no intention of just drifting into major decisions that affect the environment and the future in the development of nuclear energy. Indeed, I do not believe that any Minister exercising this responsibility would allow that to happen. What I have been concerned with is setting out various subjects and various procedures by which we can avoid the very drift that my hon. Friend fears.

I accept that we must of course exercise the utmost care, since we have clear duties to the future in that respect, and that the perils of nuclear proliferaton may place hideous weapons in the hands of terrorists, but do we not also owe a duty to the future of the country in ensuring that adequate energy is available to meet the needs of our people, that employment is kept up, and that the country remains alive and flourishing? In the circumstances, can my right hon. Friend say whether he is satisfied that in the nuclear plans he has put forward there will be sufficient nuclear and other energy available to replace North Sea oil and gas when those resources are exhausted?

It is not for me to give any final judgment on that question, certainly not this morning, but my hon. and learned Friend is right to bring into the equation the other major national interest of securing an adequate supply of of energy. That is, as it were, the other half of the story. My hon. and learned Friend is right to bring it back into the picture. I do not think that we should be complacent about our energy position, but we are somewhat better placed than many other countries, and I believe, therefore, that we can investigate the matter and assure ourselves, in a way that may not be available to others, about the right way to proceed in the development of nuclear supplies.

If the public inquiry is to be a major factor in the great debate, is my right hon. Friend satisfied that the objectors will have sufficient resources available to them to make a good presentation of their case? Is he satisfied that some contracts for alternative sources of energy will go to those firms which at the moment are suffering a considerable shortage of work because of the great debate on nuclear energy?

It is not for me to speak about the timetabling, as it were, of the development of resources, and perhaps even the development of alternative sources of energy. That is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy.

In view of the risks of a plutonium-based economy, will the right hon. Gentleman consider urgently the question not only of such energy sources as solar energy—there is a successful example of it in my constituency, at Kinloch Rannoch, where plants are heated by it—but whether such supplies as oil resources, which are given limits based on economic factors, could be more cheaply expanded than an expansion of the nuclear programme, which would have to supplement them when it was regarded as no longer economic to extract them?

I am interested to hear what the hon. and learned Gentleman says about the promising development of solar energy in his area. I believe that it is one of the developments well worth pursuing in the future. The best use of our energy resources, including oil, is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy rather than for me.

I beg to move,

That this House would not welcome the presence of the President of Uganda at the forthcoming Commonwealth Conference.

And going, incidentally, in the week when all the Europeans have either to escape from the country or be interned.

I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for that intervention. It must be remembered that it is not just this week, but this very day.

Would the hon. Gentleman put into purdah or attempt to forbid Her Majesty's Ministers from seeing anyone or attending any conference at which there was anyone on a certain list who was alleged to be doing things that he, the hon. Gentleman, does not like? Is that what he is after?

I am not in favour of Her Majesty's Ministers working in cahoots with murderers who kill Rhodesians, black and white. If the hon. Gentleman likes such people, be it on his own head.

"Human Rights Commission shirks its job".

"For the Human Rights Commission to live up to its title by a strong resolution, white men have to torment and debase black men",

This is a Private Member's motion, and I have to say at the outset that I congratulate the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Brotherton) on the tone of his speech and the moderate way in which he introduced the motion. I know that he feels extremely strongly about this issue. It is not always necessary for the Government to state a view on a Private Member's motion, but I thought that on this occasion, in view of the considerable anxiety that exists, that it was right for me to explain to the House the Government's position.

While I accept the way in which my right hon. Friend approaches this problem and his difficulties, which arise from the delicacy of the situation, may I ask him to be good enough to assure the House that if President Amin does maintain his intention to come, and if the British Government decide that he should not be admitted, my right hon. Friend will bear in mind the strong feeling in the House and in the country against the admission of representatives of the President if the President is excluded? Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us would feel that it is no answer to exclude the African Hitler but to admit his Goebbels or Hess?

I recognise that that is a view. However, I noted carefully what the hon. Member for Louth said when he pinpointed his anxiety in the motion and in his speech. It may well be that others have anxieties on other aspects. I do not deny that. I should make it clear that there is no suggestion on our part that Uganda, as a member country of the Commonwealth, should be excluded from this or other Commonwealth meetings altogether. That would be a major decision to make. That would be a decision which, in my judgment, would gravely damage the Commonwealth. It would be a decision, in my judgment, which would certainly ensure that the Commonwealth Heads of Government Conference did not take place. It would be a decision, in my judgment, which it would be much harder for the host Government to justify.

If there were to be a representative from Uganda, presumably someone representing the President, I would have thought that he should be accorded some kind of observer status or observer-plus-speaking status. It would be unsatisfactory if such a person were to attend in the same capacity as another representative who was representing a Commonwealth leader who could not attend because of illness. Any representative of President Amin would, under those circumstances, be taking part in the social and other occasions surrounding the meeting.

I respect the views of the hon. Member, as I respect the views of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner). These are views which no doubt will be expressed in this House and by citizens in this country as they are perfectly entitled to do—in marked contrast to the situation existing in some other countries we are discussing.

Is it the Minister's intention, before he sits down, to say anything about the fact-finding tour being made by Lord Thomson, whom the Secretary of State, with his usual forethought, has asked to ascertain the consensus among our sister Commonwealth States about this delicate and sticky business?

I was intending to say something about Lord Thomson's mission. Lord Thomson was sent as the personal emissary of the Prime Miniter. This has been a precedent established at previous Commonwealth Heads of Government meetings. He went primarily to discuss the agenda for the forthcoming meeting. I hope that despite all the genuine concern about this issue of President Amin we shall not allow ourselves to be diverted from the central purpose of the Commonwealth.

I am grateful for the opportunity to follow the Foreign Secretary's thoughtful and carefully-prepared statement, which we all listened to with interest. When considering what to say in the debate, I thought that I would congratulate the Government because my views were similar. However, as I listened to the Foreign Secretary, I found that I was rapidly disengaging from the Government's position. I am also grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Mr. Brotherton) for giving us the opportunity to debate a foreign affairs issue. To many of us such opportunities appear few and fleeting. My hon. Friend has chosen a topic of growing public interest at home that has been poorly handled by the international community.

"a chance of getting a political foothold in a part of the world where they have been outmanoeuvred by the subtler policies of Peking".

"A reasonable estimate of Soviet military aid puts the figure at 12 MiG fighters and bombers, 60 light tanks, 100 armoured personnel carriers, 50 anti-aircraft guns, 200 anti-tank weapons and 850 bombs and rockets. Amin says the supply of Russian arms has 'improved the balance of power in Africa' which is his way of saying that he is making Uganda the Prussia of East Africa."

"There comes a point at which numbers in organised State massacres fail to register on the mind. It is the localised atrocity, not the statistical enormity, that produces horror."

Unlike my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, I did not find the remarks of the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Brotherton) entirely moderate. He attacked the Commonwealth, an organisation which I believe is still of great significance in the world today. He portrayed Rhodesia as a model democracy, which I find completely laughable. I profoundly disagree with some of the hon. Gentleman's remarks, but I shall not be tempted to go into those wider matters because I support the motion that he moved, and I wish to indicate how far I support it.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way, although I think that perhaps when I ask him the following question he will be sorry that he gave way. Will the hon. Gentleman give us his view, as an ex-Minister with experience in this field, on what would be the position of a representative of President Amin coming here instead of the President himself? I have agreed with every word that he said about the President, but I want to be convinced that the Foreign Secretary is right about the position of a representative.

I can understand the difficulties that the Foreign Secretary faces. Obviously if someone other than the President attends the Conference on behalf of Uganda, the Conference will have an opportunity of dealing with a man who may perhaps be less offensive than President Amin. In this way the Conference might have some influence upon what is happening in Uganda. However, I fear that anyone who might come here in the place of President Amin would be the President's man and would therefore also be totally unacceptable to the British people. As I have said, I understand the Foreign Secretary's difficulties, but I hope that he will bear in mind the strength of feeling which has been voiced in the House today and which is shared by the whole British people.

I intervene briefly because when I was a United Kingdom member of the United Nations Sub-Commission on Human Rights dealing with the persecution of minorities, in 1972, I raised the issue of the Ugandan Asians in an attempt to give international prominence to their plight. I am sure that nobody inside or outside the House has forgotten that this nation assumed a grave and courageous responsibility for those unfortunate people. The then Conservative Government came under heavy criticism but, to its great and enduring credit, maintained its position. None of us who were present will ever forget the speech that was made by Robert Carr, now Lord Carr, at the Conservative Party Conference. It was a courageous speech and it established a principle of faith that we can look back on with pride and pleasure.

The sincere speech of the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes lames) has emphasised once again what is best in the House. That is that there are areas of concern, particularly relating to human rights, that unite most of us most of the time. I was certainly impressed by the hon. Gentleman's opening remarks regarding Lord Carr and the fact that even today the main area of human rights, race relations and immigration is common ground between most hon. Members in the House. Indeed, the policies to which the hon. Member for Cambridge referred—policies that were expounded by Lord Carr—are essentially the policies that the Government follow today, in spite of certain criticisms from certain members of the Opposition.

The logic of the hon. and learned Gentleman's remarks is that Uganda should be suspended from the Commonwealth. The British Government cannot pick and choose which Minister or Ministers should represent a country Does he agree with my conclusion?

I find that an important and difficult question to answer. We have no diplomatic relations with Uganda. We should say that we shall not admit Amin or his representatives. I believe that the first item on the agenda for the Commonwealth Prime Minister's Conference should be consideration of the membership of Uganda, just as that same body considered the membership of Rhodesia and of South Africa, which were also members of the Commonwealth. That is a Commonwealth decision.

I join other hon. Members in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Mr. Brotherton) on raising this matter today, this being the last parliamentary day before a decision on this important matter can be made and announced by the Government in this House.

"If it failed to get a consensus vote (the basis of all Commonwealth decisions) another question would have to be faced: is a Commonwealth which could find room for a régime like Amin's worth preserving?"

I am sorry that I missed the earlier part of the debate. I particularly regret missing the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Mr. Brotherton). My views on the matter are fairly clear and I suspect that they coincide with those of my hon. Friend.

What about Chile?

The hon. and learned Member must be joking. The only thing that is wrong with Chile is that it has a Right-wing Government and the hon. and learned Member is a Left-wing politician. That is not a good reason for condemning that State. I expect that law and order in Chile is admirable.

The hon. and learned Gentleman and I agree about Amin, but is he aware that there are some of us who detest breaches of human rights and attacks on human dignity from wherever they come?

I dare say they do, but this debate is about President Amin and Uganda, and it is not particularly helpful to bring in references to controversial regimes, such as Chile, about which I take one view and the hon. and learned Gentleman takes another, and these differences of view would be reflected among reasonable people throughout the community.

Would my hon. and learned Friend care to particularise in talking of British people? Would he care to make particular mention of the murdered archbishop, an archbishop of the Church of Her Majesty the Queen?

I was deeply shocked by that. However, the difficulty that I feel about that—my hon. Friend will realise the shape of what I am saying—is that I think the archbishop was not in fact a British person by extraction, a part of—in Winston Churchill's phrase—the British race dwelling around the world, which is the proper concern of this Parliament.

Not a patrial.

He was not a patrial, as the hon. and learned Gentleman puts it, and not our concern, because we are here to look after the British. When President Amin treats British people in the way in which he has treated them, we have to say "You jolly well do not come to our country on a celebratory occasion". However, as for his country, as such, and its Government, which is a legally constituted Government, we have to recognise the fact that there are all kinds of standards prevailing in the world.

I believe that the country will welcome the tone of the debate, and I hope that the people of Uganda will notice the moderation in the motion, as my hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Mr. Brotherton) mentioned in his opening remarks. However, I think that we must remember that in a few weeks' time the Prime Ministers' Conference will be over and that what is happening in Uganda will continue.

I apologise for not being present throughout the debate. In particular, I did not hear the Foreign Secretary's speech—although I have had a precis of what he said—but I hope he will forgive me for speaking in the debate despite that.

We are grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Mr. Brotherton) for moving this motion. It will undoubtedly be the last opportunity that this Parliament will have before the Commonwealth Conference begins in two weeks' time to discuss this delicate and difficult issue. It has enabled hon. Members on both sides of the House to express our views as strongly as we can—and our views, with different degrees of emphasis, seem to be more or less unanimous.

"it would be utterly repugnant if President Amin were to attend the conference."—[Official Report, 19th May 1977; Vol. 932, c. 687.]

"When future generations look at your period of one-man rule in Uganda they will realise that never in the history of our beautiful country did one man ever cause so much misery and bitterness to so many people in such a short period of time. Your excesses are exceptional and unique to you and in no way representative of independent Africa."

I am grateful for the tone of what the hon. Gentleman is saying. The agenda of the Conference is agreed by consensus, just as the form and pattern of the meeting, whether in open session, plenary session or closed session, is a matter for consensus. I assure the House that we shall lose no opportunity open to us, through diplomatic means, the United Nations, the Commonwealth or by direct representations, to change the current policies of the Ugandan Government and to make it abundantly clear to them, on issues of human rights and many other aspects, that it is fundamentally important that there should be a complete and radical change of policy.

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. That is a great reassurance to us. There is no place for tyranny in the membership of the Commonwealth.

I beg to move,

That this House calls upon Her Majesty's Government to bring forward proposals for a railway policy which meets the needs of passengers, customers and taxpayers while ensuring a future for the industry.

"congratulate also the railway community as a whole."

"We are concerned to seek every opportunity to strengthen and to improve our relationships with the customer."

' the cost of the railway passenger service rose from £200 million in 1964 to just over £600 million in 1974. In other words—in spite of economies—the cost of the passenger business rose by over three times.

But now let us compare the cost of the rail freight business. The costs of that increased from £340 million in 1964 to £380 million in 1974. So on the freight side there was an increase of only 12 per cent.—with only a small fall in traffic.

The consultation document asks us to accept that in the period 1964 to 1974 the average cost of railway passenger travel rose from 0·60p per kilometre to 2·0p per kilometre. In the same period the average cost per tonne of rail freight only rose from 0·90p per tonne to l·10p per tonne. In the same period, incidentally, the cost of road freight is shown as having increased by three times."—[Official Report, 20th January 1977; Vol. 924, c. 660.]

"Higher productivity, then, must be the key. Higher productivity is the rock on which our future must be built."

I congratulate the hon. Member for High Peak (Mr. Le Marchant) on the manner in which he has moved his motion and the work which he has clearly put in. I also congratulate him on his private enterprise in choosing to discuss transport at this time. During the course of his speech I was flipping through the consultative document published in April last year. I noticed that the last sentence from the then Secretary of State of the Environment, the late Anthony Crosland, said:

"We shall welcome forthright views on the issues which it raises."

Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that proper use is made of rail land? As we go round the country we all see an enormous quantity of rail land and cannot help feeling that under British Rail's new policy much more use should be made of it.

I fully agree. So much rail land is hoarded, stored up, sterilised, often for no good reason. I take an example from North Kensington, where one has only to look at the Barlby Road sidings, which could be used for housing in that area of acute housing stress but which British Rail is still hoarding like a squirrel for apparently no good reason. I fully accept the hon. Gentleman's point about the negative policies of British Rail in this respect and the need for more of what is being done on the hotel side and using British Rail land, as at Liverpool Street, for commercial development.

I am particularly pleased that this debate should take place today and that you should call me to take part, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have an interest, in that I sit on Sub-Committee A of the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries, which has been looking at the question of the railways for the past year or so. Moreover, I worked for a short time in the Treasury 10 years ago in the public enterprises division, on work involved with transport. Many of my constituents in Nantwich, moreover, work for the railways in Crewe.

Does the hon. Gentleman realise that on the Euston-Preston-Glasgow line some of the things that he has been asking for are being introduced on some trains?

Yes, I realise that. Things are moving rapidly in the right direction. I thought I would just give an extra prod. I thank the hon. Gentleman for mentioning that matter.

I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for High Peak (Mr. Le Marchant) on his speech. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Nantwich (Mr. Cockcroft) and my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) on their contributions. The hon. Member for High Peak introduced a very important matter—the future of British Railways.

"that industrialised countries could run short of oil supplies as early as 1981"

"if Saudi Arabia decides to hold its production at 9 million barrels a day. If a ceiling of 20 million barrels a day were imposed, a world shortage might be postponed until about 1990 but, even on the most optimistic assumptions, oil would be running out within the next 25 years."

"confirms recent warnings by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and the Central Intelligence Agency…the basic danger is that the world energy situation could become critical. Most Governments and businesses plan for only five to 10 years ahead. The energy gaps which opened up beyond 1985 either were invisible or, if perceived, ignored. Even if governments adopted vigorous conservation policies, energy demand would continue to grow."

"One feature has come to dominate all transport operations since the end of 1973. It is the leap upwards in fuel costs as a result of inflation and, even more, from the upwards jacking of oil prices by the OPEC Cartel from 17th October 1973. In the five-and-a-half years since July 1969"

"the average price of fuel oils for transport in the United Kingdom has increased by five times—from around 3·5p a gallon to more than 16p a gallon leaving taxation out of account.…

"transport everywhere is currently dependent upon oil. The modern world is, indeed, oil dominated….In transport, oil now supplies about 91 per cent. of all the energy consumed. This is, clearly a situation which must be viewed with concern, notwithstanding the promise of North Sea oil….

Unfortunately, from an energy point of view, the railways provide only a relatively small proportion of the world's transport effort—about 17 per cent. of the revenue load-t-km operated in the western world. Because modern railways use energy relatively efficiently for the work they do—railways consume only some 3 per cent. of the total energy used in transport. By contrast, road transport (which uses about 78 per cent. of the energy consumed in transport as a whole for the production of 16 per cent. of the load-t-km and air transport (which uses about 12½ per cent. of the total energy for 03 per cent. of the load-t-km) are wholly dependent on oil, as is shipping to complete the total…the day will come when these fossil fuels are no longer available. In the meantime, there can be no doubt that much effort is required to achieve a maximum of efficiency in the use of energy for transport—as for other aspects of modern life."

"British Airways"—

turbine fuel costs have increased almost fourfold since 1972…between 1972 and 1975, despite the use of a higher proportion of larger and more efficient aircraft, the fuel element in British Airways' total expenditure has gone up from 10·1 per cent. of total costs…to 26 4 per cent. of total costs.

Everything possible must be done in all forms of transport to gain the maximum of output…from both the fuels and manpower employed."

"In 1975 road transport will use about 78 per cent. of all transport energy. The motorcar uses half of the total energy consumed in the United Kingdom. The motorcar is a relatively inefficient user of fuel in terms of load-t-km produced. Private cars consume 50 per cent. of the energy used in transport to produce 2 per cent. of the load. Trucks and vans on the road consume 23 per cent. of the energy to produce 14 per cent. of the load. Aviation consumes 12½ per cent. of the energy to produce 0·3 per cent. of the load. Buses and coaches on the roads consume 5 per cent. of the energy to produce 0·5 per cent. of the load. Sea transport consumes 4½ per cent. of the energy to produce 62 per cent. of the load. Rail transport, which is another efficient form of transport from the energy point of view, consumes 3 per cent. of the energy to produce 17 per cent. of the load."

"From this we can draw up a comparative league table of revenue load-tonne-kilometres operated, per unit of energy consumed. Sea transport comes at the top of the league, when we take into account both the energy used and the load-factors achieved. In relative terms: sea transport (chiefly goods) 1,000; railways. 411; inland waterways, 175: road trucks and vans, 44; private cars, 3; aviation, 2."

"Now a low-cost lorry-mounted system has been developed which turns any rail siding into a contained terminal. With rising road transport costs forecast, its inventor believes it could bring a freight bonanza for British Rail."

This seems an appropriate moment for me to intervene. I join other hon. Members who have thanked the hon. Member for High Peak (Mr. Le Marchant) for giving us the opportunity of discussing these matters this afternoon. There is so much that I could reply to if this were the appropriate occasion. I was interested in a number of the comments made by hon. Members which related to wide issues of policy. For example, my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) told us what we might have heard had he been fortunate enough to catch the eye of the Chair on 20th January in our discussions on the consultation document.

Will the Minister give some idea exactly when the Government White Paper will be published?

I cannot go further than I have already gone. I hope that it will be published within a month or so, but the processes which White Papers undertake are very thorough. Although I do not claim that the recent printers' strike has delayed the White Paper, I would point out that the normal processes perhaps took somewhat longer than I judged, since I have not produced a document of this kind before. I hope that the White Paper will come forward shortly. I shall endeavour to keep the House informed.

I welcome the announcement, but does my right hon. Friend agree that this problem relates not only to the fact of carriage, but to the recently increased costs of such carriage, which bear particularly heavily on small owners. Will consultations with users pursue the possibility of reducing the current high level of costs?

I am sure that it will. This is very much a matter for the British Railways Board. To be fair to the Board, it is faced with the difficulty of working under constrictions placed on it by the Government and by Parliament at second stage and finding out how it can manage in view of its revenue and costs. I am sure that, having noted the reaction and reached this agreement, the Board will do its best to meet the case on consumers as far as it can. I am sure that the Chairman will note the points that have been made.

I expect that my right hon. Friend is aware that the deficit in Germany was running last year at £3,250 million, and British Rail has already suffered much more from closures than have the German railways.

I think that is true. But the point remains that I do not think that anyone believes that there can be an open-ended subsidy for the railways. There have to be limits, because if we do not get the money out of rates and taxes and fares, we have to cut another essential public service. It is a question of finding the right balance. It is much easier to do that when public expenditure is rising than when it is stationary. One of my difficult problems with the White Paper was how to get a quart into a pint pot, or how to get the priorities right when there is no more money to spend. So our view of the railways and how they should bear the burden of their costs is relevant.

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way, particularly since I have not been present for most of the debate. We are constantly hearing of what President Carter has said over an enormous range of subjects. I hope that we shall not give the impression that we shall be dragged on President Carter's coattails over a great many interests. These decisions should be ours alone, irrespective of what President Carter may decide for America.

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is right about where the decisions lie. In this interdependent world the views expressed by one leading statesman of one country must be taken into account when consideration is given to how far we have a common interest in world energy supplies. The idea that decisions on these matters will be made other than by the Government with the consent of Parliament is not realistic.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Mr. Le Marchant) on raising this subject and on the exceptionally able way in which he did so. As he said, there are many real problems facing our railways industry and the sort of approach suggested by my hon. Friend had much support on both sides of the House. His approach of getting the maximum value for the money spent must be right, and will be applauded.

"From all of this, in British transport in future years we must strive for higher productivities".

I did not leave out that part of the article for any ulterior motive, but because I was already taking too long. My point was that if railways are run to capacity, productivity will increase automatically.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making his position clear. Another point at the conclusion of that article takes up what my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) said in his intervention during the Secretary of State's speech about the position of the United States, which the Chancellor of the Exchequer always seeks to pray in aid. Sir Peter said:

"On average, each citizen of the United States uses twice as much energy in a year as does an inhabitant of the United Kingdom"

I said that it might run up to about 30,000 words and that that was the sort of figure that I had in mind.

In that case, it looks like breaking new ground, not only in the length of time that it has taken to produce. We have been waiting three and a half years, and a 30,000-word White Paper will be something indeed.

May I just say—

May I make my point first? On the last occasion when two volumes of a consultation document were presented, the then Secretary of State—we have had quite a number of Secretaries of State—presented that document to the Press and many outside bodies well before it was presented to hon. Members in the House. If the White Paper is to be so long, perhaps we may have discussions between any channels that the right hon. Gentleman cares to open about the way in which this great volume can be made available to hon. Members on both sides of the House who are concerned about transport at the same time as it appears on desks in Fleet Street, and not after.

I certainly give the undertaking that the hon. Gentleman asks for. In the publication of the White Paper I shall be very properly bound by the well-understood rules of the House about the availability of White Papers. I would not think of departing from them.

This is becoming more and more mysterious. First, we have had to wait three and a half years for a White Paper and have been expecting it at any time. At one stage we were told that it was to be a 30,000-word White Paper. Now it is clear that great chunks are being taken out of it or that the Secretary of State cannot count, which also does not give us great confidence about what is to appear. I shall now leave the White Paper to one side.

"Productivity is the rock on which we must build the future of railways."

"In the freight area, we want decisions left to the customer. The Government have a rôle in devising fair track costs for both rail and road. But the rôle of the Government should not extend to seeking to direct traffic. Both rail and road have natural advantages—rail for heavy bulk traffic and road for the many shorter distances in this country. But, in that choice, the man most likely to get the decision right is the customer."—[Official Report, 20th January 1977; Vol. 924, c. 727.]

I should very much like to take up the last few words uttered by my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler). I believe that one of the most important facets of the future of British Rail that must be given very serious consideration is the position of the Board with regard to the Government.